1932- A Watershed Year in Physics.


  • The year was 1932, in the brief interim between two world wars. The Great Depressionwas near its nadir. In the US, unemployment was approaching 25%. Charles Lindbergh’s baby was kidnapped and murdered, and Amelia Earhart became the first woman

    to fly solo across the Atlantic. Iraq was established as an independent country, and Franklin Roosevelt won the first of his four presidential elections. The American Institute of Physics was formally incorporated, and it appointed Harold Urey as the founding editor of its first journal, the Journal of Chemical Physics.

    Urey was a 39-year-old associate professor of chemistry at Columbia University in 1932. He got off to a quick start that year: On New Year’s Day, Physical Review published “A hydrogen isotope of mass 2,” a letter to the editor by Urey, Ferdinand Brickwedde, and George Murphy that reported the discovery of deuterium. That was the first of four monumental discoveries of 1932. The discoveries of the neutron, the positron, and the disintegration of nuclei by particle accelerators followed in quick succession. Those discoveries promptly transformed the understanding of nuclear structure and demonstrated the reality of antimatter. Six Nobel Prizes are directly traceable to the work done in that one annus mirabilis. In this article, we look back from today’s perspective at those discoveries and their consequences.


    1932_a_watershed_year_in_nuclear_physics (1).pdf

  • I think that since the glorious days of these discoveries, the atom science has not really progressed.

    Of course there are theories, new ideas, but nothing really revolutionary that has been formally proven.

    I think that the common error to all physicists is to decorrelate the understanding of small atomic scales from the biggest of astrophysics.

    Ok, There is the postulate of physic particles, but it looks like another concept of flat earth that reassures everyone in their intellectual comfort.

  • Harold Urey takes part in this 1960s

    NASA discussion on the Moon.

    Interesting that Professor Urey

    mentions that GK Guilford published

    a paper in 1892 writing about some

    of the same things about the moon

    that they are discussing.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Also interesting that Thomas Gold

    the other main speaker was part of

    a three person team that came up

    with this theory about the Universe.


    https://sc663henad.weebly.com/steady-state-theory.html

  • Thank you for reminding ... But I want to upset you ... You wrote - "The discoveries of the neutron, the positron, and the disintegration of nuclei by particle accelerators followed in quick succession. Those discoveries promptly transformed the understanding of nuclear structure and demonstrated the reality of antimatter. Six Nobel Prizes are directly traceable to the work done in that one annus mirabilis. In this article, we look back from today's perspective at those discoveries and their consequences. " Andersen, who discovered the positron in 1932, brought a theoretical virus into our physics and he did it out of ignorance of WHAT happened later in physics ... But what happened? In 1933, they discovered the electron's own magnetic moment ... Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck predicted the electron's own magnetic moment ... In 1947, they discovered the electron's own magnetic moment, i.e. 15 years after the positron was discovered ... But the 21st century came and in 2018, after analyzing Andersen's experiments, I came to the conclusion that there was no positron in his experiment, but two electrons flew - one of them flew north magnetic pole forward, and the second flew with the south magnetic pole forward ... For this reason, the first electron deflected to the south magnetic pole of the permanent magnet, and the second electron deflected to the north magnetic pole of the permanent magnet ... This analysis was not easy ... Now it became clear why neutron decay has two options for execution ... See model below. Thus, there is no antimatter in nature - physicists have fantasized ...


  • I draw your attention to how strange physics developed under the pressure of AUTHORITIES, who, in their vanity interests, imposed their fake mathematics on physicists ... But what about physicists? They did not want to listen to them ... And the questions of physics were not asked for children ...

    It was physicists who noticed this oddity - the ratio of charge to mass of an electron turned out to be 1836 times greater than the ratio of charge to mass of a proton ... And P.Kash in his article -

    The proper moment of the electron, P. Kasch, 1967 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/3Ss3/2KvF6UJP4


    The proper moment of the electron, P. Kasch, 1967 - https://drive.google.com/file/…LIGGJcK3/view?usp=sharing


    noticed it -

    “Sir J.J. Thomson, one of the greatest experimental physicists of his time, is credited with the discovery of the electron in 1897. However, despite all his achievements, Thomson did not discover the electron. In fact, with the help of an ingenious experiment, he showed that the carrier of negative charge in an electric current, whatever it may be, has a constant and, according to the ideas of that time, an unexpectedly large ratio of charge to mass. Although Thomson knew approximately the magnitude of the electron's charge, he could not provide conclusive evidence that it was the charge that remained constant. "


    From the point of view of today, discussing the article by Yuri Yurikov, it is important for us to understand this ... Why? And because the "sick" Cherepanov, on the basis of the above, doubted that there is a designated "electrostatic" charge in nature ... For the mathematician, all these doubts are "to the light of the day" ... And doubts gnaw at me - the same substance cannot - in this case the mathematical hypothesis of the existence of a quark does not count, rotating in the same direction to have the same charge with such an impressive difference in the mass of an electron and a proton - 1: 1836 ...


    The article was written in 1967 ... It is not difficult to notice that between the lines there is clearly read “pressure from authorities” on Polykarp Kusch. He worked on molecular beam resonance research under I.I. Rabi and then discovered an electronic anomalous magnetic moment.

    These lines in the article are written for AUTHORITIES -

    “The next step in describing the properties of an electron was made by SA Goudsmit and GE Uhlenbeck 2 in 1925. They introduced two postulates: a) the electron has an internal angular momentum equal to h / 4π; b) it has a magnetic moment equal to eh / 4πmc. The latter quantity is called Bohr's magneton, which is usually denoted by μ0. If the spin magnetic moment of the electron is denoted by μβ, then μβ = μ0.

    The postulates of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck were extremely important for the development of physical concepts on an atomic scale. They were put forward on the basis of a critical analysis of the optical spectra of atoms and, in particular, the spectra observed in the Zeeman effect. Like all really important physical ideas, they were not a consequence of the theory then existing. They were put forward ad hoc (arbitrarily) because they were consistent with the available data and could be verified through appropriate experiments. These postulates undoubtedly belong to the really great ideas of physics. Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck have done more than anyone since, and possibly before, to our understanding of the electron. In 1928, P. A. M. Dirac formulated relativistically invariant quantum mechanics. Both Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck's statements have been shown to be consequences of Dirac's quantum mechanics. "

    That is why P. Kasch stepped on his "swan song" and lied to himself by writing - "... both statements of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck are consequences of the quantum mechanics of Dirac." Why?

    It is clear to physicists, as on a sunny cloudless day, that the statements of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck are a consequence of the physical manifestations of the rotational motion of an electron and nothing more ... What does Dirac's quantum mechanics have to do with it? By the way, before his death, Pauli "surrendered" and agreed that the spin is the electron's own magnetic moment ... Pauli surrendered ... It was Pauli who introduced the concept of magnetic moment into nuclear physics ... In 1921, Pauli was the first to propose the Bohr magneton as a unit of measurement of the magnetic moment ".

    Physics developed very, very strangely in those years - 20s ... It is important for us living today to study it in order to know the origins of pseudoscience and pseudo-physics ...

  • Here is an excerpt from an article - the very physicist about whom Polycarp Kush said - "These postulates undoubtedly belong to the really great ideas of physics." -

    “Discovery of the electron spin, S.A. Goudsmit "- https://ilorentz.org/history/spin/goudsmit.html

    This article, from my point of view, should be re-read by every physicist in order to understand how the sound reasoning of classical physicists was as a result crushed by the phantasmagoric fabrications of the supporters of "quantum (mathematical) mechanics" ... Read -

    “Anyway, when he made his comment, I was lucky that I knew all these things about spectra, and then I said, 'This fits into our hydrogen scheme, which we wrote about four weeks ago. And if we now allow the electron to be magnetic with the corresponding magnetic moment, then we can understand all these complex Zeeman effects. They come naturally, just like Lande's formulas and that's it, it works great. "

    Have you read it? Have considered ... "the electron should be magnetic" ... What is it? This means that the electron must have and this is so and the network - and the north magnetic pole and the south magnetic pole ...

    “And it was: rotation; so it was revealed, this way. Of course, we told Ehrenfest about it, and then the summer ended and I went to Amsterdam again, and various episodes followed. Naturally, I found this wonderful, because in the formalism I knew it matched perfectly. And I could not imagine strict physics behind this. But Uhlenbeck, being a good physicist, began to think about it. ...... "A charge that rotates" ......? "

    Goudsmit, a mathematician more than a physicist, admitted that Uhlenbeck, being a classical physicist, and not being a mathematician and not knowing about quantum mechanics, showed him the physics of the electron - its rotation !!!

    Why is P.Kash lying ??? He lies and slips this bullshit - "... that both statements of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck are consequences of Dirac's quantum mechanics." Is that clear to you ???

    And further P.Kash writes -

    "From arbitrary assumptions, they became part of a magnificent creation of the human mind, the correctness of which has been brilliantly confirmed by a series of experimental results."

    This is how they distorted real physics and replaced it with quantum "mathematics" ...

    Guys ! The events described took place in 1924 ... Where is the BOR this very magnetic moment and rotational motion of the electron? He's gone! Why not ? But because Bohr's report was made in 1920 ... And in 1922 he became a Nobel laureate - a fake laureate, in fact, since his model of the hydrogen atom was NOT TRUE already in 1924 !!! But the Jews went their own way! "


    Then I posted another comment -


    “Dear physicist lost in three pines!

    You wrote, as you probably think, "smart" phrases -

    "It is natural to ask why the super-energetic positron does not instantly annihilate in the gas, what makes it 'untouchable'?"

    "Thanks to Pauli's ban, the positron will" push apart "the entire gas atoms, freeing the way and providing a vacuum on its way."

    “It is noticeable that the trajectory of a clear lightning is not a stepped broken line, as in an ordinary discharge, but a curiously curving curve. This may mean that the thermally ionized channel of such lightning is created by a single charged ultrahigh energy particle. The shape of this type of lightning is similar to the trajectory of a particle. "

    Especially for you in this "thread" I have brought a quote - "The discovery of the electron spin, S.А. Goudsmit "- https://ilorentz.org/history/spin/goudsmit.html

    “Anyway, when he made his comment, I was lucky that I knew all these things about spectra, and then I said, 'This fits into our hydrogen scheme, which we wrote about four weeks ago. And if we now allow the electron to be magnetic with the corresponding magnetic moment, then we can understand all these complex Zeeman effects. They come out naturally, just like Lande's formulas and everything, it works great. "

    “And it was: rotation; so it was revealed, this way. Of course, we told Ehrenfest about it, and then the summer ended and I went to Amsterdam again, and various episodes followed. Naturally, I found this wonderful, because in the formalism I knew it matched perfectly. And I could not imagine strict physics behind this. But Uhlenbeck, being a good physicist, began to think about it. ...... "A charge that rotates" ......? "

    Pay attention to these "golden" words - "... if now we allow the electron to be magnetic with the corresponding magnetic moment ..."

  • An electron is a magnet that has magnetic poles - is that clear? Goudsmit says this ... Anderson in 1932 did not know about this statement of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck ... ??? Then there was no Internet and other delights of communication ... If he knew about it, he would have thought in 1932 - Is it a positron ...? But that's not all ... And the pressure of AUTHORITIES? And Dirac with his mathematics? After all, he predicted the existence of the positron with his MATHEMATICS ...

    From Wikipedia -

    “In 1928-1929 Dirac was busy building an adequate relativistic theory of the electron. The existing approach based on the Klein - Gordon equation did not satisfy it: this equation includes the square of the operator of differentiation in time, therefore it cannot be consistent with the usual probabilistic interpretation of the wave function and with the general theory of transformations developed by Dirac. His goal was an equation that is linear in the differentiation operator and, at the same time, relativistically invariant. Several weeks of work led him to a suitable equation, for which he had to enter matrix operators of 4x4 size. The wave function must also have four components. The resulting equation (Dirac's equation) turned out to be very successful, since it naturally includes the electron spin and its magnetic moment. "

    Only here we are talking about the magnetic moment as a result of the rotation of the electron in its orbit ... And Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck were talking about the rotation of the electron's body ... Feel this GREAT difference!

    “The article“ Quantum theory of the electron ”[39], sent to print in January 1928, also contained a calculation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom based on the obtained equation, which turned out to be in full agreement with the experimental data.

    After the appearance of the Dirac equation, it became clear that it contains one significant problem: in addition to two states of the electron with different spin orientations, the four-component wave function contains two additional states characterized by negative energy. In experiments, these states are not observed, however, the theory gives a finite probability of the transition of an electron between states with positive and negative energies. (I am tired of denouncing these rogues - mathematicians who have negative energy - this is not in nature.) Attempts to artificially exclude these transitions have led nowhere. Finally, in 1930, Dirac took the next important step: he assumed that all states with negative energy are occupied ("Dirac's sea"), which corresponds to a vacuum state with minimum energy. If the state with negative energy turns out to be free ("hole"), then a particle with positive energy is observed. When an electron passes into a state with negative energy, the "hole" disappears, that is, annihilation occurs. From general considerations it followed that this hypothetical particle should be identical to the electron in everything, except for the electric charge opposite in sign. "

    This is a positron ... which Anderson allegedly discovered later ...

    “At that time such a particle was not known, and Dirac did not dare to postulate its existence [41]. Therefore, in his work "Theory of electrons and protons" [42] (1930), he suggested that such a particle is a proton, and its massiveness is due to Coulomb interactions between electrons.

    Soon, Weil showed from considerations of symmetry that such a "hole" cannot be a proton, but must have the mass of an electron. Dirac agreed with these arguments and pointed out that then there must exist not only a "positive electron" or antielectron, but also a "negative proton" (antiproton) [43]. Antielectron was discovered several years later. The first evidence of its existence in cosmic rays was obtained by Patrick Blackett, but while he was busy checking the results, in August 1932, Karl Anderson independently discovered this particle, which was later called the positron [41].

    This is how physics developed ... 15 years later, P. Kasch discovered (?) Predicted by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit the own magnetic moment of the electron ... It would seem that this is the moment to revise all the previous experiments and a reason to start correctly interpreting what Anderson received in 1932 ... But no ... Nobody paid attention to the electron and the fact that it is essentially a "magnet" with magnetic poles ...

    Pauli's ban is a fake, since a positron is the same electron, but Pauli in 1925 did not know this, and most importantly - it turns out that he did not know about the work of Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit -

    "The exclusion principle was formulated for electrons by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925 while working on a quantum-mechanical interpretation of the anomalous Zeeman effect and was subsequently extended to all particles with half-integer spin."

  • This is how Goudsmit describes these events -

    “Well, Ehrenfest soon found out that I was not a theorist and then sent me to Amsterdam. Three days a week I worked as an assistant at Zeeman, and in those days it was different. For example, on Wednesday night I took the train back to Leiden and then felt I had to switch; the jokes that everyone heard and told in Amsterdam could not be used in Leiden. This was not done; they weren't right enough. It was pretty friendly in Amsterdam. Professor Zeeman, of course, was somewhat more formal than I am used to.

    And I did something else at that time. Pauli's principle was published in early 1925 [3]. I am convinced that although this is one of the most important publications in the field of physics, it will be difficult for the younger generation who are reading it to understand. Even he will not understand all this. And I wrote a note in May [4] that Pauli's principle became clearer with the introduction of different quantum numbers. "

    The question arises - why did the views of both Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit not affect Pauli and the entire physical community ??? I think the reason is simple - they, with their ideas about the electron as a magnet with its own magnetic moment, destroyed the Niels Bohr model and everything, everything, everything - it's easier to say "Jewish physics" ... This phrase of Goudsmit sounds strange in his memoirs - "And I wrote in May a note [4] that Pauli's principle became clearer with the introduction of different quantum numbers. " Thus, recalling, Goudsmit is in no way indignant at the fact that in all modern formulas in which we are talking about the total energy of the electron there is no question that the electron has rotational motion around its own axis, has the "rotational energy" of rotation around its own axis, the electron has something in its body that plays the role of a current, the electron behaves like a trivial magnet and therefore has its own magnetic field, and therefore there are no "billiard interactions" between electrons, but there are magnetic interactions, and therefore between the proton, which also has a rotational motion around its own axis, and there are no "billiard interactions" for the electron, but there are magnetic interactions, and therefore there are no "billiard interactions" between the proton and the proton, but there are magnetic interactions ...

    I read the translation of GUGL from English and this is what I read - Goudsmit writes and writes quite frankly and self-critically -

    “You people don't know that such a change was necessary, but Pauli introduced different quantum numbers. As the mathematician said, the change was a simple linear transformation - which is trivial, mathematically, of course, trivial, but not for understanding and learning.

    Well, I introduced these quantum numbers, but if I were a good physicist, then already in May 1925 I would have noticed that this implies that the electron has a spin. But I was not a good physicist, I was not a good physicist, and therefore I did not realize it. "

    How do I understand this translation? Goudsmit confesses to us that he was more of a mathematician than a physicist ... As mathematics, he was captured by Pauli's “mathematical paradigm” - he was captured by the “mathematical construction” and at the same time he did not notice that in fact this mathematics came into conflict with that physics , which they discovered with Uhlenbeck ... He could not see WHERE was the catch ... But instead ... he writes -

    “One of the first results that came out was a new interpretation of the hydrogen spectrum. We had a Sommerfeld hydrogen spectrum, and for formal reasons and because I was researching all these things, we got a new interpretation of the hydrogen spectrum. "

  • For some reason, Goudsmit could not inscribe in this new interpretation the property of the electron - to have magnetic poles and its own magnetic field, which Uhlenbeck actually spoke about, and instead he was carried away by Pauli's idea - it was pure mathematics without physics ... But ... Then this mathematics "Made" by physics - "quantum physics" ... Is that clear? And now it will be easier for you to understand the meaning of the divergence of views between Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit and not even views, but approaches to the interpretation of the same physical phenomenon and the same physical results - Uhlenbeck had a "physical" approach, while Goudsmit had a "mathematical " an approach -

    “When the day came, I had to tell Uhlenbeck about Pauli's principle — using my own quantum numbers, of course — then he told me, 'But don't you understand what that means? This means that there is a fourth degree of freedom for the electron. This means that the electron has a spin, that it rotates. "Now I can also tell you exactly the difference between Uhlenbeck and me as physicists. In those days, all summer, when I told Uhlenbeck about Land and Heisenberg, for example, or about Paschen, he asked: "Who is this?" He had never heard of them, it's strange. And when he said: "This means the fourth degree of freedom", then I asked him: "What is the degree of freedom?" Anyway, when he made his remark, I was lucky that I knew all these things about spectra, and then I said, "This fits into our hydrogen scheme, which we wrote about four weeks ago. And if we now allow the electron to be magnetic with the corresponding magnetic moment, you can understand all these complex Zeeman effects. They come naturally, just like Lande's formulas and everything, it works great. "

    “Lande's factor (gyromagnetic factor, sometimes also g-factor) is a factor in the formula for splitting energy levels in a magnetic field, which determines the scale of splitting in relative units. A special case of a more general g-factor. "


    1921… Well, Lande could not predict that the electron has its own magnetic moment! This discovery was made by Polycarp Kush 26 years later ... But Lande could have read the article of Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit in 1925 ... It was somehow unpleasant for me to read these lines - "They come out naturally, just like Lande's formulas and that's it, it works great." - Obviously Goudsmit "was playing with his soul" and lying, writing these lines, since Lande's formula never takes into account the rotation of the electron's body at all ... Is that clear? By the way, Lande was a student of Sommerfeld ... From Wikipedia -

    “Uhlenbeck's open-mindedness and freshness of perception when he took up atomic problems, his many skeptical remarks and clever questions led us to a number of new significant results ... <> ... as physicists, Uhlenbeck and I were not like each other. This is best explained with the following simplified example. When I told him about Lande's g-factors, he asked, much to my surprise: "Who is Lande?" When he mentioned the four degrees of freedom of the electron, I asked him: "What is the degree of freedom?"

  • Let's carefully examine the delusions of the physicist Lande ... "L is the value of the orbital momentum of an atom ..." You can write any nonsense - the paper will endure ... Two mathematicians - Sommerfeld and Lande, understood nature this way - this is a purely mathematical approach ... And now a question for you physicists - you can today , 100 years after the delusions of the mathematicians of these mathematicians, ask ourselves - "And what such forces are generated by nature in order to form the value of the orbital angular momentum?" I confidently declare, referring to FM Kanarev, that the electron has no rotational orbital motion! Convince me! Show me where Kanarev is wrong, where I am mistaken ... As a physicist, I do not understand what forces make the electron rotate along some unthinkable trajectories around the nucleus ... Since 1977 it is not clear to me what forces accelerate a free electron in matter, i.e. WHAT drives an electron in intermolecular space? For 100 years, physicists have not presented us a mechanism - a source of motion, a free electron in the intermolecular space a second before the "binding" of this electron by the nucleus of an atom ... Intermolecular space and molecular space appear to us in the following form - protons in the nucleus rotate around their axis - have a magnetic moment , have their own magnetic field and have their own magnetic poles, bound electrons rotate around their axis - have a magnetic moment, have their own magnetic field and have their own magnetic poles, my question is their orbital motion, free electrons in intermolecular space rotate around their axis - have magnetic moment, have their own magnetic field and have their own magnetic poles ... Where and how do the FORCES arise that move the electron before binding it? In the physical chemistry of the microworld, these forces are indicated - these are magnetic forces ... If you "old physicists" do not recognize this mechanism, then imagine your mechanism ... But it does not exist!

    "S is the value of the spin moment of the atom ..." And this is WHAT? Where are those FORCES, where did they come from for the atom to rotate ???

  • How do you explain the intermolecular bonds between two rotating atoms? But you cannot explain it in any way! Find a source of STR generation! GENERATION! Mathematicians slipped you MATH, not physics ... Do you understand this? They slipped it 100 years ago ... Like idiots, you believe in this "magic"! Now, be careful ... It is clear that such uncomfortable questions have been asked by many over the course of these hundred years ... And therefore they add THIS -

    "This formula is valid in the case of LS-bond, that is, for light atoms."

    Dismissed ... But did not indicate the "limit" of "light atoms" ... But that's not all ... And now look at what is actually happening - physicists and mathematicians in physics wanted to sneeze that "the formula is valid in the case of LS-connection , that is, for light atoms "... Above is an excerpt from the article by Polycarp Kush, in which he discusses the Lande factor ... But are neon-20 and neon-22 light atoms? Not at all ... Mathematical formalism - meaningless mathematical formalism allows these "smart guys" to calculate, calculate, calculate ... You can revise thousands of different articles, books and publications in which physicists and mathematicians spit on this limitation and calculate and calculate the g-factor ... They are these clever people are not preoccupied and are not puzzled by the questions - "How do the atoms of neon rotate?", "Where do the forces that rotate the atoms of neon come from?"

    But something else is surprising ... Polycarp Kush wrote his article in 1967 ... Why did this physicist, who discovered the electron's own magnetic moment, in no way revise his attitude to the model of the hydrogen atom, to the experiment of Stern and Gerlach, and most importantly his attitude to the g-factor ...? In my opinion, the discovery of an electron's own magnetic moment is a real revolution in physics ... But ... Authorities ... And the main community of AUTHORITIES ... If you are not with us, then against us ... This must be understood and no one canceled this ... Note the discovery of P. Kush left its mark - Bak M.A. and Romanov Yu.F. write the following - "Since each of these particles is charged and rotates around its own axis, there must be a kind of current."

    Why didn't these ideas get further development? "... a kind of current" ... What is it? Is it the movement of the etheric elements? I came to the conclusion that it is so ... But modern publications do not have this ...

    Andrey Gryaznov - The violation of common sense in physics began with the refusal of the ether -

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    In order for us to more accurately understand the historical delusions of physicists, let's analyze an excerpt from this article - Sommerfeld was mistaken for quite objective reasons - lack of knowledge -

    “Generalized quantum conditions for periodic systems admitting separation of variables were formulated by Wilson and Sommerfeld in the form

    ∫pndq = nh, (1)

    where on the left is the phase integral for the variable q (- coordinate). "

    This is pure math! And unfortunately, our academic science today allows itself such pranks, namely, to detach the coordinate from time and allow the "separation of variables" ... Nobody wants to investigate the harmfulness of such a voluntaristic approach! And only Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich rebelled against this fornication! There are no phenomena in nature where the coordinate would not depend on time ... Therefore, the above integral is the "intrigues" of mathematicians of that time ... They introduced this fornication into physics!

  • Can you also contribute something that can be verified?


    GR,QM/QED are flawed because these models are based on flat orbits. In nature there are no flat orbits. This was clear in 1915 and the solution has been shown by Sommerfeld-Klein. But the math was to complicated at that time so the simplifiers like Bohr and Schrödiger took over. After WWII even bigger simplifiers took over (English only - not able to read German books - with English covers..) and the nonsense is now mainstream.

  • I present here my 4 articles written in Russian. Sorry gentlemen, there is no time to translate into English.

    The deep delusions of Niels Bohr are outlined by me in my articles - "The history of the delusion of old physicists, September 25, 2018.doc" - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Mwxa/y4hgXQCA3

    and

    "What pseudoscientists of the whole world do not know, October 2, 2018.doc" - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/HJcC/SxeYUq5nD


    "On the fatal delusions of mathematicians in elementary particle physics, October 11, 2018.doc" - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8Dx3/4gCuoemrD


    "Fatal delusions of Kanarev, Shevelev, Chernyak, Okun and Khrapko, November 24, 2018.doc" - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5GLN/d1aYKtCmh

  • Above, I presented several comments ... These are excerpts from my article, which is also written in Russian ... I am not an anti-Semite, but I am against the "Jewish" physics of vanity ...

    Open letter to A.I. Cherepanov physical community, 22 March 2020. - https://drive.google.com/file/…m3rSLy0R/view?usp=sharing

    Open letter to A.I. Cherepanov physical community, 22 March 2020. - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4TW7/2QjEi4B6M

    Thank you for your understanding to those who are reading these lines!

  • Sorry Cherepanov2020 : Your assumption that the speed of a photon starts at 0 is nonsense. All mass is EM mass and a photon is bound EM mass and thus at light speed also inside a nucleus/orbit. EM flux may join and split that is what absorption/resorption is about.

    In fact the speed of light is given by bound EM mass!

    There is also no contradiction between math and physics. Import is that the experiment tells whether the math is valid or not!

    Of course all solutions found between 1900 and now are first order approximations only. The main reason is that people cannot escape their brain that sees space and time and so physics is still in Kindergarden. The SO(4) based model is a first step to the give the true physical orbits and explains most functions of nuclear mass and the magnetic orbits. You have to learn/understand it else you will make no progress.

  • Sorry Cherepanov2020 : Your assumption that the speed of a photon starts at 0 is nonsense. All mass is EM mass and a photon is bound EM mass and thus at light speed also inside a nucleus/orbit. EM flux may join and split that is what absorption/resorption is about.

    In fact the speed of light is given by bound EM mass!

    There is also no contradiction between math and physics. Import is that the experiment tells whether the math is valid or not!

    Of course all solutions found between 1900 and now are first order approximations only. The main reason is that people cannot escape their brain that sees space and time and so physics is still in Kindergarden. The SO(4) based model is a first step to the give the true physical orbits and explains most functions of nuclear mass and the magnetic orbits. You have to learn/understand it else you will make no progress.

    Dear opponent! No need to impose your opinion on me ... For me, there is no movement in nature that does not start at zero speed ... For me, my other opinion is nothing more than telling "fairy tales" for the night for silly children ... The same applies to a photon .. A photon is emitted by an electron - ie. from the body of the electron or from the body of the electron some part of it is separated - part of the mass of the electron ... This part of the electron must have both geometry and shape ... In the paradigm of "physical chemistry of the microworld Kanarev FM" these are "magnetic rings" there are six of them ... Thus, the formation of a photon has at least 6 stages ... The final stage is the final formation of a photon, 6 rings of which, as it were, symbolize the faces of a hexahedron ... As soon as the photon is the mass of the photon, gathered into its structure, then from this moment a POWER starts to be generated, about which you do not think at all and do not control it - it is this force that accelerates the photon from zero speed to the speed of light - this is physics ... But in mathematics it is different .. There is formalism and you can formally write on paper that a photon has the speed of light, while mathematics does not care at all WHAT this speed of a photon comes from ... I am against mathematical formalism - a photon cannot have a speed "from the ceiling" by magic ! It's clear ? Study the "physical chemistry of the microworld" and do not impose your theory on me ... Don't impose mathematics on me ... I am a physicist ... So I continue to insist that the photon, when it is born, starts from zero speed. So far I do not see any arguments on your part against this phenomenon.

  • Read for example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2878-4


    «Although astronomical observations of primordial deuterium abundance have reached percent accuracy3, theoretical predictions4,5,6 based on BBN are hampered by large uncertainties on the cross-section of the deuterium burning D(p,γ)3He reaction. Here we show that our improved cross-sections of this reaction lead to BBN estimates of the baryon density at the 1.6 percent level, in excellent agreement with a recent analysis of the cosmic microwave background7. Improved cross-section data were obtained by exploiting the negligible cosmic-ray background deep underground at the Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics (LUNA) of the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (Italy)8,9. We bombarded a high-purity deuterium gas target10 with an intense proton beam from the LUNA 400-kilovolt accelerator11 and detected the γ-rays from the nuclear reaction under study with a high-purity germanium detector.”


    Have you read it? And now the question ... Show me the source of FORCES in nature, which, by analogy with this experiment - "We bombarded a high-purity deuterium gas target with an intense proton beam from the LUNA 400-kilovolt accelerator", can also accelerate protons ... Tell me this source and explain to me the physics of generating THIS POWER. I am sure that you will try to do this and fail, because there is no such acceleration in nature ... Why is that? That is why magnetic interactions dominate in nature and it is the magnetic FORCES that can and act on the proton ... But ... But nature does not build accelerators - this is the work of man, not nature ... So what do these researchers want to understand then? And they will never understand anything, since their accelerators are useless toys of physicists ...

  • . I am against mathematical formalism - a photon cannot have a speed "from the ceiling" by magic !

    Magentic flux can only travel at light speed also inside media where it has to take longer paths like seen in optics. So the light speed does never decrease the path for the flux (light) gets longer in relation to the external path.

    There is a tiny truth in what you say as all bound flux generates a topological charge that is stationary relative to the flux. On photon emission the field energy of this binding charge does not get accelerated it just expands the space for the area the photon stays in. Seen from "inside out" - radially - there is a kind of movement relative to the frame of the external observer. But this is not an acceleration as teh photon flux just moves from r1 ---> r2. r2 is the radius where the flux mass no longer can be bound. Relativistic frames always have a strict border.