In 1935 Yukawa proposed a modelo of nêutron formed by próton+meson.
So, he predicted the existence of a particle named meson, with mass
100MeV. In 1937 a meson with mass 140MeV was detected by an experiment,
and in 1949 Yukawa received the Nobel Prize.
Today we know that Yukawa’ theory is wrong, because the nêutron is
not formed by próton+meson. Besides, later several mesons with
different masses were detected. The masses are 135MeV, 140MeV, 494MeV,
498MeV, 549MeV, 958MeV.
So, Yukawa’s theory was wrong, and he did not predict the existence
of the meson. The prediction had been actually a coincidence, and the
experiment in 1937 had detected a meson because there are several mesons
existing in the Nature.
After this undue Nobel Prize, the best would be if the physicists
became themselves more cautious regarding the award of the Nobel Prize.
Nevertheless, now in October 2013 the same happened. Peter Higgs was
awarded the Nobel Prize thanks to his prediction of the Higgs bóson.
As happened in the case of the meson, other bósons can exist in
Nature, and so the boson detected in the LHC in 2012 can be another
coincidence, and the Higgs boson has nothing to do with the mass of the
It is opportune to remember that Higgs theory was working together
with the Suppersymetry and the string theory. The symmetric particles
predicted in Susy were not detected in the LHC, and the experiments
already have discarded the possibility of their existence. So, Susy is
definitively wrong, and therefore the best would be if the theorists
would be more cautious in giving the Nobel Prize to Peter Higgs.
However, it seems that the Nobel Prize given to Peter Higgs is
actually a strategy of the scientific community so that to deviate the
attention of the world to the failure of the experiments made in the
Actually it seems that such attempt belongs to a conspiracy with the aim
of trying to stop the advancement of the Theoretical Physics, since to
recognize that Higgs theory is wrong requires to change some principles
of the current Modern Physics and to look for a New Physics with
fundamental principles different of those considered in the Standard
By considering the development of Theoretical Physics along the 20th
Century, we find some very strange mysteries suggesting that the
scientific community is not interested to discover what is the true
working of the Nature.
However, the conspiracy against the true scientific discovery is not
led by scientists. It comes from some clubs formed by many rich
powerful men led by the families Rothschild and Rockefeller, and under
the order of the clubs are all the Presidents of the most important
countries as USA, Russia, England, France, Italy, etc, and the FMI, the
G8, the OTAN, all the most important universities of the world and all
governmental institutions of research, and they dictate what can be or
not divulged in mainstream newspapers and television. They are members
of clubs known as the Chatham House, the institute Tavistock, the Royal
Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), and the Bilderberg Club.
The aim of those clubs is to stop the advancement of world economy. Therefore, any new cheap source of energy is not wellcome.
1 – Don Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments
In 1993 the American Institute of Physics published the Borghi
experiment. In 1999 the Infinite Energy magazine published the
Conte-Pieralice experiment. Both them describe experiments which prove
that the nêutron is formed by próton+electron.
Although Borghi experiment had been published in an important
peer-review journal, the experiment was never repeated in any university
or governmental institute of the world. And in spite of the two
experiment overthrow the current foundations of Physics, the scientific
community ignore them purposely, and the media do not talk about them.
In 2002 I had suited in Law two Brazilian universities, so that to
oblige them to repeat the Borghi experiment. The Brazillian
Constitution prescribes that the universities of the country have to
support and stimulate the advancement of the science. Therefore my
lawsuit had a strong judicial embasement. However the two judges
decided to betray the Brazillian Constitution, and they did not order to
the two universities to repeat the Borghi experiment.
Along some years Santilli tried to repeat the Borghi experiment in
several important universities of the Europe. He was banned from all of
Recently Santilli repeated the Borghi experiment in the laboratory of
his Institute for Basic Research, and confirmed the results obtained by
Don Borghi published in 1993.
So, the mystery: why does the scientific community continues
ignoring purposely the two experiments? After all, if the scientific
community accepts that the nêutron is formed by próton+electron, this
imply in the need of replacing all the foundations of Physics, and then
we would not need even the experiments made in the LHC so that to point
out that the current foundations of the Standard Physics are wrong.
The two experiments are neglected and refused by the scientific
community not because they require a New Physics, but because they open a
New Era for the scientific discovery. In the Conte-Pieralice
experiment the cathode was melted by an anomalous heat (the energy of
the radioactive source which emits the electrons against the cathode is
not enough to cause its melting). Thereby, the two experiments supply a
new theoretical background for the development of a New Theory so that
to support a new technology capable to get cheap energy.
And cheap energy is not of the interest of the clubs that are
controlling the world economy. That’s why the two experiments are
rejected by the scientific community.
2 – How Magnetic moments are calculated in Nuclear Physics
The text ahead is concerning the research on the exotic behavior of
the light nuclei, developed in the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry of the
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz:
By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding
of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together,
taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo
neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts
of classical nuclear physics.
The measurements revealed that the average distance between the halo
neutrons and the dense core of the nucleus is 7 femtometers. Thus, the
halo neutron is about three times as far from the dense core as is the
outermost proton, since the core itself has a radius of only 2.5
femtometers. “This is an impressive direct demonstration of the halo
character of this isotope. It is interesting that the halo neutron is
thus much farther from the other nucleons than would be permissible
according to the effective range of strong nuclear forces in the
classical model,” explains Nörtershäuser. The strong interaction that
holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3
The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance
from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles
of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized
in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding
energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing
distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can
expand into classically forbidden distances,
Ahead we discuss this point: is it viable to get a satisfactory
understanding on the nuclear exotic properties of the light nuclei from
the way that Dr Wilfried Nörtershäuser is trying ?
MAGNETIC MOMENTS IN THE ATOM
In the atom, the negative charged electrons gyrate about the nucleus, formed by positive charged prótons and nêutrons.
So, in the atom the negative charged electrons gyrate in well-defined orbits s, p, d, f, g , because they are submitted to a Coulomb attraction by the central positive charged nucleus.
In another words, in the atom the electrons gyrate in well-defined orbits because there is a central potential which obliges the electrons to take those defined orbits.
Therefore the motion of the electrons in the orbits of the atom
produces magnetic moments with values very well-defined, because the
orbits are very well-defined.
MAGNETIC MOMENTS IN THE NUCLEUS
In the case of the nucleus, there is not a central potential. The
nêutrons do not have charge. While the prótons have positive charge,
and so they have to move within an enviroment with positive charge.
There is no way to have well-defined orbits for the prótons and nêutrons within the nucleus.
Suppose that we consider a nuclear model with a central cluster, and
some prótons and nêutrons gyrating about the cluster. As both the
cluster and the prótons have positive charge, the prótons and nêutrons
will not move about the cluster along well-defined orbits, as happens in
the case of the atom, where the electrons move in well-defined orbits.
So, according to the prevailing nuclear models of Nuclear Physics,
the prótons and nêutrons have to move chaotically about a central
cluster, in the case of considering a nuclear model with a central cluster.
However, in Nuclear Physics the magnetic moments are calculated by
considering that prótons and nêutrons move in well-defined orbits.
How do explain such a paradox ?
It is not explained in Nuclear Physics.
The nuclear theorists simply consider that prótons and nêutrons move in well-defined orbits within the nuclei, however they do not explain what is the CAUSE which put those particles in a well-defined orbits.
So, in the case of the calculation of nuclear magnetic moments in
Nuclear Physics, the nuclear theorists use that old criterium
inaugurated by Heisenberg, when he had proposed the concept of Isospin:
to explain a physical phenomenon by ignoring the physical cause responsible for the phenomenon.
Why are the physicists keeping the esoteric method proposed by
Heisenberg ? We have now strong evidences showing that from such method
is impossible to discover the true structure of the nucleus. Then why
do the nuclear theorists insist to keep the method?
Probably because the aim of the clubs interested in stoping the world
economy growth are not interested in a new scientific method of
research capable to decipher the true structure of the nucleus. After
all, such a new method can lead to new cheap sources of energy.
Then of course it is most advantageous to keep the inefficient esoteric
Heisenberg method, so that to keep the scientific discovery in the same
level of ineficiency of the present days.
HEISENBERG’S ESOTERIC CRITERION
=============================== Heisenberg proposed the concept of Isospin in order to explain why
two nêutrons do not meet together so that to form a dineutron, since
there is not any repulsion between two nêutrons, while there is a strong
attraction between them due to the strong nuclear force. As the two
nêutrons in the dineutron would be glued by a strong FORCE of
attraction, only a strong FORCE of repulsion would be able to separate
them, so that to avoid them to form the dineutron. But the Isospin is
merely a mathematical concept. And a mathematical concept cannot create
a force of repulsion, so that to avoid the formation of the dineutron.
Therefore Heisenberg had proposed a mathematical description, however
his mathematical solution has not physical sustenance================================================
Such esoteric solution proposed by Heisenberg is often used in
current Theoretical Physics, because as some models are wrong (they do
not consider some physical mechanisms which actuate in the existing
models of the Nature) , then the solution used by the theorists is to
consider the same sort of esoteric used by Heisenberg.
And here a very intriguing paradox happens:
1- As we realize, the Standard Nuclear Physics had been developed
through an esoteric criterium, because some physical causes are missing
in the nuclear models proposed along the years.
Therefore, the current Standard Nuclear Physics is an esoteric theory.
2- Suppose you propose a new theory introducing physical mechanisms,
in order to eliminate the esoteric character introduced by Heisenberg in
the development of the Modern Theoretical Physics. If you do it, the
theorists will claim that your theory is esoteric.
So, the nuclear theorists are not interested to eliminate the
esotheric feature in Nuclear Physics. Incomprehensibly, they hope to
eliminate the deficiency of the nuclear models and try to explain the
puzzles that involve the behavior of light nuclei by keeping the
esoteric Heisenberg method, simply believing that if they ignore
physical mechanisms existing in the real models of the Nature they will
succeed in their attempt.. And this is the way from which they expect
to get a deep understanding the puzzles of light nuclei.
INFLUENCE OF NUCLEAR SPIN IN THE NUCLEAR MAGNETIC MOMENT
The Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe had estimated that the nuclear spin
contributes for about 10% in the total nuclear magnetic momento of a
For instance, consider the 3Li6, and suppose that it has the following structure:
1- A central cluster formed by 2 protons and 2 neutrons, with magnetic moment μ= 0 nuclear spin i=0.
2- A deuteron with μ = +0,852 moving about the central cluster
3- So, considering 10% of 0,852, the total magnetic moment of 3Li6 would be:
μ = +0,852 – 0,0852 = +0,7768 ,
while the experimental value is μ = +0,822
Therefore the Bethe estimation is reasonable.
PUZZLE OF EXCITED 6C12
The excited nucleus 6C12 has nuclear spin i=2, magnetic moment μ = 0 , and quadrupole moment Q(b) = +0,06 barns.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE (by considering any nuclear model which works from
the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics) to get from calculation
the null magnetic moment μ= 0 of the excited 6C12.
Take for instance the lattice model, considered by some physicists
the best model for explaining several nuclear properties of many nuclei.
In the Page 41 , Fig. 29-A (of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei,
published in Andre Rossi blog JNP) it is shown what is the magnetic
moment which we have to expect from the lattice model.
According to the lattice model, the excited 6C12 would have to have a
magnetic moment in order of μ= -7,652. Even considering the 10% due to
the influence of the nuclear spin, it is impossible to get μ = 0 , as
detected by experiments.
There is not any combination of the prótons and nêutrons in the excited
6C12 from which we can get μ = 0 and i=2 by considering any nuclear
model of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
In the paper Stability of Light nuclei published in the Rossi’s blog
it is shown how the excited 6C12 can have μ = 0 and i=2 , as explained
in the sequence of figures: Fig. 5, Fig. 26 , Fig, 27, Fig. 28, Fig.
The explanation why the excited 6C12 has μ = 0 requires a model
which works with physical laws, as proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
It is impossible to explain it by considering any of the nuclear models
developed from the isoteric method proposed by Heisenberg, which
sometimes do not work through physical laws.
Of course the new nuclear model proposed in my QRT cannot be of the
interest of those who try to stop de advancement of the science, since
its investigation can bring a complete understanding of the true
structure of the nuclei.
3- The mystery of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
I had published in Andrea Rossi’s JNP blog a series of emails
exchanged between me , Dr. Attila Csolo, and N. J. Stone (editor of
nuclear tables published by Clarendon Laboratory of Oxford Physics).
The emails are in the comments of the article Radioactivity Physics
Dr. Csolo developed along 20 years a theoretical work so that to
support the theory which tries to explain the reactions occuring in the
Sun. One the fundamental premises of his work is to consider that 4Be7
needs to have a quadrupole moment Q(b) in order of +0,07 barns.
But the nuclear tables do not quote the Q(b) of 4Be7, and along our
discussion I defended the hypothesis that it has null quadrupole moment (
because according to my nuclear model it must have Q(b) near to zero,
as shown in the Fig. 37, page 48, of my paper Stability of Light
The quadrupole moment Q(b) very near to zero for 4Be7 imply in the following:
1- The failure of the work developed by Dr. Attila Csolo along more than 20 years.
2- The failure of the theory which explains the nuclear reactions in
the Sun so that to explain the emission of neutrinos detected by
3- The failure of all the current nuclear models of the Standard
Nuclear Physics, because from any nuclear model based on the isoteric
method of Heisenberg it is IMPOSSIBLE to get by calculation the null
Q(b)=0 for the 4Be7.
Along our discussion Dr. Csolo used the argument that Q(b) for 4Be7
is not quoted in nuclear tables because it is hard to measure it. So,
according to his opinion, in spite of 4Be7 has Q(b) near to +0,07 banrs
as calculated in his theory, however it was never measured, and that’s
why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
Then after a long discussion I decided to send an email to Dr. N. J. Stone. In his second email he wrote the following:
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:37:54 +0000
Hi, Quadrupole moments are particularly hard to measure in light
nuclei since they are small and so produce small energy splittings which
require very high resolution. The 9Be Q was measured by atomic beam
which has the highest resolution. Laser spectroscopy would probably not
be good enough.
But Stone’s explanation, instead of to reinforce the opinion defended
by Dr. Csolo (that Q(b) for 4Be7 was never measured yet), actually it
reinforces my opinion that it had been already measured, and the
experiments had obtained Q(b) very near to zero, because if we compare
4Be7 and 4Be9 we have:
1- The radius of 4Be7 is approximatelly the same of the 4Be9
2- 4Be9 is stable, and 4Be7 has a time life of 53 days
3- Therefore, as 4Be9 had been measured by atomic beam and the
experiments had obtained Q=+0,0529, thereby if 4Be7 had Q(b) in the
order of +0,07 (as calculated by Dr. Csolo) then the experiments would
have to have detected something between +0,05 and +0,08, and the value would have to be quoted in the nuclear tables.
In his last email Dr. Stone wrote to me:
Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:48:54 +0000
Just to say that IF a measurement had been made, it would certainly have been published.
I sent him the following reply:
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:58:07 -0300
Dear Dr. Stone
Suppose that an experimentalist had measured the Q for 7Be, and the experiment had detected nothing.
Would the experimentalist report the value Q= 0 ?
4Be7 has A= 7 (odd), and therefore it cannot have Q= 0 , by considering the current nuclear models.
Then , instead of to report the value Q= 0, probably the experimentalist
would rather interpret the value zero due to some imperfection of the
And from such interpretation he decided do not report the result.
After all, as 9Be and 7Be have practically the same radius, I cant
see any reasonable explanation so that to justify why 9Be had been
measured and 7Be had not.
Dr. Attila Csolo and Dr. Stone stopped to send me any additional reply.
From the facts exposed here, it is obvious that Q(b) of 4Be7 had
already been measured, and the experiments had obtained a value near to
zero (and this is the reason why Q(b) of 4Be7 is not quoted in nuclear
tables, because the experimentalists expect to measure a value very
different from zero, and because they do succeed to measure a value
different of zero therefore they suppose that something wrong had
happened during the measurement, and they decide do not report it).
Of course it is hard for Dr. Csolo to accept that his work developed
along 20 years is wrong, if he recognize that Q(b) of 4Be7 has already
been measured, and the experiments had detected a value near to zero.
So he prefers to keep his illusion and to suppose that it had never been
But what about the scientific community?
Wilfried Nörtershäuser is the leader of a crew in the Universita
Mainz trying to solve the puzzles of the exotic behavior of light
nuclei, by keeping the esoteric Heisenberg method. It is just the way
he is trying to explain the halo nêutron of 4Be11, which has a nêutron
in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus. For instance, he is
trying this desperate solution: “Thus, it is highly likely that the
neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby
inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’.”
However, in the case of μ= 0 for the excited 6C12 and Q(b) near to
zero for the 4Be7 it is impossible to explain their values even by
considering any desperate solution supported by the nuclear models
developed according to the esoteric Heisenberg method.
Therefore the conclusion of any sensible person would have to be: There is need to abandon the Heisenberg’s esoteric method, otherwise it will be impossible to solve the puzzles of the light nuclei.
Then why the nuclear physicists do not accept this evident fact?
An interesting and intriguing question indeed…
4- The mystery of the aether
In 1905 Einstein had his Special Relativity published, where he
proposed that the space is empty. In 1919 his theory was tested during
an eclipse, and confirmed the value of light deviation predicted in his
At once Einstein became a superstar like Madonna , Brad Pitt and the
soccer player Pelé. That never happened in the history of the science:
a physicist to be a superstar, with his face emblazoned in the most
important newspapers around the world.
Einstein and other who analised his life had supposed that his fame
would be due to his charisma similar to that possessed by the
superstars. However the true was different of what everybody had
supposed. He had been transformed in a superstar because he had
eliminated definitively from the face of our planet the hypothesis of
Nikola Tesla had developed his work supported in the hypothesis of
the aether, from which is possible to extract any quantity of energy we
want. It was his aim to develop a technology so that to supply free
energy for the world. And obviously such a dream was not of the
interest of the powerful owners of the world. He never succeed to make
his dream a reality, and Einstein contributed for the end of Tesla’s
dream. The aether was definitively banned from Physics in 1919.
Paradoxically, after 1916 Einstein tried to bring back the concept of
the aether to Physics again, by proposing a kind of aether different of
that luminiferous aether conceived in the age of Maxwell, because
Einstein arrived to the conclusion that the aether is indispensable for
his General Theory of Relativity. But of course even Einstein never did
succeed to bring back the aether to Physics again, because the aether
was not of the interest of the owners of the energy in the planet,
because the aether is a promise of free energy for everybody.
The strategy is clear: from the consideration of empty space proposed
by Einstein in 1905, it is impossible to explain the excess anomalous
heat which occurs in some experiments, as for instance cold fusion,
because there is no way to explain that excess energy, and therefore
there is a violation of the energy-mass conservation. So, from the
consideration of an empty space it is theoretically impossible to occur
cold fusion and other phenomena with excess heat. By this way the
scientific community rejected along 20 years the Fleischamann-Pons
experiment, claiming that the excess heat was resulted from errors in
the calorimeters, etc. After all, the excess heat was impossible to
occur, because it violates the energy-mass conservation.
Unlike, if we consider the aether it is theoretically possible to
explain where the excess energy comes from. And the scientific
community loses its main argument against cold fusion: the energy-mass
violation, which they use together with the hypothesis of empty space.
In 2011 an experiment showed that light can be created directly from
the space. This imply that the space cannot be empty, it implies that
the space is filled by an aether, and such aether has a structure. So,
the experiment demonstrate that the aether exists, and we would have to
expect that all the important newspapers worldwide as The Guardian, Le
Monde, The New York Times, Pravda, Der Spiegel, etc., should display in
their first page, with big letters, the following spectacular news:
Einstein was wrong. The space is not empty. The aether exists, and it was detected by an experiment
But no important newspaper published a story like this. And the
reason is obvious: the aether had been banned definitively by Einstein,
and it cannot come back.
In my Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, is proposed the
structure of the aether: it is constituted by particles and
antiparticles. As consequence of the experiment published in 2011, the
physicists Marcel Urban, François Couchot, Xavier Sarazin, and
Arache Djannati-Atai , had developed a theory where they propose the
same structure of the aether: formed by particles and antiparticles.
The plagiarism was published in the 2013 in the European Physical
So, perhaps one can suppose: “Then finally the aether will come back again to Physics”.
Of course not. The paper published in the European Physical Journal
will be neglected and forgotten by the scientific community, as happened
with the Borghi experiment. It seems there is no way to bring back the
aether to Physics again, because it is dangerous for the owners of the
energy in the planet.
My friend Claudio Nassif developed along 20 years his theory named
Special Symmetric Relativity-SSR, a new version of the Einstein’s
relativity. Nassif’s theory is based on the assumption of the existence
of the aether. He already published some papers in the most important
peer review journals, as for instance the International Journal of
Modern Physics D. Recently he was invited to pronounce a lecture in
Germany, where he spoke about his theory.
Along the years Nassif had the dream to have his theory recognized by
the scientific community, and as he is the successor of Einstein, he
would have also become a superstar, having his name shinning in the most
important newspapers of the world.
But probably Nassif’s theory will never be recognized by the
scientific community, because it is based on the hipothesis of the
aether’s existence. His SSR is dangerous for the masters of the energy
in the planet.
This is the way the Physics is going ahead.