[chiralSPO]

and cannot get any closer to the nucleus

What force will prevent that?
Also, there is only one logic of continuity of motion regardless of size scale...

No force required to prevent it. The nucleus and electrons in an atom all have the same center of mass—it is impossible for them to be any closer.

Then there is the question of the volume of the electron. Because the electron is much less massive than the nucleus (by at least a factor of 1836), it will naturally be more diffuse.

Yes, logic should be the same at any scale, but quantum logic is very complicated, and on large scales most of the complications cancel out, so we have learned a much simpler version of reality based on the observations of the collective motion of "objects" composed of 1000000000000000000000 particles.

For instance: you might say that it is a well-established, even proven, fact that water in a river flows downstream. This is true on average, so on a macroscopic scale you will never see this contradicted. However if one were to zoom in and look at the water on a molecular level, it would be obvious that all the molecules are moving randomly, with essentially a 50/50 chance of moving upstream or downstream (it is really something along the lines of 50.0000000000001/49.999999999999999999 and that slight bias on a molecular level is what accounts for our observations of the river.)

[alancalverd]

Well, please give an example  where a particle would vanish from current position and appear  in different location or change velocity and or position (jump) instantaneously...

The emission and absorption of x-rays are everyday examples of single-quantum phenomena, but your concept of particles jumping around is far too naive to encompass them - though it's sometimes used to explain nuclear magnetic resonance to beginners.

Some of my colleagues use protons and neutrons to treat tumors. Should we tell the patients that they are purely hypothetical particles?

[mathew_orman (OP)]

and cannot get any closer to the nucleus

What force will prevent that?
Also, there is only one logic of continuity of motion regardless of size scale...

No force required to prevent it. The nucleus and electrons in an atom all have the same center of mass—it is impossible for them to be any closer.

Is that a new law of superposition of matter?
If so then unlimited number of assumed subatomic elements can have one common center of mass?...
Also, you need to provide real example not a philosophical one...

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Well, please give an example  where a particle would vanish from current position and appear  in different location or change velocity and or position (jump) instantaneously...

The emission and absorption of x-rays are everyday examples of single-quantum phenomena
Some of my colleagues use protons and neutrons to treat tumors.

Adding a word 'quantum ' is not increasing the volume of knowledge about a phenomena...
Your colleagues ware thought to use names but in reality the cancer cells are disabled by ionizing radiation...

[alancalverd]

True, but some of that radiation is deflected by an electric field, and some isn't. Some is deflected by a magnetic field, and some isn't. Some of it travels at the speed of light and some doesn't. Some is strongly absorbed by lead and some by water (it's a quantum thing, but I'm sure there's a logical explanation too). So we poor deluded morons think there are several different types of ionising radiation, and use them to do different jobs.

Fortunately both the patients and the cancer cells believe in this ridiculous juju. But you know better. 

[mathew_orman (OP)]

True, but some of that radiation is deflected by an electric field, and some isn't. Some is deflected by a magnetic field, and some isn't. Some of it travels at the speed of light and some doesn't. Some is strongly absorbed by lead and some by water (it's a quantum thing, but I'm sure there's a logical explanation too). 

None of those are considered as prove of existence of protons or neutrons...

[alancalverd]

So there's an uncharged particle with mass 1.008 amu that has a halflife of about 10  minutes, decays into a proton and a pion, can travel through steel, but is absorbed by polyethylene, has a magnetic moment, can induce radioactivity in copper and can initiate fission of a uranium nucleus.

You choose a name. Or convince everyone else on the planet that it doesn't exist, and all those phenomena were the work of fairies.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

And what is the setup that proves all that?

[PmbPhy]

And what is the setup that proves all that?

It's a common misconception to believe that science is about "proving" things. It's not. Watch the following video for details

The science of physics is not about "proving" anything by Alan Guth
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV

[alancalverd]

And what is the setup that proves all that?

The question wasn't about proof, but simply asking you to name a particle whose properties I described. It is of no interest to anyone else if you have never observed the experiments.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Rephrased question:
And what is the setup that demonstrate all that?

[chiralSPO]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrondis.html

[alancalverd]

Rephrased question:
And what is the setup that demonstrate all that?

There was a pretty good one in the lab next to mine at the National Physical Laboratory, several at Harwell in my undergraduate days, one or two in London hospitals, and very nearly a brilliant new one in Birmingham but I couldn't get any funding for it - the job went to Leiden instead. I'm designing a small neutron rig for a customer in Essex.

I've made a good living out of other people's gullibility, and hopefully one or two patients have absorbed enough of this juju bullshit to have survived for several years (though their tumors were probably imaginary too), but you obviously know better, so I'll revert to a respectful silence on the subject.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Links to articles and or abstract quotes only but where is the real scientific experiment with outcome which is not crafted to patch the failed model of atomic nucleus but an objective description of reality...

[mathew_orman (OP)]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrondis.html

Chadwick was a student of Rutherford and would not dare to provide an objective interpretation of the experiments results...
You need scientific paper and not page from encyclopedia...

[Bored chemist]

Rephrased question:
And what is the setup that demonstrate all that?

The real world demonstrates it.
You should visit it some time.

[Colin2B]

Chadwick was a student of Rutherford and would not dare to provide an objective interpretation of the experiments results...

Do you have any evidence to support the above statement? By evidence I mean letters to friends, relatives or colleagues; medical or psychological reports.
Without such evidence your statement is logically flawed. You might have evidence that some dogs bite postmen, but to infer that all dogs, or a specific dog, bite postmen is false logic.

Should I believe in logical reasoning or in what Wiki claims?

These 2 statements ("Should I believe in logical reasoning" and "or in what Wiki claims")  are not mutually exclusive, did you decide to deliberately beg the question?.

In general Wiki is reasonably reliable and based on sound logic, particularly for a first introduction to a topic. Sometimes you will need to look to other sources if you wish to study a topic in depth, or pull together a number of separate topics in Wiki.
I assume from your statement that you do not consider Wiki to be logical. However, it is difficult to judge whether you are correct as your responses are usually lacking in depth, as if you are avoiding a detailed discussion.
You have, however, provided a document of which you say "This argumentation share my point of view on the hypothetical nucleus". Not only does this document not follow the format you have prescribed for other people's 'submissions' to you, it is a prime example of poor critical thinking. It shows significant confirmation bias by being very selective in the way it presents information. Take an example from early in the essay.

The author accuses physicists of considering many materials to be incompressible.
It is true we all consider many elements and compounds to be relatively incompressible. After all, we can build bridges from steel and concrete which take considerable loads with minimal compression. However, it is unlikely that any physicist would consider these materials to be incompressible at the 100,000 atm and above as suggested by the author. If this were true the current theories of the sun, neutron stars, and our own earth's core would need to be rewritten. Interestingly the author has to dig back some 50yrs to find a reference which he thinks supports his assertion - why are none of the quoted references more recent than 1960?.
It is also interesting that most of the experiments and discoveries in nuclear physics over the past 50 yrs are either ignored or misrepresented. Eg, sizes of ions compared to mother atoms conflict with his theory; spreading of energy bands in molecules is presented as being ignored by physicists whereas it is well known and an important part of quantum theory.
Strangely, the author when quoting one reference says "..same textbook which gives us, on page 154, this conclusion based on up-to-date evidence .....". I say strangely, because the book giving the up to date evidence is dated 1955. Again, why are no recent texts quoted? We can only assume they do not support the author's preconceived ideas.

If this is an example of your method of argumentation it is not surprising that you are unable to understand the reasoning that lead Chadwick to his conclusions.

Are you going to continue with your blocking tactics, avoiding any meaningful discussion or are you prepared to present your alternative view of the atom, in the format you prescribe, with details of experiments that support your conclusions.
We await your hypothetical theory.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...
Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...
Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...
Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

[chiralSPO]

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...
Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...
Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...
Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

In what ways do our atomic simulators fail in modeling hydrogen?

I collaborate with theoretical chemists who use commercially available (very expensive) software that can make very accurate predictions about collections of dozens or even hundreds of atoms using quantum-based algortihms. This can accurately predict not just the preferred molecular structures (which can be verified experimentally using x-ray crystallography or 2-dimesional NMR spectroscopy), but also how molecules vibrate (which can be verified experimentally by infrared and Raman spectroscopy), absorb/emit light (which can be verified experimentally with a UV-vis spectrometer), conduct electricity (guess what? this can also be verified experimentally, using devices that can actually experimentally measure the conductivity of a single molecule!)

They are even working on using computers to predict which molecules will be best at performing some function (the area still needs to make a lot of progress on this, in my opinion, but the fact that it even comes up with good suggestions at all is very promising given the rapid growth of our capabilities in this regard.

It's not easy to simulate these things, and it is not cheap. But saying that it "fails every time" is demonstrably false, and actually very far from the truth, as I see it. The only deliberate misinterpretation must be your own.

[alancalverd]

Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...

It seems that your knowledge of the history of science is no better than your understanding of it.