The text ahead had been posted as a comment by me
in the Rossi-Focardi blog Journal of Nuclear Physics.
To the readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics
I had already explained why Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method is not satisfactory so that to justify why two neutrons do not form a dineutron. Let’s us remember it in short words:
a) Two neutrons have a force of attraction due to the strong nuclear force
b) There is not any force of repulsion between two neutrons
So, two neutrons would have to form the dineutron, because by
considering the Classical Nuclear Physics there is not any force of
repulsion capable to win the strong nuclear force of attraction between
d) Heisenberg proposed the concept of Isospin, so that to justify why the dineutron does not exist. However only a physical force of repulsion would be able to win thephysica force of attraction due to the strong force. The Isospin cannot create aphysical force of repulsion, because the Isospin is only an abstract mathematical concept.
And an abstract mathematical concept cannot separate two neutrons bound by the strong force within the dineutron.
phantasmagoric scientific method inaugurated by Heinsenberg is often
used in Physics when a new experiment disproves the current theories,
and the theorists cannot find a satisfactory explanation so that to
So, the theorists use the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric
everytime they cannot discover the physical cause responsible for a
phenomenon which disproves the current models.
Here we will see
how Heinseberg’s phantasmagoric method has been used in Classical
Nuclear Physics, after the publication of two experiments, one published
in 2011, and the other in 2013.
1) Pear shaped nuclei =============================
According to the current nuclear models, the even-even nuclei have to have two sort of shapes:
A) Spherical shape – when the quantity of prótons Z is the same of the quantity of neutrons N, Z=N.
B) Elispoidal shape – when Z << N .
These two sort of shapes (spherical or ellipsoidal) have to occur for eve-even nuclei in Classical Nuclear Physics because there is not any physical cause which
we could find in the current nuclear models, in order to justify any
other sort of shape different of the spherical or the ellipsoidal.
But experiments have shown that some even-even nuclei with Z<< N are pear shaped.
Then, how to justify it? After all, they would have to have an ellipsoidal shape.
2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had
proposed that nucleons (prótons and neutrons) are distributed within the
nuclei around a z-axis. So, in order to justify why some even-even with Z<
there is no way to justify why prótons and neutrons are distributed
about a z-axis within the even-even nuclei, by considering the current
And the reason is obvious: there is no way to find a physical cause responsible for putting the prótons and neutrons distributed along a z-axis in the current nuclear models.
Therefore, the Professor Peter Butler had actually used the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method,
so that to justify why 88Ra224 is pear shaped, by using a
phantasmagoric hypothesis: the existence of a z-axis, which existence is
impossible to explain by considering the current nuclear models.
Look the z-axis proposed by Professor Butler for the 88Ra224 in the link:
distribution of prótons and neutrons about a z-axis had been predicted
in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006 (therefore 7 years
before the proposal by Professor Peter Butler).
The existence of the z-axis is perfectly justified in the nuclear model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory because there is a physical cause which
obliges the prótons and neutrons to take a distribution about the
z-axis: in the nuclear model proposed in QRT there is a central 2He4 which captures the prótons and neutrons, in order that they take a distribution about the z-axis.
That’s why the existence of the z-axis had been correctly predicted in my Quantum Ring Theory.
page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, shown in the page 13 of my
paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where we see the z-axis for the nuclei
46Pd and U228:
2) Non-spherical even-even nuclei with Z=N ====================
Along more than 60 years the nuclear theorists had believed that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape, because from the current nuclear models we have to expect that they have to have spherical shape, because there is not anyphysical cause from which a nuclear theorists could justify a non-spherical shape for those nuclei.
instance, in 2009 the nuclear theorist Dr. Martin Freer proposed the
spherical shape for the oxygen 8O16 shown in the Figure 1 of his paper Clusters in nuclei published in Scholarpedia:
But in 2011 new experiments had detected that even-even light nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
So, Dr. Martin Freer and all the nuclear theorists had to change their mind, after more than 60 years of the nuclear theorists believing that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape.
That’s why in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where the authors consider several even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shapes.
However, a question appears:
the current nuclear models we have to expect that even-even nuclei with
Z=N have to have spherical shape. Then how does to justify that they
have non-spherical shape ??????
In other words: what should be the physical cause, according to the current nuclear models, responsible for the non-spherical shape of those nuclei?
Well, of course there is no way to find such physical cause from the current nuclear models. And the authors of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster cannot give anyphysical cause capable to explain the non-spherical shape of those nuclei.
Therefore, actually Dr. Martin Freer and the authors of the paper published in the journal Nature are using the phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg, because it is the unique way so that to justify the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N was predicted in
my book Quantum Ring Theory (published in 2006, and therefore 6 years before the publication in the journal Nature.
The non-spherical shape of those nuclei had been predicted and proposed in my book because there is a physical cause which oblige the even-even nuclei with Z=N to take that shape: the existence of a central 2He4 in all the nuclei.
is opportune to remember that the journal Nature published a plagiarism
of an argument proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory,
as I explain again here:
A) Even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shape cannot have null electric quadrupole moment.
B) But the experiments detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have null electric quadrupole moment.
C) So, how to justify that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, in spite of they have null quadrupole moment ?
In the page 137 of my book I had proposed the explanation: as those
nuclei have nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero, they gyrate
chaotically, and there is no way to align them along an external
magnetic Field, so that to measure their quadrupole moment. Therefore,
in spite of their quadrupole moment is not zero, however it is not
possible to measure it.
E) I sent an email to Dr. Martin Freer,
telling him that as the journal Nature published a paper where the
even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, they would have to
exhibit non-null quadrupole moment. And I asked to him to explain why
the experiments detect null quadrupole moment.
F) Dr. Martin Freer sent me a reply giving the same explanation proposed by me in the page 137 of the book Quantum Ring Theory.
3) CONCLUSION =====================================
new experiments defy the current theories, the theorists use the
phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg because it is
impossible to find the physical causes responsible for the phenomenon detected in the experiment.
course it is easier to use such phantasmagoric method, so that to adapt
the old current models in the results of new experiments which disprove
those current models.
By such a phantasmagoric method the theorists simply use some abstract mathematic concepts, neglecting the missing of physical causes which are the actual causes responsible for the phenomenon.
And so obviously the phantasmagoric method hides some physical cause responsible for the phenomenon detected in the new experiment.
In other words: the true cause responsible for the phenomenon is missing in the current models used so that to explain the phenomenon.
And the crucial question is the following:
Is it possible to find a definitive theory by starting up from such phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg ?
Suppose that there is indeed a central 2He4 within the nuclei (as are suggesting the experiments published in 2012 by Nature and in 2013 by Professor Peter Butler).
Then let’s do the question:
the nuclear theorists succeed in their enterprise trying to explain all
the nuclear properties, by using nuclear models where it is missing the
central 2He4 ?