Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[bjschaeffer]

Right, you don't like QCD and therefore you don't believe it and want to repeat that until someone starts agreeing.

Right, you did some pseudo-E&M calculations and think they're unimpeachable and want to repeat that until someone starts agreeing.

Thanks! Based on what I know so far, I disagree, and will continue disagreeing no matter how many times you repeat yourself. If you want to change my mind you need something new.

My calculations are not pseudo-E&M they use only the fundamental laws of em discovered by Coulomb and Poisson and the appropriate constants. It seems that you ignore them, as the nuclear physicists knowing only what they call "Coulomb force" ignoring the attraction of a neutron by a proton exactly the same phenomenon discovered by the Greeks two millenaries ago. Same thing for the magnetic interaction. Of course it is not "modern" but it is not science fiction as the strong force, unable to calculete the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron.

 

[bjschaeffer]

So where is the error in the predictions made by theory?

[iteration 0]

There is no prediction of the binding energy of the deuteron.

 

[bjschaeffer]

That post is a proof of continued ignorance and denial from you bjschaeffer .
The evidence that quarks and the strong force exist is obvious to anyone with basic science knowledge
For example your total ignorance of/denial of the real world that deep inelastic electron scattering shows that nucleons are composite particles is astounding. Structure Evidence from Deep Inelastic Scattering

What is the evidence that quarks and the strong force exist?

Is there a strong force in the lightly bound deuteron?

 

[bjschaeffer]

That post is a proof of continued ignorance and denial from you bjschaeffer .
The evidence that quarks and the strong force exist is obvious to anyone with basic science knowledge
For example your total ignorance of/denial of the real world that deep inelastic electron scattering shows that nucleons are composite particles is astounding. Structure Evidence from Deep Inelastic Scattering

The strong force has never be able to calculate the binding energy of the deuteron, simply because the fundamental laws of the "strong" force, LQCD … are ignored.
I have not studied yet deep inelastic electron scattering and don't need the invisible quarks. Newton made a big error remaining during more than one century. Indeed, he invented the phlogiston, replaced by Einstein's relativity.
It will be the same with quarks and strong forces......

 

[Craig B]

Newton made a big error remaining during more than one century.

i hope to make the error of living to an advanced age too!

Indeed, he invented the phlogiston, replaced by Einstein's relativity.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was Lavoisier.

What Lavoisier did indisputably do (although this was disputed at the time) was to conduct the first adequate quantitative experiments on oxidation and give the first correct explanation of how combustion works. He used these and similar experiments, all started in 1774, to discredit the phlogiston theory and to prove that the substance discovered by Priestley and Scheele was a chemical element.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Phlogiston_theory
Unlike Newton, Lavoisier made the "error" of losing his head in a revolution.

It will be the same with quarks and strong forces......

Well, indicate how. Einstein or Lavoisier?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

My calculations are not pseudo-E&M they use only the fundamental laws of em discovered by Coulomb and Poisson and the appropriate constants.

Your calculations are rubbish. They aren't just wrong. They're obviously wrong, and they're wrong in ways that strongly suggest you deliberately manipulated your calculations to approximate the answer you desired.

Your rejection of your correct equation (3) was entirely spurious:

In the absence of the electric field, at large distances from a proton, the electric charges of the neutron are not separated, probably concentric, a = 0. For an isolated neutron, the formula diverges. The preceding formula (3) is thus not applicable here.

The conclusions you should have drawn are that equation (3) is applicable only for a > 0, and that the electric energy potential goes to negative infinity as a goes to zero.

If your calculations were correct, then a would be positive. It is therefore obvious that you failed to check your calculations using the correct equation (3).

You then introduced an approximate equation (4) and invented an equation (6). Equations (3), (4), and (6) all have U_e as their left hand side, so your introduction of equations (4) and (6) was an implicit claim that the right hand sides of those three equations are equal (or appoximately so). By setting the right hand side of equation (3) equal to your equation (6) and performing a little high school algebra, we obtain the following consequence of your equations (3) and (6):

5a² = r_np²​

In other words, your equation (6) is correct only when r_np is approximately a times the square root of 5.

That relationship between r_np and a means you have only one degree of freedom when you seek to minimize the potential using equation (6), instead of the two degrees of freedom you manipulated. That already means your minimization was bogus.

But the bogosity of your minimization was already evident from your graph in Figure 2. Physically, you're seeking a minimum for the potential. That minimum occurs at negative infinity, when a=0. You rejected that obvious minimum, accepting what you call an "inflection point" instead. Your inflection point wouldn't have any physical significance even if it had been calculated honestly and correctly.

Which it wasn't.

 

[Dancing David]

Strong force and quarks being unable to produce the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron, the error is infinite.
In comparison electromagnetism, the most important theory of physics solves the problem.

You have yet to demonstrate this statement to be true, and multiple discussions to the contrary have been presented.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Strong force and quarks being unable to produce the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron, the error is infinite.
In comparison electromagnetism, the most important theory of physics solves the problem.

Except your error may as well be infinite: Your calculation methods are wrong, even if you came close to the correct value by accident. You are focusing on the deuteron simply because it confirms your bias, but when you look at your other results, they are even worse! Your method is incorrect and that is a fact independent of the correctness (or not) of the strong force.

 

[ben m]

My calculations are not pseudo-E&M they use only the fundamental laws of em discovered by Coulomb and Poisson and the appropriate constants.

You took the fundamental laws and gave them gibberish inputs.

Go back in the thread, bjschaeffer. I objected to specific details of your choices about which distances you chose to plugged into Coulomb's Law, and which distances you chose not to plug in. Remember?

 

[steenkh]

Your calculations are rubbish. They aren't just wrong. They're obviously wrong, and they're wrong in ways that strongly suggest you deliberately manipulated your calculations to approximate the answer you desired.

Your rejection of your correct equation (3) was entirely spurious:

The conclusions you should have drawn are that equation (3) is applicable only for a > 0, and that the electric energy potential goes to negative infinity as a goes to zero.

If your calculations were correct, then a would be positive. It is therefore obvious that you failed to check your calculations using the correct equation (3).

You then introduced an approximate equation (4) and invented an equation (6). Equations (3), (4), and (6) all have U_e as their left hand side, so your introduction of equations (4) and (6) was an implicit claim that the right hand sides of those three equations are equal (or appoximately so). By setting the right hand side of equation (3) equal to your equation (6) and performing a little high school algebra, we obtain the following consequence of your equations (3) and (6):

5a² = r_np²​

In other words, your equation (6) is correct only when r_np is approximately a times the square root of 5.

That relationship between r_np and a means you have only one degree of freedom when you seek to minimize the potential using equation (6), instead of the two degrees of freedom you manipulated. That already means your minimization was bogus.

But the bogosity of your minimization was already evident from your graph in Figure 2. Physically, you're seeking a minimum for the potential. That minimum occurs at negative infinity, when a=0. You rejected that obvious minimum, accepting what you call an "inflection point" instead. Your inflection point wouldn't have any physical significance even if it had been calculated honestly and correctly.

Which it wasn't.

Thank you. Very instructive.

 

[Reality Check]

Strong force and quarks being unable to produce the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron, the error is infinite.

You are continuing to lie, bjschaeffer. The QCD production of the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron was cited to you on 5 November 2012 !

The fact remains as told to you on 5 November 2012 that the binding energy of deuteron is calculated accurately by mainstream nuclear physics from fundamental laws and constants (QCD). Thus you are lying about this fact, bjschaeffer.
Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces
Table 9 (as kindly formatted by grmcdorman)

 

[Reality Check]

The strong force has never be able to calculate the binding energy of the deuteron,

And again with this lie, bjschaeffer: QCD (the theory describing the strong force) has calculated the binding energy of the deuteron as cited on 5 November 2012:

The fact remains as told to you on 5 November 2012 that the binding energy of deuteron is calculated accurately by mainstream nuclear physics from fundamental laws and constants (QCD). Thus you are lying about this fact, bjschaeffer.
Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces
Table 9 (as kindly formatted by grmcdorman)

 

[Dancing David]

BJSCHAEFFER

So what is the error in the predictions of the binding energies given here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.2919v1.pdf

Page 49, Table 9

 

[bjschaeffer]

The strong force has never be able to calculate the binding energy of the deuteron, simply because the fundamental laws of the "strong" force, LQCD … are ignored.
I have not studied yet deep inelastic electron scattering and don't need the invisible quarks. Newton made a big error remaining during more than one century. Indeed, he invented the phlogiston, replaced by Einstein's relativity.
It will be the same with quarks and strong forces......

I said:
The strong force doesn't exist. It will disappear with the phlogiston thanks to Lavoisier and the aether thanks to Einstein

 

[bjschaeffer]

BJSCHAEFFER

So what is the error in the predictions of the binding energies given here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.2919v1.pdf

Page 49, Table 9

There is no error, it is only empirical, not the application of fundamental laws as electromagnetism. These values are adjusted, not calculated from fundamental laws: it is not predictions, only empirical formulas similar to the liquid model, with other assumptions, and much more complicated.

 

[bjschaeffer]

You are continuing to lie, bjschaeffer. The QCD production of the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron was cited to you on 5 November 2012 !

The fundamental laws of QCD don't exist, it is only a phenomenological theory needing adjusted constants as for the liquid drop model, the most resilient of models.

 

[bjschaeffer]

In comparison electromagnetism, the most important theory of physics solves the problem.

You have yet to demonstrate this statement to be true, and multiple discussions to the contrary have been presented.

Here is my presentation at Dubna showing my theory, the only one able to obtain the binding energy of simple nuclei:
http://isinn.jinr.ru/past-isinns/isinn-22/progr-27_05_2014/Schaeffer.pdf

 

[bjschaeffer]

Your calculations are rubbish. They aren't just wrong. They're obviously wrong, and they're wrong in ways that strongly suggest you deliberately manipulated your calculations to approximate the answer you desired.

Your rejection of your correct equation (3) was entirely spurious:
Indeed it is; you can see on the graph, fig. 2. I compared 4 methods: the best result is obtained with the exact dipole formula.

The conclusions you should have drawn are that equation (3) is applicable only for a > 0, and that the electric energy potential goes to negative infinity as a goes to zero.

Sorry, but I thought it was evident; of course, it is the Coulomb law

If your calculations were correct, then a would be positive. It is therefore obvious that you failed to check your calculations using the correct equation (3).

a is always positive
Equation (3) is not applicable for a dipole because it is infinite for a=0 where there is no dipole. A better formula is (4) giving an approximate value of the deuteron binding energy. The best formula is with the exact dipole formula (6).

Of course a > 0

You then introduced an approximate equation (4) and invented an equation (6). Equations (3), (4), and (6) all have U_e as their left hand side, so your introduction of equations (4) and (6) was an implicit claim that the right hand sides of those three equations are equal (or appoximately so). By setting the right hand side of equation (3) equal to your equation (6) and performing a little high school algebra, we obtain the following consequence of your equations (3) and (6):

5a² = r_np²​

In other words, your equation (6) is correct only when r_np is approximately a times the square root of 5.

Yes I invented this equation. Of course it is an approximation, but it is better than 1/r because there are two equal and opposite electric charges in the neutron. Nobody knows what happens when the proton is far away from the neutron: the electric charges of the neutron are probably concentric.
If you have a better solution let me know.

That relationship between r_np and a means you have only one degree of freedom when you seek to minimize the potential using equation (6), instead of the two degrees of freedom you manipulated. That already means your minimization was bogus.

It is not possible to obtain a real minimum because of the Coulomb singularity. Up to now nobody knows what happens at r=0 in the neutron.

But the bogosity of your minimization was already evident from your graph in Figure 2. Physically, you're seeking a minimum for the potential. That minimum occurs at negative infinity, when a=0. You rejected that obvious minimum, accepting what you call an "inflection point" instead. Your inflection point wouldn't have any physical significance even if it had been calculated honestly and correctly.

There is no minimum at a=0: it is infinite. The HORIZONTAL inflection point is of course not an absolute minimum, impossible to obtain because of the Coulomb singularity. The error is very small.
Any way, each of the four methods give at least an approximated value of the 2H binding energy. Nobody else is able to obtain such a result. My calculation has been validated by the electromagnetic specialists.

 

[bjschaeffer]

You are continuing to lie, bjschaeffer. The QCD production of the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron was cited to you on 5 November 2012 !

I have never found the fundamental laws of the mysterious strong force: they don't exist. The electromagnetic theory of Coulomb and Poisson generalized by Maxwell works fine to calculate nuclei (only 2H and 4He presently).
The QCD, now LQCD is science fiction.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Except your error may as well be infinite: Your calculation methods are wrong, even if you came close to the correct value by accident. You are focusing on the deuteron simply because it confirms your bias, but when you look at your other results, they are even worse! Your method is incorrect and that is a fact independent of the correctness (or not) of the strong force.

Do you have a better solution?
Mine works well for 2H and 4He: it is not by chance