WGUGLINSKI writes: Most people think that Quantum Mechanics is a successful theory, and that it’s definitive. But it’s not. The Quantum Mechanics has failures, it has some inconsistencies, and the own quantum physicists know it...
Just because it has failures, the quantum field theorists had created in the 20th Century a new theory, named Quantum Field Theory (QFT) , so that to eliminate the inconsistencies of Quantum Mechanics.
Inconsistencies of Quantum Mechanics continue in Quantum Field Theory
Quantum Mechanics is based on several fundamental principles, as Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, de Broglie’s duality, etc.
The attempt of the quantum field theorists in trying to eliminate the
Quantum Mechanics inconsistencies is via mathematics and by keeping the
fundamental principles of the theory. So they believe it is possible to
eliminate the inconsistency by improving the mathematics of the theory,
and there is no need to change the principles.
For instance, the isospin was proposed by Heisenberg so that to explain why two neutrons do not form the dineutron, because:
- as there is no Coulomb repulsion between two neutrons
- and there is the attraction between them by the strong force
-
then it would be expected that two neutrons should have to form a
dineutron, but it is known that dineutrons do not exist in nature.
But
Heisenberg’s isospin is a mere mathematical concept, and it cannot
explain why two neutrons do not form the dineutron, because only a force
of repulsion can separate two neutrons interacting by the attraction
force due to the strong force. A mathematical concept cannot create a
repulsion force, and so the isospin is an unacceptable explanation.
However,
as the quantum field theorists try to eliminate the inconsistence via
mathematics, it seems to be impossible to eliminate the inconsistence of
the isospin by improving the mathematics proposed by Heisenberg,
because the mathematics cannot create a force of repulsion so that to
separate two neutrons attracted by the strong force. It seems there is
need to change the physical structure of the neutron considered in
standard Nuclear Physics, because only by this way it would be possible
to explain the existence of a repulsion force between two neutrons, when
they interact in the distance of 2fm.
Other inconsistence is
concerning the de Broglie’s duality. His hypothesis advanced in 1924
says that particles of matter such as electrons have wake like
properties. His hypothesis was supposedly confirmed by Davisson-Germer
experiment in 1927, and the scientific community had concluded that
duality is a property of matter as proposed by de Broglie.
But
there was another different interpretation for the Davisson-Germer
experiment, because Schröedinger had discovered a trembling motion of
the electron in the Dirac’s electron equation. Schröedinger had
interpreted it as a helical trajectory, and so by such new
interpretation the duality should not be a property of the matter, but
actually it would be a manifestation of the helical trajectory of the
elementary particles.
Heisenberg did not accept the hypothesis of
the helical trajectory, because that hypothesis would introduce in
Theoretical Physics undesirable conjectures. So, the theorists had
adopted the Heisenberg’s proposal of considering the mathematical way
(without any physical meaning as Schrödinger had proposed) for the
interpretation of the electron’s trembling motion in the Dirac’s
equation, and so they had rejected the physical way of interpreting it.
The book THE MISSED U-TURN
Now you may have been invaded by a question, and you say to yourself:
“Suppose
that Heisenberg was wrong. Suppose that the electron’s trembling motion
in the Dirac’s equation is a helical trajectory as interpreted by
Schröedinger. Well, in this case Quantum Mechanics is wrong, and there
is a serious inconsistence in the theory, and it is impossible to
eliminate it via mathematics. Actually there is need to change the
fundamental principle of duality as it was proposed by de Broglie, and
to consider that duality is a manifestation of the helical trajectory.
Therefore Quantum Field Theory must be developed in a way different of
that taken by the quantum field theorists, because instead of trying to
eliminate that inconsistence via mathematics, actually it must be
eliminated by changing a fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics”.
Well, if such question was occurred to you, you’re right. Such question is just analised in my book ‘THE MISSED U-TURN, the duel Heisenberg vs Schröedinger- from Newton to Rossi’s eCat,
where it is shown that the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics must be
eliminated by changing some fundamental principles of the theory.
The
book was written so that to be understood by the lay reader, and the
Cambridge International Science Publishing decided to publish it. In
16th September 2011 I and the publisher Mr. Victor Riecansky had signed
the Agreement for the publication of my book.
You may see the three pages of the Agreement in the links ahead:
Page 1
http://peswiki.com/images/6/67/Pagina1doAGREEMENT.JPG
Page 2
http://peswiki.com/images/6/6a/Pagina2doAGREEMENT.JPG
Page 3
http://peswiki.com/images/2/2b/Pagina3doAGREEMENT.JPG
Unfortunatelly
some physicists had discovered that my book would be published by that
important publishing house of London. And they want people do not take
knowledge that Quantum Field Theory can be being developed in the wrong
way. That’s why they began to threaten Mr. Riecansky and the publishing
house, telling him do not publish the book. And so the publisher had
decided to broke the Agreement, and do not publish my book.
Experiments made between 2009 and 2012
Between
2009 and 2012 the publication of some new experiments are reinforcing
the evidence that Quantum Field Theory is being developed in the wrong
way. We may mention the following ones:
1- An experiment published by Science in June 2011 shows that it is wrong the Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity:
Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract
2-
Between 1997 and 1999 my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron was
rejected by many journals of Nuclear Physics. One of the reviewers
rejected the paper with such argument:
”It is hard for me to
believe those dificulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped
the scrutinity of all those proeminent particle theorists. For instance,
the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle
in the femtometer scale. Had this been true, the string theorists
should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have
proposed their own third different Planck constant”.
But an astronomical observation of June 2011 is suggesting that my hypothesis is right:
Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5B34TBPG_index_0.html
3-
From the principles of standard Nuclear Physics, light nuclei with
Z=N=pair must have spherical shape. That’s why along 80 years the
theorists had never supposed that those nuclei could have a
non-spherical shape.
In July 2012, the journal Nature published
the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, where the authors propose that
light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape, a conclusion
inferred from the data collected by the experiments made in the Argonne
National Laboratory, published in March 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
The
non-spherical shape of light nuclei with Z=N=pair was predicted in my
book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006. In the page 131 of the book
it is explained why they have non-spherical shape, in spite of they
have null electric quadrupole moment (earlier 2012 the nuclear theorists
had supposed that null electric quadrupole moment always requires a
spherical shape). The authors of the paper published in the journal
Nature had used the same argument proposed in my book (so Nature
published a plagiarism).
4- The light nuclei
with Z=N=pair (with Z=2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) are stable, but
beryllium isotope 4Be8 with Z=4 is not.. Along 80 years the nuclear
theorists tried to explain such anomaly. Each theorist had proposed a
different method.
Of course, if the fundamental principles of the
standard Nuclear Physics should have been correct, there would not be
necessary 80 years of attempts, and several different methods.
Besides,
in 2009 a new experiment showed that in the isotope 4Be11 the neutron
halo is 7fm far away of the rest of the nucleus. This new experimental
finding shows that nuclear theorists are in the wrong way.
The stability of light nuclei is explained through the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Stability_of_light_nuclei_isotopes_according_to_Quantum_Ring_Theory
5-
According to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the
nuclei aggregation is not promoted by the strong force. Such hypothesis
is corroborated by an experiment published in 2009, when for the first
time scientists had measured the size of a one-neutron halo with lasers,
and they found that in beryllium isotope 11Be the neutron is far away
7fm from the rest of the nucleus. As the strong force actuates in the
maximum distance of 2fm, the experiment shows without doubt that the
agglutination of nuclei is not promoted by the strong force.
Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers
https://idw-online.de/pages/de/news301916
The authors of the experiment say:
“The
strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a
distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers. The riddle as to how the halo
neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can
only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In
this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called
wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only
falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it
is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden
distances, thereby inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’. “
So,
the theorists are trying to explain such strange anomaly via
mathematics, instead of to accept the obvious conclusion: some
fundamental principles of the standard Nuclear Physics are wrong.
Conclusion
Recent
experiments published between 2009 and 2012 are suggesting that it is
not possible to eliminate the inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics via
mathematics by keeping the fundamental principles of the theory, as the
quantum field theorists are trying to do. Therefore it is wrong the way
adopted by the theorists for the development of the Quantum Field
Theory.
A successful theory capable to eliminate the
inconsistences of Quantum Mechanics must be developed by considering new
fundamental principles different of those proposed in the theory. This
is just the way adopted in Quantum Ring Theory.