Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Our Nuclear Physics Theory All Wrong!

mass defects nuclear physics binding energy

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 ChanRasjid

ChanRasjid

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 08 September 2018 - 10:56 PM

I have just completed a paper (unpublished, 10 pages) entitled :
"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?"
The pdf file of the paper is may be downloaded at my website.

Our nuclear physics theory on nuclear binding energy is all wrong. The current concept of nuclear mass defect is wrong. The reason why the nuclear masses don't add up correctly in nuclear fission is because the the atomic mass provided by NIST is all wrong! Yes, the most prestigious of equipment, the Penning trap, cannot weigh atoms correctly! It could provide high precision indeed - to 10¯¹⁰ , but precision is not the same as accuracy.  If we could weigh atoms with our verified scale balance, it would be found that there is no "mass defect" as physicists now believe in. There is only conservation of mass without any mass-energy equivalence of E=mc².     

Mass spectrometry of the Penning trap assumes the the Lorentz magnetic force law "F = q(v X :cool:" to be strictly correct mathematically, but it has never been verified. In fact the nature of the law makes any direct verification of it nearly impossible (as explained in my paper). So the "weights" of atoms given by Penning trap is only valid to at most 4 significant figures, not 10 figures!

This means our theory of how nuclear energy based on E=mc² is all wrong. The whole of nuclear physics theory of nuclear energy collapses.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore,
http://www.emc2fails.com

ABSTRACT . Mass spectrometry currently measures atomic masses giving precision in the order of 10¯¹⁰ , but this accuracy has not been established experimentally to be correct - precision and accuracy are two independent aspects. The Lorentz force law itself - the formula underlying mass spectrometry - has not been verified. In the 1920’s, the atomic masses of some elements measured through the early mass spectrometers showed some discrepancies from the ‘whole-number-rule’ of atomic weights. The physics community accepted the discrepancies from whole numbers to be correct; they proposed the concept of ‘mass defects’. This, together with the mass energy equivalence of E = mc 2 allowed Arthur Eddington to propose a new ‘sub-atomic’ energy to account for the source of the energy of the sun to be in line with the 15 billion age of the sun in their theory. They never entertained the other simpler option - that their mass spectrometers were only approximately good. If the atomic masses of nuclides were to be just whole numbers equal to the mass number in atomic mass unit, it would be a confirmation of the law of mass conservation in the atomic and subatomic world. The key to decide the fate of nuclear physics is in sodium fluoride NaF. Sodium and fluorine occur in nature only as single stable isotopes. A chemical analysis of NaF with the current analytical balance to determine the relative atomic mass of Na/F would decide conclusively if mass spectrometry is accurate. The current relative atomic mass of Na/F is : 22.989769/18.998403 or 1.210089; the ratio of the mass number of Na/F is : 23/19 or 1.210526. The accuracy of mass spectrometry would be confirmed if the value is 1.210089 ± 0.000012. Otherwise, if the value is 1.210526 ± 0.000012, it would mean a confirmation of the law of conservation of mass. The implications of such a scenario is beyond imagination - the whole world of nuclear physics would collapse.
 



#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 09 September 2018 - 03:24 AM

I have just completed a paper (unpublished, 10 pages) entitled :
"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?"
The pdf file of the paper is may be downloaded at my website.

Our nuclear physics theory on nuclear binding energy is all wrong. The current concept of nuclear mass defect is wrong. The reason why the nuclear masses don't add up correctly in nuclear fission is because the the atomic mass provided by NIST is all wrong! Yes, the most prestigious of equipment, the Penning trap, cannot weigh atoms correctly! It could provide high precision indeed - to 10¯¹⁰ , but precision is not the same as accuracy.  If we could weigh atoms with our verified scale balance, it would be found that there is no "mass defect" as physicists now believe in. There is only conservation of mass without any mass-energy equivalence of E=mc².     

Mass spectrometry of the Penning trap assumes the the Lorentz magnetic force law "F = q(v X :cool:" to be strictly correct mathematically, but it has never been verified. In fact the nature of the law makes any direct verification of it nearly impossible (as explained in my paper). So the "weights" of atoms given by Penning trap is only valid to at most 4 significant figures, not 10 figures!

This means our theory of how nuclear energy based on E=mc² is all wrong. The whole of nuclear physics theory of nuclear energy collapses.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore,
http://www.emc2fails.com

ABSTRACT . Mass spectrometry currently measures atomic masses giving precision in the order of 10¯¹⁰ , but this accuracy has not been established experimentally to be correct - precision and accuracy are two independent aspects. The Lorentz force law itself - the formula underlying mass spectrometry - has not been verified. In the 1920’s, the atomic masses of some elements measured through the early mass spectrometers showed some discrepancies from the ‘whole-number-rule’ of atomic weights. The physics community accepted the discrepancies from whole numbers to be correct; they proposed the concept of ‘mass defects’. This, together with the mass energy equivalence of E = mc 2 allowed Arthur Eddington to propose a new ‘sub-atomic’ energy to account for the source of the energy of the sun to be in line with the 15 billion age of the sun in their theory. They never entertained the other simpler option - that their mass spectrometers were only approximately good. If the atomic masses of nuclides were to be just whole numbers equal to the mass number in atomic mass unit, it would be a confirmation of the law of mass conservation in the atomic and subatomic world. The key to decide the fate of nuclear physics is in sodium fluoride NaF. Sodium and fluorine occur in nature only as single stable isotopes. A chemical analysis of NaF with the current analytical balance to determine the relative atomic mass of Na/F would decide conclusively if mass spectrometry is accurate. The current relative atomic mass of Na/F is : 22.989769/18.998403 or 1.210089; the ratio of the mass number of Na/F is : 23/19 or 1.210526. The accuracy of mass spectrometry would be confirmed if the value is 1.210089 ± 0.000012. Otherwise, if the value is 1.210526 ± 0.000012, it would mean a confirmation of the law of conservation of mass. The implications of such a scenario is beyond imagination - the whole world of nuclear physics would collapse.
 

Yes it would be beyond imagination: the whole of general relativity would then be wrong, even though it has been experimentally corroborated in ways that do not depend on E=mc². So you are going to have a struggle to persuade the physics community. When do you plan to do your ground-breaking experiment? 



#3 ChanRasjid

ChanRasjid

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 09 September 2018 - 07:38 AM

Yes it would be beyond imagination: the whole of general relativity would then be wrong, even though it has been experimentally corroborated in ways that do not depend on E=mc². So you are going to have a struggle to persuade the physics community. When do you plan to do your ground-breaking experiment? 

I believe the experiment analyzing the atomic mass composition in NaF should be simple by today's standard. I myself don't have the means to do the experiment. I don't expect anyone else in the near future to do such an experiment unless a cataclysmic world event - like a 3rd World War - happens when man got dazed and care not about what Princeton and Cambridge professors say. if done, which peer reviewed journals would care to publish the result - especially if it is against mass defects making a mess of nuclear physics.   

As for general relativity being experimentally corroborated, I hold a different view. My site has my papers refuting special relativity. There is also a Coulomb electric gravity theory that is totally at odds with general relativity.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
http://www.emc2fails.com



#4 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2474 posts

Posted 09 September 2018 - 08:21 AM

Actually, this assumes both Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity to be incorrect which I can tell you is not the case. F=qv X B  is the correct calculation for the magnetism of a particle under QFT and classical physics which can be verified to be correct by the Electron in a magnetic field test.  E = MC can be found to be correct by the Pair Production and Matter/Anti-matter Annihilation experiment by measuring the energy yield of gamma radiation from Electron/Positron annihilation. If you find that the radiation pattern does not follow the E=MCrelationship then let me know, you will find it does. The Same goes for the Ion in a magnetic field, if you find the Lorentz force to be incorrect under that measurement then you may have a case for changing it, which I doubt you will find it to not match the measured value, but if you ever do find that particle do indeed have properties that change their effect by the Force Nuclear Force via Magnetism that would definitely greatly change Nuclear Physics, I would find that ever interesting, it is still a interesting concept worth exploring to edit the Value of the Strong Nuclear Force on nucleons.

 

 

What is your basis for thinking that Charge and Magnetism effect the "Color Field" / Strong Nuclear Force of matter it is strongly believed that it is independent of Charge or Magnetism until the String level and even then they don't change the interaction of each other as different curled Force Dimensions, basically QFT says all particles will always have the same relationship of Color and Charge being their defining property as that particle to switch between states would mean to cease to be that particle and thus to be another type of particle such that an electron is always -1 charge, 0 Color, and 512 kev unless in motion which is handled by Special relativity as relativistic mass.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 09 September 2018 - 08:36 AM.


#5 ChanRasjid

ChanRasjid

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 09 September 2018 - 08:40 AM

Actually, this assumes both Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity to be incorrect which I can tell you is not the case. F=qv X B  is the correct calculation for the magnetism of a particle under QFT and classical physics which can be verified to be correct by the Electron in a magnetic field test.  E = MC can be found to be correct by the Pair Production and Matter/Anti-matter Annihilation experiment by measuring the energy yield of gamma radiation from Electron/Positron annihilation. If you find that the radiation pattern does not follow the E=MCrelationship then let me know, you will find it does. The Same goes for the Ion in a magnetic field, if you find the Lorentz force to be incorrect under that measurement then you may have a case for changing it, which I doubt you will find it to not match the measured value, but if you ever do find that particle do indeed have properties that change their effect by the Force Nuclear Force via Magnetism that would definitely greatly change Nuclear Physics, I would find that ever interesting, it is still a interesting concept worth exploring to edit the Value of the Strong Nuclear Force on nucleons.

 

 

What is your basis for thinking that Charge and Magnetism effect the "Color Field" / Strong Nuclear Force of matter it is strongly believed that it is independent of Charge or Magnetism until the String level and even then they don't change the interaction of each other as different curled Force Dimensions, basically QFT says all particles will always have the same relationship of Color and Charge being their defining property as that particle to switch between states would mean to cease to be that particle and thus to be another type of particle such that an electron is always -1 charge, 0 Color, and 512 kev unless in motion which is handled by Special relativity as relativistic mass.

I can only say we hold different views about modern physics that incorporates special relativity. Yours is the mainstream  view supported by all the top university professors. But there is also a group of qualified physicists - with formal physics degrees - who reject all physics related to relativity. Of course you could say experiments don't lie, but the people interpreting the experiments, data may lie. Only time will tell if Einstein's relativity theories would be retained or booted out.   

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
 



#6 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2474 posts

Posted 09 September 2018 - 08:48 AM

I can only say we hold different views about modern physics that incorporates special relativity. Yours is the mainstream  view supported by all the top university professors. But there is also a group of qualified physicists - with formal physics degrees - who reject all physics related to relativity. Of course you could say experiments don't lie, but the people interpreting the experiments, data may lie. Only time will tell if Einstein's relativity theories would be retained or booted out.   

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
 

 

Ya my point is your beef really isn't with special relativity and more of Quantum Field theory that is was determines the "States" of particles and their interaction pathways in feymann diagrams, if you are looking for a mass defect in the "Rest Mass" of the particle states that is a QFT issue and not SR. If you ever find that all particles are not always the same it would rewrite QFT as QFT determines "Rest Mass" which the only real difference between a Electron and a Proton is their "Rest Mass" which applies to any particle's "State". Which in that case the Proton has a Color Value being of a higher "Rest Mass" and the Electron has no Color Value being of the lower "Rest Mass", if you ever find these "States" to ever not have a uniform value for each state that would definitely change QFT.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 09 September 2018 - 08:51 AM.


#7 ChanRasjid

ChanRasjid

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 09 September 2018 - 11:12 PM

Ya my point is your beef really isn't with special relativity and more of Quantum Field theory that is was determines the "States" of particles and their interaction pathways in feymann diagrams, if you are looking for a mass defect in the "Rest Mass" of the particle states that is a QFT issue and not SR. If you ever find that all particles are not always the same it would rewrite QFT as QFT determines "Rest Mass" which the only real difference between a Electron and a Proton is their "Rest Mass" which applies to any particle's "State". Which in that case the Proton has a Color Value being of a higher "Rest Mass" and the Electron has no Color Value being of the lower "Rest Mass", if you ever find these "States" to ever not have a uniform value for each state that would definitely change QFT.

I am sorry. I have to expose you to one big "secret" of mine. I don't know quantum mechanics except that there is such a thing called the "Schrodinger" equation related to probability waves!
Thought I don't know quantum field theory (QFT) nor the Standard Model, yet I categorically dismiss them as wrong physics! This follows the usual practice of people saying space is curved when they do not know what is dy/dx. I apologize.

The current notion that there is a mass defect in the nucleus all comes from the weights of atoms as measured from mass spectrometry, especially the Penning trap. There is a small discrepancy between the measured atomic mass from its mass number. The thesis in my paper is that if we were to weigh atomic mass with our usual lab scale balance, the atomic mass will be exactly equal to its mass number in amu - there would not be any room to propose any mass defect and to talk about any mass-energy equivalence. It has nothing to do with the origin of rest mass or QFT.       

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid



#8 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2474 posts

Posted 10 September 2018 - 02:13 AM

I am sorry. I have to expose you to one big "secret" of mine. I don't know quantum mechanics except that there is such a thing called the "Schrodinger" equation related to probability waves!
Thought I don't know quantum field theory (QFT) nor the Standard Model, yet I categorically dismiss them as wrong physics! This follows the usual practice of people saying space is curved when they do not know what is dy/dx. I apologize.

The current notion that there is a mass defect in the nucleus all comes from the weights of atoms as measured from mass spectrometry, especially the Penning trap. There is a small discrepancy between the measured atomic mass from its mass number. The thesis in my paper is that if we were to weigh atomic mass with our usual lab scale balance, the atomic mass will be exactly equal to its mass number in amu - there would not be any room to propose any mass defect and to talk about any mass-energy equivalence. It has nothing to do with the origin of rest mass or QFT.       

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid

 

Oh, I thought you were going for something deeper than just a measurement defect with mass spectrometry and rather a "Actual" Rest Mass defect in the particles meaning they are not universally the same, this no longer peaks my interest continue, I tend to think this is below me. Continue your exploration of the defect of measurement via mass spectrometry then, that isn't that major of a change and revolutionary idea in the field of physics as explained I am sure with a bit of evidence it will be approved as a legitimate not nearly the concept I thought you were trying to tackle.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 10 September 2018 - 02:16 AM.


#9 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 10 September 2018 - 03:50 AM

I can only say we hold different views about modern physics that incorporates special relativity. Yours is the mainstream  view supported by all the top university professors. But there is also a group of qualified physicists - with formal physics degrees - who reject all physics related to relativity. Of course you could say experiments don't lie, but the people interpreting the experiments, data may lie. Only time will tell if Einstein's relativity theories would be retained or booted out.   

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
 

So you are a conspiracy theorist and Electric Universe crank. I see. https://rationalwiki...ectric_Universe

 

Next............


Edited by exchemist, 10 September 2018 - 03:56 AM.


#10 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 10 September 2018 - 07:27 AM

So you are a conspiracy theorist and Electric Universe crank. I see. https://rationalwiki...ectric_Universe

ACTUALLY, what they plotted was that our observable universe composes the internal dynamics of a fraction of a higher order positron (see: recurring fractals) not an electron. But the electron, neutrino & anti electron/positron are all different states of the 4th or 5th out of 28 elementary majorana fermions. Fun fact, Ettore Majorana disappeared under questionable circumstances .



#11 ChanRasjid

ChanRasjid

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 10 September 2018 - 07:44 AM

So you are a conspiracy theorist and Electric Universe crank. I see. https://rationalwiki...ectric_Universe

 

Next............

It's OK if you consider me a conspiracy theorist, pseudo-scientist, electric universe crank whatever...  

The important thing is I cannot lie! All my words and assertions are recorded in the 13/15 papers at my site and also at viXra.org.  People just need to look into my papers to know what I have written about Einstein's relativity - my refutation of relativity. Printed words cannot lie! They just need to read and decide if my arguments are wrong or correct.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
http://www.emc2fails.com
 



#12 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 10 September 2018 - 08:23 AM

It's OK if you consider me a conspiracy theorist, pseudo-scientist, electric universe crank whatever...  

The important thing is I cannot lie! All my words and assertions are recorded in the 13/15 papers at my site and also at viXra.org.  People just need to look into my papers to know what I have written about Einstein's relativity - my refutation of relativity. Printed words cannot lie! They just need to read and decide if my arguments are wrong or correct.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
http://www.emc2fails.com
 

But the writer of the printed words can lie all right. 

 

I'm not accusing you of that, though. I am using the predictive power of science to predict that you are wrong.

 

The thing is, it all fits. The power of the atomic bomb, and of nuclear energy, is found in practice to be what you would expect from applying E=mc² to the measured mass defect. So before you assert the formula is wrong you will need a better alternative explanation of why this occurs.

 

Furthermore, the binding energy of nucleons, as measured by the observed mass defect, follows a curve through the Periodic Table: https://www.nuclear-...gy/mass-defect/

 

If you think the mass defect is an artifact, caused by some extra term in Lorentz's law or something, you will have to explain why this affects nuclei of increasing atomic number in the way shown by this curve. How are you going to do that?  

 

See? There is hell of a lot more to it than just thinking you have found something wrong with mass spectrometry.    



#13 ChanRasjid

ChanRasjid

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 10 September 2018 - 09:04 AM

But the writer of the printed words can lie all right. 

 

I'm not accusing you of that, though. I am using the predictive power of science to predict that you are wrong.

 

The thing is, it all fits. The power of the atomic bomb, and of nuclear energy, is found in practice to be what you would expect from applying E=mc² to the measured mass defect. So before you assert the formula is wrong you will need a better alternative explanation of why this occurs.

 

Furthermore, the binding energy of nucleons, as measured by the observed mass defect, follows a curve through the Periodic Table: https://www.nuclear-...gy/mass-defect/

 

If you think the mass defect is an artifact, caused by some extra term in Lorentz's law or something, you will have to explain why this affects nuclei of increasing atomic number in the way shown by this curve. How are you going to do that?  

 

See? There is hell of a lot more to it than just thinking you have found something wrong with mass spectrometry.    

Now proof that I am a conspiracy theorist?

" How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud?"
https://www.big-lies...ysics.html#bomb

"The thesis of this piece is that, in fact, the invention of the atomic bomb was almost entirely empirical. Fairly simple new concepts of the nucleus, electrons, neutrons, atomic weights etc. sufficed. Specifically, ‘e=mc 2 ’, quantum ideas, uncertainty in measurement and the more elaborate mathematics had no effect on the discoveries leading to the invention; these discoveries each came as a complete surprise. The link with ‘modern physics’ is a myth. If Einstein had never lived, atomic weapons could have been developed exactly as they were."

As I mentioned earlier, there are qualified physicists who do not accept Einsteins relativity nor all the physics coming out of CERN done through the LHC supercollider. Mind you, they too have B.Sc and Ph.D in physics - though not from Princeton, Cambridge.

Your post has included a lot about nuclear structure, etc... my paper on mass spectrometry is enough to dismiss all of the mainstream "nuclear energy physics". The mainstream nuclear energy physics breaks down absolutely if mass spectrometry (and the Penning trap) is found to be giving systemic error in the "weights" of atoms - that's all and no further arguments needed!      

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
http://www.emc2fails.com
 



#14 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 10 September 2018 - 11:38 AM

Now proof that I am a conspiracy theorist?

" How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud?"
https://www.big-lies...ysics.html#bomb

"The thesis of this piece is that, in fact, the invention of the atomic bomb was almost entirely empirical. Fairly simple new concepts of the nucleus, electrons, neutrons, atomic weights etc. sufficed. Specifically, ‘e=mc 2 ’, quantum ideas, uncertainty in measurement and the more elaborate mathematics had no effect on the discoveries leading to the invention; these discoveries each came as a complete surprise. The link with ‘modern physics’ is a myth. If Einstein had never lived, atomic weapons could have been developed exactly as they were."

As I mentioned earlier, there are qualified physicists who do not accept Einsteins relativity nor all the physics coming out of CERN done through the LHC supercollider. Mind you, they too have B.Sc and Ph.D in physics - though not from Princeton, Cambridge.

Your post has included a lot about nuclear structure, etc... my paper on mass spectrometry is enough to dismiss all of the mainstream "nuclear energy physics". The mainstream nuclear energy physics breaks down absolutely if mass spectrometry (and the Penning trap) is found to be giving systemic error in the "weights" of atoms - that's all and no further arguments needed!      

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid
http://www.emc2fails.com
 

In other words, "Shut up and believe". 

 

I notice the passage you quote does not address, at all, my point that the yield of nuclear reactions is well predicted by Einstein's mass-equivalence. http://hyperphysics....Ene/fusion.html This seems to me to be evidence that you have no way to explain the phenomena I have mentioned if E=mc² is dismissed. That's not very convincing. 

 

I shall leave you to your delusions, I think. 


Edited by exchemist, 10 September 2018 - 11:41 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mass defects, nuclear physics, binding energy