
Math Books Math Book Forum  Math books, ebooks, references 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
January 27th, 2014, 12:04 PM  #1 
Newbie Joined: Jan 2014 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0  Plagiarism by the journal Nature
Along about 80 years the nuclear theorists used to believe that light even even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape (spherical distribution of prótons and nêutrons), because such spherical shape is required from the current principles of the Standard Nuclear Theory. As several nuclear properties are not explained by the current nuclear models, along the years some nuclear theorists had proposed other new models, as for instance the model of clusters. However, even by considering the model of clusters, the nuclear theorists kept their conviction that light even even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape. For instance, in 2010 the nuclear theorist Martin Freer published in Scholarpedia the paper Clusters in Nuclei, where he shows the spherical distribution for the nucleus 8O16 (see Figure 1 in the link below): http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei But in 2011 new experiments have detected that light even even nuclei with Z=N have nonspherical shape. That's why in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, so that to justify why those nuclei have nonspherical shape, since from the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics they would have to have a spherical distribution of prótons and nêutrons. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11246.html In the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, it is proposed a new nuclear model, according to which the light even even nuclei with Z=N have nonspherical shape. However, nuclei with nonspherical shape cannot have have electric quadrupole moment Q=0. But along the years the experiments had never detected the quadrupole moment for light even even nuclei with Z=N, and so suggesting that they have Q=0, and therefore they must have spherical shape. Therefore, concerning the light even even nuclei with Z=N, a question had to be answered in the book Quantum Ring Theory, in 2006, as follows: 1 As they have Q=0 (because the experiments did not succeed to measure it) 2 They must have spherical shape 3 But according to the nuclear model proposed in QRT those nuclei have nonspherical shape 4 Therefore, they would have to have nonnull quadrupole moment, Q?0. 5 But the experiments never had measured Q?0. 6 Therefore, an explanation was required, so that to explain why those nuclei have Q=0, in spite of they have nonspherical sphape. The explanation is proposed in the page 137 of the book Quantum Ring Theory: http://www.thephysicsforum.com/attachme ... 37qrt.jpg In 2012, when the journal Nature published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, obviously the authors of the paper faced the same question analysed in the page 137 of the book QRT. Those authors had to explain why those nuclei have Q=0, in spite of the experiments in 2011 had detected that they have nonspherical shape. And the argument used by the authors of the journal Nature[color=#BF0000] is the same argument [/color]proposed in the page 137 of the book QRT. That's why in 2012 an email was sent to the EditorinChief of the journal Nature: [color=#000080]To: Philip Campbell/ EditorinChief, journal Nature cc: Peter Jones, Editor, Bäuu Instute Press, publishing house of Quantum Ring Theory Subject: Plagiarism in the journal Nature Dear EditorinChief The journal Nature published in 19 July 2012 the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” , where there is a plagiarism of an idea of mine, proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006. According to current Nuclear Physics, the nuclei have a spherical distribution of the protons and neutrons within the nuclei. In 1993 I started a deep analysis of the current Nuclear Theory, and then I arrived to the conclusion that, by considering the fundamental principles adopted in the theory, it was impossible to conceive a satisfactory model of nucleus, in order to explain the nuclear properties of the nuclei. The theoretical reasons which invalidate the current nuclear models of Nuclear Physics are exhibited in the following chapters of my book: Chapter 10 – Critique to the Models of Nuclear Physics , page 123 Chapter 11 Electric Quadrupole Moment , page 136 Chapter 12 Incompatibility Between Nuclear Theory and Electric Quadrupole Moment, page 149 Chapter 13 Beta Decay , page 156 Taking in consideration that from the current principles of Nuclear Theory it was impossible to find a satisfactory model of nucleus, that’s why I have started a theoretical research, so that to find a new nuclear model, capable to be fit to all the known nuclear properties of the nuclei. According to my new nuclear model, the distribution of protons and neutrons within the light nuclei do not perform a spherical structure, as considered in current Nuclear Physics. Instead of, according to my Quantum Ring Theory, the light nuclei have a flat distribution of nucleons. Such sort of flat distribution was published in the Nature’s paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” , by J. P. Ebran, E. Khan, T. Niksic, and D. Vretenar, in 19 July 2012. In 18 July 2012 Martin Freer had published in News & Views the article “Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together”, and I sent him the following comment:  Dear Martin Freer With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data) Regards WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI  And he sent me the following reply:  Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:53:09 +0100 From: M.Freer@bham.ac.uk To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com Subject: Re: ?spam? Re: Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus. Martin  His explanation is just the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book published in 2006, concerning to the oxygen nucleus 8O116, where it is written the following: "Note that as the 8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment ?=0, then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the xy plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the zaxis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives loads, and not a flat distribution. That’s why the 8O16 has Q(b) = 0." In spite of the nucleus 8O16 (and also the 10Ne20) have a total nuclear spin zero, however the nucleus has a rotation (and such rotation I had called “spin” in my argument). So, the idea proposed by me was the same idea mentioned by Martin Freer, used by the authors of the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” Dear EditorinChief, I would like my comment be published in the next issue of the journal Nature, so that to eliminate the plagiarism. Also, I recommend that, before to publish new papers regarding any new model of the nucleus, the editors of Nature should suggest to the authors to read my book, in order to avoid future plagiarisms. Regards WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI[/color] 

Tags 
journal, nature, plagiarism 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Plagiarism by The European Physical Journal D  wlad  Math Books  0  January 27th, 2014 11:47 AM 
Mathematic International Journal  Monox D. IFly  Academic Guidance  0  February 24th, 2011 11:49 PM 
Trigonometry Journal  Existence  Algebra  0  November 12th, 2009 07:32 PM 
Plagiarism by the journal Nature  wlad  Physics  0  December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM 
Plagiarism by The European Physical Journal D  wlad  Physics  0  December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM 