Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[Farsight]

We have never seen a quark either. Still a very accurate model.

I prefer Feynman's name for them: partons. With that and the knowledge that gluons are virtual you get a slightly different idea of the bag model. Maybe I'll start a separate thread on all this where does the strong force go? stuff.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Originally Posted by DHamilton
You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature

Then Ziggurat in his self-righteous arrogance wrote:
Uh, no. There's no possible way to make electromagnetism provide an attractive potential between two protons inside a nucleus.

That's not true at all. If you had just a tiny bit of grace you might say:"There's no way that I know of that electromagnetism can provide an attractive potential between two protons inside the nucleus." Just because you can't think of a way to do it doesn't mean that it cannot be done but rather only that you are intellectually limited. When someone says: 'No one knows this or that.' they are demonstrating pure arrogance in that they are presuming that they are privy to all that is known in the universe.

It is tempting to believe that Newton and Coulomb laws come out of the same theory because their forces are both in 1/r². There a great difference : the gravitation is always attractive and has a much lower intensity. I thought it could be that the gravitation is a second order effect of the electric interaction, perhaps a small difference between positive and negative electric charges in the universe explaining its low value. But this is only a conjecture that has to be proved by at least obtaining the gravitation constant using only electromagnetic constants.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Nope. Electro-weak unification happens way way above the energies we're talking about in nuclear ground states.

What is the reason of the word electro?

 

[Tubbythin]

It is tempting to believe that Newton and Coulomb laws come out of the same theory because their forces are both in 1/r².

No it isn't. The 1/r² comes about because the surface of a sphere increases in proportion to r².

 

[bjschaeffer]

Originally Posted by DHamilton
.

It is tempting to believe that Newton and Coulomb laws come out of the same theory because their forces are both in 1/r². There a great difference : the gravitation is always attractive and has a much lower intensity. I thought it could be that the gravitation is a second order effect of the electric interaction, perhaps a small difference between positive and negative electric charges in the universe explaining its low value. But this is only a conjecture that has to be proved by at least obtaining the gravitation constant from electromagnetic constants.

 

[Tubbythin]

What is the reason of the word electro?

Electro comes from electromagnetic. The electro-weak interaction is relevant at energies around and above the mass energies of the weak force carrier: so essentially of order 100 GeV and above. The kinetic energies of nucleons in nuclei are typically a few tens of MeV.

 

[Tubbythin]

It is tempting to believe that Newton and Coulomb laws come out of the same theory because their forces are both in 1/r².

See above.

 

[bjschaeffer]

---Quote (Originally by bjschaeffer)---
I don't believe that electrons orbite the nucleus, the nucleus is not an atom because it has no nucleus, that is, a central massive body which can act as a force center. I say only that the not so neutral neutron contains opposite electric charges, assumed to be elementary charges +e and -e, not orbiting electrons.
---End Quote---
Were you aware that experiments have been devised to test your belief, and that when they are conducted, they prove that your belief is wrong?



It is well known that the current theory use the fractional charges of quarks.

The electric and magnetic properties of the quarks as well as their masses have never been measured experimentally, it is only a hypothesis. The fractional electric charges have never been observed. The elementary charge remains 1.6 x 10^-19 C.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Electro comes from electromagnetic. The electro-weak interaction is relevant at energies around and above the mass energies of the weak force carrier: so essentially of order 100 GeV and above. The kinetic energies of nucleons in nuclei are typically a few tens of MeV.

Of course "Electro comes from electromagnetic." but why? What is electric in the electro-weak interaction?

 

[Tubbythin]

Of course "Electro comes from electromagnetic." but why? What is electric in the electro-weak interaction?

I'm not an expert, but loosely speaking, at these energies the photon and the Z⁰ basically work the same. We can take a Feynman diagram, swap a photon for a Z⁰ and nothing will have changed.

 

[Tubbythin]

The electric and magnetic properties of the quarks as well as their masses have never been measured experimentally, it is only a hypothesis. The fractional electric charges have never been observed. The elementary charge remains 1.6 x 10^-19 C.

You do realise that you're not just arguing with nuclear physics but the entire Standard Model, including all the astonishingly successful predictions of the last 40 years?

 

[bjschaeffer]

You do realise that you're not just arguing with nuclear physics but the entire Standard Model, including all the astonishingly successful predictions of the last 40 years?

The Standard Model is unable to predict the binding energy of even the simplest nucleus beyond the proton ¹H, the deuteron ²H.

 

[Tubbythin]

The Standard Model is unable to predict the binding energy of even the simplest nucleus beyond the proton ¹H, the deuteron ²H.

It is a little difficult to predict something that is already known.

