 |
There are currently, 127 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research
Posted on Friday, August 03, 2018 @ 15:09:14 GMT by vlad
|
|
WGUGLINSKI writes: New nuclear property perhaps related to the origin of dark matter:
Dear Prof. Andrea Pocar
University of Massachusetts
A new nuclear property (unknown by nuclear theorists) can be connected to
dark matter. The new nuclear property is clearly evidenced in the
lithium isotope 3Li6 (see "note" at the page 10 of the paper "Calculation of magnetic moments for light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30"), where it is written:
Note:
Perhaps this influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertia of the nuclei
has relation with dark matter, whose origin intrigues the mind of the
theorists nowadays.
It seems the n(o)-flux, existing in atomic nuclei, is formed by gravitons
The paper is ended with the following comment:
22. Intriguing new experimental findings regarding entanglement
The
influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertial behavior of the 3Li6, seen
in this paper, is very intriguing, and (as already mentioned in the note
of the page 10) perhaps it has relation with the quantum entanglement.
There are two speculations which perhaps deserve to be considered.
- The
n(o)-flux seems to be the unique reasonable explanation for the quantum
entanglement, because it seems to be improbable it can be a
phantasmagoric phenomenon, inasmuch it seems there is no any way to find
a physical cause responsible for the entanglement, by considering the
current foundations of quantum theory. But besides the observation of
its occurrence between photons and between atoms, recently in
superconducting electric circuits entanglement of massive objects can
also be generated and detected [6]. And it seems
do not exist any candidate more reasonable on causing the entanglement
between massive objects than the n(o)-flux, because all they are
composed by atomic nuclei, where the n(o)-flux is generated.
- So,
as entanglement is generated by massive objects, as new experiments are
detecting, then perhaps the influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertia
of the nuclei has relation with phenomena which theorists try to explain
with the hypothesis of dark matter, whose origin intrigues the mind of
the theorists nowadays. As the creation of a microscopic n(o)-flux is
induced by rotation of quarks (or singletons, in the case of photons, as
will be shown in the paper “On the origin of the mass of the elementary
particles”, to be published later), maybe giant n(o)-graviton-fluxes
can be induced by the rotation of a galaxy around a giant galaxy. And if
galaxies have interaction through a gravitational quantum entanglement
via n(o)-flux, then Newton’s gravitational theory cannot be applied for
the case of interactions between some very massive objects, as the
satellite galaxies of the Milky. In resume, if very, very massive
galaxies are able to generate a giant n(o)-flux, then the hypothesis of
dark matter can be dismissed for explaining the puzzle.
- The
laws of the electromagnetism were discovered with the experiments made
by Faraday. Those laws are consequence of interactions in the
microworld, between magnetons and electricitons, which are some among
other elementary particles which compose the aether [1,2]. The laws that
rule the interaction between magnetons, electricitons, and gravitons,
in the behavior of galaxies, were not yet discovered. But their
discovery cannot be found if we do not discover, first of all, what are
the fundamental laws which rule the interactions of elementary particles
of the aether into the structure of quarks and inside the atomic
nuclei.
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.
| |
Average Score: 3
Votes: 2
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research (Score: 1)
by vlad on Friday, August 03, 2018 @ 16:28:26 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | I'm asking Wlad Guglinski to post here future announcements/developments on his theoretical research on the existence of the Aether and the "vacuum energy" in general. These will be clearly available immediately when people check the "Latest Comments" menu item (in the left "Modules" panel).
This is not just because of the many nasty e-mails I get for publishing Guglinski, but also because his posts require a level of physics that very few of us here posses, to be able to have a decent and informed dialog with him on the merits of his theories. But yes, I have to agree, they are less suitable for the main page, as per our own site's "bylaws".
Again, for those who did not read my reason for doing it, please read my post: " Why I publish Guglinski" (from a few years ago). Thx to all for your understanding (or not; no-like posts are easy 2 skip ;-). Vlad. |
|
|
Guglinski-Nassif theory: the THEORY OF EVERYTHING ? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, August 06, 2018 @ 11:58:14 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Submitted by WGuglinski: Guglinski-Nassif theory: the THEORY OF EVERYTHING?
In 1993 Guglinski had undertaken a deep investigation in the field of
Nuclear Physics. And he has arrived to the conclusion that any current nuclear model,
(where a nucleon moves - having interaction with other ones - by only
Coulomb forces, strong nuclear forces, and spin-interactions) is not able to reproduce the nuclear magnetic moment of some nuclei.
So he understood that there was need to consider a model where the
nucleons are captured by a sort of strings formed by magnetons.
Obviously there was need to consider a source for the production of the
strings, and then he had concluded that all nuclei have a central
nucleon 2He4, responsible for the production of the strings. Later he
has realized that even-even nuclei with Z=N, formed by nucleons captured
by those strings (composed by a flux of magnetons) could not have null
magnetic moment, and therefore there was need to suppose that those
strings were formed by a flux of other elementary particles of the
aether, instead of magnetons. And so the magnetons were replaced by
gravitons.
Several hexagonal floors are formed around the central 2He4, with
each of the 6 corners occupied by a deuteron. Due to Coulomb repulsions,
the six deuterons oscillate, in order that the structure of oxygen-16
is not a flat hexagon. Actually it assumes an ellipsoidal
shape. All the light even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape.
Silicon-28 is formed by two complete parallel hexagonal floors. The new
nuclear model was baptized as “Hexagonal Floors Model”. With the growth of the quantity of hexagonal floors, even-even nuclei approach the spherical shape, as for instance the 92U.
According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have ellipsoidal shape
(a dogma in which nuclear physicits believed along 80 years). And
therefore the nuclear model with hexagonal floors could not be
considered seriously by nuclear theorists, because they knew not only
that the principles of the SNP requires a spherical shape for those
nuclei, but also because they knew those nuclei have null electric
quadrupole moment, and therefore it was mandatory they have spherical
shape. Besides, as in that new nuclear model there is a central 2He4,
and the nucleons are captured by a string formed by a flux of gravitons
(instead of be bound by strong nuclear force, as considered in all
current nuclear models), the nuclear theorists had more strong reasons
why do not consider seriously a “strange” model formed by hexagonal
floors.
Obviously the author was aware that a paper, proposing the exotic
new nuclear model, would never be accepted for publication in any
reputable peer journal of physics. That’s why in 2004 he has decided to
meet his several papers in a book form, and to look for a publisher.
In the end of 2005 an editor has accepted to publish it, and the book
was published in August 2006, with the title Quantum Ring Theory (QRT).
This is how was born the new nuclear Hexagonal Floors model, as explained in the paper “On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation”:
https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330114/149
In 2012 the dogma (in which the nuclear theorists believed along 80 years) was brought down by an experiment published in the journal Nature: the experiment confirmed that silicon-28 (as also the light even-even nuclei with Z=N) has not spherical shape. They have ellipsoidal shape, as predicted correctly in Guglinski’s book published in 2006.
As many new experiments coming to light after 2009 were evidencing
that the current foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong,
in 2016 Guglinski decided to undertake a new challenge: to write new
papers, so that to prove that the new foundations proposed in this
Quantum Ring Theory are correct.
The first paper was entitled “Re-evaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta dacay”, in which Claudio Nassif contributed with some comments, because his Symmetric Special Relativity
(SSR) and Guglinski’s theory are complementary. Both theories have as
fundamental background the existence of a non-luminiferous aether, and
whereas Guglinski’ research is in the field of atomic and nuclear
physics, Nassif’s theory is an evolution of Einstein’s theory (as
Einstein's relativity was an evolution of Newton's classical theory).
The paper was submitted to the Pramana Journal of Physics in the
beginning of 2016, with Nassif as co-author. When the paper was
rejected by the editor of Pramana, it was submitted to other journals,
as the International Journal of Modern Physics, Canadian Journal of
Physics, Physical Review Letters, European Physical Journal, and others.
All them declined.
In this first paper is proposed a new experiment, and if be performed in the Jefferson Lab, the result can comprove the new model of neutron proposed by Guglinski, as seen in the Abstract:
"Another published paper of the author proposes that proton and
neutron radii have contraction inside the atomic nuclei, generating a
discrepancy of 8s between the neutron lifetime measured in beam and
bottle experiments. According to the present theory, the neutron radius
in beam experiments dilates from 0.26fm up to 0.87fm during the initial
8s, after which begins the process of decay. The present paper proposes a
new neutron model with quark structure d(u-e-u), with an electron
sandwiched between two up quarks. It reproduces very well all neutron
properties, as for instance the radial charge distribution, impossible
to be reproduced considering the current quark model ddu. So,
the radial charge distribution of neutrons (obtained from beam
experiments, if measured in the first initial 8 seconds of their
lifetime) has to exhibit a curve a little different of that measured in
2007 in the Jefferson Lab. Here is proposed to JLab to repeat the
experiment under such new condition."
Since 2008 Nassif’s papers have being published in the most reputable journals, as seen in the References of the paper “Re-evaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta dacay”, published in 2018 by International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences:
https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330112/143
Because his SSR is being published in several reputable mainstream
journals of physics, and his theory defies the current theories (where
it is missing the contribution of the aether for the production of
physical phenomena), Nassif is victim of persecution of his colleges in
the university where he teaches theoretical physics. And he was afraid
that, being co-author of a paper published by an alternative journal as
IJFPS, the persecution of his colleges would be worst. That’s why he
asked to Guglinski to remove him as co-author.
In 2016 Guglinski has also faced other challenge. He started up a
new research to prove that, from his new nuclear model, it is possible
to get success in an enterprise in which have succumbed all the current nuclear models (developed under the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics): to calculate with good accuracy the magnetic moments for all the light atomic nuclei.
The success of such enterprise is shown in three papers:
1- “Calculation of magnetic moments for light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30”:
https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-access/calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-light-nuclei-with-number-of-protonsbetween-z3-and-z30.pdf
2- "Testing the equations of the new nuclear model of Hexagonal Floors"
This paper will be published by SciFed in August.
Beyond the successful calculation of magnetic moments for several
light atomic nuclei, the paper also shows that from the new foundations
proposed by Guglinski it is possible to explain an enigma which invalidates all the current nuclear models: the reason why even-even nuclei with Z=N, excited with spin 2, have null magnetic moment (impossible to explain by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics).
3- "Mathematical confirmation for the nuclear properties K(O)= K(Ca)= ½.K(Si)= ½.K(Fe)"
Also will be published in August.
The paper shows that each hexagonal floor works as a magnet
(and this is one among the reasons why many nuclear properties cannot
be explained by the current nuclear models). Oxygen and calcium
isotopes have one magnet (in calcium isotopes two hexagonal floors
cancel each other their magnets). Therefore, due to the charge of
protons, the rotation of oxygen and calcium isotopes induce the same
magnetic induction-factor: K(O)= K(Ca).
Unlike, silicon and iron isotopes have two magnets. That’s why the
rotation of silicon and iron isotopes induce the same magnetic
induction-factor, K(Si)= K(Fe), and they are twice of the
induction-factor for oxygen and calcium isotopes:
K(Si)= K(Fe)= 2.K(O)= 2.K(Ca)
The calculation of magnetic moments gives values very close to the
experimental data.
|
|
|
Did Ether come back to Physics? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, August 16, 2018 @ 14:23:09 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: In his book “Einstein and the ether”, Kostro relates that Einstein brought a new relativistic ether to Physics in 1916. https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Ether-Ludwik-Kostro/dp/0968368948 . In his Symmetric Special Relativity (SSR), Claudio Nassif brings back a non-luminiferous relativistic ether. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S021827181001652X . Along the last ten years several experiments are showing that the space is not empty: "This work and a number of other recent works demonstrate that the vacuum is not empty but full of virtual photons," says theoretical physicist Steven Girvin at Yale University, who did not take part in the Aalto study: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/ . As the ether was banned from Physics by Einstein in 1905, the physicists avoid to refer to the quantum vaccum by calling it “ether”. But no matter what is the best word to refer to the non-empty space, the fact is that the non-empty quantum vacuum meets the characteristics of the ether. Particles of the ether have been called by several names, as singletons, phonons, gravitons, magnetons, electricitons, etc., depending on the nature of the phenomenon to which they are related. In their paper “The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light” published by the European Physical Journal in 2013, the authors propose that “the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs.” https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165 So, they are proposing that quantum vacuum is filled by fermion pairs, or, in another words, the ether is composed by fermion pairs. And in the paper “On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics” is proposed a structure for the electric fields of the proton and electron, formed by electricitons, magnetons, and gravitons. https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330113/144 From this physical structure for the electric fields of elementary particles, it is possible to explain why the Coulomb repulsion does not tend to infinite in very short distances, and so it explains the stability of quarks into the proton, without the need of considering the asymptotic freedom. . Now, in a paper published by Nature Electronics in August 15 2018, the authors explain how skyrmions (whirls produced by magnetic moments of particles of the ether), may give an answer for an unsolved puzzle: More fundamentally, the work may provide hints for solving a bigger mystery on cosmological scales, namely, why there is more matter than antimatter in the observable universe. Because of the asymmetry in the motion of skyrmion and antiskyrmions, the simulations show that there is always an excess of skyrmions after pair creation, so the imbalance between "matter" and "antimatter" in these ferromagnetic films is a natural consequence of their dynamics at high energies. "In the nanoscale magnetic universe, at least, matter can arise naturally from a single antiparticle seed", says Dr. Bertrand Dupé, researcher in the Interdisciplinary Spintronics Research Group at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) and senior author of the study. https://phys.org/news/2018-08-magnetic-antiparticles-horizons-technologies.html Such asymmetry in the motion of skyrmions and antiskyrmions seems to corroborate what is proposed in the page 62 of the paper “On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation”, published in June-2018, where it is written: Concerning the question on why does not exist antimatter in the universe, the answer must be found in some asymmetry of the aether structure. For instance, the following asymmetry: 1-There is a permeability particle “P” which promotes the interaction between gravitons g(+) and electricitons e(+). 2-There is a permeability particle “p” which promotes the interaction between gravitons g(+) and electricitons e(-). 3-As the singletons S(+) of the positron are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(+), then when occurred the Big Bang the positrons were not created, because the interaction between gravitons g(+) with particles P was suitable of producing only protons, and the interaction between gravitons g(-) and particles p was suitable of producing only electrons. 4-Therefore, antiprotons were not produced, because their quarks are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(-), and their interaction with the particle p is not suitable to produce antiprotons, while the positrons were not produced because their singletons are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(+), and their interaction with the particle P is not suitable to produce positrons. https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330114/149 . The proposal of the existence of positive and negative gravitons g(+) and g(-), in the previous article, seems to be related to the proposal of phonons in the paper “Researchers suggest phonons may have mass and perhaps negative gravity”, published also in August 15-2018: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-phonons-mass-negative-gravity.html They finish their work saying: “We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass—-in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field.” . CONCLUSION: it's inevitable that the accumulation of so much evidence obliges us to ask the question: Did ether come back to Physics? |
|
|
Demonstration of the New Coulomb’s Law F= KQq/d^X, X<2, for Distances d between (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, December 13, 2018 @ 17:24:51 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | From WGUGLINSKI: Abstract
Experiments are showing that Quantum Mechanics fails in nanoscales [1]. The reason can lie in the fact that there is not in Modern Physics any physical model of electric field of the elementary particles, whose line forces are composed by elementary particles of the quantum vacuum. The structure of this physical model is proposed in [2], where it was introduced the fundamental equation of the new Coulomb law F=KQq/d^X, with X<2 when d<1000fm.
Rutherford’s experiment detected that at the point with d= 30fm is the shorter distance where alpha particles, emitted by Po212, seems to interact with U238 through the old Coulomb law, and he interpreted it as a confirmation that Coulomb law continues valid in the range of femtometers. In [3] it is shown that the interaction between U238 and He4 is actually 42,3% lower than the expected from Coulomb’s law. But the velocity V=3.10^7m/s of the He4 promotes a growth in the interaction, and this is the reason why it seems that U238 and He4 have interaction by following the Coulomb’s law, as Rutherford supposed. In this present paper it is calculated the interaction between U238 and He4 in the Rutherford experiment, by a new procedure completely different of that calculated in [3], and the result gives a force 44,9% lower than the expected from Coulomb’s law. The two results, with 42,3% and 44,9%, suggest that the interaction between U238 and He4 in the Rutherford’s experiment really follows the New Coulomb’s lawF=KQq/d^X.
https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-access/demonstration-of-the-new-coulombs-law-f-kqqdx-x2-for-distancesd-between-10-15m-and-10-12m.pdf |
|
|
Lorentz’s Factor Violation by Neutrinos Moving with the Speed of Light (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, February 07, 2019 @ 13:11:18 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Submitted by W Guglinski:Abstract
Newton proposed the first
theory on the dynamics of moving bodies. Later, facing the paradox of
the light behavior discovered by Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein
felt himself constrained to conclude that Newton’s theory was a
particular case of a most general theory, and he proposed the
electrodynamics of moving bodies, based on the Lorentz’s factor.
Nowadays there is a new paradox and we are facing a similar situation of
that faced by Einstein, because the discovery that neutrino has mass
constrains us to suppose that Einstein’s theory is a particular case of a
most general theory on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and in
this new theory Einstein’s old concept of mass must be replaced. Such
new theory is presented in “On the electrodynamics of moving particles
in a quasi-flat spacetime with Lorentz violation and its cosmological
implications” [1], where there emerges a vacuum energy density of
gravito-electromagnetic origin (non-linear effects on the
electrodynamics due to gravity), leading to an anti-gravity at
cosmological scales in agreement with observations.
https://www.vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijanp/ijanp-3-010.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2fyHPzw9uA4lJpHr2Q23BPjaLqnQmqZWAvTJOt3krr0ipaMgqdXx3Em-k |
|
|
Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, February 07, 2019 @ 13:13:19 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Submitted by W. Guglinski: To: University of Cambridge, Department of Physics
Cc: Victor Riecansky, Editor, Cambridge International Science Publishing
In
October 2011, while physicists announced to the world that the
discoveries to be made by the LHC would confirm their theories about the
structure of the universe, the Cambridge International Science
Publishing signed a contract for the publication of the book “THE MISSED U-TURN, The Duel Heisenberg vs. Schrödinger", by W. Guglinski.
https://www.amazon.com.br/Missed-U-Turn-Heisenberg-Schr%C3%B6dinger-English-ebook/dp/B00UBGN93I/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1548842468&sr=8-5&keywords=guglinski
The
title of the book indicated that, in truth, physicists had taken a
WRONG WAY, for having gone down a street that would lead them nowhere.
But they did not return to look for the right street, to lead them to
the place they were looking for, because there was no U-turn plate in
the middle of the wrong street, which should indicate them that they had
to return, since that street was the wrong way , and would not lead
them to the right destination.
And for lack of that return plate, they were still on the wrong track.
In
2012 the LHC detected the Higgs boson, reinforcing the certainty of
physicists that they took the RIGHT PATH in their quest to unravel the
laws that govern the functioning of the universe.
Also in
2012 physicists at Cambridge University learned that the Cambridge Int.
Science Pub. Magazine would soon publish the book "The Missed U-Turn"
and threatened editor Victor Riecansky to boycott the publisher if the
book were published .
Despite having signed the publication contract, the publisher decided not to publish the book.
But
even though the Higgs boson was detected in 2012 at the LHC, particle
physicist Sabine Rossenfelder saw the U-Turn plate on the wrong path
physicists were tracking. She realized they had to go back. And to warn
physicists that they were on the wrong track, in 2018 she published the
book "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray".
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252
The situation at this time is as follows:
1.
Having physicists taken the wrong way, can we rely on their certainty
that the Higgs boson actually performs the function they assign to it,
from conferring mass to the elementary particles?
2. In
January-2019 the article "Lorentz Factor Violation by Neutrinos Moving
with the Speed of Light" was published, where it is shown that if the
Higgs boson performs the function attributed to it by physicists, then
in this case the Theory of Relativity by Einstein is wrong. There is,
therefore, a conflict between Einstein's theory and the Higgs theory.
https://www.vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijanp/ijanp-3-010.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1cW_4WOZAh8f91mY5Y3AW-FAmhhewDtn9TdpThjuTBc_355wcV60pVLBU
3.
Having until now been confirmed that physicists are LOST IN
MATHEMATICS, which led them to a WRONG WAY, and there being the
aggravating factor of the Higgs theory that Einstein's theory is wrong,
we wonder if the physicists did not realized yet that, in wrong track
they took, there is yet another U-Turn plate, and that this second
additional return plate requires them to reject the Higgs theory.
Most physicists have not realized yet.
Probably even Sabine did not realize that there is this second U-Turn plate on the wrong path they adopted.
But it's only a matter of time, until they discover this second plate, and come back.
Regards
W Guglinski |
|
|
Intention of plagiarism by the Editor-in-Chief of European Physical Journal A (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, February 07, 2019 @ 13:15:27 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Submitted by W. Guglinski: European Physical Journal A To:wladski@yahoo.com Subject: European Physical Journal A - Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-104814 Cc:epja.bologna@sif.it Feb 1 at 2:37 PM 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
=============================================
Wladimir Guglinski To:mgb@cern.ch Feb 3 at 7:59 PM
Dear Prof. Maria Borge
My paper shows that a wrong mathematical procedure is being applied by nuclear theorists in papers published after 2012.
As
you say that my paper does not fit to the aims and scopes of EPJ A,
then I conclude that the editors of EPJ A agree there is no problem if
nowadays some wrong papers continue being published, and therefore there
is no problem to deceive the audience of the EPJ A, since they will be
reading papers where the authors apply a wrong mathematics procedure.
Among the aims and scopes of EPJ A, one of them is to deceive the readers?
Is that what do you mean to say?
In
the case my paper be not published in any mainstream journal, then I
will publish it in Physics Essays, quoting all the journals whose
editors rejected to publish the paper, and showing all the Reports
written by the editors, where they say that they are not worried about
fooling the readers of the journal.
I
suppose the audience of the all mainstream journals worlwide will be
very glad to take knowledge that they are being tricked when they read
the most reputable journals of physics, among them the European Physical
Journal A.
Regards W Guglinski
=============================================
Wladimir Guglinski To:mgb@cern.ch,epja.bologna@sif.it Cc:editor@physicsessays.com
To: Professor Maria Borge Editor in Chief
European Physical Journal A
Dear Prof. Maria Borge
Here is attached in PDF the manuscript of "Intention of plagiarism by the Editor-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal A", to be published in upcoming weeks by Physics Essays.
The Abstract and Conclusions of the paper are ahead.
Regards W Guglinski
Abstract
Magnetic moments of
some excited Z=N even-even nuclei are not quoted in 2001 Stone’s nuclear table,
as for instance 12Mg24, Ex 1369, 2+, 1,44 ps. Their missing in nuclear table
can imply that they have null magnetic moments, in spite of such hypothesis is impossible
according to current nuclear physics. In October-2018 the author submitted, to
European Physical Journal A, the paper “Proposal
of an experiment able to eliminate the controversy: are right, or wrong the
foundations of the Standard Nuclear Theory?”, with the aim to eliminate the
controversy. The Editor-in-Chief Maria Borge rejected the paper, citing the
article PRL114 (2015)062501, where the authors propose a procedure so that to get
the experimental magnetic moment for the excited 12Mg24, Ex 1369, 2+, 1,97 ps,
and their calculation gives non null value. The author of the present paper
analyzed their article, and he discovered that a wrong mathematical procedure
was applied in the calculation. That’s why he wrote a second paper, entitled “Mandatory Check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for
Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic
Nuclei”, showing the error in the procedure, and submitted it to EPJ
A in Oct 2018. But Maria Borge rejected the second paper too, saying that “the subject of this paper is outside the aims and
scopes of EPJ A”. Nevertheless, the discovery of an error in the procedure creates an
intolerable situation in nuclear physics, because if the nuclear theorists do
not take knowledge of that error, many of them will continue applying the wrong
procedure in new forthcoming papers. Of course Maria Borge is aware that such
situation cannot persist in nuclear physics. But as she rejected the author’s
second paper, then obviously she decided by herself to alert the nuclear
theorists, by writing and publishing a paper, where she reveals the error of
procedure, as if it were discovered by her.
There
are four reasons why is unacceptable the words used by Maria Borge, at
her rejection of the second author’s paper. They are:
1-
The argument is no scientific, because she did not point out any error
in the second author’s paper. And obviously a scientific paper cannot be
rejected by an arbitrary argument.
2- The
second author’s paper shows that a wrong mathematical procedure is used
by nuclear physicists. As Maria Borge claims that “the subject of this
paper is outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A”, this imply that the aims
and scopes of EJP A is not to supply correct information to the
readers, inasmuch the editors do not worry to fool the readers, hiding
important information from them.
3- Her decision is unethical, because is fooling the readers of EPJ A.
4-
After the discovery by the author of the present paper, that there is
an error of procedure used by nuclear theorists, for the calculations
involving magnetic moments of the Z=N even-even nuclei, an intolerable
situation arose in the field of nuclear physics, because the nuclear
theorists cannot continue ignorant about such a discovery. If they
continue without knowledge of the error, they will continue writing new
papers with the wrong procedure, and the editors of journals will
continue publishing them. Then, it is mandatory to publish a paper, in
order the nuclear theorists to take knowledge of the error in the
procedure. And obviously such a paper must be written by the author of
the discovery. Nobody has the right to write such a paper, and submit it
for publication. If the Editor-in-Chief Maria Borge intends to write
it, and to publish it, she is committing scientific plagiarism. She has
not the merit of the discovery, mainly because she cited the article
PRL114 (2015)062501 as a reliable calculation reference, without knowing
all the calculations in that article are invalidated by the wrong
mathematical procedure used by the authors.
=============================================
Wilfried Nörtershäuser To:Wladimir Guglinski Feb 5 at 5:32 AM
I SEE IT AS THIS AND I DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE A SINGLE OTHER
EMAIL OF YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES WHICH ARE PHYSICS-NONSENSE !
Prof. Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser
Experimental Atomic and Nuclear Physics
of Radioactive Nuclides ------------------------------------------------------------
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Institut für Kernphysik Tel: +49(0)6151-16-23575
Schlossgartenstr. 9 Fax: +49(0)6151-16-23305
64289 Darmstadt Email wnoertershaeuser@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de GERMANY
=============================================
Wladimir Guglinski To:Wilfried Nörtershäuser Cc:mgb@cern.ch,epja.bologna@sif.it,editor@physicsessays.com Bcc:michael.duffy9@btopenworld.com,levy.joseph@orange.fr,j.g.gilson@qmul.ac.uk,anpetrov@rol.ru,gtg@Virginia.edu Feb 5 at 6:53 AM
Dear Dr. Nortershauser
Conspiracy
is the present attempt of the editors of the worldwide mainstream
journals, trying to hide from people that I found a mathematical error
in the procedure for calculations involving the magnetic moments for the
Z=N even-even nuclei.
If you
agree that the audience of the mainstream journals have not the right to
take knowldege that exist an error in the procedure, which is used by
theorists like you, then yourself is a member of the conspiracy, because
you also are trying to fool the readers of the mainstream journals, as
for instance the European Physical Journal A.
Besides,
from your words, by myself I conclude that your intention is to
continue applying the wrong mathematical procedure in your calculations
when you write a paper, and you will publish them with errors in some
mainstream journal.
So, I am very sorry of your decision. But if you prefer to publish papers with mathematical errors, that is a decision of yours.
The only thing I can do is to wish you good luck with your decision of fooling the readers, and yourself.
Regards W Guglinski |
|
|
Lost in Math: How Nuclear Theorists Lead Physics Astray (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, April 10, 2019 @ 09:17:26 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | WGUGLINSKI writes: Along the last 15 years some pillars of Nuclear Physics are being
demolished by new experimental findings, and this is a clear evidence
that the Nuclear Theory was conceived from the adoption of wrong
fundamental premises.
As consequence of the fact that wrong foundations were adopted in
Nuclear Physics, the theory is full of unacceptable paradoxes, and along
the years the theorists bypassed them by using two strategies:
1-
By using a dirty mathematics, as occurred in the Gamow’s quantum
tunneling theory, for the explanation of the emission of alpha particle
by U238. The nuclear theorists claim that “the kinetic energy is negative in the forbidden region, so the velocity is formally an imaginary number”, in spite of they do not know to explain what a hell can be a velocity described by an imaginary number.
2- By proposing nonsenses, as occurs in the theory published by
Physical Review Letters yesterday (April 8 2019), where the authors
propose that “time-reversal violation may explain abundance of matter over antimatter”, in the paper entitled “Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles”. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015001.
The origin of the nonsense published yesterday by Physical Review
Letters arises from an experimental finding published in 2013
(responsible for the origin of the paradox) when researchers of the
University of Liverpool discovered that Ra224 is pear shaped, which is
impossible, by considering the foundations of the current Nuclear
Physics, because atomic nuclei with equal number of protons and neutrons
have to have spherical shape. Prof. Peter Butler, who led the research,
arrived to the conclusion that atomic nuclei have a preferential
Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have their distribution.
However, such solution is unacceptable, because such sort of
preferential Z-axis is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, by
considering the foundations of the current Nuclear Physics. In order to
admit the existence of a preferential Z-axis from the foundations of
Nuclear Theory, there is need to introduce some new conjectures, as for
instance suppose the existence of a fifth force beyond the strong
nuclear force, or to suppose nonsenses, as reversions in time, proposed
in the paper published by Physical Review Letters.
The
existence of a preferential Z-axis in atomic nuclei was predicted in
the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006. In the page 133 of the
book it is written:
“The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”.
So,
the paradox of the Ra224 pear shape is solved by considered that atomic
nuclei have a preferential Z-axis, and it is not necessary to resort to
the idiotic hypothesis that pear shape of Ra224 is caused by a
reversion in the time.
This episode
involving the pear shape of Ra224 evidences how the nuclear theorists
are lost in mathematics. But the definitive proof will be exhibited in
the paper “Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z=N even-even nuclei”, to be published in the upcoming issue of Physics Essays. The Abstract is shown ahead.
Abstract
"Data
extracted from Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, published by Raman
et al in 2001, are used for the calculation of magnetic moments of
atomic nuclei. But in Oct 2018 the author discovered that, when the
nuclear theorists use Raman’s table, a wrong math procedure is being
applied, for the case of calculation of the magnetic moments for the
exotic excited even Z=N nuclei. It is mandatory for the nuclear
theorists to verify what can be the repercussions of such error in
nuclear physics, because along the last 15 years some pillars of the
theory are being demolished by new experimental findings (among them,
the pillar known as “strong nuclear force”). In a new paper of the
author, to be published in upcoming months, entitled “The controversy on the inverse-square law for Coulomb’s interactions”,
are exhibited several experimental evidences that unquestionably
testify against the existence of the strong nuclear force. If nuclear
theorists finally recognize that the current foundations of nuclear
theory must be replaced by new ones, the recognition by them will bring
repercussions not only in the field nuclear physics, but also will
require some changes in particle physics, as for instance to discard the
asymptotic freedom, because repulsions between protons inside atomic
nuclei will be ruled by a New Coulomb’s Law."
The
wrong mathematical procedure, proven in the paper to be published by
Physics Essays, is used in a paper published by Physical Review Letters,
in 2015.
The paper “The controversy on the inverse-square law for Coulomb’s interactions”,
mentioned in the Abstract of the paper to be published by Physics
Essays, is under review by a reputable journal of Physics, and will be
published in upcoming months. The Abstract is exhibited ahead.
Abstract
"Abdus
Salam and his co-workers proposed the concept of strong gravity in the
1960s, as an alternative to the young QCD, so that to solve the puzzles
concerning to confinement and asymptotic freedom, not requiring, as
occurs in QCD, to abandon the behavior of a force acting from the
inverse-square law. At that time asymptotic freedom in QED was observed
by some theorists, and by Gerard’t Hooft in 1972, whose physical
significance however was realized only one year later by David Gross,
Frank Wilczek and David Politzer. They “rehabilitated” the Quantum Field
Theory, because prior to their discovery it was under suspicion, since
Coulomb interactions become infinitely strong at very short distances.
But this approach has not so far led to a Grand Unified Theory. Then we
are forced to think whether the “rehabilitation” is possible by other
alternative, rather than by asymptotic freedom, because there are so
many unacceptable puzzles in nuclear physics, that they oblige us to
conclude that some of the fundamental principles of the nuclear theory
are wrong. Therefore, if some principles of the nuclear theory are
wrong, it is possible that the “rehabilitation” must be sought in the
atomic nucleus, as proposed herein." |
|
|
Re: Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, July 03, 2019 @ 13:03:56 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for the calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z=N even–even nuclei by Wladimir Guglinski
|
|
|
Can a Nobel Prize in Physics betraying the Math? (by WGUGLINSKI) (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, July 16, 2020 @ 10:25:32 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Ahead are the titles and Abstract of a series composed by three papers:
1- Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law, and fine-structure constantABSTRACT Coulomb's
is an experimental law that quantifies the amount of force
between two stationary, electrically charged particles. There is a
consensus in the scientific community that it has been tested, and
observations have upheld the law on a scale from 0,1 fm to 10^8 m[1].
This is no true, because in scales of few femtometers there is no way to
measure the force between two stationary electrically charged
particles, because there are not stationary charged particles in the
scale of few femtometers. The first one who tried to test the Coulomb’s
law in the scale of few femtometers was Rutherford, but in his
experiments he measured the repulsion between an alpha particle moving
with speed 3x10^7 m/s, in its interacting with the nucleus of
uranium-238. Coulomb’s law was essential to the development of the
theory of electromagnetism, maybe even its starting point,[2] because it
was now possible to discuss quantity of electric charge in a meaningful
way[3]. This is correct. However, there is need to be aware that it was
essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism in the
scales larger than 10^-11 m. For scales around few femtometers there is
need to verify if the intensity of the Coulomb’s interaction between two
particles is influenced by their relative speeds. Such question is
analyzed here.
2- Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum ABSTRACT In [1] is calculated that the fermions of the quantum vacuum, which
compose the electric field of the proton, have electric charge e° =
5,06532.10^-45 C. Here, from this value of e°, together with the
fundamental constants K°, c, h , and a= 1/137, is calculated the
electric charge of the proton, achieving the value e= 1,6026.10^-19 C,
very close to the experimental e= 1,60218.10^-19 C.
3- Alpha mystery unraveled through the fermions of the quantum vacuum of the electron’s electric field ABSTRACT Mathematics is a tool for confirmation, or rejection, of theories of
physics. So, if Editors and Referees of a journal of physics reject a
new theory, strongly supported by math, because they cannot accept that
their old theories can be threatened by new discoveries achieved by new
math procedures, then not only the math is being rejected, but the own
scientific method is threatened. The successful theoretical calculation
of the proton’s electric charge in [1] opened a way for the calculation
of the electron’s radius, a task undertaken here. Also, it’s shown
herein the role played by the fine-structure constant in physics, never
unraveled before. But if Editors and Referees of journals of physics
succeed in their effort to boycott the math, the scientific true will
never prevail.
The paper number 2, “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, was submitted to the International Journal of Theoretical Physics two days ago, in 11 July 2020. The submission to IJTP can be seen in the figure which illustrates the topic in Linkedin:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-nobel-prize-physics-betraying-math-wlad-wladimir-guglinski/?published=t
As
seen in the Abstract, in the paper is calculated, from the electric
charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum (calculated in the first
paper of the series) the electric charge of the proton, achieving the
value e= 1,6026.10^-19 C, very close to the experimental e=
1,60218.10^-19 C.
The journal requires to the author to suggest three referees. He suggested three Nobel Prizes in Physics: David Gross Frank Wilczek Brian Josephson
So, a question arises: I) Will the three Nobel Prizes be loyal to the Math, and will decide to approve the paper for publication? II) Or will they decide to betray the Math?
And if they will decide to betraying the Math, which they, by
themselves, consider the pillar of the Theoretical Physics, another
question arises:
What can be the future of Theoretical Physics, if even a Nobel Prize has no loyalty to the Math? |
|
|
Springer-Nature's reputation threatened by scientific scandal (WGuglinski) (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, July 25, 2020 @ 15:29:35 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | To: Renate Bayaz
Director Communications
Springer Nature
Tel.: +49 6221 487 8531
renate.bayaz@springernature.com
Dear Renate Bayaz
At 21 April 2020 I have submitted to Foundations of Physics (FOOP), a paper entitled “On the philosophy underlying the mathematics in physics”.
In
this paper are exhibited proofs, unquestionable and irrefutable,
because they are supported by rigorous math calculations, that some
fundamental principles of physics are wrong.
In order to have an idea
about the accuracy achieved in the paper, the electric charge of the
proton is calculated, reaching to the value e= 1,6026x10^-19 C, whereas
the experimental value is e= 1,60218x10^-19 C.
From
the current foundations of physics there is no way to calculate the
electric charge of the proton. And never nobody tried to calculate it
theoretically, because it’s impossible to do it.
The
successful calculation of the proton’s electric charge was possible
because in my paper is proposed a model of electric field, whose
principles are different of those adopted in the current theories.
So,
1.
since from this new model of electric field is possible to calculate
the proton’s charge, with a precision extremely accurate,
2. the calculation lead us to the conclusion that some fundamental principles are missing in the foundations of physics.
At 6 July my paper was rejected, with the reasons exposed in the Report ahead.
REPORT
Dear Dr. Guglinski,
We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP-D-20-00239 "On the philosophy underlying the mathematics in physics".
With
regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the
Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for
publication in Foundations of Physics.
Below, please find the comments for your perusal.
I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.
With kind regards,
Patricia Palacios
Associate Editor
Foundations of Physics
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
Reviewer #1:
The author introduces a biographical episode (submission and rejection
of three papers on physics), and concludes from this episode that there
is an underlying "philosophy" that brings theoretical physicists to
reject some "non-standard" mathematical procedures despite their
correctness.
The topic of the paper sounds promising and
interesting. However, the way the author develops this topic is
unsatisfying. The title of the paper promises a philosophical analysis,
but I could not find any philosophical analysis in the paper. Even
worse, the author seems to use the term "philosophy" as a synonym for
"prejudice": theoretical physicists have a "prejudice" towards
non-standard mathematical procedures that might jeopardize some of their
established conclusions. This prejudice is what the author calls "the
philosophy underlying the mathematics in physics". Moreover, the author
makes no effort whatsoever to clarify some conceptually challenging
terms or expressions. Let me name few of these expressions:
- what is a "scientific argument" (p. 2)?
- In which sense "mathematics does not lie. She reve(a)ls us the tru(th)" (p. 4)?
- What does the author mean by "Universal Mathematics" (p. 5)?
-
What does the author mean by "strictly scientific method", and what
does the author mean when s/he says that theorists "had to be
submissive" to it (p. 20)?
Let me repeat again that i find the
topic of the paper extremely interesting. However, without a serious
philosophical analysis to back up the conclusion, I do not see any real
contribution to the debate. For this reason, I do not recommend this
paper for publication.
Reviewer #2: I
recommend rejecting this paper since it is neither a paper in philosophy
of science nor foundations of physics. The author reproduces parts of
three rejected "scientific" papers, reports of referees and editors, and
his replies to these reports. At best, if the argumentation were clear,
this paper would suit a sociology of science journal. Alas, I failed to
see a single clear argument in this paper.
END OF REPORT
First of all, it is very strange that, despite the Reviewer #1 found “ the topic of the paper extremely interesting”,
he did not give to me the chance to improve the paper, by introducing
suitable changes so that to explain the points raised by the reviewer.
After all, as in his opinion, ” the topic of the paper is extremely interesting”,
of course the topic would be extremely interesting for the readers of
FOOP. Thereby, why do not give to readers the pleasure of reading an
article that they would find extremely interesting? Why do not give the author a second chance? The Reviewer #2 rejected the paper with a personal opinion, since he said that “ it is neither a paper in philosophy of science nor foundations of physic”. But
such a subject, regarding what is pertinent, or not, to the foundations
of physics, is controversial, since in the opinion of the Reviewer #1, beyond to cover matters pertinent to the foundations of physics, the topic is yet extremely interesting.
That’s
why I decided to change the title of the paper, and to submit it again
to FOOP. The new version of the paper was submitted as follows:
1. It was submitted in 7 July, with new title: “The philosophy of mathematical physics”. 2. Together with the manuscript, I sent a COVER LETTER to Roseline Periyanayagam, Managing Editor of FOOP, asking her to send the paper again to the Reviewer #1. 3.
I have explained, in the Cover Letter, that the points raised by the
Reviewer #1 were in red colors, so that to make easier his analysis of
the improvements introduced by me.
The new version of the paper was rejected in 15 July, but the new version was not sent to the Reviewer #1. Instead of, the own Editorial Board of FOOP decided to reject it, with the following Report:
REPORT
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 7:08:02 AM GMT-3, Foundations of Physics (FOOP) wrote: Dear Dr. Guglinski, We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP-D-20-00401 " The philosophy of mathematical physics". With
regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the
Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for
publication in Foundations of Physics. Below, please find the comments for your perusal. I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration. With kind regards, Fedde Benedictus Managing Editor Foundations of Physics COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR: __ **Our flexible approach during the COVID-19 pandemic** If
you need more time at any stage of the peer-review process, please do
let us know. While our systems will continue to remind you of the
original timelines, we aim to be as flexible as possible during the
current pandemic. END OF REPORT
First of all, it is very interesting to note that, in his Report, the Managing Editor Fedde Benedictus, wrote: “Below, please find the comments for your perusal.”
However,
there is not any comment in the Report, as it’s seen in it. And the
reason why no one among the members of the Editorial Board did not write
a comment, is very clear: no one among them was able to justify the rejection of the paper, because:
1-
The paper is supported by unquestionable math calculations. And math
calculations can be refuted only when errors can be found. And as they
did not find any error, no one of them could justify the rejection.
2- As said by the Reviewer #1, “the topic of the paper extremely interesting”.
Therefore, no one member of the Editorial Board could justify, with a
reasonable argument, why a paper, whose topic is extremely interesting,
is rejected by the Editorial Board of FOOP. After all, as the topic was
found extremely interesting for the Reviewer #1, then the readers of
FOOP also would find it extremely interesting. And do a question
arises: why the member of the Editorial Board of FOOP decided to
private, the readers of the SPRINGER’s publications, of getting knowledge about an extremely interesting topic, on the foundations of physics?
Dear Renate,
the answer for this question:
why the member of the Editorial Board of FOOP decided to private, the readers of the SPRINGER’s publications,
of getting knowledge about an extremely interesting topic,
on the foundations of physics?
involves
interests of the members of the Editorial Board, mainly the
Editor-in-Chief, Carlo Rovelli. But I have to tell you that their
interests may be at odds with the interests of Springer, because:
1-
my paper is supported by math calculations (in which the members of the
Editorial Board of FOOP did not succeed to find errors), then soon or
later the scientific community will reach to the conclusion that the
conclusions of the paper are correct: that something is wrong in the
current foundations of physics. This is unavoidable, because math
results cannot be rejected forever. Soon or later the physicist will
accept them.
2- Carlo Rovelli (as other
Editors-in-Chief of other journals published by Springer) is author of
several books, published by several publishing houses, where he explains
for laymen the current foundations of physics. He is famous, and some readers consider him a genius.
3-
So, it is not interesting for Carlo Rovelli that a new paper, where it
is proven unquestionably that some foundations of physics are wrong, get
to the knowledge of his readers. Because they will realize that Carlo
Rovelli is explaining to them foundations that can be wrong. And he can
lose not only the admiration of his readers, because they will get
doubts about the accuracy of his explanations, but he also will lose
money, because the readers can stop to read his books.
4- So, Carlo Rovelli does not worry about the interest of Springer,
which is to publish papers and books in which the scientific method is
rigorously applied, and respected. He is interested in maintaining his
fame, and making money from his books.
If
I do not succeed to publish my paper in any journal published by
Springer, I will publish it in another journal, as for instance Physics
Essays, which is a serious peer-review journal of physics. And the
truth, about the foundations of physics, will come to the light, and
soon or later, that what is proven in my paper, will be finally
recognized by the community of physicist.
So, when the truth comes
to light, and the people worldwide will get knowledge that a paper (in
which was proven an error in the foundations of physics) was rejected by
a scientific journal published by Springer, nobody can predict the
damage to the reputation of this prestigious publishing house. And
Bernhard Springer will roll over in his tomb.
The situation is
very serious, dear Renate. And you, together with the team that is
devoted to the effort to preserve Springer's prestige, should think
seriously about the matter, and take the appropriate steps to avoid a
future scandal, which could tarnish the Springer's seriousness in
publishing scientific books and articles.
Regards
W Guglinski
|
|
|
|
|
