Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

edd said:
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)
Click to expand...

Gains me nothing over what you already know? Really? You should consider it possible that the things that you believe that you know are, besides being incomplete with regard to the real aspects of the universe, possibly a mixture of true knowledge and pseudo-knowledge... (read false knowledge).

Let's first discuss two deuterons that are at rest with respect to one another. You may believe that they each possess an 'electro-static' field that will prevent them from obtaining an 'at rest' condition with each other. However, there isn't an experiment in the world where it has been demonstrated that elementary charged particles that are at rest with respect to one another actually behave like the charged pith balls in Coulomb's laboratory. Please don't cite accelerator beams requiring magnets to prevent their dispersion because of Coulomb repulsion. That is a nonsensical argument easily disposed of by the facts. Monoenergetic beams, so far, have proven to be impossible to generate and maintain not because of 'electrostatic repulsion' of the beam components as is commonly believed but rather because of the methods used to accelerate beams produce beams with a wide spectrum of energies so that internal beam temperatures are not even close to absolute zero.

If Maxwell's equations suggest that the motion of a charged particle generates or causes to emerge from the particle's apparent location a vector field that propagates outward at the speed of light on a plane that is normal to the translational axis of that motion, does it matter if the motion of the particle is not perceived in its rest frame? In fact, in its rest frame that vector field will not exist. 'Transformed away' is the usual verbiage. Suppose some remote particle, P, is accelerated to a point where it has a constant velocity with respect to a pair of deuterons, D1 and D2, that are overlapping in the same momentum space (defined as having a common de Broglie wavelength that is equal to or greater than their inter-particle distance as calculated from a center of momentum frame). If that remote particle, P, has some component of its motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2, then in that particle frame, there is generated by the relative motion of D1 and D2 a pair of vector fields that will intersect on a plane that contains D1 and D2 such that at the intersection point they will be exactly anti-parallel (pointing in exact opposite directions) and will produce a null point or negentropic point such that the particles D1 and D2 will move towards that they might occupy that point (based on the quantum axiom that 'all quanta obtain to the lowest energy state available'). Parallel current carrying wires only differ from parallel wires not carrying a current because of the presence of the vector fields that are produced by the motion of the charges. They produce vector fields that at their intersection point are exactly anti-parallel (if the current is in the same directional sense) and the wires are now appearing to be attractively interactive. They show no interaction if only one wire or neither wire is carrying a current. If the currents are in opposite directions the wires seem to repel one another.

For our pair of deuterons D1 and D2 we must consider that there are very many remote particles in the universe that have some component of their motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2. For each and every remote particle that has some component of its motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2 there is generated a unique pair of vector fields that intersect and produce a null or negentropic energy point at the point of intersection. When one sums all those negentropic energy points, it creates a very 'deep' negentropic energy point or 'well' to which the particles, D1 and D2, will strongly fall towards. This would also be true of two protons but because there is no neutron that would ordinarily be the source of a time rate gradient structure (a quantum gravity 'field') the two protons could be easily perturbed by the collision between them and some local third particle and they would easily separate. It is the presence of neutrons as quantum gravity source particles that hold the nuclei of atoms together because they maintain the near particles in the same momentum space and the motion of the rest of the particles in the universe do the rest by generating the vector fields that produce the strong negentropic point towards which the particles must move to abide in the lowest energy state available. Particles near a strong gravitational source will nearly always overlap in the same momentum space and a strong gravitational source that contains particles of positive charge will always repel electrons. Why? Because a positive charged particle and a negatively charges particle at rest with respect each other will by virtue of the motion of very many remote particles that have some component of their motion normal to a plane that contains a proton and an electron generate pairs of vector fields that at their intersection point will be parallel, implying not a negentropic point but rather just the opposite, perhaps best described as a high energy hill (as opposed to a 'well') away from which the particles will move to obtain to a lower energy state. Because of the low mass of an electron with respect to a proton and the neutrons in the nucleus the electron receives the lion's share of the energy for the conservation of momentum's sake when a neutron decays in a nucleus into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino.

So, in fact:
1. Maxwell's equations do explain the atomic nucleus.
2. Maxwell's equations do explain the atomic nucleus.
(I thought that point 1 was important enough to mention twice)
CC
 
If Maxwell's equations explain atomic nuclei, wouldn't it make sense to write that explanation in terms of the equation? If your argument is that they suffice, then why do the equations never actually appear in your posts?

So many words, so little actual math.
 
I can't figure out why DHamilton took more than three years to respond to my post.

But there's a lot of like that I can't figure out.
[shrug]
 
RobDegraves said:
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Amazing that you hold such a morally corrupt man up as someone to quote.

Fact is...your grasp of physics is largely fantasy.

What separates a good theory from a bad one is that the good one works. It produces results. It has to do with predicting physical processes accurately, which current theories do very well.

That is a complete fantasy and lie! A friend of mine who worked for Battelle NW auditing underground nuclear tests ... strongly chided the scientists who built the weapons saying: "Your predicted energy yields are accurate but your particle count predictions are four orders of magnitude off of our measurements." Good scientists are those who through hard work, reason, logic, and the tried and true 'tweek and fiddle method' produce useful technology for mankind. Men who produce useful technology contrast sharply (though I know you'd love to blur that line) with theorists in particle physics and cosmology and astrophysics that eruct intellectual masturbations as their stock in trade.

I'm confident that given a tiny tiny fraction of that which has been wasted on nuclear fusion, I could give the world a working, portable, safe, clean, scalable nuclear fusion reactor system. However, as long as hateful people like you have the ear of legislators and the gov't tit through NSF and DOE that isn't likely to occur so I seek private investment which means I can go to China where they already have some of the technology I need in place.

What has yours produced... other than wasting years of your life arguing with people who know a lot more than you do about the subject?
Click to expand...

What arrogance you display not even supposing that all you ascribe to me is not, in reality, a self description of you.

My work has produced an alternative description of nuclear fusion processes that is consistent with logic, reason, and experimental facts. Your beliefs emerged from 'just so' stories that pseudo-scientists in academia told to each other 80 years ago. My work has explained the existence and nature of 'heavy dark matter', using, once again, logic, reason, and known experimental data while the people you hold up as present day icons of the pseudo-physics that you embrace have done nothing but shrug their shoulders and present themselves as the first brass monkey covering their ears supposing all that didn't come from them or their ilk is evil.

On the other hand, My work has unified electromagnetism and gravity because I came up first with a new conceptual model of the unit charge of a fundamental charged particle based upon simple quantum vs. quantum axioms of motion that are already well accepted in the scientific community and logic and reason. The model for charge satisfies Noether's theorem providing both symmetry and conservation. The rest of the world lacks a completely agreed upon model for the unit charge; in fact, the rest of the world doesn't have anything but a 'field' or continuous structure concept for the unit charge that completely loses its moral logic authority by insisting that the presence of two things is equal to the absence of both of them, which is a logical consequence of
'field' theory or belief in continuous structures that no experiment in the history of the world has been able to confirm the existence thereof. Are you totally unaware of this? You must be, otherwise, you wouldn't come barking around like a hyena. You must be unaware that there has never been an experiment in the world that can verify that the 'field' of a charged particle or that a 'gravitational field' is a continuous structure that can be precisely described by continuum based mathematics. Maybe your hope is in string theory about which some of its pioneers have declared that any manifestation has produced nothing that can be verified by experiment. The truth is that you believe in intellectual fictions that are logically perverse. I took the time to study logic, philosophy and physics in college and spent time as an analyst of aircraft crashes for the U.S. Gov't and years as a paid independent researcher to uncover aspects of the universe that because of your attachment to the ideas of leading pseudo-physicists you are unable to grasp. I discovered a property of gravity that was hitherto unknown, a strong charge separation effect. All of my work is the product of hard work, reason, logic and known experimental or observational data. I've defended my work before professional scientists who have worked in academia and in nuclear weapons development at the highest level. It is rare to find men who are open to new ideas but one who was a top nuclear weapons designer scientist remarked: "Where did you get these ideas? These are the first new ideas in physics that I've heard in twenty years!"

Some men of reason have appreciated what I've shown them. Fifty billion dollars ... and now an additional 20 billion (at ITER) has been or is being spent on controlling nuclear fusion processes with the end in mind of producing an almost inexhaustible source of energy for mankind. The results have been the same, a complete lack of success towards a working ignited state reactor. So, we have spent approaching 70 billion dollars that in the end have done nothing but support an army of welfare queens in white coats like you for three generations.

