Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[dafydd]

Particle physics has never given the fundamental laws between nucleons. The precision of the particle experiments are at best of 10% but usually it is qualitative. The precision of the nuclear masses is up to 6 digits for the proton…The strong and weak forces are pure imagination, nobody nows their fundamental laws

I never knew that the Nobel prizes handed out for those discoveries were imaginary. Knock me down with a feather.

 

[ben m]

The precision of the particle experiments are at best of 10% but usually it is qualitative.

Just noticed this when dafydd quoted it. Hilarious! I'm trying to think of one example of a "qualitative" measurement in particle physics. Do you have a qualitative claim in mind, bjschaeffer? Is it possible that you read a qualitative claim in, say, a newspaper article, and neglected to check if there was a quantitative version in a technical journal article?

Particle physics, in my experience, is so obsessively quantitative, even an experiment that doesn't find anything frequently generates a Ph.D. thesis' worth of detailed quantification of what, exactly, was not-found at each confidence limit---and in which those limits are assigned, not merely error bars, but complete error covariance matrices.

 

[The Man]

Of course an electron may polarize the neutron but it has to be very near to the proton.

"very near to the proton"? What Proton?

So then if the electron "may polarize the neutron" as a Proton does (in your notions) why don't we see bound Electron-Neutron states?

 

[ben m]

Looking again at schaeffer's web page, I'm confused by why he thinks he has *any* datum that doesn't disprove his model. He's drawn a picture of what he thinks is a bound deuteron. OK, yes, there is such a thing as a deuteron. He then draws pictures (planar ones) of nonexistent, unbound "isotopes" like H-6, and He-5, and it's not clear at all what he thinks he's done--- what did he calculate, and what data does he think agrees with this?

His electromagnetic, Van der Waals-like binding idea is obviously useless in larger nuclei; as soon as there are two protons, Schaffer's "-/+" neutron-object can't bind to both of them, it's going to be attracted to one and repelled by or indifferent to the other.

Schaffer's idea predicts a neutron-neutron bound state. No such state exists.

Schaeffer's pictures put things like He4, He5, and He6 on a continuum, as though they're all vaguely similar states, with his magic electric binding theory being perfectly happy to hold an extra neutron or two. The opposite is true; real He4 is tightly bound, real He6 is weakly bound, and He5 spontaneously ejects,rather than attracting, its 5th neutron.

Note that I am not doing what schaeffer objected to before, I.e. bringing in fancy particle physics data, quantum mechanics, or E&M that he's uninterested in agreeing with. Schaffer's picture of light nuclei doesn't look anything whatsoever like the real world of light nuclei---other than " the deuteron exists" I'd like to understand why he thinks it does.

 

[The Man]

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.

Indeed, equal and opposite charges would make the Neutron, well, neutral. Though, why just assume only "+e and -e"?

Why are Neutrons stable when bound as nucleons but unstable (life span of about 15 minutes) when free? How do you account for the decay particles of a free (at 16 minutes) Neutron? Again a lot of explaining to do without even talking about nuclear binding energies

As ben m noted before ,we are talking about particles. So without particle physics, what is there to talk about?

Quantum mechanics is implicitly taken into account through the magnetic moments, a consequence of the spin.

How about explicitly taking it into account? It's not just " the magnetic moments, a consequence of the spin". What discrete energy levels does your Proton-Neutron bound state, heck just your "+e and -e" Neutron, have without a shell model?

 

[kalen]

Schaffer's picture of light nuclei doesn't look anything whatsoever like the real world of light nuclei---other than " the deuteron exists" I'd like to understand why he thinks it does.

You mean that it does not correspond to the real world even in a "qualitative" way? How ironic.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Wow that is a lot of ignorance!

As a New Zealander, I just have to point out that my fellow Kiwi Ernest Rutherford was instrumental in showing that atoms have a nucleus and that electrons exist outside of the nucleus.
The nucleus is a "central massive body which can act as a force center"

1. It is in the middle of the atom (central!)
2. It is massive (a proton is 1824 times heavier than an electron).
3. It acts as a force center (protons are positive, electrons are negative and opposite charges attract!)

Neutrons are actually neutral because they are measured to be neutral. They do not contain "electric charges" as if there were 2 oppositely charged particles in then. Neutrons are neutral because they contain 3 quarks whose charges add up to zero.

 

[DHamilton]

1. Coulomb's law does not completely describe the behaviour of charges. Maxwell's equations do.
2. Changes in frame do not affect Maxwell's laws. A change in frame from an electrostatic situation that is described by Coulomb's law results in you getting the magnetic field and everything else in Maxwell's laws anyway (thanks to SR, Ziggurat's posted something on this before I believe). All this talk of motion being relative gains you nothing over what we already know.
3. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.
4. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.

(I thought that point 3 was important enough to mention twice)

1) As for you saying that Maxwell's Equations completely describe the behavior of charges.... that's just nuts. And if you don't know that then you're deluded beyond recovery. Maxwell's equations didn't predict the emergence of muons and a host of other particles the existence of which are generated by the motions of charges in accelerators.

2) Your comment #2 is non-sequitur because no one, and particularly myself ever said (in the post to which you seem to be replying) that changes in frame affect Maxwell's Laws. It seems evident that the points of this post slipped right past a number of dull intellects, yours included.

3) Another non-sequitur related to your comments' #3 and #4 .... You are shooting at your own straw men and have again demonstrated that you really didn't grasp anything. You won't find the phrase 'atomic nucleus' in the post. One wonders if you are a bot with phrases emerging from a program that is totally without the intellectual resources associated with the basics of comprehension.

 

[bjschaeffer]

"very near to the proton"? What Proton?

So then if the electron "may polarize the neutron" as a Proton does (in your notions) why don't we see bound Electron-Neutron states?

Good question. I don't know any case where the electron is at a distance from a proton of the same order as the neutron size. In the atom, the electron is too far from the nucleus to polarize its neutrons.

 

[DHamilton]

Hiya,
Silly layman's question:



This makes some sense to me but I have what I am sure are naive question about it.

1. This makes sense if particles do not behave accoring to the naive understanding of general relativity There is a discussion of 'space/time' and being warped, as in 'massive objects warp space time'. So at least to this silly layman this begs a number of questions.

A. Can particles behave as though they are not in space time? So they do not have reference to it?

B. Can particles behave as they are not interacting with fields and the like? Magnetic fields, gravitational fields?

c. Would the bizarre critter labeled 'vacum energy' provide a frame of interaction?

I realise that these are very naive and foolish questions but they are relevant to the axiom you state from my uninformed POV.

Space-Time is an intellectual mathematical concept that doesn't necessarily correlate with physical reality. From: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-einstein-problems-theory-of-relativity.htm "Now there are a number of Problems with Albert Einstein's Field Theory of Matter (see below), as he was well aware, and which, late in his life, caused him to write to his friend Michael Besso expressing his frustration;

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"

We have no experimental data that demonstrates that a particle either stationary or moving generates or produces a continuous field. People often take it on faith that this is so but there's no data to back up such beliefs. I could make the claim that the radiation from any brilliant light source such as, say, a star, doesn't truly propagate its radiation completely omnidirectionally but rather only in along vectors which will end in absorption (temporary or longterm). In other words I could say that no photon can propagate without there existing a 'target' for it somewhere in the future. Such a claim cannot be refuted and since it cannot be refuted then one might suggest that this implies that space-time as a continuous structure does not really exist. Where you wish to take it from there is up to you. Because I can show you some things that are not true doesn't mean I can show you all things that are true.
DHamilton

 

[DHamilton]

It is my own work... I never plagiarize ... no knowingly, at least. So what if I post under a pseudonym? Why should you care. If I show something true is it less true?

 

[bjschaeffer]

Indeed, equal and opposite charges would make the Neutron, well, neutral. Though, why just assume only "+e and -e"?

Why are Neutrons stable when bound as nucleons but unstable (life span of about 15 minutes) when free? How do you account for the decay particles of a free (at 16 minutes) Neutron? Again a lot of explaining to do without even talking about nuclear binding energies

As ben m noted before ,we are talking about particles. So without particle physics, what is there to talk about?


How about explicitly taking it into account? It's not just " the magnetic moments, a consequence of the spin". What discrete energy levels does your Proton-Neutron bound state, heck just your "+e and -e" Neutron, have without a shell model?

I have not studied this problem. My problem is to calculate the binding energies of stable nuclei. Nobody else is able to do it even for the simplest nucleus beyond the proton, the deuteron. I have done it for the hydrogen and some helium isotopes as you can see in my paper "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes".

The shell model with its mysterious "strong force" is unable to do it . The nucleus, having no nucleus, is not like an atom. the nucleons cannot orbit around nothing.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Wow that is a lot of ignorance!

As a New Zealander, I just have to point out that my fellow Kiwi was instrumental in showing that atoms have a nucleus and that electrons exist outside of the nucleus.
The nucleus is a "central massive body which can act as a force center"

1. It is in the middle of the atom (central!)
2. It is massive (a proton is 1824 times heavier than an electron).
3. It acts as a force center (protons are positive, electrons are negative and opposite charges attract!)

Neutrons are actually neutral because they are measured to be neutral. They do not contain "electric charges" as if there were 2 oppositely charged particles in then.Neutrons are neutral because they contain 3 quarks whose charges add up to zero.

The nucleus is a massive body at the center of an atom. There is no massive body at the center of a nucleus allowing the nucleon to orbit around it like a planet around the sun.

Nobody has ever seen a quark. The only proved elementary electric charges are +e and -e.

 

[bjschaeffer]

I never knew that the Nobel prizes handed out for those discoveries were imaginary. Knock me down with a feather.

The fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction are, after one century of nuclear physics, unknown. The self-called "modern" nuclear physics are on the wrong way. No Nobel prize has been able to do it. For example, the shell model is, at best, a second order effect on the binding energy curve of the three thousands of known nuclei. The absolute value of the binding energies is known only from the experimentally measured nuclear masses not from fundamental theory.

 

[DHamilton]

That's not an answer. If you're correct, then what about Maxwell's equations allow neutrons to decay into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos, but forbid decay into anti-protons, positrons, and neutrinos? The charges all work out the same. Yet only one of those two actually ever happens.



Nope, doesn't work that way. Can't react to gravity without being a source, just like you can't react to an electric field without having a charge.



So you're trying to tell me general relativity is all wrong? That's a bold claim. And if you're not trying to tell me that, well, what the hell do you know about what I know about gravity?



Strongly excluded? No, I don't think so. Do you have any clue about how much stronger the electromagnetic interaction between protons and electrons is than gravitational interaction between them is?

Come now... you make comments that you, not being a true expert in either the phenomenon of gravity or its sources can make without being pure bluster. I know that you are uninformed not only just based upon what you have so unwisely regurgitated on the internet. I know that you cannot make certain statements and simultaneously know the nature of gravity. Because I am informed I can tell that you are not so quit pretending to be what you are not, i.e. an expert on these matters. On the other hand, I know exactly what a gravitational 'field' is, truly. A neutron is a gravitational 'field' source particle and a proton is not. You try to make the analogy that because only charged particles interact with other charged particles that only gravitational source particles will interact with gravitational source particles. That isn't even a logically valid statement but you eruct it as if it were. You really are in the dark and whistling isn't going to help you. When you say things that you don't know are true or not as if they are true, then I know that you are right down in the core of your being, a liar. I find that hard to tolerate in a discussion. When I know that a man is lying to me then it nearly extinguishes all desire for further discourse. I also reckon that anyone else who is unable to stand up to his lies is also not worthy of receiving true informative discourse from me. I couldn't speak with authority on these matters (concerning the nature and properties of gravitational sources and the nature of gravity itself) if I hadn't solved what I know that you haven't solved. You are like the dog in the manger. You can't partake of the provender yourself and you'll be damned if you'll be silent and let anyone else taste of it either. Such discourses as you present destroy the very reason such forums are set up in the first place. We'd all like to get to the truth of many matters in physics but I suppose that the actual Truth rarely makes it into such forums as the likes of you regularly inhabit. I know that you don't know what gravity is. If you did, you'd break your ankles getting to your feet and screaming to the world what a wonderfully bright intellect you are for having discovered the secrets of gravity. Instead you hang around like such forums so that you can slam anyone in the face who dares suggest that they might have some new insight into the solutions to long standing problems and you try and make such people explain things in terms of things that in themselves are inherently wrong and when they cannot, you claim victory. There are really lots of people who see right through you. Lee Smolin described some of those people in his recent book 'The Trouble With Physics'.... people who have come to or passed through the doctorate level in particle physics who find that even though they are completely versed in the nonsense which passes for the latest knowledge, no longer believe it. I see that as evidence that there are still some people with integrity in science. You, however, are not among them.

 

[Multivac]

Come now... you make comments that you, not being a true expert in either the phenomenon of gravity or its sources can make without being pure bluster. I know that you are uninformed not only just based upon what you have so unwisely regurgitated on the internet. I know that you cannot make certain statements and simultaneously know the nature of gravity. Because I am informed I can tell that you are not so quit pretending to be what you are not, i.e. an expert on these matters. On the other hand, I know exactly what a gravitational 'field' is, truly. A neutron is a gravitational 'field' source particle and a proton is not. You try to make the analogy that because only charged particles interact with other charged particles that only gravitational source particles will interact with gravitational source particles. That isn't even a logically valid statement but you eruct it as if it were. You really are in the dark and whistling isn't going to help you. When you say things that you don't know are true or not as if they are true, then I know that you are right down in the core of your being, a liar. I find that hard to tolerate in a discussion. When I know that a man is lying to me then it nearly extinguishes all desire for further discourse. I also reckon that anyone else who is unable to stand up to his lies is also not worthy of receiving true informative discourse from me. I couldn't speak with authority on these matters (concerning the nature and properties of gravitational sources and the nature of gravity itself) if I hadn't solved what I know that you haven't solved. You are like the dog in the manger. You can't partake of the provender yourself and you'll be damned if you'll be silent and let anyone else taste of it either. Such discourses as you present destroy the very reason such forums are set up in the first place. We'd all like to get to the truth of many matters in physics but I suppose that the actual Truth rarely makes it into such forums as the likes of you regularly inhabit. I know that you don't know what gravity is. If you did, you'd break your ankles getting to your feet and screaming to the world what a wonderfully bright intellect you are for having discovered the secrets of gravity. Instead you hang around like such forums so that you can slam anyone in the face who dares suggest that they might have some new insight into the solutions to long standing problems and you try and make such people explain things in terms of things that in themselves are inherently wrong and when they cannot, you claim victory. There are really lots of people who see right through you. Lee Smolin described some of those people in his recent book 'The Trouble With Physics'.... people who have come to or passed through the doctorate level in particle physics who find that even though they are completely versed in the nonsense which passes for the latest knowledge, no longer believe it. I see that as evidence that there are still some people with integrity in science. You, however, are not among them.

Could you please format your post to make it easier to read?

Many people find it difficult to read text if it is not separated into paragraphs. Can't speak for other fiorum users, but I do not read walls of text.

 

[edd]

A neutron is a gravitational 'field' source particle and a proton is not. You try to make the analogy that because only charged particles interact with other charged particles that only gravitational source particles will interact with gravitational source particles.

Aside from it being a fairly straightforward thing to actually test (you could do the Cavendish experiment with materials of different ratios of protons to neutrons for example, and there's plenty of very sensitive tests of the equivalence principle already done as well), there would be fairly severe issues with conservation of momentum if a massive particle didn't gravitate, wouldn't there? I mean, it has to accelerate due to gravity, but the other mass doesn't have to accelerate in the opposite direction. Or do you have some clever way around that?

 

[Tubbythin]

The nucleus is a massive body at the center of an atom. There is no massive body at the center of a nucleus allowing the nucleon to orbit around it like a planet around the sun.

There is no massive body at the centre of many binary star systems either.And yet they still exist. Funny that.

Nobody has ever seen a quark. The only proved elementary electric charges are +e and -e.

Then you have a hell of a lot of evidence for the quark to explain away.

 

[Tubbythin]

The fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction are, after one century of nuclear physics, unknown. The self-called "modern" nuclear physics are on the wrong way. No Nobel prize has been able to do it. For example, the shell model is, at best, a second order effect on the binding energy curve of the three thousands of known nuclei. The absolute value of the binding energies is known only from the experimentally measured nuclear masses not from fundamental theory.

That would be the old creationist argument: Scientists don't know everything therefore we can just make out they don't know anything and ignore all the overwhelming evidence that utterly invalidates our pet theories..

 

[Tubbythin]

Aside from it being a fairly straightforward thing to actually test (you could do the Cavendish experiment with materials of different ratios of protons to neutrons for example, and there's plenty of very sensitive tests of the equivalence principle already done as well), there would be fairly severe issues with conservation of momentum if a massive particle didn't gravitate, wouldn't there? I mean, it has to accelerate due to gravity, but the other mass doesn't have to accelerate in the opposite direction. Or do you have some clever way around that?

Sure he does. A wall of text about how superior he is to you and everyone else.