Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

bjschaeffer said:
This means that new ideas are censored as in the time of Copernicus and Galileo…
Click to expand...
Psst, aren't you talking about them here, that is hardly censoring or teh Inquisition, now is it.

Demonstrating that the evidence matches you two equal charges theory of the neutron would probably go much farther than large fonts and comparisons to the 16th century.

Beware the crackpot index and its traits!

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Criteria 8, should really have Galileo in it.
 
bjschaeffer said:
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 "…
Click to expand...

When your theory of the strong forces works as well as that one...

And that is one paper in arxiv, hardly a large percentage of hits for it!

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.3143.pdf

Now color-electric has a few more hits:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/OR+au:color_electric+all:+EXACT+color_electric/0/1/0/all/0/1

as does color-magnetic:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/OR+au:color_magnetic+all:+EXACT+color_magnetic/0/1/0/all/0/1

but the combination

only 14
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/OR+au:c...r_electric+EXACT+color_magnetic/0/1/0/all/0/1


BTW how does you theory deal with the weak force?
 
Last edited:
bjschaeffer said:
Of course: the wild imaginings of the mainstream nuclear and particle physics cannot be understood.
Click to expand...

By you, yes. That's obvious.

A typical example is "color-electric and color-magnetic fields "…
Click to expand...

Many people (including me, and ben, and several other members of this forum, and thousands or tens of thousands of others) understand that perfectly well. It's your failing that you do not. And its your ignorant hubris that allows you to proclaim a theory you do not understand even the basics of to be wrong.
 
bjschaeffer said:
This means that new ideas are censored as in the time of Copernicus and Galileo
Click to expand...

(scary font size removed.)

Your objection to the definition of nucleon was not a "new idea", it was just a gripe. You complained that people have a word for "protons and/or neutrons". This is a dumb complaint.

You want to write a paper about *differences* between protons and neutrons? Go ahead, call them protons and neutrons. No one is censoring you.

You want to read a paper about nucleons, and point out a physics error they incur because they treat p and n the same? Go ahead, no one is censoring you.

You want to read a paper about nucleons and complain that you shouldn't call them "nucleons"? That's dumb, and people will call it dumb, and they're right.
 
sol invictus said:
By you, yes. That's obvious.



Many people (including me, and ben, and several other members of this forum, and thousands or tens of thousands of others) understand that perfectly well. It's your failing that you do not. And its your ignorant hubris that allows you to proclaim a theory you do not understand even the basics of to be wrong.
Click to expand...

If the many people understand what they cite how come that they are unable to give the corresponding explanation themselves?
 
bjschaeffer said:
Meißner rejected my paper :
...
Click to expand...
EPJ A "Hadrons and Nuclei" rejected your pape rbecause it did not meet scientific standards.

Those scientific standards include matching what is known such as measured binding energies and whether isotopes are stable. If your paper included the binding energies on your web site then your paper was wrong and rightfully rejected.

Those scientific standards include knowing basic definitions, e.g. that a neutron is a nucleon :jaw-dropp !

bjschaeffer said:
I still wait your way of calculating of the binding energy of the deuteron. You are unable to do it.
Click to expand...
That is an idiotic demand.
I (and as far as I know no other posters here) am not an expert in doing QCD calculations.


So we cite the scientific literature where there are experts in doing QCD calculations. Theses experts have calculated the binding energy of the deuteron:
 
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...
W.D. Clinger knows that Meissner rejected your paper.
Anyone who can read will not "distinguish between protons and neutrons"
That is because:
:dl:
 
Reality Check said:
EPJ A "Hadrons and Nuclei" rejected your pape rbecause it did not meet scientific standards.

Those scientific standards include matching what is known such as measured binding energies and whether isotopes are stable. If your paper included the binding energies on your web site then your paper was wrong and rightfully rejected.

Those scientific standards include knowing basic definitions, e.g. that a neutron is a nucleon :jaw-dropp !


That is an idiotic demand.
I (and as far as I know no other posters here) am not an expert in doing QCD calculations.


So we cite the scientific literature where there are experts in doing QCD calculations. Theses experts have calculated the binding energy of the deuteron:
Click to expand...

the proton and the neutron are both nucleons but they are different, they have different magnetic moments for example, completely neglected by Meissner and co.

These papers use words with nothing behind except fiction. Color electricity doesn't exist, it is only a word. Ordinary electricity works fine for nuclear physics as I have proved.

If you are not an expert of the problem you just believe what the "experts" say even if they are wrong. Many theories disappeared because they were wrong such as the philosophical stone that was assumed to explain chemistry replaced now by the Higgs boson (now only Higgs boson like), the permanent movement, the phlogistic, the cold fusion…
 
bjschaeffer's "proof" that his idea does not work

bjschaeffer said:
You never prove what you say
Click to expand...
No matter how big or bold you make your text - you are the one who has proved that your model is wrong! Read your web page:
Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes
The first standard yous fail are not presenting your claculations and using a graph to list these binding energies. But this is not a problem becauase the graph shows that you are wrong!



Let me count the ways that you are wrong:
  1. Deuterium binding energy measured to be 2,224.52±0.20 keV.
    You have ~1.0 MeV.
  2. Tritium binding energy measured to be 8,481.821± 0.004 keV
    You have ~2.8 MeV.
  3. 4H has a half-life of (1.39 ± 0.10) × 10−22 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  4. 5H has a half-life of ~9.1 × 10−22 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  5. 6H has a half-life of 2.90×10−22 seconds and so a a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy.
  6. 7H has a half-life of 2.3(6)×10−23 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  7. Helium-4 has a binding energy of 7.718 MeV.
    You have ~2.5 MeV.
  8. Helium-4 has a binding energy of 28300.7 keV.
    You have ~7.0 MeV.
  9. Helium-5 has a half-life of 700(30)×10−24 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  10. Helium-6 has a half-life of 806.7(15) ms and so a (probably!) negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  11. Helium-7 has a half-life of 2.9(5)×10−21 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  12. Helium-8 has a half-life of 119.0(15) ms and so a (probably!) negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  13. Helium-9 has a half-life of 7(4)×10−21 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
  14. Helium-10 has a half-life of 2.7(18)×10−21 seconds and so a negative binding energy.
    You have a positive binding energy in MeV.
N.B. A positive binding energy in MeV means that a isotope is stable.
Generally the lower the half-life of an unstable isotope, the lower the binding energy and when the half-life is small enough the binding energy is negative. My impression is that a half-life less than a second implies a negative binding energy (a real nuclear physicist will probably correct me!).



One good thing about your web site, bjschaeffer, is that you are honest about the rejecttions of your paper by several journals:
  • Nuclear Physics A
  • European Physical Journal A
  • Few-Body Systems
  • Physics Letters B
  • Physical Review C
  • Europhysics Letters
The last comment sums it up quite well:
"This article has to be rejected with no further consideration. The author seems to be unaware that there are in nature strong nuclear forces that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic ones."
 
Last edited:
Some friendly advice...

bjschaeffer said:
If you are not an expert of the problem you just believe what the "experts" say even if they are wrong.
Click to expand...
As a non-expert in this domain, I do indeed tend to give expert opinion more weight than non-expert opinion.

You, however, have accused Ulf Meißner of not knowing the difference between a proton and a neutron. While making that accusation, you revealed that you yourself did not know that "nucleon" is a technical term that includes both protons and neutrons. Scientifically literate readers will notice such glaring mistakes, and will conclude that you are far from expert in the field in which you pretend to have superior expertise.

You have discredited yourself, bjschaeffer. Having done so, you are not in a good position to rail against the experts.

Instead of throwing a hissy fit, you need to study some basic concepts of the Standard Model you hope to overthrow. That will improve your chances of being taken seriously, by journal editors as well as by the non-expert but scientifically literate readers you're trying to impress in this forum.
 
bjschaeffer said:
the proton and the neutron are both nucleons but they are different, they have different magnetic moments for example, completely neglected by Meissner and co.
Click to expand...
Ignored because the strong force dominates as anyone with a small knowledge of physics knows!

bjschaeffer said:
These papers use words with nothing behind except fiction. Color electricity doesn't exist, it is only a word.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as "color electricity" and it is in fact 2 words :jaw-dropp !

You are deluded because those papers are science not fiction. They were published in scientific journals.
bjschaeffer said:
Ordinary electricity works fine for nuclear physics as I have proved.
Click to expand...
Wrong: bjschaeffer's "proof" that his idea does not work!

bjschaeffer said:
If you are not an expert of the problem you just believe what the "experts" say even if they are wrong. ...
Click to expand...
That is right.
You (bjschaeffer) are not an expert of the problem so you have to you believe what the experts say even if they are wrong (b ecause you have no way of knowing whether they are wrong!).


I though have a good knowledge of physics and can read (and mostly understand) scientific papers (unlike you because you think that science is fiction :rolleyes:!) such as
Followed by real gibberish. The Higgs boson is nuclear physics not chemistry! There has been a discovery of a boson that shows every sign of being the Higgs boson.
 
bjschaeffer said:
the proton and the neutron are both nucleons but they are different, they have different magnetic moments for example, completely neglected by Meissner and co.
Click to expand...

So what is the magnetic moment of the neutron, and if as you say it is composed of a positive and a negative charge of whole units, why does it align antiparalell to the field?

And in fact why does it have a magnetic moment at all if it has two cancelling charges?

Could it be that with three quarks, +2/3 up, -1/3 down and -1/3 down that you get a small negative effect?
 
Reality Check said:
Ignored because the strong force dominates as anyone with a small knowledge of physics knows!
Click to expand...
Another bit of evidence for the strong force not being electromagnetic in origin: What happens when we scatter alpha particles from a nucleus and predict what happens only with electromagnetic forces?

It does not work :eye-poppi !

Departure From Rutherford Formula
The mutual Coulomb repulsion of an alpha particle and a target nucleus give rise to a predictable trajectory and led to the development of the Rutherford formula. As the Geiger-Marsden data shows, the data are in agreement with the formula for a wide range of angles. With high enough alpha energies, however, the projectile punches in close enough to the nuclear center to come into range of the nuclear strong force and the distribution of scattered alphas departs from the Rutherford formula.
Click to expand...
 
bjschaeffer said:
the proton and the neutron are both nucleons but they are different, they have different magnetic moments for example, completely neglected by Meissner and co.

These papers use words with nothing behind except fiction. Color electricity doesn't exist, it is only a word. Ordinary electricity works fine for nuclear physics as I have proved.

If you are not an expert of the problem you just believe what the "experts" say even if they are wrong. Many theories disappeared because they were wrong such as the philosophical stone that was assumed to explain chemistry replaced now by the Higgs boson (now only Higgs boson like), the permanent movement, the phlogistic, the cold fusion…
Click to expand...
powers of the 3 magnetics moments of neucteons are then answer. fiction is when experts know nohting of Higgs in triple.
 
bjschaeffer said:
If the many people understand what they cite how come that they are unable to give the corresponding explanation themselves?
Click to expand...

They are perfectly capable of explaining. It's just that they are unable to give an explanation that you understand.

You're the common factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom