why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Mashuna]

The name of this university should be made public so that students can avoid it. I don't believe that he is a professor of anything.

Has he stated it's a University teaching position? I could maybe believe a high-school substitute teacher.

 

[Modified]

Has he stated it's a University teaching position? I could maybe believe a high-school substitute teacher.

That wouldn't get him anywhere near nuclear physics though.

I'm guessing he's a teaching assistant at a university, and in way over his head.

 

[pedrone]

Do you consider the quantum property called spin to be the same thing as, for example the way the earth revolves about the north-south axis?

spin, particle, and wave-particle​

In Quantum Mechanics the spin is not a revolution of the particle about its axis (like the earth's revolutoin about its axis).
Actually nobody knows what the physical meaning of the spin, according to Quantum Mechanics.
Spin has very strange properties, and there is no way to interpret them from a classical viewpoint.

Schödinger supposed the spin is a result of the zitterbewegung:
“The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment.”
The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf

So, Schrödinger tried to give to spin a physical meaning, not possible to have in Quantum Mechanics.


In Nuclear Physics, the spin is often considered the revolution of the nucleons about their axis (like the earth revolution about its axis).

Let's understand why:
From experimental data, it's known that all nuclei are filled by deuterium nucleons, and each one has spin i=1.
Then consider, for instance, the nucleus 8O16. So, it is formed by 6 deuterium nucleons.
8O16 has null nuclear spin, which is resultant of 3 deuterium nucleons with spins up, and 3 with spins down.

From the philoshophycal viewpoint, this makes sense. Because if Schrödinger was right, and the spin is indeed a result of the zitterbewegung, this explains why within the nuclei the particles have a spin as it should be a revolution like the earth's revolution about its axis.
Indeed, into the nuclei the particles can lose their zitterbewegung (due to the confinement), and so the spin remains to be only a revolution of the particle about its axis.

Other different thing is the spin of a nucleus formed by several nucleons.
Its spin is, yes, a revolution about its axis, in the same sense as the earth's dayly revolution.
Properties like nuclear magnetic moments are calculated taking in consideration that the spin of the nucleus is its revolution about its axis.


One of the most strange pardoxes of Modern Physics is the following:

- In Quantum Mechanics, the particles are considered to be a cloud of probability (a wave-particle)

- In Particle Physics the particles are treated to be particles (if the particles should be considered as wave-particle, its name would Wave-Particle Physics )


So, Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics are incompatible, from the philosophycal viewpoint.
They consider the particle from different viewpoints. It's like to say that, in Quantum Mechanics, there is a predominance of the wave-particle aspect, while in Particle Physics there is a predominance of the particle aspect.
Obviously nobody knows why.
They do it because it fits to calculations...

 

[pedrone]

Nature does not work though anything. It just does its stuff.

I suppose God told it to you


Let's see the opinion of a man smarter than you:
“An objective of physical sciences has been to give an accurate image of the material world. One of the accomplishments of the physics in Century twenty was to show that the objective is unattainable”
J. Bronowski; 1973, The Ascent of Man

Bronowski, a Nobel Laureate, said it ironically, mocking of the physicists thinking that there is a not a real world existing in Nature.

The incompetence of the physicists to find the true laws of Nature does not mean that she must be crazy, as they believe

I bet Bronowski was sure that physicists enjoy to fool themselves

 

[Sideroxylon]

I suppose God told it to you


Let's see the opinion of a man smarter than you:
“An objective of physical sciences has been to give an accurate image of the material world. One of the accomplishments of the physics in Century twenty was to show that the objective is unattainable”
J. Bronowski; 1973, The Ascent of Man

Bronowski, a Nobel Laureate, said it ironically, mocking of the physicists thinking that there is a not a real world existing in Nature.

The incompetence of the physicists to find the true laws of Nature does not mean that she must be crazy, as they believe

I bet Bronowski was sure that physicists enjoy to fool themselves

That quote only suggests that the goal of an understanding "the real world" is unattainable, not that such a thing is non-existent. And this is not an uncommon idea among scientists.

 

[Dancing David]

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning" - Werner Heisenberg

Such method of questioning is efficient for the development of technology, but it's not efficient for the discovery of the true fundamental laws of Nature.

Some fundamental laws of Quantum Mechanics are wrong. But those fundamental wrong laws do not prevent the development of technology (in the level developed till now)

However, as some foundations of QM are wrongs, in a most deep level QM will fail even for the development of technology. Cold fusion is an example.
And the LHC experiments will show it to us either, in the upcoming years.

Um sure, whatever. Come back in five years and tell us them.

So you are a philosophre, you just judge modern physics by the words and concepts you don't like. The fact that cold fusion is not demonstrated is no deterrent. Come back when it is demonstrated.

 

[Dancing David]

I suppose God told it to you


Let's see the opinion of a man smarter than you:
“An objective of physical sciences has been to give an accurate image of the material world. One of the accomplishments of the physics in Century twenty was to show that the objective is unattainable”
J. Bronowski; 1973, The Ascent of Man

Bronowski, a Nobel Laureate, said it ironically, mocking of the physicists thinking that there is a not a real world existing in Nature.

The incompetence of the physicists to find the true laws of Nature does not mean that she must be crazy, as they believe

I bet Bronowski was sure that physicists enjoy to fool themselves

I bet you misunderstand the quote. It is an approximate image and it will always remain so. It is very accurate, wether you like it or not.

It now seems that you are justw anting the world to conform to you. QM is accurate, the fact that you don't like it does not mean it is wrong.

It means that you don't like it, come back when you have a replacement.

 

[Dancing David]

Of course Nature works through structures, which we can call models.

To believe that Nature does not work by structures is like to believe in ghosts
The human models is an attempt to discover the models used by Nature.

As the physicists did not succeed to discover the real models existing in Nature, they invented such fable with which they fool the people, making them to believe that Nature has no models.

So you don't understand science, that is not a suprise. We model the behavior of reality, it does whatver it does.

The models are always approximations, truth is for philosophers.

 

[Dancing David]

So Predrone is a prof at a university but won't speak with other academics about an idea...

I missed that, what is the post?

 

[pedrone]

Please answer the question:
When the particle leaves out the nucleus, what sort of trajectory will it have?

tangential as shown in Fig. 6 ?


or

radial ? as shown in Fig. 7 ?

ANSWER:
The particle cannot leave out a spinning nucleus from the radial trajectory shown in fig. 7, according to the current nuclear models of Nuclear Physics.

According to current Nuclear Physics, the particle must leave out the spinning nucleus taking a tangential trajectory, as shown in fig. 6

However, the experiments showed that the alpha particle 2He4 leaves out the uranium nucleus 92U238 from a radial direction.

Gamow foolish theory
​

The 92U238 has a Coulomb barrier of 8,8MeV.
But 2He4 leaves out the nucleus is an energy of 4,2MeV

Gamow proposed a theory considering the tunnel effect so that to explain how 2He4 crosses the Coulomb barrier.

One of the premises in Gamow theory is the following: the 2He4 leaves out the 92U through a radial trajectory.
Such an assumption, obviously, makes no sense. The 2He4 would have to leave ou the 92U by taking a tangential trajectory, according to current Nuclear Physics.

But Gamow theory has other absurd assumption.

Look at his equation:

​

He had assumed that N = V/2r’ is the number of endeavors trying to escape from the nucleus, supposing that v is the speed of 2He4 into a nucleus with radius r’.
He also knew that N = V / 2r’ is not a good estimate. But this expression changes very slowly face to the quickly variation of the exponential.
Thus, Gamow assumption is that the equation below is an estimate with good accuracy.

From the theory of potential barrier, the speed v is responsible for its perforation. (NOTE: as in the alpha-decay the particle emitted is the 2He4, then, no matter what can be the source of the decay, the mass of the particle emitted is always the same). The perforation of the barrier is achieved thanks to the kinetic energy, and thereby V2 has a fundamental participation in the Gamow’s interpretation. So, by the theory of potential barrier, the succeed in perforation depends on the numbers of attempts, N= V / 2r’ . But in the Gamow expression for tax R , the number of attempts can be despised, because it is inexpressive face to the exponential.

Gamow’s paradox: although the success of the enterprise depends on the numbers of attempts, according to his theory the attempts are not the most important cause that offers to the enterprise the possibility of success... Gamow has tried to explain a paradox by the introduction of another paradox...

The situation seems like this: suppose that we want to reach several objectives. We can get them only if we make many endeavors trying to get ours objectives, and the probability of getting each success depends on how many attempts we do. But after many attempts, we realize that the quantity of endeavors has no influence in the results. By consequence, we can abandon trying any endeavor. And although we have stoped to do any endeavor, we continue getting ours objectives and having success, without any attempt...




Other question is the following: we could expect that 2He4 could cross a barrier 50% or in maximum 60% higher than its 4,2MeV.
So, the 2He4 would be able to cross a barrier with maximum 6,7MeV.
But it crosses a barrier with 8,8MeV !!!! , higher than 100% of 4,2MeV !!!


CONCLUSION:
Gamow theory is not satisfactory to explain how the 2He4 leaves out the 92U nucleus.

So, actually there is not a satisfactory theory to explain how the 2He4 succeeds to cross the 8,8MeV of 92U Coulomb barrier.

And therefore there no exist, in Nuclear Physics, a satisfactory explanation for the alfa decay of 92U238.


Then let's think the meaning of this faillure of Nuclear Physics concerning cold fusion.

The higher critique against cold fusion is the question: how can a particle with small kinetic energy to cross the Coulomb barrier of a nucleus, in order to occur cold fusion ?

That's why the theorists consider, taking Nuclear Physics as a referee, that cold fusion is impossible.

Neverthelless, we have to ask to ourselves: but Nuclear Physics did not explain satisfactorily the mechanism of tunnel effect, as we realize by considering that Gamow theory is not satisfactory to explain alpha-decay of 92U238

Therefore, the theorists cannot take the Coulomb barrier as a definitive impossibility for the occurrence of cold fusion, since they do not know yet how the Coulomb barrier actually is crossed in the tunnel effect.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, the ignorant setting out to educate the knowledgeable. How droll.

 

[dafydd]

spin, particle, and wave-particle​

In Quantum Mechanics the spin is not a revolution of the particle about its axis (like the earth's revolutoin about its axis).
Actually nobody knows what the physical meaning of the spin, according to Quantum Mechanics.
Spin has very strange properties, and there is no way to interpret them from a classical viewpoint.

Schödinger supposed the spin is a result of the zitterbewegung:
“The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment.”
The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf

So, Schrödinger tried to give to spin a physical meaning, not possible to have in Quantum Mechanics.


In Nuclear Physics, the spin is often considered the revolution of the nucleons about their axis (like the earth revolution about its axis).

Let's understand why:
From experimental data, it's known that all nuclei are filled by deuterium nucleons, and each one has spin i=1.
Then consider, for instance, the nucleus 8O16. So, it is formed by 6 deuterium nucleons.
8O16 has null nuclear spin, which is resultant of 3 deuterium nucleons with spins up, and 3 with spins down.

From the philoshophycal viewpoint, this makes sense. Because if Schrödinger was right, and the spin is indeed a result of the zitterbewegung, this explains why within the nuclei the particles have a spin as it should be a revolution like the earth's revolution about its axis.
Indeed, into the nuclei the particles can lose their zitterbewegung (due to the confinement), and so the spin remains to be only a revolution of the particle about its axis.

Other different thing is the spin of a nucleus formed by several nucleons.
Its spin is, yes, a revolution about its axis, in the same sense as the earth's dayly revolution.
Properties like nuclear magnetic moments are calculated taking in consideration that the spin of the nucleus is its revolution about its axis.


One of the most strange pardoxes of Modern Physics is the following:

- In Quantum Mechanics, the particles are considered to be a cloud of probability (a wave-particle)

- In Particle Physics the particles are treated to be particles (if the particles should be considered as wave-particle, its name would Wave-Particle Physics )


So, Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics are incompatible, from the philosophycal viewpoint.
They consider the particle from different viewpoints. It's like to say that, in Quantum Mechanics, there is a predominance of the wave-particle aspect, while in Particle Physics there is a predominance of the particle aspect.
Obviously nobody knows why.
They do it because it fits to calculations...

That was all sorted out years ago,do try to keep up. Are you telling me that they let you loose near students? No way.

 

[dafydd]

ANSWER:
The particle cannot leave out a spinning nucleus from the radial trajectory shown in fig. 7, according to the current nuclear models of Nuclear Physics.

According to current Nuclear Physics, the particle must leave out the spinning nucleus taking a tangential trajectory, as shown in fig. 6

However, the experiments showed that the alpha particle 2He4 leaves out the uranium nucleus 92U238 from a radial direction.

Gamow foolish theory
​

The 92U238 has a Coulomb barrier of 8,8MeV.
But 2He4 leaves out the nucleus is an energy of 4,2MeV

Gamow proposed a theory considering the tunnel effect so that to explain how 2He4 crosses the Coulomb barrier.

One of the premises in Gamow theory is the following: the 2He4 leaves out the 92U through a radial trajectory.
Such an assumption, obviously, makes no sense. The 2He4 would have to leave ou the 92U by taking a tangential trajectory, according to current Nuclear Physics.

But Gamow theory has other absurd assumption.

Look at his equation:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_489414d9dcd969d521.jpg[/qimg]​

He had assumed that N = V/2r’ is the number of endeavors trying to escape from the nucleus, supposing that v is the speed of 2He4 into a nucleus with radius r’.
He also knew that N = V / 2r’ is not a good estimate. But this expression changes very slowly face to the quickly variation of the exponential.
Thus, Gamow assumption is that the equation below is an estimate with good accuracy.

From the theory of potential barrier, the speed v is responsible for its perforation. (NOTE: as in the alpha-decay the particle emitted is the 2He4, then, no matter what can be the source of the decay, the mass of the particle emitted is always the same). The perforation of the barrier is achieved thanks to the kinetic energy, and thereby V2 has a fundamental participation in the Gamow’s interpretation. So, by the theory of potential barrier, the succeed in perforation depends on the numbers of attempts, N= V / 2r’ . But in the Gamow expression for tax R , the number of attempts can be despised, because it is inexpressive face to the exponential.

Gamow’s paradox: although the success of the enterprise depends on the numbers of attempts, according to his theory the attempts are not the most important cause that offers to the enterprise the possibility of success... Gamow has tried to explain a paradox by the introduction of another paradox...

The situation seems like this: suppose that we want to reach several objectives. We can get them only if we make many endeavors trying to get ours objectives, and the probability of getting each success depends on how many attempts we do. But after many attempts, we realize that the quantity of endeavors has no influence in the results. By consequence, we can abandon trying any endeavor. And although we have stoped to do any endeavor, we continue getting ours objectives and having success, without any attempt...




Other question is the following: we could expect that 2He4 could cross a barrier 50% or in maximum 60% higher than its 4,2MeV.
So, the 2He4 would be able to cross a barrier with maximum 6,7MeV.
But it crosses a barrier with 8,8MeV !!!! , higher than 100% of 4,2MeV !!!


CONCLUSION:
Gamow theory is not satisfactory to explain how the 2He4 leaves out the 92U nucleus.

So, actually there is not a satisfactory theory to explain how the 2He4 succeeds to cross the 8,8MeV of 92U Coulomb barrier.

And therefore there no exist, in Nuclear Physics, a satisfactory explanation for the alfa decay of 92U238.


Then let's think the meaning of this faillure of Nuclear Physics concerning cold fusion.

The higher critique against cold fusion is the question: how can a particle with small kinetic energy to cross the Coulomb barrier of a nucleus, in order to occur cold fusion ?

That's why the theorists consider, taking Nuclear Physics as a referee, that cold fusion is impossible.

Neverthelless, we have to ask to ourselves: but Nuclear Physics did not explain satisfactorily the mechanism of tunnel effect, as we realize by considering that Gamow theory is not satisfactory to explain alpha-decay of 92U238

Therefore, the theorists cannot take the Coulomb barrier as a definitive impossibility for the occurrence of cold fusion, since they do not know yet how the Coulomb barrier actually is crossed in the tunnel effect.

Different fonts and colours are the mark of the crank. We can read your words without them,thank you. Where did you study physics and what are your qualifications?

 

[RobDegraves]

The higher critique against cold fusion is the question: how can a particle with small kinetic energy to cross the Coulomb barrier of a nucleus, in order to occur cold fusion ?

No.. the higher critique against cold fusion is that it has not been demonstrated, either in laboratory conditions nor in nature.

The few that have tried have been either deliberately fraudulent or so poorly designed as to have no reproducible results.

Produce cold fusion, with testable and reproducible results... and you won't have to type stuff in huge letters to convince people.

Until then, both your language and demeanor illustrate either a deliberate troll or a deluded fanatic.

 

[dogjones]

Fixed for you:

No, [insane laugh] I teach wrong current Physics for foolishes students who believe it to be correct [cackles, rubs hands together, dances a peculiar little clicky jig of triumph, scuttles away making unintelligible whistling sounds]

 

[Dancing David]

I think Pedrone means he is 'schooling' us...

 

[ben m]

Let me jump back in to put it another way.

Here is the Lagrangian of QCD:

[latex]
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{QCD} = \bar{\psi}_i (i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m )\psi_j - g G^a_\mu \bar{\psi}_i \gamma^\mu T^a_{ij} \psi_j - \frac{1}{4}G^a_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu \nu}_a
\end{align}[/latex]

If nuclear physics is obviously wrong, Pedrone should be able to identify an experiment for which this Lagrangian leads to a wrong prediction. Somebody ping me when Pedrone has worked out a QCD prediction and compared it to an experiment.

 

[pedrone]

Let me jump back in to put it another way.

Here is the Lagrangian of QCD:

[latex]
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{QCD} = \bar{\psi}_i (i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m )\psi_j - g G^a_\mu \bar{\psi}_i \gamma^\mu T^a_{ij} \psi_j - \frac{1}{4}G^a_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu \nu}_a
\end{align}[/latex]

If nuclear physics is obviously wrong, Pedrone should be able to identify an experiment for which this Lagrangian leads to a wrong prediction. Somebody ping me when Pedrone has worked out a QCD prediction and compared it to an experiment.

Is it a Lagrangian of Nuclear Physics?


Oh... Ok... it's not... however I will give you a chance to prove your claim that such Lagrangian can be applied successfully to Nuclear Physics

Show here the links where are calculated from this Lagrangian:

- binding energies of all nuclei
- nuclear magnetic moments of all nuclei
- electric quadrupole moments of all nuclei
- the energy levels of all nuclei

Oh, I forgot:
- the deuteron is the simpler composed nucleon. In 1939 the physicists surprisingly discovered that it has an electric quadrupole moment.
Along 70 years, nobody did succeed to get a satisfactory theory capable to calculate satisfactorily the deuteron's quadrupole. More than 30 theories were proposed along the years. and each method of calculation diverged from the other ones.
It seems the last attempt was made in 2005, published in the Turkish Journal of Physics:
http://mistug.tubitak.gov.tr/bdyim/abs.php?dergi=fiz&rak=0408-3

Suggestion to you, dear Dr. Ben M:
apply that Lagrangian of QCD so that to calculate the electric quadrupole of the deuteron.

I'm sure you will win the Noble Prize in 2012.

 

[Mikemcc]

Let me jump back in to put it another way.

Here is the Lagrangian of QCD:

[latex]
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{QCD} = \bar{\psi}_i (i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m )\psi_j - g G^a_\mu \bar{\psi}_i \gamma^\mu T^a_{ij} \psi_j - \frac{1}{4}G^a_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu \nu}_a
\end{align}[/latex]

If nuclear physics is obviously wrong, Pedrone should be able to identify an experiment for which this Lagrangian leads to a wrong prediction. Somebody ping me when Pedrone has worked out a QCD prediction and compared it to an experiment.

Is it a Lagrangian of Nuclear Physics?


Oh... Ok... it's not... however I will give you a chance to prove your claim that such Lagrangian can be applied successfully to Nuclear Physics

Show here the links where are calculated from this Lagrangian:

- binding energies of all nuclei
- nuclear magnetic moments of all nuclei
- electric quadrupole moments of all nuclei
- the energy levels of all nuclei

Oh, I forgot:
- the deuteron is the simpler composed nucleon. In 1939 the physicists surprisingly discovered that it has an electric quadrupole moment.
Along 70 years, nobody did succeed to get a satisfactory theory capable to calculate satisfactorily the deuteron's quadrupole. More than 30 theories were proposed along the years. and each method of calculation diverged from the other ones.
It seems the last attempt was made in 2005, published in the Turkish Journal of Physics:
http://mistug.tubitak.gov.tr/bdyim/abs.php?dergi=fiz&rak=0408-3

Suggestion to you, dear Dr. Ben M:
apply that Lagrangian of QCD so that to calculate the electric quadrupole of the deuteron.

I'm sure you will win the Noble Prize in 2012.

I take it that was a no to Ben's question then...

 

[RobDegraves]

I'm calling this one a troll.

It's got all the hallmarks of a deliberate troll.

1. Willfully and deliberately ignorant of current physics.

2. He deliberately ignores attempts to draw him out into any kind of proof or qualifications.

3. He constantly baits with pseudo scientific terms.

4. He does not respond to challenges.

5. He punctuates his arguments with insults and caps in order to start further outrage.

It's a troll.