 |
There are currently, 136 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
2022, The Next Revolution in Physics
Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2021 @ 14:56:29 UTC by vlad
|
|
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: 
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
|
| |
|
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.
| |
|
|
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 UTC
(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 UTC
(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 UTC
(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. 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. |
|
|
Experiment confirms that Coulomb's law is incomplete (Score: 1)
by vlad on Friday, August 25, 2023 @ 15:40:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Submitted by WGuglinski: An experiment published in Physical Review Letters confirms my theory that Coulomb's Law is incomplete.In my book Subtle is the Math is demonstrated by mathematics that Coulomb's repulsions between protons inside atomic nuclei are very weaker than predicted in current nuclear physics, because Coulomb's Law is incomplete.
Such prediction is now confirmed by the experiment.
The subject is exposed in ResearchGate:
Experiment confirms that Coulomb's law is incomplete
Obviously, the fact that Coulomb's Law is incomplete, now confirmed by experiments, will have drastic repercussion in the field of cold fusion.
WGUGLINSKI
|
|
|
|
|
