Institute for Basic Research

Main Page | Table of Contents | Journals | Subscriptions | Submissions | Monographs | IBR Grants | IBR Conferences | Hadronic Mechanics | Latest Discoveries | About Us | CV of IBR Members | E-Mail Us




Qualified colleagues are invited to express their views in this Forum by sending them to Only technical arguments in favor or against conventional theories will be admitted when expressed in the appropriate scientific language. Argument based on scientific authority or the discrediting of dissident views, will not be accepted. Please specify whether the comments and/or the name and/or the affiliation should be kept confidential.

We have available a limited number of complimentary copies of post Ph. D. level monographs by Prof. R. M. Santilli and other scientists in the field of this Forum in addition to the 900 pages long monograph Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Vol. III: Recent Developments, Experimental verifications and Industrial Applications, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, in press, available in preliminary pdf formats at, plus the summary web site, and numerous technical papers that can be downloaded from following search under "Santilli" and other authors. For any need of complimentary copies of available monographs or papers not available in the web, please contact Mrs. Pamela Fleming at

November 14, 2006,
Ruggero Maria Santilli

The Institute for Basic Research
P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34683, U.S.A.
CV at

The author would like to express sincere appreciation to Burton Richter for his courageous denounciation of the current condition of particle physics as essentially being "theological speculations."

At the same time the author would like to lament that Richter did not enter with sufficient technical depth into the ultimate origin of the ongoing crisis in particle physics because, in so doing, he becomes part of the problem.

As well known, our planet is afflicted by increasingly cataclysmic climactic changes whose solution requires new clean energies and fuels. But all industrially meaningful new energies and fuels based on conventional theories had been discovered by the middle of the 20-th century.

Hence, the solution of said environmental problems crucially depends on the identification of the conditions of unequivocal applicability of the doctrines of the 20-th century, as well as the broader conditions under which they are at best approximately valid, thus permitting the search of broader vistas for much needed basic advances.

The author has often indicated in his papers that Special Relativity (SR) has a majestic mathematical structure as well as historical verifications for the conditions originally conceived by Einstein and limpidly identified in his writing, namely, for point-like particles and electromagnetic waves propagating in vacuum, thus including relativistic treatments of the hydrogen atom, particle accelerators, and similar systems.

Admittedly, doubts on the final character of SR within the arena of its original conception have been voiced for about one century, and have lately increased particularly in view of what is becoming the ultimate scientific frontier of basic research, the conception of space as a universal medium.

Nevertheless, SR works well for systems verifying its original conditions, such as for particle accelerators. Also, these conditions have no known relevance for the solution of current environmental problems. Consequently, we believe that the first reason for the ongoing "theological speculations" is the widespread lack of attention on the limitations of SR for physical conditions beyond these of its original conception and experimental verification, as outlined below.

ANTIMATTER: SR (as well as General Relativity, see below) provides no meaningful classical representation of antimatter, in which field it should be considered "inapplicable," rather than "violated," because antimatter had yet to be discovered at the time of conception of the theory.

This limitation is established by the absence of any classical distinctions between neutral systems of matter and antimatter (that are particularly important for stars). Even for the case of charged particles it is easy to see the inconsistency of the classical treatment (essentially done via the sole change of the sign of the charge) because, e.g., the operator image of such a representation is given by a "particle" with the wrong sign of the charge, rather than a charge conjugated antiparticle.

Even though considered innocuous by a number of colleagues, in reality the above limitation carries deep implications for numerous segments of contemporary physics including "theological" (rather than scientific) studies on cancer treatments via antiparticles, the gravity of elementary antiparticles in the field of matter, not to mention catastrophic inconsistencies in grand unified theories without due attention to the inclusion of antimatter.

NONLOCALITY: For the evident purpose of enlarging the arena of applicability of SR, the physical universe was generally believed during the 20-th century to be reducible to point-like particles that, having no dimension, would always move in vacuum.

However, by the second part of the 20-th century it became already clear that such a view is a mere approximation due to the fact that particles are generally extended and, even when having point charges (such as the electron) they have indeed a extended wavepackets causing nonlocal interaction of integral type (because extended over the volume of mutual penetration) that, as such, cannot be reduced to a finite number of points, as needed for SR to apply.

Nonlocal interactions of the above type are dramatically beyond any possibility of scientific representation by SR for numerous reasons, such as: the basic topologic of SR is inapplicable being local-differential, thus implying the loss of Lie's theory with consequential loss of the Lorentz and Poincare' symmetries; contact interactions are not derivable from a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian, while being of "zero range" or of instantaneous character; the nonlocal interactions here considered are generally nonlinear in the wavefunctions; and other reasons.

For "theological" purposes, the nonlocal-integral interactions caused by deep wave overlapping are generally dismissed as having no valid physical effects. However, in the last part of the 20-th century these interactions came to full light in chemistry because, after one century of failed efforts, it became impossible to achieve an exact representation of molecular binding energies (due to the historical missing of 2 %). In turn, this limitation forced departures from quantum axioms via the introduction of the so-called "screened Coulomb potentials" (see below for the loss of the very quantum of energy under these adulteration of fundamental axioms). By contrast, recent studies have shows that an exact representation of molecular characteristics emerges when valence electrons are represented as they are in realty, point-like charges with extended wavepackets in conditions of deep mutual penetration, thus experiencing not only potential interactions of Coulomb type, but also contact nonlocal, nonlinear and non-Hamiltonian interactions.

The implications for particle physics of the above historical occurrence in chemistry begin to illustrate rather dramatically the "theological" nature of most contemporary particle research. If nonlocal, nonlinear and non-Hamiltonian interactions have such implications in the deep wave overlappings of valence electrons, they are expected to have essentially similar numerical implications for deep inelastic scattering of particles.

But the totality of contemporary particle experiments in inelastic scatterings are conducted via the century old "potential scattering theory" that simply cannot represent nonlocal-integral efforts expected to be inevitable for deep inelastic scatterings.

Hence, it is indeed possible to state without hesitation that most of contemporary "experimental results" elaborated via the conventional scattering theory can be at best qualified as being "experimental beliefs" and they will remain so until a covering scattering theory is worked out.

IRREVERSIBILITY: Always for the studious intent of extending the arena of applicability of SR beyond that od its original conception, it was generally believed during the 20-th century that irreversibility is a macroscopic phenomenon because, according to such a theology, when macroscopic objects are reduced to their elementary point-like constituents, irreversibility "disappears."

On serious scientific grounds, there are theorems (provable by graduate students in physics) establishing that a macroscopic irreversible event cannot be consistently reduced to a finite number of particles all in reversible conditions (and vice versa). Hence, irreversibility originates at the ultimate level of nature, that of elementary particles. Since all known potentials are reversible, the only possible or otherwise scientific origin of irreversibility is provided precisely by the contact, nonlocal and nonpotential interactions considered above.

But the entire mathematical and physical structure of SR is reversible in time, as well known. Consequently, any belief of the exact characters of SR for irreversible processes, such as deep inelastic scatterings to mention only one, can only be claimed to be purely "theological," since the only credible scientific issue is the search for a suitable covering of SR that is as irreversible in mathematical and physical structure as the phenomena to be represented.

At this point, and only following the above technical analysis, we can identify the unreassuring implications for society of the theological condition of particle physics. On one side, society has a compelling need for new clean energies, as now denounced by various heads of states and scientists alike. On the other side, all energy releasing processes are irreversible, from fire discovered since the birth of human civilization to the most advanced nuclear energies.

Hence, the continued insistence in reducing the entire universe to abstractions compatible with SR is much more than a "theological" posture since it constitutes a real threat to society.

It is generally believed that Quantum Mechanics (QM) is universally valid for all possible conditions existing in the universe. This belief too is more than purely "theological" because it requires the raising of serious issues of scientific ethics and accountability for the very survival of the human society.

There is no doubt that, for the conditions under which particles can be credibly abstracted to be point-like, QM is indeed exactly valid. This is the case for the hydrogen atom where QM achieved majestic results with the exact representation of all spectral lines from first unadulterated axioms, or the construction of particle accelerators via relativistic QM that do indeed work, in which cases particles can be approximated as being point-like while moving in vacuum. Despite these historical results, QM has its own clear limitations, such as:

ATOMIC PHYSICS: In the transition from the hydrogen atom to the helium, there exist clear deviations of the prediction of QM from experimental data; these deviations increase with the number of atomic electrons; and the deviations become embarrassing when passing to a QM description of heavy atoms such as the zirconium.

The only possible reason for the insufficiency is the presence in systems with many electrons of interactions beyond the representational capabilities of QM, which interactions can only be of nonpotential type, that is, not derivable from a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian.

Perhaps more dramatic has been the failure by QM to achieve any quantitative representation of the spectral emission of the Sun in over one century of studies.

Under the above conditions, the belief of the universal validity of QM is not only "theological" but actually dangerous to society, since the only scientific issue is the search for a covering - broadening of QM capable of achieving a more credible representation of nature.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY: The current status of superconductivity can be compared to the status of atomic physics prior to the quantum description of the atomic structure. In fact, QM has indeed permitted a first description of superconductivity, but via an ensemble of Cooper pairs considered as point-like without a quantitative description of their structure (because identical electrons are predicted by QM to repel each other, and are certainly not predicted to enter into their deep correlation-bond as need for Cooper pairs).

Anybody who believes that superconductivity can reach truly basic advances without a quantitative description of the structure of its main element, the Cooper pair (hence, without surpassing QM via a suitable covering theory), rather than doing "theological speculations," raises serious issues of scientific ethics and accountability.

CHEMISTRY: As stressed above, QM is exactly valid for the structure of "one" hydrogen atom. However, the same discipline is no longer exactly valid for the structure of "two" hydrogen atoms bonded into the hydrogen molecule because of the historical inability to represent a residual 2 % of the binding energy from unadulterated first principles.

Attempts to bypass this insufficiency have been conducted via the so-called "screening of the Coulomb law" and then the claim that quantum mechanics and chemistry are still valid. In reality, the quantum of energy is solely possible for the unadulterated Coulomb law and it is impossible for any of its various screenings, for which no quantized orbit can be defined, thus raising serious issues of scientific ethics and accountability for the very use of the name "quantum mechanics and chemistry" under the conditions considered.

The above insufficiency of QM should not be surprising because it can be predicted from its inability to reach an exact representation of the spectral emissions of the helium, since the hydrogen molecule and the helium both have two electrons.

Besides the above basic insufficiency, QM had prohibited a quantitative study of molecular bonds because nuclei do not participate in such bonds due to their large mutual distance, as a result of which molecular structures originate solely from valence bonds. But two electrons are predicted to repel each other according to QM. Hence, the various notions of valence are pure nomenclatures deprived of scientific, that is, quantitative content.

QM is also responsible for numerous additional insufficiencies or sheer inconsistencies in chemistry. One of them is the prediction that all substances are paramagnetic. This is a necessary consequence of the absence of an actual, attractive force between identical valence electrons in which case the electron orbitals of different atoms are independent. It then follows from quantum electrodynamics that the applicability of an external magnetic field causes the polarization of the orbitals of all the atoms of any chemical species, resulting in the indicated prediction of universal paramagnetic character in dramatic disagreement with reality.

The limitations of QM become paradoxical when considering the widespread belief of full treatment of chemical reactions. In fact, chemical reactions are notoriously irreversible<\i> over time while quantum chemistry is fully reversible. A graduate student can then compute the quantum probability for a chemical reaction, such as H2 + O => H2O. However, the same graduate student can compute the probability of the time reversal image. Sice all calculations are time reversal invariant as necessary from first quantum principles, the graduate student will then be able to compute the probability for the <\i> spontaneous return to the original species, resulting in the prediction of the sequence of spontaneous chemical reactions H2 + O => H2O => H2 + O.

Under these premises, how can chemists oppose or ignore the ongoing efforts for the construction of an irreversible covering of quantum chemistry and still expect to be true scientists?

NUCLEAR PHYSICS: There is no doubt that QM has achieved historical results in nuclear physics or that nuclear power plants conceived and constructed via quantum laws do indeed work.

However, any belief that QM is exactly valid in nuclear physis is asocial because of an excessive number of unresolved basic insufficiencies.

As an example, following one century of efforts, QM failed to achieve an exact representation of the basic data of the lightest nucleus, the deuteron, since it still misses 1% of the magnetic moment following all possible relativistic corrections; QM has been unable to represent the spin 1 of the deuteron ground state (sice quantum axioms predict that the ground state of two particles with spin 1/2 must be zero); there has been no credible explanation of the stability of the neutron when a constituent of the deuteron; etc.

In passing to heavier nuclei, the insufficiencies of QM can only be qualified as embarrassing thus demanding the construction of a covering theory more suitable to represent physical conditions existing in the nuclear structure, since they are dramatically different than the conditions of the original conception of the theory, the planetary structure of the atom.

Without entering into additional technical insufficiency, any belief that QM is exactly valid in nuclear physics can be easily disqualified as being asocial, let alone "theological," from the incontrovertible evidence that nuclei do not have nuclei, namely, nuclei do not have a Keplerian structures. Consequently, the basic symmetries of QM, the Galilean and Poincare' symmetries, cannot possibly be exact for nuclei since they notoriously apply solely to Keplerian or planetary structures.

The social implications of the "theological" belief of the exact character of QM in nuclear physics are rather serious. Recall that, as it is the case for SR, QM is also strictly reversible in time. Yet all energy releasing nuclear processes are irreversible. Consequently, the restriction of all research in nuclear energies to comply with QM, that has been rigidly imposed by academia and governments alike during the entire 20-th century, has perhaps done a damage to society of potentially historical proportion.

PARTICLE PHYSICS: There is no doubt that contemporary particle physics is a synonym for "quantum theology" with a rather severe price to pay by mankind for the increasingly cataclysmic climatic conditions of our planet combined with the virtually complete lack by particle physics of even attempting their solution.

Following the historical results for the structure of the hydrogen atom, the applicability of QM has been extended to all possible conditions of particles with only rare critical analyses. However, this "applicability" has been achieved by introducing free parameter of generally unknown physical origin, using them to achieve the fit of experimental data, and then claim that QM is exact.

The most embarassing case of asocial particle theology occurs for the Bose-Einstein correlation whose fit of experimental data via QM has requested the two-points correlation function to have four free parameters (called the "chaoticity" parameters) to claim that relativistic quantum mechanics is exactly valid in the field. The problem for the supporter of such a view is that four parameters are prohibited by the quantum axiom of expectation values (because Hermitean operators in this case have only two diagonal elements, thus allowing only two, rather than four parameters). Consequently, rather than supporting QM, the chaoticity parameters are a direct measurement of the deviation of QM from the physical reality of the Bose-EInstein correlation.

A fully similar situation occurs in various other particle events in which experimental fits are reached via ad hoc parameters and experimental results are claimed while in reality we merely have a scientific religion.

NEUTRON SYNTHESIS AND DECAY: As originally conceived by Rutherford in 1920 and verified by Chadwick in 1932, the neutron is synthesized in the interior of stars from the hydrogen atom, namely, from a proton and an electron.

While, on one side, all physicists admit this incontrovertible reality (because stars initiate their lives as being solely composed of hydrogen, thus synthesizing first the neutron), on the other side, very few particle physicists admit that QM is completely unable to represent such a synthesis to such an extent that voids the use of ad hoc parameters because:

1) The familiar reaction p + e => n + v violates the conservation of the energy unless the proton and the electron have a kinetic energy of at least 0.78 MeV (in which case there is no energy left for the neutrino). In fact, the neutron rest energy (939.56 MeV) is 0.78 MeV bigger than the sum of the rest energies of the proton and the electron (938.78 MeV).

2) Recall that all QM bound states (such those for nuclei, atoms and molecules) have a "negative" binding energy. The synthesis of the neutron requires instead a "positive" binding-like energy. Few physicists know that Schroedinger's equation becomes physically inconsistent for the latter systems, as the reader is encouraged to verify by trying to solve any quantum bound state in which the conventional negative binding energy is turned into a positive value. When this inconsistency is attempted to bypass by assuming that the proton and the electron have a relative energy of at least 0.78 MeV, the synthesis is prohibited because at that value the p-e cross section is extremely small (of about 10^{-20} barns).

3) Assuming that the above basic problems can be solved along preferred orthodox lines, QM cannot provide a representation of the meanlife, charge radius, and anomalous magnetic moment of the neutron. The use of the neutrino hypothesis does not allow a consistent synthesis because in the reaction p + e + anti-v => n the antineutrino has a virtually null cross section with p and e and in any case, being an antiparticle, it carries a negative energy vs the needed positive energy.

Rather than admitting the need of a covering of QM capable of a quantitative representation of one of the most fundamental events in the universe, a widespread posture in support of the quantum theology is that of ignoring the synthesis altogether. In the scientific reality, QM is inapplicable for the synthesis not only of the neutron, but also of all hadrons at large.

The denial of the inapplicability of QM for the neutron synthesis can cause a damage to society of potentially historical proportions because the neutron is the biggest and most inextinguishable reservoir of clean energy available to mankind since it decays spontaneously (when isolated) into a very energetic and easily trapped electron plus the innocuous neutrino (assuming it exists). A serious scientific resolution of the synthesis of the neutron is expected to lead to means for its stimulated decay in a selected class of light natural stable isotopes into equally light, natural and stable isotopes with lower mass, thus resulting in a much needed clean energy due to the lack of harmful radiations as well as the absence of radioactive waste.

Besides, the achievement of a serious knowledge on the possible laboratory synthesis and stimulated decay of the neutron could have far reaching implications for society, such as permitting conceivable means to stimulate the decay of radioactive nuclear waste, thus rendering environmentally acceptable nuclear power plants as currently available. How can any physicist in the field oppose or otherwise ignore efforts at surpassing QM via a suitable covering theory for the study of environmentally acceptable energies and still expect respect?

The author hopes to be remembered for his irreconcilable disagreement with academic colleagues and laboratory directors on the fact that QM and SR "cannot" be exactly valid for the synthesis and, therefore, the structure of hadrons for numerous reasons (thus demanding specific experiments), such as: the impossibility of the exact validity of local-differential theories within hyperdense media requiring nonlocal-integral effects; the inability to fit experimental data from first principles as done for the structure of the hydrogen atom; the evidence that hadrons have no nuclei, thus prohibiting the exact validity of fundamental spacetime symmetries such as the Galileo and the Poincare' symmetries; and other reasons well known in the technical literature.

One of several resolutory experiments the author has recommended over decades to SLAC, FERMILAB, CERN and other particle laboratories with no visible results is the measure of the behavior of the meanlife of unstable particles with energy, which behavior is expected to deviate from Einsteinian predictions in view of internal nonlocal and non-Hamiltonian effects. Regrettably, this and other resolutory tests have been ignored in favor of experiments known to be aligned with pre-existing theories following the use of {\it ad hoc} parameters, thus perpetrating the current status of "theological speculations," rather than conducting research that will resist the test of time. At any rate, why oppose or ignore tests that could confirm existing theologies?

Following the above indicated conception of the neutron by Rutherford, and its verification by Chadwick, Heisenberg introduced the SU(2) isospin symmetry for a geometrical unified treatment of protons and neutrons, which symmetries was subsequently extended to SU(3), to reach the current formulation of the standard model.

As a result of historical achievement, we believe that the standard model has indeed achieved the final Mendeleev-type classification of particles into families. In fact, all fashinating predictions of new particles, subsequently confirmed by clear experiments, can be all reduced to the primitive classification capabilities of the theory.

However, the hypothesis that quarks are physical particles in our spacetime is a pure Barton's "theology" because it has remained afflicted by a plethora of fundamental unresolved (as well as generally unspoken) insufficiencies, such as:

1) According to the standard model, at the time of the synthesis of the neutron the proton and the electron literally "disappear" from the universe to be replaced by hypothetical quarks as neutron constituents. Moreover, at the time of the neutron spontaneous decay, the proton and the electron literally "reappear" again. Both these views are repugnant to scientific reason, because the proton and the electron are the only stable massive particles clearly established so far and, as such, they simply cannot "disappear" and then "reappear" because so desired by quark supporters. The only plausible hypothesis for the neutron synthesis p + e => n + v is that the proton and the electron are actual physical constituents of the neutron as originally conjectured by Rutherford, although the latter view requires the adaptation of the theory to physical reality, rather than the opposite attitude implemented by quark "theologies".

2) When interpreted as physical particles in our spacetime, quarks cannot experience any gravity. As clearly stated by Albert Einstein in his limpid writings, gravity can only be defined in our spacetime, while quarks can only be defined in the mathematical, internal, complex valued unitary space with no possible connection to our spacetime (because prohibited by the O'Rafearthaigh's theorem). Consequently, physicists who support the hypothesis that quarks are the physical constituents of protons and neutrons, thus of all nuclei, should see their body levitate due to the absence of gravity.

3) When, again, interpreted as physical particles in our spacetime, quarks cannot have any inertia. In fact, inertia can only be rigorously admitted for the eigenvalues of the second order Casimir invariant of the Poincare' symmetry, while quarks and their masses cannot be defined with such a basic spacetime symmetry, as expected to be known by experts to qualify as such. Consequently, the idea that quarks have physical masses is pure "theology" deprived of true scientific content. In reality, "quark masses" are arbitrary parameters used to fit things.

4) Even assuming that, with unknown scientific manipulations, the above inconsistencies are resolved, it is known that quark theories have failed to achieve a representation of all characteristics of hadrons, with catastrophic insufficiencies in the representation of spins, magnetic moments, mean lives, charge radii and other basic features of hadrons. The sole need to confine quarks due to the lack of their detection should be sufficient for their dismissal as physical particles since a serious confinement can only be achieved via the by-passing of Heisenberg's uncertaintly principle that always admit a finite probability for quarks to be free. Hence, the very conception of quarks is in conflict with QM axioms (the sole possibility to have an identically null probability for quarks to tunnel outside is by rendering incoherent the interior and exterior Hilbert spaces, namely, by assuming a generalzed mechanics in the interior of particles).

5) It is also known by experts that the application of quark conjectures to the structure of nuclei has multiplied the controversies, while resolving none of them. As an example, the assumption that quarks are the constituents of protons and neutrons in nuclei has failed to achieve a representation of the main characteristics of the simplest possible nucleus, the deuteron. In fact, quark conjectures multiply the limitations of QM to represent the spin 1 of the deuteron (since there are problems even in representing the spin or the proton and of the neutron), of the anomalous magnetic moment of the deuteron (because the "theological" quark orbits are too small to allow the needed polarizations), or understand the stability of the neutron when a deuteron constituent, etc.

The author's view is that quarks are indeed necessary for the standard model, and he uses them routinely for calculations in the field, trivially, because quarks are the regular representation of the SU(3) symmetry. Yet, after decades of studies in the field, the author has been unable to identify truly serious reasons for quarks to be physical particles in our spacetime. At any rate, the continuation of claims that quarks are physical particles without a rigorous proof that they have gravity goes beyond the level of Barton's "theology" since it raises serious problems of scientific ethics and accountability.

On historical grounds, the classification of nuclei, atoms and molecules required two different models, one for the classification and a separate one for the structure of the individual elements of a given family. Quark theories depart from this historical teaching because of their conception of representing with one single theory both the classification and the structure of particles.

The view advocated is that, quite likely, history will repeat itself. The transition from the Mendeleev classification of atoms to the atomic structure required a basically new theory, QM. Similarly, the transition from the Mendeleev-type classification of particles to the structure of individual particles will require a broadening of the basic theory, this time a generalization of QM due tg the dramatic differences of the dynamics of particles moving in vacuum, as in the atomic structure, to the dynamics of particles moving within hyperdense media as in the hadronic structure.

In the final analysis, the "theology" that quarks are physical particles in our spacetime is, by far, the most dangerous for mankind because it prevents even the consideration of the new clean energy contained in the neutron, trivially, because according to the standard model the neutron constituents cannot be released free. By comparison, if the proton and the electron are the physical constituents of the neutron according to Rutherford's conception, the electron can be excited by stimulating the neutron's decay with the understanding that QM must be necessarily abandoned in favor of a covering theory developed for the synthesis, as stressed earlier.

The reader should not forget that nuclear, atomic and molecular structures have made momentous contributions to mankind precisely because their constituents can be produced free. By comparison, quark conjectures have made no practical contributions whatever and none is even remotely conceivable precisely because of the "theology" that quarks are permanently confined.

In short, the insufficiencies of quark conjectures are a mere manifestation of Richter's "theological speculations," not on marginal aspects, but on the truly fundamental lines, the impossibility for QM and SR to be exactly valid for the synthesis, structure, scattering and decays of particles.

Following Pauli's indication that the synthesis of the neutron from a proton and an electron according to QM misses a spin 1/2, and Fermi's hypothesis of the neutrino (meaning "little neutron" in Italian), neutrino physics is today part of the standard model. Despite clearly historical studies, neutrino physics is an additional clear example of Barton's "theological speculations" because it has remained afflicted by fundamental, unresolved (as well as unreassuringly inspoken), theoretical and experimental problems, such as:

1) Neutrino physics is based on an excessive number of individually unverifiable assumptions. In fact, the original hypothesis of one massless neutrino, was replaced by the sequential hypotheses that: there exist three different neutrinos and their antiparticles; neutrinos have masses; neutrino masses are different; neutrinos ``oscillate''; with additional hypotheses expected due to the known insufficiencies of all preceding ones.

2) According to the standard model, said various neutrinos can traverse very large hyperdense media (such as entire stars) without any collision while being massive particles carrying energy in our spacetime. This view is outside scientific reason.

3) As indicated earlier, the synthesis of the neutron p + e => n + v misses 0.78 MeV. In the event the proton and the n eutron have the relative energy of 0.78 MeV, there is no energy left for the neutrino and, in any case, the synthesis is not possible due to the virtually null cross section of protons and electrons at said energy.

4) Calculations on the ``bell shaped'' form of the energy of the electron in nuclear beta decays show that no energy appears to be left for the neutrino, provided hat nuclei are represented in their actual extended size. In fact, the Coulomb interaction between an extended nucleus and the emitted electron varies with the direction of the beta emission, with maximal (minimal) value for radial (tangential) emissions, the 'missing energy'' being apparently absorbed by the nucleus.

