Introduction to quantum ring theory

by Wladimir Guglinski
Mechanical Engineer graduated in the Escola de Engenharia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais- UFMG, (Brazil), 1973 author of the book Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion, published in 2006

1. The principal aim of Quantum Ring Theory

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) started to work in March 2010.  Most of the people believe that the main aim of the experiments made in the LHC is to confirm the superstring theory, the existence of the Higgs boson, and the Suppersymmetry (Susy).

But the principal aim of the LHC experiments is actually another one:  the aim is to confirm the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics.
Because if LHC confirms superstrings, Higgs boson, and Susy, this means that all the principles of Quantum Mechanics are correct, since those three theories were developed from the concepts of Quantum Mechanics.

All the current theories, as Quantum Field Theory, Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, Standard Model, etc., all they keep the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum Field Theory is the successor of Quantum Mechanics.  It was developed so that to  eliminate some inconsistencies of QM, in order to refine the theory.  But QFT keeps all the foundations of QM.

So, the confirmation of those three theories in the LHC will have for the theorists the following meaning: all the principles of QM are correct.  And this is actually the principal  objective why they built the LHC.

From the data collected along March and December 2010, the particles predicted in the Supersymmetry (Susy) would ougth to be already found.
But the LHC did find NOTHING of Susy predictions.

Some physicits already started to think that the LHC experiments will show the need of looking for a New Physics.
But the most physicists keep yet their hope to find evidences for the superstring, the Higgs boson, and Susy, when the LHC will work with its maximum power in 2014.

But the fact that they did not find evidences that confirm Susy along 2010 suggests that Supersymmetry actually does not exist.  And so, probably in 2014 they will find nothing again.

Therefore, probably in 2014 there will be a general consensus in the community of physicits:  the need of looking for a New Physics.

Nevertheless, having a consensus about the need of a New Physics, a fundamental question arises:

What sort of New Physics will it be?

Only two sort of New Physics are possible:

1- A New Physics that keeps all the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, as the physicists did along the development of Quantum Field Theory.

2- A New Physics that rejects some principles of Quantum Mechanics, replacing them by new ones.  Then such New Theory will be a rival of Quantum Field Theory, since it will be a candidate to be a new successor of Quantum Mechanics, with some of its principles replaced by new ones.

Then let’s analyse the two sort of New Physics.

1- Keeping the principles of QM – Along 100 years, thousand of theorists developed several theories based on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, which fundamental principles the scientific community now try to confirm in the LHC.
Then a question arises:  if they did not succeed to find a correct theory along 100 years under that way of keeping the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, is it reasonable to hope that they will succeed to find it in the next years, by continuing to keep those fundamental principles of QM not confirmed in the LHC?

2-  Rejecting and replacing some principles of QM –  OK, we realized that it makes no sense to keep all the principles of QM, since after 100 years of attempts, the LHC disproved such an effort, showing that the structure of our universe is not like predicted in the prevailing theories. Then there is need to look for a New Physics with new principles.

But then three questions arise:
– what sort of new principles must be adopted?
– what are the principles of Quantum Mechanics that need to be rejected?
– what are the new principles which would have to replace those ones rejected in QM?

This is the question.
The quantum theorists have no idea about such matter.

The principal aim of Quantum Ring Theory is just to show what fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics must be rejected, and what are the new principles that must replace them.

Quantum Ring Theory exhibits coherent arguments (sometimes they are irrefutable, like in the case of the Bohr successes, which require a new hydrogen atom different of that proposed in Quantum Mechanics), by showing what new principles must be incorporated in Quantum Mechanics, and why it’s indispensable to incorporate them.

2. The successes of Bohr

What is the meaning of the successes of Bohr ?

The successes of the Bohr theory are an indisputable proof on that something is wrong with the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

The most physicists have not knowledge of the meaning of the Bohr successes, because the most of them prefer to ignore its meaning, since it is a very unpleasant subject, inasmuch it points out a serious flaw of QM.

The first physicist to understand the true meaning of Bohr successes was Schrödinger.  In an article intitled On a Remarkable Property of the Quantum-Orbits of a Single Electron, while commenting on a factor calculated from a Bohr orbit which gave an impressive result, he wrote:
“It is difficult to believe that this result is merely an accidental mathematical consequence of the quantum conditions, and has no deeper physical meaning”
Why did Schrödinger say such a thing?
And why was so hard to him to believe that the impressive result of Bohr theory could be a single coincidence ?
And what would he want to say with “deeper physical meaning”?

Let’s talk about.

3. The mystery of the centripetal acceleration

In the Bohr hydrogen atom, the electron emits photons when it jumps from a energy level to another one.
In his calculation, Bohr considered that in the instant when the photons are emitted the electron is submitted to a centripetal acceleration.

The results of the Bohr theory are very impressive.
Actually, from the mathematical probability it’s IMPOSSIBLE that the successes of his theory may be simply accidental.

The conclusion is obvious:  as the centripetal acceleration plays a role in the Bohr calculus, it’s unequivocal that the centripetal acceleration has some connection with the mechanism which emits photons in the atom.

Then here is the mystery:
In the Quantum Mechanics the electron into the electrosphere cannot be submitted to a centripetal acceleration.
It’s easy to understand why, since the electron cannot have trajectory within the electrosphere.  Indeed, magine an electron that moves between two energy levels, in the hydrogen atom.  Well, it is submitted to the attraction with the proton.  If the electron should be moving between two points in the electrosphere, it would have to be accelerated (or slowed), and it would have to emit a continuous spectrum, according to Maxwell theory.  But the experiments show that it does not happen.

So we have the following situation:

1- For Quantum Mechanics to be 100% correct, it’s indispensable that there is no centripetal acceleration on the electron.

2- Therefore, for QM to be 100% correct, the Bohr theory must be 100% wrong.  Otherwise, if Bohr theory is not 100% wrong, then Quantum Mechanics cannot be 100% correct.

3- The Bohr model cannot be 100% wrong, because it is impossible, according to the mathematical probability

4- From the item 3 above, one concludes that centripetal acceleration on the electron really exists within the atom

5- First conclusion:
Quantum Mechanics cannot be 100% correct.
To be correct, QM requires that Bohr theory must be 100% incorrect.  In another words: to be correct, QM requires that a centripetal acceleration on the electron cannot exist.  And since Bohr theory shows that it exists, then something is missing in Quantum Mechanics.

6- Second conclusion:
A satisfactory model of hydrogen atom must consider the existence of a centripetal acceleration on the electron.  A theory on the hydrogem atom (unable to explain the existence of the centripetal acceleration on the electron) cannot be 100% correct.

The situation nowadays

As Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with the Bohr model, the physicists concluded that Bohr successes can be only consequence of a fantastic coincidence.
And it couldn’t be on another way.
If they should admit that Bohr successes are not accidental, the physicists would have to admit that Quantum Mechanics cannot be 100% correct, since it does not admit the electron to be submitted to a centripetal acceleration.

But from the mathematical probability it’s IMPOSSIBLE that Bohr successes can be a mere coincidence, as claim the community of physicists.
That’s what bothered so much Schrödinger.
He noted that some mystery was hidden in the Bohr theory.
The successes of his theory might not be result of mere coincidence.

But as always happens in the history of science, is often more convenient to avoid some thorny issues. And physicists prefer to ignore the mystery surrounding the theory of Bohr and quantum mechanics.

Fundamental premise to be filled by a new theory on hydrogen model

From the above, we realize that there is an indispensable premise to be filled:
Any theory on the hydrogen atom, in which the electron is NOT submitted to a centripetal acceleration, CANNOT be 100% correct
Suppose that the hydrogen model of Quantum Ring Theory is wrong.
However, any other theory which proposes a new hydrogen model, to be acceptable, must fill this fundamental premise:  it must consider the existence of the centripetal acceleration on the electron, and to explain its existence.

