PesWiki.com

Menu

Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism (2015)

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:38 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

by Wladimir Guglinski

author of the book “Quantum Ring Theory-foundations for cold fusion”

ABSTRACT

In 2006 the first version proposed for the structure of the aether was published in the book Quantum Ring Theory (QRT), published by the Bäuu Institute and Press. In the original version was proposed that all elementary particles have two concentric fields, one inner and the other outer. Therefore (in contrast with the mono-field considered in the Quantum Electrodynamics-QED ) in QRT was proposed a double-field model for the elementary particles. Some improvements were incorporated to that first version of the double-field, and published in 2015 by the Andrea Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=874

Here in this new version 2015 some additional improvements are incorporated, so that to eliminate some philosophical inconsistences in the version 2014 published in the Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics.

INTRODUCTION

In the book QRT the inner field is named principal field Sp, and the outer field is named secondary field Sn (it is induced by the rotation of the inner principal field). In the present model proposed here, the outer field Sn induces a third field: the Coulomb electric field responsible for the electric charge of the particles as the electron, the proton, etc.

A mono-field model as considered in QED would violate the monopolar nature of the electric charge, if one considers that even-even nuclei with Z=N have rotation in the ground state, because the rotation of the electric charges of the proton must induce a magnetic moment. As even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero, they cannot rotate, according to the Standard Nuclear Physics, and this is the only way to avoid the violation of the monompolar nature of the electric charge in the current nuclear theory.

The mono-field concept considered in QED can survive only by considering that even-even nuclei with Z=N do not rotate at the ground state, as is considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics.

However there are some experiments suggesting that all nuclei rotate in the ground state. For instance, in 2012 the journal Nature has published the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

The paper describes experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape. But a nucleus with non-spherical shape cannot have null electric quadrupole moment, Q= 0. And it is known by experiments that those nuclei have Q=0. In order to explain why they have Q= 0 (in spite of they are non-spherical) the nuclear theorist Martin Freer (journal Nature) sent me a reply by email, saying:

“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.”

Therefore, in order to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have Q= 0 in spite of they are non-spherical, there is need to consider that they rotate at the ground state. But in this case, according to the mono-field adopted in QED, it is impossible to explain why they have null magnetic moment.

It is well to remember that the electric quadrupole moment for the deuteron defies the Standard Nuclear Physics along 75 years. Indeed, as the neutron has no charge, one have to expect a value Q=0 for the deuteron in the ground state (due to the spherical distribution of charge of the proton). In the paper “The Electric Quadrupole Moment of the Deuteron and the Field Theory of Nuclear Forces” published by Nature in 1939 the authors say:

“THE discovery by Rabi and his collaborators1 that the deuteron in its ground state possesses an electric quadrupole moment is of considerable theoretical importance, since it clearly shows that the forces acting between a proton and a neutron must to a quite appreciable extent depend on the spatial orientations of the spins of the heavy particles.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v144/n3645/abs/144476a0.html

Of course it is impossible to explain the non-null Q for the deuteron by considering any current nuclear model based on the Standard Nuclear Physics, because obviously the orientation of the spins cannot change the distribution of charge of the proton. However, as the model of neutron considered in the Standard Model is wrong, there is no way to explain the non-null Q for the deuteron by considering any reasonable hypothesis, and this is the reason why the nuclear theorists are constrained to propose strange solutions, as to consider that the spatial orientation of the spin can change the proton’s distribution of charge. Other solutions were proposed, however since it is impossible to solve the puzzle by considering the wrong model of neutron adopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics, that’s why since 1939 more than 33 paper were published up to 2005, proposing different theories so that to solve the puzzle impossible to be solved via the current wrong model of neutron. And so the puzzle remains unsolved satisfactorily, and continues defying the Standard Model, because it can be solved only by considering a new model of the neutron.

Note:

The electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron is calculated in the paper “Anomalous Mass of the Neutron”, published in QRT in 2006 and again in 2013 by the Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics. In the paper it is shown that the deuteron has electric quadrupole moment +0,0028b because the neutron is formed by proton+electron, and the contribution of the electron’s charge is responsible for a positive Q for the deuteron. The paper is available in this link:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516

Experimental confirmation of the neutron structure n=p+e:

The structure n=p+e of the neutron was confirmed by the following three experiments:

1) 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

2) E. Conte, M. Pieralice, An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron, Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67

3) Confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons , http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229

The nuclear theorists have no interest to repeat the three experiments which show that neutron is formed by fusion of proton and electron at low energy, since the model n=p+e invalidates the Standard Nuclear Physics. The same occurs in the case of the experiments concerning the measurement of the electric quadrupole moment for the 4Be7, which have measured Q very near to zero. The value of Q for 4Be7 very near to zero invalidates all the current nuclear models based on the Standard Model.

So, the nuclear theorists try to save the Standard Nuclear Physics by rejecting or neglecting some experiments which prove to be wrong the foundations of the Standard Model. The question now is to know how many years they will succeed to avoid the breakdown of the Standard Model, by betraying the Scientific Method through the rejection of experimental findings. Or, in other words, how many new experimental findings will be need so that to convince the nuclear physicists that some of the current foundations of the Standard Model must be rejected and replaced by new ones.

Therefore, other problem involving the electric quadrupole moment occurs with the 4Be7. Some physicists claim that its quadrupole moment was never measured, but it is hard to believe it, because 3Li7 is the mirror of 4Be7, and Q for 3Li7 was already measured. It seems that the reason why Q for 4Be7 was never published in any nuclear table (in spite of some experimentalist already have measured it and obtained Q very near to zero) is because the theoretical value calculated by considering the current nuclear models predict a value near to -6fm² (a little larger than Q= -4fm² for 3Li7, measured by experiments). But it seems that the measurements are getting a value very near to zero. In the case Q for 4Be7 will be confirmed to be near to zero, this experimental result invalidates all the current nuclear models.

The value Q=0 for the 4Be7 can be explained only by considering that it rotates in the ground state, as shown in the page 48 of the paper “Stability of Light Nuclei”:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802

So, experiments are suggesting that the model of field adopted in QED is not correct. And the reason seems to be obvious, because QED was developed by considering the space as empty, and therefore without any physical structure. But in 2011 the journal Nature has published a paper describing an experiment which results prove that space is no empty: “Moving mirrors make light from nothing”:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html

As seen, as the space is no empty, it must have a structure, and as the structure of the aether was not considered in the development of the Quantum Electrodynamics, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a considerable chance that the concept of mono-field adopted in QED is incomplete.

The new improvements in the structure for the aether

The structure of the aether is composed by the following particles and their antiparticles:

Gravitons g(+) and g(-)

Gravitons G(+) and G(-)

Electricitons e(+) and e(-)

Microelectricitons ?e(+) and ?e(-) , introduced now in this new version

Magnetons m(+) and m(-)

Permeabilitons P(+) and P(-)

Permeabilitons p(+) and p(-)

The inner principal field Sp(p) of the proton

The figures 2.1 and 2.2 shows the inner principal field Sp(p) of the proton. The sequence of the formation of the proton structure is the following:

1- The rotation of the proton’s body-ring induces the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) and the magnetic fields M(+) and M(-) formed by magnetons m(+) and m(-) respectivelly , see Fig. 2.1. The magnetic moment +2,793 of the proton is due to the fields M(+) and M(-).

2- The rotation of the flux n(o) induces a field formed by permeabilitons P(+) and p(+) , see Fig. 2.2.

Image:FIG. 2.1 and 2.2.png

3- The field of permeabilitons P(+) induce a field of gravitons G(+) surrounding the field of P(+) and distributed radially along the surface of the field of P(+) , see Fig. 2.3.

Image:FIG. 2.3.png

4- Each one of the gravitons G(+) captured by the field formed by P(+) captures other gravitons G(+) by chain reaction, forming rectilinear strings distributed radially in the outer side of the field of P(+) – Fig. 2.4.

Image:FIG. 2.4.png

5- The spin of the gravitons G(+) aligned toward the same ring induce a flux of magnetons m(+) moving within the body-ring of the gravitons G(+) – Fig. 2.5.

Image:FIG. 2.5.png

6- The long travel of the magnetons m(+) is over when they enter within the field of P(+), where the magnetons m(+) spread themselves in the aether. Such process produces heat, which is delivered to the aether ,

7- As the travel of the magnetons m(+) is finished within the field of P(+), then new magnetons m(+) must be captured by the strings. The magnetons m(+) are captured in the limit of the Universe.

8 – The quantity of strings formed by gravitons G(+) induced by the field of P(+) depends on the flux of gravitons g(+), responsible for the mass of the proton. As the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) in the proton is stronger than the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(-) in the electron, then for the proton a big quantity of strings is induced, while for the electron a lower quantity is induced, and that’s why the mass of the electron is smaller.

9- Inertia-mass of the proton - Suppose a proton is at rest in the aether. The gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field interact with the gravitons G(+) of the ether, and so there is need a force F in order to put the proton moving with velocity v, because the force of interaction between the gravitons G(+) of the proton and the gravitons G(+) of the aether must be won. Imagine that a force F is applied on the proton. Then those gravitons G(+) of the aether are left behind the displacement of the proton, and other grávitons G(+) of the aether (in front of the motion) have interaction with the gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field. I call such phenomenon “substitution frequency” (when a graviton G(+) is abandoned and other graviton G(+) is captured ahead the motion), and it is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. For the proton moving with velocity “v” there is a specific substitution frequency. If another force is applied, and the proton’s velocity increases from v to V , then the substitution frequency increases, and so the motion gets a new specific substitution frequency. For each velocity of the proton corresponds a specific subsitution frequency. The substitution frequency is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. But it is also responsible for the Einstein’s Law of inertia growth with the velocity, because the growth of the substitution frequency grows according to Einstein’s equation of the inertia growth. When the proton approaches the velocity of light, the substitution frequency approaches to a maximum value and the inertia of the proton tends to infinitum.

10- In the case of the neutron, as it is formed by proton+electron, the quantity of gravitational strings is the sum of the quantity of strings induced by the overlap of the principal fields Sp(p) of the proton and Sp(e) of the electron.

11- Note that the strings of gravitons G(+) in the proton are due to the excitation of the permeabilitons P(+) by the rotation of the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+), while the strings of gravitons G(-) in the electron are due to the excitation of the permeabilitons P(-) by the rotation of the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(-).

Production of heat by gravity

The production of heat mentioned in the item 6 above is corroborated by a phenomenon occurring in the Earth, because in our planet loses 44,2 TW of heat to space, while the heat generated by the decay of uranium and torium is only 20 TW, as explained in the paper “Partial radiogenic heat model for Earth revealed by geoneutrino measurements”.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n9/full/ngeo1205.html

In the paper published by Nature it is written:

“The Earth has cooled since its formation, yet the decay of radiogenic isotopes, and in particular uranium, thorium and potassium, in the planet’s interior provides a continuing heat source. The current total heat flux from the Earth to space is 44.2?TW, but the relative contributions from residual primordial heat and radiogenic decay remain uncertain. However, radiogenic decay can be estimated from the flux of geoneutrinos, electrically neutral particles that are emitted during radioactive decay and can pass through the Earth virtually unaffected. Here we combine precise measurements of the geoneutrino flux from the Kamioka Liquid-Scintillator Antineutrino Detector, Japan, with existing measurements from the Borexino detector, Italy. We find that decay of uranium-238 and thorium-232 together contribute 20 TW to Earth’s heat flux. The neutrinos emitted from the decay of potassium-40 are below the limits of detection in our experiments, but are known to contribute 4?TW. Taken together, our observations indicate that heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that 20 TW of the total flux 44.2 TW lost to space comes from the gravity of the Earth.

Why is there preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?

Obviously the Universe could not exist if the aether had a perfect symmetric structure, because there would not be preference for matter over antimatter, and in a fraction of seconds after its creation the Universe would collapse because matter and antimatter would annihilate one each other.

So, the Responsible for the Universe creation had realized that there was need to introduce an asymmetry in the aether structure, so that to get the preference of the matter. And then the solution would be to create an additional particle, so that to introduce the required assymetry.

The question is: what sort of asymmetry He had introduced? Or, in another words, where the additional particle responsible for the asymetry would have to work, so that to get the stability of matter?

Such question will be responded in the future, with the help of experiments.

But we can try to guess what was the solution He had adopted, as follows.

It is possible the stability of the inner principal field Sp of the electron and proton is consequence of the interaction between:

a) the rotation of the flux n(o) and the field of permeabilitons P(+) in the proton

b) the rotation of the flux n(o) and the field of permeabilitons P(-) in the electron

But it is reasonable to suppose that:

(1) the fields formed by P(+) and P(-) need the help of some gluons, Z(+) and Z(-)

(2) the interaction P(+)&Z(+) in the proton and P(-)&Z(-) in the electron must occur as follows:

a) The interaction P(+)&Z(+) requires a strong flux n(o) of gravitons g(+). In another words, it requires a heavy mass. As the field of permeabilitons in the positron is formed by P(+)&Z(+), and as the mass of the positron is 2000 times lighter, then the inner field Sp of the positron is not stable, and it explodes.

b) The interaction P(-)&Z(-) requires a weaker flux n(o) of gravitons g(-). In another words, it requires a lighter mass. As the field of permeabilitons in the antiproton is the inner field Sp of the antiproton is no stable, and it collapses.

The outer secondary field Sn(p) of the proton

The rotation of the flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) of the principal field Sp(p) induce a secondary field Sn(p) formed by a flux n(o) of gravitons g(+). Such flux n(o) of the secondary field Sn(p) captures electricitons, as shown in the Fig. 4.1.

Image:FIG. 4.1.png

The flux of electricitons e(+) in the outer secondary field Sn(p) is shown in the Fig. 4.2. Sn(p) is induced by the rotation of the flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) of the inner principal field Sp(p). We see in the figure 4.2:

1- The red electriciton e(+) with orbit radius R= n2 has spin-down and is situated in a region of aether density proportinal to n=1.

2- The red electriciton e(+) with orbit radius R= 1 has spin-up and is situated in a region of aether density proportional to n2.

Image:FIG. 4.2.png

So, the magnetic moment due to the rotation of the field Sn(p) is null, because the two red electricitons in the Fig. 4.2 induce magnetic moments with the same value but with contrary signs.

The same is applyed to the other pair of electricitons green, blue, and orange. Therefore the total magnetic moment induced by the rotation of the secondary field Sn(p) is null.

The Coulomb Sc(p) of the proton has electric charge +1 . The Coulomb Sc(e) of the electron has electric charge -1. As Sc(p) and Sc(e) are induced respectivelly by the rotation of electricitons e(+) and electricitions e(-), therefore the intensity of the flux of electricitons does not depend on the intensity of the flux n(o) of gravitons in the principal field Sp(p), because in the proton the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) is heavier than the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(-) in the electron. As Sc(e) and Sc(p) are induced by the rotation of the secondary fields, it means that the secondary field Sn(e) of the electron rotates faster than the secondary fied Sn(p) of the proton, and that’s why both the electron and the proton have the same electric charge (with contrary signs, -1 and +1).

The current of electricitons e(+) along the flux n(o) induces a field Sc formed by microelectricitons ?e(+), responsible for the Coulomb proton’s electric charge. The field Sc(p) does not rotate. Actually the field Sc(p) does not belong to the proton, because actually it belongs to the structure of the universe involving the proton.

Fig. 4.3 shows the Coulomb electric field Sc(p) of the proton, induced by the secondary field Sn(p). It is the electric field Sc(p) responsible for the positive charge of the proton and its Coulomb repulsions with other nucleons with positive charge, and attraction with partcles with negative charge, as the electron.

Image:FIG. 4.3-a.png

The shape of the field Coulomb field Sc(p) shown in the Figure 4.3 occurs only when the secondary field Sn(p) is aligned by an external magnetic field, and in this special situation (which occurs in cold fusion phenomena) the secondary field Sn(p) gyrates about the z-axis. Because of this special condition, the Coulomb field Sc(p) is induced taking a non-spherical shape, which makes easier the cold fusion occurrence.

The central 2He4 existing in all the nuclei has its Coulomb field Sc(He4) with charge +2. In order a proton to penetrate within the field Sc(He4) for the formation of the nucleus 3Li5, the fields Sc(p) of the proton and the field Sc(He4) of the 2He4 must be both them perforated. After the perforation of the two Coulomb Sc fields, the Coulomb field Sc(Li5) of the newborn 3Li5 is formed by the overlap of the fields Sc(p) of the proton and Sc(He4) of the 2He4, so that 3Li5 has a charge +3.

The body-ring of the proton gyrates chaotically when it is not aligned along an external magnetic field, and so the fields Sp(p) and Sn(c) also gyrate chaotically. As consequence, in average they get spherical shape, and therefore the Coulomb field Sc(p) is induced taking a spherical shape, as shown in the Figure 4.4:

Image:FIG. 4.4-a.png

In normal conditions, the field Sc(p) of the Figure 4.4 has in the atoms the spherical shape shown in the Figure 4.5.

Image:FIG. 4.5.png

The electric charge of a macroscopic body results from the difference between by the number of the fields Sc(p) of protons and the fields Sc(e) of electrons.

Why even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment

When a proton moves in the Aether, the Coulomb field Sc(p) moves together. Then there are two different situations when a proton moves with circular motion about a line. The difference is explained ahead.

First case: a free proton

Consider the body-ring of a free proton shown in the Figure 4.6.

Image:FIG. 4.6.png

And consider that this free proton rotates, in clockwise circular motion with radius R, about an axis AB as shown in the Figure 4.7. As the Coulomb electric field Sc(p) of the proton (not shown in the Fig. 4.6) moves together with the proton, therefore the center of the field Sc(p) algo rotates, with radius R, about the line AB. By consequence, the rotation of the electric field Sc(p) of the free proton about the axis AB induces a magnetic field. As the rotation of the magnetic field of the proton (shownas poles M(+) and M(-) in the Figure 4.6) also induces a magnetic field, then the positive pole MA,B(+) shown in the Figure 4.7 is composed by the addition of two magnetic fields: one due to the magnetic field of the proton, and the other due to its electric charge.

Image:FIG. 4.7.png
FIRST CONCLUSION:

For a free proton moving with circular motion about an axis, the rotation of the proton’s charge induces an additional magnetic field, beyond the magnetic field induced by the rotation of the proton’s magnetic field.

2 – Second case: a proton captured by the central 2He4 of a nucleus

Figure 4.8 shows what happens when a proton perforates the Coulomb electric field Sc(He4) of a helium-4 nucleus, and is captured by the flux n(o) of gravitons of the 2He4, and they form the 3Li5. The two Coulomb’s fields Sc(p) and Sc(He4) of proton and helium have overlap, and they form the Coulomb field Sc(Li5), which is at rest regarding the ocean of particles of the Aether.

Image:FIG. 4.8.png

So, the electric field Sc(p) of the proton does not rotate about the central 2He4, and therefore the elelctric charge of the proton does not induce magnetic moment due to its rotation about the 2He4.

The Figure 4.9 shows what happens when a second proton is captured by the 2He4, and they form the 4Be6. The two protons cancel each other the two magnetic fields induced by their rotation about the 2He4, and this is the reason why all the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.

Image:FIG. 4.9.png

So, the electric field Sc(p) of the proton does not rotate about the central 2He4, and therefore the elelctric charge of the proton does not induce magnetic moment due to its rotation about the 2He4.

The binding force on the protons within the nuclei

Now we finally are able to understand the binding mechanism linking the protons to the central 2He4 in the nuclei.

For the heavy nuclei with great number of protons and neutrons, the stronger contribution for the binding force between the nucleons is the spin-interaction.

But in the case of the light nuclei the binding force is not due to the spin-interaction. For instance, 3Li6 has only one deuteron captured by the central 2He4, and so there is not other deuteron so that to have spin-interaction.

Electric overlap force Fo responsible for binding energy in light nuclei

Beyond the spin-interaction, for the light nuclei there are two additional binding forces:

1- The force due to the flux n(o): it helps to keep the protons and neutrons in the light nuclei. However the flux n(o) alone is weak, and it cannot keep the nucleons bound to the central 2He4.

2 - The electric overlap force Fo due to the concentric overlap between the Coulomb fields Sc(He4) and Sc(p). In order to understand how it actuates, let us see how a proton is bound to the central 2He4 via the overlap of Coulomb fields.

The sequence of figures from 4.10 to 4.12 shows that the ceter of the body-ring of the protons cannot occupy the same point shared by the centers Sc(p) and Sc(He4). However, the Coulomb field Sc(Li5), formed by the overlap between Sc(p) and Sc(He4), tries to put the center of the body-ring of the proton in the exact center of the field Sc(Li5). So, there is an overlap force Fo trying to put the center of the body-ring of the proton concentric with the center of the central 2He4.

Image:FIG. 4.10.png
Image:FIG. 4.11.png
Image:FIG. 4.12.png

In the 3Li5, while the overlap force Fo pulls the proton toward the central 2He4, the centripetal force Fc tries to expel it from the nucleus 3Li5. But Fo is stronger, and that’s why 3Li5 is no stable, because the proton falls down in the central 2He4, and 3Li5 decays.

In the case of the 3Li6, instead of a proton there is a deuteron. As the neutron has not charge, there is not an overlap force Fo on the neutron within the structure of the deuteron. Therefore only the overlap force Fo on the proton must be able to keep the deuteron orbiting the central 2He4. But as the mass of the deuteron is twice heavier of the proton, the centripetal force on the deuteron of the 3Li6 is twice stronger that that existing on the proton of the 3Li5. That’s why 3Li6 is stable. The mechanism of equilibrium is described in details in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics.

The nuclei rotation

The nuclei rotation is induced by the combination of two directions:

1 – The spin-up of the proton’s body-ring (clockwise rotation)

2- The flux-up direction of the flux n(o) of gravitions of the central 2He4

In the Figure 4.13 we see that the flux n(o) enters within the body-ring of the proton 1 by having a flux-up, while flux n(o) enters in the proton-2 by having a flux-down.

The combination of spin-up & flux-up for the proton 1 induces a clockwise rotation in the nucleus, and the combination spin-down & flux-down for the proton 2 also induces a clockwise rotation.

Image:FIG. 4.13.png

So, when the proton 2 is captured by the 3Li5 and the 4Be6 is formed, the nucleus 4Be6 experiences a quantized growth in the frequency of rotation, and therefore there is also a quantized growth in the centripetal force on the protons 1 and 2.

On another hand, the overlap force Fo on each proton increases with the growth of the number Z of protons. Therefore, while the growth of the number Z has tendency to increase the frequency of rotation of the nuclei, the frequency of rotation increases the centripetal force, and as the equilibrium of the nuclei depends on the equilibrium between the velocity of rotation versus the centripetal force, the growth of the number Z does not influences in the stability of the light nuclei.

In the case of heavy nuclei with Z very big, the addition of one more proton practically does not change the rotation of the nucleis, since due to its big quantity of protons and neutrons its inertia moment is very big. However, in the case of the heavy nuclei, their stability is caused by the spin-interaction, and not by the equilibrium between the frequency of rotation versus centripetal force.

Cancelled in this present version

Stability between proton and electron within the structure of the neutron

Nowadays the physicists are perplexed with a new puzzle regarding the neutron decay: a difference of 9 seconds in two different methods of measuring its time-decay:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/neutron-decay-mystery-physicists_n_5316963.html?utm_hp_ref=science

However actually the puzzle is not only concerning the difference of 9 seconds, because the theorists do not know also why the neutron decay spends 15 minutes, because if its structure had be formed by quarks, as they believe, the neutron time-decay would have to be in order of 10-10 seconds, which is the order of the time-decay of the barions.

Because of the difference of 9 seconds, some theorists are already thinking about the need of a New Physics beyond the known particles and processes in the universe, as says Jeffrey Nico in the link above. But of course any New Physics cannot be successful if the keep model of neutron formed by quarks, n=(d,u,d). The 15 minutes of the neutron’s time-decay requires a structure formed by proton+electron, via the spin-fusion mechanism. It is the presence of a lepton within the neutron the cause of its long time-decay.

Stability between particle and antiparticle within the structure of the photon

The photon is composed by a particle Ph(+) formed by electricitons e(+) and an antiparticle Ph(-) formed by electricitons e(-), moving with helical trajectory. Therefore, as Ph(+) and Ph(-) are very close, due to the Coulomb attraction the particle and the antiparticle would have to meet together, and the photon would have to collapse. So, how to explain the stability of the photon?

The answer is in the repulsion force created by the interaction between the flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) induced by the spin of the particle Ph(+) with positive charge and the flux n(o) of gravitons g(-) induced by the spin of the antiparticle Ph(-) with negative charge. Such repulsion between the two fluxes n(o) of the photon gets equilibrium with the Coulomb force of attraction, and the photon gets stability thanks to the repulsive interaction between the flux formed by g(+) and the flux formed by g(-).

Stability between positron and electron within the structure of the neutrino

In the book Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed that neutrino is formed by positron and electron moving in helical trajectory. In the book it is proposed that the positron moves with helical trajectory, while the electron moves about the positron. In the case of the antineutrino, the positron moves about an electron moving with helical trajectory.

In the neutron the electron moving with relativistic speed about the proton loses its intrinsic spin ½ due to the spin-fusion phenomenom, and so the neutron has spin ½.

In the neutrino the electron loses its spin ½ moving about the positron, similar to what happens in the neutron. And in the antineutrino the positron loses its spin ½ moving about the electron.

Due to the Coulomb attraction between the positron and the electron, they would have to meet together, and the neutrino would have to collapse. The equilibrium is due to the repulsive interaction between the fluxes of gravitons g(+) of the positron and g(-) of the electron.

The structure of the deuteron

It seems the deuteron can take two different structures. When two deuterons are bond in the structure of the 2He4, each neutron of each deuteron does not gyrate about the proton. However it seems the neutron gyrates about the proton in the structure of a free deuteron, and ahead is explained why.

1- Magnetic moment of the proton is ?= +2,793

2- Magnetic moment of the neutron is ?= -1,913

3- Difference: . . . . . . . . . . ??= +0,880

Therefore, if the deuteron had no rotation, and the neutron would not be moving about the proton, the magnetic moment of the deuteron would have to be ?= +0,880.

In Wikipedia the calculation of the deuteron magnetic moment gives:

—————————————————

For the s = 1, l = 0 state (j = 1), we obtain

? = {1\2}({g^{(s)}}_p + {g^{(s)}}_n) = 0.879

For the s = 1, l = 2 state (j = 1), we obtain

? = -{1\4}({g^{(s)}}_p + {g^{(s)}}_n) + {3\ 4} = 0.310

——————————————-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

As the calculation by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics do not give the experimental result, they consider that the magnetic moment of the deuteron is a combination of two states.

In Wikipedia they say:

The measured value of the deuterium magnetic dipole moment, is 0.857 µN.

'''This suggests that the state of the deuterium is indeed only approximately s = 1, l = 0 state,

and is actually a linear combination of (mostly) this state with s = 1, l = 2 state'''.

.

Now let us consider a conjecture supposing that the neutron gyrates about the proton in the sctruture of the deuteron.

As we have seen, if the deuteron had no rotation, and the neutron would not be gyrating about the proton, the magnetic moment of the deuteron would be:

?= +0,880.

But as the deuteron has rotation, then the positive ?= +0,880 induces an additional positive ??. Suppose that ?? = +0,02.

Therefore, if the neutron had no rotation about the proton, the magnetic moment of the deuteron, by considering the rotation of the deuteron, would be:

? = +0,880 +0,02 = +0,900

But as the rotation of ?= +0,880 induces ?? = +0,02, then the neutron moving about the proton with magnetic moment ?= -1,913 will induce in the structure of the deuteron:

?? = -0,02x(1,913/0,88) = -0,043

And therefore the magnetic moment of the deuteron (considering its rotation and the neutron gyrating about the proton) is:

? = +0,88 + 0,02 – 0,043 = +0,857, which is the experimental value of the magnetic moment of the deuteron.

So, we dont need to consider the magnetic moment of the deuteron as a combination of two states, as considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics (which is a very strange hypothesis).

And so we realize that the conjecture of the neutron gyrating about the proton in the deuteron has experimental corroboration: its magnetic moment measured in experiments.

Why a flux of magnetons within the strings of the gravitons ?

After some years of disbelief and skepticism from the scientific community, finally overunity magnetic motors are today a reality, as we see in the links ahead:

• BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces Sustained Production of Electricity

http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3535

• Muammer Yildiz Magnet Motor demo at Delft University

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHW6b1aFPfU

• Steorn ORBO Overunity Technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO1bOfIEqoI

The next step now is to try to understand how the overunity magnetic technology works. And since the overunity energy supply comes from the aether, then obviously there is no way to discover how they work if we did not discover the structure of the aether.

The flux of magnetons within the string of gravitons proposed here was suggested to me by the work of the Brazilian inventor Francisco Figueiredo, inventor of the Figueiredo Motor, a magnetic motor which works without any source of energy supply known from what we know about the current theories of Physics.

The working of the Figueiredo Motor, and how to build it, is explained in my paper published in Peswiki:

Article: How magnet motors work

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_magnet_motors_work

In his book Teoria Universal do Magnetismo (3) published in 1969, Figueiredo proposes a mechanism reponsible for the working of his motor, explained ahead.

The motor is basically composed by:

1) a circular sheet of paper of about 20cm diameter (rotor)

2) a magnet

3) a plate M made of iron, where the magnet is fixed

4) a bearing of rotation for the circular paper (styrofoam disc floating on water is used)

The idea proposed by Figueiredo is shown in the Fig.10.1. Obviously Figueiredo did not know that the flux of magnetons supposed by him actually belongs to the Sun’s gravity field, as supposed here. According to his proposal, the flux of magnetons divides the rotor in two polarities S and N. The polarity of the rotor causes two regions of attraction and repulsion between the rotor and the plate M, as shown in the Fig. 10.2, responsible for the torque on the rotor.

Image:FIG._10.1.png

Obviously the relative position between the Earth and the Sun can help the working of the motor. At sunrise and sunset the gravity flux of the Sun touches tangentially the surface of the planet where the Figureiredo Motor is working, and the gravity flux is parallel to the plane of the rotor. But at mid day and mid night the gravity flux is perpendicular to the rotor, as we realize from the Fig. 10.3. The plate must be positioned as shown in the Fig. 10.1.

Image:FIG. 10.2.png
Image:FIG. 10.3.png

Figueiredo exhibits in his book a collection of data showing that indeed the best performance of the motor happens during 3 hours between 6:00h (sunrise) and 9:00h, while the worst performance happens around the mid day and mid night, when the flux gravity is perpendicular to the rotor.

The different mechanisms for energy-matter interaction

Till the middle of the 19th Century the physicists used to suppose that energy is absorbed or emitted by matter continuosly. But the results of the experiments with the black body made by Kirchhoff were incompatible with the assumption that matter and energy interact according to that classical concept considered by the theorists of the 19th Century. Then Planck proposed his postulate, according to which energy interact with matter discretely, via packages of energy named later “quanta”, multiples of a fundamental quantum “h”. And then Bohr proposed his hydrogen model of atom.

Kirchhoff's three laws of spectroscopy

1. A hot solid object produces light with a continuous spectrum. Kirchhoff coined the term black-body radiation.

2. A hot tenuous gas produces light with spectral lines at discrete wavelengths (i.e. specific colors) which depend on the energy levels of the atoms in the gas.

3. A hot solid object surrounded by a cool tenuous gas (i.e. cooler than the hot object) produces light with an almost continuous spectrum which has gaps at discrete wavelengths depending on the energy levels of the atoms in the gas.

Today we know very well the mechanisms of the second and third laws, thanks to the contribution of the Bohr theory of the atom, as follows:

a) A hot tenous gas is formed by atoms, and they emit photons in specific wavelengths.

b) A hot solid object surrounded by a coll tenous gas produces a continuous spectrum with gaps with discrete wavelengths because the atoms of the gas absorb photons in the same specific wavelengths as they were emitted by the hot tenous gas. According to Quantum Mechanics, the photons are absorbed thanks to a mechanism of resonance between the photon and the atom

One could try to explain the first Kirchhoff law by supposing that hot solid object produces a continuous spectrum because a solid object is made by molecules, and not by atoms. However, how does to explain how a solid object absorbs the energy of photons?

According to Quantum Mechanics, an atom of a solid object would have to absorb photons by a process of resonance between the atom and the photon which falls upon the surface of the object. However such process of resonance is not possible, because the atoms of the object are tied to other atoms, forming molecules.

Absorption of photon's energy by a solid body

So, how does explain how a solid object is able to absorb the energy of photons?

It seems the answer for this question lies on the following property of matter: the processes of emission and absorption in solid objects occur via different mechanisms.

Then, let us suppose how the energy of photons can be absorbed by a solid object.

1- The particles of the aether in a region of the space absent of matter are in a minimum fundamental status of excitation.

2- The particles of the aether in a region of the space filled by a solid object are in a status of excitation proportional to the temperature T of the object.

When a photon falls upon a surface of a solid no translucent object, as the photon is stoped it is disintegrated in the fundamental particles of the aether which compose the particle and the antiparticle of the photon. So, we have:

a) The particles of the aether filling the space between the molecules of the solid object have a level of excitation ET , proportional to the temperature T of the object.

b) After the collision of the photon with the surface of the object, the particles of the aether which constitute the body of the photon deliver their energy for the particles of the aether filling the space between the molecules of the object, in order that their original level of excitation ET has a growth, responsible for an increase in the excitation of the molecules of the object, and therefore the object has a temperature rise.

From this new mechanism of absorption of energy by matter, we are able to understand how heat is produced by gravity in stars and planets, because the energy of the flux of the magnetons of the gravity field is transferred to the particles of the aether filling the space between the molecules, increasing the level of excitation of the aether within the planet, rising the excitation of the molecules, and so producing heat.

Cold fusion and Rossi-Effect explained through the present concept of Coulomb field

In normal conditions, due to the chaotic rotation of the nuclei, their Coulomb field Sc has spherical shape.

But in special conditions, as occur in cold fusion and in the Rossi-Effect, a nucleus can be aligned toward an external magnetic field, and it stops to rotate chaotically. Instead of, it starts to rotate about its z-axis. In this special condition, the Coulomb field recovers its original shape, shown in the Figure 12.1:

Image:FIG. 12.1.png

The occurrence of cold fusion becomes possible because the Coulomb barrier shown in the Figure 12.1 is very lower than that existing when the field Sc is spherical. In the Andrea Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics there was a discussion in the Comments of the paper “Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM”. However the discussion was not concerning to BSM, but actually it was regarding the possibility of being the Rossi-Effect caused by the penetration of a proton within some isotopes of the nucleus Ni via the two “holes” existing in the points A and B shown in the Figure 12.1.

The discussion starts in the link bellow:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=7#comments

As there are many other comments by many readers asking questions to Andrea Rossi, all the comments regarding the discussion (on the explanation for the Rossi-Effect via the penetration of protons and neutrons through the “holes” in the Coulomb field) were selected, and the discussion was posted in Peswiki at the link ahead:

Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_mystery_finally_deciphered

References

1- W. Guglinski, Quantum Ring Theory-foundations for cold fusion, Bäuu Press, 2006

2- F. Figueiredo, Teoria Universal do Magnetismo, 1969, Gráfica Esperança, Brazil

Comments