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, 105 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

Andrea Rossi's eCat and the future of Physics
Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2011 @ 21:10:01 GMT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes:
Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics published the paper ''Cold nuclear fusion'', by E.N. Tsyganov.

In August 23rd I posted a comment , and in the next day somebody with the fantasy name ''insight'' posted a reply to my comment.  We both posted some replies, and our comments are ahead.

Wladimir Guglinski

Dear Dr. E.N. Tsyganov
In spite of atomic electrons may screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge, it’s hard to believe that such phenomenon can be able to explain the Coulombic penetration, because:
1- When the proton is on the verge of entering the nucleus, it has a big Coulombic repulsion with the protons of that nucleus, and such repulsion increases with the square of the distance decrease.
2- The electrons that cause the screen effect are very far from the nucleus: about 10^-11m (Bohr’s radius).
So, it’s hard to believe that one proton very near to the nucleus (about 10^-15m) can be helped by the screen effect.

Besides, if a proton (with positive charge) is able to enter into a nucleus, then an electron (with negative) charge would have chance to do it easier.

There is not in Theoretical Physics a satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.

It’s hard to believe that any cold fusion theory, based on the prevailing principles of current Theoretical Physics, can be able to explain cold fusion occurrence.

A satisfactory theory capable to explain cold fusion must be able to explain why the electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.


Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
I do not agree with you that “There is not in Theoretical Physics a satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.”.
Maybe you believe that electrons and protons are like “balls”. No, they are not: they have to be considered “quantum states”, that is, probability distribution of matter, considered according position or speed, not both at the same time because there is also the “uncertainty principle”. Also consider the wave-particle dualism, the same puzzle Schrödinger had to address before writing his well-known equation.
So the reason why electrons do not fall down onto the nucleus is that a similar physical condition isn’t a solution for the Schrödinger equation, or its derivatives. You can imagine that, the more the electron gets close to the nucleus, the less it behaves and appears like a “ball”.
In the nucleus protons are subjected to further forces, still they do not collapse but stay together (someone says the nucleus is like a “sea of quarks” instead).
Note: I am not saying that the above mentioned principles cannot be corrected or changed. I am just answering your statement.

Wladimir Guglinski

insight wrote:
“So the reason why electrons do not fall down onto the nucleus is that a similar physical condition isn’t a solution for the Schrödinger equation, or its derivatives”

Dear Mr. insight,
only a force can avoid the electron do not fall down into the nuclei.
It must be the force capable to oppose the force of attraction between the nucleus and the electron.

An equation cannot produce a force

Your suggestion remembers me the isospin proposed by Heisenberg. As two neutrons have not repulsion, but they have attraction by the strong force, then two neutrons would have to form a dineutron.
So that to explain why there is no dineutrons in nature, Heisenberg proposed the isospin postulate.

However, a postulate cannot prevent two neutrons to form a dineutron by the action of the strong force.
Only another force can do it.
Only a force can oppose to another force.
Only a REPULSION force can oppose to an ATTRACTION force, and to separate two neutrons, so that to avoid them to form a dineutron.

Several solutions in Modern Physics actually are not fundamental solutions. They are only bandages.

We cannot explain cold fusion occurrence with a theory developed by the use of bandages.


Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
I am not necessarily a fan of the nowadays accepted physics theories, but I can say you are wrong because particles are not like balls and forces we are talking about are not mechanical forces. They are called forces but at atomic level they just are terms of Hamiltonians, operators in the quantum vector space.
I can understand your wonder at the mysteries of matter. Believe me, it was the same the 20th century scientists felt when addressing the amazing physics phenomena occurring with atoms and nuclei, and Physics students still today feel marvel at them. It’s why Physics is so a beautiful subject.
At present time you have to accept that there are many amazing (and challenging) mysteries in nature and that the found explanations are often counterintuitive or unsatisfactory. So talk about interactions, not forces: those interactions are not like you imagine them, they act just as described by quantum mechanics.

Wladimir Guglinski

Mr. insight wrote:
“Maybe you believe that electrons and protons are like “balls”. No, they are not: they have to be considered “quantum states”, that is, probability distribution of matter”.

Dear Mr. insight,
you are wrong.

Electrons are like a ball, yes.

Because electrons collide like billiard balls, as Compton experiments proved to us.
Only balls can collide like billiard balls.

“Quantum states”, or “probability distribution of matter”, cannot collide like billiard balls.

Compton experiments (which proved that electrons are like balls) are not a theory. They are experiments.

“Probability distribution of matter” is only a theory. It’s NOT an experimental result.

Probability distribution of matter has been proposed as a theory because the quantum theorists did not succeed to explain why an electron like a ball does not fall within the nucleus.

In another words, the quantum theorists rejected the experiments made by Compton, so that to save their theory, according to which the electron is not like a ball.

But the scientific method prescribes that any experiment must prevail over any theory. If the theory does not fit to an experimental result, the theory must be rejected. To keep the theory, by rejecting the experiment is not according to the scientific criterium.

However, instead of to realize that “probability distribution of matter” is an unsatisfactory concept, refuted by Compton experiment, the quantum theorists decided to do just what scientific method prescribes do not to do: they neglected the Compton experiment.

In short: as the Compton experiment shows that electrons are like a ball, a theory of the atom must consider the electrons in its electrosphere just as they are: like balls.
Since from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics is impossible to explain why electrons like a ball do not fall into the nucleus, there is need to change the foundations of QM. It’s not acceptable to change the shape of the electron detected experimentally (by proposing that electron is a probability distribution of matter, instead of to consider it like a ball) only because Quantum Mechanics cannot explain why they do fall into the nuclei (this behavior is a betrayal to the scientific method).

The false fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics are responsible for the appearance of several unacceptable paradoxes in Modern Physics.
That’s why Bohr proposed some strange postulates. That was a desperate attempt he proposed with the aim to explain the paradoxes, so that to find an interpretation philosophically reasonable for the strange quantum theory.
One of the Bohr’s strange postulates is the Principle of Complementarity, according to which sometimes a quantum particle can behave as a wave, and sometimes it can behave as a corpuscle.

However a new experiment published in Science has showed that Bohr’s Complementarity Principle is wrong
So, to consider that electron is a probability distribution of matter is a fallacy.

The physicists enjoy to cheat themselves.
Instead to realize that some principles of Quantum Mechanics are wrong, they cheat themselves looking for absurd solutions, so that to save the theory.

I thought the reality of cold fusion would change the behavior of the physicists, and they would finally realize that Physics needs new foundations.

Unfortunately, I see that physicists will continue to deceive themselves, because they will try to explain cold fusion with these current theories full of false principles.

So, what is the future of Physics ?

Will the quantum theorists succeed in their attempt to keep all the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, despite we realize that such theory is unable to explain satisfactorily cold fusion occurrence ?

Will they continue to propose a cold fusion theory based on the false principle of Quantum Mechanics, by adding bandages on bandages, so that to save the theory ?
After all, the mathematics accepts everything we wish, if we addopt suitable ad hoc hypothesis.

I think the answer is no.  Quantum Mechanics will not survive.
The present generation of physicists tries to save the theory because they grew up with the theory, having touch with its successes.

But a new generation of physicists will grow up having touch with the failures of the theory, as for instance its inability to explain cold fusion.  And I suppose this new generation will realize that some fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics must be changed, otherwise the Physics will never leave the crisis in which the quantum theorists have put it.




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: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"Andrea Rossi's eCat and the future of Physics" | Login/Create an Account | 11 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: Andrea Rossi's eCat and the future of Physics (Score: 1)
by GreekChorus on Sunday, August 28, 2011 @ 04:40:54 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
GUGLINSKI writes: "
Because electrons collide like billiard balls, as Compton experiments proved to us. 
“Quantum states”, or “probability distribution of matter”, cannot collide like billiard balls.
Only balls can collide like billiard balls."


No experiments, including Compton's, "prove" anything. They just give support or take away support to a proposal or theory. If you want "proofs", go to mathematics!

And simply stating an idea in bold face does nothing to show that the idea is correct (or incorrect). Go back to school and learn something!

Re: Andrea Rossi's eCat and the future of Physics (Score: 1)
by garyv on Sunday, August 28, 2011 @ 10:53:32 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
i'm just a lowly ME but i've always pictured an electron as in orbit around the nucleus, just like a satelite. their attraction is offset by the electron speed. (if that's what we're even talking about)

Re: Andrea Rossi's eCat and the future of Physics (Score: 1)
by Tassie on Sunday, August 28, 2011 @ 18:06:47 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Staggering about in the dark! 
Wasting time arguing, with unseen people!
Please Gentle people! 

Do some bloody research!

We need more people putting their fingers over the Kettle spout, that, brought us the Steam engine.

Start building the damn things and put your fingers over the spout.

Even Tesla BUILT his machines.

Anyone can throw learned imaginings about!  Come on -- get building, it's not going to cost a fortune.
Do ---- stop arguing!!!!!

OK !! ????  


Re: Andrea Rossi's eCat and the future of Physics (Score: 1)
by zabulab on Monday, August 29, 2011 @ 02:04:28 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I am not particularly knowledgeable about the Compton effect, but it seems to me that this "ball" thing is simply the wave-corpuscule duality. It shows that light has a minimum amount of energy which is the photon. In term of wave, this is the energy of an electromagnetic mode. All of this is explained by quantum physics very nicely (see second quantification). As for saying that probability distribution is false, the explanation is ridiculous (I am not saying anything about the theory itself). Distribution means probability of FINDING the particle at a certain place when measuring. After the measure, yes there is going to be a photon measured (the ball) but this is only due to the interaction of the instrument with the measured system that collapse it to a specific basis. Furthermore, you should know that the measurement of the probability distribution has been finally demonstrated recently:  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html [www.nature.com]

The Philosopher's Stone (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Monday, August 29, 2011 @ 08:19:03 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Andrea Rossi, like many other so-called scientists in our times, is a plagiarist.   But, unlike the other scientists, who are willing to plagiarize anything, even if, in the long run, the idea that that they are stealing is total nonsense (Einstein comes to mind), Ross has taken an idea and made a rediscovery of most import.   Clearly, with the transmutation of copper in the eCat experiments, this can only mean that alchemy is involved here -- which, in turn, means that alchemy is a very real science and The Philosopher's Stone is also real.   I believe what may have been discovered, is in fact, the beginning stages of attaining the Stone.

So long as the secret is possessed by a comparatively small number of philosophers, their lot is anything but a bright
and happy one; surrounded as we are on every side by the cruel greed and the prying suspicion of the multitude, we
are doomed, like Cain, to wander over the earth homeless and friendless. Not for us are the soothing influences of
domestic happiness; not for us the delightful confidences of friendship. Men who covet our golden secret pursue us
from place to place, and fear closes our lips, when love tempts us to open ourselves freely to a brother. Thus we feel
prompted at times to burst forth into the desolate exclamation of Cain: "Whoever finds me will slay me." Yet we are not
the murderers of our brethren; we are anxious only to do good to our fellow-men. But even our kindness and
charitable compassion are rewarded with black ingratitude—ingratitude that cries to heaven for vengeance. It was
only a short time ago that, after visiting the plague-stricken haunts of a certain city, and restoring the sick to perfect
health by means of my miraculous medicine, I found myself surrounded by a yelling mob, who demanded that I should
give to them my Elixir of the Sages; and it was only by changing my dress and my name, by shaving off my beard and
putting on a wig, that I was enabled to save my life, and escape from the hands of those wicked men. And even when
our lives are not threatened, it is not pleasant to find ourselves, wherever we go, the central objects of human greed. . .
. I know of several persons who were found strangled in their beds, simply because they were suspected of possessing
this secret, though, in reality, they knew no more about it than their murderers; it was enough for some desperate
ruffians, that a mere whisper of suspicion had been breathed against their victims. Men are so eager to have this
Medicine that your very caution will arouse their suspicions, and endanger your safety. Again, if you desire to sell any
large quantity of your gold and silver, you will be unable to do so without imminent risk of discovery. The very fact
that anyone has a great mass of bullion for sale would in most places excite suspicion. This feeling will be
strengthened when people test the quality of our gold; for it is much finer and purer than any of the gold which is
brought from Barbary, or from the Guinea Coast; and our silver is better even than that which is conveyed home by
the Spanish silver fleet. If, in order to baffle discovery, you mix these precious metals with alloy, you render yourself
liable, in England and Holland at least, to capital punishment; for in those countries no one is permitted to tamper
with the precious metals, except the officers of the mint, and the licensed goldsmiths. I remember once going, in the
disguise of a foreign merchant, to a goldsmith's shop, and offering him 600 pounds worth of our pure silver for sale.
He subjected it to the usual tests, and then said: "This silver is artificially prepared." When I asked him why he thought
so, his answer was: "I am not a novice in my profession, and know very well the exact quality of the silver which is
brought from the different mines." When I heard these words I took myself away with great secrecy and dispatch,
leaving the silver in the hands of the goldsmith. On this account, and by reason of the many and great difficulties
which beset us, the possessors of this Stone, on every side, we do elect to remain hidden, and will communicate the Art
to those who are worthily covetous of our secrets, and then mark what public good will befall.

An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King, by An Anonymous Sage and Lover of Truth, 1645 AD

Fascinating first-ever images of an electron in orbit (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 @ 20:33:08 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

...The two different pictures are showing two separate sets of orbitals: the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) which illustrates the full range of the orbiting electrons. On the bottom are mathematical models of what the orbitals should look like, and the actual images are pretty darn close, which I bet makes quantum physicists all over the world breathe a big sigh of relief. And as for practical applications, data like these could help with the construction of molecular machines that rely on "designer" orbitals to function....

Source: http://dvice.com/archives/2011/08/this-is-an-imag.php [dvice.com]


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.