Dear John Arrington

I would like to comment what you wrote in your previous reply to me:

==================================================
2) You demonstrate again that you have a severe misunderstanding of our experiments. The key results from the two experiments were published in 2009 (J. Seely, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 202301) and 2012 (N. Fomin, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 092502). I think that they are very interesting results, but they say nothing at all about the size of 9Be, nothing about the separation of the ‘isolated’ neutron from the rest of the nucleus, and nothing about the shape of light N=Z nuclei.
===================================================

First of all, I feel very strange your claim about your experiments:
===================================
“but they say nothing at all about the size of 9Be”.
===================================
After all, as the isolated neutron is far away 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, therefore the size of the 9Be is 7fm (diameter). Thereby it makes no sense to claim that your experiments say nothing about the size of the 9Be, because your experiment is showing that 9Be has a diamenter 7fm.
And it would be of interest to verify the diameter of 10Be.

Dear John,
When we make experiments, we actually are making questions to the nature. And when we get results from the experiments, those results are the response of the nature to our questions.
If we make the wrong question, the nature responds to that question, and our interpretation on the result of the experiment can be wrong, because we made the wrong question.

In the end of the 19th Century the theorists had supposed that light should be a propagation of a disturbance of the aether. Therefore they supposed the existence of a luminiferous-aether.
So, when Michelson made his experiment, he was not trying to detect the aether. Actually he was making the following two questions to nature:
1- Is light a propagation of an aether’s disturbance ?
2- Or, in another words: does exist the luminiferous-aether?

However, Michelson (and the theorists) had supposed wrongly that he was doing the following question to nature:
Does aether exist ?

After 1916 Einstein tried to bring back the aether to Physics again, and he wrote some papers where he proposed it.
However, as the Michelson experiment was interpreted by the physicists as an experimental evidence that aether does not exist, they did not take in consideration Einstein’s new attempts.

Today new experiments (as Casimir effect) are showing that space is not empty, and so the aether exists. Therefore the theorists had interpreted wrongly the Michelson experiment, because when the nature responded “NO” to him, her answer “no” was referring to the following two questions:
“is light a propagation of an aether’s disturbance?”
“does luminiferous-aether exist?
She responded NO.
But her response “No” was not concerning the question “does aether exist?”.

You and me, we are making different questions to nature, when we interpret your experiments.
You are taking in consideration what you know from the standard Nuclear Physics, and you are trying to interpret your experiments from such viewpoint. In another words: you are asking to nature some questions suggested to you by what you expect from the current Nuclear Theory.

Unlike, I interpret the results of your experiments by taking in consideration the following viewpoints:
1- what I had already concluded about current Nuclear Theory (it has so many flaws)
2- what I expect from my new nuclear model

You are trying to interpret the distance 7fm of the isolated neutron in 9Be by considering that “forces that usually constrain quarks can get disrupted”, and your next measurement will try to examine this question directly by taking a snapshot of the quark distributions at the moment when the nucleons are close together.
And suppose that such next measurement do not detect what you expect (that quarks are not disrupted, as you suppose), and, instead of that, suppose that you verify that the neutron is actually concentrated in one point (and it is not spreaded as you expect to find it).
What will be your conclusion?

For me, the conclusion is obvious: as the neutron is 7fm far away from the rest of the nucleus, it means that the neutron is not kept in the Be9 by the actuation of the strong force only. In another words: the strong force, itself, cannot respond for the nuclei aggregation (there is need to consider one more additional force beyond the strong force).

Suppose the snapshot of your next experiments do not detect any disruption of quarks, and so suppose they detect the neutron as an indeformable particle concentrated in one point far away 7fm from the rest of the nucleus.
How will you explain the force of attraction which keeps the neutron tied to the rest of the nucleus?

Other difference between our interpretations on you experiment is the following:

1- You consider satisfactory the standard Nuclear Physics, as you wrote to me:
================================================
“I am not aware of any deficiencies in the current models, and in particular, not in the context of our recent measurement. That does not mean that there aren’t any deficiencies, but I’m not going to believe that these common and well-tested models are wrong simply because you say so and provide a hand-waving argument.”
================================================

2- Unlike, I consider the standard Nuclear Physics wrong because there are many inconsistences in it, and if the principles which rule it should be correct it would be impossible for the nuclei to exhibit the nuclear properties detected by some experiments.

So, when you analyse your experiments, the questions you make to the nature are different of the questions made by me. And when the nature responds YES or NO to your questions, the answer she gives to me can be different of those YES or NO interpreted by you.

Regarding to the paper published in the journal Nature, let’s analyse what you wrote to me:

First you wrote the following:
==============================================
I took a quick look at the nature article, and as far as I can tell, it doesn’t include any new experimental findings. It also does not make any connection to my work or cite our experimental results.

It does have some small indirect connection, to the extent that it is showing calculations aimed at understanding cluster structure in nuclei, while we have measurements which we believe may be explained by such structure. But there is really no direct connection between what they are calculating and what we have measured.
===============================================

Then I replied to you:
===============================================
Dear John,
dont you think that there is too much “coincidence” ?????
First, you published the results of your experiments.
And some months later the journal Nature publishes a theoretical model suitable to your measurements.
Pay attention that Martin Freer already published a paper in 2010, by considering clusters in nuclei, nevertheless the light nuclei with Z=N=pair (as the 16O ) had SPHERICAL form in his paper.
And now in 2012 they proposed clusters in light nuclei with non-spherical form.
That smells to me as plagiarism.
Or, at least, they developed their theoretical work based on the results published by you.
However, it it is the case, they would have to cite your experimental work.
It’s seems to me very strange.
=================================================

And your lastest reply to me:

==================================================
I don’t see anything that could be called either coincidence or plagiarism.

First, Martin Freer has been studying nuclear structure for 20 years or more, and has published 100+ papers on the topic, including articles discussing cluster structure going back at least 15 years (based on a very quick literature search). So it’s hardly surprising that he’s going to be making progress and publishing results on cluster contributions in nuclei.

Next, I’ll repeat what I said before: the connection between my work and the nature paper is minimal. Our experiments do NOT provide any information at all about the shape (spherical or non-spherical) of nuclei. The could not in any way, shape or form be interpreted as predicting something which is included in the nature paper or confirming anything about the shape of nuclei predicted by your model.
==================================================

First of all, as Martin Freer has been studying nuclear structure for 20 years or more, why didn’t he arrive EARLIER 2012 to the conclusion that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical form ?
Why, after studying nuclear structure more than 20 years, has he arrived to the conclusion that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape JUST ONLY AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF YOUR EXPERIMENT IN JULY-2012 ?
Why did not he get such conclusion EARLIER the publication of your experiments ?

And as Martin Freer is studying nuclear structure along more than 20 years, I suppose that some of his INTERPRETATIONS on your experiments can be different of your interpretations. So, he analyses your experiments by considering points that do not interest you, and so he can get conclusions that do not occur to you.

Therefore, the conclusion of the authors of the Nature’s paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” (that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape) is AD HOC. They did not infer such conclusion from a theoretical way. They did infer such conclusion based on your experiments (or similar experiments made in other laboratory).
And probably they do not mention what experiments suggested their conclusion just because they want to avoid that their proposal be considered as AD HOC (adapted to the results of experiments)
They want their conclusion be considered theoretical, obtained independently of the results of any experiment.

After all, they are studying nuclear structure more than 20 years. In 2010 Martin Freer published the paper “Clusters in nuclei”, where he proposed a SPHERICAL shape for the oxygen nucleus 16O:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei [www.scholarpedia.org]

And now, 5 months after your publication in March-2012, Martin Freer proposes that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape. It’s too much coincidence. It smells an AD HOC proposal.
Martin Freer (and nobody before he) had never proposed a non-spherical shape for light nuclei with Z=N=pair because such nuclear property of those nuclei is IMPOSSIBLE by considering the current principles of standard Nuclear Physics. And as it’s impossible, never somebody had proposed it before. Now Martin Freer proposed it because it is suggested by the experiments published in 2012, but as non-spherical light nuclei with Z=N=pair is impossible (by considering the principles of standard Nuclear Theory), then Martin Freer was obliged to adopt some AD HOC hypothesis.
But as always happens when ad hoc hypothesis are proposed, they will be in contrast with other nuclear properties.

I have to remember you, dear John, that when my book was published in 2006 there was not any experiment suggesting that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical form.
My conclusion was a THEORETICAL PREDICTION, different of the AD HOC conclusion proposed now in 2012 by Martin Freer.

Your proposal that in the 9Be the isolated neutron takes that place because of quarks disruption is also ad hoc.
Your attempt is obvious: you try to keep the a fundamental principle of the standard Nuclear Theory, according to which the nuclei aggregation is due to interactions by the strong force.
If your next experiments do not confirm the disruption of quarks, your ad hoc proposal will be unacceptable.

And I would like to remember you that, according to my new nuclear model, neutrons can be kept by a nucleus in a distance between 6fm and 7fm, because in my Quantum Ring Theory the agglutination of the nuclei is not promoted by the strong force only.
The possibility of the existence of isolated neutrons far away from the rest of the nucleus (like in the 9Be detected by your experiments in 2012, with a distance of 7fm), was predicted in my nuclear model in 2006, because in my nuclear model the aggregation of nuclei is not promoted by the strong force.

I hope your next experiments bring us the response to these questions.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI