Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[dlorde]

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.

You didn't miss anything, it was just an insulting rant against Ziggurat.

 

[ben m]

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.

So what? There is no massive body at the center of a positronium atom either, but an e+ and and e- will orbit each other just fine. There's no massive body at the center of a globular cluster. There's no massive body at the center of asteroid system 90 Antiope. Things that attract each other may form a bound state. There is nothing special about states where one of the things is massive and stays near the center.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

If you use a really simplistic (and wrong!) picture of nucleon's "orbiting" then what they "orbit" are the other nucleons! For example, Deuterium has 1 proton and 1 neutron. So in your anaolgy there are nucleons "orbiting" each other like two planets orbiting each other.

 

[Reality Check]

The fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction are, after one century of nuclear physics, unknown. ....

That is insanely ignorant !
The fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction are, after one century of nuclear physics, very well known.
Standard Model

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Developed throughout the mid to late 20th century, The Standard Model is truly “a tapestry woven by many hands”, sometimes driven forward by new experimental discoveries, sometimes by theoretical advances. It was a collaborative effort in the largest sense, spanning continents and decades.[1] The current formulation was finalized in the mid 1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the bottom quark (1977), the top quark (1995), and the tau neutrino (2000) have given further credence to the Standard Model. More recently, (2011–2012) the apparent detection of the Higgs boson completes the set of predicted particles. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a "theory of almost everything".

 

[The Man]

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.

It seems you have more problems than you have studied.

Again exactly what is it that you feel is "mysterious" about the strong force?

I understand that "The nucleus, having no nucleus" is a catch phrase of yours but by all means, please, keep repeating it as long as you feel necessary. If you'd like to explain exactly how your model invalidates a shell model, by all means please, go ahead. However, you may run into problems (not just implicitly but explicitly) with including quantum mechanics in your model.

I will ask again, for the third time now, why don't we see bound Electron-Neutron states?

 

[The Man]

You didn't miss anything, it was just an insulting rant against Ziggurat.

Not so hasty, dlorde, this gem...

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.

stands on it's own ludicrous regards. Even if it was just Photon instead of Proton it couldn't be any more wrong, truly. Quite frankly I'd just love to hear how " A neutron is a gravitational 'field' source particle and a proton is not". I predict it will have as much to do with gravitational fields as it does, well, with being true.


ETA:

I can only surmise that there has to be a some kind of "gravitational 'field' source particle" but since Proton and Electron stars don't get any press (dang scientific media bias) Nuetronic is the only way to go.

 

[Multivac]

You didn't miss anything, it was just an insulting rant against Ziggurat.

Ok, thanks.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Fascinating. If only neutrons are sources of gravity, then hydrogen should not produce any gravitational field. One wonders, then, what the sun is made of, since it's clearly got plenty of gravity. But this is an even more revolutionary theory than that: since protons are not sources of gravitational fields, but we know experimentally that protons are attracted to gravitational fields, that means momentum is not conserved. A proton will be attracted to a neutron but the neutron will feel no corresponding force towards the proton. Hence, Newton's 3rd law simply does not apply to gravity. Who knew? Well, you, obviously. You're a friggin' GENIUS!

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.

I said that because I assumed that Newton's 3rd law (and more generally, conservation of momentum) were valid. But now, thanks to you, I know they are not.

When I know that a man is lying to me then it nearly extinguishes all desire for further discourse.

Thank goodness, then, that you pressed on anyways, producing such a voluminous response despite your lack of desire to do so. Truly, you are generous with your wisdom.

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.

As sinners before god, we are indeed unworthy to receive your grace, and yet in your benevolence you still bestow it.

There are really lots of people who see right through you.

You're right about that. Curiously, none of them seem to be able to do math, though. Apparently it's an impediment to discovering truth. Who knew? Well, I guess you did.

 

[dafydd]

The fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction are, after one century of nuclear physics, unknown.

Wrong.

 

[dafydd]

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.

Unreadable. Please use paragraphs.

 

[godless dave]

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 claims nucleons orbit around anything.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unreadable. Please use paragraphs.

Paragraphs wouldn't really help.

 

[dafydd]

Paragraphs wouldn't really help.

True. Rants are rants, no matter how well set out.

 

[Reality Check]

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.
...

Wow - missed this rant of ignorance and insults !

The ignorance is:
A proton has mass and is a particle that is the source of a gravitational field (no quotes needed).

A particle has to have mass to interact with a gravitational field. So it is also the source of a gravitational field!

 

[Farsight]

Guys: as de-facto representatives of physics and scientific rationality you have a duty of responsibility to this forum and its readers & posters. It's just not good enough to taunt, you have to give sound explanations supported by logic and evidence. If the respondent refuses to accept that, you should say sorry, I can't help further, and gracefully withdraw. If he persists with unsupported claims, you should point it out firmly. But what you shouldn't do is come across as a bunch of sneering jackals.

Hi RC, how are you doing? Can I just point out that it isn't mass per se that causes or interacts with a gravitational field, it's energy. Or more properly a concentration of energy over and above the background. A photon is such, and whilst not practically measureable, it does have a gravitational affect, and its path is curved in a gravitational field.

bjschaeffer: I've spoken to people about the neutron being a "multipole", something like -+- rather than a bipole +-. One issue that came out of that is positron capture, which is mentioned here. An atomic neutron can capture a positron. However we know of no "exotic atom" consisting of a free neutron bound with a positron, which suggests that we are dealing with something which isn't electromagnetism in the usual sense.

Dhamilton: The above touches upon the nature of "the strong force" and the "residual strong force" viz-a-viz plain vanilla electromagnetism, and IMHO gives a hint as to how they are related. One of the questions I particularly like concerns low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons: where did the strong force go? The answer is perhaps a surprise. Anyway, I know what gravity is, and I know what light quanta are too. And I have integrity, and I will not slam you in the face. Talk to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

But what you shouldn't do is come across as a bunch of sneering jackals.

Generally I try not to. But I have finite patience. And I don't mean that in terms of someone's mistakes, I mean in terms of their own civility. When someone treats me uncivilly, I will eventually treat them uncivilly in return. If they only persist in being wrong, without resorting to insulting those who try to correct them, then I will remain polite. This is perhaps a failing of mine, but it is what it is.

 

[Farsight]

Fair enough zig. I like what you said.

bschaeffer and Dhamilton, you have to give too. I hope I'm not wrong in saying that one of the problems you complain about is conviction. I would urge you to look in the mirror and try to ensure that you don't suffer from it too.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi RC, how are you doing? Can I just point out that it isn't mass per se that causes or interacts with a gravitational field, it's energy.

Hi Farsight, doing good.
The cause of gravitational fields is mass and energy. Of course SR tells us that we can treat mass as an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa.

bjschaeffer: I've spoken to people about the neutron being a "multipole", something like -+- rather than a bipole +-.

The neutron is not a bipole or multipole. The actual distribution of charge in a neutron is Structure and geometry of charge distribution within the neutron

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.[27] 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.

There are some people who are stuck with the high school description of a neutron being like an electron and proton. They would go with a bipolar neutron. The problem is that that description is physically impossible (e.g. the spins do not add up to the neutron spin)

 

[Tubbythin]

There are some people who are stuck with the high school description of a neutron being like an electron and proton. They would go with a bipolar neutron. The problem is that that description is physically impossible (e.g. the spins do not add up to the neutron spin)

There were many things that we were taught in high school physics that were wrong or a gross simplification. Nobody ever taught us anything along the lines of an electron being an electron and proton.

 

[Farsight]

Hi Farsight, doing good. The cause of gravitational fields is mass and energy. Of course SR tells us that we can treat mass as an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa.

OK let's not pursue that one.

The neutron is not a bipole or multipole. The actual distribution of charge in a neutron is Structure and geometry of charge distribution within the neutron There are some people who are stuck with the high school description of a neutron being like an electron and proton. They would go with a bipolar neutron. The problem is that that description is physically impossible (e.g. the spins do not add up to the neutron spin)

That's what I was getting at. If the neutron-binding of protons in a nucleus was just some electromagnetic multipole thing, we'd expect to see exotic atoms consisting of neutrons and positrons, but as far as I know we don't. Maybe ben was alluding to the same kind of thing.

Edit: Just to show I'm paying attention: Tubby, along the lines of a neutron. I hope most people were taught beta decay, where a free neutron becomes a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. The antineutrino is important.