Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[Belz...]

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,

...in other words you can't prove what you're saying.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you were any good at all I think you could finish it from here, don't you? CC

But I'm not any good. Remember, I'm a drooling moron.

So humor me. Show me the math which you claim you can do. You didn't just not finish it, you didn't even start it.

 

[ctamblyn]

David: take a look at Nondiffracting Accelerating Wave Packets. Light bends itself into an arc.

This is basically the same idea as Airy beams. In case there's any confusion: exercising some cleverness, you can produce a pattern that looks like a curving beam, but this is not a case of photons actually travelling along curved paths.

 

[Farsight]

"In their new work, Kaminer et al. report they have found shape-preserving nonparaxial accelerating beams (NABs) as a complete set of general solutions to the full Maxwell’s equations. Differently from the paraxial Airy beams that accelerate along a parabolic trajectory, these nonparaxial beams accelerate in a circular trajectory...

The authors found a solution for TM (transverse magnetic) polarization through a similar procedure. For both TE and TM polarizations, the beams preserve their shape while the quarter-circle bending could occur after a propagation distance of just 35μm...

As the authors point out, the nonparaxial shape-preserving accelerating beams found in their work originates from the full vector solutions of Maxwell’s equation. Moreover, in their scalar form, these beams are the exact solutions for nondispersive accelerating wave packets of the most common wave equation describing time-harmonic waves...

Apart from many exciting opportunities for these beams in various applications, such as beams that self-bend around an obstacle (Fig. 1, right), one might expect one day light could really travel around a circle by itself, bringing the search for an 'optical boomerang' into reality..."

The electron is an "optical boomerang". And so's the proton.

 

[ctamblyn]

(...snip...)
The electron is an "optical boomerang". And so's the proton.

Bare assertions, unsupported by evidence. I'm not going to discuss your peculiar model any further here - we have the Relativity+ thread for that.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Positively charged particles will attract neutral substances because the charged particles need more electrons, which they find in the neutral substance.

 

[bjschaeffer]

This is not relativity it is Coulomb's laws. This phenomenon was known from the Greeks who called it elektron, the greek name of amber, able, when rubbed against a cloth attracts neutral pieces of paper.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Nope, this wrong:
"As it is well known, there is an attraction between an electric charge and a neutral conductor. In the deuteron, the positive charge of the neutron is repelled and the negative charge is attracted by the proton with a net attraction."

'The positive charge of the neutron', that is crazy talk. The neutron is not an electron and a proton smashed together. It is not like they are ice skaters holding hands. With a neutrino muff.

I don't know what is the physical nature of the charges in the neutron. I assume only that that the neutron contains two opposite and equal electron charges. And it works without the mysterious "strong force" see here
"Nuclear binding energy" "schaeffer"

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know what is the physical nature of the charges in the neutron. I assume only that that the neutron contains two opposite and equal electron charges. And it works without the mysterious "strong force" see here
"Nuclear binding energy" "schaeffer"

Welcome. Nope. A neutron is not composed of equal and opposite charges the current theory is that it is composed of +2/3, -1/3 and -1/3

So unless you mean to say that 1=2, the charges are are cancelling but they are NOT equal.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, you have a blog:
http://bernardschaeffer.canalblog.com/archives/2011/07/14/21604480.html

man if you really believe that electrons orbit the nucleus, then you are very uninformed.

 

[dafydd]

deleted

 

[dafydd]

David: take a look at Nondiffracting Accelerating Wave Packets. Light bends itself into an arc.

What light gets up to in its spare time is none of my business.

 

[The Man]

Positively charged particles will attract neutral substances because the charged particles need more electrons, which they find in the neutral substance.

Why do “charged particles need more electrons"? Electrons are charged particles, do they “need more electrons”?

If you are simply trying to talk about polarization you could just say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizability

This is not relativity it is Coulomb's laws. This phenomenon was known from the Greeks who called it elektron, the greek name of amber, able, when rubbed against a cloth attracts neutral pieces of paper.

Indeed, as the nearby charged surface polarizes the paper. The requirement of a polarizable insulator is a fundamental element in capacitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor

I don't know what is the physical nature of the charges in the neutron. I assume only that that the neutron contains two opposite and equal electron charges. And it works without the mysterious "strong force" see here
"Nuclear binding energy" "schaeffer"

Is this what you expected us to find?

http://bernardschaeffer.canalblog.com/archives/2011/07/14/21604480.html

How, specifically, does that “Electromagnetic theory of the strong force.” account for the strong force being about 100 times stronger than, well, the electromagnetic force?

What particles or interactions does this “Electromagnetic theory of the strong force.” predict and how exactly do they differ from that of the standard model or experimental results?

From the graph on the page I linked the calculated H and He “total binding energy” don’t seem to gibe very well with the measured values, why is that?

Exactly what is “mysterious” about the strong force to you?

Welcome to the forum bjschaeffer

 

[Puppycow]

man if you really believe that electrons orbit the nucleus, then you are very uninformed.

Is that not correct? (Of course, I'm not claiming to be an expert in this)

This is the basic picture in my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model

 

[The Man]

Is that not correct? (Of course, I'm not claiming to be an expert in this)

This is the basic picture in my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model

Due to quantum mechanics the current picture is somewhat more complex.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

 

[Dancing David]

Is that not correct? (Of course, I'm not claiming to be an expert in this)

This is the basic picture in my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model

And the model is interesting!

discusses how the orbital of Bohr's model is teh highest probability for the electron in the could/shell.


This shows some cools pictures of electron probabilities, down towards the bottom.
http://daugerresearch.com/orbitals/index.shtml

 

[ben m]

Is this what you expected us to find?

http://bernardschaeffer.canalblog.com/archives/2011/07/14/21604480.html

How, specifically, does that “Electromagnetic theory of the strong force.” account for the strong force being about 100 times stronger than, well, the electromagnetic force?

This is one of my pet anti-crackpot peeves. The existence and stability of nuclei, the fact that some are stable and some unstable, the fact that nuclear binding energy includes Coulomb, surface, pairing, and shell effects ... none of that is particularly clear evidence for what we now call 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.

To say "I've rewritten strong force theory by looking at nuclear binding energy" is like saying "I've rewritten the laws of aerodynamics by looking at a swimming bacterium."

 

[Tubbythin]

I don't know what is the physical nature of the charges in the neutron. I assume only that that the neutron contains two opposite and equal electron charges. And it works without the mysterious "strong force" see here

So what binds the protons to the protons in the nucleus?

 

[The Man]

This is one of my pet anti-crackpot peeves. The existence and stability of nuclei, the fact that some are stable and some unstable, the fact that nuclear binding energy includes Coulomb, surface, pairing, and shell effects ... none of that is particularly clear evidence for what we now call 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.

To say "I've rewritten strong force theory by looking at nuclear binding energy" is like saying "I've rewritten the laws of aerodynamics by looking at a swimming bacterium."

Yep an awful lot of 'splainin' to do, without even talking about nuclear binding energy. Basically the remnants of the strong force that bind nucleons together like Van der Waals forces bind some molecules together.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is one of my pet anti-crackpot peeves. The existence and stability of nuclei, the fact that some are stable and some unstable, the fact that nuclear binding energy includes Coulomb, surface, pairing, and shell effects ... none of that is particularly clear evidence for what we now call 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.

Would I be right in thinking that these were predictable and predicted by the Strong Force theory before they were observed?

A feature of woo-science which I, and no doubt you, have noticed is that it's always playing catch-up and never gets ahead of the game.

To say "I've rewritten strong force theory by looking at nuclear binding energy" is like saying "I've rewritten the laws of aerodynamics by looking at a swimming bacterium."

Exactly.