Nobel laureate foresees mind-expanding future of physics
Date: Friday, October 23, 2015 @ 01:52:33 EDT
Topic: Science

Dr. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Prize in Physics, MIT Department of Physics

Dear Dr. Frank,

In 2005 the publishing house Springer has published the book “Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?”,  where reputable physicists as Dr. Lee Smolin and some Nobel Prizes as Dr. G. t’Hoof and A. Leggett foresee the future of Physics:

They have committed a mistake similar to that you have committed in “How Physics Will Change—and Change the World—in 100 Years”, published now in 2015:

But there is a difference:  in 2006 those notable theorists did not have at hand some experimental findings discovered  between 2009 and 2015, which defy the foundations of the current theories. So, they had not at that time experimental evidences proving to them that they were in the wrong way in their attempt of foreseeing the future of the Physics.

Unlike, today those experimental findings are out of controversy, and you should have taken them in consideration in your prediction on the future of the Physics.

The two most revolutionary experimental evidences defying the Standard Physics are:

1- The Rossi-Effect: according to the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics it’s impossible to occur the cold fusion reactions in the Rossi’s eCat reactor.  But the Rossi-Effect was confirmed by tests made by the pool of three universities in Europe, and the results are published in the Luganno Report:

Therefore the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot be correct.
In 2015 the United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted to Andrea Rossi the patent for the invention:

So, as the Rossi-Effect is impossible to occur by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics, then obviously any prediction of the future of the Physics must consider the Rossi-Effect.

2 – The existence of the Aether:  in 2011 the journal Nature has published an experiment which proves the existence of the aether, since light cannot be created from nothing:

In 2013 the European Physical Journal has published a paper where the authors propose a structure of the space, filled by  particles and antiparticles:

So, obviously a space with structure must be formed by a “substance”, and no matter what is the name we give to the substance (as for instance, Aether). What matters is the fact that the concept of empty space must be abandoned in the Physics, which means that the Aether must be considered in any acceptable prediction for the future of Physics.

In August-2015 the journal General Gravity and Gravitation has published a paper by Dr. Claudio Nassif, where he considers the Aether in his theory:

So, the Aether is coming back, because there are new experiments requiring its return,  and because the theorists are realizing that there is no way to keep the concept of empty space in Physics.
Therefore, any prediction for the future of the Physics cannot be acceptable if it does not consider the existence of the Aether, as you did in your forecast, Dear Dr.  Wilczek.

* * *

In the beginning of 2015 I had a discussion along with the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson, via exchanging of several emails.  After two months of discussion, he decided to abandon the discussion, because he did not succeed to give any explanation for the following unacceptable  failure of Quantum Mechanics: why, in spite of Schrödinger has developed his equation by considering a free electron, however his equation is applied to an electron within a potential.  In order to explain the paradox, the theorists use to propose an unacceptable postulate, as explained in the “Book Description” for my book “The Evolution of Physics”, published in

Such unacceptable paradox of Quantum Mechanics can be eliminated only by considering a model of atom where the electrosphere is filled by the Aether, as shown in my book “Quantum Ring Theory”, and also in my book “The Missed U-Turn”, both published in

In the new model of hydrogen atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the electron moves with helical trajectory (zitterbewegung discovered by Schrödinger in the Dirac’s equation of the electron) within a non-Euclidian space (the density of the Aether is higher around the  protron, and decreases with the increasing of the distance to the proton).

In this new hydrogen atom, when the electron is moving in radial direction within the electrosphere, the electron moves with constant speed, due to the contribution of the aether’s density on the electron’s motion.  And this is the reason why the Schrödinger equation can be applied to the electron moving in the atom, in spite of he had developed his equation by considering a free electron.

So, when Schrödinger has discovered his equation 90 years ago, he actually has discovered (without knowing it) the equation for the electron moving in the atoms whose electrospheres are filled with the Aether.
As you may realize, Dr.   Wilczek, a New Physics developed in the future requires the Aether.

Dr. Josephson did not try to explain why the Schrödinger equation can be applied to the atom, in spite of the equation was developed by considering a free electron, and so he lost the discussion. But Dr. Josephson did not confess that he lost the discussion, although his withdrawal resulted in his defeat , because he did not succeed to save the Quantum Mechanics, as he desperately tried along the discussion with me. And the reason of his defeat is obvious: it is impossible to save any theory developed from wrong foundations, as the case of the Quantum Mechanics, since fundamental premises are missing in the theory, as for instance the contribution of the Aether within the atoms, the atomic nuclei, the elementary particles as the proton, electron, and neutron, and also in the quarks.

* * *

Peter Higgs has proposed his boson  50 years ago because at that time the community of physicists was sure that the space is empty.  And therefore there was need to propose a theory in order to justify how the particles get their mass,  by considering the current hypothesis of empty space in force at that time.  He had no choice other than to propose the existence of a particle (a boson) responsible for the mass of the particles.

Now in 2015, with the new experimental evidences proving that the space is filled by a “substance” with structure, the Higgs boson becomes unnecessary and obsolete,  because the particles get their mass due to their interaction with the structure of the Aether.

The boson detected in the LHC is not the boson with the properties supposed by Peter Higgs.  It is not a boson responsible for the mass of the particles.  The boson detected is only a boson like other particles which have their mass because of their interaction with the Aether, and probably the LHC will detect other bosons (and all the bosons – in the case they be detected by the LHC in the upcoming years- get their masses thanks to their  interaction with the Aether).

Of course it is hard to expect the acceptation of the Aether by the community of physicists, because its acceptation requires to abandon the Higgs boson, and since billion dollars were applied for the construction of the LHC, the particle physicists will not abandon their belief in the Higgs boson.

But also of course that the particle physicists cannot avoid forever the advancement of Physics, trying to save their belief in the Higgs boson only because billion dollars were applied in the LHC.  The advancement of the Science does not goes in this way, and obviously a new generation of physicists will realize that it makes no sense to avoid the return of the Aether to Physics, and so a New Physics must be developed, by considering the the Rossi-Effect and the Aether.

Unfortunatelly, we don’t know how many years will be wasted because of the attempt of the particle physicists trying to save their belief in the Higgs boson.  How many years the particle physicists will succeed in their attempt trying to stop the advancement of Phyics in the correct way… is    unpredictable…

Wladimir Guglinski

This article comes from

The URL for this story is: