• 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:

I will be waiting the nuclear theorist to explain us why the spin-interaction influences the proton-neutron interaction

I will not waste my time with lay men
Click to expand...

I have a master's in physics, and your postulate #2 is completely wrong. End of discussion from my point of view.
 
has this got anything to do with:
|ψ> = c1|Φ1> + c2|Φ2> + c3|Φ3> + c4|Φ4> + c5|Φ5> + c6|Φ6> + c7|Φ7>
?
 
Pedrone: Why are you unwilling to provide anything about your own background considering the subject at hand? Can we dismiss you as a layman since at this point I feel obliged to say that you have the worst grasp of the subject at hand as compared to anybody else in this thread.

I've really not asked for anything out of the ordinary seeing as you've done nearly the exact same. Please, stop acting on a double standard and let us know what your qualifications are in this subject.

Are you a professional physicist? Did you read an article that says physics is wrong? Can you adopt new information about a subject when it has been provided? Can everyone else ignore you if you aren't a physicist since you're willing to do the same?
 
nathan said:
has this got anything to do with:
|ψ> = c1|Φ1> + c2|Φ2> + c3|Φ3> + c4|Φ4> + c5|Φ5> + c6|Φ6> + c7|Φ7>
?
Click to expand...

You know, the saying "All Greek to me" is supposed to be hyperbole, not literal description!
CurseYou.gif


;)
 
Daide said:
Pedrone: Why are you unwilling to provide anything about your own background considering the subject at hand? Can we dismiss you as a layman since at this point I feel obliged to say that you have the worst grasp of the subject at hand as compared to anybody else in this thread.

I've really not asked for anything out of the ordinary seeing as you've done nearly the exact same. Please, stop acting on a double standard and let us know what your qualifications are in this subject.

Are you a professional physicist? Did you read an article that says physics is wrong? Can you adopt new information about a subject when it has been provided? Can everyone else ignore you if you aren't a physicist since you're willing to do the same?
Click to expand...

On the one hand, I do like to stick to the philosophy that it's not what credentials a person has, it's what they say that counts.

On the other hand, since Pedrone arrogantly dismissed so many people with that sweeping "I will be waiting the nuclear theorist to explain us why the spin-interaction influences the proton-neutron interaction... I will not waste my time with lay men" declaration, this is one time I think it's eminently justified. After all, he is the one who brought it up.
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
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
Click to expand...

Why? Are you ready to admit you are wrong about spin-interactions?
Yes or no?
 
nathan said:
has this got anything to do with:
|ψ> = c1|Φ1> + c2|Φ2> + c3|Φ3> + c4|Φ4> + c5|Φ5> + c6|Φ6> + c7|Φ7>
?
Click to expand...

Care to comment pedrone? That should be easy peasy to a hot shot physicist like you.
 
Where's Bishadi when you need him? Now there was a serious debater.

But a question to Pedrone: Are you in fact referring to the fallacy of the meson-meson production method? Or do you believe telegony is still subjudice?
 
Dancing David said:
Why? Are you ready to admit you are wrong about spin-interactions?
Yes or no?
Click to expand...

of course not.
We will speak about it again when we will talk about the isospin, and then you will be able to understand such question of spin-interaction force.
 
pedrone said:
of course not.
We will speak about it again when we will talk about the isospin, and then you will be able to understand such question of spin-interaction force.
Click to expand...

You do know spin and isospin are quite different?
 
pedrone said:
of course not.
We will speak about it again when we will talk about the isospin, and then you will be able to understand such question of spin-interaction force.
Click to expand...
We do not have to talk about isospin w.r.t the spin-orbit interaction.

You are wrong. The spin-orbit interaction is part of the respective force. It is ignorant if not deluded to say that the nuclear spin-orbit interaction is electromagnetic. The only reason to continue to insist on it would be to prove to the world that you cannot learn.
 
Credentials? Credentials?!
Pedrone doesn't got to show you no stinkin' credentials!

Pedrone transcends the need for mere credentials!

And furthermore, Pedrone has the Power of the Dunning–Kruger Effect on his side! So there!!
 
pedrone said:


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?
Click to expand...
Of course any expert in Nuclear Physics cannot exhibit any equation with Hamiltonian for the nucleus, because such equation does not exist.

And the reason is because there is not one unique model in Nuclear Physics, capable to explain all the nuclear phenomena.

In Atomic Physics there is one unique model of atom, there is an equation with Hamiltonian, and such model is used to describe all the atomic phenomena.

In Nuclear Physics there are several models.
The Liquid Drop Model considers that all the nucleons are distributed in a shell. An empirical formula was developed, and it is used to calculate the binding energies.
The Model of Layers considers that nucleons move independently within the nucleus, and it is used to calculate other nuclear properties. The Collective Model considers that nucleons dont move independently within the nucleus, and it is used to calculate other nuclear properties. The Fermi Model consider the levels of energy.

So, the theorists did not discover the real structure of the nucleus.
They use several incompatible models, and each one is used to calculate some nuclear properties.
The theorists have no idea on how the nucleons are distributed within the nucleus.

So, as they did not discover the fundamental structure of the nucleus (as the fundamental structure of the atom was discovered in Atomic Physics), this is the reason why an equation with Hamiltonian was never developed for the nucleus.

That's why there are phenomena which cannot explained by considering the existing nuclear models.
Later we will speak about some of those inexplicable nuclear phenomena
 
Wowbagger said:
Credentials? Credentials?!
Pedrone doesn't got to show you no stinkin' credentials!

Pedrone transcends the need for mere credentials!

And furthermore, Pedrone has the Power of the Dunning–Kruger Effect on his side! So there!!
Click to expand...
:mad::mad:
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?
:D:D:D:D:D

Besises, I love my job. And I dont want to lose it. I need to continue teaching the wrong theories...
:boxedin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom