why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Reality Check]

Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank

He has not published his theory in peer-reviewed literature (Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?).

His book does not follow the standards of scientific literature and give the sources for his assertions (Where are Guglinski's citations?).

His theory is obviously wrong - classical electrons in orbits around protons (his neutron model) radiate energy and fall into the proton.
Ditto for a classically orbiting proton (Guglinski's classicaly orbiting proton is impossible).


These 2 pages from his book in this post show just how much of a crackpot Guglinski is.

• Guglinski gets the deuteron electric quadrapole moment wrong 3 times!
• Guglinski fakes the value of the proton radius!
• Guglinski uses the shell model (a QM model) in his theory to replace QM!
• Guglinski ignorance of the shell model means he derives a nonsense proton radius!
• Guglinski's incompetence continues (r is not the proton radius!)

Guglinski also has the delusion that getting a value around about the experimental value means that his theory is correct. But he gets values that are outside the uncertainty in the measurements and so his theory is wrong.

• Guglinski gets more electric quadrupole moment's wrong (excited ₈O¹⁸ )!
• Guglinski's theoretical calculation of magnetic moment of 1H3 is wrong

 

[Reality Check]

well, then Eiseberg-Resnick book has no citations too.

No citations at all?

That can be the case with a textbook like the Eiseberg-Resnick book. They start with an assumption that the reader has a basic knowledge of science, e.g. Newton's laws.

But Guglinski's book is not a textbook. It is supposed to be a book describing a major new development in physics (but is just a crank physics book).

 

[Tubbythin]

we cannot take what you claim seriously, since there is a strong evidence suggesting thaty you're a liar.

You can prove that you are not a liar, if you scan your book and put here the phrasis that you attributed to Eisberg and Resnick.

Otherwise, if you dont prove that your are not a liar, we cannot take seriously what you claim

So, rather than provide any response to the point I made, which I'm quite happy to elaborate on further, you call me a liar again. And yet fail to provide any supporting evidence. Somebody is looking very scared of debating science with me. In fact, it seems you would rather take getting in trouble with the mods again than having a scientific debate with me. Very telling.

ETA: Since the list of words on the relevant page is a finite set, in this case it is perfectly possible for you to prove to everyone that the word "approximately" does not appear in the English text where I said it does. Now that may cost you time and money, but then as far as you knew, so would me scanning a copy of the relevant page (it would most certainly costs me time). You are, after all, the one making the claim that I am a liar. It only seems fair that you (I'd put emphasis on the you here but we've just been told not to do such things) should be the one to back up that claim. Why should I (again, imagine some emphasis) be expected to waste time and effort on an accusation you cannot support with a shred of evidence?

 

[pedrone]

He has not published his theory in peer-reviewed literature (Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?).

His book does not follow the standards of scientific literature and give the sources for his assertions (Where are Guglinski's citations?).

His theory is obviously wrong - classical electrons in orbits around protons (his neutron model) radiate energy and fall into the proton.
Ditto for a classically orbiting proton (Guglinski's classicaly orbiting proton is impossible).


These 2 pages from his book in this post show just how much of a crackpot Guglinski is.

• Guglinski gets the deuteron electric quadrapole moment wrong 3 times!
• Guglinski fakes the value of the proton radius!
• Guglinski uses the shell model (a QM model) in his theory to replace QM!
• Guglinski ignorance of the shell model means he derives a nonsense proton radius!
• Guglinski's incompetence continues (r is not the proton radius!)

Guglinski also has the delusion that getting a value around about the experimental value means that his theory is correct. But he gets values that are outside the uncertainty in the measurements and so his theory is wrong.

• Guglinski gets more electric quadrupole moment's wrong (excited ₈O¹⁸ )!
• Guglinski's theoretical calculation of magnetic moment of 1H3 is wrong

but Guglinski's theory proposes FOUNDATIONS FOR COLD FUSION, while according to Quantum Mechanics cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE

Let's wait the Andrea Rossi's cold fusion reactor to start working in Greece, in November-2011, and then you will say who is wrong...

 

[pedrone]

No citations at all?

That can be the case with a textbook like the Eiseberg-Resnick book. They start with an assumption that the reader has a basic knowledge of science, e.g. Newton's laws.

But Guglinski's book is not a textbook. It is supposed to be a book describing a major new development in physics (but is just a crank physics book).

