 |
There are currently, 168 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Heisenberg's scientific criterion and the structure of the electron
Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 @ 18:47:08 UTC by vlad
|
|
WGUGLINSKI writes: I discovered in the internet the article Unification des forces électromagnétique, de gravitation et nucléaire , by Édouard Bernal.
Bernal proposes the hypothesis according to which the elementary particles like the electron have two fields, one principal, and the other secondary.
The hypothesis of two fields is also proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, and in my book it is shown that it is possible to explain many nuclear phenomena that current Nuclear Physics is unable to explain. For instance, from the concepts of Nuclear Physics there is no way to calculate the binding energy of the lightest nuclei. But in the book Quantum Ring Theory their binding energies are calculated, and the results are agree to the experimental data.
Then
perhaps you are astonished, and you asks to yourself: “but, as the
hypothesis of two fields is able so solve so many theoretical problems,
why it was never supposed before… why the physicists did not consider it
before?”
The
reason is the following: the hypothesis of a secondary field is a
physical concept, and according to Heisenberg scientific criterion it is
a metaphysical concept, not acceptable by the scientific method. So,
the physicists did never allow themselves to suppose such idea, because
they do not allow themselves to violate the Heisenberg’s criterion.
Here
in ZPEnergy I already described the dispute Schrödinger vs Heisenberg,
concerning the helical trajectory of elementary particles. Heinsenberg
did not accept the helical trajectory because he considered it an
unacceptable metaphysical concept. Unlike, Schrödinger defended the
viewpoint that the helical trajectory is a physical phenomenon existing
in the Nature.
Nowadays,
new experiments are showing that Schrödinger is winning the dispute: the
helical trajectory do exists as a physical phenomenon, and
therefore the Heisenberg’s criterion has failed.
Heisenberg
proposed many mathematical solutions, so that to replace the need of
physical concepts, even when they are indispensable. For instance, in
order to explain why two neutrons do not agglutinate (a dineutron was
never observed in Nature), he proposed the mathematical concept of
Isospin. But two neutrons are attracted by the strong force when they
are separated by a distance of the order of 2F. And so, only a FORCE of
repulsion would be capable to separate two neutrons tied by the strong
force. And a mathematical concept as the Isospin cannot produce a force
of repulsion. The Heisenberg’s criterion explains “what” happens by
using the mathematics, it does not explain “why” it happens (by using
physical concepts, capable to generate physical phenomena, as a force of
repulsion).
In Quantum
Ring Theory, it is shown that there is a PHYSICAL CAUSE that produces a
force of repulsion between two neutrons, when they are near each other
separated by a distance of the order of 2F.
Concerning the development of Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg said: "what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning".
Therefore
it's possible that some fundamental laws existing in Nature do not
exist in Quantum Mechanics, and the method of questioning used by
the quantum physicists don't tell us what really occurs in the Nature.
So,
suppose that the secondary field of elementary particles really exists
in Nature, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. Then a fundamental
question arises:
Can the physicists succeed in their attempt of describing the phenomena, by using the Heisenberg’s criterion ?
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
| |
|
| "Heisenberg's scientific criterion and the structure of the electron" | Login/Create an Account | 9 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Heisenberg's scientific criterion and the structure of the electron (Score: 1)
by Koen on Saturday, October 30, 2010 @ 10:50:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla | How does Schrödinger's point of view help us to harvest zero point energy?
What does all this mean such that we use the new insight that Heisenberg failed?
|
|
|
Re: Heisenberg's scientific criterion and the structure of the electron (Score: 1)
by nanotech on Monday, November 01, 2010 @ 08:47:22 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Quantum Ring Theory is an excellent book and the author knows what he is discussing. The aether is real, it is Maxwell's Dielectric Field and this is Dielectric Energy. It goes by many names, magnetoelectric as opposed to electromagnetic, and, time wave energy, longitudinal waves. This is what Bearden, Bedini, Koen, and Sarg all discuss in various manifestations. If you were to look at it at the smallest levels what you find is the ultimate particle is a tetrahedron that is in a constant state of spin. This spinning motion is in a vortex-helical structure, and, this also lines up with the work of Steve Bridgers (www.y-pod.us) and Buckminster Fuller, related to curvature structures of nature and tensegrity.
|
|
|
|
|
