Discovery could challenge established theory of the nucleus

It sounds to me like this article understates the potential impact of this finding: if this kind of resonant mode vibration of complex nuclei is common among a wide range of isotopes, then it could give us a whole new ‘handle’ with which to manipulate nuclear matter.

And this could yield new methods of nuclear chemistry that would allow us transmute elements as readily as we synthesize complex molecules today - which would have far-reaching implications with everything from energy production to nuclear waste treatment to advanced research.

Isn’t it about time the US reversed ‘the brain drain’ and recommitted to frontier research like this again?

More like ... they have cut off my funding and I want to complain because I have found a minor irregularity. Yawn.

You mean like that “minor irregularity” in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, right?

This extremely important news is continuation of
http://www.physor...994.html

Random matrix theory usually assumes natural thermodynamical model: that when we don't know which linear projection 'is happening', because of mathematical theorems like maximum uncertainty principle, we should assume uniform (or more generally Boltzmann) probability distribution among possible ones.
'Volume' (Jacobian) of matrices of given set of eigenvalues is proportional to their Vandermondian, what gives eigenvalues thermodynamical repelling with logarithmic potential (characteristic for 2D dynamics).

So using them to model nucleus is kind of saying that they have only thermodynamical/fluctuating structure ... while intuition suggest that they should be near some concrete structure of energetic minimum - so maybe we should rather try to start with soliton models like skyrmions succesfully used to model single mesons, baryons ...

The US Department of Energy has said that other research projects are a higher priority for the field of nuclear science.

Really? More important than rewriting entire physics books of our understanding of atoms? Other than a full scale working fusion reactor I fail to understand that statement.

Sounds like platinum nucleus exhibits 'shells' per 'magic numbers' mentioned in a recent news article: No surprise beyond the degree of this phenomenon.

This should not be so surprising. The protons and neutrons are in a shell like fashion with the neutrons shielding the protons from each other's repulsive force. The protons and neutrons are vibrating around in a relatively fixed position. It is not chaos.

@Nik 2213, Question: I think you may be thinking of 'Shell' in too classical a manner. While it's true that nuclear energy levels have some shell-structure to them, the nucleons aren't confined to discrete orbits on those shells, nor are the shells absolute layers like an onion. Everything moves within the phase-space probabilities given by the wave functions. That they exhibit some bulk motion means that there must be unknown corrections to the wave functions whereby the nucleons 'communicate' their trajectories to each other by some (presumably strong) force.

Another extremely important news from nuclear physics:
http://news.stanf...310.html
Decay times depend on Sun activity!

It's another argument that we shouldn't look at nucleuses from blurred, fluctuating quantum picture, but rather as a concrete spatial structure near (local?) energy minimum (so called soliton).
To get it out of this local minimum, there is needed energy - many orders of magnitude larger than in chemistry.
Standard assumption: Boltzmann distribution suggests that rarely, but it really can spontaneously gather huge amount of energy ... but maybe it's only idealization, chemistry can have some limits ... and so we should search for another source of this energy ... like neutrinos!

I suggest protons and neutrons (or their orbitals)rotate against each other like gears in mesh on the surface of a sphere. Protons one direction and neutrons the other. The shells alligned so that there are proton axes and neutron axes. Protons face out toward the electron shells, and neutrons face toward the nuclear center. There is a void at the nuclear center. A neutron on the inner end of a neutron axis can sometimes decay to a proton. That proton can send its electron seeking influence accross the void, then via a proton axis to the nuclear surface.
Elements boron to calcium proton axies at tetrahedral corners, neutron axes at tetrahedral faces.
Elements scandium to barium proton axes at cube corners, neutron axes at the middle of cube edges.
Elements above baruim proton axes at cube corners and cube face centers. Neutron axes at cube edges and between every cube corner and cube face center.
Always the outer shell wants to be filled. Axis length varies. But I am nobody.

This is completely surprising to me! Wow, a new subtle hard to find resonance implying a deeper hidden order in nature, physics++.

@FainAvis: so aside from just wild conjecture, why do you think this?
@Jarek: I think scattering experiments would illustrate that the nucleons behave in a quantum manner. Furthermore, Boltzmann distributions don't imply that particles 'spontaneously' develop energy, merely that after sufficient interactions with large numbers of particles, some particles will have absorbed more energy through collisions than others. Finally how do you propose to use neutrinos as an energy source? They interact so extremely rarely (only via the weak force) that we must build giant vats of water to see them, and when we do see them, we need photomultiplier tubes to multiply the energy they deposit to levels that can be measured.

@shavera
My initial ha ha moment was to realise that both positive and negative charges are integer valued cries out that every proton wants to relate to exactly one electron.
So here is a way to organise the nucleus in a way that positive charge is not lumped together as a net integer value, like a bag of marbles.
Proton to neutron ratio is within the stable zone of the periodic table.
Ok so a lot is speculation. Gotta start somewhere.

Practice before any experiment is one discovering after theory, bey upsidedowntime.

@shavera, scatterings are extremely 'statistical' processes - depends on uncontrollable parameters, like distance and rotation of both particles ... why do you conclude quantum manner from them?

Yes, Boltzmann distribution says that some particles have more energy than others ... but how far does it work well?
Can we really be sure that chemistry energy regime thermodynamics still works well in qualitatively different nuclear energy regime?

Neutrinos interact extremely rarely - require perfect scattering conditions, but there is huge amount of them and so we want to see their absorption as statistical process (mathematically: Poisson Theorem).
Then the applying rules are mainly conservation laws: their energy have to stored somewhere.

They discovered this in 2002 and are just now starting to tout it? It sounds like a grab for funding to me. Got to keep the little woman in mink and the kids in braces!

This decay time dependency seems to be observed in 80s ...
http://www.symmet...lements/
but such claims need a few decades to be deeply verified ... especially in extremely conservative scientific society, for which not understanding something doesn't disturb putting faith in it - like that decay constants by definition just have to be constant ...

"This decay time dependency seems to be observed in 80s ...
http://www.symmet...lements/
but such claims need a few decades to be deeply verified ..."

And that's the problem. It has been 25 years since initial claims were made, by Dr Fischbach, at least: http://www.rexres...erch.htm

After all this time and research, this "fifth force" seems as mysterious and undefined as it ever was (though I'm sure proponents may say otherwise). Where is the work of independent researchers who are seriously looking into these claims? I don't see a lot of activity regarding further research of these claims. Isn't it a bit premature to put much stock in a theory that (as its proponents clearly state...in your link) has many unknowns and is in need of further research?

There is some difference between introducing new exciting concepts ... and showing experimental evidence that 'natural' well known assumption is only an approximation ... do you disagree?
I haven't done experiments myself, so I have to use standard way like trusting experimental evidenced published in good journals in many peer-reviewed papers ... especially that they generally agree with my considerations on given topic - do you have a better way?
http://www.scienc...29dabe08
Do you know peer-reviewed papers showing opposite results?

If you were able to sythetically make many elements we might be able to pave our streets with gold. IE... make a very utopian star trek like world. Uh Uh, big govt likes the chaos. Choas brings power and control. Prosperity make politicians useless. The experiment is doomed without private funding.

"Do you know peer-reviewed papers showing opposite results?"

This source has a few: http://www.illc.u...pp4.html

"The torsion-balance experiments of Eöt-Wash were repeated by others including (Cowsik et al. 1988; Fitch, Isaila and Palmer 1988; Adelberger 1989; Bennett 1989; Newman, Graham and Nelson 1989; Stubbs et al. 1989; Cowsik et al. 1990; Nelson, Graham and Newman 1990). These repetitions, in different locations and using different substances, gave consistently negative results. In addition, Bizzeti and collaborators (1989a; 1989b), using a float apparatus similar to that of Thieberger, also obtained results showing no evidence of a Fifth Force"

Are you unfamiliar with these or any papers critical of this theory?

So now you should give me similar list against experimental evidence claiming to show that the assumption that mathematical idealization - decay time - coefficient in Poisson theorem is really unchanged (statistical fundamental constant of nature?) ?
What basis for such assumption do we have?
Shouldn't we really understand nuclear physics before such claims?
Do we?

And do you really see claiming new fundamental force similar to statistical analysis of experimental results of others, claiming that assumption without real basis is imperfect - an approximation?

XYZ, I do not think your link and Jarek's link are on the same topic. Jarek's chart does not refer to a new force only a change in a force by season.

Question,

Point taken. These were specifically related to "fifth force" experiments and attempts to replicate published results (that ended rather poorly). I would note that the present research that indicates a possible new particle or interaction, is, like the "fifth force", purely speculative in nature and, as proponents point out, more work is needed with theory and observation. I'm not trying to argue against the possibility that something new or unknown is being observed here, just that some conjectures seem premature, as with some "fifth force" claims.

Oh ... I've misinterpreted your posts as a way to discredit these claims ...
About forces - we know that there are two natural: EM and gravity, which (approximately) can be described using completely natural Maxwell's equations (defined by just E*E+B*B energy density)...
The other two looks already very strange - works only on concrete distances - like they were a result of structures of this size - effective interactions ... ?
It's not a problem to introduce 5th and succeeding effective forces - the real question is to distinguish really fundamental from effective ones - reason from result.
cheers

Entropy working also with all partickle. Also with neutriinos and photons.

photons emit energywaves and there is coming outside from billion and billion other photons energy who giving for photon pressure from outside.

Thats why photons emit energy who giving pressure for some others phtons later.

Just like theres coming energy to stars from billions and billion other stars.

Also inside photons moving very small partickle all a time and this particle emit more energy for photons who expanding all a time almost same way what atoms. Juts almost.

Thats why there is old light who is redshifting.

There is no gravity at all.

No expanding space.

No dark matter.

Google. Etimespace, youtube videos

Thank you

.

Ofcourse also photons pushing themselfs outside same way what photons expanding with this energywaves what phtons emit.

Old light photons is a redshifting, because they pushing themselfs far away all way long, what expanding photons moving in space who dont expanding at all.

.

Don't forget neutron repulsion.

That is the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

I wonder if this is an expression of entanglement at a nuclear scale.

Don't forget neutron repulsion.

That is the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos.

Well I'll be. I thought you were a nutter, but then I found this article about your work (it turns out that Dr. Oliver Manuel here is professor of nuclear chemistry at the University of Missouri-Rolla):

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies
http://www.physor...658.html

Here's the link to the paper:

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
http://arxiv.org/...1051.pdf

I've got some reading to do (I'm a junkie for weird new ideas like this), but I have to know, Dr. Manuel: does your theory of neutron repulsion yield a more accurate calculation of the nuclear mass spectrum than the semi-empirical mass formula?

The random matrix theory should be rejected. Random is rare in physics and nature.

So what theory might replace it? How might protons and neutrons be organized, and move, in a collective way? There is a theory developed by Art Winfree in the '60s, known as coupled oscillator theory. He applied it to biology (heart cells, Malaysian fireflies). Kuramoto developed it further, and it was extended mathematically by Steve Strogatz of Cornell (Sync), Stewart and others.

The essence is that regular limit cycle oscillations (vibrations, resonances) will organize a group of oscillators (protons, neutrons) in a variety of certain exact patterns. Not randomly. Think of the specific gaits of a horse.

See my elaboration of this point at Phys Org in the superconductivity section, most recently in the "Roller Coaster Superconductivity" article of August 18. I describe it in six or seven posts.

Borrow Winfree's theory. It explains this phenomenon.

As I noted above, Winfree did not apply his theory to physics. Just biology. But he theorized that it applied to all clusters of limit cycle oscillators. It is not a fifth force; it simply describes the mathematical rules by which oscillations and oscillators may organize themselves. It is quite general, and thus worth a look.

Winfree was a MacArthur prize winner, among other honors.

For over 100 years the people who have been successful in the manipulation of time/space/matter/etc..in ways that mainstream science refuses to see or deal with..those people have had ~at the least~ one thing in common in all their theories, understandings, and successful manipulation of the fabric of nature.

What is that one thing?

RESONANCE. That the very fabric of the universe is one of systems of resonance in balance.

and the only thing that supports that workable and working scenario is toroidal gyroscopic particles..and the only thing that works to describe their behavior on all levels, as a dead simple model, is one of near infinite 2d oscillating fields in balance against one another (inne and an outie)...and thus creating a vector-observation point we call '3d reality' one with time as a unidirectional aspect.

That simple model allows for all known, suspected, speculated and even all psychic, dimensional aspects etc - with zero flaws in the base theory.

All is inclusive.

Suddenly, polarization and dipole moment come to the fore. Hmm.....

@Xaero

There’s a right way to gain support for your favorite crackpot physics theory, and a wrong way.

The right way is: A.) write an excellent paper with a series of convincing mathematical proofs and predictions, B.) have it published (or failing that, convince a science journalist that it’s worth writing an article about), and C.) successfully defend your work against the torrential onslaught of compelling criticism that will invariably follow if your ideas are worth arguing about.

The wrong way is: A.) hijack every thread at a professional science board related to fundamental physics issues by posting an endless series of incoherent partial arguments that convince only yourself that you have something of value to share with the world, thereby alienating and infuriating precisely the people who you need to convince.

Btw, not already knowing this basic truth reduces the likelihood of your argument having any merit to less than 1%.

write an excellent paper with a series of convincing mathematical proofs and predictions

Math model must describe simple enough phenomena to remain convincing, not complex multiparticle systems inside of atom nuclei. And most of people simply don't want to compute anything, they just want to understand physics at intuitive level.

write an excellent paper with a series of convincing mathematical proofs and predictions

Math model must describe simple enough phenomena to remain convincing, not complex multiparticle systems inside of atom nuclei. And most of people simply don't want to compute anything, they just want to understand physics at intuitive level.

For me, your last point is correct. BUT, if explanations don't have any truth to them, what's the point? The bible makes sense to some people, but that doesn't make it true. I am ok with the fact that some fundamental truths are just very complicated. I don't care who said reality had to be beautiful; that's just us projecting our own human desires and has no affect on anything. You start with fundamental, mathematical facts, THEN you break it down to the layman, NOT the other way around.

You start with fundamental, mathematical facts, THEN you break it down to the layman, NOT the other way around.

Actually formal math is based on predicate logics, not vice-versa. The approach you're promoting is advantageous for formally thinking theorists, who are motivated in safe life in development of pile of formal theories. But not for people, who actually want to understand reality first.

The energy is spreading in transverse waves from source at water surface, but after reaching certain distance it disperses into underwater waves and returns back in tiny noise, mediated with longitudinal, very fast waves. These tiny waves are bringing information from outside of existing level of reality. You can reach the deeper understanding of physics just by learning of many subtle connections and fuzzy analogies, i.e. by intuition. Just after these fuzzy connection will emerge into a new phase, you can build a new formal theory on them safely. Without it it's just an ad-hoced guess.

Such evolution of physics occurred already in human history many times.

For example geocentric model was superseded with heliocentric one on background of insights of Galileo about exterior of solar system. We can even observe the traces of formal gauge theories in Kepler's polyhedral models of solar system, which supported epicycle models. It was real top of formal geometric physics of medieval era.

But Galileo ignored it completely and he promoted dual model on background of non-formal, seemingly incoherent logical arguments, like Venus phases, shadows of Lunar craters, etc. I'm just replicating his approach by introduction a new, more general reference frame for universe understanding, i.e. emergent aether model.

Many formal theorists are pursuing emergent models of reality from their own side, too - as the boundaries between intrinsic (formal) and extrinsic (non-formal, intuitive) perspectives of reality understanding aren't very sharp there.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4147

Don't forget neutron repulsion.

Well I'll be. I thought you were a nutter, but then I found this article about your work (it turns out that Dr. Oliver Manuel here is professor of nuclear chemistry at the University of Missouri-Rolla):

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies
http://www.physor...658.html

I've got some reading to do (I'm a junkie for weird new ideas like this), but I have to know, Dr. Manuel: does your theory of neutron repulsion yield a more accurate calculation of the nuclear mass spectrum than the semi-empirical mass formula?

Here is the latest paper, "Neutron Repulsion." [ http://db.tt/yxaIAGN ]

Neutron repulsion in the solar core releases Hydrogen as a waste product.

That's why the Sun discards hydrogen in the solar wind.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

I don't care who said reality had to be beautiful; that's just us projecting our own human desires and has no affect on anything. You start with fundamental, mathematical facts, THEN you break it down to the layman, NOT the other way around.

How do you know reality? How do you know "fundamental facts"?
Is any reality out there independently from what our senses or instruments tell us? Would there be "reality" if we didn't have senses and instruments? Are quarks and gluons real? Or are they just model entities? Do mathematics describe reality or define what we call "reality" (and thereby program our reality)?

What if the "fundamental facts" cannot be broken down to the layman because their description is not possible without terms that don't have meaning in the layman's world (QM - unitary operators, Hilbert spaces)?

We don't know reality. But we know our models which we sometimes call "reality" and that's why we are allowed to long for the beauty of "reality".

What if the "fundamental facts" cannot be broken down to the layman because their description is not possible without terms that don't have meaning in the layman's world (QM - unitary operators, Hilbert spaces)?

Unitary operators or Hilbert spaces are too high-level concepts for dense aether theory. In this model observable reality can be reduced to pin-point pieces, i.e. colliding particles forming nested density fluctuations in emergent recursive way. It doesn't care, if these concepts can be modeled with equations or only with computer simulation - it describes reality as it appears from most distant perspective achievable.

Concept of Hilbert spaces are depending on the assumption of right-angled Euclidean geometry. Inside of density fluctuations this geometry is preferred because just 3D spheres exhibit most compact arrangement - but it's not required.

Fraj,

I wasn't trying to make an epistemological argument. You probably know this but want to argue just to argue. I do the same thing, but I try not to. I now realize how annoying I am to most people. This site it getting real old real fast. I take my nerdery in doses.

@Dr. Manuel

Thank you, your work is fascinating. The 3D chart of the nuclides in your paper clearly reveals an underlying order of binding energy, mass, and charge. It's quite elegant really.

And I find the graphical analysis of the nuclides chart to be a compelling argument for the existence of neutron repulsion. But it appears that there may be significant extrapolation involved in the parabolic intercept technique used to plot the theoretical maxima of positive potential energies at the Z/A = 1 and Z/A = 0 surfaces of the chart. Perhaps I missed something, but the parabolic fitting appears a little arbitrary.

And I thought that in the 1930's Meitner and Frisch calculated that the energy of Uranium fission products could be accounted for by the repulsive electrostatic force of the protons, and the 'energy accounting' has been airtight ever since. If neutron repulsion is such a significant nuclear force/energy, then how do you think we could have missed it for 50 yea

I wasn't trying to make an epistemological argument. You probably know this but want to argue just to argue.

Not really. While I was aware of deviating from physics to philosophy and thereby somewhat misusing your comment I thought/think this to be a legit attempt to probe for others who might be interested in this kind of reasoning.

I do the same thing, but I try not to. I now realize how annoying I am to most people. This site it getting real old real fast. I take my nerdery in doses.

Sometimes I do intend to be annoying, but not in this case.

Not really. While I was aware of deviating from physics to philosophy and thereby somewhat misusing your comment I thought/think this to be a legit attempt to probe for others who might be interested in this kind of reasoning.

I do the same thing, but I try not to. I now realize how annoying I am to most people. This site it getting real old real fast. I take my nerdery in doses.

Sometimes I do intend to be annoying, but not in this case.

It's cool. I couldn't tell if you wanted a response from me or if you were doing what you just indicated.

We are limited by our sensory abilities and our cognitive ability to analyze such input. That has ethical and moral implications. "I am the only person that I KNOW exists."

Does reality have to be "beautiful," or simply explained? I don't see why. Could physicist be looking at things in a fundamentally wrong direction? I've wondered if our current theories simply make the math easier or work better and don't explain anything better at all.

As far as math: It's safe to believe in non-zero values, but we kind of made up the idea of zero. Would anything make sense without an arbitrary reference point? Has a system not having 10, 100, 1000, etc been tested with computers?

We are limited by our sensory abilities and our cognitive ability to analyze such input.

Actually most of people can understand the fact, atom nuclei is formed with droplets of swirling and boiling matter quite easily. Only mechanically thinking dogmatists, who are thinking in terms of formal theories and quantum uncertainty may be surprised with such finding.

We are limited by our sensory abilities and our cognitive ability to analyze such input.

Actually most of people can understand the fact, atom nuclei is formed with droplets of swirling and boiling matter quite easily. Only mechanically thinking dogmatists, who are thinking in terms of formal theories and quantum uncertainty may be surprised with such finding.

Could you explain to us how protons and neutrons boil please?

For example, at the surface of atom nuclei we can observe the pairing of nucleons, which results in periodicity of binding energy with increasing number of nucleons. At the solar surface the sun spots appear often in pairs, corresponding the Falaco solitons at the water surface. We can assume, these paired artifacts will be much more pronounced at the surface of dense stars, composed of mostly neutrons and protons, like atom nuclei, i.e. white dwarfs. Atom nuclei appear like tiny hot stars covered with convective cells, they're exhibiting surface instabilities, jets and excited states in the same way, like pulsating variable stars. Actually this model doesn't differ from classical droplet model of atom nuclei so much, if we consider the energy density of quantum noise at this scale level.

http://kft.umcs.l...4316.pdf

"Actually this model doesn't differ from classical droplet model of atom nuclei so much..."

What version of the liquid drop model are you claiming AWT closely follows? Your reference is comparing four different variants. And precisely how does it differ from that variant?

Could you explain to us how protons and neutrons boil please?

Actually in dense aether theory...

No, explain to us how a molecular action could occur to subatomic components.

..No, explain to us how a molecular action could occur to subatomic components.

Subatomic particles are particles like any others: they're moving collectively and they're forming fluid. Or do you believe, the nuclear forces are working only between isolated pair of particles?

..No, explain to us how a molecular action could occur to subatomic components.

Subatomic particles are particles like any others: they're moving collectively and they're forming fluid. Or do you believe, the nuclear forces are working only between isolated pair of particles?

No, they're not. How do subatomic particles boil, Zephir? Can you answer the question as it is posed to you or do you need me to translate into your native tounge. I'd be happy to do either.

No, they're not.

Of course they do. The nucleons are affecting mutually with attractive and repulsive forces and they've own inertia. They're behaving like particles in fluid, therefore they can undulate, swirl and boil in similar way, like stellar giants. It's quite simple and natural model.

http://en.wikiped...telgeuse

They're behaving like particles in fluid, therefore they can undulate, swirl and boil in similar way, like stellar giants. It's quite simple and natural model.

Aside from saying that they're acting like molecules in fluid, you need to show how they are acting like molecules in fluid, you msut then tell us how the change state from liquid to gas.

You did say they were "boiling". Explain yourself.

And no, the wiki entry for Betelgeuse doesn't explain anything, nor is it relevant to your statement.

All particles which are exhibiting both attractive, both repulsive forces

Hi Zephir, your "both ... both" constructions are really singular.

All particles which are exhibiting both attractive, both repulsive forces

Hi Zephir, your "both ... both" constructions are really singular.

Already added to the list.

My, my, looking at my profile, he's been a busy little lady as of late.

All particles which are exhibiting both attractive, both repulsive forces are behaving like fluid and only complete physical trolls cannot imagine it.

You mean, people who study physics.

Strong nuclear forces are of limited scope, so if the distance between particles increases, then the nucleons are behaving like particles, influenced with repulsive forces preferably, i.e. like particle of gas, i.e. they're exhibiting fluid-gas transition, i.e. boiling.

No, sorry, that isn't boiling. If you don't know what basic concepts, like "state change", are then perhaps you shouldn't refer to others as trolls.

your "both ... both" constructions are really singular.

Why do you mean? Strong nuclear force is attractive, weak nuclear force is repulsive for protons and neutrons. Their combination therefore makes an ideal fluid from nucleons.

The weak nuclear force is not repulsive for protons and neutrons. It really isn't at play. Weak nuclear force is primarily responsible for state changes and the tranmission of w and z bosons. The weak nuclear force only appears to extend to about a tenth of a percent of the size of a proton.

So what were you smoking when you came up with this impossible notion that the weak force was repulsive or attractive at all?

Just learn some physics first: weak nuclear force is repulsive for all particles, attractive for all antiparticles.

No it isn't. Above and beyond that your statement of how the weak nuclear force works is akin to insisting that we can haul the Earth around using a refrigerator magnet. Not enough range of force in order to begin to speak to attraction and repulsion.

This is another BS, W/Z bosons are supposed to mediate weak force. You even don't know, what the weak force is

Are you confusing the electromagnetic force with the weak nuclear force? Even if that was the case you'd still be in error as it matters not whether it is a particle or antiparticle to calculate repulsion and attraction.

it still doesn't prohibit you to feel qualified to correct people, who apparently understand subject at much wider level, then just you.

It is rather telling that you linked Dunning Krueger rather than the weak nuclear force entry from wikipedia.

Every answer of yours demonstrates, how formal your education actually is.

Why thank you.

It's virtually impossible to derive some meaningful predictions from such kind of informations

Actually knowledge is required in order to make accurate predictions.

You're trying to use specialized terms, but for most intelligent people such reply sounds like "I actually don't understand anything about it". The vague terms like "being responsible", "state changes", "transmission of bosons" belongs into vocabulary of managers, not creative people.

This isn't exactly a "creative" subject. We're treading a well beaten path.

In brief, you're typical product of formal educational system.

If you think that school can't teach you anything, you're sorely in need of more time within it.

I'd strongly suggest you invest in an education. Then you can change that screen name into "highschool physics11" rather than "wiki11".

Your silly negativistic replies are wasting both your, both my time and time of another readers, not saying about storage space of this server.

So are you done masquerading as a misunderstood scientific prodigy or are you going to make up some more bullshit?

I haven't studied physics formally since high school and even I can see that wiki11 is full of it. Actually, this latest name you use is probably the most apt, as you seem to have learned physics primarily from wikipedia. Except, for some reason, you arbitrarily decided to cling to the ideas with the least credibility.

If you think, some of my posts contains factual error, feel free to to point it out WITH JUSTIFICATION

Sure thing.
http://www.partic...eak.html

When you're done with that one I have a few thousand more. Just let us know when you're ready.

If you think, there is some logical gap in my explanations, feel free to demonstrate it.

I have a few million pages for that one. We're going to need a lot of time. As I've said in the past, I have 14 years in this field and I learn new things everyday. You have zero years within the field and haven't learned a thing.

The results speak to the wonderous achievements that education will bring you. I'd strongly suggest you try it.

Ha, he got banned. Now it looks like I'm talking to myself about Weak nuclear interaction. Hilarious.