 

[Dancing David]

The electric and magnetic properties of the quarks as well as their masses have never been measured experimentally, it is only a hypothesis. The fractional electric charges have never been observed. The elementary charge remains 1.6 x 10^-19 C.

I am offended by your editing, you are now attributing quotes of theprestige to me, if you need help learning to format your posts please ask.

And since you are not getting the tags correct, you have now caused a quate of your post to cite me as teh source.

Please remember to include equal nesting

if there is {quote} there should be an equal {/quote}

So it will look like this

{quote}
bjschafer

says this

{quote}
dancing david

replied this

{/quote}

{/quote}

 

[ben m]

The Standard Model is unable to predict the binding energy of even the simplest nucleus beyond the proton ¹H, the deuteron ²H.

Mr. Schaeffer, this is simply false. It's not easy to do this calculation, but it is now done. The Standard Model includes the quark/gluon theory called QCD; low-energy QCD behavior can be calculated using chiral perturbation theory, and chiral perturbation theory gives you a fairly complete two-nucleon potential (and increasingly complete three-nucleon and many-nucleon potentials). I have already pointed this out to you; do you have a reason to disagree, or are you ignoring it?

 

[bjschaeffer]

Mr. Schaeffer, this is simply false. It's not easy to do this calculation, but it is now done. The Standard Model includes the quark/gluon theory called QCD; low-energy QCD behavior can be calculated using chiral perturbation theory, and chiral perturbation theory gives you a fairly complete two-nucleon potential (and increasingly complete three-nucleon and many-nucleon potentials). I have already pointed this out to you; do you have a reason to disagree, or are you ignoring it?

It may having been calculated so called "ab initio" but fitted. When you fit you can obtain every thing you want.

You are unable to give me the proof that ²H has bean calculated from fundamental laws and constants. This doesn't exist because the fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction are unknown. It is not by praying "QCD" that you will convince me. Up to now nobody has been able to give me the fundamental laws of the nuclear interaction. They only say it exists but are unable to give me a reference showing how the deuteron binding energy is calculated from the unknown "strong force" or NN, 3N etc.

The 3-nucleon, alias NNN, force is still a legend (see my post above with the picture of the helium isotopes). Moreover it is wrong because it assumes that a neutron is the same as a proton. Indeed a neutron and a proton have different electric and magnetic properties that cannot be neglected.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is tempting to believe that Newton and Coulomb laws come out of the same theory because their forces are both in 1/r². There a great difference : the gravitation is always attractive and has a much lower intensity. I thought it could be that the gravitation is a second order effect of the electric interaction, perhaps a small difference between positive and negative electric charges in the universe explaining its low value.

A slight charge imbalance would produce a repulsive net effect in bodies with equal numbers of electrons and protons, and could never produce simultaneous attraction between three or more bodies. But it wouldn't work anyways: there's too much free charge in space, any large collection of matter would simply end up with an unequal number of electrons and protons, thus cancelling out your remnant "gravity".

There's another electromagnetic effect where dipoles can attract each other even with no net charge, but that won't work either. The force decays much faster than 1/r, and it has additional angle dependence which would totally screw up three-body interactions.

In short, it is impossible to replicate gravity by electromagnetic means.

 

[bjschaeffer]

Thank you I just noticed some strange things in my posts. I will take care now and verify that I have it correct like that
{quote}
bjschafer

says this
Quote:
{quote}
dancing david

replied this
{/quote}
{/quote}

 

[Ziggurat]

It may having been calculated so called "ab initio" but fitted. When you fit you can obtain every thing you want.

If you have a model with, say, two parameters, then you could reasonably expect it to fit any two data points by adjusting those parameters. But if you're trying to fit ten different data points with just two parameters, then no, you cannot get anything you want.

General relativity, for example, has only two parameters: G and c. But we've got hundreds of independent data points that we can fit with GR, and they all fit. You really cannot do that with just any two-parameter model.

There's a lot about nuclear physics that I don't know. But one of the things that I do know is that the number of parameters available for fitting is a LOT less than the number of data points. Which means that the model really is well-constrained by the data, and we really do have good reason for confidence in its accuracy.

 

[bjschaeffer]

A slight charge imbalance would produce a repulsive net effect in bodies with equal numbers of electrons and protons, and could never produce simultaneous attraction between three or more bodies. But it wouldn't work anyways: there's too much free charge in space, any large collection of matter would simply end up with an unequal number of electrons and protons, thus cancelling out your remnant "gravity".

There's another electromagnetic effect where dipoles can attract each other even with no net charge, but that won't work either. The force decays much faster than 1/r, and it has additional angle dependence which would totally screw up three-body interactions.

In short, it is impossible to replicate gravity by electromagnetic means.

OK, I have no precise ideas on the subject of gravity, only a question.