Let’s then see how Quantum Ring Theory explains the existence of the centripetal acceleration on the electron, when the atom emits photons.

4. How is the photon emitted in Quantum Ring Theory?In QRT the photon is emitted through a resonance process.
In Quantum Mechanics the photon is also emitted from a resonance process.

Therefore, QRT and QM agree on this point:  the photons are emitted by a resonance process.
In this point Quantum Mechanics is correct.
And in this point Bohr’s theory is wrong, because in his theory the photon is NOT emitted by a resonance process.

Some obvious questions:

1- Since Bohr theory is not correct (because it does not consider that photons are emitted by resonance), and since in his theory the centripetal acceleration plays some role in the instant of the photon emission, then how can his theory get so many fantastic successes ?
Answer:
You will understand it ahead, after get touch with the mechanism of photons emission proposed in QRT.

2- Since in Quantum Ring Theory the photon is emitted by resonance (as happens in Quantum Mechanics), and this one is the CORRECT mechanism of photons emission,  then how can the centripetal acceleration play some role in the photons emission?
Answer:
The centripetal acceleration does NOT play ANY role in the photons emission.  This is the error of the Bohr theory.
But there is, YES, a centripetal acceleration on the electron, in the instant when the photon is emitted.  In spite of such centripetal acceleration does not play any role in the process of photons emissions, nevertheless the centripetal acceleration really exists on the electron, in the instant when the atom emits photons.  According to Quantum Mechanics, this is impossible.  This is the error of Quantum Mechanics.

We will see ahead how Quantum Ring Theory solves such mystery of the existence of the centripetal acceleration on the electron, a mystery that Quantum Mechanics cannot explain.

5. Quantum Ring Theory: why was it developed?

In the book Quantum Physics by Eisberg and Resnick, they state that from the basis of the current Nuclear Physics there is no way to explain some ordinary nuclear phenomena:
“Though we dispose nowadays of a sufficient complete assembly of information about the nuclear forces, we realize that they are too much complexes, not having been possible up to now to use this acknowledge for building an extensive theory of the nuclei. In other words, we cannot explain the whole properties of nuclei in function of the properties of the nuclear forces that actuate on their protons and neutrons”.

So, as from the current foundations of Nuclear Physics some ordinary nuclear phenomena cannot be explained, it is reasonable to expect that such current foundations of Nuclear Physics cannot explain cold fusion too.   After all, since it is missing something fundamental in the current Nuclear Physics, probably it is just such lack of the theory that is missing for explaining cold fusion.
So, was QRT developed for the explanation of cold fusion?

No. When I started to develop my theory in 1990, I did not know cold fusion. I decided to look for new theoretical models because I realized at that time that the current theories cannot explain several ordinary phenomena. So, QRT was developed for the explanation of ordinary phenomena not explained by current Atomic and Nuclear Physics.
I discovered the existence of cold fusion only in the end of 1998, by reading a paper by Mike Carrell in Frontier Perspectives.  And when in 1999 I started to read about cold fusion in the Infinite Energy Magazine, I started to realize that from those models of mine, (developed for the explanation of ordinary phenomena not explained by current Nuclear Physics) cold fusion occurrence should be possible.
One of the fundamental backgrounds of Quantum Ring Theory is the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) of elementary particles. The zitterbewegung was discovered by Schrödinger, from his interpretation of the Dirac equation of the electron.
According to Quantum Ring Theory, the light is composed of photons constituted by a particle and its antiparticle, moving with helical trajectory.  These particle and antiparticle are formed by the constituents of the ether. The helical motion of the light was confirmed by an experiment published in Phys. Rev. Letters in July 2010, under the title “Unveiling a Truncated Optical Lattice Associated with a Triangular Aperture Using Light’s Orbital Angular Momentum”.

So, as an experiment confirmed the prediction of Quantum Ring Theory that photons have helical trajectory, there is a good reason to believe in the existence of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles in general.
But there are several other questions related to the helical trajectory.  For instance, from a hydrogen model composed by one electron that moves with helical trajectory in the electrosphere of the proton we can explain the existence of hydrinos, which is the subject of research by Randell Mills in BlackLight Power Inc.
Also, a question not explained by Quantum Mechanics: the motion of the electron  between energy levels in the electrosphere of atoms. An experiment made by the Nobel Laureate Hans Dehmelt showed that the electron moves between two points in the electrosphere of atoms.  But according to Quantum Mechanics the electron cannot move between two points in the electrosphere, and so the quantum theorists were obliged to deny Dehmelt experiment:  they claim that the atom is “dressed” in Dehmelt experiment, a sort of ad hoc solution adopted by quantum theorists every time when the theory is discredited by some experiment (as happened with cold fusion along 20 years).  In Quantum Ring Theory, thanks to its helical trajectory, the electron moves between the levels in the electrosphere, which is agree to the results of the Dehmelt experiment.

The helical trajectory is related to cold fusion too, because in QRT the neutron is composed by proton+electron.  Into the structure of the neutron the electron loses its helical trajectory, and the energy of the zitterbewegung is responsible for the excess energy that occurs in many cold fusion experiments, as for instance in the Conte-Pieralice experiment:  in their experiment the cathode was melt, a result not expected by them, since there was not (apparently) energy available for the electron to do it.
Quantum Ring Theory is rival of Quantum Field Theory.  The both theories were developed so that to eliminate some inconsistencies of Quantum Mechanics. So, they both are candidate to be a successor of QM.  The difference between QRT and QFT lies in their foundations:  while QFT keeps the foundations of QM, unlike QRT replaces some of them.

6. Helical trajectory within the hydrogen atom

As Quantum Mechanics, to be 100% correct, requires that Bohr theory must be 100% wrong, obviously the physicists have a paradox in their hand, because from the mathematical probability it’s impossible to consider Bohr’s successes as merely accidental.
The successes of Bohr theory are explained by considering the hydrogen model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, which shows that the centripetal acceleration on the electron exists, but it is not like Bohr imagined. The centripetal acceleration appears on the electron due to its helical trajectory.
The centripetal acceleration on the electron does NOT play a role in the mechanism of the photon emission, like Bohr wrongly supposed.
However, the centripetal acceleration exists, like Quantum Ring Theory shows, and Quantum Mechanics cannot explain its existence.  Nowadays, when the solution proposed in QRT for the paradox of Bohr successes is exhibited for a quantum theorist, he tries to hide from everybody that Quantum Ring Theory has solved the mystery, because the community of academic physicists try to hide from the people such disagreeable fact:  that Quantum Mechanics has several unacceptable paradoxes.
The solution of the paradox, explained by the hydrogen atom of Quantum Ring Theory, is shown in the two figures ahead.

Look at the figure 2.
Obviously there are many other mechanisms in such hydrogen model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.  For instance, there is a dilation in the space of the electrosphere of proton where the electron moves with helical trajectory.  Such density of the space is produced by the quantity of Dirac strings produced by the proton.

Thanks to such dilation, which changes the mass of the electron (with regard to the proton), the electron can move with constant speed into the electrosphere, when it jumps from two levels of energy (this explains the result obtained in the Dehmelt experiment), because the electron is submitted to two contrary and equal forces:  the force of attraction with the proton, and a force of repulsion due to the dilation of the space.  So, its null the resultant of forces on the electron, when it moves radially within the electrosphere.

Also, there is a mechanism which explains why the electron jumps from no consecutive levels.

But let’s see why the centripetal acceleration do exists, as shown in the figure 2.
The atom emits photons when the distance REM (radius of emission) gets resonance with the density of Dirac strings into the elecrosphere (when it moves in radial direction into the electrosphere, the electron crosses such strings).

Looking at the figure 2, we see that the electron is submitted to a centripetal acceleration due to its helical trajectory.  Such centripetal acceleration does not play any role in the resonance between the electron and the Dirac strings (of the proton).  But due to a coincidence, the radius of the electron’s helical trajectory is the same radius considered by Bohr in his calculus.  Other coincidence is the fact that the force on the electron due to its helical trajectory is equal the force of attraction proton-electron, considered by Bohr.  The radius of Bohr is also equal the radius of the electron’s orbit in the helical trajectory.
Thanks to this series of coincidences, the Bohr theory is able to yield those fantastic successes, in spite of his model is wrong.

7. The accordion effect

Let’s now speak a little about the new nuclear model proposed in QRT, named Hexagonal Floors Model.
Look at figure 3. In the center of the nuclei there is a nucleon 2He4.  It produces gravitational Dirac strings (they are a flux of gravitons). They form the principal field of the nuclei. Each string captures protons, or neutrons, or deuterions.  The figure ahead shows a nucleus 8O16, with its central 2He4 which forms the Dirac strings f1 , f2 , f3 , f4,  f5, f6 , and each one of those strings capture one deuterium.  In the oxygen nuclei there is one complete hexagonal floor.
The existence of the Dirac strings is corroborated by an experiment published in the end of 2009:

See link

Of course the real hexagonal floor existing in Nature is not flat as shown in the figure.  Due to repulsions between the deuterium nucleons, there is an oscillatory motion of them with regard to the central 2He4.

In the figure 3, there are another Dirac strings: in blue collor.  They form a Coulombic field, which is induced by the rotation of the principal field.  It is named secondary field.  Its blue strings are not gravitational.  They are formed by a flux of electric particles of the ether.

The figure 4 shows a nucleus with 7 complete hexagonal floors.  The distance between the hexagonal floors, indicated by Dd, has contraction and expansion, a phenomenon named Accordion Effect, because the hexagonal floors behave like if they should be the bellows of an accordion.

The Accordion Effect explains a property of some nuclei, like the U238.  It has 92 protons (pair) and 146 neutrons (also pair).  The U238 changes its shape, from a ellipsoid in the horizontal to an ellipsoid in the vertical, and the changing in the diameter is 30% .  There is no way to explain such big changing through the models of current Nuclear Physics, because having a number pair of protons (92) and a number pair of neutrons (146) the nucleus has a symmetry, and its expansion-contraction would have to occur in all the radial directions (according to Nuclear Physics).  So, the contraction-expansion of the U238 ought to be spherical, according to Nuclear Physics, and not elliptical as the experiments show.  If the distribution of protons and neutrons should be like predicted in current Nuclear Physics, the growth of the radius of the 92U238 ought to be in all directions, and not in one preferential direction, as really happens.
Looking at the nuclear model proposed in QRT, with several hexagonal floors, we realize that its contraction-expansion must occur in a preferential direction, like happens with the U238.
The distribution of nucleons in the nuclear model of QRT is AXIAL (it has a preferential direction, consequence of the fact that protons and neutrons are captured by the Dirac strings produced by the central 2He4).
The distribution of nucleons in the nuclear models of Nuclear Physics is RADIAL (that’s why those models are unable to explain that dilation of the 92U238).

It’s reasonable to suppose that such accordion-effect can influence in the cold fusion reactions, by considering a resonance between the contraction-expansion of the distance Dd of some nuclei (as the Pd in the lattice) and the oscillations of deuterium nuclei (of the heavy water used in the electrolityc cell) due to the zero-point energy, when the oscillation of the Pd nuclei are aligned with the oscillation of deuterium nucleons due to the zero point energy.  Such alignment can be get, for instance, with an external magnetic field applied externally to the vessel.  Obviously a suitable laser can help the resonance, as occurred in the Lets-Cravens experiment, since the frequency of the laser can enter in resonance with the oscillation of the Pd nuclei and deuterium nucleons.

As said, the secondary field of nuclei is responsible for the Coulombic repulsions.  So, the fusion of two nuclei depends on the energy enough to pierce the two secondary fields of the two nuclei.  This is what occurs in hot fusion.

But in cold fusion probably there is no need to pierce the secondary field.  That’s because  in the secondary field there is a lack, as shown in the figure 5.  This “hole” is consequence of the way in which the secondary field is formed:  it is induced by the principal field, and it’s impossible a formation of the Dirac strings without having a hole.
This “hole” in the secondary fields of nuclei explains a paradox in Nuclear Physics: an alfa particle 2He4 can leave the 92U238 with energy 4MeV, in spite of the energy required for trespass the Coulombic barrier is 8MeV (100% stronger than 4MeV).  They call it tunneling effect.  The physicists wrongly believe that Gamow had explained the paradox of 92U328.  However the Gamow explanation introduces another unacceptable paradox, as shown in Quantum Ring Theory.  And so he solved a paradox by introducing another unacceptable paradox.
Besides, the tunneling effect is able to make a particle to trespass a barrier which energy is 30% , 40 % or at maximum 50% stronger then the energy of the particle.  But a barrier 100% stronger cannot be crossed, as happens in the 92U238.  The paradox of 2He4 emission by the 92U238 must to be explained by considering the hole in the secondary field of the 92U238 nuclei, as considered in Quantum Ring Theory.

Look at the figure 3 again.  As the Dirac strings are formed by gravitons, then such strings would have to attract one each other, and they could not have the distribution shown in the figure 3.  Instead of being distributed symmetrically about the central 2He4, the strings should have to be concentrated all them in one side.
In QRT it’s proposed that the ether is filled by electric particles e(+) and e(-), magnetic particles m(+) and m(-), and gravitational particles g(+) and g(-).  But there are also REPULSIVE gravitational particles G(+) and G(-), and they are responsible for the symmetrical distribution of the Dirac strings in the electrosphere of the proton, since they avoid that two gravitational Dirac strings attract one each other.

So, according to Quantum Ring Theory, into the hydrogen atom (and any atom) there are repulsive gravitons, and they cause the expansion of the proton’s electrosphere.

Such repulsive gravity exists within the structure of the photon too.  It explains why the particle and the antiparticle into the photon’s structure do not annihilate one each other.
The figure bellow shows the particle and antiparticle surrounded by repulsive gravitational particles of the ether.  The particle and antiparticle move with helical trajectory, in contrary directions.

8. The evolution of Physics

As one may realize, these strange conditions into the hydrogen atom, as the helical trajectory of the electron, as the expansion of the proton and electron electrospheres, as the changing of the electron’s inertia with regard to the proton, and as the repulsive gravity, all together these strange conditions are responsible for an exotic behavior of the atom.  That’s why the physicists did never understand its paradoxical behavior.

In October 2008 the Brazillian publishing house Editora Bodigaya published my book entitled “A Evolução da Mecânica Quântica – o duelo Schrödinger versus Heisenberg”.  The Telesio Galilei Academy of Science intended to publish it in Europe, in 2009, having a partnership with a publishing house in London.  It would be published with the title “The Missed U-Tur – the duel Schrödinger versus Heisenberg”.  Unfortunatelly the publishing house faced troubles due to the financial crisis in 2008, and closed its doors, so  the book was not published in Europe.

The book reports to the lay man the duel between Schrödinger and Heisenberg, concerning the helical trajectory (a duel which the academicians hide from everybody, and even the most physicists do not know about such duel).  Ahead is a stretch of the book, where I speak about the meaning of the Schrödinger Equation, connected to the true mechanisms of the atom’s working, discovered by me in 2004:

After discovering the mechanisms and laws that rule the behavior of electrons that move in helical trajectories in the hydrogen atom, I started to think about finding the mathematical equation that describes this model.  This wasn’t an easy task, because it involved complex phenomena, such as the contraction of the ether, the zoom-effect, and having two potentials that attract the electron, one being the proton and the other being the center of the helical trajectory.  Finally, I realized that the equation describing this complex motion of the electron in the hydrogen atom has been found already; it is the Schrödinger equation.
As starting point, Schrödinger gained inspiration from the equation Bohr obtained for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.  Without knowing the true mechanism, shown here, by which the electron interacts with the proton in the hydrogen atom, he succeeded in finding the equation that describes the electron’s behavior. Schrödinger started from some properties inherent to the helical trajectory, such as the wave-particle duality expressed by the de Broglie equation λ=h/p, and, by speculating on the form of the differential equation that the wave should have, he arrived at the final form of his famous equation, which gives the energy levels of an atom when it emits photons.  The Schrödinger equation involves the use of imaginary numbers.  An imaginary number is the square root of a negative number and, therefore, the square of an imaginary number is a negative number.  This use of an imaginary number in Schrödinger’s equation reflects the complexity of the mechanisms to which the electron is subject in the hydrogen atom:  the contraction of the space, the zoom-effect, the loss of inertia when the electron moves away from the proton, etc.  Actually, one has to be amazed by the path followed to achieve this scientific discovery, since Schrödinger discovered his equation in the 1930’s and the true meaning of his equation, which connects his equation to physical reality, was discovered only in 2004.

Other book of mine that Telesio Galilei Academy of Science intended to publish in 2009 in Europe was “The Evolution of Physics- the duel Newton versus Descartes”. In this book it’s shown that the evolution of Physics was occurred switching two methods of investigation:  one used by Descartes, and other used by Newton.  Sometimes the Newton method failed, and was replaced by the method of Descartes. For instance, the method used by Bohr, when he discovered his hydrogen model, was the method used by Descartes.  Before Bohr, the physicist Voight tried to use the Newtonian method for the discovery of  a model of atom, and the Newtonian method used by he has failed. So, the Newtonian method was not efficient for the discovery of the laws discovered later by Bohr.  However, the success of Bohr was partial, that is, after an initial success of the Descartes method used by Bohr, the method failed, because Bohr model was not correct. He discovered some correct laws, but not all the correct laws. Then Schrödinger applied the Newtonian method again, and made some corrections in the Bohr model. However, Schrödinger also failed, because he did not discovered all the correct laws into the atom, and therefore the Newtonian method has failed again with Schrödinger. Finally, the Descartes method was used again in the development of Quantum Ring Theory, and the true laws were finally discovered.
So, the evolution of Physics occurs by the alternation of the Descartes and Newton methods, and we are now in a stage that requires the use of the Newtonian method to be applied again on the discoveries proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, which were found thanks to the use of the Descartes method.  This new stage is required because the Newtonian method, used by the theorists along the 20th Century, has failed.  The Newtonian method used in the 20th Century was successful for the development of technology, but the method has failed for the discovery of the true laws of Nature.
Magnetic motors and cold fusion are evidence of the failure of Newton’s method.
Here is a stretch of the book:

Let us see the stages followed in the development of the model of atom.

STAGES ALREADY READY:
Stage 1 – First Voigt failed when applying the Newtonian method.
Stage 2 – After that Bohr was succeeded partially by applying the cartesian method.  In this way, he discovered some fundamental mechanisms of the atom, like the emission of photons when the electron changes from one orbit to another.  The cartesian method failed but opened a new path for the application of the Newtonian method starting from Bohr’s discoveries.
Stage 3 – Schrödinger applied the Newtonian method again.  He obtained a partial success and the method of Newton failed again, as shown by the successes of Bohr and the Dehmelt experiment.

What comes later must be anticipated by the reader.  For achieving total success, there are two stages missing needed for concluding the process.

STAGES MISSING:
Stage 4 – Re-apply the cartesian method in order to discover what is missing in Quantum Mechanics, in a process similar to that used by Bohr.
Stage 5 – Re-apply the Newtonian method after stage 4, by applying the mathematical formalism for confirming the discoveries made in stage 4.

At the present moment, we are in stage 4.  What is missing in Quantum Mechanics is shown in the new model of the atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.  It is still missing stage 5.

The hydrogen model of QRT explains several paradoxes of QM.  For instance, according to the Schrödinger Equation, when the electron moves in the fundamental status within the hydrogen atom, its orbit is purely radial.  This means that the electron trespasses directly through into the nucleus (proton) and the oscillation occurs in any direction in space.  Obviously such motion is very strange, since the electron passes into the proton’s body, which is an absurd.

But look at the figure 6 what happens, by considering the model where the electron moves with helical trajectory about the proton, in the fundamental status:

  • The real motion into the atom: the electron (green) moves about the proton with helical trajectory traveling the trajectory 1-2-3-4-5—6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17
  • The interpretation of the motion according to the Schrödinger Equation: such a motion looks like if the electron should be traveling the trajectory:
    (1-2) => (16-17)
    so, apparently , trespassing into the proton (the trajectory in red).

9. Cold fusion requires a New Physics

The book “Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion” was published in 2006.  After its publication, the cold fusion researchers neglected the theory, because of the strategy explained ahead.
Since 1989 when it was announced by Fleischmmann and Pons, the cold fusion researchers have along the years hoped to get funds from the governments of several countries, so that to continue the development of the cold fusion technology. But a cold fusion reaction is not possible according to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and so a cold fusion technology would require a New Physics for its development.  It would be so hard to get funds for developing a technology impossible to occur (according to the current theories), which would require a New Physics.  Then the cold fusion researchers replaced the name “cold fusion” by LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), and started to claim that:
a)  it actually was not cold fusion
b) there was no need of a New Physics for its explanation

Well, the cold fusion technology developed by Eng. Andrea A. Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi is ready, and the cold fusion reactors are ready to be sold.  They don’t need funds from the governments for the development of the technology.  Therefore there is no need to avoid the correct name for the phenomenon, which is cold fusion, because there are two facts that show that it is indeed a fusion:  the transmutation of elements, and the emission of neutrons above the background of neutrons.  And since it occurs under conditions of room pressure and low temperature, then of course it is cold fusion.

Besides, the experiments in the LHC are already showing that something is wrong with the current theories (from the data collected in 2010, the Supersymmetry would have to be confirmed, but the experiments have found nothing).  Some physicists already are saying that LHC will show the need of a New Physics.  And so, if there is need of a New Physics for the LHC, then why not a New Physics for explaining cold fusion too?

Quantum Ring Theory is a New Physics.  And probably the principles proposed in the theory are those ones which will bring the explanation for cold fusion.
Perhaps the foundations proposed in Quantum Ring Theory are wrong, and then another New Physics must be found.

Nevertheless, no matter what is the New Physics that will be found (in the hypothesis that QRT is wrong), such New Physics will have to satisfy some conditions already shown in QRT.  For instance, the new hydrogen model of the New Physics must be able to explain the successes of Bohr (and the existence of the centripetal acceleration on the electron).
A New Physics cannot live together with paradoxes again, as happened along the 20th Century.

Some experiments are suggesting that Quantum Ring Theory is correct.  We can mention for instance the Dehmelt experiment, the Borghi and Conte-Pierlice experiments, and that recent experiment which confirmed the helical trajectory of the photon, published in July-2010.

There are many other experiments suggesting that QRT is right.  Of course there is need a lot of more strong evidences so that to confirm the theory. But what will decide either the theory is correct, or wrong, is the investigation and the submission of its models to experiments.

by Wladimir Guglinski

The figure 4 shows a nucleus with 7 complete hexagonal floors. The distance between the hexagonal floors, indicated by Dd, has contraction and expansion, a phenomenon named Accordion Effect, because the hexagonal floors behave like if they should be the bellows of an accordion.

The Accordion Effect explains a property of some nuclei, like the U238. It has 92 protons (pair) and 146 neutrons (also pair). The U238 changes its shape, from a ellipsoid in the horizontal to an ellipsoid in the vertical, and the changing in the diameter is 30% . There is no way to explain such big changing through the models of current Nuclear Physics, because having a number pair of protons (92) and a number pair of neutrons (146) the nucleus has a symmetry, and its expansion-contraction would have to occur in all the radial directions (according to Nuclear Physics). So, the contraction-expansion of the U238 ought to be spherical, according to Nuclear Physics, and not elliptical as the experiments show. If the distribution of protons and neutrons should be like predicted in current Nuclear Physics, the growth of the radius of the 92U238 ought to be in all directions, and not in one preferential direction, as really happens.

Looking at the nuclear model proposed in QRT, with several hexagonal floors, we realize that its contraction-expansion must occur in a preferential direction, like happens with the U238.

57 comments to Introduction to quantum ring theory

  • Valeria Treiber

    Dear Andrea:
    The Hot Cat you are testing now is much different from the one tested in Lugano by the indepoendent third party?
    Valeria Teiber

  • @cipri,

    1. Why do you react anonymously (you don’t give your full name) and don’t you react here, and write what’s wrong with it.

    2. You also wrote: ‘Then when I further see that the author is a mechanical engineer, then one can really start to become worried. In normal case even the experimental physicists don’t have the mathematical skills to set up a good theory. (Not by accident galileo, newton, dirac, etc… were mathematicians), and mechanical engineer have in normal case even less mathematical skills, and this very visible through all the papers.’

    Well, I can tell you this: In Belgium and for many people of my generation (I am born in 1958), the best students in physics and mathematics (in secondary schools and at the age of 18) were advised to become civil engineers (which in Belgium and probably many other countries was a very high level university study), and at that time many of the best students (in physics and mathematics) followed that advise and that direction. And I can imagine that for Brazil and many other countries this was the same. (For Russia, at that time still the Soviet Union, I don’t know…)

    3. Unfortunately, many good mathematicians became active in the financial world, isn’t it? 😉

    4. People like A. Rossi follow a Galilean approach, have their own theory and come to good results.

  • cipri

    To Wladimir Guglinski:
    I’m very sceptical when I see somebody writing things like “100% wrong”. Can something be just 90% wrong? Perhaps I missed something at my mathematical logic classes.
    When I see the papers published about the “quantum ring theory”, which are mostly just a collection of colorful pictures and some calculations of pre-highschool-level, then I’m really wondering. This seems to be a theory based on pictures.
    Then when I further see that the author is a mechanical engineer, then one can really start to become worried. In normal case even the experimental physicists don’t have the mathematical skills to set up a good theory. (Not by accident galileo, newton, dirac, etc… were mathematicians), and mechanical engineer have in normal case even less mathematical skills, and this very visible through all the papers. How great you, you have a quantum-gravity-theory, which needs just primary-school mathematical methods. Now much is missing, and you could teach this theory in the kindergarden.

  • Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

    QRM seems to near the theory of Stoyan Sarg Sargoythev (York University Toronto, Canada) : “Building Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”: http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0043v2.pdf

    Am I Wrong ?

    Sincerely
    OA

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    @ Wladimir Guglinski,

    Although I have a university degree (UG, Belgium) in electro-mechanical engineering (with specialisation in energy-technology), I did not have QM-theory in my curriculum (only ‘engineers in physics’ got QM-theory in their curriculum), but I was theoretically very strong and had good results.

    So, this evening, I quickly went trough this interesting introduction (as a start reading the theoretical articles on this blog ;-), and I have following questions:

    1. First see what you wrote below Fig2: (point 2)

    ‘Looking at the figure 2, we see that the electron is submitted to a centripetal acceleration due to its helical trajectory. Such centripetal acceleration does not play any role in the resonance between the electron and the Dirac strings (of the proton). But due to a coincidence, the radius of the electron’s helical trajectory is the same radius considered by Bohr in his calculus. Other coincidence is the fact that the force on the electron due to its helical trajectory is equal the force of attraction proton-electron, considered by Bohr. The radius of Bohr is also equal the radius of the electron’s orbit in the helical trajectory.
    Thanks to this series of coincidences, the Bohr theory is able to yield those fantastic successes, in spite of his model is wrong.’

    So you wrote:

    Other coincidence is the fact that the force on the electron due to its helical trajectory is equal the force of attraction proton-electron

    And here my question: I would expect that ‘the force of the attraction by the proton on the electron’, which is mainly due to the opposing electrical loads (Coulomb), is much stronger than ‘the force on the electron due to its helical trajectory’ (because the mass of the electron is very low), so are you sure that the above statement is right?

    2. I wonder what would be the result, if we just would apply the macroscopic (and ordinary and wellknown) laws of Coulomb (the force of attraction between opposite electrical loads is proportional to the product of the electrical loads, and reverse proportional with the square of the distance) and of gravity (the same but using the masses of the particles), and this applied to the simple model of a hydrogen atom (1 proton and 1 electron)? (Electrical force being stronger in this case, because the mass of the electon is very low). Certainly, because the two forces increase at smaller distances, the speed of the electron would increase on lower shells, making the very small mass of the electron becoming important at very low distance… 😉

    Anyhow, in the past I already read part of your responses, and I found them very interesting!

    Kind Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Luizz Carlos:
    You can send it to
    info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • luiz carlos

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi would like to know how to send a file theory about cold fusion. Thank you.

  • Silvio Caggia

    Dear Wladimir,
    how does QRT model explain CIRCULAR polarization of light?
    I find the modern phisics explanation of circular polarization not clear for me (I am a layman!) but I suppose that you can give a more intuitive one in QRT.
    regards
    Silvio

  • Silvio Caggia

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    I am only a curious, I am just starting reading about your Quantum Ring Theory, but I feel very interesting the helical trajectory of particles.
    I wonder if this trajectory can explains the “Dirac three polarizers experiment” in a “phisical” (intuitive) way instead of a only “mathematical” (probabilistic) way. Can you address me how?
    Sorry for my english!
    Silvio

  • Richard

    Hi Mr.Guglinski , it could be interesting to read : http://theresonanceproject.org/research/scientific
    The Schwarzschild Proton, by Nassim Haramein

    and to see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgII_4ciFU

    (particle-antiparticle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lggn6rbqPA4

  • Hamdi Ucar

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

    Inspired by the electron model proposed by J G Williamson and M B van der Mark, “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” *, I figured out that if an additional rotational axis added to such a structure, it could be possible to explain electron pairings observed in superconductors by the mechanism of attractive magnetic forces overcoming Coulomb forces when electrons are synchronized. For this, I hypothesized the real magnetic dipole of the electron would significantly larger than the observed one because the dipole is rotating and effectively cancelling its interaction to external steady magnetic forces depending the angle between of the dipole axis and the rotation axis. In this scheme, it seems to me it is possible to describe singlet and triplet pairing by different synchronized rotational topologies of paired electrons by a simple substitution of electrons by rotating magnets (with charge). May the original model and my proposal have difficulties, but still may have some contributions to New Physics.

    (*)http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf

    Thanks,
    Hamdi Ucar

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Greg:
    Very nice !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    You are very good in this science and I am sure you are making very good things. I am sure you are among those who are or will be able to replicate my effect studying the patent.
    Warmest Regards, my friend. And a hug to Brazil!
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi

    in my paper it’s suggested the element to be the best catalyzer for your E-Cat.
    In the case the element suggested by my paper is the most important element used as catalyzer in your E-Cat, you can publish the paper with the following note:

    NOTE of the editor:
    Guglinski’s paper suggests correctly the principal element used as catalyzer in the E-Cat.
    However, as Andrea Rossi did not get yet the patent for the E-Cat in USA, the element will not be revealed in the paper here published.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    Thank you very much, I read your paper and is very interesting, as well as all your work. I just can’t push, but we will publish it.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi
    I did not give the copyright to Peswiki.

    I give my authorization to publish my paper ”How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment” in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    We have your paper in the list of articles to be published, it is just in line. Of course you can publish it where you want, can we publish it all the same when we will be ready, or you gave the copyright?
    We need again your authorization to publish.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,
    as you decided do not publish in your blog my paper ”How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment”, then I will publish it in the Peswiki website.

    I think its publication in Peswiki will not cause any inconvenience to you.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  • GCV

    Re: my previous message.

    Let me point out that, according to this article:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/25/electrons-round-cosmos

    “What’s interesting is that the electron is so round it is becoming difficult for theories like supersymmetry to explain it,” said Hudson, whose finding ALREADY rules out the existence of some supersymmetric particles. … The findings, published in the journal Nature, already rule out some kinds of particles that theories suggested could pop into existence at the Large Hadron Collider at Cern, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva.

    Best regards.

  • GCV

    Dear Eng. Guglinski,

    may perhaps be of some interest to you the recent findings of Jony Hudson (ImperialCollege, London) and Aaron E. Leanhardt (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) about the spherical shape of the electron and the absence of electron’s electric dipole moment, which – at least at the current state-of-the-art experimental precision – seem to work against the supersymmetry theory.

    Best regards.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7348/full/nature10104.html

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sa=X&ei=BJwdTs-cDo7o-gbB7-n9CA&ved=0CBcQvgUoAA&q=hudson+leanhardt+electron&nfpr=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1265&bih=619#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&source=hp&q=hudson+leanhardt+electron&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=hudson+leanhardt+electron&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=967aeee84d430ddb&biw=1265&bih=619

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    In Quantum Ring Theory is proposed a model of neutron n=p+e formed by a proton+electron (actually it is a quark model of neutron, which structure is n=[u,d,u-e] , where the electron is tied to the quark up of proton through the spin-fusion mechanism, proposed by Guglinski in QRT.

    There are several restrictions against the Guglinski’s model n=p+e. All of them were overcome in his paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron, which starts in the page 95 of the book Quantum Ring Theory.

    But one of the Guglinski’s hypothesis was met with an insurmountable resistance by physicists…

    He proposed that Planck’s constant is not a limit for the smallest quantum of energy. A reviewer of a peer review journal of Nuclear Physics rejected Guglinski’s paper with the following 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”.

    According to Quantum Mechanics, Guglinski’s model ‘n=p+e’ is impossible, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty, as explained ahead:

    1- Heisenberg’s relation is: Δx.Δp > ħ

    2- Into the structure n=p+e , the electron would have to be confined into a potential well with depth U= 180GeV , if we must apply the Heisenberg relation. And then it would require a kind of force thousands of times stronger than the nuclear force, in order to keep the electron into the structure n=p+e.

    In the page 99 of the book QRT, Guglinski writes:
    ====================================
    First of all, let us remember that Planck’s constant h=6,6×10(-34)J-s has electromagnetic origin, since he made his experiments with photons into a black body. However, 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 0,1MeV. So, we get:
    Hg = 1,3×10(-37)J-s
    The unique way to explain the structure n=p+e, obtained by experiments, is through the adoption of the following hypthesis:
    for a potential well with a<1fm , Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
    is Δx.Δp ~ Hg , where Hg=1,3×10(-37)J-s is the
    gravitational quantum of energy
    =====================================

    First of all, we have to consider that obviously the fundamental quantum energy in nature must be connected to the underlying quantum 'graininess' of space, since the space [quantum vaccuum] is filled with energy, according to Quantum Mechanics.

    A new experiment has shown that any underlying quantum 'graininess' of space must be at much smaller scales than previously predicted:
    Constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation using integral/IBIS observations of GRB041219A
    Phys. Rev. D 83, 121301(R) (2011) [5 pages]
    http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v83/i12/e121301

    Dr. Laurent, leader of the astronomical observation, said:
    =======================================
    ”Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the ‘Planck scale’: the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m.

    However, Integral’s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller.

    “This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories”
    =======================================
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/integral-challenges-physics-beyond.html

    So, this new experiment is suggesting that current theories are wrong, and Quantum Ring Theory is correct.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Luiz Carlos de Almaida:
    Thank you for your attention. Of course we are interested to receive your theory, please send it as a comment to this blog, if you like, or to my personal email address
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    About the commercialissues, please contact us in November.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Luiz Carlos de Almeida

    Professor Andrea Rossi, I’m Brazilian, I Physics at the University of Brasilia – UnB, Brazil and the Brazilian government work. I was delighted with the E-cat. I realize when it will be important for clean energy and development of the world. For about three years I have a physical theory that would explain the event with many merits you’re getting, which is cold fusion. I have so much interest in the subject you want to know if your company has great interest in any here in Brazil to represent their cold fusion reactor?
    I would also like to know if you’ll enteressaria to receive a file with this theory that I am stating to you?
    My sincere thanks.

  • My working principle is the same!
    …made the discovery related to thermonuclear fusion in the Sun. Explanatory comments can be found at http://n-t.ru/tp/ie/ts.htm and at http://thermonuclear.ucoz.com/. It is the nature of solar nuclear fusion seen from a new perspective. The said discovery offers answers to all theoretical challenges of thermonuclear fusion in the Sun, and – which is more important – technical solution to design of controlled thermonuclear reactor capable of running for a long time. Owing to this discovery even TOKAMAKs could be operable soon, provided they are supplemented with apparatus maintaining the necessary physical conditions for controlled nuclear fusion.

  • raul heining

    Dear Wladimir,
    I do not know that book. Once again, it is only a question of language. If you avoid calling the
    metric the ether than you avoid some misunderstanding of the own metric which serves to calculate
    length of vectors and distances. In reality, it is not a medium like water or air. As for Bohr, he himself never understood the quantization rules for the energy levels. It was de Broglie which
    proposed the duality particle/wave that deduced this result considering the analogy with the modes
    of a vibrating string.
    Regards
    raul

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    New experiment corroborates the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory

    The experiment:
    Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract

    The photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory is composed by two corpuscles – a particle and its antiparticle – which move with helical trajectory.

    Quantum Ring Theory proposes that all the elementary particles move with helical trajectory, which is responsible for the wave feature of matter.
    Along the 20th Century it was considered that matter has a duality wave-particle, supposedly confirmed in some experiments with the electron, as the double-slit experiment.

    When the electron crosses one unique slit, it behaves as a particle.
    When the electron crosses two slits, it behaves as a wave.

    According to Quantum Ring Theory, in the double-slit experiment the helical trajectory is the responsible for the electron’s wave behavior: when the electron crosses the two slits, it has interference with its own helical trajectory.

    Now the physicist Aephraim Steinberg , from the Toronto University-Canada- made the double-slit experiment with photons, and the results show that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, while Quantum Ring Theory is correct, because:

    1- 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.

    2- Unlike, as Quantum Ring Theory considers that the wave-particle duality is consequence of the helical trajectory, then the particle can have interference with its own helical trajectory when it crosses a slit.
    So, according to QRT, the quantum particle can behave as a wave and as a particle as the same time.

    In the Steinberg 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.

    So, the experiment corroborates the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory, while it contradicts a fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics, according to which a quantum particle cannot behave at the same time as a wave and as a particle

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Raul wrote:

    1) If you call this ether it is only a question of words.
    Raul,
    I am not the one who is calling it ether. The person who callet it ether was the own Einstein.

    Einstein proposed two different sort of ethers between 1918 and 1955, according to Kostro:

    • The aether for the special relativity: “The related aether is rigid, flat and infinite. Its metric is pseudo-Euclidean”

    • The aether for the general relativity: “This aether is no longer rigid and flat. Its metric is pseudo-Riemannian”

    Kostro L. , 1988, Einstein’s New Conception of the Ether, Proc. Conference “Physical Foundations of Relativity Theory”, Imperial College, London , M.C. Duffy, British Soc. for the Philosophy of Science

    2) ” Bohr did not really have a theory.”

    Dear Raul,
    Bohr had yes a theory, and his theory works through some fundamental principles of atom.

    Their are so fundamental that they were even kept in the atom model of Quantum Mechanics:
    the atom emits photons when the electron exchanges its position between to energy levels.
    Such mechanism of atom’s emission is kept in Quantum Mechanics.

    If Bohr did not discover his hydrogen model of atom, Schrodinger would never have discovered his equation

  • raul heining

    Dear Wladimir
    In the theory of general relativity einstein did not propose an ether. Whot he said is that
    the space time has a geometry determined by the metrics where light moves in null geodesics and particles
    in general geodesics. This gemetry or metrics is made taking account of all the sourses of fields, be it
    gravitational or electromagnetic. If you call this ether it is only a question of words. Bohr did not really have a theory, in fact he developed with sommerfeld an empiric model but the theory was not understood untill de Brogli and his relations. If you say that the wave nature is due to the helical movement of particles according to Dirac’s equation you will probably have problems relating to supperposition principle and spin. In reallity, Dirac’s equation is the shrodinger equation taking in account realativity, whitch ofcourse has brought very important results like antiparticles.
    Regards
    raul

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear raul heining
    I did not see your comment earlier, so I’m replying it now.

    You wrote:

    1) “Einstein developed special relativity to make the maxwell equations invariant in a Galilean transformation. The Michelson -Morley failed to show the light speed in aether because there is no aether.”

    Raul,
    your problem is because you are thinking in the ether of the 19th century. That ether was lumiferous, and it was a WRONG concept of ether.

    According to the wrong lumiferous ether concept, the light should be the propagation of a disturbance in a medium, like the propagation of waves in the surface of a lake.

    When Michelson made his experiment, trying to detect the ether, he made the following question to his experiment: “is there a lumiferous ether filling the space?”
    And the experiment replied to him: “No, there is not a lumiferous”.
    However, the experiment did not reply to him: “No, there is not an ether filling the space”.

    Even Einstein, after 1916, tried to bring back to Physics the concept of ether.
    Please read the book “Einstein, his Life and Universe”, by Walter Isaacson, where he tells that Einstein arrived to the following conclusion: the general relativity requires a space filled with ether.

    The ether considered in Quantum Ring Theory is NO-lumineferous. The photon model proposed in QRT does not move in the ether like a wave in the surface of a lake.

    2) ” When reading your article I noticed that you take centrifugal force and the force between the proton and the electron as two different things when in reality is only a question of reference that is, when you are in the laboratory system you only need to consider the electric force from the proton in the electron to consider the circular movement”

    Dear Raul,
    the centrifugal force actually does not exist. I used that description only as a way so that to simplify the explanation. Actually there is need to consider the centripetal acceleration.

    3) ” Also you are treating the electron in a classic way of a particle and not really using a duality wave particle.”

    No, I’m not, Raul.
    In Quantum Ring Theory the duality of the particles is due to their helical trajectory (zitterbewegung).

    4) “There is no problem with the Bohr theory, he introduced the theory in analogy to the Planck radiation to explain the discrete spectrum of the hidrogen. “

    Raul,
    The problem is NOT with Bohr theory.
    You did not understand the point: the problem is with Quantum Mechanics.

  • raul heining

    As a graduate in theoretical physics I reckon the theory which takes in account the zitterbewegung or
    helical movement of electron to explain the spin of the electron and the anomalous mass of neutron is
    a very interesting one and simple ideas are very often very good ideas and there I give credit to Wladimir Guglinski. I think in the rest of his work he should have used a better formalism and I think
    it is a pitty that he did not do the publishing of his book after some improving of formalism which would not cost him some critics sometimes unfair. His Idea fundamentally from this supposed movement of the electron is for me no problem taking in account the part of particle of the electron and as solution of the Dirac equation. In what respects Ether I do not agree with its existence at least as you do not see it as the geometry of the general relativity which is the result of the tensor energy momentum. With some refining and making use of relativity formalism probably the theory can be made more elegant avoinding some speculations like antigravitons and other.
    Regards
    raul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mr Raul Heining:
    After ripetitive tests we are making on our modules, I think I reached a good theoretical explication about what happens, and I do not think a new Physic is necessary. It is enough to study better the existing one.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • raul heining

    Nothing is impossible, we only do not know the mechanism behind cold fusion, or LENR if you want.
    Probably there will be an explanation with weak force, I like this one, or within statistical physics.
    We do not need to create new theories because we do not explain now. I think after the process is aknowledged through all the scientific comunity, maybe after they are confrontated with this, there will be a running in order to explain this and it will come faster than expected without the need of a new physics.
    Regards
    raul

  • Massimo Gervasi

    Dear Mr.Wladimir Guglinski
    I am a teacher in a secondary school.
    Your QRT theory is convincing for my little opinion (more than QM). Could be interesting to have some other figures to show how could the atoms of the periodic table be made, and how we get the first floor of the exagons …and lot of other things…
    there is a lot of work to do !!
    Many compliments
    … i’m waiting for the reactor..
    bye

  • raul heining

    Wladimir,
    Einstein developed special relativity to make the maxwell equations invariant in a Galilean transformation. The Michelson -Morley failed to show the light speed in aether because there is no aether . When reading your article I noticed that you take centrifugal force and the force between the proton and the electron as two different things when in reality is only a question of reference that is, when you are in the laboratory system you only need to consider the electric force from the proton in the electron to consider the circular movement. Also you are treating the electron in a classic way of a particle and not really using a duality wave particle. There is no problem with the Bohr theory, he introduced the theory in analogy to the Planck radiation to explain the discrete spectrum of the hidrogen. The centripetal acceleration was a way of trying to explain the emission of radiation when the electron goes to a lower level in accordance to the classical electromagnetism.
    Regards
    raul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Daniel De Francia:
    Interesting interpretation.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Daniel de França MTd2

    “If the foundations of QM should be correct, cold fusion occurrence would be IMPOSSIBLE.”

    Cold fusion is not possible. What happens is focusing of energy, that is,a huge concentration of kinetic energy in a few particles extracted from a huge quantity of particles with little energy.

  • François Pincemin

    I read all of that, and find then the Emanuele comments very consistent with the QM and I thing it explain in a more fundamental way all the topics. Nobody answer the Emanuele comment ? I dont thing it is needed to change QM to explain cold fusion. I thing more that we use approximative model trying to explain it. The approximative model are not convenient for the new phenomena. The approximative thing, for example, is to consider heavier atoms than hydrogen as hydrogen atom. The exact solution of Shrödinger équation of the hydrogen atom is 100% valid only for hydrogen atom. For heavier atom it is a approximation because of the many electron: we are in a n-body problem.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ON THE PARADOXES IN PHYSICS

    A paradox is not healthy for a theory of physics. A theory with paradoxes is actually sick.

    But paradoxes are healthy in the process of development of a theory, because they point out the need of seeking for improvements and demand for new solutions, so that to eliminate the paradoxes.

    Paradoxes require new solutions, and many new theories appeared thanks to the existence of paradoxes in the previous theory.
    An example is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. He conceived the special relativity because of the appearance of a paradox in the end of the 19th Century, thanks to the Michelson-Morley experiment, since the theorists at that time believed in the existence of the aether, and the experiment did not detect it. So, that paradox encouraged Einstein to find a solution in order to eliminate the paradox.

    The successes of Bohr constitute a strong paradox for Quantum Mechanics. That’s why Schroedinger stated that “It is difficult to believe that this result is merely an accidental mathematical consequence of the quantum conditions, and has no deeper physical meaning”

    Schroedinger understood that something was wrong with Quantum Mechanics, because if the theory should be 100% correct the Bohr theory could not be so successful as it is.

    So, the successes of Bohr constitute a strong paradox pointing out the need of new solutions, the need of looking for a new theory free of paradoxes, a successor of Quantum Mechanics, in which some principles of QM must be replaced by new ones, and among them certainly we must consider the helical trajectory of the elementary particles.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Raul,
    the paradox is very clear:
    1- the Bohr successes cannot be accidental, because it is impossible by considering the mathematical probability
    2- as the centripetal acceleration exists in Bohr calculus, then it is obvious that there is a centripetal acceleration on the electron within the atom
    3- and as from Quantum Mechanics concepts such centripetal acceleration cannot exist, then QM is not correct

    Probably you fell yourself uncomfortable with the paradox. Most the physicists fell the same, since it defies Quantum Mechanics.
    Of course the easier solution to eliminate the paradox is to forget it, by pretending that it does not exist, like the physicists used to do along the 20th Century.

