why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Nihilianth]

Yep, though it's not a "Lagrange", which might be taken in reference to a Lagrange point (or a ZZTOP song) where the combined forces of multiple sources results in no net force on the body in consideration. It's the mechanics or Lagrangian mechanics that take into consideration both conservation of momentum and energy in a combined and coordinate system independent form.



Well there are scaling differences, on cosmological scales things tend to be dominated by gravity, as the only other long range force, electromagnetism, tends to cancel itself, at those scales. The problem with "spin" is that it is not the "spin" one considers in classical motion like an orbit but quantum mechanical "spin". A quantum aspect of particles that was given the name "spin" due to is directional analogy with rotational momentum. A matter of historical nomenclature that can unfortunately be a bit confusing. Much as certain quantum mechanical aspects of quarks have been given the names of "color", "flavor" and, strange as it may seem, "strangeness". While the forces other than gravity have been combined effectively into the standard model by Quantum Field Theory we as yet don't have a quantum theory of gravity. Though this does not stop QFT and the standard model from being an integral and significant element of modern cosmology.

Thanks for taking some time out to explain things, but if we go any further, I am afraid my head would start spinning too much. I would need illustrations to see what you are talking about. I wouldn't want to see you waste too much of your life trying to teach me stuff that I would forget in about a week anyway.

Well both authors worked at US universities at the time of writing so I'd imagine their English is fairly good, whether or not it is their mother tongue. Its published by John Wiley & Sons.

So long as you are using the original text, and not translating from another language yourself, it is definitely a credible source.

Just simply showing Pedrone what I was talking about, making a point about his apparent lack of interpretation skills and why he just might be having trouble with a subject that makes very little sense to me (and therefore, is probably a bit too complex to debate about in a language that is not your own.)

And how bad it is using a text that has been translated professionally from English to Portuguese. Then taking it upon his own self to translate from Portuguese BACK into English.

There are problems associated with translating any text from one language into another. But to translate it back into it's original language again without the use of the original, there will inevitably be some loss of detail. Even worse if a layman in linguistics decides to take it upon himself to do his own translation. Kind of amazes me how, earlier Pedrone obviously didn't think that laymen are credible enough to talk about nuclear physics. Why should we think he is credible enough, as a layman in linguistics, to interpret a book that was originally written in English, expertly translated into Portuguese by experts: Then translating it BACK into English himself? Especially if he only has the Portuguese version, and not the original English version as written by Einsberg and Resnick themselves?

That's what I don't understand. I would challenge Pedrone to go back to all of his posts, and post (in proper

tags!!) the ORIGINAL English version. Not the crap version he did himself.

Another thing I was wondering: Pedrone was typing out from a book on here, doing the best he could in translating it. Isn't it a forum violation to NOT place proper

tags around a piece you are directly quoting? Or at least, think that you are directly quoting? Because quite honestly, when I glance at his long technical posts (of which I never read a single word of,) I imagine all that to be his own work. That is obviously plagiarism.

 

[Emet]

Another thing I was wondering: Pedrone was typing out from a book on here, doing the best he could in translating it. Isn't it a forum violation to NOT place proper [quote] tags around a piece you are directly quoting? Or at least, think that you are directly quoting? Because quite honestly, when I glance at his long technical posts (of which I never read a single word of,) I imagine all that to be his own work. That is obviously plagiarism.

If you think a post is in violation of the MA, you can report it.

 

[Nihilianth]

Another thing I was wondering: Pedrone was typing out from a book on here, doing the best he could in translating it. Isn't it a forum violation to NOT place proper [noparse]

If you think a post is in violation of the MA, you can report it.

Heh, true. But I honestly don't feel like unblocking him, and going through all of his long posts just to report them. I would probably rather bring this issue to the attention of someone who knows JREF policy and plagiarism rules better than I.

 

[Tubbythin]

Another thing I was wondering: Pedrone was typing out from a book on here, doing the best he could in translating it. Isn't it a forum violation to NOT place proper quote tags around a piece you are directly quoting? Or at least, think that you are directly quoting? Because quite honestly, when I glance at his long technical posts (of which I never read a single word of,) I imagine all that to be his own work. That is obviously plagiarism.

I'm not sure how much he has directly quoted. Most of what he has said has been his own words and then whenever I've told him he's wrong he says that effectively I'm accusing Eisberg and Resnick of lying (or Mayer and Jensen).

ETA: if you write "

" in a post and somebody quotes that it makes a mess of formatting.

 

[Nihilianth]

I'm not sure how much he has directly quoted. Most of what he has said has been his own words and then whenever I've told him he's wrong he says that effectively I'm accusing Eisberg and Resnick of lying (or Mayer and Jensen).

ETA: if you write "

" in a post and somebody quotes that it makes a mess of formatting.

haha, I was wondering why my previous post turned out the way it did!

Anyway, that is precisely why I was confused about Pedrone's posts. He says he is getting his material from a book in Portuguese, and seemingly posting it in his own words. Then turns around and accuses people of "lying."

That is why I am not reporting any of his posts, after emet suggested I should. Because I dunno what to make of his unconventional (and downright fallacious) debate tactics. He apparently lacks some basic computer skills and formatting skills as well. I am not fully certain that he understands what tags are, and how to go about using them in terms of computer language codes. In this case, the PHP system they are using.

 

[Tubbythin]

ETA: A bit of English for you. If a word is in quotation marks, e.g. "paired", then the word is being used in a looser context then it is usually used. Paired has the context that 2 things are close together. "Paired" has a looser context, i.e. that the objects are connected in some way but need not be physically close together.

I'm never too sure about this. When I write things for some serious purpose I tend to prefer to use single quotes to denote a word being used in a looser than normal context and double quotes to denote the name I will subsequently use for a phenomenon I am currently describing. I have no idea whether this is good, bad or indifferent English and I don't seem to stick to it when I'm writing for non-formal purposes.

 

[Emet]

That is why I am not reporting any of his posts, after emet suggested I should. Because I dunno what to make of his unconventional (and downright fallacious) debate tactics. He apparently lacks some basic computer skills and formatting skills as well. I am not fully certain that he understands what tags are, and how to go about using them in terms of computer language codes. In this case, the PHP system they are using.

I made no such suggestion. Go back and re-read my post.

 

[pedrone]

You are wrong:

Quote:
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

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

But such inner bremsstrahlung is not produced by the attraction proton-electron.

Such bremsstrahlung is produced by the attraction between the nucleus S35 and the electron.

In the decay of free neutron the bremsstrahlung ought to be experimentally observed (according to Quantum Mechanics), but it was not observed.

Therefore, something very strange occurs in the decay of a free neutron, and Quantum Mechanics cannot explain it.

 

[Tubbythin]

But such inner bremsstrahlung is not produced by the attraction proton-electron.

Such bremsstrahlung is produced by the attraction between the nucleus S35 and the electron.

In the decay of free neutron the bremsstrahlung ought to be experimentally observed (according to Quantum Mechanics), but it was not observed.

Therefore, something very strange occurs in the decay of a free neutron, and Quantum Mechanics cannot explain it.

Except that it was observed in the very paper you linked to. Or at least I think that is what they're claiming based on the abstract.

 

[pedrone]

Quote:
Although neutrons have null electric charge, however they have magnetic moment.
So, with the spinning of the nucleus 18O, such magnetic moment of the two neutrons, concentrated in one point of the nucleus, will produce a big nuclear magnetic moment of 18O, since the two neutrons are turning about the center of the nucleus.
But they're not, in general, concentrated at one point.

If they are not concentrated in one point, the nuclei cannot have nuclear magnetic moments and electric quadrupole moment.

Then you have to writte a letter to the Nobel Committe, and tell them to cancell the prize they confered to Aagle Bohr.

Tell them that nuclear magnetic moments and electric quadrupole moments actualy do not exist, and Aagle Bohr nuclear model is a fancy

 

[Tubbythin]

If they are not concentrated in one point, the nuclei cannot have nuclear magnetic moments and electric quadrupole moment.

Then you have to writte a letter to the Nobel Committe, and tell them to cancell the prize they confered to Aagle Bohr.

Tell them that nuclear magnetic moments and electric quadrupole moments actualy do not exist, and Aagle Bohr nuclear model is a fancy

I wasn't aware that ¹⁸O had a magnetic dipole moment. And it certainly doesn't stop them having electric quadrupole moments. I haven't read Aage Bohr claim such a thing.

ETA: At least I don't think the ground state of ¹⁸O should have a magnetic dipole moment.

 

[Reality Check]

But such inner bremsstrahlung is not produced by the attraction proton-electron.

Such bremsstrahlung is produced by the attraction between the nucleus S35 and the electron.

Wrong: The inner bremsstrahlung happens during the radiative decay of the neutron. That is whay it is called inner and why that branch of the decay is called radiative (it emits a photon).

In the decay of free neutron the bremsstrahlung ought to be experimentally observed (according to Quantum Mechanics), but it was not observed.

Where is your citation to the experiment where the bremsstrahlung was not observed.

Therefore, something very strange occurs in the decay of a free neutron, and Quantum Mechanics cannot explain it.

Therefore, you are very ignorant because the bremsstrahlung is an electromagnetic phenomena.

 

[pedrone]

I wasn't aware that ¹⁸O had a magnetic dipole moment. And it certainly doesn't stop them having electric quadrupole moments. I haven't read Aage Bohr claim such a thing.

ETA: At least I don't think the ground state of ¹⁸O should have a magnetic dipole moment.

¹⁸O indeed has not magnetic moment, but the reason is because the two neutrons take opposite places with regard to the center of nucleus.

Unlike, from your consideration (that there are two paired neutron-neutron in the ¹⁸O), it would ought to have magnetic moment.


Besides, from your assumption ¹⁷O also cannot have magnetic moment, since you claim about the nucleons within the nuclei: "they're not, in general, concentrated at one point".

From your assumption, ¹⁷O also cannot have magnetic moment.

But ¹⁷O has magnetic moment

 

[pedrone]

Enough to understand real physics. How's the Nobel prize coming along?

Enough to understand the meaning of this experiment?

Towards a new test of general relativity?
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html

23 March 2006
Scientists funded by the European Space Agency believe they may have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity.

Humm.... gravity with the magnitude of the magnetism ?

Hummmm... Hasta la vista, General Relativity...

 

[pedrone]

Enough to understand real physics. How's the Nobel prize coming along?

I suppose now dafydd will cry out:

Experiments !!!! What are your credentials ????

 

[Reality Check]

¹⁸O indeed has not magnetic moment, but the reason is because the two neutrons take opposite places with regard to the center of nucleus.

You are continuing with your delusion that a nucleus is a classical system and your simple cartoon picture of nucleons stuck on an octogon.

¹⁸O has no magnetic moment because it has no net spin. It has no net spin because the neutrons have opposite spin. QM spins are additive - you just add them up. Add up 2 opposite spins and you get zero spin and so zero magnetic moment. Their position does not matter.

[Besides, from your assumption ¹⁷O also cannot have magnetic moment, since you claim about the nucleons within the nuclei: "they're not, in general, concentrated at one point".

And one more time with your delusion that QM magically does not apply to nuclei !
You do not need to make you ignorance so obvious to the world. Try reading a QM textbook for once and note that QM spins are additive.
Or even wikipedia: Nuclear Magnetic Moment

magnetic moment of a nucleon of total angular momentum j, orbital angular momentum l and spin s
...

Note the absence of any postion information.
There are only the QM numbers j, l and s:

[quote=pedrone;7081895]But ¹⁷O has magnetic moment
[/quote]
But ¹⁷O has a magnetic moment because the unpaired nucleon has spin .

 

[Reality Check]

Enough to understand the meaning of this experiment?

Towards a new test of general relativity?
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html

Humm.... gravity with the magnitude of the magnetism ?

Hummmm... Hasta la vista, General Relativity...

Hmmmm... pedrone's ignorance yet again.


The experiment has nothing to do with magnetism. The press article used magnetism as an analogy: "Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field."

Any one who knows about sceince knows that General Relativity is an approximation. It does not include quantum effects that are expected to come into play at small scales. So scientists are looking for a quantum gravity theory.

 

[pedrone]

But ¹⁷O has a magnetic moment because the unpaired nucleon has spin .

But according to your assumption ¹⁷O cannot have electric quadrupole moment, since you claim about nucleons within the nuclei: "they're not, in general, concentrated at one point".


But ¹⁷O has an electric quadrupole moment

 

[Belz...]

your ignorance is terrible.

 

[edd]

Beyond what RC says, this was an experiment in 2006. I have worked in a department riddled with people studying alternatives to GR since around then and this experiment has barely come up. I'm not sure of the details, but people aren't taking this as a constraint on gravity as far as I'm aware.

I suspect it's been written off as experimental error. Even the paper referred to first in the article is basically asking for independent confirmation. Anyone know better what the situation is? It's not looking like the press release holds up now.