why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Chucky]

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning" - Werner Heisenberg

Such method of questioning is efficient for the development of technology, but it's not efficient for the discovery of the true fundamental laws of Nature.

Some fundamental laws of Quantum Mechanics are wrong. But those fundamental wrong laws do not prevent the development of technology (in the level developed till now)

However, as some foundations of QM are wrongs, in a most deep level QM will fail even for the development of technology. Cold fusion is an example.
And the LHC experiments will show it to us either, in the upcoming years.

From dictionary.com:Fundamental: serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

Sorry but you are wrong. If there is a fundamental problem with the theory we could not develop any technology from it. What you are saying might, for instance, be applicable to some mathematics in string theory. There are competing approaches to the theory and assuming it pans out in the end, although some of the math may be elegantly self-consistent. Yet if a certain mathematical approach doesn't describe actual physical properties of the universe when it comes time to test it, there will be no technology developed from that attempt to describe string theory. A fundamental flaw = a theory that will not work.

One other thing: If you have found a problem with nuclear theory, which you wish to discuss with a nuclear scientist, where are your equations? Honestly, if a person can't do the math how can they understand it, much less recognize a problem? Do you realize that all verbal explanations can only be approximations for most of this stuff? From your very first thread if you have equations you should have laid them out. If you don't have that, how can you show the problem? Much less recognize a problem in the first place, without the math? You yourself seem to be making the common layman's mistake of taking verbal approximations of the theory and thinking that you can find or resolve a problem without the math. It's like describing a problem with a the editing of a story in Japanese if you don't speak the language yourself. How would you know if it was done well or poorly?

Even if you had a valid point, which seems doubtful as the theory has worked fine in numerous ways without your input for the last century, unless you can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the mathematics you would never be able to resolve the problem. All these words you've used are worthless compared to a few equations. And no, 2+2=4 does not count as the math that I'm talking about.

 

[Modified]

I'm calling this one a troll.

It's got all the hallmarks of a deliberate troll.

1. Willfully and deliberately ignorant of current physics.

2. He deliberately ignores attempts to draw him out into any kind of proof or qualifications.

3. He constantly baits with pseudo scientific terms.

4. He does not respond to challenges.

5. He punctuates his arguments with insults and caps in order to start further outrage.

It's a troll.

If only it were that simple. There are plenty of cranks who fit all of your criteria and yet they are not intentionally trolling, and they may not even be aware that the way they communicate is different from the way others do. The only way to know for sure is if they break character.

 

[pedrone]

The Heisenberg's foolish isospin​

There is no Coulomb repulsion between two neutrons. But in short distances of the range of 10^-15m (as for instance within the nuclei) there is a strong attraction between two neutrons, thanks to the actuation of the strong force.

However, there is no dineutrons in nature. Why?
After all, when two neutrons approach one each other within a nucleus, they would have to form a dineutron, and would never separate anymore.
So, dineutrons would have to exist in abundance in nature.

In order to explain why dineutrons do not exist, Heisenberg proposed the isospin concept.
It is something like a mathematical theorem.

Actually Heisenberg's solution solved nothing. Because a force of attraction between two neutrons can be neutralized only by a force of repulsion.
Only a force can oppose to another force.

Heisenberg isospin does NOT produce a force. A mathematical concept cannot produce a force.
What Heisenberg did was only to describe, in mathematical language, that dineutron is never formed.

So, he did not explain the PHYSICAL CAUSE of the phenomenon, ie, his solution did no show what produces the force of repulsion between two neutrons, which wins their force of attraction, and make them to separate one each other.


Heisenberg actually introduced a new method in the development of Theoretical Physics. He was sure that Physics cannot have metaphysical concepts.
OBS: in Physics, methaphysical concepts are those ones that derive from our hope on how the laws of nature must be. For instance, it makes no sense to suppose that the time can run back to the past. So, it's a metaphysical belief to consider that time reverse cannot exist in a theory of Physics.

Heisenberg claimed that Physics must be free of metaphysical concepts, and only observable quantities can be considered in any theory of PHysics (observable quantities are those submissed to be measured in experiments).

Einstein was the first one to claim against that arbitrary way of developing a theory, and Heisenberg replied to him that he, Einstein, was the first one to do that in his relativity, by refusing metaphysical concepts.


Heisenberg new method was successful for the development of Theoretical Physics.
But we realize that Heisenberg's method introduced in Physics some sort of solutions where fundamental physical causes are missing.

One example we saw here, when we discussed the spin-interaction force. The paradoxical aspect of the spin-interaction appeared just because the theorists have followed the Heisenberg's method, where some physical causes of the phenomena are not taking in consideration.

So, as some physical causes existing in Nature are not taking in consideration, the theorists try to replace them by abstract mathematical concepts, as Heisenberg did by introducing the isospin concept.

Now we realize that, after a long period of successfull development along the 20th Century, Heinsenberg's method is finally collapsing, because now the physicists are working within a deeper level of research, where those physical causes, neglected by Heisenberg's method, cannot be neglected anymore.

The LHC will show us the faillure of Heisenberg's method, in upcoming years.

 

[Reality Check]

The Heisenberg's foolish isospin​

...yet another display of ignorance from pedrone..

Heisenberg's actual isospin​

 

[dafydd]

Is it a Lagrangian of Nuclear Physics?


Oh... Ok... it's not... however I will give you a chance to prove your claim that such Lagrangian can be applied successfully to Nuclear Physics

Show here the links where are calculated from this Lagrangian:

- binding energies of all nuclei
- nuclear magnetic moments of all nuclei
- electric quadrupole moments of all nuclei
- the energy levels of all nuclei

Oh, I forgot:
- the deuteron is the simpler composed nucleon. In 1939 the physicists surprisingly discovered that it has an electric quadrupole moment.
Along 70 years, nobody did succeed to get a satisfactory theory capable to calculate satisfactorily the deuteron's quadrupole. More than 30 theories were proposed along the years. and each method of calculation diverged from the other ones.
It seems the last attempt was made in 2005, published in the Turkish Journal of Physics:
http://mistug.tubitak.gov.tr/bdyim/abs.php?dergi=fiz&rak=0408-3

Suggestion to you, dear Dr. Ben M:
apply that Lagrangian of QCD so that to calculate the electric quadrupole of the deuteron.

I'm sure you will win the Noble Prize in 2012.

So you don't understand the math. I thought so.

 

[pedrone]

I'm calling this one a troll.

It's got all the hallmarks of a deliberate troll.

1. Willfully and deliberately ignorant of current physics.

WRONG.
You are angry because I'm proving that current physics is plenty of faillures

2. He deliberately ignores attempts to draw him out into any kind of proof or qualifications.

Are you interested either in qualification or in arguments?
If my arguments are wrong, then prove it

3. He constantly baits with pseudo scientific terms.

Show me at least one

4. He does not respond to challenges.

It's a lie.
I responded several challanges, as for instance coming from Ben M.
I only do not respond challanges that make no sense, because it's a waste of time.

5. He punctuates his arguments with insults and caps in order to start further outrage.

It's wrong.
I only show that my opponent is insulting himself, when his arguments are contrary to the facts, or make no sense, or are foolishes

It's a troll.

I understand that it's hard to you to face several facts that disprove what you believe.
Sorry

 

[Belz...]

WRONG.
You are angry because I'm proving that current physics is plenty of faillures


Are you interested either in qualification or in arguments?
If my arguments are wrong, then prove it


Show me at least one


It's a lie.
I responded several challanges, as for instance coming from Ben M.
I only do not respond challanges that make no sense, because it's a waste of time.


It's wrong.
I only show that my opponent is insulting himself, when his arguments are contrary to the facts, or make no sense, or are foolishes


I understand that it's hard to you to face several facts that disprove what you believe.
Sorry

It's unfortunate that the opposition you're getting from the entire scientific community of this planet doesn't get you to realise that you're perhaps wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

WRONG.
You are angry because I'm proving that current physics is plenty of faillures

Wrong: No one is angry. You are proving nothing. Current physics is full of failures but you have not mentioned any of them.
I am (and probably everyone else) disappointed in your continued display of ignorance and inability to learn (the nuclear spin-orbit interaction is part of the strong force and not electromagnetic). But that is your problem not ours.

 

[pedrone]

Sorry but you are wrong. If there is a fundamental problem with the theory we could not develop any technology from it.

Sorry but you are wrong, Chucky.

For instance, Heisenberg rejected the hypothesis of the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) of elementary particles.

The zitterbewegung can be the response for many phenomena, as for instance the wave aspect of matter, interpreted by De Broglie from another viewpoint: the duality wave-particle.

Such missing of zitterbewegung in current theories imply in the impossibility of developing technology ?
Of course no.

Schrödinger proposed a strange equation, and it works.
For instance, one of the starting points for the development of Schrödinger's equation is the following:
- he considered a non-free electron within the Coulomb potential of the proton
- neverthless, he used an equation of a free electron

Then, why does his equation works ?
Probably because the zitterbewegung contributes for the success of his equation.

Is it important for the development of techonogy ?
No, it isn't.

However, in a deeper level of technology development possibly the zitterbewegung can contribute for some phenomena. And then Schrödinger equation can fail.
For instance, it's possible zitterbewegung can contribute for cold fusion occurrence in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment.

Other example is the isospin.
Of course there is a force that apparts two neutrons, and avoids the formation of the dineutron.
Heisenberg neglected such force.
And there is no need to discover such force for the development of technology.

 

[pedrone]

It's unfortunate that the opposition you're getting from the entire scientific community of this planet doesn't get you to realise that you're perhaps wrong.

I preffer the opposition of the entire scientific community than the opposition of experimental results.

Experimental results corroborate my arguments, and this is enough to me.

I would worry if experimental results should be opposing me.

 

[Reality Check]

pedrone: What are your arguments and what are the supporting experiments

xperimental results corroborate my arguments, and this is enough to me.

What are your arguments and what are the supporting experiments.

• State your arguments.
• Cite the experiments that support your arguments.

We already know that you are wrong about the nuclear spin orbit interaction (it is not electromagnetic).

 

[pedrone]

• State your arguments.
• Cite the experiments that support your arguments.

We already know that you are wrong about the nuclear spin orbit interaction (it is not electromagnetic).

of course it is not electromagnetic. If it should be, it could not have influence on the proton-neutron interaction.

But from the foundations of Nuclear Physics spin-interaction must be electromagnetic.

This is what you did not understand yet.

Sorry, Reality Check, but Ben M is fooling you, making you believe that spin-interaction does not need to have electromagnetic origin, according to Nuclear Physics.

It's not difficult to fool people when they want to keep their dogmas

 

[pedrone]

What are your arguments and what are the supporting experiments.

• State your arguments.
• Cite the experiments that support your arguments.

We already know that you are wrong about the nuclear spin orbit interaction (it is not electromagnetic).

for instance, do you doubt that there are no dineutrons in Nature?

Dear Reality Check, dont be so ingenuous.
If there were any arguments of mine not supported by experiments, of course Ben M and other physicists would be screaming in here that I'm a lier

 

[Reality Check]

But from the foundations of Nuclear Physics spin-interaction must be electromagnetic.

From the foundations of Nuclear Physics nuclear spin-interaction canot be electromagnetic because it is partof the strong force.

This is what you did not understand yet.

Sorry, pedrone, but you are fooling you, making you believe that spin-interaction has to have an electromagnetic origin, according to Nuclear Physics. Anyon who can read knows that the nuclear spin-orbit interaction is part of teh strong nuclear force.

It's not difficult to people to fool themselves when they persist on not learning what things are and when they want to keep their delusions

 

[Reality Check]

for instance, do you doubt that there are no dineutrons in Nature?

I know that dineutrons have not been detected.

That is your experiment - what is the argument ?

ETA: I have found a crank web site whose author is ignorant enough to suggest that the non-existence of dineutrons means that there must be a repulsive force acing between neutrons. He is ignorant - the non-binding of neutrons is ex pained by isospin.

Oddly enough this ignorant Internet crank uses similar language to you !

 

[RobDegraves]

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
I'm calling this one a troll.

It's got all the hallmarks of a deliberate troll.

1. Willfully and deliberately ignorant of current physics.
WRONG.
You are angry because I'm proving that current physics is plenty of faillures

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
2. He deliberately ignores attempts to draw him out into any kind of proof or qualifications.
Are you interested either in qualification or in arguments?
If my arguments are wrong, then prove it

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
3. He constantly baits with pseudo scientific terms.
Show me at least one

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
4. He does not respond to challenges.
It's a lie.
I responded several challanges, as for instance coming from Ben M.
I only do not respond challanges that make no sense, because it's a waste of time.

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
5. He punctuates his arguments with insults and caps in order to start further outrage.
It's wrong.
I only show that my opponent is insulting himself, when his arguments are contrary to the facts, or make no sense, or are foolishes

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
It's a troll.
I understand that it's hard to you to face several facts that disprove what you believe.
Sorry

OK...

1.

You are angry because I'm proving that current physics is plenty of faillures

No.. I think you are a troll. Also, from what I can tell, you have not proven anything. If you have... where did you publish it? Or do you just intend to blather on here forever accomplishing nothing?

2.

Are you interested either in qualification or in arguments?
If my arguments are wrong, then prove it

It has been demonstrated several times in this thread that you don't know what you are talking about. However, you will continue to argue that you are right because if you don't.... you might not get all this nice attention.

3.

I responded several challanges, as for instance coming from Ben M.
I only do not respond challanges that make no sense, because it's a waste of time.

Sigh... first of all, you might want to learn to spell. Secondly you have not responded to any of the requests to show your actual knowledge of physics or qualifications despite numerous demands. I am sure you will have some blather about the inherent truth of your statements being the only qualification you need.... and indeed that would be acceptable if you had anything genuine to say. Again... why not publish? No one here thinks that you have any credibility.... so why stay if you are not a troll?

4.

I only show that my opponent is insulting himself, when his arguments are contrary to the facts, or make no sense, or are foolishes

And the incessant use of caps and big red letters? All the hallmark of the crank and/or troll.

5.

I understand that it's hard to you to face several facts that disprove what you believe.

I'd be delighted to find out that cold fusion works.

Here's the caveat....

It has to work and so far... it doesn't.


Prove that it does instead of wasting everyone's time.... unless time wasting is what you intend.

In summary... you are a troll.

 

[The Man]

No, I teach wrong current Physics for foolishes students who believe it to be correct

Wow, what a bizarre assertion of a lack of educational integrity.

Teacher to student: "You're a fool."

Student to teacher: "Why?"

Teacher to student: "Because you believe what I taught you is correct."

Student to teacher: "Wait, this is still Nuclear Physics 102 right? I don't have Lack of Integrity in Education 101 until next period! Though, it looks like I might have finally found a topic for my term paper in that class. "


Fools rush in...


"Not free from Faults, nor yet too vain to mend."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_Criticism

 

[The Man]

I know that dineutrons have not been detected.

Interesting, I'm curious as to why the neutrons can almost bond (or only weakly bond) yet the proton and neutron have a stronger bond. I surmise it has something to do with the types of quarks that comprise each.



ETA:

...the non-binding of neutrons is ex pained by isospin.

Oops, guess I should have clicked on the other link. Thanks Reality Check.

 

[Belz...]

I would worry if experimental results should be opposing me.

Then worry. You don't know a tenth as much as you think you do.

 

[Belz...]

But from the foundations of Nuclear Physics spin-interaction must be electromagnetic.

No. You've been told this repeatedly. This is what I'm talking about when I say you should start to feel like you need to educate yourself more.