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 particles.

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 LHC.
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 Model.

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 them.
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 femtometers.
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,

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php ============================

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 ?

Response:
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 nucleus.

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.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

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. 29.

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 Fundamentals.

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 Nuclei).
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

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 experiments.

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:
===================================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
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:
=======================================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
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:
=======================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk; csoto@matrix.elte.hu
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 measurement.
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.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
======================================================

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 measured yet.

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 theory.

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 the aether.

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 Journal:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

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.