Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[bjschaeffer]

You are suggesting an analogue of hydrogen bonding in neutrons? It seems likely that if true, this would also significantly alter chemical bonds between atoms, as charge distribution would not be as expected in a more standard model. Yet chemical bonds (afaik) show no such variation. How does your model explain this?

It is not an analogue of hydrogen bonding which is a dipole-dipole interaction, it is a charge-dipole interaction between a proton and a neutron containing electric charges with no net charge. The electric charges are assumed to be pointlike. To obtain the best result, the exact dipole formula has to be used:
1/(r+a)-1/(r-a)<0 instead of the approximate formula, -2a/r² (pb with the formula perhaps this is better: -2a/r² or this -2a/r^2).

 

[ben m]

At equilibrium between the electric attraction and the magnetic repulsion one obtains the binding energy of the deuteron as by chance!

You didn't calculate the "equilibrium" of electric attraction and magnetic repulsion for a proton and a neutron. Remember? We went through this in some detail. Your calculation was nonsense even as an attempt to calculate a simple charge-dipole attraction.

You looked at your charge and your "dipole", gave the dipole a completely-made-up radius, and proceeded to

a) double-count the electrostatic attraction by including both explicit charge terms and an approximate dipole term,
b) use the wrong radius for calculating a magnetic repulsion, and worst
c) forget to calculate a very large term in your potential which destabilizes your whole system.

You keep saying that you "used E&M" to calculate the deuteron binding energy, but what you actually did was look up the deuteron binding energy, then flail at E&M until you had enough random mistakes that you wandered into the ballpark of what you wanted.

 

[bjschaeffer]

You didn't calculate the "equilibrium" of electric attraction and magnetic repulsion for a proton and a neutron. Remember? We went through this in some detail. Your calculation was nonsense even as an attempt to calculate a simple charge-dipole attraction.

You looked at your charge and your "dipole", gave the dipole a completely-made-up radius, and proceeded to

a) double-count the electrostatic attraction by including both explicit charge terms and an approximate dipole term,
b) use the wrong radius for calculating a magnetic repulsion, and worst
c) forget to calculate a very large term in your potential which destabilizes your whole system.

You keep saying that you "used E&M" to calculate the deuteron binding energy, but what you actually did was look up the deuteron binding energy, then flail at E&M until you had enough random mistakes that you wandered into the ballpark of what you wanted.

You are unable to verify my calculations and of course to produce another solution with fundamental laws and constants.

 

[ben m]

You are unable to verify my calculations and of course to produce another solution with fundamental laws and constants.

a) I did the correct E&M calculation based on your proposed model, fixing your mistakes, and do not get the 1.6 MeV answer you wanted.

b) I cannot "verify" a mistaken calculation. That's not what "verify" means. Verify means check that there are no mistakes and there are mistakes in yours.

c) QCD predicts many things but is computationally intractable at the level of the deuteron binding energy. As you know. Physicists are not in the habit of choosing tractable falsehoods over difficult truths.

We can ask the question the other way. QCD provides a complete, tractable prediction for the angular distribution of three-jet events in proton-proton collisions. You are unable to verify my calculations and of course to produce another solution with fundamental laws and constants. QCD provides a complete, tractable prediction for the catalogue of heavy mesons. You are unable to verify my calculations and of course to produce another solution with fundamental laws and constants. Why isn't that a problem for your theory?

 

[Reality Check]

I don't need the hypothesis of quarks. I apply classical physics, not legends.

Then you are being really ignorant , bjschaeffer, because:
* the experimental evidence is that quarks exist .
I suspect that high school science students know that multiple scattering centers have been detected inside nucleons.
* classical physics does not work on the quantum level
That is what quantum mechanics is about,.
That is what the real world tells us, but not apparently you, bjschaeffer.

 

[Reality Check]

To calculate it, I use the exact dipole formula as you can see in my paper
(ADVANCED ELECTROMAGNETICS, Vol. 2, No. 1, September 2013
Electric and Magnetic Coulomb Potentials in the Deuteron).

This looks like ADVANCED ELECTROMAGNETICS

Advanced Electromagnetics (AEM), is electronic peer-reviewed open access journal that publishes original research articles as well as review articles in all areas of electromagnetic science and engineering. The aim of the journal is to become a premier open access source of high quality research that spans the entire broad field of electromagnetics from static to optical frequencies.

(my emphasis added)
which is s stupid place to submit a paper on nuclear physics. Any competent editor would have rejected your paper as not appropriate for the journal. Any peer reviewers are unlikely to have been nuclear physicists.
It looks like yet another online journal (established 2012, 7 issues) that publishers have been churning out lately.

And looking at the PDF: Instant crank indicator ! No affiliation with an academic institute.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't need the hypothesis of quarks.

I will also point out the hypocrisy in rejecting the experimental evidence for quarks: Your "hypothesis" is that the neutron has two charges induced by a proton. This is impossible without the neutron being a composite particle, bjschaeffer .
Charges cannot appear from nowhere as anyone with a knowledge of electromagnetism knows - you do know this, bjschaeffer? There is a fundamental law in electromagnetism preventing this.

Reject the experimental evidence for quarks and the successes of QCD and your "hypothesis" becomes even more of a fantasy than it is at the moment.

Accept the experimental evidence for quarks and your hypothesis is wrong because there are three charged particle to account for and you only have two.

 

[Belz...]

The quarks are hypothetical

No, they're not.

Just because you have trouble understanding or accepting something doesn't make reality match your claims.

 

[Reality Check]

I know the curve of the measured charge distribution in the neutron.

Then why do you ignore this in your calculation, bjschaeffer?

An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.[32] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve charge.

This is even worse than the fatal flaw that makes your "paper' wrong - ignoring the energy needed to separate your imaginary n_- and n₊ particles.

How does the measured distribution of the charge from quarks (which you deny exist!) inside a neutron become your n_- and n₊, bjschaeffer?
How much energy does this take, bjschaeffer?

 

[Reality Check]

I never found the fundamental laws and constants of the "strong force" becaming "strong interaction" and now LQCD proving its vacuity.

Stating ignorance or denial about QCD says nothing about the validity of QCD, bjschaeffer.
There is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy - thinking that evidence against theory A is evidence for theory B. But you have gone one better - the fallacy of delusional dichotomy . This is the delusion that theory A does not work at all and so theory B must work.
QCD works for many situations. Lattice QCD is one of several calculation methods for QCD. It is not a different theory, bjschaeffer.
As already pointed out to you - it is too hard currently to calculate the deuteron binding energy accurately in QCD. That does not mean that it cannot be calculated, just that today we do get accurate values.
There are plenty of actual, ongoing calculations of the deuteron binding energy, e.g. see Improving the Volume Dependence of Two-Body Binding Energies Calculated with Lattice QCD

The central values of these two parameters in the s-wave amplitude give rise to a deuteron binding energy of B ~ 2.212 MeV with a corresponding k0 of k0 ~  45.58 MeV, which are within  0:5% of the actual deuteron binding parameters.

 

[fuelair]

Stating ignorance or denial about QCD says nothing about the validity of QCD, bjschaeffer.
There is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy - thinking that evidence against theory A is evidence for theory B. But you have gone one better - the fallacy of delusional dichotomy . This is the delusion that theory A does not work at all and so theory B must work.
QCD works for many situations. Lattice QCD is one of several calculation methods for QCD. It is not a different theory, bjschaeffer.
As already pointed out to you - it is too hard currently to calculate the deuteron binding energy accurately in QCD. That does not mean that it cannot be calculated, just that today we do get accurate values.
There are plenty of actual, ongoing calculations of the deuteron binding energy, e.g. see Improving the Volume Dependence of Two-Body Binding Energies Calculated with Lattice QCD

Silly Reality Check suggesting checking reality!!!!

 

[fuelair]

I publish in Chinese journals only if my papers are rejected in the West. The linear stability is due to the static equilibrium between electric attraction and magnetic repulsion, both ignored in nuclear physics. To calculate it, I use the exact dipole formula as you can see in my paper
(ADVANCED ELECTROMAGNETICS, Vol. 2, No. 1, September 2013
Electric and Magnetic Coulomb Potentials in the Deuteron).
The rotating stability between the proton and the neutron is insured by the spin as for a top.
The isotopes H4,H5,H6 binding energies have been predicted from 2H by neglecting the neutron binding energy. This is valid only for H and He isotopes, not for the heavier nuclides where it is more complicated.
I never said that they were stable.

It is good to read Derek Lowe on Chinese Journals and pay for play as it were. Most will accept used toilet paper for money - and publish it.

 

[fuelair]

Similar though not Chinese.: ttp://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/08/25/citable_garbage.php

 

[Reality Check]

It is good to read Derek Lowe on Chinese Journals and pay for play as it were.

Derek Lowe's blog post is actually about a responsible Chinese journal who analyzed their submissions using a plagiarism checker to find that

Since October 2008, they've found "unoriginal material" in 31% of all their submissions, a number they themselves call "staggering".

Published in Nature as Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized
This is a bad reflection on the submitters of the papers, not the journal.

 

[bjschaeffer]

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)

Coulomb's and Poisson's as well as Maxwell's equations laws explain quantitatively the binding energy of the two lightest nuclei:

 

[bjschaeffer]

This looks like ADVANCED ELECTROMAGNETICS

(my emphasis added)
which is s stupid place to submit a paper on nuclear physics. Any competent editor would have rejected your paper as not appropriate for the journal. Any peer reviewers are unlikely to have been nuclear physicists.
It looks like yet another online journal (established 2012, 7 issues) that publishers have been churning out lately.

And looking at the PDF: Instant crank indicator ! No affiliation with an academic institute.

I am retired and got a PhD almost one half a century ago.
It seems that you ignore electromagnetism as the nuclear physicists saying
NN=nn=pp=np although, some times they speek of "Coulomb's force" reduced the the repulsion between protons. The nuclear peer reviewers ignore completely the magnetic moments of the nuclei.

 

[Belz...]

I am retired and got a PhD almost one half a century ago.

Serves to show that school credentials don't mean much.

 

[ben m]

bjscheffer, do you even remember that we discussed mistakes in your E&M calculation? You seemed to be replying to these posts at the time so I think you were listening.

But maybe it slipped your mind because it was a year ago. Please click back to two or three older pages of this thread and remind yourself of what happened, please. Is that the same model you're talking about now? Does this model still yield the "1.6 MeV" prediction if you use Coulomb's Law without making mistakes?

 

[Dancing David]

You are unable to verify my calculations and of course to produce another solution with fundamental laws and constants.

So what is the distance between these point like charges and why don't they collapse together? You know opposite charges attract.

You failed to answer that before.

 

[fuelair]

Derek Lowe's blog post is actually about a responsible Chinese journal who analyzed their submissions using a plagiarism checker to find that

Published in Nature as Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized
This is a bad reflection on the submitters of the papers, not the journal.

That's from 2010 - Derek has posted multiple columns that point the other direction - and the one I noted was yesterday and not Chinese, but he has commented a number of times on Chinese company research of dubious nature and pubs/articles equally dubious - but, certainly not just Chinese. IIRC
(and as I check Pipeline almost daily, that is likely) he has mentioned China, Africa and certain wealthy but silly others that do similar and some of the people who hunt down and trick them to expose what they are doing. Like the one I posted...