why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Reality Check]

Of 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

Why wait?

Start with some Tevatron anomalies, e.g. Anomalies at Fermilab

• forward-backward asymmetry in top quark production.
• the "bump" in collisions that produce a W boson as well as 2 jets.

There are many such exciting results that we could discuss.

 

[Tubbythin]

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

They can. It might not be perfect but then neither is one for a many electron atom.

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

That is true. But its not exactly only nuclear physics that has that problem.

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.

No there isn't.

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.

I think you mean uniformly distributed in a charged sphere.

The Model of Layers considers that nucleons move independently within the nucleus, and it is used to calculate other nuclear properties.

I'm guessing this is meant to be a description of the shell model. But it's not a very good one.

The Collective Model considers that nucleons dont move independently within the nucleus, and it is used to calculate other nuclear properties

That's roughly accurate.

The Fermi Model consider the levels of energy.

That is so vague as to be meaningless.

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.

This last statement is false. We have a wealth of experimental data showing matter and charge distribution in 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.

The reason why the Hamiltonians are only approximate is because of the large number of two and three body interactions one has when one considers multi-particle configurations.

That's why there are phenomena which cannot explained by considering the existing nuclear models.

Which is why people still do nuclear physics research.

Later we will speak about some of those inexplicable nuclear phenomena

I'll look forward to it.

 

[pedrone]

Standard Model Lagrangian (including neutrino mass terms) (PDF)

that's why I love Reality Check...

... he makes me laugh...

Reality Check, the Standard Model is not a theory on the nucleus

 

[Tubbythin]

• forward-backward asymmetry in top quark production.
• the "bump" in collisions that produce a W boson as well as 2 jets.

There are many such exciting results that we could discuss.

I wouldn't, personally, call these nuclear phenomena. Though they are interesting.

 

[Kid Eager]

Ben M, lets change the subject.

Is there a theory which calculates the binding energy of lightest 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.

As Nuclear Physics is so good as all you claim, I suppose there is a theoretical calculation agree to the experimental data.

This post deserves a Stundie nomination. Change the subject? Change the subject? The whole thread has been about the OP changing the subject to avoid being wrong....

I'd argue with him, but he lacks the qualifications to understand my argument.

 

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone
Of course any expert in Nuclear Physics cannot exhibit any equation with Hamiltonian for the nucleus, because such equation does not exist.

They can. It might not be perfect but then neither is one for a many electron atom.

No, they cant.
Atoms with few electrons are very well described.
Unlike, nuclei with few nucleons cannot be accuratelly described.

Atoms with many electrons are not well explained because the complexity of the interactions grows with growth of the quantity of electrons

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

That is true. But its not exactly only nuclear physics that has that problem.

Quote:
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.

No there isn't.

Yes, there is.
What I mean to say is that there is a FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE of the atom, with a nucleus in the center, and electrons moving about it according to Pauli's Principle.
There is not a similar FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE of nucleus in Nuclear Physics.
There are several models, which makes obvious that all they are wrong. If one among them should be correct, there would not be the need to consider the other ones.

Quote:
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.

I think you mean uniformly distributed in a charged sphere.

No, I mean to say just like it is considered: in such model it's supposed the nucleons to behave like happens in a drop of a liquid in which the superficial tensions due to the molecules is similar to the interactions between the nucleons.

Quote:
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.

This last statement is false. We have a wealth of experimental data showing matter and charge distribution in the nucleus.

Then why a hell the theorists, along 50 years, did not find yet a UNIQUE model of nucleus, capable to explain all the nuclear phenomena ?

Quote:
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.

The reason why the Hamiltonians are only approximate is because of the large number of two and three body interactions one has when one considers multi-particle configurations.

Perhaps you enjoy to fool yourself believing it.
I dont enjoy to fool myself

Quote:
That's why there are phenomena which cannot explained by considering the existing nuclear models.

Which is why people still do nuclear physics research.

of course...
... by rejecting experiments, like you do with cold fusion, which prove Nuclear Physics to be wrong

Quote:
Later we will speak about some of those inexplicable nuclear phenomena

I'll look forward to it.

I'm not sure you will enjoy it

 

[Mikemcc]

Ben M, lets change the subject.

Is there a theory which calculates the binding energy of lightest 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.

As Nuclear Physics is so good as all you claim, I suppose there is a theoretical calculation agree to the experimental data.

It's already been done in the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper, waaaay back in the 1940s. It's how they predicted the distribution of the elements post-Big Bang, and has been backed up by observation.

 

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone
Of 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
Why wait?

Start with some Tevatron anomalies, e.g. Anomalies at Fermilab

• forward-backward asymmetry in top quark production.
• the "bump" in collisions that produce a W boson as well as 2 jets.

There are many such exciting results that we could discuss.

Why to wait ?
Because before to discover the faillures in Particle Physics, there is need earlier to eliminate the errors in Nuclear Physics.

Particle Physics was developed from the foundations of Nuclear Physics.
So, if something is wrong in Nuclear Physics (or if something is missing in it), then it is obvious that it's impossible to get a satisfactory theory in the field of Particle Physics.
There is need firstly to make corrections in the point of departure which caused the problems: the Nuclear Theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

No, they cant.
Atoms with few electrons are very well described.
Unlike, nuclei with few nucleons cannot be accuratelly described.

We have reasonable descriptions of most salient properties.

Atoms with many electrons are not well explained because the complexity of the interactions grows with growth of the quantity of electrons

Move the goalposts much? You said "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. " and now you seem to be saying that atoms with many electrons are not very well described. So first you say that atomic physics is much better off than nuclear physics because we can describe everything and now you're saying we can't describe everything because its too complex. Which is exactly the same reason why we have problems in nuclear physics.

Ok...

Yes, there is.
What I mean to say is that there is a FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE of the atom, with a nucleus in the center, and electrons moving about it according to Pauli's Principle.
There is not a similar FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE of nucleus in Nuclear Physics.

Yes there is. It's not perfect but then neither is the description of the multi-electron atom.

There are several models, which makes obvious that all they are wrong. If one among them should be correct, there would not be the need to consider the other ones.

The vast majority of models are wrong in physics. Doesn't mean they're not useful.

No, I mean to say just like it is considered: in such model it's supposed the nucleons to behave like happens in a drop of a liquid in which the superficial tensions due to the molecules is similar to the interactions between the nucleons.

I was objecting to your use of the word "shell".

Then why a hell the theorists, along 50 years, did not find yet a UNIQUE model of nucleus, capable to explain all the nuclear phenomena ?

Same reason we can't accurately describe the multi-electron atom.

Perhaps you enjoy to fool yourself believing it.
I dont enjoy to fool myself

Its the main reason, although the strong force is more complex than the EM force which doesn't help. And a few other things.

of course...
... by rejecting experiments, like you do with cold fusion, which prove Nuclear Physics to be wrong

Nope, I reject cold fusion because I've seen no evidence to suggest it works. Nuclear physics theories, on the other hand, do work but are limited.

I'm not sure you will enjoy it

I reckon I might.

 

[dafydd]

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?


Besises, I love my job. And I dont want to lose it. I need to continue teaching the wrong theories...

What do you teach? Woodwork?

 

[John Jones]

has this got anything to do with:
|ψ> = c1|Φ1> + c2|Φ2> + c3|Φ3> + c4|Φ4> + c5|Φ5> + c6|Φ6> + c7|Φ7>
?

It's Greek to me.

 

[AdMan]

What do you teach? Woodwork?

Introduction to smileys 101.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, there is.
What I mean to say is that there is a FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE of the atom, with a nucleus in the center, and electrons moving about it according to Pauli's Principle.
There is not a similar FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE of nucleus in Nuclear Physics.

The "FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE" of nucleus in Nuclear Physics corerwessp[onding to your atomic "FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE" is the nuclear shell model, i.e.

• nucleons "orbiting" in the nucleus according to Pauli's Principle

The big difference is that the nucleons do not "orbit" a nucleus, they are moving in a manner analogs to galaxies moving in galactic clusters.

There are several models, which makes obvious that all they are wrong.

There are several models. They are all correct in their applicable limits, wrong outside of those limits.

 

[Reality Check]

Why to wait ?
Because before to discover the faillures in Particle Physics, there is need earlier to eliminate the errors in Nuclear Physics.

Oh goody - you are going to fix all of the errors in Nuclear physics. I can't wait for your amazing scientific theories !

State your first of the "errors in Nuclear Physics".
How do you propose to fix it?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hey!!!!

It's Greek to me.

Ahem!!!

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

Dooooooooooooooo'h!!!

 

[MattusMaximus]

there are people very proud of their ignorance and inability to understand a single scientific argument

And it sounds like you are among that very group

ETA: Sorry folks, I'm not interested in getting into a discussion with another Bishadi-clone. Pedrone, welcome to ignore *plonk*

 

[dafydd]

Oh goody - you are going to fix all of the errors in Nuclear physics. I can't wait for your amazing scientific theories !

State your first of the "errors in Nuclear Physics".
How do you propose to fix it?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Ah, so you're the merry-go-round type.

 

[Belz...]

A convincing argument.

 

[Mikemcc]

Why to wait ?
Because before to discover the faillures in Particle Physics, there is need earlier to eliminate the errors in Nuclear Physics.

Particle Physics was developed from the foundations of Nuclear Physics.
So, if something is wrong in Nuclear Physics (or if something is missing in it), then it is obvious that it's impossible to get a satisfactory theory in the field of Particle Physics.
There is need firstly to make corrections in the point of departure which caused the problems: the Nuclear Theory.

What problems? You've completely failed to highlight a single problem. Your attempts have resulted in you just looking foolish because you have misunderstood the definitions involved.