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, 67 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

    Collapse of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and Bohr’s Complementarity
    Posted on Saturday, May 23, 2015 @ 18:03:09 EDT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: To: Dr. Aephraim Steinberg /Cc: Nobel Prizes: Dr. B. Josephson, Dr. A. Leggett, Dr. G. t’Hooft

    Dear Dr. Steinberg

    In my book Quantum Ring Theory-(QRT) published in 2006, the Bohr’s Complementarity is rejected as false. In my book the cause of the particles duality is attributed to the zitterbewegung: It is considered that particles have only the corpuscular feature (in the sense of Newton), and the wave property detected in experiments is due to their motion with zitterbewegung, “zbw” (zbw is an helical trajectory noted at the first time by Schroedinger in the Dirac’s equation of the electron).

    But Heisenberg’s Uncertainty is not rejected in my book.

    The reason is because uncertainty is even not a fundamental law. Instead of, uncertainty is actually imposed by the limitation of the technology.

    Uncertainty works well up to a certain level. But in a deeper level it fails. However, as it is not a fundamental law, there is no need to reject it, since it is applied successfully in the atomic level.

    In my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron is proposed a new version for the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty.

    In the item Gravitational quantum of energy is written:


    “This indicates that we must propose a new interpretation for the Heinsenberg’s principle into a potential well with radius a≤1fm.

    First of all, let us remember that Planck’s constant h = 6.6×10ˆ–34J-s has electromagnetic origin, since he made his experiments with photons into a black body. But into a potential well with radius a≤1fm, we have to consider the strong force. Then it is possible that Planck’s constant must be replaced by a new constant hG , by considering that hG is a smallest quantum of energy due to the interactions by the nuclear force. In the last item we will show that electron’s bound energy into the neutron must have on the order of 0.1 MeV. So, by considering that electron’s binding energy has the order of 0.1MeV, then, by introducing a correction, from Eq. (6) we get:

    hG ~ [ h²/(180.000/0,1) ]½ = 1,3×10ˆ-37J-s (9)

    One argument against this proposal is to say that the electron has no interaction by the strong force. However, in past papers the author will show that there are evidences suggesting that the strong force has gravitational origin, when we consider a dynamic gravity (different from the static gravity of current Physics).

    So, if we consider the quantum vacuum constituted by electromagnetic particles and by gravitons, through such a consideration it means that Planck’s constant h is due to interactions by electromagnetic particles of the quantum vacuum, while the constant hG is due to interactions by gravitons.

    Pay attention that we are proposing here the constant hG through the same way as Planck proposed the constant h. Indeed, Planck has been constrained to adopt the hypothesis of the constant h because that was the unique solution able to solve the paradox of the ultraviolet catastrophe into the black body. By the same way, today we have two experiments, made by Borghi and by Conte, and these two experiments are showing that the neutron’s structure is n=p+e. The unique way to explain this structure, obtained by the experiments, is through the adoption of the following hypothesis:

    for a potential well with radius a≤1fm, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is Δx.Δp~h , where hG ~1.3×10ˆ–37J-s is the gravitational quantum of energy.”


    In 2002 I had submitted my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron for publication in the Chinese Journal of Physics, and a reviewer rejected the paper with the following argument:


    “It is hard for me to believe those difficulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale. Had this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third different Planck constant.”


    Ahead are: the review and the letter from the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Yew Kam Ho:



    The paper Anomalous mass of the neutron was published in 2006 in my book Quantum Ring Theory, and five years later it was published again by the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics , in October 2011:


    Ten months after the publication of my paper in the Andrea Rossi blog, you have published in August 2012 your paper which invalidates the Bohr’s Complementarity and shows that Heisenberg’s uncertainty indeed is not a fundamental law, as predicted in my book published in 2006:

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


    In my book Quantum Ring Theory are proposed some new foundations for Quantum Mechanics. For instance, it is proposed a new hydrogen atom model, in which a corpuscular electron (with no wave feature) moves with helical trajectory, and the space around the proton is non-Euclidian. In my book The Missed U-Turn is explained that Schrödinger’s equation actually describes the motion of the electron with zitterbewegung within a non-Euclidian space around the proton:


    The Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson wrote a review for my book The Evolution of Physics, published in Amazon.com:


    And I have posted the following reply to Dr. Josephson in the Book Description in the Amazon.com:


    “Dear Dr. Josephson,

    Schrodinger’s equation is unacceptable... by considering the atom model of QM. Let us see why.

    Schrodinger’s eq, was developed from the equation for a free electron. Therefore it cannot be applied for an electron in the atom (an electron into a potential).

    Eisberg & Resnick justify to use the equation of a free electron in the case of the atom, in their book Quantum Physics. First they get the Schrodinger eq,, which is numbered as (5-22) in their book. And they say (I am translating from Portuguese):

    It must be emphasized that we arrive to (5-22) by considering an special case: the case of a free particle where P(x,y) =Vo , a constant. In this point it seems reasonable to argue that we have to hope that the wave equation of the quantum mechanics should have the same shape of (5-22) for the general case in which the potential energy V(x,t) actually varies as function of x and t (i.e., the force is not null); but we cannot prove that this is true. However, we can postulate that it is true. We do it, and so we take (5-22) as the wave equation of the quantum mechanics whose solutions Q(x,t) give us the wave functions that must be associated to the motion of a particle with mass m under the influence of forces which are described by the potential energy function V (x,t). The validity of the postulate must be judged from the comparison of its implications with the experiments, and we are going to do several of those comparisons later.”

    First of all, Dr, Brian, to claim that "it seems reasonable” is not true. Not at all reasonable. And what is worst: the physicists cannot give any reasonable explanation why Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom. If we ask to a physicist to explain us why the Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom he can only say:

    “Unfortunately I don’t know. It's a mystery. We know that the equation works, since the experiments prove it works. But we don’t know why, we don’t know what is the cause responsible for the successes of the Schrodinger equation”.

    This is not acceptable.

    To claim that an equation is acceptable because it fits to the experiments, but do not know why it fits, actually makes no sense. Therefore, Schrodinger eq, is unacceptable to be used in the atom model of QM. However, his equation is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE by considering an atom where the electron moves in a non-Euclidian space, and doing it with helical trajectory.

    This is shown in my book THE MISSED U-TURN, where it is written:

    “Interestingly, Schrödinger developed his equation by considering a free electron, not subject to any force. This makes no sense because in his development the electron is within the proton's potential and, therefore, attracted by the proton. Such a paradox in Schrödinger's development is now understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory because now we know that within the hydrogen atom the electron behaves as if free since it is subject to two forces Therefore, because the resultant force on the electron is null, it moves with constant speed in the radial direction and so the electron moves as if free, as considered by Schrödinger. Its behavior is that of a free electron moving with constant speed despite it is actually moving radially within the proton's electrosphere. Finally the paradox is understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in QRT.”

    As you see, Dr. Brian, the atom model of QM is incompatible with the Schrodinger equation. And so, by considering the atom model of QM, his equation is unacceptable.

    Only a new model in which the electron moves with helical trajectory in a non-Euclidian space can be conciliated with the Schrodinger equation, as shown in my book.”


    Along the 7 last years many experiments are confirming several predictions proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory. For instance:


    Along 80 years the nuclear theorists have supposed that even-even nuclei with the same number of protons and neutrons have spherical shape. In my book published in 2006 it is proposed that those nuclei have actually ellipsoidal shape. And their ellipsoidal shape was confirmed by the experiments published by the journal Nature in 2012:

    How atomic nuclei cluster


    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.


    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.


    In my book is proposed that space is not empty, and it has a structure formed by particles and antiparticles. An experiment published by Nature in 2011 proved that space is not empty:

    Moving mirrors make light from nothing:


    The European Physical Journal published a paper where it is proposed for the space the same structure proposed in my QRT, by particles and antiparticles:

    The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light: http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165


    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 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


    Dear Dr. Steinberg,

    tell me sincerely,

    do you think the theorists have to continue trying to keep the current interpretation on Quantum Mechanics as they did before the publication of your paper? Or have they to look for a new interpretation, by discarding some principles, as for instance the Bohr’s Complementarity?

    Do you think is it possible to save the current foundations of Quantum Mechanics by neglecting the meaning of your experiment, as the theorists are trying to do?

    Or do you think there is need to look for new foundations for Quantum Mechanics, by looking for new principles which can be conciliated with the violation of the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and the collapse of the Bohr’s Complementarity?

    In short, do you think there is need a New Physics?


    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

    "Collapse of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and Bohr’s Complementarity" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Can Quantum Mechanics be saved by Queen Elizabeth II ? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Friday, May 29, 2015 @ 23:51:11 EDT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    This letter will be sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

    To: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

    c.c. to: Vice-Chancellor's Private Office of the University of Cambridge

    Leszek Borysiewicz , Vice-Chancellor

    Rebecca Simmons , Head of the Vice-Chancellor’s Office

    Your Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

    At the end of this letter I request Your Majesty make an intervention at the University of Cambridge.

    Also at the end of the letter I explain the relevance of being of Your Majesty the burden of an intervention.

    The reasons that support my request are shown in the sequence of facts presented ahead.

    Quantum Mechanics-(QM) is the most accurate theory of the Physics of the whole times.

    In the beginning of the 20th Century when the physicists begun to develop the QM, there was a duel between two of the most important quantum theorists: Heisenberg and Schrödinger.

    The Heisenberg’s thought on what is the meaning of QM can be understood by his famous sentence: “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning”.

    The method of questioning preconized by Heisenberg was do not propose conjectures. Instead of, a theory must be developed via the mathematical formalism.

    But Schrödinger had the suspicion that the discovery of the true laws of the Nature in the atomic level requires some unavoidable conjectures. And therefore from the Schrödinger’s viewpoint the Heisenberg method is inefficient for the discovery of the true laws of the atomic world.

    The main aim of Schrödinger was to keep the Kantian causality principle in the development of QM. He believed that any physical effect must have a physical cause. So, one among the conjectures proposed by Schrödinger was the helical trajectory of the electron. He discovered that such helical trajectory exists in the Dirac’s equation of the electron, and so in his opinion the development of QM would have to be done by considering the helical trajectory, because by this way it would be possible to save the Kantian causality in the mathematical formalism for the QM.

    Unlike, Heisenberg had the opinion that it is impossible to conciliate some phenomena in the atomic level with the Kantian causality, and so the helical trajectory itself could not save the causality, and therefore the helical trajectory was superfluous and an unacceptable “metaphysical” conjecture, and the QM could not be developed from that way. In Physics, metaphysical concepts are those ones which follow the Kantian causality.

    The quantum theorists decided to adopt the Heisenberg’s method of questioning. The physicist Max Born proposed a mathematical formalism which supplied to QM its statistical background (known as wave function) and suppressed the Kantian causality for some phenomena, while Louis de Broglie proposed the principle according to which the matter has a property known as duality wave-particle. And Niels Bohr proposed the fundamental principle which tries to supply philosophical coherence to the duality, known as Principle of Complementarity (in some measurements a particle exhibits its wave feature, and in other sort of measurements it exhibits its corpuscular feature, but it can never exhibit both the wave and corpuscular features at the same time, during a measurement).

    In order to understand the importance of the Principle of Complementarity for the QM, in his book on the Einstein’s life the physicist Abraham Pais wrote about Bohr: “…his concept of complementarity (which provides the philosophical underpinning for quantum theory) qualifies him as one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers”.

    This philosophical interpretation of QM is known as Copenhagen Interpretation, and it was established between 1925 and 1927.

    Schrödinger became deeply depressed with development of QM by statistical laws, and he decided to abandon the Theoretical Physics, going to work in the branch of Biology.

    Some years after 1927, there was a meeting between Heisenberg and a female Kantian philosopher, and she said to him that, in spite of some atomic phenomena occur via statistical laws, however probably it is possible to find physical causes for the statistical behavior, and by this way the Kantian causality would be saved. But Heisenberg struck a mortal blow in her hope. And he told her why: because when the Standard Nuclear Physics was developed based on the laws of QM, the nuclear theorists had discovered that it is impossible to find any physical cause for the emission of alpha particles by the radioactive nuclei. So, they concluded that the emission must be explained via statistical laws, without any physical cause, and therefore they had concluded that Heisenberg was right in rejecting the Kantian causality, since it is impossible to find any physical cause for the emission of alpha particles, by considering the Standard Nuclear Theory. And so Heisenberg said to her that was impossible to save the Kantian causality, and a waste of time to try to save it.

    In the beginning of 1993 I have started to study the Quantum Mechanics, in order to verify if could be possible to find a new version for the theory, in the way pointed by Schrödinger. After all, perhaps the method of questioning preconized by Heisenberg and adopted by the quantum theorists could be inefficient for the discovery of the laws of Nature in the atomic level, and so perhaps the Nature yields phenomena through the Kantian causality, as supposed by Schrödinger.

    I have developed my theory along more than 20 years, and in 2006 it was published in a book form by the Bäuu Institute and Press with the title “Quantum Ring Theory”- (QRT).

    http://www.bauuinstitute.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:quantum-ring-theory-foundations-for-cold-fusion&catid=8&Itemid=103 [www.zpenergy.com]

    As my QRT was developed by considering the helical trajectory proposed by Schrödinger, in my theory it is rejected as absurd Bohr’s Complementarity. As supposed by Schrödinger, in my theory is considered that the wave feature of the electron and other particles is caused by the helical trajectory.

    Therefore, according to my Quantum Ring Theory the pillar which supplies philosophical coherence for the duality is wrong: Bohr’s Complementarity is false, absurd, and must be rejected.

    In the end of 1993 I have discovered a new nuclear model, which works with some principles different of those used in the Standard Nuclear Physics. In the page 186 of my book QRT is shown that the emission of alpha particles by the radioactive nuclei has a physical cause, in spite of the emission follows the Bernoulli’s statistical distribution. Therefore Heisenberg was wrong by supposing that it is impossible to find a physical cause for the emission of the alpha particles. Ironically, he was right in another point: the physical cause is impossible to be found if one tries to find it in the current nuclear models proposed according to the laws established in Quantum Mechanics and adopted in the development of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    But of course in 2006 (when the book QRT was published) my theory could not be considered seriously by the scientific community. Because at that time obviously nobody could suppose two highly improbable things: 1) that the Standard Nuclear Physics could be wrong, and 2) that my new nuclear model could have any chance to be right.

    In 2008 I wrote the book “The Missed U-Turn, the duel Heisenberg vs Schrödinger”, where It is explained for the lay reader the foundations of the Quantum Ring Theory, and why some foundations of Quantum Mechanics are wrong, and it is narrated the duel between Heisenberg and Schrödinger.

    In 2010 I had submitted for publication by the Cambridge International Science Publishing my book “The Missed U-Turn”, and in 2011 the book was accepted for publication. In 20 October 2011 the publisher Victor Riecansky has signed the Agreement (see it ahead):

    Image:Pagina3doAGREEMENT.png [www.zpenergy.com]

    Unfortunatelly after Victor Riecansky sign the Agreement, I had commented in the Andrea Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics that my new book would be published by the Camb. Int. Sci. Pub. And after my advertising some physicists started threatening Victor, saying that they would boycott the publishing house, and so he decided do not accomplish the Agreement signed by him.

    The boycott against the publication of my book The Missed U-Turn by the Cambridge Int. Science Pub. is understandable, since up to 2010 the quantum theorists strongly believed that do not exist any experimental evidences suggesting that QM was developed from any wrong principle. They strongly believed it because some experiments which debunk some laws of QM were simply rejected by the quantum physicists, as for instance the experiment Conte-Pieralice published in 1999 by Infinite Energy Magazine and the experiment made by Don Borghi and published in 1993 by the American Journal of Physics (Conte-Pieralice and Borghi experiments are different versions of the same experiment, proving that neutrons are formed by fusion of protons and electrons at low energy, which is impossible to occur according to the laws of QM). In 1999 I sent a letter to Prof. Stephen Hawking, telling him about the Conte-Pieralice experiment. But his secretary sent me a reply, telling a lie: she said that Prof. Hawking was weakned, and could not send me a reply. However one month later Hawking gave a lecture at an university, and therefore Hawking simply did not want to hear about that experiment. Hawking claims that “Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen”… but when somebody tries to tell him about an experiment proving that God does not play dice, he simply refuses to take knowledge on the experiment. Later in 2002 I sent emails to the Nobel Prizes in Physics A. Leggett and G.t’Hooft, telling them about the Borghi’s experiment. Dr. Leggett sent me a reply saying that it is not his field of expertise, and Dr. t’Hooft sent a reply claiming that “the experimental evidence is phony”. So, in spite some experiments were showing that some laws of QM are wrong, Hawking continued to keep his dream of finding a Theory of Everything based on the wrong foundations of QM, and Dr. t’Hooft continued to keep his dream of finding a solution for some inconsistencies of QM, as tell us W. G. Unruh in his review on the book “Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?” , published in 2005: “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.

    Therefore, in spite of some experimental findings were pointing to the theorists that there was need to retake the development of QM by replacing the Heisenberg’s method of questioning by the Schrödinger’s method, before 2010 the theorists in general were trying to avoid the collapse of the Quantum Mechanics by simply neglecting the results of some experiments which were showing to be wrong the Copenhagen Interpretation. They successfully rejected the cold fusion phenomenon from 1989 up to October 2014, when finally the cold fusion was definitively confirmed (Andrea Rossi’s cold fusion reactor was tested by nuclear physicists of three universities in Europe, with positive results).

    But some experiments published after 2010 have changed the panorama which up to that year allowed the quantum theorists to avoid the collapse of the Quantum Mechanics. Those experiments show that Heisenberg’s method of questioning has failed for the discovery of the true laws of Nature for the atom and the sub-atomic particles. Let us see the most important of them:

    1- First experiment

    Along 80 years the nuclear theorists have supposed that even-even nuclei with equal number of protons and neutrons have spherical shape, because it is impossible they may have a non-spherical shape according to current nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Physics. Unlike, in the page 137 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is shown that those nuclei have non-spherical shape, and so in 2006 the book QRT was defying a dogma of 80 years of the Nuclear Physics.

    In 2012 the journal Nature published the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”, describing experiments which have detected that even-even nuclei with equal number of protons and neutrons have non-spherical shape, as predicted correctly in QRT, and so a dogma of 80 years considered untouchable by the nuclear theorists was proved be wrong.

    So, Heisenberg had supposed wrongly that it is impossible to find a physical cause for the emission of alpha particles by radioactive nuclei because his conclusion was based on his wrong belief that the Standard Nuclear Physics is correct.

    Therefore, the most stronger Heisenberg’s argument for rejecting the Kantian causality was invalidated by the paper published by Nature in 2012, since the experiments proved that the Standard Model is wrong, and by consequence we cannot use it as argument for the rejection of the Kantian causality.

    2- Second experiment

    According to the nuclear model proposed in QRT, there is a z-axis about which the protons and neutrons are symmetrically distributed in the even-even nuclei. But according to the Standard Nuclear Physics it is impossible the existence of the z-axis, and thereby obviously in the years after 2006, (when my book was published), the nuclear physicists have used to consider as impossible the new nuclear model proposed in the book QRT. Scientists of the Liverpool University have discovered that the nucleus 88Ra224 has pear shape, which is impossible by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics. In 2013 they published in the journal Nature the paper “Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams”. In order to explain the pear shape, Prof. Butler has proposed the existence of the z-axis in the nuclei. However, as according to the Standard Model the existence of the z-axis is impossible, the nuclear physicist Gavin Smith of the University of Manchester, UK, said: “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.”

    3– Third experiment

    The stronger blow against the Standard Nuclear Physics occurred in October 2014, with the publication of the Lugano Report, which confirmed the cold fusion phenomena: Rossi-Effect was confirmed by experiments made by nuclear physicistsl of three universities of Europe, published with the title “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel”. According to the Standard Model cold fusion is impossible to occur. But as the Rossi-Effect was definitively confirmed in October 2014, then the Standard Nuclear Physics is definitively wrong. Thereby the Standard Nuclear Physics is definitively dead, and there is need to develop a New Nuclear Physics. And the most important to know is: obviously the New Nuclear Physics cannot be developed by using the overcome and obsolete Heisenberg’s method of questioning, because 100 years the research have resulted into error.

    4- Fourth experiment

    The stronger blow against the Quantum Mechanics occurred in 2012, with the publication of the paper “Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements”, describing an experiment led by Aephraim Steinberg.

    He discovered that a particle can have at the same time its wave and corpuscular features, detected in the same measurement, and so it proves that Bohr’s Complementarity is false.

    Finally, other dogma of 100 years collapsed, bringing down the most important support pillar of the philosophical coherence of the Quantum Mechanics.

    The experiment also brings down the de Broglie’s interpretation for the duality wave-particle, because a particle cannot have at the same time the shape of wave and matter, because while the wave has wave function, matter cannot have it. And a particle cannot, at the same time, to have and do not have a wave function .

    The unique way which survives for explaining the duality wave-particle is that one pointed by Schrödinger, by considering that wave feature of the particles is due to their helical trajectory. Other mortal blow in the Heisenberg’s method of questioning.

    5- Other experiments

    There are many other experiments which are proving that the Standard Nuclear Physics was not developed through the true laws existing in the Nature, because some light nuclei have nuclear properties impossible to be conciliated with any current nuclear model based on the laws established in the Standard Nuclear Physics. For instance, in 2009 the Physical Review Letters has published the paper “Atomic nucleus of beryllium is three times as large as normal due to halo”. The experiment detected that Be11 has one neutron separated from the core of a distance that is 3 times larger than allowed according to the Standard Nuclear Physics, and therefore the binding of protons and neutrons within the nuclei cannot be via the “strong force” as considered in the Standard Model. In short, if the Standard Model was right, Be11 could never exist. Other experiment was published in 2012 with the title “End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated”. The experiment shows that the nucleus Be12 has a distribution of neutrons impossible to exist according the the Standard Nuclear Physics. And again, if the Standard Model was right, also Be12 could never exist.

    But in spite of there are many other experiments impossible to be conciliated with the theoretical models proposed according to the laws of the Standard Model, here I have mentioned only those ones which are the most striking.

    Perhaps we may consider as understandable that before 2011 the quantum physicists have supposed their attempt on saving the Quantum Mechanics was successful. And that’s why some of them decided to boycott the publication of my book The Missed U-Turn by the Cambridge International Science Publishing.

    But after 2010 any effort for saving the foundations of Quantum Mechanics became absurd, because between 2011 and 2014 the principal pillars of the theory were knocked down by experiments.

    Incomprehensibly, the theorists continue trying to save the Heisenberg’s method of questioning the Nature, as we realize by looking what happened in the beginning of 2015, when I have published in Amazon.com two books:

    1- The Missed U-Turn, the duel Heisenberg vs Schrödinger

    2- The Evolution of Physics, the duel Newton vs Descartes

    The Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson has posted in Amazon.com a review with the title “Bad Physics” for the book The Evolution of Physics, and after that we had a long discussion, by exchanging a lot of emails. A print of his replies in the inbox of my hotmail is shown ahead:

    Image:Replies_by_BRIAN_JOSEPHSON_in_HOTMAIL.png [www.zpenergy.com]

    However, after a long discussion with Dr. Josephson, he realized that he is unable to support his attempts for saving Quantum Mechanics with acceptable and reasonable arguments. First he tried to save QM by using himself a Bad Physics in his arguments. And finally he decided to stop the discussion, and so he stopped sending me any reply. Unfortunately, Instead of to adopt a honest attitude, by assuming that there is no way to avoid the collapse of the Quantum Mechanics developed from the Heisenberg’s method of questioning the Nature, Dr. Josephson preferred to adopt the strategy of betraying the Scientific Method, refusing to accept the new experiments published after 2010.

    When our discussion was over, I have asked to Dr. Josephson the grace of changing his review in Amazon.com, by writing a honest new review, recognizing that my book is supported by strong experimental evidences. But he did not attend my request. So, his intention is obvious: to boycott my books, by suggesting to the Amazon costumers that “Bad Physics” is published in my books.

    Dr. Josephson has a strong personal interest in boycotting my books. Because in University of Cambridge he is the Director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project, where he uses the foundations of QM in his research. Then it is obvious that it is not of his interest to recognize that QM was developed from the wrong Heisenberg’s method of questioning (as my books are showing and the experiments are proving) because that would be a confession that he is doing his research through a wrong and surpassed way of research, by keeping the wrong Heisenberg’s method, and therefore he is using an overcome version of Quantum Mechanics for developing his scientific work.

    I have sent a series of emails to the physicists of the University of Cambridge, in order to show them the need of replacing the Heisenberg’s method of questioning by the method proposed by Schrödinger, and to retake the development of a New Quantum Mechanics, in the way pointed by Schrödinger. But some physicists have considered my effort as harassment, as Dr. Siddharth S. Saxena, who sent me the following reply:


    Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 00:44:48 +0100 Subject: Re: Collapse of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and Bohr’s Complementarity From: sss21@cam.ac.uk To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com; rzecznikkgp@policja.gov.pl

    I have already asked you to remove you from my mailing list and i you continue to harras me by sending these continuious unwanted messages. i am now reporting you to polish police for harassment formally.

    Dr. Siddharth S. Saxena

    Quantum Matter Group Chairman, Cambridge Cavendish Laboratory Central Asia Forum University of Cambridge Jesus College, Cambridge CB3 0HE Cambridge CB5 8BL United Kingdom United Kingdom Phone: +44-1223-337379


    As we realize, some physicists of the University of Cambridge consider themselves as victim of harassment, because they continue to develop their researches by keeping the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, in spite of they know that many experiments are proving that some of the foundations are wrong. But they do not want someone point out to them that their method of research does not make sense.

    So, some scientists wish nobody remember them that the efficiency of the Heisenberg’s method, which along 100 years the scientific community believed to be successful, was finally debunked by a series of experiments after 2010. These scientists block their minds like those hysterical patients of Freud, blocking their minds when some tragic event destroys the deeper meaning of their life, without which their lives no longer have meaning.

    Only Freud can explain why, after 2010, some physicists are desperately trying to save the outdated Quantum Mechanics developed through the obsolete Heisenberg’s method.

    Finally let me tell the reason why I sent this letter to Your Majesty.

    According to its Homepage, the Mission of the University of Cambridge is the following:


    “The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence

    As shown here, experiments published after 2010 have shown that Heisenberg’s method of questioning has failed in the research for the discovery of the true Laws of Physics in the atomic level. This means that the Heisenberg’s method, nowadays used in the universities worldwide, cannot be considered anymore as the highest international level of excellence , as before 2010 it was considered.

    Therefore, there is need to replace the Heisenberg’s method by the Schrödinger’s one, in order to discover the true laws, and to develop a new updated version for a New Quantum Mechanics.

    In the case the professors of Physics of the University of Cambridge continue to teach to the students the Heisenberg’s method, the university will be teaching to the students a surpassed method of research, and thereby disagree to the Mission of the university (teach to students the highest level of excellence). This will configure fraudulent misrepresentation, and the University of Cambridge can be processed in court by the students who feel themselves deceived by the practice of quackery and ideological falsehood in the departments of Physics.

    In order to avoid the possibility of such unpleasant situation, the University of Cambridge must adopt a suitable slogan in order to reconcile the Mission of the university with the highest level of excellence, as follows:

    “Physics Department students are encouraged to contribute to the effort of of Quantum Mechanics improvement, in order to develop a new updated version attuned with the latest experimental findings”

    Your Majesty,

    as well as the subjects of the Queen must be loyal to the royal crown, it is the duty of the Queen to look for the interests of Her subjects. And the loyal subjects do not want their children be deceived in universities, acquiring an outdated knowledge, belied by the latest scientific experiments.

    That’s why I request your Majesty to influence the decision of Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor at University of Cambridge, to adopt the slogan proposed by me, in order to update the scientific method of investigation in the Physics Departments, by replacing the Heisenberg’s method by the Schrodinger’s method.

    God save the Queen…

    … and hopefully the Queen saves the Quantum Mechanics

    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.