• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

Tubbythin said:
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".
Click to expand...

:)
OK,
Tubbythin,
then please explain to us this:
pedrone said:
Finally, compare:

1) 8O18:
-0.036(9) .....CER,R

2) 3Li7:
-0.0400(6) ......CER
-0.0400(3) ......CER

They have always the same value of the electric quadrupole moment.
How is it possible?
  • The 8O18 has a structure with 18 nucleons with NO unpaired neutron
  • The 3Li7 which has a structure with only 7 nucleons, and one neutron is unpaired

How can they have always the same quadrupole moment ????
Click to expand...
:)
 
Reality Check said:
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:
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!)

Citation?
Click to expand...
:p
 

Attachments

  • then Eisberg and Resnick are incompetent too.jpg
    then Eisberg and Resnick are incompetent too.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 3
pedrone said:
:)
OK,
Tubbythin,
then please explain to us this:

:)
Click to expand...
:)
pedrone,
the explantion is simple: experiments on easy to measure quantities get similar results, experiments on less easy to measure quantities tend to get differing results.
You are also wrong: The 2 nuclides have different quadrapole moments.
:)
 
Last edited:
There is no anomaly of the nucleus 8O18 except in your imagingation, pedrone

pedrone said:
Second anomaly of the nucleus 8O18The nucleus 8O18 has another interesting anomaly, which Nuclear Physics cannot explain.
Click to expand...
Let us make this clear for you, pedrone
There is no anomaly of the nucleus 8O18 except in your imagination.​
This is nothing to do with nuclear physics . It is a fact in science that experimental values vary. An experiment that is less technical (i.e. easier to perform) gets more consistent results than more complex, harder experiments.

The experimental result varies for the excited 8O18 value of Q because it is an excited state that lasts 2.07 picoseconds.

The values of the 8O17 are easier to measure because this is a stable state of the nuclide.

pedrone said:
Let's compare the errors in the measurements of 8O18 and 3Li7:
...
3- There is no way to explain, from current Nuclear Physics, why the error of 3Li7 is so smaller than the error of 8O18
Click to expand...
The ignorance in that statement is obvious: Different experiments = different uncertainties :jaw-dropp!
All you show is what is expected - as time goes by experiments are improved and uncertainties reduce.

pedrone said:
...
2) 3Li7:
-0.0400(6) ......CER
-0.0400(3) ......CER

They have always the same value of the electric quadrupole moment.

How is it possible?
...snipped stuff about the structure of the nuclides which has nothing to do with experimental techniques....
Click to expand...
3Li7 is stable and so its Q is easier to measure:
-0.0406 st MB,R CPL 112 1 (84)
-0.0370(8) CIAN 1985We08 PRL 55 480 (85)
-0.041(6) OD,OL 1975Or01 ZP A273 221 (75)
-0.059(8) OL PR A17 1394 (78)
-0.040(11) CER 1984Ve03/1984Ve08 PL B138 365 (84)/AuJP 37 273 (84)
-0.0400(6) CER 1991Vo06 NP A530 475 (91)
-0.0400(3) CER 1991Vo06 NP A530 475 (91)
-0.0406(8) R 1989Ba80 AuJP 42 597 (89)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
:D
 

Attachments

  • EISBERG AND RESNICK, you have to learn Nuclear Physics with RC.jpg
    EISBERG AND RESNICK, you have to learn Nuclear Physics with RC.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 7
pedrone said:
:)
OK,
Tubbythin,
then please explain to us this:

:)
Click to expand...

They almost certainly don't have the same quadrupole moment. They just happen to be very similar. The quadrupole moment is a measure of the deformation of the nucleus. The shell structure in the light nuclei mean that there is very little deviation from sphericity would be expected for both nuclides and so both would be expected to have small quadrupole moments. This is exactly as is observed. I haven't the faintest idea why you find this surprising.
 
Reality Check said:
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 :D!
Click to expand...

As an interested lurking layman,I learn something and have a chuckle at pedrone's rants,he's happy because he thinks he's turning physics on it's head. Every one is a winner.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
How will you know that this is the "well known calculation" that Guglinski refers to when there seem to be no citations in his book?
Where are Guglinski's citations?
Click to expand...
:)
Well, now I have remembered that I had earlier posted here the page where Eisberg and Resnick use that "well known calculation".
I had posted it in the post number 511.


The "well known calculation" is shown in the page 686 of the Eisberg-Resnick book.
:)
They used the well known calculation to get the electric quadrupole moment of the nucleus 51Sb:
 

Attachments

  • page 686 of Eisberg and Resnick.jpg
    page 686 of Eisberg and Resnick.jpg
    86.7 KB · Views: 8
:confused:
 

Attachments

  • pateta asks to eisberg and resnick if they are sure.jpg
    pateta asks to eisberg and resnick if they are sure.jpg
    77.4 KB · Views: 0
do Eisberg and Resnick define r as the proton radius

pedrone said:
:)
Well, now I have remembered that I had earlier posted here the page where Eisberg and Resnick use that "well known calculation".
I had posted it in the post number 511.


The "well known calculation" is shown in the page 686 of the Eisberg-Resnick book.
:)
They used the well known calculation to get the electric quadrupole moment of the nucleus 51Sb:
Click to expand...
Thanks pedrone. Eisberg and Resnick used the well known equation to do the calculation to get the electric quadrupole moment of the nucleus 51Sb.

Now do Eisberg and Resnick define r as the proton radius?

One more bit of idoicy from Guglinski: He applies that equation to an electron orbiting around 2 protons (for some reason he ignores the fact that there are 2 electrons). Guglinski has one of two problems
  • The electron radiates, loses energy and crashes into the protons.
  • QM works (as 80 years of experiments shows), the electron is an orbital and is on average half an angstrom from the nucleus or ~500 times the size of the nucleus.
 
Last edited:
I've asked nicely before; this time I'm not going to be as nice. Do not use cartoons, bolding, large fonts, or any other such disruptive formatting. Any further such instances, from anyone, will be considered disregarding a moderator directive and will be actioned. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
 
Tubbythin said:
They almost certainly don't have the same quadrupole moment. They just happen to be very similar. The quadrupole moment is a measure of the deformation of the nucleus. The shell structure in the light nuclei mean that there is very little deviation from sphericity would be expected for both nuclides and so both would be expected to have small quadrupole moments. This is exactly as is observed. I haven't the faintest idea why you find this surprising.
Click to expand...

:confused:
we cannot take what you claim seriously, since there is a strong evidence suggesting thaty you're a liar.

You can prove that you are not a liar, if you scan your book and put here the phrasis that you attributed to Eisberg and Resnick.

Otherwise, if you dont prove that your are not a liar, we cannot take seriously what you claim
 
Reality Check said:
Scientific literature is expected to back up its assertions with full explanations or at least citations to their source.
Where are Guglinski's citations?
Click to expand...
:D
well, then Eiseberg-Resnick book has no citations too.
:p

For instance, when they speak about the Mössbauer experiment, they mention that the recoil of the nucleus is due to Newton's law.

However they do not give citations on the Newton's law.

Of course they did not give citations on Newton's law because they were sure that a Quantum Physics book must be read by students that have a previous knowledge on the foundations of Physics.
After all, Eisberg and Resnick did not write a book for idiots.

In the same way, Guglinski proposed a new nuclear model in his book.
And therefore he was sure that his book would have to be read by persons that have previous knowledge on the foundations of Nuclear Physics.

But, in short , according to Reality Check:
Eisberg-Resnick book cannot be quoted as scientific literature too.
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom