• 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

Reality Check said:
You are right. My search terms missed out the first sentence so in 1994 there are several effects in the decay of the neutron which have not been studied. This includes the bremsstrahlung spectrum in the free neutron decay and ...
(or maybe the first sentence only appears ion the Portuguese version!)
Click to expand...
Missed out:
So let us say that since 1994 no one has bothered to measure the bremsstrahlung spectrum in the free neutron decay.
What this says about the bremsstrahlung spectrum is that it has not been measured and that is all.
It should exist since it happens every time that electrons are decelerated. But it may just not be measurable.

So what is your point, pedrone?

ETA: Found it - you really want to show everyone that you are ignorant of nuclear physics.
pedrone said:
But the emission of photons is not observed experimentally. And we realize that something is wrong with the neutron model composed by quarks.
Click to expand...
The bremsstrahlung spectrum has nothing to do with the "quark model". The model predicts that the neutron will day in the manners that it is observed to decay
  • n -> p + e + v
  • n -> p + e + v + photon
The model states nothing about bremsstrahlung radiation.

The non-observance of the bremsstrahlung spectrum does not mean anything other then it has not been observed yet.
The non-observance of the bremsstrahlung spectrum would mean something if you could cite an experiment that tried to observed it and failed. That would be a failure of classical electrodynamics.
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
Daylightstar,
do you really believe that Tubbythin did not notice it?

Of course he understood very well what I meant to say.

But he simulated he did not understand.
It's a smart strategy used by those ones that have not a satisfactory argument to reply their opponent, and so they imitate a person with disability of reasoning
:D
It's a very smart strategy... nobody perceives it... :p
Click to expand...

That is not the common use of trepedation in english.
 
pedrone said:
:confused:



There are several effects in the decay of the neutron which have not been studied. This includes the bremsstrahlung spectrum in the free neutron decay and ...
http://www.google.com.br/#hl=pt-BR&...decay+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=286cf708affef362
:D:D:D


Abstract
The theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) predicts that beta decay of the neutron into a proton, electron and antineutrino should be accompanied by a continuous spectrum of soft photons. While this inner bremsstrahlung branch has been previously measured in nuclear beta and electron capture decay, it has never been observed in free neutron decay
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17183320
:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
You are right. My search terms missed out the first sentence so in 1994 there are several effects in the decay of the neutron which have not been studied. This includes the bremsstrahlung spectrum in the free neutron decay and ...
(or maybe the first sentence only appears ion the Portuguese version!)


You are wrong:
Observation of the radiative decay mode of the free neutron

inner bremsstrahlung branch of the decay = n -> p + e + v + photon, this has been observed

:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Do not forget!

jhunter1163 said:
Rather than handing out a bunch of yellow cards, I am going to remind you all about Rule 6. I trust the disruptive formatting will cease. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
What's the problem of faking papers?
Yukawa did it, and published that stupid model of neutron.
And the Nobel Academy gave him the Nobel for a predicton with 40% or error :D
Click to expand...
This just goes to your ignorance of science. Accusing someone of faking there results is the worst insult that you can issue - unless you back it up with lots of evidence.

So to this bit of nastiness
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Somethng truly nasty from you:
You are accusing the authors of faking their paper: Magnetic Moments of the Proton and the Neutron.
Click to expand...

You go truly vicious and accuse Yukawa of faking his paper.

pedrone said:
This is your opinion.
If the neutron experimental result should be other requiring other correction, of course they will find a way to get other multiplicity of vertex corrections
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this gibberish?
The vertex correction comes from the theory (specifically the Feynman diagrans). They have nothing to do with the experiments.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Missed out:
So let us say that since 1994 no one has bothered to measure the bremsstrahlung spectrum in the free neutron decay.
What this says about the bremsstrahlung spectrum is that it has not been measured and that is all.
It should exist since it happens every time that electrons are decelerated. But it may just not be measurable.

So what is your point, pedrone?
Click to expand...

To show us that he has never studied physics and has no qualifications? He's doing a great job.
 
Giordano said:
I've been lurking at JREF Forum for a while, and it appears that there are periodic appearances of individuals whose main goal is to smirk at others. Some come without even the slightest understanding of the field. Pedrone appears to have some of the vocabulary down, but nuclear physics is not my field. Just curious: do the experts in this thread think Pedrone has an undergraduate's knowledge of the topic, but with a bizarre slant on it, or do they think his physics training is from Google?
Click to expand...

My take as a physics professor: I think he's just making **** up.
 
pedrone said:
:(
I suppose I'm not discussing with idiots

Besides, as English is your first language, it's easier to you to understand what I write (because as it is your first language, you have the duty to know the several different applications of a word in differente situations).
And since we're not speaking about love, but about bodies gyrating with unbalanced masses, then there is no need to be a genius to realize what I'm speaking of.

Unlike, to me is not so easy, because the Google translator do not tell me in what situations a word must be used.
Click to expand...

You seemed to have been doing a much better job at the beginning of the thread. Now, I think you are purposely falling onto the "language barrier" excuse.

If you are purely using Google translator (which I doubt, because most of what you say is sort of coherent) your sentence structure would be a hundred million times worse. (Which is quite bad! lol.)

Oh, and it is not up to us to "interpret" what you mean. You are the one that took it upon yourself to approach a skeptics forum. In English. With a rather difficult subject.

If you're intention is to use the English language as much as possible by visiting English-speaking forums, how about engaging in less technical threads? Something as complicated and convoluted as....ohhhh...I dunno....NUCLEAR PHYSICS...and how wrong it is....should be entirely reserved to your own native tongue. I would suggest you learn the language first, become 100% fluent (or as close to it as possible) before creating such a thread as this.

I mean, come into English-speaking threads! You are more than welcome to come in here and learn! Absolutely you are! There are many fine people out there in the world of the internets who would be more than willing to oblige in helping you understand English better, or will be more patient when they figure out you are trying to learn.

I mostly had a problem with your pure arrogance, coming in here, demanding we find a "real" nuclear physicist as you cannot be bothered by speaking with a bunch of laymen.

As I said before, you should just probably bow out of this thread completely. Don't even look back. Just get out of this thread without saying another word, and begin engaging in less technical discussions. Or start all over with a completely different thread that is much narrowed down IRT nuclear physics.
 
Nihilianth said:
I mostly had a problem with your pure arrogance, coming in here, demanding we find a "real" nuclear physicist as you cannot be bothered by speaking with a bunch of laymen.
Click to expand...

Does he realize just how many real physicists he has been talking to here?
 
pedrone said:
Nihilianth,
when I want to call the attention of somebody to a link, I dont hide the link.
Unlike, I put it in evidence.
After all, as the link reinforces my argument, why a hell would I hide it, with a small word as "Err..." ?
Click to expand...

It was underlined. He was just being a smart-ass by using the word "Errr."

Anytime a word or phrase is underlined, it is automatically assumed it is a link. The purpose of the underline IS to call attention to the link.

I see you still insist on improperly underlining things for emphasis. Italics is the most proper way of emphasizing something. Bold is acceptable in the informal setting of a forum, especially if you want to call attention to a particular word or phrase even more strongly than italics.

Because you still insist on using the underline function, I assume you still do not understand the error of doing such a thing. I do understand why you think the link associated with "Errrr..." was "hidden," because you seem to not understand that the underline is automatically assumed to be a link.

For instance: I had explained this in a previous post. You underlined the phrase "Your calculations are wrong." (paraphrased.)

When I saw that you had written that phrase with the underline function, my immediate reaction was: "Oh! Cool! A source!" I used my mouse pointer to click on the underlined phrase. To my infuriating disappointment, it was just underlined text with no hyperlink anywhere. My curser turned into the typical vertical text line thing.

Immediately afterwards, a few things happened in my mind. First, as I mentioned, I was immediately disappointed. Literally immediately after that, I realized that you, yet again, had no source to back up your claim that someone's "calculation was wrong." And finally, any credibility you had in my mind nearly all but disappeared.

So please. Abide by the forum rules that was already pointed out by a moderator. Do not place text that is distracting. Underlining text is severely distracting if it does not contain a hyperlink.

Another thing: The forum has a specific function that allows you to place a link on any portion of highlighted text you choose. Instead of post a really long link like this:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=384aef4afa8e1652

You can post the exact same link like so.

Or like so

Or like so
 
pedrone said:
Nihilianth

I suspect that some people here say foolishes purposely, so that to irritate their opposers.

By this way the opposer gets angry, he calls the other "idiot", and then he is banned.

What do you think ?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what the question was, but I shall try my best.

First, "Foolishes" is not a word. "Foolish" is a word. "Foolishness" is a word. But not "Foolishes."

I will rephrase your question to how it seems to come out:

"I suspect that some people here say foolish things on purpose, in order to irritate their opponents.

In this way, the opponent gets angry enough to call other people "idiots," then gets banned.
Click to expand...

What do I think of it?

Well, I think first of all, you should probably take a deep breath and step back a moment before responding. (Kind of hypocritical of me to say this, because I, too, end up throwing about personal insults on occasion. I am, after all, only human. :o )

I try not to just come out and call someone else an "idiot." That is an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy.

Sometimes you can call someone a liar, but you must show where and in what manner they have lied. This is a perfectly acceptable tactic to use, in order to call into question a person's integrity, trustworthiness, and credibility.

In conclusion: I do not at all mind helping you cope with dealing with the English language. It is the most difficult and convoluted friggin language on the planet. The damned thing makes very little sense about 90% of the time, and the rules constantly contradicts themselves.

Hopefully, you have learned about the word "foolish." Look it up, and practice using it. You have learned something new, which is the ultimate goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom