ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 41 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

AESOP Institute

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
FringeEnergy News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy21 YT Channel
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
Find Jobs

2022, The Next Revolution in Physics
Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2021 @ 14:56:29 GMT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes: I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book THE NEW NUCLEAR PHYSICS. In two weeks I will be submitting the book to publishers, to find one that is interested in publishing it.

On one of the book's introductory opening pages is this humble prophecy, about the fate of theoretical physics: 2022, New Physics Revolution

(Image credit ArsTechnica.com)

The value of the proton radius from the scattering proton-muon will be announced at the end of 2022, and it will set off the new revolution in theoretical physics. On June 16, 2021, was announced the status of the Project Muse:



Current plan and schedule

- We will start production data in September - December 2021

- Further plan includes 6 months of data taking in 2022 and 3 months in 2023

It's in the page 20 of this link:

https://indico.jlab.org/event/446/contributions/8650/attachments/7123/9806/Wan_Lin_HUGS_Presentation.pdf

In the page 023.5 of “MUSE: The MUon Scattering Experiment”, by E. Cline1, J. Bernauer1,2, E. J. Downie3 and R. Gilman4, available in

https://scipost.org/SciPostPhysProc.5.023/pdf

the prediction of the disclosure of the measured value of the proton radius is presented, as follows:

 “A test of the full MUSE system in December 2019 led to several planned upgrades to make the system more robust. Due to the ongoing international public health crisis and its resulting impact on international travel, we were only able to partially complete the upgrades during 2020. We plan to complete the upgrades and start MUSE production data taking in 2021. With 12 months of data taking and analysis to be performed, we anticipate publication of first results in 2023/24. MUSE will be the first experiment to measure elastic muon-proton scattering in an appropriate kinematic region, with a precision sufficient to address the proton radius puzzle. The corresponding results for the simultaneously-measured electron scattering, will put a strong constraint on potential systematic uncertainties, and may help settle the discrepancies between the Mainz and PRad results. MUSE will be the only experiment that can directly measure with its own data the difference between electron and muon extractions of the radius, making it highly compelling.”

A value measured by Project MUSE, below 0.80 fm, will require new foundations for physics, implying a profound revolution.

But the community of physicists is convinced that the value of the radius of the proton, measured by the proton-muon scattering, will be between 0.875 and 0.83 fm. And that this result will not be the trigger for a new revolution in physics. So where does the author of this book get his certainty that the results of Project MUSE will spark a new revolution in physics?

In the author's article, "Calculation of a proton radius to be measured in the Project MUSE", published by the journal Physics Essays in 2018, calculations are presented that predict that the radius measured by the proton-muon scattering will be between 0.616 fm and 0.722 fm. But it is not these calculations by the author, in the article published in 2018 by Physics Essays, that provide the author with the certainty that the proton radius, measured by the proton-muon scattering, will be below 0.80 fm.

The author's certainty that the radius measured by the proton-muon scattering will be below 0.80 fm comes from two sources:

     1 - Calculations of the proton radius within the structures of 1H2, 1H3, and 2He3, from the mass defect of these three nuclei, in a procedure that does not exist in current physics, in which the mass defect is a phantasmagoric phenomenon, since in the current physics there is not any physical mechanism from which the mass defect occurs. In current physics, the mass defect is only calculated, by using the Einstein’s equation E= mc², but the physicists do not know from which physical mechanism the mass defect comes from. The author discovered that the mass defect connects the shrinkage of the proton radius (within atomic nuclei) to the mass defect, to the magnetic moment, and to the isotopic mass, and proved it by calculations, exposed in the book Subtle is the Math, published in October 2021.

     2 - Experiment carried out at the Paul Scherrer Institute, published by Nature in 2021, which measured the radius of helium-4, obtaining the value 1,67824 fm. On page 487 of the book Subtle is the Math, a calculation is presented showing that, for helium-4 to have this radius, the radius of the proton within the structure of helium-4 must be equal to 0.69515 fm. This value is close to the radius of the proton within the structures of the nuclei 1H2, 1H3, and 2He3, whose values are respectively 0.6644 fm, 0.7388 fm and 0.64154 fm, calculated on pages 184, 187, and 190 of the book. The article in which these calculations are presented was rejected by the nuclear physics journal European Physical Journal A, on December 14, 2019, as shown on page 177 of the book, showing the dashboard:

Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

When the results of Project MUSE are released, physicists will realize that the foundations of physics will have to change. And they will understand that they will have to take the author's findings seriously, and that they will be useful in deciding which fundamental laws adopted in current theories should be rejected, and which new fundamental laws should be adopted.

WGUGLINSKI


 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

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.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"2022, The Next Revolution in Physics" | Login/Create an Account | 4 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: 2022, The Next Revolution in Physics (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, November 13, 2021 @ 15:05:52 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: Vlad,

please let Andrea Rossi to get knowledge about the present situation of theoretical physics.

It's no use for him to be desperately trying to boycott any scientific demonstration that his cold fusion theory is dead wrong.

Do you know why he won't be able to boycott?

I'll tell you: They have already started, in September-2021, to measure the proton radius in Project MUSE, by scattering proton-muon.

Look what is written in the page 20 of the current status of the Project MUSE:

Current plan and schedule:

- We will start production data in September - December 2021
- Further plan includes 6 months of data taking in 2022 and 3 months in 2023


If the radius of the proton measured in the experiments is smaller than 0.8 fm, as predicted in my article published by Physics Essays, THIS EXPERIMENTAL RESULT WILL BRING DOWN ALL THEORETICAL PHYSICS.

My article is at this link:


It won't just be Andrea Rossi's theory that goes to waste. So it's no use kicking around, desperately trying to salvage his theory.

Any theoretical framework, on which Andrea Rossi bases his cold fusion theory, will be invalidated if Project MUSE measures a proton radius of less than 0.8 fm.

But there is still hope for Andrea Rossi: maybe, if he prays fervently, maybe God will work a miracle, and save his theory, even though the entire theoretical framework of current physics collapses when Project MUSE measures a proton radius less than 0, 8fm.

Good luck to Andrea Rossi



Understanding Rossi's Ecat through The New Nuclear Physics (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, November 20, 2021 @ 18:25:26 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: Understanding Rossi's Ecat through The New Nuclear Physics

In addition to the properties of the proton, which give it the ability to contribute to the occurrence of cold fusion, atomic nuclei also have properties (which are lacking in the current nuclear models of the standard nuclear physics), which give them the ability to contribute (in partnership with the properties of proton) make possible the occurrence of cold fusion.
Therefore, it is not only the standard Coulomb law F= KQq/d² that makes it impossible, according to current nuclear physics, for cold fusion to occur. Here, the reader will have a deep understanding about the impossibility of the occurrence of cold fusion, according to the current nuclear theory.
Andrea Rossi proposed a theory to explain the cold fusion that occurs in his Ecat, based on the fundamental principles of current theories, both in quantum physics, as well as in nuclear physics and particle physics. That is, Rossi tried to explain the impossible (that cold fusion is possible), using the same foundations as current theories, by which the irrevocable conclusion is reached that cold fusion is impossible.

Read More...


WGUGLINSKI



Procedure error in PRL: what repercussion might it have in nUclear physics? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, January 06, 2022 @ 16:30:01 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by WGuglinski: Procedure error in PRL: what repercussion might it have in nUclear physics?

The following are facts about the excited atomic nucleus 12Mg24, whose magnetic moment was tabulated in nuclear tables after the publication of an article in the journal Physical Review Letters, in 2015.

Obviously, before 2015 other nuclei, with even amounts of protons and neutrons, were also tabulated in nuclear tables, using a procedure similar to what happened with the excited 12Mg24.

According to the new nuclear model proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, some nuclei with even numbers of protons and neutrons, when excited (and therefore with nonzero nuclear spin) have nonzero magnetic moment.

This nuclear property, of this new nuclear model, is impossible to exist in current nuclear physics models.

Some excited nuclei, which have even numbers of protons and neutrons, do not have their magnetic moment tabulated in nuclear tables. This fact gave rise to me of supposing that the reason why such excited nuclei do not have their magnetic moment tabulated is that they really have null magnetic moment, and therefore do not appear in nuclear tables.

In March 2019 I wrote the article "Proposal of an experriment able to eliminate the controversy:are right or wrong the foundations of the Standard Nuclar Physics?", and sent it to the European Physical Journal A, specialized in nuclear physics. The aim of the article was to show that this issue it should be investigated, because if my suspicion were confirmed that such excited nuclei really do have zero magnetic moment (a real reason why they are not tabulated), this would imply a revolution in nuclear physics, according to which such excited nuclei must have, obligatorilly , nonzero magnetic moment.

The Editor-in-Chief, Prof Maria Borge, rejected the paper with the following Report:

 

Subject:

European Physical Journal A - Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-104798

Body: 19-Oct-2018

Dear Professor Guglinski:

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.

Sincerely yours

Professor Maria Borge


I read that paper published in 2015 by Physical Review Letters, whose autors are Kusoglu, Giorgev, and Stuchbery, and I discovered an error in the procedure of calculation, because in the calculation procedure of the article was used a nuclear table from 2001, in which all nuclei with even amounts of protons and neutrons are considered to be spherical. But in the article "How atomic nuclei cluster", published by Nature in 2012, experiments are reported that the shape of these nuclei is ellipsoidal.

Therefore, the calculation procedure published in Physical Review Letters was wrong. And the conclusion is that what was exposed in that article does not confirm that the excited 12Mg24 has a non-zero magnetic moment, as calculated by the autors of the paper published by PRL.

So, I wrote a new paper, entitled “Mandatory check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even 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.

Ahead is the print showing the submission of the two papers to EPJ A.

Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

The second paper was rejected by the Editor-in-chief Maria Borge, with the following Report:

Subject:

European Physical Journal A - Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-104814

Body: 01-Feb-2019

Dear Professor Guglinski:

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.

Sincerely yours

Professor Maria Borge

Editor in Chief

European Physical Journal 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 even-even nuclei”: 

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1734-6-wladimir-guglinski-wrong-math-procedure-used-in-nuclear-physics-for-the-calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-excited-z5n-even-even-nuclei.html


The conclusion is obvious:
there is no experimental proof that excited nuclei, which have even numbers of protons and neutrons, have nonzero magnetic moment. For the calculation method used in the 2015 article in Physical Review Letters, it was used a table from 2001, which was invalidated in 2012, according to the experience published in Nature.

Therefore, the magnetic moments of all excited nuclei, with even number of protons and neutrons, that have been obtained through a calculation method similar to the one used in the 2015 article in Physical Review Letters, are INVALIDATE.


And the final conclusions are these:

1- it is not known, until today, if some axcited nuclei, with even amounts of protons and neutrons, have non-zero magnetic moment, despite being tabulated with values other than zero, in nuclear tables.

2- Some of these nuclei may have null magnetic moment, because until today such magnetic moments have not been measured.

3- If confirmed that such nuclei have a magnetic moment of zero, it will be definitively proven that the fundamentals of the current nuclear physics are wrong.


If nuclear physicists have any real interest in the scientific truth about the structure of atomic nuclei, a serious investigation into this question must be initiated.
Otherwise, nuclear physicists will continue to work with a wrong nuclear model for decades.



 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.