    If such solution satisfy you, OK.

    In my opinion the development of Theoretical Physics cannot walk together with paradoxes, through the adoption of this “comfortable” solution: to refuse the fact that they exist.

    A theory which coexists with paradoxes cannot be correct, in my opinion.
    It’s my opinion. Perhaps I’m wrong.

  • raul heining

    Wladimir, Bohr, has proposed that acceleration because he was still much of a classic physicist. Much like Einstein when he proposed the existence of the cosmological constant to make the universe static. Quantum mechanics is only a
    mathematical tool and you and many tend to give it a physical reality. It has been very important because it predicts many important phenomen and it serves very well technology.
    regards
    raul

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Emanuele
    It not correct your conclusion: “In your model you try to explain the spin of electron like helical motion of electron orbit”.

    The idea according to which the zitterbewegung (helical trajectory) has connection with the spin was proposed firstly by Schrodinger.

    In my Quantum Ring Theory the spin is a combination of two electron’s motions:
    1- its intrinsic spin (its rotation about its line center)
    2- its helical trajectory

    There are other authors that share such an interpretation on the spin:

    The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
    by David Hestenes:
    “The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment.”
    http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf

    According to the hydrogen model of Quantum Ring theory, the photons are emitted through a mechanism of zitter resonance.
    The zitter resonance is considered in the Hestenes work:
    “If the idea of zitter resonance is taken seriously, there are many opportunities for new theoretical and experimental investigations”.

    In the item XII. ZITTERBEWEGUNG IN DIRAC THEORY, Hestenes writtes:
    “Dirac was soon convinced by Schroedinger [6] that zitterbewegung is foundational to electron theory and he argued the case vigorously in his textbook [37]. As his argument is still widely accepted [38], it deserves comment here.”
    http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBWinQM15**.pdf

    [6] E. Schroedinger. ÄUber die krÄaftfreie bewegung in der relativistischen quantenmechanik. Sitzungb. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Kl., 24(418), 1930.
    [37] P. A. M. Dirac. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, pages 261{267. Oxford U. Press, Oxford, 4th edition, 1957.
    [38] G. Greiner. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, pages 91{93, 233{236. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 4th edition, 1990.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Emanuele,
    You BELIEVE that “don’t exist discrete particles, like electron, proton, and so on …”

    Such a belief is comprehensible, since it is just what we expect from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
    However you did not understand my viewpoint in my article.
    According to my Quantum Ring Theory, some foundations of Quantum Mechanics are WRONG.
    If the foundations of QM should be correct, cold fusion occurrence would be IMPOSSIBLE.

    But as cold fusion is a fact, as the experiments are showing us, I suggest you to reconsider your view on what is wrong, or not, in Quantum Mechanics.
    As some principles of QM are wrong, it makes no sense to take QM as a referee so that to claim: “don’t exist discrete particles, like electron, proton, and so on …”
    Just because the physicists believe in Quantum Mechanics is the reason why they cannot explain cold fusion.

    My view on Schrodinger equation is NOT wrong.
    My interpretation on Schrodinger equation is the UNIQUE way to explain the successes of Bohr.

    THERE IS NO WAY TO EXPLAIN THE SUCCESSES OF BOHR FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.

    Sorry if you did not understand it.

  • Emanuele

    Mr Wladimir,
    Your point of view about Schrodinger’s equation is wrong.
    Don’t exist discrete particles, like electron, proton, and so on …
    Exist only SPACE DENSITY WAVES

    STANDING WAVES =MATTER PARTICLE

    A atom is a standing wave, made from more harmonics frequences
    More big is a portion of matter that we take in account, more hight is the frequence and the number of different harmonic frequences in his inside

    Every infinitesimal point of space has a density space (the ether, the old fluid of Maxwell time)
    The space density is scalar psi(x,y,z,t) with +/- value
    The flus of space density in infinitesimal point is a vector J (x,y,z,t).

    If you write the continuity equation in bi-quaternion form, you can obtain the relation between psi(x,y,z,t) and J(x,y,z,t), in differential form.
    The Laplace Continuity Equation generalization in bi-quaternion form.
    From this equation it is possible to derivate the Schrodinger equation, the Maxwell equation, the gravitational equation and so on .

    In the standing wave of atom, you can found the pulsanting and vortex motion
    The vortex motion of space density fluid is named spin.

    In your model you try to explain the spin of electron like helical motion of electron orbit.

    Sorry for my English
    Best regards
    Emanuele

  • Joseph Fine

    Wladimir,

    Thank you for your insights. I’ll read through the rest of your presentation and any subsequent comments. “Let there be light!”

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Joseph
    according to Quantum Ring Theory there NO exist two different forms of light: ordinary-light and anti-light.

    Because the light according to QRT is ONLY ONE.
    The photon model of QRT is constituted by two massless particles of the aether: one is matter, and the other is antimatter.
    As the photon is formed by matter/antimatter, there is no way to exist two differente forms of light, as proposed by Santilli Foundation: the ordinary-light and the anti-light.

    The light according to QRT has the two features (of ordinary-light and anti-light) working together into the photon, because the light of QRT is at the same time the both ordinary-light/anti-light working within one unique photon.

    The model of QRT is perfectly symmetric, since it is constituted by matter/antimatter, and it does not violate Lie symmetry.

    Unlike, if you suppose that there are two different forms of light (one the ordinary-light, and the other the anti-light), then they both violate the Lie symmetry, since each one of them has not a symmetric structure, because:
    a) considering a ordinary-light formed only by matter (particle of the aether) its structure is not symmetric,
    b) and considering the anti-light formed only by anti-matter (antiparticle of the aether) its structure is not symmetric either.

    The symmetry is possible only when matter and antimatter are packed together within the sctructure of one unique photon, like proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

  • Joseph Fine

    I took a long walk and recovered somewhat (?) from my New Physics Anxiety.

    I should have made these comments on the Discrete Gravitation page(s) of C. Aris, but I started here.

    If the Santilli Foundation says ordinary light is deflected by anti-matter, then ordinary matter should be deflected by anti-matter as well.

    That is, anti-matter asteroids are probably not a problem unless in being repelled by a large mass (such as the sun), it ends up hitting the moon (or us).

    J.F.
    J.F.

  • Joseph Fine

    I am reluctant to leave the first comment as I am not familiar with QRT.

    However, I received an E-mail from the Santilli Foundation announcing a Workshop on Astrophysics and Cosmology to be held in San Marino this September.

    http://san-marino-workshop.org/workshop_aim.html

    (San Marino is an enclave state located in Italy near Rimini and not far from Bologna. )

    One workshop aim is to discuss Dark Matter and Dark Energy and give an explanation as to why the universe “seems” (mostly) empty of Anti-matter.

    While ordinary light is attracted by matter, the claim is that light is deflected by anti-matter. (And, of course, anti-light would be attracted by anti-matter.) Who knows what would happen if light encounters anti-light???

    …”all features of antimatter light have to be anti-Hermitian to the features of matter light, including all physical quantities as well as their units. The resulting new light, called by Santilli – ‘isodual’ light, is predicted as being repelled (rather than attracted) by matter, and has additional experimentally measurable features.”

    I am tossing this out to the public to ask if Dark Matter might be Anti-matter and “invisible” via ordinary light/radio/X-rays etc. And, in addition to worrying about the ordinary asteroids we might be able to detect, can we do anything about the anti-asteroids which we would ‘NOT’ be able to detect.

    I apologize if this seems off-topic. But I am having New Physics Anxiety!

    J. F.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>