Categories

Peer Review

All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.

Anomalous mass of the neutron

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 200

Direct download

Abstract
A new model of the neutron n=p+s is proposed, where s is the selectron, a particle postulated by the Supersymmetry.  The model n=p+s belongs to the author’s “Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion”, which is composed by 26 papers  published in a book form in 2006 by the Bauu Institute Press.
The Nuclear Physics works with two models of the neutron.  The Yukawa’s model has several disadvantages (the most grave is the violation of the mass-energy conservation, although the theorists tried to justify it through the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle), because his model cannot explain some phenomena.  The quark model (d,u,d) also cannot explain other sort of phenomena, and then the theorists use the two models, sometimes they use the Yukawa’s model, and sometimes they use the quark model.  However, they are two incompatible models, and it is difficult to believe that Nature works through the use of two incompatible models for the production of phenomena.
The old Rutherford’s model of neutron has been abandoned by the theorists because it seems that it cannot be reconciled with some principles of Quantum Mechanics.  Nevertheless, herein it is shown that Rutherford’s model can be reconciled with the principles of QM when we introduce the hypothesis of the helical trajectory.

Keywords:  new version n=p+s of Rutherford’s neutron, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments, Natarajan’s helical trajectory incorporated to n=p+s, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments suggesting a new Planck’s gravitational constant, deuteron’s quadrupole moment, neutron’s magnetic moment, deuteron’s magnetic moment.

Introduction
This paper was submitted to several peer reviewed journals of Nuclear Physics.  All they rejected it.  In the last journal, the referee rejected it by claiming that a neutron cannot be formed by one proton and one selectron because the energy required to form a selectron is of about 20GeV.  However, 20GeV is the energy required from the current theories, which do not consider the helical trajectory of the electron.  So, a neutron formed by proton and selectron is impossible when it is considered by the current Nuclear Physics, but it is not impossible if we consider a model of electron with helical trajectory.

The model of neutron proposed in the Quantum Ring Theory does not violate the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as it is explained as follows:

  1. In the present theory it is proposed that the elementary particles move through a helical trajectory (HT).
  2. In the author’s paper [1], numbered No. 4 in his book,  it is shown that the HT has a property named Zoom-effect, according which the radius of the HT decreases with the growth of the velocity of the particle.  When the velocity is near to the velocity c of light, the radius of the HT tends to zero (which means that when an electron moves with relativistic speed, its motion approaches to a classical trajectory in the sense of Newton).
  3. In the author’s paper [2], numbered No. 5 in his book, it is proposed that the spin of the particles (in the sense of quantum theory) is a result of the intrinsic spin of the particle combined with the rotation of the particle about the line center of its HT.
  4. So, as due to the Zoom-effect an electron with relativistic speed does not move through the HT, then an electron with relativistic speed becomes a boson, because it loses its quantum spin (which is a property of the HT, which vanished with the relativistic motion).
  5. In the present paper it is calculated the velocity of the electron about a proton, within the structure of the neutron. Its velocity is 92% of the light speed, which means that within the neutron’s structure the electron becomes a boson.
  6. In the Supersymmetry it is postulated the existence of a particle with the same mass and charge of the electron, but with a null spin.  They call it selectron.
  7. So, we can consider that in the present theory the structure of the neutron actually is n=p+s, that is, the neutron is formed by one proton and one selectron.  Therefore the neutron actually is structured by one fermion (the proton) and one boson (the selectron).
  8. Then we realize that it is vanished the most grave restriction against the neutron formed by proton and electron, because now we can consider that the electron becomes a selectron within the neutron’s structure.  Thereby such new structure fits to Fermi-Dirac’s statistics, since in the new model n=p+s the neutron is formed by a fermion combined with a boson.

So, as from the model of neutron n=p+s there is no violation of Fermi-Dirac statistics, and since the other restrictions against n=p+s are eliminated in the present paper, then the theorists have no reason anymore for rejecting a model of neutron formed by one proton and one selectron.
The mechanism according which an electron becomes a selectron within the structure n=p+s has been named “spin-fusion” in the author’s theory.  Any lepton is subjected to be tied to a quark through the spin-fusion mechanism (within a structure with quark-lepton interaction we would rename the lepton by calling it “selepton”, which spin is zero).
A theoretical quark model of neutron n = (u,d,u-s) has been proposed by the author in a paper published by the Journal of New Energy [3], where it was shown that several paradoxes of Physics can be eliminated through the adoption of the new model.  As for example:

  1. From the proposal of the “spin-fusion” phenomenon the cause is found for the violation of the parity in beta-decay. NOTE: The spin-fusion mechanism is proposed in the author’s paper “Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory”[2], and it is based on the property of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles, as proposed in the author’s paper “Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom”[1].
  2. From the new comprehension of the cause of violation of the parity, it is possible to propose a new interpretation for the temporal reversion (an interpretation of Christenson’s discovery concerning the decay of some pions), in order that it is possible to eliminate the very strange hypothesis of temporal reversion in physics.

The new model of neutron (u,d,u-s) can also supply theoretical backgrounds for the explanation of several questions arisen from new experimental findings, as we may mention for instance:

  • a) Taleyarkhan[4] experiment cannot be explained from the old concepts of Quantum Mechanics, since the Suslick-Didenko[5] experiment has shown that the greatest portion of the energy of the sonoluminescence phenomenon is wasted in chemical reactions, and therefore the remaining energy is unable to yield hot nuclear reactions.
  • b) New astronomical observations [6], described in the journal Nature, are suggesting that Planck’s constant can have variation.  Such a hypothesis implies the breakdown of Quantum Mechanics, unless we show that for distances shorter than 2fm there are non-Coulombic interactions performed through a new sort of Planck’s constant, which nature is gravitational.

Before the acceptance of the model n=p+s by the scientists, there are several questions to be answered. Obviously the theoretical restrictions against the model n=p+e can also be applied to the model n=p+s (excluding the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as already explained before).  So, let us remember what are the restrictions against the model n=p+e.
One of the solutions proposed herein is concerning the anomalous mass of the neutron.
The repose mass of the proton and electron are:

Proton:  mP = 938.3 MeV/c²
Electron:  me = 0.511MeV/c²
Total mass: mT = 938.811MeV/c²

A structure of the neutron n = p+e would have to have a mass mN < 938.811 MeV/c², since there is a loss of mass.  However, it is known by experiments that neutron’s mass is mN = 939.6MeV/c².  This fact is one of the stronger reasons why the majority of the physicists do not accept the model n=p+e, although several experiments have shown that neutron structure is indeed n=p+e.  So, herein we will show why the neutron with structure n = p+e has such an anomalous mass mN>mp+me.
Another restriction against the model n = p+e comes from the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: such a model requires a force with magnitude 10³ stronger than the strong nuclear force, in order to keep the electron in the nuclei.  Herein we propose a solution able to eliminate such a restriction.
Considering the model n = p+e, the paper also exhibits the theoretical calculation for:

a)  the magnetic moment of the neutron
b)  the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron
c)  the magnetic moment of the deuteron

NOTES:

  1. The helical trajectory of the elementary particles was proposed by Natarajan[7].  According to his proposal, “When we consider a particle at rest in the laboratory frame, it has no external motion (vCX = 0).  The internal velocity, however, is given by vIN= c (Postulate 4).  On the other hand, if the particle is observed to be moving with a uniform velocity v in the laboratory (vCX = v),  then vIN should be vIN = (c² -  v²)½  so that the result of these two velocities is still c (Postulate 3 and 4).”
  2. The helical trajectory appears in the Dirac’s theory of the electron.  In their book[8] Lindsay and Margenau say: “The only possible resolution of this apparent paradox is to assume that the electron performs, in a classical sense, a rapidly periodic movement with the speed of light, while it progresses uniformly along x in conformity with (12).  Schrödinger was the first to point out this peculiar trembling motion;  its actual significance is not clearly understood”.
  3. There is not any similar theory in the world.  The reason is obvious:  all the attempts of other theorists are made by considering the fundamental principles of quantum theory.  Nobody tries a model with a corpuscular electron, because all they consider that a corpuscular electron is incompatible with the Schrödinger’s Equation.

Unlike, within the neutron’s structure proposed here the electron is a corpuscular particle that moves through the helical trajectory, and so there is not any model of neutron similar to this model proposed herein.
OBS:  in the author’s paper [1] it is shown that a corpuscular electron that moves through the helical trajectory is compatible with the Schrödinger Equation.  This is the reason why the author can propose a model of neutron n=p+e where the electron is corpuscular, but other authors cannot do it.
Dr. Rugero Santilli and Dr. Elio Conte have proposed a model of neutron n=p+e, but in their theory the electron is not corpuscular.  Their models are unable to explain fundamental questions that arrive when we try to propose a model n=p+e, as for example the violation of Fermi-Dirac statistics, the anomalous mass of the neutron, the magnitude of the neutron’s magnetic moment (it would have to be in the same order of the electron’s magnetic moment).  These questions are explained from the model  n=p+s.

Anomalous uncertainly principle
According to current Particle Physics, the structure of the pion po is (d,d’), where d is a quark (d)–1/3 and d’ is its antiparticle (d’)+1/3. The pion po can have two sorts of decays:

χº → γ + γ
χº → e+ + e- + proton       (1)

The time decay has the order of 10ˆ-15s.
Let us calculate the binding energy necessary to pack together these two quarks d and d’, considering the following:

a) The quarks have a mass approximately 1/2000 of the proton’s mass
b) The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle      Δx.Δp ~ h (2)

Consider the two quarks d and d’ into a rectangular well with a radius “a,” where “a” is the distance between the two quarks into the structure of the pion χº, in order that the uncertainty in the value of position is Δx ~ a.  From Eq. (2) the smallest possible value of Δp is given approximately by  Δp~h/a. So, the quarks placed in the potential well of radius a≤1fm would have kinetic energies, at least in the order of magnitude

T ~ Δp²/2µπ ~ h²/mπ.a² ~ 80GeV      (3)

where µπ = mπ/2  is the reduced mass of each quark.

Let us expound the matter in another more precise way, by considering the conditions necessary for the appearance of a standing wave. For the rectangular potential well of the radius a, this condition is:

2a = λ/2     (4)

where λ is the de Broglie wavelength. Substituting  λ = h/p ,  we have

2a = h/2p = h/2(2µπ T)½ = h/2(mπ T)½     (5)

where T is kinetic energy of the quark in the well.  From Eq. (5), with a ≤1fm, we have

T = π²2h²/4mπa² ≥ 180 GeV      (6)

Since the two quarks are into the potential well along a time with the order of 10ˆ–15s, it is necessary a depth of a well Uπ , as follows

Uπ = T =  180 GeV     (7)

Let us compare it with the depth of potential well UN of deuteron nuclei, since we know that into the deuteron the proton and neutron are tied by the strong force.  The depth of the well UN is:

UN = 40 MeV     (8)

Since Up /UN = 4×10³, this means that, for keeping the two quarks along the time 10ˆ–15s, it would be necessary to have a force thousands times stronger than the nuclear force.
Even if we consider the structure of the proton (u,d,u), two quarks ‘u’ cannot be packed by the strong force into the potential well with radius a = 1fm.  It is necessary a force thousands times stronger than the nuclear force.
Undoubtedly, this fact suggests that something is wrong with the uncertainty principle Δx.Δp ~ h into a potential well with radius a≤1fm .
Besides, the decay shown in Eq. (1) shows that the bound state to the two quarks cannot be 180 GeV, and this suggests that something is wrong with the relation  Δx.Δp ~ h when we apply it for a potential well with radius a£1fm.
We will see ahead other fact suggesting that we cannot apply  Δx.Δp ~ h into a potential well with a≤1fm .
.
Gravitational quantum of energy
There are two experiments where the model  n = p+e has been obtained.

In the 1980s, the physicist Don Borghi [2] et al. made an experiment where they obtained neutrons from protons and electrons at low energy.  At the end of the article they say, “Hence we may conclude that this experiment seems to confirm the possibility of observing directly the assumed non-Coulombic interaction between protons and electrons.”
In 1999 the physicist Elio Conte, together with Maria Pieralice [3], made an experiment where they obtained neutrons from the cold fusion between protons and electrons.
So, we have two different experiments where the researchers confirmed the structure n=p+e for the neutron.
The mass of the electron is approximately the same mass of a quark d, both having a mass approximately 1/2000 of the proton’s mass.  This means that, into the structure n=p+e, the electron would have to be confined into a potential well with depth Ue = 180 GeV, that is, if we consider that we must apply the Heisenberg’s relation (2).  And then it would require a kind of force thousands of times stronger than the nuclear force, in order to keep the electron in the structure n=p+e.
So, we have a dilemma:
  1. On one side, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle  Δx.Δp ~ h imply that it is impossible a structure n=p+e.
  2. On the other side, two experiments are showing that n=p+e is the structure used by the Nature.
What have we to keep? We have two alternatives:
  1. We keep the relation Δx.Δp ~ h, and it means that we must reject the experiments. This is a betrayal to the scientific method.
  2. We keep the experiments, and this implies that we must analyze what happens with Heinsenberg’s uncertainty principle into potential wells with a≤1fm, because we must realize that something unknown by the physicists happens into regions with a≤1fm.
It is well to remember that in the beginning of the 20th Century several experiments suggested the structure n = p+e, as for example the neutron’s decay → p+e+ν’.  But Heisenberg rejected these experiments.  Since the Mathematics suggested that the structure n=p+e is impossible, Heisenberg decided to reject those old experiments.
But now new experiments are showing that n=p+e is indeed correct. We cannot neglect the experiments anymore, like Heisenberg did.  This indicates that we must propose a new interpretation for the Heinsenberg’s principle into a potential well with radius a≤1fm.
First of all, let us remember that Planck’s constant h =  6.6×10ˆ–34J-s  has electromagnetic origin, since he made his experiments with photons into a black body.  But into a potential well with radius a≤1fm, we have to consider the strong force. Then it is possible that Planck’s constant must be replaced by a new constant hG , by considering that hG is a smallest quantum of energy due to the interactions by the nuclear force.  In the last item we will show that electron’s bound energy into the neutron must have on the order of 0.1 MeV.  So, by considering that electron’s binding energy has the order of  0.1MeV, then, by introducing a correction, from Eq. (6) we get:
hG ~ [ h²/(180.000/0,1) ]½ = 1,3×10ˆ-37J-s     (9)
One argument against this proposal is to say that the electron has no interaction by the strong force. However, in past papers the author will show that there are evidences suggesting that the strong force has gravitational origin, when we consider a dynamic gravity (different from the static gravity of current Physics).
So, if we consider the quantum vacuum constituted by electromagnetic particles and by gravitons, through such a consideration it means that Planck’s constant h is due to interactions by electromagnetic particles of the quantum vacuum, while the constant hG is due to interactions by gravitons.
Pay attention that we are proposing here the constant hG through the same way as Planck proposed the constant h.  Indeed, Planck has been constrained to adopt the hypothesis of the constant h because that was the unique solution able to solve the paradox of the ultraviolet catastrophe into the black body.  By the same way, today we have two experiments, made by Borghi and by Conte, and these two experiments are showing that the neutron’s structure is n=p+e.  The unique way to explain this structure, obtained by the experiments, is through the adoption of the following hypothesis:
for a potential well with radius a1fm,  Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is   Δx.Δp~h ,  where hG~1.3×10ˆ–37J-s  is the gravitational quantum of energy.
.
How to get the magnetic dipole moment of neutron
Magnetic moment of the electron is by three orders of magnitude larger than that of the neutron.  So, at first glance, it seems that the neutron could not be performed by the structure n= p+e.  However, as is shown in the author’s other paper [7] , the magnetic moment of the electron depends on its helical trajectory into the electrosphere of the atom.  In another paper [8] , the author shows that the radius of the helical trajectory has vanished when the electron’s speed approaches light speed c.  So, in the structure n=p+e the electron’s speed is 0.92c , as we will calculate herein, then into the neutron the electron loses its helical trajectory, and by consequence its magnetic moment into the neutron is very small, justifying the present theoretical calculation for the neutron’s magnetic moment.
Therefore the method of calculation is very simple:
a) The electron turning about the proton can be considered like a small spiral
b) The m of  neutron will be :  mNEUTRON =  mPROTON + mSPIRAL
Proton’s magnetic moment we get from experiments, µ = +2,7896µn
Spiral’s magnetic moment we have to derive from calculation. We need to know two data about the electron’s orbit:
  1. Spiral’s radius – we can get it from electron’s orbit about two protons , starting from the electric quadrupole moment Q(b) of deuteron. From experiments,  Q(b) = + 2.7×10ˆ–31m² , and from here we will get the radius R of the spiral.
  2. Electron’s speed – we can get it from Kurie’s graphic for beta-decay of neutron.
Proton’s radius
We will need proton’s radius with more accuracy than Nuclear Theory can give us. And we will get it from recent interpretations about recent experiments. From Nuclear Theory, we know two important facts about the nucleus:
  • 1st fact - protons and neutrons have the same distribution into the nuclei. This conclusion had been inferred from interpretation about the empirical equation shown in the Fig. 1.
  • 2nd fact - from the empirical equation, the physicists also concluded that all the nuclei have the same shell thickness  “2b” = 2 x 0.55F = 1.1F
From these two facts we can suppose that the protons and neutrons distribution into the nuclei is like shown in the Fig. 2, and thus we can get proton’s radius:
4 x Rp = 1.1F  →   Rp = 0.275F      (10)
The radius Rp = 0.275F is corroborated by the proton’s distribution of load, obtained from experiments, shown in Fig. 10.
We will verify that Rp = 0.275F can lead us to very good conclusions, according to the results of experiments.
.
Well-known calculation used by nuclear theory
Let us remember a theoretical calculation of electric quadrupole moment Q(b) used by Nuclear Theory.

Fig. 3 shows a nucleus composed by a  [ magic number  +  1 proton ].

For example, it can be the 51Sb123 = 50Sn122 + 1 proton. The magic number 50Sn122  has Q(b)= 0, because its distribution is spherically symmetrical.
The 51Sb123 will have
Q(b) =  ∫ρ [ - (r’ )² ].dτ =  -(r’ )². ∫ρ.dτ      (11)
But
∫ρ.dτ  =  + 1      (12)
because the ring (Fig. 3)  has 1 proton , and “ρ” is measured by proton’s units of load.
Consequently
Q(b) =   -(r’)²     (13)
This is a well-known traditional calculation. The nuclear physicists know it very well.
.
Application to the calculation of Q8b)
Let’s apply this sort of considerations to the model of 1H2 shown in the Fig. 4, with one electron turning about two protons.
The two protons have Q(b) = 0 , because theirs distribution of load is spherically symmetrical. The electron can be considered like a proton with negative load, with punctual concentrated configuration, and therefore the electron produces a ring like shown in Fig. 5.
If a proton with positive load yields  ∫ρdτ  = +1 , the electron with negative load yields  ∫ρdτ  = -1. By consequence, the  electric quadrupole moment of  1H2 will be :
Q(b) = -(r’ )²∫ρdτ = -(r’ )².(-1) = +(r’ )²      (14)
But  r’= 2Rp (Fig. 4) , and Rp = 0.275F is the proton’s radius obtained in (10).
Thereby:
Q(b) =  +(r’ )² = +(0,55F)² = +3,0×10ˆ-31m²      (15)
But the radius Rp = 0.275F is not exact, because it is obtained by experiments ( b = 0.55F ).
If we consider  Rp = 0.26F, we will have  r’ = 0.52F, and then:
Q(b) = +(0.52F)Q(b)² = + 2.7 x 10ˆ-31m²      (16)
like inferred from experiments, and therefore we can take R = 0.26F (spiral’s radius).
NOTE:  Of course Yukawa’s model cannot explain Q(b) = +2.7 x 10ˆ-31m² of deuteron, because the two protons have Q(b) = 0, and the meson’s oscillation cannot be responsible by  Q(b) = +2.7 x 10ˆ-31m².  A deuteron performed by (u,d,u).(d,u,d) of current Nuclear Physics also cannot get the result Q(b)= +2.7×10ˆ-31m² of the experiments.

Electron’s speed
We will get electron’s speed from the neutron’s beta-decay (Fig. 9).

Electron’s repose energy ( E = m0.c² )  is  0.511 MeV.
From Kurie’s graphic interpretation, electron’s kinetic energy KeMAX when emitted in the beta-decay, corresponds to the binding energy 0.78 MeV , that is, electron’s kinetic energy turning about the proton.
0.78MeV > 0.511MeV,  by consequence  EKINETIC > m0.c², and therefore we need to apply Einstein’s Relativistic dynamics if we want to know electron’s “v” speed in the spiral.
The relativistic kinetic energy is  :
E = m0.c²[ 1/( 1 - v²/c² )½ -1 ]      (17)
Thus, we have:
0.78MeV = 0.511MeV[ 1/( 1- v²/c² )½ -1 ]      (18)
λ = 1/( 1- v²/c² )½ =  2.5264      (19)
1/( 1- v²/c² )   =  6.383      (20)
6.383 – 6.383.v²/c²  = 1       (21)
6.383 × v²/c²  =  5.383      (22)
v = c (5.383/6.383)½  =  2.746×10ˆ8 m/s   ~   91.83% c     (23)
A spiral with area “A” , a current “i” , and radius R , produces
µ = i.A = q.v.π.R²/ 2µR  =  q.v.R/2
and with relativistic speeds
µ = q.v.R      (24)
The magnetic dipole moment µSPIRAL of one relativistic spiral will suffer a correction proportional to:
λ = 1/( 1- v²/c² )½     (25)
because if  v→c  ,   then    µSPIRAL → ∞.
µSPIRAL = q.v.R/[ ( 1- v²/c² )½ ] ,   when   v → c     (26)
R = spiral’s radius  =  0.26F   (27)
q = -1.6×10ˆ-19C      (28)
v = 2.746×10ˆ8 m/s      (29)
µSPIRAL =  λ.[q.v.R]     ,    λ = 2.5264  in the present problem     (30)
µSPIRAL = 2.5264 x (-1.6 x 10ˆ-19C) x 2.746 x 10ˆ8m/s x 0.26 x 10ˆ-15m     (31)
µSPIRAL = 2.886 x 10ˆ–26 A-m² =  -5.715µn     (32)
.
Calculation of the magnetic dipole moment of neutron
The proton has µ = +2.7896mn , and then the magnetic dipole moment of neutron will be:
µNEUTRON = +2.7896 – 5.715 = -2.9254µn      (33)
and the experiments detected -1.9103mn.
This result is coherent, if we consider:
  1. The radius R= 0.26F has been obtained from the calculation of electric quadrupole moment, and therefore it is necessary to consider an external radius due to the electron’s orbit around the proton,
    Rext = 0.26F      (34)
    because the external radius is responsible by the measurement of  Q(b).
  2. In the spiral’s area responsible by the magnetic dipole moment, it is necessary to consider the internal spiral’s radius,
    Rint = Rext – Φe  (Φe = electron’s diameter)      (35)
    because the “internal area” of the spiral produces the flux of magnetic dipole moment.

The experiments already detected electron’s radius, which magnitude is smaller than 10ˆ-16m , and also proton’s radius, in order of 10ˆ-15m . Therefore, we can conclude that the density of their masses is approximately the same, because the relation between their masses is:

983.3MeV /c² / 0.511MeV /c²   =   1836     (36)
and the relation between theirs radii is:
Rp / Re = (1836 )ˆ1/3  =  12,25  ~ 10ˆ-15 /10ˆ-16m     (37)
Rp ~ 0.26F  →  Re ~  0.26 / 12.25  =  0.0212F     (38)
Thus, electron’s diameter is Φe = 2 x 0.0212F = 0.0424F  ,  and the internal radius of spiral will be:
Rint = 0.26F – 0.0424F  =   0.2176F     (39)
The correct magnetic dipole moment of electron’s spiral will be:
µSPIRAL = -5.715 x 0.2176 / 0.26 = -4.783µn     (40)
and we get
µNEUTRON = -4.783 + 2.7896 = -1.9934µn     (41)
which is a very good result.
Magnetic dipole moment of deuteron
The proton has µρ = +2.7896µn, and the neutron has µN = -1.9103mn.  Then let us see what magnetic moment for the deuteron we would have to expect from the current theories of Physics.
  1. From Yukawa’s model, as the meson has oscillatory motion between the proton and the neutron, it cannot produce any additional magnetic moment.  Therefore from Yukawa’s model the magnetic moment of deuteron would have to be mD = +2.7896µn – 1.9103µn = + 0.8793µn.
  2. From the model of Particle Physics (u,d,u)(d,u,d) there is no reason why an additional magnetic moment can be created.  Then we also would have to expect µD = +0.8793µn.
But the experiments show that the deuteron has magnetic moment µD =  +0.857µn.  So, from the models of neutron used in current Physics is impossible to explain the magnetic moment of deuteron.  Let us see if we can explain it from the present model of neutron n = p+e. In the formation of the deuteron, there are two protons with the same spin, so the spin due to the protons is i=1.  In the First Part of the paper New Model of Neutron [1] we already have seen that electron’s contribution is null for the total spin, as consequence of the spin-fusion phenomenon.  Therefore the deuteron has nuclear spin i=1.
Calculation of µ.
Fig. 6 illustrates the method:
  1. There are two protons each one with mp= +2.7896µn.
  2. We already obtained spiral’s  µS= -4.783µn.  But we will consider µS= -4.7mn , because 0.083 is due to error in the accuracy.
  3. When the electron of the structure n = p+e is situated between the two protons of the structure of the deuteron (see Fig. 6), it is submitted to three forces:
    a) The nuclear force of attraction with the proton into the neutron’s structure (proton at right side).
    b) The centrifugal force expelling the electron in the direction of the proton at the left side.
    c) The nuclear force of attraction with the proton at the right side.
Then there is an increase of area ΔA due to the electron’s deviation in the direction of the proton at the left side, which is responsible for an increase of Δμ .
We can approach the area ΔA of Fig. 6 from a rectangular area, as shown in Fig. 7, and the total magnetic moment will be performed as indicated in the Fig. 8.
We know that electron’s SPIRAL has a radius R = 0.26F.
Let us consider that ΔA is a rectangular area with dimensions 0.52F and 0.002F.  Then the area is:
ΔA = 0.52 x 0.002 = 0.001F²     (42)
The area of electron’s spiral is:
A =  p.0.26² = 0.212 F²     (43)
If the spiral with area A = 0.212 F²  produces m= -4.7µn , then an area  ΔA = 0.001F²  will produce:
Δµ = -4.7 x 0.001/0.212 = -0.022µn     (44)
and  the theoretical µ of  1H2, obtained from the model n = p+e, will be:
2.(+2.7896) – (4.7 + 0.022) = +0.857µn     (45)
Anomalous mass of the neutron
We will show that neutron’s anomalous mass is due to the growth of the electron’s mass, since the electron has a relativistic speed into the neutron, as we will calculate here. So, let us calculate the electron’s increase of mass.
The electron’s mass into the neutron n=p+e  is:
m = mo.γ      (46)
where γ we already obtained in (30):   γ = 2.5264
So
m = mo.γ = 0.511 x 2.5264 =  1.291 MeV/c²      (47)
Considering the electron’s increase of mass, the proton and the electron perform the total mass:
mp + me = 938.3 MeV/c² + 1.291 MeV/c² = 939.591 MeV/c² ~ 939.6 MeV/c²     (48)
Since mp + me ~ 939.6 MeV/c² , and the neutron’s mass is mN = 939.6 MeV/c², we realize that neutron’s binding energy is approximately zero, and this explains why it suffers decay.  However, with more accurate experiments, perhaps it is possible to discover the correct binding energy of the neutron.  So, by more accurate experiments, we can get the correct value of hG obtained in Eq. (9).
.
Conclusions
The first reaction of a physicist against the proposals of the present paper probably would be to claim the following: “It is hard for me to believe those difficulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale.  Had this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third different Planck constant.”
We must analyze such an argument from five viewpoints, as follows:
  1. First viewpoint: Up to know the theoretists have neglected the Borghi’s experiment, and this is just the reason why they never tried such a new theoretical alternative. Indeed, the proposal of a new Planck’s constant, proposed herein, is required by the results of two new experiments, made by Conte-Pieralice and Borghi. Even if the present new proposal is not a definitive solution, nevertheless any other different solution must be proposed by considering the results of Conte-Pieralice-Borghi experiments.  By neglecting their experiments is impossible to find a satisfactory solution.
    Moreover, it is well to note that the proposal of a new Planck’s constant is not able to solve the theoretical problems itself.  That’s why such an idea has never been proposed by the string theorists, since such new proposal actually must be proposed together with other new proposals, like the spin-fusion hypothesis, the helical trajectory, its zoom-property[8], etc.  The new Planck’s constant is not proposed here alone, actually it belongs to a collection of new proposals that performs new principles (which are missing in Quantum Mechanics).
  2. Second viewpoint: The recent new experiment made by Taleyarkhan, published by Science, has been explained by the scientific community as follows: “Theoretical explanations for the observation of neutrons in line with conventional theory do exist. Sonoluminescence is an observed and understood phenomenon. It is generally considered to be theoretically possible to generate fusion temperatures in imploding bubbles using sound. As for tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier at low temperatures, so as to achieve fusion at low temperatures, this could have been possible in principle, but experts who did the calculation say that, unfortunately, the rate will be far too slow to be observable, let alone be of any practical importance“. Nevertheless, Suslick and Didenko have repeated the Taleyarkhan experiment, and they have shown that the greatest portion of the sonoluminescence energy is wasted in chemical reactions. Therefore it is not possible to suppose that there are hot nuclear reactions in Taleyarkhan experiment. And since he obtained emission of neutrons (and therefore the existence of nuclear reactions is out of any doubt), we realize that these nuclear reactions cannot be explained by the old concepts of Quantum Mechanics. We must explain Taleyarkhan experiment from the hypothesis of non-Coulombic interactions, detected by Borghi’s experiment.
  3. Third viewpoint: In the present paper a new gravitational Planck’s constant has been proposed, taking in consideration the Borghi’s experiment.  A paper published in the journal Nature in August-2002, by Paul Davies corroborates such a hypothesis, in which he says that a new astronomical observation can lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Relativity may be wrong. The observation considered by Dr. Paul Davies is concerning the interaction between electrons and photons, and the results led him to consider two alternatives, as follows:
    a) FIRST HYPOTHESIS: The light velocity “c” is not constant
    b) SECOND HYPOTHESIS: The Planck’s constant can have some variation
    Well, it is possible that such a variation in the Planck’s constant, mentioned by Paul Davies, can be actually due to the interaction with the  new gravitational Planck’s constant proposed herein.
  4. Fourth viewpoint: It must be taken in consideration that the “spin-fusion” hypothesis is able to open new theoretical perspectives for the Particle Physics, through the establishment of a new Standard Model, as shown in the author’s paper “New Model of Neutron-First Part”,( 1 ) published by JNE, where it is shown that the lepton’s spin is not conserved in the beta-decay. Since the leptons are tied to the quarks through the spin-fusion, as proposed by the author, such a new proposal represents a new fundamental concept to be applied to Nuclear Theory and to Particle Physics.
  5. Fifth viewpoint: The theorists are trying since 1950 to find a satisfactory theory able to conciliate the several branches of Physics. Several genii as Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, and others, devoted their life to the attempt.  The problem has passed through the hand of several prominent physicists, among them several ones awarded the Nobel Prize and devoted their work to the question of the unification, as Salam, Gell-Mann, Weinberg , Glashow, t’Hooft, and others. All they have supposed that the rule of addition of spins, adopted in current Nuclear Physics, is the correct theoretical way. However, it is hard to believe that a satisfactory solution should have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent theoretists, if such a solution should be possible by the way that they are trying (up to now there is not a satisfactory Standard Model in Particle Physics, which is incompatible with the Nuclear Physics, a theory itself not able to explain several questions). If a satisfactory solution via the Yukawa model should be possible, of course that it would have to be found several years ago.
A new model can replace an old one only if the new one brings advantages. The Yukawa’s model has several disadvantages, but the author considers that the most serious is the fact that in Modern Physics the description of the phenomena must be made through the consideration of two incompatible models: some phenomena must be described by the quark model of neutron, and others must be described by Yukawa’s model, but they are incompatible. It makes no sense to believe that in the Nature two incompatible models must describe the phenomena.  The author’s model (u,d,u-e) is able to describe all the phenomena and properties of the neutron, and perhaps this is the greatest advantage of the model.
Finally, we have to consider that, when a new experiment has a result that does not fit the current prevailing concepts of an old theory, the scientific criteria prescribes that the theoretists must try to find a new theoretical solution able to explain the result obtained by the new experiment, through the proposal of new concepts. This is just what the author of the model (u,d,u-e) is trying to do.  Nevertheless, nowadays the theoretists are trying to keep the old prevailing concepts of Quantum Mechanics by rejecting the Borghi’s experiment, and such a rejection does not fit the scientific criteria.
References
  1. W. Guglinski, “New Model of Neutron-First Part,”  J. New Energy, vol 4, no 4, 2000.
  2. C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, “Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma,” American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.
  3. E. Conte, M. Pieralice, “An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron,” Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.
  4. R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, “Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation,” Science, vol 295, pp 1868-1873 (March 8, 2002) (in Research Articles).
  5. Y.T. Didenko, K. S. Suslick, “The energy efficiency of formation of photons, radicals and ions during single-bubble cavitation,” Nature, vol 418, 394 – 397 (25 Jul 2002) Letters to Nature.
  6. P.C.W. Davies, Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver, “Cosmology: Black holes constrain varying constants,” Nature, vol 418, pp 602 – 603 (08 Aug 2002) Brief Communication.
  7. W. Guglinski, “Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2.
  8. W. Guglinski, “Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom,” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2, 2004.

753 comments to Anomalous mass of the neutron

  • Joseph Fine

    A.R.

    Is the use of Lead a limiting factor in E-CAT operation? While radiation shielding is essential, Lead melts at a temperature of only 327.5 degrees C. (621.5 F)

    http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/pb.html

    As a result, even if core temperature can be much hotter before its components start to melt, this heat has to be removed from the reactor or the shielding will melt. Are there other materials which might replace Lead without being prohibitively expensive?

    This permits higher temperature operations with higher (thermodynamic) efficiency. Of course, for industrial operation, the Lead (or other materials) could be put outside of the E-CAT, but this choice would require the use of much more material and greater expense.

    Joseph

  • Vinnie Jones

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Thank you for your answer about the weight of the Fat-Cat.
    It would also be very nice if you could publish a list of
    the scientists that attended the October 6 demo.

    Kind regards, Vinnie

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Vinnie Jones:
    The E-Cat weights so much because the reactor has a huge shield of lead. Please read the Nyteknik Report (google Nyteknik report E-Cat October 6) and go to the part where is explained that the components have been weighted before and after the test: you will see that the E-Cat weighted some gram more after the test ( due to some water remained). Should the weight be made by a fuel, at the end of the test, burnt the fuel, the E-Cat would have weighted much less than before the test. The reason why the E-Cat and the calorimetric system have been weighted before and after was exactly to dissolve these fears.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Vinnie Jones

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Weighing in at 90 kg the new Fat-Cat certainly earns this nickname. In spite of having been allowed to peek into it I fail to see where most of those kilograms reside. The lid is fairly thin and so is the edge of the chamber itself. Using a part of this unaccounted for weight to build a heat storage out of a suitable phase change material it would be possible to bridge the self-sustained period. Could you please explain away these fears?

    Kind regards, Vinnie Jones

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enzo De Angelis:
    I agree upon all you said.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Enzo de Angelis

    Caro dott. Rossi
    Dal report di Mats Lewan sul test del 6 ottobre o ricavato i seguenti dati:
    Dati complessivi del test:
    Energia totale consumata 9,116 Kwh
    Energia totale assorbita dall’acqua nel secondario 21,63 Kwh
    Energia diffusa in fase di raffreddamento 3,02 Kwh
    Energia totale prodotta 24,65 Kwh
    Cop 2,70

    Dati relativi all’auto sostentamento:
    Energia prodotta 17,70 Kwh
    Energia consumata (dal “dispositivo frequenze” o dal quadro di controllo?) 0,399 Kw
    Cop 44,26

    Sono corretti?

    Inoltre dal suddetto report e da una sua intervista a radio città del capo credo che lei abbia individuato due soglie di temperatura del cuore del reattore oltre le quali la reazione ha inizio e poi si auto sostiene.
    Se è così non crede che, almeno per la centrale da 1 Mw, il circuito primario a contatto del cuore del reattore possa essere costituito dal un circuito chiuso, ai sali fusi, di un impianto solare termodinamico (prof. Rubbia) la cui temperatura potrebbe essere quasi costantemente superiore ai 500°?
    Ciò avrebbe un triplice scopo:
    raggiungere la soglia di reazione dell’E-Cat usando solo o quasi energia termica gratuita e pulita;
    contribuire fortemente, se non del tutto, a tenere la temperatura del reattore costantemente sopra quella di auto sostentamento;
    avere una temperatura del vapore in uscita molto superiore e forse sufficiente a generare direttamente energia elettrica;

    Per ultimo devo purtroppo rilevare che più lei si avvicina alla meta più il livore dei suoi detrattori aumenta. Stia molto in guardia e se lo ritiene necessario non esiti a chiedere aiuto, ci sono molte persone come me pronte a darglielo.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Peter Roe:
    The 99 Celsius water remained in the E-Cat at the moment in which we had to discharge it to inject cold water to cool down more rapidly the E-Cat to disassemble it and allow the ayyendants to look inside was about 20 liters.
    The small difference of weight (the E-Cat had a weight slightly heavier than when it has been weighted before the test) is due to residual water. The stored energy in this amount of water is not significant, of course. Where the not-calculated-power-power produced by the reactor is relevant is the heating up to 660-80 celsius of the surface of the E-Cat, which is more than 5000 square cm. But we have chosen to allow a very conservative approach, to allow not biased People to understand well.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Mr Rossi

    With regard to your latest test of the ‘fat cat’ module, a number or people have calculated I/O from the figures available in the Nyteknik spreadsheet. All unbiased figures show a significant energy gain, which is wonderful news.

    One factor that seems to be often overlooked is that a considerable volume of heated water remained in the e-cat boiler at the end of the experiment. The volume of the boiler has been estimated at 90 litres from external measurements, but some of this will be steam space above the water level.

    In order to make it possible to estimate the thermal energy remaining in the boiler after the experiment, can you say what the water volume was please?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Enrico Billi:
    I agree with you, and, by the way, I have been told that this Brian Ahern says he knows me and worked with me: it is totally false; I never met him, I never spoke with him, I never worked with him, directly or indirectly. That’s all I can say of this subject.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir, Thanks for your information Oct 7th. Yes I will read your book and I will probably have more questions. Regards E.A.

  • Enrico Billi

    The person called the “snake” posted an email into his blog post about the test of the 6th of October saying: “All the attendees should consider themselves UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATORS in Rossi’s latest fraudulent endeavor. Anybody who believes this test was sufficient should examine their motivations.”

    I reply saying this: “Because Mr. Ahern was not present such kind of statement sound unreasonable and HE should give his MOTIVATIONS to be against people curious to see this device
    Instead incriminate honest and curious people, scientist and engineers coming from all over the world, i advise Mr. Ahern to 闭嘴 and lavolaLe lavolaLe”

    My reply to this unknown Mr. Ahern have been censored because the “snake” followed the rule 2 of his blog, it means personal attacks are forbidden in his blog.

    But I attended the event on the 6th of October and no matter is my opinion i have been indirectly personally attacked to be a crook only because i attended the event itself.

    I don’t know personally the blogger, but this behaviour sounds partisan. Instead “cut and paste” silly statements of unknown people from his personal email, this “snake” should understand that his personal opinion on Andrea Rossi’s invention is not a good reason to freely harm people he doesn’t know.
    Because Mr. Ahern message have been sent to his email and not posted on his blog, the “snake” should apologize to all the people who have been indirectly offended, otherwise i wish to Mr. “Snake” memorable things.

    Enrico Billi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mau:
    The attempts to steal are always on.
    Warmest regards,
    A.R.

  • Mau

    Solo una semplice domanda. C’è per caso un tentativo di rubarle il segreto industriale ed è uno dei motivi per cui vuole andare al più presto a commercializzare il prodotto?

    Se tutto va come deve il suo posto nella Storia lo ha già. Certo sarebbe bello e giusto che Lei potesse raccogliere ciò che ha seminato.

    Un grande Grazie e un in bocca al lupo

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Sandro:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Luca M:
    Sorry, this issue is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Sandro

    Ing. Rossi la ringrazio per quello che sta facendo. Mi sembra un sogno destinato a realizzarsi e quando la sua scoperta epocale diventerà fruibile farò tutto il possibile per aiutarla a cambiare il mondo(frase comunemente retorica esclusa questa circostanza)
    Grazie.

  • Luca M

    Dear Mr Rossi, just few questions about the test held the 6 October.
    Reading the Nyteknik report I noticed that before starting the self sustained mode phase, a device “producing frequencies” was switched on. I never heard about this device in the previous tests.
    Was it used also in the test done in Bologna the 15 of January ? Is it a new piece of the e-cat technology ?
    Is it possible to describe the “use” of this device in e-cat technology, or this is a confidental information ?
    Thank you very much for your attention, best wishes.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mats Lewan
    I followed by the internet, with big emotion, the eCat working along more than 3 hours in self sustaining mode.

    A New Age begun in 6th October 2011…

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Albert Ellul and John Thorpe,
    you made right the target.

    In 2002 I had a discussion in the internet with the Nobel Laureate Dr. G. t’Hooft on the Don Borghi experiment.
    I offered myself to send him by the internet the Borghi’s paper published in Phys. At. Nucl. 56 (7), July 1993, by the American Institute of Physics.

    Dr. t’Hooft declined my offer by replying to me:
    “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the “experimental evidence” is phony”.

    So, we have to be astonished with his reply. Indeed, we have to ask to ourselves: how can Dr. t’Hooft to know that Borghi’s experimental evidence is phony ?

    Well, we have to conclude that Dr. t’Hooft has a laboratory in his brain, and he made the Borghi experiment within his brain. So, by repeating the experiment in the laboratory existing into his brain, he concluded that the experimental evidence is phony. Obviously such laboratory into his brain is very much equipped, accurate, and trustworthy than the laboratory used by Don Borghi…

    And all the reviewers of peer review journals also have a laboratory within their brains.
    That’s why all the peer review journals of the world declined to publish the Santilli’s replication of the Don Borghi experiment. All the referees had repeated the experiment into their brain, and all them arrived to the conclusion that the experimental evidences obtained by Borghi and Santilli are phony. That’s why they rejected the Santilli’s paper for publication.

    But we may understand, from the psychological viewpoint, why Dr. t’Hooft decided to betray the scientific method.
    After all, he awarded the Nobel Prize with a theory developed from the foundations of the current theories. He cannot accept Borghi’s experiment, because his experiment contradicts the foundations of current theories.
    To accept Borghi experiment imply in betraying the current prevailing theories (including his own theory which gave him the Nobel). So this imply that Dr. t’Hooft would be confessing that his theory which gave the Nobel to him was developed through wrong foundations.
    So, the best was to betray the scientific method, instead of to betray the Nobel Academy.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Lou Tengzelius ,
    I wrote a paper in which I analyse the Rossi-Focardi cold fusion, and submitted it to publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics. But there are some articles that are waiting publication, and the mine must wait its time to be published.
    Concerning the electrons of the hydride ion, we have to consider the following:
    a) one electron has intrinsic spin up and its HT has clockwise direction, while the second electron has intrinsic spin down and its HT has counter clockwise direction.
    b) one electron has intrinsic spin up and its HT is counter clockwise direction, while the second electron has intrinsic spin down and its HT has clockwise direction.

  • Lou Tengzelius

    Dear Wladimir, Which explanation of the Rossi E-Cat exothermic process most closely conforms to the principals of the Guglinski Quantum Ring Theory? 1. Hydrogen Fusion: p+s=n plus nickel, or 2. In sito created Hydride Ion Fusion: p+s+s=(ps²)- plus nickel. In addition, would the electrons in a Hydride Ion occupying the traditional s shell have opposite HT or would it matter? Lou Tengzelius

  • Dear all,
    Here’s our report on the October 6 test in Bologna:
    New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
    Kind Regards,
    Mats Lewan, Ny Teknik

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric,

    Q: Also, is your reference (d, u, d,) a reference to down, up, down?

    A: yes.

    Q: Have you considered that the anomalous mass of the neutron could be due to the internal kinetic energy of the atom and its motion with regards progression into more positive fields of existence i.e. movement within movement causing an apparent gain in mass?

    A: In Bohr’s theory of the atom the space is Euclidian, and the electron changes its kinetic energy thanks to the changing of the electron’s speed V: deltaE = 1/2.M.(deltaV)²
    In the atom model of my QRT, the space is not Euclidian. And the electron moves with CONSTANT speed in the proton’s electrosphere. The changing of electron’s kinetic energy is due to an apparent changing in the electron’s mass: deltaE = 1/2.(deltaM).V , where V is constant, and M = n² , where n=1,2,3,4…

    This apparent increase in the electron’s mass (with regard to the proton) is due to the dilation of the space into the proton’s electrosphere.
    See figures 1 and 2 in this link:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Zitterbewegung_Hydrogen_Atom_of_Quantum_Ring_Theory

    I suggest you to read my book Quantum Ring Theory

    regards
    WG

  • jonny

    Hello Mr. Rossi.

    no technical questions, just one simple one,
    Are you still on schedule to change the world?
    good luck!

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Amos,
    there is a problem with Randel Mill’s theory: as he considers a hydrogen model in which the electron is a corpuscle that moves about the proton (like in the Bohr model), his theory is not compatible with undulatory phenomena (explained in Quantum Mechanics by considering the electron as a wave-particle duality).

    So, Mills’s theory is incompativle with the Schrodinger equation.

    But the hydrogen model of Quantum Ring Theory (in which a corpucular electron moves with helical trajectory about the proton, and there is dilation of the space about the proton) conciliates the Bohr corpuscular model with the wave duality model of Quantum Mechanics.

    Therefore, my theory conciliates the Mill’s theory with Schrodinger equation, and so by this way his teory can be acceptable, if we introduce the helical trajectory iu his theory.

  • Albert Ellul

    John Thorpe
    October 6th, 2011 at 2:03 AM
    “And they do not hesitate to betray the scientific method, so that to save their beloved theory” – Interesting point which seems valid for a lot scientific theories that take on a form of faith to protect careers/funding/Nobel prizes.
    Einstein always expected to be proved wrong, but today a lot of scientists seem to actually take offence when their work is checked. I blame the politicization of science and the binding of funding to this political dogma, which is most prevalent in climate science today. I hope this is not to become common across the scientific spectrum or we will all be poorer for it.
    Thanks for your paper, an interesting read and another step on the road to a unified theory.

    Yes: This is most prevalentin climate change (pseudo) science and is now spilling over into nuclear physics. It’s Galileo all over again, but instead of the Pope we have the popes of the science organisations and publishers.
    Thank God for the internet, which is saving science from total collapse.
    What the scientific ‘method’ is doing to Ing. Rossi is despicable, but the internet and the power of the truth will prevail.

  • Dear Wladimir, I am very impressed with your paper and find it an excellent source of information with regards what’s the latest thoughts in atomic physics. I am not an academic in nuclear physics so a lot of the terminology is ‘over my head’. However, I do believe that your theory with regards helical trajectory to be correct. There is also mention of ‘the neutron is formed by one proton and one electron’ etc. but has anyone considered that the proton and the electron could be a product of the neutron with regards its flow and force. In other words, potentiality could be responsible for mass, a reference to cause and effect. Also, is your reference (d, u, d,) a reference to down, up, down?. If so I would in my terminology refer to this as the ‘internal economy flow system’. You also mention a peculiar trembling motion noted by Schodinger. From my own observations I assume that this trembling motion is what I refer to as’oscillations of a binary wave’ that establishes and maintains the two major forces of the atom i.e. proton and electron. Thereby simplified atomic composition is proton+ neutron+ neutron- and electron- four dimensions of 360 degrees or 4 angular 90 degrees. Have you considered that the anomalous mass of the neutron could be due to the internal kinetic energy of the atom and its motion with regards progression into more positive fields of existence i.e. movement within movement causing an apparent gain in mass?. The reason for my enquiry is because I too am interested in atomic physics and by my own models I have witnessed specific phenomena that has helped me understand what I believe to be the internal kinetics of the atom. I do believe that there is a complicated, complex method of explaining anything but I also believe that everything can be explained in a simplified manner and atomic physics is no exception and here I am referring to a very basic level with regards an introduction to the subject. These comments are not intended to discredit you or other physicists, they are provided as information only based upon my own thoughts and results obtained by embodiment of a theory.

  • Amos

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

    What are your thoughts on Randell L Mills’ model of the atom and his Grand Unified Field Theory?

    Amos.

  • John Thorpe

    “And they do not hesitate to betray the scientific method, so that to save their beloved theory” – Interesting point which seems valid for a lot scientific theories that take on a form of faith to protect careers/funding/Nobel prizes.
    Einstein always expected to be proved wrong, but today a lot of scientists seem to actually take offence when their work is checked. I blame the politicization of science and the binding of funding to this political dogma, which is most prevalent in climate science today. I hope this is not to become common across the scientific spectrum or we will all be poorer for it.
    Thanks for your paper, an interesting read and another step on the road to a unified theory.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. raul heining

    I think you are not getting the point.

    I am not talking about quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics should be correct, Don Borghi could not get neutrons from proton+electron at low energy.

    So, as quantum mechanics is wrong (or at least incomplete), why do I have to consider its rules as the definitive laws of the Nature?

    Regarding the spin, nobody knows what the spin is, physically speaking. So, as quantum mechanics is not correct, and nobody knows what the spin is, why do I have to consider the spin as it is supposed in quantum mechanics ?

    Regarding the confirmation of helical trajectory by experiments, suggested by Mr. Insight, I have to say the following:

    1- Santilli tried several times to repeat Don Borghi’s experiment in several universities of the world. All the universities declined to allow him to perform the experiment in their laboratories. That’s why, after many refusals from universities, Santilli decided to repeat Don Borghi experiment himself. And he did it successfully.

    2- As the physicists are not interested to repeat one experiment already made in 1993 by Don Borghi (and published in a peer review journal of physics), and repeated successfully by Santilli, why do you (and Mr. Insight) believe that the physicists could be interested to make experiments, in order to verify if the helical trajectory exists, or not?

    3- The physicists are not interested to verify the existence of the helical trajectory.
    They are interested only to keep quantum mechanics. And they do not hesitate to betray the scientific method, so that to save their beloved theory.

    Regards, Wladimir Guglinski

  • raul heining

    Dear Wladimir, I think you are not getting the point. You cannot talk about trajectories in quantum mechanics nor specify an helical movement of an electron. The intrinsic spin of the electron is 1/2.
    You get when you take the z axis Sz with two eigenstates and two eigenvalues and once the electron goes through the slice you only know the projection for one electron which hit a place in the target.
    regards
    raul

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. insight,
    I actually dont understand your problem with the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

    If the electron should be a classical particle, its spin will not be quantizied.

    What Stern-Gerlach experiment shows is only the quantization of the electron’s spin:
    “If the particles were classical spinning objects, one would expect the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors to be random and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by a different amount, producing a smooth distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount. This result indicates that spin angular momentum is quantized (i.e., it can only take on discrete values), so that there is not a continuous distribution of possible angular momenta.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

    I dont understand why do think that an electron moving with helical trajectory cannot have its intrinsic spín quantizied.

    There are some properties of the spin which can be explained by taking in consideration the intrinsic spin only (there is no need to consider the helical trajectory), as for instance the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

    However the spin of electron has some strange properties (that’s why it’s impossible to explain its spin by considering the electron as it should be a classical particle).

    The physical meaning of spin is not understood yet. In a paper by T.S. Natarajan, in which he proposes the helical trajectory of the electron, he writes: “the spin of a particle is a real concept yet to be understood”

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear raul heining
    intrinsic spin is the rotation of the electrona about the axis that crosses the center of the electron (like the rotation of the Earth about its axis).

    When the electron moves, its rotation (with regard to the vector velocity) can have two directions: clockwise direction, and counter clockwise direction.
    A clockwise direction will produce a magnetic momentum which vector will be up.
    A counter clockwise direction will produce a magnetic momentum which vector will be down.

    In Stern-Gerlach experiment the electrons with spin up are deflected toward the up direction. The electrons with spin down are deflected toward the down direction.

  • insight

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    I am not saying that hidden motions aren’t possible.
    I am saying that you have no experimental evidence of them in the form you describe.
    You overlooked what the effect would be if a helical moving electron pass through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus.
    Moreover you cannot account for Stern-Gerlach experiments in sequence with 90° rotation of axis.
    Furthermore you drop the helical trajectory when you describe the bound state inside the neutron, which again becomes a mini-atom, described in classical terms.
    Being rejected by scientific publications is no automatic proof of unfair censorship.

  • raul heining

    “A particle with intrinsic spin up will have a QM-spin up.
    A particle with intrinsic spin down will have a QM-spin down.”

    Dar Wladimir, spin up and spin down are the projections in the z axle of spin.
    thus Sz, not the intrinsic spin. up and down are two states of the same
    property.

    Regards
    raul

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. Insight,

    obviously you have an untouchable dream: to keep Quantum Mechanics and its foundations, so that to explain all the phenomena.

    Then we have to consider two hyphotesis:

    1- Suppose that the particles existing in Nature do NOT move with helical trajectory
    In this case Quantum Mechanics and its foundations can be correct, and then it will be possible to explain many phenomena not explained yet, as cold fusion, overunity, magnetic motors, hydrine hydrides produced by BlackLight Power, Don Borghi experiment, etc.

    2- Suppose that the particles existing in Nature really move with helical trajectory
    In this case, do you think is it possible to explain those phenomena above from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics ?

  • Silvano Mattioli

    In ogni caso il corretto codice era:

    ENERGY.2012.2.9.1: Power generation in the low temperature range
    The activities under this topic will focus on research and development of innovative systems for low temperature power generation such as binary plants and/or installations based on low enthalpy resources suitable for commercial scale power production. The aims are to significantly improve the current tech-nologies and to increase the overall conversion efficiency in order to produce electricity from thermodynamic cycles of both of lowest possible temperatures and lowest possible temperature differences.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Silvano mattioli:
    Thank you, I can resist.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Nisto

    Dear Ing.Rossi,
    I read about many possible future applications of the e-cat in the transport sector such as trains, ships, cars and planes.
    How do you see the implementation of the dirigible trasport using hot air generated by the e-cat instead of the dangerous H or He?
    At a first look the two technologies are both respectful of the environment.
    Furthermore the e-cat can give a great autonomy and a loading capacity to a mean of transport that was discharged for its dangerousness but also for the reduced capacity as a cargo: without loading tons of fuel for the propellers, the dirigible could become competitive with big airplanes, in cases where speed is not a must.

    Best regards.
    AN

  • Petri

    “2- The steam swoosh you saw is from a 10 kW module
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    Why the steam swoosh can be found from youtube and that is 3 year old? Do I miss something?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBOVQUrSgE&feature=player_detailpage

    Thanks
    -Pete

  • Silvano Mattioli

    Salve,
    ho letto di problemi di finanziamento.
    Volevo segnalarle questo bando europeo per 2 progetti:
    FP-7-ENERGY-2012.2.9.1
    E’ un bando per produzione di energia elettrica per sorgenti a bassa entalpia.
    Direi adatto..

  • insight

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    are you aware that your statements are not rigorous, self-contradicting and without support of any algebric construction (vectors, matrixes, functions), that is the Physics language? Are you aware that you mix classical and quantum mechanics up just as you like? You gather amazing but highly doubious results and theories, some from Physicists of the past, some from outsiders, some from well-known scientists of today, and here’s the ultimate theory.
    I insist: the possibility that a particle has a hidden motion inside, and that this motion is the only motion in bound states, is a common insight. To prove it is the hard part, both with theory and experiments.
    Regards

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    correction:

    in the last phasis of my last comment the correct is:

    such model of neutron would have to have a magnetic moment with the same magnitude of the electron (magnitude three times superior of that of the neutron measured in experiments).

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. Insight

    A) Stern-Gerlach experiment is analysed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, in the chapter entitled “The Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory”, which begins in the page 56.
    I dont understand your doubt. In my theory the spin of particles (that considered in Quantum Mechanics) is named QM-spin, which is a combination of two motions: the helical trajectory and the intrinsic spin.
    A particle with intrinsic spin up will have a QM-spin up.
    A particle with intrinsic spin down will have a QM-spin down.

    B) Relativistic electrons do not move with straight line. In the neutron the electron moves with 92% of light speed, and it has a straight trajectory, but a free electron with 99% of light speed can keep its helical trajectory.
    The relativistic speed itself do not eliminate the helical trajectory.
    Into the neutron, the electron loses its helical trajectory by two causes:
    1- it has relativistic speed ( 0,92.c )
    2- it is confined into the neutron (the proton-electron interaction helps the electron to lose its helical trajectory).

    So, a free relativistic electron and a confined relativistic electron have different behavior.

    C) Already explained in A.

    D) The intrinsic spin never disapears. The spin measured in the experiments is the QM-spin, which is a combination of the helical trajectory and the intrinsic spin. As the helical trajectory disapears, the QM-spin disapears.

    Dear Insight,
    Don Borghi experiment (corroborated by Conte-Pieralice experiment) have proven that neutrons are formed by proton+electron at low energy. So, neutrons have the structure n=p+e.
    It’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain the structure n=p+e if you do not consider the helical trajectory. Because the magnitude of the magnetic moment of the free electron is three times stronger than that of the neutron. If you propose a theory of neutron n=p+e where the electron does not move with helical trajectory, such model of neutron would have to have a magnetic moment with the same magnitude of the electron (three times of that of the neutron measured in experiments).

  • insight

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    I hope you want to explain something to me. Thanks in advance.
    A) If non-relativistic electrons keep their spin, and if the spin is due also to helical trajectory (HT) according to you, how do you explain Stern-Gerlach experiment, where a beam of electrons splits into two beams, one for spin up and one for spin down? How the HT and the intrinsic spin combine?
    B) When the electrons are relativistic do you mean the straight line speed, or compound speed? If you mean the straight line speed and the radius is going to zero, how big the compound speed could become?
    C) What makes you think that relativistic electrons have proved to have no spin?
    D) If spin is a result of the intrinsic spin of the particle combined with the rotation of the particle about the line center of its HT, what make you think that also the intrinsic spin disappear in the relativistic case?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    The present paper was submitted to a journal of nuclear physics some years ago, and a reviewer rejected the 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”.

    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 astronomical observation 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 astronomical observation is suggesting that current theories are wrong, and Quantum Ring Theory is correct.

  • Tony McConnell

    Without risk there is no progress; here’s a quotation made by Planck and others when nominating Einstein for the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1913 despite fundamentally disagreeing with his position on light-quanta. Planck’s proposal contained the following paragraph:

    ‘In sum, it can be said that among the important problems, which are so abundant in modern physics, there is hardly one in which Einstein did not take a position in a remarkable manner. That he might sometimes have overshot the target in his speculations, as for example in his light-quantum hypothesis, should not be counted against him too much. Because without taking a risk from time to time it is impossible, even in the most exact natural sciences, to introduce real innovations’

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Mr. insight wrote:
    “Helical trajectory (or similar concepts) for explaining “hidden variables” in quantum mechanics is a common insight “

    You are wrong, Mr. insight.
    The helical trajectory is not a commmon insight by Physics students.

    The helical trajectory, also known as Zitterbewegung, was proposed by Schrödinger, one of the fathers of Quantum Mechanics.

    Here you have a research made by David Hestenes about such concept:
    The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”
    http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf

    I also dont understand why you are so afraid of a discussion about the structure of the neutron. The success of Rossi’s eCat does not depend on any theoretical discussion.

    His eCat already works, as the so many tests already had proved, and no theoretical quarrel in the world can take off from the eCat its capacity of functioning.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Insight:
    The paper of Wladimir Guglinski is the result of a serious study. The peer reviewer who analyzed the paper “Anomalous Mass od the Neutrons” has licensed it and consequently the Journal of Nuclear Physics has been honoured to publish it.
    I have full respect of the Board Of Advisers: the Board Of Advisers decides the peer reviewer of all the papers which the Journal Of Nuclear Physics receives and the peer reviewers decide if a paper has to be published or not.
    Therefore I suggest to all our Readers to read the article “Anomalous Mass Of The Neutrons” of Wladimir Guglinski that the Journal Of Nuclear Physics has published today.
    Waem Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • insight

    Dear A.R.
    I am not going to express detailed scientific opinions about this paper. It is legitimate and worth of respect, of course.
    I just ask you if you think that it is good for your cause to have it on the home page of this site just in these crucial days for your invention, when it is likely that many people will visit it with skeptical attitude and legitimate doubts.
    Helical trajectory (or similar concepts) for explaining “hidden variables” in quantum mechanics is a common insight by Physics students at 3rd year of study, when they wonder about its weird laws. I think it is possible that hidden motions are inside particles but it is very difficult to demonstrate it. In the future I think it will be investigated, but it will be a long path, with experiments triggered by clues from other experiments, triggered by other experiments and so on. And all uncomfortable side effects or results will be taken into account, not simply overlooked or dismissed to preserve theory’s coherence (where present, of course) or elegance.
    I just express my hope that the publication of this paper (beyond its scientific value or your personal endorsement) is not misundertood by people and scientists visiting this site in the coming weeks, so important for your invention and the future of the energy production.
    Best regards.

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=""> <strike> <strong>