7 Reasons to Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And embrace this New Theory

[andrewgray]

Are you guys still there? I was wondering if anyone had looked at the work of Ruggero Maria Santilli.

THE RUTHERFORD-SANTILLI NEUTRON<BR> by J. V. Kadeisvili<br> The Institutye for Basic Research


Please read and comment about his findings on neutron synthesis.
Here is an excerpt: (if you have time, read the whole thing from the above link)

11.Inapplicability of quantum mechanics for the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons

While quantum mechanics is exactly valid for the structure of the hydrogen atom, and only approximately valid for the structure of the deuterium, Santilli has established that quantum mechanics is inapplicable (and not violated) for any quantitative representation of the synthesis of neutrons as it occurs in stars, from protons and electrons, for numerous independent reasons, each one implying a catastrophic inapplicability, such as:

1) All consistent quantum mechanical bound states A + B = C, as they occur in atoms, nuclei and molecules, have a mass defect, namely, the rest energy of the bound state C is smaller then the sum of the rest energies of the original states A and B, resulting in the very principle for which nuclear fusions release energy. The above mass defect is represented by a negative binding energy in the Schroedinger equation for the bound state that, under these conditions, is fully consistent. By comparison, from Eqs. (1), the rest energy of the neutron is 0.782 MeV bigger than the sum of the rest energies of the proton and the electron. As a result, any possible treatment of the neutron synthesis p + e => n + ? would require a positive binding energy that is sheer anathema for quantum mechanics because, under such binding energies the Schroedinger's equations becomes physically inconsistent, without any possibility this time to add unknown parameters for the usual political aim of "fixing things" and adapting nature to a preferred theory.

2) It is popularly believed that the energy of at least 0.78 MeV missing in the synthesis of the neutron can be provided by the relative kinetic energy between the proton and the electron. This view has no serious scientific content, because the cross section of the proton and electron at 0.78 MeV mutual energy is extremely small (of about 10-20 barn) in which case any possibility for the proton and the electron to coalesce and form the neutron is impossible. As we shall see, this limitation can be resolved by assuming a participation of space as a universal medium known as aether, but this requires ab initio to exit from the boundary of quantum mechanics.

3) Assuming that, via hitherto unknown manipulations, incompatibilities 1) and 2) could be resolved, simple calculations via the use of quantum mechanics show that the electron can be retained inside the proton for extremely small periods of time (of the order of 10-15 seconds). But the neutron has a lifetime of about 14 minutes. Hence, the error by quantum mechanics in the representation of the lifetime of an isolated neutron is of the order of 10,000,000,000.000 fold!

4) Quantum mechanics does not allow the achievement of the spin 1/2 of the neutron via two particles, the proton and the electron, each having spin 1/2. As shown below, the Pauli-Fermi hypothesis of the emission of a neutrino in the synthesis, Eq. (1), is far from being settled, e.g., because the mechanism for a proton and an electron to a kind of "decomposing" themselves in order to produce the neutrino is vastly unknown.

5) Assuming that all the above incompatibilities (that are per se irreconcilable for all qualified physicists) are somewhat resolved, still quantum mechanics cannot represent the magnetic moment of the neutron from the known magnetic moments of the proton and the electron (see Santilli [3], Volume IV).

In summary, political supporters of quantum mechanics as the final theory of nature can manage to add unknown parameters, manipulate things, adjust unknown functions and do all sort of tricks to represent experimental data, and then conclude that "quantum mechanics is valid" for numerous cases. However, this manipulation of scientific knowledge is impossible for the neutron synthesis because no matter what manipulation can be dreamed up, no quantitative representation of the neutron synthesis is permitted by quantum mechanics.

In conclusion, the most fundamental synthesis of nature, the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons in the core of stars, cut out all politics on the final character of quantum mechanics, establishes the irreconcilable inapplicability of the theory. This establishes the need for a covering theory.


12. Insufficiencies of the neutrino hypothesis for the neutron synthesis

As recalled in Section 1, Pauli's objection on the inability to represent the spin 1/2 of the neutron according to Rutherford, led to Fermi's hypothesis of the neutrino according to Eq. (1).

Despite the success of the Pauli-Fermi hypothesis, Santilli has identified a litany of unresolved problems in the neutrino conjecture. To begin, the neutrino conjecture has no explanation on how the proton and/or the electron experience a kind of "decomposition" to produce a neutrino.

The complementary hypothesis of the anti-neutrino via the reaction

(6) p+ + e- + anti-v => n

is even more controversial than reaction (1) because the antineutrino has a null cross section with the proton and the electron. Consequently, there is no possibility whether, not even remote, that the antineutrino can deliver the 0.78 MeV needed for the neutron synthesis. hence, even assuming that conjecture (6) resolves the problem of the spin (which it does not), the problem of the missing 0.78 meV remains unsolved (Santilli, Loc. Cit.).

Additionally, recent studies (see monograph [19]) have established that the sole possibility for scientific democracy between matter and antimatter, thus including a consistent classical theory of antimatter, requires that the anti-neutrino has a negative energy although referred to a negative unit. Consequently, reaction (6) is predicted to require energy, rather than supply the missing 0.78 MeV.

Additionally, according to quantum mechanical bound state, hypothesis (6) would require that the neutron is a three-body bound state of a proton, an electron and an antineutrino, which view is pure nonscientific nonsense because there is no possibility whatsoever, not even remote, to permanently bound a neutrino inside the small volume of the proton as needed for the deuteron.

Additionally, Fermi's original hypothesis of one neutrino and one antineutrino has been more recently incorporated in the standard model and this has caused a proliferations of controversies that are increasing in time.

To begin, the standard model first required the increase from one neutrino and one antineutrino to three neutrinos (the electron, muon and tau neutrinos) and three antineutrinos that, for physical consistency, must be different, although no experimentally verifiable difference has been provided to date by academia [21,24].

Due to the insufficiency of this first generalizations, the neutrinos and antineutrinos were then assumed to have masses that, in reality, are free parameters introduced to "fix things." In fact, the "neutrino masses" are fitted from the experimental data and not derived from first independent principles of the theory.

Due to the insufficiency of the latter conjecture, it has been conjectured that neutrinos have different masses, and the chain of conjectures each one ventured in the hope of resolving a preceding unverifiable conjecture is continuing, thus turning science into a pure theology and academic manipulation.

Even the so-called "neutrino detections" are themselves very questionable in their very definition because neutrinos cannot be directly detected. Hence, the scientifically correct statement should be that the detections here here considered refer to physical particles predicted by the neutrino theory. But then, there are other theories without the use of the neutrino conjecture that interpret these "experimental data" [24].

The most implausible feature of the neutrino conjecture is that neutrinos are believed to traverse entire stars without any collision. This view was already questionable according to Fermi's original assumption that neutrinos are massless. Nowadays, the belief that massive neutrinos can traverse stars without collision has no scientific credibility whatsoever, being pure theology.

In summary, the conjecture on the existence of the neutrinos is extremely unsettled to this day, and plagued by a number of unresolved problems that increase, rather than decrease in time.

One can now begin to appreciate the importance of Santilli's theoretical and experimental studies on the neutron synthesis because they mandate the addressing of basic problems that would otherwise remain completely ignored. This feature also illustrate the extreme opposition by academia against the study of the neutron synthesis [26,27].


13. Insufficiencies of the quark hypothesis for the neutron synthesis

The biggest obstacles against the utilization of the energy contained in the neutron is the widespread belief that quarks are physical constituents of the neutron and of hadrons at large.

In fact, in the event quarks are the constituents of the neutron, no possibility exists or is conceivable for the utilization of the energy in its interior. On the contrary, if the electron is indeed a physical constituent of the neutron, said energy can indeed be utilized, as we shall see below, via its stimulated decay.

Santilli [21,24] accepts the SU(3)-color classification of hadrons as final; he recognizes that quarks are necessary for the technical elaboration of SU(3) theories; but Santilli's view is that quarks are purely mathematical representations, defined in a purely mathematical, complex-valued internal unitary space without any possible definition in our spacetime, for the following reasons:

1) According to quark believers, permanently stable particles, such as the proton and the electron, simply "disappear" at the time of the synthesis of the neutron inside stars to be replaced by the hypothetical quarks. This view is purely political without scientific credibility or backing [24].

2) Also according to quark believers, at the time of the spontaneous decay of the neutron, the proton and the electron simply "reappear" in the universe. In fact, according to the standard model, the proton and the electron are claimed to be "recreated" at the time of the neutron decay, although without any explanation whatsoever on how this might be possible. This belief is pure nonscientific nonsense intended to serve personal interest and definitely cannot be considered serious science [24].

3) Assuming that the above problems can be somewhat bypassed [24], Santilli has provided rigorous proof that, in the event the neutron is made up of quarks, it cannot have any gravity at all. In fact, as stated by Albert Einstein, gravity can only be defined in our spacetime, while quarks absolutely cannot be defined in our spacetime, since they can only be defined in a mathematical complex-valued unitary space.

There are numerous additional technical reasons for the impossibility of quarks to be physical particles in our spacetime. One of them is the very argument according to which quark believers dismiss the Rutherford-Santilli model of the neutron. The "argument" is that, according to quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not allow the electron to be permanently bound inside the proton for the lifetime of the neutron. The politics in this case is established by the fact that the same argument is not used by quark believers to prove the impossibility for quarks to be permanently bound inside the neutron.

The understanding of the scheme is formalized by the fact that quarks are centrally based on the use of the conventional quantum mechanics for their very definition, while the Rutherford-Santilli electron obeys a covering of quantum mechanics. Hence, the "argument" based on the uncertainty principle definitely applies to quarks, and definitely has no sense for the Rutherford-Santilli electron.


14. Incompatibility of the neutron synthesis with the cold fusion

Physicists interested in preserving old knowledge, rather than seeking new knowledge, generally use the insufficiencies of the cold fusion as evidence for the impossibility of synthesizing neutrons from protons and electrons. This view should be disqualified, particularly when proffered by experts.

In fact, the neutron synthesis requires energy, while the cold fusion aims at producing energy. Consequently, the mathematical and physical laws that are effective for the former event have to be changed for the different features of the latter event.

Additionally, the synthesis of the neutrons occurs in stars from the sole use of protons and electrons. By comparison, the neutrons detected in certain cold fusions originate from nuclear synthesis, that is, the neutrons released in nuclear fusions occur from nuclear processes such as excess neutrons in the synthesized nucleus, and definitely not from protons and electrons.

In summary, the Rutherford-Santilli neutron is strictly referred to neutrons synthesized from the sole use of protons and electrons as occurring in stars. Any use of information from cold fusion, nuclear syntheses and the like, for the Rutherford-Santilli neutron is not scientific, irrespective of wether in favor or against said synthesis.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by andrewgray

1) All consistent quantum mechanical bound states A + B = C, as they occur in atoms, nuclei and molecules, have a mass defect, namely, the rest energy of the bound state C is smaller then the sum of the rest energies of the original states A and B, resulting in the very principle for which nuclear fusions release energy.

This is only true of STABLE bound states, and further, there is no evidence that a neutron is an electron bound to a proton (in fact, evidence from deep inelastic scattering would suggest this is definitively not the case).

So this argument doesn't apply to neutron formation (which is not a bound state of an electron+proton), AND even if it did, it is wrong.

2) It is popularly believed that the energy of at least 0.78 MeV missing in the synthesis of the neutron can be provided by the relative kinetic energy between the proton and the electron. This view has no serious scientific content, because the cross section of the proton and electron at 0.78 MeV mutual energy is extremely small (of about 10-20 barn) in which case any possibility for the proton and the electron to coalesce and form the neutron is impossible.

A barn is a huge unit, 10-20 barns is a huge cross section.

3) Assuming that, via hitherto unknown manipulations, incompatibilities 1) and 2) could be resolved, simple calculations via the use of quantum mechanics show that the electron can be retained inside the proton for extremely small periods of time (of the order of 10-15 seconds). But the neutron has a lifetime of about 14 minutes. Hence, the error by quantum mechanics in the representation of the lifetime of an isolated neutron is of the order of 10,000,000,000.000 fold!

This is making the same mistake as before (neutron is an electron/proton bound state). Further, he has not indicated how he has arrived at his 10^(-15) second order of magnitude guess. I imagine is an uncertainty principle argument, but he has not even attempted to explain.

4) Quantum mechanics does not allow the achievement of the spin 1/2 of the neutron via two particles, the proton and the electron, each having spin 1/2. As shown below, the Pauli-Fermi hypothesis of the emission of a neutrino in the synthesis, Eq. (1), is far from being settled, e.g., because the mechanism for a proton and an electron to a kind of "decomposing" themselves in order to produce the neutrino is vastly unknown.

