Nuclear Physics is definitivelly wrong

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Nuclear Physics is definitivelly wrong

Postby wwlad » Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:29 pm

The current Nuclear Physics is unable to explain several nuclear properties of the atomic nuclei, as for instance shown in the Introduction of the paper "On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation":

https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/a ... 330114/149

Ahead is shown the Introduction of the paper:


INTRODUCTION
An atomic nucleus with pair and equal number of protons and neutrons, 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 isotopes 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 as, 6C12, 8016, 12Mg24, 14Si32, 18Ar37, 20Ca40, 20Ca42, 24Cr48, 26Fe52, 28Ni56.

Implication.
Null magnetic moments for those excited isotopes implies that the current Nuclear Theory is definitively wrong. So, how do the nuclear physicists deal with such puzzle? There are two hypotheses to be considered.

A-Their magnetic moments were never measured. This is the argument used by nuclear theorists, in special the editors of the most reputable journals of physics. The editors claim that those excited isotopes have non null magnetic moment, but as the experimentalists have never measured them, this is the reason why their magnetic moments are not quoted in nuclear tables. This is the way the Editors-in-chief of the most reputable journals of physics avoid the definitive breakdown of the Nuclear Physics.

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.


Analysis of hypothesis A.
The hypothesis A is used by editors of reputable journals, but it is denied by the fact that many of those excited isotopes have their electric quadrupole moments ‎quoted in nuclear tables. They are (in barns), (6C12, Q= +0.06) , (12Mg24, Q= -0.29) , (14Si32, Q= -0.16) , (18Ar36, Q= +0.11) , (20Ca42, Q= -0.19).


Analysis of hypothesis B.
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.

Conclusion of the hypothesis B.

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

1. The experimentalists have measured the magnetic moments of those excited isotopes.
2. They did not report their results, for the editors of nuclear tables, because the magnetic moment measured, for all those nuclei, was ZERO.
3. It seems the editors of nuclear tables have adopted the strategy of do not quote zero the magnetic moments when the experiments do not detect any value different of zero. By this way they avoid to quote “zero” the magnetic moments of the several nuclei with Z and N pairs, excited with spin +2, because to quote them zero would imply in the breakdown of the Nuclear Theory.


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.
wwlad
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:02 pm

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library