HOME     |     PHYSICS     |     BIOLOGY     |     CHEMISTRY

CERN antiprotons or Santilli pseudoprotons


We invite colleagues to participate in the debate via comments in the ,message box below following the publication of the paper

[1] R. M. Santilli,, "Apparent Experimental Confirmation of Pseudoprotons and their Application to New Clean Nuclear Energies,"
International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics Volume 9, Number 2, April 2019

Abstract. In preceding papers initiated in the 1980s at Harvard University under DOE support, the author presented evidence of the laboratory synthesis of the neutron from an electron and a proton, as well as the prediction of a second synthesis of an electron and, this time, a neutron, resulting in a new nucleon known as the pseudoproton, with predicted characteristics: negative charge, spin 1/2, charge radius and mass essentially those of the neutron, and mean life of the order of seconds, thus suitable for applications. In this paper, we present apparently for the first time: two different reactors predicted to synthesize pseudoprotons jointly with other particles; pseudoproton irradiation of natural elements; experimental evidence from two U. S. spectroscopic laboratories supporting the existence of the pseudoproton; the pseudoproton capability of resolving the historical Coulomb repulsion between nuclei thanks to its negative charge; and the possible existence of new nuclear energies without the emission of harmful radiations and without the release of radioactive waste caused by pseudoproton irradiation of a selected number of light natural elements.


Debate on CERN Antiprotons or Santilli Pseudoprotons>

Post 1
How can Santilli expect to be believed when stating that antiprotons are fake science? CXwe45uo

Post 2
Dr. Santilli has never stated that anti[protons are fake science. You do it. Vsdf25yi

Post 3
Can anybody outline Dr. Santilli's doubts on the antimatter character of antiprotons? Thanks. Gfd35ewo

Post 4
Dr. Santilli's doubts on the antimatter character of antiprotons have been expressed in various scientific works expressed in proper scientific language, such as in Section 4 the latest general review New Sciences for a New Era, in Part III on the debate on cosmology Lack of Universe Expansion, and in other links. Here is my understanding of some of these doubts.

1. Matter and antimatter are expected to annihilate into light. By contrast, protons and antiprotons annihilate into a shower of particles as established by the Bose-Einstein Correlation and other clear experiments. If we accept the antimatter character of antiprotons under these conditions, we have to revise our understanding of antimatter from its foundation. I have to agree with Dr. Santilli that the indicated doubt is sound , thus requiring its addressing.

2. Assuming that protons and antiprotons can consistently annihilate into a shower of particles, then there are doubts as to the validity of the PCT theorem since the initial state p-\bar{p} is indeed POCT invariant while the final state is not since there is no evidence that particle- antiparticle pairs are produced in the p-anti-p annihilation. I have to agree with Dr. Santilli on this second doubt.

3. Assuming that Doubts 1 and 2 are resolved in favor of the antimatter character of antiprotons, there are serious doubts on the consistency of quantum field theory in the very act of creating antiprotons. In fact, the impact of high energy protons on a target is not invariant under PCT, and its PCT image has nothing to do with the produced particles. The is another serious open problem that has to be addressed and resolved in favor or against the antimatter character of antiprotons. CERN decades of continued oblivion are only self-damaging. Sqw57op

Post 5
I agree with Dr. Santilli on the existence of serious doubts on the antimatter character of the claimed antiprotons. Here is an additional doubt also raised by Dr.,Santilli. Quantum field theory requires full democracy for the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs for all stable particles. Therefore, in the event a high energy collision of protons on a target produces proton-antiproton pairs, then a high energy collision of an electron on a target should produce electron-positron pairs. I spent a long time in the library searching for papers on whether the collision of high energy electrons on a target or on a or cathodic tube electron-positron pairs with no result. Is that is the case for the collision of high energy electrons on a target, then I am afraid that antiprotons do not exist. Can anybody provide scientific references in a refereed journal that high energy electrons on a target produce electron-positron pairs? Thank you. Gwe489uo

Post 6
I have contacted Dr. Santilli (Email research@i-b-r.org) on this debate and this is his answer with authorization for its release. Bsd37uo
"Dear Gggggg, thank you for contacting me on this intriguing topic. I have studied related issues for about half a century and this is my view. To be serious scientists, we should admit the experimental reality that the neutron is synthesized from the hydrogen in the core of stars according to Rutherford's "compression" of an electron within the hyperdense proton. It seems also advisable to have an awareness that Thunder Energies Corporation produces and sells a reactor synthesizing indeed the neutron from the hydrogen according to Rutherford's compression TEC Directional Neutron Source. I synthesized the recently confirmed pseudoprotons with the same reactor and with the same principle, namely, Rutherford's compression of an electron, this time, within the hyperdense neutron. My doubts on the antimatter character of antiprotons stems from the fact that the process of their production is essentially the same as that I used for the pseudoprotons. In fact, when high energy proton collide with a target, the initial collision occurs between protons and peripheral atomic electrons. Simple calculations then show the existence of a finite probability for two electrons to penetrate within the hyperdense protons resulting precisely in the pseudoproton with no antimatter in sight. I should stress that the appraisal of these possibilities via quantum mechanics would be nonscientific nonsense because all particles are points for QM and one point cannot be compressed inside another point. A quantitative study of the issues requires a representation of the actual dimension and density of the proton with consequential covering scattering theory, such as those provided by isomathematics, isomechanics and isoscattering theory. best wishes, Ruggero"

Post 7
Dr. Santilli, do you believe that antiprotons do not exist?

Post 8
No. The situation is very complex. I have identified three types of negatively charges nucleons with spin o, 1.2 and 1. Additionally, there seems to be significant differences in the meanlives of our states compared to that of antiprotons, Therefore, as I stated in my papers in the field, it may well be that pseudoprotons and antiprotons are different particles. My only points is that doubts on things so fundamental as this one, ultimately implying the existence or lack of existence of antigravity, must be resolved. RMS

Post 9
I intend to recommend Sir R. M. Santilli for the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics. I know of a number of other colleagues who will do the same. Xwe56yi

Post 10
Prof. Santilli, you indicate in Post 8 that the issue of antiprotons vs pseudoprotons has implications fort the existence or lack thereof of antigravity. Please elaborate. Thanks you. Bsd28ty

Post 11
Hello Bsd28ty,/Post 10, thanks for the important question. To my knowledge, CERN is planning to test the gravity of their anti-hydrogen atom composed by a positron and their antiproton. In the event their antiproton is solely composed of matter, the test will certainly produce no antigravity since the matter-antiproton would be about 2,000 times heavier than the antimatter-positron. Therefore, unless the doubts on the antimatter character of antiprotons are resolved in a way accepted by the scientific community at large, antimatter test at CERN may well be a scientific blunder that can damage scientific knowledge for centuries to come. RMS

Post 12
Post 9 suggests that Prof. Santilli deserves indeed a Nobel Prize in Physics, see his Biographical Notes.. In fact, Sir Karl Popper called Sir Santilli a 'genius' in his last book. Nova Academic Publishers also called Sir Santilli a 'genius' in the presentation of the series of books by the mathematician Svetlin Georgiev on Santilli's isodifferential calculus, see the link Nova Academic Publisher and the same has been the case on some of the awards. In any case the sculptural identification of the failure of seventy-five years if research controlled nuclear fusions released for the PubRelCo Interviews

is a clear act of creation only a genius can do. Xwr38yo

Post 13
I am interested in initiating research on Santilli's controlled nuclear fusion. Can anybody tell me what are the three types of pseudoprotons and what is their difference in irradiation? Thanks Bsd37tyi

Post 14
EDITORIAL NOTE: Prof. Santilli is traveling for lectures and could not be reached. According to our understanding, with reference to Prof. Santilli's paper [1] quoted in the heading of this debate, , he has identified the following three forms of pseudoprotons, that with spin J = 0 depicted in Figures 6 and 8; that with spin 1/2 depicted in Figure 5; and that with spin J = 1 depicted in Figure 7. As shown in Section 3 of Ref. [1], These seemingly different particles produce the same lowering of the atomic number Z by one and the same increase of the mass A by one in the irradiation of light, stable, natural elements

\bar{p}^{J=n} + N(Z, A, J). ---> \tilde{N}(Z- 1, A + 1, J + n)

plus the emission o f neutrinos or electrons depending on the decay of Santilli pseudonuclide \tilde{N} into a stable element. The Editors.

Post 15
The so-called 'Santilli new fusion" is fake. During the claimed energy producing ittadiations of natural elements, in reality we have pseudoprotons hitting the atomic clouds of said elements resulting in the decay of the 'pseudoprotons' into neutrons and electrons with nothing new. Wer36gj.

Post 16
EDITORIAL NOTE: Wer36gj.Post, 15, the most important Santilli controlled fusion is that of the deuteron and pseudodeuteron into the helium, such as

D(1, 2, 1) + \tilde{D}(-1, 2, 1) --> He(2, 4, 0) + 2\beta^- + 2\gamma

The above nuclear fusion is achieved by irradiating a ionized deuterium gas with a beam of pseudodeuterons, in which case your 'objection' has no credible grounds. The same holds for the pseudoproton irradiation of gaseous and ionized light elements. In all cases the irradiation is done via low energy beams of Santilli pseudoprotons or pseudodeuterons assuring their attraction by positively charged nuclei, with ensuing release of clean energy. The fusions or transmutations are clearly controllable via: the initiation the Editors

f interruption of the irradiating the control of the energy and density of the irradiation beams; the control of the pressure of the ionized target gas; and other engineering means. The Editors.

Post 17
Wer36gj.Post, 15, I believe you are a sock-puppet. Zer57fo

Post 18
Good evening! please allow a question: how would the antimatter-galaxies which Dr. Santilli holds for proved refer to the pseudoproton? Are there pseudoproton-galaxies existing? Ker36gp

Post 19
EDITORIAL COMMENTS: Ker36gp/Post 19, Thanks for your intriguing questions. To our knowledge there is no connection between the antimatter galaxies detected by Prof. Santilli in the Vega and in the CApella regions of the night sky and the pseudoproton the galaxies are made up off true antimatter, while the pseudoproton is 100% matter. Your second question is very intriguing because it deals with the issue as to heather there exist matter galaxies made up of negatively charged pseudoprotons. The only thing we know is that pseudoprotons can be produced in the core of stars soon after the synthesis of the neutron, but they will decay because the star originated as an aggregate of neutral hydrogen, and will remain neutral in time except for , surface explosion, etc. Finally, we thank you for your intriguing model of the universe and regret not to be able to release it here because not related to this debate. With your approval, we can however, release your model in Part III, Section III.8 the debate on the lack of universe expansion http://www.galileoprincipia.org/no-universe-expansion.php. Regards. The Editors

Post 20
Did anybody heard about quark, gluons and QCD here ? ... a proton is not a fundamental particle and then can not annihilate into a photon with an antiproton. But as a matter of fact, the sum of all the product of a proton and anti-proton collision are equivalent to pure energy (sum all quantum number = 0). At very low energy when minimum energy is available only few photons are produced (p+ap->2 pi0->4 photons. How do you explain that with 1 proton and 1 "pseudoproton" which would contain 3 valence quark as a neutron. I can believe that some pseudo-particles could be the combination of a proton and an electron can look like a neutron, but a neutron do not have the same quark content than a proton and to exchange a u and d quark you need a W boson which is seems to be hard to get just by compression ... but this is another story. Post 4 simply correspond to the fact that proton is NOT a fundamental particle such as quarks and electrons, but the antiproton is still the antipar. Xwe36gj