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.

]]>

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

]]>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

]]>

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.

]]>

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.}

]]>

The electron shell is comprised of heat energy. Energy is just heat expanding into area's of less heat. When energy enters the gravity field of the nucleus, it slows down because of the density of the gravity field. Energy reaches a point in the gravity field where its heat/density on the aether equals that of the gravity field and forms a shell of electricity, which is heat energy at a standstill. The energy still maintains the property of seeking out colder space even though its trapped in the shell. So when two atoms pull together because off gravity, the shell of electricity repels because the heat energy in either shell doesn't want to occupy the heat/density of the other atom's shell and they repel.

Check out the aether and the femto camera to hear about new evidence of the existence of the aether.

]]>

Basically the paradox is this; In terms of Special Relativity, how does spinning disk work in special relativity, if the circumference of the rotating disk undergoes length-contraction (since it's parallel to motion) while its radius does not (since it's perpendicular to motion), and this would imply that [math]\frac{circumference}{diameter} \neq \pi [/math].

I checked bunch of similar questions of the same topic, and can't find a single person giving the correct answer on Quora. Instead I find all sorts of face-palm inducing nonsense like;

- Only the atoms length contract, but the space between them does not.
- The disk would tear into smaller pieces along the radius to give shorter total circumference.
- The disk would implode under pressure from the shrinking circumference.
- Centrifugal forces would counteract Lorentz contraction.
- There's no strong enough material to build such disk because of Born rigidity and elasticity, thus no paradox.
- You need to use General Relativity to solve the paradox.
- The geometry of the spinning wheel is non-euclidean. Just accept it.

And bunch of other answers going completely off on a tangent on topics like people inside a spinning train setting their clocks. Basically every single answer I can find tells me the author probably holds serious misconceptions about Special Relativity itself.

Okay, it's Quora so I shouldn't expect too much, but still I would have expected that at least someone would have given the solution to to something this simple, instead of seeing bunch of people with credentials compete with silly answers. Some of those people are citing their own book about the topic while giving a terrible answer... I mean I'm not that smart, but I solved this problem in my head, while driving. It's really that simple if you actually already understand Special Relativity properly.

What really surprised me was when I went on to check how does Wikipedia see this, and it also doesn't explain the proper solution. There is only one passing mention of the correct solution (kind of, possibly, can't really tell) in the "Brief History" section... with no actual explanation. I guess this is why no one in Quora also knows the answer, but still I'm quite dumbfounded to realize that the actual solution is apparently not very well known at all. I can't find any article actually explaining the correct solution.

Looking at all the bad answers, it seems to me that that there are few different reasons why most people get this so wrong.

One is that many people think about length contraction as something that happens to **objects**, when more accurately it's what happens to your coordinate system when you change your perspective from one inertial frame to another, and follow Einstein convention for isotropic C. If you think it happens to "objects" because they "move", you might be inclined to bring up stuff like "atoms shrink by space between them does not", and that is completely wrong perspective.

Second is that many authors start to analyze realistic materials and Born rigidity, which to some people perhaps seem like a way out of the paradox in some convoluted way. But that is also a complete red herring. The paradox is a thought experiment, and it has got nothing to do with realistic materials. It's about **geometry** in terms of special relativity, which ought to produce self-consistent results regardless of inertial frame. Solving Ehrenfest paradox by bringing up realistic materials and centrifugal forces is like solving twin paradox with "planet earth cannot produce enough energy to actually run that experiment".

Third reason is that a mathematical analysis in the framework of special relativity is easiest to do by making certain approximations, which are exactly the approximations leading into wrong answers. That misleading approximation is the idea of placing a number of **straight rods** along the circumference of the disk, and this approximation is exactly what will give you **wrong answers**. That's right, Einstein's own analysis is also flawed for the same reason, even though it led into insights that led into General Relativity.

Why that approximation produces a critically wrong answer, and what is the correct answer? I'll explain in a bit...

**The correct perspective**

First, just to convince the reader that this problem is in fact fully solvable in terms of Special Relativity without any hocus pocus about elastic materials, please be aware that the frame transformation from one inertial frame to another can be conceived as a sort of rotating / scaling of events in spacetime.

Like this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_transform_of_world_line.gif

The dots in that animation represent **events** as plotted on a spacetime diagram, and the "squishing" of the whole structure represents frame transformation from one inertial frame to another. Some events get pushed "towards the future" and some events get pushed "towards the past". Nothing actually happens to "objects" just because we choose to plot them in a different inertial frame; it's just about how we must plot events, if we are to assume isotropic C, and if we are to remain self-consistent in our mapping between frames.

It really is a good idea to view Special Relativity simply as self-consistent frame transformation rules, and you start seeing that the whole question of length contraction is **not** about how different observers "see things", or how they "measure things", or "what happens to objects", but rather about **how the universe must be plotted in spacetime diagrams when assuming different notions of simultaneity**.

In a nutshell, if we switch from one inertial frame representation to another - assuming unique simultaneity to each frame - we must plot the world state "ahead" of us as pushing towards the future (things that had not yet happened in old frame, have already happened in new frame), and conversely the world state "behind" us as pushing towards the past (something that had already happened in old frame, has not yet happened in new frame). Analyzing moving objects like this is what leads into the concept of "length contraction".

Since we are effectively molding the spacetime diagram around, but preserving the same exact light-like connections between events (the causality - the order of connected events - remains unchanged), it should be pretty easy for anyone to see that if it is possible to represent a spinning disk as a "set of events" in one frame, and it would have to also transform along with all the other events in self-consistent manner to any different frame without hiccups. From this perspective, the actual question behind the paradox is simple; **how would the spinning disk plot onto a spacetime diagram in terms of different notions of simultaneity?**

Even if you can't instantly figure out the exact solution, you should be able to already convince yourself that there is an exact solution out there which would just mold the (events making up the) spinning disk in consistent manner, along with everything else around the situation. What that exact solution is - let's get to it.**The common error**

Once the above is understood correctly, next it should be pretty easy to see how the "rigid rods along the circumference" analysis leads you down the wrong path, and at the same time get an glimpse of the correct solution.

- First, imagine a wheel-of-fortune, with pins sticking out from the outer circumference.
- Then we take a spoked wheel (a bicycle wheel), just proper size to snuggly fit inside the pins of the wheel-of-fortune.
- Last, let's enclose the whole two-disk setup inside a box with a snug fit.

*The purpose of this setup is to signal us if we are doing something inconsistent with our transformation - if the inner wheel fits inside the larger wheel, and if both wheels fit inside the box in one inertial frame, this must be so in all inertial frames. If it's not, we have performed an error in our analysis.*

Now let's take

Now let's set the

Since we have rod A spinning along, let's think about what happens if we shoot

At first glance it might seem like those two rods could be setup to become

The rod that is attached to the spinning wheel is - obviously - never moving in straight line; it is rotating. It's front end is always moving in different direction than its back end (each end is moving parallel to the part of the circumference it touches). So, the first question is,

If we plot the external box of the whole setup, in terms of the inertial frame of rod B, it's easy to propose relativistic speeds where the entire box gets plotted as length contracted to shorter length than rod B. The (non-rotating) wheel-of-fortune inside the box must also be mapped inside the box in every frame, and similarly squashed in the direction of motion - snuggly fitting inside the box. And the rotating bicycle wheel must fit also inside the pins of the wheel-of-fortune. It will get plotted also as snuggly fitting inside the wheel-of-fortune. Note though, the spokes will be plotted as curved because it is actively rotating and we are mapping it by a tilted simultaneity plane - this is just the flipside of the coin same coin that makes us map it as squashed.

Basically the internal configuration of our setup cannot change based on what inertial frame we map it from - rod A does not suddenly poke through the walls of the box just because we choose to plot the situation in different inertial frame. If we think it does, we are making an error in our analysis, or using invalid frame transformation. Basically it would imply an inconsistent change in the configuration of our system (some objects transforming in different ways than others - clearly invalid)

If we investigate a moment where the exact middle points of the rods meet in the same inertial frame, and we choose to plot this in terms of rod B's simultaneity, then the "front" end of rod A (in terms of direction of rotation) has already passed the "front" end of rod B (in terms of direction of motion of rod B in lab frame) some time ago. To be more accurate, since it's attached to a

And conversely, the world state behind us is plotted as pushing towards the past; the rear ends of the rods have not yet met. And since the rod is constantly rotating, the rear end of rod A is also plotted as curving "upwards", and moving towards rod B.

This is why, if you plot down the shape of the spokes of the wheel from the perspective of rod B, the end result looks like this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativistic_wheels.gif

This is simply a result of plotting the events making up the "supposed world state" as transformed as per the Einstein convention of clock synchronization. A convention for plotting data. Nothing more, nothing less.

The error almost everyone makes is that they view length contraction as something actually occurring to

Also, since it was attached to the spokes of the rotating wheel, you'd have to plot the wheel also as having a larger length between two spokes than can be made to fit inside the box wheel-of-fortune, or inside the box. Obviously this result would mean your analysis is completely invalid, plain and simple.

And make no mistake about this - the same error happens no matter how short measurement rods you use. Shorter rods have smaller error, but you can always propose a speed where the error becomes obvious. And with smaller rods there's more of them so the end result of any full analysis is exactly as invalid. Basically you can't have an entire rod in a single inertial frame, while also being attached to the spinning wheel. These are mutually exclusive circumstances.

The same error exists in Einstein's co-rotating observer thought experiment, albeit in more subtle manner. But the point is, the co-rotating observer cannot have a measurement rod in any single inertial frame if that rod is to be also attached to the rotating wheel. The approximation necessary to imagine that situation will always make the analysis invalid for the same reasons as described above.

**The correct solution**

First clue to understanding how this situation really gets plotted correctly is this; Rod B only shares inertial frame with an **infinitesimally thin slice of the spinning wheel**. This is true by the very definition of "spinning". Also from the perspective of the lab frame (where the hub of the wheel is stationary), each infinitesimal slice of the spinning wheel is sitting in a different inertial frame, and does not have any "length" assignable to any single inertial frame. This is a simple mathematical fact arising from the very definitions behind special relativity and "spinning wheel".

Second key to understanding this is also associated with properly understanding length contraction as coordinate transformation. Remember when I said *"if we switch from one inertial frame representation to another, we must plot the world state "ahead" of us as pushing towards the future, and conversely the world state "behind" us as pushing towards the past."*. Note what happens in-between; **the world state in the infinitesimal slice exactly perpendicular to the motion does not transform at all!** This is btw also why the spokes at the bottom and at the top of the spinning wheel were plotted as straight in the relativistic wheel visualization above. (And I can show why the spokes are plotted as curved with another thought experiment too if anyone is interested)

This leads into the simple fact that, in the above experiment, at the moment when the middle part of rod A and rod B meet, **a non-rotating observer sitting at the hub of the wheel co-incides with this infinitesimal plane** that is cutting through the wheel, and that observer **will agree with simultaneity of all events that co-incide with that infinitesimal plane.**

We could repeat the same experiment in any direction, and get the same result, because the wheel is symmetrical. Thus we can see how

So getting back to the original Ehrenfest Paradox, the correct solution is simply to realize that the definitions of

To summarize;

The non-rotating observer (at rest with the hub of the spinning wheel) actually

If this still sounds like a strange claim to you, you are forgetting where length contraction comes from. It comes from dynamic notion of simultaneity, and only applies to how we plot

So the TL;DR solution is, the spinning wheel circumference

And as it turns out, all of the "commonly accepted" (or maybe there isn't one) solutions I can find are

Do note that this solution is all about how geometry gets plotted in terms of special relativity - it's not about how to set a wheel in rotation or about realistic materials. This solution simply arises from how objects get plotted into different inertial frames in self-consistent manner, following exactly the definitions of Special Relativity, and thus it is also exactly the correct solution to the original Ehrenfest Paradox.

Sorry about the length of this. I didn't want to just state what the correct solution is without explaining it in sufficient detail to give everyone a chance to convince themselves about this. Because it seems like the misconception here is so common that the actual end result probably just sound immediately wrong to most people until they think it through themselves.

And it says that "energy is quantized" at 11:40. And to illustrate this point the image on the screen splits into lots of uniform cubes.

This led me to conclude that everything is made of indivisible, uniform pieces. Like any image on this pixelated screen. No only because of they way they showed it but because they said that quantum mechanics governs the things that everything is made of. Also they said energy is quantized and some other sources have said that everything is made of energy. From this I concluded that everything is quantized.

Is this the case?

I found some sources that explain that the energy of light is quantized. Is that what Nova ment or do they mean all energy?

Also, I found some articles that say while light only comes in discrete chunks (quanta), the chunks can have any value depending on the circumstances. The light can't come in values of 1, then 3.5 then 2, only in one number. But depending on the light sources it can come in a steam of 1s, 3.5s 2s or any continuous value etc.

]]>Here is the description of the mentioned analogy from the book:

Each of the two remote observers - Alice and Bob - uses a device that has two buttons, labeled M and N, and a screen that can show either +1 or -1. During the experiment, Alice and Bob are unable to communicate with each other.

The source located roughly halfway between Alice and Bob sends them a couple of particles of some kind. Alice and Bob receive these particles and each insert them into their device. Then they select a random button on the device (M or N) and press it at the same time. Each device displays a value of +1 or -1, possibly related to the state of the generated particle. The entire operation described is called an event.

Both observers keep a record of the buttons they pressed and the numbers displayed. After receiving data on a large array of numbers, both parties meet and perform a correlation analysis of their records. Specifically, they estimate the value

Here, Ma, Mb, Na, Nb are the numbers that Alice and Bob receive after pressing the corresponding buttons. Each event only contributes to one of the values MaMb, MaNb, NaMb, NaNb. The book says that if | S | is greater than 2, then Bell's inequalities are violated.

This is how, if I understand it correctly, a typical experiment looks like:

I wrote a program that counts S for different algorithms of generating measurements of Alice and Bob. The following conclusions were obtained. Suppose Alice and Bob's buttons are completely random; Alice's measurement is also completely random, and Bob's measurement depends on Alice's measurement, but does not depend on the button that Alice or Bob pressed. Then S can take values from -2 to 2 (after averaging a large number of events).

Now suppose Alice's measurement is random, and Bob's measurement is defined as follows: if Alice pressed M and Bob pressed N, Bob's measurement is opposite to Alice's, otherwise Bob's measurement is the same as Alice's. Then S equals 4 - this is a violation of Bell's inequalities.

This leads to very interesting conclusions, but only under the condition that this whole analogy is correct. For the latter algorithm (for which S = 4) Bob's measurement indirectly depends on Alice's button, but does not correlate with it; therefore, Alice cannot convey information to Bob by pressing the button for a reason. This is consistent with what I have read in various sources about quantum entanglement - it does not allow information to be transmitted, but at the same time it cannot be called a complete absence of any interaction. Einstein called it “spooky action at distance”, and this characteristic is understandable, since particles located at different times can be entangled, so “spooky action through time” is an equivalent formulation.

I suppose, this analogue corresponds to this experiment:

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

As far as I can see, when the polarizer a is set with 0 degrees angle, this corresponds to pressing M by Alice, and 45 degrees correspond to pressing N by Alice; when the polarizer b is set with 22.5 degrees angle, this corresponds to pressing M by Bod, and 67.5 degrees correspond to pressing N by Bob.

Please comment on whether my post is correct.

]]>

My work,the semi classical Friedmann eq. And pre big bang phase

https://www.quora.com/q/vtikdwnzcqjjlems/The-Semi-Classical-Friedmann-Equation

The recently published" Independent" model

]]>

I have heard that a rope is the model for these phenomena. You can start up a linear or circular wave through a rope. If you pass the rope through a slot, then the circular wave will turn into a linear one. If you put two perpendicular slots, then the wave will not pass; but if one more slot is placed between them at an angle of 45 degrees, then again part of the wave will pass. This illustrates that the slot, like the polarizer, “not only absorbs but also rotates”, I hope you understand what I mean. Is this correct?

I want to program a mathematical model that describes a polarizer for light or a slot for a rope, and so far I still don’t understand how to set a diagonal slot in this model. The point is obvious that if the vector [X=1;Y=0] is absorbed by the gap [1;1], then in the basis of this gap one of the components in the vector is set to zero, and in the original basis the component Y does not decrease, but increases, as the vector [1;0] is projected onto [1;1]. That is, as I understand it, one can say that "quantum magic is a consequence of mathematical magic" - in two-dimensional space, when a vector is absorbed, its individual components can increase. Is the written correct?

]]>Intuitively, it seems that this should not be so, and the model of the Conway's Game of Life looks more close to reality. In this game, the state of the system is described by discrete values, i.e. a finite amount of information is sufficient to describe the system. The question arises, are there any analogs of the Game of Life (cellular automata), in which the laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics work?

The Game of Life clearly reproduces reality very poorly, since it does not contain any of this. In addition, this game has a different arrow of time. In our reality, we experrience a psychological arrow of time: we remember the events of the past and predict the events of the future, and this knowledge about the past and the future is very asymmetric - information about the past is much more voluminous, more specific, detailed, more reliable than the information about the future. In the game Life, if there were intelligent beings, it would be the opposite: according to the state of the system at the moment of the present, it is possible to accurately predict the state of the system in the future, but it is impossible to recreate the state of the system in the past.

]]>Let us consider what field "blobs" can be, moving at the speed of light in a certain direction while maintaining their shape. That is, compact formations capable of traveling long distances compared to their size without significant changes in structure. Unlike dipole radiation, which propagates spherically in all directions. Perhaps such structure have emissions of atoms during the transitions of electron clouds to less energetic levels. Discussion of how justified use of the term "photon" in relation to such objects is beyond the scope of this article.

Let us take as basis the equations, existence of which in the real world is justified in the topic on dipole radiation:

The following symbols are used:

Scalar potential = a

Vector potential = **A**

Electrical field = **E**

Speed of light in vacuum = c

Time derivatives are denoted by singlequote '

a' = - c^{2} · div **A**

**A**' = - **E** - grad a

**E**' = c^{2} · rot rot **A**

The formulas are given in cylindrical coordinate system (ρ,φ,z),

associated with the point of space where the geometric center of field blob is located at the time of observation.

Let us put r^{2} = ρ^{2} + z^{2}

Motion occurs along z-axis at the speed of light and structure of field object remains unchanged,

that is, ∂/∂t = - c · ∂/∂z for all physical quantities.

Also, integral of internal energy throughout all the space must be finite, density of which is expressed by the law:

u = ε_{0}/2 · E^{2} + μ_{0}/2 · H^{2}

where E^{2} = E_{ρ}^{2} + E_{φ}^{2} + E_{z}^{2}, H^{2} = H_{ρ}^{2} + H_{φ}^{2} + H_{z}^{2}

**H** = 1/μ_{0} · rot **A**, **B** = rot **A**** **= μ_{0} · **H**

Let us put **J** = rot **B** = rot rot **A**

Let us start with the mathematically simplest descriptions possible from the point of view of field laws mentioned above. In cylindrically symmetric case, when ∂/∂φ = 0 for all physical quantities.

Basic equations are divided into two independent systems:

1. With circular electric field.

A_{φ}' = - c · ∂A_{φ}/∂z = - E_{φ}

→ E_{φ} = c · ∂A_{φ}/∂z

→ ∂E_{φ}/∂z = c · ∂^{2}A_{φ}/∂z^{2}

E_{φ}' = - c · ∂E_{φ}/∂z = c^{2} · J_{φ}

= c^{2} · (- ∂^{2}A_{φ}/∂z^{2} - ∂^{2}A_{φ}/∂ρ^{2} - ∂A_{φ}/∂ρ / ρ + A_{φ} / ρ^{2})

→ ∂E_{φ}/∂z = c · (∂^{2}A_{φ}/∂z^{2} + ∂^{2}A_{φ}/∂ρ^{2} + ∂A_{φ}/∂ρ / ρ - A_{φ} / ρ^{2})

Equating ∂E_{φ}/∂z from two equations, we get

∂^{2}A_{φ}/∂ρ^{2} + ∂A_{φ}/∂ρ / ρ - A_{φ} / ρ^{2} = 0

→ ∂/∂ρ (∂A_{φ}/∂ρ + A_{φ} / ρ) = 0

If A_{φ} is not zero in all the space,

so ∂A_{φ}/∂ρ + A_{φ} / ρ = 0, and A_{φ} is proportional to 1 / ρ, that gives infinite energy integral. Hence, such non-zero components of compact radiations can not exist. After artificial creation or computer modeling such structures will diverge in waves in all directions, instead of moving in one direction at the speed of light.

2. With circular magnetic field.

a' = - c · ∂a/∂z = - c^{2} · (∂A_{ρ}/∂ρ + A_{ρ} / ρ + ∂A_{z}/∂z)

→ ∂a/∂z = c · (∂A_{ρ}/∂ρ + A_{ρ} / ρ + ∂A_{z}/∂z)

A_{ρ}' = - c · ∂A_{ρ}/∂z = - E_{ρ} - ∂a/∂ρ

→ E_{ρ} = c · ∂A_{ρ}/∂z - ∂a/∂ρ

∂E_{ρ}/∂z = c · ∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂z^{2} - ∂^{2}a/∂ρ/∂z

A_{z}' = - c · ∂A_{z}/∂z = - E_{z} - ∂a/∂z

→ E_{z} = c · ∂A_{z}/∂z - ∂a/∂z

∂E_{z}/∂z = c · ∂^{2}A_{z}/∂z^{2} - ∂^{2}a/∂z^{2}

E_{ρ}' = - c · ∂E_{ρ}/∂z = c^{2} · J_{ρ}

→ ∂E_{ρ}/∂z = c · (∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂z^{2} - ∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ/∂z)

E_{z}' = - c · ∂E_{z}/∂z = c^{2} · J_{z}

→ ∂E_{z}/∂z = c · (∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ^{2} - ∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂ρ/∂z - ∂A_{ρ}/∂z / ρ + ∂A_{z}/∂ρ / ρ)

Equating ∂E_{ρ}/∂z from the equations for A_{ρ}' и E_{ρ}', we get

c · ∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂z^{2} - ∂^{2}a/∂ρ/∂z = c · (∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂z^{2} - ∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ/∂z)

and conclude that a = c · A_{z} if we are talking about quantities decreasing to zero with distance from the center goes to infinity.

From the equation for a' then follows ∂A_{ρ}/∂ρ + A_{ρ} / ρ = 0,

which means A_{ρ} = 0 if A_{ρ} is not proportional to 1 / ρ with infinite energy integral.

From the equation for A_{z}' follows E_{z} = 0 at a = c · A_{z}

The following equations remain valid:

E_{ρ} = - ∂a/∂ρ = - c · ∂A_{z}/∂ρ

whereas from ∂E_{z}/∂z = c · (∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ^{2} + ∂A_{z}/∂ρ / ρ) = 0

it follows that with non-zero A_{z} must be A_{z} proportional to ln(ρ) and energy integral is infinite.

Thus, no valid expressions for field formations were found. The situation changes if we assume that div **E** ≠ 0 (non-zero charge density) and introduce additional terms into formulas for **E**' using the velocity field:

**E**′ = c^{2} · J - grad (**E** · **V**) - **V** · div **E**

where div **E** = ∂E_{ρ}/∂ρ + E_{ρ} / ρ + ∂E_{z}/∂z

in case of circular magnetic field, whereas case of circular electric field remains within previous calculations, since there div **E** = 0

Assuming that V_{z} = c is in the entire space around isolated field object, whereas V_{ρ} = 0 and V_{φ} = 0,

and since **E** · **V** = E_{z} · c, we get

E_{ρ}' = - c · ∂E_{ρ}/∂z = c^{2} · J_{ρ} - c · ∂E_{z}/∂ρ - 0 · div **E**

→ ∂E_{ρ}/∂z = ∂E_{z}/∂ρ - c · J_{ρ}

→ ∂E_{ρ}/∂z = ∂E_{z}/∂ρ - c · (∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ/∂z - ∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂z^{2})

E_{z}' = - c · ∂E_{z}/∂z = c^{2} · J_{z} - c · ∂E_{z}/∂z - c · div **E**

→ ∂E_{z}/∂z = - c · J_{z} + ∂E_{z}/∂z + div **E**

→ c · J_{z} = div **E**

→ c · (∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂ρ/∂z - ∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ^{2} + ∂A_{ρ}/∂z / ρ - ∂A_{z}/∂ρ / ρ) = div **E**

The following equations remain true

∂a/∂z = c · (∂A_{ρ}/∂ρ + A_{ρ} / ρ + ∂A_{z}/∂z)

E_{ρ} = c · ∂A_{ρ}/∂z - ∂a/∂ρ

E_{z} = c · ∂A_{z}/∂z - ∂a/∂z

From the expression for E_{z}' after substitutions it follows:

c · (∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂ρ/∂z - ∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ^{2} + ∂A_{ρ}/∂z / ρ - ∂A_{z}/∂ρ / ρ)

= ∂E_{ρ}/∂ρ + E_{ρ} / ρ + ∂E_{z}/∂z = c · ∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂ρ/∂z - ∂^{2}a/∂ρ^{2}

+ c · ∂A_{ρ}/∂z / ρ - ∂a/∂ρ / ρ + c · ∂^{2}A_{z}/∂z^{2} - ∂^{2}a/∂z^{2}

→ ∂^{2}a/∂ρ^{2 }+ ∂a/∂ρ / ρ + ∂^{2}a/∂z^{2} = c · (∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ^{2} + ∂A_{z}/∂ρ / ρ + ∂^{2}A_{z}/∂z^{2})

Which leads to the conclusion a = c · A_{z}

Then E_{z} = 0, also ∂A_{ρ}/∂ρ + A_{ρ} / ρ = 0, hence A_{ρ}_{ }= 0 to avoid infinity of energy integral.

As result we get:

a = c · A_{z}, A_{ρ} = 0, E_{z} = 0

E_{ρ} = - ∂a/∂ρ = - c · ∂A_{z}/∂ρ

Which corresponds to the equation derived earlier from E_{ρ}'

∂E_{ρ}/∂z = ∂E_{z}/∂ρ - c · (∂^{2}A_{z}/∂ρ/∂z - ∂^{2}A_{ρ}/∂z^{2})

Herewith B_{φ} = - ∂A_{z}/∂ρ = E_{ρ}/c

**Charge, spin and polarization**

If one looks in the direction of movement of field object, it is easy to notice that in the above version with annular magnetic field it is possible to orient this field clockwise or counterclockwise. Accordingly, radial electric field will be directed from z-axis outward or inward to this axis. To one type of field formations can be attributed conditional positive "spin", to the second negative.

Let us try to find out how intensity of fields can decrease at distance from the geometric center of object.

Let a = A_{0} / s, где A_{0} = amplitude constant,

and s^{2} = R^{2} + ρ^{2} + z^{2}, where R = object's scaling constant, possibly having an indirect relation to conditional "wavelength" in experiments. Note that ∂s/∂ρ = ρ / s, ∂s/∂z = z / s

Then A_{z} = A_{0} / c / s, A_{ρ} = 0, E_{ρ} = A_{0} · ρ / s^{3}, E_{z} = 0

div **E**** **= ∂E_{ρ}/∂ρ + E_{ρ} / ρ = A_{0} · (2 / s^{3} - 3 · ρ^{2} / s^{5})

The integral of charge density (divided by dielectric constant) over the entire space will be equal to

∫_{-∞}^{+∞}∫_{0}^{2·π}∫_{0}^{∞ }(2 / s^{3} - 3 · ρ^{2} / s^{5}) · ρ ∂ρ ∂φ ∂z = 0

That is, although charge density is not locally zero, the object as a whole is charged neutrally. This is natural, for example, for radiation arising from atoms and molecules, taking into account laws of conservation, since the particles located there will not give up part of their charge.

In general, when **E** = E_{ρ} = - ∂a/∂ρ, the subintegral expression

ρ · div **E** = ρ · (∂E_{ρ}/∂ρ + E_{ρ} / ρ) = ρ · (- ∂^{2}a/∂ρ^{2} - ∂a/∂ρ / ρ)

= - ρ · ∂^{2}a/∂ρ^{2} - ∂a/∂ρ = ∂/∂ρ (- ρ · ∂a/∂ρ)

Computing the integral ∫_{0}^{∞ }ρ · div **E** ∂ρ we get

for ρ = 0 the function - ρ · ∂a/∂ρ = 0,

for ρ = ∞ the function - ρ · ∂a/∂ρ = 0

if ∂a/∂ρ decreases by absolute value with a distance faster than 1 / s

Further computation of integrals by φ and z will not change zero result. The author of this article tested using MathCAD zero equality of the triple integral for a = A_{0} · ρ^{2} / s^{3} with E_{ρ} = A_{0} · (2 · ρ / s^{3 }- 3 · ρ^{3} / s^{5}), also for a = A_{0} · ρ^{4} / s^{5} with E_{ρ} = A_{0} · (4 · ρ^{3} / s^{5}^{ }- 5 · ρ^{5} / s^{7}), for a = A_{0} · ρ / s^{2}, a = A_{0} · z / s^{2}, a = A_{0} / s^{2}

Very wide range of such objects is neutrally charged in general, although it is likely that field formations are statistically inclined to take simplest geometric shapes, with minimum number of spatial extrema.

It should be noted that when a = A_{0} / s^{2} or s appears with even higher degrees, field formation receives significantly greater ability to penetrate matter than with a = A_{0} / s or a = A_{0} · ρ^{2} / s^{3}

Accordingly, the probability of registration of field object by measuring instruments is reduced. Which may be similar to the behavior of neutrinos in experiments.

Polarized field object can be described as follows:

s^{2} = R^{2} + X · x^{2} + Y · y^{2} + Z · z^{2}

where R, X, Y, Z are scaling constants

∂s/∂x = X · x / s, ∂s/∂y = Y · y / s, ∂s/∂z = Z · z / s

If a = A_{0} / s, where A_{0} is amplitude

A_{z} = A_{0} / c / s, A_{x} = 0, A_{y} = 0

E_{x} = A_{0} · X · x / s^{3}, E_{y} = A_{0} · Y · y / s^{3}, E_{z} = 0

B_{x} = - A_{0} / c · Y · y / s^{3}, B_{y} = A_{0} / c · X · x / s^{3}, B_{z} = 0

div **E** = ∂E_{x}/∂x + ∂E_{y}/∂y + ∂E_{z}/∂z

= A_{0} · (X / s^{3} - 3 · X · x^{2} / s^{5} + Y / s^{3} - 3 · Y · y^{2} / s^{5})

At the same time, all the above formulas for case of circular magnetic field remain true,

**E**′ = c^{2} · J - grad (**E** · **V**) - **V** · div **E**

E_{x}' = c^{2} · (∂B_{z}/∂y - ∂B_{y}/∂z) - 0 - 0 = 3 · A_{0} · c · X · Z · x · z / s^{5}

E_{y}' = c^{2} · (∂B_{x}/∂z - ∂B_{z}/∂x) - 0 - 0 = 3 · A_{0} · c · Y · Z · y · z / s^{5}

E_{z}' = c^{2} · (∂B_{y}/∂x - ∂B_{x}/∂y) - 0 - c · div **E **= 0

That is, there may be no cylindrical symmetry, with different X and Y, the field object will be stretched or extended along x- axis or y-axis. Compression or extension along z-axis is determined by multiplier Z. With significant differences between coordinate multipliers, structures arise with predominant orientation of fields in one direction (and the opposite also) in areas with high field energy density.

This topic can be seen as a preface:

This topic can be considered as a continuation:

]]>

Essentially, I intend to build a sieve for figurate numbers, I'll code this in a programming language such as C or VB or something.

What I would like to be able to do is to enter any real number and have my algorithm, routine check the number to see what figurate number it comes closest too.

Note that the following link, has a table of some of the more common formulas to derive a figurate number series in forward expanding exponential series (gnomonic growth) ;

Figurate Number -- from Wolfram MathWorld

(Table copied and pasted below for your reference)

However, what I need to do, Im guessing, is to re-write these formula so that they process backwards, taking a large number and scailing it down.

For example ;

If using the triangular figurate formula n(n+1) /2

39 (39+1) / 2 = 780

However, I want to reverse this process so that I enter 780 and I get 39

I'd like to be able to reverse ALL of the formula shown below, each and every statement

the end goal is that I will have developed for myself a small software program that accepts any real number and then checks that numberagainst all these formula to see which ones it matches or comes very close to, I realzie this sounds odd, but I'd like to be able to even enter irrationals and remainders, non-whole numbers are 'ok', i.e. a number may be close to a triangular number, i.e. say I have 783, then the app returns that it is close to a triangular number 780 with remainder 3

What Im hoping to ask of you, is are you aware of any onlne source where these reversed formula have already been compiled and are available? If not, thoughts on whether this can be done, and if so, any tips?

If you feel inclined to take a crack at re-writing the tetrahedral, triangular, and pentagonal formula, I'd love to review your approach - and hope to be ebale to re-write all of these.

Much thanks and sincere regards to you!

]]>