Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

bjschaeffer said:
It seems you are unable to furnish the fundamental laws of QCD.
Click to expand...
Wrong, bjschaeffer, I have provided the fundamental laws of QCD to you, e.g. on 23rd September 2014. The ignorance of thinking that QCD contains simple laws like Coulomb's law just emphasizes that you still have no idea what QCD is :eek:.

P.S.
A list of science that you remain ignorant about, e.g. the fact that Coulomb's law is electrostatic and you try to use it in a dynamic situation.
30 September 2014: What do you think LQCD is, bjschaeffer?
 
bjschaeffer said:
Now I have published my nuclear theory at Dubna.
From Russia with Love:
Click to expand...
Actually a slide show from Russia with a repeat of an obviously invalid theory. It starts with ignorance on the second slide

Things just get worse with the rest of the slides.
 
Reality Check said:
Actually a slide show from Russia with a repeat of an obviously invalid theory. It starts with ignorance on the second slide

Things just get worse with the rest of the slides.
Click to expand...

Magic number are only magic. QCD is science blah-blah-blah: no fundamental laws in it, therefore unable to calculate any nuclear binding energy, except by fitting, a bad joke.
Nucleons cannot move around nothing, as the electrons orbit around the atomic nucleus.
 
Reality Check said:
Actually a slide show from Russia with a repeat of an obviously invalid theory. It starts with ignorance on the second slide

Things just get worse with the rest of the slides.
Click to expand...

The paper by the germans gives no information about the principle of the calculation, the fundamental laws and constants, only initials.
 
bjschaeffer: The fantasy that nucleons do not move in a nucleus

bjschaeffer said:
Magic number are only magic. ...
Click to expand...
Quite an ignorant rant bjschaeffer:
Magic numbers are a scientific term for specific numbers, e.g. the number of nucleons at which nuclei are stable.
QCD is science :eek:
A delusion that QCD has no fundamental laws does not stop QCD having the fundamental laws included in Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics :eye-poppi.
Lying yet again about QCD not predicting binding energies.
Ignorance of basic physics - bound objects need not move around a specific object, e.g. the Sun orbits because there is mass inside that orbit. There is no million solar mass star at the center of the galaxy around which the Sun orbits :jaw-dropp! Ditto for galaxies in a cluster - bound into orbits but no central object need exist. Ditto for nucleons - bound into a nucleus and there need not be a central object.

Electrons do not orbit around a nucleus. Classical orbits are physically impossible since accelerating electrons give off radiation and fall into the nucleus in a really, really short time. Someone ignorant of physics since the Bohr model could stick with the Bohr model where that radiation is just forbidden. Anyone with knowledge of atomic physics knows that electrons travel in non-classical orbitals. Sometimes they are even inside the nucleus!

Totally ignoring the ignorant contents of your poster which I point out:
Reality Check said:
Actually a slide show from Russia with a repeat of an obviously invalid theory. It starts with ignorance on the second slide

Things just get worse with the rest of the slides.
Click to expand...
 
bjschaeffer said:
The paper by the germans gives no information about the principle of the calculation, the fundamental laws and constants, only initials.
Click to expand...
Now you cannot understand how to cite a paper bjschaeffer. There are two scientific papers cited in that post. The first has what looks like German authors, the second could have German authors.

The two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, Ulf-G. Meißner
We consider the two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N3LO) in chiral effective field theory. The two-nucleon potential at N3LO consists of one-, two- and three-pion exchanges and a set of contact interactions with zero, two and four derivatives. In addition, one has to take into account various isospin-breaking and relativistic corrections. We employ spectral function regularization for the multi-pion exchanges. Within this framework, it is shown that the three-pion exchange contribution is negligibly small. The low-energy constants (LECs) related to pion–nucleon vertices are taken consistently from studies of pion–nucleon scattering in chiral perturbation theory. The total of 26 four-nucleon LECs has been determined by a combined fit to some np and pp phase shifts from the Nijmegen analysis together with the nn scattering length. The description of nucleon–nucleon scattering and the deuteron observables at N3LO is improved compared to the one at NLO and NNLO. The theoretical uncertainties in observables are estimated based on the variation of the cut-offs in the spectral function representation of the potential and in the regulator utilized in the Lippmann–Schwinger equation.
Click to expand...
is an actual calculation using the fundamental laws of QCD.
This 2004 paper has been cited 502 times

This paper is a refutation to your 5th November 2012 delusion that QCD has never calculated the binding energy of deuteron: 5th November 2012 where QCD is used to calculate the binding energy of deuteron and gets it correct :eek:

Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, R. Machleidt, D. R. Entem (Phys.Rept.503:1-75,2011)
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.
Click to expand...
is a review aimed at non-specialists citing many papers with calculations of the binding energy of deuteron.
This paper was cited in the vain hope that you would try to learn some physics rather than stick with ignorance, bjschaeffer.

The "only initials" bit might be an incoherent reference to Table 9 Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information. (as kindly formatted by grmcdorman).

A list of science that you remain ignorant about, e.g. the fact that Coulomb's law is electrostatic and you try to use it in a dynamic situation.
30 September 2014: What do you think LQCD is, bjschaeffer?[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
bjschaeffer said:
Nucleons cannot move around nothing, as the electrons orbit around the atomic nucleus.
Click to expand...

What?

You think that central-force motion is impossible unless one body stays in the center? Nonsense, even in Coulomb's Law.

electron + positron = positronium. Moving "around nothing", even just with Coulomb's Law.

pluto + charon = orbiting "nothing" at their common center of mass.

globular cluster = millions of stars held together by mutual gravity, no nucleus at the center.
 
Reality Check said:
There is no million solar mass star at the center of the galaxy around which the Sun orbits
Click to expand...

Sorry, Reality Check, but there is a 4 million solar mass supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, and we do orbit it (the center). Of course, there are about 200 billion stars whose aggregate mass has a greater effect on our orbit in the galaxy than some piddling 4 million solar masses, but still...
 
Last edited:
WhatRoughBeast said:
Sorry, Reality Check, but there is a 4 million solar mass supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, and we do orbit it (the center).
Click to expand...
WhatRoughBeast, I know that there is a 4 million solar mass supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy and that we orbit the center of the galaxy. As you point out though it is the mass of the rest of the stars within our orbit that determines our orbit. Remove Sagittarius A* and the Solar System would still orbit the center of the galaxy.
It is not a good example - a better one would be a galaxy that has no sign of a central supermassive black hole. Maybe M33: M33: A Galaxy with No Supermassive Black Hole.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
WhatRoughBeast, I know that there is a 4 million solar mass supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy and that we orbit the center of the galaxy. As you point out though it is the mass of the rest of the stars within our orbit that determines our orbit. Remove Sagittarius A* and the Solar System would still orbit the center of the galaxy.
It is not a good example - a better one would be a galaxy that has no sign of a central supermassive black hole. Maybe M33: M33: A Galaxy with No Supermassive Black Hole.
Click to expand...

Actually, the best example would be any nebula within our galaxy with few stars. This often means very young gas clouds.

Very young gas clouds don't have a center at all. There are no stars or planets to hold them together. This means that the separate atoms and molecules are being held by their gravitational interaction.

Sure, the gas molecules in a gaseous nebula collide with each other. That is true for the quarks in the nucleus. However, they are not bound by a true center. They are like fluid droplets.

A liquid droplet is a good example of something held together without a center to bind them. Surface tension is not really a force that acts only on the surface. In fact, the molecules in a liquid droplet are pulling on nearest neighbors. The surface tension is a force caused by the anisotropic environment near the surface of the droplet. However, there is no molecule or even molecular cluster that holds a drop of liquid together.

Liquid droplets, such a water droplets, are very good examples. The density in a liquid droplet is almost constant. Thus, there is no star at all.

The OP may as well claim that the hydrogen bonds that hold a water droplet together are not real. The theory of intermolecular forces must be wrong because droplets exist. There has to be a high density center to a droplet of water.

We can continue finding examples.

Surface tension can't really exist because they would tear air bubbles apart. Obviously, the air core to a watery bubble can't be an attractive center. Furthermore, soap supposedly reduces surface tension. So why would soap facilitate the making of air bubbles? Obviously, the theory of surface tension can't be correct for air bubbles. Surface tension is just a fit.

Of course, the person who says this obviously doesn't know about the Marangoni effect. The Marangoni effect basically comes from the repulsion of the two surface in an air bubble. The repulsion, which is a nonlinear component of the surface tension, holds the bubble together. However, since they don't teach this in grade school there must be no such thing.

We can go on and on.
 
Nuclear scattering is not anomalous but magnetic for kinetic energies greater than 28 MeV (to be published) as it is electric for lower kinetic energies, as discovered by Rutherford.
 
Last edited:
bschaeffer: Your blog entry contains a lie that should be removed

bjschaeffer said:
Nuclear scattering is not anomalous but magnetic for kinetic energies greater than 28 MeV (to be published) as it is electric for lower kinetic energies, as discovered by Rutherford.
Click to expand...
An ad for a crank theory from someone ignorant about basic electromagnetism and nuclear physics, bjschaeffer :p!
A list of science that you remain ignorant about dating from 8th October 2012, e.g. the fact that Coulomb's law is electrostatic and you try to use it in a dynamic situation.
30 September 2014: What do you think LQCD is, bjschaeffer?

Nuclear scattering is a physical process that we measure (not "anomalous").
It was Geiger and Marsden who discovered that alpha particles scattered off a nucleus over a century ago at the suggestion and with the supervision of Rutherford. At low energies that is an electromagnetic process. We can ignore the magnetic part in Rutherford scattering. At higher energies, departure from Rutherford scattering is the nuclear forces affecting the scattering.

While the post is misleading (no sign that the paper is going to be published), your blog entry is honest enough to record that your paper has been recommended to be rejected by a reviewer at an unnamed journal:
...
To ensure that I would not judge unfairly based on epistemological arguments only, I took some time to check the calculations more closely. Unfortunately, I found genuine and fundamental errors and misconceptions. ...
Unfortunately, I find the present work scientifically unsound and unsuitable for publication.
Click to expand...
One basic error is the assignment of functions as eigenvalues ("eigenenergy") but eigenvalues are constants!

ETA: An actual lie on that blog entry: "binding energy of even the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron, remains a puzzle" as you have known for over 2 years now (5th November 2012) that QCD is used to calculate the binding energy of deuteron and gets it correct :eek:
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Hiya,

c. Would the bizarre critter labeled 'vacum energy' provide a frame of interaction?
Click to expand...

I would rather not discuss the rest of the OP. However, the answer to c is 'NO' because
1) the vacuum energy in quantum mechanics consists of virtual particles

and

2) vacuum energy has a Lorentz invariant energy distribution in classical electromagnetic theory.

These two properties of vacuum energy are analogous. Mathematically, they come out about the same.

Here are the two 'explanations' as to why vacuum energy can't serve as a frame of reference.

1) Quantum mechanical explanation.

Virtual particles do not have the energy for a real existence. They have to vanish within a time period set by a Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Thus, the location of their energy can not be truly measured. Their position and velocity are also limited by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So their position, momentum, time and energy is uncertain. Therefore, a virtual particle can't be used to define a reference frame.

2) Classical electrodynamics explanation.

Stochastic electrodynamics (SED) is a classical analog to quantum mechanics. SED does not violate the basic postulates of classical EM. However, it provides an explanation of SOME phenomenon that for a long time were could only be described by quantum mechanics.

The vacuum energy is defined in SED to be a Lorentz invariant distribution of electromagnetic energy. The energy density of the Lorentz invariant radiation is infinite. There is no upper bound to the frequency of the Lorentz invariant distribution of energy.

An observer in an any inertial frame sees the same spectrum of vacuum energy. A Lorentz transformation does not effect the distribution of energy. A Lorentz transform moves the energy of each mode by the same factor, specified by the distribution constant 'h'. Planks constant in quantum mechanics is equivalent to 'h' in SED.

The spectrum of Lorentz invariant radiation is defined so that it is invariant to a Doppler shift. The relativistic Doppler shift leaves the spectrum unchanged, although the relative phases of each mode will change.



So Lorentz invariant radiation can't be used to determine an inertial frame. On this point, both classical and quantum mechanics are in agreement.

The effects of the Lorentz invariant radiation for all inertial observers is basically the same as the effects of semi-classical quantum mechanics. There is no way for any inertial observer to distinguish the rules of semi-classical QM from classical SED. Therefore, the Lorentz invariant radiation can't be used to define a 'special' inertial frame.

The vacuum energy can by used to determine which frames are inertial and which are not inertial. Acceleration causes a gradient in Doppler shift that makes 'Lorentz invariant radiation' into 'thermal radiation'. This is referred to as the Unruh (?) effect.

So the vacuum energy can be used to determine which frames are in a state of dynamic (i.e., forced) acceleration. One can specify an accelerating frame by means of the vacuum energy. However, one can not specify an inertial frame with vacuum energy.

I don't know what the rest of it all means. :)
 
Last edited:
Mr. Schaeffer, the new work begins with the same mistakes as the old work. You are drawing a picture of three charged objects (two in a dipole, one isolated) with, consequently, three different "separations". You are calculating two potential energies and ignoring the third for no reason whatsoever. Gibberish.

There is no "magnetostatic" repulsion of an alpha particle. It's a spinless, nonmagnetic object. How did you calculate the "magnetic" forces on a non-magnetic object? Oh, wait, you just made up your "magnetic" equations by picking random 100-year-old papers and swapping some terms around. Sorry: a cross-section is a particular, physically-meaningful calculation and there is a way to actually calculate it from a force. You did not do a cross-section calculation. It looks like you dug up an old expression for Rutherford scattering and just tripled some exponents. Nope.

You repeat the delusion (previously seen in this thread) that the nuclear shell model is nonsense because of the lack of a stationary force-exerting object in the middle of the nucleus. Bound states don't require central force-exerting objects. I have no idea where you acquired this delusion. A bunch of objects, all attracting one another with no central one, are perfectly capable of making a bound state, both in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
 
Also, your "conclusion" is ... rather bad

Your attempt to calculate "cross sections" is gibberish. You do some calculation "restricting yourself to head-on collisions"? And then you just pull an exponent out of this calculation and use it to replace another exponent in another formula? Nooooo. That's not how it works. You want to show some properties of a electromagnetic cross section? Calculate the cross section, using the standard E&M methods that are used to calculate cross sections.

I have no idea why you are citing a 1824 paper by Poisson. What is it about crackpots and 19th century citations? Is something wrong with James Clerk Maxwell's equations, which in 1862 correctly packaged/summarized/unified all prior work on the subject? if so, say so. That would be a much bigger discovery than "I found a formula for Rutherford scattering". Is something wrong with the subsequent 150-year body of additional clarification, pedagogy (say, Jackson's Electrodynamics), etc. of electrodynamics? If so, say so, that would be a much bigger discovery than "I found a formula for Rutherford scattering."

I think I know why cranks go fishing in premodern literature. Modern literature is too clear about what it's doing. You pick up Jackson's Electrodynamics and right off the bat he's asking you to take carefully-constructed surface integrals over vector fields. Too hard! As a crank, what you're looking for is for a source that:
  • blathers about magnets for a while
  • supplies some simple formulas without being too clear about their domain of applicability
  • is hard for your critics to get a hold of.
  • maybe has some fame or cache so people believe it.

So, yeah, Poisson 1934 works pretty well. What exactly did he say? What did he put an exponent of 3 onto? Probably not what you say he did, Bernard, but I'm not gonna check. Was he right? This is early-early-early electromagnetism, people were still flailing around trying to figure it out. You're in luck, Bernard, because I'm not going to check a French manuscript from 1934. As a crackpot, maybe that feels like a "win" in that you deflected some avenues of criticism; as a scientist, it's pretty lame. Scientists are supposed to aim for clarity, openness, and verifiability, not "immunity from criticism."

And the name "Poisson" seems to carry some cache, right? As a crackpot, you'd rather quote a famous person like Poisson Himself than quote (say) the web page of some Georgia educators you've never heard of---although you misapprehend which one a modern physicist trusts more.


Second: wow, you are getting excited about a really crappy fit. The data you're plotting ? They don't agree with your new curve. First, the way you've drawn the curves, your "new curve" only overlays the data over a tiny tiny range---like, 25--30 MeV. Second, if there are multiple forces contributing to a cross section, you have to add their contributions. In the presence of an "electric" force and also a "magnetic" force, the total cross section is the sum of the two.

You draw it as though the electric force is the only thing there from 0--25 MeV, the (huge, according to the formula) magnetic cross section is just ... missing. Then (according to your plots) you magically turn off the electric force at 25 MeV and let the magnetic force take over. (Note that you've adjusted the normalization of the curve, purely by hand I think, to make the curves meet at 25 MeV.) That's physically nonsense. If we take your cross-sections physically seriously, and add them, we get a cross-section-vs-energy curve that's huge and falling steeply at low energies (dominated by your "magnetic" term) and then falls slowly at high energies (dominated by the "electric" term). This is the opposite of reality.
 
Last edited:
Groningen

W.D.Clinger said:
Well, I have checked your calculation. My opinion is only slightly different from the conclusion drawn by thedopefishlives.

Your calculation is not just incorrect. It is wildly incorrect in several ways that strongly suggest your mistakes came from your desire to reject the correct result of your calculation in favor of a result that comes within a few per cent of the experimental value. That's the theoretical equivalent of dry-labbing.

Your mistakes were much easier to detect than an experimentalist's dry-labbing, and they should have been noticed by peer reviewers. From what you've said in this thread, you spent some time shopping for a journal that would publish your calculation. You finally found one. That's not a feather in your cap; it's a mark against the journal that published your paper.
Click to expand...

See my prentation at Groningen:
 

Attachments

  • Rutherford.jpg
    Rutherford.jpg
    140.5 KB · Views: 26
  • Energy.jpg
    Energy.jpg
    152.5 KB · Views: 18
bjschaeffer said:
See my prentation at Groningen:
Click to expand...
See you displaying your ignorance of nuclear physics yet again, bjschaeffer? No thanks:
A list of science that you remain ignorant about dating from 8th October 2012, e.g. the fact that Coulomb's law is electrostatic and you try to use it in a dynamic situation.
30 September 2014: What do you think LQCD is, bjschaeffer?
5th November 2012: QCD is used to calculate the binding energy of deuteron and gets it correct :eek:

A Groningen poster:
  • Lies about the strong interaction - it exists.
  • Measured deviation from Rutherford scattering happens to be one bit of evidence for the strong interaction!
  • Has a imaginary "magnetic Poisson scattering".
 
Last edited:
Bjschaeffer, this is full of errors.

In one slide you claim that the nucleus has *both* a force leading to 1/E^6 cross sections, and *also* electrostatic repulsion leading to 1/E^2 cross sections. But the data you show disagrees---the data in your eight slide does NOT agree with the sum of a 1/E^6 term and a 1/E^2 term. (Instead, it shows a 1/E^2 term that turns off at 25 MeV.)

Do you understand? Your theory is that you can sum two forces to get a good description of the nucleus, but the data in your slide 8 is not the sum of two cross sections. Nor the difference. You used guesswork (not math or physics) to convince yourself that this slide "agrees" with your claims.

Secondly, your claim remains gibberish even in terms of electromagnetism. You did not actually calculate a cross section at any point in your work; you just stuck the number "6" into the Rutherford formula by an act of guesswork, hoping that it was appropriate to double the exponent you saw in a 1/r^3 force law. Completely invalid.
 
On your second page of slides you have the same mistakes we discussed years (?) ago. Despite knowing that a free neutron has a tiny (unmeasurably small) electric dipole moment, you invent "+ and - charges" inside the neutrons and separate them by a distance (2a) that you invent out of thin air; furthermore, you pretend (for no reason at all) that no energy is required to create such a separation starting from zero. If you pay attention to the "+ and -" charges inside the neutron, and allow the quantity "a" to be determined by the physics rather than invented by you, then the configuration you invented is unstable.

The configuration you invent is unstable anyway, since the proton can "flip over", turning your magnetic repulsion into a magnetic attraction. (I know you don't *want* the proton to turn over, but the laws-of-physics that you've chosen are telling the proton to flip over.)

The laws of electromagnetism do *not* include a stable configuration of charges and magnets, placed the way you have placed them. You tricked yourself into thinking you'd found one, by paying attention to some forces and ignoring others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom