why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Reality Check]

Lots of missing citaitons, pedrone

The physicists discovered that into the nuclei the protons and neutrons are linked together (the nuclei are filled by deuterons).

Citation?

The 8O16 has null nuclear spin and also null magnetic moment.

Citation?

If the nucleons into the 8O16 should be a cloud of probability in disorder, its nuclear spin and magnetic moment could not be null.

Wrong: The nuclear spin is the sum of the nucleon spins.

For the 8O16 to have null nuclear spin and null magnetic moment there is need the following:
- in each instant, for each deuteron A situated in a distance with regard to the center of the nucleus, there is need to have another deuteron B symmetrically placed with regard to the center of the nucleus, so that its spin and magnetic moment are contrary to the deuteron A.

You need to treate a nucleus quantum mechanically. Classicl treatments fail at aomic scales.

...snipped classical (and non-physical) description of a 8O16 )
The distribution of charges in the nucleus 8O16 is spherical, and this is detected in experiments.

Citation?

This is measured by the electric quadrupole moment. For the 8O16 it is null

This is stated incorrectly. The magnetci moment is never "
null". You may mean zero.
Citation?

 

[pedrone]

In nuclear physics the nucleus is governed by the strong force. The strong force is described by quantum chromodynamics. This is a quantum theory.
In practice QCD (AFAIK) cannot be used to model a complex nucleus. You have to use a model such as a shell model. That is still a QM treatment of the nucleons as particles, i.e. the "shells" are orbitals.

I am not speaking about any theory.

I am speaking about the position of nucleons within a nucleus.

The position of two deuterons, in a given instant, have to be like shown in the figure:

​

If this position does not occur, it's impossible for the nucleus 8O16 to have:
- null nuclear spin
- and null magnetic moment,
no matter what is the theory considered

 

[slingblade]

Certainly, there is nothing better than to visit a forum or a culture of a foreign tongue. And if you specify that it isn't your first language, there is no credibility decrease whatsoever. Your poor use of a second language is done through no fault of your own, and is completely forgivable.

But, if you do not specify that it is not your first language, then constantly misspelling the same things over and over again, and poor use of grammar kinda hurts your credibility to some degree. But what REALLY kills your credibility, is the misspelling of words and phrases, and poor use of grammar that has to do with your particular field of expertise, without explanation that it is your second language.

like with you. I can take you completely seriously, despite maybe some lack of spelling and grammar skills, because you have come out and let me know that English is not your second language. If anything, what skills you DO have in understanding the language actually makes your credibility increase, and you gain of a lot of respect because you do understand the language quite well. And you are giving it a shot and working at understanding. I hold people such as you with a lot of respect for this very reason.

Myself, my grandfather was teaching me a lot of Italian before he died. But I placed very little effort into actually actively learning the language.

I appreciate your reply, and I do understand certain of your points. I've made them. I'm only saying that I'm finding myself distracted by it at this point. (I don't think he's listening. ) Carry on as you think best.

However...I find my pride a tad wounded over the carefully worded: "some lack of spelling and grammar skills." I am, of course, far too humble to say why, exactly...

*cough* Praxis II, English Content, top 4% nationwide *cough*

 

[Reality Check]

Yes
http://books.google.com.br/books?id...ed=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bohr voigt&f=false

Not a citation to a Voigt model of the atom, just Voigt's work in the theory of anomalous Zeeman effects.

Where is a citation to Voigt's model of the atom?
How about a general description of how you understand it to work?

 

[Reality Check]

I am not speaking about any theory.

I am speaking about the position of nucleons within a nucleus.

The position of two deuterons, in a given instant, have to be like shown in
...snippedclassical treatment....

You are still insisting on using a classical treatment of a QM system. That will not work. Just like you cannot treat electrons classically and get correct results, you cannot treat nucleons classically. Nucleons are even more QM and it is dumb to treat them classically.

ETA
O¹⁶ does have a nuclear spin of 0+. That is because the addition of the nucleon spins gives zero. These spins are QM spins, not classical spins.

The NDS database has most of the magnetic moments of 8O16 blank except for on with "1 +1.668 12". I suspect that ithis is for an excited state since that nuclide has a half-life (and non-zero J).

 

[RobDegraves]

Gosh... something like 11 pages of pure trolling. What a waste of effort.

