Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method is not satisfactory so that to justify why two neutrons do not form a dineutron. Let’s us remember it in short words: a) Two neutrons have a force of attraction due to the strong nuclear force b) There is not any force of repulsion between two neutrons c) So, two neutrons would have to form the dineutron, because by considering the Classical Nuclear Physics there is not any force of repulsion capable to win the strong nuclear force of attraction between two neutrons. d) Heisenberg proposed the concept of Isospin, so that to justify why the dineutron does not exist. However only a physical force of repulsion would be able to win the physical force of attraction due to the strong force. The Isospin cannot create a physical force of repulsion, because the Isospin is only an abstract mathematical concept. And an abstract mathematical concept cannot separate two neutrons bound by the strong force within the dineutron. The phantasmagoric scientific method inaugurated by Heinsenberg is often used in Physics when a new experiment disproves the current theories, and the theorists cannot find a satisfactory explanation so that to justify why. So, the theorists use the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric everytime they cannot discover the physical cause responsible for a phenomenon which disproves the current models. Here we will see how Heinseberg’s phantasmagoric method has been used in Classical Nuclear Physics, after the publication of two experiments, one published in 2011, and the other in 2013. 1) Pear shaped nuclei ============================= According to the current nuclear models, the even-even nuclei have to have two sort of shapes: A) Spherical shape – when the quantity of prótons Z is the same of the quantity of neutrons N, Z=N. B) Elispoidal shape – when Z << N . These two sort of shapes (spherical or ellipsoidal) have to occur for eve-even nuclei in Classical Nuclear Physics because there is not any physical cause which we could find in the current nuclear models, in order to justify any other sort of shape different of the spherical or the ellipsoidal. But experiments have shown that some even-even nuclei with Z<< N are pear shaped. Then, how to justify it? After all, they would have to have an ellipsoidal shape. In 2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (prótons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei around a z-axis. So, in order to justify why some even-even with Z<<N (as for instance 88Ra224) have pear shape, he proposed the existence of a z-axis within the nuclei. However there is no way to justify why prótons and neutrons are distributed about a z-axis within the even-even nuclei, by considering the current nuclear models. And the reason is obvious: there is no way to find a physical cause responsible for putting the prótons and neutrons distributed along a z-axis in the current nuclear models. Therefore, the Professor Peter Butler had actually used the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method, so that to justify why 88Ra224 is pear shaped, by using a phantasmagoric hypothesis: the existence of a z-axis, which existence is impossible to explain by considering the current nuclear models. Look the z-axis proposed by Professor Butler for the 88Ra224 in the link: Scientists demonstrate pear shaped atomic nuclei - University of Liverpool News The distribution of prótons and neutrons about a z-axis had been predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006 (therefore 7 years before the proposal by Professor Peter Butler). The existence of the z-axis is perfectly justified in the nuclear model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory because there is a physical cause which obliges the prótons and neutrons to take a distribution about the z-axis: in the nuclear model proposed in QRT there is a central 2He4 which captures the prótons and neutrons, in order that they take a distribution about the z-axis. That’s why the existence of the z-axis had been correctly predicted in my Quantum Ring Theory. See page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory:
====================================================== . 2) Non-spherical even-even nuclei with Z=N ==================== Along more than 60 years the nuclear theorists had believed that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape, because from the current nuclear models we have to expect that they have to have spherical shape, because there is not any physical cause from which a nuclear theorists could justify a non-spherical shape for those nuclei. For instance, in 2009 the nuclear theorist Dr. Martin Freer proposed the spherical shape for the oxygen 8O16 shown in the Figure 1 of his paper Clusters in nuclei published in Scholarpedia: Clusters in nuclei - Scholarpedia But in 2011 new experiments had detected that even-even light nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape. So, Dr. Martin Freer and all the nuclear theorists had to change their mind, after more than 60 years of the nuclear theorists believing that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape. That’s why in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where the authors consider several even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shapes. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html However, a question appears: From the current nuclear models we have to expect that even-even nuclei with Z=N have to have spherical shape. Then how does to justify that they have non-spherical shape ?????? In other words: what should be the physical cause, according to the current nuclear models, responsible for the non-spherical shape of those nuclei? Well, of course there is no way to find such physical cause from the current nuclear models. And the authors of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster cannot give any physical cause capable to explain the non-spherical shape of those nuclei. Therefore, actually Dr. Martin Freer and the authors of the paper published in the journal Nature are using the phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg, because it is the unique way so that to justify the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N. The non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N was predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory (published in 2006, and therefore 6 years before the publication in the journal Nature. The non-spherical shape of those nuclei had been predicted and proposed in my book because there is a physical cause which oblige the even-even nuclei with Z=N to take that shape: the existence of a central 2He4 in all the nuclei. It is opportune to remember that the journal Nature published a plagiarism of an argument proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, as I explain again here: A) Even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shape cannot have null electric quadrupole moment. B) But the experiments detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have null electric quadrupole moment. C) So, how to justify that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, in spite of they have null quadrupole moment ? D) In the page 137 of my book I had proposed the explanation: as those nuclei have nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero, they gyrate chaotically, and there is no way to align them along an external magnetic Field, so that to measure their quadrupole moment. Therefore, in spite of their quadrupole moment is not zero, however it is not possible to measure it. E) I sent an email to Dr. Martin Freer, telling him that as the journal Nature published a paper where the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, they would have to exhibit non-null quadrupole moment. And I asked to him to explain why the experiments detect null quadrupole moment. F) Dr. Martin Freer sent me a reply giving the same explanation proposed by me in the page 137 of the book Quantum Ring Theory. Look at the explanation in the page 137 of the book QRT (attached bellow).
And the explanation by Dr. Martin Freer: 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 =================================================== 3) CONCLUSION ===================================== When new experiments defy the current theories, the theorists use the phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg because it is impossible to find the physical causes responsible for the phenomenon detected in the experiment. Of course it is easier to use such phantasmagoric method, so that to adapt the old current models in the results of new experiments which disprove those current models. By such a phantasmagoric method the theorists simply use some abstract mathematic concepts, neglecting the missing of physical causes which are the actual causes responsible for the phenomenon. And so obviously the phantasmagoric method hides some physical cause responsible for the phenomenon detected in the new experiment. In other words: the true cause responsible for the phenomenon is missing in the current models used so that to explain the phenomenon. And the crucial question is the following: Is it possible to find a definitive theory by starting up from such phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg ? Suppose that there is indeed a central 2He4 within the nuclei (as are suggesting the experiments published in 2012 by Nature and in 2013 by Professor Peter Butler). Then let’s do the question: Will the nuclear theorists succeed in their enterprise trying to explain all the nuclear properties, by using nuclear models where it is missing the central 2He4 ?
