Our Nuclear Physics All Wrong!

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Our Nuclear Physics All Wrong!

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:56 pm

Dear scientists,

I have just completed a new paper (unpublished, 10 pages) entitled :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

Although mass spectrometry has very high precision, the technique to weigh atoms has not been verified to be accurate. The physics underlying the technique, the Lorentz force law itself has not been verified to be strictly correct in its mathematical form. The current accepted atomic masses of nuclides differ very slightly from the whole number of the mass number. It is not outrages to believe mass conservation may hold in the subatomic world. It may be that if we were to be able to weigh atoms using our `verified' precision beam balances, the atomic mass of a nuclide could just be a whole number, its atomic mass being nothing but its mass number in atomic mass unit! Sodium fluoride holds the key to the answer. If a precise chemical analysis of NaF is done today to determine the relative atomic mass of Na/F, then a value of 1.210089 ± 0.000012 would mean mass spectrometry is verified to be accurate; otherwise if the value is 1.210526 ± 0.000012, it would mean a confirmation of the law of mass conservation.

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.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Our Nuclear Physics All Wrong!

Unread postby ja7tdo » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:58 pm

hi,

very interesting. I have not read all your papers yet, but I have a lot of agreement.
Your claim may be explained by SAM(structured atom model).

https://etherealmatters.org/book/struct ... -model-sam

I will read your paper more.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Our Nuclear Physics All Wrong!

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:26 pm

You have a really professional web site.

Just browsing briefly, I found things interesting like nucleus may be just protons+electrons. Also dense packing, etc. I think geometrical packings should be very complicated affairs.

I will read your site slowly.

Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Our Nuclear Physics All Wrong!

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:03 pm

ja7tdo wrote:hi,

very interesting. I have not read all your papers yet, but I have a lot of agreement.
Your claim may be explained by SAM(structured atom model).

https://etherealmatters.org/book/struct ... -model-sam

I will read your paper more.

I have just gone halfway with the SAM (Structured Atomic Model)
video presentation of Edwin Kaal. I have to say it is the best video presentation ever that I have viewed; the SAM model is not just any "alternative theory", it is almost the best alternative theory I have ever read so far and very convincing.

I think anyone interested in nuclear structure should pay some attention to it. You may get alot of clues from their ideas.

Chan Rasjid
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Our Nuclear Physics All Wrong!

Unread postby webolife » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:37 pm

I agree 100% that atomic structure is the key to understanding both the particle "soup", but also to understanding the nature of stellar and other spectra. The elegance of the two elementary nuclear particles being protons and electrons will solve a great deal of unspoken mystery in the interpretation of so-called absorption and emission lines -- eg. there are no "emission" lines, only absorption lines; in that the light pressure action is a centropic vector in the plasmic stellar field. Many identified and unidentified lines in the spectrum [eg. the solar spectrum] can then be interpreted as reflections from within the atomic structure itself, somewhat analogous to the reflective patterns of raindrops in the formation of a rainbow. Standard physics refers to the dropping of an electron to a lower energy state causing the emission of a photon. But when the fundamental field pressure is understood to be centropic [ie. a "push" directed toward the field centroid, as a sink] rather than emitted or emanating from it, then it can be seen that the electron PE drop [also net entropy... entropy is centropy] is the actual light action. The contraction of the field thus resulting is instantaneously "felt" by the peripheral observer.
Let there be light... and it was there! :!:
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle


Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests