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, 62 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

Events
  • (August 8, 2018 - August 12, 2018) COFE10 + TeslaTech Conference

  • 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

    On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics
    Posted on Friday, June 08, 2018 @ 16:05:30 EDT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: ABSTRACT The atom model of Quantum Mechanics (QM) was conceived from an unsolved paradox. Indeed, Schrödinger’s equation has been deducted by considering a free electron, but it is applied for the atom, where the electron is inside a potential. In order to eliminate the nonsense, quantum theorists proposed a ridiculous postulate: they claim it makes sense to use the equation because it gives results in agreement to experimental data. The unsolved paradox evidences that Schrödinger’s equation cannot be applied to the physical conditions considered in the QM atom model, and that his equation actually requires some special conditions not considered in the theory (for instance, the electron helical trajectory, rejected by Heisenberg). 

    The banishment of the aether has introduced several paradoxes in the development of Theoretical Physics. And because the theorists have neglected other paradox (from the mathematical probability the spectacular successes of Bohr’s hydrogen atom cannot be accidental), these two unsolved paradoxes introduced dramatic consequences in the development of Nuclear Physics.


    Key words:
    Electric field structure, Modified Coulomb’s law, Modified Bohr’s hydrogen model.


     
    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


    "On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 @ 10:47:47 EDT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by WGUGLINSKI to the main page:

    ABSTRACT
    Several new experimental findings have shown that atomic nuclei cannot have similar structure of that adopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics (SNP), because there are insurmountable obstacles to be transposed. Nuclear theorists have tried to explain some of the misfires with bizarre theories, but there is a failure impossible to be explained by any theoretical attempt, and such failure impossible to be solved represents the definitive proof that SNP works through wrong foundations.
    The failure comes from the excited isotopes carbon-12, oxygen-16, argon-36, calcium-40, and calcium-42. All them, with spin 2, have null magnetic moments, but this is impossible, because it’s impossible any combination of spins from which those excited isotopes, with spin 2, may have null magnetic moment, if we try to explain it with any of the current nuclear models of the SNP.
    And the unavoidable conclusion is that it’s impossible to eliminate the inconsistences of the SNP by keeping its current fundamental premises.

    Key words: New nuclear model, Ellipsoidal even-even nuclei, Electron & positron substructures, Nuclear puzzles.

    INTRODUCTION
    An atomic nucleus with Z and N pairs, excited with spin +2, cannot have null nuclear magnetic moment, because it is impossible any combination of spins capable to generate a null magnetic moment when the atomic nucleus has non-null spin. But there are several isotopes with Z and N pairs (some of them with Z=N), excited with spin +2, whose magnetic moments are not quoted in nuclear tables.
    They are as, 6C12, 8O16, 12Mg24, 14Si32, 18Ar36, 20Ca40, 20Ca42, 24Cr48, 26Fe52, 28Ni56.

    Implication.
    Null magnetic moments for those excited isotopes implies that the current Nuclear Theory is definitively wrong. So, how do the nuclear physicists deal with such puzzle? There are two hypotheses to be considered.

    A-Their magnetic moments were never measured. This is the argument used by nuclear theorists, in special the editors of the most reputable journals of physics. The editors claim that those excited isotopes have non null magnetic moment, but as the experimentalists have never measured them, this is the reason why their magnetic moments are not quoted in nuclear tables. This is the way the Editors-in-chief of the most reputable journals of physics avoid the definitive breakdown of the Nuclear Physics.

    B-Their magnetic moments were measured, but as the experimentalists found values zero, they did not report their measurements for the editors of nuclear tables.

    Analysis of hypothesis A.
    The hypothesis A is used by editors of reputable journals, but it is denied by the fact that many of those excited isotopes have their electric quadrupole moments ‎quoted in nuclear tables. They are (in barns), (6C12 ,Q= +0.06) , (12Mg24 ,Q= -0.29), (14Si32 ,Q= -0.16), (18Ar36 ,Q= +0.11), (20Ca42 ,Q= -0.19).

    Analysis of hypothesis B.
    When the experimentalists have measured the electric quadrupole moments for the excited 6C12,12Mg24,14Si32,18Ar36, and 20Ca42, of course they have also measured their magnetic moment, because all experimentalists aim to provide data for constructing a complete nuclear table, with all (measurable) nuclear properties of all isotopes of the whole elements of the Periodic Table.

    Conclusion of the hypothesis B.
    Therefore, it is discarded the hypothesis that the experimentalists did not measure the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12,12Mg24,14Si32,18Ar36, and 20Ca42, because it makes no sense to suppose that they have measured the electric quadrupole moments, but the magnetic moments they did not do (it makes no sense because to measure magnetic moment is easier than to measure electric quadrupole moment).

    INEVITABLE CONCLUSIONS
    1. The experimentalists have measured the magnetic moments of those excited isotopes.

    2. They did not report their results, for the editors of nuclear tables, because the magnetic moment measured, for all those nuclei, was ZERO.

    3. It seems the editors of nuclear tables have adopted the strategy of do not quote zero the magnetic moments when the experiments do not detect any value different of zero. By this way they avoid to quote “zero” the magnetic moments of the several nuclei with Z and N pairs, excited with spin +2, because to quote them zero would imply in the breakdown of the Nuclear Theory.

    All the current nuclear models (in which protons and neutrons are bound via strong nuclear force) are wrong, because there is not any of them capable to explain why the excited 6C12,12Mg24,14Si32,18Ar36, and 20Ca42, have null magnetic moment.

    https://fundamentaljournals.org/index.php/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330114/149



     

    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.