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

Post 21
Dear Xwe36g/Post 20, your view is entirely orthodox. As such, it should be respected because reflecting a current majority of views. However, allow me to bring to your attention that your comments have NO connection with this debate. In fact, you describe the current orthodox view on the structure of the proton. By contrast, this debate is centered in the synthesis of the neutron from a proton and an electron in the core of a star, which I hope you admit as being real for your own dignity. So, your problem, as well as that of the entire orthodox community inn physics is how to reconcile said view on the structure of the proton with the neutron synthesis. You will discover in this way that it is impossible. Prof. Santilli tried for years when he was at Harvard and failed, thus being forced to assume that the electron and the proton as the actual physical constituents of the neutron. You are much welcome to try. However, in the event the synthesis of the neutron cannot be reconciled with quark conjectures, you haven to admit that the standard model is basically incompatible with, thus disproved by the central event in the core of stars. Best wishes.ze59uo

Post 22
I was a graduate student at Harvard University when Prof. Santilli was there in the late 1970s and I remember vividly the "irreconcilable disagreements" (in his words) he had with Prof. Weinberg.. Santilli claim was - and remains fully valid to this day - that in the neutron synthesis in the core of stars the physically real, massive, and stable electron and proton cannot "disappear" from the universe and be repaved by the hypothetical quarks. Additional, Santilli's claimed that, at the time of the spontaneous decay of a neutron, quarks cannot "disappear" and the electron and proton cannot just "reappear. I believe that Prof. Santili;'s questions are sound and I have studied them jointly with his mathematical and physical solutions. I only regret that I have been unable to write papers in the field in order not to lose my academic job. Ger37yi

Post 23
It appears that, Xwe36g/Post 20 is rather naive because unaware of the fact that quarks were conceived and imposed by an organized group of physicists for the specific intent of maintaining the validity of Einstein special relative in the interior of hadrons. Xwe36g/Post 20, do you know that Leon Lederman announced the discovery at FERMILin 1995 AB of the top quark by always stressing the"point-like top quark"? Being a good member of the group, Lederman knew that, in the absence of the point=like structures Einstein's special relativity was gone. PS. Been an American physicist, I felt offended by the the additional politics due to the statement of f the 'discovery' of the top quark because, in reality, FERMILAB detected particles 'predicted' by the top quark, as well as by other theories not based on quarks. Nrt38yo

Post 24
It appears that the author of Post 20 has solely studied orthodox literature, thus risking to be brain washed in the process..For instance, he should study Prof. Santilli 1911 (sic) paper ,An intriguing legacy ofEinstein, Fermi, Jordan and others: The possible invalidation of quark conjectures, Found. Phys. Vol. 11, 384- 472 (1981) http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-36.pdf in which Santilli presents his disagreements with Harvard and MIT colleagues by proving the following inconsistencies of quark conjectures that have remained unaddressed, to this day:

1. In the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen in the core of stars the permanently stable electrons and protons cannot be consistently transmuted into quarks;

2. In the spontaneous decay of the neutron (when isolated), quarks cannot be consistently transmuted into elementary trans and protons;

3) Quarks cannot be defined physical particles in our spacetime, e.g., because they cannot be characterized by unitary irreducible representations of the Lorentz-Poincare' symmetry;

4) Quarks cannot be rigorously confined inside hadrons, i.e., proved to have an identically null probability of tunnel effects, evidently due to the uncertainty principle;

5) Quarks have not been detected as isolated particles at the extremely high energy collision of the hadron collider at CERN;

6) Quarks have been unable to represent the spin, magnetic moments and other characteristics of particles;

7) When nucleons are assumed to be composite states of the hypothetical quarks, deviations of the prediction of the theory from experimental data increase, rather than decrease, as it is the case of nuclear magnetic moments and spins e.g., due to the very small dimension of the hypothetical orbits of quarks inside nucleons preventing possible polarization; and other insufficiencies.

Yes, I agree with Prof. Santilli that quark conjecture are a political scheme and they will remain so until the above inconsistencies are addressed and resolved. Mdf35al

Post 25
I could be wrong, but is it not true that the foundations of both QED and QCD rest on the assumption (belief) that the creation and annihilation operators describe real events. In the case of electrons and positrons, we know their interaction produces gamma rays (as expected). This interaction is explained within the QED context. In the case of proton-antiproton interaction, we expect the same behavior. If this is not the case, there is a basic problem with QCD and this is non-trivial. One has to wonder what the theory community has been looking at, so they could not see the problem from the first experiment? Santilli's suggestion about a new explanation must be taken serious, if for no other reason then his demonstration of clear physical vision. Kdr25io

Post 26
An antiproton is composed of anti-quarks, anti-gluons, etc and the same problem exist? Vsd35yo

Post 27
The comment of a learned colleague ̦f whom I think much: "Willst Du mich auf den Arm nehmen? Ein weiterer Spinner auf dem weiten Feld der Pseudo-Physik." His opinion is devastating! Ger27yu

Post 28
EDITORIAL NOTE: Can anybody translate Post 2? Thanks

Post 29
Dear Colleagues of Posts 20 to 24, after working at the related issues for about half a century, these are my conclusions:

1. The standard model has app ardently achieved the final classification of particles into families which is second to none I know.

2. In view of the inconsistencies clearly identified in Posts 21 to 24, quarks are purely mathematical entities necessary for the correct elaboration o the standard classification of particles. Let us recall that, on strict scientific grounds, quarks are purely mathematical unitary irreducible representations of a purely mathematical unitary symmetry defined on a purely mathematical unitary complex-valued space without any connection whatsoever - not even remote - to our physical spacetime.

3. Quantum mechanics is exactly valid for the standard classification off particles since the latter are considered as isolated, thus admitting a consistent point-like abstraction. By comparison, quantum mechanics is inapplicable (and not violated!)_ within the hyperdense medium inside hadrons for a long list off reasons, by therefore rendering vacuous any discussion as to whether quarks exist or not. For mathematical, theoretical and experimental evidence on the inapplicability for QM inside hadrons,, one can read the 150 page summary http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf With particular reference to the inevitable nonlocal effects within hyperdense media, consequential impossibility of any consistent definition of the axioms of quantum mechanics, the experimental evidence of deviations from Einstein time evolution law in the behavior of unstable hadrons at speed, etc..

4. In the transition from the classification of hadrons to their structure a generalization if quantum mechanics is necessary for the invariant representation of the extended and hyperdense character of hadrons. Our group has proposed the isotopic "completion" of quantum mechanics much along the historical - yet forgotten - Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument based on the central and all encompassing lifting of Newton's differential calculus from its definition to isolated points to surfaces or volumes. This lifting has been necessary because any study of the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen via quantum mechanics has been dubbed "nonscientific nonsense" because one cannot fuse two point particles one inside the other. Said synthesis of the neutron can only be quantitatively studies by representing the proton as it is in reality, an extended - thus deformable - and hyperdense particle. But then, under Rutherford's "compression," they experience mutations of their intrinsic characteristics (the isorenormalization of rest energy, mass, etc.) resulting on what are called nowadays isoelectrons and isoprotons;

5. In order to pass the test of time beyond temporary academic politics, a structure model of hadrons must represent "ALL" characteristics of the particle considered, and not only some of them as it is the case for quark conjectures. Our structure model of the neutron considered as a generalized bound state of an isoelectron and isoproton in Rutherford's condition of total mutual penetration under the indicated EPS "completion" of quantum mechanic does indeed represent "ALL" characteristics of the neutron at the non-relativistic as well as, separately, relativistic levels. This has also been the case for the structure model of the remaining unstable hadrons as well as mesons assumed to be composed by isobound states of actual physical particles generally produced free, thus being detectable, in the spontaneous decays with the lowest mode. For details, one can see Chapter 6 of the independent review http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf.

6. In addition to the basic requirement of representing "ALL" characteristics of each individual particle, a necessary consistency condition for a structure model is that of achieving compatibility with the standard classification of particles, exactly as it was the case for the classification of atoms into families essentially achieved via classical methods, and the structure of each individual atom of a gmcven family that required a generalization of the methods used for the classification. This compatibility has also been achieved for the new structure models of particles based on actual, physical, detectable constituents, although it requires the additional lifting from isomathematics to hypermathematic, (see also Chapter 6 of the review http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf]].

7. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion. However, physicists in the field should be aware that the conjecture that quarks are actual, physical constituents of hadrons prevents or otherwise jeopardize any conceptual of much needed new clean nuclear energies. This is clearly illustrated by Post 20 because his conception of the structure of the protons and the neutron prohibit the conception, let alone engineering realization of the synthesis of negatively charged pseudo-nucleons and pseudo-nuclei, thus including their predicted new clean energies.

Thanks for your consideration, Ruggero Santilli

Post 30
1. I think Professor9Santilli's experiments on neutrons and neutroids synthesis are serious and strict, and the results are credible.

2. I believe that neutron consists only of proton and electrons, and there is a more reasonable explanation for the missing energy of 0.782 MeV. Neither neutrino hypothesis nor etherino hypothesis is needed.

3. Professor Santilli's experiment results can be explained in a unified theory. This theory has revolutionary concepts and principles, which contains the hypothesis of extended particles.

4. The foundation of this theory is orthodox mathematics, mainly set theory and calculus. Csr37op

Post 31
Dear Prof. Santilli, please let us have a paper of yours in which you treat the EPR argument directly. Thanks. Cwe37te

Post 32
Thanks Post 31 for the inquiry. I provide you a representative paper below. It essentially emerges that a a non-unitary EPR "completion" of quantum mechanics implies a generalization off Bell's inequality permitting indeed a direct connection with classical description much along the EPR argument. Note a non-unitary completion is necessary in my view for the representation of shape and density of particles in an invariant way. In fact, nonunitary transforms map arbitrary products AB into the isoproduct A'TB'. The needed representation is then done in an invariant way via realizations of the type T = Diag(a, b, c, d) where a, b, c, represent the dimension ion the particles (e.g., its semiaxes) and d represents its density. Best wishes Ruggero Santilli
"Isorepresentation of the Lie-isotopic SU(2) Algebra with Application to Nuclear Physics and Local Realism," R. M. Santilli,
Acta Applicandae Mathematicae Vol. 50, 177 (1998),

Post 33
Post 302 Prof. Santilli has established that the neutrino hypothesis cannot explain the 0.782 MeV missing in the neutron rest energy and proposed the alternative of the http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/EtherinoFoundPhys.pdf. You claim to have another explanation for the missing 0.783 MeV without the neutrino and without the etherino hypothesis. I am very interested in knowing that alternative. Could you please tell us a few lines? ThankYou also claim to have a "ne" unified theory based on the representation of the extended character of particles. Please note that the only possible unified theory achieving the invariance over time of the shape and density of particle is that based on Prof. Santilli isomathematics. Additionally, a consistent unified theory requires the reformulation off gravitation on an isoflat space as well as the inclusion of antimatter, see Prof. Santilli- monograph with Springer http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-79.pdff. This is a field in great need for new studies. Yours Truly. Swe45pp

Post 34
Hello Swe45pp/Post 33.Thank you for being interested in my comments. Let me briefly state following points: 1) Real particles have both mass and volume. In contrast with point particles, I call them body particles. Objects are comprised of body particles. Proton and electron are indivisible body particles. 2) Body particles have three spatial states of position, posture and profile, corresponding to three modes of motion of translation, rotation and vibration. 3) The energy difference of 0.782 MeV comes from the rotational and vibrational energies of proton+electron system. 4) It has been proved that electric charge is equivalent to mass, and electric current is equivalent to momentum, and gravitational and electromagnetic interactions are strictly equivalent. 5) Current physics are theories based on the model of point particles or point-like particles, all are approximations of the body particle theory. 6) The simplicity, consistency and universality of the bod y partic le theory are beyond anyone's imagination. Please refer to 1) https://www.scirp.org/book/DetailedInforOfABook.aspx?bookID=2333 . 2) Proc. of SPIE Vol. 10755, 107550I . 2018. doi: 10.1117/12.2316422 For details please contact me via email 18951896123@189.cn . Yours Truly. Csr37op

Post 35
Dear Csr37op/Post 34, your conception of rotational energies is valid in classical mechanics but not in particle physics because the angular moment of particles is quantized, cannot be changed, and it is part of the particle rest energy. The electron and the proton have a rotational energy characterized by their spin 1/2 which is part of their rest energies of 0.511 MeV and 938.28 MeV, respectively. Therefore, there is no chance that rotational energies of the electron and the proton can account for the 0.782 MeV missing in the neutron synthesis. After studying the issue for years (since I was originally a standard model guy), ( must agree with Prof. Santilli http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/EtherinoFoundPhys.pdf that:

1. Neutrinos cannot possibly provide the missing energy because: A) The missing energy 0.782 MeV is for the synthesis of the neutron with zero energy available for the neutrino; B) The cross section between neutrinos and electrons or the protons is totally null, thus voiding the mechanism for the delivery of energy; and C) In order to deliver any energy, we should be dealing with the antineutrino since the delivery of energy requires the particle to be written in the left hand side of the reaction

p + \bar{\nu} + e --> n

2. The cross section of electrons and protons is essentially null at 0.782 MeV, thus preventing any possibility that the missing energy is provided by a relative energy between the electrons and the protons;;

3. The missing energy cannot be supplied by the internal energy of a star because, at the initiation of the production of light, stars synthesize something like 10^{50} neutrons per seconds. Therefore, in the event stars provide the missing energy, they would lose about 10^{50} MeV per seconds, thus rapidly going to the absolute zero degree temperature, rather than producing any light.

After studying all possible alternatives (in order in trying to salvage the standard model), I must agree with Prof. Santilli hat the only plausible origin of the missing energy is that via Santilli etherino ("a") as a longitudinal (and not transversal like light) impulse delivering energy to the neutron synthesis (that is to matter)

p + a + e --> n

from the ether ("aether" in Latin) conceived as a universal medium for the very existence and propagation of electromagnetic waves (I will never accept the political idea that electromagnetic "waves" are created and propagated by nothing just to keep Einstein theories where they do not belong). Additionally, quantum mechanics has been unable to represent the incredible energy released by a supernova since nuclear fusions are not enough, thus again requiring energy supplied from the ether. A similar case occurs for other particle and astrophysical cases. More details are available from the debate Fermi neutrino or Santilli etherino? Csd26yi

Post 36
Dear Csd26yi, thank you very much for your Post 35. First of all, it should be pointed out that the three modes of motion I mentioned come from classical mechanics, but they are new concepts not found in textbooks. Translation is the displacement of the mass center of the particle system, rotation is the orientation change of the particle system around the mass center (not including the spin of the particles), and vibration is the radial periodic motion of the particle system relative to the mass center. For example, the earth-moon system can be considered as a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator that rotates around the earth-moon center of mass and travels around the sun. This kind of motion decomposition comes from classical conception, but leads to completely new motion laws. If classical conception does not apply to particle physics, there are three possibilities: classical physics has problem, particle physics has problem, or both. My belief is that the laws of physics are unified. There should be no distinction between classical physics and particle physics, nor between macro-physics and micro-physics. Firmly believe this, you can find the key to understand the mysteries of nature. Without going into details, what is involved here is the basic principle of physics. It can be said that classical physics and relativistic theory mainly deal with the mode of translation, while quantum mechanics mainly deals with the mode of vibration (plus spin hypothesis can solve some rotation problems). A new theory is a scheme to deal with the three modes of motion in a unified way. Csr37op

Post 37
(following of post 20) Sure, the quark model and the standard model is a mathematical representation which might not be directly related to reality ... and it has some limitations, that is why so many people are looking for physics beyond the standard model. But at the same time, this representation allows us (I write "us" because, it is not something I read, it is something I do) to predict all LHC results/measurement at a level of precision which can hardly be just "luck". So if Mr Santilli model can "represent "ALL" characteristics of the particle considered" it should work for their interaction at high energy and thus all LHC results. This is of course a lot for a single man (or even a small team) ... but I would be curious to know how "jet", parton distribution functions, or even pion production is done in Mr Sanitilli approach. Is there any publication even to say a word how LHC results can be predicted in this theory (using the standard model, LHC results could be predicted, not only described). Thanks Xer57io

Post 38
Dear Xer57io - Post 36, thanks for the important question posed in decent scientific language. I shall consult Prof. Santilli on the matter but for what I know studying his models in the structure of hadrons, the answer to your question is "no." What you state is correct in my view, that is, the standard model has a great capability of predicting new particles. Tho my understanding, in Prof. Santilli's view,. this is a feature of a "Mendeleev-type classification. of hadrons" (his words). Consequently your question does not belong to the separate structure problem. To understand this separation between classification and structure you have to review your studies in atomic physics. The structure of the helium cannot possibly predict the existence of tranuranilc particles because the latter belong to Mendeleev classification. Similarly, the structure of the neutron as a bound state of an isoelectron and an isoproton cannot possibly predict new particles. The latter belong to mass spectra issues that have no connection with the structure. I agree with Prof. Santilli's view because atoms required two different but compatible models, one of classification and one of structuyre of individual atom of a given classification family. Searching for one single model for hadrons achieving both classification and structure is unrealistic,. these views are presented very nicely in Chapter 6 of the Ghandza-Kadeisvili book http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdff Csd11pp

Post 39
Csr37op / Post 34 has expressed the vew that the missing energy of 0,782 MeV in the Neutron synthesis is absorbed by the electron when compressed inside the proton in the form of rotational energy. Subsequently, Csd26yi / Post 35 has stated that the rotational motion of particles is quantized and part of their rest energy with the ensuing impossibility in his view that rotational energy cannot be the vehicle for the delivery of the missing energy. I would like to state that, in mu view, both authors are correct with the following clarifications:

1. Csd26yi / Post 35 is correct in stating that quantum mechanical point particles cannot acquire the missing energy in the neutron synthesis which energy has therefore to be supplied by an external source, the etherino in my view. However,

2. Csr37op / Post 3 is correct in my view in stating that the missing energy is acquired by the electron when inside the proton the only plausible way, via the increase of its rotational energy. This is represented in our work via the isorenormalization (renormalization caused by non-Lagrangian interactions for particles in condition of total mutual penetration) by performing the lifting of the electron rest energy from 0,511 MeV got 1.293 MeV. This can be visually seen by looking at the only possible dynamics of the electron when compressed inside the protonn

The first condition for the neutron synthesis is that the electron mist couple with the proton in singlet and then, once inside, the electron is forces to acquire a new rotational energy the orbital rotational motion inside the proton. Calculations have shown that such new energy is precisely that 0.782 MeV which is added to the 0,511 MeV rest energy of the electron when a point particle in vacuum

3. The argument by Csd26yi / Post 35 no longer holds inside the neutron due to its hyperdense character with ensuing lack of validity of quantum mechanics in favor of hadronic mechanics. Recall the 1935 historical argument by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen according two which quantum mechanics is "incomplete" because it lack a classical limit. Bohr immediately attacked this argument via the uncertainty principle. Subsequently, Bell and Von Neumann came out with very rigorous inequalities and theorems, respectively, Ion 1998 I proved that the isotopic "completion" of quantum mechanics for the representation if extended and hyperdense particles under non-lagrangian interactions does indeed admit a well defined classical limit, exactly as predicted by Einstein, Podolsky and Rose in 1935
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),

Conceptually, point particles cannot be localized, thus having uncertainties preventing a classical limit (Bohr). However, extended particles inside hadronic matter (e.g., a neutron inside a star), being extended and under stream surrounding pressures, does indeed admit a classical limit (EPR).. Hence, the 0.782 MeV of rotational energy acquired by the electron inside the proton is truly semiclassical, as viewed by Csr37op / Post 34. Regards. Ruggero Santilli.

Post 40
It is unfortunate that Csr37op / Post 34 wants to invent new names and does not use terms established in the scientific literature, For instance, he wants to introduce the word "body" that nobody will ever use for particles, and has not adopted Prof. Santilli terminology he introduced some 40 years ago of "extended particles." It is also unfortunate for Csr37op / Post 34 that he does not appear to have studied Prof. Santilli work, thus risking to run the dream of repeating his studies, . He should start reading the 150 pages summary http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf And then pass to the study of the individual technical papers. Bd39yi

Post 41
Why is this ignored by academia?? Vsd35ty

Post 42
Vsd35ty -Post3, It's not true that academia is ignoring Prof. Santilli's 1998 proof of the EPR argument http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-27.pdf
. The leader in the field, Prof. Santilli himself, is formerly from Harvard and MIT where h initiated his studies on the EPR completion of QM under DOE support you can often see in the titles. All research in hadronic mechanics has been centered in the completion of QM according to the EPR argument. To understand this, you should look at the seventy pages off bibliography in Vol. I of Prof. Santilli series Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm. You will see there academicians from some of the best institutions in three continents. Also, you should look at the high ranking U. S. academic laboratories that confirmed the existence of Santilli pseudoprotons http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/pseudoproton-verification-2018.pdf. To understand the implications for the EPR argument you should know that the electron orbiting around the proton in the H atom cannot be localized in a sphere with Bohr's radius. By contrast, when compressed inside the proton or the neutron, the same electron can be funky localized due to the extreme constraints i9n its dynamical evolution caused by motion within a hyperdense medium. At this writing, I am aware of additional mathematical, theoretical and experimental work going on in Europe. The problem is that this is an extremely advanced field and their mere identification require advanced knowledge. Xas24io

Post 43
Can anybody review Prof. Santilli's proof of the EPR argument? Thanks Zwe67io

Post 44
I love the science. My question is, will it be doable...clean energy without the fallout? Why isn't the government funding much more research into his theories. If proven, he does indeed deserve the Nobel...just soon, I pray! Thank you dear Prof. Santilli for your tireless research to make our world just a bit more safer. God Bless your endeavors... Her28yu

Post 45
Posts are enlightening...I love the science. Many thanks to Bd39yi/Post40 for kind advice. Indeed, I have not studied Prof. Santilli's literature in detail. In fact, when I sent the post30, I just knew his work no more than five days. That is normal because my field of study is optics, not particle physics. What is not normal is that the branches of physics are so numerous that researchers from different branches are isolated from each other. Thanks to Csd11pp/Post38 for encouragement. To be frank, I have to use words cautiously to avoid misunderstandings, because English is not my native language. Prof. Santilli's calculation shows that the increase in the electron rotational energy in protons can explain the missing energy of 0.782 MeV, which is consistent with my conclusion. Prof. Santilli's exploration is great, and his spirit of decades of struggle against orthodox physics is particularly admirable. To be sure, our research is independent, because the physical model I use is different from his model. Thank God I didn't specialize in particle physics, which allowed me to study particle problem in different ways. Csr37op

Post 46
Hi Zwe67io-Post 43, Prof. Santilli's 1998 paper Confirmation of the EPR Argument provides you the complete answer because it is self-sufficient in summarizing the new math of hadronic mechanics, achieves, for the first time, a full confirmation of the EPR Argument, and provides an application to nuclear physics. Bre30ui

Post 47
I did read the paper Confirmation of the EPR Argument three consecutive times, each time being more excited than the first. This is definitely Nobel Prize paper for which know of no better. Nds12op

Post 48
I believe that the lack of a Nobel Prize to Sir Ruggero M. Santilli (Biographical Notes) is the biggest shadow on the Nobel Foundation because his discoveries are of clear historical character and so will be the judgment by posterity. Swe46op

Post 49
Santilli's "proof" of the EPR argument is not accepted by the scientific community because he's claimed new mathematics is too fancy and we see no need to "complete" quantum mechanics since it works well as is. Xwe79pr

Post 50
Xwe79pr-Post49 your views are political, and to be honest, rather offensive for the memory of Albert Einstein. This is proved beyond doubt by the fact that Prof. Santilli has dedicated four decades of his research life to honor Einstein's memory, while you could not care less to even read papers in the field.

In the 1998 paper Confirmation of the EPR Argument Santilli's new mathematics can be constructed by first year physics students in a truly elementary way. Per Santilli's basic assumption, Hadronic Mechanics (HM) in a non-unitary completion of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Therefore, as reviewed in the historical paper Confirmation of the EPR Argument, Santilli constructs the new math via a non-unitary transform W W /= I of the totality of of QM mat (you miss one map and you have inconsistencies). This allows Santilli to get his isounit U = w 1 W; his isoproduct W(AB)W, = A' T B', T = (W W,)- 1, U = 1/T > 0; his isonumbers W nW ;= nU; his Lie-isotopic product W[X,Y]W = X' T Y' - Y' T X', etc. Santilli then constructs the non-unitary completion of SU(2) in general and of Pauli's matrices in particular and puts T = Diag. (λ, λ-1) by introducing the concrete and explicit realization of hidden variable λ in Pauli's matrices even though Wet T = I. A tedious but elementary repetition of Bell's works shows that his inequality does not apply under isotopies and that maximal operator value can have indeed identical classical counterparts. Stating this is fancy is a lack of respect to Einstein's memory.

Regarding the need for the EPR completion of QM you again show a political intent quite offensive for Einstein's memory because you do throw judgments, yet have no technical knowledge in the field. In fact, Santilli has proved that the EPR completion of QM into HM certainly is not necessary for point particles in vacuum (exterior problem), but it is "necessary" for extended particles in condition of mutual penetration occurring in the structure of hadrons, nuclei and stars. In fact, thanks to HM, Santilli and his associates have achieved: the first and only known exact representation of nuclear magnetic moments (since they require a deformation of the charge distribution of nucleons - see Weisskopf - which is impossible for QM; the first and only known representation of nuclear spins, beginning with the spin 1 of the deuteron in the "ground state" which is represented in QM via a combination of "excited orbital states" (!!!); the first and only known representation of the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen which is impossible for QM since the mass of the neutron is "bigger" than the sum of the masses of the electron and of the proton and you cannot use relative energies for that; the first and only know synthesis of the negatively charged pseudoproton treated in this web site which is also totally inconceivable for QM, etc. Those are first achievements. Then you have a plethora of experiments dealing with interior problems whose numbers "have been adjusted" (so the guys say) to verify quantum predictions list is too long to be presented here. See the recent review http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf Additionally, Santilli has developed various cutting edge new technologies at the U. S. publicly traded company Thunder Energies Corporation, which technologies crucially depend on the validity of the EPR argument.Do you need more than that to honor the memory of Albert Einstein? Cwe46wp

Post 51
Pseudo-academicians who dismiss Santilli's proof of Einstein's most important prediction, the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, without technical presentations published in refereed journals, should just be ashamed of themselves. Mdf28ui

Post 52
I want to thank Cwe46wp - Post 50 for a very convincing introduction of Prof. Santilli's verification of the EPR argument. I agree with his and other posters that there is a serious problem at the Nobel Foundation for not having granted a Nobel Prize to Prof. Santilli even though he has been apparently nominated since 1987 http://www.santilli-foundation.org/santilli-nobel-nominations.html However, I want to cut out of my life these political angles and initiate a serious study of Santilli's proof of the EPR argument. Can you or somebody else provide me a guide through the main references and results? Thank you, sincerely. Hsd29ty

Post 53
Hi Hsd29ty / Post 52. You'r request is quite important. Here is what I know. In 1935, Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR) expressed their view that quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense that it does not admit a fully deterministic classical limit. This view then became known as the EPR Argument. Immediately following its appearance, Niels Bohr dismissed the EPR argument, which dismissal was subsequently confirmed by various treatments within the contest of thelocal realism including: J. S. Bell who dismissed the EPR argument via a famous inequality based on Pauli's matrices establishing that maximal quantum values are always smaller than their corresponding classical counterpart; J. Von Neumann Who confirmed the dismissal of the EPR argument via a theorem based on the uniqueness of the eigenvalues off Hermitean operators under all possible unitary transforms; and other treatments. Parallel arguments are based on the dismissal of the theory of hidden variables according to which quantum mechanics admits hidden degrees of freedom confirming the EPR argument.

In 1978, R. M. Santilli then at the Lyman Laboratory of Physics off Harvard University, pointed out the impossibility for quantum mechanics to represent the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen occurring the the core of stars because the rest energy of the neutron is 0.782 MeV bigger than the sum of the rest energies off the electron and the proton. In the 1978 paper Birth of Santilli's completion of quantum mechanics Santilli conjectured that said representation is possible for a non-unitary, axiom-preserving completion of quantum mechanics he called "hadronic mechanics" and proved the validity of his conjecture with the synthesis of the pi-zero meson from an electron and a positron where we have about 134 MeV "excess" rest energy. Subsequently, santilli dedicated four decades of research to prove the validity off the EPR arguments by writing over two hundred papers and ten monographs in the field (see the 2016 outline of Santilli's research) This research finally culminated in the 1998 Santill's proof of the EPR argument. (Which is Ref. [14] of the preceding review). Santilli main conceptual argument is that Bell''s inequality, von Neumann's theorem and related works are indeed correct, but under a number of tacit assumptions, such as the abstraction of particles as being point-like, the sole admission of linear, local and potential interactions, the representation via the strictly local Newton differential calculus, and others unidentified conditions.

Santilli then argues that, when:

1. Particles are represented as they are in the physical reality, that is, extended, thus deformable and hyperdense

2. Non-linear, non-local and non-potential interactions are admitted as expected in then structure of hadrons, nuclei and stars; and 3. Particles are represented via a systematic, non-unitary, axiom-preserving generalization of the totality of quantum formalism;

then Einstein's vision of the lack of completeness off quantum mechanics is fully valid.

As one can see, the above studies required a predictably long journey. Santilli first step was published in the monographs Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics, \Springer-Verlag, 1978 Volume I., Volume II.. Which established the validity of the theory of hidden variables by showing that said variables may occur at the level of the most basic mathematical operation, the associative product AB of observables, which product was lifted into the axiom- preserving form ATB, where T>0. Clearly, the quantity T, called the isotopic element, represents a degree of freedom fully hidden in the associative product which was proved twenty years later to characterize hidden variable λ confirming the EPR argument. By using such isotopic degree of freedom, when he moved to the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University, Santilli achieved a systematic completion of number theory, functional analysis, metric spaces, geometries, topologies, etc. Most important are: the isotopic completion of Lie's theory , see the latest paper Lie-Santilli isotheory; the axiom-preserving generalization of ordinary numbers n into new numbers n* = nU with arbitrary multiplicative unit U = 1/T > 0 called Santilli isonumbers;, and the isotopic completion of Newton's differential calculus achieving the transition from a local or the differential dr, into a covering Santilli isodifferential isocalculus. With the expression for the isodifferential d* of an isovariable r* = rU given by d*r* = dr + r T dU, which permits, for the first time in history, the transition from Newton's calculus defined at given points into Santilli isocalculus defined in volumes rep- Resented by the isotopic element T. Following, and only following the achievement of these discoveries, Santilli finally reached in 1998 Proof of the EPR argument. where it is shown that, under the indicated assumptions, isoeigenvalues of hadronic mechanics do indeed admit maximal values which identical classical counterpart.

More technically, thanks to the Lie-Santilli isotheory, Santilli identified for the first time in paper Proof of the EPR argument. the two infinite classes of regular and irregular isorepresentations of the isotopic SU(2)-spin algebra with commuters ATB - BTA, and constructed in particular the isotopies of Pauli's matrices, today known as at the Pauli-Santilli isomatrices. With the elementary realization T = Diag.(λ, λ-1) admit a clear, explicit and concrete realization of the theory off hidden variable λthat, in view of the property Det T = 1, persists even when the Pauli-Santilli isomatrices characterize a conventional spin 1/2. The proof of the "inapplicability" ("and not the violation " in Santilli's words) of von Neumann's theorem followed from the fact that quantum mechanics represents systems with only the Hamiltonian H, while hadronic mechanics need the Hamiltonian plus the isotopic operator T to represent systems, Therefore, a given observable in hadronic mechanics such as the energy of a particle, admits an infinite class of different values , all invariant under "isounitary" isotransforms, which values depend on the infinite class of different physical conditions of the particle considered (see Section 5 of the Proof of the EPR argument.) The identification of maximal values admitted by hadronic mechanics possessing identical classical counterparts was then consequential.

As an illustration, Santilli states that when a proton is abstracted as a point-particle and represented via the conventional, local differential calculus, said proton cannot possibly verify the EPR argument. However, when the same proton is in the core of a star or inside a black hole, the astronomical pressures under the conditions considered prevent any consistent formulation of Bell's inequality, von Neumann theorem, and related studies due to the emergence of non-linear, non-local and non-potential interaction s beyond any possible quantum treatment in favor of the full validity of the EPR argument. Finally, santilli has dedicated a number of additional years of research to show that the EPR completion of quantum mechanics is necessary for meaningful quantitative treatments of interior dynamical conditions in most off physical and chemical fields (see the New sciences for a new era. )

Santilli has stated various times I believe that, besides towering discoveries, the most important vision by Albert Einstein is the lack of completion of quantum mechanics because it may well trigger a new scientific renaissance encompassing all quantitative science. Vsd34uo.

Post 54
we79pr - Post 49 is right in stating that orthodox academicians do not accept Prof. Santilli's proof of the EPR argument. In fact, as it is well known, when he initiated his studies at Harvard in 1978, the three senior physicists there at that time, Weinberg, Glashow and Coleman publicly declared that "Santilli studies have no physical value." But this is a very shameful episode in the history of U. S. sciences because the attack were organized without the joint publication of the objections in refereed journals; Weinberg-Glasow-Coleman "objections" were immediately adopted by all their brother; resulting in a documented, world wide, organized obstruction of Prof,. Santilli research (under DOE support, mind you) that continues to this day, including three documented life threats, despite the evidence that all Prof. Santilli wanted to do was to honor Einstein's memory !, see the details in Prof. Santilli 1984 book and its three volumes of documentation Il Grande Grido with upgrades of the organized vexations available in The R. M. Santilli Foundation zfk10ty

Post 55
I believe that the very least the Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman ring should do is to release public apologies to Prof. Santilli. Vsd458po

Post 56
1. The current quantum theory is a consistent axiomatic system. It is impossible to find faults in formal logic. The century debate of Einstein and Bohr shows this fact. 2. According to Goedel's incompleteness theorem, a logical formal system cannot be complete even if it is consistent. Therefore, quantum theory is incomplete. 3. The incompletion of quantum theory is hidden in the fundamental principles. A) The physical meaning of the state function is controversial. B) The principle of state superposition allows different particles to overlap in space. This applies only to point-like particles and wave-like particles, not to extended particles. C) The Hamiltonian of the quantum system only represents the vibration mode, and the spin hypothesis is a patch added to the vibration mode. D) The essence of the state function is the classical probability describing the vibration morphology. The assumption of identical particles is inconsistent with the distingu ishabili ty of classical particles. 4. There are plenty of reasons to question quantum theory, but orthodox school and mainstream scholars refuse to recognize it. In addition to epistemological reasons, it also involves huge practical interests. Only a unified, complete and irrefutable new theory can bring this debate to an end. Csr37op Msd67i o

Post 57
Msd67i o / Post 56, you mean scientifically goo in your post, but you express comments without any knowledge of the axiom-preserving completion of quantumechanics into hadronic mechanics. What a pity for you! Csd65io