why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[pedrone]

The problem is that you cannot read !
There are 2 values in this 1998 table: +0.00286(2) and 0.0028(2).

Neither of these values are Guglinski's!

Wow !!!
Reality Check
you kill me to laugh !!!!!!

Please stop to make laugh, otherwise I'll die laughing !!!


Stone's table is given in barns

Electric Quadrupole Moments (Q). These are listed in units of barns (1 b = 10^-28 m²):
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf


Let see how many is 0,0028 barns (quoted in the Stone table) in the unity used by Guglinski:

0,0028 barns = 0,0028 x 10^-28 m² = 2,8 x 10^-31 m² (just near to 2,7 x 10^-31 m² got by Guglinski)



Reality Check ,now you have surpassed yourself !!!!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 6. Do not use those colors and large fonts again. Thank you.

 

[pedrone]

Have you actually looked at the Eisberg and Resnick book closely?
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles was published in January 1985. Eisberg and Resnick's value is outdated.

Guglinski's book was published in 2006 (21 years after Eisberg and Resnick). He should be using the 2006 value of the deuteron electric dipole moment.

No, the value used by Eisberg and Resnick is not outdated.

Outdated is your knowledge in unities used in Physics.

Try to convert this: 1cm = ........ 1m

 

[pedrone]

No, they have approximately the same distribution. If you actually read what Eisberg and Resnick wrote, you would find that they were talking about the density profile: the way the density of nucleons changes with radial distance from the centre of the nucleus. This is a one dimensional concept. Pairing of nuclei into deuterons is a four dimensional concept.

Tubbythin,
STOP LYING

Scan your book, and post the page in here, in order everybody may see the word "approximately" in their book.

 

[RobDegraves]

Pedrone

STOP LYING

Answer my questions.

 

[Tubbythin]

Tubbythin,
STOP LYING

I'm not lying.

Scan your book, and post the page in here, in order everybody may see the word "approximately" in their book.

No. I far better things to do with my life than waste time reinstalling my printer for the sole purpose of showing up a rude, uncivil crackpot who repeatedly accuses me of lying whilst offering 0 supporting evidence.

 

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone
The scientific community thinks wrongly that the interaction by gravitons is 10⁴⁰ times weaker than electromagnetism.

The scientific community does not think this at all.
The scientific community knows that the coupling constants of the gravitational forces and electromagnetic forces differ by a factor of 10^-39.
[/B].

Saying the same thing with different words.


An interesting discussion:


Pedrone: a cat is not a dog

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. The correct is: a dog is not a cat


Pedrone: 2+2 = 4

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. Because 2+2 = 5-1


Pedrone: the sky is blue

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. Sky is not red, not yellow, not green...


Pedrone: the stars are brigth

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. The stars emit light


and so on...

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped insane formatted stuff......

Stone's table is given in barns
Electric Quadrupole Moments (Q). These are listed in units of barns (1 b = 10^-28 m²):
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf

Yes: Stone's table is given in barns

-28 [/sup]m² = 2,8 x 10^-31 m² (just near to 2,7 x 10^-31 m² got by Guglinski)

Thank you for confirming that Guglinski got the wrong value, pedrone !
2,8 x 10^-31 m² is not equal to 2,7 x 10^-31 m²

Guglinski gets it even more wrong when we look at the current value rather than wherever Guglinski got his value
Deutrium

The measured electric quadrupole of the deuterium is 0.2859 e·fm².

or doing the silly move of rounding to 1 decimal place like Guglinski, this is 2.9 x 10^-31 m²

 

[Reality Check]

No, the value used by Eisberg and Resnick is not outdated.
...snipped more dumb formatting...

That is silly, pedrone: the value used by Eisberg and Resnick is outdated for the simple reason that their book was published in 1985.

Only a truly ignorant person would think that the value has not been improved on since then.

Only an idiot would state that Eisberg and Resnick's value was 2.7 * 10^-31 m² and then think that it was up to date when the current value is 2.859 * 10^-31 m².
Notice the difference ?

 

[Reality Check]

Saying the same thing with different words.

No they are not the same thing.
The coupling constants are not measures of relative strengths of forces in every physical situation.
They are measures of the theoretical strength of a single force considered by itself. The coupling constant for the strong force is even energy dependent (not a constant!). It just happens that it is approximately 1 for reasonable energies.

The coupling constants are conventionally used to indicate the relative strengths of the forces. That is obviously not true for specific situations. Foe example the strong force is short range. It is essentially zero outside the nucleus. So outside of the nucleus gravitational and electromagnetic forces are much stringer than the strong force.

 

[Dancing David]

Pedrone,

So regardless of gravity or pressure the charge on two protons, regardless of being in deuterons, will increase the repulsion the closer that they get, the harder that gravity or whatever pushes them close together, the stronger the repulsion between them will be, reaching a limit of infinity as they almost make contact.

1. Do you know what Coulomb's Law is?
2. What allows for the fusion of the deuterons to make a helium atom?

Iteration6

 

[dafydd]

Saying the same thing with different words.


An interesting discussion:


Pedrone: a cat is not a dog

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. The correct is: a dog is not a cat


Pedrone: 2+2 = 4

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. Because 2+2 = 5-1


Pedrone: the sky is blue

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. Sky is not red, not yellow, not green...


Pedrone: the stars are brigth

Reality Check: absolutelly wrong. The stars emit light


and so on...

Are you feeling alright?

 

[pedrone]

Yes: Stone's table is given in barns


Thank you for confirming that Guglinski got the wrong value, pedrone !
2,8 x 10^-31 m² is not equal to 2,7 x 10^-31 m²

Dont be so silly

A theoretical value is always approximatelly the value of the experimental data

 

[Reality Check]

Dont be so silly

A theoretical value is always approximatelly the value of the experimental data

Dont be so silly.
A value such as 2,8 x 10-31 m² is never equal to 2,7 x 10-31 m²
A theoretical value can be within the uncertainteis of an experimental value.
The fact that Guglinski does not state the uncertainties in the experimental value or work out the uncertainties in the theoretical value points out how scientifically incompetent he is.

Deutrium

The measured electric quadrupole of the deuterium is 0.2859 e·fm².

This implies an uncertainty of 0.0001 e·fm².

The 1998 data you cite has the uncertainties in the 2 experimental values
+0.00286(2) and 0.0028(2) barns, i.e. +/1 0.000002 and 0.0002 barns respectively.

 

[dafydd]

Wow !!!
Reality Check
you kill me to laugh !!!!!!

Please stop to make laugh, otherwise I'll die laughing !!!


Stone's table is given in barns

Electric Quadrupole Moments (Q). These are listed in units of barns (1 b = 10^-28 m²):
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf


Let see how many is 0,0028 barns (quoted in the Stone table) in the unity used by Guglinski:

0,0028 barns = 0,0028 x 10^-28 m² = 2,8 x 10^-31 m² (just near to 2,7 x 10^-31 m² got by Guglinski)



Reality Check ,now you have surpassed yourself !!!!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 6. Do not use those colors and large fonts again. Thank you.

Have you ever thought of taking up physics as a hobby? The large fonts don't do a thing for us by the way.

 

[Tubbythin]

Pedrone,

So regardless of gravity or pressure the charge on two protons, regardless of being in deuterons, will increase the repulsion the closer that they get, the harder that gravity or whatever pushes them close together, the stronger the repulsion between them will be, reaching a limit of infinity as they almost make contact.

Actually, that's not true. The repulsive force gets stronger and stronger up to the point that the wavefunctions start to overlap considerably. After that the idea that the deuterons are charged point particles ceases to be valid. Coulomb's law ceases to be appropriate.

 

[Cuddles]

Threads merged. Apologies for any confusion from mixing up of posts.

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

 

[Dancing David]

Actually, that's not true. The repulsive force gets stronger and stronger up to the point that the wavefunctions start to overlap considerably. After that the idea that the deuterons are charged point particles ceases to be valid. Coulomb's law ceases to be appropriate.

fair enough, I was pointing back to a prior point that the wave functions of nuleons are impossible by Pedrone and that they violate the laws of physics.

My point being that it is the nature of QM that allows for fusion to happen.

Such as this here:

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

In another post in this thread twist Pedrone says that QM violates the laws of physics in radioactive decay and says that QM is wrong.

So fusion is a good of why QM works when classical models do not. Unfortunately I think a crucial post got edited.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Pedrone's post would have alpha decay occurring as two separate emissions of deuterons. As pointed out by Reality Check, the low binding energy of deuterium would make this an endothermic process, and thus prohibited.

I suppose emission could happen if you put the nucleus in an excitation state, but you need a fair amount of energy to make that possible. Since normal alpha decay is always going to have more available KE, its greater decay rate would make deuteron decay a fairly low fraction of the possible outcomes.

 

[Calrid]

Why Nuclear physics cannot be entirely correct.

Because if it was it would be called something else and would not be a science.

/thread.

Incidentally it isn't probably because gravity and relativity as regards quantum mechanics are proving troublesome bed fellows.

 

[pedrone]

I'm not lying.


No. I far better things to do with my life than waste time reinstalling my printer for the sole purpose of showing up a rude, uncivil crackpot who repeatedly accuses me of lying whilst offering 0 supporting evidence.

:

The things a liar says to support his lies