Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:38 am.
To: Prof. Anthony W. Thomas
Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow
University of Adelaide
Dear Prof. Anthony W. Thomas
Regarding the paper “Why a new physics theory could rewrite the textbooks”, published in Physical Review Letters (January 27, 2016), and concerning the experiments made in the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator, you say:
"For many scientists, the idea that the internal structure of protons might change under certain circumstances can seem absurd, even sacrilegious. To others like myself, evidence of this internal change is highly sought after and would help to explain some inconsistencies in theoretical physics."
It’s a good surprise for me to know about the ongoing experiments at Jefferson Lab , because a new structure for the proton is proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006:
The figure ahead shows the structure of the proton, which is the following:
1- A body-ring formed by three quarks: (u,d,u)
2- The body ring is crossed by a flux of gravitons g(+)
3- The rotation (spin) of the body-ring induces a principal field Sp(p)
4 – The rotation of the principal field Sp(p) induces a secondary electric field Sn(p).
5- The rotation of the secondary field Sn(p) induces a Coulomb electric field Sc(p). The Coulomb field does not rotates, it is bound to the frame of the structure of the Universe around the proton.
The structure of the electron is similar.
Looking at the structure of the proton shown at the previous figure, you may realize why the idea that the internal structure of protons might change under certain circumstances is NOT absurd, since there is an inner asymmetry in its structure, as we see in the figures ahead when the proton is moving:
It is very advantageous to consider seriously this new structure of the proton, because by using this model it’s possible to eliminate several unsolved puzzles of the Fundamental Physics, as shown ahead:
1- The paradox of the Schroedinger Equation
Schroedinger has developed his equation by considering a free electron. Therefore, by considering the atom model of Quantum Mechanics, his equation cannot be applied to the atom, since in the atom the electron is non free. Therefore, the atom model of Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with the Schroedinger Equation.
In order to reconcile the Schroedinger Equation with the atom there is need to find a new model of atom. This new model of atom is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, and ahead is explained the reason why Schroedinger Equation can be applied to the atom, in spite of he had considered a free electron for development of his theory:
1- The electron always moves with helical trajectory (the zitterbewegung discovered by Schroedinger in the Dirac’s equation of the electron).
2 - The space of the Coulomb field Sc(p) is Euclidian, and it has a density r0 (r0 is the density of the space in the regions far away of any presence of matter). Within an Euclidian space with density r0 the laws of Quantum Mechanics are well applied. So, when a free electron and a free proton are separated by a large distance they interact via electric force of attraction as considered in Quantum Mechanics, and the electron moves with acceleration attracted by the proton.
3- Unlike, the space within the Secondary field Sn(p) is non-Euclidian. The density of the space in a point P within the field Sn(p) follows the equation d = r0/R , where R is the distance between the point P and the center of the proton.
4- When the electron exits the Euclidian space and it enters within the non-Euclidian space due to the field Secondary field Sn(p), where the density of the space is growing along the radial direction toward the proton, the radius of the electron’s zitterbewegung decreases, causing a force between the proton and the electron in contrary direction of the electric force of attraction between them. The two forces have the same intensity, and therefore within the non-Euclidian space the electron moves with constant speed. This is the reason why the Schroedinger Equation can be applied to the atom, because for a non-free electron moving with constant speed within a non-Euclidian space into the atom we can apply the same equation applied for a free electron moving with constant speed within an Euclidian space.
2- The paradox of the rotation of the even-even nuclei with Z=N at the ground state
Before 2012 the nuclear physicists have believed that the even-even nuclei with equal number Z=N of protons Z and neutrons N have no rotation in the ground state. They also believed that those nuclei have spherical shape, as required from the laws of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
But in 2012 the journal Nature has published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, describing experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape:
A nucleus with eliposoidal shape cannot have null electric quadrupole moment. But the experiments show that even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero elec. quad. moment.
So, a paradox has arisen.
In my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006 it is predicted correctly that even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape. Thereby, 6 years before the publication of the paper by the journal Nature I had to explain the paradox: as according to my new nuclear model the even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shace, how can they have zero elec. quad. moment?
The argument proposed by me so that to solve the paradox is explained in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory.
When the paper How atomic nuclei cluster was published by Nature in 2012, I sent an email to that journal, asking an explanation for the paradox, since due to their ellipsoidal shape those nuclei could not have elec. quad. moment zero.
The nuclear theorist Martin Freer sent me a reply, giving the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book QRT. His explanation, like that published in the page 137 of my book, considers that the even-even nuclei with Z=N have rotation in the ground state.
Therefore, according to Martin Freer and the nuclear theorists authors of the paper published by Nature, the even-nuclei with Z=N have rotation in the ground state.
However to consider that those nuclei have rotation in the ground state introduces a new paradox in the Standard Nuclear Physics. Because due to the electric charge of the protons, a magnetic moment is induced by their rotation, and therefore those nuclei cannot have null nuclear magnetic moment. But the experiments have detected that they have zero magnetic moment.
Therefore, by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics is impossible to solve the puzzle.
The puzzle can be solved only by considering the new structure of the proton formed by three fields, as shown in my paper “Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism (2015)”:
3- Ra224 pear shape paradox
Even-even nuclei with Z and N different also cannot have rotation at the ground state, because they have null magnetic moment. But an experiment made in the Liverpool University is suggesting that they have rotation, because the nucleus Ra224 has a pear shape impossible to be explained by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics.
Trying to solve the puzzle, Prof. Butler of the Liverpool University suggested that there is a z-axis dividing the nuclei. However, the puzzle remains, because other question cannot be anwered: why are the even-even nuclei divided by a z-axis? After all, there is not any law supported by the Standard Nuclear Model able to explain why they are divided by a z-axis.
The existence of the z-azis suggested by Prof. Butler is predicted in the page 133 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, where it is written the following concerning the distribution of protons and neutrons within the atomic nuclei:
“The distribution about the z-axis is
a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”
See: 'Pear-Shaped Nucleus Boosts Search for Alternatives to "Standard Model" Physics
4- Puzzle of the Rossi-Effect
As is known, from the laws of the Standard Nuclear Model is impossible the cold fusion occurrence.
Neverthless the cold fusion phenomenon known as “Rossi-Effect” was confirmed by three universities in Europe:
Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel
So, the experimental confirmation for cold fusion requires an explanation, and it is impossible to find it by considering the nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
The cold fusion occurrence is possible by considering the field model surrounding the proton, because when many protons (and neutrons) compose a nucleus the three fields surrounding that nucleus keep the same configuration like they have in the proton. For instance, the figure ahead shows the nucleus 2He4 surrounded by its three fields:
In the Standard Nuclear Model the cold fusion is impossible because it is considered that the electric field surrounding the nuclei is spherical. So, the energy necessary for a nucleon to enter is the same in any point of the Coulomb barrier, no matter the point where the nucleon tries to cross it.
The figure ahead shows what happens when we consider the new model of field composed by three fields:
a) In normal conditions, the Secondary field Sn(X) of a nucleus X has chaotic rotation. Thereby the Coulomb barrier is spherical (as considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics), and therefore in this normal conditions only hot fusion may occur.
b) But in special conditions, as occurs in the Rossi-Effect, the field Sn(X) of the nucleus X can be aligned toward the z-axis, and so the field Sn(X) stops to gyrate chaotically. The field Sn(X) starts to gyrate about the z-axis, and by this way cold fusion is possible to occur, because a nucleon can cross easily the Coulomb barrier of the nucleus X when the nucleon hits the Coulomb barrier moving along the z-axis.
The mechanisms for the cold fusion occurrence are shown in details in this paper:
Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered
5- The proton radius puzzle
Before 2010 the nuclear theorists were sure that proton’s size is the same under any condition, and it has an undeformable radius with length 0,87fm. But in 2010 the journal Nature has published a paper describing a new experiment made according to which the proton size can shrunken, and the new radius obtained was 0,84fm:
Shrunken proton baffles scientists
The nuclear theorists think the shrinkage can be due to errors in the measurement, and they hope to eliminate the controversy with the MUSE experiment, to be performed between 2016 and 2017. The MUSE experiment will be made with muons 200 times heavier than the electrons.
According to the new model of proton proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the radius of the proton depends on the intensity of the flux of gravitions crossing its body-ring.
As the muons to be used in the MUSE experiment are heavier than electrons, during the scattering proton-muon the flux of gravitions crossing the proton’s body-ring will be stronger, and it is expected that its radius can have a very big shrinkage.
In my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron, published in my book in 2006 (and also in the Journal of Nuclear Physics in 2011) it is calculated that the proton radius within the heavy nuclei has the order of 0,3fm , and so very shorter than the 0,87fm considered in the Standard Nuclear Model.
Anomalous mass of the neutron
In the case the MUSE experiments detect a proton radius very shorter than 0,87fm (for instance between 0,3fm and 0,6fm) such experimental result will reinforce the new structure of proton proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory. And obviously a proton radius obtained between 0,3fm and 0,6fm will represent the collapse of the Standard Model, requiring a New Physics with new principles missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
Several other unsolved puzzles of the Standard Nuclear Physics can be eliminated when we consider this new structure of the proton. But I hope the examples exhibited here were able to give a good idea on the merit of this new structure proposed for the proton.