Heisenberg's scientific criterion and the structure of the electron
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 @ 18:47:08 GMT
Topic: Science

I discovered in the internet the article Unification des forces électromagnétique, de gravitation et nucléaire , by Édouard Bernal.

Bernal proposes the hypothesis according to which the elementary particles like the electron have two fields, one principal, and the other secondary.

The hypothesis of two fields is also proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, and in my book it is shown that it is possible to explain many nuclear phenomena that current Nuclear Physics is unable to explain. For instance, from the concepts of Nuclear Physics there is no way to calculate the binding energy of the lightest nuclei. But in the book Quantum Ring Theory their binding energies are calculated, and the results are agree to the experimental data.

Then perhaps you are astonished, and you asks to yourself: “but, as the hypothesis of two fields is able so solve so many theoretical problems, why it was never supposed before… why the physicists did not consider it before?”

The reason is the following: the hypothesis of a secondary field is a physical concept, and according to Heisenberg scientific criterion it is a metaphysical concept, not acceptable by the scientific method. So, the physicists did never allow themselves to suppose such idea, because they do not allow themselves to violate the Heisenberg’s criterion.

Here in ZPEnergy I already described the dispute Schrödinger vs Heisenberg, concerning the helical trajectory of elementary particles. Heinsenberg did not accept the helical trajectory because he considered it an unacceptable metaphysical concept. Unlike, Schrödinger defended the viewpoint that the helical trajectory is a physical phenomenon existing in the Nature.

Nowadays, new experiments are showing that Schrödinger is winning the dispute: the helical trajectory do exists as a physical phenomenon, and therefore the Heisenberg’s criterion has failed.

Heisenberg proposed many mathematical solutions, so that to replace the need of physical concepts, even when they are indispensable. For instance, in order to explain why two neutrons do not agglutinate (a dineutron was never observed in Nature), he proposed the mathematical concept of Isospin. But two neutrons are attracted by the strong force when they are separated by a distance of the order of 2F. And so, only a FORCE of repulsion would be capable to separate two neutrons tied by the strong force. And a mathematical concept as the Isospin cannot produce a force of repulsion. The Heisenberg’s criterion explains “what” happens by using the mathematics, it does not explain “why” it happens (by using physical concepts, capable to generate physical phenomena, as a force of repulsion).

In Quantum Ring Theory, it is shown that there is a PHYSICAL CAUSE that produces a force of repulsion between two neutrons, when they are near each other separated by a distance of the order of 2F.

Concerning the development of Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg said:
"what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning".

Therefore it's possible that some fundamental laws existing in Nature do not exist in Quantum Mechanics, and the method of questioning used by the quantum physicists don't tell us what really occurs in the Nature.

So, suppose that the secondary field of elementary particles really exists in Nature, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. Then a fundamental question arises:

Can the physicists succeed in their attempt of describing the phenomena, by using the Heisenberg’s criterion ?

This article comes from ZPEnergy.com

The URL for this story is: