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

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

  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science


    ECW E-Cat World


    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times



    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics
    Posted on Friday, June 08, 2018 @ 16:05:30 GMT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: ABSTRACT The atom model of Quantum Mechanics (QM) was conceived from an unsolved paradox. Indeed, Schrödinger’s equation has been deducted by considering a free electron, but it is applied for the atom, where the electron is inside a potential. In order to eliminate the nonsense, quantum theorists proposed a ridiculous postulate: they claim it makes sense to use the equation because it gives results in agreement to experimental data. The unsolved paradox evidences that Schrödinger’s equation cannot be applied to the physical conditions considered in the QM atom model, and that his equation actually requires some special conditions not considered in the theory (for instance, the electron helical trajectory, rejected by Heisenberg). 

    The banishment of the aether has introduced several paradoxes in the development of Theoretical Physics. And because the theorists have neglected other paradox (from the mathematical probability the spectacular successes of Bohr’s hydrogen atom cannot be accidental), these two unsolved paradoxes introduced dramatic consequences in the development of Nuclear Physics.

    Key words:
    Electric field structure, Modified Coulomb’s law, Modified Bohr’s hydrogen model.



    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

    "On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics" | 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

    On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 @ 10:47:47 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by WGUGLINSKI to the main page:

    Several new experimental findings have shown that atomic nuclei cannot have similar structure of that adopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics (SNP), because there are insurmountable obstacles to be transposed. Nuclear theorists have tried to explain some of the misfires with bizarre theories, but there is a failure impossible to be explained by any theoretical attempt, and such failure impossible to be solved represents the definitive proof that SNP works through wrong foundations.
    The failure comes from the excited isotopes carbon-12, oxygen-16, argon-36, calcium-40, and calcium-42. All them, with spin 2, have null magnetic moments, but this is impossible, because it’s impossible any combination of spins from which those excited isotopes, with spin 2, may have null magnetic moment, if we try to explain it with any of the current nuclear models of the SNP.
    And the unavoidable conclusion is that it’s impossible to eliminate the inconsistences of the SNP by keeping its current fundamental premises.

    Key words: New nuclear model, Ellipsoidal even-even nuclei, Electron & positron substructures, Nuclear puzzles.

    An atomic nucleus with Z and N pairs, excited with spin +2, cannot have null nuclear magnetic moment, because it is impossible any combination of spins capable to generate a null magnetic moment when the atomic nucleus has non-null spin. But there are several isotopes with Z and N pairs (some of them with Z=N), excited with spin +2, whose magnetic moments are not quoted in nuclear tables.
    They are as, 6C12, 8O16, 12Mg24, 14Si32, 18Ar36, 20Ca40, 20Ca42, 24Cr48, 26Fe52, 28Ni56.

    Null magnetic moments for those excited isotopes implies that the current Nuclear Theory is definitively wrong. So, how do the nuclear physicists deal with such puzzle? There are two hypotheses to be considered.

    A-Their magnetic moments were never measured. This is the argument used by nuclear theorists, in special the editors of the most reputable journals of physics. The editors claim that those excited isotopes have non null magnetic moment, but as the experimentalists have never measured them, this is the reason why their magnetic moments are not quoted in nuclear tables. This is the way the Editors-in-chief of the most reputable journals of physics avoid the definitive breakdown of the Nuclear Physics.

    B-Their magnetic moments were measured, but as the experimentalists found values zero, they did not report their measurements for the editors of nuclear tables.

    Analysis of hypothesis A.
    The hypothesis A is used by editors of reputable journals, but it is denied by the fact that many of those excited isotopes have their electric quadrupole moments ‎quoted in nuclear tables. They are (in barns), (6C12 ,Q= +0.06) , (12Mg24 ,Q= -0.29), (14Si32 ,Q= -0.16), (18Ar36 ,Q= +0.11), (20Ca42 ,Q= -0.19).

    Analysis of hypothesis B.
    When the experimentalists have measured the electric quadrupole moments for the excited 6C12,12Mg24,14Si32,18Ar36, and 20Ca42, of course they have also measured their magnetic moment, because all experimentalists aim to provide data for constructing a complete nuclear table, with all (measurable) nuclear properties of all isotopes of the whole elements of the Periodic Table.

    Conclusion of the hypothesis B.
    Therefore, it is discarded the hypothesis that the experimentalists did not measure the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12,12Mg24,14Si32,18Ar36, and 20Ca42, because it makes no sense to suppose that they have measured the electric quadrupole moments, but the magnetic moments they did not do (it makes no sense because to measure magnetic moment is easier than to measure electric quadrupole moment).

    1. The experimentalists have measured the magnetic moments of those excited isotopes.

    2. They did not report their results, for the editors of nuclear tables, because the magnetic moment measured, for all those nuclei, was ZERO.

    3. It seems the editors of nuclear tables have adopted the strategy of do not quote zero the magnetic moments when the experiments do not detect any value different of zero. By this way they avoid to quote “zero” the magnetic moments of the several nuclei with Z and N pairs, excited with spin +2, because to quote them zero would imply in the breakdown of the Nuclear Theory.

    All the current nuclear models (in which protons and neutrons are bound via strong nuclear force) are wrong, because there is not any of them capable to explain why the excited 6C12,12Mg24,14Si32,18Ar36, and 20Ca42, have null magnetic moment.


    Discovery of eq. ruling interaction between elec. fields composed by elem partic (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 @ 21:35:23 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by WGUGLINSKI to the main page:

    To: Dr. Frank Wilczek
    MIT- Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Dear Dr. Wilczek

    In the end of 2017 I sent you an email, with the manuscript of my paper "On how Bohr hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics", and i invited you to face the challange of discovering the equations that rule the interactions between electric fields composed by elementary particles, as proposed in the Fig. 2 of my paper.

    The paper was published in June 2018:

    You did not take seriously my invitation.
    Now I have the pleasure to tell you that by myself I discovered the equations, and they are in a paper to be published in upcoming August.
    I am sending you the manuscript of the paper attached.

    From the eq. (17) up to eq. (26) it is shown by calculation that there is no need to consider the quantum tunneling for the explanation on why alpha particle is emitted with 4,2MeV by the U238 nucleus, when it crosses a Coulomb barrier of 8,8MeV.
    The paper shows that Gamow theory is unnaceptable.

    From eq. (27) up to eq. (49) it is shown by calculation that there is no need to consider the quantum tunneling in the stellar nucleosynthesis,  proposed in Gamow's theory.

    The Abstract and Keywords of the paper are ahead.

    W. Guglinski

    Oxygen isotopes have one complete hexagonal floor, composing one magnet whose rotation in oxygen-15 induces the induction-factor K(O15)= 1,3715, calculated in [1].  Calcium isotopes have three complete hexagonal floors, but two of them cancel each other their induction power, resulting that calcium has one magnet either. As both them are composed by one magnet, one has to expect that K(Ca39) converted to K(O15) needs to give a value near to 1,3715. Such expectation was confirmed in [1]. On another hand, silicon isotopes have two hexagonal floors, but the second floor rotates by 1800, and the two floors compose two magnets. Thereby, one has to expect to be required that K(exSi28), which is induced by  two magnets, must be twice of K(O15) and K(Ca39), both tem induced by only one magnet. This prediction is confirmed in the present paper. But iron isotopes have four hexagonal floors, and two of them cancel each other their induction power, and so exFe53 also composes two magnets. Thereby one has to expect that induction-factor for exSi28 and exFe53 must be the same.  In resume, one has to expect that K(exSi28)= K(exFe53)= 2.K(O15)= 2K.(Ca39). This conclusion is also confirmed in the present paper. And herein continues being successfully tested the equation
    KTH(X) =1,37176F/6 x PwR(X).R(X) / [ PwR(O15).R(O15) ]
    The success of the test implies that oxygen & calcium isotopes, as silicon & iron isotopes, are connected through physical laws, linked to the existence of hexagonal floors in the real atomic nuclei existing in the nature. The paper also shows that quantum tunneling is not required nor for the occurrence of stellar nucleosynthesis, and neither to explain how U238 emits alpha particles with 4,2MeV, which cross a Coulomb barrier with 8,8MeV, a puzzle that Gamow solved  with an unacceptable  theory.

    Keywords: Nuclear magnetic moments, Theoretical and empirical induction-factors, New equations replacing Gamow’s quantum tunneling in U238 alpha decay, New equations replacing quantum tunneling in stellar nucleosynthesis, Cold fusion, Rossi’s Ecat.


    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.