Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:38 am.

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

To: Dr. Aephraim Steinberg

cc: Nobel Prizes: Dr. B. Josephson, Dr. A. Leggett, Dr. G. t’Hooft

Dear Dr. Steinberg

In my book Quantum Ring Theory-(QRT) published in 2006, the Bohr’s Complementarity is rejected as false. In my book the cause of the particles duality is attributed to the zitterbewegung: It is considered that particles have only the corpuscular feature (in the sense of Newton), and the wave property detected in experiments is due to their motion with zitterbewegung, “zbw” (zbw is an helical trajectory noted at the first time by Schroedinger in the Dirac’s equation of the electron).

But Heisenberg’s Uncertainty is not rejected in my book.

The reason is because uncertainty is even not a fundamental law. Instead of, uncertainty is actually imposed by the limitation of the technology.

Uncertainty works well up to a certain level. But in a deeper level it fails. However, as it is not a fundamental law, there is no need to reject it, since it is applied successfully in the atomic level.

In my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron is proposed a new version for the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty.

In the item Gravitational quantum of energy is written:

.=================================================

''“This indicates that we must propose a new interpretation for the Heinsenberg’s principle into a potential well with radius a?1fm.

First of all, let us remember that Planck’s constant h = 6.6×10ˆ–34J-s has electromagnetic origin, since he made his experiments with photons into a black body. But into a potential well with radius a?1fm, we have to consider the strong force. Then it is possible that Planck’s constant must be replaced by a new constant hG , by considering that hG is a smallest quantum of energy due to the interactions by the nuclear force. In the last item we will show that electron’s bound energy into the neutron must have on the order of 0.1 MeV. So, by considering that electron’s binding energy has the order of 0.1MeV, then, by introducing a correction, from Eq. (6) we get:

hG ~ [ h²/(180.000/0,1) ]½ = 1,3×10ˆ-37J-s (9)

One argument against this proposal is to say that the electron has no interaction by the strong force. However, in past papers the author will show that there are evidences suggesting that the strong force has gravitational origin, when we consider a dynamic gravity (different from the static gravity of current Physics).

So, if we consider the quantum vacuum constituted by electromagnetic particles and by gravitons, through such a consideration it means that Planck’s constant h is due to interactions by electromagnetic particles of the quantum vacuum, while the constant hG is due to interactions by gravitons.

Pay attention that we are proposing here the constant hG through the same way as Planck proposed the constant h. Indeed, Planck has been constrained to adopt the hypothesis of the constant h because that was the unique solution able to solve the paradox of the ultraviolet catastrophe into the black body. By the same way, today we have two experiments, made by Borghi and by Conte, and these two experiments are showing that the neutron’s structure is n=p+e. The unique way to explain this structure, obtained by the experiments, is through the adoption of the following hypothesis:

for a potential well with radius a?1fm, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is ?x.?p~h , where hG ~1.3×10ˆ–37J-s is the gravitational quantum of energy.”''

.=================================================

In 2002 I had submitted my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron for publication in the Chinese Journal of Physics, and a reviewer rejected the paper with the following argument:

.=======================================

“It is hard for me to believe those difficulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent 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.”

.=======================================

Ahead are: the review and the letter from the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Yew Kam Ho:

The paper Anomalous mass of the neutron was published in 2006 in my book Quantum Ring Theory, and five years later it was published again by the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics , in October 2011:

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

Ten months after the publication of my paper in the Andrea Rossi blog, you have published in August 2012 your paper which invalidates the Bohr’s Complementarity and shows that Heisenberg’s uncertainty indeed is not a fundamental law, as predicted in my book published in 2006:

Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0034.pdf

In my book Quantum Ring Theory are proposed some new foundations for Quantum Mechanics. For instance, it is proposed a new hydrogen atom model, in which a corpuscular electron (with no wave feature) moves with helical trajectory, and the space around the proton is non-Euclidian. In my book The Missed U-Turn is explained that Schrödinger’s equation actually describes the motion of the electron with zitterbewegung within a non-Euclidian space around the proton:

http://www.amazon.com/Missed-U-Turn-Heisenberg-versus-Schr%C3%B6dinger-ebook/dp/B00UBGN93I/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432296261&sr=1-3&keywords=guglinski

The Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson wrote a review for my book The Evolution of Physics, published in Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432299653&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski

And I have posted the following reply to Dr. Josephson in the Book Description in the Amazon.com:

.=====================================================

''“Dear Dr. Josephson,

Schrodinger’s equation is unacceptable... by considering the atom model of QM. Let us see why.

Schrodinger’s eq, was developed from the equation for a free electron. Therefore it cannot be applied for an electron in the atom (an electron into a potential).

Eisberg & Resnick justify to use the equation of a free electron in the case of the atom, in their book Quantum Physics. First they get the Schrodinger eq,, which is numbered as (5-22) in their book. And they say (I am translating from Portuguese):

---------------------------------------------------

“It must be emphasized that we arrive to (5-22) by considering an special case: the case of a free particle where P(x,y) =Vo , a constant. In this point it seems reasonable to argue that we have to hope that the wave equation of the quantum mechanics should have the same shape of (5-22) for the general case in which the potential energy V(x,t) actually varies as function of x and t (i.e., the force is not null) but we cannot prove that this is true. However, we can postulate that it is true. We do it, and so we take (5-22) as the wave equation of the quantum mechanics whose solutions Q(x,t) give us the wave functions that must be associated to the motion of a particle with mass m under the influence of forces which are described by the potential energy function V (x,t). The validity of the postulate must be judged from the comparison of its implications with the experiments, and we are going to do several of those comparisons later.”

---------------------------------------------------

First of all, Dr, Brian, to claim that "it seems reasonable” is not true. Not at all reasonable. And what is worst: the physicists cannot give any reasonable explanation why Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom.

If we ask to a physicist to explain us why the Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom he can only say:

“Unfortunately I don’t know. It's a mystery. We know that the equation works, since the experiments prove it works. But we don’t know why, we don’t know what is the cause responsible for the successes of the Schrodinger equation”.

This is not acceptable.

To claim that an equation is acceptable because it fits to the experiments, but do not know why it fits, actually makes no sense. Therefore, Schrodinger eq, is unacceptable to be used in the atom model of QM.

However,

his equation is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE by considering an atom where the electron moves in a non-Euclidian space, and doing it with helical trajectory.

This is shown in my book THE MISSED U-TURN, where it is written:

---------------------------------------------------

“Interestingly, Schrödinger developed his equation by considering a free electron, not subject to any force. This makes no sense because in his development the electron is within the proton's potential and, therefore, attracted by the proton. Such a paradox in Schrödinger's development is now understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory because now we know that within the hydrogen atom the electron behaves as if free since it is subject to two forces

Therefore, because the resultant force on the electron is null, it moves with constant speed in the radial direction and so the electron moves as if free, as considered by Schrödinger. Its behavior is that of a free electron moving with constant speed despite it is actually moving radially within the proton's electrosphere. Finally the paradox is understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in QRT.”

---------------------------------------------------

As you see, Dr. Brian, the atom model of QM is incompatible with the Schrodinger equation. And so, by considering the atom model of QM, his equation is unacceptable.

Only a new model in which the electron moves with helical trajectory in a non-Euclidian space can be conciliated with the Schrodinger equation, as shown in my book.”''

.=====================================================

Along the 7 last years many experiments are confirming several predictions proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory. For instance:

1) FIRST EXPERIMENT

Along 80 years the nuclear theorists have supposed that even-even nuclei with the same number of protons and neutrons have spherical shape. In my book published in 2006 it is proposed that those nuclei have actually ellipsoidal shape. And their ellipsoidal shape was confirmed by the experiments published by the journal Nature in 2012:

How atomic nuclei cluster

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

In the paper published by Nature the authors propose a theory according to which the nucleons are bound in clusters within the even-even nuclei with Z=N.

However,

note that those authors did not solve the new puzzle created by that new experiment, because in spite of the authors have proposed a model of clusters, nevertheless they do not explain why that model of clusters takes a non-spherical shape in the case of the even-even nuclei with Z=N. Because by considering the laws of Quantum Mechanics a model of clusters for even-even nuclei with Z=N must have a spherical shape, and not an ellipsoidal shape. The puzzle continues unsolved by the laws of Quantum Mechanics.

2) SECOND EXPERIMENT

In my book is proposed that space is not empty, and it has a structure formed by particles and antiparticles. An experiment published by Nature in 2011 proved that space is not empty:

Moving mirrors make light from nothing:

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

The European Physical Journal published a paper where it is proposed for the space the same structure proposed in my QRT, by particles and antiparticles:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light: http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165

3) THIRD EXPERIMENT

According to the new nuclear model proposed in QRT, due to the contribution of the structure of the space within the atomic nuclei, the protons and neutrons are distributed symmetrically about a z-axis which passes by the center of the even-even nuclei.

In the page 133 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is written:

“The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property

up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”

In 2013 scientists of the Liverpool University detected that Ra224 has pear shape:

Scientists demonstrate pear shaped atomic nuclei

http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

From the principles of Quantum Mechanics applied to Nuclear Physics is impossible for the even-even nucleus Ra224 to have a pear shape. That’s why this experiment is suggesting to many physicists to look for alternatives for the Standard Model:

Pear-Shaped Nucleus Boosts Search for Alternatives to "Standard Model" Physics

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pear-shaped-nucleus-boost-search-for-alternatives-to-standard-model-physics/

“I believe that this will eventually lead to results of much broader impact than this experiment alone, with the possibility of placing constraints on the standard model” , says nuclear physicist Gavin Smith of the University of Manchester, UK, who is not a member of Butler's team.

Prof. Butler of the Liverpool University suggested that there is a z-axis dividing the nuclei. However, the puzzle remains: why are the even-even nuclei divided by the z-axis, since there is not any law of QM obliging them to be divided by a z-axis?

4) FOURTH EXPERIMENT

According to Quantum Ring Theory, the electric field of the proton and electron have non-spherical shape, while in the Standard Model Physics their electric fields must be spherical. Such non-sphericity of the electric field proposed in Quantum Ring Theory is consequence of the contribution of the structure of the space, because according to QRT the electric fields are composed by electricitons e(+) and e(-) of the structure of the space crossed by a flux of gravitons.

A new experiment has now detected the electricitons e(+):

Evidence for photogenerated intermediate hole polarons in ZnO

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150422/ncomms7901/full/ncomms7901.html

The authors of the paper published in Nature call them "polarons".

Obviously those authors do not know that "polarons" (named electricitons in my theory), are the particles which compose the electric field of the proton and electron.

And this is the reason why positive polarons have interaction with the negative electric field of the electron extracted by a photon in the photoactive oxide Zn0.

5) FIFTH EXPERIMENT

The non-spherical shape of the electric field of the proton, according to Quantum Ring Theory, is shown in the figure ahead. The blue lines of the electric field are fluxes of gravitons, and they capture the electricitons e(+) shown in the figure (the figure shows only four electricitons e(+), but obviously the electric field of the proton is composed by a countless amount of electricitons).

However,

as the proton rotates chaotically, its electric field behaves in average as it were spherical, involving spherically the proton. And therefore here we see one among the contribution of the statistics for the success of the Standard Model.

So, in normal conditions the electric field behaves as it were spherical, as considered in the current theories.

A new experiment has proven the asymmetry of the electric field:

Electromagnetic Radiation under Explicit Symmetry Breaking

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147701

Dear Dr. Steinberg,

tell me sincerely,

do you think the theorists have to continue trying to keep the current interpretation on Quantum Mechanics as they did before the publication of your paper? Or have they to look for a new interpretation, by discarding some principles, as for instance the Bohr’s Complementarity?

Do you think is it possible to save the current foundations of Quantum Mechanics by neglecting the meaning of your experiment, as the theorists are trying to do?

Or do you think there is need to look for new foundations for Quantum Mechanics, by looking for new principles which can be conciliated with the violation of the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and the collapse of the Bohr’s Complementarity?

In short, do you think there is need a New Physics?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

Comments