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, 112 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

Two experiments will bring the Standard Model down
Posted on Saturday, September 05, 2015 @ 19:11:34 EDT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes: For physicists and philosophers worldwide.

1- FIRST EXPERIMENT : MUSE- MUon proton Scattering Experiment

The first experiment will be performed between 2016 and 2017, and it will measure the proton’s radius.
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~rgilman/elasticmup/

The physicists believe that the proton has an unshrinkable radius R=0,88fm,  because they consider that it is impossible to have a shrinkage in the orbit radius of the quarks in the structure u,d,u, and so they expect to measure a proton’s radius never shorter than 0,8fm.

But they are wrong, because the quarks of the proton take the shape of a ring, whose cross-section is  crossed by a flux of gravitons, and the diameter of the ring depends on the intensity of the flux of gravitons. So, while the radius of a free proton is 0,88fm, however within the nuclei the proton’s radius is 0,275fm, as shown in the paper “Anomalous Mass of the Neutron”, published in the Andrea Rossi blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516

As the MUSE experiment will measure the proton’s radius through a scattering proton-muon (and the muon is 200 times heavier than the electron used in previous experiments), the proton’s radius measured in the experiment will be shorter than 0,7fm (between 0,3fm and 0,6fm).

In the paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron, by considering the proton’s radius R= 0,275fm it is calculated the electric quadrupole moment for the deuteron, which value is agree to the value obtained through experiments: Q = +2.7x10ˆ-31m².

When the physicists have discovered that the deuteron has non-zero elec. quad. moment Q , they would ought have to conclude at that time that the model of neutron d,u,d formed by quarks cannot be correct.  Indeed, as the neutron has no charge, while the proton has a spherical distribution of charge (it has Q=0 measured by experiments), therefore according to the Standard Model the deuteron must have zero elec. quad. mom. Q=0.  It is impossible to explain, according to the Standard Model, why the deuteron has non-null elec. quad. moment.
Along more than 60 years several theorists tried to justify the non-null elec. quad. moment for the deuteron, and 33 papers were published in several peer-journals.  However, as is impossible to explain the puzzle by considering the Standard Model, all the attempts are unacceptable, and the attempts continue nowadays.


* * *


2- SECOND EXPERIMENT : measurement of Q for 4Be7

The experiments will be performed in the next upcoming years at the Williams Laboratory – Smith College:
http://sophia.smith.edu/blog/williamslab/research/beryllium-spectroscopy/

It is expected a large negative Q for 4Be7, between -6,0fm² and -7,0fm² .
The experimental confirmation for a value between -6,0fm² and -7,0fm²  is very important, because the confirmation will support the current theory for the nuclear synthesis in the sun, and also because it can help distinguish between different nuclear models for the 4Be7, and so there are many nuclear theorists interested in the experimental confirmation.

In the paper by John Bahcall “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 -6fm² and -7fm² . In the paper is said:
"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)
http://cds.cern.ch/record/344733/files/9802003.pdf

Dr. Attila Csoto has sent me an email in 6 Aug 2013 where he says:
"Time will come though, when someone will do the measurement. As it happened, for example, with the charge radius. We are pretty sure,  that Q(Be7) has a large negative value."

And in 7 Aug he has sent other email where he says:
"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."


So,  some questions arise:

a) Q for 4Be7 is not quoted in any nuclear table.

b) There are many nuclear theorists interested in the measurement of Q for 4Be7.  Then why it was never measured?

c) 3Li7 and 4Be7 are mirror nuclei, and the experiments have measured Q= -4,0fm² for 3Li7, while Q for 4Be7 was never measured, in spite of the theoretical predictions give 6,0fm² for 4Be7.  Why it was never measured? There is not any reasonable reason why it was not measured yet, since 4Be7 has half-life of 53 days, and its size is the same of its mirror 3Li7.

d) The only reasonable conclusion is the following:
The value of Q for 4Be7 is not quoted in any nuclear table because in spite of it was measured in many laboratories by different experimentalists, however they did not publish the result in any nuclear table, because they have measured a value for Q very near to zero, and a value of Q for 4Be7 quite small and consistent with zero cannot be expected theoretically by considering any nuclear model based on the Standard Nuclear Physics.
If a value quite small for 4Be7 is measured by experiments, this result brings the Standard Nuclear Physics down.

 e) So, we have to conclude that the experiments have measured values of Q for 4Be7 near to zero (lowest than Q= -0,008fm² for the 3Li6), but as theoretically it is expected a large value -6,0fm², the experimentalists use to suppose that something wrong have occurred during the procedure of the measurement, and so they give up of reporting the result to an editor of a nuclear table.

In the link of the Williams Lab quoted above, the second answer for the question “Why do we want to do this?” is the following:
2) providing a test of quantum electrodynamics

So, if the measurement of Q for 4Be7 gets a value very near to zero, this result will provide a definitive test for QED and the Standard Nuclear Physics.

The explanation for the Q near to zero for 4Be7 requires a new nuclear model, as shown in the paper “Stability of Light Nuclei”, published in Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802


* * *
 

Along the years, several experiments have brought down the Standard Model.  However the community of physicist have neglected and rejected them, and by this way they have saved the Standard Model.
But as the physicists use to neglect and reject experiments, so that to save the Standard Model, then why we can expect that they will accept the MUSE experiment and the measurement of Q for 4Be7, in the case the results of these two experiments give results impossible according to the Standard Model?

The answer is because up to  now the community of physicists have believed that it would be possible to find a theoretical solution for the puzzles.  But after 2016 they will realize that there is no way to explain either a proton’s radius shorter than 7fm and nor Q near to zero for 4Be7, and that there is need to change some foundations of the Standard Model.


* * *


 3 – Other experiments have already brought down the Standard Model

3.1- FIRST EXPERIMENT: published in 2012 by Nature

According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, any even-even nucleus with equal number of protons and neutrons, Z=N, must have a spherical shape, because through the laws that rule the Standard Model there is not any cause responsible for an asymmetry of the nucleus, so that to give it an ellipsoidal shape.

Therefore, by considering the Standard Model, it is impossible for the even-even nuclei with Z=N to have an ellipsoidal shape.
But in 2012 the journal Nature has published the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”, describing experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

As the ellipsoidal shape of those nuclei requires a physical cause in the structure of the nuclei able to supply them an asymmetry responsible for that ellipsoidal shape, of course there is need to discover a new nuclear model where the asymmetry appears as consequence of the structure of nuclei.  For instance, in the new nuclear model  proposed in Quantum Ring Theory the atomic nuclei have a structure formed by a central 2He4 which captures deuterons, distributed in hexagonal floors around the central 2He4. So, the deuterons have a distribution along the z-axis, and such asymmetry allows to the nucleus to have nuclear properties impossible to exist in any nuclear model  proposed according to the laws of the Standard Nuclear Physics.  
So, after the publication of the paper in the journal Nature in 2012, the nuclear theorists would have to realize that there is need a New Nuclear Physics, from which a new nuclear model with asymmetric structure could be developed.  



3.2- SECOND EXPERIMENT: pear shape of Ra224

According to the Standard Model the even-even must have an ellipsoidal shape, because there is not any physical cause responsible for an asymmetry able to supply a pear shape to those nuclei.
But in 2013 physicists of the University of Liverpool have discovered that 88Ra224 has pear shape:
Scientists demonstrate pear shaped atomic nuclei
http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

Prof. Butler of the University of Liverpool has proposed that there is a z-axis in the nuclei.

However, the existence of the z-axis requires an asymmetry in the structure of the nuclei, and therefore the proposal of the existence of the z-axis proposed by Prof. Butler makes no sense by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics.
That’s why the pear shape of the Ra224 is suggesting to many physicists to look for alternatives for the Standard Model:
Pear-Shaped Nucleus Boosts Search for Alternatives to "Standard Model" Physics
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pear-shaped-nucleus-boost-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.

The existence of the z-axis was predicted in the book Quantum Ring Theory, where it is written in the page 133 about the distribution of protons and neutrons around the z-axis:
•    “The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property
up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics


Dr. Gavin Smith is right on saying that the pear shape of the Ra224 opens the “possibility of placing constraints on the standard model”, because the Standard Model cannot supply to any nuclear model the possibility of having an asymmetrical structure when the number of protons and neutrons are both pair.



3.3- THIRD EXPERIMENT: neutron synthesis from proton+electron

Three experiments have proven that the neutron is formed by proton+electron.  They are:
1- C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993
2- E. Conte, M. Pieralice, An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron, Infinite Energy, V. 4, n. 23-1999, p 67
3- Confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons , http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229

So, why the community of physicists do not accept the three experiments? After all, if there is any doubt about the results, they can replicate them in the laboratories of the universities.

In 2002 I sent a letter by air mail to Dr. Stephen Hawking, calling his attention on the Don Borghi experiment. His secretary sent me a reply telling a lie, saying that Dr. Hawking was very weak, and unable to reply  But two months later he was doing a lecture in an university.

Also in 2002 I have exchanged some emails with Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Gerard t’Hooft on the Taleyarkhan’s experiments, and during the discussion I told him about the Don Borghi experiment.  Dr. t’Hooft has replied that Don Borghi experiment is phony.  That was an unacceptable reply, because if somebody has any doubt about the results of an experiment published in the American Institute of Physics, of course the correct procedure is to replicate the experiment.

I also sent an email to the Nobel Dr. Anthonny Leggett, and he sent a reply saying that it was not his field of expertise.

After 1993 Dr. Santilli tried to replicate the Don Borghi experiment in several universities of Europe, and he was banned from all them. And so we realize that at that time the physicists in the universities were not interested in verifying the truth.

Of course the community of physicists were not interested to verify the truth at that time because they were very sure that the Standard Model is correct, and it would be a waste of time to replicate the Don Borghi’s experiment.  That’s why Dr. t’Hooft said that the experiment is phony, and Dr. Hawking decided do not pay attention to the experiment.

But after 2007 several new experiments are showing that the Standard Model cannot be correct, and so a New Physics is needed.  And the question is:
what sort of New Physics they must look for?
Well, the first response for this question is:
they need to begin through the points where the Standard Model fails, and of course one of the most serious flaws is the model of neutron, as the Don Borghi experiment is showing



3.4- FOURTH EXPERIMENT: Rossi-Effect

Today cold fusion is a reality, confirmed by 3 universities of Europe:
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
And Andrea Rossi is already selling his eCat reactor worldwide.

According to the Standard Model cold fusion occurence is impossible, and that’s why many theories are being proposed.  But no one of them is able to explain the fundamental question:
•    How can the Coulomb barrier be crossed by a  low energy particle?

And the reason is obvious, as explained by Dr. Randel Mills:
Appreciate your interest, but you are wasting your time on cold fusion.  It is not possible.  Look around the universe.  H chemistry is present under all imaginal conditions.  There is no cold fusion.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.br/2014/09/dr-randell-mills-about-cold-fusion.html

But cold fusion is a reality, as show us the Rossi-Effect. And then a fundamental question arises:
Why cold fusion does not occur spontaneously in some of the all imaginal conditions in the universe, but it occurs in some special conditions within the cold fusion reactors, as the eCat used by Andrea Rossi?

The answer for such question must be looked for in the incomplete concept of field existing in Quantum Electrodynamics, according to which the Coulomb electric field of particles and atomic nuclei is spherical.
In Quantum Ring Theory is proposed that the Coulomb field is not spherical, but it actually has the shape shown in the Figure 1 ahead:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

Note that there are two points along the z-axis where a low energy particle can cross the Coulomb barrier. However, in the all imaginal conditions of the universe the nuclei have a random rotation, in order that in average the Coulomb barrier takes the spherical shape (as it is considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics). This is shown in the Figure 2, and so we realize why cold fusion is impossible according to the Standard Model (because in the normal conditions the Coulomb barrier takes the spherical shape, and the nuclear theorists have supposed wrongly that the Coulomb barrier is always spherical).

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png


However, in special conditions, as occurs into the eCat reactor used by Andrea Rossi, the nuclei are aligned toward an external magnetic field, and their Coulomb field stops to rotate randomly, taking the shape shown in the Figure 1.  And then a low energy particle can cross the Coulomb barrier, through one of the two points along the z-axis.
This cold fusion mechanism is explained in the paper “Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered”:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_mystery_finally_deciphered


* * *


Other 3 experiments suggesting that
 the field concept adopted in QED is incomplete:


After 2012 three new experiences are pointing to the evidence that the field concept of Quantum Electrodynamics is incomplete. 
They are:

1- The ellipsoidal shape of even-even nuclei with Z=N

Because there is no way to explain their ellipsoidal shape and their zero elec. quad. mom. unless by considering that those nuclei rotate in the ground state. However, an even-even nucleus with Z=N with rotation at the ground state cannot have null magnetic moment, because of the rotation of the charge of the protons, but we know from experiments that those nuclei have zero magnetic moment.  Therefore, something is wrong in the concept of field considered in Quantum Electrodynamics.

2- Pear shape of the Ra224
According to the current nuclear models based on the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics an even-even nucleus as 88Ra224 cannot have a pear shape, unless we consider the rotation of the nucleus in the ground state.  However due to the rotation the nucleus cannot have null magnetic moment, unless we consider that it is incomplete the concept of field adopted in Quantum Electrodynamics.

3- Near to zero elec. quad. mom.  for 4Be7
According to the current nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Physics is impossible for the isotope 4Be7 to have Q near to zero. The only way to explain Q near to zero is by considering the contribution of the shaking of the nucleus due to its rotation, as proposed in the page 48 of the paper “Stability of Light Nuclei”, published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802


Final words:
As we realize, the two new experiments to be performed in the next years can decide the future of the Standard Model.  If a proton’s radius is measured shorter than 0,7fm,  or the measurement of Q for 4Be7 gets a value very near to zero, the collapse of the Standard Model is unavoidable.

Regards
Wladimir Guglinski


 
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


"Two experiments will bring the Standard Model down" | 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

Re: Two experiments will bring the Standard Model down (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Sunday, September 06, 2015 @ 00:13:00 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Q for 4Be7 was never calculated 'officially' because it would blow the lid off the whole idea that the Sun is a nuclear reactor at its core.   It isn't, it never was, and it never will be!  It is simply an electrical component similar to both a resistor and a transistor and is RECEIVING electrical energy from another dimension - possibly from the Aether, itself.   Stars that go supernova isn't due to them running out of fuel; on the contrary, they burn out the same way that a resistor burns out when it goes over its specification and RECEIVES too much energy.   As above, so below.

Dr. Richard Horton has said that over half of all the scientific literature is fraudulent!    Yes, he really did say that, and no, he wasn't wrong. The reason why there is fraudulent research isn't only so certain people can get government grants -- in reality, it is allowed to happen simply to divert great minds away from the truth.  It's a massive smoke screen that very few people can escape from.   The ones that do escape it, are the ones who make the next big discoveries or create the next big innovation, while everyone else is left out in the cold.    This is all by design!







The LHC finds evidence of particle activity beyond the Standard Model (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, October 10, 2015 @ 00:56:52 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
W. Guglinski writes: Dear Dr. Hassan Jawahery
University of Maryland

Along the decades several experiments have shown that the Standard Model is not fundamental. 
For instance, the deuteron is formed by proton+neutron.  The proton has zero electric quadrupole moment, because it has spherical distribution of charge.  The neutron also has zero electric quadrupole moment, because it has no charge. Therefore from the Standard Model the deuteron must have zero elec. quad. moment.  But the experiments have shown that the deuteron has non-zero elec. quad. moment .  And it is impossible to explain why the deuteron has non-zero elec. quad. mom via theoretical way by considering any theory based on the Standard Model, and so the experiments which detected the non-zero value requires a theory beyond the Standard Model.

 Now in August 2015 the LHC has detected that the leptons defy the Standard Model , as mentioned by you:
"The Standard Model says the world interacts with all leptons in the same way. There is a democracy there. But there is no guarantee that this will hold true if we discover new particles or new forces," one of the lead researchers, Hassan Jawahery, from the University of Maryland in the US, said in a press release. "Lepton universality is truly enshrined in the Standard Model. If this universality is broken, we can say that we've found evidence for non-standard physics."

The LHC finds evidence of particle activity beyond the Standard Model:
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-lhc-finds-evidence-of-particle-activity-beyond-the-standard-model


In the paper A NEW MODEL OF THE NEUTRON (page 83 of the book Quantum Ring Theory) is proposed that there is no violation of parity in the beta-decay.  In the book is proposed an unknown phenomenon named the “spin-fusion” mechanism, according to which  the leptons can interact with other particles by losing their spin.  For instance:
1- The neutron is formed by proton+electron, and within the structure of the neutron the electron loses its spin ½, because (as proposed by Schrodinger, the spin is a property of the zitterbewegung) and so the electron loses its zitterbewegung when it it interacts with the proton into the structure of the neutron, and that’s why the neutron has spin ½.  So, there is hidden lepton (the electron) into the structure of the neutron.

2- There are leptons also hidden into the structure of other particles, as the mesons.  For instance, the structure of the positive pion pi(+) is not u,d’, as considered in the Standard Model. The structure of the pion pi(+) actually is:

pi(+) = ( d’, d<->e’ ) , where d’ is the antiquard down, d is the quark down, and e’ is a positron hidden in the structure of the  positive pion. The symbol <-> represents the spin-fusion between the positron and the quark down.  Because of the spin-fusion mechanism, the positron loses its spin, and that’s why the meson  pi(+) has spin zero.

In the page 90 of the book is said:
As we realize, because the physicists did not discover that the addition of spins is violated, they transferred the problem for the parity.  Instead of ‘the addition of spins is violated in the beta-decay’, they say: ‘the parity is not keep in the beta –decay’.”

Obviously the violation of the spin is only apparent, because actually there is no violation of the spin, because when the electron fuses with the proton and they form the neutron, there is emission of a  neutrino, and so there is conservation of the total angular momentum.

Other interesting violation occurs with the mesons Rho.  In the book THE MISSED U-TURN, published in Amazon.com, it is written:

=================================
However, in beta decay, the addition of spins cannot be applied, although there is conservation of the total angular momentun because, in the reactions, there is the creation of neutrinos and antineutrinos. Such an anomaly in the addition of spins in beta decay made the situation bad, and the theoreticians could not apply LOGIC for the discovering of the mechanism of high energy reactions, as the chemists had in Chemistry. That is why the theoreticians tried to solve the problems through mathematics, through the Lie symmetries such as SU(2), SU(3), etc. The result was unsatisfactory, as is easily understood.  There are particles that do not fit into the theory, and that is why Murray Gell-Mann felt the need to propose ad hoc bandages, like Strangeness.
As the theoreticians failed to discover the true cause of the beta decay anomaly,   they simply claimed that parity is not maintained in beta decay. Parity is the property of a phenomenon to present identical real image face to its image reflected in a mirror. To understand it, suppose that you are in front of a mirror with the left arm raised pointing vertically and, in your right hand, you hold a pin wheel that turns in the clockwise direction. In the mirror, your left arm will be pointing vertically, whereas the pin wheel is turning in a counter-clockwise direction; that is, there is no parity between you and the image in the mirror. This is what happens in beta decay.

By adopting the “spin-fusion” hypothesis proposed in QRT, the anomaly of the beta decay is explained, as shown in the paper New Model of Neutron and, in this way, high energy reactions can be explained through LOGIC, in the same way as occurred in Chemistry for the establishment of the chemical reactions.

Spin-fusion occurs in several high energy reactions, and it can explain some strange behavior of particles.  Let us see an example.  Consider, for instance, the mesons pi and the mesons Rho (they have the same structure, according to the Standard Model, but Rho are excited mesons):

•    The meson pi+ has structure ud’ , its rest mass is 140MeV , and its time decay is 2,6×10-8s
•    The meson Rho+ has structure ud’, its rest mass is 770MeV , and its time decay is 0,4×10-23s
•    The meson pi.0 has structure (uu’+dd’)/21/2 , its rest mass is 135MeV, and its time decay is 0,8×10-16s
•    The meson Rho0 has structure (uu’+dd’)/ 21/2  , its rest mass is 770MeV, and its time decay is 0,4×10-23s.

Note the following:
1- The masses of pions pi.0 and pi+ have a difference of 5MeV.
But Rho0 and Rho+ have the same mass 770MeV
Why ????
2- The pions pi.0 and pi+ have different time decays: 2,6×10-8s and 0,8×10^-16s.
But the mesons Rho have the same time decay: 0,4×10-23s s

Why ????

There is no way to explain it from the current Standard Model of Modern Physics, because:
A) If we use an argument so that to explain the difference of mass 5MeV between pi.0 and pi+, however the same argument would have to be applied to the masses of Rho0 and Rho+, and they would have to exhibit a difference of mass too. But Rho0 and Rho+ have the same mass !!!
B) If we use an argument so that to explain the difference of time decay betwee n pi.0 and pi+, however the same argument would have to be applied to the time decay of Rho0 and Rho+ , and they would have to exhibit a difference of time decay. But Rho0 and Rho+  have the same time decay !!!

Explanation by considering spin-fusion
Such difference between the behavior of mesons pi and Rho can be explained by considering the spin-fusion.
Indeed, the structure of meson pi+ can actually be pi.0-e’ , i.e. a meson p.0 tied with spin-fusion to one positron e’.  Look:
a) Such structure explains the difference of mass 5MeV between pi.0 and pi+:
the mass of positron is 0,5MeV, but its presence causes a reduction in the binding energy between quarks, and so there is a growth of the pion mass.
b) It also explains the difference of times decay:
•    the pi.0 with 0,8×10-16s , with a short time because its structure is formed by quarks only
•    the pi;+ with 2,6×10-8s , with a long time because its structure has a positron (causing a reduction in the binding energy).

Due to the spin-fusion between the positron and a quark of the meson pi.0, the meson pi+ with structure pi.0-e’ has a spin S=0, because the positron loses its spin 1/2.
The meson Rho+ has not a lepton in its structure, that’s why Rho0 and Rho+ have the same mass and the same time decay.  Note that, as there is not a lepton in their structure, the time decay is very short: 0,4×10-23s.
=================================


THE MISSED U-TURN in Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Missed-U-Turn-Heisenberg-versus-Schr%C3%B6dinger-ebook/dp/B00UBGN93I/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444401320&sr=1-2&keywords=guglinski


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.