
There are currently, 114 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
 
 
On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics
Posted on Friday, June 08, 2018 @ 16:05:30 GMT by vlad


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

 
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.
 
Average Score: 1 Votes: 1
 

"On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics"  Login/Create an Account  2 comments  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 GMT (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 carbon12, oxygen16, argon36,
calcium40, and calcium42. 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 eveneven nuclei, Electron & positron substructures, Nuclear puzzles. 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 nonnull 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. 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. ATheir
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 Editorsinchief of the most reputable
journals of physics avoid the definitive breakdown of the Nuclear
Physics. BTheir
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). 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 


Discovery of eq. ruling interaction between elec. fields composed by elem partic (Score: 1) by vlad on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 @ 21:35:23 GMT (User Info  Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com  Submitted by WGUGLINSKI to the main page:
To: Dr. Frank Wilczek MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dear Dr. Wilczek
In the end of 2017 I sent you an email, with the manuscript of my paper "On how Bohr hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics", and i invited you to face the challange of discovering the equations that rule the interactions between electric fields composed by elementary particles, as proposed in the Fig. 2 of my paper.
The paper was published in June 2018:
You did not take seriously my invitation.
Now I have the pleasure to tell you that by myself I discovered the equations, and they are in a paper to be published in upcoming August.
I am sending you the manuscript of the paper attached.
From the eq. (17) up to eq. (26) it is shown by calculation that there is no need to consider the quantum tunneling for the explanation on why alpha particle is emitted with 4,2MeV by the U238 nucleus, when it crosses a Coulomb barrier of 8,8MeV.
The paper shows that Gamow theory is unnaceptable.
From eq. (27) up to eq. (49) it is shown by calculation that there is no need to consider the quantum tunneling in the stellar nucleosynthesis, proposed in Gamow's theory.
The Abstract and Keywords of the paper are ahead.
Regards W. Guglinski
ABSTRACT Oxygen isotopes have one complete hexagonal floor, composing one magnet whose rotation in oxygen15 induces the inductionfactor K(O15)= 1,3715, calculated in [1]. Calcium isotopes have three complete hexagonal floors, but two of them cancel each other their induction power, resulting that calcium has one magnet either. As both them are composed by one magnet, one has to expect that K(Ca39) converted to K(O15) needs to give a value near to 1,3715. Such expectation was confirmed in [1]. On another hand, silicon isotopes have two hexagonal floors, but the second floor rotates by 1800, and the two floors compose two magnets. Thereby, one has to expect to be required that K(exSi28), which is induced by two magnets, must be twice of K(O15) and K(Ca39), both tem induced by only one magnet. This prediction is confirmed in the present paper. But iron isotopes have four hexagonal floors, and two of them cancel each other their induction power, and so exFe53 also composes two magnets. Thereby one has to expect that inductionfactor for exSi28 and exFe53 must be the same. In resume, one has to expect that K(exSi28)= K(exFe53)= 2.K(O15)= 2K.(Ca39). This conclusion is also confirmed in the present paper. And herein continues being successfully tested the equation KTH(X) =1,37176F/6 x PwR(X).R(X) / [ PwR(O15).R(O15) ] The success of the test implies that oxygen & calcium isotopes, as silicon & iron isotopes, are connected through physical laws, linked to the existence of hexagonal floors in the real atomic nuclei existing in the nature. The paper also shows that quantum tunneling is not required nor for the occurrence of stellar nucleosynthesis, and neither to explain how U238 emits alpha particles with 4,2MeV, which cross a Coulomb barrier with 8,8MeV, a puzzle that Gamow solved with an unacceptable theory. Keywords: Nuclear magnetic moments, Theoretical and empirical inductionfactors, New equations replacing Gamow’s quantum tunneling in U238 alpha decay, New equations replacing quantum tunneling in stellar nucleosynthesis, Cold fusion, Rossi’s Ecat. 



