why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[pedrone]

pedrone
I do not know the theoretical calculations obtained from current Nuclear Physics. There may be no such calculations. This implies nothing for Guglinski's totally flawed theory.
As the first 2 pages you posted are showing - he is totally incompetent in physics. His book is just another inane crank physics book.

I do know that: Guglinski gets two more electric quadrupole moment's wrong (for 8O18 excited states)!

at least, from Guglinski's model, it's possible to calculate the electric quadrupole moment for excited 8O18, and it is near to the experimental value

Something impossible in Nuclear Physics

 

[dafydd]

You seem clueless regarding education and science

Or a troll. Hard to tell.

 

[pedrone]

Guglinski's "second fact" on page 100 from the 2 pages from his book in this post is "from empirical fact, the physicists also concluded that all the nuclei have the same shell thickness "2b" = 2 * 0.55 F = 1.1 F".

The real problem is that he seems to be thinking that the nuclear shell model has actual physical shells separated by a given thickness and that thickness is related to a proton radius,e.g. the protons are stuck on the shells somehow or orbit in circular orbits.
This is wrong. The shells in the nuclear shell model are allowable energy states of the nucleons in the nucleus. A higher energy means a different nuclear orbital and a higher probability of finding the nucleon further from the center of the nucleus.
There is no relationship with the size of protons. They do not fit snugly inbetween the shells.

The shell model is partially analogous to the atomic structure models (electrons in orbitals outside of the nucleus). The nuclear orbitals are labeled similarily (s, p, d, etc.).
If you were to (incorrectly!) take the analogy to be exact then nuclear orbitals would have similar shapes, e.g. spherical for the 1s orbital and dumb-bell shaped for the 1p orbital. This would mean that nucleons in a 1p orbital spend a small part of the time within the same space as nucleons in the 1s orbital.

Guglinski's ignorance of the basics of writing scientific literature (defining terms, giving citations) means that we have no idea what he means by "shell thickness" or from where he got the value of 1.1 F.

empirical shell thickness has nothing to do with nuclear shell model (liquid drop model)

Nuclear shell model is a theory (not empirical data)
And nobody knows either it is correct, or wrong (the most probable it's wrong, since such theory is used only for the calculation of binding energies; it does not work if applied to calculate any other nuclear property of nuclei, and it is even not able to suply the binding energy of lightest nuclei, as 2He4, 5B10, etc.)


The empirical shell thickness is NOT a theory !!!! , as foolishing Reality Check suposes.


The empirical shell thickness is obtained from experiments. The nuclear physicists made a graphic, regarding several elements.


From this empirical graphic the nuclear physicists concluded that there is a shell thickness 2b in all the nuclei (which is a paradox, because if the protons and neutrons are distributed along a shell thickness, then Aage Bohr model is wrong, because his Collective Model considers the nucleons filling all the interior of the nucleus, and NOT distributed in a shell thickness).
Paradoxes like this one shows that Nuclear Physics cannot be correct.


The empirical grahpic has nothing to do with the nuclear shell model.


The nuclear shell model is referred to the word "shell" because it is considered in such model that protons and neutrons are distributed in a shell, and the binding energy of nuclei supposedly should be caused by forces between protons and neutrons in this surface (shell), similar to the forceS between molecules in the shell (surface) of a drop (molecular superficial tension)

 

[pedrone]

No.
The probability of finding a proton at a specific point in a nucleus is described by orbitals just like electrons (but in a much more complex manner). Thus no energy is lost. This is basic quantum mechanics. Any particle in a potential well is constrained to quantized energy levels.

in short: WHAT YOU SAID EXPLAINS NOTHING !!!!

As always happens when the quantum theorists have not a satisfactory explanation, they invent idiotic theories that explain NOTHING.

This basic of quantum mechanics is used to fool the own theorists


Much more complex manner.

The much more complex manner makes me laugh

 

[Reality Check]

empirical shell thickness has nothing to do with nuclear shell model (

Then what is the empirical shell thickness defined as in the literature?

ETA

The empirical shell thickness is obtained from experiments. The nuclear physicists made a graphic, regarding several elements.
From this empirical graphic the nuclear physicists concluded that there is a shell thickness 2b in all the nuclei

Citations?

I know that there are graphs of nuclear radii. Who are the nuclear physicists who concluded that the difference in radius between nuclides with filled nulcear shells is a "shell thickness" of 2b?

The nuclear shell model is referred to the word "shell" because it is considered in such model that protons and neutrons are distributed in a shell, and the binding energy of nuclei supposedly should be caused by forces between protons and neutrons in this surface (shell), similar to the forceS between molecules in the shell (surface) of a drop

You are wrong.
The word shell in nuclear shell model has nothing to do with the distribution of the protons and neutrons. It is to do with teh erngyy levels as you state in the second part.
nuclear shell model

In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, the nuclear shell model is a model of the atomic nucleus which uses the Pauli exclusion principle to describe the structure of the nucleus in terms of energy levels.

(emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

at least, from Guglinski's model, it's possible to calculate the electric quadrupole moment for excited 8O18, and it is near to the experimental value

Who cares. He still gets it wrong thus further invalidating his already crackpot theory (Guglinski gets two more electric quadrupole moment's wrong (for 8O18 excited states)! )

 

[Reality Check]

in short: WHAT YOU SAID EXPLAINS NOTHING !!!!
...snipped idiotic formating...

in short: WHAT I SAID EXPLAINS EVERYTHING !!!!
... to anyone with a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics. This is obvioulsy not you.

 

[pedrone]

Then what is the empirical shell thickness defined as in the literature?

ETA

Citations?

I will scan the graphic from the Eisberg-Resnick book, and post it here, in the end of the week (I have not the book here with me now)

 

[pedrone]

Who cares. He still gets it wrong thus further invalidating his already crackpot theory (Guglinski gets two more electric quadrupole moment's wrong (for 8O18 excited states)! )

Those ones interested in the true.

Of course not guys as you who use to hide the flaws of Nuclear Physics.


Quantum Ring Theory has been recommended by some professors of physics:
"Need help: quantum ring theory quantumfusion Nov 4th, 06, 07:23 PM
Was told to read up on it by my professor , but then wikipedia no entry . anyone got any useful link ?"
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=br&source=www.google.com.br

 

[Reality Check]

I will scan the graphic from the Eisberg-Resnick book, and post it here, in the end of the week (I have not the book here with me now)

Make sure that you include where they define "shell thickness" as "2b" and mention that it is directly related to the radius of a proton.

 

[Reality Check]

Quantum Ring Theory has been recommended by some professors of physics:
"Need help: quantum ring theory quantumfusion Nov 4th, 06, 07:23 PM
Was told to read up on it by my professor , but then wikipedia no entry . anyone got any useful link ?"

Wrong: One (1) professor is rumored on an internet forum to have told some other person to read up on it.
Hopefully it was an example of how crazy crank physics can get because no competent scientist would recommend Guglinski's book as serious science.

Just look at all the ignorance he has displayed in the only 2 pages that you posted!

 

[Reality Check]

Guglinski's incompetence continues (r is not the proton radius!)

Guglinski states his version of the classical electric quadropole moment on page 100: "Q(b) = integral (rho[ - (r')2)] dtau"
(see Electric Quadrupole Moments of Nuclei for the correct defintion)
Guglinski states the wrong equation for electric quadrapole moment of nuclei as to why this is wrong.
There is no defintion of the terms on that page, e.g.

• what is tau?
• why does is the radius denoted as r' rather than just r.

but maybe they are on another page (pedrone?).

Guglinski reduces the above equation to Q(b) = -(r')^2.
He then tries to set r' equal to the proton radius on page 101 to try to calculate Q for deuteron.

The actual definition of electric quadrapole moment has an integration where r is the distance from the center of the nucleus. The only situation where r could be the proton radius is when calculating the electric quadrapole moment of the proton.

 

[Tubbythin]

Second anomaly of the nucleus ₈O¹⁸​

The nucleus ₈O¹⁸ has another interesting anomaly, which Nuclear Physics cannot explain.

Look at in the N. J. Stone nuclear table its the electric quadrupole moment:
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf

.............Q(b)....................Method
-0.010(13) or +.020(13)......CER
-0.07(3) or -0.05(3)...........CER
-0.11(2) or -0.08(2)...........CER
-0.05(2) or -0.02(2)...........CER


The experiments show that electric quadrupole moment of the excited ₈O¹⁸, measured by the same method, gets two different values.

One could claim that it is actually each one of them is one unique value, within the range of the error.
For instance, -0.010(13) or +.020(13) would be one unique value.

However, such hypothesis is belied by the values of the ₈O¹⁷:
-0.02578***st ...... EPR,R
-0.26(3) st ........... EPR,R

Without checking the literature to be certain that this is the case here, there exist a certain kind of experiment that measure the half-lives of very short-lived excited states. These lifetimes can tell us about structure of the state. Unfortunately, the results it it give are always ambiguous since, while they can tell us whether the nucleus is very deformed or not, they cannot tell us in which way they are deformed. Are they prolate deformed (rugby ball shaped) or oblate deformed (sort of flying saucer shaped). So from this information one can deduce that the nucleus either has a prolate deformation (positive quadrupole moment) of some size or a oblate deformation (negative quadrupole moment) of another. However, to make a firm choice one must do a further experiment that firmly determines the sign of the quadrupole moment. This is usually done using "Coulomb excitation".

 

[pedrone]

• 
  what is tau?

Why dont you ask it to a nuclear physicist?

I have not the duty to teach you Nuclear Physics !!!!.

When somebody decides to discuss a subject, it must know that subject.

As you decided to discuss Nuclear Physics, then you have the obligation to know Nuclear Physics.
If you dont know Nuclear Physics, it makes no sense you discuss it.

Guglinski reduces the above equation to Q(b) = -(r')^2.
He then tries to set r' equal to the proton radius on page 101 to try to calculate Q for deuteron.

Guglinski reduces nothing !!!.

That calculation made by Guglinski is a well-known calculation in Nuclear Physics.
Look at the item 6 of page 100 again:

​

Eisberg and Resnick use it in their book.

Any nuclear physicist knows it very well.

But as you know nothing on Nuclear Physics, that's why you do so foolish questions.



And what is worst:

• you know nothing on Nuclear Physics

• and you want to show that Guglinski calculation is wrong

Removed inappropriate content.

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

​

 

[Tubbythin]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of rule 0.

Says the person who claimed that deuterons should be preferentially be emitted from heavy nuclei over alpha particles...

 

[Reality Check]

pedrone, Where are Guglinski's citations and definitions, e.g of tau

That calculation made by Guglinski is a well-known calculation in Nuclear Physics.
Look at the item 6 of page 100 again:

Wrong: Guglinski asserts that it "is a well-known calculation in Nuclear Physics". He gives no citation. There is no evidence that the "calculation" is uded in nuclear phusics or is "well-known" or that he has the correct equations for Q.
This is a big problem with these 2 pages and maybe the entire book:

Where are Guglinski's citations?
​

The equation he states for Q looks nothing like the actual equation for electric quadrapole moment: Guglinski states the wrong equation for electric quadrapole moment of nuclei

• He is missing the z term.
• the integration is over a volume, i.e. dV.

That is why I asked in Guglinski's incompetence continues (r is not the proton radius!)

Guglinski states his version of the classical electric quadropole moment on page 100: "Q(b) = integral (rho[ - (r')2)] dtau"

There is no defintion of the terms on that page, e.g.

• what is tau?
• why does is the radius denoted as r' rather than just r.

but maybe they are on another page (pedrone?).

Eisberg and Resnick use it in their book.

Citation?

 

[AdMan]

How and why you guys continue to argue with pedrone is beyond me. It's a waste of time--he's never going to admit he's wrong on anything.

 

[Reality Check]

We are not arguing with him. He has no credible or coherent argument.
We are pointing out the science that he is displaying ignorance of. We know that he seems incapable of learning especially since he has shown himself to be quite gullible and easily fooled by a crank like Guglinski.
There is the hope that this may educate a lurker or two.

The thread will also provide a resource for showing anyone who cites Guglinski, the incompetence that he displays in his book, e.g. the lack of citations, the misstatements about matching experimental data, etc.

And who knows - a miracle may happen and pedrone may learn something !

 

[RobDegraves]

Pedrone will not learn anything. He is either a troll or just bug-nuts.

However...

We are pointing out the science that he is displaying ignorance of. We know that he seems incapable of learning especially since he has shown himself to be quite gullible and easily fooled by a crank like Guglinski.

Sadly, it is sometimes necessary to counter cranks with the proper information. I know, personally, quite well the damage that can result from people spreading misinformation, no matter how laughable they seem. People like that seems harmless.... but lies can cause more damage than we might think.

So... for people like RealityCheck and his ilk... thanks. It only seems like a thankless and endless task.

 

[Emet]

There is the hope that this may educate a lurker or two.

On behalf of the L & L* brigade, we thank you.



*lurker and learner