wlad Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Page 38 of the book The New Nuclear Physics to be published in March 2023 In 2018 I submitted to the nuclear physics journal European Physical Journal A the article Proposal of an experiment able to eliminate the controversy: are right or wrong the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Theory? The reason for submitting my article was because, according to the new nuclear model (proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory) some nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons, such as 12Mg24, have zero magnetic moment when excited, although this was impossible, according to current nuclear physics. And since the magnetic moment of many of them (when excited) are absent from the nuclear tables, this absence strengthened my suspicion. Editor-in-Chief Maria Borge rejected the article with the following report. ==================== REPORT ================== European Physical Journal A - Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-104798 19-Oct-2018 Dear Professor Guglinski: Thank you for submitting your article mentioned above to EPJ A “Hadrons and Nuclei”. The content of the article is not correct. Attempts to generalize the lack of magnetic moment data to the 2+ states of conjugated nuclei to invalidate the theory. Some of the cases you mentioned have been measured and there is good agreement with the shell model calculations. I recommend that you read, for example, PRL114 (2015)062501 and even NJ Stone's old compilation Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Table 90 (2005) 75 where some magnetic moments for 2+ states are already given. Therefore, I cannot accept your contribution for publication in EPJ A. Sincerely yours Professor Maria Borge Editor in Chief European Physical Journal A ================= END OF REPORT ============= In the 2015 paper published in Physical Review Letters, cited by Maria Borge, the authors calculated the magnetic moment of excited 12Mg24. But reading the article I discovered that there was an error in the procedure used in the calculation. And so I wrote a second paper, entitled Mandatory Check for Misunderstanding on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei, and submitted it to the EPJA. The calculation error in the PRL article is easy to understand, as seen below. 1- The authors used a nuclear table from 2001 to calculate the magnetic moment of 12Mg24 excited with spin 2. In 2001 nuclear physicists were convinced that nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons have a spherical shape. 2- But in 2012 the journal Nature published the article How atomic nuclei cluster, reporting experiments that detected that nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons have an ellipsoidal shape. 3- Therefore, after 2012 the 2001 table could no longer be applied to nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons. The calculation published in 2015 of the magnetic moment of excited 12Mg24 was invalidated, as was the conclusion that excited 12Mg24 had a non-zero magnetic moment. The question was open, and an investigation was imperative. If it were confirmed that excited 12Mg24 has zero magnetic moment, this would invalidate the current nuclear theory. Although Maria Borge has rejected my paper Mandatory check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei, she must have been extremely surprised to read it, as she came across an event that, in her opinion, could never happen in the history of nuclear physics. But even though this event was impossible to happen, it was happening, and it was amazing. This astonishment of Maria Borge, in seeing that the impossible was happening, is fully justified, for the following reasons: 1- For more than 80 years nuclear physicists have been convinced, without any possibility of supposing they were wrong, that nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons are spherical. The main reason they were so sure to firmly believe that such nuclei must be spherical was due to the fact that nuclear physics was developed from the fundamental principle of symmetry, in consequence of which such nuclei must be spherical. 2- If an author proposed a new nuclear model, according to which nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons are ellipsoidal, this author could not be taken seriously, because according to current nuclear physics such nuclei can only be spherical, as required by the principle of symmetry. Either this author had terrible knowledge of nuclear physics, or he was simply crazy to propose something that all nuclear physicists knew was impossible. The paper Mandatory Check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei described the impressive narrative of the impossible event. Here is the impressive narrative exposed in the article, which surprised Maria Borge: ============================================= Narrative in the paper Mandatory Check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei ============================================== So, let us analyze the method used by Raman at al. in , face to historical facts occurred after its publication in 2001. We begin with the description ahead, which is an excerpt of the page 58 of the paper , where are related some historical facts. The excerpt begins with a description on some differences between the current nuclear models, and the new nuclear hexagonal floors model, proposed by the author. According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have ellipsoidal shape, and therefore my nuclear model with hexagonal floors could not be considered seriously by nuclear theorists, because they knew not only that the principles of the SNP requires a spherical shape for those nuclei, but also because they knew those nuclei have null electric quadrupole moment, and therefore it was mandatory they have spherical shape. Besides, as in that new nuclear model there is a central 2He4, and the nucleons are captured by a string formed by a flux of gravitons (instead of be bound by strong nuclear force, as considered in all current nuclear models), the nuclear theorists had more strong reasons why do not consider seriously a “strange” model formed by hexagonal floors. Obviously the author was aware that a paper, proposing the exotic new nuclear model, would never be accepted for publication in any reputable peer journal of physics. That’s why in 2004 he has decided to meet his several papers in a book form, and to look for a publisher. In the end of 2005 an editor has accepted to publish it, and the book was published in August 2006, with the title Quantum Ring Theory, QRT (see “Ref. E-1” in the end of this excerpt). Spherical distribution of charges has null electric quadrupole moment, Q=0, while ellipsoidal distribution elongated toward Z-axis has Q>0, and elongated toward XY plane has Q<0. As experiments already had detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have Q=0, then obviously the author had to justify how, in spite of they have ellipsoidal shape, however they have Q=0. The argument, which justifies why they have Q=0, is proposed in the page 137 of the book QRT. Another prediction was regarding the distribution of the nucleons, because, as they occupy places in the corners of hexagonal floors distributed about the Z-axis, then in the Hexagonal Floors Model there is a preferential direction of distribution. In the page 133 is written “The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics.” And obviously such prediction, of the existence of a preferential direction for the distribution of the nucleons, along the Z-axis, was other strong reason for rejection of the new nuclear model, because, according the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics, a preferential direction of distribution of nucleons is impossible. In 2012 the journal Nature published a paper demolishing a dogma of current nuclear physics, considered untouchable along 80 years, reporting experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape (see Ref. E-2). In 18 July 2012 the nuclear theorist Martin Freer had published in News & Views, by Nature, an article (Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together), and the author sent him the comment ahead. “Dear Martin Freer. With that distribution of charge of the Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)”. Martin sent the reply ahead. “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 possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus. Martin.” Interestingly, Martin’s argument is basically the same proposed in the page 137 of the book QRT, published in 2006, where it is explained why oxygen-16 has Q(O16)=0, in spite of it has ellipsoidal shape, as follows. “Note that as the 8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment zero , then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives charges, and not a flat distribution. That’s why 8O16 has Q(O16)= 0.” Therefore, in 2006 the author had proposed the same argument used by Martin Freer in 2012. References regarding this present excerpt: [Ref. E-1] Guglinski, W. (2006). Quantum Ring Theory, Bäuu Institute Press. Boulder, Co, USA. [Ref. E-2] Ebran, J. P., Khan, E., Nikšić, T., & Vretenar, D. (2012). How atomic nuclei cluster. Nature. 487, 341–344. ===============================END OF NARRATIVE=============================== Note: The prediction that protons and neutrons are distributed along a preferential direction, predicted in the book Quantum Ring Theory (but impossible according to current nuclear physics) was confirmed by an experimente published in 2013: In 2013 the journal Nature published a paper about an experiment, which detected that Ra224 is pear-shaped: “Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams, Nature, 497, 199–204”. That experiment forced the nuclear theorists to conclude that atomic nuclei have a Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have different distributions.According to the current nuclear physics, the nucleus Rα224 cannot be pear-shaped, because from its foundations all the even-even nuclei must have either a spherical shape (when Z = N) or an ellipsoidal shape (when N > Z). But according to the discovery of 2013, while Radium 224 is pear-shaped, Radon 220 does not assume the fixed shape of a pear but rather vibrates about this shape, and such finding is in contradiction with what is expected from the foundations that rule the behavior of the nuclear models. Beyond the discovery to be very important for the understanding on the structure of the nucleus, the nuclear theorists think that such puzzle can also be related to questions regarding the fundamental interactions responsible for the working of the structure of the universe. And Dr Timothy Chupp, a University of Michigan professor of physics, has explained how the theorists are dealing with the puzzle. He thinks that pear shape is special, suggesting that neutrons and protons inside the nucleus take different positions along an internal axis. In other words, the pear shape of Ra224 implies that atomic nuclei have a special Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have a preferential distribution, whose existence is impossible, according to current nuclear models. In the figure ahead, Prof. Peter Butler, one of the physicists who worked in the experiment, is speaking about the Z-axis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.