Re: nuclear shell model periodic table

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 10/12/04 

Date: 12 Oct 2004 01:20:24 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ckdotg$qno$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ck8j27$li9$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ck5toc$ob8$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> ?
> >>
> >>OTOH, if you look for *evidence* that the nucleus has no defined
> >>structure: start with the HUP for position and momentum:
> >> dx * dp >= hbar/2
> >>(I write "d" here as a shortcut for "Delta")
> >>
> >>A nucleus has a size of about 1 femtometer. If one takes that number for
> >>dx for a nucleon (i.e. if one assumes that the position of a nucleon is
> >>fixed to an accuracy of 1 femtometer), one gets approximately dp = 200
> >>MeV/c. Since the mass of a nucleon is about 1 GeV/c^2, a nucleon then
> >>has a speed of about 0.1 c! And for a smaller dx (which one needs if one
> >>wants to claim that the nucleus has a well-defined structure!), the
> >>speed gets even greater! So, obviously, if the HUP holds, the nucleons
> >>can *not* have a well-defined position. q.e.d.
> >>
> >>BTW, if you want to claim that I misapply the HUP here, please consider
> >>that I actually *learned* how one can use it, and passed *exams* about that.
> >>
> >>And if you want to claim that the HUP does not hold for nucleons, please
> >>explain why all calculations which assume that it *does* hold give
> >>results consistent with the observations.
> >
> > ------------------
> > 1 even if it were true that *you cant measure it*
> > des not mean it is not definite.
> > its your techincal problem
>
> I did not talk about "measuring" anywhere above.
>
> The HUP is *not* only about measuring. That is an outdated view, often
> shown in popular science explanations of it, but not how it is *really*
> used in physics.
----------------------
it deals with the uncertainly of measuring or error
that means nothing about the posibility of the nuc to have a defint
structure
thyat can be derived by other means
that you failed as a parrot to get and understand
so dont make your incapability - the domimant situation
of every body!!
and btw
even phylosophically
it is less acceptable and more difficult
to prove and to to say that something does not
exist rather than
claiming that it exists
because while you say it does not exist
ther is the posibility that you didnt look for it good enough
especially while i come with a book that showes it
all laong and substantiate it
the fact the you are a fucer lier od incapable to get it
does not make it void
-------------
----------
--------------
>
>
> > 2 you asume that the particles in it move linearily
>
> No, I did not assume that anywhere above.
>
>
> > yet what about if they dont move linearily but say vibrate??
>
> Then the argument still applies.
and if not moving at all?
ther is no momentum att he firat place!
ie completely the hup is irrelevant
---------------
>
> BTW, vibrating charges give off electromagnetic radiation all the time.
> But we don't see nuclei giving off electromagnetic radiation all the time.
>--------------
so it doesnot vibrate or its vibrations are too small to notice
--------------
>
> > 3 even if it cannot ne measured by our existing tools
> > it can be derived by other ways!!
> > not by measuring it !!
>
> This is merely a restatement of 1. Thanks for showing yet again that
> you are not capable of a logical argumentation.
> ---------
so i sayed it twice that has nothing to do with logic
showes your deomagogism and irrational personal anymousity
-----------
>
> > 4
> > say sducated man:
> > does for instance *the alpha particle* has it the structure of
> > a tetraheder??
>
> No, it hasn't.
-----------
imbecil ignorant
open some books
that is the base for the Carbon nuc and atom
to be a tetraheder
do you waht to make your fucken ignorance
the common knowledge
do you what to prevent advance ??
fucken parrot and FERTZ inventor

n
>
> >>>models are a matter of fashin because the ignorance
> >>>is as big as your ignorance
> >>
> >>No, models have little to do with "fashion". That is a rather
> >>stupid post-modernist claim.
> >
> > -----------
> > you dont get even that ......
>
> You don't even support that.....
>
 
>
> >>> it needs time and computer programing that I haven't got now
> >>> it will be done in the future
> >>
> >>Again, how do you know that this is possible?
> >
> > because even my knowledge in structures that you don't know
> > in macrocosm
> > id good enough to predict it will give results similar
> > to the Rutherford results
>
> That is simply wrong. For example, you kept claiming that the scattering
> cross section should be proportional to A, whereas the actual evidence
> shows that it is proportional to A^2.
>
> BTW, what has your knowledge of structures in macrocosm to do with being
> able to *quantitatively* explain nuclear scattering?
-----------
that is not for matemathical idiots
-------------
>
>
> >>>bring it here
> >>
> >>Why?
> >>
> >>I already gave a short explanation. If you want to know the details, you
> >>*have* to read this up! After all, this is a rather involved calculation!
> >>----------------
> >
> > dont give short explanations because your short explanations are chating!!
>
> No, they aren't, you ignorant, arrogant idiot.
>
> And I told you *lots* of times now that in newsgroup posts, one *can*
> give only short explanations!
>
>
> > take the first lanthanoid say Cerium
>
> Err, that's the second, not the first lanthanoid. Thanks for showing yet
> again that you have no clue what you are talking about.
ok but that is not the main issue
you obfuscate as laways
>
>
> > it has 6 shells
>
> Why do you think so?????
>
> Do you perhaps mean 6 *filled* shells? Even that would only be partly true.
>
>
> > the most external has 2 electrons
>
> Try understanding what "most external" actually *means* here. You seem
> to have a totally wrong picture in your mind about this!
so what is your picture?
is it not the the 2 are at thefarest location from the nuc?
anyway it does not matter we have shells
wherever you say they are
----------
>
>
> > now in all all the folowing lanthaniods the additional
> > electrons are stuffed only at the third shell
>
> No, the fourth. Thanks for showing yet again that you have no clue what
> you are talking about.
> ---------
ok the fouth it is the same n0onsense
thank you for showing that you are a master obfuscator
and a demagogue that evads the point that are not convenient for him.
---------------------
>
> > 18 +1 18 +2 18 +3 etc
>
> I suppose that the number 18 here denotes the number of electrons which
> were in the fourth "shell" previously?
>-------------
whtever its the same nonsenase.
----------
>
> > so why are they stuffed jsut in the third shell and not say in the shwell no 4?
>
> They are stuffed in the fourth shell because there is still room, and
> there is still room because previously no electrons were stuffed there,
> because they are bound stronger in *other* orbitals.
>-------------
very nice story
now all that is remained is that

*you will bring experimantal data verifing it for
got it experimenatl data not paper/ book models
but natures model
(listen casrefully)
for Cerium!!! got it ??
--------------
>
> > now you say binding energies
> > ok bring all thwe binding energies of all the shells
>
> You *do* know that this stuff can be found in textbooks on atomic
> physics, don't you?
for cerium !!
got it
i didnt find it and you cheap lier as well
*didnt found it **!!!
you are hand waiving!!

>
>
> > and dont forget to bring evidence that those bindings energies
> > *are not only on your papaer and your books * but suppoted by experimental evidence
> > like spectral data or whaever you like! and it has to be *specifically
> > for the element Cerium
> > if you waht to do it with another lanthanoid i will be large with you
> > ]and acceot it.
>
> Why dont you look it up yourself, lazybone? The evidence is there, in
> the literature.
---------
croock ther e is nothing like that for the specific lanthyanoids
go it croock??
if yess
than bring it !!!
you can recrute the biggest institutes for that mission!!
and even Erick Pisse
and ever Lothar Brendel
iow all the hundred of thousand scintists that you always mention
good luck!!
---------------------
> Y.Porat
---------

Quantcast