why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Reality Check]

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

You need to read what you post or the better description here: Electric Quadrupole Moments of Nuclei
Electric quadrupole moments have nothing to do with nuclear spin.
Electric quadrupole moments are caused by a non-spherical charge distribution. Nuclei with magic numbers are expected to have a roughly spherical charge distribution and so a near zero electric quadrupole moment.

 

[Belz...]

Guys, why are you still bothering with him ? His ignorance is intentional. He'll never even bother to question his beliefs.

 

[pedrone]

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...

Of course not.
All the nuclei that have:
magnetic moment =0
nuclear spin=0
electric quadrupole moment=0
are not quoted in the table, because the experiments did not get values different from zero.

 

[pedrone]

Nope. What the English version of the book says is (my bolding):

Quote:
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)

1- please make the scanning of the page, and post it here, as I did

2- what is the quantative differente between the same distribution and approximately the same distribution ?

So it doesn't make any statement there about how the nucleons are paired.

Of course not, since Eisberg and Resnick have not direct experimental finding that deuterons are formed.
But it's an unavoidable conclusion, because:

1- If protons and neutrons have the same (or approximately) distribution, then protons and neutrons are very close.

2- So, due to the strong force, protons and neutrons have to interact, because as the diameter of the nucleus is so short then the distance between must to be or the order of the range of strong force.

3- A proton and neutron attracted by strong foce take the form of a deuteron.

There is no need to be a genius to get the conclusions above.

Furthermore the average spatial distributions can be the same and not be anything like deuteron pairing since that also requires temporal correlations.

Your conclusion is wrong, as we realize it from the argument exposed by me above.

There are experimental evidences (as mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick) that protons and neutrons take the same (or approximatelly) the same distribution, and such distribution imply the 3 conclusions of mine above.

Your opinion is not of interest, since it is disagree to experimental evidences mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick

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?

What's the problem?
This occurs not only in gold and bismuth. All heavy nuclei have far more neutrons than protons.
But protons and neutrons form deuterons within the nuclei when neutrons are available to get a partnership with protons.
The excess of neutrons A-Z continues as neutrons within the nucleus.

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.

Of course I did read it.
However, you stated in later post that protons and neutrons do not form deuterons within the nucleus, and you claimed that there is not experimental evidence supporting such assumption.
And I proved you're wrong, because the experimental evidence do exists, as mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick, denying your words.

 

[pedrone]

Do you believe him?

If I should mad... of course I should...

 

[pedrone]

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.

No, it is not a theory.
There are facts.

And the conspirators make you fool (and many other like you), by convincing you that there is no conspiracy.

The conspiracy exists, and cold fusion is a proof.

No university in the world tried to replicate the Don Borghi experiment.
Why ????????​

Just because Don Borghi experiment proves Quantum Mechanics be wrong. His experiment shows that neutrons are formed by protons and electrons at low energy, and this is IMPOSSIBLE, according to Quantum Mechanics.

As the Don Borghi experiment proves Quantum Mechanics be wrong, then it is obvious that such experiment is very important for the Physics advancement, since it requires a New Physics, with some different fundamental foundations different of those proposed in Quantum Mechanics.

And as it is so important for the science's advancement, why a hell the universities refuse to repeat the experiment?​

Is not such refusal a conspiracy of the universities against the scientific method ?

I dont find any other suitable name for such refusal

Do you ?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I suppose now dafydd will cry out:

Experiments !!!! What are your credentials ????

Yea,who needs them?

*****' experiments, how do they work?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Just because Don Borghi experiment proves Quantum Mechanics be wrong.

Hmm, that must explain why the computer that I just used to write this spontaneously shut down & the Internet no longer works...

oh... wait

 

[edd]

Pedrone: I have a dartboard and a large number of darts coloured red and blue nut otherwise identical. I throw them at my dartboard. They land according to the same statistical distribution.
Do you believe that the red and blue darts have paired themselves up?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Guys, why are you still bothering with him ? His ignorance is intentional. He'll never even bother to question his beliefs.

This ^^^

 

[Dancing David]

No, it is not a theory.
There are facts.

And the conspirators make you fool (and many other like you), by convincing you that there is no conspiracy.

The conspiracy exists, and cold fusion is a proof.

No university in the world tried to replicate the Don Borghi experiment.
Why ????????​

Just because Don Borghi experiment proves Quantum Mechanics be wrong. His experiment shows that neutrons are formed by protons and electrons at low energy, and this is IMPOSSIBLE, according to Quantum Mechanics.

As the Don Borghi experiment proves Quantum Mechanics be wrong, then it is obvious that such experiment is very important for the Physics advancement, since it requires a New Physics, with some different fundamental foundations different of those proposed in Quantum Mechanics.

And as it is so important for the science's advancement, why a hell the universities refuse to repeat the experiment?​

Is not such refusal a conspiracy of the universities against the scientific method ?

I dont find any other suitable name for such refusal

Do you ?

Maybe you should consider that the original experiment was not well done, and again people would love to get in the history books. So what makes you think the original experimentw as well done?

 

[edd]

Note I'm not saying the nucleus has no structure or that the structure does not involve deuterons, but the posted page doesn't seem to be what you want to support such a claim.

 

[tusenfem]

No university in the world tried to replicate the Don Borghi experiment.
Why ????????​

I guess using big coloured letters makes a better point? However, just to prove you wrong, there has been investigations on this, maybe not at a university, but who cares, I do research and am not at a university.

Looking at ADS I found a Arxiv paper on this experiment from 2006. However, it does not seem to have been published in any journal.

 

[Nihilianth]

Nope. What the English version of the book says is (my bolding):


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.

Your English version of the book, written in English by experts of the field of nuclear physics, is not as good as pedrone's interpretation of the Portuguese text into English.n Which in turn, the Portuguese text was originally translated from English to Portuguese!

Didn't you know? There is no loss of meaning whatsoever when you translate a text from one language to another. And a laymen in linguistics translating from the second language BACK into the original all by himself, is far more accurate than the ORIGINAL writing of the first language!

I mean....DUH!!! How can you be so dumb!?

 

[Tubbythin]

1- please make the scanning of the page, and post it here, as I did

No. CBA.

2- what is the quantative differente between the same distribution and approximately the same distribution ?

I don't know. But if you are going to claim that approximately the same means exactly the same then the burden of proof is on you to find back up that claim. It is pretty ridiculous ro repeatedly refer to one specific text as if it is impeachable and true and then when you find something you don't agree with make out that they're wrong. That is effectively what you're doing.

Of course not, since Eisberg and Resnick have not direct experimental finding that deuterons are formed.

In fact I explicitly quoted a passage that said the exact opposite. That like nucleons pair up.

But it's an unavoidable conclusion, because:

1- If protons and neutrons have the same (or approximately) distribution, then protons and neutrons are very close.

Meaningless unless you define what you mean by very close. On the scale of atoms say, then yes all nucleons in the same nucleus are very close.

2- So, due to the strong force, protons and neutrons have to interact, because as the diameter of the nucleus is so short then the distance between must to be or the order of the range of strong force.

They do interact to some degree. But the Pauli exclusion principle stops the well bound nucleons from interacting all that much. Without that the shell model would be nonsense.

3- A proton and neutron attracted by strong foce take the form of a deuteron.

A proton and a neutron attracted by the strong force can do all sorts of things. You are assuming that two nucleons confined to a potential created by a load of other nucleons interact in the same way as two nucleons not confined by any potential other than that of their mutual interaction. They do not.

There is no need to be a genius to get the conclusions above.

Clearly not.

Your conclusion is wrong, as we realize it from the argument exposed by me above.

What are you talking about? Your argument was that when Eisberg and Resnick say "approximately the same" they mean "exactly the same". Your argument is an utterly stupid one.

There are experimental evidences (as mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick) that protons and neutrons take the same (or approximatelly) the same distribution, and such distribution imply the 3 conclusions of mine above.

No, such conclusions imply that the matter density of the nucleus is similar to the charge density except for a scaling factor. They say this quite explicitly and don't even mention deuterons.

Your opinion is not of interest, since it is disagree to experimental evidences mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick

No it doesn't. The experimental evidence that Eisberg and Resnick present is the charge radii of certain nuclei. The only one drawing invalid conclusions is you.

What's the problem?
This occurs not only in gold and bismuth. All heavy nuclei have far more neutrons than protons.
But protons and neutrons form deuterons within the nuclei when neutrons are available to get a partnership with protons.

Except the very book you treat as the Bible explicitly mentions proton-proton pairs and neutron-neutron pairs. Why do you keep referring to a book that is explicit disagreement with you?

The excess of neutrons A-Z continues as neutrons within the nucleus.

That sentence doesn't make any sense.

Of course I did read it.
However, you stated in later post that protons and neutrons do not form deuterons within the nucleus, and you claimed that there is not experimental evidence supporting such assumption.

It is a very rare phenomenon, certainly in terms of the valence nucleons which mostly what nuclear structure is governed by.

And I proved you're wrong, because the experimental evidence do exists, as mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick, denying your words.

Complete nonsense. All they say is that the distributions are approximately the same. The experimental data they show in the figure doesn't show the explicit orbitals occupied by the nucleons. It doesn't even show the neutron distribution at all. It shows the charge distribution as derived from scattering experiments. It is then stated that the distributions are approximately the same. Earth is approximately the same size as Venus. Doesn't mean that if I had a rocket I could go live happily on Venus.

 

[pedrone]

Nope. What the English version of the book says is (my bolding):

Quote:
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)

1- please make the scanning of the page, and post it here, as I did

No. CBA.

1- So, Tubbythin
you confess you're a liar.

2- You did put the following sentence, as it should be written by Eisberg and Resnick in their original book published in English:

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)

Well, this makes no sense. Such sentence is a translation of mine from my book in Portuguese, and you did put "approximately" in my sentence.
Sure that Eisberg and Resnick did not write that sentence with the same words of mine in their original book in English, since I dont write so well as they do, and therefore my translation may not have the same form that they have written in their original book.

So, you are a liar, Tubbythin

And I do not waste my time on liars.
Sorry.
Goodbye

 

[Reality Check]

No university in the world tried to replicate the Don Borghi experiment.
Why ????????​

Just because Don Borghi experiment proves Quantum Mechanics be wrong. His experiment shows that neutrons are formed by protons and electrons at low energy, and this is IMPOSSIBLE, according to Quantum Mechanics.

You do not give any citations for the Don Borghi experiment.
You do not give any evidence that the results are not predicted by QM
Why ????????​

 

[Reality Check]

Where are the deuterons, pedrone

12- You did put the following sentence, as it should be written by Eisberg and Resnick in their original book published in English:

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)

Well, this makes no sense.

That makes sense. The English version of the Eisberg and Resnick book is the version that they wrote. It has the correct text. You are reading a translation into Portuguese. The translater may have made a mistake.

In either case you are wrong - there is no mention of deuteron in either text.
Portuguese

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..."

English

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)

Both state that protons and neutrons are separately distributed in a nucleus. This distribution is the same for these separate protons and neutrons. Separate protons and neutrons are not deuterons.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course not.
All the nuclei that have:
magnetic moment =0
nuclear spin=0
electric quadrupole moment=0
are not quoted in the table, because the experiments did not get values different from zero.

Of course not.
All the nuclei that have:
magnetic moment =0
nuclear spin=0
electric quadrupole moment=0

are not quoted in the table, because either

1. the experiments have not been done or
2. the authors of the PDF were unaware of the experiments.

If the experiments had been done then the authors would have included them even if the value was zero.
Table of Nuclear Magnetic Dipole and Electric Quadrupole Moments (PDF)

This Table is a compilation of experimental measurements of static magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole moments of ground states and excited states of atomic nuclei throughout the periodic table. To aid dentification of the states, their excitation energy, half-life, spin and parity are given, along with a brief indication of the method and any reference standard used in the particular measurement. The literature search upon which the Table is based is complete to early 1998. Many of the entries prior to 1988 follow those in Raghavan, Atomic and Nuclear Data Tables 42, 189 (1989), with amendment as required.

 

[Reality Check]

But it's an unavoidable conclusion, because:

1- If protons and neutrons have the same (or approximately) distribution, then protons and neutrons are very close.

2- So, due to the strong force, protons and neutrons have to interact, because as the diameter of the nucleus is so short then the distance between must to be or the order of the range of strong force.

3- A proton and neutron attracted by strong foce take the form of a deuteron.

There is no need to be a genius to get the conclusions above.

It certainly does not take a genius. In fact it takes someone quite ignorant. Someone who does not know what deuteron is - a neutron, proton and electron.

Step 3 is wrong. Protons and neutrons do interact through the strong force. This does not mean that they physically pair up to form proton+neutron pairs. In the nuclear shell model the protons and neutrons have separate shells.