Unsolved Modern Physics puzzles solved in Quantum Ring Theory
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 @ 22:41:37 EDT
Topic: Science


Ahead is exhibited a conversation between Mr. Orsobubu, Mr. Joe, and Mr. Guglinski in the Rossi-Focardi Journal of Nuclear Physics, concerning some unsolved puzzles in current Theoretical Physics:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=841&cpage=1#comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wladimir Guglinski

The puzzle of the proton radius

Helen Margolis, an optics physicist at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, remarked in a column for Science magazine last year: “If the results of [further] experiments turn out to reinforce the proton size puzzle, then it could become necessary to question the foundations of the world’s most precise and best-tested fundamental physical theory, QED itself.”



Another possible implication—yet to be investigated—is that the proton radius could differ depending on whether it is orbited by an electron or a muon. If this were the case, it would violate a fundamental precept of what is known as the Standard model, which is also derived from QED. The Standard model has been highly successful in explaining and predicting the existence of sub-atomic particles.

As Pohl and Bernauer write: “The most exciting possibility is that these measurements might be a sign of new physics that go beyond the so-called Standard model of particle physics.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/21/prot-f21.html

The shrinkage of the proton radius is explained in Quantum Ring Theory

In my book THE MISSED U-TURN (to be published yet), it is written in the item entitled The puzzle of the proton radius:

————————————————–
Concerning the puzzle of the proton radius, there is a hope to eliminate it making measurements via proton-electron scattering. Physicists are launching a new set of experiments across multiple laboratories. Another goal is to repeat the scattering experiments, but instead of shooting electrons at protons they’ll shoot muons at protons. This project, the Muon Scattering Experiment, or MUSE, is set to take place at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. The facilities there will allow researchers to simultaneously measure electron- and muon-scattering in one experiment. The plan is to start collecting data in that experiment in 2015 or 2016.

According to Quantum Ring Theory, the proton-muon scattering experiments in 2015/2016 have to measure the proton radius very shorter than 0,8fm and a little larger than 0,27fm.

The reason why the radius of the proton suffers shrinkage is easy to be understood, according to QRT. It is because the body of the proton has the shape of a ring, which is crossed by a flux n(o) of gravitons g(+). Such flux n(o) captures repulsive gravitons G(-), which form a gravity field about the proton.

The mass of the proton is caused by the interaction between this field of repulsive gravitons G(-) and the aether. When the radius of the proton diminishes, the flux n(o) is reduced, and so it is reduced the field of gravitons G(-), in order that the mass of the proton has a reduction.

The reduction of the mass of the particles (due to their binding energy with other particles) is known in Nuclear Physics as “mass defect”, and it follows Einstein’s equation E=mc². However it is not known in the Standard Nuclear Physics the mechanism that causes the mass defect. The phenomenon is explained merely as transformation of mass in energy by following the Einstein’s equation, but the theorists do not know how the phenomenon happens.

If the experiments in 2015/2016 will measure the proton radius very shorter than 0,8fm and a little larger than 0,27fm, it will be a confirmation for the mechanism of mass defect according to Quantum Ring Theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • orsobubu

    Wlad, will your next “The missed U-turn” be an informative book, or contain new developments/insights for your Quantum Ring Theory? Will you wait for the 3rd party report (and supposed Rossi’s explanations of the “effect”) be published, first? Will you enclose a summary of arguments debated with your “adversaries” here in JNP? Will it enclose a part specifically targeted to LENR technologies, taking into account that such a linkage could be a good opportunity, in terms of scientific visibility? I’m referring to the fact that, if different LENRS technologies go mainstream, there also will be a competion among various alternative theories developed by respective researchers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in March 5th, 2014 at 5:28 PM

    1)
    Wlad, will your next “The missed U-turn” be an informative book,
    ===================================

    COMMENT
    Dear Orsobubu,

    in my new book I explain for the laymen the evolution of Physics since Newton up to Rossi’s e-Cat, and at the same time I explain the fundamental principles and models proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    .

    2)
    or contain new developments/insights for your Quantum Ring Theory?
    ======================================

    COMMENT

    There are also some new discoveries.
    For instance, in 2014 I have finally discovered that the mass of particles is not due to the flux n(o) formed by grávitons g(+) in the proton and g(-) in the electron, as I believed. It is actually caused by the interaction between theaether and the field of repulsive gravitons G(+) in the electron and repulsive G(-) in the proton.

    By this way I finally understood the following:

    1) why the photon is massless
    2) why the neutrino (composed by pósitron-electron) is not massless, but having a mass near to zero.
    3) why and the neutron (composed by proton-electron) is not massless
    4) in spite of all them have gravitons G(+) and G(-) in their fields.

    It was impossible to explain it by considering that the mass is due to the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) and g(-)

    Then finally I also discovered the mechanism which causes the “mass defect” (I did not succeed to discover it earlier of understanding that the mass of particles is due to the gravitons G(+) and G(-) ).

    .

    3)
    Will you wait for the 3rd party report (and supposed Rossi’s explanations of the “effect”) be published, first?
    ======================================

    COMMENT

    No, the publication is independent of the 3rd party report.
    I am looking for a publisher.
    In 2012 the Cambridge International Science Publishing signed an Aggreement for the publication of the book.
    But they did not fulfill the Aggreement (signed by the Editor Victor Riecansky).

    However now I’m glad with the breach of Aggreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:

    a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
    b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal
    c) the suggestion on the existence of the z-axis in the nuclei, by Prof. Butler of the Liverpool University in 2013, because the existence of the z-axis was proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006.
    d) some puzzles explained by my new nuclear model, as for instance the exotic neutron halo in Be11 in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, which defies the prevailing dogma that nuclei are bound via strong force.

    .

    4)
    Will you enclose a summary of arguments debated with your “adversaries” here in JNP?
    ===============================================

    COMMENT
    No.
    But I will mention the paper Stability of Light Nuclei published here in the JoNP, where it is explained why the halo neutron can be at the distance of 7fm in the exotic Be11 (which is impossible to explain by considering the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physcis).

    .

    5)
    Will it enclose a part specifically targeted to LENR technologies, taking into account that such a linkage could be a good opportunity, in terms of scientific visibility?
    ==================================

    COMMENT
    First of all, I would like to say that I dont agree to the name LENR. Such name was proposed because the nuclear theorists hate the correct name “cold fusion”. So, LENR was proposed as a strategy, so that to try to eliminate the resistance against the researches.

    But the book do not cover LENR technologies, because there are other books published (written by authors who are researchers in the LENR field, and so they are experts in the subject).

    My book speaks about the foundations of Physics. If the current foundations of current Nuclear Physics are wrong, there is NO WAY to explain cold fusion without to discover what fundamental principles are missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    The puzzle of the proton radius (reinforced now in February 2014) is pointing out that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and the Standard Model are in serious troubles, and a New Physics is need.

    .

    6)
    I’m referring to the fact that, if different LENRS technologies go mainstream, there also will be a competion among various alternative theories developed by respective researchers.
    ============================================

    COMMENT
    Yes, I agree.
    However, it makes no sense to propose a theory for explaining LENR if the theory is not able to explain other unsolved puzzles, as for instance the strange behavior of several exotic light nuclei, the puzzle of the proton radius, what causes the existence of the z-axis in the nuclei (predicted in my QRT), why the light even-even nuclei with Z=N are non-spherical (as predicted in my QRT), and etc, etc, etc…
    The theorists today are trying to solve those puzzles which defy the current theories via the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method.

    However, the crisis in Theoretical Physics nowadays has its origin just in the fact that current theories of Modern Physics had been developed by the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method.

    And as Einstein already had taught us:
    we cannot eliminate a crisis by the same method which generated the crisis.

    —————————————————
    I suppose that the theorists will finally understand Einstein’s advice.
    —————————————————

    Otherwise they will never eliminate the crisis created by the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method.

    regards
    wlad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Orsobubu,
    there is something I would like to explain you.

    The phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method is NOT pernicious for the develpoment of Theoretical Physics.

    Actually Heinsenberg’s method was indispensable for the development of Physics.
    Without the discoveries made thanks to the Heisenberg’s method would be impossible for me to make the discoveries proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    In my book THE MISSED U-TURN I show that Theoretical Physics was developed along the centuries thanks to the alternation of two methods: the method of Newton and the method of Descartes.

    For instance, for the explanation of the Michelson experiment Fitzgeral proposed a solution based on the Descartes method, and Einstein proposed a solution based on the Newton method.

    However, for the discovery of the Theory of Relativity, Einstein used the Descartes method, and after that he used the Newton method, in order to get mathematical confirmations for the discoveries made via Descartes method.

    The physicist Voigt used the Newton method so that to explain the Balmer scale. While Bohr used the Descartes method. And this is the reason why Bohr discovered the hydrogen model of atom, and Voigt did not.

    Later Schroedinger used the Newton method and applied it to the hidrogen atom discovered by Bohr (thanks to the Descartes method).

    Today we are in a stage along which the theorists are using the Heisenberg method, which is new mode of the Newton method.

    The next step is to use again the Descartes method (thanks to the discoveries conquested by the Heisenberg method), in order to discover what is missing in the current Theoretical Physics.

    This is just the step made by me: I used the Descartes method.

    And the last step in the future will be to apply again the Newton method, so that to verify if my discoveries (made via Descartes method) are correct.

    If my discoveries are not correct, other attempts via Descartes method need to be made, and later submitted to the Newton method.

    regards
    wlad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    In QRT, repulsive gravitons G surround the fluxes n(o) of attractive gravitons g. This has the effect of keeping the fluxes n(o) from attracting each other and uniting, which means that G is neutralizing g (in the short distance). Since neutralization implies that G = g, how is it possible that g still has an influence beyond the short distance?

    All the best,
    Joe

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 9:44 PM

    Wladimir,
    In QRT, repulsive gravitons G surround the fluxes n(o) of attractive gravitons g. This has the effect of keeping the fluxes n(o) from attracting each other and uniting, which means that G is neutralizing g (in the short distance). Since neutralization implies that G = g, how is it possible that g still has an influence beyond the short distance?
    =============================================

    COMMENT
    Dear Joe,
    after the analysis of several questions (as the mass and charge of proton and electron, and the similarity between the structures of the neutron, neutrino, and photon), my conclusion is that there are the following particles of the aether:

    gravitons g(+) and g(-), G(+) and G(-)
    magnetons m(+) and m(-)
    electricitons e(+) and e(-)
    permeabilitons p(+) and p(-) , P(+) and P(-)

    .

    Laws of interaction forming the fields of the proton:

    Law 1- The body-ring of proton gyrates and induces the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) with the speed c of light. It is the Principal field Sp(p) of proton.

    Law 2- The flux n(o) gyrates and induces a second field formed by permeabilitons p(+) and P(+). Such field formed by p(+) and P(+) is spread in the aether around the field Sp(p). This is the secondary field Sn(p) of the proton. This field Sn(p) does not gyrate, because it is an extension of the aether around the body-ring of proton, meaning that such secondary field is a portion of the aether around the proton, formed by with p(+) and P(+) excited by the rotation of the flux n(o).

    Law 3- The permeabilitons p(+) excited by the flux n(o) of the proton capture magnetons m(+), and so a magnetic field is formed by magnetons m(+) in the proton.

    Law 4- The permeabilitons P(+) excited by the flux n(o) of the proton capture electricitons e(+), and so an electric field is formed by electricitons e(+).

    Law 5-The intensity of excitation of the permeabilitons P(+) depends on the velocity of the rotation of the flux n(o).

    Law 6- The intensity of excitation of the permeabilitons p(+) does not change with the changing of the velocity of rotation of the flux n(o).

    Law 7- The magnetons m(+) of the proton’s magnetic field capture gravitons G(+), and so a gravity field of gravitons G(+) is formed in the aether surrounding the proton.

    Law 8- The interaction between two gravitons G(+) is 10^40 times weaker than the interaction between two electricitons e(+)

    Law 9- Two gravitons G(+) and G(-) moving in two parallel circular motion with radius R in contrary direction cancel each other their interaction with the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the aether

    .

    A) Inertia-mass of the proton

    Suppose a proton is at rest in the aether. The gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field interact with the gravitons G(+) of the ether, and so the there is need a force F in order to put the proton moving with velocity v, because the force of interaction between the gravitons G(+) of the proton and the gravitons G(+) of the aether must be won.

    Imagine that a force F is applied on the proton. Then those gravitons G(+) of the aether are left behind the displacement of the proton, and other grávitons G(+) of the aether (in front of the motion) have interaction with the gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field.

    I call such phenomenon “substitution frequency” (when a graviton G(+) is abandoned and other gráviton G(+) is captured ahead the motion), and it is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. For the proton moving with velocity “v” there is a specific substitution frequency. If another force is applied, and the proton’s velocity increases from v to V , then the substitution frequency increases, and so the motion gets a new specific substitution frequency. For each velocity of the proton corresponds a specific subsitution frequency.

    The substitution frequency is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. But it is also responsible for the Einstein’s Law of inertia growth with the velocity, because the growth of the substitution frequency grows according to Einstein’s equation of the inertia growth. When the proton approaches the velocity of light, the substitution frequency approaches to a maximum value and the inertia of the proton tends to infinitum.

    .

    B) Electric interaction between two protons

    When there is overlap between the fields of two protons, there is a force of repulsion between their electricitons e(+), and so there is a Coulomb repulsion between them.

    .

    C) Gravity interaction between two protons

    When there is overlap between the fields of two protons, the grvitons G(+) of the two prótons have Interaction, and so there is a gravity attraction between them. As the magnitude of the attraction between two gravitons G(+) is 10^40 times weaker than the repulsion between two electricitons e(+), therefore the gravity interaction is 10^40 times weaker than the electrical interaction.

    .

    D) Why electron is less massive than the proton

    The electric and gravity fields of the electron are similar to the two fields of the proton, replacing the particles by their antiparticles g(-), G(-), m(-), e(-), p(-), P(-).

    However the body-ring of the electron is formed by quarks k and q which are less massive than the quarks up and down of the proton.

    Therefore the flux n(o) of the electron, formed by gravitons g(-), is weaker than the flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) in the proton (i.e., the quantity of gravitons g(-) in the flux n(o) of the electron is lower). But in another hand, the rotation of the electron’s body-ring is faster, and it gyrates with angular velocity “W” faster than the angular velocity “w” in the proton.

    And then we have:

    .

    D.1) Electric charge of the electron:

    The permeabilitons P(-) in the field of the electron are susceptible to the faster angular velocity W of the flux n(o) of gravitons g(-) which cross the body-ring of the electron (see Law 5). As consequence, in spite of the flux of gravitons g(-) is weaker in the electron, however (due to the faster angular velocity W) the field of permeabilitons P(-) induced in the electron has the same intensity as occurs in the field of permeabiltons P(+) induced in the proton. As the intensity of the field formed by P(-) in the electron is the same intensity of the field formed by P(+) in the proton, then the quantity of electricitons e(-) in the electron captured by P(-) is the same quantity of electricitons e(+) in the proton captured by P(+). That’s why the electron and the proton have the same electric charge 1,6×10^-19C, negative in the electron and positive in the proton.

    .

    D.2) Mass of the electron
    The permeabilitons p(-) in the field of the electron are not suscetible to the faster angular velocity W of the flux n(o) , (see Law 6). As consequence the field of permeabilitons p(-) in the electron is weaker than the field of permeabilitons p(+) in the proton (because for the proton its flux of gravitons g(+) within the flux n(o) is stronger). Thereby, as the field of permeabilitons p(-) in the electron is weaker, the field captures a lower quantity of magnetons m(-) compared with the quantity of magnetons m(+) captured in the proton. As the quantity of magnetons m(-) in the electron is lower, then it captures a lower quantity of gravitons G(-). And since the gravitons G(-) are responsible for the mass of the electron, then its mass is lower than the mass of the proton.

    .

    D.3) Gravity interaction between proton and electron

    When there is overlap between the fields of one proton and one electron, there is a force of atraction between the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of their fields, and it is 10^40 times weaker than the electric force of attraction due to interaction between e(+) and e(-).

    .

    The photon
    The photon is composed by two particles f(+) and its antiparticle f(-). The particle f(+) is formed by the agglutination of electricitons e(+), and the particle f(-) is formed by the agglutination of electricitons e(-).

    Gravitons G(+) are captured by magnetons m(+) of the magnetic field of the particle f(+), while gravitons G(-) are captured by the magnetons m(-) of the magnetic field of the antiparticle f(-).

    The particle f(+) and the antiparticle f(-) move in circular motion in contrary direction, transverse to the their displacement around the straight line center of their helical trajectory. The interactions of the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the photon with the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the aether are canceled due to the Law 9, and so the photon is massless, because it has no gravity interaction with the aether.

    .

    Dear Joe,
    it seems that now the puzzles of the elementary particles is finally solved with perfect philosophical coherence

    regards

    wlad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. How does QRT explain the constancy of electric charge? Is the answer that, by Law 5, the angular velocity of the flux n(o) of the particle must be constant?

    2. How do gravitons g and G interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?

    3. Likewise, how do two g gravitons interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?

    4. How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?

    All the best,
    Joe

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in March 9th, 2014 at 7:36 PM

    Wladimir,

    1.
    How does QRT explain the constancy of electric charge? Is the answer that, by Law 5, the angular velocity of the flux n(o) of the particle must be constant?
    ——————————————

    COMMENT:
    Yes

    2.
    How do gravitons g and G interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
    ———————————————

    COMMENT:
    Gravitons g do not interact with gravitons G

    3.
    Likewise, how do two g gravitons interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
    ——————————————-

    COMMENT
    They do not interact in the aether away from the particle.
    This is known as Mach Principle.
    The space (aether) has its properties thanks to the presence of matter in the universe.
    The interaction of any two particles is via the permeabilitons p(+), p(-), P(+), P(-).

    4.
    How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
    ——————————————-

    COMMENT
    I think that there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons p(+) and P(+) with the flux n(0).
    Such assymetry is responsible for the matter preference over antimatter

    regards
    wlad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in March 9th, 2014 at 7:36 PM

    Wladimir,

    4. How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
    —————————————–

    COMMENT:
    Joe,
    actually the assymetry must be the following:

    a) either there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons p(+) and p(-) with the flux n(0)

    or

    b) there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons P(+) and P(-) with the flux n(0).

    or

    c) both at the same time

    regards
    wlad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    By D.1, a difference between P(+) and P(-) in their interaction with n(o) would mean a difference in electric charge between particles. But in reality, charges are identical.

    All the best,
    Joe

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in March 10th, 2014 at 3:16 PM

    Wladimir,

    By D.1, a difference between P(+) and P(-) in their interaction with n(o) would mean a difference in electric charge between particles. But in reality, charges are identical.
    ——————————————–

    COMMENT

    Joe,
    there is a possible explanation.

    Consider that, regarding to the aether at rest in the space, we have:

    a) the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) gyrates in clockwise direction

    b) the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(-) gyrates in counter clockwise direction.

    c) the interaction between P(+) and P(-) with the flux n(o) is stable only when the flux n(o) gyrates in closckwise direction with lower angular velocity w.

    d) the interaction between P(+) and P(-) with the flux n(o) is stable only when the flux n(o) gyreates in the counter clockwise direction with faster angular velocity W.

    .

    So, let us analyse the proton, the positron, the electron, and the neutron:

    Proton
    It is stable because as the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) gyrates in clockwise direction and lower angular velocity w, and so the fields formed by P(+) and P(-) are stable

    Positron
    It is NO stable because as the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) gyrates in counter clockwise direction and faster angular velocity W, and so the fields formed by P(+) P(-) are NO stable

    Electron
    It is stable because as the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(-) gyrates in counter clockwise direction and faster angular velocity W, and so the fields formed by P(+) and P(-) are stable.

    Neutron formed by proton+electron:
    The flux n(o) of the proton gyrates in clockwise direction, and the flux n(o) of the electron gyrates in reverse.

    The coupling of the two fluxes n(o) is like the coupling of two gears, because in the coupling of two gears they rotate in reverse. This coupling in reverse of the two fluxes n(o) contributes for the interaction proton-electron in the structure of the neutron.

    regards
    wlad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3526