To: **Dr. Aephraim Steinberg** /Cc: Nobel Prizes: Dr. B. Josephson, Dr. A. Leggett, Dr. G. t’Hooft
Dear Dr. Steinberg

In my book **Quantum Ring Theory**-(QRT) published in 2006, the
Bohr’s Complementarity is rejected as false. In my book the cause of
the particles duality is attributed to the zitterbewegung: It is
considered that particles have only the corpuscular feature (in the
sense of Newton), and the wave property detected in experiments is due
to their motion with zitterbewegung, “zbw” (zbw is an helical trajectory
noted at the first time by Schroedinger in the Dirac’s equation of the
electron).

But Heisenberg’s Uncertainty is not rejected in my book.

The reason is because uncertainty is even not a fundamental law.
Instead of, uncertainty is actually imposed by the limitation of the
technology.

Uncertainty works well up to a certain level. But in a deeper
level it fails. However, as it is not a fundamental law, there is no
need to reject it, since it is applied successfully in the atomic level.

In my paper **Anomalous Mass of the Neutron** is proposed a new version for the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty.

In the item **Gravitational quantum of energy** is written:

.=================================================

*“This indicates that we must propose a new interpretation for
the Heinsenberg’s principle into a potential well with radius a≤1fm.*

First of all, let us remember that Planck’s constant h =
6.6×10ˆ–34J-s has electromagnetic origin, since he made his experiments
with photons into a black body. But into a potential well with radius
a≤1fm, we have to consider the strong force. Then it is possible that
Planck’s constant must be replaced by a new constant hG , by considering
that hG is a smallest quantum of energy due to the interactions by the
nuclear force. In the last item we will show that electron’s bound
energy into the neutron must have on the order of 0.1 MeV. So, by
considering that electron’s binding energy has the order of 0.1MeV,
then, by introducing a correction, from Eq. (6) we get:

hG ~ [ h²/(180.000/0,1) ]½ = 1,3×10ˆ-37J-s (9)

One argument against this proposal is to say that the electron
has no interaction by the strong force. However, in past papers the
author will show that there are evidences suggesting that the strong
force has gravitational origin, when we consider a dynamic gravity
(different from the static gravity of current Physics).

So, if we consider the quantum vacuum constituted by
electromagnetic particles and by gravitons, through such a consideration
it means that Planck’s constant h is due to interactions by
electromagnetic particles of the quantum vacuum, while the constant hG
is due to interactions by gravitons.

Pay attention that we are proposing here the constant hG through
the same way as Planck proposed the constant h. Indeed, Planck has been
constrained to adopt the hypothesis of the constant h because that was
the unique solution able to solve the paradox of the ultraviolet
catastrophe into the black body. By the same way, today we have two
experiments, made by Borghi and by Conte, and these two experiments are
showing that the neutron’s structure is n=p+e. The unique way to
explain this structure, obtained by the experiments, is through the
adoption of the following hypothesis:

for a potential well with radius a≤1fm, Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle is Δx.Δp~h , where hG ~1.3×10ˆ–37J-s is the gravitational
quantum of energy.”

.=================================================

In 2002 I had submitted my paper **Anomalous Mass of the Neutron** for publication in the **Chinese Journal of Physics**, and a reviewer rejected the paper with the following argument:

.=======================================

*“It is hard for me to believe those difficulties raised in
this manuscript will have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent
particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck
constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale. Had
this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the
difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third
different Planck constant.”*

.=======================================

Ahead are: the review and the letter from the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Yew Kam Ho:

The paper **Anomalous mass of the neutron** was published in 2006 in my book **Quantum Ring Theory**, and five years later it was published again by the Rossi’s blog **Journal of Nuclear Physics** , in October 2011:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516

Ten months after the publication of my paper in the Andrea Rossi
blog, you have published in August 2012 your paper which invalidates
the Bohr’s Complementarity and shows that Heisenberg’s uncertainty
indeed is not a fundamental law, as predicted in my book published in
2006:

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

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

In my book Quantum Ring Theory are proposed some new foundations
for Quantum Mechanics. For instance, it is proposed a new hydrogen atom
model, in which a corpuscular electron (with no wave feature) moves with
helical trajectory, and the space around the proton is non-Euclidian.
In my book **The Missed U-Turn** is explained that Schrödinger’s
equation actually describes the motion of the electron with
zitterbewegung within a non-Euclidian space around the proton:

http://www.amazon.com/Missed-U-Turn-Heisenberg-versus-Schr%C3%B6dinger-ebook/dp/B00UBGN93I/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432296261&sr=1-3&keywords=guglinski

The Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson wrote a review for my book **The Evolution of Physics**, published in Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432299653&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski

And I have posted the following reply to Dr. Josephson in the Book Description in the Amazon.com:

.=====================================================

*“Dear Dr. Josephson,*

Schrodinger’s equation is unacceptable... by considering the atom model of QM. Let us see why.

Schrodinger’s eq, was developed from the equation for a free
electron. Therefore it cannot be applied for an electron in the atom (an
electron into a potential).

Eisberg & Resnick justify to use the equation of a free
electron in the case of the atom, in their book Quantum Physics. First
they get the Schrodinger eq,, which is numbered as (5-22) in their book.
And they say (I am translating from Portuguese):

“*It must be emphasized that we arrive to (5-22) by considering an
special case: the case of a free particle where P(x,y) =Vo , a constant.
In this point it seems reasonable to argue that we have to hope that
the wave equation of the quantum mechanics should have the same shape of
(5-22) for the general case in which the potential energy V(x,t)
actually varies as function of x and t (i.e., the force is not null);
but we cannot prove that this is true. However, we can postulate that it
is true. We do it, and so we take (5-22) as the wave equation of the
quantum mechanics whose solutions Q(x,t) give us the wave functions that
must be associated to the motion of a particle with mass m under the
influence of forces which are described by the potential energy function
V (x,t). The validity of the postulate must be judged from the
comparison of its implications with the experiments, and we are going to
do several of those comparisons later*.”

First of all, Dr, Brian, to claim that "it seems reasonable” is not
true. Not at all reasonable. And what is worst: the physicists cannot
give any reasonable explanation why Schrodinger eq, can be applied to
the atom.
If we ask to a physicist to explain us why the Schrodinger eq, can be
applied to the atom he can only say:

“Unfortunately I don’t know. It's a mystery. We know that the
equation works, since the experiments prove it works. But we don’t know
why, we don’t know what is the cause responsible for the successes of
the Schrodinger equation”.

This is not acceptable.

To claim that an equation is acceptable because it fits to the
experiments, but do not know why it fits, actually makes no sense.
Therefore, Schrodinger eq, is unacceptable to be used in the atom model
of QM.
However,
his equation is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE by considering an atom where the
electron moves in a non-Euclidian space, and doing it with helical
trajectory.

This is shown in my book THE MISSED U-TURN, where it is written:

“Interestingly, Schrödinger developed his equation by considering a
free electron, not subject to any force. This makes no sense because in
his development the electron is within the proton's potential and,
therefore, attracted by the proton. Such a paradox in Schrödinger's
development is now understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed
in Quantum Ring Theory because now we know that within the hydrogen atom
the electron behaves as if free since it is subject to two forces
Therefore, because the resultant force on the electron is null, it moves
with constant speed in the radial direction and so the electron moves
as if free, as considered by Schrödinger. Its behavior is that of a free
electron moving with constant speed despite it is actually moving
radially within the proton's electrosphere. Finally the paradox is
understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in QRT.”

As you see, Dr. Brian, the atom model of QM is incompatible with the
Schrodinger equation. And so, by considering the atom model of QM, his
equation is unacceptable.

Only a new model in which the electron moves with helical
trajectory in a non-Euclidian space can be conciliated with the
Schrodinger equation, as shown in my book.”

.=====================================================

Along the 7 last years many experiments are confirming several
predictions proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory. For instance:

**1) FIRST EXPERIMENT**

Along 80 years the nuclear theorists have supposed that even-even
nuclei with the same number of protons and neutrons have spherical
shape. In my book published in 2006 it is proposed that those nuclei
have actually ellipsoidal shape. And their ellipsoidal shape was
confirmed by the experiments published by the journal Nature in 2012:

**How atomic nuclei cluster**

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

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**

In my book is proposed that space is not empty, and it has a
structure formed by particles and antiparticles. An experiment
published by Nature in 2011 proved that space is not empty:

**Moving mirrors make light from nothing:**

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html

The European Physical Journal published a paper where it is
proposed for the space the same structure proposed in my QRT, by
particles and antiparticles:

**The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light:** http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165

**3) THIRD 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?

**4) FOURTH 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.

**5) FIFTH 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).

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

Dear Dr. Steinberg,

tell me sincerely,

do you think the theorists have to continue trying to keep the
current interpretation on Quantum Mechanics as they did before the
publication of your paper? Or have they to look for a new
interpretation, by discarding some principles, as for instance the
Bohr’s Complementarity?

Do you think is it possible to save the current foundations of
Quantum Mechanics by neglecting the meaning of your experiment, as the
theorists are trying to do?

Or do you think there is need to look for new foundations for
Quantum Mechanics, by looking for new principles which can be
conciliated with the violation of the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and the
collapse of the Bohr’s Complementarity?

In short, do you think there is need a New Physics?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski