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, 130 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

  • (July 7, 2017 - July 9, 2017) Energy Science & Technology Conference
  • (July 28, 2017 - July 29, 2017) COFE-9

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science


    Energy Science



    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs


    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.




    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    Alternative Energy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    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

    Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics ?
    Posted on Sunday, May 03, 2015 @ 01:32:17 EDT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes:
    To: Dr. Brian Josephson - Nobel Prize in Physics
    cc: Dr. Anthony Leggett - Nobel Prize in Physics, Christy Frazier - Managing Editor, Infinite Energy, Nancy Kolenda - Editor, Frontier Perspectives, Dr. Gerard t'Hooft - Nobel Prize in Physics, Dr. Gabriela Lemos

    Dear Dr. Josephson,

    In 2005 the publishing house Springer has published the book “Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?”.  A stretch of the book review by W G Unruh is shown ahead:


    “One hundred years ago Einstein postulated one of the most unsettling features of the theory, the wave-particle duality, with his particulate explanation for light of the photoelectric effect, and an explanation which was in direct conflict with Maxwell's brilliant development of a wave, or field, theory of light. Einstein believed that the particulate nature would ultimately be explainable by some sort of non-linear theory of electromagnetism, and was outraged by the acceptance of the community of the probabilistic quantum theory. His programme was of course dealt a (near?) fatal blow by Bell's discovery that the three desiderata - a theory which agrees with experiment, a theory which is local in its effects, and a theory in which nature, at its heart, is not probabilistic - are incompatible.

    That discomfort felt by Einstein and by Feynman is felt by numerous other people as well. This discomfort is heightened by the fact that the theory of gravity, another of Einstein's great achievements, has resisted all efforts at reconciliation with quantum mechanics. This book explores that discomfort, and tries to pin down what the locus of that discomfort is.

    For many, the locus is in the probabilistic nature at the heart of the theory. Nature should surely, at some fundamental level, know what it is doing. The photon, despite our inability to measure it, should know where it is and how fast it is going. The papers by t'Hooft, Hiley, and Smolin fall into this camp. Some suspect that the macroscopic world of our immediate sense experiences, and the microscopic world of quantum phenomena, are genuinely different, that the fundamental conceptual nature of physics changes from one to the other, with some unknown boundary between them. Penrose, in his preface alludes to his speculations on this, as does Leggett to his own speculations in his paper.

    This book is a useful and, at times, fascinating introduction to the flounderings which are taking place in trying to understand not only the solution but even what the problem is. Finally, however, the question of the title of this book remains unanswered.”




    In 2006 the Bäuu Press has published my book Quantum Ring Theory, where it is proposed that some fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics must be replaced by new ones.


    After the publication of “Quo Vadis QM?” , between 2008 and 2015 several new experiments are giving the reply for the question:  “Where do you go, Quantum Mechanics?”, as a reply for the last sentence written by Unruh:

    “Finally, however, the question of the title of this book remains unanswered”.


    The most important experiment is, of course, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light”, published in 2013:

    The experiment proves that the space is not empty as proposed by Einstein in his Special Relativity, and therefore the space has a structure. But there is not in Quantum Mechanics any structure proposed for the space, and so we realize what is the origin of the puzzles which caused the discomfort felt by Einstein, by Feynman, and by numerous other people. Because Nature surely knows, at some fundamental level, what it is doing.  And surely it is doing with the contribution of the structure of the space for the production of the phenomena, as the motion of the electron in the electrosphere of the atoms, and the nuclear properties of the atomic nuclei, etc. And so surely it is impossible to develop a theory capable to describe the accurately the whole phenomena if the theory was developed  from the  fundamental premise according to which the space has no any structure. With the adoption of suitable solutions, the theory can  work successfully up to a certain level. But sure that soon or later the theory will fail in a deeper level. The European Physical Journal has published in 2013 a paper in which the authors proposed a structure for the space. They consider the structure of the space formed by particles and antiparticles:

    The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light


    A structure of the space formed by particles e(+) and antiparticles e(-) is proposed in the paper in the page  20 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, in order to explain the propagation of the photon (so, with the aim to explain how the light moves in the space, as also considered by the authors of the paper published by EPJ). But obviously the structure of the space is very much more complex, because the structure of the space actually contributes for many other phenomena, and not only for those concerning the light propagation. And so in Quantum Ring Theory is proposed a structure of the space in order to explain how matter produces gravito-electromagnetic fields and how two fields interact each other.   The missing of the contribution of the structure of the space in the Standard Model is responsible for the birth of a lot of new puzzles impossible to be solved by considering the laws of Quantum Mechanics, as are showing some new experiments published between 2008 and 2015.  Ahead we see the most important of them:  


    According to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the even-even nuclei with equal number of protons and neutrons (Z=N) have non-spherical shape.  Those nuclei have a non-spherical shape because the structure of the space contributes for some  nuclear properties of the nuclei. Unlike, by considering the nuclear models developed according to the laws of Quantum Mechanics and applied to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N CANNOT have a non-spherical shape. They ought to have a SPHERICAL shape, it is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for those nuclei to have a non-spherical shape, according to the laws of QM. In 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster:

    The paper reveals that new experiments detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, and so a dogma of 80 years in the Nuclear Physics was debunked in 2012, six years after the publication of the Quantum Ring theory in 2006, where the non-spherical shape of those nuclei was predicted. In the paper published by Nature the authors  propose a theory according to which the nucleons are bound in clusters within the even-even nuclei with Z=N. However, note that those authors did not solve the new puzzle created by that new experiment, because in spite of the authors have proposed a model of clusters, nevertheless they do not explain why that model of clusters takes a non-spherical shape in the case of the even-even nuclei with Z=N. Because by considering the laws of Quantum Mechanics a model of clusters for even-even nuclei with Z=N must have a spherical shape, and not an ellipsoidal shape. The puzzle continues unsolved by the laws of Quantum Mechanics.   


    According to the new nuclear model proposed in QRT, due to the contribution of the structure of the space within the atomic nuclei, the protons and neutrons are distributed symmetrically about a z-axis which passes by the center of the even-even nuclei. In the page 133 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is written: “The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics” In 2013 scientists of the Liverpool University detected that Ra224 has pear shape:

    Scientists demonstrate pear shaped atomic nuclei


    From the principles of Quantum Mechanics applied to Nuclear Physics is impossible for the even-even nucleus Ra224 to have a pear shape. That’s why this experiment is suggesting to many physicists to look for alternatives for the Standard Model:

    Pear-Shaped Nucleus Boosts Search for Alternatives to "Standard Model" Physics


    I believe that this will eventually lead to results of much broader impact than this experiment alone, with the possibility of placing constraints on the standard model,” says nuclear physicist Gavin Smith of the University of Manchester, UK, who is not a member of Butler's team. Prof. Butler of the Liverpool University suggested that there is a z-axis dividing the nuclei.  However, the puzzle remains: why are the even-even nuclei divided by the z-axis, since there is not any law of QM obliging them to be divided by a z-axis?


     According to the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, the nucleons within the atomic nuclei are not bound by the strong force. In 2009 the Physical Review Letters has published the paper “Atomic nucleus of beryllium is three times as large as normal due to halo”.

    For the first time, scientists had measured the size of a one-neutron halo with lasers, and the measurement proved that nucleons are not bound within the nuclei by the strong force, because in the 4Be11 the halo-neutron is 7fm far away from the rest of the cluster, and since the strong force actuates in a maximum distance shorter than 3fm, it is obvious that the neutron is not bound via the strong force in the Be11.

    As often occurs when a new experiment proves to be wrong the Standard Model, some theorists try to save the theory by adopting desperate solutions.  In this case the strange solution was proposed by Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuse . 

    He has proposed the following:

    The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive 'heiligenschein'. “

    But beyond the fact that Nörtershäuse’s theory is very strange, because he is proposing a sort of neutron which behaves like a rubber band used by dressmakers, his theory is also unacceptable, because:

    1) Even if the Nörtershäuser’s proposal was viable, however his theory cannot explain other experimental fact:  the 4Be11 decay produces the stable isotope 5B11, and there is no way to explain it by considering the Nörtershäuser’s hypothesis.

    Indeed, Nörtershäuser’s hypothesis is also unacceptable because of the feature of the decay of the nucleus 4Be11, as explained ahead:

    2) He could argue that the halo-neutron is weakly linked to the cluster, and it leaves out the nucleus after the 13,81 seconds just because of the weak link. However this is no true, because in 97% of decay the 4Be11 transmutes to 5B11, and therefore the neutron does not leave out the nucleus. In 4Be11 the neutron decays in a proton and electron, and the proton goes back to the cluster. If the strong nuclear force should be responsible for the cohesion of nuclei as the nuclear theorists suppose, the proton could never go back to the cluster, because in a distance of 7fm it cannot interact with the cluster via strong force, and the classical Coulomb repulsion between the cluster and the proton would be so strong that the proton would be expelled from the 4Be11, and 5B11 could not be formed in 97% of the 4Be11 decay.

    3) Therefore, even if the Nörtershäuser’s solution was viable for the explanation of the halo neutron in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, however the 5B11 would never be formed from the decay of the 4Be11, according to his solution.

    4) And in his paper Nörtershäuser did not propose any explanation for the formation of the isotope 5B11 from the decay of the 4Be11.  He only tried to explain how a neutron could be kept in a distance of  7fm. 

      So, Nörtershäuser solution is unacceptable, and therefore it is impossible to explain the 7fm distance of the neutron in the Be11 by considering the current nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Physics.  The distance of 7fm detected in the experiment suggests that nucleons are not bound in the nuclei via the strong nuclear force, as predicted in Quantum Ring Theory.   


    A new experiment published in 2012 has shown that 4Be12 has a structure impossible to be explained from the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics:

    End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated

    Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuse has proposed an explanation, as shown in that paper.  However by considering the structure proposed by Nörtershäuse 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:

    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.

      As we realize, the current nuclear models based on the Standard Model  (where it is not consider the contribution of the structure of the space  for the induction of the nuclear properties) cannot explain the structure of the light nuclei. And sure that new upcoming experiments will bring more and more puzzles that cannot be solved by considering the laws of the Quantum Mechanics.   In April 2013 the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics has published my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where the magnetic moments of several light nuclei are calculated by considering the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. In the end of the paper it is shown how is solved the puzzle of the decay of 4Be11 transmuting to 5B10, with the neutron having decay and how the newborn proton in a distance of 7fm goes back to the cluster of the newborn 5B10:



    In Quantum Ring Theory is proposed that it is wrong the De Broglie interpretation on the duality wave-particle. He had interpreted that duality is a property of the matter.  But in QRT the duality is a property of the helical trajectory (Zitterbewegung) of elementary particles.  The Zitterbewegung of the electron exists in the Dirac’s theory of the electron, as shown by the first time by Schroedinger.   He also believed that duality is due to the Zitterbewegung.

    By considering that duality is a property of the Zitterbewegung, there is no need to consider the Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity adopted in Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, in the case is wrong the De Broglie interpretation on the duality, as consequence the Bohr’s Complementarity is also wrong,  and so the own Copenhagen’s interpretation is wrong .


    A paper by Aephraim Steinberg published in 2012 has shown that Bohr’s Complementarity is wrong:

    Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements


    Complementarity holds that objects have complementary properties which cannot be measured accurately at the same time. The more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the complementary property is measured, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Such prediction of Quantum Mechanics was contradicted by Steinberg experiment.

    In the book Quantum Ring Theory is proposed a solution for the EPR paradox, by considering the model of photon formed by a particle Q(+) and and its antiparticle Q(-),  being Q(+) and Q(-) formed by a lot of electricitons e(+) and e(-), both them moving with Zitterbewegung.

    It is possible the quantum entanglement can be consequence of the interaction of the two twins photons with the help of the structure of the space. In this case the angle formed by the two directions of the motion of the two photons must have influence in their entanglement.

    In August 2014 the journal Nature has published a very interesting paper:

    Quantum imaging with undetected photons


    The experiment was lead by Dr. Gabriela Lemos, and I sent an email to her, suggesting a new version for the experiment, where the twin photons would be moving along the same line but in OPOSITE directions.

    In the case the entanglement is really caused with the help of the structure of the space, then is possible that the entanglement between the two photons do not occur in the experiment suggested by me.  And so this new version of the experiment can bring new understanding on how the mechanism of the entanglement works.

    Unfortunatelly Dr. Gabriela sent me a reply saying that they have other priorities:


    From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:15:15 -0300
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

    Hello Wlad,
    thanks for the suggestions.
    We have several experiments in the waiting line to be realized. When we have time to test your suggestion I warn you.




    According to Quantum Ring Theory, the electric field of the proton and electron have non-spherical shape, while in the Standard Model Physics their electric fields must be spherical. Such non-sphericity of the electric field  proposed in Quantum Ring Theory is consequence of the contribution of the structure of the space,  because according to QRT the electric fields are  composed by electricitons e(+) and e(-) of the structure of the space crossed by a flux of gravitons.

    A new experiment has now detected  the electricitons e(+):

    Evidence for photogenerated intermediate hole polarons in ZnO


    The authors of the paper published in Nature call them "polarons".

    Obviously those authors do not know that "polarons" (named electricitons in my theory), are the particles which compose the electric field of the proton and electron. 

    And this is the reason why positive polarons have interaction with the negative electric field of the electron extracted by a photon in the photoactive oxide Zn0.



    The non-spherical shape of the electric field of the proton, according to Quantum Ring Theory, is shown in the figure ahead.  The blue lines of the electric field are fluxes of gravitons, and they capture the electricitons e(+) shown in the figure (the figure shows only four electricitons e(+), but obviously the electric field of the proton is composed by a countless amount of electricitons).


    as the proton rotates chaotically, its electric field behaves in average as it were spherical, involving spherically the proton. And therefore here we see one among the contribution of the statistics for the success of the Standard Model.

    So, in normal conditions the electric field behaves as it were spherical, as considered in the current theories.

    A new experiment has proven the asymmetry of the electric field:
    Electromagnetic Radiation under Explicit Symmetry Breaking




    According to Quantum Mechanics cold fusion phenomena are impossible to occur.  There is not any controversy on this point.  Ahead is an email sent to me yesterday by Luca Petronio, of the Scientific Ethics, where he told me about a meeting between Dr. Santilli and Dr. Geshbach:


    On the Feshbach-Santilli 1989 meeting:

    I reached Prof.  Santilli (+1-727-688 3992) by phone and he told me that Feshbach presented a variety of calculations based on Hilbert axiom, the imprimitivity theorem, uncertainty principle,  and other post Ph/. D. studies establishing that nuclear fusions at low energy are prohibited by quantum mechanics.
    In particular, Fleshbach recalled the  repulsive coulomb force in between nuclei because they have the same positive charge (the infamous "Coulomb barrier") according to which the repulsive force between nuclei acquires at nuclear distances of 10^{-13 cm} acquires the astronomical value of the type
    F_repulsive = k q_q q_2 10^{28}

    because the Coulomb repulsion is proportional to the the inverse of the square of the distance. Feshbach argument is that there exist no possibility whatsoever that such an enormous repulsive force can be overcome at low energies.
    Prof. santilli agreed then and he agrees now fully with Feshbach arguments. After all, he was the biggest expert of quantum mechanics of his time.



    But after the publication of the Lugano Report there is not any controversy on the reality of the Rossi-Effect:

    Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel


    The Rossi-Effect was replicated by A. Parkhomov in Russia:




    there is not any controversy on the subject. Cold fusion is possible, in spite of it is impossible from the laws of Quantum Mechanics.


    But according to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory the cold fusion phenomena are possible, because the Coulomb barrier is not spherical as considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics. Because due to the contribution of the structure of the space, the electric field of the nuclei is non-spherical.


    But due to chaotic rotation of the nuclei, in average the Coulomb barrier takes the spherical shape, in normal conditions, as considered in the Standard Model.  Therefore, in normal conditions the Nuclear Physics is correct, and this is the reason why in normal conditions the cold fusion phenomena are impossible to occur.  So, from this viewpoint Dr. Feshbach  was right: the nuclear theorists believe that cold fusion is impossible because they do not know in deep how is physically the shape of the Coulomb barrier involving the nuclei.  They know only the “statistical” behavior of the Coulomb barrier under normal conditions.

    But in special conditions (as for instance occurs in the Rossi-Effect), the nuclei are aligned along an external magnetic field, and so they stop to gyrate chaotically.  As consequence, the Coulomb barrier becomes non-spherical, and there are two points (crossed by the z-axis of the nuclei) where the Coulomb barrier is weaker.   Protons and neutrons at low energy can enter within a nucleus by crossing those two points with weak Coulomb repulsion.

    The figure ahead shows:

    a) the nuclei Li7 and Ni58 with their z-axis aligned during the Rossi-Effect.

    b) the proton of the Li7 will be captured by the orbit of the electron P1.

    c) the proton exits the Li7  being accelerated by the attraction with the orbit of the electron P1, and the proton continues moving along the z-axis, going to hit the nucleus Ni58, which transmutes to Cu59.


    This theory on the Rossi-Effect was discussed between me and some  readers of the Rossi’s blog in the end of 2014, in the Comments regarding my paper “Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism” published in Rossi’s blog. And I have incorporated our discussion in the book “The Evolution of Physics- from Newton to Rossi’s eCat”, published in Amazon.com, now in 2015.


    Many theories are being proposed so that to explain cold fusion phenomena, and of course many other will be proposed.

    But it seems the cold fusion theory based on the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory merits a special attention from the scientific community.  After all, many of the predictions proposed in QRT (the whole of them considered to be impossible by the scientific community, because in 2006 those predictions were contradicting untouchable dogmas of Nuclear Physics prevailing along decades) are being confirmed by experiments along the years between 2008 and 2015.



    The physicists who developed Quantum Mechanics have supposed that would be possible to develop a correct theory by neglecting the  physical mechanisms existing in the Nature. So, they set out for the development of Quantum Mechanics from the mathematical development of the theory, by establishing equations, and after the mathematical development they tried to find a physical meaning for the theory.  Such procedure of discovery has worked successfully up to the atomic level, and for heavy atomic nuclei, where some fundamental laws of Nature not discovered yet can be replaced by suitable statistical considerations.  But the procedure has failed in a deeper level, as in the case of the light nuclei.


    If the physicists indeed are interested to eliminate the failures of Quantum Mechanics, they must start to consider seriously the physical models  proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. Otherwise the question of the title of the book  "Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?" will remain unanswered forever.


    Wladimir Guglinski



    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:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics ?" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register


    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.