Quantum Field Theory unable to explain null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N

[wlad]

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
  

[Sensei]

Surprisingly, Andrea Rossi answers are very mainstream..

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
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229
there was used electric arc 5 J (they did not tell in description what current and what voltage, perhaps U>800,000 V with very small current I=6.25*10^-6 A.. ?)

To create single neutron from proton and electron there is needed 0.782+ MeV energy, which is 1.252764E-013 Joules. 5 J is billions time more energy than needed for single neutron creation.

 

I read somewhere on the net that after analyze of used neon lighting tube there has been found unexpected isotopes in it (they emit light because of electric arc passing through noble gas ionizing it)

[ajb]

I don't think cutting and pasting from another website is great form, and this is compounded by the length of what you have posted.

 

So lets cut it down. You want to discuss the problems of applying QFT to nuclear physics?

[studiot]

 

I don't think cutting and pasting from another website is great form, and this is compounded by the length of what you have posted.

 

So lets cut it down. You want to discuss the problems of applying QFT to nuclear physics?

 

 

Having read a greater % of the wlad's other thread first I skipped out this one just as you were posting

 

Well put sir+1

 

 

To wlad I suggest that instead of posting two lengths of toilet roll, you post a much shorter piece establishing a few facts we can agree on and then go from there.

Edited August 20, 2014 by studiot

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have edited the original; copying posts made by another person on another forum is a copyright issue, and the practice of dragging a discussion here from another forum is problematic. Don't do that anymore. Also, don't respond to this modnote within the thread.

 

Also, moved to speculations.