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, 92 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

Objective evidence of defect of the QED's standard interpretation
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2020 @ 15:39:13 GMT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes: Dear Prof. Hiromichi Nakazato
Editor, European Physical Journal Plus

I am submitting for publication in the journal Physics Essays my paper entitled “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant”.

The paper was rejected for publication in the European Physical Journal Plus with the following Report, written by you:

The main idea of the paper is based on such classical notions like particle's motion and electric current and magnetic field seem to have been given fundamental roles.  This is evident from the figures presented in the paper.  These notions are untenable in microscopic world where the wave-particle duality is essential even if the author feels "strange" and the gauge field plays an essential role.  They have been supported by experiments for many years.  The paper will not be understood and never be accepted by any other physicists unless the author provides, not a subjective (like the one the author thinks "strange"), but an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation, which is missing in the present paper.
I think that the paper does not fulfill the scientific standards required by EPJPlus and thus reject it.
Yours sincerely
Hiromichi Nakazato
Editor,  The European Physical Journal Plus


From your words:
The paper will not be understood and never be accepted by any other physicists unless the author provides, not a subjective (like the one the author thinks "strange"), but an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation, which is missing in the present paper
one realizes that the paper was not rejected due to errors in math, neither to any unacceptable speculation.

According to your argument, the reason of rejection was because it is missing in the paper “an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”.

However, the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation” is provided in the paper entitled “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”. But you you did not read it, because the Manager Editor of EPJ Plus sent the paper for the Editor-in-Chief Kumar S. Gupta, who rejected the paper with the following Report:

Ref.: Ms. No. EPJP-D-20-00751
Title: "Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum
The European Physical Journal Plus
Dear Dr. Guglinski,
I have read this paper. Unfortunately this paper does not meet the scientific standards of EPJ Plus and hence cannot be published in EPJ Plus.
Yours sincerely
Kumar S. Gupta
Editor
The European Physical Journal Plus



Therefore, from the Report one realizes that Dr. Gupta did not find any mathematical error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”. And so we reach to the following conclusions:

1-    As Dr. Gupta did not find any error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, this means that in that paper is definitively proven the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”, which does not exist in the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant”.

2-    Thereby, from the Report by Dr. Gupta, since he did not detect any error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, is invalidated your argument, dear Prof. Nakazato, and so the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant” deserves to be published, because the “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”, is proven to exist in the paper rejected by Dr. Gupta.



The Editor-in-Chief of Physics Essays, Dr. Emilio Panarella, has interest to publish the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant”. But he would like to eliminate any controversy about the question risen by you, according to which the publication of the paper requires an “objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation”.

As the objective evidence is proven to exist, as shown in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, I would like you read it, so that to verify if there is any mathematical error in the paper. And so I am sending it attached here.

If you do not reply to this my solicitation, then Dr. Panarella and me  will conclude that you did not find any math error in the paper “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, and therefore:

1)    It is supplied for the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s law, and fine-structure constant” the objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation.
2)    And so Dr. Panarella will be sure that the paper deserves to be published in Physics Essays.

Regards
W Guglinski


 
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


"Objective evidence of defect of the QED's standard interpretation" | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

W. Guglinski theoretical research (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, July 02, 2020 @ 13:51:08 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Older updates on W. Guglinski theoretical research are posted here (see comments):




What New Evidence Could Revolutionize All Of Known Physics? (Score: 1)
by yru4 on Saturday, July 04, 2020 @ 21:09:48 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Hi, I thought you'd like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/03/ask-ethan-what-new-evidence-has-the-greatest-chance-of-overthrowing-known-physics/ Ask Ethan: What New Evidence Could Revolutionize All Of Known Physics? - Forbes



Re: First objective evidence of defect in interpretation of QED (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, March 02, 2021 @ 22:11:45 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
From W. Guglinski: ABSTRACT

The electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum is calculated in this paper. The value of e is 5.06532·10-45 C. From this value of e, together with the fundamental constants Ko, c, h, and a=1/137, the electric charge of the proton is calculated, achieving the value e= 1.6026·10-19 C, which is very close to the experimental e= 1.60218·10-19 C. This successful calculation represents the first objective evidence that something very fundamental is missing in the standard interpretation of quantum electrodynamics.

Keywords: Proton charge; Coulomb’s law; Structure of electric field; Fine-structure constant; Charge of fermions of quantum vacuum.







Missing of anistropic space in quantum mechanics (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, October 18, 2021 @ 17:41:20 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Dear Noble Prize in Physics, Dr. Gerardus t' Hooft

A simple calculation that demonstrates the missing of the anistropic space in the atom model of quantum mechanics is exposed in the link below.


I invite you to calculate it, and confirm by yourself that really it is missing the anisotropic space inside the atom model of quantum mechanics.

Regards
W Guglinski



Subtle is the Math (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, October 28, 2021 @ 18:08:29 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

https://www.editions-saint-honore.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/1er_de_couv_978-2-407-02221-2.jpg
The Mystery of Mathematics

What is possible, what is necessary, and what is impossible in the Nature?

This is what philosophers try to respond, from the epistemology of modality. The philosophers are analyzing such a question by starting from the viewpoint that some laws of quantum theory, despite appearing to be impossible, are necessary, being confirmed by math and experiments.

But are we sure that what the math is pointing to us is exactly what we think it is pointing to?

Here such a question is analyzed, because the author’s effort to eliminate a paradox in his theory of electric fields composed by fermions of the quantum vacuum, revealed to him something much more important than the elimination of the paradox itself: he finally understood that it is not the Lord God that is subtle, as stated by Einstein; what is subtle is actually the Mathematics. 

Thereby, before trying to respond the question on what is possible, necessary, or impossible in Nature, we have to be sure about what the math is pointing out to us. The most reasonable should be to suppose that it’s impossible that the imaginary number plays any role in the physical mechanisms from which Nature works. And that, as the quantum theorists use the imaginary number in their mathematics, the conclusion is that they use a math that proves that the impossible is possible.

Nevertheless, as will be shown here, the Lord made possible what seems to
be impossible. This is illustrated in the cover of the book: in the fraction of a second when the Universe was being created, the Lord pushed “-1”, forcing it to enter inside the square root.


Returning to the subject on nuclear physics, according to my new nuclear model – which will be available for readers in another book entitled New Foundations of Nuclear Physics – some excited even-even nuclei have null magnetic moment (despite having non-null nuclear spin which, as said, is impossible according to the current nuclear physics). And, intriguingly, the magnetic moments, of many of those excited nuclei, are not quoted in nuclear tables. So, I had a good reason to suppose that they are not quoted because they have null magnetic moments, which therefore cannot be detected by experiments, which explains why they are not quoted in nuclear tables.

So, I wrote a paper, entitled “Proposal of an experiment able to eliminate the controversy: are the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Theory right, or wrong?”, and submitted it to European Physical Journal A, in 15-Oct-2018.

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

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.”

I have read that paper published in 2015 by Physical Review Letters, and I discovered the following error in the procedure of calculation:

  • The authors have considered that excited 12Mg24 has spherical shape. And for their calculations, they used a nuclear table, published by S. Raman in 2001.
  • But in 2012 the journal Nature published a paper, regarding an experiment which detected that nuclei with pair numbers Z of protons and N of neutrons have not spherical shape. This experimental finding of 2012 had demonstrated to be correct the prediction in the page 137, of my book Quantum Ring Theory, that atomic nuclei with Z pair, being Z=N, actually have ellipsoidal shapes.
  • Therefore, they had wrongly used the Raman’s table, which after 2012 no longer can be applied for pairs Z=N nuclei.

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.

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

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 acce
pt it for publication in EPJ 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”.

===============

About the author : Wladimir Guglinski 

Graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1973 at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, in 1989 a tragic event changed his perception of life and the world, and he felt the need to verify that what physicists had discovered really represented the exact picture of what exists in nature. Physicists say that the merit and veracity of a scientific theory are evaluated through the scientific method, whose fundamental parameter of confirmation is the confrontation of theory with experimental verification. Therefore, physicists guaranteed that, because they are totally faithful to the scientific method, if you develop a new theory, elaborated on new foundations and it is confirmed by experiments, then they will accept your theory. He believed what physicists say, that scientists are totally loyal to the scientific  method. And since he was sure that some principles adopted in physics could not be correct, so if he could find new principles that would eliminate the paradoxes, and his new theory gained experimental proof, physicists would recognize his theory, and accept it. Confident in the fidelity of physicists to the scientific method, he decided to undertake an investigation. He abandoned engineering and dedicated himself to pursuit a new scientific truth. And he discovered new fundamentals of physics. But he also discovered something as surprising as the new fundamentals: he discovered that physicists lie, claiming that they are totally faithful to the scientific method.




 

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.