• 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:
Quote:
2- However, with Z=8 and Z=20, it is taken in consideration the higgest level of energy. We can see in the graphic of the page 676 that the level 1d is lower in the level 1d5/2 , and therefore from Mayer-Jensen theory the nucleus 14Si would have to be a magic number, and not the nucleus 20Ca (this one has four protons in the highest level 1d3/2). By the same way, because 1p3/2 is the lower level, from their theory the nucleus 6C would have to be a magic number, and not the nucleus 8O (this one has two protons in the highest level 1p1/2).

You have misunderstood completely. The level scheme on the left is what you would expect without a spin-orbit potential. The level scheme on the right is what you get with a spin-orbit potential. It was the work of Mayer and Jensen (and coworkers) that showed that the spin-orbit potential allowed a correct matching of observed and theoretical magic numbers. This is precisely what they won the Nobel prize for.
Click to expand...
:mad:
No, actualy you are tying to fool everbogy in here.

What you say is just as it's written bellow the graphic in Eisberg-Resnick book.


What I said in my previous post is NOT regarding to the left side of the graphic, as you smartly are suggesting that should be my interpretation.

What I said is concerning the right side, just where it's considered the interaction WITH a spin-orbit potential.

​

As it can be seen easily, the Mayer-Jensen theory is disagree to the RIGHT side of the graphic (with spin-orbit potential) for the nuclei 20Ca and 8O.
They could not be magic numbers.
Instead of, 14Si and 6C would have to be, according to the Mayer-Jensen theory.
:rolleyes:

Tubbythin, stop trying to fool us with your lies.
:mad:
 
The Norseman said:
@Tubbythin,

If you'd be so kind, tell me which page or which chapter that Pedrone has his panties in a bunch about and I'll submit a scan of the page.
Click to expand...
Norseman,
in my book translated to Portuguese it's written the following (translated here by Google translator):

"If we make the hypothesis that the distribution of protons in the nucleus is the same as the distribution of neutrons (there is some evidence for this hypothesis) then..."

Tubbythin claims that in the orginal book there is the word "aproximatelly":

... is approximatelly the same...


I dont know what is the page in the original book (in my book it is in the page 651, but Tubbythin said that there is not correspondence of pages in the two versions of the book)

But you can find it by looking at the page in the Portuguese version. It's concerning the item 5 bellow the graphic of the figure 15-6:
 

Attachments

  • pagina 651 item 5 - Eisberg - Resnick.jpg
    pagina 651 item 5 - Eisberg - Resnick.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 10
Again, Pedrone, it's ridiculous to argue your point based on a translation when the original English version is available and for not too much money (something like nine dollars US, used, from Amazon.com for example).


Page 518:
 

Attachments

  • resnick1.jpg
    resnick1.jpg
    139 KB · Views: 25
Ooohh... nice one Norseman... should be fascinating to watch Pedrone dance around that one.

Mind you... he danced around Reality Check's rebuttal in favor of this current and utterly pointless strawman dispute with Tubbythin.

Still... a good shot across the bow there.
 
The Norseman said:
Again, Pedrone, it's ridiculous to argue your point based on a translation when the original English version is available and for not too much money (something like nine dollars US, used, from Amazon.com for example).


Page 518:
Click to expand...

Very well done, hat off to you.
 
The Norseman said:
Again, Pedrone, it's ridiculous to argue your point based on a translation when the original English version is available and for not too much money (something like nine dollars US, used, from Amazon.com for example).


Page 518:
Click to expand...
Well, there is something very strange in the two versions of the book.

In Portuguese version, the word "aproximadamente" appears in the item 3, but it does not appears in the item 5.

While in the English version the word "approximatelly" apears in the items 3 and 5:
 

Attachments

  • pg 651- item 3- APROXIMADAMENTE- Eisberg Resnick.JPG
    pg 651- item 3- APROXIMADAMENTE- Eisberg Resnick.JPG
    78.7 KB · Views: 4
  • pg 651- item 3 APPROXIMATELLY - Eisberg Resnick.JPG
    pg 651- item 3 APPROXIMATELLY - Eisberg Resnick.JPG
    144.4 KB · Views: 3
Pedrone, are you going to apologize to Tubbythin and Reality Check?
 
The Norseman said:
Again, Pedrone, it's ridiculous to argue your point based on a translation when the original English version is available and for not too much money (something like nine dollars US, used, from Amazon.com for example).

Page 518:
Click to expand...
More ridiculous is Tubbythin do not scaning his book and posting it here.

After all, it would be easier for Tubbythin to scan his book, while I would had to make a order to Amazon, to buy it, and to wait weeks...

Dont you fell yourself ridiculous, Norseman, for saying such your ridiculous comment?
 
AdMan said:
Pedrone, are you going to apologize to Tubbythin and Reality Check?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

I said to Tubbythin that he had the chance to prove he is not a liar.
He did not used his chance.
So, he has to apologize himself.
 
pedrone said:
Well, there is something very strange in the two versions of the book.

In Portuguese version, the word "aproximadamente" appears in the item 3, but it does not appears in the item 5.

While in the English version the word "approximatelly" apears in the items 3 and 5:
Click to expand...


Obviously the Portuguese version is a poor translation. I don't think we can accept anything but the original English from now on. Pedrone, I'm sure that you agree.
 
In fact, you also ought to apologize to Tubbythin for calling him a liar, since he clearly was correct.
You on the other hand, called him a liar without checking (and knowing) the facts first.
There's the lack of due diligence again.

Very, very naughty.
 
pedrone said:
Of course not.

I said to Tubbythin that he had the chance to prove he is not a liar.
He did not used his chance.
So, he has to apologize himself.
Click to expand...
Absolutely pathetic.

You were the one falsely accusing someone of lying, and now you think it is up to him to prove his innocence, whereas it was always up to you to prove that he was a liar.

I did not respect you much before, but whatever respect I had is lost now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom