why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[pedrone]

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."

Oh ! God ! I go to die to laugh

 

[Reality Check]

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

You are still displaying your ignorance.

Nucleons within the nuclei are not, in general, concentrated at one point.
​

It is this that allows nuclei to have electric quadrupole moments!

Electric Quadrupole Moments of Nuclei

Thus ¹⁷O has an electric quadrupole moment because it has an unpaired nucleon and so its charge distribution is not spherical.

 

[pedrone]

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.

"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect.

 

[dafydd]

Perhaps pedrone would like to show us just how ignorant we all are by stating his superior credentials and telling us where he studied.

 

[Reality Check]

"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect.

The Quantum Pontiff points out several defects in the paper.
Gravitomagnetic London Moment?

Of course you can color me skeptical. As Chad Orzel points out, the signal they are talking about is only about 3 times as strong as their noise. Now when you look at one of their runs, i.e. figure 4 of gr-qc/0603033, the peaks look pretty good, no? Well figure 4b is a little strange: the gravitomagnetic effect appears to occur before the acceleration. Okay a bit strange, but a single run proves nothing, right? Okay, what about figure 5? Ignore the temperature dependence now, but would you have picked out the peaks that they picked out? Okay so these things make me a little uneasy. Okay, so well certainly they did a lot of runs and tried to get some statistics on the effect. Indeed, they did something like this. This is figure 6. And this is what makes the paper frustrating: “Many measurements were conducted over a period from June to November 2005 to show the reproducibility of the results. Fig. 6 summarizes nearly 200 peaks of in-ring and above-ring tangential accelerations measured by the sensor and angular acceleration applied to the superconductors as identified e.g. in Fig 4 with both electric and air motor.” Why is this frustrating? Well because I have no clue how they analyzed their runs and obtained the tangential accelerations. Were the peaks extacted by hand? (And what is the angular acceleration? Is it the average acceleration?) Argh, I can’t tell from the paper.

The real question is: The paper was published pre-print was loaded in 2006. Where is the results from the experimental runs from 2006 to 2011?

The comments say that the paper was submitted to Physica C. But there is no sign that the paper was published. The citations are conference proceddings and pre-prints. The lead author only mentions the effect in conferences. Could this paper have died a death?

 

[Reality Check]

Oh ! God ! I go to die to laugh

Oh ! God ! I go to die to laugh at your inability to read a news article (but I realize that your poor English skills give you an excuse)

 

[Nihilianth]

Perhaps pedrone would like to show us just how ignorant we all are by stating his superior credentials and telling us where he studied.

He doesn't have to. He's got COLORS!!1 and BOLD!! and SMILIES!!! on his side!!!11111inoneoneone1!!!eleventy!

 

[tusenfem]

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...

Oh my god, that junk science! He gave a presentation here at my insitute and could not convince anyone that what he had measured was actually real. And since 2006 we have heard nothing about it anymore .... figures!

 

[edd]

hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect. [/COLOR]

This.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

No. The magnetic moment is related to the angular momentum (orbital and spin) of moving charges. Identical particles with the same j, l and s (that is total angular momentum, orbital angular momentum and spin) but opposite directions of motion produce equal and opposite magnetic dipole moments, so that the net dipole moment is 0. This is precisely why pairing produces even-even nuclei who's ground state has zero magnetic dipole 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".

Complete nonsense. 17^O has four pairs of protons producing 0 MDM and 4 pairs of neutrons doing the same. Thus there is one unpaired neutron left to produce a net MDM.

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

Know, from my 'assumption' ¹⁷O must have a MDP.

But ¹⁷O has magnetic moment

In exact agreement with what I have been explaining.

 

[dafydd]

He doesn't have to. He's got COLORS!!1 and BOLD!! and SMILIES!!! on his side!!!11111inoneoneone1!!!eleventy!

Who needs studying and qualifications when you have all that? Is there a Nobel prize for psychedelic formatting?

 

[dafydd]

I suppose now dafydd will cry out:

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

Yea,who needs them?

 

[pedrone]

You are still displaying your ignorance.

Nucleons within the nuclei are not, in general, concentrated at one point.
​

It is this that allows nuclei to have electric quadrupole moments!

Electric Quadrupole Moments of Nuclei

Thus ¹⁷O has an electric quadrupole moment because it has an unpaired nucleon and so its charge distribution is not spherical.

So, actually you do not know what electric quadrupole moment is

 

[pedrone]

Thus ¹⁷O has an electric quadrupole moment because it has an unpaired nucleon and so its charge distribution is not spherical.

Thel let's analyse your argument


1)

a) ¹⁸O has not electric quadrupole moment (EQM)

b) Excited¹⁸O has electric quadrupole moment

As the neutron has no charge, so explain why:

1- two neutrons in the ¹⁸O do not yield the EQM

2- two neutrons in the excited ¹⁸O do yield the EQM

WHY ???


2) ¹⁷O has one unpaired neutron. But its EQM is smaller thant the EQM of the excited ¹⁸O, which has two paired neutrons

WHY ???

 

[dafydd]

Thel let's analyse your argument


1)

a) ¹⁸O has not electric quadrupole moment (EQM)

b) Excited¹⁸O has electric quadrupole moment

As the neutron has no charge, so explain why:

1- two neutrons in the ¹⁸O do not yield the EQM

2- two neutrons in the excited ¹⁸O do yield the EQM

WHY ???


2) ¹⁷O has one unpaired neutron. But its EQM is smaller thant the EQM of the excited ¹⁸O, which has two paired neutrons

WHY ???

You'll find the answer in QM.

 

[pedrone]

The real question is: The paper was published pre-print was loaded in 2006. Where is the results from the experimental runs from 2006 to 2011?

Dont be so ingenuous.

As the experiment disproves the relativity, no academic physicist in the world want to repeat it.
No university in the world want to repeat any experiment that denies the current theories

 

[Tubbythin]

Thel let's analyse your argument


1)

a) ¹⁸O has not electric quadrupole moment (EQM)

Are you sure about this? I think it is generally pretty difficult to measure ground state EQMs. Do you have a reference which says the EQM is actually identically 0?

 

[Belz...]

You'll find the answer in QM.

No he won't because he won't look.

 

[edd]

Dont be so ingenuous.

As the experiment disproves the relativity, no academic physicist in the world want to repeat it.
No university in the world want to repeat any experiment that denies the current theories

Are you saying they wouldn't want to repeat it for fear it would confirm GR is invalid, or that they wouldn't want to repeat it for fear that an interesting and exciting result turns out to be incorrect? Either way, you are just flat wrong.

I think the interest generated by certain recent weak lensing results that disagreed with GR demonstrate that - there was a lot of interest and careful examination before the actual explanations were found.

 

[pedrone]

Are you saying they wouldn't want to repeat it for fear it would confirm GR is invalid, or that they wouldn't want to repeat it for fear that an interesting and exciting result turns out to be incorrect? Either way, you are just flat wrong.

I think the interest generated by certain recent weak lensing results that disagreed with GR demonstrate that - there was a lot of interest and careful examination before the actual explanations were found.

Yes, I do.
It's not the first time the scientific community refuses to repeat some experiments, because they defy the current theories:

In the beginning of 2001 Guglinski discovered the existence of Borghi’s experiment. In the same year he suited in law two universities of Brazil, trying to oblige them to repeat the Conte-Pieralice experiment in their laboratories. The Brazilian Constitution prescribes that the universities must support any experimental research that imply in the interest of the science’s development, and so he used such argument to support his request. Unfortunatelly the judge decided that there is no judicial support that obliges an university to perform any experiment. That was not true, because the support was given by the Brazilian Constitution. But it is known that there is a conspiracy against the prevalence of the scientific method when it defies the current theories.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=br&source=www.google.com.br


Conte-Pieralice experiment is a new version of Don Borghi experiment.

Borghi's experiemnt was published in 1993:
C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.