
There are currently, 142 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
 
 
On why cold fusion is denied by nuclear theorists
Posted on Friday, October 29, 2021 @ 11:28:33 GMT by vlad


WGUGLINSKI writes: Such subject must be considered from two viewpoints:
1 Why nuclear theorists reject the possibility of the existence of cold fusion?
The answer is simple: because from the standard Coulomb’s law F= KQq/d² there is need to consider the existence of the strong nuclear force, so that to explain the stability of atomic nuclei. And from the assumption that strong nuclear force really promotes the stability of atomic nuclei, then theoretically cold fusion is impossible to occur.
But experiments show that cold fusion exists. Then the second question is:
2 How can cold fusion be possible, as by considering the standard Coulomb’s law it is impossible?
The answer is again simple: because the standard Coulomb’s law is incomplete. Coulomb’s repulsions (and attraction) does not follow the equation F= KQq/d² for distances shorter than Bohr’s radius.
For distances shorter than
Bohr’s radius, Coulomb’s law is F= KQq/d^(X+Y), where X decreases with
the decrease of the distance between the charges “Q” and “q”, and Y
grows with relative speed between the charges.
In my book “Subtle
is the Math” the equation F= KQq/d^(X+Y) is proven by calculations, in
the first paper of the book, entitled “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s
Law and finestructure constant”.
And why does Coulomb’s repulsions vary with the parameter Y in the equation F= KQq/d^(X+Y) ?
This
happens because, as shown in that paper, the lineforces of the
electric fields are composed by particles (captured from the quantum
vacuum) that move with the speed of light. The interaction of the fields
of two charges Q and q depends on their relative velocity. The faster
is their relative velocity, than stronger is the interaction between the
particles that compose the fields of the charges Q and q.
Therefore:
1 If two charges Q and q are moving against each other with relativistic
speed V, the electric interaction between Q and q varies proportional
to V+c, since the particles of the quantum vacuum (that compose the
electric fields of Q and q) are moving with velocity “c”.
2 If the charge Q is at rest, and the charge q is moving away the charge Q
with relativistic speed V, the electric interaction between Q and q
varies proportional to cV. This explains why, in the U238 alphadecay,
despite the potential energy of the alpha particle is 27 MeV when it
leaves the U238, in the experiments it is detected with only 4 MeV. As
shown in my book “Subtle is the Math”, the Gamow’s hypothesis of quantum
tunneling is not able to explain this paradox.
In
the stars, the relative velocity between particles as protons,
deuterons, etc., plays a fundamental role in the process of nuclear
synthesis, because the repulsion between two protons moving against each
other grows with the growth of their relative speeds, and that’s why,
despite the strong nuclear force does not exist, in the stars the fusion
between two protons is very hard. Otherwise, if the velocity did not
play a fundamental role, the Sun of our planetary system would waste its
hydrogen in some few minutes.
Perhaps we may say
that such property, of the growth of Coulomb’s repulsions with the
growth of the relative velocity between two charged particles,
represents a strong force. It is a special type of strong force, with
depends on the speed of the two charges. But it does not exist for two
charged particles (with low speed), inside atomic nuclei.
From
this new Coulomb’ law there is no need to consider the strong nuclear
force. Several puzzles of nuclear physics are solved by considering
that strong force does not exist. For instance, it explains why two
neutrons do not form a dineutron, whereas by considering the strong
force two neutrons would have to fuse and form a dineutron, since there
is not repulsion between them, but they have a strong attraction by the
strong nuclear force. The Heisenberg’s proposal of isospin does not
solve the puzzle.
In resume, from a new nuclear physics, in which the strong force does not exist, the cold fusion becomes possible.
Therefore, acceptation of the existence of cold fusion depends on the acceptation that standard Coulomb’s law is incomplete.
This
question, as to why nuclear physicists reject cold fusion, is beyond
the understanding of most people interested in cold fusion issues. For
example, yesterday I submitted an ad here on ZPEnergy, communicating the
publication of my book Subtle is the Math, by St Honoré. And
Editor Vlad didn't run my ad in "Home" because he mistakenly assumes
that my book has nothing to do with the subject of cold fusion. [ vlad: it was posted here]
But actually, as my book is proposing new laws for the foundations of physics, its content concerns all fields of physics.
Wladimir_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.
 

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register 

Re: On why cold fusion is denied by nuclear theorists (Score: 1) by vlad on Friday, October 29, 2021 @ 12:06:42 GMT (User Info  Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com  Dr. Guglinski, as you and many of our readers know by now, I have posted all (or the vast majority) of your submissions to ZPEnergy.com, since 2004 when you decided to share some of your theoretical work with us (if you use "Search" tool on "Guglinski" you'll see what I'm talking about).
Nevertheless, as you certainly realize, your work is too theoretical (often too fundamental for the science of physics). Many of our readers did not find it very suitable for this site, a much more "pragmatic" news site in the field of new energy research (with focus on ZPE/vacuum energy). Our mission statement established that limitation from the start (please review it again).
Consequently, I decided to continue to publish your new submissions but, rather than in the home page, they will appear in the comments section of your latest home page post (such as "Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research"). Patrons of our site will still be exposed to your theoretical work through our "Latest Comments" menu.
Thank you for your understanding Wladimir and best wishes to you.
Vlad



On why Andrea Rossi' cold fusion theory is wrong (Score: 1) by vlad on Thursday, November 04, 2021 @ 11:18:16 GMT (User Info  Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com  Submitted by WGuglinski: Andrea Rossi wrote the article “ECat SK and longrange particle
interactions”, in which he proposes the explanation on how takes place
the cold fusion in his Ecat:
Rossi's
theory is wrong because he uses some current foundations of physics,
which are not the true foundations existing in nature, because some
fundamental laws are missing in the current theories.
Let us see some of the fundamental principles, existing in nature, that are missing in the current theories.
1 The standard Coloumb law F= KQq/d² is incomplete.
Such subject was already exposed here in ZPEnergy:
The Coulomb law is actually F= KQq/d^(X+Y).
Therefore,
it makes no sense to try to explain cold fusion from an incomplete
Coulomb's law, because in the short distances inside atomic nuclei the
value of "X" is less than 2, and therefore the strong nuclear force does
not play the role supposed by the nuclear theorists.
2 The missing of an atomistic structure of electric field in quantum electrodynamics.
In
my book Subtle is the Math it is proposed the atomistic structure of
the electric fields, as shown in the figure ahead, showing the proton
and its electric field.
FIGURE 1
Fermions
with electric charges, (that together with other fermions compose the
quantum vacuum) move with the speed of light in the proton electric
field. Figure 2 shows the interactions of the fermions of the
electric field of a proton A with the fermions of the electric field of a
proton B. As seen in the Figure 2, the fields of the two protons
interact through the interaction between the fermions that compose their
electric fields.
FIGURE 2 According
to quantum electrodynamics, the interaction between two protons takes
place through the exchange of photons. Figure 3 illustrates the
difference between the mechanism considered in quantum electrodynamics,
and the mechanism proposed in my theory. FIGURE 3
Note
that in the System ff the interaction occurs through two fermions,
each one with its spin. But as this mechanism is missing in quantum
electrodynamics (QED), the theorists had to replace (what is missing in
QED) by a mathematical concept, the bispinor. The model of electric field of the Figure 2 is proposed in the first paper of the book Subtle is the Math,
whose title is "Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law, and finestructure
constant". In the paper, it is also calculated the value of the
electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum, which compose the
proton electric field.
Perhaps you would like to claim:
"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 the microscopic
world where the waveparticle 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".
Well, this is just what did the
Reviewer of the journal European Physical Journal Plus, Dr. Hiromichi
Nakazato. He used the argument above for rejecting my paper. But
along the time he was working in the review of my paper, I was working
in another paper, and I found the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE required by
Nakazato, as follows: from the value of electric charge of the fermions
calculated in my paper, and using my model of electric field, I have
calculated the charge of the proton.
The value, calculated in
the second paper of the book Subtle is the Math, is e= 1.6026.10^19 C,
very close to the experimental e= 1.60218x10^19 C. The paper was also published in Physics Essays, in 2019, with the title "Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum":
https://physicsessays.org/browsejournal2/product/18522wladimirguglinskicalculationofprotonchargesfromtheelectriccharges As conclusion, the success of QED in being the most stringently tested theory in physics is due to a coincidence:
the System phph used in QED is mathematically equivalent to the System
ff existing in the nature, which is considered in my theory.
So, the real mechanism of interaction between fields existing in nature is missing in Rossi's theory.
3 Missing of anisotropic space inside atoms in quantum mechanics
Andrea Rossi uses the Zitterbewegung model of electron in his theory. But
the Zitterbewegung model used up to now is wrong, because in all
alternatives of Zitterbewegung models it is missing the anisotropic
space inside the atoms.
The Zitterbewegung model existing in nature is proposed in my paper "On the missing anisotropic space inside atoms in quantum mechanics", published in 2021 by Physics Essays (and also in my book Subtle is the Math):
Beyond
the advantage that from this new model of atom are eliminated several
paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics (as for instance the phantasmagoric
property of the electron to disappear from a level and instantanenously
to appear in another level, without to travel the space between the two
levels), from this NewZitterbewegung model are calculated successfully
the energy levels of the hydrogen atom (also of the helium and lithium
atoms).
The calculation, made in a Excel
spreadsheet, is so easy that in the book Subtle is the Math the reader
is invited to calculate himself the energy levels of the hydrogen atom,
as seen here:
In
resume, there is no chance Andrea Rossi to develop a satisfactory
theory, from a Zitterbewegungelectron model in which is missing the
anistropy of space where moves the true Zitterbewegungelectron model
existing in nature.
4 Missing of the fundamental law that rules the Zitterbewegung
All the particles move with Zitterbewegung, as photons, mesons, neutrinos, electrons, protons. And the fundamental law that rules the Zitterbewegung motion of particles is illustrated in the Figure 4:
FIGURE 4
This
property of the Zitterbewegung explains, without the paradoxes
introduced by Einstein, why Michelson did not succeed to detect the
influence of the speed of the Earth in the velocity of the light
measured in the experiment, when the photons move toward the direction
of the Earth's displacement, and when the photons move in contrary
direction of the Earth motion.
Therefore,
many of the fundamental laws existing in nature are missing in Rossi's
theoretical work. His theory has no chance to be correct.

Re: On why Andrea Rossi' cold fusion theory is wrong (Score: 1) by WGUGLINSKI on Tuesday, November 09, 2021 @ 19:25:04 GMT (User Info  Send a Message) )  Well, dear Vlad,
everything indicates that Andrea Rossi used some kind of blackmail to intimidate you, because you decided to remove my article from HOME from ZPEnergy.
Damn, so even in ZPEnergy there is censorship????
How sad... While the scientific community tries to boycott Andrea Rossi's ecat, in turn Andrea Rossi tries to boycott any scientific proof that his theory is wrong...
It's a true science comedy... ... or rather... pseudoscientific comedy...
Regards Wladimir Guglinski

]
Re: ZPEnergy "censorship" (Score: 1) by vlad on Sunday, November 14, 2021 @ 12:41:48 GMT (User Info  Send a Message) )http://www.zpenergy.com  Dear Wlad,
Please understand that nobody blackmailed or intimidated me in any way; since this site is managed and supported entirely by me, the only "censorship" you perceive it is happening here is mine.
Please understand that I'm doing my best to give you another platform to make your controversial research in theoretical physics known, but this is a site for general public information and your posts are way above our understanding for most of us. I have a degree in power engineering, but still, I refrain from making a judgement on the validity of your research, cause my physics background doesn't go deep enough... but I post you submissions out there, just in case somebody has the adequate knowledge and can help or challenge you.
Best personal wishes, Vlad

]
What is controversial in physics? (Score: 1) by vlad on Monday, November 15, 2021 @ 11:24:33 GMT (User Info  Send a Message) )http://www.zpenergy.com  Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: First of all, I am very thankful to the Editor Vlad. However,
I would like to explain what is really controversial in theoretical
physics, because such a subject is very controversial. My theory is not controversial. Controversial are the current theories of physics. They
are controversial because in current theoretical physics were adopted
fundamental principles that make no sense. They violate the Logic. For
instance, Einstein proposed that the space is empty, but it has the
property of contraction, and it is able to produce the magnetism. This
makes no sense. This is controversial. Something empty cannot have
contraction. And something empty (that is, something that does not
exist), cannot produce magnetic fields. Other example: according
to current quantum mechanics, the electron disappears from a level in
the atom, and instantaneously appears in another level, without to
travel the space between the two levels. This is controversial. An
electron that disappears from a position and appears instantaneously in
another position moved with infinite velocity, because in the equation
E= v.t the time is zero, and so v= E/0 = infinite. This nonsense brings
down Einstein’s relativity. In my theory the new
foundations are all them in agreement to Logic. Besides, my theory is
supported by results comproved by mathematic calculations. So, if somebody accuse my theory of being controversial, then he has to conclude that the mathematics is controversial. Well, this conclusion is right. The mathematics is controversial. But
not the math used by me, because I don’t use math abstract concepts as
the imaginary number, or any other math concept created with the aim to
achieve results that conciliate the theory with the experimental
results. To show that math is controversial is among the
objectives of my book Subtle is the Math, where it is shown that a
controversial math was introduced by Einstein, and it was used
successfully along the 20th Century, and continues being used. The
math used by Einstein (and used up to now by the physicists) does not
reflects what really happens in the realm of Nature. Many fundamental
principles adopted in current Theoretical Physics do not exist in
Nature. But with the introduction of suitable artifices in the math, as
the imaginary number, it is possible to achieve to results that are
confirmed by experiments. A good example is the coupling
lightmatter used in quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
the interaction between two electrically charged particles is promoted
by the exchange of photons between them, as shown in the Figure 1. FIGURE 1 Can we be sure that such mechanism proposed in QED is really the same mechanism existing in nature? This
is controversial. First of all, there is not in current theoretical
physics an atomistic structure of the electric field, despite more than
70 years the Wolfgang Pauli said in his Nobel Lecture: “From
the point of view of logic, my report on ‘Exclusion principle and
quantum mechanics’ has no conclusion. I believe that it will only be
possible to write the conclusion if a theory is established which will
determine the value of the finestructure constant and will thus explain
the atomistic structure of electricity, which is such
an essential quality of all atomic sources of electric fields actually
occurring in Nature.” QED is considered the jewel of physics, because of its accuracy, confirmed by experimental results. But among the imaginary number used in QED, there is other interesting abstract math apparatus used in the theory: the bispinor. In
the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law and finestructure
constant”, published in the book Subtle is the Math, it is proposed that
the interaction between two electrically charged particles occurs
actually through the interaction of the “electricitons” of the electric
fields, which move with the speed of light, as seen in the Figure 2. FIGURE 2 So, what is the real mechanism that promotes the interaction between two fields? Suppose that: 1 The real mechanism existing in Nature is by the “System ff”, shown in the Figure 2 2 However,
by using the math adopted in QED, through the adoption of the imaginary
number, together with the bispinor, the “System phph” shown in the
Figure 1 is mathematically equivalent to the “System ff” existing in
Nature. Then obviously QED can be successful, because its
mathematical apparatus is equivalent to the mathematics of the “System
ff”, existing in Nature. In the end of the book Subtle
is the Math is proposed to theorists a challenge: to prove the
mathematical equivalence between the “System phph” and the “System
ff”. If such mathematical equivalence be proven mathematically, two conclusions will be achieved: 1 The mathematics used by the physicits is indeed controversial. 2 QED is successful thanks to a “mathematical coincidence”, the equivalence of two systems: the “System phph” adopted in QED, and the “System ff” existing in Nature. But
the physicists are afraid to accept this challenge. Because if the
mathematical equivalence of the two systems be proven, this will prove
that QED does not work through the fundamental principles existing in
Nature. And what is worst: it will be proven that the mathematics used by the physicists is controversial. In
my book Subtle is the Math is shown that the own Lord used the imaginary
number when He built the Universe. Then somebody obviously could claim:
well, if the own Lord used the imaginary number, then there is not any
on controversy in the math used in Modern Physics, since the own Lord
used the imaginary number, when He had created the Universe. But the question is not so simple. The
math used in current physics is controversial because the theorists
start from some initial assumptions, which do not exist in Nature, and
then they have to introduce some math tools not introduced by the Lord.
For instance, in current theoretical physics is considered that symmetry
plays a fundamental role in the working of the Universe. But in my book
“The New Nuclear Physics” (to be published in 2022) is
shown that symmetry does not play any fundamental role in the structure
of atomic nuclei, as nowadays nuclear theorists believe. Other
example: Einstein started from the hypothesis that the space is empty.
But the Lord did not create the Universe from an empty space. Then
Einstein used the imaginary number in a different way of the way used by
the Lord, because Einstein and the Lord had two different starting
points: Einstein supposed that the space is empty, whereas the Lord has
created the spaces as not empty. Therefore Einstein’s mathematics is
different of that used by the Lord. Other example is the
difference between the “System phph” used in QED, and the “System ff”
existing in Nature. The Lord did not use the bispinor, when He created
the Universe, he used only the imaginary number. But the theorists had
to introduce the bispinor, because in their theory there is not the
atomistic structure of the electric field. Thereby, as something very
fundamental is missing in QED (the atomistic structure of electric
fields), there was need to create a new math apparatus, the bispinor,
which the Lord did not use, because He created the atomistic structure
of the electric fields, and so the Lord did not need to use the bispinor
in His Mathematics. So, the mathematics used by the Lord is
different of the mathematics used by the physicists, despite, from the
introduction of some additional math tools, it is possible to establish
an equivalence between the mathematics of the Lord and the mathematics
of the physicists. And the physicists did it successfully along more
than hundred years. 
]


Cold fusion in Researchgate (Score: 1) by vlad on Sunday, January 09, 2022 @ 23:16:45 GMT (User Info  Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com  Submitted by Wladimir_Guglinski: ABSTRACT
In 2015, the Physical Review Letters magazine published an article in
which the authors presented a wrong calculation procedure for the
magnetic moment of the animated 12Mg24. Here, the repercussion of this
error in Nuclear Physics is analyzed, and one of the implications is
that the theory was developed from wrong fundamental principles. One of
the repercussions will be the understanding of cold fusion (since for
decades it was rejected by nuclear physicists as being impossible under
current principles of nuclear physics) because if proven that the
fundamentals of nuclear physics are definitively wrong, then through a
new nuclear model (which works by new principles) theoretical
feasibility for cold fusion can be obtained.




