I am pleased to see very interesting post on Hadronic Mechanics (HM) and would like to indicate the following. According to the originator, R. M. Santilli, Quantum Mechanics (QM) is exactly valid for point particles and elm waves propagating in vacuum, because in these cases the linearity, local-differential and Hamiltonian character of the mathematics underlying QM applies exactly, and the experimental confirmations are written in history. However, again according to Santilli's view, interior dynamical, problems are generalist nonlinear, nonlocal-integral and non-Hamiltonian, as it is the case for the dynamics within the hyperdense media in the interior of hadrons, nuclei and stars. To achieve a quantitative representation, Santilli had to first work our appropriate mathematics, today called iso-, geno- and hyper-mathematics [introductory lectures can be viewed from Level II of www.world-lecture-series.org]. This took decades. After achieving an invariant description of the broader systems considered, Santilli passed to the construction of three branches of HM for matter and the corresponding three for antimatter, to many to discuss here. In essence, systems are separated into: 1)Closed-isolated single value and time reversible; 2) Open single value and time irreversible; and 3) Open multi-valued and time irreversible. To achieve invariance [prediction of the same numerical values under the same conditions at different times] you need a specialized mathematics, each one being the covering of the preceding one, the simplest, isomathematics, admitting the mathematics of QM as a trivial particular case. The entire process is repeated via an anti-Hermitean map called by Santilli isoduality, which allows the formulation of antimatter,m for the first time, at all levels, from Newton to second quantization [now we only have a formulation at the level of second quantization, but then we do not know whether we can see antimatter asteroids with Sun light. I made all this verbose introduction to attempt to convey my own experience to fellow posters for whatever its value and with no expectation whatsoever fellow posters should agree. QM is used today to represent the totality of events in nature. This is politics in my view. In reality, QM works indeed very well for the systems of the original conceptions (H atom, particle in accelerators, etc.). However, for more complex systems QM has been applied thanks to true man stipulations. This is the case of the Bose-Einstein correlation in which guys have to introduce "four" arbitrary parameters to achieve a fit of data, and then claim QM as being exact. Unfortunately for them and for science, a two-point correlation function has two-dimensional expectation values of Hermitean, thus diagonal operators. Consequently, the need for "four" arbitrary quantities is a direct evidence, verification and certification that the Bose-Einstein correlation is not treatable with QM. By comparison, Santilli's HM has achieved an exact numerical representation from first principle with the reconstruction as exact at the isotopic level of the basic Lorentz symmetry [there is no more that a serious scientist should ask for]. This is the case for countless interior dynamical systems, including the valence bond of two electrons in singlet for which guys have to throw in arbitrary "functions" let alone parameter to reach any representation. Finally, and this is the main motivation of my post, there are numerous systems in which QM can do nothing of nothing g in my v view and experience. How are these systems treated by academia? By ignoring them. One of these latter cases is the synthesis of the neutron from a proton and an electron inside a star. Since then mass of the n neutron is bigger than the sum of the masses of the proton and the electron., Schroedinger equation is inconsistent (since you would need a "positive" binding energy). In this case again, Santilli has shown that the nonunitary-isotopic lifting of Schrodinger's equation for the hydrogen atom permits an exact, numerical, and invariant representation of "all" characteristics of the neutron, and not only its mass, as a hadronic bound state of a proton an d an electron. This is the clear cut example I wanted to touch in this post because it cuts out politics. Science is a quantitative discipline. If we do not represent event numerically and invariant we do epistemology or politics. Then, QM is clearly cut out of science for the neutron synthesis in favor for the covering HM. The literature is quite vast. A nice review for the sole case of the synthesis of the n neutron is the long article by J. Kadeisvili, ":The Rutherford-0Santilli Neutron" available in pdf format from http://www.i-b-r.org/Rutherford-Santilli-II.pdf and in htlm format at http://www.i-b-r.org/Rutherford_Santilli_neutron.htm. I must agree with Santilli that "physics will never admit terminal theories. no matter how perfect a given theory may appear at a given point in time, its structural generalization for broader conditions is only a matter of time."
Moby
Re: Hadronic Mechanics Revolution
Hi there everyone!
There is a beautiful and elegant symmetry allied to certain crystal lattices in many metals. Einstein was indeed aware of this, and the elements that produced unusual crystal field stabilization energies were the key. Such lattices exhibit certain unusual hybrid d-orbitals that can be energized to produce new elements from within certain structures using deuterons and sometimes tritium; by the use of electricity and magnetism, but unfortunately there is no need for a plasma (apologies).The new binding energy is supplied from the hybrid orbitals and the nucleons are clamped inside the lattice by means of an anomalous Hall Effect spin-induced out of plane magnetic moment. As the new atoms form there is excess energy. I think.
Has anyone herein looked at deuterium and tritium, with this new thing?
