Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 10:05 pm.
Two neutrons have not Coulombic repulsion. But they have attraction through the strong nuclear force when they approach each other in a distance of the order of 2x10-15m.
So, as there is not repulsion, but there is attraction between two neutrons when they interact in distances of the order of 2fm, it means that two neutrons would have to form a dineutron 0n2, and would never have to separate. And the Universe would have to be fulfilled by a great quantity of dineutros.
However a dineutron does not exist in Nature, because the dineutron is never formed. Why?
Heisenberg tried to explain it by proposing the concept of
There was an error working with the wiki: Code. Unfortunatelly the isospin is a pure mathematical concept, and Heisenberg’s proposal actually is unacceptable.
Indeed, as two neutrons in the structure of the dineutron would agglutinated by a force of attraction, obviously such a force of attraction must be surpassed by a 'force of repulsion, in order to separate the two neutrons. Because only a force of repulsion can neutralize the effect of a force of attraction.
A pure mathematical concept, as the isospin, cannot produce a force of repulstion.
Heisenberg’s mathematical solution only describes what happens between two neutrons. His solution does not explain why it happens.
In short: Heisenberg’s solution does not show what is the cause responsible for the fact that a dineutron is never formed.
An acceptable solution capable to explain why the dineutron is not formed must consider a model of neutron in which, in the distances of the range of 2fm, there appears a force of repulsion between the two neutrons.
Such model of neutron must be able to point out the physical cause capable to produce a force of repulsion.
A neutron model, to be acceptable, must be able to explain the origin of the force of repulsion, responsible for the fact why the dineutron does not exist in Nature.
Heinseberg tried to expell any metaphysical idealism from the process of scientific discovery:
“But later Heisenberg is very clear about avoiding any metaphysical idealism. In "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory" in Physics and Philosophy he states explicitly that quantum theory does not contain genuinely subjective features, since it does not introduce the mind of the physicist as part of the atomic event, and that the transition from possible to actual in the act of observation is in the physical and not the psychical act of observation?.
According to Heisenberg, it’s not the aim of science to discover the hidden mechanisms underlying the phenomena, as one could wish, motivated by a personal idealism supported by a trust in the causality principle. He stated that to look for physical mechanisms is metaphysics, and must be eliminated from the process of scientific research. From his viewpoint, only observable quantities are of the interest of science.
Paradoxically, Heisenberg’s criterion sometimes brings results disagree to experimental results, as for instance the case of the electron’s orbits: while the experience of the chamber fog shows us that electron’s trajectory indeed exists, Heisenberg proposed to eliminate the concept of trajectory in Quantum Mechanics, because he did not believe in the existence of electronic orbits within the atom.
Such Heisenberg’s hypothesis (that there no exist electron’s orbits within the atom) is disagree not only to the chamber fog experiment. It’s disagree to the experiment made by the Nobel Laureate
There was an error working with the wiki: Code. His experiment shows that the electron peruses the space between two orbits into the electrosphere of atoms, a result disagree to Quantum Mechanics (disagree to Heisenberg’s criterion).
A book( 1 ) reproduces a Heisenberg’s lecture in 1968, where he spoke about his scientific criterion. And he tells his discussion with Einstein in 1926, when the father of relativity asked him to explain the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics:
- What was the underlying philosophy to such strange theory? The theory seems to be very beautiful, but what do you mean with observable quantities?
And Heisenberg answered him:
- I don’t believe so long in the existence of electronic orbits, in spite of the traces within the chamber fog.
And Heisenberg said that he felt the need to go back to the quantities that, indeed, could be observed. Because that was the sort of philosophy used in the relativity too: Einstein abandoned the absolute time and introduced only the time in the own co-ordenate system.
Einstein laughed, and said:
- But you have to understand that you are completely wrong
And Heisenberg replied:
- But why? Isn’t true that you did use such same philosophy?
- Oh, yes – answered Einstein – I may have used it, but even so it’s a nonsense.
See also Directory:Albert Einstein
Since the begginning, Heisenberg’s scientific criterion was disagree to some experimental findings, as for instance the existence of electron’s trajectory within the chamber fog. Also, it’s also obvious that something is missing in his solution concerning the dineutron, because from an abstract mathematical concept as the isospin one cannot explain the origin of the repulsion force that does not allow a dineutron to be formed from the interaction by the strong force.
Heisenberg’s criterion was successful for the development of technology. However probably it can fail in a most deep level or research. Such conclusion is obvious, because since the begginning Heisenberg’s criterion did not consider some fundamental mechanisms existing in Nature, as for instance the electron’s trajectory, and the repulsive force within the neutron.
But along the 20th Century all the theories of Modern Physics have been developed by following the Heisenberg’s criterion. Among them we can mention the prevailing theories, as the Standard Model, the Supersymmetry and the String Theory.
Today the physicists hope to get experimental confirmations for those prevailing theories, when the LHC will start to work.
The question is: will the Heisenberg’s scientific criterion succeed in such depper level of research?
Or there will need to start everything again, from the zero, by considering a new scientific criterion?
As consequence of the application of Heisenberg’s criterion to the development of Quantum Mechanics, of course would be impossible to avoid several inconsistences in the theory. It’s easy to understand why. After all, it makes no sense to hope that a theory, born in contrast with some experimental findings (as for instance the existence of electron’s trajectory within the chamber fog) could be entirelly successful.
So, along the 20th Century the theorists tried to eliminate some inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics.
However they have applied the same method responsible for the inconsistences: the Heisenberg’s method.
So, instead of to look for new fundamental concepts missing in Quantum Mechanics, the theorists developed its successor, the Quantum Fields Theory, by keeping the fundamental concepts established for Quantum Mechanics from the Heisenberg’s criterion.
In another words: instead of looking for new fundamental concepts that Heisenberg’s criterion was unable to discover, the theorists try to eliminate the inconsistence of Quantum Mechanics from the manipulation of the mathematics, believing that the mathematics is able to make better a theory from which are missing some fundamental principles existing in Nature, in the same way as Heisenberg tried to solve the problem of the dineutron, simply by neglecting the causality principle and proposing a pure mathematical concept, as the isospin.
The question is:
1- Keeping the Heisenberg’s criterion, as the theorists did up to now, is there chance to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics?
2- Or is there need to start everything again, by a different scientific criterion?
The most theorists would claim that Heisenberg's method must be kept. However we have to consider what Einstein pointed out to us: we cannot eliminate the crisis from the same method that generated the crisis.
The book Quantum Ring Theory( 2 ) tries to respond these two questions.
This article has been deleted from Wikipedia
Argument for deletion:
The result was Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Close: Article speedily deleted per
There was an error working with the wiki: Code: page created by a banned user in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. nneonneo
There was an error working with the wiki: Code 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradox:
:Dr. Gerald Holton
:Jefferson Physical Laboratory
:Harvard University, Cambridge
writes in the link http://www.ashp.cuny.edu/nml/copenhagen/Holton.doc :
At that encounter, Heisenberg once more tried to draw attention to having not dealt with unobservable electron orbits inside atoms, but with observable radiation. He reports
having said to Einstein:
"Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits."
To this Einstein is said to have responded, "But you don't seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"
Heisenberg goes on, "In astonishment, I said: I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory..
Einstein replied: "Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy but it is nevertheless nonsense (Unsinn)."
And then came Einstein's famous sentence: "Only the theory decides what one can observe."
 Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze (Munich: R. Piper & Co., 1969), p. 49.
1- A. Salam, P. Dirac, W. Heisenberg, Unification of Fundamental Forces, Syndicate of the Press- University of Cambridge, 1990
2- W. Guglinski, Quantum Ring Theory-foundations for cold fusion, Bäuu Press, 2006