Proven asymmetry of electric field foreseen in Quantum Ring Theory
Posted on Sunday, April 26, 2015 @ 13:59:13 UTC by vlad
|
|
WGUGLINSKI writes: According to current theories, the electric field of elementary
particles as the electron and the proton is sherical, and therefore the
electric field is symmetrical regarding to any axis crossing its center
(symmetry in all directions)
According to Quantum Ring Theory, the elementary particles have non-spherical electric field, and therefore the electric fiedl has a symmetry only regarding the z-axis which crosses the center of the field.
The electric field has not a spherical symmetry as considered up to now in current theories.
The electric field of the proton is shown in the figure ahead:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_1-_3_fields_of_the_proton.png
However,
as the proton rotates chaotically, its electric field behaves as it were spherical, involving spherically the proton.
So, in normal conditions the electric field behaves as it were spherical, as considered in the current theories.
A new experiment has proven the asymmetry of the electric field:
Electromagnetic Radiation under Explicit Symmetry Breaking
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147701
In
an email of April 13 2015 sent to me by the Nobel Prize Dr. Brian
Josephson he said, concerning the paternity on the argument proposed in
the page 137 of the book Quantum Ring Theory, and published later in the
journal Nature, in 2012;
=======================================
Subject: Re: please do not ask to Amazon
From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:50:03 +0100
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
> On 12 Apr 2015, at 23:27, Wladimir wrote:
>
>
> And the explanation in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring
Theory, published in 2006, is the same of that given by Dr. Freer, as we
see ahead:
What Freer says is well known, so if what
you say on p.137 is that same then you haven’t produced anything new.
I’m not that familiar with the details in the case of nuclei, but the
argument is the same as in the case of molecules, as follows, It is
standard QM that molecules have a shape (as per the theory of the
chemical bond, relating bonds to electron states which have definite
orientations if s is non-zero), and you can on the basis of these
oriented bonds produce a state where the whole molecule has a definite
orientation. But having a definite orientation is not compatible with
having definite angular momentum and that state is a superposition of
states with different angular momenta. One of these, that with zero
angular momentum, is spherically symmetrical (because of how angular
momentum is defined in QM).
You can have a state that
is spherically symmetrical and you can have a state with a definite
orientation, but these are different states so there is no
contradiction. I hope this clarifies things for you.
bdj
------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254
=====================================
And my reply to Dr. Josephson:
One of the errors of the nuclear theorists is to suppose that atomic nuclei can be compared with molecules.
This is the reason why Nuclear Physics has so many unsolved puzzles.
When
I have started to study Nuclear Physics, I had analysed the nuclear
properties of atomic nuclei, and I arrived to the conclusion that the
nuclei have two concentric fields.
The reason why the current nuclear
models cannot solve many puzzles is because in the Standard Model it is
considered that atomic nuclei have only one field.
As you know, cold fusion is impossible to occur, by considering the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
And the reason is because in the Standard Model it is considered that all the nuclei have only one field, and it is spherical.
Well,
by considering a spherical field, the Coulomb barrier has the same
value in the whole directions, and therefore a nucleon (as a proton)
cannot enter within the nucleus in the condicions of low pressure and
low temperature as occurs in cold fusion.
According to my nuclear model, all the nuclei have non-spherical field, as shown ahead in the Figure 2:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_1-_3_fields_of_the_proton.png
In normal condictions, the yellow Coulomb field shown in the Fig. 2 has chaotic rotation, and so in average the Coulomb field of the nuclei behaves as it had a SPHERICAL shape. This is the reason why in normal conditions cold fusion cannot occur, because the Coulomb barrier behaves as a SPHERE.
But
when a nucleus is aligned toward an external magnetic field (as occurs
in the Rossi-Effect), the chaotic rotation of the nucleus stops, and the
electric field of the nucleus takes the shape shown in the Figure 2
above, and so the Coulomb barrier is non-spherical.
And so there are
two points in the Coulomb barrier where the repulsion is weaker than in
the normal condictions, and this is the reason why cold fusion is
possible.
In my book Quantum Ring Theory I show that Gamow
introduced a new puzzle in his solution when he tried to solve the
puzzle on why the alpha particles exit the nucleus U238 with 4MeV, while
the Coulomb barrier has 8MeV.
The nuclear theorists consider that cold fusion is impossible to occur because they use to suppose that Gamow theory is correct.
If
Gamow theory was correct, the cold fusion would be indeed impossible to
occur, and Andrea Rossi would never succeed to discover his
Rossi-Effect, because the Rossi-Effect would be impossible to occur.
But Gamow theory is wrong, and this is the reason why cold fusion is possible.
Dr. Josephson,
you
are familiar to the properties of molecules, and so you suppose that
what is applied to molecules can be applied to nuclei. The nuclear
theorists also believe it.
However,
if that was true, the nuclear theorists would be able to find a nuclear model capable to explain all the nuclear properties.
But
after a century of research they did never succeed to find a nuclear
model capable to explain all the nuclear properties of the whole nuclei,
because they are starting from the wrong assumption that some laws that
rule the behavior of the molecules can be applied to the nuclei.
Several nuclear models were proposed, and no one among them is successful.
A
nuclear model X explains some properties of a nucleus A, but it fails
to explain other nuclear properties of that same nucleus A.
And a model Y explains some properties of the nucleus C, but it fails to explains the properties of other nucleus D.
And
if the nuclear theorists continue in such way of investigation, they
will never succeed to find a satisfactory nuclear model, and they will
never succeed to explain nor the Rossi-Effect and neither the cold
fusion phenomena in general.
regards
wlad
|
| |
|
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.
| |
Average Score: 1
Votes: 1
| |
|
