

by
Wladimir Guglinski
retired, author of the Quantum Ring Theory
.
.
Abstract
Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser of the Helmhotz Center for Heavy Ion Research at the University in Mainz says on the 2009 experiment which had detected a neutron halo in 4Be11 with distance 7fm from the cluster:
“By studing neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics”[ 2 ]
In the case of 4Be11, the halo neutron and the nuclear core are separated by the distance of 7fm, and so such isotope represents the experimental proof that the cohesion of nucleons within the light isotopes cannot be promoted by the strong nuclear force.
Such experimental discovery published in 2009 had been predicted years ago, because according to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, the cohesion of the nucleons within the light nuclei is not caused by the strong nuclear force.
Here in this paper the new nuclear model is submitted to a scrutinity so that to verify whether from its structure it’s possible to explain the stability of the light nuclei and to reproduce the nuclear properties as nuclear spins, electric quadrupole moments, and magnetic moments. Nuclear magnetic moments are calculated from two different and independent methods. In the second, named “method of equilibrium between nucleons”, it’s presented the Lagrangian for nuclei with Z < 8. The results obtained from them agree each other, and are corroborated by nuclear spins and electric quadrupole moments suplied by nuclear tables.
In this Part One are presented calculations on magnetic moments for the isotopes of lithium, beryllium, and boron. In the next paper Part Two will be exhibited calculations for carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. In the paper Part Three the author will exhibit calculations for electric quadrupole moments.
.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, ISERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
With reference to the current physics concepts, implementing the gravitational constant in atomic and nuclear physics and studying its consequences is beyond the scope. 10 dimensional String theory is also not in a position to couple the nuclear scale and planck scale. Role of dark energy or dark matter is very insignificant in understanding the basic concepts of unification of fundamental interactions. Considering the atomic and nuclear physical constants till today cosmic acceleration is not yet verified.
. Project summary Within the expanding cosmic Hubble volume, Hubble length can be considered as the gravitational or electromagnetic interaction range. Product of ‘Hubble volume’ and ‘cosmic critical density’ can be called as the “Hubble mass”. The three proposed assumptions are: 1) within the Hubble volume, each and every point in free space is influenced by the Hubble mass, 2) ‘molar electron mass’ can be considered as the rest mass of a new heavy charged elementary particle and 3) atomic gravitational constant is Avogadro number times the classical gravitational constant. This is a new approach and may be given a chance in understanding the four fundamental cosmological interactions. Approach may be different but involvement and encouragement may bring this subject into main stream.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, ISERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
On 21 December 2011 a new meson of rest energy 10.530±0.005 GeV was detected in CERN – LHC and the ATLAS detector.
This new meson, known as χb (3p), consists of two parts – an elementary particle known as a `beauty’ quark and its opposite antiquark, which are bound together by a `strongforce'[1].
Its existence was predicted in our published paper [2]: page278, table16, last row, last column.
Before going further, authors request the interested readers to please go through the two published papers [2] and [3].
This paper is a combined and unified version of the published papers [2,3] and proceedings of the DAE symposium on nuclear physics 2011, India [4,5].
Please note that in our previous paper [2] it was suggested that: W boson is the super symmetric boson of the top quark fermion and the charged Higgs boson pair generates the neutralized Z boson.
It was also suggested that [3,5] Higgs charged boson and W boson couples together to form a neutral boson of rest energy 126 GeV.
Its existence was detected and is under open discussion [6,7].
Another interesting idea is: W boson pair generates a neutral boson of rest energy 161 GeV. This is our prediction and needs to be verified.
.
.
by
Sergey P.Efimov
Seniorlecturer, Department of mathematics,
Bauman Moscow State Technical University. Moscow. Russia
Email: serg.efimo2012@yandex.ru
.
.
Short Content
Modern ideas presume that the nucleon has a complex structure. Accordingly, one should not expect simple and exact formulas for the above quantities in future theory. Still, if we suppose that future theory possesses hidden symmetry then there possibly exist simple formulas for the magnetic moments, since in quantum theory, symmetries normally generate comparatively simple formulas involving integer numbers. The hypothesis can be verified by a simple, but not at all obvious, method of numerical analysis of the experimental data.
Based on it, we find simple phenomenological formulas for the magnetic moments of the proton and neutron with 10 valid digits. We also obtain a compact formula for the relation of the electron’s anomalous moment to the summary magnetic moment of the nucleon with 11 valid digits, and propose dependencies of the neutron and proton masses in electron mass units as functions with argument π.
.
.
.
by
Sankar Hajra
Calcutta Philosophical Forum, Salt Lake,
AC 54, Sector1, Calcutta – 700 064, INDIA
Email: sankarhajra@yahoo.com
.
.
To know whether a fuel isp roper fuel or not is to determine whether the fuel gives off greater amount of energy when it is used than the energy involved in making the fuel from raw natural materials.
A huge amount of energy is obtained when Hydrogen or thermite (a mixture of powdered Aluminium and oxide of iron) is burned.
But energy obtained from combustion of those fuels is not greater than the energy spent to make them from natural resources.
Therefore, Hydrogen and thermite cannot be treated as proper fuels.
Electricity could be readily generated from combustion of those fuels, but, electricity made from those fuels must be more expensive than electricity made from coal or petroleum.
According to Einstein’s E=mcˆ2 formula, 1Kg of any material (preferably Uranium) will give 9×10ˆ16 joules, or 2×10ˆ16 calories, of heat energy through complete nuclear reaction.
[E = mcˆ2 = 1 x (3 x 10ˆ8)ˆ2 joules = 20 x 10ˆ12 kilocals = 20 trillion kilocals]
If that would be true, then powerful states around the world would not compete for oil in the deserts of Arabia.
If one ton of Uranium of someton ‘Little Boy’ bomb could take part in the socalled nuclear reaction, then some million of square miles of the world would burn, instead of only 1.7 square miles of Hiroshima.
It not at all possible to give supply of electricity to the people from socalled nuclear fuels at a cost lower than fossilfuel electricity for the reasons stated above.
However, it is possible to give ontological lectures on nuclear fission/fusion or to earn immense money from socalled nuclear projects.
.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Spun QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti, AP, 517641, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, AP, 530003, India.
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
It can be supposed that elementary particles construction is much more fundamental than the black hole’s construction.
If one wishes to unify electroweak, strong and gravitational interactions it is a must to implement the classical gravitational constant G in the sub atomic physics.
By any reason if one implements the planck scale in elementary particle physics and nuclear physics automatically G comes into subatomic physics.
Then a large arbitrary number has to be considered as a proportionality constant.
After that its physical significance has to be analyzed.
Alternatively its equivalent “strong nuclear gravitational constant GS can also be assumed.
Some attempts have been done in physics history [1–5].
Whether it may be real or an equivalent if it is existing as a “single constant” its physical significance can be understood.
“Nuclear size” can be fitted with “nuclear Schwarzschild radius”.
“Nucleus” can be considered as “strong nuclear black hole”.
This idea requires a basic nuclear fermion! Nuclear binding energy constants can be generated directly.
Protonneutron stability can be studied.
Origin of “strong coupling constant” and “Fermi’s weak coupling constant” can be understood.
Charged lepton masses can be fitted.
Authors feel that these applications can be considered favorable for the proposed assumptions and further analysis can be carried out positively for understanding and developing this proposed “nuclear planck scale”.
.
.
by
Sankar Hajra
Indian Physical Society, Calcutta, India
Email: sankarhajra@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
Important observations on the behavior of light waves began to be performed from the time of Roemer (1670) and important experiments on electricity and magnetism began to be conducted from the time of Coulomb (1783). Maxwell (1865) tried to unify both streams of knowledge and dared to realize what light was. There were numerous experiments to demonstrate that Maxwell’s theory was correct, though some might argue that the theory was inadequate.
In the Maxwell’s theory, if c is considered to be the speed of light in free space, Maxwell’s equations are then valid in free space where the earth is obviously moving with an appreciable velocity. Therefore, the Maxwell’s equations should be affected on the surface of the moving ear th. But curiously, all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on the surface of the moving earth are independent of the movement of this planet. To dissolve this problem, Einstein (1905) assumes that Maxwell’s equations are invariant to all observers in steady motion which acts as the foundation of Special Relativity. In the second place, the relativistic mass formula is routinely confirmed in particle accelerators. Therefore, Special Relativity is held to be more acceptable than Classical Electrodynamics. In the second decade of the past century, Einstein extended his special relativity to General relativity, a spacetime curvature physics wherein he explained many puzzling gravitational phenomena with the application of his spacetime curvature proposition.
From the days of inception of the theory of relativity (1905), numerous physicists like Paul Ehrenfest (1909), Ludwig Silberstein (1920), Philipp Lenard (1920), Herbert Dingle (1950), F. R. Tangherlini (1968), T. G. Barnes et al. (1976), R. Tian & Z. Li (1990) and many others have doubted (fully or partially) over the foundation of the theory of relativity and many of them have proposed alternative approaches.
In the period between the last decade of the last century and the first decade of the present century (19912010), C. A. Zapffe, Paul Marmet, A. G. Kelly, N. Hamdan, R. Honig and many others have made important contributions in this direction.
In the first part of this paper, we have shown that the mass of a point charge as per Classical Electrodynamics is the same as that of Special Relativity and the foundation of both the deductions lies in Classical Electrodynamics of Heaviside (1988). Therefore, mass formula confirmed by the particle accelerators is fully consistent with Classical Electrodynamics too.
In the second part, we have shown that the consideration of the effects of gravitational field of the earth on electromagnetic entities easily explains classically those puzzling gravitational phenomena (explained by Einstein) as well as why all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on earth’s surface are independent of the movement of the earth; and this elucidates that both the invariant proposition and the spacetime curvature proposition of Einstein are unnecessary.
Our goal is to show here the efficacy of the classical physics to interpret relativistic phenomena rationally and easily. In this study we have only used Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, Newton’s equations of motions and his theory of gravitation. We have used no theory of our own.
.
.
.
by
F. Santandrea
R&D systems analyst – Labor s.r.l. Rome Italy
Email: f.santandrea@laborroma.it
.
U. Abundo
Physics teacher – Leopoldo Pirelli I.T.I.S. high school Rome Italy
Email: interprogetto@email.it
.
.
The QST theory elaborated in 1994 by F. Santandrea, now under revision, contains some topics concerning the LENR recently submitted and appreciated from LENR researchers, QST could giving an unifying point of view on the whole Physics.
For further detailed please refer to the following link QST updated topics:
Ten years later the same basic ideas were independently approached by U. Abundo employing the tools offered by the J.Von Neumann’s Cellular Automata from a point of view focused on information traveling, please refer to the following link:
The well known WidomLarsen theory, basically focused on the cooperating behavior of the electrons in condensed matter (tuned with the theory of G. Preparata) may be regarded as a special case, under specific conditions, of what is predictable by the QST.
According with QST, it is naturally predictable the loss of identity of the electrons confined into condensed matter lattice, while the properties of space have priority and permit/control existence and behavior of electrons, so giving a natural coherence to the assumptions of WidomLarsen.
Into the present new approach to space and particles structure, the latter become just expression of stable resonance frequencies of space; the same electron, particles and generally condensed matter are “electromagnetic objects” constituted of standing waves into the space quantum found by TSQ.
.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti517641, A.P, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Read the whole article Abstract
where Gs is the strong nuclear gravitational constant [1, 2, 3] and is equal to N²Gc. They are observed and hidden mass units and their mass ratio is XE = 295.0606338. Hidden mass unit of nucleon can be given as It is noticed that there exists an intermediate hidden mass state in between neutron and proton. hidden mass of the intermediate state can be given as Observable mass of this hidden intermediate state can be given as If mec² is the rest energy of electron, this observable intermediate state gains a massenergy of ½mec² and transforms to neutron. Error is related with
Here Ec and Ea are the semi emepirical mass formula [1, 3, 15, 16, 17] coulomb and asymmetry energy constants. Asymmetry energy constant Ec, Ea are related with XE as
Volume and surface energy constants are related as
Read the whole article
by Christos Stremmenos Oltre al breve rapporto su una delle tante ricerche riguardanti i processi di interazione nei sistemi idrogeno/deuteriometalli di transizione, nell’articolo viene valutata l’esistenza e la natura dei vari inattesi effetti sporadicamente osservati. Vengono inoltre attribuite alla complessità del fenomeno, le cause principali della non riproducibilità di questi effetti e si discutono possibili interventi di carattere sperimentale che rimuoverebbero le incertezze strutturali, sia statiche sia dinamiche, del sistema. by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti517641, A.P, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA Read the whole article Introduction By
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson,
Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
Abstract AbstractA heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this twopart paper.
This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow.
An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow.
This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow.
These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results.
The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.
by Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag530003, AP, India.
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Abstract In the previous paper [1] it is suggested that there exists integral charge effective quark fermigluons and quark bosogluons. Effective quark fermigluons generates charged ground state baryons and quark bosogluons generates ground state neutral mesons.
In this paper it is suggested that with a binding energy of 939 MeV any 3 (effective) quark fermigluons couples together to form a charged ground state baryon.
Square root of any 2 quark fermigluons or cubic root of any 3 quark fermigluons can be called as `hybrid’ quark fermigluons.
Hybrid quark fermigluons of up and down are 746 MeV, 779 MeV and 813 MeV. Out of 6 quark fermigluons, for a three quark bound system (with binding energy 939 MeV) different combinations of quark fermigluons and hybrid quark fermigluons can be possible and hence different ground state baryons can be generated with different quark flavors.
If n=1, 2, 3,.. excited energy levels follows
X sum of 3 quark fermigluons rest energy.
Another interesting thing is that light quark bosons like up boson mass=1.94 MeV and down boson mass=4.2 MeV couples with these ground or excited states to form doublets and triplets.
3 up quark fermigluons having rest energy 3×685 MeV and binding energy 939 MeV generates a ground state charged baryon of rest energy (3×685)939≈1116MeV.
Up boson mass =1.94 MeV couples with this charged state and generates a neutral baryon at 1118 MeV. Two up and one down quark fermigluons having binding energy 939 MeV generates charged (2×685+885)939≈1316MeV . One up and two down quark fermigluons having binding enegy 939 MeV generates charged (685+2×885)939 1516MeV. Thus 1177 MeV and 1377 MeV ground state charged baryons can be generated. This idea can be applied to other heavy quark fermigluons. by Abstract 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 TheoryFoundations for Cold Fusion, published in 2006
Abstract Quantum Ring Theory (QRT) proposes a new model of neutron, a new hydrogen model, a photon model, a model structure for the aether, a model of electron, a model of proton, and a new nuclear model named Hexagonal Floors Model.
Here we analyze the RossiFocardi cold fusion experiment by considering the nuclear properties of the Hexagonal Floors Model.
By U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti517641, A.P, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag530003, AP, India.
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
In this paper previously [1, 2] defined lepton mass generator XE is redefined in a unified approach and is shown that it is more fundamental than the fine structure ratio α. Muon and Tau masses are fitted. With a new (uncertain) quantum number at n=3, a new heavy charged lepton is predicted at 42260 MeV. Without considering the classical gravitational constant Gc establishing a relation in between charged particle ‘s s mass and charge is impossible. Till now Avagadro number [3] is a mystery. The basic counting unit in chemistry, the mole, has a special name Avogadro ‘s s number in honor of the Italian scientist Amadeo Avogadro (17761856). The commonly accepted definition of Avogadro number is the number of atoms in exactly 12 g of the isotope 12/6 C and the quantity itself is 6.02214179(30) x 10ˆ23 . Considering N as a fundamental input in grand unified scheme authors made an attempt to correlate the electron rest mass and its charge. It is also noticed that h is slipping from the net and there lies the the secret of true grand unification. As the culmination of his life work, Einstein wished to see a unification of gravity and electromagnetism [4] as aspects of one single force. In modern language he wished to unite electric charge with the gravitational charge (mass) into one single entity. Further, having shown that mass the gravitational charge was connected with spacetime curvature, he hoped that the electric charge would likewise be so connected with some other geometrical property of spacetime structure. For Einstein [5, 6] the existence, the mass, the charge of the electron and the proton the only elementary particles recognized back in 1920s were arbitrary features. One of the main goals of a unified theory should explain the existence and calculate the properties of matter. Stephen Hawking – in his famous book “A brief history of time ” [7] says: It would be very difficult to construct a complete unified theory of everything in the universe all at one go. So instead we have made progress by finding partial theories that describe a limited range of happenings and by neglecting other effects or approximating them by certain numbers. (Chemistry, for example, allows us to calculate the interactions of atoms, without knowing the internal structure of an atomic nucleus). Ultimately, however, one would hope to find a complete, consistent, unified theory that would include all these partial theories as approximations, and that did not need to be adjusted to fit the facts by picking the values of certain arbitrary numbers in the theory. The quest for such a theory is known as “the unification of physics . Einstein spent most of his later years unsuccessfully searching for a unified theory, but the time was not ripe: there were partial theories for gravity and the electromagnetic force, but very little was known about the nuclear forces. Moreover, Einstein refused to believe in the reality of quantum mechanics, despite the important role he had played in its development. by Ioannis Xydous Abstract by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, ISERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad35, India
email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam03,India
email:lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Introduction Unification means: finding the similarities, finding the limiting physical constants, finding the key numbers, coupling the key physical constants, coupling the key physical concepts, coupling the key physical properties, minimizing the number of dimensions, minimizing the number of inputs and implementing the key physical constant or key number in different branches of physics.
This is a very lengthy process. In all these cases observations, interpretations, experiments and imagination play a key role. The main difficulty is with interpretations and observations.
As the interpretation changes physical concept changes, physical equation changes and finally the destiny changes.
Universe is a very big laboratory and its life span is very large. Modern physics is having only and hardly 200 years of strong scientific background. Strong motivation, good reasoning, nature friendly concepts, simplicity and applicability are the most favorable and widely accepted qualities of any new model.
Note that in the atomic or nuclear physics, till today no one measured the gravitational force of attraction between the proton and electron and experimentally noone measured the value of the gravitational constant.
Physicists say, if strength of strong interaction is unity, with reference to the strong interaction, strength of gravitation is 10^39. The fundamental question to be answered is: is mass an inherent property of any elementary particle?
To unify 2 interactions if 5 dimensions are required, for unifying 4 interactions 10 dimensions are required. For 3+1 dimensions if there exists 4 (observed) interactions, for 10 dimensions there may exist 10 (observable) interactions. To unify 10 interactions 20 dimensions are required. From this idea it can be suggested that with ‘n’ new dimensions ‘unification’ problem can not be resolved.
As the culmination of his life work, Einstein wished to see a unification of gravity and electromagnetism as aspects of one single force. In modern language he wished to unite electric charge with the gravitational charge (mass) into one single entity. Further, having shown that mass the ‘gravitational charge’ was connected with spacetime curvature, he hoped that the electric charge would likewise be so connected with some other geometrical property of spacetime structure. For Einstein the existence, the mass, the charge of the electron and the proton the only elementary particles recognized back in 1920s were arbitrary features. One of the main goals of a unified theory should explain the existence and calculate the properties of matter.
Stephen Hawking – in his famous book – says: It would be very difficult to construct a complete unified theory of everything in the universe all at one go. So instead we have made progress by finding partial theories that describe a limited range of happenings and by neglecting other effects or approximating them by certain numbers. (Chemistry, for example, allows us to calculate the interactions of atoms, without knowing the internal structure of an atomic nucleus). Ultimately, however, one would hope to find a complete, consistent, unified theory that would include all these partial theories as approximation, and that did not need to be adjusted to fit the facts by picking the values of certain arbitrary numbers in the theory. The quest for such a theory is known as “the unification of physics”.
Einstein spent most of his later years unsuccessfully searching for a unified theory, but the time was not ripe: there were partial theories for gravity and the electromagnetic force, but very little was known about the nuclear forces. Moreover, Einstein refused to believe in the reality of quantum mechanics, despite the important role he had played in its development.
The first step in unification is to understand the origin of the rest mass of a charged elementary particle. Second step is to understand the combined effects of its electromagnetic (or charged) and gravitational interactions. Third step is to understand its behaviour with surroundings when it is created. Fourth step is to understand its behaviour with cosmic spacetime or other particles. Right from its birth to death, in all these steps the underlying fact is that whether it is a strongly interacting particle or weakly interacting particle, it is having some rest mass. To understand the first 2 steps somehow one must implement the gravitational constant in sub atomic physics.
by Marco Lelli As it is well known a recent series of experiments, conducted in collaboration between CERN laboratories in Geneva and the Gran Sasso National Laboratory for Particle Physics, could have decreed the discovery of the transmission of a beam of superluminal particles. by Bhagirath Shantilal Joshi
Msc Solid state Physics, Gujartat University, Gujarat, India
MS Computer Engineering, Univ of Lowell, Lowell, Mass, USA
Abstract Review of the periodic table and existing research on isotopes of the various elements of the periodic table is conducted and the attempt is made here to visualize the process of element formation. The role of Neutron in element formation is investigated and found to be vital for existence of elements . In the new light, the new model of nucleus is proposed which explains the stability of the nuclei and reason for multiple stable isotopes of elements. 

Copyright © 2020 Journal of Nuclear Physics  All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa 
Recent Comments