The author says "an ordinary beryllium nucleus, 8Be, is made of 4 protons and 4 neutrons". This is absolutely untrue as 9Be is the "ordinary" beryllium nucleus. It is in fact one of the best and lowest mass examples of nuclear "magic numbers" having inconsistencies.
8Be has a halflife of attoseconds and a mass greater than two alpha particles therefore isn't even a bound state. I'd be hard pressed to even attach the label nucleus to it in the sense that an atom could form around it.
Oof, that is a major error. I'm wary of explanations in nuclear physics that try to describe bound particles with a classical air of everything being nicely localized.
> I find the failed theories of the 1800s inspiring, and the recent ones merely depressing, since for decades I’ve had to watch seemingly intelligent scientists cling to these recent theories despite their lack of success.
I feel like he may be romanticizing the past. Wasn't it one of the Copenhagen Interpretation founders who said, "Good ideas succeed after the old generation opposing them die off" ? (Very rough quote, but I can't find it in a search.)
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
This remends me of HB11 fusion that has been discussed here before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
The author says "an ordinary beryllium nucleus, 8Be, is made of 4 protons and 4 neutrons". This is absolutely untrue as 9Be is the "ordinary" beryllium nucleus. It is in fact one of the best and lowest mass examples of nuclear "magic numbers" having inconsistencies.
8Be has a halflife of attoseconds and a mass greater than two alpha particles therefore isn't even a bound state. I'd be hard pressed to even attach the label nucleus to it in the sense that an atom could form around it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium-8
That extra neutron is somewhat important.
Oof, that is a major error. I'm wary of explanations in nuclear physics that try to describe bound particles with a classical air of everything being nicely localized.
> I find the failed theories of the 1800s inspiring, and the recent ones merely depressing, since for decades I’ve had to watch seemingly intelligent scientists cling to these recent theories despite their lack of success.
what’s he referring to here? String theory?
Part II vs. Part I here, it seems: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/higher-speculations-...
I feel like he may be romanticizing the past. Wasn't it one of the Copenhagen Interpretation founders who said, "Good ideas succeed after the old generation opposing them die off" ? (Very rough quote, but I can't find it in a search.)
You are probably thinking of:
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
While it's obviously true in some cases that science 'progresses funeral by funeral', some exceptions are noted here as in plate tectonics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
The anthropic principle, which he discusses and rolls his eyes at.