From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Potentially cranky reference
- It's written by someone who doesn't seem to be a physicist and who isn't working for a university (the author works at an aerospace firm, according to the publication info).
- It spends quite a lot of time on relatively elementary background about coulomb and nuclear forces, without actually saying much about how this background information influences their proposals.
- It makes several rather suspect claims about the nature of the Strong force (modelling it as an anisotropic force between a nucleon and a larger nucleus, picking handwavy numbers for interaction radii, claiming repulsion within a certain distance rather than treating the whole nucleus as a degenerate lump, etc).
- A couple of statements are made about mathematical analysis of interactions between nuclei and between a nucleus and a nearby nucleon, but there is no description of how these were set up (certainly no detailed presentation of the math used).
- An "experimental evidence" datapoint is plotted in the simulated graph, but is not discussed in the text. And it's a single data point, being used as justification for a graph showing a detailed relation between parameters.
- The article spends quite a lot of time discussing how you'd assemble trusses and tubes and so forth out of nuclear matter with the assumed properties, when the real issue a paper of this sort would have to address is proving that stable configurations like that could exist at all.
Long story short, it's setting off my crackpot index alarms. The fact that the author names the proposed form of matter after himself doesn't help. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)