• 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

MaxMurx said:
You don't come around some dogma, and like in all other scientific disciplines like theology: dogma kills progress.
Your dogma is: All kinds of energies are known to us; or vice versa: it exists no other state of energy than those which are known to ourselves.
"Energy's" origin is the 4th dimension and all energies are one and the same, appearing to us in different forms.
An analogue is the projection (or shadow) of a 3-dimensional cube or cylinder, having an infinte number of differently shaped shadows when turned around in the beam of light. Any 2-dimensional being never will grasp that all those different shadows are projections of one and the same object (ask Donald Duck).

Somebody said: "The 4th dimension is TIME". That is completely unlogic. A point (one dimensional) can freely move in infinite directions and can take an infinite number of coordinates in a 2D-system. Any 2D object or "area" can take infinite positions and coordinates in a 3D-object. Both have an infinite number of degrees of freedom in the higher dimension. 3D- objects like ourselves, how many degrees of freedom do we have to move in time? Where is "up" and "down", or "x", "y" and "z". We move on a straight vector in one direction starting from a fixed point. That is never a "4th dimension".

Or is that time-theory no more valid?

If what I said above has some logic; then there are also infinite states of energy, from which we know a few.
Click to expand...
This is complete unlogic.:D
And theology is a science? Right.....................
 
pedrone said:
:D
From that link:
The new experiment showed that the two protons were initially ejected together before decaying into separate protons much less than a billionth of a second later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28diproton.29
:D
So, diprotons do not exist.

Actually two protons were emitted at the same time, but it does not mean that diproton exists
:p
Click to expand...
The new experiment showed that the two protons were initially ejected together before decaying into separate protons much less than a billionth of a second later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28diproton.29
So, diprotons may exist.

Actually a (possible) diproton was ejected before decaying into two separate protons, and it does mean that diproton may exist.
 
Guglinski states the wrong equation for electric quadrapole moment of nuclei

So far we have many pages from Guglinski's book posted by pedrone.
These 2 pages from his book in this post show just how much of a crackpot Guglinski is.
The next problem with the first of these 2 pages.
Guglinski states the wrong equation for electric quadrapole moment of nuclei!
See Electric Quadrupole Moments of Nuclei from the classical and quantum versions.
He states what looks like a version of the classical one and gets it wrong - he misses out the z squared factor.

Another page shows further incompetence:
He seems to be unpublished except in his book otherwisepedrone could answer:
 
Such low hangimg fruit!

Bruce Voigt said:
"All matter" continually produces and secretes, "as AURA", the phenomenon known as h2o and yes this includes the dark matter of outer space. Dark matter particals are so small as to not interact with the phenomenon COLD.
Click to expand...

Um, sure, if you mean H2O, then how would you care to demonstrate that?
 
Last edited:
Guglinski gets more electric quadrupole moment's wrong

pedrone said:
...more images from Guglinski's book​
Click to expand...
Guglinski: Q(b) = -6.43*10-30 m2 Q(b)=-2.30*10-30 m2​

Measured: Q(b) = -6.05*10-30 m2 Q(b)=-3.10*10-30 m2​


It is obvious that pedron and Guglinski are lacking simple math skills:
  • -6.43 is not equal to -6.05 (units of 10-30 m2)
  • -2.30 is not equal to -3.10 (units of 10-30 m2)
 
Guglinski's classicaly orbiting proton is impossible

The next problem with the first of the 2 pages from his book in this post stems from Guglinski's invalid use of the classical definition of the electric quadrapole moment of nuclei.
He then tries to treat 51Sb123 as 50Sn123 + a proton orbiting classically outside the nucleus.
This does not work just as a classical treatment of an electron orbiting the nucleus fails - the proton will radiate energy and crash into the nucleus.
 
Reality Check said:
Guglinski: Q(b) = -6.43*10-30 m2 Q(b)=-2.30*10-30 m2​

Measured: Q(b) = -6.05*10-30 m2 Q(b)=-3.10*10-30 m2​


It is obvious that pedron and Guglinski are lacking simple math skills:
  • -6.43 is not equal to -6.05 (units of 10-30 m2)
  • -2.30 is not equal to -3.10 (units of 10-30 m2)
Click to expand...
:p
Reality Check
show the theoretical calculations obtained from current Nuclear Physics.

Show that they are more accurate than the values obtained by Guglinski
:D
 
Reality Check said:
The next problem with the first of the 2 pages from his book in this post stems from Guglinski's invalid use of the classical definition of the electric quadrapole moment of nuclei.
He then tries to treat 51Sb123 as 50Sn123 + a proton orbiting classically outside the nucleus.
This does not work just as a classical treatment of an electron orbiting the nucleus fails - the proton will radiate energy and crash into the nucleus.
Click to expand...
:confused:
Are the protons motionless within the nuclei ?

The nucleus has a diamenter in order of 15x10-15m

If you say that protons have no motion within the nuclei, then they do not radiate energy.

But if you say that protons have motion within the nuclei, then they have circular motion, since the radius of nuclei is very small.

Therefore, according to your conclusion, we have:

1- The protons must be motionless within the nuclei

2- If they move, they must radiate, and finally they have to stop


So, dear Reality Chech, please explain to us what really happens with protons into the nuclei
:D:D:D
 
steenkh said:
There is nothing here that you just described that is not described better through conventional physics.


Fine claims, but no evidence to back it up. In fact, your description seems to indicate that you have no idea what the meaning of the terms "h2o", "dark matter", or "cold" is. This does not bode well for your Nobel prize.


Eh? Fire? Do you know what "fire" is? There is no fire whatsoever in the bubbles of water steam at bottom of a boiling pot. I have difficulty to believe that you are serious here.


Pure unadulterated nonsense. You are not worth our time.

Go open a thread of your own instead of messing with pedrone's thread. He is perfectly able to do that himself without your "help".
Click to expand...



Unknown to education and science are the true workings of fire, water, air, light, magnetism, sound, sight, cold, hot. electricity, earthquakes, tides--and I could go on and on. I ask you, without knowing the truth of such things, how in bloody H can one determine the simple working of our universe?!
 
Bruce Voigt said:
Unknown to education and science are the true workings of fire, water, air, light, magnetism, sound, sight, cold, hot. electricity, earthquakes, tides--and I could go on and on. I ask you, without knowing the truth of such things, how in bloody H can one determine the simple working of our universe?!
Click to expand...

Are you feeling alright?
 
pedrone said:
:p
Reality Check
show the theoretical calculations obtained from current Nuclear Physics.

Show that they are more accurate than the values obtained by Guglinski
:D
Click to expand...
:p
pedrone
I do not know the theoretical calculations obtained from current Nuclear Physics. There may be no such calculations. This implies nothing for Guglinski's totally flawed theory.
As the first 2 pages you posted are showing - he is totally incompetent in physics. His book is just another inane crank physics book.

I do know that: Guglinski gets two more electric quadrupole moment's wrong (for 8O18 excited states)! :jaw-dropp
 
pedrone said:
Are the protons motionless within the nuclei ?
Click to expand...
No.
The probability of finding a proton at a specific point in a nucleus is described by orbitals just like electrons (but in a much more complex manner). Thus no energy is lost. This is basic quantum mechanics. Any particle in a potential well is constrained to quantized energy levels.
 
Guglinski uses the shell model (a QM model) in his theory

The next problem with the first of the 2 pages from his book in this post is his "second fact" on page 100: "from empirical fact, the physicists also concluded that all the nuclei have the same shell thickness "2b" = 2 * 0.55 F = 1.1 F".

The term "shell thickness" is defined by Guglinski but he seems to be thinking that the nuclear shell model has actual physical shells separated by a given thickness. This is wrong as I will get to in the next post but he has another problem: The shell model is a quantum mechanical theory. But his theory is a replacement for the QM theories of nuclei, like the nuclear shell model. So he should think that nuclear shell model is invalid and that shells do not exist!
 
Guglinski ignorance of the shell model means he derives a nonsense proton radius

Guglinski's "second fact" on page 100 from the 2 pages from his book in this post is "from empirical fact, the physicists also concluded that all the nuclei have the same shell thickness "2b" = 2 * 0.55 F = 1.1 F".

The real problem is that he seems to be thinking that the nuclear shell model has actual physical shells separated by a given thickness and that thickness is related to a proton radius,e.g. the protons are stuck on the shells somehow or orbit in circular orbits.
This is wrong. The shells in the nuclear shell model are allowable energy states of the nucleons in the nucleus. A higher energy means a different nuclear orbital and a higher probability of finding the nucleon further from the center of the nucleus.
There is no relationship with the size of protons. They do not fit snugly inbetween the shells.

The shell model is partially analogous to the atomic structure models (electrons in orbitals outside of the nucleus). The nuclear orbitals are labeled similarily (s, p, d, etc.).
If you were to (incorrectly!) take the analogy to be exact then nuclear orbitals would have similar shapes, e.g. spherical for the 1s orbital and dumb-bell shaped for the 1p orbital. This would mean that nucleons in a 1p orbital spend a small part of the time within the same space as nucleons in the 1s orbital.

Guglinski's ignorance of the basics of writing scientific literature (defining terms, giving citations) means that we have no idea what he means by "shell thickness" or from where he got the value of 1.1 F.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom