wlad

Sensei , on 31 August 2014 - 12:12PM , said: Nope. Ionized Hydrogen atom has no electrons. There is free proton, and somewhere else there is free electron. Hydrogen atom has 2 electrons in the level s (hydrogen molecule) Ionized hydrogen atom has one electron (the molecule is broken) First of all, electrons do not absorb photons Photons are absorbed by the atoms, in a process of resonance Being the electron in the level n=1, the hydrogen atom cannot absorb two different photons with 12.75 eV and 10.2 eV

But the question is: 1) Suppose the electron is in the level n=1. 2) Sometimes the electron has energy E(1) and it goes from n=1 to n=4 3) Sometimes the electron has energy E(2), and it goes from n=1 to n=2 Why? How can the electron, according to Quantum Mechanics, to have two different energy E(1) and E(2), when it is in the level n=1? As the electron is in the level n=1, according to Quantum Mechanics it must have the same energy level all the time Physics World reveals its top 10 breakthroughs for 2011http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/dec/16/physics-world-reveals-its-top-10-breakthroughs-for-2011 “To Bohr and others, the process was instantaneous – when you opened the box, the entangled system collapsed into a definite, classical state. This postulate stirred debate in quantum mechanics, But real-time tracking of a quantum system shows that it’s a continuous process, and that we can constantly extract information from the system as it goes from quantum to classical. This level of detail was never considered accessible by the original founders of quantum theory.” http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/07/30/watching-schrodingers-cat-die/ 1) If you send photon with specific energy, you will excite atom(s) to specific maximum level. Excited electrons in atom will emit photons. Some photons might be absorbed by other atoms, and new photons emitted. The absorption spectrum shows that a photons emitted in a level has always the same wavelenght of the photon absorbed in that level. If your argument was valid, it would be impossible to get the absorption spectrum of the Sun. 2) Excited electron might not be able to return to initial level, because it's already taken by other electron (after emitting other photon with different energy). They will swap their "locations". Ionized hydrogen atom has only one electron However, sometimes it emits photons from n=1 to n=4, and sometimes it emits photons from n=1 to n=2 Therefore the hydrogen atom does not obey to the rules of Quantum Mechanics

According to Quantum Mechanics, the poison can be released by the radioactive source, or not. But consider that we put a video camear within the box. Suppose the poison is released, and the video camera captures the image of the cat dying. When we open the box, two things may occur: 1) 50% of chance to find the cat alive 2) 50% of chance to find the cat dead Suppose we repeat the experiment, several times, with many different cats. In 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, and when we play the video we find the cat alive too. But in 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, while when we play the video we find the cat dead. Therefore, in 50% of the cases Quantum Mechanics is wrong. So... ?

The physical causes are hidden Quantum Mechanics does not work through the whole laws used by the Nature, some fundamental law are missing in QM. And some recent experiments are showing it.

In my book “Os Dados que Deus Escondeu” (The Dice God Hid) published in 2003 in Brazil, in the Introduction it is explained why the atom model of Quantum Mechanics violates the causality. Advertising link removed Let me give a little idea why there is violation of the causality. According to QM the atom emits photons when the electron changes its position from a level to another. The electron can, for instance, to go from n=1 to n=2, or from n=2 to n=4, or from n=1 to n=3, or from n=4 to n=1, etc. But there is not, in QM, any cause responsible for some specific sequence. For instance, why sometimes does the electron go from n=1 to n=2, and sometimes it goes from n=1 to n=4? From the theory there is no way to find the physical cause for the reason why, from a starting point at the same initial level n=1, sometimes the electron goes to n=2, sometimes it goes to n=3, and sometimes it goes to n=4. Bohr proposed the selection rules so that to describe that “statistical” behavior of the electron. However it is only a mathematical description. The cause of the sequence of the jumpings is not pointed out. Suppose some atom A has the following sequence of six jumpings: 1) From n=1 to n=3 2) From n=3 to n=2 3) From n=2 to n=4 4) From n=4 to n=2 5) From n=2 to n=3 6) From n=3 to n=1 7) … and the sequence is ended, and it starts again, and it is repeated again, and again, and again… What the cause of such a sequence is? As Quantum Mechanics works via statistical laws, we dont have to expect any specific sequence when the electron moves from a level to another. According to the model of Quantum Mechanics, the sequence would have to be chaotic, and never repeated again. However, we know from experiments that, for the atom A considered above, the sequence is repeated indefinitely forever. Suppose we take a die, and in the first of its side we write 1, in the second side we write 2, and so one, til to write 6 in the sixth side. If we start to throw the die, it will give a random sequence of extractions, for instance as follows: 5-3-5-2-1-4-3-6-6-4-2-1-5-4-3-6-2-6-4-5-… There is not any repetition in the sequence. This is just the sequence which the model of the atom A, according to Quantum Mechanics, had to have. Suppose that we want to build a die able to give the following sequence: 1) first extraction = 1 2) second extraction = 3 3) third extraction = 2 4) fourth extaction = 4 5) Fifth extraction = 2 6) sixth extraction = 3 7) seventh extraction = 1… , and so we realize that it is the sequence of emission of photons by the atom A. Continuing to throw the die, it will repeat again the same sequence, and the sequence is never stopped. How can we do it? Well, we can to get it, for instance, by installing an apparatus within the die (with springs and an iron sphere moving within channels), so that it will follow the wished sequence. QUESTION: What is the difference of such die and the atom model of Quantum Mechanics? RESPONSE: The difference is because while the die has a physical device responsible for the extractions always in the same sequence , unlike the atom model of Quantum Mechanics has not any physical device capable to produce always the same sequence of photons emission observed in the experiments. So, Quantum Mechanics is phantasmagoric. It works without physical causes.

4) The experiment published by Nature in 2014 But finally now, in the end of July 2014, the journal Nature published a paper proving that Quantum Mechanics is indeed wrong, because the hypothesis of “dressed atom” is actually a bunch of baloney. The experiment published by the journal Nature detected trajectories in a way different of that predicted in Quantum Mechanics: Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4992 The experiment shows that the Interpretation of Copenhagen was wrong, as predicted in the book Quantum Ring Theory. Atomic states obey to different laws of those fundamental laws that rule the Quantum Mechanics?

Posted as comment in the Rossi's blog Journal of Nuclear Physics: url deleted Wladimir Guglinski url deleted How does the quantum entanglement works? I used do not believe in the existence of the quantum entanglement. In my book Quantum Ring Theory, by considering my model of the photon, I had proposed a new interpretation for the Alain Aspect experiment, without the need of considering the entanglement. But a new experiment published in the journal Nature does not allow any doubt on its existence: Quantum imaging with undetected photons http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html The experiment was made under the lead of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, a Brazilian physicist. So, the entanglement exists, and we have to try to understand what is physical mechanism underlying its occurrence. It is obvious that, for the understanding of such physical mechanism, we need to try to understand the entanglement by considering a physical structure of the aether. Another experiment which is dealing with the structure of the aether is being made in the Fermilab: http://astro.fnal.gov/projects/OtherInitiatives/holometer_project.html The structure of the aether is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. But the best aspect of the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is the fact that such structure is connected to the structures of the electron, the proton, the neutrino, the photon, and the nucleus. Therefore, the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is not a lonely theory, actually it is a theory connected to structures of the elementary stable particles of the universe, and this is the best aspect of the theory. According to the photon model of QRT, the photon is composed by a particle and its antiparticle moving in helical trajectory. In the experiment made by Gabriela, when the photon is broken in two parts, the particle takes a direction, and the antiparticle takes another direction. However, in the instant when the photon is broken, the lonely particle captures a new antiparticle from the aether, and the antiparticle also captures a new particle, in order that two twins photons A and B are formed. The question is: how does occur the entanglement between the twins photons A and B? In the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it is proposed that a string of gravitons (of the elementary particles as the electron and the proton) captures magnetons in the perimeter of the universe (the most far away limit of the universe), as we see in the Figure 2.5 of the paper, ahead: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png The question now is to discover how the gravity strings of the photon A gets entanglement with the gravity strings of the photon B in the experiment made by Gabriela. In another words: What are the laws of Physics underlying the entanglement via the structure of the aether? It’s an exciting chalenge. . Dear Joe when my paper will be published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I would like to talk about the question with you, here in the Comments of the JoNP. regards wlad Email sent to Dr. Gabriela: From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com To: deleted Subject: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:13:07 -0300 Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement). I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement. The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics: url deleted Thanks to your attention Wladimir Guglinski

Instantaneously or not, however according to Quantum Mechanics the electron does not travel the space between two levels And the experiment published now in July 2014 by Nature shows that this not true, the electron travels the space between two points, supposed to be impossible by the Interpretation of Copenhagen. Dear Mr. Enthalpy, tell it to Dr. Irfan Siddiqi, UC Berkeley associate professor of physics, says about the wrong entanglement of states considered in Quantum Mechanics: “To Bohr and others, the process was instantaneous – when you opened the box, the entangled system collapsed into a definite, classical state. This postulate stirred debate in quantum mechanics, But real-time tracking of a quantum system shows that it’s a continuous process, and that we can constantly extract information from the system as it goes from quantum to classical. This level of detail was never considered accessible by the original founders of quantum theory.” http://newscenter.be...ingers-cat-die/

Posted as comment in the Andrea Rossi's blog Journal of Nuclear Physics: deleted

There is nothing to discuss about results of experiments. You have to accept them, or not. If you accept, you realize that Quantum Mechanics is wrong If you dont accept, you betray the Scientific Method Simply and easy to understand

Ahead is a discussion between Andrea Rossi, Wlad, Mr. Joe, Mr. JR, and Mr. Curiosone, in the Rossi's blog Journal of Nuclear Physics. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=7#comments Andrea Rossi wrote in August 1st, 2014 at 7:24 PM Curiosone: As you see, I have edited a little bit your question to make it correct. Matter is made by waves ===================================== COMMENT Waves cannot colide like billiard balls, as happens in Compton Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering Only corpuscular particles can collide like billiar balls. As from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics is impossible to eliminate the incompatibility between the theory and the experiments, Bohr proposed his famous Principle of Complementarity, according to which in some experiments the matter behaves like particles and in other experiments the matter behaves like waves. But in 2011 the physicist Aephraim Steinberg made an experiment showing that Bohr’s Principle of Complmentarity is wrong: http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295 According to Quantum Mechanics, a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as a particle at the same time. The experiment made by Steinberg showed that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because in his experiment a photon crossed a unique slit, and it had inferference with itself (a wave feature), while from Quantum Mechanics we would have to expect a particle feature only, since the photon crossed only one slit. regards wlad COMMENT So, it is the time to realize that Quantum Field Theory is wrong. It can work well in a certain level. But in smaller scales Quantum Field Theory is fundamentally wrong. regards wlad COMMENT: Dear Andrea, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) was developed from the contribution of several theorists, and one among them is the Nobel Laureate Dr. Gerard t’ Hooft. From the concept of field considered in QFT it is impossible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment (as all the nuclei have rotation, the rotation of the protons within those nuclei would have to induce a positive magnetic moment, and therefore QFT cannot explain why those nuclei have null magnetic moment). So, I would like to suggest you, dear Andrea, to invite the Dr. G. t’Hooft to come here to tell us how it is possible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment, by considering the Quantum Field Theory. His email is the following: G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl And I challenge any theorist expert in Quantum Field Theory to come here, to tell us how it is possible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment, from the foundations of QFT. Regards wlad COMMENT Dear JR, I challenged any theorist expert in Quantum Field Theory to come here to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero. But you are not expert even in elementary Physics, dear JR. Actually you dont know even geometry, since you dont know the difference between an ellipsoid and a sphere. So, I will not waste my time with your nonsenses. . To the readers of the JoNP Look at the Figure 1 of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, published in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html Are you able to realize that Figure 1 shows a structure with elipsoidal shape? But Mr. JR is not able to understand that Figure 1 shows an elipsoidal structure. In December 2013 Mr. JR claimed here in the JoNP that the structure of the Figure 1 is spherical: ———————————————— JR December 15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM Wladimir, Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even though it has structures as shown in Freer’s work. ————————————————– regards wlad Wladimir Guglinski August 3rd, 2014 at 5:18 PM To the readers of the JoNP: Here is another example of my disagreement with Mr JR: ——————————————————— 3) You don’t understand Quantum Field Theory. QFT does not allow you to calculate magnetic moments of nuclei. ——————————————————— COMMENT Mr. JR is not able to understand the fundamental question regarding the reason why Quantum Field Theory is not able to explain the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N. Indeed, QFT does not allow to calculate magnetic moment. Actually magnetic moments are calculated from the nuclear models existing in the Standard Nuclear Physics. But here is the reason why QFT is not able to exlain the null magnetic moment of those nuclei: 1) The concept of field considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics is the same concept of field existing in the Quantum Field Theory, which is a mono-field concept. 2) Without to consider the rotation of the nuclei, the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have null magnetic moment, by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics, because, due to the symmetry of the nucleus, each pair proton-neutron has a symmetrical pair proton-neutron, and the two pairs proton-neutron cancel each other their magnetic moments. 3) But the nuclei have rotation. And the rotation of a charge induces magnetic moments. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF PHYSICS. So the rotation of the protons within the nuclei induce magnetic moment. And therefore the even-even nuclei with Z=N have to have magnetic moment different of zero. 3.1) And a theorist cannot, by definition, to define as zero a nuclear property which must be DIFFERENT of zero as consequence of a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF PHYSICS, because such stupid method of definition proposed by Mr. JR violates a fundamental law of Physics. 4) The problem with Quantum Field Theory is because it is a mono-field theory. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the zero magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N, by considering ANY THEORY developed from the mono-field concept of field. 5) The zero magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N can be explained only by considering a NON-mono-field theory, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, where the field of elementary particles is formed by the overlap of two concentric fiedls Sn and Sp. 6) Therefore, such question (why from the mono-field concept considered in Quantum Field Theory it is not possible to explain the zero magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N ) is a fundamental question in Physics. regards wlad COMMENT Dear Curisione, along decades the theorists used to suppose that it is impossible the neutron to be formed by proton+electron, because of several theoretical restrictions against the model n=p+e. For instance, the proton has spin 1/2, the electron has spin 1/2, and so the neutron formed by p+e would have to have spin 0 or 1. But experiments show that neutron has spin 1/2. There are many other theoretical restrictions agsinst the model n=p+e. Therefore the nuclear theorists believe that the proton and the electron do not exist into the neutron. And from the principles of Quantum Mechanics, it is impossible a neutron be formed by the fusion proton+electron at low energy. However two experiments, one made by Elio Conte and Maria Piealice, and the other made by Don Borghi, have demonstrated that a neutron can be formed by proton+electron at low energy (this is IMPOSSIBLE according to the current Nuclear Physics). So, the two experiments show that something very serious is wrong in the principles of the current Nuclear Physics). And, as Nuclear Physics is wrong, then the structure of neutron formed by proton+electron is possible, as the two experiments have proven. According to the Scientific Method, any controversy about a question must be solved via the performance of experiments. However, sometimes the scientific comunity does not apply the Scientific Method so that to solve scientific controversy. Instead of, they betray the Scientific Method, so that to save the theories in which they believe. That’s why the physicits reject the experiments made by Conte-Pieralice and Don Borghi, because if the two experiments be accepted by the Scientific Community there is need to reject as wrong even some principles of the most reputable theory of the present days, the Quantum Electrodynamics. The Conte-Pieralice experiment was published in 1999 by the Infinite Energy Magazine. The Don Borghi experment was in a paper titled Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, in the American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993. regards wlad COMMENT Dears Andrea Rossi and Curisione Quantum Field Theory is the best available model, but it works in a certain level. In a deep level it does not work, and therefore some principles of the theory must be wrong. For instance, according to the fundamental principles of QFT the neutron cannot be formed by proton+electron. However, the Conte-Pieralice experiment and the Borghi experiment prove that neutron is formed by proton+electron, and therefore something is wrong with the principles of QFT And since those two experiments prove that QFT cannot be the fundamental theory, what we had to expect from the theorists? Well, we had to expect that the community of physicists would have to undertake an effort, in order to repeat those two experiments. Unfortunatelly, instead of to undertake an effort so that to repeat the two experiments, the community of physicists actually adopts the strategy of running away of the two experiments as the devil runs away of the cross. Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli tried to repeat the Don Borghi experiment in the laboratories of several universities in Europe, between 1993 and 2000. He was banned from all the European universities. In 2002 I had a discussion via email about the Taleyarkhan experiment with the Nobel Laureate Dr. G. t’Hooft. During the discussion I told him about the Don Borghi experiment, and he sent me the following reply: “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”. Well, a scientist cannot claim that any evidence of any experiment is phony, because he has not a laboratory into his brain, in order to repeat the experiment within his head, so that to verify the results of the experiment. The Scienfific Community prescribes that any controversy about any experiment must be solved via the repetition of the experiment. And not to claim that the experiment is phony, because its results are disagree to the foundations of the Quantum Field Theory. But it is easy to understand why Dr. t’Hooft said that Borghi experiment is phony. It is because Dr. t’Hooft is one among the theorists who developed the Quantum Field Theory, and he awarded the Nobel Prize thanks to his theoretical contributions. So, as Borghi experiment proves that something is wrong in the foundations of QFT, it is obvious that Dr. t’Hooft wishes to be the most far away he can from any experiment with the aim to repeat the Borghi experiment. In 2008 Santilli repeated the Don Borghi experiment and confirmed its results: Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229 Finally, I would like to ask to Andrea Rossi to answer: 1- Are you agree with Dr. G. t’Hooft, and you also believe that Don Borghi experiment is phony? 2- As Dr. t’Hooft, do you think that there is no need to repeat an experiment, in order to eliminate the controversy about its results? 3- Do you think that the community of physicists is in the correct way, rejecting the Don Borghi experiment without to try to repeat it ? (so that to save QFT) 4- In the case your opinion is that Don Borghi must be repeated in the laboratories of the universities worldwide, suppose the results be confirmed. Please tell us your opinion: As from the foundations of QFT a neutron cannot be formed by proton+electron at low energy , which is a premise denied by Don Borghi experiment, do you continue keeping your opinion that QFT is the best available model ? 5- Concerning your words: “About Wladimir Guglinski: take in account that he is bearer of a theory that is not coherent with the Quantum Field Theory, because he thinks that it is wrong. This is not the opinion of most of the Physicists“, I would like to know your opinion: A) I think that Quantum Field Theory is wrong because, among other experiments, from its foundations the results of the Don Borghi experiment are impossible to occur. B) The opinion of the most of the Physicists is based on their rejection of the Don Borghi experiment. C) Therefore: Who, in your opinion, is following the Scientific Criterium? a) Wlad ? (having my opinion supported in the results of the Borghi experiment) or b) the most of the Physicists? (having their opinion suported by the rejection of the Borghi experiment). regards wlad COMMENT Therefore: a) As from the principles of Quantum Field Theory the results of the Don Borghi experiment are impossible to occur… b) … it implies that you reject the Don Borghi experiment… c) … as are doing the most Physicists who betray the Scientific Method, trying to save the Quantum Field Theory Curiously, the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons at low energy (impossible to occur from the principles of Quantum Field Theory) is probably one among the mechanisms involved in cold fusion occurrence. And therefore, by rejecting the results of Don Borghi experiment is impossible to explain cold fusion. And also curiously, the frequency used by Don Borghi in his experiment is in the same order of the frequence used by you in your eCat. So, I confess that I am no able to understand the mysterious way on how God writes in order to give insight for scientists to advance the Physics. The way used by God is more mysterious than the way on how the own cold fusion occurs. I suppose one day in the future we will understand how cold fusion occurs. And I hope we will also understand how God writes the mysterious way so that to allow the advancement of science. regards wlad

The new experiment published by the journal Nature in the end of July 2014 represents the definitive breakdown of Quantum Mechanics, as explained ahead. 1) How photons are emitted by atoms according to Quantum Mechanics According to the Quantum Mechanics, into the electrosphere of the atoms the electrons do not travel the space between two levels n and n+1. According to the theory, the electron disappears in the level n, and it appears instantaneously in the level n+1, without traveling along the space which separate the two levels. The reason why the electron does not travel the space between the two levels in the atom is easy to be understood, and it is consequence of the assumptions adopted in the development of the Quantum Mechanics, as seeing ahead : a) The space within the electrosphere of atoms is considered Euclidian b) There is Coulomb attraction between the proton and the electron c) Therefore, if the space between two levels had been travelled by the electron, it would have to be accelerated, because it is submitted to the force of attraction d) By having acceleration, the electron would have to emit energy when moving in that space between the levels, according to the Maxwell’s law (continuous emission). e) However, the experiments show that the atom does not emit energy continuously, but actually it emits discrete packages of energy (photons) only when the electron arrives to the points of emission in the levels n=1, 2, 3.. , etc. f) Therefore, according to Quantum Mechanics, the electron cannot travel along the space between the levels, and that’s why according to the theory the electron disappears in one level, and it appears instantaneously in another level. 2) How photons are emitted by atoms according to Quantum Ring Theory Unlike happens in Quantum Mechanics, according to the model of atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory the electron travels the space between the levels within the electrosphere. In order to simplify the explanation, we will explain what happens in the hydrogen atom. The mechanism of the phenomenon according to QRT is the following: a) The space within the electrosphere of atoms is non-Euclidian (there is a gradient of density which grows toward the direction of the proton). b) The electron moves with helical trajectory in the electrosphere of the atom c) The electron moves with CONSTANT speed between two energy levels, and this is the reason why it does not irradiate energy when it moves along the space between two levels d) Because the space is non-Euclidian, when the electron is moving toward the direction of the proton, there is a growth in the inertia of the electron (it is a growth in the resistance of the electron against its acceleration toward the proton, because while the force of attraction grows inversely proportional to the decrease of the distance proton-electron, at the same time grows its resistance opposing the growth of the attraction force). The same happens when the electron is moving leaving away the proton. e) Such constant speed of the electron in the electrosphere of the atoms can occur only in the atom model of Quantum Ring Theory, because the electrosphere is filled with aether (the reason why the space is non-Euclidian). 3) The Hans Dehmelt experiment In 1989 Hans Dehmelt published a paper describing a new technology, which detected the trajectory of the electrons within the electrosphere of the atoms. His experiment proved to be wrong the assumption adopted in Quantum Mechanics, because he detected that the electron travels the space between two levels of energy in the atom. Obviously that discovery had represented in 1989 the definitive breakdown of the Quantum Mechanics, because as the electrons travel the space between levels in the atom (as detected in the Dehmelt experiments), then according to Quantum Mechanics the atoms have be emitting energy continuously, and therefore the theory is denied by the experiments made concerning the atom emission. In order to save Quantum Mechanics face to the definitive breakdown, the community of physicists adopted the strategy of claiming that in the Dehmelt experiment the atom is “dressed”. So, according that new ad hoc hypothesis, the electron actually does not travel the space between levels, however due to the new technology used by Dehmelt the measurements show an “apparent” trajectory of the electron, because thanks to that new technology the atom becomes “dressed”. So, by this way the community of physicist succeeded to avoid the definitive collapse of the Quantum Mechanics along 25 years. 4) The experiment published by Nature in 2014 But finally now, in the end of July 2014, the journal Nature published a paper proving that Quantum Mechanics is indeed wrong, because the hypothesis of “dressed atom” is actually a bunch of baloney. The experiment published by the journal Nature detected trajectories in a way different of that predicted in Quantum Mechanics: Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4992 The experiment shows that the Interpretation of Copenhagen was wrong, as predicted in the book Quantum Ring Theory. Irfan Siddiqi, UC Berkeley associate professor of physics, says about the wrong entanglement of states considered in Quantum Mechanics: “To Bohr and others, the process was instantaneous – when you opened the box, the entangled system collapsed into a definite, classical state. This postulate stirred debate in quantum mechanics, But real-time tracking of a quantum system shows that it’s a continuous process, and that we can constantly extract information from the system as it goes from quantum to classical. This level of detail was never considered accessible by the original founders of quantum theory.” http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/07/30/watching-schrodingers-cat-die/ 5) The experiment made by Aephraim Steinberg The experiment published now in 2014 by Nature was performed thanks to a new technology, already used by Aephraim Steinberg, who published in 2012 a paper proving that Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity is also a bunch of baloney. The meaning of Steinberg experiment is explained in the ZPEnergy: http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295&mode=&order=0&thold=0 Steinberg, from the Toronto University-Canada, made the double-slit experiment with photons, and the results show that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, while Quantum Ring Theory is correct, because: 1- According to Quantum Mechanics, a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as a particle at the same time. 2- Unlike, as Quantum Ring Theory considers that the wave-particle duality is consequence of the helical trajectory, then the particle can have interference with its own helical trajectory when it crosses a slit. So, according to QRT, the quantum particle can behave as a wave and as a particle as the same time. In the Steinberg experiment, a photon crossed a unique slit, and it had inferference with itself (a wave feature), while from Quantum Mechanics we would have to expect a particle feature only, since the photon crossed only one slit. CONCLUSIONS 1- This new technology is proving definitively that Quantum Mechanics was developed from wrong foundations, and it must be replaced by a new theory with new fundamental principles missing in Quantum Mechanics. 2- A new model of atom capable to explain how the electron can travel the space between levels in the atom must be developed from the new principles considered in the atom model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

Ahead is a discussion between Mr. Joe, Mr. JR, and Guglinski, in the blog Journal of Nuclear Physics. Physics of rotating and expanding black hole universe « Journal of Nuclear Physics From the discussion we get the following indisputable conclusion: "the light nuclei with equal pair quantity of protons and neutrons violate the monopolar nature of the electric charges" Joe April 10th, 2014 at 1:59 AM Wladimir, I repeat what I answered in (1). Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation. That is what we know empirically. The other variables (a, c, d) that you mention in your list have a dipolar nature that can not possibly logically have an effect to change a property of a monopolar nature. Switching spins, or reversing fluxes n(o), will not affect the electric charge of a particle. It could possibly logically only affect the dipolar properties of that particle. The way that you would have it, the deuteron would be treated no different from the neutron, even though the deuteron has something extra: an electric charge. What you are actually doing is ignoring the electric charge when considering induced magnetic moments from rotation of nucleons. All the best, Joe Wladimir Guglinski April 11th, 2014 at 6:01 PM Joe, I dont see any problem, and let me tell you why, as follows. 1) Consider a nucleus 2He4. As its two deuterons have contrary spins, the 2He4 has a total magnetic moment zero. And therefore the two charges of the two deuterons cannot induce a magnetic field, since the two charges are gyrating within a space without any magnetic field. 2) Now let us consider the 3Li6 as example for explaining how occurs the magnetic force Fm between the deuteron and the central 2He4, as follows. 3) The deuteron of the 3Li6 is captured by the flux n(o) of the 2He4, and it is dragged by the rotation of the flux n(o), in order that the rotation of the deuteron induces a magnetic moment in the 3Li6. 4) The magnetic moment of the 3Li6 is +0,822, measured in experiments. 5) Suppose that the rotation of the deuteron induces a magnetic moment +0,820 6) The two deuterons of the 2He4 have a very short orbit radius of rotation about the center of the 3Li6 nucleus. As the two deuterons are gyrating wihin a magnetic moment +0,820 induced by the deuteron captured by the flux n(o), then the two positives charges of the 2He4 (gyrating within a magnetic moment +0,820)_ induce an additional very weak magnetic moment (because the radius of their orbits is very short). 7) Suppose that the additional magnetic moment induced by the two deuterons of the central 2He4 is +0,002. 8) Then the total magnetic moment of the 3Li6 becomes +0,820 + 0,002 = +0,822 Note that the two charges of the deuterons of the central 2He4 induce a weak magnetic moment only when a particle with charge is captured by the flux n(o) of the 2He4, as occurs with a proton or a deuteron. In the case of a free 2He4 the two charges of the deuterons do not induce magnetic field, since the two charges rotate in a space with no magnetic field. As the neutron is not captured by the flux n(o), the phenomenon does not occur with the neutron. A neutron influences the magnetic moment of a nucleus (for instance the 3Li7) only when the neutron is captured by a deuteron via spin-interaction, and then the neutron also contributes for the magnetic moment of the 3Li7. I hope to have responded your question regards wlad Joe April 12th, 2014 at 12:21 AM Wladimir, You state the following: “In the case of a free 2He4 the two charges of the deuterons do not induce magnetic field, since the two charges rotate in a space with no magnetic field.” This idea is false since rotating electric charges create their own magnetic field independent of any pre-existent magnetic field. Magnetic fields from various sources are simply summed. A null magnetic field from a combination of sources does not prevent another source from exhibiting its own magnetic field within that same space, and yielding a non-null net magnetic field for that space. All the best, Joe Wladimir Guglinski April 12th, 2014 at 8:35 AM Joe, consider the following: 1- suppose the body of the electron gyrates in the clockwise direction (spin-up) 2- consider one electron moving in an orbit with radius R about a vertical axis in the clockwise direction 3- suppose a particle X with negative charge (equal to the charge of the electron) which body gyrates in the anti clockwise direction (spin-down, so contrary of the spin of the electron). 4- consider the particle X moving in an orbit with radius R about a vertical axis in the clockwise direction, as happens with the electron. . Then I ask you: 1- Will the electron and the particle X create the same magnetic field ? . You said: “I repeat what I answered in (1). Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation. That is what we know empirically.” However, all the experiments with a body electrically charged are made with a body which has its electric charge thanks to the electrons in its electrosphere. And the spin of the electron has always the same direction. But suppose we are be able to create a particle X with the same charge of the electron, but its spin being contrary of the spin of the electron. And suppose we create a body, which electrosphere is composed by the particle X. Then I ask you: 2- Would electric charge to have a monopolar nature? 3- Or, in another words: would a body formed by electrons in its electrosphere induce the same magnetic field of a body formed by particles X in its electrosphere? regards wlad Wladimir Guglinski April 12th, 2014 at 5:51 PM Joe wrote in April 10th, 2014 at 1:59 AM Wladimir, I repeat what I answered in (1). Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation. ———————————- Joe, we had a good discussion here. And we arrived to a very interesting conclusion: It’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4 by considering the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics Indeed, let us see why: 1- All the nuclei have rotation. The Nobel Laureate Hans Bette estimated that 10% of the magnetic moment of the nuclei is due to their rotation. For instance, consider the 3Li6. Suppose that 2 protons and 2 neutrons cancell each other their magnetic moment. The third proton has magnetic moment +2,793, while the third neutron has magnetic moment -1,913. If the 3Li6 had no rotation, its magnetic moment would have to be +2,793-1,913 = +0,880. But the magnetic moment of 3Li6 is +0,835 , and the difference +0,045 is due to the rotation of the 3Li6. 2- Consider the 2He4. Consider that, if the 2He4 had no rotation, its magnetic moment would be zero, since the two protons cancell each other their magnetic moment, and the two neutrons also cancell each other. 3- However the 2He4 has rotation. And therefore the two protons move in the same direction. 4- But “Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation”. And so by considering the current nuclear models the two protons of the 2He4 have to induce a magnetic moment. 5- Therefore the 2He4 cannot have magnetic moment zero, according to the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics. . I wonder if Mr. JR would come here to show us how such puzzle is solved in the Standard Nuclear Physics. regards wlad Wladimir Guglinski April 12th, 2014 at 5:56 PM Dear Mr JR The readers of the JoNP will feel themselves very happy if you come here to explain us how the nucleus 2He4 can have magnetic moment zero, according to the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics. All of us will be very thankfull to your explanation regards wlad Joe April 12th, 2014 at 11:46 PM Wladimir, I do not know of any experiment that has switched the intrinsic spin to observe if the same electric charge with the same direction of rotation would produce a magnetic moment in the opposite direction. Logically there should be no difference since electric charge and intrinsic spin are independent of one another. For example, a neutrino has no electric charge but does have an intrinsic spin. To have the behavior that you want, a switched intrinsic spin would have to effect a corresponding switch in the electric charge. But the electric charge is monopolar: it can not be flipped to an alternate state that does not exist. And flipping the spin is not going to change the sign of the charge (which would give you the behavior that you want). For example, there is no relationship such as, electron implies negative spin, and positron implies positive spin. Proof of this is in the fact that a maximum of two electrons (same sign) can occupy one orbital, and each electron must have a spin that is the opposite of the other. This is the Pauli Exclusion Principle. All the best, Joe Wladimir Guglinski April 13th, 2014 at 5:58 AM Dear Joe, you and me have proven here, together, the following: 1- It is impossible to explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4 by keeping the current dogma of the monopolar nature of the electric charge. And as consequence: 2- Therefore it is impossible to explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4 by taking as starting point any nuclear model which do not work by considering a structure of the aether formed by particles and antiparticles as gravitons, magnetons, electricitons, etc. 3- Any nuclear model developed by no considering the participation of the aether within its structure is according to the monopolar nature of the electric charge, and therefore cannot be correct. 4- All the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong, because they do not consider the aether within their structure, and so they cannot explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4. 5- Nowadays all the nuclear theories of the authors trying to explain the cold fusion cannot be entirely successful, because they are developed by considering wrong nuclear models, since all they are based on the monopolar nature of the electric charge. . I and the readers of the JoNP hope you have the honesty to admit it. regards wlad Wladimir Guglinski April 13th, 2014 at 10:57 AM Joe wrote in April 12th, 2014 at 11:46 PM Wladimir, 1- I do not know of any experiment that has switched the intrinsic spin to observe if the same electric charge with the same direction of rotation would produce a magnetic moment in the opposite direction. Logically there should be no difference since electric charge and intrinsic spin are independent of one another. For example, a neutrino has no electric charge but does have an intrinsic spin. ——————————— COMMENT Consequence: Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE the existence of the nucleus 2He4, because the experiments measured that it has magnetic moment zero, however due to fact that charge is monopolar, it is IMPOSSIBLE to exist the nucleus 2He4 with magnetic moment zero. —————————————— To have the behavior that you want, a switched intrinsic spin would have to effect a corresponding switch in the electric charge. But the electric charge is monopolar: it can not be flipped to an alternate state that does not exist. —————————————— COMMENT I dont want nothing. As the electric charge is monopolar, therefore the 2He4 nucleus cannot exist, since it has magnetic moment zero as measured by experiments, but due to its rotation and the fact that electric charge is monopolar the 2He4 cannot have magnetic moment zero. The same we can say about all the other light even-even nuclei with Z=N pairs: 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc. Therefore we have to eliminate all those nuclei from the Periodic Table of Elements, because from the known principles of Physics they cannot exist. So, I propose a New Periodic Table, where the elements with nuclei 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne30, 12Mg24, etc. will be eliminated, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain their magnetic moment zero from any nuclear model based on the monopolar nature of the electric charge. And the sequence of the elements will become the following: 1H 2He2, 2He3, ….