Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:22 am.

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

Most people think that Quantum Mechanics is a successful theory, and that it’s definitive. But it’s not. The Quantum Mechanics has failured, it has some inconsistences, and the own quantum physicists know it..

Just because it has failured, the quantum field theorists had created in the 20th Century a new theory, named Quantum Field Theory (QFT) , so that to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics is based on several fundamental principles, as Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, de Broglie’s duality, etc.

The attempt of the quantum field theorists in trying to eliminate the Quantum Mechanics inconsistences is via mathematics and by keeping the fundamental principles of the theory. So they believe it is possible to eliminate the inconsistence by improving the mathematics of the theory, and there is no need to change the principles.

For instance, the isospin was proposed by Heisenberg so that to explain why two neutrons do not form the dineutron, because:

- as there is no Coulomb repulsion between two neutrons

- and there is the attraction between them by the strong force

- then it would be expected that two neutrons should have to form a dineutron, but it is known that dineutrons do not exist in nature.

But Heisenberg’s isospin is a mere mathematical concept, and it cannot explain why two neutrons do not form the dineutron, because only a force of repulsion can separate two neutrons interacting by the attraction force due to the strong force. A mathematical concept cannot create a repulsion force, and so the isospin is an unacceptable explanation.

However, as the quantum field theorists try to eliminate the inconsistence via mathematics, it seems to be impossible to eliminate the inconsistence of the isospin by improving the mathematics proposed by Heisenberg, because the mathematics cannot create a force of repulsion so that to separate two neutrons attracted by the strong force. It seems there is need to change the physical structure of the neutron considered in standard Nuclear Physics, because only by this way it would be possible to explain the existence of a repulsion force between two neutrons, when they interact in the distance of 2fm.

Other inconsistence is concerning the de Broglie’s duality. His hypothesis advanced in 1924 says that particles of matter such as electrons have wake like properties. His hypothesis was supposedly confirmed by Davisson-Germer experiment in 1927, and the scientific community had concluded that duality is a property of matter as proposed by de Broglie.

But there was another different interpretation for the Davisson-Germer experiment, because Schröedinger had discovered a trembling motion of the electron in the Dirac’s electron equation. Schröedinger had interpreted it as a helical trajectory, and so by such new interpretation the duality should not be a property of the matter, but actually it would be a manifestation of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles.

Heisenberg did not accept the hypothesis of the helical trajectory, because that hypothesis would introduce in Theoretical Physics undesirable conjectures. So, the theorists had adopted the Heisenberg’s proposal of considering the mathematical way (without any physical meaning as Schrödinger had proposed) for the interpretation of the electron’s trembling motion in the Dirac’s equation, and so they had rejected the physical way of interpreting it.

Now you may have been invaded by a question, and you say to yourself: “Suppose that Heisenberg was wrong. Suppose that the electron’s trembling motion in the Dirac’s equation is a helical trajectory as interpreted by Schröedinger. Well, in this case Quantum Mechanics is wrong, and there is a serious inconsistence in the theory, and it is impossible to eliminate it via mathematics. Actually there is need to change the fundamental principle of duality as it was proposed by de Broglie, and to consider that duality is a manifestation of the helical trajectory. Therefore Quantum Field Theory must be developed in a way different of that taken by the quantum field theorists, because instead of trying to eliminate that inconsistence via mathematics, actually it must be eliminated by changing a fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics”.

Well, if such question was occurred to you, you’re right. Such question is just analised in my book THE MISSED U-TURN, the duel Heisenberg vs Schröedinger- from Newton to Rossi’s eCat, where it is shown that the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics must be eliminated by changing some fundamental principles of the theory.

The book was written so that to be understood by the lay reader, and the Cambridge International Science Publishing decided to publish it. In 16th September 2011 I and the publisher Mr. Victor Riecansky had signed the Agreement for the publication of my book.

You may see the three pages of the Agreement in the links ahead:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Unfortunatelly some physicists had discovered that my book would be published by that important publishing house of London. And they want people do not take knowledge that Quantum Field Theory can be being developed in the wrong way. That’s why they began to threaten Mr. Riecansky and the publishing house, telling him do not publish the book. And so the publisher had decided to broke the Agreement, and do not publish my book.

Between 2009 and 2012 the publication of some new experiments are reinforcing the evidence that Quantum Field Theory is being developed in the wrong way. We may mention the following ones:

1- An experiment published by Science in June 2011 shows that it is wrong the Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity:

Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract

2- Between 1997 and 1999 my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron was rejected by many journals of Nuclear Physics. One of the reviewers rejected the paper with such argument:

”It is hard for me to believe those dificulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutinity of all those proeminent particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale. Had this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third different Planck constant”.

An astronomical observation of June 2011 is suggesting that my hypothesis is right:

Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5B34TBPG_index_0.html

3- From the principles of standard Nuclear Physics, light nuclei with Z=N=pair must have spherical shape. That’s why along 80 years the theorists had never supposed that those nuclei could have a non-spherical shape.

In July 2012, the journal Nature published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, where the authors propose that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape, a conclusion inferred from the data collected by the experiments made in the Argonne National Laboratory, published in March 2012:

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

The non-spherical shape of light nuclei with Z=N=pair was predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006. In the page 131 of the book it is explained why they have non-spherical shape, in spite of they have null electric quadrupole moment (earlier 2012 the nuclear theorists had supposed that null electric quadrupole moment always requires a spherical shape). The authors of the paper published in the journal Nature had used the same argument proposed in my book (so Nature published a plagiarism).

4- The light nuclei with Z=N=pair (with Z=2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) are stable, but beryllium isotope 4Be8 with Z=4 is not.. Along 80 years the nuclear theorists tried to explain such anomaly. Each theorist had proposed a different method.

Of course, if the fundamental principles of the standard Nuclear Physics should have been correct, there would not be necessary 80 years of attempts, and several different methods.

Besides, in 2009 a new experiment showed that in the isotope 4Be11 the neutron halo is 7fm far away of the rest of the nucleus. This new experimental finding shows that nuclear theorists are in the wrong way.

The stability of light nuclei is explained through the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory:

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

5- According to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the nuclei aggregation is not promoted by the strong force. Such hypothesis is corroborated by an experiment published in 2009, when for the first time scientists had measured the size of a one-neutron halo with lasers, and they found that in beryllium isotope 11Be the neutron is far away 7fm from the rest of the nucleus. As the strong force actuates in the maximum distance of 2fm, the experiment shows without doubt that the agglutination of nuclei is not promoted by the strong force.

Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers

https://idw-online.de/pages/de/news301916

The authors of the experiment say:

“The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers. The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive 'heiligenschein'. “

So, the theorists are trying to explain such strange anomaly via mathematics, instead of to accept the obvious conclusion: some fundamental principles of the standard Nuclear Physics are wrong.

Recent experiments published between 2009 and 2012 are suggesting that it is not possible to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics via mathematics by keeping the fundamental principles of the theory, as the quantum field theorists are trying to do. Therefore it is wrong the way adopted by the theorists for the development of the Quantum Field Theory.

A successful theory capable to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics must be developed by considering new fundamental principles different of those proposed in the theory. This is just the way adopted in Quantum Ring Theory.

PowerPedia:Quantum Ring Theory

QUANTUM FOOTER

Site:LRP:Quantum Physics - Quantum Mechanics (Qualified and Quantified)

Site:LRP:The Quantum Potential & Overunity Asymmetric Systems

QUANTUM COMPANIES

Directory:Fix the World Organization's Quantum Energy Generator

Directory:Chukanov Quantum Energy LLC

Directory:Paintable plastic solar cells using quantum dots

QUANTUM WRITINGS

Article:The Successor of Quantum Mechanics

PowerPedia:Quantum Ring Theory

Article:Magnetic monopole - new experiment corroborates Quantum Ring Theory

Article:Stability of light nuclei isotopes according to Quantum Ring Theory

Paper:A New Foundation for Physics, by Quantum Aether Dynamics Institute

Article:Quantum Field Theory is being developed in the wrong way

`There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]`

Comments