Nobel Prize Dr. Brian Josephson tries to save Nuclear Physics using Bad Physics
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2015 @ 01:39:49 UTC
Topic: Science
I sent emails to several physicists of the Cambridge University, telling them on the publication of my two books in Amazon.com.
The Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson posted the following review in Amazon.com, regarding my book The Evolution of Physics-from Newton to Rossi's eCat :
The book summary says "any nuclear model proposed according to Standard
Model cannot explain a nuclear property of the even-even nuclei with
equal quantity of protons and neutrons: those nuclei have null magnetic
moment. As the atomic nuclei have rotation, those nuclei cannot have
null magnetic moment. Such puzzle cannot be solved by any nuclear model
based on the Standard Model". The author is right to think that
rotating nuclei should have a magnetic moment, but seems not to have
realised that even-even nuclei don't necessarily rotate. So his
conclusion that the data cannot be explained by the Standard Model is
incorrect. His elementary failure in this regard must raise doubts as
to the accuracy of the rest of the book.
PS: the author, or someone acting on his behalf to whom I copied the
above, has written to me giving reasons why he considers my review is
incorrect, but anyone familiar with standard quantum mechanics would
know that his arguments don't hold up.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UDU8978
And he also sent me an email, saying the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:22:50 +0000
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
On 20 Mar 2015, at 00:42, Wladimir wrote:
The Evolution of Physics: From Newton to Rossi's eCat
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UDU8978
Hmmm. I suppose your spamming people had a good result in the end, in
that people will now be warned of the deficiencies of your friend's
book, which they otherwise would not have been. See review page at
http://www.amazon.com/review/R23H8JJ5NJU48
A system with an even number of fermions can be in an S state, which is
spherically symmetrical and so must have zero magnetic moment.
Brian J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I sent the following reply to Dr. Brian:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: RE: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:06:59 -0300
Dear Dr. Josephson,
you wrote in your comment in the Amazon.com:
"The author is right to think that rotating nuclei should have a magnetic
moment, but seems not to have realised that even-even nuclei don't
necessarily rotate".
So, I would like you give me a good
reason why nuclei with odd number of fermions rotate, while the nuclei
with even number of fermions do not rotate.
For instance, 6C11 has rotation.
But
if 6C11 captures a neutron, it transmutes to 6C12. And the rotation of
the 11 fermions of the 6C11 stops, because the 6C11 has transmuted to
6C12 ????
How can one unique neutron get to eliminate the kinetic energy of rotation of 6 protons and 5 neutrons with fast rotation????
Besides,
you are wrong because of the following:
1- A paper published by Nature in 2012 had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape:
How atomic nuclei cluster
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
2- I sent the following email to the journal Nature:
Dear Martin Freer
With
that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1,
how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That
structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could
not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments
concerning nuclear data)
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
2- Martin Freer sent to me the following answer:
The
nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0.
Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame
and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations
and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the
deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and
rotating the nucleus.
Martin
Therefore, Dr. Josephson,
your hypothesis that nuclei with even number of fermions have no rotation is wrong, because if they had no rotation the experiments would have to detect non-null quadrupole moment for the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
Sorry, but you are wrong, Dr. Josephson.
There is no way to solve the puzzle from the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Dr. Josephson sent the following reply:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:07:14 +0000
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:06, Wladimir wrote:
> So, I would like you give me a good reason why nuclei with odd
number of fermions rotate, while the nuclei with even number of fermions
do not rotate.
> For instance, 6C11 has rotation.
Very easy! The QM of spin combinations shows that if you combine an
even number of particles with spin 1/2 you get a system with integral
spin, so zero spin is a possibility. If on the other hand you combine
an odd number of particles with spin 1/2 you get a system with
half-integral spin, so zero spin is not a possibility.
> But if 6C11 captures a neutron, it transmutes to 6C12. And the
rotation of the 11 fermions of the 6C11 stops, because the 6C11 has
transmuted to 6C12 ????
> How can one unique neutron get to
eliminate the kinetic energy of rotation of 6 protons and 5 neutrons
with fast rotation????
>
> Besides,
> you are wrong because of the following:
>
> 1- A paper published by Nature in 2012 had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape:
> How atomic nuclei cluster
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
This may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible for
a system to have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in that
sense, but also have a spherically symmetrical wave function. I won’t
go into the details as you don’t seem to have much of a background in
QM.
Regards, Brian Josephson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I sent him a another reply, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: RE: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:14:21 -0300
Dear Dr. Josephson,
please stop trying to save the Standard Nuclear Physics with Bad Physics.
1)
Your reply did not explain how one unique neutron can stop the rotation
of a lot of protons and neutrons moving with big kinetic energy of
rotation.
The nucleus 50Sn111 has rotation.
According to what you claim, if the 50Sn111 captures a neutron, the 50Sn112 stops to rotate.
How??????
One unique neutron is able to cancell the kinetic energy of the rotation of 50 protons and 61 neutrons????
Here we are speaking about the rotation of the nucleus about the line that crosses its center.
We are not speaking about the spin of protons and neutrons.
2) You claim:
"This may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible for a
system to have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in that
sense, but also have a spherically symmetrical wave function. I won’t
go into the details as you don’t seem to have much of a background in
QM".
It is not only counter intuitive, actually it is against the laws of Physics.
What you say is stupid.
Electric
quadrupole moment measures the distribution of charges. If the
distribution of charges is non-spherical, the experiments must detect
non-null quadrupole moment. It has nothing to do with wave function.
Of
course you cannot go into details, since you are saying nonsenses, and
if you continue the discussion you will be obliged to say more and more
stupid things.
So, it is easier for you to stop the discussion by alleging that I have not background in QM.
3)
By considering that protons and neutrons move with speed in order of
10^6 m/s (about 3% of the light speed), the calculation shows that the
centrifugal force on the protons and neutrons has the magnitude of the
Coulomb repulsion on the protons within the nuclei.
So, the equilibrium into the nucleus must follow the equation:
Fs = Fr + Fc
where:
Fs = strong nuclear force
Fr = Coulomb repulsion
Fc = centrifugal force
Therefore,
a nucleus with even number of fermions (with no rotation, according to
you) would have to have a shrinkage in its radius, since the centrifugal
force on protons and neutrons is zero.
For instance,
10Ne20 would have to have a radius shorter than 10Ne21
But experiments did not detect such shrinkage of the radius of the nuclei with even number of fermions
So, what you claim (that nuclei with even number of fermions have no rotation) is against several laws of Physics.
4) In your first email you said:
"A system with an even number of fermions can be in an S state, which is
spherically symmetrical and so must have zero magnetic moment."
Of course you did say it because you did not had knowledge on the experiment published by Nature in 2012.
So, before 2012 your explanation would be acceptable.
Then,
when I told you that an experiment published by Nature had shown that
even-even nuclei have non-spherical shape, you changed your strategy, by
using Bad Physics.
I am very sorry that even a Noble Prize in Physics has not the honesty required for an honest discussion in Physics.
The non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N is predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006 by the Bauu Press (6 years before the experiment published in Nature in 2012).
http://www.bauuinstitute.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:quantum-ring-theory-foundations-for-cold-fusion&catid=8&Itemid=103
But along 80 years the nuclear theorists used to suppose that those nuclei have spherical shape.
So,
it is funny that I have not background in Quantum Mechanics (as you
claim), but I had predicted correctly the non-spherical shape of the
even-even nuclei with Z=N.
While theorists as you, with a deep
background in QM, along 80 years had supposed wrongly that those
nuclei have spherical shape.
In the page 137 of my book is
exhibited a similar explanation of that proposed by Martin Freer (for
the reason why those nuclei have null quadrupole moment, in spite of
they have non-spherical shape).
Therefore the journal Nature actually published a plagiarism of the argument proposed in the page 137 of my book.
Along the 5 last years several experiments in the field of Nuclear Physics are showing that the Standard Model is wrong.
And
in the upcoming years more and more experiments will bring more
evidences that the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics is wrong.
You cannot avoid the collapse of the Standard Model with your effort by using your Bad Physics.
regards
wlad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Dr. Brian sent other reply, telling me to be the last he was sending:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:48:53 +0000
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
On 20 Mar 2015, at 18:14, Wladimir wrote:
> please stop trying to save the Standard Nuclear Physics with Bad Physics.
My comments stand and I will not engage in further discussion with
someone who does ‘layman physics’ rather than the authentic thing. Come
back when you have your Ph.D. in physics.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so I also sent him a last reply, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Dr. Josephson, two definitive proofs you are wrong
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:11:19 -0300
Dear Dr. Brian Josephson,
I show ahead two definitive proofs that you are wrong.
1)
The excited 6C12 has spin 2 and magnetic moment zero, as you may see in the Stone's Nuclear Table:
http://www.psi.ch/low-energy-muons/DocumentsEN/nuclear-moments.pdf
First of all,
there
is no way to explain how an even-even nucleus with equal number of
protons and neutrons can have spin 2 and magnetic moment zero.
Besides, the excited 6C12 contradicts what you said:
"A
system with an even number of fermions can be in an S state, which is
spherically symmetrical and so must have zero magnetic moment"
because
the excited 6C12 is not spherically symmetrical, since it has spin 2 ,
and therefore from any nuclear model based on the Standard Model the
excited 6C12 cannot have zero magnetic moment.
2)
Look what is written in 33-18 of the book Introduction to Understandable Physics, by Will Winn:
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=8TxnB4uGUxkC&pg=SA33-PA18&lpg=SA33-PA18&dq=rotation+of+even+even+nuclei&source=bl&ots=HtAU9-14X_&sig=-eu0aNTE6GNULplE49ZkeEgDrQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PdcMVfTzL8acgwT4r4O4AQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwDzgK#v=onepage&q=rotation%20of%20even%20even%20nuclei&f=false
"We
will only examine rotations in even-even nuclei, as their analysis is
simpler because all even-even nuclei have zero intrinsic angular
momentum due to the pairing of the nucleons in their lowest states."
So, what you wrote in your review posted in Amazon.com is wrong:
"... but seems not to have realised that even-even nuclei don't
necessarily rotate" ,
because,
as you may see, the even-even nuclei have rotation.
As the even-even nuclei have rotation, then I am right in thinking that they must have a magnetic moment, as you yourself had recognized in your review posted in Amazon.com, where you wrote:
"The author is right to think that rotating nuclei should have a magnetic moment".
If you are not agree, you dont need to reply to me, since I have not Ph.D. in Physics.
But you can reply to the author Will Winn, so that to tell him he is wrong.
He is Ph.D. in nuclear physics at Cornell in 1968.
Regards
wlad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|