YES, a crank physics that shows how cold fusion works

 

[pedrone]

So, rather than provide any response to the point I made, which I'm quite happy to elaborate on further, you call me a liar again. And yet fail to provide any supporting evidence. Somebody is looking very scared of debating science with me. In fact, it seems you would rather take getting in trouble with the mods again than having a scientific debate with me. Very telling.

What point?

A point supported by lies?


One time you said a lie (you invented the word "approximately" , attributing it to a phrasis in Eisberg-Resnick book)

Then now do you expect I will waste my time to refute your arguments, which probably are supported by new lies?

One time a liar... always a liar.

First of all, prove that you are not a liar, by scanning your Eisberg-Resnick book, and showing their phrasis (where appears the word "approximatelly").

Prove you're not a liar, and we may take seriously what you claim.

 

[dafydd]

What point?

A point supported by lies?


One time you said a lie (you invented the word "approximately" , attributing it to a phrasis in Eisberg-Resnick book)

Then now do you expect I will waste my time to refute your arguments, which probably are supported by new lies?

One time a liar... always a liar.

First of all, prove that you are not a liar, by scanning your Eisberg-Resnick book, and showing their phrasis (where appears the word "approximatelly").

Prove you're not a liar, and we may take seriously what you claim.

Cut the cartoons if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Dancing David]

but Guglinski's theory proposes FOUNDATIONS FOR COLD FUSION, while according to Quantum Mechanics cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE

Let's wait the Andrea Rossi's cold fusion reactor to start working in Greece, in November-2011, and then you will say who is wrong...

November now, and then... you come back when it works with good measures and protocols.

 

[pedrone]

Cut the cartoons if you want to be taken seriously.

There is nothing more serious than my cartoons... they show the REALITY, they show the TRUE... you can CHECK...

 

[RobDegraves]

Let's wait the Andrea Rossi's cold fusion reactor to start working in Greece, in November-2011, and then you will say who is wrong...

OK...

What will you do if it doesn't work in November? Let's make a wager here and now.

If it does work... I will come here and apologize.

If it doesn't... You will come here and apologize instead.

How about it?

Until then, there is little point in discussing it any further.

 

[Tubbythin]

What point?

The point that the nuclides in question should have similarly small EQMs.

A point supported by lies?

Except I've not lied and you have provided 0 supporting evidence to the contrary.

One time you said a lie (you invented the word "approximately" , attributing it to a phrasis in Eisberg-Resnick book)

I did no such thing. I quoted a portion of the English version of the book verbatim.

Then now do you expect I will waste my time to refute your arguments, which probably are supported by new lies?

You're making claims. It is up to you support them. The real question is why should I waste my time refuting your completely unsupported argument about me lying. Either, find evidence that I lied or refute the scientific arguments I make. Otherwise you just look like you're running scared from the scientific argument.

One time a liar... always a liar.

Except I haven't lied. And you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

First of all, prove that you are not a liar, by scanning your Eisberg-Resnick book, and showing their phrasis (where appears the word "approximatelly").

No. Why should I waste my time on that. I have far better things to do. We can debate science if you like. I'm willing to waste my time on you there. But if you wanna run away and hide behind a load of entirely unsubstantiated claims about my integrity that is really very telling of your attitude towards the debate.

Prove you're not a liar, and we may take seriously what you claim.

Nope. Your claim. Up to you to support it.

 

[Reality Check]

but Guglinski's theory proposes FOUNDATIONS FOR COLD FUSION, while according to Quantum Mechanics cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE

but Guglinski's theory is a lot of bunk so of you take it serroiusly it removes the FOUNDATIONS FOR COLD FUSION, while according to Quantum Mechanics cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE

 

[Reality Check]

YES, a crank physics that shows how cold fusion works

NO, a crank physics book that shows how nothing (including cold fusion) works. He may as well be saying that it is all pixie dust!

 

[marplots]

Are the font wars starting up again? I need to know so I can restock my bunker and hide out for the next round.

 

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone
empirical shell thickness has nothing to do with nuclear shell model

Then what is the empirical shell thickness defined as in the literature?

Reality Check does not know even what is the empirical shell thickness

Empirical shell thickness is obtainded from the graphic made from empirical data (page 651 of Eisberg-Resnick book):

 

[pedrone]

Nuclear Physics does not explain magic numbers nuclei
​

The theory which explains the magic numbers nuclei was proposed by Mayer-Jensen.

However their theory does not explain the magic numbers satisfactorily. Let's see why.

The Mayer-Jensen theory is according to the figure in the page 676 of Eisberg-Resnick book (see the figure attached).

Then let's analyse their theory, as follows:

1- From Z=28 to Z=184, the magic numbers are selected according to the lower level of energy. For example, the level 1g has two levels of energy, and 1g_9/2 is the lowest of them. Therefore it's coherent the conclusion that ₅₀Sn is a magic number, because in the lowest level or energy a nucleus has higher statility.

2- However, with Z=8 and Z=20, it is taken in consideration the higgest level of energy. We can see in the graphic of the page 676 that the level 1d is lower in the level 1d_5/2 , and therefore from Mayer-Jensen theory the nucleus ₁₄Si would have to be a magic number, and not the nucleus ₂₀Ca (this one has four protons in the highest level 1d_3/2). By the same way, because 1p_3/2 is the lower level, from their theory the nucleus ₆C would have to be a magic number, and not the nucleus ₈O (this one has two protons in the highest level 1p_1/2).


In the page 219 of the book Quantum Ring Theory is published the paper DEFINITIVE COHERENT STRUCTURE OF NEW NUCLEAR MODEL, in which it's shown that the levels of energy in the Hexagonal Floors nuclear model follows exactly the graphic of the page 676 of Eisberg-Resnick book.

 

[The Norseman]

For instance, when they speak about the Mössbauer experiment, they mention that the recoil of the nucleus is due to Newton's law.

However they do not give citations on the Newton's law.

Nowhere in the English version of the book in question do they mention Newton's Law vis a vis the Mössbauer experiment.

This is an obvious textbook (heh) example of a strawman: Pedrone is arguing based on a foreign-language translation of things that simply aren't said in the original English language edition.



@Tubbythin,

If you'd be so kind, tell me which page or which chapter that Pedrone has his panties in a bunch about and I'll submit a scan of the page.

 

[Tubbythin]

@Tubbythin,

If you'd be so kind, tell me which page or which chapter that Pedrone has his panties in a bunch about and I'll submit a scan of the page.

I left the book at work. I'll try to find the exact page for you in a couple of days.

 

[Tubbythin]

Nuclear Physics does not explain magic numbers nuclei
​

The theory which explains the magic numbers nuclei was proposed by Mayer-Jensen.

However their theory does not explain the magic numbers satisfactorily. Let's see why.

The Mayer-Jensen theory is according to the figure in the page 676 of Eisberg-Resnick book (see the figure attached).

I can't really make it out. I have a similar figure in front of me from the book by Krane though.

Then let's analyse their theory, as follows:

1- From Z=28 to Z=184, the magic numbers are selected according to the lower level of energy. For example, the level 1g has two levels of energy, and 1g_9/2 is the lowest of them. Therefore it's coherent the conclusion that ₅₀Sn is a magic number, because in the lowest level or energy a nucleus has higher statility.

The magic numbers are those where all states are filled up to and including a given level and there is a large energy gap between one given level and the next level. That means when the 1 s1/2 is full when the 1 p1/2 is full, when the 1d3/2 is full, when the 1 f7/2 is full, when the 1g9/2 is full and so on. Filling up to these levels gives magic numbers of 2, 8, 20, 28, 50 and so on. You can see these numbers in the right hand column.

2- However, with Z=8 and Z=20, it is taken in consideration the higgest level of energy. We can see in the graphic of the page 676 that the level 1d is lower in the level 1d_5/2 , and therefore from Mayer-Jensen theory the nucleus ₁₄Si would have to be a magic number, and not the nucleus ₂₀Ca (this one has four protons in the highest level 1d_3/2). By the same way, because 1p_3/2 is the lower level, from their theory the nucleus ₆C would have to be a magic number, and not the nucleus ₈O (this one has two protons in the highest level 1p_1/2).

You have misunderstood completely. The level scheme on the left is what you would expect without a spin-orbit potential. The level scheme on the right is what you get with a spin-orbit potential. It was the work of Mayer and Jensen (and coworkers) that showed that the spin-orbit potential allowed a correct matching of observed and theoretical magic numbers. This is precisely what they won the Nobel prize for.

ETA: And just to stop yet another unsubstantiated liar accusation on your part, here it is all explained again, in more detail, by somebody else.

 

[Tubbythin]

Reality Check does not know even what is the empirical shell thickness

That is because no such phrase exists in standard nuclear physics terminology. Stick it in to google in quotation marks and the only place you'll find that result is from this thread.

Empirical shell thickness is obtainded from the graphic made from empirical data (page 651 of Eisberg-Resnick book):

If you're referring to the way the density distribution drops of rather slowly rather than abruptly then this is often referred to as the "surface diffuseness". Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about.