Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[W.D.Clinger]

In the quotations below, bjschaeffer consistently uses words like "better" and "best" in the crackpot sense of

These methods may be inconsistent with all known laws of science, but I think they're better than the established methods and laws of science because they yield results that are more consistent with my rigidly held belief that the universe works the way I think it works.​

To make that even more obvious, I have highlighted some words and phrases.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

In each of the above quotations, you are rejecting proper methods of calculation because the correct results of those calculations disagree with your preconceived notions. You are rejecting established laws of physics and replacing them with methods of your own invention for which there is no empirical support whatsoever. When your methods were challenged, your only defense has been to say your methods produce the result you desire.

As I said earlier, that's the theoretical equivalent of dry-labbing. It is the opposite of good science.

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.

No, your calculation has not been validated by electromagnetic specialists. Your calculation was rejected by electromagnetic specialists, so you shopped around for an online journal whose peer review was so weak your paper could slip through.

 

[Belz...]

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

It will dissapear thanks to discredited theories ?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

So the fact that the numbers predicted by a theory (which is a working model, not a pretend life size replica) are correct is dismissed by you?

yes or no?

 

[ben m]

Bjschaeffer, the only thing interesting here is your ability to believe that your calculation is irrefutable and fundamental:

My fundamental theory does not need empirical data, only fundamental laws and constants.

and your apparent awareness that you chose to ignore some of the E&M forces because you don't like their effect on your results. (My bold below

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.

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.

 

[Reality Check]

The fundamental laws of QCD don't exist, ....

Still ignorant to the point of delusion, bjschaeffer: QED exists and has fundamental laws !

 

[Reality Check]

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

You are lying, bjschaeffer: There is no problem to be solved. QED solved the deuteron binding energy many years ago.
You have no solution to the binding energy of simple nuclei - just the wrong results and the delusion that electromagnetism does everything:
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]

I have never found the fundamental laws of the mysterious strong force: they don't exist. ...

Wrong, bjschaeffer: Your inability to read does not mean that the fundamental laws of the well known strong force do not exist !
Quantum chromodynamics

 

[Reality Check]

Mine works well for 2H and 4He: it is not by chance

That would be wrong, bjschaeffer - by ignoring the energy needed to separate charges you explicitly make your results wrong.
If you get it right it is either by chance or because you faked the results.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Wrong, bjschaeffer: Your inability to read does not mean that the fundamental laws of the well known strong force do not exist !
Quantum chromodynamics

It seems that you are unable to show the fundamental laws of the mysterious "strong force". Are they in 1/r² as Coulomb electric law?

 

[bjschaeffer]

So the fact that the numbers predicted by a theory (which is a working model, not a pretend life size replica) are correct is dismissed by you?

yes or no?

All physical theories have a limit

 

[bjschaeffer]

Wrong, bjschaeffer: Your inability to read does not mean that the fundamental laws of the well known strong force do not exist !
Quantum chromodynamics

There are only literal equations there, no fundamental laws as the Coulomb law, in 1/r²:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

 

[bjschaeffer]

So the fact that the numbers predicted by a theory (which is a working model, not a pretend life size replica) are correct is dismissed by you?

yes or no?

There various types of theories, some are empirical as the liquid drop model where the coefficients are adjusted to experiment. I guess that QCD is similar and, thus, not better.

There exit also models as the atomic model where the electrons orbit around the nucleus. The nuclear model with nucleons orbiring around nothing is wrong.

There also fundamental theories as Coulomb's law, Einstein relativity, E=mc², W=hν… but not LQCD .

 

[Dancing David]

All physical theories have a limit

Nice dodge, regardless, what about the fact the QCD and strong force theory give very accurate numbers for the behavior of reality?

Is not the inherent strength of a theory in making and modeling predictions?

 

[Dancing David]

There various types of theories, some are empirical as the liquid drop model where the coefficients are adjusted to experiment. I guess that QCD is similar and, thus, not better.

There exit also models as the atomic model where the electrons orbit around the nucleus. The nuclear model with nucleons orbiring around nothing is wrong.

There also fundamental theories as Coulomb's law, Einstein relativity, E=mc², W=hν… but not LQCD .

They are all theories including Coulomb's law, in fact the potential mechanism for Coulomb's law was discussed long after he was dead.

True or false?

There is still no mechanism to explain the increase in mass in relativistic bodies.
True or false?

 

[Reality Check]

It seems that you are unable to show the fundamental laws of the mysterious "strong force". Are they in 1/r² as Coulomb electric law?

That is a lie, bjschaeffer:

Wrong, bjschaeffer: Your inability to read does not mean that the fundamental laws of the well known strong force do not exist !
Quantum chromodynamics

The fundamental laws of electromagnetism are Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law, not Columb's law for electrostatic interactions.

 

[Reality Check]

bjschaeffer: Do you know that Coulomb's law is electrostatic

There are only literal equations there, no fundamental laws as the Coulomb law, in 1/r²:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

Oh dear, bjschaeffer, the delusion that Coulomb's law is not expressed as a literal equation !

Plus more ignorance from you leading to your fantasy being even worse: Coulomb's law is an electrostatic law. It is only valid for point charges that are at rest with respect to each other. This has probably been mentioned before.

The list of things that you do not understand is growing, bjschaeffer:

1. 8th October 2012: there is good evidence for the strong force
2. 15th October 2012: a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law. (etc.)
3. 5 November 2012: That you get the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes wrong in one paper? Let me count the ways that you are wrong in "Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes": (14 ways)
4. 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. 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"[/QUOTE]
6. 10th September 2014: bjschaeffer: Structure Evidence from Deep Inelastic Scattering (nucleons contain 3 particles which we call quarks). They are not continuous or 2 particles as in your idea.
7. 30 September 2014 bjschaeffer: Do you know that Coulomb's law is electrostatic and cannot be applied to extended particles like protons and neutrons (except as an approximation at large distances) and definitely cannot be applied to the rapidly moving nucleons in a nucleus.

And of course the denial of the real world since 5th November 2012 where QCD is used to calculate the binding energy of deuteron and gets it correct

Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces
Table 9 (as kindly formatted by grmcdorman)

 

[Reality Check]

bjschaeffer: What do you think LQCD is

I guess that QCD is similar and, thus, not better.

That is your problem, bjschaeffer - the displays of total ignorance of QCD in this thread leads you to make guesses at what it is !
QCD is an exact theory using the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity.

You seem to retain your ignorance about what LQCD is:
30 September 2014: What do you think LQCD is, bjschaeffer?
Hint: It is not a "fundamental theory"!

 

[bjschaeffer]

That is your problem, bjschaeffer - the displays of total ignorance of QCD in this thread leads you to make guesses at what it is !
QCD is an exact theory using the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity.

You seem to retain your ignorance about what LQCD is:
30 September 2014: What do you think LQCD is, bjschaeffer?
Hint: It is not a "fundamental theory"!

It seems you are unable to furnish the fundamental laws of QCD.
As an example, the static fundamental laws of electromagnetism are those of Coulomb in 1/r and Poisson in 1/r3.
What are the equivalent formulas in QCD?

 

[bjschaeffer]

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

Now I have published my nuclear theory at Dubna.
From Russia with Love:

http://isinn.jinr.ru/past-isinns/isinn-22/progr-27_05_2014/Schaeffer.pdf

 

[ben m]

Now I have published my nuclear theory at Dubna.

That is not a publication, those are your slides from a conference talk.