• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

pedrone said:
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.
:)
Click to expand...

I don't understand most of what you're getting at above but I just thought I'd point out that Heisenberg's version of isospin isn't all that similar to what nuclear (and particle) physicists use today. Wigner's model (not sure that's really the right word) is much closer.
 
dafydd said:
There are no perpetual motion machines,Yukawa was a genius,you will talk crap about his model instead of analyzing it. Where did you study physics and what are your qualifications? Show me the math which proves that Yukawa's model violates energy=mass conservation. Betcha you can't.
Click to expand...
:)
Well, then Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick talk crap about Yukawa model.
Probably they do not know physics like you.
:)

Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles, Eisberg & Resnick, page 795 (translation from Portuguese), item 17-4 about pions:
In this process, the meson pi travels a distance in the order of r'. While it happens, there is a violation in the mass-energy conservation: before and after the process, the total energy of the system...

So, you have to ask them where did they study Physics.
:D:D:D
 
Would you care to complete that quotation pedrone? As it is, it suggests to me a rather more mundane thing than it appears you'd like it to.
 
Tubbythin said:
I don't understand most of what you're getting at above but I just thought I'd point out that Heisenberg's version of isospin isn't all that similar to what nuclear (and particle) physicists use today. Wigner's model (not sure that's really the right word) is much closer.
Click to expand...

Tubbythin,
what nuclear physicists use today does not matter.

What does matter here is the scientific criterion used by Heisenberg.

I recognize that Heisenberg criterion was very important for the advancement of Physics. Thanks to his criterion the Theoretical Physics had a fantastic advance along the 20th Century.

However, his method introduced some faillures in the process of discovery of the fundamental laws in Physis.

Now is the time to reconsider his scientific criterion.
As said Einstein:
There is no way to eliminate the crisis by keeping the method that gave rise to the crisis.

Of course, if you think that there is not a crisis in Theoretical Physics, what I said makes no sense to you.
:)
 
pedrone said:
:)
Well, then Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick talk crap about Yukawa model.
Probably they do not know physics like you.
:)

Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles, Eisberg & Resnick, page 795 (translation from Portuguese), item 17-4 about pions:
In this process, the meson pi travels a distance in the order of r'. While it happens, there is a violation in the mass-energy conservation: before and after the process, the total energy of the system...

So, you have to ask them where did they study Physics.
:D:D:D
Click to expand...

We know where they studied physics. Where did you study physics?
 
edd said:
Would you care to complete that quotation pedrone? As it is, it suggests to me a rather more mundane thing than it appears you'd like it to.
Click to expand...

In this process, the meson pi travels a distance in the order of r'. While it happens, there is a violation in the mass-energy conservation: before and after the process, the total energy of the system is equal to the repose energy mass of one nucleon and it could not be also equal to the repose mass energy of one nucleon plus, at least, a meson pi, along the process.
 
pedrone said:
:)
Well, then Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick talk crap about Yukawa model.
Probably they do not know physics like you.
:)

Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles, Eisberg & Resnick, page 795 (translation from Portuguese), item 17-4 about pions:
In this process, the meson pi travels a distance in the order of r'. While it happens, there is a violation in the mass-energy conservation: before and after the process, the total energy of the system...

So, you have to ask them where did they study Physics.
:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Colours, fonts and smileys to not an argument make.
 
pedrone said:
In this process, the meson pi travels a distance in the order of r'. While it happens, there is a violation in the mass-energy conservation: before and after the process, the total energy of the system is equal to the repose energy mass of one nucleon and it could not be also equal to the repose mass energy of one nucleon plus, at least, a meson pi, along the process.
Click to expand...

Can you show us the equation for that? Making up garbage is easy.
 
dafydd said:
Can you show us the equation for that? Making up garbage is easy.
Click to expand...
Why dont you ask it to Eisberg & Resnick ?
:D:D:D:D
Tell them that making up garbage is easy
:)
And why dont you teach Physics to them ?
Who knows they can learn something usefull from you ?
:D
 
Last edited:
Wll someone PM me when this pedrone woo-woo states his academic credentials?

I'll then take him off ignore and begin anew to scrutinize his rants.
 
de Broglie's Paradox​

Quantum Mechanics considers the duality wave-particle through the interpretation proposed by de Broglie. The diffraction has been detected for the elementary particles, as electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules. Considering these experiments, there is a grave incompatibility between this solution of Quantum Mechanics and the Michelson-Morley experiment, if we replace the light by protons, and Michelson’s interferometer is replaced by a crystal.


MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT FOR PROTONS​
When an electron crosses a crystal, it can suffer diffraction according to the Bragg’s relation, which is:
n.L = 2.d. senQ [2.1]​

Davisson, Germer and Thomson made experiments with L = 65o , d = 0,91Å , and electrons with kinetic energy 54eV.

Through the expression 2.1 we get: L = 1,65 Å [2.2]

The wavelength of de Broglie, for the electrons with energy 54eV used at the Davisson-Germer-Thomson experiment, is:
L = h/p = 6,6x10-34j-s/4,0x10-24kg-m/s = 1,65 Å [2.3]

Electrons with kinetic energy 54eV have approximately a speed 4.000km/s. As we see, the postulate of de Broglie gets the same result of the Bragg’s relation.

The electron suffers diffraction into the crystal because there is a constructive interference of waves spread by the periodic arrangement of the atoms in the planes of the crystal. So, this constructive interference is a consequence of: d=0,91Å within the crystal, and the electron’s speed 4.000km/s.

In the experiments of diffraction electrons are used with speed 4.000km/s. But instead of using electrons we can replace them by protons. As the proton has a mass 2.000 times greater than the electron, then de Broglie’s wavelength of a proton with speed 2km/s will be 1,65Å.

Then let us imagine Michelson-Morley experiment, made with a proton with speed 32km/s.
We will consider the Sun as a reference at rest. And in order to simplify the explanation, let's consider that the Earth's translation velocity around the Sun is 30km/s. So the crystal in our laboratory has a speed of 30km/s with regard to the Sun. But the Bragg’s relation does not depend on the speed of the crystal, in order that through his relation we get the value l=1,65Å.
Now let us submit the protons to the experiment, when they are emitted in two directions. Let us analyze the two different directions of the proton’s motion in the experiment.


Michelson-Morley experiment for protons:
1- First let us consider that the flux of protons is emitted with 32km/s in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s - 30km/s = 2km/s.
So, by de Broglie’s relation we get a wavelength l=1,65Å , and by the Bragg’s relation we also have l=1,65Å. This means that the proton shall be submitted to the diffraction effect into the crystal, and we can detect the proton’s duality by the experiment.

2- Now consider the flux of protons emitted with 32km/s in the same direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s + 30km/s = 62km/s. Then, the proton has a de Broglie’s wavelength l=1,65Å/31 = 0,055Å, while from the Bragg’s relation for the crystal l=1,65Å. Therefore such proton cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal.

This is the result that we have to expect from the concepts of Quantum Mechanics.

But suppose that we make this Michelson-Morley experiment for protons, and we get a result showing that the speed 30km/s of the Earth does not have influence on the proton’s diffraction, no matter the direction of the flux of protons with regard to the Earth’s motion. Clearly this experimental result does not fit to the concepts of Quantum Mechanics, as has been shown above.

One can say that there is no paradox, because it is necessary to consider the velocity of the crystal with regard to the proton, i.e., actually it would be necessary to consider the relation L= h/m(V-v), where V is the velocity of the proton, and v is the velocity of the crystal. With such argument, actually we are introducing the Doppler effect between the proton and the crystal. However such argument is valid only for pure waves, it is not valid for the de Broglie’s idea of duality. Let us show why.

Consider a proton with speed 30km/s. Its wavelength h/mv is L= 0,11Å. And if we use a crystal with distance d= 0,06Å , from the Bragg’s relation we get l= 0,11Å, and therefore in the laboratory we must detect the proton’s diffraction. This is the prediction according to de Broglie’s interpretation.
But now consider that we make such experiment with the proton going in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. Therefore, with regard to the Sun, the velocity of the proton is Vp= 0. In such experiment, the proton is at rest, while the crystal has a velocity Vc=30km/s toward the direction of the proton. Unmistakably the proton is stopped with regard to the Sun, and this means that it does not have wave feature. The proton with Vp= 0 is 100% corpuscular, and therefore it cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal. So, the de Broglie’s interpretation is wrong.

Obviously we have a paradox.. The duality, according to the interpretation of de Broglie, is not compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment for protons.

CONCLUSION:
Michelson-Morley experiment, applied to protons, shows that De Broglie interpretation for the duality wave-particle is not satisfactory.

De Broglie proposed that the duality is a property of the matter. But Michelson-Morley experiment for protons shows that his proposal is unacceptable, and so there is need to consider a new interpretation for the duality wave-particle.

Possibly the duality is not a property of the matter, as supposed by de Broglie
Other interpretation for the duality is by considering it as a property of the helical traejectory (zitterbewegung) of elementary particles.
​

References:
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/msg02339.html

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/788100/files/0408047.pdf

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/...glie's_paradox_(deleted_22_Apr_2008_at_18:05)
 
dafydd said:
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
In this process, the meson pi travels a distance in the order of r'. While it happens, there is a violation in the mass-energy conservation: before and after the process, the total energy of the system is equal to the repose energy mass of one nucleon and it could not be also equal to the repose mass energy of one nucleon plus, at least, a meson pi, along the process.

Can you show us the equation for that? Making up garbage is easy.
Click to expand...
:)
There is no need any equation to understand the violation of mass-energy conservation by Yukawa model

Even an idiot can understand it easily.

Yukawa model of neutron is formed by proton+meson

Masses:
proton = 938,3 MeV/c2neutron = 939,6 MeV/c2meson = 139,6 MeV/c2
The binding energy of neutron is almost null, since it suffers decay. So there is not practically any packing loss.

So, the mass of neutron, according to Yukawa, is:

mN= 938,3 + 139,6 = 1077,9 MeV/c2
but the mass of neutron obtained by experiments is actually 939,6 MeV/c2
Where is gone the difference 1077,9 - 939,6 = 138,3 ?

Probably to make perpetual motion machines to work :D

Physicists claim that mass-energy violation is justified by Heisenberg's uncertainty, because it's very short the time along which the meson jumps from one proton to another within the deuteron.
However it's only a stupid justification for an absurd model, because such claim is denied by neutron's decay.

The neutron can be free along 15 minutes, before to decay. So, in the free neutron, the meson cannot jump from one proton to another, as it does in the deuteron.

CONCLUSION:
According to Yukawa model, the mass of a free neutron would have to be 1077,9 MeV/c2, and there is no way to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty for a free neutron

So, Yukawa model violates the mass-energy conservation during the 15 minutes of the neutron's decay
:mad:

Dafydd,
sorry to destroy our belief in the Yukawa theory.
:p
 
Yawn.. more hallmarks of the troll.

There is no need any equation to understand the violation of mass-energy conservation by Yukawa model

Even an idiot can understand it easily.
Click to expand...

Dafydd,
sorry to destroy our belief in the Yukawa theory.
Click to expand...

1. Refusal to do real science.

2. Baiting statements to engender outrage and thus get a response from Dafydd.
 
pedrone said:
Tubbythin,
what nuclear physicists use today does not matter.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. If you're trying to say what is wrong with modern nuclear physics its the most important thing there is.

What does matter here is the scientific criterion used by Heisenberg.

I recognize that Heisenberg criterion was very important for the advancement of Physics. Thanks to his criterion the Theoretical Physics had a fantastic advance along the 20th Century.
Click to expand...
Nope. Heisenberg's model of isospin has been more or less ignored since the 1930's. Bearing in mind it was only constructed in the 1930's it really is just a matter of historical interest. Heisenberg's theory of isospin does not have charge independence. That is to say, the neutron-neutron, proton-proton and neutron-proton interactions are not though to be the same. As such, isospin is not a good quantum number.
Compare that to what we use today, which bares fairly close relation to Wigners model from 5 years after Heisenberg. In this model the nuclear force is charge independent and therefore isospin is a good quantum number. Thus any violation of isospin is a) small and b) interesting.

However, his method introduced some faillures in the process of discovery of the fundamental laws in Physis.
Click to expand...
His model of isospin hasn't been used since the 1930's.

Now is the time to reconsider his scientific criterion.
As said Einstein:
There is no way to eliminate the crisis by keeping the method that gave rise to the crisis.

Of course, if you think that there is not a crisis in Theoretical Physics, what I said makes no sense to you.
:)
Click to expand...
What you said makes no sense because nobody uses the thing you are suggesting is a problem in modern day nuclear physics.
 
pedrone said:
:)
There is no need any equation to understand the violation of mass-energy conservation by Yukawa model

Even an idiot can understand it easily.

Yukawa model of neutron is formed by proton+meson
Click to expand...
Really? I thought the Yukawa model was that protons and neutrons interacted by exchanging virtual mesons. Could you point me in the direction of this model you speak of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom