|
|
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
E-mail: 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, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
E-mail: 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]: page-278, table-16, 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
Senior-lecturer, Department of mathematics,
Bauman Moscow State Technical University. Moscow. Russia
E-mail: 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, Sector-1, Calcutta – 700 064, INDIA
E-mail: 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 so-called 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 so-called nuclear fuels at a cost lower than fossil-fuel electricity for the reasons stated above.
However, it is possible to give ontological lectures on nuclear fission/fusion or to earn immense money from so-called nuclear projects.
.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Spun QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti, AP, 517641, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, AP, 530003, India.
E-mail: 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.
Proton-neutron 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 space-time curvature physics wherein he explained many puzzling gravitational phenomena with the application of his space-time 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 (1991-2010), 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 space-time 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
E-mail: f.santandrea@labor-roma.it
.
U. Abundo
Physics teacher – Leopoldo Pirelli I.T.I.S. high school Rome Italy
E-mail: 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 Widom-Larsen 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 Widom-Larsen.
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, Srikalahasti-517641, A.P, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
Abstract
Nuclear planck energy is given by
where Gs is the strong nuclear gravitational constant [1, 2, 3] and is equal to N²Gc.
Here N is Avagadro number and GC is the classical gravitational constant.
In the previous paper [1] it is suggested that there exists 2 kinds of mass units.
They are observed and hidden mass units and their mass ratio is XE = 295.0606338.
XE can be called as the lepton-quark mass generator [1 – 4].
In this paper this idea is applied to the nucleons.
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.
If nuclear stability factor is defined as
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 mass-energy of ½mec² and transforms to neutron.
By loosing a mass-energy of 2mec² transforms to proton.
Error is related with
Here Ec and Ea are the semi emepirical mass formula [1, 3, 15, 16, 17] coulomb and asymmetry energy constants.
Finally it is suggested that pairing energy constant of the semi empirical mass formula is
Asymmetry energy constant
Ec, Ea are related with XE as
Volume and surface energy constants are related as
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
by Christos Stremmenos
Oltre al breve rapporto su una delle tante ricerche riguardanti i processi di interazione nei sistemi idrogeno/deuterio-metalli 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, Srikalahasti-517641, A.P, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
Introduction
Estimated or phenomenological [7, 8] masses of up and down quarks are 1.3 to 3.3 MeV and 4.1 to 5.8 MeV respectively.
Standard model assumes that proton constitutes 2 up quarks and one down quark. Neutron constitutes 2 down quarks and one up quarks.
In any way their estimated or phenomenological [7, 8] mass sum is not matching with the nucleons rest mass.
In any way their sum is not matching with the nucleons rest energy.
There should be some reason for this mismatch. This clearly indicates that there is something missing from the standard model.
In standard model there exists 8 gluons having `color’ charge with no rest mass and in between the quarks strong interaction is mediated by these gluons.
If gluons has no rest mass and up and down quarks mass sum is small (compared to the nucleon rest mass) how to generate the existing nucleon rest mass? To over come this difculty [1] it is suggested that there exists integral charge quark fermions, integral charge quark bosons, integral charge (massive) quark fermi-gluons and integral charge (massive) quark boso-gluons.
Note that fermi-gluon means massive gluons having fermion behavior and boso-gluon means massive gluons having boson behavior.
(Effective) fermi-gluons play a crucial role in baryons mass generation and boso-gluons play a crucial role in mesons mass generation.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
By
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson,
Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
Abstract
Abstract-A 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 two-part 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
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti-517641, A.P, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Abstract
In the previous paper [1] it is suggested that there exists integral charge effective quark fermi-gluons and quark boso-gluons.
Effective quark fermi-gluons generates charged ground state baryons and quark boso-gluons generates ground state neutral mesons.
In this paper it is suggested that with a binding energy of 939 MeV any 3 (effective) quark fermi-gluons couples together to form a charged ground state baryon.
Square root of any 2 quark fermi-gluons or cubic root of any 3 quark fermi-gluons can be called as `hybrid’ quark fermi-gluons.
Hybrid quark fermi-gluons of up and down are 746 MeV, 779 MeV and 813 MeV. Out of 6 quark fermi-gluons, for a three quark bound system (with binding energy 939 MeV) different combinations of quark fermi-gluons and hybrid quark fermi-gluons 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 fermi-gluons 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 fermi-gluons 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 fermi-gluons having binding energy 939 MeV generates charged (2×685+885)-939≈1316MeV .
One up and two down quark fermi-gluons 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 fermi-gluons.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
by
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin,
Evan Robinson, Mario Human,
Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
Abstract
This First part of a two-part paper deals with results from a circuit that was designed to determine whether the amount of energy dissipated in a circuit could exceed the amount of energy delivered from a battery supply. If so, then this result would prove the basis of a magnetic field model that predicts an exploitable non-conservative field condition. This model is the subject of the second paper.
The distinction is drawn that the energy that is dissipated in a circuit is sourced from the induced potential difference in the circuit material itself.
Correspondingly then, the proposal is that the circuit material itself may be used as a supplementary and secondary energy supply source that has not, typically, been factored into the analysis of power conversion.
This raises the question as to whether Kirchhoff’s Laws exceed Faraday’s Laws of Induction. And if not, then there is also a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply that may be exploited to enhance energy efficiencies.
Test results show that this is, indeed, possible and that the inductive and conductive components of circuit material may be factored in as a potential energy supply source depending on the circuit design and intention.
Wladimir Guglinski
Mechanical Engineer graduated in the Escola de Engenharia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais- UFMG, (Brazil), 1973, author of the book Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion, published in 2006
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 Rossi-Focardi cold fusion experiment by considering the nuclear properties of the Hexagonal Floors Model.
By
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti-517641, A.P, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
Introduction
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 (1776-1856). 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 space-time curvature, he hoped that the electric charge would likewise be so connected with some other geometrical property of space-time 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.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
by Ioannis Xydous
Elecronic Engineer, Greece
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
Abstract
It is a fact that a great number of scientific papers and patents have been published related to Quantum Gravity, Unified Field, Space-Time Engineering, Gravity Control, Propulsion without the need of a propellant, Instantaneous Telecommunications, Warp Drives, Over Unity devices est. Most of them have a complicated theory or unclear results which makes the scientific community to have doubts if they are feasible. The Author starting from the known Electron-Positron pair creation phenomenon, will reveal the entire matter creation process which will lead to the discovery of the Aether and ultimately to the topology and the properties of our universe. A simple experiment which was carried out successfully by the Author agrees with the findings of the proposed theory. A part of this work is inspired by Rhythmodynamics of Dr. Y.N.Ivanov.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, India
e-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03,India
e-mail: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 space-time curvature, he hoped that the electric charge would likewise be so connected with some other geometrical property of space-time 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 space-time 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
Direct Download
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 super-luminal particles.
Experimental data indicate that the distance between two laboratories (approximately 730 km) was covered by a beam of neutrinos with an advance of approx 60 nanoseconds with respect to a signal travelling at the relativistic limit speed c (which takes a time interval of the order of 2,4.10-3 s to perform the way).
Neutrino beam starts from CERN and after travelling 730 km through the Earth’s crust, affects lead atoms of the OPERA detector at Gran Sasso laboratories. Production of neutrino beam is due by the acceleration and collision of protons and heavy nuclei. This event produces pions and kaons, which then decay into muons and νμ.
The initial energy of neutrino beam is 17 GeV and its composition is almost entirely due to νμ.
Publication of the OPERA experimental data immediately got a deep world mass-media echoes: the possible confirmation of the results of the experiment seems to imply an explanation leading to change our current thoughts about theory of relativity and, therefore, the intimate space-time nature. In this assumption c may not be considered a speed limit on the quantum scale investigation.
In this paper we try to show how the uncertainty principle and the oscillation in flavor eingenstates of neutrino beam may provide a possible explanation for OPERA’s data.
Our research assumes two basic hypotheses.
Continue reading Interaction between neutrino flavor oscillation and Dark Energy as a super-luminal propagation
by Bhagirath Shantilal Joshi
Msc Solid state Physics, Gujartat University, Gujarat, India
MS Computer Engineering, Univ of Lowell, Lowell, Mass, USA
Direct Download
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.
Continue reading Excess neutron shell model of Nuclei
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.
Continue reading Anomalous mass of the neutron
|
|
Recent Comments