• 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

It would be a derail to go off into details of a nuclear physics experiment here, but I think you might just be overgeneralising a tad if you think that instances of universities choosing not to support certain areas of research is because they're afraid of overturning scientific orthodoxy and getting Nobel prizes.
 
pedrone said:
Dont be so ingenuous.

As the experiment disproves the relativity, no academic physicist in the world want to repeat it.
No university in the world want to repeat any experiment that denies the current theories
:mad:
Click to expand...

Sorry, old chap, but repeating this experiment (and it has been tried and found wanting) and getting a positive result would be one of the best things ever for GR, as it would show that the gravitomagnetic term indeed is important, and this term actually follows out of the GR equations. Even the fact that it may be higher than expected (although 3 orders of magnitude is a tid much) is of no concern.

You don't need to be mad, you just need to be better informed.
 
pedrone said:
Dont be so ingenuous.

As the experiment disproves the relativity, no academic physicist in the world want to repeat it.
No university in the world want to repeat any experiment that denies the current theories
:mad:
Click to expand...

That is silly, you would get your name in the books for sure for over turning a major theory.

This is a conspriracy theory and a rather silly one.
 
pedrone said:
Dont be so ingenuous.

As the experiment disproves the relativity, no academic physicist in the world want to repeat it.
No university in the world want to repeat any experiment that denies the current theories
:mad:
Click to expand...

pure nonsese.
In interviews at CERN, there were several scientists that actually hope that new findings will overtrow physics as we knew, they see it as a huge adventure. So they would just love to disprove relativity. Over night they would be the most famous scientists of our time.
 
pedrone said:
Dont be so ingenuous.

As the experiment disproves the relativity, no academic physicist in the world want to repeat it.
No university in the world want to repeat any experiment that denies the current theories
:mad:
Click to expand...

So, pedrone, you're saying that no academic physicist in the world would want to win a Nobel Prize in physics? That's what you'd get for disproving GR. And I suppose noone's ever heard of Michaelson and Morley?

Dude, give it up. You've been watching too many X-Files reruns.
 
dafydd said:
Who needs studying and qualifications when you have all that? Is there a Nobel prize for psychedelic formatting?
Click to expand...

I dunno, but there should be! We should create such a Nobel prize! Then we should get a Nobel prize for creating a Nobel prize!
 
pedrone said:
Dont be so ingenuous.

As the experiment disproves the relativity, no academic physicist in the world want to repeat it.
No university in the world want to repeat any experiment that denies the current theories
:mad:
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, we all hold Plato and Aristotle as the gold standard. No one is permitted to do any experiments that might disprove their teachings.
 
:p
tusenfem said:
Sorry, old chap, but repeating this experiment (and it has been tried and found wanting) and getting a positive result would be one of the best things ever for GR, as it would show that the gravitomagnetic term indeed is important, and this term actually follows out of the GR equations. Even the fact that it may be higher than expected (although 3 orders of magnitude is a tid much) is of no concern.
;)
You don't need to be mad, you just need to be better informed.
Click to expand...
Oh,
I love this forum.

There are several joke accountants in here
:D

Perhaps a mad guy will believe you
:p
 
pedrone said:
:p
Oh,
I love this forum.

There are several joke accountants in here
:D

Perhaps a mad guy will believe you
:p
Click to expand...
:D
Oh,
I love this forum.

There are several joke accountants in here
:jaw-dropp

Perhaps a mad guy will believe you
:cool:
And how many other smilies can I add in an inane comment :rolleyes:!


But seriously:
  • gravitomagnetic term indeed is important and this term actually follows out of the GR equations.
  • that dubious, unconfirmed experiment shows that it is 3 orders of magnitude too big.
  • In order to explain this dubious experimental result the authors create an even more dubious theory.
 
Last edited:
pedrone, what do you think scientists are motivated by?

It can't be money - they can work less hard and earn more in the private sector.

Is it the pursuit of truth? If so, why wouldn't they follow up a valid experiment?

Is it fame? If so, wouldn't it be the dream of every scientist to overturn relativity, since it's hard to think of anything that would make someone more famous than that?

Is it pride? If so, why are scientists today hiding evidence against someone else's discoveries, when they could make their own great breakthrough?

Is it laziness? If so, why do so many scientists work 80 hour weeks?

What do you think it is?
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Thel let's analyse your argument

1)

a) 18O has not electric quadrupole moment (EQM)


Are you sure about this? I think it is generally pretty difficult to measure ground state EQMs. Do you have a reference which says the EQM is actually identically 0?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure.

Look at the nuclear table:
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf

After 17O , the next Q(b) is of the excited 18O (Ex = 1982 and Ex= 3555).

The 18O is not shown in the table because its nuclear magnetic moment is zero, its nuclear spin is zero, and its electric quadrupole moment is zero.
Otherwise, if they should be different from zero, they should be shown in the table.

But I'm surprised that you dont know it, because from the definition of electric quadrupole moment you can easily to realize it:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricQuadrupoleMoment.html

As say Eisberg and Resnick in their book:
"It's then clear that q = 0 if the nuclear density charge is spherically symmetric, because in this case x2 = y2 = z2 ".

Look at the page:
 

Attachments

  • electric quadrupole moment EQUATION.jpg
    electric quadrupole moment EQUATION.jpg
    134.5 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Since you have the book, it makes pedrone's task about citations even easier. While he is working from a Portuguese version of the book, the page numbers should be roughly the same.

pedrone: State the page numbers where Eisberg and Resnick state that the "most probable occurrence within the nuclei is the deuteron" to support your assertion that
Click to expand...
Below the figure 15-6 (page 651 in my book):

"5. If we make the hypothesis that proton's distribution in the nucleus is the same distribution of neutrons (there are some evidences for this hypothesis), then the charge density..."

So, as protons and neutrons have the same distribution, they actually must be in the form of deuterons.
 

Attachments

  • EISBERG & RESNICK-distribuiçao de protons e neutrons.jpg
    EISBERG & RESNICK-distribuiçao de protons e neutrons.jpg
    88.2 KB · Views: 15
sol invictus said:
pedrone, what do you think scientists are motivated by?

It can't be money - they can work less hard and earn more in the private sector.

Is it the pursuit of truth? If so, why wouldn't they follow up a valid experiment?

Is it fame? If so, wouldn't it be the dream of every scientist to overturn relativity, since it's hard to think of anything that would make someone more famous than that?

Is it pride? If so, why are scientists today hiding evidence against someone else's discoveries, when they could make their own great breakthrough?

Is it laziness? If so, why do so many scientists work 80 hour weeks?

What do you think it is?
Click to expand...

Invictus,
why do you think Planck said :
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
?
 
pedrone said:
Yes, I'm sure.

Look at the nuclear table:
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf

After 17O , the next Q(b) is of the excited 18O (Ex = 1982 and Ex= 3555).

The 18O is not shown in the table because its nuclear magnetic moment is zero, its nuclear spin is zero, and its electric quadrupole moment is zero.
Otherwise, if they should be different from zero, they should be shown in the table.
Click to expand...
That is of course assuming they had ever been measured. But I already said that the spin and magnetic moment had to be 0. And...

But I'm surprised that you dont know it, because from the definition of electric quadrupole moment you can easily to realize it:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricQuadrupoleMoment.html
Click to expand...
You're correct that the quadrupole moment also has to be 0 for the ground state of an even-even nucleus.. Though this has nothing whatsoever to do with deuteron-like pairing.
 
pedrone said:
Below the figure 15-6 (page 651 in my book):

"5. If we make the hypothesis that proton's distribution in the nucleus is the same distribution of neutrons (there are some evidences for this hypothesis), then the charge density..."

So, as protons and neutrons have the same distribution, they actually must be in the form of deuterons.
Click to expand...

Nope. What the English version of the book says is (my bolding):
If we assume that the distribution of protons in nuclei is approximately the same as the distribution of neutrons (there is good evidence for this assumption)
Click to expand...

So it doesn't make any statement there about how the nucleons are paired. Furthermore the average spatial distributions can be the same and not be anything like deuteron pairing since that also requires temporal correlations. Finally, if that wasn't enough, the distribution being referred to include those of gold and bismuth. All gold and bismuth isotopes have far more neutrons than protons. So how were you intending pairing them all up?
If you actually read what the whole passage is trying to explain, it is simply saying that the charge and matter density distributions (which are a function of radius) are (approximately) the same excepting a scaling factor related to the proton/neutron ratio of the nucleus.
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
Invictus,
why do you think Planck said :
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
?
Click to expand...
This is easy, pedrone - read the quote.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

The Gravitomagnetic London Moment is not a scientific truth. It is a set of dubious, not reproduced experimental results with a speculative theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom