why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Nihilianth]

They are actually quite closely related and not just by being named after the same French dude Joseph Louis Lagrange.


By developing the Lagrangian and Lagrangian mechanics he was able to calculate the 5 points in an orbit where that body experiences no net force from the other two (much larger) bodies. As a result such points now bare his name as Lagrange points


Given pedrone’s rather bizarre requirement it would seem that he thinks there was no theory of gravity until 1772 when good ole Joseph Louis developed the Lagrangian to try to solve a three body problem involving the theory of, well, gravity.


ETA: Oh, and congratulations Nihilianth.

Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up then. Thought it was just ismply a law of aerospace physics or whatever. I didn't know it was a model which explains a theory.

And thanks for the congrats.

 

[pedrone]

Sorry, but I am a lowly web design, and computer programmer who is currently stuck teaching second grade. This is all Greek to me. Only time I ever heard of the word "Lagrangian" is in connection the "Lagrangian point" which has to do with planetary orbits.

Using a word to describe that same word doesn't help much. I asked what a"Lagrange" is, and you just simply used the word to describe itself. That doesn't make it any clearer whatsoever, and you have just wasted your time and mine.

Although, it seems as though you are finally calming down on the friggin smileys and colors. One can only hope you keep it up.

Nihilianth,
it is not a shame to be ignorant in some questions, like it is your case.
So, you dont deserve a lot of smilies, if you dont say stupid things

But it's ridiculous when a person is proud of his ignorance, and makes sure to show it to everyone, saying nonsense.
He deserves many smilies, because he is offending himself with stupid arguments.

 

[pedrone]

No you did not. You used the word math in a sentence. You mentioned equations.

You did not show any equations.

Laymen are paranoid with equations

So they conclude that Newton was wrong
​

Layman thinks: if somebody do not show equations he cannot prove what he says.

Then according to such viewpoint, Newton was wrong.

Indeed, let's analyse his first and third laws:

First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear


Newton did not propose any equation for those two laws.

So, according to the layman (who believes that any law in Physics must be placed in the form of an equation) those two Newton's laws are unacceptable, and his theory is wrong.

And therefere Newton's Mechanics is unacceptable

 

[Reality Check]

ON THE YUKAWA PREDICTION OF THE MESON EXISTENCE​

Physicists measure the mass of particles in fractions of kilograms but they also measure it in another unit, the MeV/c². The values that come to follow are presented in this unit.

The theory of Yukawa foresaw that the mass of meson had to be 100.
The mass detected from the experiences was 140.
...snipped signorance of the scientific process...

The initial predications of quantities are often from approximations in science. That is why science continues to refine its methods of calculating quantities.​

 

[The Man]

Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up then. Thought it was just ismply a law of aerospace physics or whatever. I didn't know it was a model which explains a theory.

And thanks for the congrats.

Well I don’t think you can call it a “model” as it just doesn’t model anything in particular. However, it does make calculations easier and not dependent on a particular coordinate system. So it does make it easier to arrive at quantitative predictions from a theory (like the locations of Lagrange points) and thus that theory easier to test.

Is there a lagrange point between twins (where the forces of one cancels that of the other)? I guess we'll have to wait for you to test that possibility.

 

[dafydd]

Laymen are paranoid with equations

So they conclude that Newton was wrong
​

Layman thinks: if somebody do not show equations he cannot prove what he says.

Then according to such viewpoint, Newton was wrong.

Indeed, let's analyse his first and third laws:

First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear


Newton did not propose any equation for those two laws.

So, according to the layman (who believes that any law in Physics must be placed in the form of an equation) those two Newton's laws are unacceptable, and his theory is wrong.

And therefere Newton's Mechanics is unacceptable

Wrong. Here are Newtons equations for the three laws



You know as much about classical physics as you do about quantum physics. Almost nothing. Where did you study physics and what are your credentials?

 

[Reality Check]

Laymen are paranoid with equations​

So they conclude that Newton was wrong
​

Sceintists are paranoid with equations​

So they conclude that Newton was right​

Equations are explained to layman using English so
Newtons laws (where are the equations!)
​

1. First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.[3][4][5] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity.
2. Second law: A body of mass m subject to a net force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.
3. Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

​

The above can be expressed in equarions (F=ma for the first 2, F_A = -F_R for the third)​

 

[The Man]

Laymen are paranoid with equations

So they conclude that Newton was wrong
​

Layman thinks: if somebody do not show equations he cannot prove what he says.

Then according to such viewpoint, Newton was wrong.

Indeed, let's analyse his first and third laws:

First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear


Newton did not propose any equation for those two laws.

So, according to the layman (who believes that any law in Physics must be placed in the form of an equation) those two Newton's laws are unacceptable, and his theory is wrong.

And therefere Newton's Mechanics is unacceptable

You know an augment via Reductio ad absurdum does take a bit of skill. Otherwise you end up just displaying your own augmentative absurdity. Perhaps you should try a different tact.

 

[dafydd]

Someone should tell NASA that they won't get anywhere using Newton's equations. Get in touch with them pedrone, you can put them on the right track.

 

[Tubbythin]

virtual mesons?

Dont make me laugh
There is no such a thing

Erm. Care to rewrite the entire standard model then?

 

[jhunter1163]

Rather than handing out a bunch of yellow cards, I am going to remind you all about Rule 6. I trust the disruptive formatting will cease. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Tubbythin]

STOP LYING

Eisberg and Resnick book was published in 1988.

Be explicit. What do they say about Heisenberg's version of isospin?

Besides, isospin is a good example as physicists often propose stupid models, as did Yukawa

You haven't the faintest idea what his model was.

 

[Tubbythin]

YUKAWA MODEL
VIOLATES
3^rd NEWTON'S LAW​

Yukawa proposed a model of neutron in which a meson jumps between two protons. So let's compare his model with two men in two boats in a lake, throwing a watermelon game, as shown in the figure:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_489414da05b8f55a54.jpg[/qimg]​

Each man plays the role of a proton, and the watermelon plays the role of a meson.

According to the 3^rd Newton's law, the watermelon applies a force on each man, when he throws the watermelon for the other man. So, according to Newton, the watermelon game produces a force of repulsion between the two men.

But according to Yukawa, the watermelon game applies a force of attraction between the two men (like the meson applies a force of attraction between two protons).

If Yukawa is right, then Newton is wrong.

Who is right, in your opinion ? Newton, or Yukawa ?

And yet you have no problem with proton-electron attraction?

 

[Tubbythin]

The proton has mass = 938,3 MeV/c²
The neutron has mass = 939,6 MeV/c²
If virtual meson should exist, its mass is zero.

Nope. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Then how a hell to explain the mass of neutron? It would have to have the same mass of proton, since the meson has no mass.

Why on Earth do you think a neutron is a proton plus a meson?

2)
Yukawa calculated that meson in his model should have mass about 100MeV/c² .

The experiment detected a meson with mass 140MeV/c² , and so Yukawa awarded the Nobel Prize.

Rightly so.

But as his model has to work with a virtual meson with null mass, why a hell the experiment detected a meson with mass 140MeV, and Yukawa awarded the Nobel Prize ?

What are you talking about? Please try to understand theories rather than just making stuff up about them and then saying they're wrong.

3)
Well, perhaps you will claim: the meson is virtual, but it has mass.

Then, unfortunatelly, a Yukawa model with a meson with mass violates the 3rd Newton's law.
[/Quote]
Er... Please explain.

CONCLUSION:
There is no way Yukawa model work through the known laws of Physics.
His model is stupid.

Conclusion: you haven't even the slightest idea what you are talking about.

 

[Nihilianth]

From dictionary.com:Fundamental: serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

Sorry but you are wrong. If there is a fundamental problem with the theory we could not develop any technology from it. What you are saying might, for instance, be applicable to some mathematics in string theory. There are competing approaches to the theory and assuming it pans out in the end, although some of the math may be elegantly self-consistent. Yet if a certain mathematical approach doesn't describe actual physical properties of the universe when it comes time to test it, there will be no technology developed from that attempt to describe string theory. A fundamental flaw = a theory that will not work.

One other thing: If you have found a problem with nuclear theory, which you wish to discuss with a nuclear scientist, where are your equations? Honestly, if a person can't do the math how can they understand it, much less recognize a problem? Do you realize that all verbal explanations can only be approximations for most of this stuff? From your very first thread if you have equations you should have laid them out. If you don't have that, how can you show the problem? Much less recognize a problem in the first place, without the math? You yourself seem to be making the common layman's mistake of taking verbal approximations of the theory and thinking that you can find or resolve a problem without the math. It's like describing a problem with a the editing of a story in Japanese if you don't speak the language yourself. How would you know if it was done well or poorly?

Even if you had a valid point, which seems doubtful as the theory has worked fine in numerous ways without your input for the last century, unless you can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the mathematics you would never be able to resolve the problem. All these words you've used are worthless compared to a few equations. And no, 2+2=4 does not count as the math that I'm talking about.

It's called "Google translator," DUH!

 

[Tubbythin]

Physicists measure the mass of particles in fractions of kilograms but they also measure it in another unit, the MeV/c². The values that come to follow are presented in this unit.

The theory of Yukawa foresaw that the mass of meson had to be 100.
The mass detected from the experiences was 140. Therefore, it had a 40% difference, and the forecast of the theory might be felt unremarkable but there are other problems with the model. Note how many mesons exists in Nature:

Type mass
Meson π 140
Méson K 490
Méson η 549
Méson η' 958


Let us consider then that 40% error is a good forecast since physicists had considered the error made by Yukawa acceptable. Then:

1. If the forecast mass was 230 then, if his theory had foreseen a mass of 230, an allowed error of 40% results in 92 (that is, 230±92). As 230-92=138, this value would be confirmed by the real value of 140 detected experimentally. Therefore, if he had foreseen a mass between 100 and 230 he would have been felt right as well.

2. If the forecast mass was 350, then the allowed error would be 140. As 350+140 = 490, this value fits to the mass of the K meson. In this case, if the theory had foreseen a mass 350, the forecast would be confirmed once again.

3. If the forecast mass was between 350 and 1000, then any value foreseen in this band would give good result because the forecast would give a value next to 490, 549, or 958.

You miss the point entirely. At the time he proposed the theory we didn't know of any mesons. In fact, I don't think there was anything known between the electron mass and the proton mass. And there were very few particles in the "zoo". What Yukawa did was to use the known properties of the nuclear force and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to predict the existence of a new particle within a specific mass range. Basically, it had to have a mass such that the uncertainty principle would allow it to travel up to ~1fm. He basically predicted the lightest member of a whole new family of particles. That's a pretty ground breaking thing to do if you get it right.

Conclusion: Yukawa could have foreseen the following masses:
Any value between 100 and 230
Any value between 350 and 1000
All these would be confirmed experimentally.

IT is utterly irrelevant. He proposed a massive particle in order to understand the short range of the nuclear strong force. It was observed. He go the Nobel prize.

The possibility of error is very remote. Any forecast would come out right.

No it wouldn't. Before Yukawa's prediction it wasn't known there would be anything to find in that mass range at all. There were kno known mesons at the time.

Further, consider the irony that physicists consider the successes of the Bohr model of the atom as coincidences and do so although, because of the laws of probability, it is impossible that they are accidental. There really must be some link with reality in the Bohr model of the atom.

What are you talking about. The Bohr model is wrong. Nobody uses is as anything other than a teaching tool.

 

[slingblade]

Guys. Lighten up on the poor English. It's not his mother tongue. We cut people slack when they've managed to learn two or more languages.

I can't do it.

So I'm damn sure not going to mock someone who can do at least that much better than I can.

The math? Give him hell.
The credentials, likewise.

But ease up on the English. He's not doing all that badly, considering.

We now return you to your giving of hell to the math noob.

 

[Tubbythin]

Wow, since I am no physicist, and have no clue what anyone is talking about in terms of spin-interaction, I can determine that this is probably not a good source. I have never heard of Eisberg of Resnick, but if they actually write in the fashion that is quoted here, I wouldn't even touch it as a source. There are at minimum three grammatical errors. Well, two grammatical errors, and one misspelling all within a single sentence. Since this is in quote tags, I can only assume this is what is written exactly, word-for-word....letter-for-letter. If that is so, perhaps these Resnick and Eisberg people need to hit up elementary school and learn to read, write, and spell correctly.

Just sayin....

Actually its a standard undergrad text and pretty good. I would suggest either
a) Pedrone is incapable of copying properly
or
b) Pedrone has a foreign language version he has stuck though an internet translator.

 

[Nihilianth]

Long-winded response, with a lot of constructive criticism that I hope you take to heart and learn from:

Nihilianth,
it is not a shame to be ignorant in some questions, like it is your case.
So, you dont deserve a lot of smilies, if you dont say stupid things

But it's ridiculous when a person is proud of his ignorance, and makes sure to show it to everyone, saying nonsense.
He deserves many smilies, because he is offending himself with stupid arguments.

"I am proud of my ignorance?" You know me so well, don't you? I'll give you a hint: I am neither "proud" nor "shamed" because of my ignorance in any particular subject. I am, however, proud to be human (sometimes it makes me wonder if this is a wise thing at all. ) And to err, is to be human.

There is not one single human being on the face of this entire planet that knows everything about everything, and is skilled and knowledgeable in everything. (I suppose "The Most Interesting Man in the World" in the Dos Equis commercials is the closest approximation to this in the human form. Oh, and Chuck Norris, of course! )

I may not know much about nuclear physics. So what? Doesn't mean I am stupid. If anything, I regard myself to be quite intelligent and athletic. I am quite intelligent, because I am a professional computer programmer. I know all the following programming languages like the back of my hand:

Javascript
C++
C+
Action Script 1, 2, and 3
PHP
And a couple of others that I can't think of off the top of my head currently.

I am also skilled in HTML, and CSS.

I know how to use all the Adobe Master Collection software, which includes the following, but not limited to:

Photoshop
Illustrator
Sound Booth (I also play the drums, guitar, and piano.)
Flash
After Effects
Dreamweaver
Fireworks
and InDesign.

For video editing, I am also quite skilled in using Macintosh's Final Cut Pro. (I am also a videographer and amateur photographer.)

In addition to currently teaching second grade, I am also a professional free-lance web designer utilizing: Flash, AS, JS, HTML, and CSS; print designer, and database programmer utilizing PHP.

I was also nearly a professional baseball player a couple of years ago, but missed the cut as an infielder by one spot.

Now, I now you are probably far less skilled and far more ignorant in these areas than me. But I know for a fact you know far more about nuclear physics than I do (which isn't exactly saying a whole lot whatsoever! )

Does that mean I cannot point out your grammatical and spelling errors? I mean, it's one thing to have typos and mess up quite a bit. It's a whole other ballgame when you can't even seemingly use the proper terminology in your particular area of expertise. You lose quite a bit of credibility when you show a lack of skill in utilizing the English language. The only exception is, of course, if English is your second language. But someone had asked you that before and you ignored it. Since you continue to argue using this language on a skeptic board that is primarily (99.999%) English and you fail to mention what, if any, your personal primary language is, I can only assume you are a native English speaker. Furthermore, since your many grammatical errors and poor vocabulary usage has been pointed out to you and you fail to mention that English is your second language, apologizing for butchering the language; further solidifies my assumption that you are a native English-speaker. (Maybe you speak Portuguese, because you have mentioned that on a couple of occasions in passing?)

You also have very poor debate tactics and skill. Your arguments are all nothing but strawmen, ad hominems, circular reasoning, and whatever other logical fallacies that exist. You are jumping all over the place on a rather seemingly broad-based subject matter. You were directly in the middle of a conversation about spin-interaction or whatever, and several people have pointed out particular flaws. You then turn around, rather than address the flaws they pointed out, completely changed the subject to something else entirely! Which is another fallacy I can't think of atm.

You also assume that you are the one in complete control of the thread. When clearly you are not. This is demonstrated by the above problem of switching topics IN THE MIDDLE of a completely different conversation, without addressing prior problems pointed out!

Another further more; Your use of obnoxious colors, bolding, underlining, smilies, and italics is....well...just plain OBNOXIOUS. People can read perfectly fine without all those childish distractions. Which, come to think of is, serves as nothing but distractions.

It is one thing to use a BOLD typeface in order to stress a word or two, or highlight an important sentence. But it must be used very sparingly, in order to draw peoples' attentions the main point or idea of your arguments.

But your obnoxious use is just like the high-school "highlighter sydrome" that many young students seem to suffer from. When told to highlight the important parts of any given text, some students end up highlighting the entire friggin chapter, rather than the main topic of interest! These are students who seem to lack the ability to distinguish between the main points and ideas from all the rest in any given text. You display the characteristics of a young student who hasn't learned or have acquired the ability to effectively stress the proper points, and rather think that the ENTIRE thing being said is the main point.

 

[Nihilianth]

Well I don’t think you can call it a “model” as it just doesn’t model anything in particular. However, it does make calculations easier and not dependent on a particular coordinate system. So it does make it easier to arrive at quantitative predictions from a theory (like the locations of Lagrange points) and thus that theory easier to test.

Is there a lagrange point between twins (where the forces of one cancels that of the other)? I guess we'll have to wait for you to test that possibility.

So, basically you are saying a Lagrange is a mathematical equation that is nothing but mostly variables (A, B, C, X, Y Z, etc) that one can plug numbers in, based on variable quantities, coordinates, or any other variable-type numbers given any particular theory or model?

Like in statistics...let's take baseball.....The statistic for Batting Average is:

H/AB, where H=number of Hits, and AB=number of At Bats.

Or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player,) the Lagrane would be:

(((League Runs/Game + 1) - RAvg)/9)*Innings Pitched

This means the number of runs per game in any given league = what how a replacement player would perform.

Take that number, and subtract the average Runs per 9 innings, and multiply the number of innings any particular player pitched (for pitchers). For hitters, it's slightly different.

Is that the idea?