| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Allan Adler" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2004 11:48:51 PM |
| Object: |
nuclear shell model periodic table |
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
available in abundance. Where can I find a periodic table based on
the nuclear shell model instead?
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Draper" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
27 Sep 2004 11:48:35 AM |
|
|
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<y93wtykgtl8.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu>...
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
available in abundance. Where can I find a periodic table based on
the nuclear shell model instead?
I think it would help if you understood the periodicity of chemical
properties that strongly drove the development of the periodic table.
There is a reason it's called the periodic table, you know! The
electron configurations go a long way to explaining the periodicity of
those properties: electron affinity, atomic radius, ionization energy,
ionic charge, metallicity, etc. But the electron configurations are
not the *reason* for the utility of the periodic table -- the periodic
properties are.
To drive the utility of a nuclear shell model (isotope) table, what
are the periodic nuclear properties that you are trying to account
for? Someone has mentioned stability "magic numbers". Is that the only
one? Is it worth your effort to built an isotope table that displays
not a whole lot of periodicity?
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
24 Sep 2004 06:18:31 AM |
|
|
Allan Adler wrote:
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
available in abundance. Where can I find a periodic table based on
the nuclear shell model instead?
Well, you have to consider that in nuclei, there are *two* degrees
of freedom: the number of protons and the number of neutrons. Both
can have a "magic number", i.e. fill up a shell completely,
independently. So it's not so easy to draw a "periodic table" for nuclei
as for atoms.
What is generally available is a so-called "nuclide table".
see e.g. here:
<http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/>
<http://sutekh.nd.rl.ac.uk/CoN/> (here the "magic numbers" are marked!)
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Allan Adler" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
24 Sep 2004 09:32:42 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Allan Adler wrote:
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
available in abundance. Where can I find a periodic table based on
the nuclear shell model instead?
Well, you have to consider that in nuclei, there are *two* degrees
of freedom: the number of protons and the number of neutrons. Both
can have a "magic number", i.e. fill up a shell completely,
independently. So it's not so easy to draw a "periodic table" for nuclei
as for atoms. What is generally available is a so-called "nuclide table".
see e.g. here: <http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/>
<http://sutekh.nd.rl.ac.uk/CoN/> (here the "magic numbers" are marked!)
Thanks, I looked at the site. I think it is not detailed enough for
my purposes, or at any rate I can't seem to get the enlargment feature
to work with my browser.
I memorized the usual period chart and I'm trying to find some document
that is sufficiently detailed and legible that I could use it to memorize
the "nuclide chart". For example, I have one of those place mats on my
dining room table that has the usual periodic table, and it includes the
electronic shell structures of the elements, which I also memorized. So,
the nuclide chart is next, including the shell structures, assuming I can
find one that looks like it would be an aid to memorization. This probably
is not available on a place mat, but a book would be just fine.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Allan Adler" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
26 Sep 2004 12:59:47 AM |
|
|
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> writes:
This probably
is not available on a place mat, but a book would be just fine.
I'm going to see whether Maria Goeppert-Mayer's book on the nuclear
shell model has the kind of information I want.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
25 Sep 2004 07:58:56 AM |
|
|
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<y937jqjaxit.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu>...
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Allan Adler wrote:
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
available in abundance. Where can I find a periodic table based on
the nuclear shell model instead?
Well, you have to consider that in nuclei, there are *two* degrees
of freedom: the number of protons and the number of neutrons. Both
can have a "magic number", i.e. fill up a shell completely,
independently. So it's not so easy to draw a "periodic table" for nuclei
as for atoms. What is generally available is a so-called "nuclide table".
see e.g. here: <http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/>
<http://sutekh.nd.rl.ac.uk/CoN/> (here the "magic numbers" are marked!)
Thanks, I looked at the site. I think it is not detailed enough for
my purposes, or at any rate I can't seem to get the enlargment feature
to work with my browser.
I memorized the usual period chart and I'm trying to find some document
that is sufficiently detailed and legible that I could use it to memorize
the "nuclide chart". For example, I have one of those place mats on my
dining room table that has the usual periodic table, and it includes the
electronic shell structures of the elements, which I also memorized. So,
the nuclide chart is next, including the shell structures, assuming I can
find one that looks like it would be an aid to memorization. This probably
is not available on a place mat, but a book would be just fine.
--------------
the 'magic numbeers of the nuc
has nothing to do with the electrons around
the electrons are *a result* of nuclear structure
now the magic figures like
8 or 16 or 32
are not always working!!
do you know why?
because it is far from knowing the more real story of it
more close to reality is the what i found:
the nuc above fluorine is composed of
quartets of alpha particles as a basic skeleton
with additions of protons neutrons deutrons on it
so you cannot predict it all alond the periodic table
just based on magic numbers
it is each case for itself
(unless you whant to spend the rest of your life
insisting on those magic numbers,
sometimes those quartets are connected not buy another quartet
of alphas but by .... two deutrons
or two alpha particles instead of 4 of them
so not as simple as you stride for.
i worked on it more than 10 years,....
and waht i told you here is just the tip of the iceberg..
-----------
Y.Porat
--------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
26 Sep 2004 10:43:08 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<y937jqjaxit.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu>...
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Allan Adler wrote:
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
available in abundance. Where can I find a periodic table based on
the nuclear shell model instead?
Well, you have to consider that in nuclei, there are *two* degrees
of freedom: the number of protons and the number of neutrons. Both
can have a "magic number", i.e. fill up a shell completely,
independently. So it's not so easy to draw a "periodic table" for nuclei
as for atoms. What is generally available is a so-called "nuclide table".
see e.g. here: <http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/>
<http://sutekh.nd.rl.ac.uk/CoN/> (here the "magic numbers" are marked!)
Thanks, I looked at the site. I think it is not detailed enough for
my purposes, or at any rate I can't seem to get the enlargment feature
to work with my browser.
I memorized the usual period chart and I'm trying to find some document
that is sufficiently detailed and legible that I could use it to memorize
the "nuclide chart". For example, I have one of those place mats on my
dining room table that has the usual periodic table, and it includes the
electronic shell structures of the elements, which I also memorized. So,
the nuclide chart is next, including the shell structures, assuming I can
find one that looks like it would be an aid to memorization. This probably
is not available on a place mat, but a book would be just fine.
--------------
the 'magic numbeers of the nuc
has nothing to do with the electrons around
Hint: Both I and Allan Adler know that. And all nuclear physicists
know that also.
In contrast, in your book, *you* confuse the shell structure of the
nucleus with that of the electrons...
the electrons are *a result* of nuclear structure
now the magic figures like
8 or 16 or 32
are not always working!!
do you know why?
Yes. That is explained in every book on nuclear physics. The cause
is spin-orbit coupling. If one takes that into account, the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice. Hint: this has been known for about 50 years now.
because it is far from knowing the more real story of it
more close to reality is the what i found:
What you "found" is a wild fantasy and has nothing to do with
reality.
the nuc above fluorine is composed of
quartets of alpha particles as a basic skeleton
with additions of protons neutrons deutrons on it
Feel free to compare this claimed structure with the results
obtained from scattering experiments.
Hint: it won't work.
so you cannot predict it all alond the periodic table
just based on magic numbers
Well, unfortunately for you, one indeed can. As mentioned above: the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice.
it is each case for itself
(unless you whant to spend the rest of your life
insisting on those magic numbers,
THEY WORK. Look at the actual data.
[snip more wild fantasies]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
27 Sep 2004 02:52:18 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj6o2c$qc2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<y937jqjaxit.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu>...
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Allan Adler wrote:
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
are marked!)
Thanks, I looked at the site. I think it is not detailed enough for
my purposes, or at any rate I can't seem to get the enlargment feature
to work with my browser.
--------------
the 'magic numbeers of the nuc
has nothing to do with the electrons around
Hint: Both I and Allan Adler know that. And all nuclear physicists
know that also.
In contrast, in your book, *you* confuse the shell structure of the
nucleus with that of the electrons...
-------------
you understand nothing of my book and yet you have the guts
of a croock to abuse it
the confution of electrons and nuc structure is in your mind
not in my model
quite the contrary (idiot)
i always claim that there is not direct connection between
the number of electrons in a heavy nuc and the number of protons
yet there is a direct connection between some external protons
and electrons
there ar eeven neutrons that have electrons attached to them
that of course is not for a parrot
--------------
---------
the electrons are *a result* of nuclear structure
now the magic figures like
8 or 16 or 32
are not always working!!
do you know why?
Yes. That is explained in every book on nuclear physics. The cause
is spin-orbit coupling. If one takes that into account, the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice. Hint: this has been known for about 50 years now.
-----------
no parrot
that is just a confused postulate there
that does not work all along the periodic table
in many cases it is 'fiddeled in' arbitrarily.
in my model it is a direct result of the nuc
-----------
because it is far from knowing the more real story of it
more close to reality is the what i found:
What you "found" is a wild fantasy and has nothing to do with
reality.
---------
idiot and nasty croock
-------------
the nuc above fluorine is composed of
quartets of alpha particles as a basic skeleton
with additions of protons neutrons deutrons on it
Feel free to compare this claimed structure with the results
obtained from scattering experiments.
-------------
i dont know about your scattering experiments anyway
if i iirc there is a lot of interpretations there
a lot of fideling
and it does not work all along the periodic table
got it lier ???
-----------
Hint: it won't work.
idiot
-------------
so you cannot predict it all alond the periodic table
just based on magic numbers
Well, unfortunately for you, one indeed can. As mentioned above: the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice.
----------
niot all along the periodic table
got it lier croock??
------------------
it is each case for itself
(unless you whant to spend the rest of your life
insisting on those magic numbers,
THEY WORK. Look at the actual data.
----------
lier croock
the edisting models do not go reasonably much further than Iron
in heavier elements its onlt some bits and pieces of success
hear and there far form a sound reasonable solusion
(and much poorer than for ligh telements)
and that is not acidental
it is due to smugg idiots like Feuerbacher
who spread that smugness in thus preventing advance!!
you are a walikg damage to scince!!
-------------
----------------
--------------
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
27 Sep 2004 03:47:41 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj6o2c$qc2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<y937jqjaxit.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu>...
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Allan Adler wrote:
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
are marked!)
Thanks, I looked at the site. I think it is not detailed enough for
my purposes, or at any rate I can't seem to get the enlargment feature
to work with my browser.
--------------
the 'magic numbeers of the nuc
has nothing to do with the electrons around
Hint: Both I and Allan Adler know that. And all nuclear physicists
know that also.
In contrast, in your book, *you* confuse the shell structure of the
nucleus with that of the electrons...
-------------
you understand nothing of my book and yet you have the guts
of a croock to abuse it
I understand quite a lot of it. That's why I keep recognizing
all your blunders.
the confution of electrons and nuc structure is in your mind
not in my model
It is there indeed. Everytime you write about magical numbers
and shell models, it is quite clear that you don't see the difference
between the electron structure of the atom and the nuclear structure.
quite the contrary (idiot)
i always claim that there is not direct connection between
the number of electrons in a heavy nuc and the number of protons
And that is still utter nonsense.
And, BTW: it is quite irrelevant for the point here.
yet there is a direct connection between some external protons
and electrons
there ar eeven neutrons that have electrons attached to them
As usual, that's a totally unsupported, totally nonsensical assertion.
that of course is not for a parrot
It is not for anyone with an understanding of physics.
the electrons are *a result* of nuclear structure
now the magic figures like
8 or 16 or 32
are not always working!!
do you know why?
Yes. That is explained in every book on nuclear physics. The cause
is spin-orbit coupling. If one takes that into account, the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice. Hint: this has been known for about 50 years now.
-----------
no
Yes.
parrot
We established rather well *who* is the parrot here.
that is just a confused postulate
It *works*. *Quantitatively*.
there that does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
in many cases it is 'fiddeled in' arbitrarily.
Absolute utter nonsense. There is no arbitrary fiddling at all
in the nuclear shell model.
in my model it is a direct result of the nuc
And of about 20 totally arbitrary rules!
[snip]
the nuc above fluorine is composed of
quartets of alpha particles as a basic skeleton
with additions of protons neutrons deutrons on it
Feel free to compare this claimed structure with the results
obtained from scattering experiments.
-------------
i dont know about your scattering experiments anyway
Hint: that's bad for you and your model.
if i iirc there is a lot of interpretations there
a lot of fideling
"iirc" means "if I rememer correctly". If you know nothing
about the scattering experiments, you can't remember that there
are interpretations and fiddling there!
And, hint: there aren't. That's simply your usual, totally unsupported,
evasion when evidence is brought up.
and it does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
got it lier ???
Yes, I got that as usual, when the evidence goes against you,
you simply make up unsupported assertions.
-----------
Hint: it won't work.
idiot
You can insult as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that it indeed works.
so you cannot predict it all alond the periodic table
just based on magic numbers
Well, unfortunately for you, one indeed can. As mentioned above: the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice.
----------
niot all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
got it lier croock??
Yes, I got that as usual, when the evidence goes against you,
you simply make up unsupported assertions.
it is each case for itself
(unless you whant to spend the rest of your life
insisting on those magic numbers,
THEY WORK. Look at the actual data.
----------
lier croock
You can insult as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that they indeed works.
the edisting models do not go reasonably much further than Iron
*big sigh*
1) That was told to you by some people in this newsgroup only,
who were not experts in the field. That is simply *wrong*. There
are *lots* of published articles which deal with elements *above*
iron!!!
2) This "not going further than iron" was for the *electronic*
structure of the atoms. *Not* for the *nuclear* structure!
See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure. The nuclear shell model
works perfectly well even far beyond iron!!!
[snip more insane ramblings]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
28 Sep 2004 02:27:33 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj8k3d$7e4$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj6o2c$qc2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<y937jqjaxit.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu>...
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Allan Adler wrote:
Periodic tables of the elements, based on the electronic shells are
are marked!)
Thanks, I looked at the site. I think it is not detailed enough for
my purposes, or at any rate I can't seem to get the enlargment feature
to work with my browser.
--------------
the 'magic numbeers of the nuc
has nothing to do with the electrons around
Hint: Both I and Allan Adler know that. And all nuclear physicists
know that also.
In contrast, in your book, *you* confuse the shell structure of the
nucleus with that of the electrons...
-------------
you understand nothing of my book and yet you have the guts
of a croock to abuse it
I understand quite a lot of it. That's why I keep recognizing
all your blunders.
----------------
idiot croock
you understand youself not my model
and you are a croock
i guess that you got your phd by cheating as well!!
-----------------
the confution of electrons and nuc structure is in your mind
not in my model
It is there indeed. Everytime you write about magical numbers
and shell models, it is quite clear that you don't see the difference
between the electron structure of the atom and the nuclear structure.
-------------
idiot
quite the contrary (idiot)
i always claim that there is not direct connection between
the number of electrons in a heavy nuc and the number of protons
And that is still utter nonsense.
-----------
for an idiot
---------------
And, BTW: it is quite irrelevant for the point here.
yet there is a direct connection between some external protons
and electrons
there ar eeven neutrons that have electrons attached to them
As usual, that's a totally unsupported, totally nonsensical assertion.
-------------
for a croock idiot that inveted the FETRZ
-----------------
that of course is not for a parrot
It is not for anyone with an understanding of physics.
-------------
for parrots tha 'understand parroting
-----------------
the electrons are *a result* of nuclear structure
now the magic figures like
8 or 16 or 32
are not always working!!
do you know why?
Yes. That is explained in every book on nuclear physics. The cause
is spin-orbit coupling. If one takes that into account, the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice. Hint: this has been known for about 50 years now.
-----------
no
Yes.
parrot
We established rather well *who* is the parrot here.
you estabished your fucken FERTZ invention
now a question to you parrot:
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
-------------
that is just a confused postulate
It *works*. *Quantitatively*.
there that does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
-
parrot
the electronic structure is a direct result of mun structure.
---------------
in many cases it is 'fiddeled in' arbitrarily.
Absolute utter nonsense. There is no arbitrary fiddling at all
in the nuclear shell model.
-------------
ignorant parrot and lier
----------------
in my model it is a direct result of the nuc
And of about 20 totally arbitrary rules!
-----------
so what ??
it goes much further in amny aspects than your fucken shell model
besides if you consider all those fiddling of the shell model
it makes much more than 20 rules with much less results
-------------
--------------
[snip]
the nuc above fluorine is composed of
quartets of alpha particles as a basic skeleton
with additions of protons neutrons deutrons on it
Feel free to compare this claimed structure with the results
obtained from scattering experiments.
-------------
i dont know about your scattering experiments anyway
Hint: that's bad for you and your model.
no idiot
thas good for idiots like you who do not know to interpretate
correctly experimental results and later are cheting
no scattering is contradicting my model
it is only in your retarded understanding
-------------
-------------
-------------
if i iirc there is a lot of interpretations there
a lot of fideling
"iirc" means "if I rememer correctly". If you know nothing
about the scattering experiments, you can't remember that there
are interpretations and fiddling there!
we disussed it and found that you are cheating
and recriting those experiments to 'your undestanding
the scattering experiemnts can be explained
by alternative newer models of metal latice
composed of masses suspended by 'springs'
and we saw as well that there are a lot of inacuracies
in your scatering *interpretations* and further away
it is cheating
fits your character of a lier
you will never make real advance in scince
except for your FERTZ because you are a *born lier.*
---------------------
And, hint: there aren't. That's simply your usual, totally unsupported,
evasion when evidence is brought up.
--------------
croock and lier
---------------
and it does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
---------------
it has a lot to do with nuclear structre
it has nothing to do only for liers ignorants and demagoges like you
you try to obfuscate that qm didnt go much further than iron.
and will never do it (imho)
iow you are a walking damage to the advance of scince.
inspigh tof your young age you are an old stiff clergy man
that personal carier is the main interst in his mind
but it won't help you you will remain
a FERTZ inventor anothing more.
the fact is that qm didnt go much further than iron
in detailed solusion as in lighter elements
and that is not occational- it is in a dead end
because of false assumptions
got it parrot?? if not go ahead and solve all the periodic table!!
--------------
---------------
----------------
got it lier ???
Yes, I got that as usual, when the evidence goes against you,
you simply make up unsupported assertions.
--------------
in your very humble opinion
--------------
-----------
Hint: it won't work.
idiot
You can insult as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that it indeed works.
-----------
lier
-------------
so you cannot predict it all alond the periodic table
just based on magic numbers
Well, unfortunately for you, one indeed can. As mentioned above: the
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the observations
is very nice.
----------
niot all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
--------------
parrot
solve all the elements of the periodic table
and explain the lanthaniods as well
--------------
it is each case for itself
(unless you whant to spend the rest of your life
insisting on those magic numbers,
THEY WORK. Look at the actual data.
----------
lier croock
You can insult as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that they indeed works.
that is facts for a croock
-------------
the edisting models do not go reasonably much further than Iron
*big sigh*
1) That was told to you by some people in this newsgroup only,
who were not experts in the field. That is simply *wrong*. There
are *lots* of published articles which deal with elements *above*
iron!!!
2) This "not going further than iron" was for the *electronic*
structure of the atoms. *Not* for the *nuclear* structure!
---------------
it is right for all aspects of those elements
it is stuck in the mudd
people know some uses of those heave elements
but they do not understand realy how it works
something metaphorically to the situation of
thosands years ago whilo people new how to use fire
whitout realy undrstanding how it works
it was onlt after etter understanding of fire
that the combustuion engine could be inveted
got it matemathics parrot!!!
--------------------
See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure. The nuclear shell model
works perfectly well even far beyond iron!!!
---------------
you are a walking damage to the advace of scince
-------------
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
28 Sep 2004 04:50:09 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj8k3d$7e4$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj6o2c$qc2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
[snip]
i guess that you got your phd by cheating as well!!
You can read my PhD thesis for free. I already provided the link
several times. Judge for yourself if I got it by cheating.
the confution of electrons and nuc structure is in your mind
not in my model
It is there indeed. Everytime you write about magical numbers
and shell models, it is quite clear that you don't see the difference
between the electron structure of the atom and the nuclear structure.
-------------
idiot
Insulting me does not change that fact.
quite the contrary (idiot)
i always claim that there is not direct connection between
the number of electrons in a heavy nuc and the number of protons
And that is still utter nonsense.
-----------
for an idiot
No, for everyone who knows the experimental evidence.
[snip]
yet there is a direct connection between some external protons
and electrons
there ar eeven neutrons that have electrons attached to them
As usual, that's a totally unsupported, totally nonsensical assertion.
-------------
for a croock idiot that inveted the FETRZ
No, for everyone who knows the experimental evidence.
that of course is not for a parrot
It is not for anyone with an understanding of physics.
-------------
for parrots tha 'understand parroting
We have established rather well *who* is the parrot here.
[snip]
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
Err, we were talking about *nuclear structure* here.
For the 10th time: nuclear structure has nothing to do with the
periodic table!!!!!!!!
That all Lanthanoids are in one line of the periodic table is
explained by the *electron structure* of atoms.
As I said: you keep confusing electronic and nuclear structure!
[snip]
there that does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
-
parrot
the electronic structure is a direct result of mun structure.
"mun"???
If you meant "nuclear" (also I don't see how you got to "mun" from
that!): that is an unsupported assertion, which is strongly contradicted
by the evidence. E.g. the nuclear excitation energies show a periodicity
which is totally *different* from the periodicity seen in the
*electronic* excitation energies!
in many cases it is 'fiddeled in' arbitrarily.
Absolute utter nonsense. There is no arbitrary fiddling at all
in the nuclear shell model.
-------------
ignorant parrot and lier
Insulting me does not change the fact that there is no arbitrary
fiddling at all in the nuclear shell model.
in my model it is a direct result of the nuc
And of about 20 totally arbitrary rules!
-----------
so what ??
That doesn't bother you?
it goes much further in amny aspects than your fucken shell model
No. It merely *claims* to go much further. But presents no evidence
for that!
besides if you consider all those fiddling of the shell model
it makes much more than 20 rules with much less results
There *is* no fiddling in the nuclear shell model, idiot.
*Learn* something first before attacking it!!!
the nuc above fluorine is composed of
quartets of alpha particles as a basic skeleton
with additions of protons neutrons deutrons on it
Feel free to compare this claimed structure with the results
obtained from scattering experiments.
-------------
i dont know about your scattering experiments anyway
Hint: that's bad for you and your model.
no idiot
thas good for idiots like you who do not know to interpretate
correctly experimental results
Pot. Kettle. Black.
and later are cheting
no scattering is contradicting my model
It is indeed. If you think otherwise, explain the existing data
with your model. *Quantitatively*.
[snip]
if i iirc there is a lot of interpretations there
a lot of fideling
"iirc" means "if I rememer correctly". If you know nothing
about the scattering experiments, you can't remember that there
are interpretations and fiddling there!
we disussed it and found that you are cheating
and recriting those experiments to 'your undestanding
Liar. I gave a link to only *one* set of scattering experiments
(Geiger and Marsden), and that paper gave a list of the actual
experimental data. I "recreated" (I suppose you meant that?) nothing there.
the scattering experiemnts can be explained
by alternative newer models of metal latice
composed of masses suspended by 'springs'
Feel free to present a *quantitative* analysis.
Mere handwaving does not count.
and we saw as well that there are a lot of inacuracies
in your scatering *interpretations*
Liar. Only about 10 points out of about 50 did not lie on the
lines; and these could be easily explained.
and further away it is cheating
Liar.
fits your character of a lier
you will never make real advance in scince
except for your FERTZ because you are a *born lier.*
Pot. Kettle. Black.
---------------------
And, hint: there aren't. That's simply your usual, totally unsupported,
evasion when evidence is brought up.
--------------
croock and lier
Insulting me is merely another of your favorite evasions when evidence
is brought up.
and it does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
---------------
it has a lot to do with nuclear structre
No, it hasn't. The experimental evidence clearly shows that nuclear
structure and electronic structure have no connections to each
other.
it has nothing to do only for liers ignorants and demagoges like you
you try to obfuscate that qm didnt go much further than iron.
That is still a lie.
and will never do it (imho)
Your opinion is anything but humble.
[snip more insane ramblings]
Hint: it won't work.
idiot
You can insult me as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that it indeed works.
-----------
lier
You can insult me as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that it indeed works.
[snip]
niot all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
--------------
parrot
solve all the elements of the periodic table
and explain the lanthaniods as well
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
[snip]
You can insult me as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that they indeed works.
that is facts for a croock
You can insult me as long as you want, that won't change the fact
that they indeed works.
[snip more nonsense and insane ramblings]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
29 Sep 2004 01:25:32 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjbc4h$4bo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj8k3d$7e4$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj6o2c$qc2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
[snip]
i guess that you got your phd by cheating as well!!
You can read my PhD thesis for free. I already provided the link
several times. Judge for yourself if I got it by cheating.
----------------
i have no time to spend on old parroting
i am looking for new things
-----------------
quite the contrary (idiot)
i always claim that there is not direct connection between
the number of electrons in a heavy nuc and the number of protons
And that is still utter nonsense.
-----------
for an idiot
No, for everyone who knows the experimental evidence.
---------------
may be in your phd
------------------
[snip]
yet there is a direct connection between some external protons
and electrons
there ar eeven neutrons that have electrons attached to them
As usual, that's a totally unsupported, totally nonsensical assertion.
-------------
for a croock idiot that inveted the FETRZ
No, for everyone who knows the experimental evidence.
-------------
who thinks and poses he knows like you imposter parrot
--------------
[snip]
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
Err, we were talking about *nuclear structure* here.
ok
just tell us what is *your* nuclear structure
and mind you
the op was asking *rightly !!!)- about the periodic table as well
it seems that he has some betetr intuition than a parrot like you
-
For the 10th time: nuclear structure has nothing to do with the
periodic table!!!!!!!!
--------------
imbecil ignorant croock and imposter of being a nuclear expert
-----------------------
That all Lanthanoids are in one line of the periodic table is
explained by the *electron structure* of atoms.
----------
ok tell us as well (acording to you without connection to the nuc.)
why all the lantanoids are in the same 'square' of the periodic table
and dont give me 'explained by'
we whant to see your explanations and your understanding of it
you are a physics teacher right??
a teacher that pretends to tech this ng physics !!
------------------
If you meant "nuclear" (also I don't see how you got to "mun" from
that!): that is an unsupported assertion, which is strongly contradicted
by the evidence. E.g. the nuclear excitation energies show a periodicity
which is totally *different* from the periodicity seen in the
*electronic* excitation energies!
-------------
no need for hand waving be specific and tell us what is your muclear model
--------------
in many cases it is 'fiddeled in' arbitrarily.
Absolute utter nonsense. There is no arbitrary fiddling at all
in the nuclear shell model.
-------------
ignorant parrot and lier
Insulting me does not change the fact that there is no arbitrary
fiddling at all in the nuclear shell model.
ignorant and croock
------------
in my model it is a direct result of the nuc
And of about 20 totally arbitrary rules!
-----------
so what ??
That doesn't bother you?
it goes much further in amny aspects than your fucken shell model
No. It merely *claims* to go much further. But presents no evidence
for that!
for idiots and croocks there is noadvance in my model
it seems that at leat one of your parents waas croock as well
or else it cannot be understood what a shamless croock
that cheating is his style of life -
they brough up!!
-------------
besides if you consider all those fiddling of the shell model
it makes much more than 20 rules with much less results
There *is* no fiddling in the nuclear shell model, idiot.
*Learn* something first before attacking it!!!
-----------
i studied it you didnt you are a dumn croock
---------------
the nuc above fluorine is composed of
quartets of alpha particles as a basic skeleton
with additions of protons neutrons deutrons on it
Feel free to compare this claimed structure with the results
obtained from scattering experiments.
-------------
i dont know about your scattering experiments anyway
Hint: that's bad for you and your model.
no idiot
thas good for idiots like you who do not know to interpretate
correctly experimental results
Pot. Kettle. Black.
and later are cheting
no scattering is contradicting my model
It is indeed. If you think otherwise, explain the existing data
with your model. *Quantitatively*.
the quote that you broght inclused only a few elements
we can supose that 'the nicest' only were chosen
had there been a thorough study all aqlong the periodic
table
hudreds of inconsistancies whold be foung
that is based on the fact that just in a few elements
many deviations were found
just becuse a skeptic man named Porat
opened that 'pandora box'
----------------------
fits your character of a lier
you will never make real advance in scince
except for your FERTZ because you are a *born lier.*
Pot. Kettle. Black.
and it does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
it cannot obfuscate the fact that for the electron shell model
it does not work all laong the periodic table
becus based on that false paradigma of the shell model
the other aspects of the elements acording to qm
are stuck in the mudd with the excuse of missing computer power!
it is not computer power
it is intelelctual integrity power
that shameles croocks like you and your gang are missing!!
have you ever in your education heared about the word 'shame'?
or shame is only for 'untermenschen'???
--------------
---------------
it has a lot to do with nuclear structre
No, it hasn't. The experimental evidence clearly shows that nuclear
structure and electronic structure have no connections to each
other.
-----------
for ignorant croocks that are a walking damage to scince!!!
--------------
[snip more nonsense and insane ramblings]
who is insane!!!???
anyone can see how you insanely leech on me
wherever i write something you are imediately on my back
while i dont respond to your atricles first
i respond only to your attackes on me
so your leeching on me is unprecedented on the entire ng
it is only a disturbed croock peersonality like you
that can produce such an unprecedentd insane behaviour
go see a phsychaietrist
---------------
Y.Porat
---------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
29 Sep 2004 04:54:19 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjbc4h$4bo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj8k3d$7e4$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj6o2c$qc2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
[snip]
i guess that you got your phd by cheating as well!!
You can read my PhD thesis for free. I already provided the link
several times. Judge for yourself if I got it by cheating.
----------------
i have no time to spend on old parroting
i am looking for new things
Oh, I see - as usual, you prefer simply using libel, and don't
bother checking your claims before making them.
[snip]
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
Err, we were talking about *nuclear structure* here.
ok
just tell us what is *your* nuclear structure
The nucleons are bound in a potential which can be approximated well
both by a "box" and by a harmonic oscillator potential. The wave
functions look like something between sine waves or Hermite polynomials,
multiplied by exponential functions. There is a great amount of
degeneracy there (I bet that you don't know what this word means in
Quantum Mechanics!), but that is partly destroyed by the spin-orbit
coupling between the nucleons. That is all I can give in such a short
summary; for details, see books on nuclear physics.
All I can add is that this model gives *quantitative* results in
agreement with the actual observations - without requiring any fiddling!!!
Feel free to call this "handwaving". You will only reveal your ignorance
and unwillingness to learn when you do that. Yet again.
and mind you
the op was asking *rightly !!!)- about the periodic table as well
*sigh* Thanks for showing your bad reading comprehension, yet again. He
asked for a "periodic table" *****for the nuclear structure*****, and I
and others told him that something like that does not exists; that
instead, one uses a so-called "nuclide chart".
[snip]
That all Lanthanoids are in one line of the periodic table is
explained by the *electron structure* of atoms.
----------
ok tell us as well (acording to you without connection to the nuc.)
why all the lantanoids are in the same 'square' of the periodic table
and dont give me 'explained by'
we whant to see your explanations and your understanding of it
+sigh* I already told you that there are not handy explanations for
everything in physics. Some things, one just has to *calculate*. And
when one does the calculation, it indeed comes out of it (without any
fiddling!!!!!) that there are "subshells" which can hold 14 electrons.
All of them have approximately the same energy. The Lanthanoids have
different amounts of electrons in this subshell, going from 1 to 14.
Since all these electrons have so similar energies, the Lanthanoids
behave chemically very similar (hint: chemical properties are determined
only by the valence electrons).
you are a physics teacher right??
a teacher that pretends to tech this ng physics !!
Wrong.
[snip]
besides if you consider all those fiddling of the shell model
it makes much more than 20 rules with much less results
There *is* no fiddling in the nuclear shell model, idiot.
*Learn* something first before attacking it!!!
-----------
i studied it
Where, specifically? What books did you use?
you didnt
Idiot. Studying nuclear structure is *required* for getting even a
Master in physics.
[snip]
and later are cheting
no scattering is contradicting my model
It is indeed. If you think otherwise, explain the existing data
with your model. *Quantitatively*.
the quote that you broght inclused only a few elements
Yes. So what? That was one of the first studies ever conducted.
we can supose that 'the nicest' only were chosen
No, we can *not* suppose that. That is a completely unsupported
assertion. Essentially, you are accusing Geiger and Marsden of fraud!
Scientists have to report *all* data, not just the "nicest" ones!!!
had there been a thorough study all aqlong the periodic
table
hudreds of inconsistancies whold be foung
Unsupported assertion.
that is based on the fact that just in a few elements
many deviations were found
Liar. There were only very few deviations, and even those can be
explained nicely. I already gave you the deviations.
Do you *really* believe that hundreds of thousands of physicists had
accepted Rutherford's model if the evidence for it *really* were so
shaky? Say, how dumb *are* physicists, in your opinion?
just becuse a skeptic man named Porat
opened that 'pandora box'
You are not a skeptic. You are a crackpot who violently denies
everything which goes against his cherished beliefs, and does
freely use libel and accusations of fraud in order to achieve his goals.
[snip]
and it does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
it cannot obfuscate the fact that for the electron shell model
it does not work all laong the periodic table
That is *still* an unsupported assertion.
becus based on that false paradigma of the shell model
And that also.
the other aspects of the elements acording to qm
are stuck in the mudd with the excuse of missing computer power!
*sigh* For the 100th time: elements above iron *are* studied in quantum
chemistry.
it is not computer power
it is intelelctual integrity power
Yet another unsupported assertion. Yet another instance of libel.
[snip]
[snip more nonsense and insane ramblings]
who is insane!!!???
You.
[snip even more examples of insane ramblings]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
30 Sep 2004 02:50:55 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cje0oc$nn$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjbc4h$4bo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
----------------
i have no time to spend on old parroting
i am looking for new things
Oh, I see - as usual, you prefer simply using libel, and don't
bother checking your claims before making them.
---------------
knowing you too well (i think)
tells me that you are unable to innovate anything
beside the usual parroting
--------------
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
Err, we were talking about *nuclear structure* here.
ok
just tell us what is *your* nuclear structure
The nucleons are bound in a potential which can be approximated well
both by a "box" and by a harmonic oscillator potential. The wave
functions look like something between sine waves or Hermite polynomials,
multiplied by exponential functions. There is a great amount of
degeneracy there (I bet that you don't know what this word means in
Quantum Mechanics!), but that is partly destroyed by the spin-orbit
coupling between the nucleons. That is all I can give in such a short
summary; for details, see books on nuclear physics.
-------------
and you call that pompous matemathical farting
'a theory'????!!!!!!
i am not ging to spend a fraction of a second
on a kindergaden pompous ignorance!!
in that case i donr blame you !
you are just a sucker that is buying it !!!and parroting
parroting is all your speciality and skill
that is not a crime
but .......
to abuse a theory and a model- that is much more progressive
(ways more progressive)
(though in its beginning)
that is an unforgivable crime!!!!
that is lack of intellectual integrity!!(have you heared such strange words
as 'intelelctual integrity??
was it even once in all your education process that you heared those
two ords together???
----------
-----------
All I can add is that this model gives *quantitative* results in
agreement with the actual observations - without requiring any fiddling!!!
--------------
for how many of the elements of the periodic table ??!!
Feel free to call this "handwaving". You will only reveal your ignorance
and unwillingness to learn when you do that. Yet again.
ignorance eh ???
shameless croock!
----------
and mind you
the op was asking *rightly !!!)- about the periodic table as well
*sigh* Thanks for showing your bad reading comprehension, yet again. He
asked for a "periodic table" *****for the nuclear structure*****, and I
and others told him that something like that does not exists; that
instead, one uses a so-called "nuclide chart".
-----------
ok but he was asuming rightly
that there should be !!
and an ignorant like you should know
that there is something periodic in the nuclear structure
so thank you fo rshowing that you are a curless parrot
that is unable to leran something new
thogh you have an advanced model under your hand
for two years
the nuc leus is not just a porridge of particles
defined by vage abstract equations
it has one of the most definit and unequivoal geometric structure
that was found only by one person in this universe to such
and extent of detailes
and cross verifications by exoerimental data!!
yet a retarded croock like you will not addmit it
because you are a croock and a parrot
either because you are uncapable or because you were born a croock.
-----------
[snip]
That all Lanthanoids are in one line of the periodic table is
explained by the *electron structure* of atoms.
----------
ok tell us as well (acording to you without connection to the nuc.)
why all the lantanoids are in the same 'square' of the periodic table
and dont give me 'explained by'
we whant to see your explanations and your understanding of it
+sigh* I already told you that there are not handy explanations for
everything in physics. Some things, one just has to *calculate*. And
when one does the calculation, it indeed comes out of it (without any
fiddling!!!!!) that there are "subshells" which can hold 14 electrons.
All of them have approximately the same energy. The Lanthanoids have
different amounts of electrons in this subshell, going from 1 to 14.
Since all these electrons have so similar energies, the Lanthanoids
behave chemically very similar (hint: chemical properties are determined
only by the valence electrons).
--------------
and you consider all what you sayed above
*not fiddling*
it is 8exactly 'fitting thr theory to the results'
and *not predicting* got it croock??
are you not ashame???
have you ever heared the word 'shame'???!!!
----------
you are a physics teacher right??
a teacher that pretends to tech this ng physics !!
Wrong.
besides if you consider all those fiddling of the shell model
it makes much more than 20 rules with much less results
There *is* no fiddling in the nuclear shell model, idiot.
*Learn* something first before attacking it!!!
-----------
i studied it
Where, specifically? What books did you use?
you didnt
Idiot. Studying nuclear structure is *required* for getting even a
Master in physics.
----------
do you whant me to study all your retarded theories
do you think i have nothing better to do with my precious time?
i just leave it to you to spend all your life on those
theories
and die an idiot parrot wit h a small job as a tutor
--------------
It is indeed. If you think otherwise, explain the existing data
with your model. *Quantitatively*.
-------------
i do it in many aspects croock
---------------
the quote that you broght inclused only a few elements
Yes. So what? That was one of the first studies ever conducted.
we can supose that 'the nicest' only were chosen
No, we can *not* suppose that. That is a completely unsupported
assertion. Essentially, you are accusing Geiger and Marsden of fraud!
Scientists have to report *all* data, not just the "nicest" ones!!!
had there been a thorough study all aqlong the periodic
table
hudreds of inconsistancies whold be foung
Unsupported assertion.
so show us all the other elemnts
and we will check it (revise it) not with the eyes of parrots
-----------
that is based on the fact that just in a few elements
many deviations were found
Liar. There were only very few deviations, and even those can be
explained nicely. I already gave you the deviations.
those few are good enough to asume that thee are
other much more significant!!
---------
Do you *really* believe that hundreds of thousands of physicists had
accepted Rutherford's model if the evidence for it *really* were so
shaky? Say, how dumb *are* physicists, in your opinion?
---------
trhey were true believers
that didnt revise it with critics eyes
seems that no one evn though that there migh tbe an alternative
physicsl explanation to the parsdigma one.
--------------
just becuse a skeptic man named Porat
opened that 'pandora box'
You are not a skeptic. You are a crackpot who violently denies
everything which goes against his cherished beliefs, and does
freely use libel and accusations of fraud in order to achieve his goals.
---------
you are a dead brain parrot
-------------
[snip]
and it does not work all along the periodic table
Err, nuclear structure has nothing to do with the periodic
table. See what I mean? You keep confusing the electron structure
of the atom and the nuclear structure.
it cannot obfuscate the fact that for the electron shell model
it does not work all laong the periodic table
That is *still* an unsupported assertion.
-------------
id\gnorant parrot
----------
becus based on that false paradigma of the shell model
And that also.
the other aspects of the elements acording to qm
are stuck in the mudd with the excuse of missing computer power!
*sigh* For the 100th time: elements above iron *are* studied in quantum
chemistry.
you can sayu it a nd parot it a million times
(the Gobeless system) but it will not change the fact
that progress is stoped at the heavier elelemts!!
got it croock?
-------------
it is not computer power
it is intelelctual integrity power
Yet another unsupported assertion. Yet another instance of libel.
----------
lier croock that des not know facts.
--------------
You.
--------------
who is insane??
you leech on me irrationally
unprecedented in this ng
and you talk about 'insane'???
go see a psycholog.
-----------
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
30 Sep 2004 04:28:30 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cje0oc$nn$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjbc4h$4bo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
[snip]
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
Err, we were talking about *nuclear structure* here.
ok
just tell us what is *your* nuclear structure
The nucleons are bound in a potential which can be approximated well
both by a "box" and by a harmonic oscillator potential. The wave
functions look like something between sine waves or Hermite polynomials,
multiplied by exponential functions. There is a great amount of
degeneracy there (I bet that you don't know what this word means in
Quantum Mechanics!), but that is partly destroyed by the spin-orbit
coupling between the nucleons. That is all I can give in such a short
summary; for details, see books on nuclear physics.
-------------
and you call that pompous matemathical farting
'a theory'????!!!!!!
1) There is nothing pompous about it.
2) It is not farting.
3) It makes quantitative predictions consistent with the experiment.
4) I don't call it a theory - I call it a model.
i am not ging to spend a fraction of a second
on a kindergaden pompous ignorance!!
in that case i donr blame you !
In other words: as usual, you ignore the model which has been studied
for *decades* (in this case, about 50 years, I think), for which
physicists even obtained Nobel prizes, and which has made lots of
predictions which agree nicely with the experimental tests, by simply
ridiculing it. As usual, you prefer to ignore reality, and pretend that
all those great physicists who worked on this and studied this are total
idiots, and only you are able to see the Truth.
Thanks for yet again demonstrating that you are a crackpot. Of the worst
possible sort.
[snip rest of insane ramblings]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
01 Oct 2004 01:09:46 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjgjjv$bv$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cje0oc$nn$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjbc4h$4bo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
[snip]
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
Err, we were talking about *nuclear structure* here.
ok
just tell us what is *your* nuclear structure
The nucleons are bound in a potential which can be approximated well
both by a "box" and by a harmonic oscillator potential. The wave
functions look like something between sine waves or Hermite polynomials,
multiplied by exponential functions. There is a great amount of
degeneracy there (I bet that you don't know what this word means in
Quantum Mechanics!), but that is partly destroyed by the spin-orbit
coupling between the nucleons. That is all I can give in such a short
summary; for details, see books on nuclear physics.
-------------
and you call that pompous matemathical farting
'a theory'????!!!!!!
1) There is nothing pompous about it.
2) It is not farting.
3) It makes quantitative predictions consistent with the experiment.
4) I don't call it a theory - I call it a model.
i am not ging to spend a fraction of a second
on a kindergaden pompous ignorance!!
in that case i donr blame you !
In other words: as usual, you ignore the model which has been studied
for *decades* (in this case, about 50 years, I think), for which
physicists even obtained Nobel prizes, and which has made lots of
predictions which agree nicely with the experimental tests, by simply
ridiculing it. As usual, you prefer to ignore reality, and pretend that
all those great physicists who worked on this and studied this are total
idiots, and only you are able to see the Truth.
Thanks for yet again demonstrating that you are a crackpot. Of the worst
possible sort.
---------------
i am not interested in what others know
i am intersted in what the parrot Feuerbacher knows!
now Niobel prises is nice relatively to the known state
Aristo could at his time get the Nobel
but would he get it ouer days with his old knowledge??
2 all that Nobel prise in many cases is
'a friend brings a friend'
Nils Bhore got a nobel as well....
yet thinks are ans should go further hahead
3 what atre the elements of the periodictable in which the existing
model
is working
4 how far in those cases in whichj it works it is woeking
5 what are the practical uses fo rour everyday life that where
extracted of it??
6 even if there are somepractical uses-
is it because of theory or is it becuse of trial and error
experiemnts??( (of experimental labouratories not theorethic farters)
7 you say compatibility to experiments:
how much of those predictions were falsified by experiments
and no one rembers them?
8 afer two years that you have my book or from other reasons
can a fucker pisher like you say:
that there is no connection between nuclear model- and the periodic
table of Mendeliev??
if inded the nuclear model claimes that there is no connection
you can stuff it to your stupid *****
yet i hope you sayed that becuse you even dont know the existing
model
8 even though the existing model is somehoe working
is it a satisfactory model
that leaves no room for other models or new findings??
did a parrot like you ever thought about all those questions
(and a lot of other questions that i didnt raise here
9 does a parrot like you ever dare to question a theorty
to examine it , to reexamine it IOW
to do something elese than parrotoing and chest drumming
on others chests and do domething elese than
resting smuggly on the existing !!??
iow you are a fucken walking (and the FERTZ inventor) damage to the
advance of scince.
-----------
Y.Porat
--------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
04 Oct 2004 09:05:16 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjgjjv$bv$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cje0oc$nn$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Y.Porat wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjbc4h$4bo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
[snip]
how does your idiotic parroting theory and magic numbers explaines that
*all the Lanthanoids are concentraited in one 'rubrica' of the
periodic table*??
Err, we were talking about *nuclear structure* here.
ok
just tell us what is *your* nuclear structure
The nucleons are bound in a potential which can be approximated well
both by a "box" and by a harmonic oscillator potential. The wave
functions look like something between sine waves or Hermite polynomials,
multiplied by exponential functions. There is a great amount of
degeneracy there (I bet that you don't know what this word means in
Quantum Mechanics!), but that is partly destroyed by the spin-orbit
coupling between the nucleons. That is all I can give in such a short
summary; for details, see books on nuclear physics.
-------------
and you call that pompous matemathical farting
'a theory'????!!!!!!
1) There is nothing pompous about it.
2) It is not farting.
3) It makes quantitative predictions consistent with the experiment.
4) I don't call it a theory - I call it a model.
i am not ging to spend a fraction of a second
on a kindergaden pompous ignorance!!
in that case i donr blame you !
In other words: as usual, you ignore the model which has been studied
for *decades* (in this case, about 50 years, I think), for which
physicists even obtained Nobel prizes, and which has made lots of
predictions which agree nicely with the experimental tests, by simply
ridiculing it. As usual, you prefer to ignore reality, and pretend that
all those great physicists who worked on this and studied this are total
idiots, and only you are able to see the Truth.
Thanks for yet again demonstrating that you are a crackpot. Of the worst
possible sort.
---------------
i am not interested in what others know
i am intersted in what the parrot Feuerbacher knows!
Why? I freely admit that I am not an expert on nuclear physics. So if
you want to know about nuclear structure, why do you go to me and not
to the experts - i.e. actually read a book on nuclear structure? I
recommend this book:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3540438238/qid=1096898030/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9359636-1131921?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
Lots of experimental evidence is shown in it.
now Niobel prises is nice relatively to the known state
Aristo could at his time get the Nobel
but would he get it ouer days with his old knowledge??
Hint: since the Nobel prize was given for this, no new evidence
disproved these ideas. Although they have been extensively tested.
2 all that Nobel prise in many cases is
'a friend brings a friend'
Nonsense.
Nils Bhore got a nobel as well....
Yes. Your point?
yet thinks are ans should go further hahead
Pardon?
3 what atre the elements of the periodictable in which the existing
model is working
The existing nuclear shell model is working for *all* isotopes occuring
in nature, and even for all known unstable isotopes which were made
artificially. It gives the number of protons and neutrons for which a
nuclid is most stable. These numbers are called "magic numbers". This
model was even used to *predict* that nuclei with 114 protons in them
should be very stable - and the experimental evidence available so far
on such nuclei confirms that.
4 how far in those cases in whichj it works it is woeking
See above: if given the number of protons and neutrons for which a
nuclid is most stable.
5 what are the practical uses fo rour everyday life that where
extracted of it??
I know of no uses for everyday life for that. Why is that relevant?
Physical models are judged by their agreement with observations, not ny
their usefulness for everyday life.
6 even if there are somepractical uses-
is it because of theory or is it becuse of trial and error
experiemnts??( (of experimental labouratories not theorethic farters)
There is no trial and error involved in the nuclear shell model.
7 you say compatibility to experiments:
how much of those predictions were falsified by experiments
and no one rembers them?
None.
8 afer two years that you have my book or from other reasons
can a fucker pisher like you say:
that there is no connection between nuclear model- and the periodic
table of Mendeliev??
*sigh* Look at the actual evidence.
For starters, the periodicities seen in nuclear excitation energies are
totally different from the periodicities seen in atomic excitation
energies!!!
if inded the nuclear model claimes that there is no connection
you can stuff it to your stupid *****
There is no reason to abandon a model which fits the observations, just
because it contradicts your unsupported claims.
yet i hope you sayed that becuse you even dont know the existing
model
I know it quite well,. And you demonstrate time and time again that you
don't know 99% of the existing evidence.
8 even though the existing model is somehoe working
is it a satisfactory model
that leaves no room for other models or new findings??
If you can explain the periodicities seen in nuclear excitation energies
with another model, quantitatively, feel free to do so. Hint: mumblings
about "the nuclear structures look similar" don't count.
did a parrot like you ever thought about all those questions
(and a lot of other questions that i didnt raise here
Yes. I thought about a lot more questions than you can ever dream of -
because I, in contrast to you, know the actual *evidence* and the actual
*reasoning* which led to these models, and the actual *evidence* which
came out of tests of these models, and which *confirmed* them.
9 does a parrot like you ever dare to question a theorty
to examine it , to reexamine it IOW
Yes. I questioned quite a lot during my study. In the end, it always
turned out that my questioning was due to the simple reason that I did
not knew all the available evidence. Think about this.
to do something elese than parrotoing and chest drumming
on others chests and do domething elese than
resting smuggly on the existing !!??
iow you are a fucken walking (and the FERTZ inventor) damage to the
advance of scince.
Hint: actual scientists think otherwise.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Allan Adler" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
04 Oct 2004 12:26:31 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
I recommend this book:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3540438238/qid=1096898030/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9359636-1131921?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
What do you think of Preston's book, Physics of the Nucleus. I picked it
up for a couple of dollars a few decades ago in a pile of publishers'
overstocks and it is the book I mainly rely on for reference about nuclear
physics. I don't understand much of it and I've been assuming for the last
30 years that the subject is inherently complicated and I'm just too dumb
to understand it.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
05 Oct 2004 05:34:21 AM |
|
|
Allan Adler wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
I recommend this book:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3540438238/qid=1096898030/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9359636-1131921?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
What do you think of Preston's book, Physics of the Nucleus.
Sorry, I don't know that.
Looking for it on amazon, I don't find it there; do you perhaps mean
"Structure of the Nucleus"? Unfortunately, amazon has little information
on that latter book.
I picked it
up for a couple of dollars a few decades ago in a pile of publishers'
overstocks and it is the book I mainly rely on for reference about nuclear
physics. I don't understand much of it and I've been assuming for the last
30 years that the subject is inherently complicated and I'm just too dumb
to understand it.
Well, if one understands QM, basic nuclear physics is not that
complicated. What is your background knowledge?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Allan Adler" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
05 Oct 2004 11:31:42 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Well, if one understands QM, basic nuclear physics is not that
complicated. What is your background knowledge?
One of the principles used in QM is that we make objective statements about
reality through experiment. Therefore, in order to determine whether
I understand QM, we must propose an experiment to make this determination
and the outcome will depend on the experiment.
Professional educators routinely conduct such experiments, but so far
not on me.
A slightly more subjective experiment would be to read one or more books
on QM and related topics and see if I can understand it. I've done so and I
enjoy the illusion that I do understand it. Another experiment is to read a
book that presupposes a knowledge of QM and see if one understands it. I've
done that too (e.g. Coulson's Valence). However, it doesn't mean one can
understand an arbitrarily chosen book on nuclear physics.
It is sometimes remarked that there is no such thing as learning ancient
Greek, since the usage of Aristotle is so different from that of Homer
and both are so different from that of Herodotus or of Thucydides. In
a similar spirit, one can say that there is no such thing as knowing
QM if, such by such knowledge, one means that one has the level of
literacy to read works that depend essentially on QM. I can read someone
who writes as clearly as Coulson, but such writers are rare.
What a given reader needs in the way of a writer depends very heavily
on the reader, so I'm not asking for suggestions on what to read. I think
that with enough effort of the idiosyncratic sort that I tend to favor, I'll
eventually learn something about nuclear physics, and then I'll be able to
read Preston's book, but that time ordering probably can't be reversed. Right
now, I'm enjoying Maria Goeppert-Mayer's book. I noticed that she does have a
table of shell structures of odd A nuclei, which partially answers a question
in one of my other postings, but there is no corresponding table for even A
nuclei.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: nuclear shell model periodic table |
05 Oct 2004 11:45:51 AM |
|
|
Allan Adler wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Well, if one understands QM, basic nuclear physics is not that
complicated. What is your background knowledge?
One of the principles used in QM is that we make objective statements about
reality through experiment.
Well, I would say that that is a principle used in all of science, not
just in QM. ;-)
Therefore, in order to determine whether
I understand QM, we must propose an experiment to make this determination
and the outcome will depend on the experiment.
Professional educators routinely conduct such experiments, but so far
not on me.
A slightly more subjective experiment would be to read one or more books
on QM and related topics and see if I can understand it. I've done so and I
enjoy the illusion that I do understand it.
Which books have you read?
Another experiment is to read a
book that presupposes a knowledge of QM and see if one understands it. I've
done that too (e.g. Coulson's Vale | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
