Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[Reality Check]

...

Kept everything to do with what I posted and we have nothing ! So it looks like an acknowledgement of continuing ignorance as in

So what things have you been unable to understand bjschaeffer?

8th October 2012: That there is good evidence for the strong force?

15th October 2012: a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law. (etc.)

5th November 2012: Maybe that the binding energy of deuteron has been calculated in QCD and matches the empirical value?

See Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information in the second reference
Note that QCD also has prediction for other properties of deuteron unlike your invalid idea !

5 November 2012: That you get the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes wrong?
Let me count the ways that you are wrong in "Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes": (14 ways)

5 November 2012: That the alpha scattering known for almost a century needs a non-electromagnetic force?
What happens when we scatter alpha particles from a nucleus and predict what happens only with electromagnetic forces? It does not work , bjschaeffer !

5 November 2012: Why your hydrogen isotopes paper is wrong?
ben m finds even more errors in "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes"

 

[Reality Check]

QCD, being unable to predict the binding energy of simple nuclei, is, at best, only empirical but not better than the liquid drop model.

Continued lying about the calculations from QCD just repeatedly exposes denial (not ignorance since you were told about this on 5 November 2012 ), bjschaeffer:

15th October 2012: a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law. (etc.)

5th November 2012: Maybe that the binding energy of deuteron has been calculated in QCD and matches the empirical value?

See Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information in the second reference
Note that QCD also has prediction for other properties of deuteron unlike your invalid idea !

 

[Reality Check]

My isotopes paper is not wrong, only the precision is not yet the best one.

That isotopes paper is so bad that it gets both the values of binding energies and the signs wrong, bjschaeffer:

5 November 2012: That you get the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes wrong?
Let me count the ways that you are wrong in "Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes": (14 ways)

5 November 2012: Why your hydrogen isotopes paper is wrong?
ben m finds even more errors in "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes"

I will remind you of the actual numbers in your paper since you do not even seem to know them - numbers do not lie!

Let me count the ways that you are wrong:

1. Deuterium binding energy measured to be 2,224.52±0.20 keV.
   You have ~1.0 MeV.
2. Tritium binding energy measured to be 8,481.821± 0.004 keV
   You have ~2.8 MeV.
3. 4H has a half-life of (1.39 ± 0.10) × 10−22 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
   You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
4. 5H has a half-life of ~9.1 × 10−22 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
   You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
5. 6H has a half-life of 2.90×10−22 seconds and so a a negative binding energy.
   You have a positive binding energy.
6. 7H has a half-life of 2.3(6)×10−23 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
   You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
7. Helium-4 has a binding energy of 7.718 MeV.
   You have ~2.5 MeV.
8. Helium-4 has a binding energy of 28300.7 keV.
   You have ~7.0 MeV.
9. Helium-5 has a half-life of 700(30)×10−24 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
   You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
10. Helium-6 has a half-life of 806.7(15) ms and so a (probably!) negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
11. Helium-7 has a half-life of 2.9(5)×10−21 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
12. Helium-8 has a half-life of 119.0(15) ms and so a (probably!) negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
13. Helium-9 has a half-life of 7(4)×10−21 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
14. Helium-10 has a half-life of 2.7(18)×10−21 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.

So a factor of 2 and 3 out and then the wrong sign (implying that isotopes that are measured to be unstable are stable!).

And repeating the lie about binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron does not make it the truth, bjschaeffer:

5th November 2012: Maybe that the binding energy of deuteron has been calculated in QCD and matches the empirical value?

 

[bjschaeffer]

That isotopes paper is so bad that it gets both the values of binding energies and the signs wrong, bjschaeffer:

I will remind you of the actual numbers in your paper since you do not even seem to know them - numbers do not lie!

So a factor of 2 and 3 out and then the wrong sign (implying that isotopes that are measured to be unstable are stable!).

And repeating the lie about binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron does not make it the truth, bjschaeffer:

it is easy to say nonsense

 

[bjschaeffer]

Continued lying about the calculations from QCD just repeatedly exposes denial (not ignorance since you were told about this on 5 November 2012 ), bjschaeffer:

QCD is science fiction

 

[phunk]

it is easy to say nonsense

 

[bjschaeffer]

You are lying, bjschaeffer, unless this is the insane demand that everyone in the world (except you!) actually do the calculation .
And remaining ignorant: LQCD is not a replacement for QCD, it is one of many computational techniques for QCD.

The calculation of the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron from existing "strong force", including QCD fundamental laws:

You don't understand anything in nuclear physics, you just repeat what you have heard.

 

[Reality Check]

it is easy to say nonsense

It is very easy for you, bjschaeffer to confirm that you still do not know simple arithmetic such as 1.0 is not within 2.22452±0.00020 !
That the values are not even close to each other!

Almost two years after pointing out this simple fact and you still cannot understand it:

5 November 2012: That you get the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes wrong?
Let me count the ways that you are wrong in "Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes": (14 ways)

5 November 2012: Why your hydrogen isotopes paper is wrong?
ben m finds even more errors in "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes"

 

[Reality Check]

QCD is science fiction

That would be total ignorance but the continued denial of what QCD seems to have become a delusion, bjschaeffer:
QCD

In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of strong interactions, a fundamental force describing the interactions between quarks and gluons which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron and pion. QCD is a type of quantum field theory called a non-abelian gauge theory with symmetry group SU(3). The QCD analog of electric charge is a property called color. Gluons are the force carrier of the theory, like photons are for the electromagnetic force in quantum electrodynamics. The theory is an important part of the Standard Model of particle physics. A huge body of experimental evidence for QCD has been gathered over the years.

 

[tsig]

it is easy to say nonsense

QCD is science fiction

Guess so.

 

[Reality Check]

You don't understand anything in nuclear physics, you just repeat what you have heard.

And now a delusion about my knowledge of nuclear physics, bjschaeffer from some one who does not even know what QCD is !.
What I repeat from 5th November 2012 is the science:
The calculation of the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron from existing "strong force", including QCD fundamental laws is in the scientific literature, e.g. Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces

We review how nuclear forces emerge from low-energy QCD via chiral effective field theory. The presentation is accessible to the non-specialist. At the same time, we also provide considerable detailed information (mostly in appendices) for the benefit of researchers who wish to start working in this field.

And since you do not have the ability to read this paper, here are the results:

Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information. (Deuteron binding
energy Bd, asymptotic S state AS, asymptotic D=S state , deuteron radius rd, quadrupole moment Q, D-state probability
PD; the calculated rd and Q are without meson-exchange current contributions and relativistic corrections.)
Idaho Juelich
N3LO [68] N3LO [171] CD-Bonn[13] AV18[174] Empiricala
(500) (550/600)
Bd (MeV) 2.224575 2.218279 2.224575 2.224575 2.224575(9)
AS (fm��1=2) 0.8843 0.8820 0.8846 0.8850 0.8846(9)
 0.0256 0.0254 0.0256 0.0250 0.0256(4)
rd (fm) 1.975 1.977 1.966 1.967 1.97535(85)
Q (fm2) 0.275 0.266 0.270 0.270 0.2859(3)
PD (%) 4.51 3.28 4.85 5.76

(I have not bothered with formatting)

 

[bjschaeffer]

It is very easy for you, bjschaeffer to confirm that you still do not know simple arithmetic such as 1.0 is not within 2.22452±0.00020 !
That the values are not even close to each other!

Almost two years after pointing out this simple fact and you still cannot understand it:

1.6 was not very pecise but 2.2 MeV is enough good ! If you are able to obtain a better precision let me know how do you calculate it….

 

[bjschaeffer]

Kept everything to do with what I posted and we have nothing ! So it looks like an acknowledgement of continuing ignorance as in

If you have published papers I would be glad to read them…

 

[thedopefishlives]

1.6 was not very pecise but 2.2 MeV is enough good ! If you are able to obtain a better precision let me know how do you calculate it….

No. 2.20 MeV is off by a little more than 1.1%. In physics terms, that is a very significant error, compared to the experimental value's precision of 0.009%! That is not "enough good" and besides, the calculations are still wrong even if, by some miracle, you got the correct result.

 

[Reality Check]

1.6 was not very pecise but 2.2 MeV is enough good ! If you are able to obtain a better precision let me know how do you calculate it….

Neither 1.6 or 2.2 Mev appear in your paper as presented here (just one graph!) as your result, bjschaeffers.
I do not have to calculate better values - they have been done by experts !
Since you are obviously unable to read a scientific paper here is the table again:

Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information. (Deuteron binding
energy Bd, asymptotic S state AS, asymptotic D=S state , deuteron radius rd, quadrupole moment Q, D-state probability
PD; the calculated rd and Q are without meson-exchange current contributions and relativistic corrections.)
Idaho Juelich
N3LO [68] N3LO [171] CD-Bonn[13] AV18[174] Empiricala
(500) (550/600)
Bd (MeV) 2.224575 2.218279 2.224575 2.224575 2.224575(9)
AS (fm��1=2) 0.8843 0.8820 0.8846 0.8850 0.8846(9)
0.0256 0.0254 0.0256 0.0250 0.0256(4)
rd (fm) 1.975 1.977 1.966 1.967 1.97535(85)
Q (fm2) 0.275 0.266 0.270 0.270 0.2859(3)
PD (%) 4.51 3.28 4.85 5.76

The first line is the binding energy of deuteron from different models, ending with the empirical value:
Bd (MeV) 2.224575 2.218279 2.224575 2.224575 2.224575(9)
Except for one value these match within 0.000001 MeV (rounding the empirical value up). That is a match within ~0.00005%.

Compare that with your ridiculously bad value of ~100% off for deuteron from the graph loaded to JREF, bjschaeffers.
Getting the wrong sign of the binding energy for most of the rest of the binding energies really deserves a laughing dog:

 

[Reality Check]

If you have published papers I would be glad to read them…

Effect of localized spin fluctuations on transport properties in the one-band Wolff model
Not that this has anything to do with this thread - unless it is a precursor to repeat of the insane demand that I and everyone in JREF do the QCD calculation that have already been done by experts .

 

[grmcdorman]

Here's your data in a table that I think is properly laid out (looks like you tried to paste some UTF codes that didn't get translated correctly, though):

Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information. (Deuteron binding energy Bd, asymptotic S state AS, asymptotic D=S state , deuteron radius rd, quadrupole moment Q, D-state probability PD; the calculated rd and Q are without meson-exchange current contributions and relativistic corrections.)

Idaho Juelich

N3LO [68] | N3LO [171] | CD-Bonn [13] | AV18 [174] |Empiricala (500)| (550/600)
Bd (MeV) | 2.224575 | 2.218279 | 2.224575 | 2.224575 | 2.224575(9)
AS (fm��1=2)|0.8843 | 0.8820 | 0.8846 | 0.8850 | 0.8846(9)
| 0.0256 | 0.0254 | 0.0256 | 0.0250 | 0.0256(4)
rd (fm) | 1.975 | 1.977 | 1.966 | 1.967 | 1.97535(85)
Q (fm2) | 0.275 | 0.266 | 0.270 | 0.270 | 0.2859(3)
PD (%) | 4.51 | 3.28 | 4.85 | 5.76

 

[Reality Check]

Here's your data in a table that I think is properly laid out (looks like you tried to paste some UTF codes that didn't get translated correctly, though):

Thanks, grmcdorman.
Possibly a waste of time as far as bjschaeffer is concerned since he has known about the paper containing the table since 5 November 2012 and apparently has never looked at it. But I am sure that other interested viewers appreciate the effort.

 

[bjschaeffer]

No. 2.20 MeV is off by a little more than 1.1%. In physics terms, that is a very significant error, compared to the experimental value's precision of 0.009%! That is not "enough good" and besides, the calculations are still wrong even if, by some miracle, you got the correct result.

It seems that you did not check my calculation which is the bare application of Coulomb and Poisson formulas with the electromagnetic laws and properties of the deuteron. It is somewhat more complicated for 4He.

Do you have a more precise solution?

 

[bjschaeffer]

Neither 1.6 or 2.2 Mev appear in your paper as presented here (just one graph!) as your result, bjschaeffers.
I do not have to calculate better values - they have been done by experts !
Since you are obviously unable to read a scientific paper here is the table again:


The first line is the binding energy of deuteron from different models, ending with the empirical value:
Bd (MeV) 2.224575 2.218279 2.224575 2.224575 2.224575(9)
Except for one value these match within 0.000001 MeV (rounding the empirical value up). That is a match within ~0.00005%.

The "different models" are all empirical, adjusted. The fundamental laws of the mysterious "strong force" are inexistent.

Compare that with your ridiculously bad value of ~100% off for deuteron from the graph loaded to JREF, bjschaeffers.
Getting the wrong sign of the binding energy for most of the rest of the binding energies really deserves a laughing dog:

I have got better results later. The binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron 2H remains unsolved in mainstream nuclear physics from fundamental laws and constants.