CONSPIRACY LED BY THE 2004 NOBEL PRIZE DAVID GROSS
Date: Sunday, April 08, 2018 @ 20:27:54 EDT
Topic: Science


When on the faculty at Princeton University, David Gross and then-graduate student Frank Wilczek came up with a way to describe the "strong force" that governs interactions between protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom. He and Wilczek published their proposal simultaneously with H. David Politzer, a graduate student at Harvard University who independently came up with the same idea.

The success of the nuclear theory (based on the hypothesis of the nuclear force) is celebrated by the following sentence said by Dr. Gross: “The past century saw the completion of a theory of atomic and nuclear matter. This theory is remarkably successful"

Nevertheless, there are several nuclear phenomena impossible to be explained by the current Nuclear Theory, and therefore they defy the Gross’ claim that “This theory is remarkably successful". Of course, it is also impossible that Dr. Gross does not know those failures of the theory.

Let us speak about some of them.


1)    FIRST UNACCEPTABLE FAILURE OF THE STANDARD NUCLEAR THEORY (SNP):
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 istopes 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:
6C12
8O16
12Mg24
14Si32
18Ar36
20Ca40
20Ca42
24Cr48
26Fe52
28Ni56

There are two hypothesis to be considered:

A)    Their magnetic moments were never measured
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.

The hypothesis B is denied by the following fact:  many of those excited isotopes have their electric quadrupole moments quoted in nuclear tables.
They are:
6C12 , Q= +0,06
12Mg24 , Q= -0,29
14Si32 , Q= -0,16
18Ar36 , Q= +0,11
20Ca42 , Q= -0,19

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.

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:
I)    The experimentalists have measured the magnetic moments of those excited isotopes.
II)    They did not report their results, for the editors of nuclear tables, because the magnetic moment measured, for all those nuclei, was ZERO.
III)    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.

====== // =====
====== // =====

2)    SECOND UNACCEPTABLE FAILURE OF THE STANDARD NUCLEAR THEORY:
As occurred with the missing of magnetic moments in nuclear tables for excited isotopes with Z and N pairs, the electric quadrupole moment Q(Be7) is not also not quoted.

Let us analyse why, as follows:
a)    Electric quadrupole moment for 3Li7 was measured, Q(Li7) = -0,046.
b)    Lifetime of 4Be7 is 53 days
c)    3Li7 and 4Be7 are mirror isotopes, and therefore (according to the Standard Nuclear Physics) they have similar structures.
d)    Along 20 years some theorists have enphasized the importance of getting the  measurement of Q(Be7).  In the paper “Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need”, published in 1998 by John Bahcall, he explains the importance of the measurements of the quadrupole moments for 7Be for the understanding on how the sun shines by nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its interior.  (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf
e)    In the paper John Bahcall says:
f)    “A measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help distinguish between different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction (see 38)
       38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)
g)    Csoto and Langanke had published several papers along 20 years, where they explain the importance of the measurement of Q for 7Be.  In a paper published in 2008 they write in the page 6:   “We also note that a precise measuremet of the 7Be quadrupole moment or radius would test the self-consistency of our conclusions”.  http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9408001.pdf
h)    But Q(Be7) is NOT quoted in nuclear tables.
i)     Why ?

In 2013 I exchanged some e-mails with Dr. Nicholas Stone, editor of the nuclear table published by Clarendon Laboratory, shown ahead.

============ First email by WG =====================
From: Wladimir Guglinski
Sent: 07 September 2013 18:36
To: Nick Stone
Subject: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

Dear Dr. Nicholas Stone
The Nuclear Table published by Clarendon Laboratory gives the nuclear spin and magnetic moment of the nucleus 4Be7, respectivelly 3/2 and -1,398.
But the quadrupole electric moment of the 4Be7 is not quoted. May you tell me why ?
Regards, Wladimir Guglinski

================ Reply by Stone =================
From: Nicholas Stone
To: Wladimir Guglinski
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 10:22:09 +0000

Dear Dr Guglinski,
To give you a quick answer – I have no record of a measurement of Q for 7Be. Do you have a reference to a publication? I am aware of the magnetic moment result PRL 101 212502 Okada et al and of the more recent one by Nortershauser et al PRL 102 062503.   
Yours, Nick Stone

============ Second email by WG =====================
From: Wladimir Guglinski [mailto:]
Sent: 08 September 2013 07:53
To: Nick Stone
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

 Dear Dr. Stone
No, I dont have any reference.  Actually I dont understand why there is not a record of Q for 4Be7, because along 20 years some theorists have enphasized the importance of getting its measurement.  In the paper Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need, published in 1998 by John Bahcall, he explains the importance of the measurements of the quadrupole moments for 7Be for the understanding of the sun shines by nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its interior.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf

So, I dont understand why we dont know the Q for 7Be yet. Is not possible to measure it in the Clarendon Laboratory ?
 Regards, Wladimir Guglinski

================ Reply by Stone =================
From: Nicholas Stone
To: Wladimir Guglinski
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:41:37 +0000

Further, theoreticians can call all they like, but it doesn’t provide a method for the measurement.  I’m now retired. There is no experimental group at the Clarendon that could attempt the measurement. Your best bet would seem to be the Japanese groups with some variant of beta NMR, but I haven’t checked if there is suitable beta decay in 7Be.

============ Third email by WG =====================
From: Wladimir Guglinski
To: Nicholas Stone
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:31:27 -0300

Hi, Dr Stone
I suspect that 7Be has Q very near to zero, that's why it is not quoted in nuclear tables. I suspect that the experimentalists already had tried to measure it, and they had expected to measure a value near to the value of Q for 9Be (0,053 barns).  As the experimentists did not succeed to get a value far away from zero (and as they know that from the theoretical viewpoint 7Be cannot have Q very near to zero) then they did not report the results of experiments. Dr. Attila Csoto had calculated theoretically that Q for 7Be must be in order of 0,07barns. I have my suspiction because of the following:
9Be is stable
7Be has half-life of 53 days
Both them are very small
Q for 9Be had been measured by atomic beam, and got 0,053 barns.

CONCLSUSION :  why cannot the Q for 7Be be measured by atomic beam ?
So, I suspect that Q for 7Be had already been measured by atomic beam (like done for 9Be), but the experiments had NOT detected a value far away of zero (as expected theoretically).  Do you think that my suspiction can explain why Q for 7Be is not quoted in nuclear tables?
 Regards, Wladimir Guglinski

================ Reply by Stone =================
From: Nicholas Stone
To: Wladimir Guglinski
Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:48:54 +0000

Just to say that IF a measurement had been made, it would certainly have been published.
============ End of the replies by Stone =================

I had exchanged emails with several other physicists involved in the question, as for instance:

============ Sent to P. Jönsson =====================
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:22 PM
To: Per Jönsson
Subject: your paper of 2003 on 7Be quadrupole moment

Dear Dr. P. Jönsson
In 2003 you had published a paper together with M. Nemouchi ,  M. Godefroid, and J. Pinard :
Theoretical evaluation of the 7; 9Be¡ 2s2p2 4P1=2;3=2;5=2 hyperfine structure parameters and Be 2s2p 3Po electron-affinity
https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/47084/3/be-8.pdf
 
 In the end of the article it is written:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the B3=2 factor, from which one can extract the quadrupole moment, is much smaller, being estimated to be ¡0:8 MHz from the present work. Despite its smallness, this quantity should be still large enough to allow its determination using the experiment described above: with a distant between the Ramsey loops of 10 cm, the interaction time is of the order of 10 ¹sec, and the linewidth of the resonance is of the order of 65 kHz. The central position of the resonance could then still be measured with an accuracy of the order of the kHz, quite sufficient to extract a reliable value of the B fator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 So, I would like to know if the experiment sugested in the paper had already been made.
Thank you for the attention,
Wladimir Guglinski

============ Reply by P. Jönsson =====================
From: Per Jönsson
To: Wladimir Guglinski; Michel.Godefroid
Subject: RE: your paper of 2003 on 7Be quadrupole moment
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:38:57 +0000

Dear Wladimir,
Thank you for your email. I do not know. I believe that Prof. Godefroid is more updated on this and thus I put him in the conversation. Hope he can give you an answer.
Best wishes
Per Jönsson
============ End of the emails sent by P. Jönsson =================


CONCLUSIONS:
The following hypothesis must be considered:

I)    Q(Be7) was measured, the value obtained was zero, and that’s why it is no quoted in nuclear tables.

II)    Q(Be7) was measured, and the value was very small (very close to zero).  Then the experimentalists did not report their results to the editors of nuclear tables, because they have suspected of errors in the measurements, inasmuch they knew that Q(Be7) must be close to Q(Li7)= -0,046.

III)    No matter what hypothesis is the right one, it is out of doubt that the measurement of Q(Be7) was tried by experimentalists.

====== // =====
====== // =====

3)    THIRD UNACCEPTABLE FAILURE OF THE STANDARD NUCLEAR THEORY:
In 2009 an experiment disproved the hypothesis that protons and neutrons are bound by strong force within the atomic nuclei:
W. Nörtershäuser, Nuclear Charge Radii of 7,9,10Be and the One-Neutron Halo Nucleus 11Be, Physical Review Letters, 102:6, 13 February 2009

The range of maximum actuation of the strong force is less than 3fm.
But the 2009 experiment has detected that neutron halo in Be11 is separated from the rest of the nucleus by a distance of 7fm.  
And the most relevant: any theory, supported by the principles of the SNP, proposed to explain the enigma, is unacceptable and unfruitful, because:
 
a) Suppose a theory is proposed (no matter if based on the principles of the SNP, or even if based on new arguments beyond the SM), however by keeping the belief that nucleons are bound via strong nuclear force.

b) However the theory is unacceptable, because in 97% of decays 4Be11 transmutes to 5B11, and therefore the neutron does not leave the nucleus.

c) Before the transmutation of 4Be11 to 5B11, in 4Be11 the neutron decays into a proton and electron, and the proton turns back to the core (the newborn 5B11). If the strong nuclear force was responsible for the cohesion of nuclei, the proton could never go back to the core, because in a distance of 7fm it cannot interact with the core via strong force, and the classical Coulomb repulsion between the core and the proton would be so strong that the proton would be expelled from the newborn 5B11 (therefore 4Be11 would transmute to 4Be10, and never to 5B11).

d) Therefore 5B11 could never be formed in 97% of the 4Be11 decay.

CONCLUSIONS:
I)    Be11 halo neutron demolishes the fundamental pillar of the SNP
II)    Protons and neutrons cannot be bound via strong nuclear force inside the atomic nuclei.

====== // =====
====== // =====

4)    FOURTH UNACCEPTABLE FAILURE OF THE STANDARD NUCLEAR THEORY:
According to the principles of the SNP, the nuclei with even Z and N pairs must have spherical shape.  
And along 90 years the nuclear theorists believed it.  
But in 2012 an experiment published in the journal Nature has disproved such dogma of Nuclear Physics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11246

In order to explain such unexpected nuclear property of the atomic nuclei  with even Z and N pairs, there woud be need to suppose some speculations (as for instance the existence of a fifth fundamental force, or other sort of conjectures).

But no matter what sort of speculation can be supposed, we realize that atomic nuclei with Z=N defy the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics (and bring they down definitively) because there is not any acceptable speculation able to explain why the excited isotopes of nuclei with Z and N pairs have ZERO magnetic moment.  And a fifth force (or any another sort of speculation) cannot explain why they have null magnetic moment.

CONCLUSIONS:

I)    Even in the past century was unacceptable the claim that “The past century saw the completion of a theory of atomic and nuclear matter. This theory is remarkably successful", because in the last century it was known that excited nuclei with Z and N pairs have null magnetic moments.
Therefore even in the last century it was already clear that the theory was remarkably UNsuccessful.

II)    But in the present century that assumption claimed by David Gross became  much more remarkably UNsuccessful, face to the new discoveries revelead in the last 15 years.

III)    Obviously Dr. Gross has already noticed it. And then the most honest procedure, which we have to expect from he, would be his recognition that the current Nuclear Physics is based on wrong fundamental premises.

IV)    Face to so many experimental findings revelead in the presente century, dismissing the foundations of the current Nuclear Theory, as Dr. Gross does not assume that the current Nuclear Physics was developed under the wrong speculation of the strong nuclear force, there is not other conclusion we may infer from his silence:  he realy conspires so that to save the current Nuclear Theory.

V)    In 2016, when he was already aware that Supersymmetry is wrong, he said in a lecture: “It’s a good time to scare the hell out of the young people in the audience and tell them: Don’t follow your elders. … Go out and look for something new and crazy and powerful and different. Different, especially”.  Then a question arises: why David Gross accepts the breakdown of the Supersimmetry, but he does not assume the breakdown of the nuclear theory?

VI)    The existence of a CONSPIRACY is EVIDENCED by the Report of a reviewer of the International Journal of Modern Physics.  In 2016 he rejected the paper “Reevaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta decay”, by W. Guglinski and C. Nassif, with the following argument: he accuses the authors of the paper to be attacking the current neutron model ddu, which however  nobody any longer thinks to be correct.

His REPORT:
Therefore, the failure of their udd model does not mean we need to abandon completely the current theoretical paradigm of the nucleon structure, which is built upon QCD. In other words, they are attacking a theory that nobody thought was correct”. 

So, according to the reviewer, nowadays “nobody” (the theorists) think that the neutron model ddu is correct, but they do not abandon it completely because that would require to assume that something very deep is missing (or wrong) in QCD.
If this is not a conspiracy with the aim to save QCD, then the Church also had never conspired against Galileo’s ideas.

VII)    In the next months will be divulged the results of the Project MUSE, about the size of proton radius measured via próton-muon scattering. And then suppose that the value obtained be less than 0,80 fm.  This will imply in the breakdown of the Standard Model and QCD. What will be the reaction of the theorists?  
Will they try to continue the conspiracy, led by David Gross, by trying to hide the results of the experiments of the Projec MUSE?  (as they already did in the case of the null magnetic moments of excited isotopes with Z and N pairs).
Is there chance their conspiracy to be successfull in stoping the advancement of the Theoretical Physics?

VIII)    Young theorists do not need to  “go out and look for something new and crazy and powerful and diferent”  What they need is to be loyal to the scientific method, and therefore accept the results of new experimental findings.  Because if the betray the scientific method by rejecting the experiments, as their olders are doing, they will be repeating the errors of the olders.


Wladimir Guglinski
8 March 2018
wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com







This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3808