W Guglinski writes: To: Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize in Physics
Cc: Dr. Attila Csoto,
Dr. Nicholas Stone  nuclear tables, Clarendon Laboratory, Dr. Will Williams  Smith College Experimental Atomic Physics Lab
Dear Dr. Brian Josephson,
in your review for my book “The Evolution of Physics” published in Amazon.com you wrote :
“…the author has provided a source for zero magnetic moment in
the ground state, and it is the additional assertion that this
particular state has nonzero spin that is in error. His error lies in
the assumption that as nuclei _can_ rotate they must _be rotating_,
which is clearly not the case. There is absolutely no mystery about the
zero magnetic moment  it is to be expected for symmetry reasons in a
state with zero spin, no detailed calculation being necessary. These
nuclei do have rotational excited states, but in their ground state they
do not rotate and have spherical symmetry”.
http://www.amazon.com/EvolutionPhysicsNewtonRossiseCatebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433986119&sr=11&keywords=guglinski [www.amazon.com]
Actually, according to the Standard Nuclear Physics any nucleus in the ground state does not rotate.
Then let us analyse the isotope 4Be7, by considering that it has no rotation in the ground state.
The electric quadrupole moment for 4Be7 is not quoted in any nuclear table.
Ahead is a sequence of emails exchanged between me and Dr. Attila Csoto in 2013.
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:28:02 0300
Dear Dr. Attila Csoto
In the paper Effects of 8B size on the lowenergy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section published in 1998 the value calculated for the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7 is between 6fm^2 and 7fm^2 .
http://cds.cern.ch/record/344733/files/9802003.pdf [cds.cern.ch]
In the page 5 of the paper it is written:
——————————————
We note again that a measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would place some additional constraints on the consistency of our calculations.
For the complete 4He+3He+p model calculation the simultaneous
reproduction of the indicators predict Q7 to be in the range −(5:5−6:0) e
fm2. However, this value is smaller than the one (Q7= −6:9 e fm2[9])
obtained if we chose the cluster size parameters such to reproduce the
quadrupole moment of the analog nucleus 7Li. Does this already point to
the necessity of a further enlargement of the model space beyond the 4He
+ 3He + p threecluster model which would then also efect our results
obtained for 7Be, e.g., change the 7Be quadrupole moment ?
——————————————
I would like to know if along the 15 years after the publication
the quadrupole moment of 4Be7 has been measured and the value is
situated near to 6fm^2 or 7fm^2.
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply :
.===============================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:26:07 +0200
Dear Wladimir,
No, it has not been measured yet. The charge radius of Be7 was measured a few years ago.
Best ragards, Attila Csoto
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 07:14:40 0300
Dear Dr. Attila
You and Dr. Karlheinz Langanke have emphasized in many papers the
importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7.
In the paper Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need
John Bahcall explains the importance of the measurement of the
quadrupole moment of the 7Be for the understanding of the sun shines by
nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its interior.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf [www.sns.ias.edu]
In the paper he says:
"A measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help
distinguish between different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction
(see 38).
38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)
Therefore, as it is very important to know the experimental value
of the quadrupole moment of the 7Be for the understanding of the
nuclear fusion reactions in the interior of the sun, I dont understand
why the experimental physicists have neglected to undertake the
measuremnt of the 7Be quatrupole moment.
I supposse they would have to give priority to measure it,
because the advancement of our understanding of the stars nuclear
reactions depends on the the measurement of the quadrupole moment of
7Be.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:23:12 +0200
Dear Wladimir,
There are thousands of measurable physical quantities, which have
never been measured, although some people might think they would be
important to know. I guess that the experimentalists simply don't find
it that interesting to measure the quadrupole moment of Be7.
Or there is a technical problem, that I am not aware of (Be7 is
radioactive, but that alone should not be a big problem). Time will come
though, when someone will do the measurement. As it happend, for
example, with the charge radius. We are pretty sure, that Q(Be7) has a
large negative value.
Best regads, Attila Csoto
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:14:16 0300
Dear Dr. Attila
I suspect that 4Be7 has a quadrupole momet very near to zero, and this is the reason why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
So, I suspect that the experimentalists had already measured its
quadrupole moment. But as it is very close to zero, the experiments
cannot supply any value.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 19:53:19 +0200
Dear Wladimir,
This is definitely not the case. A measured value, however small
it is, would have been published and quoted (see case of the very small
Li6 quadrupole moment).
Best regards, Attila Csoto
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:29:22 0300
Dear Dr. Attila
I know the value of the 3Li6 quadrupole moment.
I mean to say that I suspect that 4Be7 has a quadrupole moment
very very close to zero, not able to be detected by the accuraccy of the
experiments.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:07:21 +0200
Dear Wladimir,
No. In such a case, they would give Q=0+0.1 mb, or whatever the
accuracy of the measurement is. Trust me, there have been no such
experiment. The quadrupole moment of Li7, the mirror nucleus, is known.
It is around 40 mb, in good agreement with theoretical predictions,
that give roughly 60 mb for Be7.
Best regads, Attila Csoto
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:58:26 0300
Dear Dr. Attila
in such a case several isotopes like 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16,
10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc., would give Q = 0+0.1mb, or whatever the
accuracy of the measurement is.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 07:02:26 +0200
They are exactly zero, of course.
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:00:35 0300
No,
dear Dr. Attila.
Light nuclei with Z=pair and A= pair , like 8O16, 10Ne20, etc,
have not Q(b)=0, because they are nonspherical, as shown in the paper
How Atomic Nuclei Cluster:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html [www.nature.com]
So, as they are nonspherical, they have not a spherical distrubution of charges.
However, as they have nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero,
there is no way to align them along an external magnetic field in the
experiments. So, their statistical behavior is like if they had Q(b)=0,
but actually they have not Q(b)=0.
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:56:02 +0200
Note, that after the model nuclei in the Nature paper are built
up from the clusters, the wave function must undergo a rotation, to
project out the correct spin, resulting in a spherical shape. For
example, even though it is known, that the second 0+ state of C12 is a
linear chain of three alpha particles, after rotating this state to
project out the zero spin, you end up with a spherical shape. Besides,
He4 and O16 on your list are double magic, the most perfect spheres in
nuclear physics. But we went far from the original problem. You have
strange ideas of how experimental physics works, if you believe that
someone measured the quadrupole moment of Be7, found it very small, and
therefore did not publish the result. It does not work that way. If they
could measure a value, then they would publish it. If they found that
the quardupole moment was smaller than what they could measure, then
they would give an upper limit (like I said, 0+0.1, or something like
that).
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:59:32 0300
Dear Dr. Attila
the experimentalists do not take in consideration the theoretical
prediction based on current nuclear models so that to quote the values
in the nuclear tables.
They are interested only in the results of the experiments.
For example, when they had measured the quadrupole moment of
nuclei as 8O16, 10Ne20, etc, the theoretical prediction was not taken in
consideration.
Therefore the quadrupole moment of those nuclei would have to be quoted by 0+0.1 in the nuclear table.
But let's forget such question. The imporant matter is to get
the measurement of 4Be7, or, in the case it was already measured, to
discover if it really has Q(b)=0, as I suspect.
Dont you know any experimentalist in your university, so that to ask him ?
The response for such question is very important for the development of Theorecal Physics.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
[ edit [peswiki.com]] ===================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:23:52 +0200
You quoted the calculations in Nature, remember? I just corrected
you, saying that even a linear chain of alpha particles becomes a
sphere, after you project out the correct quantum number. The figures in
the Nature paper show the structure before this projection.
Experimentallists have measured the spins of those nuclei, which
imply strong symmetries not just in theoretical models, but also in
nature. Believe me, you can't find an experimentallist who want to
measure the quadrupole moment of a spin zero nucleus, because he knows
that it is zero.
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:04:01 0300
Dear Dr. Attila
I am not speaking about to measure the quadrupole moment of spin
zero nuclei. I am spealing about to measure the quadrupole moment of
4Be7, which obviously is crucial for the advancement of Theoretical
Nuclear Physics.
There is need to eliminate the controversy about the quadrupole moment of 4Be7, dont you think so?
Dont you know an experimentalist so that to ask him to make the measurement ?
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:41:41 +0200
There is no controversy with the Be7 quadrupole moment.
Theoretical models agree that it has a large negative value. It has not
been measured yet.
.===============================================
Well,
it seems that what Dr. Csoto claims makes no sense, because the
quadrupole moment for 3Li7 was measured. So, why it cannot be measured
for 4Be7, since they are mirror nuclei?
Probably it was measured, but the result was not published.
However the reason why it was not published is not as Dr. Csoto has
wrongly supposed, when he said:
“You have strange ideas of how experimental physics works, if you
believe that someone measured the quadrupole moment of Be7, found it
very small, and therefore did not publish the result.”
The true reason is because the experimentalists know that 4Be7
must have a big negative quadrupole moment, by considering the current
nuclear models. But because the experiments give a value very near to
zero, the experimentalists suppose that something is wrong in the
procedure used in their experiments. And that’s why they decide do not
publish the value near to zero measured in their experiments, because
they are afraid to expose their credibility if they publish an absurd
result, impossible according to the current Standard Model.
In order to try to discover the true, I sent an email to Dr. Nicholas Stone, the publisher of nuclear tables:
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:36:01 0300
Dear Dr. Nicholas Stone
The Nuclear Table published by Clarendon Laboratory gives the
nuclear spin and magnetic moment of the nucleus 4Be7, respectivelly 3/2
and 1,398:
http://faculty.missouri.edu/~glaserr/8160f09/STONE_Tables.pdf [faculty.missouri.edu]
But the quadrupole electric moment of the 4Be7 is not quoted.
May you tell me why ?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 10:22:09 +0000
Dear Dr Guglinski,
To give you a quick answer – I have no record of a measurement of
Q for 7Be. Do you have a reference to a publication? I am aware of the
magnetic moment result PRL 101 212502 Okada et al and of the more recent
one by Nortershauser et al PRL 102 062503.
Yours,
Nick Stone
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: Wladimir Guglinski [1]
Sent: 08 September 2013 07:53
To: Nick Stone
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Dear Dr. Stone
No, I dont have any reference.
Actually I dont understand why there is not a record of Q for
4Be7, because along 20 years some theorists have enphasized the
importance of getting its measurement.
In the paper Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need ,
published in 1998 byJohn Bahcall , he explains the importance of the
measurement of the quadrupole moment for 7Be for the understanding of
the sun shines by nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its
interior.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf [www.sns.ias.edu]
In the paper he says:
“A measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help distinguish
between different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction (see 38) ”.
38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)
Csoto and Langanke had published several papers along 20 years, where
they explain the importance of the measurement of Q for 7Be. In a paper
publihed in 2008 they write in the page 6:
We also note that a precise measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment or radius could test the selfconsistency of our conclusions.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nuclth/9408001.pdf [arxiv.org]
So, I dont understand why we dont know the Q for 7Be yet.
Is not possible to measure it in the Clarendon Laboratory ?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:37:54 +0000
Hi, Quadrupole moments are particularly hard to measure in light nuclei
since they are small and so produce small energy splittings which
require very high resolution. The 9Be Q was measured by atomic beam
which has the highest resolution. Laser spectroscopy would probably not
be good enough.
Further, theoreticians can call all they like, but it doesn’t provide a method for the measurement.
I’m now retired. There is no experimental group at the Clarendon that could attempt the measurement.
Your best bet would seem to be the Japanese groups with some
variant of beta NMR, but I haven’t checked if there is suitable beta
decay in 7Be.
.===============================================
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:31:27 0300
Hi, Dr Stone
I suspect that 7Be has Q very near to zero, that's why it is not quoted in nuclear tables.
I suspect that the experimentalist already had tried to measure
it, and they had expected to measure a value near to the value of Q for
9Be (0,053 barns).
As the experimentists did not succeed to get a value far away
from zero (and as they know that from the theoretical viewpoint 7Be
cannot have Q very near to zero) then they did not report the results of
experiments.
Dr. Attila Csolo had calculated theoretically that Q for 7Be must be in order of 0,07barns.
I have my suspiction because of the following:
9Be is stable
7Be has halflife of 53 days
Both them are very small
Q for 9Be had been measured by atomic beam, and got 0,053 barns.
CONCLSUSION : why cannot the Q for 7Be be measured by atomic beam ?
So, I suspect that Q for 7Be had already been measured by atomic
beam (like done for 9Be), but the experiments had NOT detected a value
far away of zero (as expected theoretically).
Do you think that my suspiction can explain why Q for 7Be is not quoted in nuclear tables?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
His reply:
.===============================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:48:54 +0000
Just to say that IF a measurement had been made, it would certainly have been published.
.===============================================
I felt that Dr. Stone could not help me to discover the true
about the missing of measurements for the 4Be7 quadrupole moment, and so
I did not send any reply, and the exchange of emails was over. But
after 2 years, now in 2015 a new table was published by Dr. Stone.
Then I sent him the email ahead, in 3 June 2015:
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:27:31 0300
Dear Dr. Stone
is the electric quadrupole moment for the 4Be7 quoted in the "New table of recommended nuclear electric quadrupole moments", published by Springer in 2015?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs1075101410948 [link.springer.com]
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
He did not reply.
But in 8 June 2015 I have discovered that Dr. Will Williams of
the Smith College had announced in 2014 his aim of measuring the
quadrupole moment for the 4Be7, and then I sent him the following email:
.===============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: wwilliams@smith.edu
Subject: electric quadrupole moment for beryllium7
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 21:25:25 0300
Dear Prof. Will Williams
In the page of the Smith College Experimental Atomic Physics Laboratory,
http://sophia.smith.edu/blog/williamslab/research/berylliumspectroscopy/ [sophia.smith.edu]
it is written:
"Here are some fairly technical notes on what we plan to do:
 Determine the still unmeasured nuclear electric quadrupole
moment for beryllium7, which gives us information about the charge
distribution inside the nucleus."
I would like to know if the electric quadrupole moment for 4Be7 was measured.
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
.===============================================
He did not reply.
Prof. Nathanael Fortune works in other laboratory at the Smith
College, and I asked him the favour to verify why Dr. Will Williams did
not reply to my email. He sent me the following reply:
.===============================================
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:25:39 0400
Subject: Re: electric quadrupole moment for beryllium7
From: nfortune@smith.edu
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Sorry, I've helped you as much as I can. Perhaps he is on vacation. It is his project  I don't know the status.
Professor Nathanael Fortune, Ph.D.
Department of Physics
315 McConnell Hall
44 College Lane
Smith College
Northampton MA 01063
.===============================================
I tried to get a reply by Dr. Chui Yu Lau. I did not find her email, but
I found her in the Linkedin. She and Dr. Will Williams have published
the paper “High Precision Spectroscopy of Neutral Beryllium9”:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DAMOP15/Session/Q1.133 [meetings.aps.org]
In the Abstract they say:
“The goal for the 2s2p singlet (J=1) state is to improve the
experimental precision on the energy level by a factor of 600 as a test
of quantum electrodynamics.”
So, they are testing the predictions of quantum electrodynamics, and cannot succeed to measure the quadrupole for 4Be7???
It is hard to believe it.
However, unfortunately Dr. Chui Yu Lau also did not reply to me.
So, it seems there is no doubt that the quadrupole moment for
4Be7 was already measured, the experiments got values near to zero, but
the experimentalists believe that something is going wrong with the
procedure of the measurement in their experiments, because 4Be7 cannot
have quadrupole moment near to zero, because it impossible by
considering the models based on the Standard Model. Then all them decide
do not publish their measurements.
But a question arises: since 4Be7 cannot have Q near to zero, but
the experiments show that it has Q near to zero, how does to explain
it?
The value of Q for 4Be7 near to zero can be explained only by
considering the rotation of the nucleus in the ground state. This is
shown in the Figure 37 at the page 48 of the paper Stability of Light
Nuclei, published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journalofnuclearphysics.com/?p=802 [www.journalofnuclearphysics.com]
If the 4Be7 had no rotation in the ground state, its quadrupole moment would be a little positive, as we see in the Figure 37:
[peswiki.com]
But 4Be7 in the ground state has rotation. And in the Figure 37 we see
that there is an unbalance of masses regarding the yaxis (about which
the nucleus rotates). So, due to the rotation the nucleus has a shake
along the xaxis, giving a contribution for negative Q.
The resultant due to the positive and negative contributions is a value of Q near to zero.
As you know, Dr. Josephson, the rotation of the nuclei in the
ground state cannot be considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics,
because the rotation of the charge of the protons would induce a
magnetic moment, and therefore the eveneven nuclei with Z=N would have
to have nonnull magnetic moment. But the experiments have detected
that they have null magnetic moment.
However,
the rotation of the nuclei in the ground state is impossible
according to the Standard Model because the nuclear theorists do not
consider the contribution of the structure of the space for the
production of the nuclear properties.
By considering a nuclear model where the structure of the space
is taking in consideration, the rotation of the nuclei in the ground
state is perfectly explained, as I show ahead.
Look at the structure of the proton in the Figure 1, proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory:
[peswiki.com]
All the nuclei have a central 2He4, whose strings of gravitions (flux of
gravitons) are able to capture protons and neutrons. The Figure 2
shows the two sort of spins UP and DOWN of the proton when it is
captured by the flux of gravitons.
[peswiki.com]
The Figure 3 shows what happens when the first proton is captured by the
central 2He4, and they form the 3Li5. As explained in that figure, the
capture of the proton by the 2He4 induces a rotation in the newborn
3Li5, due to the combination of the directions of the flux of gravitons,
the rotation of the proton, and the motion of the electricitons in the
proton’s electric field.
Figure 3 also explains that, when a second proton is captured by
the central 2He4 and they form the 4Be6, the second proton induces a
rotation in the newborn 4Be6 in the same direction induced by the
capture of the first proton.
Therefore all the nuclei have rotation in the ground state.
[peswiki.com]
Figure 4 shows why eveneven nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment, in spite of they have rotation in the ground state.
[peswiki.com]
In the homepage of the Williams Lab at the Smith College , Dr. Will Williams says:
“The beryllium spectroscopy project is a fundamental (or pure)
physics project. Fundamental physics is concerned with understanding
why nature behaves the way it does. This is the type of physics most
physicists study. Every physics professor at Smith College has a
fundamental research project.”
Perhaps the physicists of the Smith College have decided to create the “beryllium spectroscopy project”
because the beryllium isotopes are proving that the Standard Nuclear
Physics cannot be correct. Indeed, if the Standard Model was correct,
some beryllium isotopes would be impossible to exist. Let us remember
the beryllium isotopes which defy the current nuclear models:
4Be7 Along more than 30 years the experimentalists did
not succeed to measure the value of the quadrupole moment for the 4Be7
as predicted by the Standard Nuclear Physics. All the measurements got
value near to zero, which is impossible according to the Standard
Model.
4Be8 While all the eveneven nuclei with Z=N are stable,
the beryllium8 is the only unstable nucleus, and there is no way to
explain why, by considering the laws of Standard Model.
The reason why 4Be8 is unstable is shown in the page 17 and 18 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journalofnuclearphysics.com/?p=802 [www.journalofnuclearphysics.com]
4Be11 In 2009 a experiment has shown that protons and neutrons cannot be bound via strong force within the nuclei: “Atomic nucleus of beryllium is three times as large as normal due to halo”.
http://www.unimainz.de/eng/13031.php [www.unimainz.de]
4Be12 In 2012 a new experiment has shown that the Shell
model (used by the nuclear physicists so that to explain many nuclear
properties of several nuclei) cannot be correct, because if the Shell
mode was correct the 4Be12 could not exist with the structure detected
in the experiment: End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated
http://phys.org/news/201204magicshellberylliumisotopesinvalidated.html [phys.org]
The exotic structure of the 4Be12 is shown in the Chapter 20.4 of my book The Evolution of Physics,
published in Amazon.com, where it is shown why 4Be12 cannot be
explained by considering the nuclear models based on the Standard Model.
The Chapter 20.4 is reproduced ahead:
.===================================================.
20.4 The puzzle of the exotic structure of 4Be12
A new experiment published in 2012 had shown that 4Be12 has a
structure impossible to be explained from the principles of current
Nuclear Physics. See End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated:
http://phys.org/news/201204magicshellberylliumisotopesinvalidated.html [phys.org]
By considering the structure proposed by Wilfried Nörtershäuse in
that paper it's impossible to explain the null magnetic moment for the
nucleus 4Be12. Indeed, look at to the structure he proposed:
[peswiki.com]
The orbit radius of a nucleon (proton or neutron) defines its gfactor.
The longer is the radius of the orbit, larger is the gfactor. The
neutrons n1 and n2 have an orbit radius longer than the orbit radius of the neutrons n3 and n4
, and therefore the gfactor for n1 and n2 is different of the
gfactor for n3 and n4. Therefore the structure proposed by
Nörtershäuse is incompatible with the null magnetic moment for the
4Be12, detected by experiments. So, there is no way to explain the
structure of 4Be12 detected in the experiment published in 2012 by
considering the current nuclear models.
The structure for 4Be12 according to Quantum Ring Theory is shown in the figure:
[peswiki.com]
Consider that the neutrons (N1 , N2) have an orbit radius RN , and the
deuteron D1 has an orbit radius RD . The radius RN of the two
neutrons is a little longer, RN > RD , because:
a) N1 and N2 are not submitted to a magnetic force of attraction with the central 2He4, because they have no charge
b) the deuteron D1 is attracted with the central 2He4 by a magnetic force, because of the electric charge of the proton
c) due to the centripetal force (because of the nucleus
rotation), the neutrons N1,N2 get a little longer orbit radius RN
about the central 2He4
d) so, while the neutrons N1 and N2 are submitted to only the
centripetal force, the deuteron D1 is submitted to a magnetic force in
contrary direction of the centripetal force on it, and that's why the
two neutrons N1 and N2 take an orbit radius a little longer than the
orbit radius of the deuteron.
e) as the two neutrons N1 and N2 are kept in the structure of
the 4Be12 thanks to their strongspininteraction with the deuteron D1,
and they are submitted to the centripetal force, they get a little
longer orbit radius.
The same happens with the orbit radius RN of the neutrons N3,N4
, compared with the radius RD of the deuteron D2. Therefore,
according to QRT it is possible to explain very well the existence of
neutrons with a little longer orbit radius in the 4Be12.
.===================================================.
Fortunately,
there are scientists as Dr. Will Williams interested in
discovering “why nature behaves the way it does”. I hope scientists as
Dr. Williams will finally understand that it makes no sense to try to
discover why the nature behaves the way it does if they continue trying
to explain the phenomena by considering the empty space without
structure. The experiment published in 2011 by the journal Nature has
proven that the space is no empty, and so it must have a structure: Moving mirrors make light from nothing
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html [www.nature.com]
A New Physics must be developed by considering the contribution
of the structure of the space on the process of “why nature behaves the
way it does”. After all, as the nature behaves the way it does by using
the contribution of the structure of the nonempty space, it makes no
sense to try to discover the way it does by neglecting the contribution
of the structure of the nonempty space. From such an attempt it is
impossible to understand the way it does.
Dear Dr. Josephson,
I suppose that I don’t need to tell you that in the case the
nuclear structure of atomic nuclei existing in the nature is like the
structure proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, and therefore all
the nuclei have rotation in the ground state, then of course the nuclear
theorists will never succeed to explain “why nature behaves the way it
does”, in the case of the atomic nuclei. And it is also is obvious
that, if really all the nuclei rotate in the ground state, this is the
reason why the Standard Nuclear Physics has failed along more than a
hundred years to describe the nuclear properties of several nuclei, in
special of the light nuclei, as the beryllium isotopes.
Regards
Wlad
