Define "see".
Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction
- Thread starter DHamilton
- Start date
No it doesn't.
bjschaeffer
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 148
That is insanely ignorant!
The fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction are, after one century of nuclear physics, very well known.
Standard Model
What are, precisely, the fundamental laws and constants of the nuclear interaction?
it is an open secret that the underlying force remains a puzzle.
bjschaeffer
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 148
bjschaeffer: I've spoken to people about the neutron being a "multipole" said:
A neutron contains electric charges with no net charge. These charges may be separated by an inducing electric field. This is the case when the proton is near to a neutron. It separates the electric charges of the neutron, thus creating a dipole. It is usually assumed that this dipole is negligible. It is true if the nucleons are orbiting as in the atom. This is only a hypothesis unable to predict the binding energy of even the simplest nucleus beyond the proton, the deuteron 2H.
Ignoring this hypothesis, the Coulomb's laws predict correctly the binding energy of the deuteron. The so-called Standard Model is unable to do it.
bjschaeffer
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 148
Do you know that the neutron contains electric charges of no net charge and contains also a magnetic moment and, of course a mass.
bjschaeffer
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 148
I never said that the electric charges of the neutron are held by E&M forces; it is the nucleus which is held by electromagnetic forces. I say only that the neutron contains elementary electric charges.
It is very exciting to study excited nuclei but this is not my cup of tea.
The QCD theory is unable to predict the binding energy of any nuclide.
It seems that you believe that the Higgs boson will explain the nuclear reaction as the philosophical stone was believed to explain the chemical reactions.
Last edited:
The neutron contains three quarks with charges +2/3, -1/3 and -1/3.
If your theory is in contradiction to data on excited nuclei, your theory is wrong.
What are you talking about?
Originally Posted by DHamilton
You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature
Then Ziggurat in his self-righteous arrogance wrote:
Uh, no. There's no possible way to make electromagnetism provide an attractive potential between two protons inside a nucleus.
That's not true at all. If you had just a tiny bit of grace you might say:"There's no way that I know of that electromagnetism can provide an attractive potential between two protons inside the nucleus." Just because you can't think of a way to do it doesn't mean that it cannot be done but rather only that you are intellectually limited. When someone says: 'No one knows this or that.' they are demonstrating pure arrogance in that they are presuming that they are privy to all that is known in the universe.
I made a claim that:
1) There's no experiment in the world that has shown that stable elementary charged particles (electrons and protons) will interactively behave in accordance to the expectation of Coulomb's law vis-à-vis 'like charges repel and unlike charges attract' when they are overlapping in the same momentum space... meaning when they have a common de Broglie wavelength that is greater than their inter-particle distance (calculated from a center of momentum frame). A few years back I dropped in on the Univ of Washington, University of Oregon and several other colleges and offered $5000 in cash if anyone; professors or grad students or undergrads could provide any experimental data to the contrary. I had one professor emeritus at Univ of WA take me up on the offer and I gave him ten days to respond with the evidence or experimental data that showed that elementary charged particles behave in accordance with Coulomb's Law when they are overlapping in momentum space. When I returned ... he confessed that in searching through all the literature that he could find he never found any experimental data that refuted my claim.
I approached Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue with this thesis and he, at first, scoffed at the idea... but then he became more thoughtful and finally confessed that, in fact, he (a man who has authored over a hundred papers dealing with charged particles and gravity) didn't know of any experimental data that refuted my claim... so then he became interested in the thesis. We communicated irregularly over the internet from 1994 to 2004 as I pressed forward on working out the fundamental mechanics of my thesis. I finally visited him at Purdue in 2005 and withstood a two hour grilling from Ephraim and one of his doctoral candidates (in astrophysics) as I defended my thesis and demonstrated to them both how to logically derive the nature of the unit charge of a fundamental charged particle and the nature of the unit gravitational charge. In other words I showed him and his grad student how to unify electromagnetism and gravity. At the time, his words were 'Wow... you're really talking about some brand new physics here!' While I was there and able to answer his objections and thoroughly defend my thesis he got it. But it really takes a while for someone to come to the point where they 'intellectually own or thoroughly grasp' a complex set of ideas and apparently within about a year Ephraim had let the concepts slip out of his grasp... amidst his hectic lifestyle of fundraising, dealing with new freshmen and with new sets of doctoral candidates and writing his own papers. While I was present he could hold on to the whole set of interlocking concepts but he hadn't spent years himself becoming familiar with them as a set but when I left he was in thorough agreement that I had successfully introduced and successfully defended these new concepts to him. When I was leaving he was giving instructions to someone to write 'do not erase' on the chalkboard that I had used while defending my work because he wanted to come back later and study it thoroughly. That was about 8 years ago... and I'm sure that Ephraim doesn't remember enough about what I presented to even give a decent recall... New ideas have to have advocates and people who will stand up and put themselves at risk in their defense. A man is much more likely to do that if they are his own ideas rather than the intellectual efforts of another. What struck me about Ephraim and why I came to like him over the years was that he was intellectually honest and had the grace to listen and made the attempt to understand the concepts before dismissing them out of hand as people like Ziggarut do. As i mentioned, when I first contacted him he was doubtful but then he encourage me by confessing that, in fact, he knew of no experimental data that he'd run across in all his years of research that directly contradicted my thesis that elementary charges will behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Law when they are overlapping in the same momentum space. He was honest enough to admit that it would be a very difficult experiment to disprove my thesis. You, Ziggarut, on the other hand act very much the arrogant jackass about it. What's the difference between you and Ephraim? He cares about the Truth more than he cares about defending the so-called 'Standard Model'. I much appreciated Lee Smolin's observation in his book 'The Trouble with Physics' with regard to those doctoral candidates that are faced with an intellectual and moral crises when they find that even though they are well versed in the Standard Model and quite competent to mathematically demonstrate all the associated ideas and concepts necessary to defend their own doctoral thesis in particle physics, they no longer believe it. That's the sort of person I was hoping to connect with here in this forum instead of jackasses like you who spout off so much b.s. and are jealously trying to defend whole sets of ideas that other people who can see logically quite a bit further down the road than you can reject as tantamount to a religion. All it takes to have a rational discussion is intellectual honesty coupled with a love of the truth... but this forum is much like others in that they have their requisite gang of bullies like you who really care far more for their egos than they do for the Truth.
You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature
Then Ziggurat in his self-righteous arrogance wrote:
Uh, no. There's no possible way to make electromagnetism provide an attractive potential between two protons inside a nucleus.
That's not true at all. If you had just a tiny bit of grace you might say:"There's no way that I know of that electromagnetism can provide an attractive potential between two protons inside the nucleus." Just because you can't think of a way to do it doesn't mean that it cannot be done but rather only that you are intellectually limited. When someone says: 'No one knows this or that.' they are demonstrating pure arrogance in that they are presuming that they are privy to all that is known in the universe.
I made a claim that:
1) There's no experiment in the world that has shown that stable elementary charged particles (electrons and protons) will interactively behave in accordance to the expectation of Coulomb's law vis-à-vis 'like charges repel and unlike charges attract' when they are overlapping in the same momentum space... meaning when they have a common de Broglie wavelength that is greater than their inter-particle distance (calculated from a center of momentum frame). A few years back I dropped in on the Univ of Washington, University of Oregon and several other colleges and offered $5000 in cash if anyone; professors or grad students or undergrads could provide any experimental data to the contrary. I had one professor emeritus at Univ of WA take me up on the offer and I gave him ten days to respond with the evidence or experimental data that showed that elementary charged particles behave in accordance with Coulomb's Law when they are overlapping in momentum space. When I returned ... he confessed that in searching through all the literature that he could find he never found any experimental data that refuted my claim.
I approached Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue with this thesis and he, at first, scoffed at the idea... but then he became more thoughtful and finally confessed that, in fact, he (a man who has authored over a hundred papers dealing with charged particles and gravity) didn't know of any experimental data that refuted my claim... so then he became interested in the thesis. We communicated irregularly over the internet from 1994 to 2004 as I pressed forward on working out the fundamental mechanics of my thesis. I finally visited him at Purdue in 2005 and withstood a two hour grilling from Ephraim and one of his doctoral candidates (in astrophysics) as I defended my thesis and demonstrated to them both how to logically derive the nature of the unit charge of a fundamental charged particle and the nature of the unit gravitational charge. In other words I showed him and his grad student how to unify electromagnetism and gravity. At the time, his words were 'Wow... you're really talking about some brand new physics here!' While I was there and able to answer his objections and thoroughly defend my thesis he got it. But it really takes a while for someone to come to the point where they 'intellectually own or thoroughly grasp' a complex set of ideas and apparently within about a year Ephraim had let the concepts slip out of his grasp... amidst his hectic lifestyle of fundraising, dealing with new freshmen and with new sets of doctoral candidates and writing his own papers. While I was present he could hold on to the whole set of interlocking concepts but he hadn't spent years himself becoming familiar with them as a set but when I left he was in thorough agreement that I had successfully introduced and successfully defended these new concepts to him. When I was leaving he was giving instructions to someone to write 'do not erase' on the chalkboard that I had used while defending my work because he wanted to come back later and study it thoroughly. That was about 8 years ago... and I'm sure that Ephraim doesn't remember enough about what I presented to even give a decent recall... New ideas have to have advocates and people who will stand up and put themselves at risk in their defense. A man is much more likely to do that if they are his own ideas rather than the intellectual efforts of another. What struck me about Ephraim and why I came to like him over the years was that he was intellectually honest and had the grace to listen and made the attempt to understand the concepts before dismissing them out of hand as people like Ziggarut do. As i mentioned, when I first contacted him he was doubtful but then he encourage me by confessing that, in fact, he knew of no experimental data that he'd run across in all his years of research that directly contradicted my thesis that elementary charges will behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Law when they are overlapping in the same momentum space. He was honest enough to admit that it would be a very difficult experiment to disprove my thesis. You, Ziggarut, on the other hand act very much the arrogant jackass about it. What's the difference between you and Ephraim? He cares about the Truth more than he cares about defending the so-called 'Standard Model'. I much appreciated Lee Smolin's observation in his book 'The Trouble with Physics' with regard to those doctoral candidates that are faced with an intellectual and moral crises when they find that even though they are well versed in the Standard Model and quite competent to mathematically demonstrate all the associated ideas and concepts necessary to defend their own doctoral thesis in particle physics, they no longer believe it. That's the sort of person I was hoping to connect with here in this forum instead of jackasses like you who spout off so much b.s. and are jealously trying to defend whole sets of ideas that other people who can see logically quite a bit further down the road than you can reject as tantamount to a religion. All it takes to have a rational discussion is intellectual honesty coupled with a love of the truth... but this forum is much like others in that they have their requisite gang of bullies like you who really care far more for their egos than they do for the Truth.
bjschaeffer
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 148
---Quote (Originally by bjschaeffer)---
I don't believe that electrons orbite the nucleus, the nucleus is not an atom because it has no nucleus, that is, a central massive body which can act as a force center. I say only that the not so neutral neutron contains opposite electric charges, assumed to be elementary charges +e and -e, not orbiting electrons.
---End Quote---
Were you aware that experiments have been devised to test your belief, and that when they are conducted, they prove that your belief is wrong?
I don't believe that electrons orbite the nucleus, the nucleus is not an atom because it has no nucleus, that is, a central massive body which can act as a force center. I say only that the not so neutral neutron contains opposite electric charges, assumed to be elementary charges +e and -e, not orbiting electrons.
---End Quote---
Were you aware that experiments have been devised to test your belief, and that when they are conducted, they prove that your belief is wrong?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Cool story bro. Nice insults too.
It is well know that these charges are +2/3, -1/3 and -1/3, in complete contradiction to your model.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Very useful.
bjschaeffer
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 148
a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law.
What is precisely the nuclear potential of the deuteron given by QCD?
Solving it has been a multi-decadal effort which is hard to summarize for a nonexpert; there's a top-down approach, (google for "Argonne V18"), which takes as inputs the particle-physics observables (i.e., nn and np scattering experiments) and gives as an output the effective two-body potential seen by nn, np, and pp pairs inside a nucleus; the bottom-up approach of chiral effective field theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2919 for a review) which solves a series of increasingly-accurate approximations to QCD. And nuclei are multi body systems, so all two-body knowledge has to be patched into many-body physics.
"Argonne V18" is an empirically fitted potential. In his paper, Machleid gives many numerical results but none of a single binding energy. In textbooks, the deuteron binding energy is calculated from the wave function calculated from the binding energy, a good joke!
I remind you: it's incumbent on you to know this sort of thing before you guess (or infer, or presume) that no such approach works.
My approach works as you can see in my paper "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes" http://www.springerlink.com/content/h673n477n243vu46/export-citation/?MUD=MP
b) No, QCD calculations cannot be carried out to high precision to give this force. If you think that is a problem: the laws of E&M and quantum physics cannot (or could not until the 1970s) predict the color of metallic gold---are quantum mechanics and E&M therefore wrong? No, rather, it's just that d-orbitals are computationally messy. The law of gravity cannot predict (or could not until the past five years or so) the infall path of colliding, spinning black holes. Does that mean GR is wrong? No, it means that it's hard.
Of course complicated structures are difficult to calculate but the simple structures of the same type should be computable simply and, with the supercomputers the complicated structure should be calculable. Colleagues of Machleid have calculated the binding energies of the helium isotopes (how about the H isotopes?). For the N>2, assuming a zero binding energy of the excess neutrons, I get a better result than the super computer (see graph). Their excuse is that they don't have the three body force!
[/url]
"The calculations are too hard" is different than "the theory has a problem". There is no law of Nature saying "The Universe will only contain simple 1/r^2 force laws." QCD is computationally very hard in some domains and easy in others. It has passed all experimental tests in the "computationally easy" domains. As the theorists get better, it's also increasingly being tested (at the 1% level) in difficult domains, like meson spectra.
For the deuteron, the theory should be simple at least in a first approximation.
c) Nobody understands the weak interaction? What? Maybe you don't understand it, but don't project that onto us; the weak interaction is on par with QED in being both computationally-tractable and experimentally-tested. I invite you to name one weak-interaction-theory prediction that disagrees with experiment; I invite you to name one weak-interaction experiment for which the underlying theory is intractable.
The weak interaction is now electro-weak, meaning that it is electromagnetic
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=27372
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
We have never seen a quark either. Still a very accurate model.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Cool story bro.
So in other words what you have is a political theory of why you should be listened to, rather than an actual theory that sets out all the parameters of the strong nuclear force.
How about answering the issues raised?
bjschaeffer
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 148
a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law.
What is precisely the nuclear potential of the deuteron given by QCD?
Solving it has been a multi-decadal effort which is hard to summarize for a nonexpert; there's a top-down approach, (google for "Argonne V18"), which takes as inputs the particle-physics observables (i.e., nn and np scattering experiments) and gives as an output the effective two-body potential seen by nn, np, and pp pairs inside a nucleus; the bottom-up approach of chiral effective field theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2919 for a review) which solves a series of increasingly-accurate approximations to QCD. And nuclei are multi body systems, so all two-body knowledge has to be patched into many-body physics.
"Argonne V18" is an empirically fitted potential. In his paper, Machleid gives many numerical results but none of a single binding energy. In textbooks, the deuteron binding energy is calculated from the wave function calculated from the binding energy, a good joke!
I remind you: it's incumbent on you to know this sort of thing before you guess (or infer, or presume) that no such approach works.
My approach works as you can see in my paper "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes" http://www.springerlink.com/content/h673n477n243vu46/export-citation/?MUD=MP
b) No, QCD calculations cannot be carried out to high precision to give this force. If you think that is a problem: the laws of E&M and quantum physics cannot (or could not until the 1970s) predict the color of metallic gold---are quantum mechanics and E&M therefore wrong? No, rather, it's just that d-orbitals are computationally messy. The law of gravity cannot predict (or could not until the past five years or so) the infall path of colliding, spinning black holes. Does that mean GR is wrong? No, it means that it's hard.
Of course complicated structures are difficult to calculate but the simple structures of the same type should be computable simply and, with the supercomputers the complicated structure should be calculable. Colleagues of Machleid have calculated the binding energies of the helium isotopes (how about the H isotopes?). For the N>2, assuming a zero binding energy of the excess neutrons, I get a better result than the super computer (see my horizontal line between the supercomputer calculated and experimental values on the graph). Their excuse is that they don't have the 3-body force!
[/url]
"The calculations are too hard" is different than "the theory has a problem". There is no law of Nature saying "The Universe will only contain simple 1/r^2 force laws." QCD is computationally very hard in some domains and easy in others. It has passed all experimental tests in the "computationally easy" domains. As the theorists get better, it's also increasingly being tested (at the 1% level) in difficult domains, like meson spectra.
The only proven forces in the universe are in 1/r2. For the deuteron, the theory should be simple at least in a first approximation.
c) Nobody understands the weak interaction? What? Maybe you don't understand it, but don't project that onto us; the weak interaction is on par with QED in being both computationally-tractable and experimentally-tested. I invite you to name one weak-interaction-theory prediction that disagrees with experiment; I invite you to name one weak-interaction experiment for which the underlying theory is intractable.
The weak interaction is now electro-weak, meaning that it is electromagnetic
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Nope. Electro-weak unification happens way way above the energies we're talking about in nuclear ground states.