why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Chucky]

Funny, my computer is working. My solar watch and iPod are working. Every kind of transistorized electronics I can find around me in the room and their chips and processors seem to be working just fine. This must be a really, really tiny mistake pedrone has found in the theory of nuclear physics.

What was the problem again, pedrone?

 

[Daide]

If I prove that 2+2=5 is wrong, do I need to exhibit credentials?
Do you accept that 2+2=5 is wrong because of my credentials?
Or do you accept that 2+2=5 is wrong because it's a fact?


Besises, I love my job. And I dont want to lose it. I need to continue teaching the wrong theories...

It would be good to know where you LEARNED 2+2=5. Maybe to get an idea of how you came to that conclusion. Also, you are hinting that you are a teacher/prof but I have a hard time believing any institute could get angry in any way if you don't bring these ideas into the classroom (and if you're right then you should have no problems.

One option is that you aren't a teacher and are trying to wave your hand to the idea that you teach physics to give credibility without having to make the actual statement.

 

[John Jones]

Ahem!!!

​

Dooooooooooooooo'h!!! [qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/fist4su.gif[/qimg]

Excuse the heck out of me!

 

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
There are several models, which makes obvious that all they are wrong.

There are several models. They are all correct in their applicable limits, wrong outside of those limits.

Nature cannot work through several different models.

Do you suppose that Nature says to herself:
"humm... this nucleus 28Ni must yield a magnetic moment, so I have to use the Collective Model... hummm... and that nucleus 20Ca must yield an electric quadrupole moment, then I have to use the Model of Layers..."
Do you ?

Perhaps you do. The physicists believe it. They think Nature is mad...

 

[pedrone]

What do you teach? Woodwork?

No, I teach wrong current Physics for foolishes students who believe it to be correct

 

[pedrone]

Funny, my computer is working. My solar watch and iPod are working. Every kind of transistorized electronics I can find around me in the room and their chips and processors seem to be working just fine. This must be a really, really tiny mistake pedrone has found in the theory of nuclear physics.

What was the problem again, pedrone?

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning" - Werner Heisenberg

Such method of questioning is efficient for the development of technology, but it's not efficient for the discovery of the true fundamental laws of Nature.

Some fundamental laws of Quantum Mechanics are wrong. But those fundamental wrong laws do not prevent the development of technology (in the level developed till now)

However, as some foundations of QM are wrongs, in a most deep level QM will fail even for the development of technology. Cold fusion is an example.
And the LHC experiments will show it to us either, in the upcoming years.

 

[Reality Check]

Nature cannot work through several different models.
..snipped infantile stuff...

Wrong: Nature does not work through models at all. Nature just works.
Models are human creations.

Science is is people creating models from what Nature tells us.
It is a process. Typically it starts with a simple model. As the universe tells us more about itself the model is improved.
Often there are several models in the same field of research because no one has (yet!) found a single model that covers the entire field.

 

[pedrone]

Coulomb barrier​

Consider a ball in the top of a mountain, like shown in the fig. 1 bellow:

​

According to Classical Physics, if the ball goes down the maximum point it can reach is that shown in the fig. 2.

But according to Quantum Mechanics, if the ball is an electron it can outrun that point of fig. 2 and surpass the top of the second mountain, as shown in fig. 3.
Such phenomenon is named tunnel effect.
Any elementary particle (as the electron) can surpass a Coulomb barrier higher than the kinetic energy of the particle.

Suppose a particle within a spinning nucleus, trying to escape from there though the tunnel effect, as shown in fig. 4:

​

As the nucleus is spinning, the particle is moving dragged by that spin, into the nucleus.
Consider the instant when the particle succeeds to surpass the barrier, as shown in fig. 5:

​

In that instant, there is an interaction between the particle and the barrier, and so during a short instant the particle is dragged by the spinning in the place of the Coulomb barrier.

Please answer the question:
When the particle leaves out the nucleus, what sort of trajectory will it have?

tangential as shown in Fig. 6 ?


or

radial ? as shown in Fig. 7 ?

 

[pedrone]

Wrong: Nature does not work through models at all. Nature just works.
Models are human creations.

Of course Nature works through structures, which we can call models.

To believe that Nature does not work by structures is like to believe in ghosts
The human models is an attempt to discover the models used by Nature.

As the physicists did not succeed to discover the real models existing in Nature, they invented such fable with which they fool the people, making them to believe that Nature has no models.

 

[Molinaro]

In that instant, there is an interaction between the particle and the barrier, and so during a short instant the particle is dragged by the spinning in the place of the Coulomb barrier.

Do you consider the quantum property called spin to be the same thing as, for example the way the earth revolves about the north-south axis?

 

[Daide]

So Predrone is a prof at a university but won't speak with other academics about an idea...I quite fear for your students. Though I'd hope that a prof in this field would also not be failing to grasp definitions related to this so I cast doubt on your claim until you can be more specific.

ETA:

The human models is an attempt to discover the models used by Nature.

Nature exists in such a way that material and energy follow these properties.

As the physicists did not succeed to discover the real models existing in Nature

Great! So could you please cite some papers that are at fault in particular. I'm procrastinating on an English assignment and I'm expected to make a sources list to prove my point. Giving a specific paper should be quite simple seeing as you are a prof who teaches the field...so if you'd be so kind as to list some, we would surely be converted in no time!

ETA #2:
Couldn't you just get a job teaching something along the lines of theoretical physics? If your idea was proved correct then I'm sure you could sleep soundly next to your Nobel prize so all the more incentive to link some articles with explanations of the fundamental flaws.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Of course Nature works through structures, which we can call models.

To believe that Nature does not work by structures is like to believe in ghosts
The human models is an attempt to discover the models used by Nature.

As the physicists did not succeed to discover the real models existing in Nature, they invented such fable with which they fool the people, making them to believe that Nature has no models.

You seem to be working with a rather unorthodox definition of the word "model".

 

[Reality Check]

Of course Nature works through structures, which we can call models.

What scientists, people who know a bit about science, people who have gone to high school, people who can read (e.g. Wikipedia), etc. call models are not "structures" and do not appear in Nature.

Nature does not work though anything. It just does its stuff.
Human beings create models to make sense of what it does.

A Nature godess does not present the models to us on tablets of stone !

 

[Belz...]

Nature cannot work through several different models.

Actually, depending on the scale or the portion you're studying, or the level of precision you want, this is not true.

 

[Belz...]

Of course Nature works through structures, which we can call models.

To believe that Nature does not work by structures is like to believe in ghosts
The human models is an attempt to discover the models used by Nature.

As the physicists did not succeed to discover the real models existing in Nature, they invented such fable with which they fool the people, making them to believe that Nature has no models.

Confusing the map with the territory, you are.

 

[Aepervius]

Actually, depending on the scale or the portion you're studying, or the level of precision you want, this is not true.

Case in point : newtonian physic and general relativity. There are naturally many other. Usually a mostly correct model, supplanted at some extrem value by a more complex but correct one, or a more correct model approximated to an easier model to calculate. An example of that is He+ QM calculation (core approximated to a point charge with +2e with an orbiting -e charge) or many particle which approximate what the particle see , or even pertubartory model. All of those used to calculate the same structure, but are just model.

 

[dafydd]

No, I teach wrong current Physics for foolishes students who believe it to be correct

Get out of the business. Go and do something that you like doing.

 

[dafydd]

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning" - Werner Heisenberg

Such method of questioning is efficient for the development of technology, but it's not efficient for the discovery of the true fundamental laws of Nature.

Some fundamental laws of Quantum Mechanics are wrong. But those fundamental wrong laws do not prevent the development of technology (in the level developed till now)

However, as some foundations of QM are wrongs, in a most deep level QM will fail even for the development of technology. Cold fusion is an example.
And the LHC experiments will show it to us either, in the upcoming years.

Get back to us when you discover these true fundamental laws and win your Nobel prize. Meanwhile,reflect on why all the real physicists think that you are wrong.

 

[dafydd]

So Predrone is a prof at a university but won't speak with other academics about an idea...I quite fear for your students. Though I'd hope that a prof in this field would also not be failing to grasp definitions related to this so I cast doubt on your claim until you can be more specific.

The name of this university should be made public so that students can avoid it. I don't believe that he is a professor of anything.

 

[dafydd]

Funny, my computer is working. My solar watch and iPod are working. Every kind of transistorized electronics I can find around me in the room and their chips and processors seem to be working just fine. This must be a really, really tiny mistake pedrone has found in the theory of nuclear physics.

What was the problem again, pedrone?

He hasn't got round to stating it yet,just the usual woo "Physics is wrong and I will tell you why,but not just yet. In the meantime I will be snarky and insulting and refuse to tell you where I studied physics."