Pedrone... you never answered my question.

What do you hope to gain by trolling here?

 

[pedrone]

Citation?


Citation?


Wrong: The nuclear spin is the sum of the nucleon spins.


You need to treate a nucleus quantum mechanically. Classicl treatments fail at aomic scales.


Citation?


This is stated incorrectly. The magnetci moment is never "
null". You may mean zero.
Citation?

Reality Check
go to study Nuclear Physics
I will not waste my time with you.
Your feeling for Physics is very bad, sorry.

I am putting the things as they are, and as they are known in Nuclear Physics.
If somebody has any doubt, go to check it in the books.

I will put here the facts as they are.

If anyone is interested to know the facts, he will read what I write, and will reach to his own conclusions.

If anyone wants to be fooled by you, go on.

Nobody is obliged to read what I write.

 

[Nihilianth]

I appreciate your reply, and I do understand certain of your points. I've made them. I'm only saying that I'm finding myself distracted by it at this point. (I don't think he's listening. ) Carry on as you think best.

However...I find my pride a tad wounded over the carefully worded: "some lack of spelling and grammar skills." I am, of course, far too humble to say why, exactly...

*cough* Praxis II, English Content, top 4% nationwide *cough*

I THOUGHT you seemed to have a pretty good grasp on the language. But you mentioned it wasn't your first language, and the way you took exception of me pointing out grammatical and spelling errors in some posts had me think that you were maybe not completely 100% competent with the language.

But congrats on the top 4% in the Praxis test!

(I know, when I go back and re-read my own posts, they lack a lot of coherency and have many grammatical mistakes as well. For one, I know my use of the comma is over extended. I also tend to write too many run-on sentences, and too many complex sentences. Sometimes I go back to revise a post. Sometimes I do not. So I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite in pointing out others' poor use of English grammar.

However, I know when I am speaking with someone in my particular field on a professional level, I ALWAYS make absolutely sure I use the correct terminology and phrases. I always make sure my use of grammar and punctuation [if conversing through text] is impeccable. Otherwise, I probably won't be taken too seriously by my peers.)

 

[Reality Check]

Lots of missing citaitons, pedrone

Reality Check
go to study Nuclear Physics

pedrone
go to study science.
In science if you assert something you need to provide evidence for it. e.g. a citation.

 

[RobDegraves]

I will put here the facts as they are.

If anyone is interested to know the facts, he will read what I write, and will reach to his own conclusions.

I think we have pretty well reached our own conclusions indeed.

I put here the facts as they are. You are either a troll or a loony.

 

[pedrone]

You are still insisting on using a classical treatment of a QM system. That will not work. Just like you cannot treat electrons classically and get correct results, you cannot treat nucleons classically. Nucleons are even more QM and it is dumb to treat them classically.

Then you have to teach Nuclear Physics to Eisberg and Resnick, and you have to change ALL the current Nuclear Theory.

Look at the page 686 of their book, where the nuclei 51Sb128 and 51Sb129 have a CLASSICAL treatment (in your viewpoint , of course).

Can you see the figure at page 686?
At left you have: a nucleus which is a [magic number] +1 neutron
At right you have: a nucleus which is a [magic number] - neutron


The electric quadrupole moment of Sb128 and Sb129, and other several nuclei, obtained by such CLASSICAL treatment, is shown in the graphic in the page 685 ahead.

My suggestion: go to study Nuclear Physics, and stop to say nonsenses.

 

[Nihilianth]

More advice for Pedrone:

Reality Check
go to study Nuclear Physics
I will not waste my time with you.
Your feeling for Physics is very bad, sorry.

I am putting the things as they are, and as they are known in Nuclear Physics.
If somebody has any doubt, go to check it in the books.

I will put here the facts as they are.

If anyone is interested to know the facts, he will read what I write, and will reach to his own conclusions.

If anyone wants to be fooled by you, go on.

Nobody is obliged to read what I write.

Pedrone. He is doing what everyone else is doing in this thread: He is asking for citations!!

Seriously, man! The drivel you just spewed up above is very much a big wad of trolling ad hominem.

You yourself said you wanted to engage in serious discussion with serious professionals. Serious professionals in all fields, no matter whether it is nuclear physics, web design and computer programming, or baseball; all professionals from all fields WILL ask for a source of reference when one of their peers makes any sort of claim. Otherwise, it is unfounded and you lose a ton of credibility in the eyes of your own peers.

Now, you had made a claim in the OP without providing ANY backup whatsoever, with the exception of some text-book that was originally written in Portuguese. However, you seemly decided to translate the text into English yourself. This is a very very poor practice. If you would like to speak with people of a certain language who are experts in a given field, and if you initiate the conversation in said language, you MUST provide adequate source materials that was originally written in the language of those you have chosen to engage in conversation with.

You CAN use a source material that was originally written in your own language. That is fine. However, you must provide the EXACT translation done by a third party expert in linguistics. You cannot use your own translation and expect people to accept your translation from Portuguese to English as the real-deal, original ideas and concepts. It does not work that way.

Now, how do I know you translated it yourself? Well, because of your poor use of the English language and grammar, and poor spelling. Had you used an original English-language translation, or original English text, there would have been no reason whatsoever to take care to copy each and every single letter, word, sentence, period, comma, etc. to the T. I can do just that simple task in ANY language, provided they use the Roman-Latin alphabet.

For instance, I have never learned anything about French whatsoever. I can certainly do the simple task of copying, from a hard-copy text to the computer screen, of typing each and every single letter and punctuation out with no problems whatsoever. Even if the French language has a certain letter or accent that does not appear on my keyboard, all OSes have software bundled inside of the OS which allows them to use alternate characters and accents. Hell, there are even shortcuts you can do on the keyboard (but you must know the exact sequence of using the Alt key, with certain numbers in the correct order for the character you choose, if you have a certain standard keyboard of a given language. Like, I have a very much standard English QWERTY keyboard. Therefore, I don't have certain letters that other languages may use. Therefore, I must seek out, and find the proper character in the keymap software that my operating system...in my case, Windows XP...provides for me.) If you do not know the shortcuts at all (which I don't even know a single shortcut for an alternate letter,) you can just find your "keymapping" program on whatever OS you use, and use the mouse to select the proper character.

Please, please, please, if nothing else, PLEASE learn to properly converse in a debate. Please pay attention to what people are asking of you, and what they are saying. If you make a claim....any claim whatsoever! It could be "The sky is blue," for all I care. But if you make a claim and someone asks for a citation, please just simply oblige by providing your source material for the claim you have made. It profits nobody, least of all yourself, by just ridiculing them with crap like "OMG!! YOU SO DUMB!! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!"

Another huge bit of advice on morality in any professionally-written document. Hell, for ANY document....and this goes for ALL languages, ALL media type, and etc: Use the proper "quotes" for the medium you are using. If you are typing out a peer-reviewed paper, the proper "quotes" are just simply "quotes." These things - "". They have an open and close quote. You must cite this quote by writing it out in the proper MLA format at the end of your hard document on a special page called the "Works Cited," or "Bibliography" page. MLA has all types of rules in the "proper" way of citing any source material. They have a very specific format for magazines and newspapers. A very specific format for books. A very specific format for online references. A very specific format for video. I would highly suggest starting here: http://www.mla.org/

For internet forums, the proper way to quote anything, is by using the

tags. The proper way to do this, is place an open and closing bracket, with the word quote between them. That is what is known as an "opening tag." When you are finished with the quote, you properly close it with a "closing tag." This is exactly like the

tag, except you add a backslash (/) before the letter "q" in "quote," and after the left brace "[." Since forums are rather informal and are full of laymen, you can get away with just simply providing a link, or the name of a book or publication with the proper page number you are referring to, and etc. No need to strictly follow any MLA format for the purposes of the internet. Just provide the proper

tags with your quote you have chosen, and tell us where you got that quote from.

It really honestly is the most basic skill virtually all students learn. Obviously, there is no way I can possibly believe you are in the teaching profession if you must be told this. Virtually all professions, in all languages, in all cultures around the globe adhere to these very basic concepts.

 

[pedrone]

More advice for Pedrone:

Pedrone. He is doing what everyone else is doing in this thread: He is asking for citations!!

Nihilianth,
the problem is: he says too much stupid things.

For instance:
Wrong: The nuclear spin is the sum of the nucleon spins.

It's just stupid because I did not say the contrary, and he puts the things as I should have said that nuclear spin is not the sum of spins of nucleons.

However, in order to understand the sum of the whole nucleons, you have to consider one by one, and to get the sum. And it seems that Reality Check does not understand such an obvious thing.

 

[pedrone]

NUCLEAR PHYSICS IS WRONG, BECAUSE:​

Look at again the distribution of nucleons in the 8O17 and excited 8O18:

​

The 8O17 has an unbalanced distribution of nucleons (one neutron is unmatched).
Unlike, the 8O18 has a balanced distribution of nucleons (the two unmatched neutrons are symmetrical regarding the center of the nucleus).

Of course the 8O17 would have to have a stronger trepidation (vibration) than the excited 8O18.

But from the experiments :

Electric quadrupole of 8O17: -0,026 barns

Electric quadrupole of 8O18: -0,073 barns

The excentricity of charge in the 8O18, due to its trepidation (vibration), is biggest than that occurred in the 8O17.
This is contrary to what we expect from the nuclear model of Nuclear Physics.

So, something is wrong with Nuclear Physics

 

[Nihilianth]

Nihilianth,
the problem is: he says too much stupid things.

For instance:
Wrong: The nuclear spin is the sum of the nucleon spins.

It's just stupid because I did not say the contrary, and he puts the things as I should have said that nuclear spin is not the sum of spins of nucleons.

However, in order to understand the sum of the whole nucleons, you have to consider one by one, and to get the sum. And it seems that Reality Check does not understand such an obvious thing.

Uh, yeah. I don't understand a word you have just said IRT nucleons, and quite frankly I could care less whether what he said was "dumb." This is simply because I do not understand even the most basics about nuclear physics. I only had one physics class in high school, and one in college. That's it. And they were just simply intro to general physics. Nothing to do with nuclear physics whatsoever.

However, I can sniff out BS quite readily when I see it. My BS meter goes off when someone (such as yourself,) makes a claim, without providing any evidence. Then ridiculing those who ask where you got your notions from.

What I would suggest: Abandon this thread altogether, and start a brand new one from scratch. With the new thread, narrow your topic down to something a hell of a lot more specific than "why nuclear physics is wrong." It seriously seems to me that this is a VERY broad-based assertion of fact, that you yourself seem to be skipping over all sorts of subject areas that have to do with "Nuclear Physics."

To me, it's like saying "why computer programming languages are wrong." Certainly, every language has its flaws. But the fact of the matter is that computer languages in general work. If I were to start a thread and say "Why computer languages are flawed," I would have a HELL of a time trying to remain clear and concise as to what I wanted to accomplish. In essence, it would be virtually impossible to explain such a broad-based notion! It would have to be narrowed down a hell of alot. And then, I still wouldn't be able to achieve my objective of convincing everyone that "computer programming is flawed!"

Now, in your above quote, you had said this:

It's just stupid because I did not say the contrary, and he puts the things as I should have said that nuclear spin is not the sum of spins of nucleons.

However, in order to understand the sum of the whole nucleons, you have to consider one by one, and to get the sum. And it seems that Reality Check does not understand such an obvious thing.

It seriously seems to me that either you are not understanding how to explain what you are talking about in terms of the English language, and therefore there is a whole lot missing in translation from what you THINK you are saying, to what native English speakers are UNDERSTANDING what you are saying.

If it is a case of someone saying the "exact same thing" that you have said, I would think it is just a misunderstanding on the other person's part. Therefore, it is your fault for not explaining clearly enough what you WANT to say. This is not a terrible thing whatsoever. Just go back, and re-word in a different manner what you had said (or intended to say.) Explain as clearly as you know how exactly what you meant. Explain clearly as you know how exactly why someone is wrong. Going off on a tangent "they say stupid and dumb things," loses you a ton of points. Ok, so they said something stupid. What was so "stupid" about what they said? Point out the flaws in the argument, and provide a citation to support your own claims and counter-claims. Don't rely on the other person to automatically and magically understand exactly what you meant to say. Do not rely on the other person to be the bigger man (or woman! ) Do not rely on the other person to provide any coherent arguments whatsoever. In the end, you only have YOU to account for.

 

[leonAzul]

QUESTION TO EVERYBODY​

Consider the two figures:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_489414da2649b28021.jpg[/qimg]​

The hexagon A of fig. 1 has 16 green balls attached to it, symmetrically distributed about the center of the hexagon. All the balls have the same mass.

The hexagon B of fig. 2 is equal to hexagon A, but it has yet 1 red ball attached to it. All the balls have the same mass.

The two hexagon of the two figures rotate with the same angular velocity, about the line which crosses their center.

Question:
What hexagon has stronger trepidation ?

None: they are both octagons.

 

[Tubbythin]

Distribution of nucleons into the nuclei​

In Atomic Physics, the electron is considered as a cloud of probability about the nucleus.

Well obviously they aren't considered as a cloud of probability about the nucelus since they make up the nucleus.

But in Nuclear Physics this is not possible. The nucleons have to be considered as particles, because if we consider them as a cloud of probability there is no way to explain some properties of the nuclei.

False. In general, one describes the nucleon orbitals using wavefunctions. If you look at a shell model level scheme you'll find that the nomenclature for each of the levels is very similar to those of the atomic model (though the ordering is different, largely due to the good old spin-orbit interaction).

For instance, let's consider the oxygen nucleus 8O16.
The physicists discovered that into the nuclei the protons and neutrons are linked together (the nuclei are filled by deuterons).

Not true. Deuteron like pairing is a very rare occurrence. Most nuclei can be though of as having proton spin-0 proton and neutron pairs. Some excited states of 16O do look a bit like a collection of alpha particles though.

The 8O16 has null nuclear spin and also null magnetic moment.
If the nucleons into the 8O16 should be a cloud of probability in disorder, its nuclear spin and magnetic moment could not be null.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If like nucleons are arranged in spin-0 pairs then they have a large overlap of wavefunctions which means they effectively feel more of the strong force and are more tightly bound. Accordingly, the ground state of all even-even nuclei are spin 0.

For the 8O16 to have null nuclear spin and null magnetic moment there is need the following:
- in each instant, for each deuteron A situated in a distance with regard to the center of the nucleus, there is need to have another deuteron B symmetrically placed with regard to the center of the nucleus, so that its spin and magnetic moment are contrary to the deuteron A.

You're talking crap.

In nuclei with odd number of nucleons the distribution of charges deviates from the spherical shape. They dont have null electric quadrupole moment (EQM).
For instance, the istope 8O17 nas no nulll EQM, because with the addition of one neutron in the structure of 8O16, the resulting 8O17 has a trepidation, and its distribution of charges becomes ellipsoidal (measured by experiments).

Trepidation? What is it scared of?

 

[Daylightstar]

So, Pedrone, there is no shame in acknowledging that you have no relevant formal training.
Perhaps you acquired your ideas through self study, perhaps you'd want to consider yourself an auto didact.

Is that the case Pedrone? Do you not have relevant formal training and do you consider yourself an auto didact?

So Pedrone, what are your credentials.
You know, credenciais.

...
I know very well quantum mechanics.
...

Quais são as suas credenciais Pedrone?

 

[Reality Check]

nuclear physics is wrong, because:​

...snipped idioic cartoons...

pedrone's nuclear physics is wrong, because he is obsessed with using a classical treatment of a quantum system​

 

[Reality Check]

Can you see the figure at page 686?

What I see is indistinct images from a book in a language that I cannot read (Italian?).

My suggestion: go to study Nuclear Physics, and stop to say nonsenses

My suggestion: go to study Nuclear Physics in English or translate your citations, and stop to say nonsense.

Nucleons in a nucleus are a QM phenomena. Their spins are QM spins. Thie spins add together like QM spins. The nuclear magnetic moment is a result of the QM spin.

The nuclear magnetic moment is the magnetic moment of an atomic nucleus and arises from the spin of the protons and neutrons. It is mainly a magnetic dipole moment; the quadrupole moment does cause some small shifts in the hyperfine structure as well.
The nuclear magnetic moment varies from isotope to isotope of an element. It can only be zero if the numbers of protons and of neutrons are both even.

Their positions are QM positions (i.e. orbitals).

It is idiotic to draw a cartoon with nucleons stuck on either side of an octagon.

ETA:
If you use the shell model to calculate nuclear magnetic moments then you get an equation

• using the QM total angular momentum j, orbital angular momentum l and spin s numbers.
• that includes g-factors. The g-factors have Planck's constant in them - they are QM quantities.