why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[dafydd]

The Man,
show me the experiments in which virtual mesons were detected.

As you know, anything not comproved by experiments is pseudocience

Yukawa model is not considered so long by scientific community.

Just because his model is stupid, it was replaced by the quark model of neutron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Real scientists do not talk like that. What are your credentials?

 

[dafydd]

RobDegraves,
please show us the equations that prove Andrea Rossi cold fusion experiment violates the energy-mass conservation

Cold fusion is a myth.

 

[pedrone]

Unsolved puzzles with quark model of neutron​

Electric dipole moment
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.[8] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments. From several unsolved puzzles in particle physics, it is clear that the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Although the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions, however here the problem can be not with the Standard Model, but with the current quark model of neutron.




Neutron decay

According to Maxwell theory, when an electric particle (as the electron) is submitted to acceleration, it emits energy (photons).

So, consider the beta decay of a free neutron: n -> p + e + v

At once the neutron becomes a proton, electron, and antineutrino, the electron moves away the proton. As there is Coulombic attraction between the proton and the electron, this one has attraction with the proton, and so it is submitted to deceleration.
Therefore, according to Maxwell theory, the electron would have to emit photons, in any neutron beta decay.
But the emission of photons is not observed experimentally. And we realize that something is wrong with the neutron model composed by quarks.




Magnetic Moment
The neutron magnetic moment is the magnetic moment of the neutron. It was of particular interest, as magnetic moments are created by the movement of electric charges. Since the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment is an indication of substructure, i.e. that the neutron is made of other, electrically charged particles (quarks).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment


Possibly the neutron's structure is not (d,u,d), as current theories consider.
From such structure the magnetic moment of neutron is not satisfactorily obtained theoretically.

Look at the calculation of magnetic moment of neutron, compared with the magnetic moment of proton, made by Gonzalez-Martin, I. Taboada:
http://prof.usb.ve/ggonzalm/invstg/pblc/MagMoment.pdf

In equation 13 they get the value M = 15 for the correction of the magnetic moment of proton, by considering 6 fermion boost lines.

In equation 18 they get the value M = 28 for the correction of the magnetic moment of neutron, by considering 8 fermion boost lines.

As the proton structure is (u,d,u), and the neutron structure is (d,u,d), there is no reasonable argument to explain why in the proton quark structure it's considered 6 fermion boost lines, and in the neutron quark structure it's considered 8 fermin boost lines.
Certainly Gonzalez-Martin and Taboada made an adjustment in the theoretical calculation, so that to get the magnetic moment of neutron agree to experimental data.


So, there are several evidences suggeting that neutron's structure is not (d,u,d), as supposed in current Particle Physics.

Perhaps neutron's structure is n=p+s , where p is a proton and s is the selectron. From such structure many puzzles of neutron can be eliminated.

 

[dafydd]

Unsolved puzzles with quark model of neutron​

Electric dipole moment
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.[8] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments. From several unsolved puzzles in particle physics, it is clear that the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Although the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions, however here the problem can be not with the Standard Model, but with the current quark model of neutron.




Neutron decay

According to Maxwell theory, when an electric particle (as the electron) is submitted to acceleration, it emits energy (photons).

So, consider the beta decay of a free neutron: n -> p + e + v

At once the neutron becomes a proton, electron, and antineutrino, the electron moves away the proton. As there is Coulombic attraction between the proton and the electron, this one has attraction with the proton, and so it is submitted to deceleration.
Therefore, according to Maxwell theory, the electron would have to emit photons, in any neutron beta decay.
But the emission of photons is not observed experimentally. And we realize that something is wrong with the neutron model composed by quarks.




Magnetic Moment
The neutron magnetic moment is the magnetic moment of the neutron. It was of particular interest, as magnetic moments are created by the movement of electric charges. Since the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment is an indication of substructure, i.e. that the neutron is made of other, electrically charged particles (quarks).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment


Possibly the neutron's structure is not (d,u,d), as current theories consider.
From such structure the magnetic moment of neutron is not satisfactorily obtained theoretically.

Look at the calculation of magnetic moment of neutron, compared with the magnetic moment of proton, made by Gonzalez-Martin, I. Taboada:
http://prof.usb.ve/ggonzalm/invstg/pblc/MagMoment.pdf

In equation 13 they get the value M = 15 for the correction of the magnetic moment of proton, by considering 6 fermion boost lines.

In equation 18 they get the value M = 28 for the correction of the magnetic moment of neutron, by considering 8 fermion boost lines.

As the proton structure is (u,d,u), and the neutron structure is (d,u,d), there is no reasonable argument to explain why in the proton quark structure it's considered 6 fermion boost lines, and in the neutron quark structure it's considered 8 fermin boost lines.
Certainly Gonzalez-Martin and Taboada made an adjustment in the theoretical calculation, so that to get the magnetic moment of neutron agree to experimental data.


So, there are several evidences suggeting that neutron's structure is not (d,u,d), as supposed in current Particle Physics.

Perhaps neutron's structure is n=p+s , where p is a proton and s is the selectron. From such structure many puzzles of neutron can be eliminated.

You can cut and paste after you tell us what your credentials are.

 

[RobDegraves]

Huge posts

tiny brain

Maybe even tiny ... ahem...

 

[Reality Check]

Fine, Reality Check
now we just need you develop your arguments

Fine, pedrone
now you canot read. I cited what isospin is because you seemed ignorant about what it is.

 

[Reality Check]

de Broglie's Paradox​

Quantum Mechanics considers the duality wave-particle through the interpretation proposed by de Broglie. The diffraction has been detected for the elementary particles, as electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules. Considering these experiments, there is a grave incompatibility between this solution of Quantum Mechanics and the Michelson-Morley experiment, if we replace the light by protons, and Michelson’s interferometer is replaced by a crystal.

Actually this is

pedrone's Ignorance ​

There is a crackpot web site that pedrone is cutting and pasting from. It has a "Michelson-Morley experiment for protons" that has never been done.
The author is ignorant of the basics, e.g. molecules are not elementary particles!

There is no paradox. The Michelson-Morley experiment is a result for light. It showed that light does not travel in a aether.
The proposed experiment is stupid. We expect the motion of protons to be affected by the motion of the Earth because that are not light!​

 

[Reality Check]

Yawn.. more hallmarks of the troll.

I do not think that pedrone is a trolll.
The signs are that he is that other deluded internet monstor - the internet crank. He is curring and pasting from a crank web site.

So we can expect him to spam the forum from that web site for a while.

 

[Reality Check]

The Man,
show me the experiments in which virtual mesons were detected.

The idiocy within this question is obvious, pedrone: Virtual means that they exist for so short a time that they cannot be detested directly. Like all virtual particles we have to detect them by their effects.

Yukawa model is not considered so long by scientific community.

Just because his model is stupid, it was replaced by the quark model of neutron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

More ignorance:

1. There is no such thing as the Yukawa model for the neutron.
2. Among Yukawa's achievements was the theory of mesons which explained the interaction between protons and neutrons.
   It is this which you seem to be talking about.

 

[Reality Check]

Unsolved puzzles with quark model of neutron​

..

There are unsolved puzzles with the quark model of the neutron.
You list none of them.

The electric dipole moment is not one. It has not been measured so it is not a puzzle.

The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.[8] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments. From several unsolved puzzles in particle physics, it is clear that the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions. New theories going beyond the Standard Model generally lead to much larger predictions for the electric dipole moment of the neutron. Currently, there are at least four experiments trying to measure for the first time a finite neutron electric dipole moment, including:

• Cryogenic neutron EDM experiment being set up at the Institut Laue-Langevin[9]
• nEDM experiment under construction at the new UCN source at the Paul Scherrer Institute[10]
• nEDM experiment being envisaged at the Spallation Neutron Source[11]
• nEDM experiment being built at the Institut Laue-Langevin[12]

Neutron decay is not a puzzle. The decay that has been observed is the n -> p + e + v + photon decay (the photon is refered to as the inner-bremsstrahlung photon).
You are talking about the Bremsstrahlung radiation that electrons emit. I am not aware of any experiments that have looked at the Bremsstrahlung radiation from free neutron decay. Cite your sources that this does not exist.

Somethng truly nasty from you:

Certainly Gonzalez-Martin and Taboada made an adjustment in the theoretical calculation, so that to get the magnetic moment of neutron agree to experimental data.

You are accusing the authors of faking their paper: Magnetic Moments of the Proton and the Neutron.

They state clearly why the multiplicity of the vertex corrections varies between the proton and neutron:

The radiative correction of this value should account for the presence of the additional P-excitation in the system. This indicates that the excitation description requires four electronic boost momenta instead of the three momenta required for the proton excitation.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I guess now I'll know how to make myself not only more noticeable but obviously correct when posting on the internet.

 

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
RobDegraves,
please show us the equations that prove Andrea Rossi cold fusion experiment violates the energy-mass conservation


Cold fusion is a myth.

Yukawa model is a mith too.
And what is worst: a stupid mith

 

[dafydd]

Yukawa model is a mith too.
And what is worst: a stupid mith

Where did you study and what are your credentials? It's myth,and a myth is a female moth.

 

[pedrone]

There are unsolved puzzles with the quark model of the neutron.
You list none of them.

The electric dipole moment is not one. It has not been measured so it is not a puzzle.

Quote:
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.[8] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments. From several unsolved puzzles in particle physics, it is clear that the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions. New theories going beyond the Standard Model generally lead to much larger predictions for the electric dipole moment of the neutron. Currently, there are at least four experiments trying to measure for the first time a finite neutron electric dipole moment, including:

* Cryogenic neutron EDM experiment being set up at the Institut Laue-Langevin[9]
* nEDM experiment under construction at the new UCN source at the Paul Scherrer Institute[10]
* nEDM experiment being envisaged at the Spallation Neutron Source[11]
* nEDM experiment being built at the Institut Laue-Langevin[12]

The attempts are taking more than 70 years ?????
Oh ! God !

Neutron decay is not a puzzle. The decay that has been observed is the n -> p + e + v + photon decay (the photon is refered to as the inner-bremsstrahlung photon).
You are talking about the Bremsstrahlung radiation that electrons emit. I am not aware of any experiments that have looked at the Bremsstrahlung radiation from free neutron decay. Cite your sources that this does not exist.

There is only ONE radiative neutron mode decay:
First Observation of the Radiative Decay Mode of the Neutron
http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/WorkShops/int_07_1/People/Fisher_B/fisher-rdk-int07.pdf

However, the radiative model should have to occur in ALL the beta neutron decay

Somethng truly nasty from you:

You are accusing the authors of faking their paper: Magnetic Moments of the Proton and the Neutron.

What's the problem of faking papers?
Yukawa did it, and published that stupid model of neutron.
And the Nobel Academy gave him the Nobel for a predicton with 40% or error

They state clearly why the multiplicity of the vertex corrections varies between the proton and neutron:

This is your opinion.
If the neutron experimental result should be other requiring other correction, of course they will find a way to get other multiplicity of vertex corrections

 

[pedrone]

The idiocy within this question is obvious, pedrone: Virtual means that they exist for so short a time that they cannot be detested directly. Like all virtual particles we have to detect them by their effects.


More ignorance:

1. There is no such thing as the Yukawa model for the neutron.
2. Among Yukawa's achievements was the theory of mesons which explained the interaction between protons and neutrons.
   It is this which you seem to be talking about.

Reality Check, you have to change your fake name.
I suggest some names to you:

Fooling Myself
Reality gone to garbage
Fantasy Check
Reality Check on Wonderland

 

[Chucky]

Your credentials Pedrone, what are they?

I don't think that his credentials are even all that important if he can show the math that illustrates the problems and his solutions for them. I noticed he did not make any reply on that point in his response to my previous post.

 

[pedrone]

Actually this is

pedrone's Ignorance ​

There is a crackpot web site that pedrone is cutting and pasting from. It has a "Michelson-Morley experiment for protons" that has never been done.
The author is ignorant of the basics, e.g. molecules are not elementary particles!

There is no paradox. The Michelson-Morley experiment is a result for light. It showed that light does not travel in a aether.
The proposed experiment is stupid. We expect the motion of protons to be affected by the motion of the Earth because that are not light!​

You're wrong.
Michelson-Morley experiment for protons is a new version of the experiment, in which the light is replaced by protons and the interferometer is replaced by a cristal.

The objective of this new version of the experiment is to verify if the motion of the Earth influences the duality wave-particle.
The experiment was proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion, published in 2006.

Actually Michelson-Morley experiment for protons is made everyday in the world, by using electrons instead of protons.
It was made by the first time by Davisson and Germer, after 1924 when De Broglie proposed his theory.

Davisson-Germer experiment has been made in many laboratories worldwide.
In order to get the same results obtained by Davison and Germer, all the electron gun in all the laboratories worldwide should have to be alligned in the same direction (in this way, the velocity of Earth should have the same influence in the results, and so all the experiments would get the same result obtained by Davisson and Germer).

However, as the electron guns in the laboratories worldwide are not alligned in the same direction, therefore the Earth motion should have to change the results, and all the laboratories should have to get different results.

If de Broglie's theory should be correct, the Davisson-Germer experiment should have to get different results in all the laboratories worldwide.

Since there is no differences in the measurements worldwide, this imply that de Broglie's intepretation on the duality is wrong.

 

[pedrone]

I don't think that his credentials are even all that important if he can show the math that illustrates the problems and his solutions for them. I noticed he did not make any reply on that point in his response to my previous post.

It's not true.
See my reply No. 309

 

[dafydd]

I don't think that his credentials are even all that important if he can show the math that illustrates the problems and his solutions for them. I noticed he did not make any reply on that point in his response to my previous post.

I doubt if he work out what 2+2 is.

 

[dafydd]

You're wrong.
Michelson-Morley experiment for protons is a new version of the experiment, in which the light is replaced by protons and the interferometer is replaced by a cristal.

The objective of this new version of the experiment is to verify if the motion of the Earth influences the duality wave-particle.
The experiment was proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion, published in 2006.

Actually Michelson-Morley experiment for protons is made everyday in the world, by using electrons instead of protons.
It was made by the first time by Davisson and Germer, after 1924 when De Broglie proposed his theory.

Davisson-Germer experiment has been made in many laboratories worldwide.
In order to get the same results obtained by Davison and Germer, all the electron gun in all the laboratories worldwide should have to be alligned in the same direction (in this way, the velocity of Earth should have the same influence in the results, and so all the experiments would get the same result obtained by Davisson and Germer).

However, as the electron guns in the laboratories worldwide are not alligned in the same direction, therefore the Earth motion should have to change the results, and all the laboratories should have to get different results.

If de Broglie's theory should be correct, the Davisson-Germer experiment should have to get different results in all the laboratories worldwide.

Since there is no differences in the measurements worldwide, this imply that de Broglie's intepretation on the duality is wrong.

Wrong as Mr.Wrong from Wrongstreet,Wrongsville,Wrongland ,Wrongworld.