I'm actually at war with the likes of you.. because your fraud is rampant, even epidemic, throughout academia. The only scientists that I truly respect are those that are working toward some technology that will be of benefit to mankind. You are the real dark fundamentalists of the age that do more harm to people than the Taliban because you squander valuable resources and propose the building of devices to find your intellectual fantasies. You see resonance bumps on accelerator experiments and claim absolute knowledge of only the random ones which fit your calculations which are based upon fantasy stacked upon fantasy (like fields, for instance). You are an embarrassment to rational thinking men who are genuine Truth seekers.

In the conduct of science we should adhere to Descartes’
words:

“In the subjects we propose to investigate, our
inquiries should be directed, not to what others
have thought, nor to what we ourselves
conjecture, but to what we can clearly and
perspicuously behold and with certainty
deduce; for knowledge is not won in any other
way.” Rene Descartes c.f. ‘Rules for the
Direction of the Mind’; Rule III

Isaac Newton wrote:
“If any one offeres conjectures about the truth
of things from the mere possibility of hypotheses,
I do not see how anything certain can be
determined in any science... wherefore I judged
that one should abstain from considering
hypotheses, as from a fallacious argument.”


René Descartes also wrote:
“I lay down the rule also, that we must wholly
refrain from ever mixing up conjectures with our
pronouncements on the truth of things. This
warning is of no little importance. There is no
stronger reason for our finding nothing in the
current Philosophy which is so evident and cer-
tain as not to be capable of being controverted,
than the fact that the learned, not content with
the recognition of what is clear and certain, in
the first instance hazard the assertion of obscure
and ill-comprehended theories, at which they
have arrived merely by probable conjecture.
Then afterwards they gradually attach complete
credence to them and mingling them promiscuously
with what is true and evident, they finish by
being unable to deduce any conclusion which
does not appear to depend upon some proposition
of the doubtful sort, and hence is not uncertain.”
René Descartes c.f. 'Rules for the
Direction of the Mind' from Rule III

You'll find your place right there in Newton's and Descartes' criticism and completely outside Newton's and Descartes' advice.

You attach yourself to fantasies of fashion and are ardently following the Queen's advice to Alice about believing impossible things.

I use reason, logic, the rational mind, and known experimental and observational data. I love mankind and wish to make life more free and more abundant, whilst you hate people without reason because you are not a person of reason at all.

Go away, you fraud!

CC
 
Rene Descartes and Issac Newton are hardly recent references.

And I miss their reference to the strong nuclear force being a fiction, so where is your data and evidence again?
 
Last edited:
DHamilton said:
Neutron decay has been observed in the laboratory... it didn't arise because the 'standard model' predicted it! It is part of the fundamental physics of the universe.
Click to expand...

But if your theory can't explain it and the Standard Model with the inclusion of the strong force then your claim that the strong force is fiction is in tatters.
 
Ziggurat said:
If Maxwell's equations explain atomic nuclei, wouldn't it make sense to write that explanation in terms of the equation? If your argument is that they suffice, then why do the equations never actually appear in your posts?

So many words, so little actual math.
Click to expand...

If you cannot say it in words that can be grasped by almost anyone with a decent grasp of vectors and the mental faculty to use logic ... in other words, if you can only explain what you want to say in equations then you probably would be embarrassed to say it out loud. I can get this across to bright high schoolers who have a good grasp of vectors in a couple of hours. I can convince a postdoc in two hours or never; same with a full professor. One of those I convinced quite a few years ago said I inspired him to go on for his PhD which he easily gained just because I introduced him to some new interpretations of hydrodynamic equations from more than a century ago. It is the person, really... if they have an open mind, they can hear my arguments, if they don't they cannot. If you cannot hear them and therefore understand them, then you cannot agree with them for I require agreement every step of the way, not so as to satisfy myself but rather that they can logically follow every step of the development of the ideas. You don't really give a crap about coming to an understanding and you know it, and I know it... so, why don't you excuse your disinterested self from the discussion until you can ask a rational question about the entire model? If you are a brilliant mathematician you might even be able to contribute. But you'd have to grasp the model before you could write the appropriate equations. If you refuse to listen and only carp then you'll never get it. If you want to never get it but then only want to complain then there is no moral virtue in you at all... and the more you complain and demand, the more this becomes evident to anyone who really does get what I'm saying. I'm pretty convinced that you simply don't have the intellect or training in logic, nor moral virtue to have Truth find a place in you to set it's foot.

CC
 
DHamilton said:
So, in fact:
1. Maxwell's equations do explain the atomic nucleus.
2. Maxwell's equations do explain the atomic nucleus.
(I thought that point 1 was important enough to mention twice)
CC
Click to expand...

DHamilton said:
If you cannot say it in words that can be grasped by almost anyone with a decent grasp of vectors and the mental faculty to use logic ...
<snip>
Click to expand...

So according to you, Maxwell's equations explain the atomic nucleus - but you cannot use equations to explain why.

Compelling.
 
Eggs Ackley said:
This is my first exposure to this thread, and I haven't read the whole thing yet. But, I have only to read the bit quoted above so far, to find something to object to.

Electrodynamics has moved beyond the Coulomb law since a pretty long time ago. The proper way to compute the forces between two point-like charged particles is to use the Lienard-Wiechert potentials and derived fields (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liénard–Wiechert_potential) , and the Lorentz force.

If you look at the expressions in the wikipedia article for the Lienard-Wiechert fields, you'll see that they have relativistic corrections compared to the Columb law, that can cause the electric field to deviate greatly from the Coulomb electric field. In particular, the velocity field part can get singular in the direction of relativistic motion and vanish effectively everywhere else.

So, it is not news that the Coulomb electric force between particles is not a very useful tool for understanding what is happening electrodynamically in atomic nuclei.

On the other hand, what electrodynamics does properly have to say about relativistic particle interactions is a very interesting topic. Martin Rivas has plots of the computed average electric and magnetic fields for a relativistic-circulating point charge, that show that the average field strength does drop off compared to the Coulomb field expression at close range compared to the radius of the relativistic motion. (His book may still be available as a free download from Scribd, see Kinematical Theory of the Spinning Electron (I think it is).) I don't think this is a good basis for claiming that the need for a strong force is obviated, however.
Click to expand...

I agree since you are talking about what Martin Rivas computed vs. what he has measured, which is nothing. You conflate two entirely different things and then expect me to respond to your illogical objection? Think again. You either will take the time to think about what I wrote very deeply or you will take your opinion from others. Give me some thought and logic about what the intersection of vector fields actually produce to which particles could react. We see in experiments that the vector fields of parallel wires are the only things not present when the currents are not on and that they are present when the currents are on because we can measure them. To me, reason suggests that the wire become attractively interactive or repulsively interactive depending upon whether the flow of current is in the same directional sense in the first case and in opposite directional senses in the latter. What do we have but anti-parallel vectors in the 1st case and parallel vectors in the 2nd case. This suggests that it is the presence and orientations of the vector fields that produces the actions that we behold. Everyone assumes that like charges repel one another under all conditions. I assume that their repelling or attractions are not functions of a mythical electro-static field that you believe that you understand because of your tactile experiences with macro-scale charged objects like the metal sphere of a Van de Graaf generator and have intellectually (in your mind) scaled down to the level of a quantum particle and intellectually visualize as the same. I suggest that their interactions are mediated by the vector field intersection points generated by their relative motion states that produce either negentropic energy state wells or entropic energy state hills and that their interactions are as predictable as are the interactions of parallel current carrying wires.
 
Last edited:
DHamilton said:
If you cannot say it in words that can be grasped by almost anyone with a decent grasp of vectors and the mental faculty to use logic ... in other words, if you can only explain what you want to say in equations then you probably would be embarrassed to say it out loud. I can get this across to bright high schoolers who have a good grasp of vectors in a couple of hours. I can convince a postdoc in two hours or never; same with a full professor. One of those I convinced quite a few years ago said I inspired him to go on for his PhD which he easily gained just because I introduced him to some new interpretations of hydrodynamic equations from more than a century ago. It is the person, really... if they have an open mind, they can hear my arguments, if they don't they cannot. If you cannot hear them and therefore understand them, then you cannot agree with them for I require agreement every step of the way, not so as to satisfy myself but rather that they can logically follow every step of the development of the ideas. You don't really give a crap about coming to an understanding and you know it, and I know it... so, why don't you excuse your disinterested self from the discussion until you can ask a rational question about the entire model? If you are a brilliant mathematician you might even be able to contribute. But you'd have to grasp the model before you could write the appropriate equations. If you refuse to listen and only carp then you'll never get it. If you want to never get it but then only want to complain then there is no moral virtue in you at all... and the more you complain and demand, the more this becomes evident to anyone who really does get what I'm saying. I'm pretty convinced that you simply don't have the intellect or training in logic, nor moral virtue to have Truth find a place in you to set it's foot.

CC
Click to expand...

Learn to use latex and it would help if you gave names of the people you've inspired.
 
DHamilton said:
If you cannot say it in words that can be grasped by almost anyone with a decent grasp of vectors and the mental faculty to use logic ... in other words, if you can only explain what you want to say in equations then you probably would be embarrassed to say it out loud.
Click to expand...

Humor me. I have an easier time following equations than words. Your claim was about equations, so regardless of how well you can explain it with words, you should certainly be able to explain it with equations, since (once again) that was your claim. So can you or can you not explain your claim about equations by using those equations?

I'm pretty convinced that you simply don't have the intellect or training in logic, nor moral virtue to have Truth find a place in you to set it's foot.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I'm a drooling moron. Nevertheless, you made a claim about equations. I'd like to see you demonstrate this claim, with those equations, since that was what your claim was about.
 
DHamilton said:
If you cannot say it in words that can be grasped by almost anyone with a decent grasp of vectors and the mental faculty to use logic ... in other words, if you can only explain what you want to say in equations then you probably would be embarrassed to say it out loud. I can get this across to bright high schoolers who have a good grasp of vectors in a couple of hours. I can convince a postdoc in two hours or never; same with a full professor. One of those I convinced quite a few years ago said I inspired him to go on for his PhD which he easily gained just because I introduced him to some new interpretations of hydrodynamic equations from more than a century ago. It is the person, really... if they have an open mind, they can hear my arguments, if they don't they cannot. If you cannot hear them and therefore understand them, then you cannot agree with them for I require agreement every step of the way, not so as to satisfy myself but rather that they can logically follow every step of the development of the ideas. You don't really give a crap about coming to an understanding and you know it, and I know it... so, why don't you excuse your disinterested self from the discussion until you can ask a rational question about the entire model? If you are a brilliant mathematician you might even be able to contribute. But you'd have to grasp the model before you could write the appropriate equations. If you refuse to listen and only carp then you'll never get it. If you want to never get it but then only want to complain then there is no moral virtue in you at all... and the more you complain and demand, the more this becomes evident to anyone who really does get what I'm saying. I'm pretty convinced that you simply don't have the intellect or training in logic, nor moral virtue to have Truth find a place in you to set it's foot.

CC
Click to expand...

Megalomaniac much?
 
DHamilton said:
Give me some thought and logic about what the intersection of vector fields actually produce to which particles could react.
Click to expand...


DHamilton, I'm having a difficult time understanding your reasoning and what exactly are your claims. Admittedly, I am not exactly putting maximum effort to it. It seems uncertain to be worth the time and I have my own ideas to pursue.

I think you should do as Ziggurat suggests and write something up in terms of equations. Do you know how to use Latex to write equations? It's not difficult to learn and use, and you can get it free. Then you will have something to submit to journals or post on a website or to an open online archive like vixra.

I am probably the only one posting on this thread who might be inclined to agree that there is possibly no need for a strong force separate from the electromagnetic force. That's because I have an argument I'm working on that relativistic covariance requires that there be additional magnetic-like forces that aren't in electrodynamics as we know it today. This need becomes apparent if you try to describe classical two-particle electromagnetic interactions from the point of view of an observer moving with either of the particles. Since particle rest frames undergo Thomas precession, this implies that there need to be rotational pseudoforces present. It turns out to be possible (I think) to derive the existence of the magnetic force from this line of reasoning, as a kind of (anti-)Coriolis force, and I think it predicts an anti-centrifugal force as well that looks a lot like the strong force.

So, anyhow, I have done these things I recommend for you myself, and it's been quite rewarding as a hobby, and you and everyone can see my work here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4343

I submitted that paper to some journals but so far it has not been peer-reviewed. The last journal objected because I say it is only a plausibility argument. I'm continuing to work on it though and if I can get the magnetic force derivation to work generally rather than just for circular orbit, I will no longer have to call that a plausibility argument and will resubmit.

I updated it just a couple of weeks ago, because there were some outright mistakes that needed correcting straight away, but I have a much-expanded and more relativistically precise version in work that I hope to be able to resubmit in a few months.
 
John Hewitt said:
You know, there is no point trying to persuade me - I don't know enough about his field to have a worthwhile opinion but you plainly feel very strongly about this whole thing. In those circumstances, and assuming that practical aspects of your life, like being able to eat, are under control, I would encourage you to keep going.

There are many people on this forum who would disagree with me about this, and I think you will probably end up with nothing at the end of it, but still, I would say keep going. The reason I say this as that, from what little I know of particle and fundamental physics, there are some aspects of it that are just a bit vomit inducing. The theories seem to fit the facts but the vast number of fundamental particles, and fundamental forces that don't marry together just leave me thinking that there has to be something better, simpler at the bottom of it all.

You are thinking outside of the box, being willing to dump aspects of this framework - it's just possible you actually will find that better something; for all I know, it's just possible you have and I don't understand it. I also think you should use your own name and stick to it - ANY use of a pseudonym does raise some questions about the person using it. Lastly, I think you should follow Jim Watson's advice and stay away from boring people - by which I mean, don't try to engage with or persuade people who, themselves, are not willing to engage with what YOU are saying.

I any event, good luck with it but, at the moment, I will stick with the status quo.
Click to expand...

Well said! Free, almost, of prejudices! At least you have the character to admit that the things that don't marry together (in the Standard Model) make the whole thing a bit loathsome. Everyone seems to love to quote Einstein but then they refuse to acknowledge that the great icon himself was considering abandoning the notion of continuous structures (i.e. fields) and stated that if indeed physics cannot be based upon them then there goes his entire castle in the air.

I think almost all significant discoveries are really about seeing the data that we already have in a more complete inclusive paradigm or model. If certain individuals are fixated on one explanation it is more than difficult for them make the leap; sometimes it is impossible for they have not the courage to let go because they look around and see so many others firmly attached to the old paradigm or model and believe that there is safety in consensus or at least not as much shame in being with the crowd and being wrong (as if their blindness and bullheadedness were somehow distributable among their peers) as being with a few and being wrong. A person who is really seeking the Truth doesn't mind the shame because that is only for a little while but the joy of the light in one's own bosom at having connected with that which is True and right and correct lasts forever. CC
 
Ziggurat said:
Humor me. I have an easier time following equations than words. Your claim was about equations, so regardless of how well you can explain it with words, you should certainly be able to explain it with equations, since (once again) that was your claim. So can you or can you not explain your claim about equations by using those equations?



Yes, yes, I'm a drooling moron. Nevertheless, you made a claim about equations. I'd like to see you demonstrate this claim, with those equations, since that was what your claim was about.
Click to expand...

No, you're not a moron ... you're simply obtuse. You understand Maxwell's equations in the physical sense of what they are expressing? Maybe not, but I do. I see them in physical dynamic action suggesting the generation of vector fields (from the relative motion of charged particles with respect to vast numbers of remote particles in the universe) that intersect and produce either quantum energy state wells or quantum energy state hills towards which the quanta that generate them by their motion, with respect to vast numbers of remote particles in the universe, either move towards them or away from them. Del X H =permittivity *partial E/partial t. That's simply one of Maxwell's equations written in terms of E and H only. I'll leave it to you, if you'd like, to write them out one at a time, according to the magnitude of their motions, and then sum them so as to arrive at the proper magnitude of the generated 'well' or 'hill' thereby giving an exact magnitude to the strong force that is not empirically measured (which, by the way, hasn't really been done, either). Let n be the total number of particles in the universe, let k be the number of particles in the universe the motion of which is that any component of their motion is not normal to a plane that contains both D1 and D2 (two deuterons). If you were any good at all I think you could finish it from here, don't you? CC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom