Why? Did you learn anything from the previous subject?
why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct
- Thread starter pedrone
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nuclear physics physics
Why? Did you learn anything from the previous subject?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I can answer this: Nuclei have no binding energy so the answer is no.
Nucleons have binding energy.
ETA
And what ben m said: Why change the subject? Are you admitting that you were wrong about the nuclear spin-orbit interaction being electromagnetic?
FYI: Going back to the title of the thread. Of course nuclear physics is not entirely correct!
There are some observations that the theory cannot explain (yet).
There are some observations that the theory cannot match (yet).
But there are lots of observations that the theory can explain and match.
Theoretical nuclear physics is mostly correct.
Last edited:
Hmm. I'm not so sure there's such a clear-cut difference.
I'd say it is mostly approximately correct.
I disagree; I will add some comments on this later, but I don't want to distract Pedrone from deciding whether or not he's the final world authority on the role of spin in particle physics.
pedrone
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 508
Slyjoe,
when two particle have interaction through a force of attraction, only a force of repulsion can cancell (or decrease) the intensity of the attraction force.
Only a force can oppose to another force.
When the spin interacts through the electromagnetism, such spin-interaction must create a force. So, in the case of the magnetism, such spin-interaction must create a force with the magnitude of the magnetism=1/137
If the spin interacts through the strong force, the spin-interaction must create a force with the magnitude of the strong force=1.
First of all, it's very strange that the same mechanism (the spin) can be able to create two forces of different magnitude: 1 and 1/137.
Besides, the strong force is attractive. There no exist repulsive strong force.
So, when the spin-interaction opposes the strong force, the spin-force must be repulsive, with the magnitude of the strong force=1.
And when the spin-interaction reinforces the strong force, the spin-force must be attractive, with the magnitude of the strong force=1.
This is very strange.
There no exist repulsive strong force (as there is no repulsive gravity) according to currente Nuclear Physics.
So, to consider a repulsive spin-force, with the magnitude of the strong force, makes no sense.
Look at this:
There no exist deuterons D2 with spin zero in nature. Then look:
1- There is strong force attraction between proton and neutron into de D2
2- As the strong force is attractive, when the spins are antiparallel it means that the spin-interaction creates a repulsive force with magnitude=1, so that it decreases the attraction force between the proton and the neutron, and the deuteron is never formed with spin zero.
3- Since the spin-force must be repulsive, but there no exist repulsive strong force in nature, the explanation by Nuclear Physics makes no sense.
Later we will speak more about repulsive and attractive forces, when we will talk about Heisenberg's isospin, and perhaps you will understand better such fundamental question concerning the interaction of forces.
pedrone
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 508
Ben M,
there is need to have a minimum content of honesty in any discussion, and I did not see it yet. So, let's leave such question concerning the spin-interaction for later discussion.
So, let's speak now about the binding energy of nuclei.
I would like to know if there is theoretical calculation for the following nuclei:
1H2 , 1H3, 2He3, 2He4, 4Be8, 5B10, 6C12, 7N14, 8O16
Please tell me their theoretical binding energy, compared with the experimental data, and the nuclear model from which the calculation was made.
And please stop to deviate the discussion with jokes.
Please give the responses in the following format:
1H2:
theoretical =
experimental =
1H3:
theoretical =
experimental =
2He3:
theoretical =
experimental =
etc...
As has already been pointed out, it is no more a mechanism than distance is a mechanism.
Simply not true. The nucleon-nucleon strong force is repulsive at short distances. Otherwise nucelons would completely overlap spatially and the nucleus would, presumably, have the same size as an individual nucleon.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
pedrone, one more time: the spin-orbit interaction is a detail of the existing force. It is not a separate force.
No it does not - it is the existing force.
No it does not. There is no force. The magnitude has nothing to do with the coupling constants.
No it is not strange.
You have the same mechanism (the spin) modifying different forces.
And I will emphasize this for you:
The forces do not have different magnitudes (1 and 1/137).
- The strong force has a coupling constant that is defined as 1.
- The electromagnetic force has a coupling constant that is 1/137.
- The weak force has a coupling constant that is 10-6.
- The gravitational force has a coupling constant that is 10-39
pedrone
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 508
Reality Check,
in Nuclear Physics we call binding energy of a nucleus the total energy necessary to pack the nucleons into that nucleus.
This binding energy is calculated for the heaviest nuclei (starting from about 20 nucleons) from the Liquid Model.
Wikipedia:
At the nuclear level, binding energy is also equivalent to the energy liberated when a nucleus is created from other nucleons or nuclei.[2][3] This nuclear binding energy (binding energy of nucleons into a nuclide) is derived from the strong nuclear force and is the energy required to disassemble a nucleus into the same number of free unbound neutrons and protons it is composed of, so that the nucleons are far/distant enough from each other so that the strong nuclear force can no longer cause the particles to interact.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Lets not derail the thread pedrone.
If you want to introduce a new topic then we have to be finished with the old topic.
This thread is about your assertion that the nuclear spin-orbit interaction is electromagnetic.
We have shown you that it is that the nuclear spin-orbit interaction is not electromagnetic. The nuclear spin-orbit interaction is a feature of the strong force.
Do you accept that?
pedrone
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 508
This is not due to strong force.
Such repulsion is named Jaswtrow repulsive core, and there is no explanation for it in Nuclear Physics
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Actually the nuclear binding energy of a nucleus is the energy needed to remove all of the nucleons from that nucleus. It is equavalent to the reverse process though.
But this is still a derail of the thread.
Since you know so much about nuclear physics you should be able to annwer your question yourself. But then maybe you do not know much about nuclear physics
.pedrone
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 508
No,
the name of this thread is why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct , and so it's about several questions not satisfactorilly answered by Nuclear Physics
pedrone
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 508
I have to laugh...
the energy to pack is the same energy necessary to remove them...
Nope. That's not how forces work---never has been. The force that acts between a spin-up electron and a spin-down electron is different, from the beginning, than the force between two spin-up electrons.
I regret to inform you that the thing you've thought of as a force, up until now, has been wrong---you've been unwittingly averaging over different spins. All of your previous experience (if any) with forces has been limited to unpolarized objects. Sorry, buddy, your experience has misled you. You've been wrong all along, and you're still wrong now.
Get over it.
Nope. Wrong. Where did you get this nonsense? Did you just sit around and make this up, and decide it sounded so right that you could build an argument around it?
pedrone
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 508
Ben M,
I will be waiting your response:
Please give the responses in the following format:
1H2:
theoretical =
experimental =
1H3:
theoretical =
experimental =
2He3:
theoretical =
experimental =
etc...
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
There are lots of questions that are not answered by nuclear physics, e.g. the forward-backward asymmetry of the top-quark pair production.
We know that your first assertion about a failure was nonsense.
By going onto another topic you are implying that you agree.
So yes - let us go onto the next question.
Why do you want to know the match between the nuclear binding energies from theory and experiment?
If they match then there is no problem.
If they do not match then nuclear physics is not entirely correct.
So what?
Science as whole is not entirely correct. Why do you expect nuclear physics to be 100% correct?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I have to laugh...
the energy to pack is the same energy necessary to remove them...
yes that is what I said
!That's a more productive use of your time than actually posting. Keep it up!
I am starting to think that I'm overshooting your credentials if you aren't willing to reply. Did you attend Conservapedia college? answers.yahoo community college? I really was just curious but you're unwilling to reply to that request makes me feel like you're trying to hide something. Please, clear this up for me.