(eliminated 2He4)… , 2He5, 2He6 , etc 3Li 4Be5, 4Be6, 4Be7, …(eliminated 4Be8)… , 4Be9 , 4Be10, 4Be11, etc 5B 6C8, 6C9, 6C10, 6C11, ….(eliminated 6C12)…. , 6C13, 6C14 , etc 7N 8O13, 8O14, 8O15, …. (eliminated 8O16)… , 8O17, 8O18, etc 9F etc, etc. Unless you propose, dear Joe, that the rotation of the nuclei does not exist. But unfortunatelly, by this sort of solution is impossible to explain the magnetic moments of the other nuclei. Or perhaps you will claim that only the light even-even nuclei with Z=N do not have rotation. Dear Joe, please ask the help of Mr. JR so that to decide what is the best solution: 1- To eliminate the nuclei 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc. from the Periodic Table 2- To reject the hipothesis of rotation of the nuclei 3- To propose that only the nuclei 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, etc. do not have rotation I will be waiting the decision of yours and Mr. JR, telling me what is the best solution. regards wlad JR April 13th, 2014 at 11:11 AM Wladimir said: The readers of the JoNP will feel themselves very happy if you come here to explain us how the nucleus 2He4 can have magnetic moment zero, according to the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics. All of us will be very thankfull to your explanation I doubt that you will be thankful, since you didn’t like the explanation very much the last time I answered this question (for 12Be), but here it goes: 4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment. In conclusion, I don’t believe that your misunderstanding of how magnetic moments are defined is enough to throw out all of classical electromagnetism or quantum electrodynamics. But keep trying. -John Wladimir Guglinski April 13th, 2014 at 4:59 PM JR wrote in April 13th, 2014 at 11:11 AM 4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment. ———————————– COMMENT Dear JR nuclear properties of nuclei cannot be established by definition The nuclei have nuclear properties, which have to be explained by any nuclear theory taking in consideration the known Laws of Physics If a nuclear model violates a known Law of Physics, as the current nuclear models are violating the monopolar nature of the electric charges, the theorists have two alternatives: 1- To reject the nuclear model, and to look for another model able to be suit to the law (in the present case the monopolar nature of the electric charges). 2- To discover the reason why the Law is being seemingly violated . Dear JR such a solution of yours (claiming that “4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment”) is actually proposed according to the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s method. The physicists who do not have interest to solve the questions regarding the Fundamental Physics, as happens to you, may be satisfied with your solution. But any sincere physicists who has respect to his own honesty cannot accept such sort of explanation. Because your explanation is actually a way of running away of the theoretical puzzles which defy the foundations of Modern Physics. regards wlad Eric Ashworth April 13th, 2014 at 11:35 AM Dear Wladimir, I do not profess to know nuclear physics as you do and I do not think many other people do also, other than to days modern day physicists. What you wrote April 13 at 5.58 am are, I beleive, some of the clearest statements you have made so far, as far as I am concerned, with regards an explanation of this anomaly. From what I gather it is to do with a monopolar nature and a zero reading. From my own understanding of nature and investigations of natural phenomena you cannat have a mono situation, it has to be binary i.e. a duality to create,exist and destroy at its most primary principle. Having spent many years developing a technology based upon this binary understanding of nature and considerable outside pressure in specific areas against its development I have discovered that some mysteries must remain mysteries for a specific reason. Wladimir do you wonder why your QR theory is rejected so strongly by certain individuals or have you a good idea why? because there is one. The reason is well worth finding out. All the best Eric Ashworth. Wladimir Guglinski April 13th, 2014 at 5:28 PM Eric Ashworth wrote in April 13th, 2014 at 11:35 AM Dear Wladimir, do you wonder why your QR theory is rejected so strongly by certain individuals or have you a good idea why? because there is one. ———————————– COMMENT DEar Eric, by looking at the explanation given by Mr. JR we realize why. Look at his “brilliant” solution: “4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment” The reason is because the theorists have not respect to the fundamental questions in Physics. When the experimental data prove that current nuclear models violate some fundamental law and they cannot give a satisfactory explanation (satisfactory for a honest scientist), they give explanations which disagree to what we expect from a honest scientist: they give orders to the nucleus, telling him the rules he has to follow, in order do not defy their nuclear models. regards wlad Wladimir Guglinski April 13th, 2014 at 5:10 PM Dears Joe and Mr. JR there is a 4th sort of solution which you may propose, for the violation of the monopolar nature of the electric charges by the nuclei. The 4th solution you can propose I explain ahead. As we know, when Bohr discovered his hydrogen model, he realized that his model violates some fundamental known Laws of Physics. Then Bohr proposed a solution based on postulates, by claiming that the atom is able to violate some fundamental laws. So, dears Joe and Mr. JR, you can propose the following postulate: The light even-even nuclei with Z=N can violate the monopolar nature of the electric charges. . Therefore, my dears friends, you have now 4 alternatives for chosing what is the best solution. regards wlad Joe April 14th, 2014 at 12:20 AM Wladimir, It may be that the ultimate test of veracity in QRT is in explaining how 4Be8 is unstable while 6C12 and other nuclei with a symmetrical distribution of only deuterons, are stable. All the best, Joe Wladimir Guglinski April 14th, 2014 at 8:30 AM Joe, the reason why 4Be8 is not stable is shown in the page page 17, item 3.13.5, Fig. 14, of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physic...t%20nuclei.pdf As we see in the Fig. 14, the 4Be8 is the unique nucleus in which there are two deuterons occupying opposite perfectly symmetric positions regarding to the central 2He4. A perfect symmetry occurs when: 1- one deuteron is in the side ANA, and the other in the side DOUGLAS 2- one deuteron is in the inferior part of ANA, and the other in the superior part of DOUGLAS (or vice-versa). A partial symmetry occurs when one deuteron is in the superior part of ANA and the other deuteron is also in the superior part, but in the side of DOUGLAS. A partial symmetry between a deuteron and two neutrons can be seen in the superior part of the Fig. 7. Looking at the Fig. 14 you realize that the spin-interaction Fsi(green arrows) promotes a force of attraction between the two deuterons (the red arrows show only the direction of their spins) In the Fig. 14 I supposed that the spin-interaction Fsi is stronger than the repulsion force Fr (pink arrow) because the 4Be8 decays in two alpha particles , and so such sort of decay requires to suppose that the two deuterons are captured by the central 2He4, and the 4Be8 decays emitting two nucleons 2He4: 4Be8 -> 2He4 + 2He4 If in the Fig. 14 the repulsion force Fr should be stronger than Fsi, then the two deuterons would be expelled in contrary direction, and the decay of 4Be8 would be: 4Be8 -> 2He4 + D + D . The reason why 6C12 is stable is shown in the item 3.13.6, Fig. 15 and 16. . With the 8O16 the first hexagonal floor is complete, and so the nuclei with Z > 8 (as 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc) are stable thanks to the spin-interactions between their deuterons. regards wlad JR April 14th, 2014 at 8:40 AM Wladimir, I’m not sure how you propose to explain the properties of nuclei if you aren’t willing to define what those properties are and then stick to those definitions. What you asked is how conventional models explain the fact that 4He has a zero magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of 4He is zero because the magnetic moment is defined in such a way that it is zero for spin-0 particles; nothing else is needed. If you wish to define some new quantity that is similar to the magnetic moment but different, that’s fine. But you should (1) provide a definition (2) call it something different (3) not confuse it with the already-defined magnetic moment and (4) not assume it’s zero because the magnetic moment is zero. Wladimir Guglinski April 14th, 2014 at 11:48 AM JR wrote in April 14th, 2014 at 8:40 AM Wladimir, 1)—————————— The magnetic moment of 4He is zero because the magnetic moment is defined in such a way that it is zero for spin-0 particles; nothing else is needed. ——————————– COMMENT Show us here where did you find such definition of the magnetic moment 2) —————————- If you wish to define some new quantity that is similar to the magnetic moment but different, that’s fine. But you should (1) provide a definition (2) call it something different (3) not confuse it with the already-defined magnetic moment and (4) not assume it’s zero because the magnetic moment is zero. ———————————– COMMENT: The definition of magnetic moment is independent of the spin of the nuclei. Definition by wikipedia: Magnetic moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “The magnetic moment of a magnet is a quantity that determines the torque it will experience in an external magnetic field. A loop of electric current, a bar magnet, an electron, a molecule, and a planet all have magnetic moments“. And magnetic moment of a nucleus: “Since the electromagnetic moments of the nucleus depend on the spin of the individual nucleons, one can look at these properties with measurements of nuclear moments, and more specifically the nuclear magnetic dipole moment.” Therefore, although the magnetic moment of a nucleus depends on the spin of individual nucleons, however it does not means that it depeneds ONLY on the spin of the INDIVIDUAL nucleons. The nuclei have also rotation: Phys. Rev. 53, 778 (1938) - On the Rotation of the Atomic Nucleus And therefore the magnetic moment depends also on the rotation of the nucleus. The total spin due to the individual nucleons in the 2He4 is zero. However, as the two protons of the 2He4 gyrate in the same direction, then (by considering the monopolar nature of the charge) the two protons have to induce a magnetic field, which will be responsible for a magnetic moment for the 2He4. But as the experiments detect that 2He4 has no magnetic moment, this means that 2He4 violates the monopolar nature of the charge, by considering the current nuclear models. There is no need to be a genius to understand it. And you, Mr. JR, you are actually showing to everybody that your understanding of Physics is very poor. regards wlad

A new experiment published in 2012 had shown that 4Be12 has a structure impossible to be explained from the principles of current Nuclear Physics: End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated By considering the structure proposed by Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuse it's impossible to explain the null magnetic moment for the nucleus 4Be12. Indeed, look at to the structure proposed: The neutrons n-1 and n-2 have an orbit radius longer than the orbit radius of the neutrons n-3 and n-4 , and therefore the g-factor for n-1 and n-2 is different of the g-factor for n-3 and n-4. Therefore the structure proposed by Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuse is incompatible with the null magnetic moment for the 4Be12. So, there is no way to explain the structure of 4Be12 detected in the experiment published in 2012 by considering the current nuclear models. The structure for 4Be12 according to Quantum Ring Theory is shown in the figure: Consider that the neutrons (N-1 , N-2) have an orbit radius RN , and the deuteron D-1 has an orbit radius RD . The radius RN of the two neutrons is a little longer, RN > RD , because: a) N-1 and N-2 are not submitted to a magnetic force of atraction with the central 2He4, because they have no charge b) the deuteron D-1 is attracted with the central 2He4 by a magnetic force, because of the electric charge of the proton c) due to the centripetal force (because of the nucleus rotation), the neutrons N-1,N-2 get a little longer orbit radius RN about the central 2He4 d) so, while the neutrons N-1 and N-2 are submitted to only the centripetal force, the deuteron D-1 is submitted to a magnetic force in contrary direction of the centripetal force on it, and that's why the two neutrons N-1 and N-2 take an orbit radius a little longer than the orbit radius of the deuteron. e) as the two neutrons N-1 and N-2 are kept in the structure of the 4Be12 thanks to their strong-spin-interaction with the deuteron D-1, and they are submitted to the centripetal force, they get a little longer orbit radius. The same happens with the orbit radius RN of the neutrons N-3,N-4 , compared with the radius RD of the deuteron D-2 Therefore, according to QRT it is possible to explain very well the existence of neutrons with a little longer orbit radius in the 4Be12.

Isospin is an abstract mathematical concept. Interaction is a physical phenomenon, and so it cannot be dependent of an abstract concept. That's why Heisenberg scientific method is phantasmagoric. And that's why the experiments made between 2010 and 2013 are proving that current nuclear models are wrong, because the Standard Nuclear Physics had been developed via the Heisenberg's phantasmagoric scientific method.

Dear swansont, 1- Repulsive force between two neutrons occurs only in very short distances (about 0,1 fm) 2- There is not repulsion between two neutrons in a distance of 2fm (which is the distance of the strong force actuation) 3- So, two neutrons would have to bound in a distance of 2fm. 4- Even if two neutrons aproach in a distance of 0,1fm, and they have repulsion, however they will move one away of the other, and their distance would increase. With the growth of their distance, the repulsion between them dispapears when their distance becomes 2fm. And in such distance of 2fm they have to be bound by the strong force. What I know about scientists is that generally the most of them use to betray the scientific method. For instance, as when they refuse to accept the Don Borghi and the Conte-Pieralice experiments, both them proving that the neutron is formed by proton+electron. C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993. Probably you had never heard about the two experiments. Just because, as the scientists use to betray the scientific by refusing to accept experiments which disprove the current theories, they undertake all the effort so that to hide the existence of those two experiments. regards wlad

Dr. John Arrington is a reseacher physicist of the Argonne National Laboratory. I had many discussions with Dr. Arrington in the blog Journal of Nuclear Physics, by Andrea Rossi. In the Rossi's blog, Dr. Arrington uses the fake name JR. In our discussion, I defend the viewpoint that current nuclear models are wrong, while Dr. Arrington tries to show that there is nothing wrong with the nuclear models. My last question do Dr. Arrington was the following: Dear Mr. JR Concerning the z-axis within the nuclei, it is written in the page 133 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006: —————————————————- 1. The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics —————————————————- See oage 133: http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-52178100-1386630652.jpg In May-2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (protons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei around a z-axis: http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/ However from the current nuclear models an even-even nucleus as 224Ra cannot be pear shaped. That’s why some theorists are thinking about the existence of a 5th force. Because as there is no way to justify the existence of the z-axis by considering the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method applied to Nuclear Theory, they are trying to justify the different distribution of protons and neutrons about the z-axis by considering a new physical cause within the nuclei, missing in the current nuclear models. So, they are supposing that such physical cause perhaps is the 5th force. Dear Mr. JR, as you claim that there is nothing wrong with the Standard Nuclear Physics, and therefore nothing is missing in the current nuclear models, then why the existence of the z-axis had not been predicted in Nuclear Physics before 2013 ??? regards wlad

From: Wladimir Guglinski [mailto:wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com] Sent: 22 July 2012 15:58 To: Nature@nature.com Cc: Peter Jones Subject: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature To: Philip Campbell Editor-in-Chief, journal Nature cc: Peter Jones, Editor, Bäuu Instute Press, publishing house of Quantum Ring Theory Subject: Plagiarism in the journal Nature Dear Editor-in-Chief 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 m=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 x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis 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 Editor-in-Chief, 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 The reply by the the editor of Nature: Nature@nat​ure.com (Nature@nature.com) Add to contacts 7/24/2012 To: Wladimir Guglinski Cc: Peter Jones Dear Dr Guglinski, Thank you for your comment regarding the manuscript entitled “How atomic nuclei cluster” by Ebran et al, and the accompanying News and Views article. Regretfully, we are unable to offer to publish it; however, you are welcome to make use of our online commenting facility. Please go to the original article on our website and enter your message in the box provided beneath it. Thank you again for writing to us. Yours sincerely Dr Karen Howell Senior Editor

Dear moderator science must advance with transparency. Several experiments along the last 3 years are corroborating my theories (and there are many other experiments corroborating my theory, in spite of I dont want to speak about them here). The journal Nature published two plagiarisms of my ideas. The European Physical Journal published one plagiarism Between 2006 and 2009, along many discussions in the internet, several physicists used to claim that my models are wrong, and my theory in general makes no sense. So, now I am showing to those physicists that two of the most important journals of Physics had published plagiarisms of my ideas. Therefore, if my ideas should not have sense, those two journals of Physics would not publish plagiarisms on them. It is my opinion that people have the right to know what happened along the last 3 years: the corroboration of my models by new experiments. And the way I have to do it is to show it in the foruns of Physics, because the physicists in general keep silence about it (because they want to keep their old theories developed according to the Heisenberg scientific method, in spite of their theories are being denied by the new experiments published in the last 3 years). I dont need to make spam, because actually the experiments are doing spam for my Quantum Ring Theory. So, if you want to protest against spam, you have to do it against the new experiments, which insists to confirm my models. Tell to the new experiments to keep silence, and ask them to stop to confirm my theory. This is the best way to stop the spam. Because I am sure that new up coming experiments will bring more additional confirmations for my models. And then it is obvious that new plagiarisms will be commited by the journals as Science, Nature, Physics Review, etc. It seems you are looking for rules so that to avoid me to show the true for the people. If it is the case, I am very sorry, because I think the people have the right to know what is going on in the way of the Theoretical Physics development. regards wlad No, the fact that they did not include gravity and permeability particles means that their theory is incomplete (because those authors had tried to explain only the question regarding to the production of the light by the ether. However the ether is responsible for other phenomena beyond the light, as the gravity, magnetic and electric fields, etc.). But the fundamental idea on the ether proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory is its structure formed by particles and antiparticles, and such fundamental idea was plagiarised. Therefore, as you claim that my idea is a crackpottery, then The European Physical Journal published a plagiarism of a crackpottery. I am very sorry that a prestigious journal of Physics as the EPJ is publishing plagiarisms of crackpotteries. regards wlad

In Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed that the space is filled by the aether, which structure is composed by a particle and an antiparticle. The photon proposed in QRT is formed by the agglutination of both them, and they move with a helical trajectory (zitterbewegung). So, the particle and antiparticle are a fermion and an antifermion. In the paper A Model of the Photon , which starts in the page 20 of the book, it is shown that from the structure of the photon composed by a particle and its antiparticle we get the Maxwell equations. According to this theory, the size of a photon depends on the quantity of fermions and anti fermions agglutinated in its body. A new experiment published by the journal Nature is corroborating such hypothesis: Light created from vacuum shows empty space a mythhttp://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-19/science/30418928_1_vacuum-dce-photons As consequence of the experiment published in the journal Nature in 2011, The European Physical Journal D had published in 2013 a theory so that to justify the creation of light from the space: The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1 In the item 3 of the article (The vacuum permeability), the authors say: “We propose a physical mechanism to produce the vacuum permeability from the elementary magnetism of the charged fermion pairs under a magnetic stress. Each charged efemeral fermion carries a magnetic moment proportional to the Bohr magneton. We assume the orbital moment and the spin of the pair to be zero. Since the fermion and the anti fermion have opposite electric charges, the pair carries twice the magnetic moment of one fermion” The structure proposed in The European Physical Journal D in 2013 is the same structure proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006. The photon formed by a lot of particles and antiparticles (fermions and anti fermions) moves in the “soup” formed by the elementary fermions and anti fermions, a soup named aether. The entire sctructure of the ether proposed in Quantum Ring theory is proposed in the paper Ether, which starts in the page 164 of the book. It is proposed a structure of the ether formed by electric particles e(+) and antiparticles e(-), magnetic particles m(+) and antiparticles m(-), gravity particles g(+) and antiparticles g(-), anti-gravity particles G(+) and antiparticles G(-), and permeability particles p(+) and antiparticles p(-). The book shows that from such structure of the ether it is explained the formation of the electric fields of the proton and electron, the magnetic fields produced by loadstones, etc.

I did not know that the journal Nature is publishing speculations. Speculations Forum Rules The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. Speculation is actually this: 1- to suppose that the z-axis in the nuclei is due to a 5th force of the nature 2- the Supersymmetry (Susy), not confirmed by experiments 3- String theory, not confirmed by experiments Unlike, the existence of the z-axis was predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006, seven years before the publication of the paper published in 2013 by the journal Nature. Like the non-spherical shape of even nuclei with Z=N also had been predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, six years before the publication by the journal Nature of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster , in 2012 ( with the plagiarism of my argument proposed in the page 137 of my book, where it is explained why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null quadrupole moment (in spite of they have non-spherical shape, the same argument used by the authors of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster) page 137: How atomic nuclei cluster http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

According to the current nuclear models, the even-even nuclei must have two sort of shapes: A- Spherical shape – when the quantity of prótons Z is the same of the quantity of neutrons N, Z=N. B- Elispoidal shape – when Z << N . But experiments have shown that some even-even nuclei with Z<< N are pear shaped. Then, how to justify it? After all, they would have to have an ellipsoidal shape. In 2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (prótons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei around a z-axis. So, in order to justify why some even-even with Z<<N (as for instance 88Ra224) have pear shape, he proposed the existence of a z-axis within the nuclei. Look the z-axis proposed by Professor Butler for the 88Ra224 in the link: http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/ A NEW HYPOTHESIS: THE EXISTENCE OF A 5th FORCE IN NATURE: In order to explain the pear shape of Ra224, some theorists are now even supposing the existence of a 5th force in nature, which actuation is different for protons and neutrons, and by this way they expect to explain why protons and neutrons have different distribution in even-even nuclei. On the existence of the z-axis by considering physical causes (missing in the current nuclear models): In the paper No. 10 of the book Quantum Ring Theory ( intitled CRITIQUE TO THE MODELS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS ) it is shown that the existence of the z-axis within the nuclei is suggested by four different nuclear properties of the nuclei. They are: 1st nuclear property - Null nuclear spin for even-even nuclei with Z=N. 2nd nuclear property - Null magnetic moment for even-even nuclei with Z=N 3rd nuclear property - Emission of alpha particles by uranium nucleus U238 with null angular moment 4th nuclear property - Incompatibility between current Nuclear Theory and the electric quadrupole moment of some nuclei In the paper No. 13, entitled BETA-DECAY, it is shown that the existence of the z-axis is also suggested by a fifth nuclear property: 5th nuclear property - the preferential emission of the electron in the Wu’s experiment: the beta-decay of 27Co60 (WRONGLY interpreted by the nuclear theorists as a violation of the parity in the beta-decay). Therefore, according to Quantum Ring Theory, there are five different nuclear phenomena suggesting the existence of the z-axis within the nuclei. And now in the beggining of 2013 the experiment published in the journal Nature points out the need to consider a 6th nuclear property suggesting the existence of the z-axis: 6th nuclear property - the pear shaped nucleus Ra224. CONCLUSIONS: As we see, the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method had introduced many serious inconsistences in the Nuclear Physics, as the conclusion that the Nature has preference by the left direction (the direction of the electron in the Wu’s experiment), the violation of the parity in the beta-decay, and the time reversion (a wrong interpretation by Christenson in 1964, when he and collaborators analysed the decay of the mesons K). In the paper entitled A New Model of the Neutron published in Quantum Ring Theory it is shown that a model of nêutron formed by próton+electron does not violate the conservation of parity, as the nuclear physicists believed along the whole 20th Century, because when the electron loses its helical trajectory (due to its partnership with the próton within the structure of the nêutron) the electron loses its spin 1/2. Such mechanism of the spin lost within the nêutron is also responsible for a wrong interpretation by the nuclear theorists, because they believed that the parity is violated in in the beta-decay. In the page 92 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is written: As we realize, because the physicists did not discover that the addition of spins is (seemingly) violated they transferred the problem for the parity. Instead of: “the addition of spins is violated in the beta-decay”, they say: “the parity is not kept in the beta-decay”. The five nuclear phenomena which suggest the existence of the z-axis are described between the pages 125 and 131 of the paper Critique to the Models of Nuclear Physics, and between the pages 158 and 161 of the paper Beta-Decay, and they are exhibited ahead: Page 125: Page 126: Page 127: Page 129: Page 130: Page 131: Page 133: CONCLUSIONS IN THE PAPER “BETA-DECAY”: Page 160: Page 161: Page 125: Page 126: Page 127: Page 129: Page 130: Page 131: Page 133: CONCLUSIONS IN THE PAPER “BETA-DECAY”: Page 160: Page 161:

oh... yes... because the experiments had detected the repulsive potential. In another words: it is an experimental fact. However, there is no way to explain it by considering the current nuclear models, just because the current nuclear models were built from phantasmagoric assumptions, where physical causes are missing. You are making confusion between two different things: 1- One thing is the experimental result 2- Other thing is to explain it by considering the current nuclear models. It is just here where the theory fails. Dong make confusion between experimental fact and the theory used so that to explain the experimental fact. To claim that "The strong force is not so simple as you imply here" is not an acceptable argument solution. Because by considering the current nuyclear models the strong force would have to be so simple as I imply here. In order to explain why the strong force is not so simple there is need to consider physical causes missing in current nuclear models.

repulsive potential ?????? repulsive potential makes no sense, because the neutron has not charge. Obviously as the question of the dineutron is not explained by considering the current Nuclear Physics, the nuclear theorists use some subterfuges, as to say that the strong force is not so simple. But the question is very simple: there is not Coulomb repulsion between two neutrons, and therefore they would have to be bound and form the dineutron. I dont need to check nothing there is not repulsion between two neutrons, and therefore they would have to be bound by the strong force. As always happens when a theory does not fit to experimental findings, the theorists use to propose ad hoc hypothesis which do not fit to the experimental findings. Besides, there is not such a thing as stable up quark. Quarks are not stable. They are stable only when they are confined into the proton.

you are wrong because: 1- two neutrons bound by the strong force would not decay, as happens with the stable deuteron formed by proton-neutron bound by the strong force 2- even if the dineutron would decay in 15 minutes, its existence could be detected by experiments along the 15 minutes of its existence. However the dineutron had never been detected by experiments besides, if you had be right, then Heisenberg would not need to propose the concept of isospin. He could use the same argument used by you, saying that dineutron do not exist because one of the neutrons decays. I hope you are not suggesting that Heisenberg was a stupid guy, since he did not propose such argument used by you.