Fixed it, Blocked him
I am sad you felt the need to do that, but I understand and respect your decision. I hope we can keep the discussion ongoing. This is a very interesting topic.
Fixed it, Blocked him
I am sad you felt the need to do that, but I understand and respect your decision. I hope we can keep the discussion ongoing. This is a very interesting topic.
You are arrogant beyond belief. You are incapable of commenting on the content of the original post and hopelessly unaware of actual nuclear physics in your precious standard model even. Stay in your little "extremely brilliant" group and ignore the pearls that have been thrown in front of you, am sure you can finish the saying. You are nothing but a nuisance here. Nuff said.
Sorry - I am not part of any "extremely brilliant" group.
Read more carefully! (And anyway - would I be here if I were?)
Back To the topic of The thread, here’s an interesting divulgative article from 2008 that focuses on
The “split personality”, so to speak, of the neutron from a mainstream SM perspective.
I post it because it serves to see that mainstream has observed things that may support the idea of a composite neutron, but the idea of quarks already introduced in the SM Is the one considered.
Back To the topic of The thread, here’s an interesting divulgative article from 2008 that focuses on
The “split personality”, so to speak, of the neutron from a mainstream SM perspective.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/scienc…r-all-study-says-1.643996I post it because it serves to see that mainstream has observed things that may support the idea of a composite neutron, but the idea of quarks already introduced in the SM Is the one considered.
The possibilities are not just composite neutron or quarks. A third possibility exists based on radiation from cold fusion creating images on film emulsions which are interpreted by Masumoto. The nucleus has two layers. The outer layer is an itonic mesh and the internal layer is electrostatically mirrored to itonic mesh. Hence, when a multi-nucleon is emitted due to cold fusion and itonic mesh separates then both the mesh and multi-nucleon core leave distinct traces. The images of itonic mesh are polygon-web like and the core images are dark spots or rings or ring in motion. If a core remains still until it evaporates then a spot is produced, if not then a partial spot is a ring or ring in motion. The images are electronuclear collapse in theory.
Back To the topic of The thread, here’s an interesting divulgative article from 2008 that focuses on
The “split personality”, so to speak, of the neutron from a mainstream SM perspective.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/scienc…r-all-study-says-1.643996I post it because it serves to see that mainstream has observed things that may support the idea of a composite neutron, but the idea of quarks already introduced in the SM Is the one considered.
The idea that the neutron may have a charge distribution surprises you? When I first read about the quark model I got paper and pencil to see what that might tell me. I put the negative charge in the center and hung the 4 positive charges at the corners of a tetrahedron. And what do you know, the configuration was stable under the coulomb law. Of course, that was a static model, so it really can't apply. I mention it only because Edo mentioned the importance of the tetrahedron shape in SAM. Curious.
The idea that the neutron may have a charge distribution surprises you? When I first read about the quark model I got paper and pencil to see what that might tell me. I put the negative charge in the center and hung the 4 positive charges at the corners of a tetrahedron. And what do you know, the configuration was stable under the coulomb law. Of course, that was a static model, so it really can't apply. I mention it only because Edo mentioned the importance of the tetrahedron shape in SAM. Curious.
I did not post this because it surprised or not surprised me, is just because it provides another experimental result that can have different interpretations depending on the initial assumptions.
The nucleus has two layers. The outer layer is an itonic mesh and the internal layer is electrostatically mirrored to itonic mesh.
In SO(4)physics we show that flux can have 3 or 4+1(5) rotations. All nuclei except 4-He have an outer "layer" of so called free flux that does 3 rotations. 3 rotations are not stable and can interact with the environment. The free flux is responsible for the total gamma spectrum of all nuclei. The center CT 5 rotation flux does not directly take part in any interaction except that it is coupled with the free flux and modulates the gamma spectrum.
The 3 rotation nature of the outer flux (gamma spectrum) has also been shown in an IBM paper that used the same modelling I made.
Back To the topic of The thread, here’s an interesting divulgative article from 2008 that focuses on
The “split personality”, so to speak, of the neutron from a mainstream SM perspective.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/scienc…r-all-study-says-1.643996I post it because it serves to see that mainstream has observed things that may support the idea of a composite neutron, but the idea of quarks already introduced in the SM Is the one considered.
Quarks are electrically charged, so lack of charge homegeneity in a neutron is sort of expected. I can't see any way in which this supports (not possible for two strong reasons) electron in neutron rather than 1 X +2/3e and 2 X -1/3e charge quarks.
The center CT 5 rotation flux does not directly take part in any interaction except that it is coupled with the free flux and modulates the gamma spectrum.
CT = Clifford Torus?
has also been shown in an IBM paper that used the same modelling I made.
Can you provide the source? That’s very interesting!
The idea that the neutron may have a charge distribution surprises you? When I first read about the quark model I got paper and pencil to see what that might tell me. I put the negative charge in the center and hung the 4 positive charges at the corners of a tetrahedron. And what do you know, the configuration was stable under the coulomb law. Of course, that was a static model
It is not much use speculating about the quark distribution inside neutrons - it is dynamic as you say, and complex given the gluons. There are experimental parton momentum pdfs from which (via FT) position pdfs could be calculated.
. And what do you know, the configuration was stable under the coulomb law.
It depends on "stable" relative to what reference?
Is it 1Mev stable or 1 KeV stable...?
a crude measure for stability in isotopes is binding energy..
which is relative to the "unbound" 2p,2n for He
He4 has an unusually high BE..
How does the model pictured below account for the BE?
Is it better than QCD modelling?
QCD modelling hasn't got very far..in fifty years since 1973
Yamazaki et al...
"An encouraging finding is that ∆E = 27.7(9.6) MeV
'.. agrees with the experimental value of 28.3 MeV."
what PhD students would bother to use QCD ... given 28+-10 Mev accuracy
2 sf?
Display MoreIt depends on "stable" relative to what reference?
Is it 1Mev stable or 1 KeV stable...?
a crude measure for stability in isotopes is binding energy..
which is relative to the "unbound" 2p,2n for He
He4 has an unusually high BE..
How does the model pictured below account for the BE?
Is it better than ECR modelling?
QCD modelling hasn't got very far..in fifty years since 1973
Yamazaki et al...
"An encouraging finding is that ∆E = 27.7(9.6) MeV
'.. agrees with the experimental value of 28.3 MeV."what PhD students would bother to use QCD ... given 28+-10 Mev accuracy
2 sf?
Stable relative to whether the particle blows apart or stays together. It stays together, forever, no strong force required. If you want to put a number on it, do the analysis. Place the tetrahedron (mentally) on a table with three of the positive charges forming the base, the fourth charge at the apex. From symmetry the force on that charge due to the other positive charges is directed straight up. The force from the negative charge is straight down and larger. Calculate the net force and then have the tetrahedron expand to infinity. Calculate the work on the apex charge and multiply by four. You have your answer.
You have your answer.
For Helium 4?
How does the model pictured below account for the BE?
Is it better than QCD modelling?
Edo..Sorry to respond with another question to the n-p matter..
but you are engaged in the noble task of sorting out nuclear structure
in an accessible,architectural way,,
Norman Cook invested much time in comprehending the varied evidence going back to Bohr..
he had developed quite a bit of software to develop architectural drawings;;
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNmodelsofth.pdf
but he did not live to see the advent of 4D, 6D nuclear architecture
From your SAM website..I see that 'binding energy' is a work in progress.
".Develop the Semi-Empirical Binding Energy Formula for SAM."
I wish you luck in that work..
Display MoreEdo..Sorry to respond with another question to the n-p matter..
but you are engaged in the noble task of sorting out nuclear structure
in an accessible,architectural way,,
Norman Cook invested much time in comprehending the varied evidence going back to Bohr..
he had developed quite a bit of software to develop architectural drawings;;
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNmodelsofth.pdf
but he did not live to see the advent of 4D, 6D nuclear architecture
From your SAM website..I see that 'binding energy' is a work in progress.
".Develop the Semi-Empirical Binding Energy Formula for SAM."
I wish you luck in that work..
TY for the response, I will try to provide something of an answer, but as mentioned this is not yet definitive, meaning still a research topic.
Back then, at the ICCF in Fort Collins the SAM team had the privilege to meet and talk with Norman about nuclear structure. We were even going to collaborate because we felt we had enough overlapping ideas and concepts. Norman in fact was prepared to adopt the SAM structure, because we could deal with the isotopes much better. He on the other hand had a wealth of knowledge regarding atomic models and science in general. However this was not in the cards and we still feel very sad about his passing and like to think what could have happened if he were still around. A big difference between the models was that Norman at the time was still working with neutrons, which made all the difference.
