
There are currently, 88 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
 
 
Objective evidence of defect of the QED's standard interpretation
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2020 @ 15:39:13 UTC by vlad


WGUGLINSKI writes: Dear Prof. Hiromichi Nakazato Editor, European Physical Journal Plus
I am submitting for publication in the journal Physics Essays my paper entitled “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and finestructure constant”.
The paper was rejected for publication in the European Physical Journal Plus with the following Report, written by you:
The
main idea of the paper is based on such classical notions like
particle's motion and electric current and magnetic field seem to have
been given fundamental roles. This is evident from the figures
presented in the paper. These notions are untenable in microscopic
world where the waveparticle duality is essential even if the author
feels "strange" and the gauge field plays an essential role. They have
been supported by experiments for many years. The paper will not be
understood and never be accepted by any other physicists unless the
author provides, not a subjective (like the one the author thinks
"strange"), but an objective evidence of defect of the standard
interpretation, which is missing in the present paper. I think that the paper does not fulfill the scientific standards required by EPJPlus and thus reject it. Yours sincerely Hiromichi Nakazato Editor, The European Physical Journal Plus
From your words: “The
paper will not be understood and never be accepted by any other
physicists unless the author provides, not a subjective (like the one
the author thinks "strange"), but an objective evidence of defect of the
standard interpretation, which is missing in the present paper”
one realizes that the paper was not rejected due to errors in math, neither to any unacceptable speculation.
According to your argument, the reason of rejection was because it is missing in the paper “an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”.
However, the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation” is provided in the paper entitled “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”.
But you you did not read it, because the Manager Editor of EPJ Plus
sent the paper for the EditorinChief Kumar S. Gupta, who rejected the
paper with the following Report:
Ref.: Ms. No. EPJPD2000751 Title: "Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum The European Physical Journal Plus Dear Dr. Guglinski, I
have read this paper. Unfortunately this paper does not meet the
scientific standards of EPJ Plus and hence cannot be published in EPJ
Plus. Yours sincerely Kumar S. Gupta Editor The European Physical Journal Plus
Therefore, from the Report one realizes that Dr. Gupta did not find any mathematical error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”. And so we reach to the following conclusions:
1 As Dr. Gupta did not find any error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, this means that in that paper is definitively proven the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”, which does not exist in the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and finestructure constant”.
2 Thereby, from the Report by Dr. Gupta, since he did not detect any error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, is invalidated your argument, dear Prof. Nakazato, and so the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and finestructure constant” deserves to be published, because the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”, is proven to exist in the paper rejected by Dr. Gupta.
The EditorinChief of Physics Essays, Dr. Emilio Panarella, has interest to publish the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and finestructure constant”.
But he would like to eliminate any controversy about the question risen
by you, according to which the publication of the paper requires an “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”.
As the objective evidence is proven to exist, as shown in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”,
I would like you read it, so that to verify if there is any
mathematical error in the paper. And so I am sending it attached here.
If
you do not reply to this my solicitation, then Dr. Panarella and me
will conclude that you did not find any math error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, and therefore:
1) It is supplied for the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and finestructure constant” the objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation. 2) And so Dr. Panarella will be sure that the paper deserves to be published in Physics Essays.
Regards W Guglinski

 
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
 

"Objective evidence of defect of the QED's standard interpretation"  Login/Create an Account  5 comments  Search Discussion 
 The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. 


No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register 

Re: First objective evidence of defect in interpretation of QED (Score: 1) by vlad on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 @ 22:11:45 UTC (User Info  Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com  From W. Guglinski: ABSTRACT
The electric charge of the fermions of the quantum
vacuum is calculated in this paper. The value of e is 5.06532·1045 C.
From this value of e, together with the fundamental constants Ko, c, h,
and a=1/137, the electric charge of the proton is calculated, achieving
the value e= 1.6026·1019 C, which is very close to the experimental e=
1.60218·1019 C. This successful calculation represents the first
objective evidence that something very fundamental is missing in the
standard interpretation of quantum electrodynamics.
Keywords:
Proton charge; Coulomb’s law; Structure of electric field;
Finestructure constant; Charge of fermions of quantum vacuum.



Missing of anistropic space in quantum mechanics (Score: 1) by vlad on Monday, October 18, 2021 @ 17:41:20 UTC (User Info  Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com 
Dear Noble Prize in Physics, Dr. Gerardus t' Hooft
A simple calculation that demonstrates the missing of the anistropic
space in the atom model of quantum mechanics is exposed in the link
below.
I invite you to calculate it, and confirm by yourself that really it is
missing the anisotropic space inside the atom model of quantum
mechanics.
Regards
W Guglinski 


Subtle is the Math (Score: 1) by vlad on Thursday, October 28, 2021 @ 18:08:29 UTC (User Info  Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com  The Mystery of Mathematics
What is possible, what is necessary, and what is impossible in the Nature?
This
is what philosophers try to respond, from the epistemology of modality.
The philosophers are analyzing such a question by starting from the
viewpoint that some laws of quantum theory, despite appearing to be
impossible, are necessary, being confirmed by math and experiments.
But are we sure that what the math is pointing to us is exactly what we
think it is pointing to?
Here such a question is analyzed, because the
author’s effort to eliminate a paradox in his theory of electric fields composed by fermions of the quantum vacuum, revealed to
him something much more important than the elimination of the
paradox itself: he finally understood that it is not the
Lord God that is subtle, as stated by Einstein; what is subtle is actually the
Mathematics.
Thereby, before trying to respond the question on what is
possible, necessary, or impossible in Nature, we have to be sure about
what the math is pointing out to us. The most reasonable should be to
suppose that it’s impossible that the imaginary number plays any role in
the physical mechanisms from which Nature works. And that, as the
quantum theorists use the imaginary number in their mathematics, the
conclusion is that they use a math that proves that the impossible is
possible.
Nevertheless, as will be shown here, the Lord made possible what seems to
be impossible. This is illustrated in the cover of the book: in the
fraction of a second when the Universe was being created, the Lord
pushed “1”, forcing it to enter inside the square root.
Returning to the subject on nuclear physics, according to my
new nuclear model – which will be available for readers in another book
entitled New Foundations of Nuclear Physics – some excited eveneven
nuclei have null magnetic moment (despite having nonnull nuclear spin
which, as said, is impossible according to the current nuclear physics).
And, intriguingly, the magnetic moments, of many of those excited
nuclei, are not quoted in nuclear tables. So, I had a good reason to
suppose that they are not quoted because they have null magnetic
moments, which therefore cannot be detected by experiments, which
explains why they are not quoted in nuclear tables.
So, I wrote a paper, entitled “Proposal of an experiment able to eliminate the controversy: are the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Theory right, or wrong?”, and submitted it to European Physical Journal A, in 15Oct2018.
The EditorinChief, Prof Maria Borge, rejected the paper with the following Report:
“Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A
« Hadrons and Nuclei ». The content of the article is not correct. It
try to generalise the absent of data of magnetic moments for the 2+
states of conjugated nuclei to invalidate theory. Some of the cases you
mentioned has been measured and there are good agreement with shell
model calculations. I recommend you to read, for instance, PRL114
(2015)062501 and even the old compilation of NJ Stone, Atomic Data and
Nuclear Data Table 90 (2005) 75 where some magnetic moments for 2+
states are already given.
Therefore, I cannot accept your contribution for publication in EPJ A.”
I have read that paper published in 2015 by Physical Review Letters,
and I discovered the following error in the procedure of calculation:
 The authors have considered that excited 12Mg24 has spherical shape.
And for their calculations, they used a nuclear table, published by S.
Raman in 2001.
 But in 2012 the journal Nature published a paper, regarding an
experiment which detected that nuclei with pair numbers Z of protons and
N of neutrons have not spherical shape. This experimental finding of
2012 had demonstrated to be correct the prediction in the page 137, of
my book Quantum Ring Theory, that atomic nuclei with Z pair, being Z=N,
actually have ellipsoidal shapes.
 Therefore, they had wrongly used the Raman’s table, which after 2012 no longer can be applied for pairs Z=N nuclei.
So, I wrote a new paper, entitled “Mandatory check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Eveneven Atomic Nuclei”,
in which is showed that Physical Review Letters had published in 2015 a
paper where a wrong math procedure is applied, and I submitted it to
European Physical Journal A.
The paper was rejected by the Editorinchief Maria Borge, with the following Report:
“Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A ‘Hadrons and Nuclei’. However, the subject of this paper is outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A.
Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.”
The paper was published by Physics Essays in July 2019 – with the title “Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for the calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z=N eveneven nuclei”.
===============
About the author : Wladimir Guglinski
Graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1973 at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, in
1989 a tragic event changed his perception of life and the world, and he felt the need to verify that what physicists had discovered really represented the exact picture of what exists in nature.
Physicists say that the merit and veracity of a scientific theory are evaluated through the scientific method, whose fundamental parameter of confirmation is the confrontation of theory with experimental verification. Therefore, physicists guaranteed that, because they are totally faithful to the scientific method, if you develop a new theory, elaborated on new foundations and it is confirmed by experiments, then they will accept your theory. He believed what physicists say, that scientists are totally loyal to the scientific method. And since he was sure that some principles adopted in physics could not be correct, so if he could find new principles that would eliminate the paradoxes, and his new theory gained experimental proof, physicists would recognize his theory, and accept it. Confident in the fidelity of physicists to the scientific method, he decided to undertake an investigation. He abandoned engineering and dedicated himself to pursuit a new scientific truth. And he discovered new fundamentals of physics. But he also discovered something as surprising as the new fundamentals: he discovered that physicists lie, claiming that they are totally faithful to the scientific method.




