ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 185 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Energy Science

Energy21

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs

KeelyNet

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
KeelyNet_News
NextEnergyNews
PESWiki/News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy2000
Free_Energy
Greenglow
JLNLabs
KeelyNet
NuEnergy
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Sweet-VTA
Tapten
Tomorrow-energy
Vortex
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
radioioAmbient

Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method applied to Classical Nuclear Physi
Posted on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 @ 20:41:47 EST by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes:
...................................................................................
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

c) 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 two neutrons.

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.

The 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 justify why.

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.

In 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<

However 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 nuclear models.
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:
http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

The 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.
See 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:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
======================================================



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.

For 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:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei

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.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

However, a question appears:
From 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.

The 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.

It 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 ?

D) 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 =====================================
When 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.

Of 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:
Will 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 ?
=======================================================

Regards
wlad


 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method applied to Classical Nuclear Physi" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.