why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[ArmillarySphere]

Well, I don't remember much of my subatomic physics lessons (they're about 15 years in the past now), but thanks to you guys, now I know a little more. So your time wasn't entirely wasted

Seems to me that to apply the principle of least action to a QM system, you'd need to look at the total energy post-decay (i.e. the sum of the bound-state energy for the daughter nucleus and the emitted particle), and pick the one with the lowest value. More energy difference compared to the bound-state energy would give us more KE to plug into half-life calculations. I don't know if what conservation laws are at play in this - for us poor lurkers, could someone explain why deuteron decay is disadvantaged?

Once we've picked a resulting state, you would get the resulting half-life from something like Geiger-Nuttall's law:

[latex]\lambda=\frac{\ln 2}{t_{1/2}} = a_1e^{-a_2\frac{Z}{\sqrt{E}}}[/latex]

That's as far as wiki can take me - I take it modern nuclear theories will give some predictions about a₁ and a₂.

 

[pedrone]

I am right - Quantum Ring Theory is a crackpots idea, not a scientific theory.

Better than to reject an experimental result as obtained by Don Borghi.
At least Quantum Ring Theory is according to the scientific method.

The stupidity in what you attribute to this idea is clear:

• "electron moves with helical trajectory"
  Electrons move with any trajectory that they like according to the external conditions (lines, circles and even helixes)!
• "In this model the electron turns about the proton with 92% of light speed".
  That is a classical picture which means that the electron gives off radiation and crashes into the proton. No sign of that radiation.
• the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core

And again... Reality Check is discussing about a book which he has never read before...

 

[Reality Check]

Better And again... Reality Check is discussing about a book which he has never read before...

I am comenting on what you attribute to the book. If you are lying about the books contents than tell us.
Otherwise (the quotes are what you state about the book):

1. "electron moves with helical trajectory"
   Electrons move with any trajectory that they like according to the external conditions (lines, circles and even helixes)!
2. "In this model the electron turns about the proton with 92% of light speed".
   That is a classical picture which means that the electron gives off radiation and crashes into the proton. No sign of that radiation.
3. the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core
   This rules out a positive proton and negative selectron orbiting iit.

Also (from memory so I may be wrong) scattering experiments show three (not 2) scattering centers in neutrons.

 

[Calrid]

Here's an article about special special relativity that comes from a Nobel prize winner, it probably has better legs on it.

Sending Einstein into a spin

It's not every day that respectable scientists challenge Einstein. But that's what Nobel prizewinner Sheldon Glashow and his colleague Andrew Cohen, both of Boston University in Massachusetts, have dared to do. They believe it is time to rewrite the rules of Einstein's special theory of relativity, our best description of the nature of space and time for over a century.

They call their theory very special relativity, or VSR. If Glashow and Cohen are right, it could tell us something profound about the fabric of the universe. It could solve a troubling mystery in particle physics. And it might get us a little closer to solving the problem at the top of most theorists' wish-lists: how to find a theory of everything.

The crucial evidence supporting Glashow and Cohen's theory may be right in front of your nose. Or, more accurately, passing right through it. For as you read this sentence, trillions of tiny particles called neutrinos are sailing through your body, imperceptible and undisturbed by the atoms that give you substance. Experiments conducted throughout the past decade have shown that neutrinos have mass, even though our best theory of matter claims that they ought to be massless. While formulating their new theory, Glashow and Cohen realised that a neutrino's mass may actually be a clue to an irregularity in space-time itself.

Subscription only but it's probably a safer bet.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325871.400-sending-einstein-into-a-spin.html

 

[Reality Check]

Citation that deuteron emissions are favored over alpha emissions

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

You are still wong. I have not lied to you.
And you have lied - you must have read my post to quote me !
Here is the what the principle of least action is defined as

In physics, the principle of least action – or, more accurately, the principle of stationary action – is a variational principle that, when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the equations of motion for that system. The principle led to the development of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics.

This has nothing to do whatever your 'principle of least action' is.

This is why Alpha decay happens and not deuteron decay

Alpha decay is by far the most common form of cluster decay where the parent atom ejects a defined daughter collection of nucleons, leaving another defined product behind (in nuclear fission, a number of different pairs of daughters of approximately equal size are formed). Alpha decay is the most likely cluster decay because of the combined extremely high binding energy and relatively small mass of the helium-4 product nucleus (the alpha particle).

You cite Eisberg and Resnick (wrongly: Where are the deuteron's, pedrone?) as a support for a fantasy of yours.

You then say that they are wrong when they state the obvious (alpha emission is energetically favored over 2 deuteron emissions).

Citation that deuteron emissions are favored over alpha emissions?

 

[Reality Check]

Of course not.
You use to discuss about books which you never has read.

Then I have a suggestion to you.
Scan the book Alice in the Wonderland, which of course you have, and post it here

And one more time. We are not discussing the Eisberg and Resnick book. So I do not have to read it.
The only case that I would need to to read it is if you are lying about its contents. But then Tubbythin has a copy to keep you honest.

What you are lying about is the Eisberg and Resnick book supporting your statement that nucleons pair up into deuterons. You quoted them and thet quotation did not support you: Where are the deuterons, pedrone?

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know if what conservation laws are at play in this - for us poor lurkers, could someone explain why deuteron decay is disadvantaged?

As I understand it it is the large binding energy of helium-4 (an alpha particle) compared to the binding energy of 2 deuterons. They have the same mass but

• 28,300.7 keV fro helium-4
• 2,224.52keV for 1 deuteron.

 

[Dancing David]

Radioactive decay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

That is a bad response , you said there is this 'Coulomb barrier' in radioactive decay. And not a single reference to it? So you mean an alpha particle ?

And why didn't you link to the Coulomb barrier and radioactive decay.

So you don't like quantum tunneling?

Let me ask two questions and I hope you will answer:

1. Do you beleive that the sun shinesbecause of the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei?
2. If the Coulomb force between two protons rises as the two proton approach each other , how do they ever fuse in a classical model (one without the probability distributions of the two wave forms of the protons)?

 

[Dancing David]

Tubbythin said he has the original Eisberg and Resnick book.

And he refused to scan the page in which he claimed to be a phrasis that supports his arguments.

Do you have any other reasonable explanation for his refusal ?

It means that he did not scan the book, it does not make him a liar.

 

[Dancing David]

Sure, because I dont belive that Nature violates some of her fundamental laws, as you believe to be possible according to Quantum Mechanics

And so what allows two protons to fuse and make the sun shine Pedrone? It won't work without the QM probability distributions of the protons.

You don't like quantum tunneling? Then what makes the sun shine?

 

[Dancing David]

Nuclear Physics works by the laws of ethics​

Ethics is not the word you want...

According to current Nuclear Physics, the radioactive nuclei should have to emit two deuterons 1H2. By this way it would obey to the principle of least action.

reference to this principle?

 

[RobDegraves]

You still have yet to answer my questions Pedrone. At this point it's obvious that everything you say it complete bs. Stop wasting everyone's time and find something useful to do.

 

[jhunter1163]

Address the argument, not the arguer, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Nihilianth]

You are wrong: It is shown in post 664 that you are reading a translation of an English textbook into Portuguese. That translations looks like it is missing the word "approximately" from the English text.

The error is probably located, not from the English to Portuguese text that was professionally done, but most likely from Pedrone's amateur translation from Portuguese into English.

Or it could be a combination of the two, making Pedrone's claims so far inaccurate.

Once again, Pedrone's "source" is not a reliable source. He has a Portuguese version which he is translating himself into English. Since there is a version which was originally written and published in English, THAT would be the right and proper source to use. Not one that was translated from it's original language to a new one, and translated again from the new language back INTO the original. Especially if the latter was done by an amateur layman in linguistics.

You should NEVER take such a roundabout circuitous route in using a certain source to back up your arguments with.

If Pedrone wants to continue using Resnick et. al., he needs to obtain the original English version of the book, not the bastardized translation and re-translation.

So there ya have it: A challenge to Pedrone: Find the book in English, and use that instead! It is your thread. It is your claim. And it is your source of choice. Therefore, the responsibility lies with you to use the proper source you have chosen. I am declaring your bastardized translation to be no more reliable than a paper done by a 5th grader.

 

[Nihilianth]

You still have yet to answer my questions Pedrone. At this point it's obvious that everything you say it complete bs. Stop wasting everyone's time and find something useful to do.

I rather think that people are wasting their own time.

 

[pedrone]

I am comenting on what you attribute to the book. If you are lying about the books contents than tell us.
Otherwise (the quotes are what you state about the book):

1. "In this model the electron turns about the proton with 92% of light speed".
   That is a classical picture which means that the electron gives off radiation and crashes into the proton. No sign of that radiation.

1. 
   You're wrong.
   
   It's not a classical picture:
   
   • Maxwell theory was proposed for Euclidian space, and the space about the proton is not Euclidian.
   • Maxwell theory did not consider the helical trajectory
   
   
   
   

   [*]the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core
   This rules out a positive proton and negative selectron orbiting iit.

   wow,
   this distribution of charge fits to the model n=p+s of Quantum Ring Theory !!!
   
   Indeed, let's see:
   
   1- as the proton of Quantum Ring Theory is formed by quarks, which structure is (u,d,u), and the quark d is negative, this explains the negative core of the neutron
   
   2- as the proton has positive charge, this exlains why neutron is positivelly charged middle
   
   3- as the electron turns about the proton, this explains the exterior neutron's negavite charge
   
   
   
   The experimental data also confirmed the internal charges of the neutron model n=p+s of Quantum Ring Theory, as shown in the page 108, figure 10, of the book:

 

[Daylightstar]

Well, his portuguese book does indeed read "é a mesma" meaning "is the same".

Pedrone, like Nihilianth suggested, get your english version of the book.
And learn about due diligence.

 

[Reality Check]

You're wrong.

It's not a classical picture:

• Maxwell theory was proposed for Euclidian space, and the space about the proton is not Euclidian.

• Maxwell theory did not consider the helical trajectory

What is the metric of the space around the proton?
What is the replacement for Maxwell's theory?
Why do electrons never radiate in this space/theory when they seem to be acellerated?
When do electrons radiate in this replacement for Maxwell's theory?

I do hope that it is not some crank just asserting: "the space about the proton is X and so electrons do not radiate".

wow,
this distribution of charge fits to the model n=p+s of Quantum Ring Theory !!!

Indeed, let's see:

1- as the proton of Quantum Ring Theory is formed by quarks, which structure is (u,d,u), and the quark d is negative, this explains the negative core of the neutron

2- as the proton has positive charge, this exlains why neutron is positivelly charged middle

3- as the electron turns about the proton, this explains the exterior neutron's negavite charge

Wrong: The d quark does not sit at the center of the proton. The charge distribution of the neutron is caused by the movement of the 3 quarks that comprise it.

The experimental data also confirmed the internal charges of the neutron model n=p+s of Quantum Ring Theory, as shown in the page 108, figure 10, of the book:

I see no citation to experimental data on that page. I see that you have circled a graph of "load distrinution".

 

[The Norseman]

Quantum works... by violatting some fundamental laws of Nature. Which proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong



your arguments don't defend the violation of laws by Quantum Mechanics.
That's why the most people in here hate my arguments

Ooooohhhh!

So is that what this whole thing is about? Pedrone thinks that quantum mechanics violates the laws of nature?

 

[pedrone]

And so what allows two protons to fuse and make the sun shine Pedrone? It won't work without the QM probability distributions of the protons.

You don't like quantum tunneling? Then what makes the sun shine?

There are two sort of nuclear fusion: the hot fusion, and the cold fusion.

Hot fusion occurs under very high pressure and very high temperature, as within the sun.

Cold fusion occurs by resonance, and there is need to satisfy some special conditions (that's why it does occurs within the sun).

I recomend to read:
How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Articl..._cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment