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

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· 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, 106 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Energy Science

Energy21

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs

KeelyNet

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
KeelyNet_News
NextEnergyNews
PESWiki/News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy2000
Free_Energy
Greenglow
JLNLabs
KeelyNet
NuEnergy
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Sweet-VTA
Tapten
Tomorrow-energy
Vortex
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
radioioAmbient

Nobel Prize Dr. Brian Josephson tries to save Nuclear Physics using Bad Physics
Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2015 @ 02:39:49 EDT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes: I sent emails to several physicists of the Cambridge University, telling them on the publication of my two books in Amazon.com.

The Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson posted the following review in Amazon.com, regarding my book The Evolution of Physics-from Newton to Rossi's eCat :

The book summary says "any nuclear model proposed according to Standard Model cannot explain a nuclear property of the even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons and neutrons: those nuclei have null magnetic moment. As the atomic nuclei have rotation, those nuclei cannot have null magnetic moment. Such puzzle cannot be solved by any nuclear model based on the Standard Model". The author is right to think that rotating nuclei should have a magnetic moment, but seems not to have realised that even-even nuclei don't necessarily rotate. So his conclusion that the data cannot be explained by the Standard Model is incorrect. His elementary failure in this regard must raise doubts as to the accuracy of the rest of the book.


PS: the author, or someone acting on his behalf to whom I copied the above, has written to me giving reasons why he considers my review is incorrect, but anyone familiar with standard quantum mechanics would know that his arguments don't hold up.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UDU8978

And he also sent me an email, saying the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:22:50 +0000
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com


On 20 Mar 2015, at 00:42, Wladimir wrote:

The Evolution of Physics: From Newton to Rossi's eCat
 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UDU8978

Hmmm. I suppose your spamming people had a good result in the end, in that people will now be warned of the deficiencies of your friend's book, which they otherwise would not have been. See review page at

http://www.amazon.com/review/R23H8JJ5NJU48

A system with an even number of fermions can be in an S state, which is spherically symmetrical and so must have zero magnetic moment.

Brian J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then I sent the following reply to Dr. Brian:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: RE: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:06:59 -0300

Dear Dr. Josephson,

you wrote in your comment in the Amazon.com:
"The author is right to think that rotating nuclei should have a magnetic moment, but seems not to have realised that even-even nuclei don't necessarily rotate".

So, I would like you give me a good reason why nuclei with odd number of fermions rotate, while the nuclei with even number of fermions do not rotate.
For instance, 6C11 has rotation.
But if 6C11 captures a neutron, it transmutes to 6C12. And the rotation of the 11 fermions of the 6C11 stops, because the 6C11 has transmuted to 6C12 ????
How can one unique neutron get to eliminate the kinetic energy of rotation of 6 protons and 5 neutrons with fast rotation????

Besides,
you are wrong because of the following:

1- A paper published by Nature in  2012 had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape:
How atomic nuclei cluster
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

2- I sent the following email to the journal Nature:
Dear Martin Freer
With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI


2- Martin Freer sent to me the following answer:
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 is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
Martin



Therefore, Dr. Josephson,
your hypothesis that nuclei with even number of fermions have no rotation is wrong, because if they had no rotation the experiments would have to detect non-null quadrupole moment for the even-even nuclei with Z=N.

Sorry, but you are wrong, Dr. Josephson.
There is no way to solve the puzzle from the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics

regards
Wladimir Guglinski
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



And Dr. Josephson sent the following reply:



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:07:14 +0000
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:06, Wladimir wrote:

> So, I would like you give me a good reason why nuclei with odd number of fermions rotate, while the nuclei with even number of fermions do not rotate.
> For instance, 6C11 has rotation.

Very easy! The QM of spin combinations shows that if you combine an even number of particles with spin 1/2 you get a system with integral spin, so zero spin is a possibility. If on the other hand you combine an odd number of particles with spin 1/2 you get a system with half-integral spin, so zero spin is not a possibility.


> But if 6C11 captures a neutron, it transmutes to 6C12. And the rotation of the 11 fermions of the 6C11 stops, because the 6C11 has transmuted to 6C12 ????
> How can one unique neutron get to eliminate the kinetic energy of rotation of 6 protons and 5 neutrons with fast rotation????
>
> Besides,
> you are wrong because of the following:
>
> 1- A paper published by Nature in 2012 had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape:
> How atomic nuclei cluster
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html


This may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible for a system to have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in that sense, but also have a spherically symmetrical wave function. I won’t go into the details as you don’t seem to have much of a background in QM.

Regards, Brian Josephson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I sent him a another reply, as follows:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: RE: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:14:21 -0300

Dear Dr. Josephson,
please stop trying to save the Standard Nuclear Physics with Bad Physics.

1)  Your reply did not explain how one unique neutron can stop the rotation of a lot of protons and neutrons moving with big kinetic energy of rotation.

The nucleus 50Sn111 has rotation.
According to what you claim, if the 50Sn111 captures a neutron, the 50Sn112 stops to rotate.
How??????
One unique neutron is able to cancell the kinetic energy of the rotation of  50 protons and 61 neutrons????

Here we are speaking about the rotation of the nucleus about the line that crosses  its center.
We are not speaking about the spin of protons and neutrons.


2) You claim:
"This may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible for a system to have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in that sense, but also have a spherically symmetrical wave function. I won’t go into the details as you don’t seem to have much of a background in QM".

It is not only counter intuitive, actually it is against the laws of Physics.
What you say is stupid.
Electric quadrupole moment measures the distribution of charges.  If the distribution of charges is non-spherical, the experiments must detect non-null quadrupole moment.  It has nothing to do with wave function.
Of course you cannot go into details, since you are saying nonsenses, and if you continue the discussion you will be obliged to say more and more stupid things.
So, it is easier for you to stop the discussion by alleging that I have not background in QM.


3) By considering that protons and neutrons move with speed in order of 10^6 m/s (about 3% of the light speed), the calculation shows that the centrifugal force on the protons and neutrons has the magnitude of the Coulomb repulsion on the protons within the nuclei.
So, the equilibrium into the nucleus must follow the equation: 
Fs = Fr + Fc
where:
Fs = strong nuclear force
Fr = Coulomb repulsion
Fc = centrifugal force

Therefore, a nucleus with even number of fermions (with no rotation, according to you) would have to have a shrinkage in its radius, since the centrifugal force on protons and neutrons is zero.
For instance,
 10Ne20 would have to have a radius shorter than 10Ne21
But experiments did not detect such shrinkage of the radius of the nuclei with even number of fermions

So, what you claim (that nuclei with even number of fermions have no rotation) is against several laws of Physics.


4) In your first email you said:
"A system with an even number of fermions can be in an S state, which is spherically symmetrical and so must have zero magnetic moment."
Of course you did say it because you did not had knowledge on the experiment published by Nature in 2012.
So, before 2012 your explanation would be acceptable.

Then, when I told you that an experiment published by Nature had shown that even-even nuclei have non-spherical shape, you changed your strategy, by using Bad Physics.

I am very sorry that even a Noble Prize in Physics has not  the honesty required for an honest discussion in Physics.


The non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N is predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006 by the Bauu Press (6 years before the experiment published in Nature in 2012).
http://www.bauuinstitute.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:quantum-ring-theory-foundations-for-cold-fusion&catid=8&Itemid=103

But along 80 years the nuclear theorists used to suppose that those nuclei have spherical shape.
So, it is funny that I have not background in Quantum Mechanics (as you claim), but I had predicted correctly the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N. 
While theorists as you, with a deep background  in QM,   along 80 years had supposed wrongly that those nuclei have spherical shape.

In the page 137 of my book is exhibited a similar explanation of that proposed by Martin Freer (for the reason why those nuclei have null quadrupole moment, in spite of they have non-spherical shape).
Therefore the journal Nature actually published a plagiarism of the argument proposed in the page 137 of my book.

Along the 5 last years several experiments in the field of Nuclear Physics are showing that the Standard Model is wrong.
And in the upcoming years more and more experiments will bring more evidences that the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics is wrong.

You cannot avoid the collapse of the Standard Model with your effort by using your Bad Physics.

regards
wlad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


And Dr. Brian sent other reply, telling me to be the last he was sending:



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes
From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:48:53 +0000
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com


On 20 Mar 2015, at 18:14, Wladimir wrote:

> please stop trying to save the Standard Nuclear Physics with Bad Physics.

My comments stand and I will not engage in further discussion with someone who does ‘layman physics’ rather than the authentic thing. Come back when you have your Ph.D. in physics.

Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


And so I also sent him a last reply, as follows:




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Dr. Josephson, two definitive proofs you are wrong
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:11:19 -0300

Dear Dr. Brian Josephson,
I show ahead two definitive proofs that you are wrong.

1)
The excited 6C12 has spin 2 and magnetic moment zero, as you may see in the Stone's Nuclear Table:
http://www.psi.ch/low-energy-muons/DocumentsEN/nuclear-moments.pdf

First of all,
there is no way to explain how an even-even nucleus with equal number of protons and neutrons can have spin 2 and magnetic moment zero.

Besides, the excited 6C12 contradicts what you said:
"A system with an even number of fermions can be in an S state, which is spherically symmetrical and so must have zero magnetic moment"
because the excited 6C12 is not spherically symmetrical, since it has spin  2 , and therefore from any nuclear model based on the Standard Model the excited 6C12 cannot have zero magnetic moment.



2)
Look what is written in  33-18 of the book Introduction to Understandable Physics, by Will Winn:
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=8TxnB4uGUxkC&pg=SA33-PA18&lpg=SA33-PA18&dq=rotation+of+even+even+nuclei&source=bl&ots=HtAU9-14X_&sig=-eu0aNTE6GNULplE49ZkeEgDrQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PdcMVfTzL8acgwT4r4O4AQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwDzgK#v=onepage&q=rotation%20of%20even%20even%20nuclei&f=false

"We will only examine  rotations in even-even nuclei, as their analysis is simpler because all even-even nuclei have zero intrinsic angular momentum due to the pairing of the nucleons  in their lowest states."

So,  what you wrote in your review  posted in Amazon.com is wrong:
"... but seems not to have realised that even-even nuclei don't necessarily rotate"  ,
 because,
as you may see, the even-even nuclei have rotation.


As the even-even nuclei have rotation, then I am right in thinking that they must have a magnetic moment, as you yourself had recognized in your review posted in Amazon.com, where you wrote:
"The author is right to think that rotating nuclei should have a magnetic moment".

If you are not agree, you dont need to reply to me, since I have not Ph.D. in Physics.
But you can reply to the author Will Winn, so that to tell him he is wrong.
He is Ph.D. in nuclear physics at Cornell in 1968.

Regards
wlad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
Login
Nickname

Password

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: 1
Votes: 1


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Nobel Prize Dr. Brian Josephson tries to save Nuclear Physics using Bad Physics" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Dr Josephson, Nobel Prize in Physics, says Nuclear Physics is wrong (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, March 25, 2015 @ 01:27:23 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by WGUGLINSKI for the main page:

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com [www.zpenergy.com]
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk [www.zpenergy.com]
Subject: Dr. Josephson says Nuclear Pysics is wrong
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:55:47 -0300

To the physicists of the Cambridge University

According to the Nuclear Physics, a spherical nucleus cannot rotate.
And also according to Nuclear Physics even-even nuclei in the ground state also do not rotate.

An experiment published in the journal Nature in 2012 detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape. And therefore, according to Nuclear Physics it is impossible to explain the zero electric quadrupole of those nuclei, unless we consider that those nuclei rotate in the ground state (which obviously contradicts the Standard Model).

But Dr. Josephson sent me an email proposing the following solution for the puzzle:

This may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible for a system to
have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in that sense, but also have
a spherically symmetrical wave function.”

Therefore, according to Dr. Josephson the Standard Nuclear Physics is wrong, because the contrary what he said is also true:
“In QM it is perfectly possible for a system to have a structure, and so be a spherical system in one sense, but also have a non-spherical assymmetrical wave function.”

So, from this genial solution proposed by Dr. Josephson, we realize that spherical nuclei can rotate, because according to QM is possible spherical nuclei to have non-spherical wave function. And so, having non-spherical wave function a nucleus with spherical shapei can rotate, acording to QM.

Therefore according to Dr. Josephson the Standard Nuclear Physics is wrong.

regards
Wlad
author of the Quantum Ring Theory, where a sphere is a sphere, and an ellipsoid is an ellipsoid.





The Impossible Beryllium (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, June 13, 2015 @ 18:57:46 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
W Guglinski writes: To: Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize in Physics

Cc: Dr. Attila Csoto, Dr. Nicholas Stone - nuclear tables, Clarendon Laboratory, Dr. Will Williams - Smith College Experimental Atomic Physics Lab

Dear Dr. Brian Josephson,


in your review for my book “The Evolution of Physics” published in Amazon.com you wrote :

…the author has provided a source for zero magnetic moment in the ground state, and it is the additional assertion that this particular state has non-zero spin that is in error. His error lies in the assumption that as nuclei _can_ rotate they must _be rotating_, which is clearly not the case. There is absolutely no mystery about the zero magnetic moment -- it is to be expected for symmetry reasons in a state with zero spin, no detailed calculation being necessary. These nuclei do have rotational excited states, but in their ground state they do not rotate and have spherical symmetry”.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433986119&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski [www.amazon.com]


Actually, according to the Standard Nuclear Physics any nucleus in the ground state does not rotate.

Then let us analyse the isotope 4Be7, by considering that it has no rotation in the ground state.


The electric quadrupole moment for 4Be7 is not quoted in any nuclear table.

Ahead is a sequence of emails exchanged between me and Dr. Attila Csoto in 2013.


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:28:02 -0300

Dear Dr. Attila Csoto

In the paper Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section published in 1998 the value calculated for the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7 is between -6fm^2 and -7fm^2 .

http://cds.cern.ch/record/344733/files/9802003.pdf [cds.cern.ch]


In the page 5 of the paper it is written:

——————————————- We note again that a measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would place some additional constraints on the consistency of our calculations. For the complete 4He+3He+p model calculation the simultaneous reproduction of the indicators predict Q7 to be in the range −(5:5−6:0) e fm2. However, this value is smaller than the one (Q7= −6:9 e fm2[9]) obtained if we chose the cluster size parameters such to reproduce the quadrupole moment of the analog nucleus 7Li. Does this already point to the necessity of a further enlargement of the model space beyond the 4He + 3He + p three-cluster model which would then also efect our results obtained for 7Be, e.g., change the 7Be quadrupole moment ?

——————————————-


I would like to know if along the 15 years after the publication the quadrupole moment of 4Be7 has been measured and the value is situated near to -6fm^2 or -7fm^2.

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply :

.===============================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:26:07 +0200

Dear Wladimir,

No, it has not been measured yet. The charge radius of Be7 was measured a few years ago.

Best ragards, Attila Csoto

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 07:14:40 -0300

Dear Dr. Attila

You and Dr. Karlheinz Langanke have emphasized in many papers the importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7.

In the paper Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need John Bahcall explains the importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment of the 7Be for the understanding of the sun shines by nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its interior.

http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf [www.sns.ias.edu]


In the paper he says:

"A measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help distinguish between different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction (see 38).

38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)


Therefore, as it is very important to know the experimental value of the quadrupole moment of the 7Be for the understanding of the nuclear fusion reactions in the interior of the sun, I dont understand why the experimental physicists have neglected to undertake the measuremnt of the 7Be quatrupole moment.


I supposse they would have to give priority to measure it, because the advancement of our understanding of the stars nuclear reactions depends on the the measurement of the quadrupole moment of 7Be.

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:23:12 +0200

Dear Wladimir,

There are thousands of measurable physical quantities, which have never been measured, although some people might think they would be important to know. I guess that the experimentalists simply don't find it that interesting to measure the quadrupole moment of Be7. Or there is a technical problem, that I am not aware of (Be7 is radioactive, but that alone should not be a big problem). Time will come though, when someone will do the measurement. As it happend, for example, with the charge radius. We are pretty sure, that Q(Be7) has a large negative value.

Best regads, Attila Csoto

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:14:16 -0300

Dear Dr. Attila


I suspect that 4Be7 has a quadrupole momet very near to zero, and this is the reason why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.

So, I suspect that the experimentalists had already measured its quadrupole moment. But as it is very close to zero, the experiments cannot supply any value.

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 19:53:19 +0200

Dear Wladimir,

This is definitely not the case. A measured value, however small it is, would have been published and quoted (see case of the very small Li6 quadrupole moment).

Best regards, Attila Csoto

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:29:22 -0300

Dear Dr. Attila

I know the value of the 3Li6 quadrupole moment.

I mean to say that I suspect that 4Be7 has a quadrupole moment very very close to zero, not able to be detected by the accuraccy of the experiments.

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:07:21 +0200

Dear Wladimir,

No. In such a case, they would give Q=0+-0.1 mb, or whatever the accuracy of the measurement is. Trust me, there have been no such experiment. The quadrupole moment of Li7, the mirror nucleus, is known. It is around -40 mb, in good agreement with theoretical predictions, that give roughly -60 mb for Be7.

Best regads, Attila Csoto

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:58:26 -0300


Dear Dr. Attila

in such a case several isotopes like 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc., would give Q = 0+-0.1mb, or whatever the accuracy of the measurement is.

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 07:02:26 +0200

They are exactly zero, of course.

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:00:35 -0300

No,

dear Dr. Attila.

Light nuclei with Z=pair and A= pair , like 8O16, 10Ne20, etc, have not Q(b)=0, because they are non-spherical, as shown in the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html [www.nature.com]

So, as they are non-spherical, they have not a spherical distrubution of charges.

However, as they have nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero, there is no way to align them along an external magnetic field in the experiments. So, their statistical behavior is like if they had Q(b)=0, but actually they have not Q(b)=0.

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:56:02 +0200

Note, that after the model nuclei in the Nature paper are built up from the clusters, the wave function must undergo a rotation, to project out the correct spin, resulting in a spherical shape. For example, even though it is known, that the second 0+ state of C12 is a linear chain of three alpha particles, after rotating this state to project out the zero spin, you end up with a spherical shape. Besides, He4 and O16 on your list are double magic, the most perfect spheres in nuclear physics. But we went far from the original problem. You have strange ideas of how experimental physics works, if you believe that someone measured the quadrupole moment of Be7, found it very small, and therefore did not publish the result. It does not work that way. If they could measure a value, then they would publish it. If they found that the quardupole moment was smaller than what they could measure, then they would give an upper limit (like I said, 0+-0.1, or something like that).

.===============================================




.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:59:32 -0300

Dear Dr. Attila

the experimentalists do not take in consideration the theoretical prediction based on current nuclear models so that to quote the values in the nuclear tables.

They are interested only in the results of the experiments.


For example, when they had measured the quadrupole moment of nuclei as 8O16, 10Ne20, etc, the theoretical prediction was not taken in consideration.

Therefore the quadrupole moment of those nuclei would have to be quoted by 0+-0.1 in the nuclear table.


But let's forget such question. The imporant matter is to get the measurement of 4Be7, or, in the case it was already measured, to discover if it really has Q(b)=0, as I suspect.

Dont you know any experimentalist in your university, so that to ask him ?

The response for such question is very important for the development of Theorecal Physics.

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

[ edit [peswiki.com]] ===================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:23:52 +0200

You quoted the calculations in Nature, remember? I just corrected you, saying that even a linear chain of alpha particles becomes a sphere, after you project out the correct quantum number. The figures in the Nature paper show the structure before this projection.

Experimentallists have measured the spins of those nuclei, which imply strong symmetries not just in theoretical models, but also in nature. Believe me, you can't find an experimentallist who want to measure the quadrupole moment of a spin zero nucleus, because he knows that it is zero.

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:04:01 -0300

Dear Dr. Attila

I am not speaking about to measure the quadrupole moment of spin zero nuclei. I am spealing about to measure the quadrupole moment of 4Be7, which obviously is crucial for the advancement of Theoretical Nuclear Physics.

There is need to eliminate the controversy about the quadrupole moment of 4Be7, dont you think so?

Dont you know an experimentalist so that to ask him to make the measurement ?

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu

Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:41:41 +0200

There is no controversy with the Be7 quadrupole moment. Theoretical models agree that it has a large negative value. It has not been measured yet.

.===============================================


Well,

it seems that what Dr. Csoto claims makes no sense, because the quadrupole moment for 3Li7 was measured. So, why it cannot be measured for 4Be7, since they are mirror nuclei?

Probably it was measured, but the result was not published. However the reason why it was not published is not as Dr. Csoto has wrongly supposed, when he said:

“You have strange ideas of how experimental physics works, if you believe that someone measured the quadrupole moment of Be7, found it very small, and therefore did not publish the result.”

The true reason is because the experimentalists know that 4Be7 must have a big negative quadrupole moment, by considering the current nuclear models. But because the experiments give a value very near to zero, the experimentalists suppose that something is wrong in the procedure used in their experiments. And that’s why they decide do not publish the value near to zero measured in their experiments, because they are afraid to expose their credibility if they publish an absurd result, impossible according to the current Standard Model.

In order to try to discover the true, I sent an email to Dr. Nicholas Stone, the publisher of nuclear tables:

.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk

Subject: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:36:01 -0300


Dear Dr. Nicholas Stone

The Nuclear Table published by Clarendon Laboratory gives the nuclear spin and magnetic moment of the nucleus 4Be7, respectivelly 3/2 and -1,398:

http://faculty.missouri.edu/~glaserr/8160f09/STONE_Tables.pdf [faculty.missouri.edu]

But the quadrupole electric moment of the 4Be7 is not quoted.

May you tell me why ?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 10:22:09 +0000


Dear Dr Guglinski,

To give you a quick answer – I have no record of a measurement of Q for 7Be. Do you have a reference to a publication? I am aware of the magnetic moment result PRL 101 212502 Okada et al and of the more recent one by Nortershauser et al PRL 102 062503.

Yours,

Nick Stone

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: Wladimir Guglinski [1]

Sent: 08 September 2013 07:53

To: Nick Stone

Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7


Dear Dr. Stone

No, I dont have any reference.

Actually I dont understand why there is not a record of Q for 4Be7, because along 20 years some theorists have enphasized the importance of getting its measurement.

In the paper Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need , published in 1998 byJohn Bahcall , he explains the importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment for 7Be for the understanding of the sun shines by nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its interior.

http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf [www.sns.ias.edu]

In the paper he says: “A measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help distinguish between different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction (see 38) ”.


38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)


Csoto and Langanke had published several papers along 20 years, where they explain the importance of the measurement of Q for 7Be. In a paper publihed in 2008 they write in the page 6:


We also note that a precise measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment or radius could test the self-consistency of our conclusions.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9408001.pdf [arxiv.org]

So, I dont understand why we dont know the Q for 7Be yet.

Is not possible to measure it in the Clarendon Laboratory ?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:37:54 +0000


Hi, Quadrupole moments are particularly hard to measure in light nuclei since they are small and so produce small energy splittings which require very high resolution. The 9Be Q was measured by atomic beam which has the highest resolution. Laser spectroscopy would probably not be good enough.

Further, theoreticians can call all they like, but it doesn’t provide a method for the measurement.

I’m now retired. There is no experimental group at the Clarendon that could attempt the measurement.

Your best bet would seem to be the Japanese groups with some variant of beta NMR, but I haven’t checked if there is suitable beta decay in 7Be.

.===============================================


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk

Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:31:27 -0300

Hi, Dr Stone

I suspect that 7Be has Q very near to zero, that's why it is not quoted in nuclear tables.

I suspect that the experimentalist already had tried to measure it, and they had expected to measure a value near to the value of Q for 9Be (0,053 barns).

As the experimentists did not succeed to get a value far away from zero (and as they know that from the theoretical viewpoint 7Be cannot have Q very near to zero) then they did not report the results of experiments.

Dr. Attila Csolo had calculated theoretically that Q for 7Be must be in order of 0,07barns.

I have my suspiction because of the following:

9Be is stable

7Be has half-life of 53 days

Both them are very small

Q for 9Be had been measured by atomic beam, and got 0,053 barns.

CONCLSUSION : why cannot the Q for 7Be be measured by atomic beam ?

So, I suspect that Q for 7Be had already been measured by atomic beam (like done for 9Be), but the experiments had NOT detected a value far away of zero (as expected theoretically).

Do you think that my suspiction can explain why Q for 7Be is not quoted in nuclear tables?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


His reply:

.===============================================

From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:48:54 +0000


Just to say that IF a measurement had been made, it would certainly have been published.

.===============================================


I felt that Dr. Stone could not help me to discover the true about the missing of measurements for the 4Be7 quadrupole moment, and so I did not send any reply, and the exchange of emails was over. But after 2 years, now in 2015 a new table was published by Dr. Stone.

Then I sent him the email ahead, in 3 June 2015:


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk

Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:27:31 -0300


Dear Dr. Stone

is the electric quadrupole moment for the 4Be7 quoted in the "New table of recommended nuclear electric quadrupole moments", published by Springer in 2015?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10751-014-1094-8 [link.springer.com]

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


He did not reply.

But in 8 June 2015 I have discovered that Dr. Will Williams of the Smith College had announced in 2014 his aim of measuring the quadrupole moment for the 4Be7, and then I sent him the following email:


.===============================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: wwilliams@smith.edu

Subject: electric quadrupole moment for beryllium-7

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 21:25:25 -0300


Dear Prof. Will Williams

In the page of the Smith College Experimental Atomic Physics Laboratory,

http://sophia.smith.edu/blog/williamslab/research/beryllium-spectroscopy/ [sophia.smith.edu] it is written:

"Here are some fairly technical notes on what we plan to do:

  • Determine the still unmeasured nuclear electric quadrupole moment for beryllium-7, which gives us information about the charge distribution inside the nucleus."


I would like to know if the electric quadrupole moment for 4Be7 was measured.

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

.===============================================


He did not reply.

Prof. Nathanael Fortune works in other laboratory at the Smith College, and I asked him the favour to verify why Dr. Will Williams did not reply to my email. He sent me the following reply:

.===============================================

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:25:39 -0400

Subject: Re: electric quadrupole moment for beryllium-7

From: nfortune@smith.edu

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com


Sorry, I've helped you as much as I can. Perhaps he is on vacation. It is his project - I don't know the status.

Professor Nathanael Fortune, Ph.D.

Department of Physics

315 McConnell Hall

44 College Lane

Smith College

Northampton MA 01063

.===============================================


I tried to get a reply by Dr. Chui Yu Lau. I did not find her email, but I found her in the Linkedin. She and Dr. Will Williams have published the paper “High Precision Spectroscopy of Neutral Beryllium-9”:

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DAMOP15/Session/Q1.133 [meetings.aps.org]

In the Abstract they say:

The goal for the 2s2p singlet (J=1) state is to improve the experimental precision on the energy level by a factor of 600 as a test of quantum electrodynamics.”

So, they are testing the predictions of quantum electrodynamics, and cannot succeed to measure the quadrupole for 4Be7???

It is hard to believe it.

However, unfortunately Dr. Chui Yu Lau also did not reply to me.


So, it seems there is no doubt that the quadrupole moment for 4Be7 was already measured, the experiments got values near to zero, but the experimentalists believe that something is going wrong with the procedure of the measurement in their experiments, because 4Be7 cannot have quadrupole moment near to zero, because it impossible by considering the models based on the Standard Model. Then all them decide do not publish their measurements.


But a question arises: since 4Be7 cannot have Q near to zero, but the experiments show that it has Q near to zero, how does to explain it?


The value of Q for 4Be7 near to zero can be explained only by considering the rotation of the nucleus in the ground state. This is shown in the Figure 37 at the page 48 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802 [www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com]

If the 4Be7 had no rotation in the ground state, its quadrupole moment would be a little positive, as we see in the Figure 37:


Image:Structure_of_4Be7.png [peswiki.com]


But 4Be7 in the ground state has rotation. And in the Figure 37 we see that there is an unbalance of masses regarding the y-axis (about which the nucleus rotates). So, due to the rotation the nucleus has a shake along the x-axis, giving a contribution for negative Q.

The resultant due to the positive and negative contributions is a value of Q near to zero.


As you know, Dr. Josephson, the rotation of the nuclei in the ground state cannot be considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics, because the rotation of the charge of the protons would induce a magnetic moment, and therefore the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have to have non-null magnetic moment. But the experiments have detected that they have null magnetic moment.


However,

the rotation of the nuclei in the ground state is impossible according to the Standard Model because the nuclear theorists do not consider the contribution of the structure of the space for the production of the nuclear properties.

By considering a nuclear model where the structure of the space is taking in consideration, the rotation of the nuclei in the ground state is perfectly explained, as I show ahead.


Look at the structure of the proton in the Figure 1, proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory:

Image:FIGURE_1.png [peswiki.com]


All the nuclei have a central 2He4, whose strings of gravitions (flux of gravitons) are able to capture protons and neutrons. The Figure 2 shows the two sort of spins UP and DOWN of the proton when it is captured by the flux of gravitons.


Image:FIGURE_2.png [peswiki.com]


The Figure 3 shows what happens when the first proton is captured by the central 2He4, and they form the 3Li5. As explained in that figure, the capture of the proton by the 2He4 induces a rotation in the newborn 3Li5, due to the combination of the directions of the flux of gravitons, the rotation of the proton, and the motion of the electricitons in the proton’s electric field.

Figure 3 also explains that, when a second proton is captured by the central 2He4 and they form the 4Be6, the second proton induces a rotation in the newborn 4Be6 in the same direction induced by the capture of the first proton.

Therefore all the nuclei have rotation in the ground state.


Image:FIGURE_3.png [peswiki.com]


Figure 4 shows why even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment, in spite of they have rotation in the ground state.


Image:FIGURE_4.png [peswiki.com]


In the homepage of the Williams Lab at the Smith College , Dr. Will Williams says:

The beryllium spectroscopy project is a fundamental (or pure) physics project. Fundamental physics is concerned with understanding why nature behaves the way it does. This is the type of physics most physicists study. Every physics professor at Smith College has a fundamental research project.”


Perhaps the physicists of the Smith College have decided to create the “beryllium spectroscopy project” because the beryllium isotopes are proving that the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot be correct. Indeed, if the Standard Model was correct, some beryllium isotopes would be impossible to exist. Let us remember the beryllium isotopes which defy the current nuclear models:


4Be7- Along more than 30 years the experimentalists did not succeed to measure the value of the quadrupole moment for the 4Be7 as predicted by the Standard Nuclear Physics. All the measurements got value near to zero, which is impossible according to the Standard Model.


4Be8- While all the even-even nuclei with Z=N are stable, the beryllium-8 is the only unstable nucleus, and there is no way to explain why, by considering the laws of Standard Model.

The reason why 4Be8 is unstable is shown in the page 17 and 18 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802 [www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com]


4Be11- In 2009 a experiment has shown that protons and neutrons cannot be bound via strong force within the nuclei: “Atomic nucleus of beryllium is three times as large as normal due to halo”.

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php [www.uni-mainz.de]


4Be12- In 2012 a new experiment has shown that the Shell model (used by the nuclear physicists so that to explain many nuclear properties of several nuclei) cannot be correct, because if the Shell mode was correct the 4Be12 could not exist with the structure detected in the experiment: End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html [phys.org]

The exotic structure of the 4Be12 is shown in the Chapter 20.4 of my book The Evolution of Physics, published in Amazon.com, where it is shown why 4Be12 cannot be explained by considering the nuclear models based on the Standard Model. The Chapter 20.4 is reproduced ahead:


.===================================================.

20.4- The puzzle of the exotic structure of 4Be12

A new experiment published in 2012 had shown that 4Be12 has a structure impossible to be explained from the principles of current Nuclear Physics. See End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html [phys.org]

By considering the structure proposed by Wilfried Nörtershäuse in that paper it's impossible to explain the null magnetic moment for the nucleus 4Be12. Indeed, look at to the structure he proposed:


Image:FIGURE_20.4-1.png [peswiki.com]


The orbit radius of a nucleon (proton or neutron) defines its g-factor. The longer is the radius of the orbit, larger is the g-factor. The neutrons n-1 and n-2 have an orbit radius longer than the orbit radius of the neutrons n-3 and n-4 , and therefore the g-factor for n-1 and n-2 is different of the g-factor for n-3 and n-4. Therefore the structure proposed by Nörtershäuse is incompatible with the null magnetic moment for the 4Be12, detected by experiments. So, there is no way to explain the structure of 4Be12 detected in the experiment published in 2012 by considering the current nuclear models.

The structure for 4Be12 according to Quantum Ring Theory is shown in the figure:


Image:FIGURE_20.4-2.png [peswiki.com]


Consider that the neutrons (N-1 , N-2) have an orbit radius RN , and the deuteron D-1 has an orbit radius RD . The radius RN of the two neutrons is a little longer, RN > RD , because:

a) N-1 and N-2 are not submitted to a magnetic force of attraction with the central 2He4, because they have no charge

b) the deuteron D-1 is attracted with the central 2He4 by a magnetic force, because of the electric charge of the proton

c) due to the centripetal force (because of the nucleus rotation), the neutrons N-1,N-2 get a little longer orbit radius RN about the central 2He4

d) so, while the neutrons N-1 and N-2 are submitted to only the centripetal force, the deuteron D-1 is submitted to a magnetic force in contrary direction of the centripetal force on it, and that's why the two neutrons N-1 and N-2 take an orbit radius a little longer than the orbit radius of the deuteron.

e) as the two neutrons N-1 and N-2 are kept in the structure of the 4Be12 thanks to their strong-spin-interaction with the deuteron D-1, and they are submitted to the centripetal force, they get a little longer orbit radius.


The same happens with the orbit radius RN of the neutrons N-3,N-4 , compared with the radius RD of the deuteron D-2. Therefore, according to QRT it is possible to explain very well the existence of neutrons with a little longer orbit radius in the 4Be12.

.===================================================.



Fortunately,

there are scientists as Dr. Will Williams interested in discovering “why nature behaves the way it does”. I hope scientists as Dr. Williams will finally understand that it makes no sense to try to discover why the nature behaves the way it does if they continue trying to explain the phenomena by considering the empty space without structure. The experiment published in 2011 by the journal Nature has proven that the space is no empty, and so it must have a structure: Moving mirrors make light from nothing

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html [www.nature.com]


A New Physics must be developed by considering the contribution of the structure of the space on the process of “why nature behaves the way it does”. After all, as the nature behaves the way it does by using the contribution of the structure of the non-empty space, it makes no sense to try to discover the way it does by neglecting the contribution of the structure of the non-empty space. From such an attempt it is impossible to understand the way it does.


Dear Dr. Josephson,

I suppose that I don’t need to tell you that in the case the nuclear structure of atomic nuclei existing in the nature is like the structure proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, and therefore all the nuclei have rotation in the ground state, then of course the nuclear theorists will never succeed to explain “why nature behaves the way it does”, in the case of the atomic nuclei. And it is also is obvious that, if really all the nuclei rotate in the ground state, this is the reason why the Standard Nuclear Physics has failed along more than a hundred years to describe the nuclear properties of several nuclei, in special of the light nuclei, as the beryllium isotopes.


Regards

Wlad




Cremonini of the 21st Century (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, August 23, 2015 @ 23:04:17 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Wladimir Guglinski writes:
To the community of physicists and philosophers worldwide

Dear physicists and philosophers

“Galileo remembered Cremonini all his life, and he is the only contemporary philosopher mentioned by name in the Dialogue. There is not much doubt that it was Cremonini whom he had in mind when he wrote in the preface to that book, after describing Salviati and Sagredo: “I often talked with these two of such matters in the presence of a certain Peripatetic philosopher whose greatest obstacle in apprehending  the true seemed to be the reputation he had acquired by his interpretation of Aristotle”. 

Page 261 of “Essays on Galileo and the History and Philosophy of Sciewnce”, Volume 1, by Stillman Drake.
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=sp8_hrRI2MoC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=galileo+cremonini&source=bl&ots=cyAsVzFfs-&sig=jEzBmsfzqwmKD4tXlQRMz9D1d7U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE8Q6AEwB2oVChMI8NDf3_S4xwIVQw2QCh242wNT#v=onepage&q=galileo%20cremonini&f=false

As I will show ahead herein, while for Cremonini the obstacle in apprehending the true was the reputation he had acquired by his interpretation of Aristotle, in the case of Dr. Brian Josephson the obstacle in apprehending the true is the reputation he had acquired by his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

That’s why I decided to write a new book, which probably will have the title “Dialogues with Simplicius in the 21st Century”, where the Galileo’s famous personage will be represented now by the Nobel Prize Dr. Brian Josephson, as Cremonini was represented by Simplicius in the Galileo’s  book.

I found several Cremoninis after the publication of my book Quantum Ring Theory in 2006, however Dr. Brian Josephson merits a special tribute, because he is boycotting my books in the Amazon.com by using his reputation as winner of the Nobel Prize and arguments based on a Bad Physics, as I will show here.

Nobody would know Cremonini today if he had not used a Bad Science so that to refute the irrefutable evidences exhibited by Galileo. So, Cremonini occupies a place in the History of the Science thanks to his peripatetic way of reasoning, otherwise nowadays nobody would at least know about his existence.  Nothing bad. At least he has conquered the immortality. An inglorious sort of immortality.  But it does no matter, he has conquered the immortality.  As Dr. Brian Josephson also will occupy a place in the pages of the History of the Physics alongside to Cremonini. 

Who is the greatest?

Of course Dr. Josephoson.  Because Cremonini had not at that time any example of the History of the Science, so that to call his attention that he was using again the Science in the wrong way, and he never could imagine that he would conquer an inglorious immortality.  Unlike, Dr. Josephson has today the example given by Cremonini, and he knows that he also will conquer the same inglorious immortality, but stubbornly he continues loyal to his strategy of using a Bad Physics so that to refute my irrefutable arguments.
However… nothing bad.  Dr. Josephson will conquer the immortality in the pages of the History of the Physics.  In 2100 he will be more remembered than the own Einstein.

* * *

My dialogue with Dr. Josephson

My dialogue with Dr. Josephson begun when he wrote a review for my book “The Evolution of Physics”, published in Amazon.com. 

In the original Book Description I had explained that the Standard Nuclear Physics is wrong, because due to rotation the even-even nuclei with the same number of protons Z and neutrons N  cannot have a null magnetic moment.

Dr. Josephson wrote in his reply:
These nuclei do have rotational excited states, but in their ground state they do not rotate and have spherical symmetry.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440276686&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski


Nuclear theorists did not solve the puzzle so easily solved by Dr. Josephson
In 2014 I sent emails to some nuclear theorists, asking them to explain how they solve the puzzle of the nuclei rotation in the ground state, as for instance for Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana:

===========================================================
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Wladimir wrote:
Dears Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana
I posted a comment in the Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, where I ask your opinions about a fundamental question in Nuclear Physics.
regards
wlad
===========================================================

Dr. Seshavatharam sent me the following reply, asking me a couple of days:

===========================================================
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:24:20 +0430
Subject: Please let me have a couple of days.. sir
From: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
===========================================================

But after several couple of days I did not receive any reply.
In his blog Andrea Rossi told to the readers that the book Nuclear Models, by Walter Greiner and Joachim Maruhn  is the best book he knows.  Then I sent an email to Dr. Walter Greiner and Dr. Joachim Maruhn, asking them to explain how the puzzle is solved by considering the  nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Theory.

Dr. Walter Greiner and Dr. Joachim Maruhn did not send any reply, and it is easy to understand why.  As they are expert in Nuclear Physics, they know that several new experiments published after 2010 are proving that even-even nuclei with Z=N have rotation in the ground state, and therefore all the nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong, because if they would be correct those nuclei would have to have non-null magnetic moment.
One of the experiments that prove that even-even nuclei with Z=N have rotation in the ground state was published in 2012 by the journal Nature:
How atomic nuclei cluster
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

The experiments have detected that those nuclei have ellipsoidal shape (which is impossible by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics).  As a nucleus with ellipsoidal shape must have non-null electric quadrupole moment Q , there was need to explain why  those nuclei exhibit Q    = 0.  So I sent an email to the journal Nature, and the nuclear theorist Dr. Martin Freer has sent me a reply saying that due to the rotation  of those nuclei their Q in average is null (the same argument proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory).
His reply:
===========================================================
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 is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
Martin

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

So, the argument proposed by Dr. Freer makes sense only by considering that even-even nuclei with Z=N rotate in the ground state.


The pear shape of the Ra224
Other experiment suggesting that even-even nuclei rotate in the ground state is concerning the detection of the pear shape of the nucleus Ra224. Ahead we see Dr. Peter Butler, of the Liverpool University, giving an explanation for the shape of the Ra224, and we realize that he considers the rotation of the nucleus in the ground state.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:PROF_BUTLER_showing_the_z-axis.jpg
 
So, the experts in Nuclear Physics  know that new nuclear properties discovered thanks to new experiments require the rotation of the nuclei in the ground state.  However,   Dr. Brian Josephson is not an expert in Nuclear Physics, and he was not updated regarding the most recent experiments, and so he wrongly believes yet that those nuclei do not rotate in the ground state.

But instead of recognizing his error (by accepting that even-even nuclei rotate in the ground state) Dr. Josephson has adopted other strategy: to use a Bad Physics, based on nonsenses.  For instance, trying to justify why even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape and Q=0, he sent the following reply:
This  may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible for a system to have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in that sense, but also have a spherically symmetrical wave function.  I won’t go into the details as you don’t seem to have much of a background in QM.

His argument makes no sense, because an ellipsoidal distribution of charges cannot be detected by experiments as having Q=0 if we do not consider a rotation of the nucleus.  Such an argument used by Dr. Josephson simply throw in the trash all the experiments which measured Q for a lot of nuclei, quoted in nuclear tables, because all the  measurements for Q made up to now start up to become meaningless, because by Dr. Josephson's argument a certain nucleus can have Q equal to zero and at the same time it can have Q different of zero, being enough simply to claim that an ellipsoidal charge distribution can have at the same time a spherical form of charge distribution, according to Quantum Mechanics.  

This sort of argumentation is like that used by Simplicius in Galileo’s book.  And of course Galileo could never consider Joshephson’s argument as suitable to be considered as scientific and acceptable.  As we know, Galileo hated nonsenses.


End of magic:  Shell model invalidated by 4Be12
Other nonsense used by Dr. Josephson is regarding the nucleus 4Be12.
I sent to Dr. Josephson an email saying the following:
====================================================
A new experiment published in 2012 had shown that 4Be12 has a structure impossible to be explained from the principles of current Nuclear Physics.  Wilfried Nörtershäuse has proposed an exlanation in “End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated”. By considering the structure proposed by Wilfried Nörtershäuse in that  paper it's impossible to explain the null magnetic moment for the    nucleus 4Be12.  
Indeed, look at to the structure he proposed shown in the link:
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html

 

The orbit radius of a nucleon (proton or neutron) defines its g-factor.
The longer is the radius of the orbit, larger is the g-factor.  The neutrons n-1 and n-2 have an orbit radius longer than the orbit radius of the neutrons n-3 and n-4 , and therefore the g-factor for n-1 and n-2 is different of the g-factor for n-3 and n-4.  Therefore the structure proposed by Nörtershäuse is incompatible with the null magnetic moment for the 4Be12, detected by experiments.  So, there is no way to explain the structure of 4Be12 detected in the experiment published in 2012 by considering the current nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Physics.
====================================================

Dr. Josephson sent me the following reply:

====================================================
You have asserted a relationship between charge radius and g-factor.  Have you a reference for this, in application to _nuclei_?  In a nucleus there are both orbital and spin contributions to angular momentum, and  these behave differently.  
Brian J
.”
====================================================


The argument proposed by Dr. Josephson is stupid.  Because the nucleons 1&2 cannot produce the same magnetic moment produced by the nucleons 3&4, even by considering that “In a nucleus there are both orbital and spin contributions to angular momentum, and  these behave differently”, because 1&2 and 3&4 have different orbit radius, and therefore the magnetic moment produced by 1&2 by considering the spin together with the angular momentum cannot be equal the magnetic moment produced by 3&4 due to spin together with the angular momentum.
Even Simplicius could not be able to propose an argument so stupid as that proposed by Dr. Josephson.

Dr. Josephson tried to save his beloved Quantum Mechanics by using other absurd  arguments, but I choose to put here those whose stupidity is most easily understood.


A stupid postulate used in Quantum Mechanics
It seems Dr. Josephson does not  matter to use stupid arguments in fields not of his expertise, but he is afraid to use them when he knows the matter.  That’s why he decided do not send any reply to my  last email sent to him, where I told him that the atom model of Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with the Schroedinger’s equation, because he had developed his equation by considering a free electron, and therefore it cannot be applied for the atom.   I have posted my email to Dr. Josephson in the Book Description for my book “The Evolution of Physics” published in Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440295359&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski

In their book “Quantum Mechanics” the authors Eisberg and Resnick justify  why  Schroedinger’s equation can be applied for the atom by proposing a stupid postulate, according to which his equation can be applied to the atom because the experiments give  results agree to the predictions of the equation.  But of course the best would be if Eisberg and Resnick had justified the success of Schrodinger’s equation by using a honest confession, similar to this:
It makes no sense to apply the Schroedinger’s equation to the atom.  But we know thanks to the experiments that his equation can be applied to the atom, in spite of we don’t know why.  Probably the atom model of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, and this is the reason why Schroedinger’s equation works when applied to the atom”.

But Eisberg and Resnick did not do it, and if Galileo was alive, he would be astonished on the quantity of stupid arguments are used so that to justify some incoherences of Quantum Mechanics, because we know that in his opinion when a theory is disagree to the logic it cannot be correct. Galileo knew that the final verdict for a theory is its philosophical coherence.

Dr. Josephson did not reply to that my last email, and his silence represents his confession that I am right, and Quantum Mechanics is indeed incomplete.  Unfortunately, he had not the honesty to confess it with words, in spite of his silence shows that he recognized that I am right.  His silence and his refusal to recognize the true is similar to the Cremonini’s refusal to look at the Galileo’s telescope, when he invited the peripatetic scientist to look the satellites of Jupiter.

I have asked to Dr. Josephson the please of changing his review entitled “Bad Physics”, in Amazon.com, but he did not attend my request, because he has a personal interest in boycotting my books by using his prestige as a Nobel Laureate in Physics:  he has interest to save the reputation of the Mind-Matter Unification Project developed by him in the University of Cambridge, which obviously is being developed by considering the incomplete foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Thereby, if Dr. Josephson recognizes that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, his recognition invalidates his project, by admitting that his research is being developed through the incomplete foundations of Quantum Mechanics.  As we realize, Dr. Josephson and Cremonini have  in common the refusal to face the true with the aim of saving the source of their reputations: Cremonini tried to save Aristotle, and Dr. Josephson is trying to save the incomplete foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

Regards
Wladimir Guglinski



 

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.