why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[pedrone]

Nope. That's not how forces work---never has been. The force that acts between a spin-up electron and a spin-down electron is different, from the beginning, than the force between two spin-up electrons.

?????????????

of course they are.

The spin-up electron yields a magnetic moment that is contrary to the magnetic moment of the spin-down electron.

Of course the force of electrons interaction cannot be the same in the two cases, since magnetic moments can have repulsion or attraction, depending on the spin.


Ben M, are you delusional?

 

[pedrone]

Actually the nuclear binding energy of a nucleus is the energy needed to remove all of the nucleons from that nucleus. It is equavalent to the reverse process though.

yes, now I see it.
However, then I dont undestand why a hell did you write such a thing, since the energy to remove is the same



Sorry, Reality Check, that's why I cannot take you seriously.

 

[ben m]

?????????????

of course they are.

The spin-up electron yields a magnetic moment that is contrary to the magnetic moment of the spin-down electron.

Nope, I'm not talking about the magnetic moment, although that is a consequence (not a cause) of a subset of this sort of thing.

I'm talking about any "force" you can think of. The weak interaction between an aligned neutrino-quark pair is different than the weak interaction between an antialigned neutrino-quark pair.

If you come along pretending to know the "magnitude" of the force between a neutrino and a quark, and claim that I'm adding something to it to get an extra spin-effect ... well, you're wrong.

 

[pedrone]

That's a more productive use of your time than actually posting. Keep it up!

So, my conclusion is:
you will not show us the calculation of binding energies, according to Nuclear Physics:

1H2:
theoretical =
experimental =

1H3:
theoretical =
experimental =

2He3:
theoretical =
experimental =

2He4:
theoretical =
experimental =

3Li63:
theoretical =
experimental =

4BHe8:
theoretical =
experimental =

5He10:
theoretical =
experimental =

6C12:
theoretical =
experimental =

7N14:
theoretical =
experimental =

8O16:
theoretical =
experimental =


Of course you cannot do it, Ben M, because such calculation does not exist in Nuclear Physics.
No nuclear model is able to calculate them.


And, if you should have at least a minimum of honesty, you had to confess:
It is impossible to calculate those binding energy from the models of Nuclear Physics. Any theoretical attempt does not fit to the experimental data.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ben M,
I will be waiting your response:

Please give the responses in the following format:

1H2:
theoretical =
experimental =

1H3:
theoretical =
experimental =

2He3:
theoretical =
experimental =

etc...

What a train wreck. Do you not realize that this is utterly transparent, that you're trying to deflect attention away from your mistakes committed earlier with these questions? Nuclear binding energies appear to be mundane figures you can simply, trivially calculate; what this looks like to me as a layman is that you just asked a mathematician to do basic math for you to prove he's a mathematician. And this after having been corrected on basic concepts in previous posts.

Time to put you on ignore. You're doing little to show that you know what you're talking about. Assertions are not explanations, and your failure to own up to previous mistakes speaks ill of you.

Have fun being a chew toy.

 

[Belz...]

Ben M,
there is need to have a minimum content of honesty in any discussion, and I did not see it yet.

That might have something to do with the fact that you're not listening to much more knowledgable people than you.

And please stop to deviate the discussion with jokes.

Actually, you've got us. There ARE five fundamental forces in the universe. But the fifth one is not the one you think.

1) The Strong Nuclear Force
2) The Weak Nuclear Force
3) The Electromagnetic Force
4) Gravitation
5) The Force That Makes Wires Entangle Themselves

That last one is obviously the post powerful by several orders of magnitude.

 

[pedrone]

I'm talking about any "force" you can think of. The weak interaction between an aligned neutrino-quark pair is different than the weak interaction between an antialigned neutrino-quark pair.

So, the force exists, but the physicists does not know what such a force is, and from where it comes.


Therefore, we have now a New Physics, with the following 5 fundamental forces:

1- gravity
2- weak force
3- electromantic
4- strong force
5- unknown strange force which a miscellaneous of magnitudes we can think of

 

[ben m]

So, my conclusion is:
you will not show us the calculation of binding energies, according to Nuclear Physics:

Nope! The calculations have some subtleties that you will not understand.

Of course you cannot do it, Ben M, because such calculation does not exist in Nuclear Physics.
No nuclear model is able to calculate them.

Wrong. Nuclear models---phenomenological models, mean field theories, etc., do this just fine. They are approximations to the actual QCD forces, but an approximate equation that you can solve on a Pentium is better than an exact equation that you can't solve on Deep Blue.

Similarly, Schrodinger's Equation can't be used to calculate the properties of polypropylene.
NEW THREAD: WHY POLYMER PHYSICS CANNOT BE ENTIRELY CORRECT

 

[Belz...]

Only a force can oppose to another force.

You should try telling that to poster "Kenkoskinen".

 

[pedrone]

Hi, Belz,
we had the same conclusion, and posted it together...

 

[Belz...]

No,
the name of this thread is why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct , and so it's about several questions not satisfactorilly answered by Nuclear Physics

I'd think you'd rather have answers to one question before moving to the next.

Of course, you HAVE the answer but somehow are incapable of seeing it. As some people are colour blind you seem to be fact blind in that you only see what you want to see.

 

[Belz...]

Pedrone, just saw your sig:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident - Arthur Schopenhauer
Why cold fusion would be an exception ?

Because it may not be a truth.

 

[pedrone]

Nope! The calculations have some subtleties that you will not understand.

Wrong. Nuclear models---phenomenological models, mean field theories, etc., do this just fine. They are approximations to the actual QCD forces, but an approximate equation that you can solve on a Pentium is better than an exact equation that you can't solve on Deep Blue.

Sure,
then put them here:

1H2:
theoretical =
experimental =

1H3:
theoretical =
experimental =

2He3:
theoretical =
experimental =

2He4:
theoretical =
experimental =

3Li63:
theoretical =
experimental =

4BHe8:
theoretical =
experimental =

5He10:
theoretical =
experimental =

6C12:
theoretical =
experimental =

7N14:
theoretical =
experimental =

8O16:
theoretical =
experimental =

 

[Belz...]

That's a more productive use of your time than actually posting. Keep it up!

 

[ben m]

So, the force exists, but the physicists does not know what such a force is, and from where it comes.

You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike. You are carrying a nuclear physics textbook and an ignore list. A troll appears.
read book to troll
The troll is unmoved.
throw book at troll
The troll is cuts up the book for Dadaist poetry.
use ignore list
what took you so long? Game over.

 

[Belz...]

Hi, Belz,
we had the same conclusion, and posted it together...

Your constant use of multiple smileys and condescending behaviour is starting to lead me to think that you're far younger than I had initially thought. Your unwillingness to submit your credentials, especially after your claim that you only wanted to discuss with experts, certainly adds to my suspicions.

 

[Belz...]

You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike. You are carrying a nuclear physics textbook and an ignore list. A troll appears.
read book to troll
The troll is unmoved.
throw book at troll
The troll is cuts up the book for Dadaist poetry.
use ignore list
what took you so long? Game over.

You can't get ye flask.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Pedrone, just saw your sig:



Because it may not be a truth.

Yeah, well, like any crank, he seems to miss two things:

1. Not all concepts ever get out of the ridicule stage. As a matter of fact, many don't.
2. As Sagan said:

   But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

[Reality Check]

yes, now I see it.
However, then I dont undestand why a hell did you write such a thing, since the energy to remove is the same

I wrote it because the hell of it is that the energy to remove is the same as the energy to add.

Sorry, Reality Check, that's why I cannot take you seriously.

Sorry, pedrone. Your unsupported, invalid assertion and inability to learn why that assertion is is why I do not take you seriously.

And of course the childish abuse of smilies (which I have been parroting back to you to emphasis how childish it is) is also why I cannot take you seriously.

 

[RobDegraves]

Gosh this has been a stupid thread.

Ben M

I can empathize with having to put up with a moron who keeps insisting that you repeat the same things over and over in different ways just to eventually win by sheer exhaustion. I have had a number of those in the past.

My kid gave me the best advice...

You can't convince them, you can't punch them and you can't shut them up. So... just have fun, they are not worth any more than that.

Oh... Pedrone.

How about a couple of quick physics questions for you. If you answer, Ben M will answer your questions (of course he has to agree to that challenge first).

Isn't that fair?

I suggest that Ben M pick two questions. You answer them correctly ... then Ben has to answer yours. How about it?