Debate 6:
 Figure 1. Albert Einstein |
Another Tribute To Albert Einstein:
|
Q1. Prof. Santilli, could you please review in a language accessible to the general audience Einstein's 1935 historical prediction that quantum mechanics and, therefore, quantum chemistry are incomplete theories
A1. Einstein did not accept the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, including the impossibility to identify the position of a particle with classical precision. For that reason, he made his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein accepted quantum mechanics for atomic structures, but believed that quantum mechanics is an "incomplete theory," in the sense that it could be broadened into such a form to recover classical determinism at least under special conditions. The same argument evidently applies to quantum chemistry.
Q2. We understand that you proved Einstein's vision in physics.
A2. Yes, as reported in your preceding interview, I provided three physical broadening of quantum mechanics along Einstein's vision, the first was done by including irreversibility over time of energy releasing processes, the second was done via the representation of particles as they are in the physical reality (extended, deformable and hyperdense), and the third was done via a realization of quanrtum axioms admitting an explicit and concrete realization of the so-called 'hidden variables.' I also provided examples of particle pairs whose mutual distance a[[ears to recover indeed classical determinism under extreme conditions, as predicted by Einstein.
Figure 2. A conceptual rendering of the hydrogen molecule at absolute zero degree temperature without the bond of valence electrons showing no attractive or repulsive force between the two atoms..
Q3. Are you claiming to have proved Einstein's vision also in chemistry?
A3. Einstein's vision on the lack of final character of quantum mechanics has implications for all of 20th century sciences. Therefore, the lack of confirmation of Einstein's argument in chemistry would imply the lack of actual achievement of Einstein's vision.
Figure 3. A conceptual rendering of the hydrogen molecule according to quantum chemistry showing the repulsion (rather than a bond) between two point-like valence electrons due to their equal charge.
Q4. Can you please outline the main aspect of the confirmation in chemistry?
A4. With the understanding that quantum chemistry did achieve historical advances, I did not accept quantum chemistry as being a final theory since my graduate studies at the University of Torino, Italy, in the mid 1960s, because of a truly fundamental insufficiency, namely, the inability by quantum chemistry to identify the attractive force bonding together identical valence electrons. Consider, for simplicity, the hydrogen molecule H2 at absolute zero degree temperature. When the two electrons move in independent orbits (Figure 2), the hydrogen molecule cannot exist due to the absence of any possible bond. The two hydrogen atoms are bonded into the H2 molecule by the bond between the two valence electrons with antiparallel spin. By following Einstein, I could not consider quantum chemistry to be a complete theory because according to the basic axioms of quantum mechanics and chemistry, valence electrons should 'repel' each other due to their equal charge, without any known possibility of admitting their attraction (Figure 3). Simple calculations via Coulomb law indicate that, at the expected mutual distance of electron bonds (10-13 cm = 10-15 m) valence electrons should repel each other with the astronomically large force of 230 N. There was no doubt in my mind that the achievement of the attractive force between valence electrons required a 'completion' of quantum chemistry precisely along Einstein's vision. Following decades of research including contributions by various colleagues, quantum chemistry was completed into a covering theory known as hadronic chemistry; the attractive force between valence electrons was clearly identified; and the 'completed' theory was proved to verify molecular experimental data.
Figure 4. A conceptual rendering of the hydrogen molecule according to the completion of quantum chemistry into hadronic chemistry illustrating the first and only known attractive force between valence electrons caused by non-potential interactions due to deep entanglement of extended wavepackets .
Q5. Can you please outline the main steps of the indicated achievements?
A5. Evidence establishes the existence of a strongly attractive force between valence electron pairs. This can only occur via a interactions not derivable from a potential, thus not being representable with quantum chemistry. Hence, the representation of the new attractive force could only be done by 'completing' quantum chemistry into a broader theory admitting non-potential interactions.
Q6. How did you achieve the needed 'completion' of quantum chemistry?
A6. I accepted the evidence hat valence electrons are not point -particles as represented by quantum chemistry (Figures 2 and 3), because they are characterized by wavepackets that, technically, fill up the entire universe, of course, with an intensity inversely proportional to the distance. I also accepted the experimental evidence that the wavepackets of valence electrons are in conditions of deep mutual penetration also called entanglement (Figure 3). This allowed me to identify the new force as being of contact type, thus not being derivable from a potential.
Q7. How did you develop these ideas into a viable 'completion' of quantum chemistry?
A7. The biggest difficulty was mathematical, rather than chemical, because the mathematics of quantum chemistry can only represent potential forces between point particles. A mathematics for the representation of non-potential forces between extended valence electrons did not exist and, therefore, had to be built. When I was at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University inn the late 1970s under DOE support, I initiated the construction of a new mathematics based on the generalization of all products AB between arbitrary quantities A, B, into the form A*B = ATB called 'isotopic' in the sense of being axiom-preserving, where T represents precisely the new non-potential forces (see my 1978 monographs with Springer-Verlag Foundation of Theoretical Mechanics, particularly Volume II). This allowed Einstein's 'completion' of the mathematics of quantum chemistry into a form admitting the d new forces. Applications and verifications were done thereafter.
Q8. Please outline the main chemical aspects with links to technical publication for interested chemists.
A8. The new forces were first identified in physics and verified with the representation of the synthesis of mesons (see Section 5 of the 1978 Harvard paper). Following that, In collaboration with the University of Cambridge Ph. D. physicist A. O. E. Animalu, we applied the new mathematics to the representation of the attractive force between the identical electrons of the Cooper pair in superconductivity (see the 1985 paper). In view of encouraging results in superconductivity, systematic studies lead to the first and only known 'attractive force' between valence electrons pairs in molecular structures nowadays known as the isoelectronium (see the 2001 monograph Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, see also the independent reviews by V. M. Tandge, and by E. Trell). In collaboration with the chemist Don D. Shillady of Virginia Commonwealth University, we proved that the 'completion' of quantum chemical models into the form admitting an explicitly attractive force between valence electron pairs achieved the first known exact representation of experimental data of the hydrogen molecule, and of the water molecule.
Figure 5. From the left, Profs. R. M. Santilli, A. O. E. Animalu and D. D. Shillady.
Q9. Could you please indicate how the representation of the hydrogen molecule according to Figure 4 verifies Einstein's argument?
A9. When the two point-like valence electrons have independent orbits as in Figure 2, quantum mechanics is valid and classical determinism is impossible.. By contrast, when the two valence electrons are represented as extended and entangled particles under non-potential forces as in Figure 4. the mathematics (let alone the physics) underlying the uncertainty principle is inapplicable (see Post 10 of the preceding interview), and the mutual distance between the two valence electrons approaches classical determinism. When in the interior of a star, the same pair of entangled electrons comes closed to classical determinism and, when inside a black hole, the same pair verifies classical determinism in my view due to the extremely large pressures preventing any motion, see my recent paper published at Ratio Mathematica Apparent proof of Einstein's determinism.
Q10. Are you aware of additional insufficiencies of quantum chemistry suggesting their 'completion'?
A11. Yes. In addition to the lack of a true attraction between valence electrons in molecular structures, I never accepted as final the quantum chemical treatment of the liquid state because it boils down to pure nomenclatures without quantitative representations. For instance, the water molecule is neutral with essentially null electric and magnetic moments. So, how can such a molecule enter into the 'intermolecular bonds' necessary to create the liquid state? I worked at this problem for decades, because I had to introduce first the new chemical species of magnecules in which the bond is not of valence type but of electromagnetic character. I then learned from experimental results that the two hydrogen atoms of the water molecules do not have a spherical distribution in the H-O-H molecule but have a toroid polarization necessary for the valence bonding with the corresponding valence electron of the oxygen. This implies the presence in the water molecule of internal magnetic fields such to have a null total dipole. In this way, I introduced the magnecular model of the liquid state that, without any claim of final character, identified and computed for the first time the attractive force between water molecules in the liquid state in a form compatible with experimental evidence, such as the fact that the boiling temperature is the Curie temperature of the magnecular bond.
I would like also to mention for young minds of any age the mystery of how can liquid water acquire a truly incredible number of different data, for instance, via solution, and propagate them at large distances, as it is the case for the propagation of the scent of blood by sea water. This is a very deep problem since the limitation is set by the very basic, quantum mechanical notion of quantization which is purely radial, as well known. In the hope of initiating a predictably long process, jointly with Jeremy Dunning Davies and Richard Lawrence Norman, we proposed the experimentally verifiable new notion of angular quantization that does indeed introduce the capability for the water molecule to acquire a large number of exact data via quantized helical electron orbits centered on conventional radial quantization.
Above all, the reason for my rejection of quantum chemistry as a "complete" theory, and my embracing Einstein view since my graduate studies at the University of Torino, Italy, in the mid 1960s is due to the fact that the basic equations of quantum chemistry, such as Heisenberg's equation for the dynamical evolution of an observable A, i dA/dt = [A, H] = AH - HA where the brackets [A, H] characterize a Lie algebra, can only represent the conservation of the energy H, idH/dt = HH - HH = 0. Consequently, quantum chemistry is structurally unable to represent any energy releasing chemical process, such as combustion. I did my Ph. D. Thesis precisely on the Lie-admissible generalization of Heisenberg's equation idA/dt = (A, H) = ARH - HSA where R and S are matrices representing Lagrange's and Hamilton's external terms, which characterize the time rate of variation of the energy i dH/dt = H(R-S)H ≠ 0 which is necessary to represent energy releasing processes, see my 1967 initiation paper at Il Nuovo Cimento http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-54.pdf that attracted in 1990 the attention of the Estonia Academy of Science (then under Communist regime) reported in Post 19 of the preceding interview http://eprdebates.org/santilli-confirmation-of-the-epr-argument.php due to its implications of time irreversible Lie-admissible dynamical equations for all quantitative sciences.
Q11. Does the chemistry community admit the existence of these open problems?
A11. No, with due exception, because the dismissal of the existence of the above identified problems in chemistry is necessary to deny their solution. During this interview, I mentioned the following basic insufficiencies of quantum chemistry: 1) Lack of attractive force in molecular structures; 2) Lack of attractive force in the liquid state; 3) Inability of the liquid state to acquire a large number of data, 4) Inability by quantum chemistry to to represent energy releasing chemical reactions; and 4) Others, such as divergent perturbative treatments. Following my fifty years of researchI with scientific meetings around the world, I can personally testify that the above basic chemical problems are the the best kept secrets in the best graduate schools in chemistry at the best colleges around the world.
================================
COMMENTS
Post 1
Dear Editors, please ask Prof. Santilli how he achieved an attractive force between identical valence electrons. An outline for non-experts would be appreciated. Vdr39yu
Post 2
Hello Vdr39yu - Post 1, thanks for the important question. The isoelectronium is studied in details in Chapter 4 of Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry. The subsequent chapters provide verifications with molecular experimental data for the hydrogen and water molecules. Here is a rudimentary outline. After years of trials and failures with conventional methods, I had to conclude that there is no possibility to achieve an attractive force between identical electrons via the use of the Schroedinger equation of quantum chemistry,
where H is the Hamiltonian of the valence electron pair as the sum of the kinetic energy K and the repulsive potential energy V. I achieved the needed attractive force via the use of the covering iso-schroedinger equation of hadronic chemistry
where H represents the conventional Coulomb interaction and T represents the new non-Hamiltonian interaction. Out of a variety of solutions, the simplest one occurs for (see. Eq. (4.7), loc, cit.)
where b = 1/rhh is the inverse of the 'hadronic horizon' rhh (the radius after which quantum mechanics is recovered identically because particles return to have sole potential interactions). Additional simple calculations via the use of Eq. (2) yield
where m is the mass of an electron.
The following points are then important for the plausibility of the model:1) The attractive Hulten potential behaves like the Coulomb one at short distance, thus absorbing the repulsive Coulomb potential in Eq. (5) resulting in the desired attraction with a mere re-definition of the Hulten constant Q.
2) As it is well known, the Hulten potential has a finite number of energy states. Hence, there can only exist a finite number of isoelectronia.
where A and B are positive quantities depending on various local values, see for details Eq.s (5,15) page 171 of [loc. cit.].
3) The application of the model, which i did with Don Shillady, to the representation of the experimental data of the hydrogen molecule, and of the water molecule yields numerical values of the A and B quantities, in particular, the value B = 1 under which spectrum (7) is reduced to one single value for n = 1. Therefore, the isoelectronium can assume one and only one configuration.
A few words of caution are now in order. The isoelectronium can only be formulated via hadronic chemistry and its underlying new isomathematics. The lack of knowledge of these methods generally results in inconsistencies that often remain unknown to users of conventional methods In fact, rudimentary Eqs. (2) to (7) are expressed via conventional mathematics but they are the projection of the actual equations on isospaces over isofields.
For instance, for the correct formulation of Eq. (2), coordinates r have to be isocoordinates r* - rU, where U is the isounit, U = 1/T; momenta p have to be isomomenta p* formulated via the isodifferential calculus; the Hamiltonian and other operators have to be isooperators defined on an iso-Hilbert isospace over the isofield of isocomplex isonumbers, etc. My suggestion is to understand first the mechanism for achieving the needed attractive forces between identical electrons and then pass to its rigorous formulation. Best wishes. Ruggero M. Santilli (Email: research@thunder-energies.com).
Post 3
Prof. Santilli, please indicate how the isoelectronium constitutes a verification of the EPR argument. Thanks. Lwe29ty
Figure 6. A conceptual rendering of the structure of the isoelectronium denoting two valence electrons with antiparallel spins under deep penetration of their wavepackets, as occurring in reality.
Post 4
Lwe29ty - Post 3, I am glad to see that this open exchange does indeed stimulate important questions. Here is my view. When the electrons are represented as point-like particles, quantum mechanics applies, and the EPR argument is inapplicable. However, when the electrons are represented with extended wavepackets in condition of mutual penetration, the sole existence of one energy level of the Hulten spectrum, Post 2, their mutual distance (see Figure 6) can only have one value, such as 10-15 m Explicit calculations done in the recent paper Apparent proof of Einstein's determinism indicate that the standard deviations for coordinate and momenta tend to zero with the increase of the density of the medium in which particles are immersed. For the case of valence each electron is immersed in the medium characterized by the other, with an evident small density, in which case Δ r Δ p can be shown to be smaller than one, thus verifying Einstein's determinism, but the uncertainty is close to one, Δ r Δ p ≤ 1. However, when the same electron pair is part of a hydrogen molecule in the core of a star, it has been shown that Δ r Δ p << 1. When the same molecule is inside a black hole, Δ r Δ p = 0, thus recovering classical determinism according to Einstein's vision. Ruggero Maria Santilli (Email: research@thunder-energies.com).
Post 5
Prof. Santilli, thank you for the clear outline of Post 2 and congrats for a rather difficult achievement. I would appreciate more details on the structure of the isoelectronium, for instance, how you handle the non-linear interactions of hadronic chemistry clearly expressed in Eq. (2). Vdr39yu
Post 6
Hello Vdr39yu - Post 5, I appreciate your interest.
You are sharp in seeing that a most crucial aspect of Eq. (2) is its non-linearity in the wavefunction ψ* . It should be recalled here that non-linear equations in quantum chemistry
violates the superposition principle, thus preventing the decomposition of the wavefunction ψ of the isoelectronium into those of the two valence electrons,
This insufficiency prevents the identification of the characteristics of the constituents of a bound state with non-linear interactions (in our case, the valence electrons when members of a valence bond, or quark conjectures for particle physics). This and other limitations have caused the general lack ion consideration of non-linear interactions in quantum chemistry.
A reason I could not accept quantum chemistry as a final theory is that it is linear in the wavefunction, while chemical reality is expected to be non-linear, particularly in the case of deep mutual penetration of the wavepackets in valence bonds where interactions are non-linear, non-local and non-Hamiltonian. Isomathematics was constructed in such a way to reconstruct linearity on isospaces over isofields. In fact, when you go to the abstract level, the non-linear isoproduct H(r, p)T(ψ*,...)ψ* can be written in the isolinear form , H(r, p) × ψ*, namely, a form which is linear on isospaces over isofields, but its projection on conventional spaces over conventional fields is non-linear. This is due to the fact that all non-linear terms are embedded in the isotopicelement T(ψ*,...) > 0 that, being positive-definite, characterized a protuct aTb topologically equivalent to the conventional product ab, thus explaining why non-linearity disappear at the abstract level. I hope these comments have been of assistance in your study of a basic aspect in the search of new advances. Ruggero Maria Santilli (Email; research@thunder-energies.com).
Post 7
Prof. Santilli, hoping not to abuse your courtesy and time, please provide some information on the structure of the isoelectronium, such as the characteristics of the valence electrons when members of the isoelectroniumc. Vdr39yu<.p>
Post 8
Hello Vdr39yu - Post 7, thanks for an additional quite important question. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the structure of the isoelectronium is rather limited because I was satisfied by the fact that the isoelectronium as a quasi-particle allowed an exact representation if molecular data that could only be approximately represented with quantum chemistry. However, most of the research done for the constituents in the synthesis of the neutron from the proton and the electron applies to the constituents of the isoelectronium. Here are a few comments.
In view of the indicated mutations, the constituents of the isoelectronium are not conventional electrons, but new particles called isoelectrons defined as isounitary isoirreducible isorepresentations of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry on the the iso-Hilbert space over isofields, see the 1995 monograph Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Volume II. As far as I can see, the spin and magnetic moment of the isoelectrons in the isoelectronium have conventional values, but I expect a mutation of their charge because potentially necessary to turn a Coulomb repulsion into an attraction. Hence the identical isoelectrons constituting the isoelectronium can be identified rather accurately via the isoirrep of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry under the subsidiary constraints of recovering chemical molecular data. Sincerely, Ruggero Maria Santilli (Email: research@thunder-energies.com).
Post 9Can anybody tell what is the rest energy of the isoelectronium? Ker34ui
Post 10
I studied Santilli's monograph on hadronic chemistry as well as his paper with Shillady, and my understanding is that the rest energy of the isoelectronium is not precisely known. This is due to the fact that: the sum of the rest energy of the two electron in vacuum is 1.022 MeV; binding energy (7) is very close to zero (for B = 1, n = 1, | E| = 0) because it is the binding energy caused by a "contact" interaction "not" derivable by a potential; and the contribution to the rest energy of the isoelectronium caused by the potential Coulomb interaction - at the risk of saying a "betise" - should give an "excess rest energy" over the value 1.022 MeV, since the interaction is repulsive (the contribution would be a routine mass defect in the event of an attraction). In any case, when compared to the stuffiness of orthodox chemistry, this is a quiet cool and refreshing problem indeed! Thank you, Santilli for peeking deep into nature. Swe57wo
Post 11
I Nominated Prof. Santilli for the Nobel Prize in Physics for his proof of the EPR argument, Post 13 of the preceding interview http://www.galileoprincipia.org/santilli-confirmation-of-the-epr-argument.php. After reading this interview and studying the related technical literature, I have Nominated Prof. Santilli also for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry hoping that he will be the second Nobel Laureate in both Physics and Chemistry after Madame Curie. Xer22uu
Post 12
Dear Prof. Santilli.
You write: After years of trials and failures with conventional methods, I had to conclude that there is no possibility to achieve an attractive force between identical electrons via the use of the Schroedinger equation of quantum chemistry.
Your approach consists in modifying the wave equation in such a way that you get the required results. It is the same approach followed by QCD. The problem with that kind of procedure is that the relation between theory and physical reality becomes more and more disconnected.
I came to the conclusion that the crux of our model has its origin in the representation of particles in general. Representing particles as isolated entities in space makes it very difficult to explain interaction between them. My approach represents subatomic particles (SPs) as focal points of rays of Fundamental Particles (FPs) that extent from infinite to infinite. The energy of subatomic particles is distributed on their FPs as rotations defining longitudinal and transversal angular momenta. The interaction between SPs is the product of the interactions of the angular momenta of their FPs. One important conclusion is that electrons and positrons neither attract nor repel each other with the distance between them tending to zero. The nucleons can so be seen as a swarm of electrons and positrons and so the atomic nuclei. If the non-Hamiltonian interaction can be associated with the nucleus as a swarm of electrons and positrons,a physical explanation would support your mathematical approach. Dwe89pe
Post 13
Dear Dwe89pe / Post 12, I tried to reach Prof. Santilli for comments but he is out of contact for travel. Allow me to ex
press my view and experience. I am so glad to see that you have been initially attracted by the 20th century scientific trap, pass to QFT whenever you have problems, but then you have identify its limitations. They are so many to justify the words "scientific trap." You pass from equations admitting analytic solution. to non-linear equations that can be manipulated at will. Then you have these divergencies so strenuously opposed by Paul Dirac for which "numerical results" are fake. Etc. I received copy of a momentous exchange back in 2007. Following the publication at Nuovo Cimento of Prof. santilli 50 years of work on the Lie-admissible generalization of QM to represent time irreversible systems,
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs//Lie-admiss-NCB-I.pdf
an academic guru contacted Prof. Santilli claiming that the Lie-admissible generalization is not necessary since QFT can represent time irreversibility (sic!!), how?, via the usual fake science, you throw here a Green distribution with arbitrary parameter and forma factors manipulated 'ad hoc', etc. You should see the river of disqualification
provide by Prof. Santilli against this academician. Tye biggest problem of the 20th century physics you touch - but do not identify fully - is the representation of particles as point in vacuum, hence solely admitting potential interactions. the problem for the 20th century science is that, as stated by Prof. Santilli: The actual size of the wavepacket of one electron is as big as the entire universe, this implying that the universe is one single interconnected body characterized by an extremely large number of entanglements of wavefunctions whose sole communication is that of contact, non-linear, non-local and non-Hamiltonian interactions that can be solely treated via a generalizations of 20th century applied mathematics such as isomathematics. .. The entanglement of electron pairs becomes detectable by our limited instruments only at 1 Fermi distances, at which identical valence electrons can indeed bond to each other when in singlet coupling, resulting in the birth of molecules. I think you see everything in this statement, i.e., the need to: represent particles/wavepackets as extended; the need to admit in their overlapping the most general known non-Hamiltonian interactions; and the need for their serious treatment via a generalization of 20th century mathematics beginning most importantly with generalization of Newton's differential calculus from points to volumes
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-37.pdf
What you should do to write a truye page of new physics is to construct the hadronic field theory (HFT) because its foundations are the corerct one for extended particles, you will have no divergencies and see the quantum plane below from a much toller mointain, etc.ood luck Swe37ro
Post 14
I always thought that the measurement of the prediction by Bell proved that the quantum reality CANNOT be described by a theory with hidden variables and thus the theory of quantum mechanics is really as ``weird as the reality''. Can the author comment on whether his theory is in agreement with Bell inequalities? Nsd57ao
Post 15
Dear Nsd57ao // Post 14, thank you for your question. For the answer, please inspect the quoted
preceding interview. You will see there that Prof. Santilli confirmed the full validity of Bell's inequality for point-particles in vacuum under sole potential interactions, while confirmed Einstein's vision that classical determinism is recovered for extended particles within physical media under non-linear, non-local and non-potential interactions. To technically understand the proof available in the 1998 paper
R. M. Santilli, "Isorepresentation of the Lie-isotopic SU(2) Algebra with Application to Nuclear Physics and Local Realism," Acta Applicandae Mathematicae Vol. 50, 177 (1998),
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-27.pdf
you need to study the Lie-Santilli isotheory from the quoted literature. Above all, Prof. Santilli follows Einstein's main view namely, that quantum mechanics is indeed fully valid under the conditions implemented in its basic axioms (point particles in vacuum), but the belief that quantum mechanics describes all possible conditions existing in the universe is non-scientific, hence the need for its 'completion.'
Best wishes. Fwe12io
Post 16
I am fascinated by Prof. Santilli's new isomathematics because of its capability of clearly representing in a concretely the actual size, shape and density of particles under the most general known interactions, see the
preceding interview,
particularly Post 8 and ffg in the comments. In Eq (6) of that post have seen the only representation I know of nuclei as a collection of "extended" nucleons. No wonder Prof. Santilli has achieved the first known exact representation of the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen as occurring in the core of stars, nuclear magnetic moments, nuclear spins and other nuclear data quantum mechanics has been unable to represent in one century.. Good job, Prof. Santilli. Bdf26yu
Post 17
Prof. Santilli, after reading your paper http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-27.pdf I would like one of my graduate students do his Ph. D. Thesis on the completion of quantum mechanics into hadronic mechanics and its applications. Could you please recommend a list of primary mathematical, theoretical and experimental references and perhaps be part of the committee? Thanks Mrt89p
Post 18
Dear Colleague Mrt89p, I feel honored by your interest in our studies. Here are mu suggestions for a Ph. D. Thesis on the "completion" ofd quantum mechanics along Einstein's 1935 arguments:
1) Mathematical foundations: The first mandatory step is a study of the isotopic "completion" of 20th century. An introductory reading is the 1995 special issue of the Rendiconti containing my article on the general presentation and a second article on the "completion" of the Lie theory [1]. After that study, a recommend monograph [2] for a more technical knowledge of the new isomathematics. Independent mathematical works are available in refs. [3,4,5].