Neutrino omission from the sun has been observed. This, I believe, settles the neutrino hypothesis.

5) still quantum mechanics cannot represent the magnetic moment of the neutron from the known magnetic moments of the proton and the electron (see Santilli [3], Volume IV).

Again, the same mistake is made. Much like photon numbers aren't conserved, we should expect relativistically that electron/neutrino/proton/neutron numbers aren't conserved.

[andrewgray]

Thanks for the reply, Will.

This is all so very interesting to me. OK, I understand what you are saying about bound states and the neutron is not truly a bound state. OK.

Next, let's talk about the general process of neutron synthesis in star cores. Now, I assume that we can all agree that stars are initially made up of hydrogen (1 proton and 1 electron), can we not? If not, we will have to have an aside here. I hope not.

So if all we have is hydrogen in early star cores, then can we not logically conclude that radically compressed hydrogen synthesizes into neutrons?

Santilli writes:

p+ + e- + anti-v => n

So, Will, are you saying that as the proton and electron are compressed, then they somehow find an anti neutrino before they can become a neutron? Or are you saying that the whole premise is wrong about hydrogen compression?

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

So this argument doesn't apply to neutron formation (which is not a bound state of an electron+proton), AND even if it did, it is wrong.

Again, thanks for the clarifications. I have a few more questions.


Andrew

[Erasmus00]

The relevant reaction is

P+e^- -> n + v_e.

You don't need to have the anti-neutrino on the other side of the reaction, you can have a neutrino on the product side. This is why we observe solar neutrinos, the sun is sort of a neutrino factory.

[andrewgray]

Will,

OK, I understand what you are saying. However, I understand what Santilli is saying, too.
The proton/electron have 0.78 MeV less mass than the neutron.

P+e- -> n + v_e.

Yet, the neutrino must go on the right side of the equation, according to you.
The masses don't seem to jive. This is what Santilli seems to be saying.
Please explain the missing mass.

Thanks in advance.

Andrew

[Erasmus00]

The reaction only goes forward if the kinetic energy/momentum of the electron/proton are high enough to allow the reaction to go forward. Energy/momentum still need to be conserved.

Further, this is for the synthesis of a free neutron- in stars the hydrogen is being converted to helium 4. This means that we need to include the protons electromagnetic energy in the nucleus on the left side.

[andrewgray]

Will,

You have a good point. For a free neutron to form, the electron & the proton would be traveling too fast to make any sense. I.e., if one considers a neutron formation from the proton's frame (roughly the center of mass frame), then the electron would be traveling at about 0.75c. This seems highly unlikely to me. The particles are being squeezed so tightly that they are binding. Moving at three-quarters of lightspeed seems silly. So kinetic energy is probably not supplying the missing mass(?).

So, you are wanting to include the proton's electric field? I thought that the proton's electric self energy was accounted for in its rest mass. So you must be speaking of the binding energy of the nuclear bonds.

The reactions we are speaking of, according to standard thinking, are

2p + (p+e) -> 2p + n + nu (Helium 3)
2p +2(p+e) -> 2p + 2n + 2nu (Helium 4)

where the right sides are He nuclei+nu's. Are you saying that the binding energy of the He nuclei on the right side are negative enough to account for the (0.78 Mev mass differences plus E_nu's) , or are you saying that the electrons/protons had kinetic energy on the left side (or something else)?

Andrew
Thanks again

[Erasmus00]

First, again, there is nothing wrong with the protons moving near c, its a gas of protons, and the cross section for neutron formation in an electron/proton gas is huge (10/20 barns or so). Again, keep in mind that we are NOT talking about the formation of a bound state. A neutron is NOT an electron bound to a proton. Its similar e+/e- collisions in particle accelerators (where both are moving at near c), where hadrons are formed from the collisions. The hadrons are NOT e+/e- bound states.

BUT, these aren't actually the reactions that occur in stars, where the electrons have been largely stripped from the protons.

Lets look at the actual proton-proton reaction that occurs in stars

p+p -> H_2 +e+ + v_e

Two protons fuse to form hydrogen 2, a positron, and an electron neutrino. Consider- if instead we had fused to form Helium, the two protons would be bound by the strong force, BUT there would be a great deal of stored electrostatic energy. Does this make soem sense?