Impossible null magnetic moment of nuclei with pairs Z=N, excited with spin 2

[wwlad]

The Moderator has closed a topic of mine, with the following argument:

 

Moderator Note

We're a science discussion forum. If you wish to discuss your paper, please post it in the appropriate section, minus the emotional email distractions. If your paper doesn't follow mainstream science, you're welcome to post it in our Speculations section, where you can defend its merits with supportive evidence.

Due to the fact that Fundamental Journals is a known predatory publisher, you'll need to present extraordinary evidence for any extraordinary claims. This thread is closed.

 

 

 

 

 

Then let me exhibit an extraordinary evidence which proves that all the current nuclear models are wrong, because any of them is unable to explain a nuclear property, as shown in the Introduction of my paper "On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation":

https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330114/149

The Introduction of the paper is shown ahead.

If somebody is able to explain how a nucleus with Z=N pairs, excited with spin 2, can have null magnetic moment, I am very interested to know his explanation.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

An atomic nucleus with  and  pairs, excited with spin , 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.

 

                                                                                                                      END OF THE INTRODUCTION

 

 

Note:

According to the new nuclear Hexagonal Floors model, some of the nuclei with pairs Z=N , excited with spin 2, are able to have null magnetic moment.

 

In the page 24, item 17, of the paper '"Calculation of magnetic moments of light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30" , it is shown why exceites Ar36 and Ca40 have null magnetic mometns:

https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-access/calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-light-nuclei-with-number-of-protonsbetween-z3-and-z30.pdf

 

The explanation for the other excited nuclei with Z=N is shown in the paper "Testing the equations of the new nuclear Hexagonal Floors model", to be published now in August, by SciFed Journal of Nuclear Science.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by wwlad

[Mordred]

!

Moderator Note

I also see that he specified the topic belongs in the Speculations section of our forum. In that forum you will require the maths that I do not see in your paper. Your paper states it isn't important however it is. You will never change any mainstream theory without the preponderance of evidence. The mathematics is the tool to provide testable predictions. I will move this thread to Speculations where it rightly belongs.

I would recommend you look directly at the vector relations under vector commutation rules that directly apply to the quadrupole tensor

Here is some of the key aspects of that tensor

https://web.pa.msu.edu/people/stump/EM/chap3/3ex3.pdf

Try and resolve that without applying mathematics as your involving coordinates of the transverse and longitudinal components resolved under Cartesian coordinates see link for the mathematical process

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Mordred

[Strange]

On 04/08/2018 at 8:40 PM, wwlad said:

Then let me exhibit an extraordinary evidence which proves that all the current nuclear models are wrong, because any of them is unable to explain a nuclear property,

Even if this were true, it would not make those models wrong. 

You don't understand how science works, do you?

[Markus Hanke]

On 4/8/2018 at 7:40 PM, wwlad said:

If somebody is able to explain how a nucleus with Z=N pairs, excited with spin 2

No combination of protons and neutrons can have overall spin 2. This is completely meaningless. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Markus Hanke