0

The peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays published two days ago a paper where it is proven that a wrong math procedure is used in nuclear physics, for the calculation of the magnetic moments for excited even-even 2+ nuclei.

The paper also shows evidences that some excited even-even 2+ nuclei have null magnetic moment. But this is impossible by considering the foundations of the Nuclear Physics, and thereby there is no way to calculate a null magnetic moment for those excited nuclei, from any current nuclear model.

The repercussion of this misfire is the total collapse of Nuclear Physics, because a null magnetic moment of some excited even-even 2+ nuclei implies that are wrong some of the fundamental pillars on which the theory was developed, and therefore they must be rejected and replaced by new ones, from which a new nuclear model can be able to explain the null magnetic moment for those nuclei.

In order to save the Nuclear Physics from the total collapse, the nuclear theorists are using a wrong math procedure for the calculation of the magnetic moment of some excited even-even nuclei 2+, as did the authors of the paper "Magnetism of an Excited Self-Conjugate Nucleus: Precise Measurement of the g Factor of the 2+ State in 24Mg", published in 2015:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.062501

The abstract of the paper published by Physics Essays two days ago is shown ahead.

Abstract: Data extracted from the Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables [S. Raman et al., At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 78, 1 (2001)] are used for the calculation of magnetic moments of atomic nuclei. However, in October 2018, the author discovered that when nuclear theorists use Raman’s table, an incorrect math procedure is applied when calculating the magnetic moments for exotic excited even Z = N nuclei. Obviously, it is mandatory for nuclear theorists to ascertain the repercussions of such an error in nuclear physics. https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1734-6-wladimir-guglinski-wrong-math-procedure-used-in-nuclear-physics-for-the-calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-excited-z5n-even-even-nuclei.html

Along the last 10 years the nuclear theorists have rejected the results of some experiments. Let us see two examples:

1- In 2012 the journal Nature published the paper "How atomic nuclei cluster", which detected by experiments that Z=N even-even nuclei have spherical shape. In spite of this is impossible from the Foundations of the Nuclear Physics, the nuclear theorists do not confess that some principles of the theory are wrong. https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1244

2- In 2009 an experiment measured as being 7 fm the orbit radius of Be11, and this is impossible from the foundations of Nuclear Physics, because the maximum range of interaction by strong nuclear force is 3 fm. Therefore a halo neutron with 7 fm is impossible. http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php

But now the nuclear theorists are rejecting the own mathematics, in their desperate attempt of trying to save the pillars of Nuclear Physics, which are being demolished by experiments along the last 10 years.

Among the tasks of theoretical and experimental physics is the discovery of the laws that rule the working of the universe where we live. And the math is a fundamental tool from which we can test a theory, so that to verify if it is agree with the laws that rule the working of the universe.

Then the question is:

If the nuclear theorists discard the math in the process of verifying the foundations of the theory, are we able to get a thrustwhorty understanding on how the universe works? Is the rejection of the math compatible with the Philosophy of Science?

closed as off-topic by curiousdannii, Frank Hubeny, Kevin, Conifold, Mozibur Ullah Jul 9 at 21:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site." – curiousdannii, Frank Hubeny, Kevin, Conifold
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    "Is the rejection of the math compatible with the Philosophy of Science?" What does it mean ? An incorrect result predicted by a theory may need a new theory. Maybe a new theory may need a "new math" meaning some mathematical theory not yed used in physics (think at tensor calculus for rwltivity and probability th with QM). – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 6 at 11:33
  • 3
    Maybe the recent published paper is simply wrong... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 6 at 11:34
  • No, Mauro Allengranza, you are saying it because you dont know what is the error in the math procedure. Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed journal. If had an error, the reviewer would had point it. There is 100% of certainty that the procedure is wrong, and there is no way to correct it. – Japha Nakhão Jul 6 at 11:57
  • "An incorrect result predicted by a theory may need a new theory." Of course, Mauro. This is just what the author says in his paper. There is need to replace some foundations of nuclear physics by new ones. – Japha Nakhão Jul 6 at 12:01
  • 1
    Not too sure what the question is. This all seems to be quite normal science going on: better experiments leads to better theories, leads to more accurate prediction leads to better experiments... Philosophy-of-Science is unlikely to suffer any repercussions. Maybe the "error" seems glaring, but as long as some useful predictions are made the model will be kept as a working theory until a better model is made. – christo183 Jul 8 at 5:40
2

This has nothing to do with philosophy, or even the philosophy of science.

If you look at the book by Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, they point out carefully that it’s quite feasible to discuss the tundamental ideas of physics (and of mathematics) in prose as they are few in number.

It’s a mistake, that many people make, that mathematics and physics ought to be discussed in mathematical terms. Generally, I find, thenprose of such people is usually a massive exercise in pedantry, obscurity and opacity, almost as though they were trying deliberately to hide something.

  • Mozibur, you are an expert in pedantry, obscurity and opacity, that's why you understand very well this subject. That nuclear theorists try to hide from people the total collapse of nuclear physics, it is perfectly understandable. But the reason why phylosophers may try to hide the reality to the public, it is a mistery. The philosopher had to be an impartial defender of the scientific truth. But he is not. The philospher is actually a slave of the physicists. – Japha Nakhão Jul 10 at 0:35
  • I am sure that this topic was put in hold due to the pressure of nuclear physicists. They have a desperate hope that they can hide from the public that new experiments are demolishing the fundamental pillars of nuclear physics. But the History of Physics tell us that this task is imposible. Soon or later the nuclear physicits will recognize that nuclear physics was developed from wrong foundations. And this will repercute in the Philosophy-of-Science. – Japha Nakhão Jul 10 at 0:35
  • Karl Popper is writhing in his grave – Japha Nakhão Jul 10 at 0:43
  • @JaphaNakhão: I don't agree with everyhting that Karl Popper wrote but he wrote with a great more clarity than you have. – Mozibur Ullah Jul 10 at 20:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.