Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

bjschaeffer said:
You made a mistake, you make a confusion between binding energy per nucleon and total binding energy.

Helium-4 is the α particle very strongly bound.
Click to expand...

I did make a mistake but it wasn't that. I meant hydrogen-4, not helium-4. I'm well aware that helium-4 is well bound. I said so this morning.
 
ben m said:
Nuclear Physics A Volume 747, Issues 2–4, 24 January 2005, Pages 362–424. Inputs: QCD, chiral field theory, high energy nucleon scattering data. Outputs: deuteron bound state energy, quadrupole moment, radius, D/S ratio. And it gets them right.

Here's the funny thing, bjschaeffer. You're standing here rejecting QCD and saying (a) it doesn't seem to apply at low energy, and (b) it's fit to the data.

Do you remember what happened, earlier in this thread, when people pointed out problems with your theory? Your theory is, of course, fit to the data, and your theory doesn't seem to apply---worse than that, it's disproven---in any basic scattering experiment.

Funny that you should be perfectly happy with this state for your own theory (do vague fits at low energies, and flatly refuse to consider other energies), and reject the far-superior state of QCD (very precise at high energy, applied at other energies with the help of data-driven effective theories). Huh.
Click to expand...

I have the proof from Professor Brodsky that the binding energy of the simplest nucleus beyond the proton has never been calculated :

Dear Bernard,

Thanks for your message.

It is valuable to apply light-front methods to nuclei. It provides a relativistic frame independent description and one can prove the cluster decomposition theorem. It also incorporates "hidden color", a rigorous feature of QCD.

The computation of the deuteron binding energy starting from QCD will be challenging, but it would be worthwhile to try.

Sent from my iPad,

Best,
Stan
 
bjschaeffer said:
I have the proof from Professor Brodsky that the binding energy of the simplest nucleus beyond the proton has never ...
Click to expand...
Who is ths Professor Brodsky?
Why have you not included the email that he relied to to provide context?

He is not one of the authors of the paper that ben m cited
ben m said:
Nuclear Physics A Volume 747, Issues 2–4, 24 January 2005, Pages 362–424. Inputs: QCD, chiral field theory, high energy nucleon scattering data. Outputs: deuteron bound state energy, quadrupole moment, radius, D/S ratio. And it gets them right.
Click to expand...
The two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order
E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, Ulf-G. Meißner
We consider the two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N3LO) in chiral effective field theory. The two-nucleon potential at N3LO consists of one-, two- and three-pion exchanges and a set of contact interactions with zero, two and four derivatives. In addition, one has to take into account various isospin-breaking and relativistic corrections. We employ spectral function regularization for the multi-pion exchanges. Within this framework, it is shown that the three-pion exchange contribution is negligibly small. The low-energy constants (LECs) related to pion–nucleon vertices are taken consistently from studies of pion–nucleon scattering in chiral perturbation theory. The total of 26 four-nucleon LECs has been determined by a combined fit to some np and pp phase shifts from the Nijmegen analysis together with the nn scattering length. The description of nucleon–nucleon scattering and the deuteron observables at N3LO is improved compared to the one at NLO and NNLO. The theoretical uncertainties in observables are estimated based on the variation of the cut-offs in the spectral function representation of the potential and in the regulator utilized in the Lippmann–Schwinger equation.
Click to expand...



FYI, bjschaeffer:
  • "a two-nucleon system" is the simplest nucleus beyond the proton.
  • "chiral effective field theory" is QCD.
  • "deuteron observables" includes the binding energy according to ben m.
So you remain wrong.
This has nothing to do with the abysmal failures of your idea.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Who is ths Professor Brodsky?
Why have you not included the email that he relied to to provide context?

He is not one of the authors of the paper that ben m cited

The two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order
E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, Ulf-G. Meißner

Professor Brodsky is here
http://www.thp.univie.ac.at/english/research/particle/part-home.htm



FYI, bjschaeffer:
  • "a two-nucleon system" is the simplest nucleus beyond the proton.
  • "chiral effective field theory" is QCD.
  • "deuteron observables" includes the binding energy according to ben m.
So you remain wrong.
This has nothing to do with the abysmal failures of your idea.
Click to expand...

Meißner rejected my paper :
Dear Dr. Schaeffer:

Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A "Hadrons and Nuclei".
However, the ms does not meet the scientific standards of the EPJ A.
Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.


Sincerely yours
Prof. Ulf Meissner
Editor in Chief
European Physical Journal A
epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de
epja.bologna@sif.it

I didn't obtain this standards, presumably inexistent.

He like you believe that a neutron is a nucleon, the same thing as a proton which is wrong because their electric and magnetic properties are different.

I still wait your way of calculating of the binding energy of the deuteron. You are unable to do it. Perhaps are also unable to calculate the binding energy of the hydrogen atom…
 
Reality Check said:
Who is ths Professor Brodsky?
Click to expand...
Stan Brodsky is a former head of the theory group at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, which he joined in 1966.

Complaining about his paper's rejection by the European Physical Journal A, bjschaeffer wrote:

bjschaeffer said:
He like you believe that a neutron is a nucleon, the same thing as a proton which is wrong because their electric and magnetic properties are different.
Click to expand...
:jaw:

From Wikipedia's current article on nucleons:

Wikipedia said:
In chemistry and physics, a nucleon is one of the particles that makes up the atomic nucleus....There are two kinds of nucleon: the neutron and the proton.
Click to expand...


Disputing the accepted definition of nucleon would be one way to avoid meeting the scientific standards of any reputable journal.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Stan Brodsky is a former head of the theory group at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, which he joined in 1966.

Complaining about his paper's rejection by the European Physical Journal A, bjschaeffer wrote:


:jaw:

From Wikipedia's current article on nucleons:




Disputing the accepted definition of nucleon would be one way to avoid meeting the scientific standards of any reputable journal.
Click to expand...

It is not Brodsky but Meissner who rejected my paper. He doesn't distinguish between protons and neutrons :
"We consider the two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N3LO) in chiral effective field theory." N means nucleon. see here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947404010747
 
Last edited:
bjschaeffer said:
It is not Brodsky but Meissner who rejected my paper. He doesn't distinguish between protons and neutrons :
"We consider the two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N3LO) in chiral effective field theory." N means nucleon. see here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947404010747
Click to expand...

In the context of N3LO, N stands for next to. Hence N3 stands for next-to-next-to-next-to and N3LO stands for next-to-next-to-next-to leading order.
 
bjschaeffer said:
It is not Brodsky but Meissner who rejected my paper. He doesn't distinguish between protons and neutrons
Click to expand...

Your inability to understand "nucleons" is striking.

The proton and neutron are identical in their strong interactions. They differ in electromagnetic and weak interactions. Therefore, it makes sense to describe a single strong-interacting object ("the nucleon") which has two subtypes (an isospin doublet) of different charges---the same as we do for the pion (three subtypes, an isospin triplet), the delta baryons (a quadruplet), etc.

I understand this is not how your model works. But it is long known, and works just fine, in the mainstream model.
 
ben m said:
Your inability to understand "nucleons" is striking.

The proton and neutron are identical in their strong interactions. They differ in electromagnetic and weak interactions. Therefore, it makes sense to describe a single strong-interacting object ("the nucleon") which has two subtypes (an isospin doublet) of different charges---the same as we do for the pion (three subtypes, an isospin triplet), the delta baryons (a quadruplet), etc.

I understand this is not how your model works. But it is long known, and works just fine, in the mainstream model.
Click to expand...

My model is very simple its potential is on the picture below I have shown already :

Here is the potentials and graph for 2H with and without the neutron dipole :
(α is the fine structure constant, mp is the proton mass, c the light velocity RP the proton Compton radius, gn, gp the Lande factors and rnp the separation distance between the centers of the proton and the neutron :
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
your inability to understand "nucleons" is striking.

The proton and neutron are identical in their strong interactions. They differ in electromagnetic and weak interactions. Therefore, it makes sense to describe a single strong-interacting object ("the nucleon") which has two subtypes (an isospin doublet) of different charges---the same as we do for the pion (three subtypes, an isospin triplet), the delta baryons (a quadruplet), etc.

I understand this is not how your model works. But it is long known, and works just fine, in the mainstream model.
Click to expand...

very clear…
 
bjschaeffer said:
My model is very simple its potential is on the picture below I have shown already :
Click to expand...

You've posted this repeatedly, and it is not and cannot be the correct model of nuclear binding. Do you want to talk about anything about it, other than reposting your impression of "success" at predicting the deuteron binding energy?
 
ben m said:
You've posted this repeatedly, and it is not and cannot be the correct model of nuclear binding. Do you want to talk about anything about it, other than reposting your impression of "success" at predicting the deuteron binding energy?
Click to expand...

You never prove what you say
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Disputing the accepted definition of nucleon would be one way to avoid meeting the scientific standards of any reputable journal.
Click to expand...

This means that new ideas are censored as in the time of Copernicus and Galileo…
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
No, it means that in order to communicate with people you need to understand the meanings of the terms that they use
Click to expand...

Of course: the wild imaginings of the mainstream nuclear and particle physics cannot be understood. A typical example is "color-electric and color-magnetic fields "…
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom