• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

pedrone said:
CONCLUSION: in scattering via the strong force the spin-interaction has the magnitude of the strong force.
Click to expand...
CONCLUSION: Wrong. Does not follow from what is quoted.

pedrone said:
CONCLUSION: in scattering via the EM force the spin-interaction has the magnitude of the EM force.
Click to expand...
CONCLUSION: Wrong. Does not follow from what is quoted.

pedrone said:
CONCLUSION: in scattering via weak force the spin-interaction has the magnitude of the weak force.
Click to expand...
CONCLUSION: Wrong. Does not follow from what is quoted.

The spin-orbit interaction splits energy levels. The splitting is (AFAIK) less than the energy of the energy level. That suggests that in all cases the spin-orbit magnatude has a lesser magnitude than the force.
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
Are the three conclusions correct ?
Click to expand...

No, but probably closer. You make it sound like (a) first we have the strong force, and then (b) we add a separate, also strong, spin-interaction to it. No---the force is simply spin-dependent.

The way you actually calculate a scattering cross section is that you calculate:

a) the probability for particles with aligned spins to scatter, leaving the spins aligned.

b) the probability for particles with aligned spins to scatter, leaving the spins antialigned.

c) the probability for particles with antialigned spins to scatter, leaving the spins aligned.

d) the probability for particles with antialigned spins to scatter, leaving the spins antialigned.

(For nonidentical particles, there are additional degrees of freedom). Those are simply four different calculations, and they typically did four different answers. This is not a special calculation of the "spin interaction", it's the just ordinary scattering. This is the only way you ever calculate scattering probabilities---strong, weak, or E&M.
 
ben m said:
The way you actually calculate a scattering cross section is that you calculate:

a) the probability for particles with aligned spins to scatter, leaving the spins aligned.

b) the probability for particles with aligned spins to scatter, leaving the spins antialigned.

c) the probability for particles with antialigned spins to scatter, leaving the spins aligned.

d) the probability for particles with antialigned spins to scatter, leaving the spins antialigned.
Click to expand...

Ben M,
the way you calculate it does not matter.

What is of interest is to fit the force of spin-interaction to the known laws of Physics


If you cannot fit it to the known laws of Physics, your calculation means NOTHING.
Your calculation is only a quantification of a physical phenomenon.
Actually you are unable to explain the phenomenon, and you dont know to explain how it occurs, because you dont know to explain it from the known laws of Physics.



Then, let's continue:

ben m said:
No, but probably closer. You make it sound like (a) first we have the strong force, and then (b) we add a separate, also strong, spin-interaction to it. No---the force is simply spin-dependent.
Click to expand...

Ben M,
according to Modern Physics there are 4 fundamental forces in Nature:

1- gravity

2- electromagnetic

3- weak force

4- strong force

The question is:
in which those forces spin-interaction force fits in ?



In another words:
What is the NATURE of the spin-interaction force ?

Is it its nature:

gravitational ?

electromagnetic ?

weak force

strong force ?

Please tell us what is its nature.
 
pedrone said:
If you cannot fit it to the known laws of Physics, your calculation means NOTHING.
Your calculation is only a quantification of a physical phenomenon.
Actually you are unable to explain the phenomenon, and you dont know to explain how it occurs, because you dont know to explain it from the known laws of Physics.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of theoretical nuclear physics is phenomenological.
 
Ziggurat said:
Again, this is somewhat of a semantic debate, and I don't generally care about semantic debates. As long as one defines one's terms and stays consistent, I'm pretty flexible. But as above, this would still often be called an exchange interaction if in fact it originated from the exchange symmetry restrictions I discussed above.
Click to expand...

Zig,
just the semantic debates which can point out the faillures of a theory.

If a theory is unable to survive to semantic debates involving the fundamental laws of Physics, then something is wrong with the theory. Probably something is missing in the theory.

Ziggurat said:
As long as one defines one's terms and stays consistent, I'm pretty flexible.
Click to expand...
This is a way to avoid fundamental questions that point out some deficiency of the theory.
To be pretty flexible dont solve the problem. The misfire continues in the theory.
And if everybody be flexible, the problem never will be solved.

If Einstein should be pretty flexible, he would not have developed the relativity.
 
The question is:
in which those forces spin-interaction force fits in ?

Ziggurat said:
All of them.
Click to expand...

Wow !!!!
:D:D:D

This is a New Physics.

Are you telling us that there are 5 forces of nature?

Congratulations.

Now he have 5 fundamental forces in nature:

1- gravitational

2- electromagnetic

3- weak force

4- strong force

5- spin-interaction


OK, now I am satisfied.
Thanks
 
pedrone said:
Zig,
just the semantic debates which can point out the faillures of a theory.

If a theory is unable to survive to semantic debates involving the fundamental laws of Physics, then something is wrong with the theory. Probably something is missing in the theory.
Click to expand...

Except that the theory survives the semantic debates just fine. But people who don't actually understand the standard definitions, or insist upon applying non-standard definitions to try to discredit statements which are valid under standard definitions, tend to embarrass themselves.

You have not shown that you understand the standard definitions, and what you have said is wrong using standard definitions. And if you're trying to use non-standard definitions, you need to provide those definitions, which you haven't done.

This is a way to avoid fundamental questions that point out some deficiency of the theory.
Click to expand...

Nope. The conditions I set (rigorous definitions of terms and consistency in their use) are enough to avoid any problems with the usage of terms.

If Einstein should be pretty flexible, he would not have developed the relativity.
Click to expand...

That's a complete non-sequitor.
 
ben m said:
Yes, this is well known. Like I said, it's not a problem---all particle-particle interactions, E&M-mediated or not, depend on spin.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love the Dunning-Kruger effect ? People with the least knowledge are the most convinced of the answers they come up with. It'd be amusing if it weren't so tragic.
 
pedrone said:
The question is:
in which those forces spin-interaction force fits in ?



Wow !!!!
:D:D:D

This is a New Physics.

Are you telling us that there are 5 forces of nature?

Congratulations.

Now he have 5 fundamental forces in nature:

1- gravitational

2- electromagnetic

3- weak force

4- strong force

5- spin-interaction


OK, now I am satisfied.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Hi there. We seem to have trouble communicating. You've missed my messages which have asked for your credentials. Since you're attempting to correct physicists it's obvious that you too must have a formal education in the subject. I understand Wikipedia University is a prestigious institution so I shall make an assumption (and make an ass out of U and me) that this is your alma mater. If you don't want to speak to laymen then you must have a high level of expertise in this subject but you so far have shown a lack of the basics so please...correct me and let us know where you went to school to be able to tell physicists that they are wrong.
 
pedrone said:
in which those forces spin-interaction force fits in ?
Click to expand...

Weren't you just told it isn't a force ?

If a theory is unable to survive to semantic debates involving the fundamental laws of Physics, then something is wrong with the theory. Probably something is missing in the theory.
Click to expand...

Don't you think maybe you just don't understand the theory ?

Are you telling us that there are 5 forces of nature?
Click to expand...

How the hell can you reach such a conclusion from the post you quoted ???

Wait, almost forgot:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
in which those forces spin-interaction force fits in ?
Click to expand...
This is your fundemental mistake, pedrone: The spin-orbit interaction is not a force.
It is the interaction of spin with a force such as the strong force, weak force or electromagnetic force (or even graviational force!).
 
pedrone said:
The question is:
in which those forces spin-interaction force fits in ?



Wow !!!!
:D:D:D

This is a New Physics.

Are you telling us that there are 5 forces of nature?

Congratulations.

Now he have 5 fundamental forces in nature:

1- gravitational

2- electromagnetic

3- weak force

4- strong force

5- spin-interaction


OK, now I am satisfied.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Where did you study physics and what are your qualifications?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom