Two experiments will bring the Standard Model down
Date: Saturday, September 05, 2015 @ 19:11:34 EDT
For physicists and philosophers worldwide.
1- FIRST EXPERIMENT : MUSE- MUon proton Scattering Experiment
The first experiment will be performed between 2016 and 2017, and it will measure the proton’s radius.
The physicists believe that the proton has an unshrinkable radius R=0,88fm, because they consider that it is impossible to have a shrinkage in the orbit radius of the quarks in the structure u,d,u, and so they expect to measure a proton’s radius never shorter than 0,8fm.
But they are wrong, because the quarks of the proton take the shape
of a ring, whose cross-section is crossed by a flux of gravitons, and
the diameter of the ring depends on the intensity of the flux of
gravitons. So, while the radius of a free proton is 0,88fm, however
within the nuclei the proton’s radius is 0,275fm, as shown in the paper “Anomalous Mass of the Neutron”, published in the Andrea Rossi blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
the MUSE experiment will measure the proton’s radius through a
scattering proton-muon (and the muon is 200 times heavier than the
electron used in previous experiments), the proton’s radius measured in
the experiment will be shorter than 0,7fm (between 0,3fm and 0,6fm).
In the paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron,
by considering the proton’s radius R= 0,275fm it is calculated the
electric quadrupole moment for the deuteron, which value is agree to the
value obtained through experiments: Q = +2.7x10ˆ-31m².
physicists have discovered that the deuteron has non-zero elec. quad.
moment Q , they would ought have to conclude at that time that the model
of neutron d,u,d formed by quarks cannot be correct. Indeed, as the
neutron has no charge, while the proton has a spherical distribution of
charge (it has Q=0 measured by experiments), therefore according to the
Standard Model the deuteron must have zero elec. quad. mom. Q=0. It is
impossible to explain, according to the Standard Model, why the deuteron
has non-null elec. quad. moment.
Along more than 60 years several
theorists tried to justify the non-null elec. quad. moment for the
deuteron, and 33 papers were published in several peer-journals.
However, as is impossible to explain the puzzle by considering the
Standard Model, all the attempts are unacceptable, and the attempts
* * *
2- SECOND EXPERIMENT : measurement of Q for 4Be7
The experiments will be performed in the next upcoming years at the Williams Laboratory – Smith College:
It is expected a large negative Q for 4Be7, between -6,0fm² and -7,0fm² .
experimental confirmation for a value between -6,0fm² and -7,0fm² is
very important, because the confirmation will support the current theory
for the nuclear synthesis in the sun, and also because it can help
distinguish between different nuclear models for the 4Be7, and so there
are many nuclear theorists interested in the experimental confirmation.
In the paper by John Bahcall “Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section”
published in 1998 the value calculated for the quadrupole moment of the
4Be7 is between -6fm² and -7fm² . In the paper is said:
measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help distinguish between
different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction (see 38) ".
38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)
Dr. Attila Csoto has sent me an email in 6 Aug 2013 where he says:
will come though, when someone will do the measurement. As it happened,
for example, with the charge radius. We are pretty sure, that Q(Be7)
has a large negative value."
And in 7 Aug he has sent other email where he says:
quadrupole moment of Li7, the mirror nucleus, is known. It is around
-40 mb, in good agreement with theoretical predictions, that give
roughly -60 mb for Be7."
So, some questions arise:
a) Q for 4Be7 is not quoted in any nuclear table.
b) There are many nuclear theorists interested in the measurement of Q for 4Be7. Then why it was never measured?
3Li7 and 4Be7 are mirror nuclei, and the experiments have measured Q=
-4,0fm² for 3Li7, while Q for 4Be7 was never measured, in spite of the
theoretical predictions give 6,0fm² for 4Be7. Why it was never
measured? There is not any reasonable reason why it was not measured
yet, since 4Be7 has half-life of 53 days, and its size is the same of
its mirror 3Li7.
d) The only reasonable conclusion is the following:
value of Q for 4Be7 is not quoted in any nuclear table because in spite
of it was measured in many laboratories by different experimentalists,
however they did not publish the result in any nuclear table, because
they have measured a value for Q very near to zero, and a value of Q for
4Be7 quite small and consistent with zero cannot be expected
theoretically by considering any nuclear model based on the Standard
If a value quite small for 4Be7 is measured by experiments, this result brings the Standard Nuclear Physics down.
So, we have to conclude that the experiments have measured values of Q
for 4Be7 near to zero (lowest than Q= -0,008fm² for the 3Li6), but as
theoretically it is expected a large value -6,0fm², the experimentalists
use to suppose that something wrong have occurred during the procedure
of the measurement, and so they give up of reporting the result to an
editor of a nuclear table.
In the link of the Williams Lab quoted above, the second answer for the question “Why do we want to do this?” is the following:
2) providing a test of quantum electrodynamics
if the measurement of Q for 4Be7 gets a value very near to zero, this
result will provide a definitive test for QED and the Standard Nuclear
The explanation for the Q near to zero for 4Be7 requires a new nuclear model, as shown in the paper “Stability of Light Nuclei”, published in Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
* * *
the years, several experiments have brought down the Standard Model.
However the community of physicist have neglected and rejected them, and
by this way they have saved the Standard Model.
But as the
physicists use to neglect and reject experiments, so that to save the
Standard Model, then why we can expect that they will accept the MUSE
experiment and the measurement of Q for 4Be7, in the case the results of
these two experiments give results impossible according to the Standard
The answer is because up to now the community of
physicists have believed that it would be possible to find a theoretical
solution for the puzzles. But after 2016 they will realize that there
is no way to explain either a proton’s radius shorter than 7fm and nor Q
near to zero for 4Be7, and that there is need to change some
foundations of the Standard Model.
* * *
3 – Other experiments have already brought down the Standard Model
3.1- FIRST EXPERIMENT: published in 2012 by Nature
to the Standard Nuclear Physics, any even-even nucleus with equal
number of protons and neutrons, Z=N, must have a spherical shape,
because through the laws that rule the Standard Model there is not any
cause responsible for an asymmetry of the nucleus, so that to give it an
Therefore, by considering the Standard Model, it is impossible for the even-even nuclei with Z=N to have an ellipsoidal shape.
But in 2012 the journal Nature has published the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”, describing experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape.
As the ellipsoidal shape of those nuclei requires a physical cause
in the structure of the nuclei able to supply them an asymmetry
responsible for that ellipsoidal shape, of course there is need to
discover a new nuclear model where the asymmetry appears as consequence
of the structure of nuclei. For instance, in the new nuclear model
proposed in Quantum Ring Theory the atomic nuclei have a
structure formed by a central 2He4 which captures deuterons,
distributed in hexagonal floors around the central 2He4. So, the
deuterons have a distribution along the z-axis, and such asymmetry
allows to the nucleus to have nuclear properties impossible to exist in
any nuclear model proposed according to the laws of the Standard
So, after the publication of the paper in the
journal Nature in 2012, the nuclear theorists would have to realize that
there is need a New Nuclear Physics, from which a new nuclear model
with asymmetric structure could be developed.
3.2- SECOND EXPERIMENT: pear shape of Ra224
According to the Standard Model the even-even must have an ellipsoidal shape, because there is not any physical cause responsible for an asymmetry able to supply a pear shape to those nuclei.
But in 2013 physicists of the University of Liverpool have discovered that 88Ra224 has pear shape:
Scientists demonstrate pear shaped atomic nuclei
Prof. Butler of the University of Liverpool has proposed that there is a z-axis in the nuclei.
the existence of the z-axis requires an asymmetry in the structure of
the nuclei, and therefore the proposal of the existence of the z-axis
proposed by Prof. Butler makes no sense by considering the Standard
That’s why the pear shape of the Ra224 is suggesting to many physicists to look for alternatives for the Standard Model:
Pear-Shaped Nucleus Boosts Search for Alternatives to "Standard Model" Physics
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.
The existence of the z-axis was predicted in the book Quantum Ring Theory, where it is written in the page 133 about the distribution of protons and neutrons around the z-axis:
• “The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property
up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”
Gavin Smith is right on saying that the pear shape of the Ra224 opens
the “possibility of placing constraints on the standard model”, because
the Standard Model cannot supply to any nuclear model the possibility of
having an asymmetrical structure when the number of protons and
neutrons are both pair.
3.3- THIRD EXPERIMENT: neutron synthesis from proton+electron
Three experiments have proven that the neutron is formed by proton+electron. They are:
C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission
of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics
(Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993
2- E. Conte, M. Pieralice, An
Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a
Neutron, Infinite Energy, V. 4, n. 23-1999, p 67
3- Confirmation of
Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and
electrons , http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229
So, why the
community of physicists do not accept the three experiments? After all,
if there is any doubt about the results, they can replicate them in the
laboratories of the universities.
In 2002 I sent a letter by air
mail to Dr. Stephen Hawking, calling his attention on the Don Borghi
experiment. His secretary sent me a reply telling a lie, saying that Dr.
Hawking was very weak, and unable to reply But two months later he was
doing a lecture in an university.
Also in 2002 I have exchanged
some emails with Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Gerard t’Hooft on the
Taleyarkhan’s experiments, and during the discussion I told him about
the Don Borghi experiment. Dr. t’Hooft has replied that Don Borghi
experiment is phony. That was an unacceptable reply, because if
somebody has any doubt about the results of an experiment published in
the American Institute of Physics, of course the correct procedure is to
replicate the experiment.
I also sent an email to the Nobel Dr. Anthonny Leggett, and he sent a reply saying that it was not his field of expertise.
1993 Dr. Santilli tried to replicate the Don Borghi experiment in
several universities of Europe, and he was banned from all them. And so
we realize that at that time the physicists in the universities were not
interested in verifying the truth.
Of course the community of
physicists were not interested to verify the truth at that time because
they were very sure that the Standard Model is correct, and it would be a
waste of time to replicate the Don Borghi’s experiment. That’s why Dr.
t’Hooft said that the experiment is phony, and Dr. Hawking decided do
not pay attention to the experiment.
But after 2007 several new
experiments are showing that the Standard Model cannot be correct, and
so a New Physics is needed. And the question is:
what sort of New Physics they must look for?Well, the first response for this question is:
need to begin through the points where the Standard Model fails, and of
course one of the most serious flaws is the model of neutron, as the
Don Borghi experiment is showing
3.4- FOURTH EXPERIMENT: Rossi-Effect
Today cold fusion is a reality, confirmed by 3 universities of Europe:
And Andrea Rossi is already selling his eCat reactor worldwide.
to the Standard Model cold fusion occurence is impossible, and that’s
why many theories are being proposed. But no one of them is able to
explain the fundamental question:
• How can the Coulomb barrier be crossed by a low energy particle?
And the reason is obvious, as explained by Dr. Randel Mills:
your interest, but you are wasting your time on cold fusion. It is not
possible. Look around the universe. H chemistry is present under all
imaginal conditions. There is no cold fusion.”
But cold fusion is a reality, as show us the Rossi-Effect. And then a fundamental question arises:
cold fusion does not occur spontaneously in some of the all imaginal
conditions in the universe, but it occurs in some special conditions
within the cold fusion reactors, as the eCat used by Andrea Rossi?
answer for such question must be looked for in the incomplete concept
of field existing in Quantum Electrodynamics, according to which the
Coulomb electric field of particles and atomic nuclei is spherical.
Quantum Ring Theory is proposed that the Coulomb field is not
spherical, but it actually has the shape shown in the Figure 1 ahead:
that there are two points along the z-axis where a low energy particle
can cross the Coulomb barrier. However, in the all imaginal conditions
of the universe the nuclei have a random rotation, in order that in
average the Coulomb barrier takes the spherical shape (as it is
considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics). This is shown in the Figure
2, and so we realize why cold fusion is impossible according to the
Standard Model (because in the normal conditions the Coulomb barrier
takes the spherical shape, and the nuclear theorists have supposed
wrongly that the Coulomb barrier is always spherical).
in special conditions, as occurs into the eCat reactor used by Andrea
Rossi, the nuclei are aligned toward an external magnetic field, and
their Coulomb field stops to rotate randomly, taking the shape shown in
the Figure 1. And then a low energy particle can cross the Coulomb
barrier, through one of the two points along the z-axis.
This cold fusion mechanism is explained in the paper “Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered”:
* * *
Other 3 experiments suggesting that
the field concept adopted in QED is incomplete:
After 2012 three new experiences are pointing to the evidence that the field concept of Quantum Electrodynamics is incomplete.
1- The ellipsoidal shape of even-even nuclei with Z=N
there is no way to explain their ellipsoidal shape and their zero elec.
quad. mom. unless by considering that those nuclei rotate in the ground
state. However, an even-even nucleus with Z=N with rotation at the
ground state cannot have null magnetic moment, because of the rotation
of the charge of the protons, but we know from experiments that those
nuclei have zero magnetic moment. Therefore, something is wrong in the
concept of field considered in Quantum Electrodynamics.
2- Pear shape of the Ra224
to the current nuclear models based on the principles of the Standard
Nuclear Physics an even-even nucleus as 88Ra224 cannot have a pear
shape, unless we consider the rotation of the nucleus in the ground
state. However due to the rotation the nucleus cannot have null
magnetic moment, unless we consider that it is incomplete the concept of
field adopted in Quantum Electrodynamics.
3- Near to zero elec. quad. mom. for 4Be7
to the current nuclear models based on the Standard Nuclear Physics is
impossible for the isotope 4Be7 to have Q near to zero. The only way to
explain Q near to zero is by considering the contribution of the shaking
of the nucleus due to its rotation, as proposed in the page 48 of the
paper “Stability of Light Nuclei”, published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
we realize, the two new experiments to be performed in the next years
can decide the future of the Standard Model. If a proton’s radius is
measured shorter than 0,7fm, or the measurement of Q for 4Be7 gets a
value very near to zero, the collapse of the Standard Model is