• 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

Belz... said:
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
And therefere Newton's Mechanics is unacceptable
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

You absolutely have to give us your real name, now. I can't wait to see your name in the papers after you win your Nobel prize.
Click to expand...
:)
Belz,
you have to buy an irony detector urgently !!!!!
:p
 
Pedrone,
You keep claiming things can't work based on classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics, and you keep contradicting quantum mechanics. Given the internet relies on quantum mechanics, I think you should stop posting - the internet can't exist by your logic, so this thread can't be happening and you should therefore leave us in peace.
Thanks in advance.
 
Nihilianth said:
"I am proud of my ignorance?" You know me so well, don't you?
Click to expand...
Nihilianth,
I did not refer that to you.
Read again my post. I mentioned two sort of people:

1- Those ones that do not need to be shamed because of their ignorance in some fields.
(you was included among them)

2- Those others that are proud of their ignorance.
 
edd said:
Pedrone,
You keep claiming things can't work based on classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics, and you keep contradicting quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
Edd,
I know very well quantum mechanics.

edd said:
Given the internet relies on quantum mechanics, I think you should stop posting - the internet can't exist by your logic
Click to expand...
You are the guy number 1.356.045 to tell me this.

Next one, please.

edd said:
so this thread can't be happening and you should therefore leave us in peace.
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Even a wrong theory can work well.

Earlier the discovery of the Bohr model of atom, the physicist Voigt developed equations which described very well the emissions of photons by matter.
When Bohr discovered his model the physicists realized that Voigt theory was wrong. However, his theory worked very well.
So, the mathematics can work well even when the theory has wrong principles.

But I'm wasting my time writting this. Tomorrow a lot of guys like you will tell me again the same thing you said.
It's very tiring...
 
pedrone said:
Nihilianth,
I did not refer that to you.
Read again my post. I mentioned two sort of people:

1- Those ones that do not need to be shamed because of their ignorance in some fields.
(you was included among them)

2- Those others that are proud of their ignorance.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. ;)
 
pedrone said:
Earlier the discovery of the Bohr model of atom, the physicist Voigt developed equations which described very well the emissions of photons by matter.
Click to expand...
You need a citation. Do you mean Woldemar Voigt who developed a rough version of the Lorentz transformation?

pedrone said:
When Bohr discovered his model the physicists realized that Voigt theory was wrong. However, his theory worked very well.
Click to expand...
That sounds wrong. The Bohr model was an improvement on the previous models such as the Rutherford model. I see no mention of a "Voigt model" of the atom.

Whose theory worked very well?
The Bohr model only worked for hydrogen. The previous models it replaced hardly worked. They were basically conceptual models. They were abandoned after Rutherford's results.
 
Last edited:
QUESTION TO EVERYBODY​



Consider the two figures:

​


The hexagon A of fig. 1 has 16 green balls attached to it, symmetrically distributed about the center of the hexagon. All the balls have the same mass.

The hexagon B of fig. 2 is equal to hexagon A, but it has yet 1 red ball attached to it. All the balls have the same mass.

The two hexagon of the two figures rotate with the same angular velocity, about the line which crosses their center.

Question:
What hexagon has stronger trepidation ?
:confused:
 
Reality Check said:
You need a citation. Do you mean Woldemar Voigt who developed a rough version of the Lorentz transformation?


That sounds wrong. The Bohr model was an improvement on the previous models such as the Rutherford model. I see no mention of a "Voigt model" of the atom.

Whose theory worked very well?
The Bohr model only worked for hydrogen. The previous models it replaced hardly worked. They were basically conceptual models. They were abandoned after Rutherford's results.
Click to expand...

I did not say that Voigt proposed a model of atom. His theory described very well the radiation spectra emitted by matter.
His equations worked very well.

If Bohr should have not discovered his model of atom, Schrodinger should have not discovered his equation, and so Quantum Mechanics would be developed based on Voigt theory.
 
I don't mind the Socratic method, but all these questions aren't getting answered in the way intended and the discussion is just flailing now. If the OP intended, "cannot be entirely correct" to mean "incompletely understood," I don't think you'd even get any arguments.

My complaint is that this could be so much more edifying than it turned out to be -- the fault isn't entirely Pedrone's, but he's got the lion's share.
 
Just dropped in to point out that posts 487 and 492 are octagons, not hexagons as claimed by Pedrone. Not certain if this is some attempt at "gotcha" or not.
 
Distribution of nucleons into the nuclei​

In Atomic Physics, the electron is considered as a cloud of probability about the nucleus.

But in Nuclear Physics this is not possible. The nucleons have to be considered as particles, because if we consider them as a cloud of probability there is no way to explain some properties of the nuclei.

For instance, let's consider the oxygen nucleus 8O16.
The physicists discovered that into the nuclei the protons and neutrons are linked together (the nuclei are filled by deuterons).

The 8O16 has null nuclear spin and also null magnetic moment.
If the nucleons into the 8O16 should be a cloud of probability in disorder, its nuclear spin and magnetic moment could not be null.

For the 8O16 to have null nuclear spin and null magnetic moment there is need the following:
- in each instant, for each deuteron A situated in a distance with regard to the center of the nucleus, there is need to have another deuteron B symmetrically placed with regard to the center of the nucleus, so that its spin and magnetic moment are contrary to the deuteron A.

This is shown in fig. 1:

​


The same must occur between the other pairs of deutrons C-D, E-F, G-H, I-J, K-L, M-N, and so the 8O16 can have a null nuclear spin and null magnetic moment.


The distribution of charges in the nucleus 8O16 is spherical, and this is detected in experiments.
This is measured by the electric quadrupole moment. For the 8O16 it is null

In nuclei with odd number of nucleons the distribution of charges deviates from the spherical shape. They dont have null electric quadrupole moment (EQM).
For instance, the istope 8O17 nas no nulll EQM, because with the addition of one neutron in the structure of 8O16, the resulting 8O17 has a trepidation, and its distribution of charges becomes ellipsoidal (measured by experiments).

The distribution of charges in the nucleus 8O18 is spherical (the two additional neutrons get a symmetrical position, and the nucleus keeps a symmetrical distribution of nucleons).
So, the 8O18 has null EQM.

But when the 8O18 is excited, it gets a non null EQM.
Of course, according to Nuclear Physics, the two neutrons have to keep their opposite positions with regard to the center of the nucleus.

So, according to Nuclear Physics, the 8O18 and the 8O17 have the following distribution of nucleons (of course they are not flat, you have to imagine it spatially):

​

So, the question is:
what isotope must have stronger trepidation?
The excited 8O18, or the 8O17 ?
:confused:​
 
Giordano said:
Just dropped in to point out that posts 487 and 492 are octagons, not hexagons as claimed by Pedrone. Not certain if this is some attempt at "gotcha" or not.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I started to draw a hexagon, and then changed the mind, and decided to draw an octogon, and forgot to change the text
 
I've been lurking at JREF Forum for a while, and it appears that there are periodic appearances of individuals whose main goal is to smirk at others. Some come without even the slightest understanding of the field. Pedrone appears to have some of the vocabulary down, but nuclear physics is not my field. Just curious: do the experts in this thread think Pedrone has an undergraduate's knowledge of the topic, but with a bizarre slant on it, or do they think his physics training is from Google?
 
pedrone said:
Distribution of nucleons into the nuclei​

...what isotope must have stronger trepidation?
Click to expand...
That is a rather dumb post that starts with a some more ignorance:
But in Nuclear Physics this is not possible. The nucleons have to be considered as particles, because if we consider them as a cloud of probability there is no way to explain some properties of the nuclei.
Click to expand...
In nuclear physics the nucleus is governed by the strong force. The strong force is described by quantum chromodynamics. This is a quantum theory.
In practice QCD (AFAIK) cannot be used to model a complex nucleus. You have to use a model such as a shell model. That is still a QM treatment of the nucleons as particles, i.e. the "shells" are orbitals.


Thus
  1. Nucleons are not stuck onto octagons like that in nuclear physics.
  2. You do not define what "trepidation" is. I can find no such thing defined in modern physics, let alone nuclear physics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom