To: Dr. Brian Josephson - Nobel Prize in Physics

cc: Dr. Anthony Leggett - Nobel Prize in Physics, Christy Frazier - Managing Editor, Infinite Energy, Nancy Kolenda - Editor, Frontier Perspectives, Dr. Gerard t'Hooft - Nobel Prize in Physics, Dr. Gabriela Lemos

Dear Dr.
Josephson,

In 2005 the publishing house Springer has published
the book “**Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?**”. A stretch of the book review by W G Unruh is
shown ahead:

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

“One hundred years ago Einstein postulated one
of the most unsettling features of the theory, the wave-particle duality, with
his particulate explanation for light of the photoelectric effect, and an
explanation which was in direct conflict with Maxwell's brilliant development
of a wave, or field, theory of light. Einstein believed that the particulate
nature would ultimately be explainable by some sort of non-linear theory of
electromagnetism, and was outraged by the acceptance of the community of the
probabilistic quantum theory. His programme was of course dealt a (near?) fatal
blow by Bell's discovery that the three desiderata - a theory which agrees with
experiment, a theory which is local in its effects, and a theory in which
nature, at its heart, is not probabilistic - are incompatible.

That discomfort felt by Einstein and by Feynman
is felt by numerous other people as well. This discomfort is heightened by the
fact that the theory of gravity, another of Einstein's great achievements, has
resisted all efforts at reconciliation with quantum mechanics. This book
explores that discomfort, and tries to pin down what the locus of that
discomfort is.

For many, the locus is in the probabilistic
nature at the heart of the theory. Nature should surely, at some fundamental
level, know what it is doing. The photon, despite our inability to measure it,
should know where it is and how fast it is going. The papers by t'Hooft, Hiley,
and Smolin fall into this camp. Some suspect that the macroscopic world of our
immediate sense experiences, and the microscopic world of quantum phenomena,
are genuinely different, that the fundamental conceptual nature of physics
changes from one to the other, with some unknown boundary between them.
Penrose, in his preface alludes to his speculations on this, as does Leggett to
his own speculations in his paper.

This book is a useful and, at times, fascinating
introduction to the flounderings which are taking place in trying to understand
not only the solution but even what the problem is. Finally, however, the
question of the title of this book remains unanswered.”

http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/23/4/B01;jsessionid=BC9CC65CF921A22E452EC5CE9B2F99D7.c2

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

In 2006 the Bäuu Press has published my book **Quantum
Ring Theory**, where it is proposed that some fundamental principles of Quantum
Mechanics must be replaced by new ones.

After the publication of “Quo Vadis QM?” , between
2008 and 2015 several new experiments are giving the reply for the
question: “**Where do you go, Quantum
Mechanics?**”, as a reply for the last sentence written by Unruh:

“Finally, however, the question of the title of this
book remains unanswered”.

The most important experiment is,
of course, “**Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light**”, published in 2013:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

The experiment proves that the
space is not empty as proposed by Einstein in his Special Relativity, and
therefore the space has a structure.
But there is not in Quantum Mechanics any structure proposed for the
space, and so we realize what is the origin of the puzzles which caused the
discomfort felt by Einstein, by Feynman, and by numerous other people.
Because Nature surely knows, at some fundamental level, what it is doing. And surely it is doing with the contribution
of the structure of the space for the production of the phenomena, as the
motion of the electron in the electrosphere of the atoms, and the nuclear
properties of the atomic nuclei, etc. And so surely it is impossible to develop
a theory capable to describe the accurately the whole phenomena if the theory
was developed from the fundamental premise according to which the
space has no any structure. With the adoption of suitable solutions, the theory
can work successfully up to a certain
level. But sure that soon or later the theory will fail in a deeper level.
The European Physical Journal has published in 2013 a paper in which the
authors proposed a structure for the space. They consider the structure of the
space formed by particles and antiparticles:
**The quantum vacuum as the
origin of the speed of light**

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165

A structure of the space formed by particles e(+) and antiparticles e(-)
is proposed in the paper in the page 20
of my book Quantum Ring Theory, in order to explain the propagation of the
photon (so, with the aim to explain how the light moves in the space, as also
considered by the authors of the paper published by EPJ).
But obviously the structure of the space is very much more complex,
because the structure of the space actually contributes for many other
phenomena, and not only for those concerning the light propagation. And so in
Quantum Ring Theory is proposed a structure of the space in order to explain
how matter produces gravito-electromagnetic fields and how two fields interact
each other.
The missing of the contribution of the structure of the space in the
Standard Model is responsible for the birth of a lot of new puzzles impossible
to be solved by considering the laws of Quantum Mechanics, as are showing some
new experiments published between 2008 and 2015. Ahead we see the most important of them:

**1- FIRST EXPERIMENT****
**

According to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the
even-even nuclei with equal number of protons and neutrons (Z=N) have
non-spherical shape. Those nuclei have a
non-spherical shape because the structure of the space contributes for
some nuclear properties of the nuclei.
Unlike,
by considering the nuclear models developed according to the laws of
Quantum Mechanics and applied to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even
nuclei with Z=N CANNOT have a non-spherical shape. They ought to have a
SPHERICAL shape, it is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for those nuclei to have a
non-spherical shape, according to the laws of QM.
In 2012 the journal Nature published the paper **How Atomic Nuclei Cluster**:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

The paper reveals that new experiments detected that even-even nuclei
with Z=N have non-spherical shape, and so a dogma of 80 years in the Nuclear
Physics was debunked in 2012, six years after the publication of the Quantum
Ring theory in 2006, where the non-spherical shape of those nuclei was
predicted.
In the paper published by Nature the authors propose a theory according to which the
nucleons are bound in clusters within the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
However,
note that those authors did not solve the new puzzle created by that new
experiment, because in spite of the authors have proposed a model of clusters,
nevertheless they do not explain why that model of clusters takes a
non-spherical shape in the case of the even-even nuclei with Z=N. Because by
considering the laws of Quantum Mechanics a model of clusters for even-even
nuclei with Z=N must have a spherical shape, and not an ellipsoidal shape. The
puzzle continues unsolved by the laws of Quantum Mechanics.

2 – SECOND EXPERIMENT**
**

According to the new nuclear model proposed in QRT, due to the
contribution of the structure of the space within the atomic nuclei, the
protons and neutrons are distributed symmetrically about a z-axis which passes
by the center of the even-even nuclei.
In the page 133 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is written:
“The
distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property
up
to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”
In 2013 scientists of the Liverpool University detected that Ra224 has
pear shape:
**Scientists demonstrate pear
shaped atomic nuclei**

http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

From the principles of Quantum Mechanics applied to Nuclear Physics is
impossible for the even-even nucleus Ra224 to have a pear shape. That’s why
this experiment is suggesting to many physicists to look for alternatives for
the Standard Model:
**Pear-Shaped Nucleus Boosts
Search for Alternatives to "Standard Model" Physics **

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pear-shaped-nucleus-boost-search-for-alternatives-to-standard-model-physics/

“*I believe that this will eventually lead to results of much broader
impact than this experiment alone, with the possibility of placing constraints
on the standard model*,” says nuclear physicist Gavin Smith of the University of
Manchester, UK, who is not a member of Butler's team.
Prof. Butler of the Liverpool University suggested that there is a z-axis
dividing the nuclei. However, the puzzle
remains: why are the even-even nuclei divided by the z-axis, since there is not
any law of QM obliging them to be divided by a z-axis?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:SBF-DOCUMENT-17.gif

__3 – THIRD
EXPERIMENT__

According to the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, the nucleons
within the atomic nuclei are not bound by the strong force.
In 2009 the Physical Review Letters has published the paper “**Atomic nucleus of
beryllium is three times as large as normal due to halo**”.

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

For the first time, scientists had measured
the size of a one-neutron halo with lasers, and the
measurement proved that nucleons are not bound within the nuclei by the strong
force, because in the 4Be11 the halo-neutron is 7fm far away from the rest of
the cluster, and since the strong force actuates in a maximum distance shorter
than 3fm, it is obvious that the neutron is not bound via the strong force in
the Be11.

As often occurs when a new
experiment proves to be wrong the Standard Model, some theorists try to save
the theory by adopting desperate solutions.
In this case the strange solution was proposed by Dr. Wilfried
Nörtershäuse .

He has proposed the following:

“*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, thereby inducing the expansive 'heiligenschein'.
“*

But beyond the fact that
Nörtershäuse’s theory is very strange, because he is proposing a sort of
neutron which behaves like a rubber band
used by dressmakers, his theory
is also unacceptable, because:

1) **Even if the Nörtershäuser’s proposal was viable**, however his theory
cannot explain other experimental fact: the 4Be11 decay produces the
stable isotope 5B11, and there is no way to explain it by considering the
Nörtershäuser’s hypothesis.

Indeed,
Nörtershäuser’s hypothesis is also unacceptable because of the feature of the
decay of the nucleus 4Be11, as explained ahead:

2) He could argue
that the halo-neutron is weakly linked to the cluster, and it leaves out the
nucleus after the 13,81 seconds just because of the weak link. However this is
no true, because in 97% of decay the 4Be11 transmutes to 5B11, and therefore
the neutron does not leave out the nucleus. In 4Be11 the neutron decays in a
proton and electron, and the proton goes back to the cluster. If the strong
nuclear force should be responsible for the cohesion of nuclei as the nuclear
theorists suppose, **the proton could never go back to the cluster**,
because in a distance of 7fm it cannot interact with the cluster via strong
force, and the classical Coulomb repulsion between the cluster and the proton
would be so strong that the proton would be expelled from the 4Be11, **and
5B11 could not be formed in 97% of the 4Be11 decay**.

3) Therefore, **even
if the Nörtershäuser’s solution was viable** for the explanation of the halo
neutron in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, **however the 5B11 **__would
never be formed__ from the decay of the 4Be11, according to his solution.

4) And in his paper
Nörtershäuser did not propose any explanation for the formation of the isotope
5B11 from the decay of the 4Be11. He only tried to explain how a neutron
could be kept in a distance of 7fm.

So, Nörtershäuser solution is unacceptable, and therefore it is
impossible to explain the 7fm distance of the neutron in the Be11 by
considering the current nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear
Physics. The distance of 7fm detected in
the experiment suggests that nucleons are not bound in the nuclei via the
strong nuclear force, as predicted in Quantum Ring Theory.

4 – FOURTH EXPERIMENT
A new experiment
published in 2012 has shown that 4Be12 has a structure impossible to be
explained from the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics:

**End of the magic: Shell model
for beryllium isotopes invalidated**

Dr. Wilfried
Nörtershäuse has proposed an explanation, as shown in that paper. However by considering the structure proposed
by Nörtershäuse it's impossible to explain the null magnetic moment for the
nucleus 4Be12.

Indeed, look at to the structure he proposed shown in the link:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html

The orbit radius of a nucleon (proton or neutron) defines its g-factor.
The longer is the radius of the orbit, larger is the g-factor. The
neutrons n-1 and n-2 have an orbit radius longer than the orbit radius of the
neutrons n-3 and n-4 , and therefore the g-factor for n-1 and n-2 is different
of the g-factor for n-3 and n-4. Therefore the structure proposed by
Nörtershäuse is incompatible with the null magnetic moment for the 4Be12,
detected by experiments. So, there is no way to explain the structure of
4Be12 detected in the experiment published in 2012 by considering the current
nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Physics.

As we realize, the current nuclear models based on the Standard
Model (where it is not consider the
contribution of the structure of the space
for the induction of the nuclear properties) cannot explain the
structure of the light nuclei. And sure that new upcoming experiments will
bring more and more puzzles that cannot be solved by considering the laws of
the Quantum Mechanics.
In April 2013 the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics has published
my paper **Stability of Light Nuclei**, where
the magnetic moments of several light nuclei are calculated by considering the
new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. In the end of the paper it
is shown how is solved the puzzle of the decay of 4Be11 transmuting to 5B10,
with the neutron having decay and how the newborn proton in a distance of 7fm
goes back to the cluster of the newborn 5B10:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802

__5-
FIFTH EXPERIMENT__

In Quantum Ring Theory is proposed that it is wrong
the De Broglie interpretation on the duality wave-particle. He had interpreted
that duality is a property of the matter.
But in QRT the duality is a property of the helical trajectory
(Zitterbewegung) of elementary particles.
The Zitterbewegung of the electron exists in the Dirac’s theory of the
electron, as shown by the first time by Schroedinger. He also believed that duality is due to the
Zitterbewegung.

By considering that duality is a property of the
Zitterbewegung, there is no need to consider the Bohr’s Principle of
Complementarity adopted in Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, in the case is wrong
the De Broglie interpretation on the duality, as consequence the Bohr’s
Complementarity is also wrong, and so
the own Copenhagen’s interpretation is wrong .

A paper by Aephraim Steinberg published in 2012 has
shown that Bohr’s Complementarity is wrong:

**Violation of
Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements**

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0034.pdf

Complementarity holds that objects have complementary
properties which cannot be measured accurately at the same time. The more
accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the complementary
property is measured, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Such
prediction of Quantum Mechanics was contradicted by Steinberg experiment.

In the book Quantum Ring Theory is proposed a solution
for the EPR paradox, by considering the model of photon formed by a particle
Q(+) and and its antiparticle Q(-), being
Q(+) and Q(-) formed by a lot of electricitons e(+) and e(-), both them moving
with Zitterbewegung.

It is possible the quantum entanglement can be consequence
of the interaction of the two twins photons with the help of the structure of
the space. In this case the angle formed by the two directions of the motion of
the two photons must have influence in their entanglement.

In August 2014 the journal Nature has published a very
interesting paper:

**Quantum imaging with
undetected photons**

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html

The experiment was lead by Dr. Gabriela Lemos, and I
sent an email to her, suggesting a new version for the experiment, where the
twin photons would be moving along the same line but in OPOSITE directions.

In the case the entanglement is really caused with the
help of the structure of the space, then is possible that the entanglement
between the two photons do not occur in the experiment suggested by me. And so this new version of the experiment can
bring new understanding on how the mechanism of the entanglement works.

Unfortunatelly Dr. Gabriela sent me a reply saying
that they have other priorities:

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

From:
gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at

Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT

Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:15:15 -0300

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Hello Wlad,

thanks for the suggestions.

We have several experiments in the waiting line to
be realized. When we have time to
test your suggestion I warn you.

hug

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

__6
– SIXTH EXPERIMENT__

According to Quantum Ring Theory, the electric field
of the proton and electron have non-spherical shape, while in the Standard
Model Physics their electric fields must be spherical. Such non-sphericity of
the electric field proposed in Quantum
Ring Theory is consequence of the contribution of the structure of the
space, because according to QRT the
electric fields are composed by
electricitons e(+) and e(-) of the structure of the space crossed by a flux of
gravitons.

A new experiment has now detected the
electricitons e(+):

*Evidence for photogenerated intermediate hole polarons
in ZnO*

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150422/ncomms7901/full/ncomms7901.html

The authors of the paper published in Nature call them "**polarons**".

Obviously those authors do not know that "polarons" (named
electricitons in my theory), are the particles which compose the electric field
of the proton and electron.

And this is the reason why positive polarons have
interaction with the negative electric field of the electron extracted by a
photon in the photoactive oxide Zn0.

__7-
SEVENTH EXPERIMENT__

The non-spherical shape of the electric field of the
proton, according to Quantum Ring Theory, is shown in the figure ahead. The blue lines of the electric field are fluxes
of gravitons, and they capture the electricitons e(+) shown in the figure (the
figure shows only four electricitons e(+), but obviously the electric field of
the proton is composed by a countless amount of electricitons).

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_1-_3_fields_of_the_proton.png

However,

as the proton rotates chaotically, its electric field behaves in average as it
were spherical, involving spherically the proton. And therefore here we see one
among the contribution of the statistics for the success of the Standard Model.

So, **in normal conditions the electric field behaves
as it were spherical**, as considered in the current theories.

A new experiment has proven the asymmetry of the electric field:

**Electromagnetic Radiation under Explicit Symmetry Breaking**

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147701

__8-
EIGTH EXPERIMENT__

According to Quantum Mechanics cold fusion phenomena
are impossible to occur. There is not
any controversy on this point. Ahead is
an email sent to me yesterday by Luca Petronio, of the Scientific Ethics, where
he told me about a meeting between Dr. Santilli and Dr. Geshbach:

**------------------------------------------------------------------------**

**On the Feshbach-Santilli 1989 meeting:**

I reached Prof. Santilli (+1-727-688 3992) by phone and he told me that
Feshbach presented a variety of calculations based on Hilbert axiom, the
imprimitivity theorem, uncertainty principle, and other post Ph/. D.
studies establishing that nuclear fusions at low energy are prohibited by
quantum mechanics.

In particular, Fleshbach recalled the repulsive coulomb force in between
nuclei because they have the same positive charge (the infamous "Coulomb
barrier") according to which the repulsive force between nuclei acquires
at nuclear distances of 10^{-13 cm} acquires the astronomical value of the type

F_repulsive = k q_q q_2 10^{28}

because the Coulomb repulsion is proportional to the
the **inverse** of the square of the distance. Feshbach argument is that
there exist no possibility whatsoever that such an enormous repulsive force can
be overcome at low energies.

Prof. santilli agreed then and he agrees now fully with Feshbach arguments.* *After
all, he was the biggest expert of quantum mechanics of his time.

**------------------------------------------------------------------------**

But after the publication of the Lugano Report there
is not any controversy on the reality of the Rossi-Effect:

**Observation
of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in
the fuel **

http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

The Rossi-Effect was replicated by A. Parkhomov in
Russia:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue120/russian.html

So,

there is not any controversy on the subject. Cold
fusion is possible, in spite of it is impossible from the laws of Quantum
Mechanics.

But according to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum
Ring Theory the cold fusion phenomena are possible, because the Coulomb barrier
is not spherical as considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics. Because due to
the contribution of the structure of the space, the electric field of the
nuclei is non-spherical.

But due to chaotic rotation of the nuclei, in average
the Coulomb barrier takes the spherical shape, in normal conditions, as
considered in the Standard Model.
Therefore, in normal conditions the Nuclear Physics is correct, and this
is the reason why in normal conditions the cold fusion phenomena are impossible
to occur. So, from this viewpoint Dr. Feshbach
was right: the nuclear theorists believe
that cold fusion is impossible because they do not know in deep how is
physically the shape of the Coulomb barrier involving the nuclei. They know only the “statistical” behavior of
the Coulomb barrier under normal conditions.

But in special conditions (as for instance occurs in
the Rossi-Effect), the nuclei are aligned along an external magnetic field, and
so they stop to gyrate chaotically. As
consequence, the Coulomb barrier becomes non-spherical, and there are two
points (crossed by the z-axis of the nuclei) where the Coulomb barrier is
weaker. Protons and neutrons at low
energy can enter within a nucleus by crossing those two points with weak Coulomb
repulsion.

The figure ahead shows:

a) the nuclei Li7 and Ni58 with their z-axis aligned
during the Rossi-Effect.

b) the proton of the Li7 will be captured by the orbit
of the electron P1.

c) the proton exits the Li7 being accelerated by the attraction with the
orbit of the electron P1, and the proton continues moving along the z-axis,
going to hit the nucleus Ni58, which transmutes to Cu59.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png

This theory on the Rossi-Effect was discussed between me and some readers of the Rossi’s blog in the end of
2014, in the Comments regarding my paper “Aether Structure for unification between gravity and
electromagnetism”
published in Rossi’s blog. And I have incorporated our discussion in the book “*The Evolution of Physics- from Newton to
Rossi’s eCat*”, published in Amazon.com, now in 2015.

Many theories are being proposed so that to explain
cold fusion phenomena, and of course many other will be proposed.

But it seems the cold fusion theory based on the new
nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory merits a special attention from
the scientific community. After all,
many of the predictions proposed in QRT (the whole of them considered to be
impossible by the scientific community, because in 2006 those predictions were
contradicting untouchable dogmas of Nuclear Physics prevailing along decades) are
being confirmed by experiments along the years between 2008 and 2015.

**FINAL WORDS:**

The physicists who developed Quantum Mechanics have
supposed that would be possible to develop a correct theory by neglecting
the physical mechanisms existing in the
Nature. So, they set out for the development of Quantum Mechanics from
the mathematical development of the theory, by establishing equations, and after
the mathematical development they tried to find a physical meaning for the
theory. Such procedure of discovery has
worked successfully up to the atomic level, and for heavy atomic nuclei, where
some fundamental laws of Nature not discovered yet can be replaced by suitable
statistical considerations. But the
procedure has failed in a deeper level, as in the case of the light nuclei.

If the
physicists indeed are interested to eliminate the failures of Quantum
Mechanics, they must start to consider seriously the physical models
proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. Otherwise the question of the title of
the book "Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?" will remain
unanswered forever.

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski