Re: Black out (Fusione Fredda, Andrea Rossi....) ¶
By: lmwillys1 on Venerdì 20 Luglio 2018 22:10
stimolo il buonumore del Sergente con un'altra lezione di fisica di Rossi
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
I read that also in nuclear physics magic events are taken seriously: in the most accepted model of the atomic nucleus there are “magic numbers” that allow the nucleus exist: is that correct?
Magicians or magic things have nothing to do with Nuclear Physics. Who told you so is an imbecile.
To understand well the thematic of the nuclear models and the so called “magic numbers” ( that have nothing of magic, this is a conventional terminology for the numbers of nucleons that manifest a more probable tendency to reach a more stable configuration, so that if the nucleus has few nucleons more than the “magic number” it should be more probable that the nucleus tends to break up in a decay process, to reach the magic number ) I think the best book is “Atomic Nucleus” authored by Prof. Norman D. Cook, published by Springer in 2008 and sold also by Amazon and “Models of the Atomic Nucleus”, Springer 2010- that is the second edition with important updates- I know by heart these books.
The concept of a model that resembles an onion, wherein every layer completes the number of nucleons that have max stability, is the so called “Shell Model”, along which nucleons behave in analogy to the electrons around the nucleus, where there are saturation strata ( the different quantic stata of the electrons around the nucleus ). To make it shorter, the octet reached with the last orbital of the noble gases is analogous in a certain way to what in the nucleus is considered a magic number: obviously, as a gas is not noble because is an Earl or a Prince, also a stratum of the nucleus is not magic because emits rabbits: noble and magic are just conventional definitions that have nothing to do with the normal semantic.
This Shell Model has been thought about because explains some behaviors of the nucleons inside the nucleus, while the former model, the so called “Liquid Drop Model”, that compares the decay of a nucleus to a piece of drop that breaks out when the drop gets enough vibration, can explain the fission ( like a drop that splits in two or more drops) but not the intimate behavior of nucleons inside the nucleus.
Which one is right? None. So the Orthodox Standard Model Huggers Fraternity have invented the “Collective Model”, thinking that unifying the Drop Model with the Shell Model you fix it all. Like to say that unifying a blind with a deaf you fix the whole. But it is not so. Why? Read the books of Norman Cook and forget the magicians.