After attending a few ICCF conferences and armed with the claim of the structure for the elements and isotopes, we noticed that quite a few researchers were after the BE quest and tried to model and calculate all the values in accordance with the know values. So the big question was, if the SAM structure is correct, we should somehow find a real correlation with the BE. That would be a very nice thing to find, if there and it was a big test for the model.
Looking at the Deuterium BE we know that the BE is given as 2.225 MeV and SAM states that it is a one on one connection between two protons. Then we see that on average (above He4) each added proton yields about 3 times that number in the order of 7-8-9 MeV.
* In SAM we deal with the fundamental concept of "densest packing" which means the nucleus wants to be in the least occupying volume per nucleon.
animation elements https://structuredatom.org/publications (hit the play button in the center of the 3D picture)
This results in a nutshell that each added proton locks in or touches three other protons at first, pretty much as a rule (except the very small elements H and He). Then as the structure grows we end up with the last and largest geometric shape the icosahedron for Carbon. The protons in Carbon have each 5 proton neighbors.
* I belief that this correlates strongly with the idea or concept of the Quarks number...
So what happens I wondered if I use each proton proton connection in the structure as 2.225 MeV BE and simply take the total sum. The answer is in this presentation where most is shown in more detail.
Presentation ICCF
Or the PDF https://structuredatom.org/sit…2019%20Final%20public.pdf
In short, the values we got were close to the know values but not accurate and ! the calculated values correlated with the know values, that is, when the known value made a large jump up or down, so did the calculated value, (see the graph in the presentation). Then after Iron / Copper or so we suddenly saw the two lines deviate from each other more and more.... The answer was that as the nucleus grows the "densest packing" is 'violated' more and more as a consequence and the nucleus even elongates somewhat!. That means the BE is still always the same, but is reduced by the lesser optimal packing!
That difference or build up of "less optimal densest packing" leads to the energy that can be released by fission, it is like a tower that leans over more and more, although each stone is locked in place with the same energy always (2.225MeV) per p-p connection.
The same principle works with the isotopes, the more extra PeP's or neutrons are added to a base element, the more the densest packing is reduced, hence the extra neutrons are more and more reduced in BE value.
Then after that presentation, we understood the difference between the mass-defect and the involved gamma ray of 2.225 MeV is due to the presence of the nuclear electron using 0.78 MeV, meaning it adds that equivalent of mass to the nucleus again. This I more or less point out in the original post above.
So concluding, we see a strong correlation with the structure as proposed, but due to the always changing optimal densest packing per proton number and the fact we cannot use point particles here, calculations with more precision fail. Also the structure morphs slightly (described in more detail in our book) many times as the nucleus grows, distorting the calculated values. So this is not an easy task to do, but we have gained a huge amount of understanding in a simple an logical manner and we conclude that this warrants much more attention and research..
One of the questions I have, is how to do calculations without using point particles, perhaps this is where we have an overlap or connection to the SO(4) model. Would be interesting to see what happens if we combine that model with the SAM structure....
What we can do however is show any know nuclear reaction or decay step in an actual 3D model. That also means, we do not need the strong nuclear force, antimatter such as positrons and no need to fudge the free neutron decay with an anti-neutrino, since the neutron would have *(I think) indeed 1/2 spin as a composite particle (edit, brain malfunction before, it was early) .. The center of the deuteron charge wise would be a negated piece of the nucleus effectively leaving the 1 proton charge.
We worked with "See The Pattern" to created some Youtube video's so we can show what we mean in a visulaized manner (A picture speaks a thousand words!), which can be found here.
ps. See The Pattern is an independent researcher and a good one I think. He has some very interesting video's about "light" recently, I think are very much worthwhile watching for anyone on this forum.
Hope this helps a bit.
as the nucleus grows the "densest packing" is 'violated'
One thing that Norman noted.. that Hofstadter noted
was the high charge density of Helium...and also of the proton..
relative to other nuclei
note,,that the density is 10(19)
C/(fm)3... there is a small typo..
Just modelling the He4 nucleus as a sphere with an evenly distributed charge of +2
gives a charge density of 1.3..according to my calcs.at. radius 0.8372
but the charge appears to be radially spread btw 0 and ~3 fm....
and evenly distributed charge... is not stable...
However the concept of charge is just an interpretation of scattering
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/hofstadter-lecture.pdf
The SOP 4-He magnetic radius "for charge" is 0.8376530074fm. This is the radius of the 4 rotation core flux now we could calculate a slight correction for the charge bound 5th rotation. This makes only sense if you exactly know what you measure...
Here once more a link to a recent measurement of the Deuterium charge structure: https://www.researchgate.net/p…arge_density_distribution.
This is good science!
Here once more a link to a recent measurement of the Deuterium charge structure: https://www.researchgate.net/p…arge_density_distribution.
This is good science!
I agree, very well crafted thinking from evidence to theory, and not the other way around.
From the paper conclusions:
We have demonstrated that in the deuteron, the neutron is dissociated into a positive charge distribution corresponding to a proton and a negative charge distribution that extends over the whole nucleus, and acts as a cohesive shell. Thus, the deuteron is in fact composed of two protons wrapped by the distribution of the negative electric charge, coming from the dissociation of the neutron. It is crucial not to confound the electric charge with the electron, which is a specific quantum state of the electric charge. In fact, all charged particles, such as the muon, the pion, the kaon, the proton, etc., correspond to different quantum states of the electric charge, each having a specific structural charge distribution defined by a wavefunction.
Obviously, something has not been wholly suitably conceived in regard to the atomic nucleus. In order to solve the problem, the structure of the neutron must be reconsidered. Consequently, the deuteron model should be revised in accordance with the experimental proofs here provided, supporting a two-proton nucleus and a cohesive shell. The great advantage of this model is that it offers a simple explanation of the nuclear cohesion, without calling for an exchange of imaginary gluons, but instead just resorting on the sharing of the long-known integer electric charge, which acts as a bonding carrier in accordance with the extended quantum state acquired. By extension, this model can be applied to all atomic nuclei and it can be considered that the neutron is always dissociated into a positive charge distribution corresponding to a proton and a negative charge distribution which extends over the whole nucleus, acting as a cohesive shell.
There is no doubt that proponents of the standard model will ignore these data on the symmetry of the distribution of the structural charge of the deuteron or these will be interpreted in a biased way in order to artificially adapt them to their model. Supporters of the standard model avoid any debate to compare and weight different points of view, and for now two decades, the orbital model presented here, published in 1999 [11], has been ignored. Moreover, they have lost all self-criticism and interpret any experimental result in total submission to the mainstream model. They are unable to have a critical view of the deep artificiality of Chromo-Quantum Dynamics and even less to consider a different approach to the nature of elementary particles.
Supporters of the standard model do not know or do not want to reconsider their dogmatic attitude and open themselves to other points of view. They ignore or avoid any debate that may lead to a critical view of their dogma. They are completely subjected to highly speculative mathematical interpretations that lead them to have a very conditioned and narrow view of their fields of study.
Moreover, data not matching with the standard model are neglected. The standard model maintains itself through an incessant propaganda “selling” skewed virtues and claiming that it is the best existing model. With such an unfair attitude, there is no doubt they will keep inhibiting the progress on elementary particle physics, being unwilling to reconsider their dogmatic attitude and to open up to other points of view.
Nevertheless, at present there is a growing number of theoretical physicists who aspire to a "beyond" the standard model. This euphemistic "beyond" shows that in reality they are aware of the fact that this model has long been in a dead end and they are eager to find a way out of a mistaken and sterile orientation, which obstructs an effective progress of the physics of elementary particles and a better understanding of the atomic nucleus. Even so, until now they have not reach to free themselves from the fanciful conceptual foundations of the Chromo-Quantum Dynamics and go in search of a more realistic approach.
Chromo-Quantum Dynamics
we know that the BE is given as 2.225 MeV
QCD...Quantum Collective Dementia...
perhaps Gellman meant to use Quatsch rather than Quark?
It doesn't take a PhD in physics to understand that something is wrong in QCD
The actual binding energy of deuterium is known with great accuracy ,
about 6sf,,, 2.224644(34) MeV..
The QCD result is 11+-17.. 2.22 is included...:)
It's hard to find the red point on the diagram.
The irony is that the paper starts of fwith
"
A major objective for nuclear physicists is to establish the technology with which to reliably
calculate the properties and interactions of nuclei and to be able to quantify the uncertainties in such calculations".......How has QCD survived for over 50 years..