|There are currently, 199 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
The Evolution of Physics- From Newton to Rossi's eCat|
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2015 @ 22:46:19 EDT by vlad
WGUGLINSKI writes: To the readers of the ZPEnergy.com: Two books of mine are published as ebook in Amazon.com:
“The The Evolution of Physics: From Newton to Rossi’s eCat” :
“The Missed U-Turn – The duel Heisenberg vs Schrödinger” :
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|
|Book Description for two books by W. Guglinski (Score: 1)|
by vlad on Thursday, April 02, 2015 @ 23:41:21 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
|Submitted by WGuglinski: Book Description for THE MISSED U-TURN:|
This book was accepted for publication by the Cambridge International
Science Publishing, in the end of 2010. The three pages of the
Agreement, signed by the publisher Victor Riekansky, are shown in the
pages 3, 4 and 5 of the book.
But the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson began to
blackmail against Riecansky, threatening to boycott the publisher, and
Victor gave up of publishing my book.
The reason why Dr. Brian is boycotting my books is because he is
working in the Mind-Matter Unification Project, which is based on the
duality wave-particle as proposed by de Broglie.
However my books exhibit strong evidences that the duality
wave-particle is not a property of the matter, as de Broglie wrongly
supposed, but it is actually a consequence of the helical trajectory of
the elementary particles, giving them the wave feature.
So, in the case de Broglie is wrong, of course Josephson's theory on mind-matter unification is also wrong.
I suspect that Dr. Josephson has called by telephone the
administrators of Amazon, and he told them do not allow any review of
mine be posted, because I have tried several times to post a review as
reply to his review for my book THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS, but Amazon
always sends me an email saying the following:
"Your review of The Evolution of Physics could not be posted to Amazon.com"
REGARDING THE FIRST ORIGINAL Book Description for my book THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS:
What Dr. Josephson said in his review is a nonsense, because what he
is doing is actually introducing a new paradox in Nuclear Physics.
Let us see why.
1- The discussion with Brian was about the following subject: if the even-even nuclei in the ground state rotate, or not.
2- According to Nuclear Physics the spherical nuclei do NOT rotate
3- The paper "How atomic nuclei cluster" published by Nature in 2012
had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
In order to justify why they have zero elec. quad. moment, the nuclear theorist Martin Freer said:
"The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0.
Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame
and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations
and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the
deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and
rotating the nucleus."
according to Martin Freer the even-even nuclei with Z=N have
rotation, otherwise would be impossible to explain their zero elec.
4-When I told to Brian by email what Martin Freer said, Brian had replied:
"This may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible
for a system to have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in
that sense, but also have a spherically symmetrical wave function. I
won't go into the details as you don't seem to have much of a background
5- Well, then of course the contrary is also true:
"In QM it is perfectly possible for a system to have a structure,
and so be spherical system in that sense, but also have a
non-spherically asymmetrical wave function."
6- Therefore, according to QM a spherical nucleus rotates, because it also has a non-spherically wave function.
And thereby according to QM the Nuclear Physics is wrong, because
according to QM a spherical nucleus can rotate, while according to
Nuclear Physics a spherical nucleus cannot rotate.
So we realize that Brian is trying to save Nuclear Physics with a Bad Physics.
Book Description for THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS:
Ahead is my last reply by email to the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian
Josephson, after a long discussion we had regarding the first version of
the book description for this book:
Dear Dr. Josephson,
Schrodinger’s equation is unacceptable... by considering the atom model of QM. Let us see why.
Schrodinger’s eq, was developed from the equation for a free
electron. Therefore it cannot be applied for an electron in the atom (an
electron into a potential).
Eisberg & Resnick justify to use the equation of a free electron
in the case of the atom, in their book Quantum Physics. First they get
the Schrodinger eq,, which is numbered as (5-22) in their book.
And they say (I am translating from Portuguese):
“It must be emphasized that we arrive to (5-22) by considering an
special case: the case of a free particle where P(x,y) =Vo , a constant.
In this point it seems reasonable to argue that we have to hope that
the wave equation of the quantum mechanics should have the same shape of
(5-22) for the general case in which the potential energy V(x,t)
actually varies as function of x and t (i.e., the force is not null);
but we cannot prove that this is true. However, we can postulate that
it is true. We do it, and so we take (5-22) as the wave equation of the
quantum mechanics whose solutions Q(x,t) give us the wave functions
that must be associated to the motion of a particle with mass m under
the influence of forces which are described by the potential energy
function V (x,t). The validity of the postulate must be judged from the
comparison of its implications with the experiments, and we are going
to do several of those comparisons later.”
First of all, Dr, Brian,
to claim that "it seems reasonable” is not true. Not at all reasonable.
And what is worst: the physicists cannot give any reasonable explanation why Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom.
If we ask to a physicist to explain us why the Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom he can only say:
“Unfortunately I don’t know. It's a mystery. We know that the
equation works, since the experiments prove it works. But we don’t know
why, we don’t know what is the cause responsible for the successes of
the Schrodinger equation”.
This is not acceptable.
To claim that an equation is acceptable because it fits to the
experiments, but do not know why it fits, actually makes no sense.
Therefore, Schrodinger eq, is unacceptable to be used in the atom model of QM.
his equation is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE by considering an atom where
the electron moves in a non-Euclidian space, and doing it with helical
This is shown in my book THE MISSED U-TURN, where it is written:
Interestingly, Schrödinger developed his equation by considering a
free electron, not subject to any force. This makes no sense because in
his development the electron is within the proton's potential and,
therefore, attracted by the proton. Such a paradox in Schrödinger's
development is now understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed
in Quantum Ring Theory because now we know that within the hydrogen atom
the electron behaves as if free since it is subject to two forces
Therefore, because the resultant force on the electron is null, it
moves with constant speed in the radial direction and so the electron
moves as if free, as considered by Schrödinger. Its behavior is that of a
free electron moving with constant speed despite it is actually moving
radially within the proton's electrosphere. Finally the paradox is
understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in QRT.
As you see, Dr. Brian,
the atom model of QM is incompatible with the Schrodinger equation.
And so, by considering the atom model of QM, his equation is
Only a new model in which the electron moves with helical trajectory
in a non-Euclidian space can be conciliated with the Schrodinger
equation, as shown in my book