Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[fuelair]

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

repost for workable cite, my error yesterday!!!

Missed the h in http on copy/paste

 

[Reality Check]

...

Nothing to do with my post, bjschaeffer.
Common sense should tell you that there are few experts in nuclear physics peer reviewing a journal about electromagnetism and thus it is stupid to expect a paper on the binding energy of deuteron to be expertly reviewed.
As I stated:

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.

"Instant crank indicator" is a comment on the competence of the editor. Blindly accepting a submission from someone with no present or past affiliation stated is dubious.

I do not ignore electromagnetism and neither do nuclear physicists. We know (unlike you bjschaeffer) that:
* neutrons contain 3 quarks, not your imaginary 2 particles.
* the force required to bind nucleons is short range and much stronger than electromagnetism, i.e. it is not electromagnetism.
* to separate differently charged particles you need to do work. That is a contribution to binding energies.

 

[bjschaeffer]

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?

You are unable to prove anything you say. Where are the mistakes?
How do you calculate the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron. You never gave an answer to this question.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Nothing to do with my post, bjschaeffer.
Common sense should tell you that there are few experts in nuclear physics peer reviewing a journal about electromagnetism and thus it is stupid to expect a paper on the binding energy of deuteron to be expertly reviewed.
As I stated:

"Instant crank indicator" is a comment on the competence of the editor. Blindly accepting a submission from someone with no present or past affiliation stated is dubious.

I do not ignore electromagnetism and neither do nuclear physicists. We know (unlike you bjschaeffer) that:
* neutrons contain 3 quarks, not your imaginary 2 particles.
* the force required to bind nucleons is short range and much stronger than electromagnetism, i.e. it is not electromagnetism.
* to separate differently charged particles you need to do work. That is a contribution to binding energies.

The problem is that the mainstream nuclear physics is only fantasy. The mysterious strong force is of the same kind as the phlogiston and the aether.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Nothing to do with my post, bjschaeffer.
Common sense should tell you that there are few experts in nuclear physics peer reviewing a journal about electromagnetism and thus it is stupid to expect a paper on the binding energy of deuteron to be expertly reviewed.
As I stated:

"Instant crank indicator" is a comment on the competence of the editor. Blindly accepting a submission from someone with no present or past affiliation stated is dubious.

I do not ignore electromagnetism and neither do nuclear physicists. We know (unlike you bjschaeffer) that:
* neutrons contain 3 quarks, not your imaginary 2 particles.
* the force required to bind nucleons is short range and much stronger than electromagnetism, i.e. it is not electromagnetism.
* to separate differently charged particles you need to do work. That is a contribution to binding energies.

This is wrong my calculation on the graph proves that the nuclear energy is electromagnetic, giving the correct result that nobody elese is able to obtain, except by fitting allowing anything.

 

[bjschaeffer]

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?

The fundamental laws of QCD and also LQCD are inexistent as well as those of the strong and weak forces from science fiction.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is wrong my calculation on the graph proves that the nuclear energy is electromagnetic, giving the correct result that nobody elese is able to obtain, except by fitting allowing anything.

If we combine your result with a result obtained (using remarkably similar techniques) by liquidspacetime, the nuclear energy must be "a physical displacement of the aether".

You and liquidspacetime will have to decide who is to be first author. I don't think it matters, because both of you are certain to win a Nobel for this.

The problem is that the mainstream nuclear physics is only fantasy. The mysterious strong force is of the same kind as the phlogiston and the aether.

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?

The fundamental laws of QCD and also LQCD are inexistent as well as those of the strong and weak forces from science fiction.

Ignoring the sentences I highlighted is one of the techniques that reminded me of liquidspacetime's researches.

 

[Mister Earl]

The problem is that the mainstream nuclear physics is only fantasy.

You keep making this assertion as if it were fact. You also keep failing to back up this assertion. If this were true, you should have no issue handling every concern brought up about this assertion. As well as breaking out the math.

I don't see the last two happening at all in this thread.

 

[Reality Check]

The fundamental laws of QCD and also LQCD are inexistent as well as those of the strong and weak forces from science fiction.

That is a total lie, bjschaeffer: The fundamental laws of QCD and also LQCD exist. This just reveals that you have no idea what they are !
Quantum chromodynamics

In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of strong interactions, a fundamental force describing the interactions between quarks and gluons which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron and pion.

Lattice QCD has no "fundamental laws" - it is a computational technique for QCD:

Among non-perturbative approaches to QCD, the most well established one is lattice QCD. This approach uses a discrete set of spacetime points (called the lattice) to reduce the analytically intractable path integrals of the continuum theory to a very difficult numerical computation which is then carried out on supercomputers like the QCDOC which was constructed for precisely this purpose.

 

[Reality Check]

The problem is that the mainstream nuclear physics is only fantasy.

The problem really ignorance of mainstream nuclear physics and obsession with an invalid fantasy.
Mainstream nuclear physics works using the known laws of physics.
The idea that the neutron is made up of 2 particle (n+ and n-) is easily shown to be invalid using the known laws of physics.

What remains true is what I wrote and you ignored

We know (unlike you bjschaeffer) that:
* neutrons contain 3 quarks, not your imaginary 2 particles.
* the force required to bind nucleons is short range and much stronger than electromagnetism, i.e. it is not electromagnetism.
* to separate differently charged particles you need to do work. That is a contribution to binding energies.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are the mistakes?

Oh dear, bjschaeffer, you really need to learn to read posts !
The mistakes are listed in ben m's post on 25 August 2014:

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.

 

[Reality Check]

So what things have you been unable to understand bjschaeffer?

8th October 2012: That there is good evidence for the strong force?

Good evidence for the strong force? Try: the mass spectrum of heavy mesons. Try: jet production in high-energy pp collisions. Try: deep inelastic electron-proton collisions.

15th October 2012: a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law. (etc.)

5th November 2012: Maybe that the binding energy of deuteron has been calculated in QCD and matches the empirical value?

Theses experts have calculated the binding energy of the deuteron:

• The two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order
  E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, Ulf-G. Meißner
• Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, R. Machleidt, D. R. Entem (Phys.Rept.503:1-75,2011).

See Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information in the second reference
Note that QCD also has prediction for other properties of deuteron unlike your invalid idea !

5 November 2012: That you get the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes wrong?
Let me count the ways that you are wrong in "Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes": (14 ways)

5 November 2012: That the alpha scattering known for almost a century needs a non-electromagnetic force?
What happens when we scatter alpha particles from a nucleus and predict what happens only with electromagnetic forces? It does not work , bjschaeffer !

5 November 2012: Why your hydrogen isotopes paper is wrong?
ben m finds even more errors in "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes"

 

[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.

It seems that you dn't know electromagnetics and particularly the electrostatic attraction between a proton and a neutron. This type of attraction is known since two millenaries between amber (elektron) and dust. It seems that you are unable to undestand the calculation. The usual charge-dipole formula in 1/r² is invalid between nearby electric charhes. My calculation uses the exact dipole formula ignored in most books (see my picture below).

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.

The double bound is my method to avoid the Coulomb singularity. The approximate formula in 1/r² may also be used, but with a lower precision (see graph).

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.

It seems that you are unable to calculate the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron from inexisting "strong force", including LQCD (QCD seeming to be out) fundamental laws.

 

[bjschaeffer]

So what things have you been unable to understand bjschaeffer?

8th October 2012: That there is good evidence for the strong force?



15th October 2012: a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law. (etc.)

5th November 2012: Maybe that the binding energy of deuteron has been calculated in QCD and matches the empirical value?

See Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information in the second reference
Note that QCD also has prediction for other properties of deuteron unlike your invalid idea !

5 November 2012: That you get the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes wrong?
Let me count the ways that you are wrong in "Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes": (14 ways)

5 November 2012: That the alpha scattering known for almost a century needs a non-electromagnetic force?
What happens when we scatter alpha particles from a nucleus and predict what happens only with electromagnetic forces? It does not work , bjschaeffer !

5 November 2012: Why your hydrogen isotopes paper is wrong?
ben m finds even more errors in "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes"

The Meissner & Co is empirical. There are no fundamental laws behind. The liquid drop model is much better.

Here the pictures I forgot to upload:
http://storage.canalblog.com/62/40/292736/98189091_o.jpg

http://storage.canalblog.com/50/71/292736/95753024.jpg

http://storage.canalblog.com/23/10/292736/95753078.jpg

http://storage.canalblog.com/64/84/292736/95753086.jpg

http://storage.canalblog.com/68/96/292736/95753029.jpg

 

[bjschaeffer]

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.

The 1.6 MeV is an approximation due to the neglect of the positive charge of the neutron. A more precise calculation gives the 2.2 MeV with a few percent precision. How do you obtain such a result?

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.

OK

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.

You are the first one I encountered recognizing that QCD is unable to compute the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus . My theory is not complicated but needs the knowledge of the electromagnetic fundamental laws, Coulomb for the electric interaction and Poisson for the magnetic interaction. You may find them in the books by Maxwell or Feynman…[/B]



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?

QCD, being unable to predict the binding energy of simple nuclei, is, at best, only empirical but not better than the liquid drop model.

