why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[pedrone]

You have misunderstood completely. The level scheme on the left is what you would expect without a spin-orbit potential. The level scheme on the right is what you get with a spin-orbit potential. It was the work of Mayer and Jensen (and coworkers) that showed that the spin-orbit potential allowed a correct matching of observed and theoretical magic numbers. This is precisely what they won the Nobel prize for.

No, actualy you are tying to fool everbody in here.

What you say is just as it's written bellow the graphic in Eisberg-Resnick book.


What I said in my previous post is NOT regarding to the left side of the graphic, as you smartly are suggesting that should be my interpretation.

What I said is concerning the right side, just where it's considered the interaction WITH a spin-orbit potential.

​

As it can be seen easily, the Mayer-Jensen theory is disagree to the RIGHT side of the graphic (with spin-orbit potential) for the nuclei ₂₀Ca and ₈O.
They could not be magic numbers.
Instead of, ₁₄Si and ₆C would have to be, according to the Mayer-Jensen theory.


Tubbythin, stop trying to fool us.

 

[AdMan]

No, actualy you are tying to fool everbody in here.

What you say is just as it's written bellow the graphic in Eisberg-Resnick book.


What I said in my previous post is NOT regarding to the left side of the graphic, as you smartly are suggesting that should be my interpretation.

What I said is concerning the right side, just where it's considered the interaction WITH a spin-orbit potential.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_489414dbb830939131.jpg[/qimg]​

As it can be seen easily, the Mayer-Jensen theory is disagree to the RIGHT side of the graphic (with spin-orbit potential) for the nuclei ₂₀Ca and ₈O.
They could not be magic numbers.
Instead of, ₁₄Si and ₆C would have to be, according to the Mayer-Jensen theory.


Tubbythin, stop trying to fool us.

Pedrone, you are still referring to the Portuguese translation, which we already determined was faulty.

Pedrone, stop trying to fool us.

 

[pedrone]

Pedrone, you are still referring to the Portuguese translation, which we already determined was faulty.

Pedrone, stop trying to fool us.

Then scan the original book, and prove what you say by posting it here.

 

[AdMan]

Then scan the original book, and prove what you say by posting it here.

Pedrone, we cannot take your posts seriously, if you continue to scan and quote the Portuguese book which has been proven to be a poor transalation, which you are then wrongly translating back into English.

Stop trying to fool us.

The Norseman already proved that you are lying.

 

[leonAzul]

Questions made to Andrea Rossi:

How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?

Andrea Rossi: 97

Where can we find a list of those installed e-cats?

 

[AdMan]

Then scan the original book, and prove what you say by posting it here.

Scan the original book in English (your Portuguese translation has been proven to be inaccurate) and post it here.

Stop trying to fool us.

 

[The Norseman]

Ooohh... nice one Norseman... should be fascinating to watch Pedrone dance around that one.

Mind you... he danced around Reality Check's rebuttal in favor of this current and utterly pointless strawman dispute with Tubbythin.

Still... a good shot across the bow there.

Very well done, hat off to you.

Thank you, gentlemen! It was my pleasure.

More ridiculous is Tubbythin do not scaning his book and posting it here.

After all, it would be easier for Tubbythin to scan his book, while I would had to make a order to Amazon, to buy it, and to wait weeks...

Dont you fell yourself ridiculous, Norseman, for saying such your ridiculous comment?

Whether or not he scanned the book, he was still correct, and you are still arguing a logical fallacy by complaining that Resnick et al. are saying something which they clearly did not.

My comment about Amazon.com was simply to show you that the original English textbook is available for you to learn from; not that you need to order the book to show guys on the internet that you're right (or not).

I'll post the electron shell chart thingy tomorrow. Maybe that will help Reality Check and others continue to point out Pedrone's errors.

 

[Daylightstar]

Then scan the original book, and prove what you say by posting it here.

Due diligence, Pedrone.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, there is something very strange in the two versions of the book.

In Portuguese version, the word "aproximadamente" appears in the item 3, but it does not appears in the item 5.

While in the English version the word "approximatelly" apears in the items 3 and 5:

So your apology to Tubbythin and then discussion of what he actually said rather than your overdramatic rhetoric?

 

[Dancing David]

Of course not.

I said to Tubbythin that he had the chance to prove he is not a liar.
He did not used his chance.
So, he has to apologize himself.

So the actual discussion of the points that Tubbything was making while you engaged in your rhetorical sidetrack?

When will you address them?

 

[Dancing David]

I can't really make it out. I have a similar figure in front of me from the book by Krane though.


The magic numbers are those where all states are filled up to and including a given level and there is a large energy gap between one given level and the next level. That means when the 1 s1/2 is full when the 1 p1/2 is full, when the 1d3/2 is full, when the 1 f7/2 is full, when the 1g9/2 is full and so on. Filling up to these levels gives magic numbers of 2, 8, 20, 28, 50 and so on. You can see these numbers in the right hand column.


You have misunderstood completely. The level scheme on the left is what you would expect without a spin-orbit potential. The level scheme on the right is what you get with a spin-orbit potential. It was the work of Mayer and Jensen (and coworkers) that showed that the spin-orbit potential allowed a correct matching of observed and theoretical magic numbers. This is precisely what they won the Nobel prize for.

ETA: And just to stop yet another unsubstantiated liar accusation on your part, here it is all explained again, in more detail, by somebody else.

Here Pedrone, why don't you actually address this post and tell us why Mayer-Johnson are wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

No, actualy you are tying to fool everbogy in here.

What you say is just as it's written bellow the graphic in Eisberg-Resnick book.


What I said in my previous post is NOT regarding to the left side of the graphic, as you smartly are suggesting that should be my interpretation.

What I said is concerning the right side, just where it's considered the interaction WITH a spin-orbit potential.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_489414dbab97087902.jpg[/qimg]​

As it can be seen easily, the Mayer-Jensen theory is disagree to the RIGHT side of the graphic (with spin-orbit potential) for the nuclei ₂₀Ca and ₈O.
They could not be magic numbers.
Instead of, ₁₄Si and ₆C would have to be, according to the Mayer-Jensen theory.


Tubbythin, stop trying to fool us with your lies.

So, lets us see, Mayer-Johnsonn's theory says that the 'magic numbers' are releated to the stability of certain full shell configurations?

Correct or incorrect?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html

It is found that nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons are more stable than those with odd numbers. In particular, there are "magic numbers" of neutrons and protons which seem to be particularly favored in terms of nuclear stability:



2,8,20,28,50,82,126

Why do you disagree with this statement or do you agree with it?

Then we can go through the rest of it and see why you think that Mayer-Johnson's theory is incorrect.

Why do you feel that Si and C have full shells at all levels?

SI₁₄ is not full at all levels, nor is C₆, so your point is lost on me, please restate it? It would appear that your graphics shows that there are certain levels that are not full in fact.

 

[The Norseman]

Sorry everyone for the poor quality of my pages.

 

[Paulhoff]

The bottom line with any Scientific Theory is that they are all known not to be entirely correct.

So, what is the big deal.

Paul

 

[The Norseman]

The bottom line with any Scientific Theory is that they are all known not to be entirely correct.

WRONG! I have this for a fact that Eisberg-Resnick book said so -- I have a translation from the Swahili, to the Ukrainian, back to English and then into German which I can barely read, but it says so RIGHT THERE!!!!

Prove me wrong.

 

[Paulhoff]

WRONG! I have this for a fact that Eisberg-Resnick book said so -- I have a translation from the Swahili, to the Ukrainian, back to English and then into German which I can barely read, but it says so RIGHT THERE!!!!

Prove me wrong.

Well, since you believe it, what else can it be but wrong.


Paul

 

[Reality Check]

Nuclear Physics does not explain magic numbers nuclei​

1- From Z=28 to Z=184, the magic numbers are selected according to the lower level of energy.
...
2- However, with Z=8 and Z=20, it is taken in consideration the higgest level of energy.....

Nuclear Physics does explain magic numbers nuclei​

There is no highest/lowest energy level used. Each energy level is filled (1s to 1g, 2s and 2p) to make up the magic numbers. It turns out that the 2s level is between the 1d and 1f levels and so is filled before the 1f level.

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Check does not know even what is the empirical shell thickness

Empirical shell thickness is obtainded from the graphic made from empirical data (page 651 of Eisberg-Resnick book):

pedrone does not know even what is the empirical shell thickness

pedrone does not post a definition of "the empirical shell thickness". Maybe pedrone is as ignorant as Guglinski and thinks that the shell model has actual physical shells!

Guglinski uses the shell model (a QM model) in his theory to replace QM!

The next problem with the first of the 2 pages from his book in this post is his "second fact" on page 100: "from empirical fact, the physicists also concluded that all the nuclei have the same shell thickness "2b" = 2 * 0.55 F = 1.1 F".

The term "shell thickness" is defined by Guglinski but he seems to be thinking that the nuclear shell model has actual physical shells separated by a given thickness. This is wrong as I will get to in the next post but he has another problem: The shell model is a quantum mechanical theory. But his theory is a replacement for the QM theories of nuclei, like the nuclear shell model. So he should think that nuclear shell model is invalid and that shells do not exist!

Guglinski ignorance of the shell model means he derives a nonsense proton radius!

There is the measured difference in the size of nuclei that have filled energy shells. Is is not a "shell thickness" - it is a difference in the size of nuclei. It has nothing to do with size of any imaginary shells or the size of protons.

 

[The Norseman]

There must be a huge football game going on or something which explains why Pedrone hasn't posted yet. I'm sure he'll be along shortly.

 

[leonAzul]

There must be a huge football game going on or something which explains why Pedrone hasn't posted yet. I'm sure he'll be along shortly.

Either that or a huge contract for prefabricated concrete structures that house e-cat installations under negotiation.