2) Theoretical Foundations. Following and only following a knowledge of the novel isomathematics, it is important to reach a knowledge of the isotopic completion of quantum mechanics into hadronic mechanics for which I recommend monograph [6]. Independent studies are available from monographs [7,8] containing vast specialized references on individual aspects.
3) Experimental verifications. Following the achievement of the necessary mathematical and theoretical knowledge, it is crucial to complete the study with experimental verifications available in various fields of physics, chemistry and biology, for which I recommend the recent review [9], particularly Sections 2 and 3, and original experimental works quoted therein.
Needless to say, I would be honored to be parti of the Poh. D. Thesis Committee as an external advisor for whatever I can do to help. Sincerely, Ruggero Santilli, Email: research@thunder-energies.com
References
[1] P. Vetro, Editor, Special Issue of rendiconti Circolo Matematico Palermo, Supplement. Vol. 42, 7-82
(1996),
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-37.pdf
[2] R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Vol. I Mathematical Foundations, Academy of Sciences, Kiev (1995)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-300.pdf
[3] Chun-Xuan Jiang, Foundations of Santilli Isonumber Theory,
International Academic Press (2001),
http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/jiang.pdf
[4] D. S. Sourlas and G. T. Tsagas, Mathematical Foundation of the
Lie-Santilli Theory, Ukraine Academy of Sciences (1993),
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-70.pdf
[5] S. Georgiev, Foundations of the IsoDifferential Calculus, Volumes, I, II, III, IV,V, and VI Nova Scientific Publisher (2015 on).
[6] R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics,, Vol. II Theoretical Foundations,, Academy of Sciences, Kiev, (1995)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-301.pdf
[7] J. V. Kadeisvili, Santilli's Isotopies of Contemporary Algebras, Geometries and Relativities, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Second edition (1997),
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-60.pdff
[8] I. Gandzha and J. Kadeisvili,
New Sciences for a New Era:
Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Discoveries of
Ruggero Maria Santilli,} Sankata Printing Press,\\ Nepal (2011),
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf
[9] R. M. Santilli
"An introduction to the new sciences for a new era,"
Invited paper, SIPS 2016, Hainan Island, China
Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-119, 2017
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf
Post 19
One of my graduate students would like to do his Ph. D. Thesis on Santilli's IsoMathematics. Can anybody provide some basic references? Thanks. Bsd38ty
Post 20
EDITORIAL NOTE: We were unable to reach Prof. Santilli because on travel. As far as we know, the best references on the indicated Ph. D. Thesis is the
Ph. D. Course in IsoMathematics
Post 21
I believe that Santilli does not understand the current dominant view of covalence bonds that has worked so well for about one century. I do not see the value of this scientific fuzz of new mathematics and new chemistry. What's their benefits? Ker28fg
Post 22
Hi Dwe89pe / Post 12, you address the real historical issue Thanks. Einstein, Podolski and Rosen conclude their historical paper
EPR Argument
with the statement:
While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible Prof. Santilli has done exact that, shown that, under a proper new dynamics for interior systems, the wave function is modified in such a way to approach classical determinism as it is the case for the two electrons of the pseudoproton, the two electron in covalence bonds, and other cases. Lfg38ty.
Post 23
Prof. Santilli, please express your view on the "EPR Paradox" as outlined, for instance, in the website
https://www.thoughtco.com/epr-paradox-in-physics-2699186 Thank you. Ysr39ui
Figure 7. A conceptual view of the entanglement of particles characterized by contact non-Hamiltonian interactions due the overlapping of their wavepackets with ensuing continuous communication without superluminal speeds.
Post 24
Dear Ysr39ui / Post 23, thank you for raising such a pertinent question. In my view, the main issue of the debate on the 'EPR paradox' is that none of the participants, including Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Bell, and others, identified the basic assumptions of quantum mechanics underlying their claims which are essentially the following:
1) The strictly point-like characterization of particles, which is inherent in the basic calculus underlying the treatment of the paradox, Newton's differential calculus, which can be solely formulated at isolated points. The paradox of superliuminal speed in particle 'entanglements' is then a mere consequence. In my view, the EPR paradox disappears when particles and their wavepackets are admitted to be extended and actually filling up the entire universe, of course, in a way rapidly decreasing with the distance. Hence, particles are continuously and permanently 'entangled' with their wavepackets, as illustrated in Figure 7, thus having continuous communications without any need of superluminal speeds and related violation of special relativity.
2) The sole admission of interactions derivable from a potential, that is, of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian type. It appears that the 'entanglement' of wavepackets causes a 'contact interaction,' that is one without potential energy which has, nevertheless, physical implications as it is the case for a balloon moving in our atmosphere. Following decades of search, I illustrated the interactions between entangled wavepackets in the chemical notion of valence. According to quantum mechanics and chemistry, identical electrons in singlet valence coupling must repel, rather than attract each other due to their equal charge and magnetic moments. After studies I initiated in the late 1970s when I was at Harvard University, I finally achieved in the late 1990s the 'attractive' force between identical valence electrons in one way and one way only, via the entanglement of their wavepackets, called 'deep mutual penetration' in the related literature (see this debate and the the 2001 monograph Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry). Besides the achievement of the first known exact representation if experimental data for the hydrogen and water molecules, the identification of an attractive force between valence electrons has permitted a deeper understanding of molecules, with the ensuing new HyperCombustion for the complete combustion of fossil fuels, which is under development by the U. S. publicly traded company Thunder Energies Corporation
3) Insufficiency of 20th century mathematics for a consistent treatment of entangled particles. As indicated earlier, entanglements effects are strictly non-potential. Additionally, entanglement effects are strictly non-local because defined over large volumes. The treatment of entanglements via the mathematics of quantum mechanics is grossly insufficient because said mathematics is solely definable at isolated points while the entanglement volumes cannot be reduced to a finite number of isolated points. Finally, entanglement effects are non-linear, that is, depending on power and derivatives of the wavefunctions. The biggest problem of the EPR paradox is the lack of admission that 20th century mathematics simply cannot treat non-linear, non-local and non-potential effects. For this reason, I initiated at Harvard University in the late 1970s the construction of a 'completion' of 20thy century applied mathematics into a form, today known as isomathematics. which has been conceived and constructed for the representation invariant over time of non-linear, non-local and non-potential effects. The main idea is truly elementary and consists in the generalization of all conventional product AB of arbitrary quantities A, B into the axiom-preserving, thus isotopic form ATB where T is a positive definite quantity providing the invariant representation of the extended character of wavepackets and their non-Hamiltonian interactions (see the 1978 monographs Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics, Volume I and Volume II). This initial formulation turned out to be 'incomplete' because not leaving invariant the unit '1' of the numeric field , thus requiring its formulation on numbers n* = n1* with arbitrary unit 1* = 1/T known as isonumbers All the above efforts continued to remain 'incomplete' because, by far, the most dominant limitation of quantum mechanics is its formulation via Newton's differential calculus, with consequential approximation of particles as isolated points. Following decades of trial and errors, I finally achieved in 1996 the 'completion' of Newton's differential calculus into a form today known as the isodifferential calculus. in which Newton's differential 'dr' is generalized into the broader form d*r* = Td(r 1*) = dr + rTd1*, with related derivatives, allowing the transition from the differential 'dr' at the isolated point 'r' to the isodifferential 'd*r* = Td(r1*)' which is defined over the volume T. The identification of a truly attractive force between entangled valence electrons was solely possible thanks to the use of isomathematics, and the same goes for numerous applications and experimental verifications (see the recent general review.
4) The general belief of the lack of existence of hidden variables. An important branch of isomathematics is the 'completion' of Lie's algebras with historical brackets [A, B] = AB - BA at the bass of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, into the iso-Lie algebras (see the recent review and original contributions quoted therein) with generalized brackets [A, B]* = ATB - BTA. Bohr 'hidden variables' can then be introduced very easily with the realization T = Diag. (λ, 1/λ). In the 1998 paper proof of the EPR argument, I presented the consequential inapplicability (and not the violation) of Bell's inequality for entangled wavepackets and the confirmation of the EPR Argument. The point to be stressed here is that the above concrete and explicit realization of hidden variables is achieved under the full validity of quantum axioms, solely subjected to a broader realization since the abstract axioms of mathematics and isomathematics, as well as Lie theory and iso-Lie theory, are the same. What we have in reality is an interpretation of quantum mechanics broaden than the Copenhagen form, today known as hadronic mechanics (see the 1995 monographs Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Volume I: Mathematical Foundations. and Volume II: Theoretical Foundations).
5) Insufficient interest for experimental verifications and industrial applications of the EPR argument. All studies here considered originated from the inability of quantum mechanics to achieve any quantitative representation of Rutherford's synthesis of the neutron from a proton and an electron inside a star for numerous technical reasons. The representation of the neutron synthesis was solely possible via the EPR completion of quantum into hadronic mechanics and the resolution of the EPR paradox. Industrial equipment synthesizing neutrons on demand from a hydrogen gas are now in production and sale by Thunder Energies Corporation (see the TEC Directional Neutron Source). It seems reasonable that no in depth study of entanglements can be done without due consideration of the experimental and industrial applications of the 'completion' of 20th century sciences into covering views. Thunder Energies Corporation has funds to support nuclear physics laboratories interested in additional experimental tests and industrial applications of the ultimate process at the origin of stars, the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen. Ruggero Maria Santilli, email: research(at)thunder-energies(dot)com
Post 25
Prof. Santilli, thanks for the only true novelty I have seen in physics since I started my graduate studies. Congrats. I understand that : a) contact interactions, i.e., mutual penetration, entanglements, of wavepackets constitute true interactions causing physical effects; b) being pure Hamiltonian, QM cannot possibly represent such contact/penetration/entanglements, thus necessarily requiring Einstein's completion of QM; and c) I believe that your completion of QM by upgrading products AB into the axiom-preserving form ATB, T > 0, for all aspects of QM is brilliant, as illustrated by your proof that QM axioms do admit Bohm hidden variables λ. I am puzzled by a point you repeat in your writing, namely, that to have physical value representations have to be invariant over time. Could you please elaborate that point? Great thanks. Csd28ty
Post 26
Hi Csd28ty/Post 25, what a deep and sound question! Thanks for asking it. Yes, in my view any completion of QM has physical value if and only if the represented effects are invariant over time, that is, under the same physical conditions he numerical predictions must be invariant under the time evolution of the theory. The time evolution of Hadronic Mechanics (HM) is non-unitary when projected in the conventional Hilbert space over conventional fields. in fact, the iiso-Heisenberg equation
is the infinitesimal form of the non-unitary transformations
The deep point you address that mandates the rejection of the above completion of QM is that time evolution (10) changes the numeric value of the isotopic element T = Diag. (λ, 1/λ) representing the entanglement of particles, as you can easily verify,
However time evolution (9)-(11) is not that of HM. The correct Einstein completion of QM mandates its formulation on isospaces over isofields, in which case tine evolution (10) is iso-unitary,namely, it reconstructs unitarity on isospaces over isofields
where A*B = ATB and E is the fundamental isounit of the theory, thus implying U' - U, etc. You can then prove with simple calculations that the isotopic element is invariant under isounitary transforms,
thus implying that the correct formulation of the completion of QM into HM, that via the use of isomathematics, does indeed [reserve over time of the numerical value of the isounit E = 1/T, thus implying the invariance over time of the entanglement of particles. This is the reason that, in my decades of studies to prove the EPR argument. I spent 80% of my time in the development of isomathematics. The physics came out as a consequence in a simple and unique form. In the event you want to study HM I recommend you should spend most of your time in the study of isomathematics, e.g., from my book 1995 monograph Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Volume I: Mathematical Foundations. The understanding of -Volume II: Theoretical Foundations would be elementary. Then you will be several notches above your physics colleagues. Regards. R. M. Santilli
Post 27
Csd28ty/Post 25 and other colleagues dealing in time invariant formulations may be interested to know that such an invariance was achieved at the top Lie-admissible leve for irreversible processes as well as at the Lie-isotopic level for closed-isolated systems, in the paper below. Cheers. Ldf24pw
R. M. Santilli, "Invariant Lie-admissible formulation of quantum deformations,"
Found. Phys. {\bf 27}, 1159- 1177 (1997)
-http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-06.pdf
Post 28
Interesting read, especially post 23 and 24..
Prof. Santilli States: In my view, the EPR paradox disappears when particles and their wavepackets are admitted to be extended and actually filling up the entire universe, of course, in a way rapidly decreasing with the distance. Hence, particles are continuously and permanently 'entangled' with their wavepackets, as illustrated in Figure 7, thus having continuous communications without any need of superluminal speeds and related violation of special relativity.
I came to the same conclusion back in 2010 by interpreting Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel metaphor. Note that when we look at Fig. 7 above, we see "wheels within wheels." According to my interpretation of Ezekiel's occult texts, the wheel represents the particle's electric field and moves exactly with the particle. In other words, it is a nonlocal phenomenon that essentially fills the universe, as you write. Einstein and mainstream physicists are 100% wrong in their claim that the electric field propagates at c. The photons emitted by an electron (parent) are entangled with it and maintain a pure spherical relation with it at all times. These photons can be thought of as having the shape of the surface of a sphere. The likelihood of them interacting with other particles diminishes with the square of their distance from their source/parent particle.
The same text in the book of Ezekiel also indicates that the electron consists of four sub-particles acting as one. Each sub-particle has 1/4 electric charge. Here's my blog article on this topic if anyone is interestedhttps://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/lattice-interactions-part-ix_16.html Der56io
Post 29
The topics covered by this web site reflects the viewpoint on quantum mechanics as derived from classical mechanics. Classical mechanics works at a scale circa 1 m. Quantum mechanics operates at the atom scale, 10^{-8} m. When we approaching the scale 10^{-8} m something happens in space, such that we find ourselves in a miracle. But we also know the minimum physical size, namely, Planck's length 10^-{35} m and researchers are inclined to think that at this scale physical space has a cellular structure. Therefore, if we try to develop quantum mechanics starting from this scale, will quantum mechanics look also so unusual? The problem was studied in my book entitled Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics, here is the announcement on the web site of the publishers: http://www.appleacademicpress.com/structure-of-space-and-the-submicroscopic-deterministic-concept-of-physics-/9781771885300
The studies easily solve the situation associated with the EPR Argument because instead of one quantum system we reveal a system of two connected sub quantum systems, namely, the particle and a cloud of spatial excitations that accompany the particle... (and by the way, Prof. Santilli's works helped me to obtain several correct results).
Post 30
Can a biologist tell me What's a Virus?
Post 31
Post 30, I contacted a couple of biologists and got long speeches but my conclusion as a chemist is that we have no structural knowledge of "What's a Virus" because of fundamental, unresolved, chemical issues such as:
1. Lack of a real attraction in quantum chemistry between identical valence electrons in molecular bonds. Valence electrons have the same charge. Hence, they should repel, rather than attract each other. Therefore, we have no quantitative knowledge of molecular structures. As a consequence, we have no quantitative knowledge of the structure of a virus. This problem has been identified and apparently solved in the monograph quoted in the above interview Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry via a completion of quantum chemistry according to Einstein.
2. Lack in quantum chemistry of clearly attractive molecular bonds in the liquid state. Water molecules have essentially null electromagnetic features, yet they bond in the liquid state to such an extent to require the boiling temperature for breaking the bond. Consequently, we have no quantitative knowledge of the water content of any biological structure, including virus.This second problem has been identified and apparently solved in the paper quoted in the interview magnecular model of the liquid state, again, thanks to a completion of quantum chemistry according to Einstein.
3. Lack in quantum chemistry of sufficient data acquisition by molecular structures. It is admitted by most fellow chemists that water can acquire and propagate a large number of data. For instance, sea water can acquire and propagate the scent of blood and attract sharks up to such a distance to dismiss the conjecture that sharks detect diluted blood. By contrast, molecules are composed by atoms with such a rigid structure to admit no possible data acquisition besides that of quantized orbital transitions. A deeper understanding of "What's a virus?" requires the understanding that its DNA does contain the basic info, but not all of it. The rest is acquired and propagated by the molecular structure of the virus. This problem has been identified and apparently solved in the paper also quoted in the interview angular quantization.Post 32
Can Prof. R. M. Santilli indicate what's the value of the above studies to combat viruses?
Post 33
Dear authors of Posts 30-32, thanks for indicating advances in biology that are expected from Einstein's legacy on the lack of completeness of quantum mechanics and, therefore, chemistry. On physical, rather than biological grounds, I believe that the solution of Problems 1, 2, 3 of Post 32 should permit, in due time and under proper funding, the conception of basically new biotechnologies for non-invasive destruction of viruses beyond the principle of vaccines, such as:
1*. Virus destruction via resonating processes.. We have shown in the technical literature that strongly bonded electron pairs, called isoelectronia, are different for different molecular structures. The accurate knowledge of electron valence bonds in a virus would then allow the use of low energy (thus, non-invasive) sharp resonating microwaves and other means that should destroy viruses via the increase of their temperature.
2*. Destroying viruses by disrupting their liquid content. Molecular bonds in liquids have also been shown to be different for different biological structures. Their detailed knowledge would then allow non-invasive technologies for the disruption of biological structure, with ensuing inability for DNA instructions to propagate with consequential impossible virus reproduction.
3*. Destroying viruses by disrupting molecular data acquisition. When means for molecular data acquisition are numerically known, non-invasive technologies are possible for their disruption, resulting again in an impossible virus reproduction.
With the understanding that I am not a biologist any critical comment on physical profiles would be appreciated, as usual. Ruggero Maria Santilli, June 28, 2020.
Post 34
Santilli, you suggest to kill Corona viruses with radiations? Think again.
