Submitted by WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI:** First email sent to Dr. John Arrington ( Argonne National Laboratory), in 23th November 2012:**Dear John Arrington I am doing theoretical calculations on nuclear magnetic moments for the light isotopes, by using my new nuclear model. I will put the results in four papers, and I will publish them in Peswiki. The first paper is ready. It exhibits the calculations for the istopes of lithium and boron. The theoretical values I have obtained are agree to experimental data of nuclear tables. In
the first paper it is shown how Pauli’s Exclusion Principle works in
the structures of the light nuclei, and why some isotopes are stable and
other are not, thanks to Pauli’s Principle. The first paper is published in this Peswiki link: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:_Stability_of_Light_Nuclei_%E2%80%93_PART_TWO I suggest you to read it, and carefully to ponder on two possibilities very important for the advancement of Science: 1-
First possibility – Suppose that the nuclear structure existing in the
nature is different of the structure proposed in my new nuclear model,
and the existing structure does not work with the principles proposed in
my theory. Well, in this case it is possible that nuclear theorists
can arrive, one day in the future, to a successful theory capable to
explain all the nuclear properties (in the case they are going in the
right way with their current attempt). 2- Second possibility –
Supppose that the nuclear structure existing in the nature is the same
structure proposed in my new nuclear model, and the existing structure
works by the principles proposed in my theory (and several experimental
data are corroborating such hypothesis, as I already had showed in my
book, and now I am showing in the present paper now published in
Peswiki). Then in this case it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the nuclear theorists
to get success in their current enterprise, because they are not
developing the Nuclear Physics by considering the nuclear structure
existing in the nature. They will continue forever their development of
the current Nuclear Theory, and they will NEVER find a theory capable to
describe satisfactorily the behavior of the nuclei and the nuclear
properties. In the case the second possibility is correct, who is the looser? It’s my opinion that the looser is the science. Don’t you think so ? Regards WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI PS: The results of magnetic moments calculated: 3Li7 Experiments = +3,256 Theoretical= +3,223 3Li9 Experiments= +3,439 Theoretical= +4,023 3Li11 Experiments= 3,668 Theoretical= 3,637 5B9 Experiments= 1,800 Theoretical= 1,976 5B10 Experiments= +1,800 Theoretical= +1,765 5B11 Experiments= +2,6886 Theoretical= +2,588 5B12 Experiments= 1,003 Theoretical= 1,009 5B13 Experiments= +3,1778 Theoretical= +3,000 5B14 Experiments= 1,185 Theoretical= 1,103 5B15 Experiments= 2,659 Theoretical= 2,877 5B17 Experiments= 2,55 Theoretical= 2,877 -----------------
**Second email sent to Dr. John Arrington ( Argonne National Laboratory), in 28th November 2012:**
From: wladimirguglinski To: johna_ CC: m.freer; noerters Subject: stability of light nuclei PART THREE = beryllium isotopes Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:04:37 -0200 Dear John Arrington cc: Martin Freer Wilfried Nörtershäuser The paper on the stabilty of light isotopes PART THREE is ready, and it is available in this Peswiki link: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:_Stability_of_Light_Nuclei_%E2%80%93_PART_THREE
In the paper there are:
**1) ** Calculations on the magnetic moments of beryllium isotopes
**2) ** It is shown how the nucleons take place within the structures of light isotopes, so that to get an equlibrium according to:
a) Least Action Principle b) Pauli Exclusion Principle c) spin-interaction between the neutrons and the deuterons.
**3)** The mechanism of neutron halo formation
Regards WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI |