why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Tubbythin]

I have to laugh...

the energy to pack is the same energy necessary to remove them...

Nope, the net energy released when a nucleus is assembled has the same magnitude but opposite sign to the net energy required to disassemble said nucleus. What you are suggesting violates both mass-energy conservation and, as a result, the first law of thermodynamics. And not in the "good" way.

 

[mike3]

There are several failures in current Nuclear Physics.

I will give here an example so that to be understood by a lay man.


Look:

1- The interaction proton-neutron occurs through the strong nuclear force, which is 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic interaction.

2- The spin of nucleons is electromagnetic, and so a spin-interaction is 100 times weaker than a strong force interaction.

BZZT! The spin is intrinsic angular momentum. Intrinsic to the particle. It does not depend on EM forces.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, Pedrone, it's like saying that the colour of my car is itself a brand of car.

 

[Dancing David]

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...

Changing the topic does not make you less wrong, it just means you are changing the topic.

 

[Dancing David]

And, if you should have at least a minimum of honesty, you had to confess:
It is impossible to calculate those binding energy from the models of Nuclear Physics. Any theoretical attempt does not fit to the experimental data.

And this does not change that you are wrong about spin and still posting incorrect information, false dichotomy and shifting the goals posts.

 

[Dancing David]

That might have something to do with the fact that you're not listening to much more knowledgable people than you.



Actually, you've got us. There ARE five fundamental forces in the universe. But the fifth one is not the one you think.

1) The Strong Nuclear Force
2) The Weak Nuclear Force
3) The Electromagnetic Force
4) Gravitation
5) The Force That Makes Wires Entangle Themselves

That last one is obviously the post powerful by several orders of magnitude.

6. The Force that makes Socks Disappear.

 

[dafydd]

6. The Force that makes Socks Disappear.

I counteract that force by only buying black socks so it doesn't matter if one vanishes.

 

[dafydd]

BZZT! The spin is intrinsic angular momentum. Intrinsic to the particle. It does not depend on EM forces.

I knew that spin has nothing to do with EM. There are laymen and then there are laymen.

 

[Belz...]

6. The Force that makes Socks Disappear.

I've never been subject to that force, so I remain skeptical as to its existence.

 

[Belz...]

I counteract that force by only buying black socks so it doesn't matter if one vanishes.

Pfft. Only a force can counteract another force. NEW PHYSICS !!!!!

 

[Dancing David]

I counteract that force by only buying black socks so it doesn't matter if one vanishes.

Black sock hole?

 

[Dancing David]

I've never been subject to that force, so I remain skeptical as to its existence.

Like there are no Underwear Gnomes either, or Crab People...

 

[Belz...]

Keep that up, David. In a couple pages we'll be up to 19-20 forces and Pedrone will be seriously confused.

 

[pedrone]

Sure,
then put them here:

1H2:
theoretical =
experimental =

1H3:
theoretical =
experimental =

2He3:
theoretical =
experimental =

2He4:
theoretical =
experimental =

3Li63:
theoretical =
experimental =

4BHe8:
theoretical =
experimental =

5He10:
theoretical =
experimental =

6C12:
theoretical =
experimental =

7N14:
theoretical =
experimental =

8O16:
theoretical =
experimental =

well,
Ben M and nobody will put them here because there is not theoretical calculations agree to the experimental data.

Then let's continue our journey to the Center of Nuclear Physics Faillures

 

[RobDegraves]

I have proof of underwear gnomes... it's in the bible.

Allow me to prove it.

Numbers 11:23

"The LORD answered Moses, “Is the LORD’s arm too SHORT?"

Leviticus 21:20

"or who is a hunchback or a DWARF"

Proverbs 24:15

"Do not lurk like a THIEF near the house of the righteous, do not plunder their dwelling place;"

Genesis 35:2

"“Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your CLOTHES."



Therefore...

A short dwarfish thief who lurks around to steal clothes.

It's got to be true.

 

[RobDegraves]

Oh.. missed a post while I was doing research.

Then let's continue our journey to the Center of Nuclear Physics Faillures

I bet we find Pedrone at the Center.

 

[Daide]

Pedrone: Is there any reason that you refuse to let me know your qualifications? I'm having the distinct feeling that you're being intellectually dishonest with us. I really wasn't looking to make this into a big deal but dodging the question doesn't make it go away. What makes you better equipped to answer this as compared with a layman? How about this: What books did you read that prove that physics is wrong? Baby's first conspiracy theory? I really would rather not mock your credentials but you won't answer a simple question about your background in the topic.

Also: Rather than having the physicists defend nuclear physics from your random requests could you please present situations in which we can determine that you are correct. How would this change nuclear physics? How could we test to see if you are correct? What evidence do you have aside from flailing your arms about definitions? Please present your evidence.

 

[Wowbagger]

5) The Force That Makes Wires Entangle Themselves

I used to think that was merely an application of thermodynamics.

 

[pedrone]

Lagrangian​

Newton developed the Mechanics considering forces that actuate in a system.
But often there is no way to know all the forces that actuate in a system, and then Hamilton and Lagrange developed a new method for the analysis of a system: instead to consider the forces, their method consider the energy of that system and its evolution along the time.
So, when a system is analysed, there is need to discover its equation, ie, its Lagrangian or Hamiltonian.

Modern Physics has been develloped from the method of Lagrange and Hamilton.

Schrödinger discovered the equation for the Atomic Physics.

The atom has an equation with an Hamiltonian: ih.dF/dt = HF


Now I ask to the experts in Nuclear Physics:

• 
  what is the Lagrangian of Nuclear Theory ?

• 
  what is the equation for the nucleus, and its Hamiltonian?

 

[pedrone]

Oh.. missed a post while I was doing research.

Quote:
Then let's continue our journey to the Center of Nuclear Physics Faillures

I bet we find Pedrone at the Center.

of course...
... detecting and pointing out all the faillures