Post 35
Post 34, I assume you accept the very invasive radiation treatment of cancer patient, but appear to oppose the possible use of smart-phone-type radiations to keep alive Corona virus patients. Any reason? R. M. Santilli
Post 36
Corona viruses are known to die when exposed to ultraviolet light. Prof. Santilli suggests the study of the mechanism for such an effective action via the use of Einstein's "completion" of quantum chemistry when needed, in order to identify penetrating non-invasive treatments, rather than surface treatments like the ultraviolet rays.. I like that.
Post 37
There seems to be misconceptions in this debate because I am sure that, when looking deeper, quantum chemistry provides the answer for questions 1, 2, 3 of Post 33.
Post 38
Respectfully, I regret to disagree with Post 37. Prof. Santilli is correct in stating that the notion of valence in quantum chemistry is a pure 'nomenclature,' namely, a set of mnemonic rules without any mathematical representation whatsoever that can bypass the Coulomb repulsion between identical valence electrons. Of course, it is true that these mnemonic rules work very well, as attested by new chemical substances that continue to be discovered by chemists. However, if we have to remain with sole mnemonic rules and oppose deeper understanding of something so fundamental as the molecular bond, then mankind should have remained in the caves.
Post 39
The role of EMF in viral processes https://host.megapress.org/blogiq/2020/06/the-role-of-emf-in-viral-processes.html
I believe the connection between the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argument and viral biology is crucial to unearthing the solution to questions concerning the role of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) within the human bio-system. The connective element is gained through extraction of the causal definition of uncertainty effects that are presently defined only statistically. The hidden physical variable in this case is the omnipresent energy density (once called aether) and, the dynamic object connecting the physics to biology is that of evanescent waves. By evanescent waves I mean EM longitudinal sound waves and those longitudinal waves strictly defined in microscopy as surrounding particles. For the augmentation of EM theory to include a missing 7th scalar field element potentially sustaining such waveforms, read here: [https://host.megapress.org/blogiq/2020/04/deductions-from-the-quaternion-form-of-maxwells-electromagnetic-equations.html]
Let us preliminarily define the causal source of uncertainty effects within the EPR argument as a particle-surrounding longitudinal wave with temperature dependent properties: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332275095_A_Proposed_Physical_Basis_for_Quantum_Uncertainty_Effects
First, let us note the informational aspect of physical biology as demonstrated within the work of Montagnier. Here, interference phenomenon and filtered dilutions create, sans any DNA template, that DNA from the AIDS virus once informationally encoded by way of a simple solenoid then sent as sound to be synthesized via a second solenoid miles away, revealing the informational quanta of biological viral DNA assembly is that of electrical sound waves. The science was filmed live. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VyUsVOic0. ]. The science is suppressed. Please also read those related works cited below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VyUsVOic0
In Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences, Montagnier notes: "we have detected the same EMS in the plasma and in the DNA extracted from the plasma of patients suffering of Alzheimer, Parkinson disease, multiple Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. . . . Moreover, EMS can be detected also from RNA viruses, such as HIV, influenza virus A, Hepatitis C Virus." Montagnier, L., Aissa, J., Del Giudice, E., Lavallee, C., Tedeschi, A. and Vitiello, G. (2011) DNA Waves and Water. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 306, 012007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/306/1/012007
Next, let us closely note that the work of Rife had long cured cancers and other viral diseases [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308780755_An_Open_Letter_Regarding_Cancer], and just as Montagnier notes in the work and papers above, we do factually find frequency specific phenomenon in RNA and DNA virus materials. Recall that part of the aetherial mediumÛªs tensions defined by Maxwell are at ninety degree intersections. That frequency specific information for each cell is gained by way of creating an evanescent wave around a virus or cell, and that evanescent wave is formed at aqueous/solid refractive index variance points by way of some divergence from a 90 degree beam intersection. [See: Ann. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. 1984. 13: 247-68 Copyright å© 1984 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved, TOTAL INTERNAL REFLECTION FLUORESCENCE Daniel Axelrod et al.; www.annualreviews.org] Modern evanescent wave microscopy then, reveals the exact method of RifeaÛªs microscopy as a detector of a three part mortal oscillatory rate definition, beam angle, polarization and light frequency. The target is the pleomorphic precursor, not the cancer. It seems likely that although one may target a virus itself, a better target could be the nano-vortex precursors, or, pleomorphic bio-precursor organisms. Both the virus and the nano-vortex proliferations alongside of any pleomorphic progenitor cells must be isolated and targeted using filtered preparations. To self-illuminate a specimen determines its mortal frequency as stated, then, a potent cell-associated frequency specific wave overstimulates the cell and shatters it via the surrounding (longitudinal-component) wave, as a glass is shattered by a voice.
Now, note closely that the causal ÛÏuncertainty waveÛ? as it were, the evanescent wave, is the energetic means of cell destruction and its specific identification. That is a real wave, not a set of statistical properties. It is a longitudinal-component wave of a specific frequency, not an uncertainty. The entire of quantum interference is an actual interference of EM associated longitudinal waves. That is my opinion, and I am sure to be right here. Rich Norman
Post 40
The longitudinal scalar waves of Post 39 look to me much like Santilli's etherino which I think is intriguing.
Post 41
If anyone wants to understand how atoms might really attract each other without using valence electrons, you have to have a complete redo on the atomic model.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0184v1.pdf
Only then can we explain atomic attraction as being the result of electrostatic forces between opposite charges. Two electrons do not attract!
Post 42
Post 41 ignores one century of experimental verifications on the structure of atoms as being composed by nuclei and peripheral electrons. Consequently, any doubt that molecules are bound states of such atoms is a total dream smashed by incontrovertible evidence. In turn, any doubt that molecules are caused by the BOND of IDENTICAL VALENCE ELECTRONS is nonscientific nonsense. Post 41 idea that we should reconstruct all that is paralyzing to me. What is baffling for me is the reason Post 41 rejects eve for consideration Santilli's achievement of a real and explicit ATTRACTIVE FORCE between identical valence electrons, NOT for his 3-centuries old notion of electrons, but their changed structure due to deep mutual penetration according to Einstein's that "the wavefunction of quantum mechanics does not represent the entire reality." Is Post 41 acting like this because he opposes studies and applications of Einstein's legacy as it has been done by thousands of other physicists for one century?
================================