why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[pedrone]

It means that he did not scan the book, it does not make him a liar.

A liar is the guy who refuses to to show facts that prove to be true what the guy claimed to be true.

As he claims to have the book, and he refuses to scan the book so that to prove what he stated to be the true, then of course he is a liar.

If he wants to prove he is not a liar, it's very simple: just scan the book and post it here.

 

[pedrone]

Ethics is not the word you want...

Quote:
According to current Nuclear Physics, the radioactive nuclei should have to emit two deuterons 1H2. By this way it would obey to the principle of least action.


reference to this principle?

There are people in the internet who did not discover yet the existence of the Google

 

[pedrone]

So there ya have it: A challenge to Pedrone: Find the book in English, and use that instead! It is your thread. It is your claim. And it is your source of choice. Therefore, the responsibility lies with you to use the proper source you have chosen. I am declaring your bastardized translation to be no more reliable than a paper done by a 5th grader.

Well,
Nihilianth,
I see that you swallowed the pill of liars.

Here are the words by Eisberg and Resnick in Portuguese:
Se fizermos a hipótese de que a distribuição de protons no nucleo é a mesma que a distribuiçao de neutrons (existem certas evidências para essa hipótese), então...


Here is the translation by the Google translator:
If we make the assumption that the distribution of protons in the nucleus is the same as the distribution of neutrons (there is some evidence for this hypothesis), then ...

I admire that you, Nihilianth, allows yourself to be fooled by cunnings as Tubythin and Reality Check.

 

[pedrone]

Ooooohhhh!

So is that what this whole thing is about? Pedrone thinks that quantum mechanics violates the laws of nature?

No, I dont think it

It's the Nature herself that tells it to us, since she produces some phenomena which, according to Quantum Mechanics, are phenomenat that violate some of Nature's laws.

 

[pedrone]

What is the metric of the space around the proton?
What is the replacement for Maxwell's theory?
Why do electrons never radiate in this space/theory when they seem to be acellerated?
When do electrons radiate in this replacement for Maxwell's theory?

Of course is not the space considered in Quantum Mechanics

I do hope that it is not some crank just asserting: "the space about the proton is X and so electrons do not radiate".

Some of the laws of emission are proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory.

Besides, dear Reality Check,
hundred, thousands of quantum theorists ( some of them geniuses like Heisenberg, Dirac, Schrodinger, Fermi, etc.) along more than 100 years had developed the Quantum Mechanics, and did not succeed to develop a definitive satisfactory theory (and Don Borghi experiment is a proof).

Do you want that Guglinski, he alone, along only 20 years, could be able to develop a perfect theory, with all the answers not given by several geniuses?
Oh, please... admit
... you are waiting too much from Guglinski, dont you?

Leave some discoveries (not donne by Guglinski) for other theorists... Guglinski cannot discover everything...

Wrong: The d quark does not sit at the center of the proton. The charge distribution of the neutron is caused by the movement of the 3 quarks that comprise it.

Who told you?
God ?

And if the quark d is not responsibe for the negative core, then how a hell could Gerald A. Miller be able to explain the negative core?
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v99/i11/e112001

He writes:
Additionally, the proton’s central d quark charge density is larger than that of the u quark by about 30%.

I see no citation to experimental data on that page. I see that you have circled a graph of "load distrinution".

Of course not.
The Guglinski's article has more than 10 pages.

But here you have the same graphic (and the citation of the experimental data) in the page798 of Eisberg and Resnick book (and dont you know that any graphic is made from experimental data ?)

 

[RobDegraves]

A liar is the guy who refuses to to show facts that prove to be true what the guy claimed to be true.

So... like you then?

Where are the answers to my questions? All you did was evade them.

 

[pedrone]

Here's an article about special special relativity that comes from a Nobel prize winner, it probably has better legs on it.

The crucial evidence supporting Glashow and Cohen's theory may be right in front of your nose. Or, more accurately, passing right through it.

Subscription only but it's probably a safer bet.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325871.400-sending-einstein-into-a-spin.html

I dont think physicists like Glashow and Cohen be able to develop a satisfactory theory.
Such sort of theorists look for a new theory by keeping all the fundamental principles of the old theories.
They try to find a new theory by changing only the mathematical formalism of the old theories.

A new theory needs new physical principles, as that proposed by Claudio Nassif.
Nassif is proposing a new principle: the minimum speed of elementary particles.

Einstein also proposed new physical principles in the relativity.
So, the way as Nassif is developing his new theory is similar to that used by Einstein.

Theorists like Glashow and Cohen are afraid of proposing new physical principles, because this imply that some of current principles of Modern Physics can be wrong.
If they should propose new physical principles, by this way their new theory should face a great resistance by scientific community against its acceptation (as is happening to Nassif's new theory).

 

[Nihilianth]

A liar is the guy who refuses to to show facts that prove to be true what the guy claimed to be true.

As he claims to have the book, and he refuses to scan the book so that to prove what he stated to be the true, then of course he is a liar.

If he wants to prove he is not a liar, it's very simple: just scan the book and post it here.

I had to take you off ignore, because this is beyond ridiculous. Or beyond amusing. Or beyond ridiculously amusing. Take your pick.

In any case, why does he have to scan the book in to prove he is NOT a liar?What if he does not have a scanner? What if he does not have access to a scanner? I know myself I neither have a scanner, nor have access to one, despite being a professional web designer/computer programmer freelancer.

Even if I had a scanner, I still wouldn't go through the trouble to scan the book, make a .jpg file, upload it to photobucket, then copy-paste the HTML code to place it in here.

Sorry, too much work.

Another point:

In a court of law, at least in the USA, you are "innocent until proven guilty." In order to prove guilt, it is up to the prosecutor, in this case the accuser (Pedrone,) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is a liar.

And your word is pretty much worthless, as you have gone beyond expending all credibility you may have ever had.

Now, how would you go about proving this? It's pretty simple. All you have to do is to obtain a copy of the English version and scan it in yourself proving to everyone once and for all, that he is, indeed, a liar. It should be far easier for you to do so, for you have a scanner when most people do not.

Anything short of that is unacceptable, and continuing to call someone a liar without providing a shred of evidence for it violates Rule 12.

 

[Nihilianth]

Well,
Nihilianth,
I see that you swallowed the pill of liars.

Here are the words by Eisberg and Resnick in Portuguese:
Se fizermos a hipótese de que a distribuição de protons no nucleo é a mesma que a distribuiçao de neutrons (existem certas evidências para essa hipótese), então...


Here is the translation by the Google translator:
If we make the assumption that the distribution of protons in the nucleus is the same as the distribution of neutrons (there is some evidence for this hypothesis), then ...

I admire that you, Nihilianth, allows yourself to be fooled by cunnings as Tubythin and Reality Check.

You used the word "admire" wrong. Never mind the terrible grammar, punctuation, and spelling in this post alone. (Will get to this point below.)***

I haven't "swallowed" any pill. I have no horse in this argument about neutron/deuterons...or whatever the hell that is being discussed in here.

Rather, I take great exception to your dishonesty.

Google translator? Really? Are you serious?

***English is my first language. Since you have obviously been using Google Translator all along (I even called you out on it earlier,) you have been butchering and bastardizing the English language so badly, it is damn well near impossible to understand what you are even trying to say half the time.

I also happen to know a fair bit of Italian. I will say my translation and grammar with the Italian language is far better than Google Translator.

If these are the results of Google Translator, obviously the thing has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.***

If your source for translating a complex book about friggin nuclear physics is a free online translator like Google, then whatever translation you are providing from Portuguese to English has as much credibility as a 5th grader writing on the subject themselves. Meaning: It has no credibility whatsoever.

Like I said, if you want any credibility at all, and since you have engaged a complex topic with native English speakers, it is up to you to provide the source that was originally written in English. Google Translator just simply does not suffice.

 

[pedrone]

Wrong: The d quark does not sit at the center of the proton. The charge distribution of the neutron is caused by the movement of the 3 quarks that comprise it.

Let me comment again such your argument, from another viewpoint.

You are wrongly supposing that the neutron quark model n=(d,u,d) of current Particle Physics is correct, and your argument above is based on such a belief of yours.

However nobody can be sure that the quark model of neutron n=(d,u,d) is actually correct.
There is not any experimental finding pointing out that quark model n=(d,u,d) is correct.

Just the contrary. Experimental finding are pointing out that n=(d,u,d) is incorrect.

For instance, I already mentioned that from the quark model of neutron n=(d,u,d) it's impossible to get theoretically the electric quadrupole moment of deuteron. More than 33 papers were published, trying to get it, along 70 years. The last one was published in 2005, in the Turkish Journal of Physics.
If at least one should have been well succeeded, there should be no need to publish 33 papers, along 70 years. Only one should be enough

The electric quadrupole moment of deuteron is calculated in Quantum Ring Theory, from the neutron model n=p+s.
The theoretical result is the same result obtained by experiments (pages 100 and 101 of the Guglinski's book):

 

[Calrid]

I dont think physicists like Glashow and Cohen be able to develop a satisfactory theory.
Such sort of theorists look for a new theory by keeping all the fundamental principles of the old theories.
They try to find a new theory by changing only the mathematical formalism of the old theories.

A new theory needs new physical principles, as that proposed by Claudio Nassif.
Nassif is proposing a new principle: the minimum speed of elementary particles.

Einstein also proposed new physical principles in the relativity.

The front cover had the tag line Einstein's Nemesis. :
So, the way as Nassif is developing his new theory is similar to that used by Einstein.

Theorists like Glashow and Cohen are afraid of proposing new physical principles, because this imply that some of current principles of Modern Physics can be wrong.
If they should propose new physical principles, by this way their new theory should face a great resistance by scientific community against its acceptation (as is happening to Nassif's new theory).

In this case they are proposing theory revision to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics. So I'm not sure they are trying to bring down Einstein more prop him up given the peculiarities of neutrinos.

New Scientist does like to deal in sensationalist headlines though, what can I say; the front cover had Einstein's Nemesis as the tag line.

It's a fair bet there is something wrong with quantum mechanics or general/special relativity: most people think the problem lies with quantum mechanics that there is something going on as we approach the Planck scale and beyond that we cannot explain with current models, but that doesn't mean it is the case. We shall see I guess. It wouldn't shock me if it was just the maths that was wrong or the language we use to explain the almost imperceptible rather than the natural laws of reality. But then I always did like Bohrs approach to realism.

I don't think your pet theory is all that out there, because I've seen dozens of pretty out there theories like E20 or whatever it is called these days and that mad little theory called string theory, which I think is a bit far fetched. It's probably a matter of taste, were distinction lies is as always not in talking the talk but walking the walk of the empiricist.

 

[Tubbythin]

Tubbythin said he has the original Eisberg and Resnick book.

And he refused to scan the page in which he claimed to be a phrasis that supports his arguments.

Do you have any other reasonable explanation for his refusal ?

Yes.
1) I'd either have to pull my printer out from under my bed, dust it off, plug it in to my computer, install the software, quite possibly restart my computer, then scan the document itself OR I'd have to go and find a scanner somewhere else.
2) I'm not entirely sure what the copyright laws are on such things. It'd probably be ok under fair use but why should I bother when it is just to please someone who has been distinctly uncivil and impolite to myself and other posters?

 

[Reality Check]

Let me comment again such your argument, from another viewpoint.

You are wrongly supposing that the neutron quark model n=(d,u,d) of current Particle Physics is correct, and your argument above is based on such a belief of yours.
[/quoyte]
I have no belief in the "neutron quark model". I have a belief in the strong evidence for the Standard Model. A part of this is the model of the neutron that works, e.g. predicts such things as its decay modes.

However nobody can be sure that the quark model of neutron n=(d,u,d) is actually correct.

That is the argument that we often see from people who are ignorant of science.
No theory in science is "actually correct". There is only the evidence for and against a theory.

There is not any experimental finding pointing out that quark model n=(d,u,d) is correct.

That is ignorant of you, pedrone.

Just the contrary. Experimental finding are pointing out that n=(d,u,d) is incorrect.

Citations please?

If at least one should have been well succeeded, there should be no need to publish 33 papers, along 70 years. Only one should be enough

5 minutes research and
On the Value of the Electric Quadrupole Moment of the Deuteron A. Nordsieck , 1940 (accuracy of 2%)
Quadrupole moment of the deuteron from a precise calculation of the electric field gradient in D₂ David M. Bishop and Lap M. Cheung Phys. Rev. A, Volume 20, Issue 2 1979
Determination of deuteron quadrupole moment from calculations of the electric field gradient in D2 and HD Michele Pavanello, Wei-Cheng Tung, and Ludwik Adamowicz 2010

 

[Tubbythin]

A liar is the guy who refuses to to show facts that prove to be true what the guy claimed to be true.

As he claims to have the book, and he refuses to scan the book so that to prove what he stated to be the true, then of course he is a liar.

If he wants to prove he is not a liar, it's very simple: just scan the book and post it here.

You clearly have no idea what the word "proof" is do you?

 

[Reality Check]

Of course is not the space considered in Quantum Mechanics

Try anwering the questions:

What is the metric of the space around the proton?
What is the replacement for Maxwell's theory?
Why do electrons never radiate in this space/theory when they seem to be accelerated?
When do electrons radiate in this replacement for Maxwell's theory?
​

Besides, dear Reality Check,
hundred, thousands of quantum theorists ( some of them geniuses like Heisenberg, Dirac, Schrodinger, Fermi, etc.) along more than 100 years had developed the Quantum Mechanics, and did not succeed to develop a definitive satisfactory theory (and Don Borghi experiment is a proof).

Besides, dear pedrone, you are displaying your ignorance.

1. There is a definitive satisfactory theory for all of nuclear physics and the neutron.
2. The Don Borghi experiment is a dubious experiment. It is so dubious that it has never been replicated in 50 years. The only support for it is another dubious experiment reported din a preprint with several basic errors in the first paragraphs.

And if the quark d is not responsibe for the negative core, then how a hell could Gerald A. Miller be able to explain the negative core?
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v99/i11/e112001

He writes:
Additionally, the proton’s central d quark charge density is larger than that of the u quark by about 30%.

Quarks move. There is no 'central' d quark. So there is somethng wrong with the abstract's implication of a 'central' d quark.
Reading the paper clears it up: Charge Densities of the Neutron and Proton (PDF)
Look for 'central up quark density and 'central down quark density'. The central part is that the density is measured at the center, not that the u quark or d quark are at the center.

Also the abstract as reported on the web site is wrong. From the paper

Additionally, the proton’s central u quark charge density is larger than that of the d quark by about 70%. The proton (neutron) charge density has a long range positively (negatively) charged component.

as easily seen in Figure 3.

But here you have the same graphic (and the citation of the experimental data) in the page798 of Eisberg and Resnick book (and dont you know that any graphic is made from experimental data ?)

And dont you know that any graphic is made from theoretical claculation or experimental data ?

Do you realize that posting images of a Portuguese edition of a text book in a English language forum is usually useless?

The graphs look alike. They also look like graphs I have seen of the charge density in protons and neutrons.

 

[Tubbythin]

Nuclear Physics works by the laws of ethics​

According to current Nuclear Physics, the radioactive nuclei should have to emit two deuterons 1H2. By this way it would obey to the principle of least action.

However the nuclei emit one particle 2He4, instead of two particles 1H2. So, the current Nuclear Physics is wrong, because as it violates the principle of least action of course something is wrong with the theory.

By emitting two 1H2, energetically the result would be the same compared with the emission of one 2He4. And the emission of two 1H2 is according to the principle of least action, because it's easier to emit two 1H2 than to emit one 2He4.

What say Eisberg and Resnick ?

They claim that a radioactive nucleus emits one 2He4 because it's more favorable for the nucleus, from the energetic viewpoint.
This is not true, because from the emission of two 1H2 the profit in energy is the same, and the emission of two 1H2 is easier.

But from what say Eisberg and Resnick we conclude that the nuclei work by the laws of ethics.
Indeed, according to Nuclear Physics, the decay occurs as the nucleus should be thinking, and saying to himself:

"Oh, I know that by emitting one 2He4 I am violation a fundamental principle of Nature: the principle of least action.
However, I prefer to violate such principle of Nature, because the emission of one particle 2He4 is more favorable for the nucleus. After all, I must to cooperate with the nucleus".


Therefore, instead of working by the physical laws of Nature, actually Nuclear Physics works by the laws of ethics.

For the benefit of others less uncivil than Pedrone, the binding energy per nucleon of helium-4 is comparable to that of much heavier nuclei (eg ~7 to 9 MeV) where as the binding energy per nucleon of a deuteron is very small: ~1 MeV. Therefore, not only is alpha particle emission favoured over deuteron emission, the latter would invariably be endothermic.

 

[Reality Check]

The theoretical result is the same result obtained by experiments (pages 100 and 101 of the Guglinski's book):

The theoretical result derived by Guglinski is wrongly calculated.

His treatment starts with wanting to find the proton radious.
If the proton is considered as a point particle then it has no radius.
If the proton is considered as a composite particle then there are several different radii, e.g. when the quark density is a certain % or the

If you want to use a radius then the standard is: Proton

The internationally-accepted value of the proton's charge radius is 0.8768 femtometers. This value is based on measurements involving a proton and an electron.

That makes his calculation wong from the start.

The result is not the same result obtained by experiments.
The neutron electric dipole moment has never been measured. What has been measured is an upper limit to its value.
The absolute value of the neutron electric dipole moment is beween zero and 2.9×10⁻²⁶ e·cm (as of 2006).

 

[dafydd]

Of course not.
You use to discuss about books which you never has read.

Then I have a suggestion to you.
Scan the book Alice in the Wonderland, which of course you have, and post it here

Your knowledge of physics appears to come from Alice In Wonderland. What are your qualifications? I must have missed the post about your cv.

 

[Belz...]

It's proven in the post 664 that Tubbythin and Reality Check lied, because they did not prove what they claim.

Even that doesn't follow. Come on, guys. Ignore him.

 

[Dancing David]

There are two sort of nuclear fusion: the hot fusion, and the cold fusion.

Hot fusion occurs under very high pressure and very high temperature, as within the sun.

Cold fusion occurs by resonance, and there is need to satisfy some special conditions (that's why it does occurs within the sun).

I recomend to read:
How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Articl..._cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment

You did not answer my question, so let me try again.

What causes hot fusion to occur Pedrone?

Coulomb's law law says that the force repeling the protons apart will get stronger the closer that they get. So higher pressure means that they will repel each other more strongly.

So what happens to cause two protons to fuse?

I asked you and it is relevant to a prior statement of yours.

Iteration2