 

[bjschaeffer]

So what things have you been unable to understand bjschaeffer?

8th October 2012: That there is good evidence for the strong force?

Where is th "good evidence?"

15th October 2012: a) Yes, QCD gives the nucleon-nucleon force law. (etc.)

Please write me the formula of the nucleon-nucleon force law." The only efficient force law is


5th November 2012: Maybe that the binding energy of deuteron has been calculated in QCD and matches the empirical value? MAY BE but never seen

See Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information in the second reference
Note that QCD also has prediction for other properties of deuteron unlike your invalid idea !
I am interested on the main problem of nuclear physics, the binding energy.

The papers of these germans are illegible and cannot be verified due to their strange language.
May be that some properties have been predicted but not the most important one, the binding energy

5 November 2012: That you get the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes wrong?

I have calculated the binding energies of the hydrogen isotopes with a simple assumption: the neutrons are practitically unbound. Same thing for helium but this does not work for heavier nuclides.

Let me count the ways that you are wrong in "Binding energy of the hydrogen isotopes": (14 ways)

5 November 2012: That the alpha scattering known for almost a century needs a non-electromagnetic force?
What happens when we scatter alpha particles from a nucleus and predict what happens only with electromagnetic forces? It does not work , bjschaeffer !

I have been recently able to explain the anomalous Rutherford scattering of heavy nuclides (unpublished).

5 November 2012: Why your hydrogen isotopes paper is wrong?
ben m finds even more errors in "Electromagnetic Theory of the Binding Energy of the Hydrogen Isotopes"

My isotopes paper is not wrong, only the precision is not yet the best one.

You are unable to calculate the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron, although the electromegnetic formula shows it, below:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31513&d=1409073456

 

[steenkh]

QCD, being unable to predict the binding energy of simple nuclei, is, at best, only empirical but not better than the liquid drop model.

You were asked a simple question, but instead of answering, you chose to repeat yourself.

Hm, I did not know you until this thread, but I see you are reacting like the common variety of crackpots, so I am tempted to believe you are, in fact, just a crackpot.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You were asked a simple question, but instead of answering, you chose to repeat yourself.

Yes, that is another way in which bjschaeffer's research techniques resemble liquidspacetime's.

Hm, I did not know you until this thread, but I see you are reacting like the common variety of crackpots, so I am tempted to believe you are, in fact, just a crackpot.

Unlike the common variety of crackpots, bfschaeffer has written, submitted, and published a few papers such as

Bernard Schaeffer. Electric and magnetic Coulomb potentials in the deuteron. Advanced Electromagnetics Volume 2, Number 1, September 2013, pages 69-72. http://www.aemjournal.org/index.php/AEM/article/view/218​

As has already been noted within this thread, that's a risible paper that should never have made it through peer review. bjschaeffer's inability/refusal to acknowledge the obvious problems with that paper is a trait shared with other advocates of crackpot physics, but most of them never even get around to submitting crackpot articles to crackpot journals.

 

[steenkh]

Unlike the common variety of crackpots, bfschaeffer has written, submitted, and published a few papers such as

Bernard Schaeffer. Electric and magnetic Coulomb potentials in the deuteron. Advanced Electromagnetics Volume 2, Number 1, September 2013, pages 69-72. http://www.aemjournal.org/index.php/AEM/article/view/218​

As has already been noted within this thread, that's a risible paper that should never have made it through peer review. bjschaeffer's inability/refusal to acknowledge the obvious problems with that paper is a trait shared with other advocates of crackpot physics, but most of them never even get around to submitting crackpot articles to crackpot journals.

OK, hats off for this crackpot. I wonder what the attraction is? In liqiudspacetime's thread, it has been suggested that it is exhilarating to be wrong. I tend to think that the driving force is a feeling of being a genius, to the point of thinking that reality has to submit.

 

[Reality Check]

It seems that you are unable to calculate the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron from inexisting "strong force", including LQCD (QCD seeming to be out) fundamental laws.

You are lying, bjschaeffer, unless this is the insane demand that everyone in the world (except you!) actually do the calculation .
And remaining ignorant: LQCD is not a replacement for QCD, it is one of many computational techniques for QCD.

The calculation of the binding energy of the simplest bound nucleus, the deuteron from existing "strong force", including QCD fundamental laws:

5th November 2012: Maybe that the binding energy of deuteron has been calculated in QCD and matches the empirical value?

See Table 9: Deuteron properties as predicted by various NN potentials are compared to empirical information in the second reference
Note that QCD also has prediction for other properties of deuteron unlike your invalid idea !