The Standard Nuclear Physics is dead
Date: Sunday, March 01, 2015 @ 20:38:33 EST
Topic: Science

Deleted from Andrea Rossi blog Journal of Nuclear Physics;

The Standard Nuclear Physics is dead

Dear Joe,

Between 2005 and 2010, I participated in physical forums on the Internet, where I used to show that the Standard Nuclear Physics has many incoherences, and the current nuclear models are denied by many experiments. No one among those models is able to explain all the nuclear properties of the nuclei.

The physicists used to answer me with a speech in this way:

The aim of the science is not to find a definitive theoretical model. A model is proposed so that to explain some known phenomena. When new experimental findings defy that old model, the theorists either change the model with suit improvements so that to fit the model to the new discoveries, or they propose a new model. This is the way of the science. The goal is to evolve.

Therefore, through this kind of view of the goal of science the nuclear physicists did succeed to justify the failure of the current nuclear models.

But today the situation is different.

Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve the puzzle of the null magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N by considering any nuclear model developed according to the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, because any model established according those principles necessarily violates the law of the monopolar nature of the electric charge.

Therefore, it makes no sense either to change the present models with improvements or to try to find a new model. Because any model based on the concepts of the Standard Nuclear Physics will fail.

The reason we know why: it is because is impossible to find a nuclear model capable to solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N if the theorists keep the concept of empty space and the concept of field considered in the Quantum Field Theory.

And the final conclusion is: any nuclear model based on the Standard Nuclear Physics is wrong.

Unfortunatelly, dear Joe, the scientists are not interested to discover the Scientific Truth. There is no honesty, and instead to confess that some of the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics are incorrect, they keep silent, hoping that the silence can save their nuclear models.

I sent emails to several authors of papers published here in the JoNP, (they proposed new nuclear models). I was asking them how they solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.

They are:

Dr. Stoyan Sarg, Dr. Gamal A. Nasser , Dr. U.V.S.Seshavatharam , and Dr. S.Lakshminarayana (Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University)

Dr. Seshavatharam sent a reply, asking a couple of days, but any response was never sent:
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:24:20 +0430
Subject: Please let me have a couple of days.. sir
From: seshavatharam.uvs
To: wladimirguglinski

The others did never sent any reply .

The email ahead was sent to Dr. Walter Grainer and Dr. Joachim A. Maruhn , authors of the book Nuclear Models.

From: wladimirguglinski
Subject: unsolved puzzle of Nuclear Physics
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:51:07 -0200

Dear Prof. Dr. Walter Greiner

A nuclear physicist told me there is an unsolved puzzle in Nuclear Physics.

The puzzle is the following:

1- Electric charges have monopolar nature
2- Atomic nuclei are composed by protons and neutons, and the protons have positive charge
3- The nuclei have rotation.
4- Due to the rotation, the positive charge of the protons induces a magnetic field.
5- The even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons of neutrons have null nuclear magnetic moment
6 – Each pair of protons with symmetric positions cancell each other their magnetic moments. The same happens with the neutrons, in order that the total magnetic moment due to the nuclear magnetic moments of protons and neutrons is zero.
7- But due to the rotation of the nucleus, the protons induce a magnetic moment. And therefore the even-even nuclei with the same quantity of protons and neutrons cannot have magnetic moment zero.

The nuclear physicists told me there is not any nuclear model proposed capable to solve the puzzle.
According to what he said me, all the known nuclear models existing in Nuclear Physics violate a fundamental law of Physics: the monopolar nature of the electric charge.
Is it true ?
As you wrote a book explaining all the known nuclear models, do you know any nuclear model able to solve the puzzle?

Wladimir Guglinski

In order to be sure they have received the emails, I also sent emails to staff of the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (where Dr. Grainer works), and for the Executive Director of the Goethe Universita (where Dr. Maruhn works), asking them to advise the two authors.

Nor Grainer neither Maruhn sent any reply.

In 2002 I sent a letter to Dr. Stephen Hawking, telling him on the existence of the Don Borghi experiment, which proves the neutron be formed by proton+electron.
Since a model of neutron formed by proton+electron requires new foundations for the Standard Nuclear Physics, of course a honest scientist would have to be very interested, mainly in the case of a theoretical researcher who is trying to decipher the enigma of the Universe structure, as Dr. Hawking. So, I asked to him his opinion of the repercussion of that experiment for the Theoretical Physics.
His secretary sent me a reply. She said that Dr. Hawking was very debilitated, and unable to respond.

Nevertheless, the secretary was lying. After one month Dr. Hawking gave a lecture at an university. So, he was not interested in the scientific truth. As many, his interest is to continue deluding people in lectures speaking on the scientific frauds he is proposing (as Hawking already knows that the foundations of the Standard Model must be changed, because the Don Borghi experiment requires new foundations, then obviously he is behaving like a charlatan, knowing that his theories are being built on the wrong foundations of the Standard Model).

I would have respect to Hawking if he had the honesty to say: ”Our theories are wrong, or at least incomplete, because the space is no empty, as the experiment published in 2011 by the journal Nature had proved, and since the Don Borghi experiment also requires new foundations for the Physics, we have to abandon our current theories”.

But it seems to be too much to expect such a honesty from a scientist like Hawking, because such honesty imply to abdicate of the fame he conquered with his wrong theories (or at least incomplete).

The scientists delude themselves and also the people, with the argument that from their equations they developed high technology like TV, computers, GPS, etc. However the success of the equations does not mean that a theory is correct. The equations can work well in a certain level, but they can fail in a deeper level, because the equations are incomplete, since all they had been proposed by considering the empty space.

It is a mystery why the scientific community continues rejecting the aether. Even Einstein tried to bring it back to Physics, after 1916. And in the last five years new experiments are proving that the space is not empty, and therefore such non-empty space must have a structure.

Einstein did not banned definitively the aether in Physics, as he claimed in 1905 when he published his STR. What Einstein had banned definitively is the luminiferous aether. The success of the equations of the Special Relativity can be explained by considering a non-luminiferous aether, as I already had explained in my comment of February 9th, 2015 at 7:11 PM giving a response to Peter Forsberg, where I wrote:

The equations developed by Einstein from the Lorentz transformations are correct, from the mathematical viewpoint, because he had considered a postulate: the speed of light is invariant regarding any observer moving with speed V (and his postulate is consequence of the contraction-dilation of the aether about the atoms of a body, when the body moves with speed V).”

Are mysterious the reasons why the scientific community refuses to start up the development of a New Physics, in a new way, from new foundations by considering the space as non-empty, and the Standard Nuclear Physics from new fundamental principles. But one of the reasons of course it is because they do not want to abdicate of the reputation they conquered with their theories, deluding the people because the equations they have developed are successful for the development of technology.

Seventy years ago the Physics was in crisis, and Einstein said: “There is no way to solve a crisis from the same method which generated the crisis”.
Today the crisis is worst. And it will become worst, and worst, and worst at each year, because the physicists do not want to eliminate the origin of the crisis.

You said, Joe, that the nuclear physicist will prefer to re-define the rotation, in order to solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with null magnetic moment.
Probably you are right. Because it is easier to solve a puzzle n Physics by introducing more new nonsenses, instead of to adopt a honest decision, by confessing that Standard Model is wrong, because was developed from wrong foundations, and adopting the decision of starting up everything again, from new coherent foundations.



Andrea Rossi wrote in March 1st, 2015 at 8:06 AM

Wladimir Guglinski: Please moderate your language within acceptable limits. Make your points, but do not insult the work of the scientific community, and, please, take in consideration the possibility that you could be wrong. I always do this. I know my limits.

Of course I take in consideration the possibility that I can be wrong.

That’s why I had invited several nuclear theorists so that to come here to prove I am wrong.
I invited:
Dr. Stoyan Sarg, Dr. Gamal A. Nasser , Dr. U.V.S.Seshavatharam , and Dr. S.Lakshminarayana (Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University), and the authors of the book Nuclear Models, Dr, Walter Grainer and Dr. Joachim A. Maruhn.

No one of them accepted my invitation.
All them rejected the chance to prove that I am wrong

So, I am waiting somebody to prove that I am wrong.



  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski: I have spammed your comment whose title was: ” The standard nuclear model is dead”.
    Useless to explain why.
    Please moderate your language within acceptable limits. Make your points, but do not insult the work of the scientific community, and, please, take in consideration the possibility that you could be wrong. I always do this. I know my limits.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    OK, dear Andrea, I will publish it in ZPEnergy


Wladimir Guglinski

This article comes from

The URL for this story is: