# Debate 3.

*"With their neutrino hypothesis, Pauli and Fermi did salvage the conservation of the angular momentum in the neutron synthesis e + p → n + ν, but they did not salvage quantum mechanics because the mass of the neutron is bigger than the sum of the masses of the electron and of the proton, thus causing the inapplicability of the Schroedinger and Dirac equations under which the neutrino hypothesis cannot be consistently formulated."* Ruggero Maria Santilli.

**EDITORIAL NOTE**

*This dialogue solely admits technical comments expressed in due scientific language without any record of their originators. Comments may be edited for their reduction to essential points. We discourage the submission of arrogant or offensive comments. The editorial rules of this Dialogue are those adopted by Wikipedia.*

**Open Debate **

* Neutrino or etherino?*

*Neutrino or etherino?*

**Original submission of the etherino hypothesis hereon referred to as**

**Ref. [A]**

**The etherino and/or the Neutrino Hypothesis? **

**R. M. Santilli, Found.Phys. {\bf 37}, p. 670 (2007)**

**www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/EtherinoFoundPhys.pdf**

**Curriculum of R. M. Santilli**

**http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm**

**Abstract**

By using a language as accessible to as broad an audience as possible, in this paper we identify serious insufficiencies of the neutrino and quark hypothesis for the synthesis of the neutrons from protons and electrons inside stars. We introduce, apparently for the first time, the hypothesis that the energy of 0.782 MeV and spin 1/2 needed for the synthesis of the neutron originate either from the environment or from the ether conceived as a universal medium with very high energy density via an entity here called *etherino,* denoted with the letter "a" (from the Latin aether), according to the synthesis p + a + e -> n, and show the compatibility of the etherino hypothesis with available neutrino experiments. We review the new structure model of the neutron and hadrons at large with massive physical constituents produced free in the spontaneous decays as permitted by the covering hadronic mechanics. We show its compatibility with the standard model when interpreted as only providing the final Mendeleev-type classification of hadrons. Finally, we conclude with the proposal of new experiments suggested for the much-needed search of new clean energies that are permitted by the etherino hypothesis, but prohibited by the neutrino hypothesis.

**Ref. [B]**

**Experimental Confirmation of the Synthesis of Neutrons and Neutroids from a Hydrogen Gas
Richard Norman, Anil A. Bhalekar, Simone Beghella Bartoli, Brian Buckley, Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Jan Rak, and Ruggero M. Santilli
American Journal of Modern Physics, in pres (2017)**

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/122015010-final-07-04-17.pdf

**Ref. [C]**

**Hadronic paradigm assessed: neutroid and neutron synthesis from an arc of current in hydrogen gas,
R. Norman and J. Dunning-Davies, Hadronic Journal V. 40, 119 - 140 (2017)
**

**http://santilli-foundation.org/docs/norman-dunning-davies-hj.pdf**

The above paper contains additional comments on the neutrino or etherino alternative.

**Ref. [D]**

**New Sciences for a New Era: Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Discoveries of Ruggero Maria Santilli,** Gandzha and J. Kadeisvili, Sankata Printing Press, Nepal (2011)

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf

Recent general review

**Ref. [E]**

**"An introduction to the new sciences for a new era"**

**R. M. Santilli, Invited paper, in press, in press at
Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications**(Cambridge UK)

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf

**COMMENTS**

**1. Insufficiencies of the neutrino hypothesis.**

*I see nothing wrong with the neutrino. Zeus*

Unfortunately, there exist numerous insufficiencies afflicting the original Pauli-Fermi hypothesis of the *emission*of the massless and changeless neutrino ν in the synthesis of the neutron "n" from the proton "p" and the electron "e"

p + e → n + ν (1)

with progressively increasing insufficiencies when passing to the ever increasing plethora of neutrinos requested by the standard model "to fix things." The first insufficiency of the original hypothesis is that the rest energy of the neutron is 0.782 MeV *bigger than *the sum of the rest energies of the proton and the electron

E_{p } = 938.28 MeV, E_{e} = 0.511 MeV, E_{n} = 939.57 MeV, E_{ν} = ?. (2a)

E_{n} - (E_{p} + E_{e}) = 0.782 MeV (2b)

Consequently, Pauli and Fermi did salvage the conservation of the angular momentum, but they did not salvage quantum mechanics since the Schroedinger equation solely admits bound states with a *negative binding energy*, resulting in the known *mass defect.* By contrast, the neutron synthesis requires a *positive binding energy* resulting in a *mass excess,* under which conditions most of 20th century physics is inapplicable. But, then how do you handle the neutrino hypothesis without any underlying quantitative science ? [A]. ZeusSon.

*I do not accept the objection because the missing energy is provided by the relative energy of the proton and the electron. Zeus*

Unfortunately, this is not possible because the cross section between the proton and the electron for about 1 MeV relative kinetic energy is virtually null, with consequential, virtually null probability of the neutron synthesis [A, B]. ZeusSon

*But then the missing energy is provided by the neutrino itself. 5354629*

Unfortunately, this cannot be. To deliver the missing energy, the neutrino should be on the l.h.s. of the reactions and read

p + ν + e → n, (3)

where we have assumed, being massless and changeless, that neutrino and anti-neutrino are the same. But the cross section of a neutrino with a proton or an electron is identically null and so is the probability of the neutron synthesis [A, B, C]. ZeusSon

*The energy missing in the synthesis of the neutron is provided by the interior of a star, therefore there is no need for alternative theories. Ure7365*

Stars initiate their lives as an aggregate of hydrogen atoms. Without neutrons, there are no nuclear fusions. Following the achievement of the needed temperature and pressure via the accretion of hydrogen available in interstellar spaces, stars start to synthesize neutrons at the rate of 10^{50} neutrons per seconds or more. In the event the missing energy is provided by stars, they would never produce energy since they would cool down at the rate of 10^{50} MeV/seor more [A]. ZeusSon.

Assume that the missing energy is provided by the star itself. Fine. But then, the inapplicability of quantum mechanics persists. There is also the evident inapplicability of special relativity because the Dirac equation makes no sense for mass excess. Fre64ty

*The Schroedinger equation is fully consistent for the case of positive energies; therefore I do not see the insufficiency of the neutrino hypothesis. Jupiter*

Yes, that's correct, but for kinetic energies. Santilli has proven in Ref. [B6] of 1978 that the indicial equation of the Schroedinger equation no longer admits physically meaningful solutions for the case of *bound states* of particles with mass excess. ZeusSon

*I do not accept Santilli's synthesis of the neutron because it is incompatible with the standard model. Vcgdgdu*

Unfortunately, this is not a sound basis for rejection because the standard model is afflicted by serious insufficiencies. The most serious insufficiency is the intent of representing with one single model the classification of particles into families as well as the structure of all individual particles of a given family, which is the same as trying to work out the structure of atoms with the same Mendeleev-model of their classification [A3a] (see [B44] for a link to the pdf). ZeusSon.

*The standard model has provided the final confirmation existence of neutrinos. OgfgYds*

Unfortunately, the opposite is true because of the loss of credibility in expanding the original Pauli-Fermi hypothesis of a massless neutrino into a number of massive particles that simply cannot cross entire planets with no appreciable scattering [A] ZeusSon.

I am sorry, but I simply cannot accept the endless proliferation of neutrinos requested by the standard model without serious physical foundations. As an example, I cannot accept the different "flavors" because that is just a name without any physical characterizations. Jrer969

The never ending saga of the increasing number of neutrinos requested by the standard model must stop because it has passed all limits of scientific credibility with the additional class of "sterile neutrinos" (??). Hence, I definitely support Santilli for his search of alternatives. Gfdf020

*According to the standard model, the neutron is a bound state of three quarks and this settles all issues. Dewre65*

Such a view is not scientific because it implies that at the time of the neutron synthesis, the permanently stable proton and electron "disappear" from the universe to be mysteriously replaced by the hypothetical and unboundable quarks and at the time of the neutron decay, the hypothetical quarks "disappear" from the universe to be replaced by the original proton and electron [A]. ZeusSon.

I must accept the evidence pointed out by Santilli, to the effect that: quarks are purely mathematical representations of a purely mathematical symmetry defined on a purely mathematical complex-valued unitary space; 2) Under these purely mathematical features, quarks are indeed useful for the "classification" of particles without any need for quarks to exist as physical particles in our spacetime [A]. Lgdg460

To be at peace with my soul, I have to agree with Santilli on the lack of existence of quarks as physical particles because: 1) They cannot be defined in our spacetime as it is the case for all physical particles, that is, as irreps of the Poincare' symmetry; 2) Quarks cannot be truly confined due to the uncertainty principle, with the ensuing finiteb probability of their tunnel effect as free particles; and 3) Quarks have not been detected at the extreme collisions now available at CERN in blatant contradiction of clear predictions; etc . [A]. Bfdfy73

The quantum mechanical structure model of the hydrogen is set in history as one of the biggest achievements of the human mind because it represented "all" characteristics of the hydrogen. By comparison, the quark structural model of particles is set in history as a scientific theology because said model has been grossly unable to represent "all" characteristics of "all" particles. By comparison, Santilli has achieved a representation of "all" characteristics of the neutrino, including mass, mean life, charge radius, and anomalous magnetic moment [BB17,18], with similar results for mesons [B6] and baryons [D] (see [B30] for a general review), and this explains the growing support of Santilli's views. Kgdfg20

In order to protect our dignity vis-a-a-vis with posterity, it is necessary to recall that quarks were suggested (and rapidly backed world wide) for the specific intent of extending the applicability of Einstein's special relativity for the structures of particles. The problem is that special relativity is known to be inapplicable within physical media of low density such as water and our atmosphere [D]. Consequently, the very aim of the quark conjecture, extending special relativity within the hyperdense media inside particles has no scientific credibility. Desese6

Santilli studies have established that [D] unstable particles are a bound state of conventional particles generally emitted in their decay modes under the validity of a covering of quantum mechanics for physical media, as it is evident for mesons and baryons. Such a structure allows for the representation of al;l features of particles in a way compatible with their classification by the standard model. Accepting quarks by comparison can at best be political. Dwa04lfx

*The neutrino hypothesis has been confirmed by numerous experiments, therefore doubts on its existence are unfounded. Triton*

The Italian Government halted neutrino experiments at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory because of the extreme paucity of detection compared to the disproportionate number of predicted events. For instance, the neutrino hypothesis predicts that we are hit by trillions of solar neutrinos per square centimeter per second. The number of detected neutrinos is in comparison so small to admit statistical fluctuations as the most probable interpretation, and in any case, justifies fully alternative interpretation, such as that via Santilli etherino.

*The existence of the neutrino has been established by the bell-shaped variation of the energy of the electron in nuclear beta decays. Triton*

Figure 1

The bell-shape of the electron energy in nuclear beta decays is due to the dependence of the angle of beta emission of the Coulomb interactions between the negatively charged electron and the positively charged nuclei [A]. This evidence has been ignored for about one century to adapt nuclear physics to the neutrino hypothesis. TritonSon

I agree that the synthesis of the neutron in the core of a star is a fundamentally open problem. It is not scientifically proper to assume the existence of the neutrino and then adapt the evidence to such an assumption. The correct approach is that followed by Santilli, that is, achieve first a representation of all characteristics of the neutron in its synthesis from the hydrogen and then look at issues pertaining to the neutrino, while restricting the standard model to the classification of particles. Jfr7394

*Nowadays, a considerable number of senior particle physicists do not consider the standard model as the final theory, do not accept quark conjectures and and have reservation in this river of neutrinos. Why you solely quota Santilli? Trs45it*

Because Santilli is the leader in the field following his fifty years of nonaligned publications, as well as because we are not experts in other contributions. Yet, we do welcome the quotation of additional views. particularly with links to the related papers. ZeusSon

**2. Origin of the neutrino insufficiencies**

*In a nutshell, what's the claimed origin of the so-called neutrino insufficiencies? Zeus*

Based on the mathematical and physical knowledge of their time; Pauli and Fermi had no other alternative than that of formulating the neutrino hypothesis. Santilli's studies have clearly established that the origin of all insufficiencies is the point-like abstraction of the proton and of particles at large. By contrast, whenever the proton and other particles are represented with their actual size and density, the neutrino hypothesis cannot be any longer consistently formulated on numerous grounds [A-E] (see also Comments 7). ZeusSon

*What is the main insufficiencies of 20th century mathematics for the representation of the proton as an extended and hyperdense particle? Zeus*

Twenty century mathematics is local and differential, thus being solely defined at isolated points. Consequently, the representation of the shape, dimension and density of the proton requires a basically new mathematics. I do not believe there is any possible serious compromise on that. ZeusSon

*What is the main physical implication of the representation of the proton as extended? j4j6k7l*

You must accept the widely forgotten view by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (PR 1935) that quantum mechanics is "incomplete." The type of "completion" needed for the neutron synthesis can be debated, but denying its need is political. ZeusSon

*I do not see the need to attempt a new mathematics and physics for the neutron synthesis. zfsferw*

Your view becomes credible if and only if you provide a quantitative (that is, numerical following equations) representation of all characteristics of the neutron in its synthesis from the proton and the electron in the core of stars. Santilli spent decades of failed attempts of such a representation via quantum mechanics and, at the end, he had to give up and seek new methods. ZeusSon.

*When did Santilli get involved in a problem of such a magnitude? ZeusSon*

It is well documented (see, e.g., the three volumes of documentation[D6, D7, D8]) that, when joining the faculty of Harvard University on September 8, 1978, Santilli was invited (sic) by the DOE to apply for a Harvard-administered research grant to initiate the study of new nuclear energies via his known Ph. D. thesis on the Lie-admissible formulation of irreversible processes at large, and nuclear energies in particular (see Section 3 of Ref. p[e] and quoted literature). . Santilli accepted the invitation under the condition that he could first study the most fundamental nuclear process, the neutron synthesis from a proton and an electron, and then pass to new nuclear energy. DOE accepted this request; Santilli was moved from the Lyman Laboratory of Physics to Harvard's Department of Mathematics for the precise scope of developing the mathematics needed for neutron synthesis. This initiated a thirty year long scientific journey, originally supported by the Harvard-administered DOE grants number ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, DE-AC02-80ER1065, DE-AC02-80ER-1065.A001, and DE-AC02-80ER.1065, which journey includes the contribution by numerous mathematicians, theoreticians and experimentalists [D] and recently lead to the industrial production and sale of a source of neutron synthesized from a hydrogen gas by the publicly traded U. S. company Thunder Energies Corporation (www.thunder-energies.comn). ZeusSon

*Well, has anybody shown that the representation of the neutron synthesis implies new nuclear energies? Zeus*

Yes indeed in various corporate studies ignored by academia because outside their mainstream. The inability by quantum mechanics to achieve an exact representation of nuclear experimental data from un-adulterated first principles is known but solely admitted by serious scholars. The representation of the proton and the neutron as extended, hence deformable and non-spherical charge distribution has permitted the achievement of numerically exact and time-invariant representation of: the stability of the deuteron (when the neutron is naturally unstable); a true ground state of the deuteron without hypothetical orbital contributions; nuclear magnetic moments; nuclear spins, etc. [D, E]. Thanks to these representations, Santilli has formulated and experimentally verified the existence of Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Synthesis (ICNS, also called "warm fusions") occurring without the emission of harmful radiations and without the release of radioactive waste ([B35-B39]). ZeusSon

*I believe that, perhaps, Santilli's main contribution has been showing that a representation of the synthesis of the neutron from a proton and an electron in the core of stars is so fundamental to require the generalization of the all of 20th century sciences, thus resulting indeed in the New sciences for a new era" [D,E]. As stated by Santilli in his works, "colleagues who do not participate in new fundamental advances ultimately make a gift of scientific priorities to others." I agree. Ofd46r*

*I believe I understood Santilli's insistence in searching for a new math capable of representing the proton as an extended and hyperdense particle with ensuing generalization of quantum because because you cannot possibly fuse together the proton and the electron when represented as point particles according to quantum mechanics. Krt45ou*

**3. Iso-, geno- and hyper-mathematics.**

*Where can I find the simplest possible summary of Santilli isomathematics? dgerg43*

Here it is [B5-B12]:

STEP 1: Generalize the product AB between "all" possible quantities A, B (such as numbers, functions, matrices, etc.), into the axiom-preserving product (*Santilli isoproduct*)

A*B = ATB, T = T(r, p, ψ, .....) > 0. (4)

The simple realization

T = Diag. (a, b, c, d) Exp(Γ(ψ. ...), (5)

readily allows the needed representation of the shape, dimensions and density of particle, where a, b, c (normalized to the values a = b = c = 1 for the sphere) represent the shape and dimension of the proton (here assumed to be a spheroid charge distribution with semiaxes a, b, c), while the particle density is represented (for the first time in scientific history with d (also normalized to the value d = 1 for the vacuum) [[B7].

STEP 2: To achieve consistency, formulate the new math over numeric fields F'(n',*, U) with basic unit, numbers and products (*Santilli isofields*)

U = 1/T, n' = nU, n'*m' = (nm)U, (6)

that verify the axioms of a field, n' being <1m> Santilli isoreal, isocomplex and isoquaternionic isonumbers [B8].

STEP 3: Generalize Newton's differential calculus into the covering form (*Santilli isodifferential calculus*)

d'r' = Td[rU((r, ...)] = dr + r TdU, (7)

and related derivative [B9].

Steps 1, 2 and 3 then require a compatible reformulation of the entire 20th century applied mathematics with no known exception. The best source remains the originating memoir [B9], http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-37.pdf, (see also the Ph. D. Course on Isomathematics http://www.i-b-r.org/scientific-rebirth-9.htm and the lecture notes http://www.world-lecture-series.org/ and the scientific archives http://santilli-foundation.org/news.html). Advanced treatments for mathematicians are available in Refs. [B8-13]. AbraDabra

*I do not see the need to generalize the Newton-Leibnitz differential calculus when you can represent shape, dimension and density with T. Dgerg43*

The ultimate mathematical origin of the 20th century abstraction of hadrons as being point-like particles is the local-differential character of Newton-Leibnitz differential "dr" and related derivative since they can be solely defined at the isolated point "r". Santilli isodifferential (7) has allowed, for the first time, to define the differential in the volume represented by T. AbraDabra

A mathematics in which the product is generalized and the differential calculus remains the old one is grossly inconsistent. Bfd53ta

*I still miss the implications of generalizing the ordinary differential calculus. Zfsferw*

The implication is that 20th century physics, chemistry and engineering have to be generalized when dealing with interior dynamical conditions of extended objects within physical media. For instance, in physics you stop conceiving nuclei as ideal spheres with isolated internal points and represent them as they actually are, a collection of extended nucleons in conditions of partial mutual penetration. In optimizing the shape of a wing, you stop doing it at a set of isolated points, but you do it for entire surfaces or volumes represented by T. Do you need more? AbraDabra

*What is the branch of isomathematics most important for physical applications besides the isodifferential calculus? Kljkkjk*

It is given by the isotopies of all branches of Lie's theory, today known as the *Lie-Santilli isotheory,* which were all worked out in Santilli;s Springer monographs [B7] of 1978, with basic *isocommutation rules*

[X_{i}, X_{j}]^{*} = X_{i} * X_{j} - X_{j} * X_{i} =

= C_{ij}^{k}(r, p, ...) X_{k}m k, j, k - 1, 2, ..., N. (8)

that are called regular (irregular) isoalgebras when the C's are constant (functions),. Got references, one should consult Santilli's original work [B7[, the 1996 upgrade http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-37.pdf, and the recent work and the recent study http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/isorep-Lie-Santilli-2017.pdf . An important mathematician expert in the Lie-Santilli isotheory was the late Gregarious Tsagas, Chairman of the Department of Mathematics of Thessaloniki University,m Greece, see his boob http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-70.pdf An important physicist expert in the field was the late J. V. Kadeisvili from the war thorn Georgia, see one of his works http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-30.pdfIt should be noted that Santilli delivered the eulogy to Kadeisvili the invited 2014 talk at the AAM in Madrid . http://www.world-lecture-series.org/advances-in-the-lie-santilli-isotheory AbraDabra

*Why is this theory physically significant? Kljkkjk*

For numerous reasons, such as: the first known time invariant representation of extended particles under Hamiltonian and non-Hamiltonian interactions; the first known characterization of the constituents of bound states of particles under non-linear interactions the generalization of special relativity axioms to interior conditions, et al (see comments 4). AbraDabra

*I do not see it because the constituents of a bound state are well characterized by the Lie theory. Kljkkjk*

Not necessarily so. You can do it for point-like constituents, but for extended particle constituents in condition of mutual penetration you have non-linear and non-Hamiltonian interactions under which you cannot even define the constituents due to the loss of the superposition principle, let alone, the applicability of Lie's theory; and other reasons [B9].AbraDabra

*How can the Lie-Santilli isotheory achieve important results? Dfdt69u*

By embedding all non-linear interactions in the isounit U - U(?, ...). The resulting covering theory is, therefore, everywhere linear except at the unit. The same occurs for locality and canonicity. AbraDabra

I agree with Santilli that point-like constituents are OK for atomic structures but are excessively approximated for the structure of hadrons, nuclei and stars. As stated by Santilli various times: "There exist no point-like wavepackets in nature." Hence, the size of the hadronic constituents is essentially the same as that of hadrons, resulting in non-linear, non-local and non-Hamiltonian internal interactions for which Lie's theory is no longer applicable in favor of the covering Lie-Santilli isotheory. Msd20e

Thanks, AbraDabra

*What is the simplest possible definition of geno- and hyper-mathematics? 264646f*

Here it is. Santilli genomathematics is characterized by the ordering of "all" products A*B to the right A>B = ARB and, separately, to the left A<B = ASB, with R, S > 0, called *forward and backward genoproducts.* Then formulate corresponding *forward and backward genofields and genodifferential calculi.* Under the condition of in-equivalence of the forward and backward products, R ≠ S, you have introduced a time arrow in the very basic axioms of mathematics, physics and chemistry resulting in methods today known as being the best available for the representation of irreversible processes, such as particle, nuclear or chemical reactions. (If you know of better methods please do bring them to the attention of the audience). Santilli hyper-mathematics occur when the above ordered products are multi valued, as needed for the representation of biological processes due to their complexity. The best presentation for physicists remains Santilli memoir art NC http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs//Lie-admiss-NCB-I.pdf AbraDabra

*What is hadronic mathematics? Aswewue*

*Why isomathematics is used for the neutron synthesis instead of genomathematics? Hut74yd*

Because the neutrino synthesis is reversible over time due to the spontaneous decay of the neutron into the originating particles, a proton and an electron. By contrast, particle collisions, nuclear and chemical reactions are highly irreversible over time, thus requiring genomathematics for their quantitative treatment. ZeusSon

*Non-unitary theories are known to violate causality. Therefore, Santilli isomathematics has no physical value due to the non-unitary character of the Lie-Santilli time evolution. Triton*

You are correct in stating that q-deformations (those with product AB - qBA) and similar theories have no physical value because they violate causality due to the non-unitarity of their time evolution. By contrast, Santilli isomechanics is isounitary, that is, it verifies unitarity on the appropriate iso-Hilbert space over isofields. In the event you had any knowledge of the isotopies you would not have expressed your view as stated. TritonSon.

*How about genomathematics and hypermathematics?. Wery54sdr*

Here they are. Santilli genomathematics is characterized by the ordering of "all" products A*B to the right A>B = ARB and, separately, to the left A<B = ASB, with R ≠ S, R, S > 0, called

**4. Iso-, geno-, and hyper-mechanics and chemistry.**

*Where can I find the shortest possible outline of Santilli isomechanics? Dgerg43*

I can quickly outline it for you by following the presentation of isomathematics of the preceding comments [B9, B15]:

STEP 1: Assume the following non-unitary realization of isounit (6) in representation of short-range non-linear, non-local and non-Hamiltonian interactions

U = W W^{†} = 1 / T =

= Diag. (n_{1}^{2}, n_{2}^{2}, n_{3}^{2}, n_{4}^{2}), (9)

where the n-characteristic quantities are assumed to contain the multiplicative exponential term of Eq. (5), under the condition that U → 1 at mutual distances much bigger than one Fermi. Note that the above realization will change from case to case.

STEP 2: Apply the above transform to the "totality" of the Hilbert space formalism, including: Planck's constant (h = 1), numbers, operators, states, expectation values, etc.,

1' = W 1 W^{†} = U, n' = W n W^{†} = nU, A' = W A W^{†}, A'* B' = W (AB) W^{†}. (10a),

|ψ'> = W |ψ>W^{†}, <ψ'| * A' * |ψ'> = W<ψ| A |ψ> W^{†}, etc. (10b)

by achieving in this way the background iso-Hilbert space over isofields. Lack of application of the above non-unitary transform to one single quantity of the Hilbert space formalism implies insidious inconsistencies that generally remain undetected by non-initiated colleagues.

STEP 3: Apply the same transform to the dynamical equations by reaching in this way the *Schroedinger-Santilli isoequation*

W H |ψ>W^{†} = H' * |ψ'> = H'(r', p')T(ψ'. ...) |ψ'> = E'*|ψ'> = E |ψ'> (11)

and the Heisenberg-Santilli isoequation

i'* d'A'/d't' = [A', H']^{*} = A'*H' - H'*A'. (12)

defined on their appropriate isospaces over an isofield. The above equations are at the foundation of *non-relativistic isomechanics.* They verify the superposition principle thus allowing for the first time a quantitative characterization of the constituents of bound states with non-linear internal interactions. All other aspects of isomechanics then follow uniquely and unambiguously, including the recovering of quantum mechanics for U = 1. Particularly significant is the invariance of Santilli isomechanics under isounitary transforms due to the preservation of the numerical value of the isotopic element T (see the review in Ref. [A]). The best reference remains the 1995 Vol. II of *Elements of Hadronic Mechanics*, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-301.pdf ZeusSon

*I do not accept Santilli isomechanics because it implies the loss of Planck's constant with consequential loss of quantized energy exchanges. Wery54sdr*

I accept Santilli isomechanics precisely because energy exchanges in the core of a star cannot possibly be quantized due to the extremely big pressure. We have essentially the same conditions in the interior of the proton, although in a lesser among as compared to the core of a star. Besides personal views, one way or the other, the serious scientific stand is that "we do not know" the behavior of energy exchanges within hyper-dense media. Hence the serious scientific he, procedure is to assume Santilli's broadest possible integro-differential energy exchange (9), and then select its particularization based on experiments. ZeusSon

*I heard that Santilli isomechanics eliminates the divergencies of quantum mechanics. Ty64trk*

Yes. This is trivially due to the fact that for values | T | < 1, series in the product ATB are strongly convergent even when the quantum series are divergent. Additionally, the isotopies of the Dirac "distribution: became an "isofunction" because of the removal of the divergence at the origin, and for other reasons [D,E]. JupiterSon

*What is an isoparticle? Bfdtildr*

Santilli spent about 100 papers and a few monographs in the subject that includes the isotopies of: 1) The Euclidean and Minkowski space; the rotational, spin, Lorentz and Poincare' symmetries and their spinorial covering; 2) The isotopies of spacial relativity, and 3) Their experimental verification prior to their application to the neutron synthesis. Technically, an *isoparticle* is an isoirreducible isorepresentation of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry on an iso-Minkowski space over the isoreals, see again http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-301.pdf for the theoretical part, and for Refs. [D, E] for a review of its experimental verifications in various fields. ZeusSon

*In concrete terms, what is a main physical novelty of these isoparticles? Very54sdr*

To answer this question, wee should recall the Iso-Minkowskian space first introduced by Santilli in the 1983 paper at NCL http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-50.pdf

x'^{2'} = (x^{μ} T_{μ}^{ρ}η_{ρ
ν} x^{ν}) U =

= (x_{1}^{2}/n_{1}^{2} + x_{2}^{2}/n_{2}^{2} + x_{3}^{2}/n_{3}^{2} - t^{2} c^{2}/n_{4}^{2}) U, (13)

which is the most general possible symmetric spacetime in (3+1)-dimensions, thus including all possible Riemannian spaces. In the same 1983 paper, thanks to the prior generalization of Lie's theory, Santilli constructed then universal isosymmetry of isoinvariant (13), today called the Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry, which is given in the (3,4)-plane for v = v_{3} by (see Vol. II of [B15] for the general case)

x'^{1} = x^{1}, x'^{2} = x^{2}, (14a)

x'^{3} = γ' (x^{3} - β x^{4}),

x'^{4} = γ' (x^{4} - β' x^{3}), (14b)

β = v/c, β' = (v/n_{3}) / (c/n_{4}), γ' = (1 - β'^{2})^{-1/2}, (14c)

The above isosymmetries uniquely and unambiguously characterize the following isoequivalence principle

E' = mc^{2} = mc^{2}/n_{4}^{2} = E/n_{4}^{2}, 15)

The above isoprinciple characterizes a new renormalization of the rest energy of particles when immersed within hyperdense media, called *isorenormalization,* first introduced by Santilli in Ref. [B6] of 1978, with fundamental implications for all of particle physics because it implies that the rest energy of a particle within a hyperdense medium is different than the rest energy of the same particle when isolated in vacuum. For details, see the second volume of the1991 monographs http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-61.pdf, the 2007 five volumes http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm(with a fifty page bibliography in Vol. 1), the World Lecture Series http://www.world-lecture-series.org/and references quoted therein. ZeusSon.

*I do not see how invariant (13) includes all possible Riemannian spacetimes. Sew545tr*

Consider any non-singular Riemannian spacetimes, such as the Schwartzchild spacetime outside a singularity. It is then very easy to write it in form (13). ZeusSon

*I cannot accept this formalism because it implies that the rest energy of isoparticles is different in different space directions. Lr86uyar*

I accept the Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry precisely because it implies different values for different directions because physical media (such as that inside a proton) are inhomogeneous and anisotropic. Therefore, velocities in different directions have manifestly different dynamical effects. ZeusSon

*What is relativistic isomechanics? Erst545trs*

It was first formulated in Ref. [B-20] as the extension of non-relativistic isomechanics characterized by the Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry on iso-Minkowski isospaces over isofields. Its most important too; is the Dirac-Santilli isoequation that achieved the first relativistic representation of all characteristics of the neutron in its synthesis from a proton and an electron [B17], which we cannot possibly review here. ZeusSon

*Is Santilli's work based on the local character of the speed of light? Wery54sdr*

Yes, of course. In serious scientific circles, this is called the "historical Lorentz problem," that is, the universal invariance of the local speed c' = c/n that Lorentz was unable to solve due to the limitations of Lie's theory, but that Santilli solved in two pages of the NCL http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-50.pd thanks to the prior achievement of the appropriate generalization of Lie's theory [B5-B7]. ZeusSon

*I am sorry, but all this is dismissed by the universal constancy of the speed of light. Wery54sdr*

I am sorry, but Albert Einstein clearly spoke of the "universal constancy of the speed of light in vacuum." The removal of the words "in vacuum" turn the issue into a scientific religion on numerous grounds, such as: 1) The complete absence of experimental evidence of the constancy of the speed of light within physical media; 2) The absence within physical media of the inertial reference system to properly formulate Einstein's work; 3) The vast experimental evidence e on the variation of the speed of light in vacuum when passing to propagation within physical media. This is the case for media of low density, such as our atmosphere and water, by noting that the reduction of light to photons scattering among the media molecules (evidently proffered for the intent of recovering special relativity within physical media) is afflicted by a plethora of inconsistencies (see the experiential collaboration http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf and papers quoted therein). Once the experimental evidence of the variation of the speed of light within our atmosphere is admitted, the idea that the speed of light is a universal constant also within the hyper-dense medium inside hadrons has no scientific credibility (see the concluding remarks of the above quoted experimental collaboration). ZeusSon

*I heard that the iso-Minkowskian geometry is isomorphic to the Minkowskian geometry. How can this be possible when the isometric depends on the local coordinate like the Riemannian geometry? Vfd65ir*

According to Santilli, all non-singular symmetric metrics g(x) in (3+1) dimensions can be factorized into the form

g(x) = T(x) η (16)

where η is the Minkowski metric. When the space is formulated over the conventional real numbers with unit 1, you have the Riemannian geometry. When exactly the same metric is formulated over the isofield with isounit U = 1/T you have the iso-Minkowskian space. In this case the isocurvature (and not the curvature) is null because the deformation of the space η → T(x) η is compensated by the "inverse" deformation of the unit 1 → 1/T, thus establishing the local isomorphism between the conventional and isotopic Minkowski space (see the memoir http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf). JupiterSon

*But then, the Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry constitutes also the universal invariance of all possible Riemannian metrics?*

Yes, see the details and implications in http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2015040501.18.pdf ZeusSon

(See also in this website the preceding debate on Einstein gravitation).

*What is Santilli's geno-Minkowskian geometry and what's its value? Srt65pyf*

The forward genogeometry is given by the restriction of all isoproducts to the right A>B = ARB under the conditions of in-equivalence of the products to the left A <B = ASB, and to the right R ≠ S, R, S, > 0 with realization via non-symmetric genotopic elements

R ≠ R^{t} (17)

Consequently, the genoinvariant

x'^{2'} = (x^{μ} R_{μ}^{ρ}η_{ρ
ν} x^{ν}) U (18)

is no longer invariant under time reversal. In this way, Santilli embeds a time direction for the representation of the irreversibility of nature directly into the basic metric of the geometry. (See the memoir http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf). JupiterSon

*What is isochemistry? Htr6664ie*

It is the image of quantum chemistry under non-unitary transform (9) for the representation of non-linear, non-local and non-Hamiltonian interactions occurring in the deep overlapping of the wavepackets of valence electrons in singlet coupling. (See Santilli's 2001 Springer monograph http: //www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-113.pdf). JupiterSon

*What's its value? Htr6664ie*

Isochemistry has provided the first and only representation of valence bonds with an explicit attractive force between identical electrons in excellent agreement with experimental data, thus providing the first known quantitative structure model of molecules with far reaching implications. ZeusSon

*If I understand, is the non-potential attractive force between valence electron couplings essentially the same as the contact non-potential force between the proton and the electron in singlet mutual penetration? Htr6664ie*

Yes. JupiterSon

**5. Representation of the neutron rest energy, mean life and charge radius.**

*In a nutshell, how did Santilli achieve a representation of the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen under the mass excess of 0.782 MeV? Wrete64*

The neutron rest energy, mean life and charge radius in synthesis (1) were represented for the first time in Ref. [B17] of 1990 http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-21.pdf (which treatment remains the best to thus day) according to the following steps:

STEP 1: Assume in first approximation that the proton is perfectly spherical with ensuing simplification of isounit of the type

U = W W^{†} = 1/T = Diag. (1, 1, 1, n_{4}^{2})e^{ψ/ψ'} (19)

where ψ is the wavefunction thereof ground state of then hydrogen atom and ψ' is that of the neutron.

STEP 2: Construct the Schroedinger-Santilli isoequation with the conventional Coulomb potential between the proton and the electron (hydrogen atom) and the addition of the non-Hamiltonian interactions due to their total mutual penetration represented by the exponential of the isounit (19), and construct the ensuing radial equation

[(1/r^{2}(d/dr)r^{2}(d/dr) + (4 π^{2}m'/h^{2})(E' + N e^{- r / R} / (1 - e^{- r / R}) ] |e^{*}> = 0, (20)

where one recognizes the Hulten potential which behaves at short distances like the Coulomb potential, thus absorbing the latter via a mere change of the constant N. as it is well known, Eq. (20_ admits the typical finite spectrum of energy E (see Ref. [B6] for a detailed study of Eq. (20).

STEP 3: Impose as subsidiary constraints the mean life and charge radius of the neutron as

2 λ^{2} | e^{*}(0)|^{2} α E_{e*}/h = 10^{3} sec, (21a)

R = 10^{-13 } cm, (21b)

See Eqs. (2.15) of the 1990 paper http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-21.pdf and reviews [B27-B30].

The net result is the restriction of the Hulten spectrum to one and only one value, the neutron,which therefore results to be one additional bound state of the proton and the electron when in conditions of total mutual immersion (isoproton and isoelectron). Under any excitation, the isoelectron leaves the proton, return to move in vacuum, reacquires the conventional characteristics, quantum mechanics is recovered in full due to the identity U = 1 (= h), and all conventional excited states of the hydrogen atom are regained (Figure 2) JupiterSon

Figure 2

*I do not see the resolution of the inconsistency of the Schroedinger equation for the mass excess of the neutron (2b). Wrete6446dd*

Thanks for asking this basic question. The indicated inconsistency is resolved by the isorenormalization of the rest energy of the isoelectron when totally immersed inside the proton with value (c = 1)

m' = 0.511/n_{4}^{2} MeV - 0.511\ 0.34 MeV 1.295 MeV (22)

under the value of the density of the proton

n_{4} = 0.628 (23)

which is derived by Santilli from the experimental fit of the proton-antiproton fireball of the Bose-Einstein correlation, and other experimental data (See the reviews [D,E]). JupiterSon

*I cannot accept Santilli model because it implies E - 0 in Eqs. (20). Wrete6446dd*

I am glad you noted that, but I am sorry to see that you continue to think in terms of 20th century physics. By their very definition, contact interactions are non-Hamiltonian, that is, they have no potential energy. Therefore, the consistency of Santilli representation of the rest energy, mean life and charge radius of the neutron is given precisely by the value E - 0. In any case, any value E ≠ 0 would imply excited states of the neutron that do not exist in nature. JupiterSon.

*I cannot see how the rest energy of a particle can increase or decrease when immersed within a physical medium. Wrete6446dd*

You cannot see it because you do not know Santilli's experiments on the isoredshift of light whose energy E = hν has been experimentally established to decrease (increase) for light propagating within media at low (high) temperature, see the experimental collaboration http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf and vast preceding literature quoted therein. If E = hν changes for light in interior conditions, the corresponding change for the rest energy of particle seems to be quite evident. AbraDabra.

*Is there a simple summary of Santilli relativistic representation of the neutron synthesis? Otr7635sfd*

Unfortunately no, in Ref. [B20] Santilli did achieve the first and only available relativistic representation of the synthesis of the neutron, but that requires a technical knowledge of: 1_) the Lie-Santilli isotheory; 2) The Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry and its spinorial covering; 3) Relativistic isomechanics at large and the Dirac-Santilli isoequation in particular; and 5) The experimental verification of these methods in particle physics. What should be noted here is that, via the sole use of the density of the proton, Eq. (23), Santilli achieved in Refs. [B20] relativistic representation of "all" characteristics of the neutron in synthesis (1) via purely geometric treatment on the Iso-Minkowski space over the isoreals. JupiterSon

**6. Representation of the neutron spin and magnetic moment.**

*How can Santilli represent the spin of the neutron without the neutrino hypothesis? Triton*

In Ref. [B17] of 1990 http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-21.pdf Eqs. (2.34) - (2.37), Santilli has achieved the first and only known representation of the spin 1/2 of the neutron without the neutrino thanks to the prior development of the Lie-Santilli isotheory, and its application to the isotopic rotational, spoon and Lorentz symmetries. We regret the inability of outlining it here due to the limitations of the HTLM format. The main points are the following: 1) The spins of the protons and electron are assumed in first approximation not to be isorenormalized. 2) For stability, the penetration of the electron inside then proton can only be in singlet coupling; and 3) Once compressed inside the proton, the isoelectron is constrained to have an orbital angular momentum equal to the proton spin, otherwise the isoelectron should move against the hyperdense medium inside the proton. This implies that the total angular momentum of the isoelectron is null, and the spin of the neutron coincide with that of the proton (see Figure 3). ZeusSon

*I do not accept this representation because orbital angular momenta with fractional values are impossible. Oder34645j*

You continue to apply quantum mechanics under conditions it is inapplicable. Your view would be the same as my stating that isomechanics is applicable to the hydrogen atom, which statement has no sense. Once you look at the Lie-Santilli spin symmetry SU*(2*) defined on the Iso-Hilbert space over isofields, fractional values of the angular momenta, that within hyperdense media, are fully acceptable. ZeusSon

Figure 3

*How about the neutron anomalous magnetic moment. Triton*

In Eqs. (2.39) - (2.41) of paper [B18] http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-21.pdf Santilli achieved the first and only known additional representation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the neutron, thanks precisely to the orbital angular momentum of the isoelectron when compressed inside the proton. Its elementary magnetic contribution permits the numerically exact representation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the neutron. ZeusSon.

*How about the relativistic representation of the spin and magnetic moment of the neutron? Triton*

These representations are uniquely and unambiguously achieved via the isospinorial covering of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry [B20]. ZeusSon

*I have been quite impressed by Santilli's representation of the neutron synthesis, not only because the represents all characteristics of the neutron, but he does so in a way invariant over time thanks to his isosymmetry. fsdd46l*

* I do not see the practical value of Santilli's studies on the neutron synthesis. Lre64gs*

The only way to detect Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239 or other fissionable minatorial that can be smuggled in suitcases or containers is by irradiating the latter with a low energy neutron flux under which some fissionable nuclei decay with a shower of hard and clearly detectable radiations. By contrast, no clear identification is possible via X-rays or other standard technologies under which fissionable material appear as ordinary metals. By noting that Santilli's synthesis of the neutron from a hydrogen gas [B17] is nowadays an experimental reality fully confirmed by experimental collaboration [B], the U. S. publicly traded company *Thunder Energies Corporation* (http://thunder-energies.com/ ) is in production and sale of a *Directional Neutron Source* (patent pending), producing on demand a neutron flux synthesized from a Hydrogen gas predominantly in one direction, thus being ideally suited for the scanning of suitcases, container or grounds for hidden nukes or parts thereof. Hence, the practical value of Santilli's synthesis of the neutron is a significant contribution to our National Security Lre64gs does not appear to care. ZeusSon

*Quantum mechanics and special relativity achieved their just historical status because of their incredible successes in the exact representation of experimental data on the structure of the hydrogen atom. In view of such a success, the same theories were applied to nuclear physics, this time, resulting in large deviations of experimental data from the predictions of said theories, as it is the case for nuclear magnetic moments and spin, nuclear forces, etc.. Yet, relativistic quantum mechanics was assumed to be fully valid in nuclear physics because one could still formulate nuclear magnetic moments, spins forces, etc.. Santilli;'s epochal contribution has been the establishing, for the first time in history, clear limitations of 20th century theories because, unlike the case of nuclear physics, they are unable to achieve any representation whatsoever of the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen, in favor of covering theories that have already proved to achieve exact representation of interior problems in physics and chemistry that are simply impossible for 20th century theories. Kds92ct*

In serious scientific circles, the argument is important and the journal in which it is published is irrelevant. In a y case, as reported in his memoirs http://www.scientificethics.org/Orgaqnized_Scientifi_Crime.htm Santilli submitted paper [B17] first to the Proceedings ofd the Royal Society (where Rutherford submitted his hypothesis of the neutron, then to Physical Review D and then to Il Nuovo Cimento, to receive in all case slanderous and vulgar editorial response without any technical, review, thus disqualifying the journals beloved by Fre93toy, rather than that of paper [B17]. ZeusSon

**7. Etherino or neutrino?**

*What is the etherino? Triton*

According to Santilli [A], the etherino is a massless and changeless *longitudinal impulse* (and not a conventional particle) denoted with the letter "a" from the Latin aether) which propagates in the ether as a universal substratum with high energy density (similar to the zero point energy) and which delivers the energy and spin that are missing in the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen. By using nuclear symbols with A = atomic mass, Z = atomic number, J = spin, M = rest energy in MEV or amu,and K = kinetic energy also in MEV or amu, the photon can be represented as follows

γ = γ(0, 0, 1, o, hν), (24)

while Santilli etherino can be represented in its most general form (see below for particularizations) as follows

a = a(0, 0, 1/2, 0 hν). (25)

The photon is a *transverse wave* (the oscillations of the ether are perpendicular to the direction of propagation), while the etherino is a *longitudinal wave* (the oscillations of the ether are in the direction of propagation). JupiterSon.

*What are the motivation for moving such a basic hypothesis? Triton*

Santilli submitted the etherino hypothesis for numerous reasons, including:

1) The inability to locate the energy missing in the synthesis of the neutron, Eq. (2b), via the use of neutrinos, the relative kinetic energy between the proton and the electron, the energy in the interior of stars, and other means discussed in Comments 1, thus forcing the use of an source external to our matter environment;

2) The inability to accommodate the spin of the neutrino whenever the proton is represented with its actual extended size and density, because in the latter case, the missing spin 1/2 is provided by the constrained orbital motion of the (iso)(electron within the hyperdense medium inside the proton (Comments 6);

3) The inability to locate any energy for the very existence of the neutrino short of catastrophic implications [for instance, adding a positive energy to Eq/. (20) for the neutrino implies granting a potential energy to contact non-Hamiltonian interaction that cannot possibly have any, Comments 5); and other reasons. JupiterSon

* I cannot accept the etherino hypothesis because a universal substratum would violate special relativity. Jtr62cb*

This is a century-old theology that should be terminated in the third millennium. As clearly established by Santilli [Z], we have no possibility whatsoever of identifying a reference frame at rest with the universal substratum due to the known inertia. Consequently, we have no possibility of representing events with a n alleged privilege reference system at rest with the universal substratum, and special relativity remains fully valid for point-particles in vacuum. ZeusSon

*I agree with ZeusSon because said theory has also implied the century-old belief that the electromagnetic "waves" exist and propagate without any underlying medium, something I cannot accept for my own dignity. Bds62td*

*What is Santilli's synthesis of the neutron based n the etherino hypothesis? Triton*

It is given by the following synthesis expressed in terms of nuclear symbols [A]

p(1, 1, 1/2, 938.29 MeV, 0) + a(0, 0, 1/2, 00, .782 MeV) +

+ e(0, -1, 1/2, 0.51 MeV, 0) → n(1, 0, 1/2, 939.67 MeV, 0), (26)

where, most importantly, the etherino is on the l. h. s. of the synthesis (rather than the r.h.s as it is the case for the neutrino). The original proton and electron are assumed in first approximation to be at rest since they are in the core of stars under extreme pressures. The spontaneous decay of the neutron (when isolated) is then the inverse process [A]

n(1, 0, 1/2, 939.67 MeV, 0) → p(1, 1, 1/2, 938.29 MeV, 0) +

+ a(0, 0, 1/2, 0, 0) + e(0, -1, 1/2, 0.511 MeV, 0.782 MeV) (27)

where the original excess energy of 0.782 MeV is distributed between the etherino and the electron depending on the local conditions. JupiterSon.

*Can you provide a an application of the etherino, say, for nuclear beta Electron Capture and decays? Triton*

The replacement of ν with a, but careful, because the etherino must be placed in the l.h.s of the reactions when dealinge with electron capture, e.g.

N(A, Z, J, M, 0) + a + EC(0, -1, 1/2. 0.511 MeV, 0) →

→ N'(A, Z-1, J, M + 1,294 MeV, 0), (28)

while an example of beta decay, e. g., of 23-Mg-12 we have

Mg(23, 12, 3/2, 22.9941248 amu, 0)) + β →

Na(23, 11, 3/2, 22.9897697 amu, 0) + a, (29)

*But then the replacement of neutrinos with etherinos is pure nomenclature Triton.*

The etherino hypothesis implies the return to the continuous creation in the universe, the existence of new superluminal communications, and the restriction of the standard model to sole classification. Do you need more? JupiterSon.

*What type of superluminal communications are you referring to? XZeus.*

Longitudinal waves are predicted to propagate in the ether at millions of times the speed of light. ZeusSon.

*I cannot accept Santilli etherino because Maxwell's equations do not admit consistent longitudinal solutions. triton*

Again, your mind is frozen in 20th century physics of isolated point particles in empty space, in which case your view is correct, but for Santilli's etherino you have to think at massless radiations propagating within a hyperdense medium. In the former case you have Maxwell's equations on a Minkowski space. In the latter case you have the iso-Maxwell's equations within Minkowski-Santilli isospace which do indeed admit longitudinal solutions. JupiterSon.

*I am confused because the etherino is sometimes represented with zero spin. Triton*

This is due to the way you look at dynamics within physical media. A system of isolated point particles in vacuum (exterior problem) must be Keplerian. The ten conservation laws of the Galileo or Poincare' symmetry then establish that the total linear momentum and the total angular momentum must be conserved individually and independently, as it is well known. The situation for a system of extended particles moving within a physical medium (interior problem), is structurally different because the ten total conservation laws of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry establish that liner momentum can be transformed into angular momentum and vice versa, as it is established for the sling shot (see Figure 4). Consequently, the etherino a(0, 0, 1.2, MeV) is used for exterior analyses, while the alternative formulation a(0, 0, 0, MeV) is used for interior studies. I recommend the former for colleagues without any technical, knowledge of the Lie-Santilli isotheory. JupiterSon

Figure 4

*In short, what is the main divergence between the Rutherford-Santilli neutron and the Pauli-Fermi neutrino? Hfd665*

As discussed in Comments 2, the main divergence is given by the representation of the proton as an extended and hyperdense particle for the Rutherford-Santilli neutron and the representation of the proton as a massive point for the Pauli-Fermi neutrino. ZeusSon

*I do not accept Santilli's structure model of the neutron because I can do everything with the neutrino. Oppog46f\*

No. I disagree. The neutrino hypothesis prevents any possible representation of the neutron synthesis from the hydrogen. To be credible, Oppog46f\ should show his claim with equations. TritonSon.

*Despite everything I see in this blog, I still prefer the standard model and the quark structure of the neutron. Hds72ea*

OK, but then you have to resolve the scientific theologies identified in Comments 1, such as the conversion of the permanently stable protons and electrons into the hypothetical and unboundable quarks, etc. ZeusSon.

*ZeusSon speaks like Santilli. Hds72ea*

Yes, because I copy statements in Santilli's works by providing the related reference. ZeusSon

*I am confused because in paper [B17] Santilli continues to use the neutrino, see e.g., Eq. (2.42). Triton*

EDITORIAL NOTE: We have consulted on the matter Prof. Santilli (Email: research(at)thunder-energies(dot)com) who released the following statement: *At the time of writing paper HJ- Vol. 13, p. 513, 1990, I was fully convinced on the lack of existence of the neutrino as a physical particle, and I communicated such a view prior to 1990 to colleagues founders of hadronic mechanics, such as Prof. Tepper Gill from Howard University, U.S.A, the late Prof. Gregarious Tsagas, Thessaloniki University, Greece, and others. I wrote said paper by keeping the neutrino because of respect for my best teacher, Enrico Fermi. In any case, the representation of all characteristics of the neutron from a proton and an electron presented in said paper clearly shows the lack of need for the neutrino. Ruggero M. Santilli.*

* I am confused as well because the author of Ref. [B] adopt in the Concluding Remarks Santilli's view on the lack of existence of neutrinos, yet they write the entire paper by using neutrinos. Jfd73vs*

EDITORIAL NOTE: We have consulted the authors of Ref. [B] and they stated that the experimental confirmation of the synthesis of neutrons from a hydrogen gas cannot resolve the problem of the existence or lack of existence of neutrinos since the latter problem solely emerge in the theoretical representation of the neutron synthesis.

*I am also confused because paper [B17] presents all equations in terms of neutrinos rather than etherino. Triton*

Santilli wrote the etherino paper [A] some seventeen years after paper; B17]. JupiterSon

*I believe that Santilli mathematical, theoretical and experimental studies on the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen constitute a monolithic structure with quite strong internal compatibility. Gfd64ra*

Figure 5

As one can see in the curriculum http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm, Santilli has received numerous important prizes and awards in recognition of his mathematical, physical, chemical, engineering and industrial achievements including: nomination in 1990, by the Estonia Academy of Sciences (then under communist regime) among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all time, jointly with Newton, Cayley, Lie, Weil, Wigner, and others (see Figure 5);; the 2007 Mediterranean Prize; the membership to the Equestrian Order of Sant'Agata carrying the title of sir; and other important prizes. Additionally, when releasing for publication the six monographs by Svetlin Georgiev of the Sorbonne University in Paris on Santilli isodifferential calculus [B13], Nova Scientific Publisher called Santilli a "genius" http://www.eprdebates.org/images/nova-genius-release.jpg

**8. Implications of the Lorentz Problem and of the Poincare' Hypothesis for the reduction of all stable matter in the universe to protons and electrons in condition of increasing complexity.**

*Q. Question for Prof. Santilli: Please review the "Lorentz Problem" and its implication for the neutrinos.*

A. We have passed the above question to Prof. Santilli and this is his answer: "Thank you for such fundamental questions! The *Lorentz Problem* consists in the achievement of the invariance of locally varying speeds of light within transparent physical media, C = c/n, where "n" is the familiar index of refraction possessing a complex, generally non-linear, functional dependence on local coordinates, density, temperature and other physical quantities. Lorentz tried to achieve said invariance but failed and was forced to restrict his goal to the invariance of the "constant" sped in vacuum, "c," by writing one of the most important pages of scientific history. The reason for Lorentz inability to achieve the invariance of C -= c/n is that Lie's theory is solely applies to electromagnetic waves and point-particles propagating in vacuum under linear and Hamiltonian interactions (exterior dynamical problems(, while the problem considered deals with electromagnetic waves and extended particles propagating within physical media under conventional plus restive nonlinear and non0Hamiltonian interactions (interior dynamical problem). I did solve the Lorentz Problem in the 1983
Letter
but only following a decade of prior studies in the generalization of Lie's theory into a form applicable to interior dynamical systems, nowadays known as the *Lie-Santilli isotheory,* see the monographs published by Springer-Verlag that I wrote in 1978 when I was at Harvard University,
Volume I and
Volume II
and the
recent paper.
The resulting covering symmetry, today called the *Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry,* is rudimentary outlined in Section 4 of this Debate, see also the recent
general review.

After studying the issue for about four decades, I believe that the implications of the Lorentz Problem for the existence of neutrinos are rather serious. Stated in a nutshell, I believe that the invariance of the locally varying speeds of light implies the impossibility to include the neutrino in the neutron synthesis from the hydrogen. More specifically, when the proton and the electron are considered as point-particles, the Lorentz symmetry is exact, and Fermi;'s neutrino hypothesis is unavoidable. By contrast,, when the proton is represented as it is in the physical reality, that is, as an extended with a hyperdense medium in its interior, the electron can indeed be compressed inside the proton as first conceived by Rutherford, the Lorentz symmetry is inapplicable (and certainly not violated) in favor of the covering Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry, and the neutrino hypothesis has to be abandoned in favor of the etherino hypothesis, as discussed in this debate. I would appreciate the indication of alternative views based on first principles without the usual assumption of a plethora of additional hypothetical particles under which everything is evidently possible. Ruggero Maria Santilli, October 19, 2017. Email" research(at)thunder-energies(dot)com."

The Lorentz Problem is generally dismissed by orthodox physicists because of the belief of the "universal constancy of the speed of light" c. In Lorentz's defense, I can quote Einstein's repeated statement of the universal constancy of the speed of light "in vacuum." The widespread removal of the crucial words "in vacuum" is done for the unspoken political intent of imposing the validity of Einstein';s theories for all possible conditions existing in the universe, thus turns a Einstein's rigorous scientific statement into the exploitation of Einstein's name because it is well known that the speed of light within transparent media is locally varying. In order to maintain special relativity within physical media, the general posture is that of reducing light to photons scattering in vacuum in between, e.g., the water molecules molecules by ignoring numerous inconsistencies of such a reduction repeatedly published in refereed journals (see the recent general review.), such as:

1) The inability by the reduction of light to photons to provide a numerical representation of the experimental data on the angle of refraction, the reduction of speed by 1/3, the propagation in a beam with minimal dispersion, and other experimental data;

2) The inability by said reduction to represent electrons traveling in water at speeds bigger than that of light (Cherenkov light in a way truly consistent with special relativity);

3) The violation in water of the relativistic sum of speeds because the sum of two local speeds ofd light does not yield the local speed of light;

4) The loss of credibility in the reduction to photons of infrared and radio waves with large wavelengths that follow the same phenomenology as that of visible light;

5) The impossibility of conceiving, let alone conducting an experimental on the constancy o the speed of light in water due to the absence of the "inertial" reference frames requested by the axioms of special relativity in view of the resistive forces; and other inconsistencies that are all resolved by isorelativity (se again general review.).

In any case, the "inapplicability" (and not the "violation") of special relativity within physical media has been established beyond credible doubts by a decade of experiments on the decrease (increase) of the frequency of light propagating within cold ()hot) a gas, see the latest measurements and vast preceding literature quoted therein IsoRedShifts and IsoBlueShifts. Once the experimental reality of the lack of exact character of special relativity within a medium as thin as air is admitted, the belief on the exact character of special relativity within heavier media such as water, let alone hadrons, nuclei and stars, has no scientific credibility. Ruggero Maria Santilli, Email research(at)thunder-energies(dot)com October 9, 2017

*Q. Question for Prof. Santilli: Yes indeed, I also doubt the
existence of the neutrino because I fully accept the "Poincare'
Hypothesis," according to which all matter is ultimately electromagnetic
in nature. But then we find by many hours of hard calculation that the
only stable electromagnetic elementary particles are toroidal
electromagnetic particles than require no mysterious binding energy to
hold them together but are in equilibrium under only electromagnetic
forces and which may readily radiate transverse electromagnetic
radiation by "shuddering." This is the case of the neutron which can
be considered as an electron and a proton in certain close position
held by their attractive Coulomb and magnetic forces. I believe that
gravity too, is an electrostatic force reducible to the electric and
magnetic fields of protons and electrons. But then, the Poincare'
hypothesis implies that the neutrino does not exist in favor of your
etherino hypothesis because a changeless elementary particle cannot be
reduced to electromagnetism. Your view of these issues would be
appreciated. Gtd29al*

The Editor of this Debate contacted Prof. Santilli and this is his
answer: Dear Prof. Gtd29al, Without doubt, your message is the deepest I
have received in the past several years because dealing with truly
fundamental open issues, rather than dealing with the usual assumption
of new hypothetical particles in support of failed, preceding,
hypothetical particles, as it is the case for the neutrinos. I fully
support your view. In particular, I worked for years on the
*Poincare' Hypothesis* on the reduction of the universe to
localized electromagnetic phenomena characterizing all masses, plus
propagating electromagnetic phenomena characterizing light in all its
frequencies, and this is a summary of my work in the reduction of
all masses to localized electromagnetic phenomena:

*neutral*composite particles. Via the use of the best available quantum field theory with advanced and retarded potentials, I therefore proved that the 139.58 MeV.mass of the pi-zero meson can indeed be entirely due to the electromagnetic field caused by one electron and one positron in high rotational conditions, and extended the model to macroscopic neutral masses. In the same paper, I suggested to study the

*origin*(rather than the "description") of the gravitational field, including a proposed experiment (nowadays feasible with neutron interferometry) essentially given by the creation of a measurable gravitational field via opposite charges in high rotation. I should indicate that

*the Poincare' Hypothesis implies a necessary revision of general relativity*because Einstein's reduction of gravitation to pure curvature without sources becomes incompatible with quantum electrodynamics since the field equations require to be completed with a first order source in accordance with the forgotten Freud identity. The impossibility for a credible use of general relativity to dismiss the Poincare' Hypothesis is established by the impossibility for space to be actually curved since the "light bending" is due to the

*refraction*of light in astrophysical chromospheres as established by experimental knowledge since Newton's time. These and numerous other structural insufficiencies of general relativity are discussed in the adjoining Debate on General Relativity.

2. In 1978, when I moved from MIT to Harvard University under DOE
support, I wrote my second contribution to Poincare' Hypothesis by
proving that the classical model of the pi-zero as a compressed
positronium, 1974 MIT
paper, was indeed confirmed at the operator level, see Section 5 of my
1978
Harvard paper.. The biggest difficulty in the transition from the
classical to the operator level was the inapplicability of quantum
mechanics because the mass of the pi-zero is about 138 MeV
*bigger* than the sum of the rest masses of the assumed
constituents, in which case the Schroedinger equation no longer admits
physically meaningful solutions. The achievement of the model required
the identification, first of a new mathematics, nowadays known as
*isomathematics * and a covering of quantum mechanics, nowadays
knows as the *isomechanics*, which is a division of *hadronic
mechanics*. The generation of the mass excess in the bound states at
chart distance is nowadays known as *isorenormalization*, that
is, a renormalization of the *intrinsic* characteristics of
particles caused by *non-Hamiltonian* interactions (see a
rudimentary review in the above sections of this Debate). The important
point is that, despite their embryonic character, the indicated new
mathematics and mechanics allowed in Section 5 of the 1978
Harvard paper. to present a *structure model* representing
*all* characteristics of the pi-zero and other mesons, including
rest energy, charge radius, mean-life, spin, electric and magnetic
moments, and spontaneous decays. The constituents are the
physical particles produced in the spontaneous decays generally with the
lowest mode. By comparison, the SU(3)-model of the time (and now the
standard model) could only represent rest energies under the assumption
of hypothetical constituents that cannot be detected by conception and
cannot be truly bound inside mesons due to the uncertainty
principle.

3. The proof of the Poincare' Hypothesis for composite particles
with spin 1/2 or higher turned out to be rather complex because it
required the study of the spin of extended particles when immersed
within hyperdense media, thus under contact non-Hamiltonian
interactions (see Comment 5 below on the impossibility of reducing the
hyperdense particles to a collection of
points particles moving in empty space). The biggest
difficulty was caused by the Poincare' symmetry itself because said
symmetry is exact for *Keplerian structures,* namely, system of
point-like particles having a Keplerian nucleus around which all other
masses rotate without collisions, contact interactions being impossible
for points. Consequently, the Poincare' symmetry is exact for the atomic
structure and equivalent systems (e.g., particles in accelerators). It
is easy to prove that the Poincare' symmetry cannot be exact for the
structure of hadrons, nuclei and stars (as well as for the high energy
collisions at CERN) because these systems do not have a Keplerian
center, besides admitting non-linear and non-Hamiltonian internal forces
beyond the representational capability of Lie's theory. The
inapplicability of special relativity for the structure of hadrons,
nuclei and stars is then evident to serious scholars (only). At this
point, the complementarity of the Lorentz Problem and the Poincare'
Hypothesis emerged in its full force. In fact, the same generalization
of Lie's theory necessary for the solution of the Lorentz Problem, the
Lie-Santilli isotheory, turned out to be crucial for the identification
of the covering of the Poincare' symmetry needed for hadrons, nuclei and
stars. After decades of studies, I reached the solution in 1993 while
visiting Moscow State University in a paper published by the Journal of
the Moscow Physical Society, see the
1993
MSU paper,
where I introduced a basically new spacetime symmetry, now called the
*Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli (LPS) isosymmetry,* After that, I
plunged myself in the generalization of each and every aspect of the
Poincare' symmetry all the way to its spinorial realization,
see the general
review and large literature quoted therein. The main problem was
that a symmetry of an extended particle in interior conditions requires
a metric with the most general known functional dependence on
coordinates x, velocities v, accelerations a, wavefunction ψ etc.,
g - g(x, v, a, *psi;...) with inherent curvature for which no
conventional symmetry is possible, as known since Einstein's times. The
solution was to decompose said metric into the Minkowski metric m plus a
non-singular factor T containing all functional dependence, g = Tm, and
formulating the geometry on an isofield with generalized unit I = 1/T
resulting in a new geometry locally isomorphic to the Minkowski
geometry, see the paper on
iso-Minkowski
isogeometry. The construction of the needed covering of the
Poincare' symmetry via the Lie-Santilli isotheory was trivial.
To illustrate again the necessity of a revision of general relativity
requested by the Poincare' Hypothesis, the new LPS isosymmetry
constitutes the universal *symmetry* of all possible
(non-singular) Riemannian line elements for the particular case when g =
g(x). In addition to the revision of general relativity necessary to
achieve compatibility with electromagnetism via the addition of a source
first order in magnitude (Comment 1 above), there is the need for a
revision of general relativity based on the replacement of the usual
*covariance* (with inherent lack of invariance of numerical
predictions over time) with a *universal invariance* assuring the
invariance over time of numerical predictions. In turn, such an
invariance is solely possible in a flat geometry such, thus confirming
the experimental evidence on the lack of curvature of space due to the
refraction of light in astrophysical chromospheres, see the adjoining
Debate on
General Relativity. When the hysteria caused by even touching
Einstein's theories cools down, the solution of the rather long list of
inconsistencies of general relativity boils down to the mere
"reformulation" of the Einstein-Hilbert field equations on the
iso-Minkowski geometry, because only following the abandonment of the curvature of space in favor of a suitable flat geometry, such as the iso-Minkowskian geometry, gravitation becomes
compatible with special relativity, electromagnetism, quantum
mechanics, grand unification and other 20th century sciences (see again the Debate on
General Relativity)..

4. My last contribution to the Poincare' Hypothesis has been the
representation of *all* characteristics of the neutron (and not
only its rest energy as done by the standard model) as a generalized
bound state under the LPS isosymmetry of one proton and one electron, by
therefore reducing all matter in the universe to protons and electrons,
I reached the non-relativistic solution while visiting,
1892 ICTP
paper.
I then reached the relativistic solution a year later immediately
following the achievement of the LPS isosymmetry while visiting the JINR
in Dubna, Russia, see the JINR Communication No. E4-93-252 (1993),
subsequently published in China, see the
1995
China paper. Non-expert in these new sciences are suggested, for
their own protection, to use scientific caution recommendable under lack
of technical knowledge of the field, because for instance, the names
"proton" and "electron" lose their conventional meaning under the LPS
isosymmetry to be replaced by mutated particles called

5. Unfortunately, the current condition of physics is rather un-reassuring. I indicated earlier that any critical analysis of Einstein's general relativity triggers a true hysteria with slanderous reactions by vested interests on Einstein without any credible technical counter-argument. The Lorentz Problem is dismissed as being "non-existent" by orthodox physicists because of the claim that the propagation of light within a medium can be reduced to photons propagating in vacuum so as to recover special relativity, in complete oblivion of the litany of inconsistencies s indicated above. Similarly, studies on the Poincare' Hypothesis are claimed to be "non-sense" on grounds that interior dynamical problems of extended particles in conditions of mutual penetration can be reduced to point-like particles moving in vacuum, again for the studious intent of maintaining special relativity. However, I proved in 1965, during my Ph. D. studies in Torino, Italy and widely propagated during the subsequent fifty years, the following (see Section 3 of the general review. and original contributions quoted therein):

*THEOREM: A macroscopic non-conservative and/or time irreversible system cannot be consistently reduced to a finite number of elementary particles all in conservative quantum mechanical conditions and vice versa, a finite number of conservative, quantum mechanical particles cannot reproduce under the correspondence of other principle a macroscopic nonconservative and/or time irreversible systems.*

*against*the organized scientific interests of the time on pre-existing doctrines. But whenever there are problems in science, there are also opportunities. In fact, I wrote several times in my works that

*lack of participation in fundamental advances of human knowledge is a gift of scientific priority to others.*I close these comments with the indication to you, Prof. Gtd29al, as well as to all True Researchers in Einstein's words, to provide contributions on basic issues assuring your name in the brilliant side of the history of science and leave political oppositions in the dark side where they belong. Ruggero Maria Santilli - Email: research(at)thunder-energies(dot)com, November 5, 2017.

*Prof. Santilli, the "deplorable state of physics" (as you rightly call it) dates from the beginning of modern science. Translating Galileo's 1638 "Discorsi" from The Latin and Italian into German (published 2015 by Felix Meiner Hamburg) I found that Galileo's basic geometric proportions already require a constant of proportionality of dimensions "space over time" [s/t] that is suppressed in all modern (analytic) representations of Galileo's theory of motion. The same is true with Newton's second law to read "mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae" in Newton's Latin. Since the time of Leonhard Euler (1750) this law is misrepresented as "force equals mass-acceleration", thus also suppressing the required proportionality constant. This I found already in 1985, published in Philos. Nat. 22 nr. 3/1985 (English version see my website www.neutonus-reformatus.com, nr. 1). The constant c [s/t], ignored in Euler's and Lagrange's analytical mechanics, had its comeback with Maxwel;'s theory (especially with Poynting), but soon has been misinterpreted as "velocity of light" which it is not, of course. Correctly understood it provides the indispensable condition of realist geometric measurement, say the parameter of the real "absolute" (invariant) space-time reference system, without which reference system no realist geometric measurement theory makes any sense. The missing of this constant in "classical" mechanics, and its misinterpretation in modern science as absolute (!) "velocity of light", is mainly responsible for the departure of science from reality. Should you want to discuss this subject, I am at your service. GGT902RS
*

Prof. GT902RS, thank you for your beautiful historical account. We are sure Prof. Santilli will contact you directly. The Editors

* I don't consider the structure of the Universe to consist of anything more than Electrons and positrons,...and before that Electron-Positron PAIRS, and before that
FIELDS (Dark Matter) and ENERGY to provide the Pair-Production that gives us this ONLY FORM OF MATTER, that we know the "origin event" OF!
Protons and Neutrons are built from Electron Positron pairs, 919 for the Proton, plus one Positron at the core. and 920 for the Neutron, which include the Positron at the core and the added Electron!
The Proton is a simple Positron which has attracted a 5 layered cube of Pairs! (10 corner pairs have sloughed off all eight corners.)
We call the clumps of Pairs Quarks! Nothing could be a more wrong description of the constituents of the Proton! Perhaps folks have trouble of higher numbers!). Zxz10er*

Thank you Prof. Zxz10er for your question that helps to clarify a basic aspect. There is NO experimental evidence that antiparticles such as positrons are present in the problem addressed by Prof. Santilli, namely, the structure of STABLE MATTER. you are dealing with a totally different problem, that of SCATTERING of particles on matter targets in which case yes you do have positrons and other antiparticles. Zeus Son.