But when these objects need to get from one part of the universe to the other without running out of heavy elements to fuse or collapse into a singularity, a normal fusion drive is always creating propulsion opposite the other end of gravitational pull. When the gravitational pull on one end stops continuously being created the ripples of gravity waves on the other end of the craft will be able to slow it by themselves along with the burst of stored fusion energy being released when the gravity is turned off on the other end of the craft. This might not equal a full stop, but it could look like this as it passes earth immediately after decelerating from hyperspace

(This trail is too large to be an aircraft, and aircraft trails dissolve within a 5th of the time it would take for them to become this long if it is the fastest aircraft we have at mach 10)

Under this physical model the universe happens to be static, infinite in size and duration. SMBH formation has more time to occur. We can't see past 13.8 billion light year distances because Dark Energy is caused by tired light, Light wavelength is slowly stretched by increasing amounts the further it goes as all of the additional gravitation it encounters in the universe as gravitational waves continuously expand outward from new sources. So in this type of universe it would be possible for another configuration of the particle arrangement that is our system to reemerge an infinite number of times.

The probability of the warp application of a particular physics to be engineered into the technology by different species is lower than it being engineered by one species. Antigravity is the only type of technology that can redirect an asteroid of significant size in time after observation of imminent collision given the speed of asteroids. Without FTL technology it will be impossible for us to preserve our entire population through a supernova due to the fact that it would take too many resources and too much fuel to transport everyone.

]]>

Maybe not far from the truth.

]]>Under "We extended the mass-energy equivalence principle to the universal space"

]]>

I have a theoretical dart throwing machine that launches darts weighing 24 grams at a height of 1730mm to a target situated at the same height 2000mm from the release point.

The force used to propel the dart is constant and generates a launch speed of approximately 5.5 m/s and every dart hits the target exactly 1730mm high.

My question is where will darts hit the target if they weigh 23.5 grams and 24.5 grams respectively if launched from my theoretical dart throwing machine without altering the force and angle settings used for a 24 gram dart.

I believe that the launch speed will be higher for the lighter dart and slower for the heavier dart.

I expect the lighter dart to hit the target higher and the heavier dart to hit lower than the 24 gram dart, I need to know the difference in mm but have no idea how to calculate this problem.

Please note that the surface area of the different weighted darts are identical.

]]>Thanks!

]]>Suppose that I have a Polygon—say a Hexagon. If I expand the Hexagon into the 3rd Dimension I would get something that I have heard called a “Hexagonal Prism."

Cool.

BUT What if my Hexagon ROTATES as it rises in the 3rd Dimension after the manner of a Helix?

Does this have an official name? Can I write an Analytical Geometry Formula to Describe it?

Thanks.

Saxon Violence

PS: What if my Hexagon not only Rotates; but it also bends until it forms a “Hexagonal Spiraling Torus”?

]]>Lord Kelvin stated that there was no further need for research, that science had all the answers. This was before man split the atom.

Many will admit that there are more questions than answers.

Big bangers theorize about a universe beginning and a death but have no understanding of the universe now. They have no idea how galaxies form and evolve. They don't understand nebulae or quasars. There are three known substances, matter, antimatter, dark matter, but mainstream science mistakenly predicted that antimatter didn't, couldn't exist. They predicted that space contained only matter and was otherwise empty. In other words they also mistakenly predicted that dark matter didn't exist.

We should not believe that the prevailing science community has all the correct answers to the point that we aren't open to new possible explanations. The existing theories have failed in almost every prediction.

Yet we do not throw out everything we know about science.

Alternative theorists (millions of them) throw away many things we know about the universe and try to rewrite how everything works. A unification theorist hopefully takes all we know, throws away unproved theory, and puts the puzzle pieces in the correct order.

Asking prudent questions and unifying proven ideas (without trying to see it through some unproved metatheory) to get a more complete picture of how our universe works is not "against the mainstream."

Pseudoscience is against the mainstream!

When you go to forums and you don't just believe big bang, repeat all the mythos about it, claim intellectual authority then you are supposedly wrong by admission. The forum they send you to "against the mainstream" is described as "ideas that have been long disproved and don't fit any science..."

It is debatable if someone calls me against the mainstream. It is ridiculous and telling that it is "against the mainstream" when I post no comments but merely submit an image from Hubble or Integral, quote NASA and possibly Faraday, quote some established science fact cut and pasted from WIKI.

The mainstream is not proven science, new experiments, better observations, the foundation of knowledge that took hundreds of years. The mainstream is BIG BANG CONCLUSIONS, which are of course proven because in our generation they know everything there is to know about the universe.

"Against the mainstream" is just a label, like a dunce cap, that declares you are wrong no matter what you say. I refuse to be considered wrong without consideration or evidence, so I don't post science explanations in "against the mainstream" forums. They won't let my true statement exist outside of purgatory.

]]>

I have always wondered why they cut the larger stones with so flat surfaces already in the stone quarry.

This is why......

Just give me 100 liter of mercury and I will build a narrow fit channel for any large megalithic stone

and build the channel so that front of the channel have room for the stone to be able to float

and be moved the larger amount of mercury under the stone as the mercury is transfered under and beside the stone to the back.

Then I gather the mercury, fill in behind the stone and dig up in front of it to be able to make the stone to float and pushed another bit in my channel.

I am sick of all this nonsens of magic or aliens.

I say it again.

I can move any megalithic stone my self if I just get 100 liters or more, to make the stone to float in the mercury.

Master of Science in Engineering Physics.

Magnus Ivarsson

]]>I also found some years after this that the same system can be used to model the rest masses of the Standard Model fermions under the Koide Formula (see Wiki page), but with a different mathematical function. And I have some evidence you can do the same with the gluon colors.

A couple of days ago, on a whim, I started using arctan(sqrt27) to see if any other relations could be derived from it. I tried the ratio of the Fine Structure Constant's reciprocal, 137.035999 and change to arctan(sqrt27), and found that the result was almost exactly sqrt3 (1.732...), varying from it by well under 1%. And when I tried a smaller value for the FSC that would have been relevant in the early moments of our universe (so closer to 127), I found that using 128 divided by arctan(sqrt27) gave almost exactly the Golden Ratio, 1.618... and change, again with a variation from the actual value of well under 1%.

Anyone want to discuss??

Jess Tauber

]]>I doubt that our current technology can complete the experiment of quantum entanglement: divide one quantum into two and observe them separately.

How high will the completion rate of this experiment be?

If it can be done, what about splitting one of these two quanta into two more? Do you get three quanta or four?

If it cannot be further divided, does it mean that this experiment cannot be completed within a certain range?

1+2+3+4…=-1/12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_+_2_+_3_+_4_+_⋯

This sum is used in physics for predicting the Casimir effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I have also heard that this sum was used in the string theory (more precisely, in the original bosonic string theory).

Then, in mathematics the p-adic numbers are used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_number

My question is: can the Ramanujan summation be relatively easily obtained using the p-acid numbers?

]]>

It can be many lays balls around the magnet center, is that posible to calculate each ball location?

]]>Page 38 of the book

**The New Nuclear Physics**

to be published in March 2023

In 2018 I submitted to the nuclear physics journal *European Physical Journal A* the article *Proposal of an experiment able to eliminate the controversy: are right or wrong the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Theory?*** **

The reason for submitting my article was because, according to the new nuclear model (proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory) some nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons, such as 12Mg24, have zero magnetic moment when excited, although this was impossible, according to current nuclear physics. And since the magnetic moment of many of them (when excited) are absent from the nuclear tables, this absence strengthened my suspicion.

Editor-in-Chief Maria Borge rejected the article with the following report.

==================== REPORT ==================

European Physical Journal A - Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-104798

19-Oct-2018

Dear Professor Guglinski:

Thank you for submitting your article mentioned above to EPJ A “Hadrons and Nuclei”. The content of the article is not correct. Attempts to generalize the lack of magnetic moment data to the 2+ states of conjugated nuclei to invalidate the theory. Some of the cases you mentioned have been measured and there is good agreement with the shell model calculations. I recommend that you read, for example, PRL114 (2015)062501 and even NJ Stone's old compilation Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Table 90 (2005) 75 where some magnetic moments for 2+ states are already given.

Therefore, I cannot accept your contribution for publication in EPJ A.

Sincerely yours

Professor Maria Borge

Editor in Chief

European Physical Journal A

================= END OF REPORT =============

In the 2015 paper published in **Physical Review Letters**, cited by Maria Borge, the authors calculated the magnetic moment of excited 12Mg24. But reading the article I discovered that there was an error in the procedure used in the calculation. And so I wrote a second paper, entitled ** Mandatory Check for Misunderstanding on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei**, and submitted it to the EPJA.

The calculation error in the PRL article is easy to understand, as seen below.

1- The authors used a nuclear table from 2001 to calculate the magnetic moment of 12Mg24 excited with spin 2. In 2001 nuclear physicists were convinced that nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons have a spherical shape.

2- But in 2012 the journal Nature published the article *How atomic nuclei cluster*, reporting experiments that detected that nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons have an ellipsoidal shape.

3- Therefore, after 2012 the 2001 table could no longer be applied to nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons. The calculation published in 2015 of the magnetic moment of excited 12Mg24 was invalidated, as was the conclusion that excited 12Mg24 had a non-zero magnetic moment. The question was open, and an investigation was imperative. If it were confirmed that excited 12Mg24 has zero magnetic moment, this would invalidate the current nuclear theory.

Although Maria Borge has rejected my paper* *** Mandatory check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei**, she must have been extremely surprised to read it, as she came across an event that, in her opinion, could never happen in the history of nuclear physics. But even though this event was impossible to happen, it was happening, and it was amazing. This astonishment of Maria Borge, in seeing that the impossible was happening, is fully justified, for the following reasons:

1- For more than 80 years nuclear physicists have been convinced, without any possibility of supposing they were wrong, that nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons are spherical. The main reason they were so sure to firmly believe that such nuclei must be spherical was due to the fact that nuclear physics was developed from the fundamental principle of symmetry, in consequence of which such nuclei must be spherical.

2- If an author proposed a new nuclear model, according to which nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons are ellipsoidal, this author could not be taken seriously, because according to current nuclear physics such nuclei can only be spherical, as required by the principle of symmetry. Either this author had terrible knowledge of nuclear physics, or he was simply crazy to propose something that all nuclear physicists knew was impossible.

The paper *Mandatory Check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei* described the impressive narrative of the impossible event. **Here is the impressive narrative exposed in the article, which surprised Maria Borge:**

*=============================================*

Narrative in the paper

*Mandatory Check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei *

*==============================================*

So, let us analyze the method used by Raman at al. in [2], face to historical facts occurred after its publication in 2001. We begin with the description ahead, which is an excerpt of the page 58 of the paper [4], where are related some historical facts. The excerpt begins with a description on some differences between the current nuclear models, and the new nuclear hexagonal floors model, proposed by the author.

According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have ellipsoidal shape, and therefore my nuclear model with hexagonal floors could not be considered seriously by nuclear theorists, because they knew not only that the principles of the SNP requires a spherical shape for those nuclei, but also because they knew those nuclei have null electric quadrupole moment, and therefore it was mandatory they have spherical shape. Besides, as in that new nuclear model there is a central 2He4, and the nucleons are captured by a string formed by a flux of gravitons (instead of be bound by strong nuclear force, as considered in all current nuclear models), the nuclear theorists had more strong reasons why do not consider seriously a “strange” model formed by hexagonal floors. Obviously the author was aware that a paper, proposing the exotic new nuclear model, would never be accepted for publication in any reputable peer journal of physics. That’s why in 2004 he has decided to meet his several papers in a book form, and to look for a publisher. In the end of 2005 an editor has accepted to publish it, and the book was published in August 2006, with the title *Quantum Ring Theory*, QRT (see “Ref. E-1” in the end of this excerpt).

Spherical distribution of charges has null electric quadrupole moment, Q=0, while ellipsoidal distribution elongated toward Z-axis has Q>0, and elongated toward XY plane has Q<0. As experiments already had detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have Q=0, then obviously the author had to justify how, in spite of they have ellipsoidal shape, however they have Q=0. The argument, which justifies why they have Q=0, is proposed in the page 137 of the book QRT.

Another prediction was regarding the distribution of the nucleons, because, as they occupy places in the corners of hexagonal floors distributed about the Z-axis, then in the Hexagonal Floors Model there is a preferential direction of distribution. In the page 133 is written “*The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics*.” And obviously such prediction, of the existence of a preferential direction for the distribution of the nucleons, along the Z-axis, was other strong reason for rejection of the new nuclear model, because, according the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics, a preferential direction of distribution of nucleons is impossible.

In 2012 the journal Nature published a paper demolishing a dogma of current nuclear physics, considered untouchable along 80 years, reporting experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape (see Ref. E-2). In 18 July 2012 the nuclear theorist Martin Freer had published in News & Views, by Nature, an article (Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together), and the author sent him the comment ahead.

*“Dear Martin Freer. With that distribution of charge of the Ne20 **structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that** Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore** Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)”.*

Martin sent the reply ahead.

*“The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus. Martin.”*

Interestingly, Martin’s argument is basically the same proposed in the page 137 of the book QRT, published in 2006, where it is explained why oxygen-16 has Q(O16)=0, in spite of it has ellipsoidal shape, as follows.

*“Note that as the **8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment **zero , then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons **1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus **8O16. By consequence the **8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives charges, and not a flat distribution. That’s why **8O16 has **Q(O16)= 0.”*

* *

*Therefore, in 2006 the author had proposed the same argument used by Martin Freer in 2012.*

** **

** **

**References** regarding this present excerpt:

[Ref. E-1] Guglinski, W. (2006). Quantum Ring Theory, *Bäuu Institute Press*. Boulder, Co, USA.

[Ref. E-2] Ebran, J. P., Khan, E., Nikšić, T., & Vretenar, D. (2012). How atomic nuclei cluster. *Nature*. 487, 341–344.

===============================END OF NARRATIVE===============================

**Note: The prediction that protons and neutrons are distributed along a preferential direction, predicted in the book Quantum Ring Theory (but impossible according to current nuclear physics) was confirmed by an experimente published in 2013:**

In 2013 the journal *Nature* published a paper about an experiment, which detected that Ra224 is pear-shaped: “*Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams, **Nature, 497, 199–204*”. That experiment forced the nuclear theorists to conclude that atomic nuclei have a Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have different distributions.According to the current nuclear physics, the nucleus *R**α*224 cannot be pear-shaped, because from its foundations all the even-even nuclei must have either a spherical shape (when

Z = *N*) or an ellipsoidal shape (when N > Z).

But according to the discovery of 2013, while Radium 224 is pear-shaped, Radon 220 does not assume the fixed shape of a pear but rather vibrates about this shape, and such finding is in contradiction with what is expected from the foundations that rule the behavior of the nuclear models.

Beyond the discovery to be very important for the understanding on the structure of the nucleus, the nuclear theorists think that such puzzle can also be related to questions regarding the fundamental interactions responsible for the working of the structure of the universe. And Dr Timothy Chupp, a University of Michigan professor of physics, has explained how the theorists are dealing with the puzzle. He thinks that pear shape is special, suggesting that neutrons and protons inside the nucleus take different positions along an internal axis. In other words, the pear shape of Ra224 implies that atomic nuclei have a special Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have a preferential distribution, whose existence is impossible, according to current nuclear models. In the figure ahead, Prof. Peter Butler, one of the physicists who worked in the experiment, is speaking about the Z-axis.

]]>

What keeps the oscillation constant?

A pulse of energy is generated by ba RADAR antenna. It has a specific frequency. There is no communication between the photons to keep them in sync.

A pulse of light leaves a light source. It has a specific frequency. There is no communication between the photons to keep them in sync.

The frequency is in the generation of the source. The photon does not oscillate. Following photons vary in strength. The individual photon does not oscillate … this implies the photon does not have the frequency, contrary to the theory.

]]>

Professor José Abdala Helayel is a researcher of the **Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas - CBPF** (Brazilian Center of Physics Research).

I sent him an email yesterday, saying the following (translation to English by Google):

==============00==============

Dear Prof Helayel

Nobel Laureate in Physics Steven Weinberg expressed his opinion (at a time when physicists were still hopeful that Supersymmetry would be detected in LHC experiments) about the state of quantum theory at that time, in these words:

“*Perhaps a replacement for today’s quantum theory will come together any time now. Or perhaps not. Maybe it’s just the way we express the theory is bad and the theory itself is right. Or possibly a surprise is in store. There’s always a third possibility, that’s there’s something else entirely, that we’re going to have a revolution in science which is as much of a break with the past as quantum mechanics is a break from classical physics. *

*That’s a possibility. It may be that a paper from a graduate student tomorrow morning will lay it out. By definition I don’t know what that would be*.”

In the opinion of the Nobel Prize, theoretical physics at that time was already threatened by the need to be reassessed.

Many years after these words by Weinberg, in 2014 the Nobel Prize in Physics David Gross expressed his opinion on what represented the failure to confirm Supersymmetry at the LHC, in 2012:* *

* *

*“In the absence of any positive experimental evidence for supersymmetry, it’s a good time to scare the hell out of the young people in the audience and tell them: ‘Don’t follow your elders—Go out and look for something new and crazy and powerful and different. Different, especially.’ That’s definitely a good lesson. But I’m too old for that*.”

Humm... *“Something new and crazy and powerful and different. Different, especially”...* words that reflected how much the crisis has worsened, after what Steven Weinberg said about the state of quantum physics.

Today many must be following the advice of David Gross, looking for a solution through a revolutionary theory that is something new, crazy, powerful, and different.

But certainly everyone who is undertaking this quest is making this attempt through the current foundations on which Modern Physics was developed. And among these foundations is the fundamental principle on which Modern Physics was developed: the principle of symmetry.

However what if this path is not successful, and the new crazy theories that are proposed require that other crazier theories still be developed? What will be the future of Modern Physics, through this scenario?

In 2013, the European Physical Journal C published the article **The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light**, in which the authors proposed the hypothesis of the existence of pairs of fermions in the quantum vacuum, and ** proposed an experiment** that could prove this hypothesis.

In 2021 the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays published my article **Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum**, in which the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum is calculated, and from this charge the charge was calculated of the proton, obtaining the value e = 1.6026×10^{−19} C, which is very close to the experimental e = 1.60218×10^{−19} C.

What I would like to know is whether there is currently technology through which an experiment can be carried out capable of detecting the value of the electric charge of these quantum vacuum fermions, whose value calculated in my article is *e*_{0} = 5.06532 × 10^{−45} C.

If this technology is available, and if the experience is confirmed, imagine the repercussions this will have for the future of Modern Physics. For that suggestion of David Gross (that the crisis in physics must be solved through a crazy theory) could be replaced by the suggestion of Steven Weinberg, that "**there is always a third possibility**". And this third possibility is perhaps contained exactly in what I have been proposing in my work, if the experiments confirm the charge *e*_{0} = 5.06532 × 10^{−45} C of the quantum vacuum fermions (those that have a charge, as there are others that have other properties).

It is the future of Modern Physics that is at stake.

So, dear Prof. Helayel, I would like to know his opinion. Or, if you are not the most qualified person to answer my question (about whether there is a technology today to measure this charge of quantum vacuum fermions), surely you will know some experimental physicist who has an answer to this question.

I am sending as an attachment, in PDF, the article Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum.

Best Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

==============00==============

Dr. Helayel sent me the following reply today morning (translation by Google):

==============00==============

Hi Wladimir!

Thank you for your text with a clear exposition of ideas.

About the virtual fermions of the quantum vacuum, perhaps what the most recent and close to what you want is the super-LASER of Shanghai (SULF = Shanghai Ultra LASER Facilities), which operates in the Peta-Watt region and brings very strong electric and magnetic fields. intense. What is expected is that you can "break the vacuum" and generate currents of pairs coming out of the vacuum. Once these measurements currents, it would reach what you are trying to measure.

Go to the SO SULF website. Attached here are slides from a seminar that I gave at UFU. See only slide 4, where I leave two references that speak of the SULF. Are not yet what I told you about breaking the vacuum, but they already give details of this super-LASER.

See also super-LASER ELI: Extreme Light Infrastructure.

Perhaps, with these super-LASERs, what you propose will be achieved measure.

Hug,

Helayel.

==============00==============

Then today I sent an email to SULF, as seen below:

==============00==============

Wladimir Guglinski <wladski@yahoo.com>

To:iangxy@siom.ac.cn,lengyuxin@siom.ac.cn,zzxu@mail.shcnc.ac.cn

Sun, Mar 5 at 5:44 PM

Dear professors

Dr. Xiaoyan Liang

Dr. Yuxin Leng

Dr. Ruxin Li

Dr. Zhizhan Xu

In March 2013 the European Physical Journal C published the article **The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light** , in which is proposed an experiment to confirm what is theoretically proposed in the article.

The Abstract is this:

**Abstract **

We show that the vacuum permeability *μ* _{0} and permittivity *ε* _{0} may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. ** We propose an experimental test of this prediction**.

In 2021, the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays published my paper **Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum**, in which is calculated the value of the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum (those with an electric charge).

The value achieved for the charge *e*_{0} is 5.06532 × 10^{−45} C.

From this value of *e*_{0}, together with the fundamental constants *K _{O} *,

The article, in PDF, is attached to this email.

So, I would like to know yours opinion:

would it be feasible to carry out an experiment in the** ****Shanghai Superintense Ultrafast Laser Facility (SULF), **to measure the electrical charge *e*_{0}** = 5.06532 × 10 ^{−45} C** calculated in my article?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

==============00==============

]]>

Two days ago I posted two topics on that other version of the *Science Forums*.

In the topic titled "** One of the most impressive calculations in theoretical physics**" the moderator swansont posted a reply, saying that quantum vacuum fermions were never detected by experiments, and therefore my theory is mere speculation.

swansont closed the topic, and I couldn't post a reply to it.

Also, as I had already posted two topics, I couldn't post another topic that day.

But I wrote a reply to swansont in Word file in my computer, and was waiting the next day to post my reply.

However, before the next day, I went on to that *Science Forums*, to copy the exact words used by swansont in his reply, in order to put them in my reply, but when I tried to enter into *Science Forums* I found that he had banned me out indefinitely.

So, that’s why I'm posting an answer to swansont here.

Reply to swansont:

Speculations

in

Theoretical Physics

.1- **Prediction of the meson**

Yukawa proposed the existence of the meson in 1934.

The meson was detected experimentaly in 1947.

Therefore, **along 13 years** the meson was a ** mere speculation**.

And what is **worse**:

Yukawa’s speculation was ** totaly wrong**, because he proposed that a meson jumps between two protons inside the structure of the neutron.

However, it is known nowadays that Yukawa’s model of neutron is wrong. There is not any meson inside the neutron.

And this error implies in the following:

.a) There are several mesons, whose masses vary from 134,9 MeV/c² up to 9,46 GeV/c². Thereby, starting from a ** wrong** speculation, obviously there were a big chance to exist a meson with a mass close to that predicted by Yukawa, since there are several mesons with different masses.

.b) But the mass of the meson predicted by Yukawa wasn’t even close to the meson with mass 134,9 MeV/c². The mass of the meson calculated from the wrong Yukawa’s neutron model was 100 MeV/c². A difference of 35%.

Yukawa awarded the Nobel Prize from a theory whose prediction had nothing with the existence of the mesons. And his calculation had nothing with the existence of the mesons.

With his calculation Yukawa aimed to hit the meson inside the neutron, but his shot crossed the neutron without to hit any meson, and after to leave the neutron the trajectory of the shot passed well past a meson, because the mass closest to 100 MeV was 35% larger than he predicted.

.2- **Prediction of the neutrino**

Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of the meson in 1930.

The neutrino was detected experimentaly in 1956.

Therefore, **along 26 years** the neutrino was a ** mere speculation**.

.3- **Prediction of the Higgs boson**

Higs proposed the existence of his boson in 1964.

The boson was detected experimentaly in 2012.

Therefore, **along 52 years** the boson was a ** mere speculation**.

However, there is a great chance that in upcoming years the comunity of physicists will realize that, despite Higgs boson exists, however it is not the promoter of the mass to particles, because the properties of the boson predicted by Higgs do not fit to the properties of the boson detected in the experiments.

.4- **Prediction of the dark matter**

In 1884 Lord Kelvin proposed that “*Many of our supposed thousand million stars, perhaps a great majority of them, may be dark bodies*".

In 1906 Henri Poincaré, in discussing Kelvin's work, he found that the amount of dark matter would need to be less than that of visible matter.

In 1922 Jacobus Kapteyn__ __suggested the existence of dark matter using stellar velocities.

Along more than 30 years, more than a hundred experiments have failed to detect the dark matter. Each week is announced that a new experimente failed to detect the dark matter.

Therefore, **along 140 years** the dark matter continues being a ** mere speculation**.

.

]]>

The ** magnetic moment** of atomic nuclei is the only nuclear property through which one can safely assess how much a theoretical model of an atomic nucleus approaches the real structure of nuclei existing in Nature.

This stems from the fact that any minimal difference (which exists between the structure of the theoretical model and the real structure existing in Nature) has a huge difference between the value calculated by the theoretical model and the value measured by experiments.

In the case of light nuclei, all theoretical models of current nuclear physics have failed to obtain good results in calculating the magnetic moment. This failure stems from the following fact:

**In light nuclei, the statistical behavior**

**of the distribution of nucleons (protons and neutrons) **

**within the nucleus does not predominate**

As the number of protons and neutrons grows, the statistical behavior begins to grow, and the tendency of the result of the calculation of the magnetic moment to approach the value measured in experiments begins to grow.

In some cases, as a consequence of the lack of predominance of statistical behavior in light nuclei, even the theoretical nuclear spin differs from the value obtained by experiments. The case of greatest divergence occurs with 5B10, whose nuclear spin (according to the nuclear models of current nuclear physics) should be 1, but experiments have detected that the nuclear spin of 5B10 has a value of 3.

This difference between what is predicted by current models of nuclear physics (with regard to light nuclei) stems from the fact that the distribution of protons and neutrons in the theoretical model is completely different from the existing distribution in Nature.

In my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, a new nuclear model is proposed in which a 2He4 occupies the center of the nucleus. Figure 1 shows the structure of 5B10. As you can see, in 5B10 the 2He4 is not central, it occupies the bottom part of the nucleus, and this explains why this nucleus is so exotic, and behaves in a completely different way from what is expected from current nuclear models.

Figure 1

Another intriguing nuclear phenomenon is that, due to the predominance of statistical distribution, according to current nuclear physics models, the electric quadrupole moment of ** _{7}**N

Figure 2 illustrates what the electric quadrupole moment Q(b) is all about.

Figure 2

Figure 3 compares what the ** _{5}**B

• On the left what their formats would be, according to current nuclear physics.

• On the right, how experiments have detected

Figure 3

The values measured in the experiments were these:

Q(b)** _{5B10}** = +0.0847

Q(b)** _{7N14}** = +0.02

That is, instead of being ** smaller**, as predicted by current nuclear theory, Q(b)

In my book **The New Nuclear Physics**, soon to be published in England, the magnetic moments of Q(b)** _{5B10}** and Q(b)

Figure 4

Only from a new nuclear model (**in which symmetry does not play a **

**fundamental rule for the distribution of protons and neutrons**)

can one find the real distribution of nucleons in 5B10, which promotes for boron-10

an electric quadrupole moment four times that of nitrogen-14.

Therefore, from the same structures of Q(b)** _{5B10}** and Q(b)

Among light nuclei, the one with the simplest structure is lithium-6, because it has only the central 2He4, around which a deuteron revolves. And because it's so simple, that's why calculating its magnetic moment is one of the most accurate calculations in nuclear physics, as we'll see below.

**Calculation of the magnetic moment of lithium-6**

In my book **Subtle is the Math**, 16 articles are presented, including two articles published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays. The following ** Annex** is displayed at the end of article number 3, entitled "

**================ ANNEX ================**

It was said in this present paper that the calculation of the magnetic moment of 3Li6, through the equation a= Ke²/hc, is among the most accurate calculations in physics. In order to show the reader one among the procedures of calculations of magnetic moments used in the book *New Foundations of Nuclear Physics*, ahead is reproduced the calculation for 3Li6, which wasthe first one made by me, with the equation a= Ke²/hc, when I was on vacationat the end of Dec 2018, on the beach in Cabo Frio, a city near Rio de Janeiro.

From 3Li6 structure shown in Print 1, the deuteron moves with orbit radius R_{1H2} around Z-axis. The rotation of the proton, responsible for its spin ½, is counterclockwise, inducing positive magnetic moment, m= +2.793 mN. As the proton motion around Z-axis is clockwise, its rotation induces a negative magnetic moment.

**Print 1.** Calculation of the magnetic moment for 3Li6.

Total magnetic moment of lithium-6 has two components:

1- First component- Intrinsic magnetic moment of deuteron, m= +0.857 mN.

2- Second component- Magnetic moment caused by proton charge moving around Z-axis, which is negative.

The energy of mass defect is shared by six nucleons, three protons and three neutrons. But the rotation of the neutron around Z-axis does not contribute to the magnetic moment of 3Li6, because the neutron has no charge. Only the proton contributes. Therefore, for the calculation of 3Li6 magnetic moment, the energy of mass defect must be divided by six, which is the portion absorbed by the proton. Ahead is calculated the magnetic moment due to the proton orbit around the Z-axis.

Lithium-6 has isotopic mass 6.0151229 u, see cell E2 of Print 1. Mass defect, in unity u, seen in cell E3, is converted to kg in cell E4, calculated in Eq. 1.

The orbit radius of the deuteron moving around Z-axis is calculated in cell E8, from a=Ke²/hc, the Coulomb’s law, and the centripetal force on the deuteron, as follows:

The radius R= 7.08473x10^{-17} m is not the real radius of the orbit, because inside atomic nuclei the permeability constant m_{o} is not equal to that of the vacuum, as considered in current nuclear physics, but actually it is two orders of magnitude larger than in the vacuum, as calculated in the book *New Foundations of Nuclear Physics*.

As the rotation of the deuteron around Z-axis, seen in Print 1, is negative, and therefore contrary to the direction of the rotation of the proton’s intrinsic spin inside the structure of the deuteron, then the magnetic moment induced by the rotation of the proton charge is negative, and its value is calculated with Bohr’s equation, from the deuteron rotation around Z-axis, where the speed was calculated in Eq. 3, and the orbit radius in Eq. 5.

There is no way to know what the difference from the experimental is, because in 1967 was measured the value +0.822567(3), and +0.8220473(6) in 1974. So, one may consider that **there is no difference with the experimental**, since the theoretical value is situated between the two measurements

**================ END OF ANNEX ================**

** NOTE**: Deuteron 1H2 also has a very simple structure, and its magnetic moment is calculated in the book The New Nuclear Physics, through a similar procedure of calculation used for lithium-6 exposed here. The value achieved for 1H2 is m

**Calculations according to current nuclear physics**

Despite lithium-6 has a very simple structure, the calculation from current nuclear physics is very controversial, and the value achieved is not so accurate.

See this discussion shown in figures 5, 6 and 7.

Figure 5 shows that “*sunrise*” asks help for the calculation of the magnetic moment of lithium-6.

Figure 5

In Figure 6 *Oscar Rondon* shows his calculation, but the value achieved is 0,88, not so close to 0,822.

Figure 6

In Figure 7 “user 4552” and “Vicky” exchange ideas, whereas “phys-ics” shares the opinion that the calculation made by Oscar Rondon is wrong.

Figure 7

But I will cite a calculation, which had never been done in the history of physics. This is an extremely impressive calculation, because it unequivocally proves that Quantum Electrodynamics does not represent what really happens in Nature.

First of all, it must be remembered that there is no such thing as an atomistic theory of the electric field in current physics. According to current physics, the electric field is a

Now, I never believed that the electric field could be

1- When a proton and an electron are attracting each other, according to current physics, the electric field of both is being constituted by the photons responsible for their attraction.

**2- But what about when a proton is alone, isolated?** What is his field made of? After all, if he is not exchanging photons with another particle with an electric charge, what is the proton field made of????

In the first article of the book *Subtle is the Math*, entitled "**Relation between QED, Coulomb's Law and fine-structure constant**", the theory of the structure of the electric field was proposed, composed of fermions of the quantum vacuum, which move with the speed of light.

In the figure 1 below you can see the atomistic structure of two protons, P-1 and P-2, repelling each other. The electriciton e-1 of proton P-1 is interacting with the electriciton e-2 of the proton P-2, being F1 the repulse force between e-1 and e-2. And the electricitions e-3 an e-4 will interact with a force F2 when they arrive to the point where the electrictions e-1 and e-2 are interacting just at the present instant.

Figure 1

On page 92 of the book is shown the calculation of the value of the electric charge of the fermions that make up the electric field. The calculation is very simple, performed between equations 4 and 6, seen in the figure 2. The value obtained is 5.06532x10^{-45} C, in the Eq. 6.

Figure 2

Before be published in the book *Subtle is the Math*, the article was rejected by several journals, such as the European Physical Journal C, International Journal of Modern Physics, Foundations of Physics, and many others. One of the Editor-in-Chief of the **European Physical Journal Plus **rejected the article with this Report:

===========================================================

Ref.: Ms. At the. EPJP-D-20-00700R1

**Relationship between QED, Coulomb's Law, and fine-structure constant **

The European Physical Journal Plus

Dear Dr Guglinski,

The main idea of the article is based on classical notions such as particle motion and electric current and magnetic field seem to have received fundamental roles. This is evident from the numbers presented in the newspaper. These notions are untenable in the microscopic world where the wave-particle duality is essential even if the author feels "outsider" and the gauge field plays an essential role. They have been supported by experiments for many years. The paper will not be understood and will never be accepted by any other physicists unless the author provides, not subjective evidence (such as that which the author considers "strange"), but objective evidence of defect in the standard interpretation, which is lacking at present. paper.

I think the article does not meet the scientific standards required by EPJ Plus and therefore I reject it.

yours sincerely

Hiromichi Nakazato

===========================================================

But I knew that that simple calculation of the electric charge of the fermions, whose value obtained was 5.06532x10^{-45} C, was very simple and not enough to convince the physicists. And so, while Dr. Nakazato was analyzing my article, I dedicated myself to the task of proving that, starting from that value of the charge of the quantum vacuum fermions, it was possible to calculate the value of the electric charge of the proton, if its electric field is really constituted by those fermions, moving with the speed of light.

This calculation was successfully performed in the article "**Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum**", and the calculation procedure is quite simple, as explained ahead.

__========Calculation procedure========__

Considering that the electric field of the proton is composed of electricitons with charge 5.06532.10^{-45} C, as calculated in **Relationship between QED, Coulomb's Law, and fine-structure constant**, then if we calculate the amount X of electricitons that make up its electric field, the charge of the proton in Coulomb is:

e= X.e_{0}

e= X· 5.06532.10^{-45}.

The task at hand is to calculate X. However, of course, it's not that easy. It is necessary to consider the quantization of energy.

===========================================================

But although the calculation procedure is quite simple, the calculation itself is sophisticated, because it involves several constants of physics, such as Planck's constant, the fine structure constant 1/137, the speed of light, the electrostatic constant of vacuum , and the Bohr radius. The figure 3 below shows where the calculation starts from. There you can see two fermions, A and B, moving in the proton's electric field. They leave the proton's body, where they were captured from the quantum vacuum around the proton's body, and travel with the speed of light for a distance equal to the Bohr radius.

Figure 3

The result of the calculation is fantastic. The experimentally measured value of the proton's charge is 1.6026x10^{-19} C, and the value obtained by calculation is 1.60218x10^{-19} C.

The article was submitted to the **European Physical Journal Plus**, under the care of Editor-in-Chief Hiromichi Nakazato. But two days after the article was submitted, it was rejected by Editor-in-Chief Kumar Gupta. **That is, he did not want the article to be evaluated by Nakazato**. And obviously Kumar Gupta didn't even read the article, because in two days he couldn't reliably assess the merits of the calculation exposed in the article.

For serious physicists (who are not traitorous pickaxes of the scientific method and who do not spit on Mathematics, like Dr. Gupta) the calculation of the electric charge of the proton, exposed in this article, **is one of the most impressive calculations in physics**. Any serious physicist, who respects Mathematics, is amazed.

This impressive and successful calculation also justifies what is explained, in the end of the paper, on the properties that fermions start to possess when they are captured by the proton and start to compose its electric field:

===========================================================

1- A fermion e-1 from the electric field of a proton A only interacts with a fermion e-2, from the electric field of a proton B, where the density of the quantum vacuum around each of the protons is sufficient to give to the fermions e-1 and e-2 the property of having interaction.

2- And this **quantum vacuum density**, sufficient to provide the interaction of the two fermions e-1 and e-2, **only occurs** **within the space limited by the Bohr radius**.

3- Figure 4 illustrates these properties, for the attraction proton-electron.

===========================================================

Figure 4

And what is the consequence of this fantastic result obtained with the calculation of the electric charge of the proton, from the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum?

The consequence is that the successful calculation demonstrates that the coupling mechanism of electric fields, according to Quantum Electrodynamics, **does not correspond to the existing interaction mechanism in Nature**.

According to Quantum Electrodynamics, a proton and an electron attract each other through the emission of photons. In calculus, an abstract mathematical concept is adopted, called bispinor.

But what happens in Nature is that the proton-electron attraction is produced by the interaction force of fermions from the proton field with fermions from the electron field. Each fermion has a spin. And since there are two interacting fermions, there is interaction between **two spins**. That is why in Quantum Electrodynamics it was necessary to adopt the concept of bispinor, because it was through this concept that it was possible to obtain the **mathematical equivalence** between what is ** calculated** in Quantum Electrodynamics and what

At the end of the book Subtle is the Math, a challenge is proposed to physicists: to demonstrate that the mechanism of photon exchange, between a proton and an electron, **adopted in Quantum Electrodynamics**, is **mathematically equivalent** to the mechanism of interaction between fermions of the electric fields of the proton and of the electron, **existing in Nature**.

This mathematical demonstration, of the equivalence of the two systems, would be the definitive proof that the photon exchange mechanism, of Quantum Electrodynamics, ** does not correspond to the existing mechanism in Nature**, which occurs through the interaction between fermions of the atomistic structure of electric fields.

Invitation

to the Rector

of the

Federal University of Juiz de Fora- UFJF

A copy of the book *Subtle is the Math* was presented to the Rector of the **Federal University of Juiz de Fora- UFJF**, at the end of 2021, inviting him to encourage UFJF physicists to look into this mathematical demonstration of the equivalence of the two systems.

This demonstration would prove that Quantum Electrodynamics is developed through a mathematical procedure that gives good results, but the physical mechanism adopted in the theory is different from that existing in Nature.

Figure 5 - Photo of the page with the dedication to the Rector of UFJF

But it is unlikely that the UFJF physicists have accepted the challenge. They are all terrified of reaching the conclusion that the laws of physics, of current Theoretical Physics, do not correspond to the true laws of Nature.

Note: the paper **Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum **was published also in **Physics Essays **in 2021

]]>

The idea of transmutation of elements has long been a dream, making gold has long been a dream, only in modern times has this been possible but sadly it's not as useful as has been dreamed. This video delves into the idea of transmutation of elements via nuclear reactions.

]]>

An example of a Strong Nuclear Force confined composite particle being "Omega particles"

Using synthetic confinement of particles I think it would be possible to create higher order quarks than those in nature as the magnetic confinement would put additional pressure on the quarks keeping them from decaying and cohesive beyond what the Strong Nuclear Force would generally allow with it's strength, this additional pressure on the quarks keeping them stable. Possibly allowing for the creation of higher order composite particles such as other Pentaquarks.

The actual confinement in magnetic fields that stabilize the particles could happen in magnetic fields that are being used currently for fusion reactors allowing for a pressure to be placed upon the particles making a secondary bond between particles supporting their increased mass.

Note: If this does work then the particles can never leave confinement otherwise they will destabilize into energy.

It is like a oxygen tank, an oxygen tank can only hold so much oxygen before it will explode from the pressure but if you make the oxygen tank thicker, the tank can handle more pressure but in this instance, the oxygen is energy and the tank thickness is the additional confinement that holds the particle together by magnetic confinement increasing the "Thickness" of the Strong Nuclear Force or binding energy.

This can be explained by the simple equation P_{Spin} = P_{SNF} + P_{Magnetic}

The multiplication sign in p = m x v means that mass 'm' moves with velocity v.

But...

The multiplication sign in E = m x c^{2 does not mean that mass 'm' moves with speed C.}

^{I find it surprising. Can anyone help me quench my surprise and if possible give some more examples where 'multiplication' has such different meanings, with the terms in the equation being mass and speed/velocity.}

]]>