Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 167 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science


ECW E-Cat World


Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times



Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Heisenberg's scientific criterion and the structure of the electron
Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 @ 18:47:08 GMT by vlad

Science 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 ?



Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

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.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad

Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"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 GMT
(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 GMT
(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.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.