5) Neutrino experiments are perhaps more controversial than theoretical studies because: the number of events used as "experimental evidence" for the existence of neutrinos is excessively small over an extremely large number of events, thus preventing acceptance by the physics community at large; experimental data are elaborated with a theory crucially dependent on the existence of the neutrinos, in which case the "experimental results" are expected to depend on the theoretical assumptions; the theory contains an excessive number of parameters (such as the different neutrinos masses and others) essentially capable to achiever any desired fit; some of the recent "neutrino detectors" contain radioactive isotopes that could themselves trigger the very few selected events; and other reasons.

The author fails to understand an argument often voiced as "evidence" for the existence of the neutrino, the experimental evidence on the conservation of the leptonic number. In fact, such an argument de facto implies that the violation of parity in weak interactions is "evidence" for the existence of another yet unknown particle.

In reality, the lack of existence of the neutrino as physical particle in our spacetime can stimulate momentous advances, such as conceivable new communications propagating via longitudinal impulses through the ether at a speed predicted to be a multiple of that of the conventional transversal electromagnetic waves, thus providing hopes that mankind may one day initiate interstellar communications for which light signals can only be compared to smoke signals during the early human civilization. Yet, the price to pay for these momentous advances is the abandonment of the religious "theology" of the universal validity of SR for all conditions existing in the universe. We believe that all the above insufficiencies are just a manifestation of the truly basic one, namely, Richter's "theological speculations" not referred to tangential aspects. but to the inapplicability of QM and SR for conditions outside those of their original conception, thus being inapplicable as exact disciplines, rather than violated.

While QM and SR have their own arena of exact validity outside which they remain valid as an approximation of reality, General Relativity (GR) is known to be, by far, the most controversial scientific "theology" in history because of an excessive number of structural inconsistencies in its conception, such as:

1) We have all been teaching at the graduate school of physics that analytic theories without a Hamiltonian cannot represent any dynamics, trivially, because of the impossibility of formulating any meaningful time evolution. GR has indeed an identically null Hamiltonian and, consequently, any attempt at dynamical treatments, such as the evolution of planets, is a pure "theology" deprived of serious or otherwise credible scientific content.

2) Assuming that the above basic inconsistency can be somewhat bypassed, GR is noncanonical at the classical level and nonunitary at the operator level. it is today known that these theories verify the "theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies." In fact. GR cannot leave invariant in time the basic unit of its geometry, thus being unable to preserve in time the numerical values of the units of measurements, with consequential catastrophic collapse of the mathematical structure (due to the loss over time of the base field), as well as of the physical structure (inability to admit the same numerical predictions under the same conditions at different times, violation of causality, and other inconsistencies inherent in all noncanonical or nonunitary theories).

3) Einstein's field equations Gij = 0 are irreconcilably incompatible with quantum electrodynamics because they attempt the reduction of gravity to pure curvature without source while quantum electrodynamics requires the presence of a first-order source tensor even for neutral systems such as the pi-zero meson. In any case, Einstein's attempt to reduce gravity to pure curvature without source is disproved by the forgotten fifth identity of the Riemannian geometry, the Freud Identity (that requires the presence of two source tensors).

4) GR is not compatible with SR on numerous counts, such as the presence in GR of a well defined Newtonian limit in PPN approximation but the absence of any meaningful Minkowskian limit; the impossibility for gravitational conservation laws to admit a relativistic counterpart due to the fact that the latter are the generators of a symmetry, the Poincare' symmetry, while GR has no symmetry but only covariance.

5) It is today known that the bending of the light near astrophysical bodies, that lead to a world wide support of GR as well as to one of Einstein's Nobel prizes, in reality is due to the Newtonian attraction of light, and definitely not to curvature. Also, curvature is irreconcilably incompatible with a main gravitational event, the free fall of bodies along a radial line for which the notion of curvature has no sense. Additionally, the notion of curvature does not allow a unique representation of experimental data since there are several possible PPN expansions and, consequently, several possible numerically different gravitational realities. Should the author keep going?

There is no doubt that the religious fervor in support of a catastrophically inconsistent theory such as GR, while systematically ignoring incontrovertible inconsistencies, has lead to the biggest scientific "theology" in history, including large collateral scientific damage, such as: wasting a river of ink and public money in attempting a grand unification inclusive of gravitation that is simply beyond rational science due to dramatic structural differences; an additional river of ink and public funds to attempt a reconciliation of QM and GR that have also been theological inquiries since a first year graduate student in physics can prove that, assuming GR admits a consistent operator formulation, quantities that are observable (Hermitean) at the initial time are no longer so at a later time for a nonunitary theory (Lopez's lemma).

The implications for astrophysics of the widespread extension of SR to conditions it is clearly inapplicable plus the use of a GR afflicted by so vast inconsistencies can only be dubbed as dramatic. To illustrate the gravity of the condition, recall that the statement "universal constancy of the speed of light" is one of the most corrupt statement in science when not completed with the words "in vacuum," since the verification has solely occurred in vacuum and it is today well established that the speed of light is smaller than that in vacuum for transparent media of low density while it is generally bigger than that in vacuum for transparent media of high density.

. At any rate, the extension of the speed of light as the maximal causal speed for the hyperdense media in the interior of stars and quasars is beyond scientific reason since light does not even propagate within these media. But then, the use of the speed of light "in vacuum" to compute the energy equivalence of a "hyperdense" star E = m c2, the conjecture of dark matter and all that can only be dubbed as "wild theologies" since recently calculated maximal causal speeds within the hyperdense interior of stars and quasars are so vastly bigger than that in vacuum to void any need for dark matter.

Similarly, the most plausible explanation not only for the expansion of the universe, but also for its acceleration, is that the universe is made up of matter and antimatter galaxies under mutual, continuous gravitational repulsion.

This old cosmological conception has been systematically discredited for about one century on religious grounds that both SR and GR do not admit antigravity. The point where serious science turns into a "wild theology" mandating senatorial investigations when perpetrated under governmental support is that both the SR an d GR cannot even represent antimatter, as recalled earlier.

The "theological" difficulty for new vistas in astrophysics is that they mandate the abandonment of SR and GR for suitable covering theories more plausible for the interior of matter stars and different covering theories for antimatter stars.

In the 1970s, the author received research support from the United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research (USAFOSR). One day. in trhe mid 1970s, the author received a phone call from an officer of the USAFOSR informing him that the U. S. Military had decided to terminate support for academic research. In fact, soon thereafter funding of academic research was passed to ERDA that subsequently became the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE).

At that time, the author was rather naive and asked: "But how can the American Military remain strong if funding of academic research is ended?" at which the USAFOSR officer promptly replied "Because we cannot allow the security of the United States be hostage to pet theories preferred by professors at leading academic institutions."

Following the passage of three decades, nobody can credibly deny that the U. S. Military has made scientific and technological advances beyond our imagination, while academic research has solely seen "theological speculations" such as neutrino or quark conjectures and the like, without any truly basic and/or fundamental advance.

The reason for the transparent disparity is precisely that stated by the USAFOSR officer, namely, that military research has advanced because without any religious attachment to preferred "pet theories," while no possible basic advance for academic research could be predicted since the mid 1970s, and none actually occurred, because of the systematic restriction of all research funding and academic positions to be "hostage" of preferred "pet theories."

Few academicians know that a number of U. S. corporations are now following the example of the U. S.Military, namely, they avoid disclosing to academia the most advanced part of their R&D. In fact, the author has conducted advanced corporate research under contractual obligations not to disclose it to academia because of expected abuses of academic authority in the protection of preferred "pet theories" causing the termination of corporate research funding.

All these and other unreassuring occurrences are a manifestation of the insufficiency of Burton Richter's denunciation of the theological nature of contemporary research because, even though deserving full respect and appreciation by any responsible scientist or citizen, such a denunciation did not have sufficient depth to identify the origin of the problem in the religious dominance of preferred "pet theories" now merely belonging to the past century.

After some 50 years of research, the author feels obliged to denounce the ongoing existence of a scientific obscurantism of such a dimension to dwarf by comparison the scientific obscurantism imposed by the Vatican during Galileo's times.

Even though fully deplorable, the origin of the latter obscurantism can be seen in actual religious issues of the time, while Galileo's ideas eventually proved to have do damaging effect to the Vatican. By comparison, the origin of the ongoing scientific obscurantism can be seen in very large organized interests in pre-existing theories of such a dimension to render lilliputian the religious interests during Galileo's time.

Above all, the obscurantism imposed by the Vatican had no impact on the people of Galileo's times since it dealt with religious dogmas. By comparison, the ongoing scientific obscurantism is having a potentially devastating impact on our planet because the solution of the increasingly cataclysmic climactic changes is known not to be admitted by quantum mechanics and special relativity but to require their surpassing via suitable covering theories.

To establish the above scenario beyond credible doubt, it is sufficient to note that all possible energies that could be identified via quantum mechanics and special relativity had been fully discovered by the middle of the 20-th century following the work of hundred of thousands researchers. Hence, the belief that the much needed new clean energies can be identified via pre-existing doctrines is asocial. At any rate, all energy releasing processes, thus including the much needed new clean energies, are irreversible in time, while quantum mechanics and special relativity are strictly reversible in time. Consequently, any belief that quantum mechanics and special relativity can resolve our alarming environmental problem is surpasses Richter's "theology" since it raises serious problems of scientific ethics and accountability.

The only possibility of avoiding a condemnation by posterity of historical proportion is that the U. S., British, German, French and other physical societies implement a serious scientific democracy for qualified inquiries in which research and publications along "pet theories" do indeed continue but, jointly, physical societies halt their current practices of dismissing basic advances via attempted discrdeditations and abuse of authority, rather than credible technical arguments. As a matter of fact, to really serve society in a moment of need, physical societies should have the opposite posture, that of providing priority to much needed basic advances and relegate studies along preferred "pet theories" for what they are, "theological speculations" outside contemporary real science.

In short, it is time for the physics community to come to its senses and admit that "basic research" primarily refers to the laborious effort of trial and error, not toward tangential issues of marginal relevance on pre-existing doctrines, but toward basic advanced beyond pre-existing doctrine. After all, the rather widespread "theological" belief that quantum mechanics, special and general relativity and the standard model are of final character for all events in the universe is strictly amoral, ascientific and asocial.

The literature underlying the studies touched in the above comments is so vast to prevent discriminatory partial lists. Serious scholar may consult the 90 pages long General Bibliography available in pdf format at the web site The same web site presents conceivable covering theories for the solution of the insufficiencies and/or inconsistencies herein considered. Additional specific studies can be located in the by searching papers at under the author's name, and inspecting the quoted references.

Ruggero Maria Santilli
Carignano (Torino), Italy
November 14, 2006


Palm Harbor, Florida November 25, 2006

Dr. Stephen G. Benka
Editor in Chief
American center for Physics
One Physics Ellipse
COLLEGE PARKA, MD 20740-3842

Dear Dr. Benka,

I here respectfully submit for publication in Physics Today the comments entitled
herewith enclosed in triplicate, voiced in response to the courageous editorial by Professor Burton Richter (Physics Today October 2006) on the current conditions of particle physic s as being essentially that of "theological speculations."

The paper is listed in the arxiv as physics/0611253 but it is not submitted for publication to other journals; the copyrights will be assigned to your Publisher with the possible publication; and I remain at your disposal for any constructive criticisms and/or suggestions for clarifications or reduction you deem recommendable.

Yours, Truly

Ruggero Maria Santilli
The Institute for Busic Research

Copy to Professor Burton Richter


Palm Harbor, Florida, November 25, 2006

Dear Professor Richter,

I am bringing to your attention the attached pdf file of comments on your editorial at Physics Today, October, 2006, that has been submitted for publication to the same scientific conduit and listed in the arxiv

You may also be interested in knowing the following
that has been opened in the field.

Perhaps you may consider sending a note for release to the above forum since silence can only increase the ongoing deterioration of the image of our U. S. science throughout the world owing to the gravity of our scientific condition and the now well know huge damage that is inflicting to society from the inability to even address, let alone solve increasingly cataclysmic environmental problems with our ongoing "theologies".

You may perhaps remember that when I was at Harvard University during the period late 1970 - early 1980 I used to send a "yearly letter" to the SLAC Director of the time, Prof. Panofsky, soliciting the conduction at SLAC of direct tests on the validity or invalidity of special relativity within hadrons, e.g., via the measurement of the behavior of the meanlife of unstable particles with energy that was (and remains) predicted to deviate from Einsteinian behavior due to expected internal nonlocal and other effects.

Two decades have passed and the issue has remained more unsettled than ever with increasingly negative societal implications for possible new energies of hadronic (rather than nuclear) origin indicated in my Comments. Hence, it was unfortunate for American science that SLAC could not consider such basic resolutions.


Ruggero Maria Santilli

-- *******************************************************

Noveber 28, 2006

Comments by Prof. Giancarlo Ruocco
Universita' La Sapienza, Rome, Italy

Dear Ruggero,

thanks for the "invitation for scientific comments" I received from Mrs. Pamela Fleming from your office. I have read the arXiv preprint. Unfortunately, containing this document only chatter and no Science, it is very difficult for me to raise "scientific comments". I am sorry that I cannot respond more positively.

Best regards,
Giancarlo Ruocco

Dear Professor Ruocco,

Your comments and the candid expression of your views are appreciated and respected. As a matter of tract, your views are shares by a large number of colleagues at this writing. I had the same reaction when first exposed to Prof. santilli's studies, but then I went deeper into them and wrote a number of articles and even a monograph (Santilli's Isotopies of Contemporary Algebras, Geometries and Relativities, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, second edition 1995).

Hence, allow me to indicate that your views are the results of your lack of technical knowledge of the literature underlying Prof. Santilli's critical analysis of the 20-th century theories, a knowledge also lacking to numerous colleagues at the moment. In fact, each passage of Prof. Santilli's analysis is backed by rather extensive work published in refereed journals you do not appear to know as yet.

Every criticism by Prof. Santilli of 20-th century theories is treated in refereed pubblications and resolved first via the identification of new mathematics, then new theories and then rather vast verifications as well as industrial applications.

As only one of numerous similar issues raised by Prof. Santilli courageous call for advances, to understand the insufficiencies of special relativity for irreversible process you should first study in detail memoir [1], study the theorems prohibiting the elimination of irreversibility in the transition from macroscopic events to particles, study in details the theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies of all noncanonical and nonunitary theories, study the new math, see its necessity to conduct serious research in clearly irreversible structures such as thermodynamics, study paper 74 by Prof. Dunning-Davies of the University of Hull, England (recently published in Progress in Physics, 4, 24, 2006), etc. and finally understand the need for new irreversible theories to achieve new clean energies.

Then you will be in a position to understand that the issue is far from "chatter", as you currently believe of course in good faith, that in actuality the real "Science" is in addressing the issue to prevent shadows of possible political mingling in favor of "old theories". Perhaps, after this in depth study of aspects you do not know as yet you may express comments on Prof. Santilli's work with scientific content.

Let me bring to your attention in particular the last sentence of Ref. [1]: In the final analysis, lack of participation in basic advances is a gift of scientific priorities to others.
Yours, Truly

J. V. Kadeisvili
The Institute for Basic Research

PS. I do agree with you that my own studies - paper 73 of [1] - on Prof. Santilli's genogeometric propulsion (local control of geometric spacetimes with nonsymmetric, thus directionally orientable metrics over nonsymmetries genounits to regain axiomatic consistency) is indeed pure "chatter" at this wrting because we will need one thousand years to reach the stars. Yet, this propulsion is the only one that "represents" (rather than explains) for me in a quantitative way how can tree sap reach the top of a sequoia giant without any moving part. I am sure you do not dare to think that you can do the same with Minkowski.....

[1] Lie-admissible invariant representation of irreversibility for matter and antimatter at the classical and operator level, R. M. Santilli, Nuovo Cimento B 121, 443-486 (2006).


November 28, 2006

Comments from a senior scientist in the Boston Area
who has requested not to disclose his name and affiliation.

Dear Ruggero,

Congrats for your new forum. Its great to see you keep fighting for true science as the pursuit of new knowledge rather than the protection of old stuff. I still remember vividly my emotions when, back in 1985, I read twice your book Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A.: An insider's View (Alpha Publishing, 1984) you wrote after leaving Harvard. There is little doubt that without convictions and determinations such as yours, science would be flat, boring and useless.

Wishing you, Carla and your children the best... "Arthur"

Dear "Arthur",

Thanks, most sincerely, for your continued words of support that I remember myself vividly in the occasion of my disagreement with colleagues at Harvard on **quarks - assumed - to - be - physical - particles - without - any - rigorously - proved - gravity** could be euphemistically heard all the way to Harvard square. Decades have gone by and your words remain one of the few lights in my waters generally populated by sharks. I do not mind oppositions to my studies because they are an intrinsic part of the so called "scientific process," with the understanding that papers and books on truly basic advances are never written for contemporary colleagues, with due exceptions of course, such as yours, that make a towering difference.

Wishing you, "Esther" and your children the best



November 29, 2007

Comments from Professor Lut Mentz
A British Scientist

Lut Mentz wrote:

Quote from Santilli's paper: "It is today known that the bending of the light near astrophysical bodies, that lead to a world wide support of GR as well as to one of Einstein's Nobel prizes,..." Einstein won the prize once only in 1921 as everybody knows.

I could not discern any scientific basis for most of the 'arguments'. They are simply wrong and couched in emotional language. For instance the criticism of neutrino physics. The extreme short range of the weak force gives neutrino interactions a miniscule cross-section - so what's the problem ?


Lut Mentz

Dear Professor Mentz,

Thank you for spotting an error in Prof. Santilli's analysis in regard to the fact that Einstein received only one Nobel Prize. You are correct, of course. We asked Prof. Santilli to make the correction but he refused on grounds that "it was a Freudian slip as a form of respect for Albert Einstein because, unlike his followers, he was indeed a great scientist and he should have deserved more than one Nobel Prize."

Thanks also for expressing your position on the validity of neutrino conjectures that we do respect fully because that's necessary for real scientific democracy. Yet, allow me to disagree on scientific grounds. Prof. Santilli presented five major insufficiencies for neutrino physics "to reach acceptance by the scientific community at large", each one developed in various papers by various authors all published in refereed journals, all technical papers you do not appear to know.

To make your acceptance of current neutrino physics scientifically valid, you should disprove each one of them in papers published in refereed journals because science solely advances via that type of process. Hence, your very statement that Prof. Santilli's argument have no scientific value has no scientific value.

Of course there is nothing wrong with the small value of neutrinos cross sections. Yet, this does not allow a consistent study of the synthesis of the neutron p + e + anti-v => n (because the antineutrino does not interact appreciably with the proton and/or the electronb precisely for what you pointed out and the Schroedinger equation has no physical solutions anyhos due to the "positive" character of tbne bindingng energy; does not resolve the insufficiencies that the reaction p + e => n + v has no credible energy even for the n neutron let alone the neutrino; does not resolve the problem that there is no energy available for the neutrinos in nuclear beta decays calculated with nuclear actual sizes, etc. To make a serious contribution, you should disprove these calculations with a paper published in a refereed journal.

Perhaps, to perform the transition from a courtesy letter, that again has been appreciated, to science, you should read the paper "Neutrino and/or etherino?" as well as the references quoted therein and write your dissident view also in a paper.

But be careful: according to a recent survey (kept generally unspoken of course) physicists who believe that neutrinos (and quarks) are physical particles are now a minority.< br.

Yours, Truly

William Pound
Chairman International Committee on Scientific Ethics


November 29, 2006

Mesage from Firenze, Italy

Dear Ruggero Maria Santilli

thank you for your kind invitation that I accept. See the website realised by my colleague Cristiano Fidani in and the Web Site of OPEN NETYWORK FOR NEW SCIENCE (EGOCREANET) Very cordially

Paolo Manzelli

Thank you

The Institute for Basic Research


November 30, 2006

Message from a physicist from Berkeley, CA


I stopped reading your stuff following your first trashy claim that Einstein relativities do not represent antimatter.

Larry Segal
Berkeley, CA


Your scientific posture is unethical. Santilli presents the technical argument that "Einstein relativities" cannot provide a classical differentiation between neutral matter and antimatter because their sole differentiation is via the change of the sign of the charge, while the correct differentiation is a grossly lacking anti-homomorphism. To avoid using science for unethical personal gains, you should disprove that insufficiency before throwing offensive statements. You do not do that. To prevent the dubbing of "threat to society" (see the end of Santilli's limitations of special relativity) you should study the technical literature in the field prior to any passing of judgment, such as: R. M. Santilli, Isodual Theory of Antimatter with Applications to Antigravity, Spacetime Machines and Grand Unifications, Springer, 2005, and large literature quoted therein.

Your political dubbing "Einstein relativities" is also unethical. Einstein had no formal training as a physicist, since he was merely a technician at a patent office. The foundations of special relativity were set by Lorentz, Poincare', Minkowski and others. Einstein first wife was a trained scientist and they submitted together the paper on special relativity, to see her name be removed at publication, removal that caused Einstein's first divorce. Hence, a nonpolitical paternity of special relativity requires the names of Lorentz, Poincare', Einstein, Minkowski, et al.

The occurrence repeated itself for general relativity. Einstein had no mathematical training to understand the Riemannian geometry that was one of the most advances mathematical topics at the beginning of the 20-th century. Einstein's second wife was a trained mathematician, she brought to Einstein's attention the Riemannian geometry, and she was instrumental for the writing of the paper in general relativity to see, again, her contribution denied by Einstein, resulting in his second divorce. At the same time, Hilbert (who was an applied mathematician immensely superior to Einstein) had developed identical field equations for which reason they are correctly called outside personal schemes the "Einstein-Hilbert field equations."

Also, Einstein contacted Poincare' prior to his paper on special relativity and Hilbert prior to his paper on general relativity but avoided to quote them, for which reason Einstein has acquired the reputation of being "the incorrigible plagiarist (see C. J. Bjerknes, Albert Einstein, the Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc, Downers Grove, IL, 2002).

William Pound
The International Committee on Scientific Ethics


December 14, 2006
Comments from Professor Jeremy-Dunning Davies
Departmenr of Physics, University of Hull, England

To the Forum on the 20-th Century Theories,

This forum for an open discussion of some of the extremely serious issues facing science today should be regarded by all as timely. Modern science is, and in my view has for some considerable time been, too much under the influence of factors totally external to science itself. My particular sphere of interest is theoretical physics, particularly problems in thermodynamics, astrophysics and cosmology, but I am completely convinced that the malaise so cruelly affecting this area is one which pervades all areas of science to varying degrees. I regard this evil as being described by the name 'conventional wisdom'. By this I mean those topics and doctrines which have been labelled by those with real power within the community of scientists as being sacrosanct; theories which no-one is allowed to question in public. The punishment for disobeying these dictats is continual rejection of articles for publication in the so-called high impact journals and exile into outer darkness from the accepted scientific community.

It is, I think, interesting to note that this morning (9th December, 2006) I was reading The character of physical law by Richard Feynman. At the end of chapter six he writes,

What is necessary 'for the very existence of science', and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself. We look, and we see what we find, and we cannot say ahead of time successfully what it is going to look like. The most reasonable possibilities often turn out not to be the situation. If science is to progress, what we need is the ability to experiment, honesty in reporting results - the results must be reported without somebody saying what they would like the results to have been - and finally - an important thing - the intelligence to interpret the results. An important point about this intelligence is that it should not be sure ahead of time what must be. It can be prejudiced, and say 'That is very unlikely; I don't like that'. Prejudice is different from absolute certainty. I do not mean absolute prejudice - just bias. As long as you are only biased it does not make any difference, because if your bias is wrong a perpetual accumulation of experiments will perpetually annoy you until they cannot be disregarded any longer. They can only be disregarded if you are absolutely sure ahead of time of some precondition that science has to have. In fact it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions.

It is interesting that these words were delivered in the Messenger Lectures at Cornell in 1964 by a man regarded as one of the most distinguished scientists of his day. Why, one wonders, are such words of wisdom delivered by such a person still ignored today by the barons of the scientific world as well as by those influential within august bodies such as the Nobel committee? Is Feynman yet another who, although publicly lauded for his scientific prowess, has many of his more awkward views - awkward, that is, to the present day scientific establishment - hidden away from public scrutiny? This would certainly appear to be the case with Einstein. Here was a man showered with accolades in his lifetime, still publicly revered by many for some of his work, but ignored totally for some of his published output. In Einstein's case, for example, he is publicly heralded as the 'father of black holes', but he himself went to great lengths to show that the offending singularity in the so-called Schwartzschild solution of Einstein's field equations, the singularity which leads to the modern notion of black holes, has no physical relevance. This, of course, was an argument separate from the fact that Schwartzschild's actual solution does not even contain the said singularity, as has also been pointed out independently on several occasions by a variety of people. One is left pondering the true status of people such as Feynman and Einstein in the scientific community. Are they truly regarded as great, or merely great when such recognition serves the greater purpose of some of those presently occupying positions of power within the global scientific community? This is an interesting question and one which cannot be brushed aside if science is to progress in this 21st century in a truly healthy manner.

Personally speaking, I have examined the position of three major scientific topics in this context of the influence of 'conventional wisdom' on their acceptance and continued status within the realms of present day science. These topics are the theories of relativity, the 'big bang' theory for the beginning of the universe, and black holes. The discussion of these forms the material of three chapters of my new book - ³Exploding a Myth - 'Conventional Wisdom' or Scientific Truth² which is due to be published by Horwood Publishing of Chichester, England at the beginning of 2007. In this book, I also discuss at great length the work of Ruggero Santilli on so-called 'Hadronic Mechanics'. In this modern world, faced with such a wide variety of energy problems, this work is extremely important. Obviously much of the work doesn't conform to the normal requirements of 'conventional wisdom'; that is one huge reason that it is so novel and, therefore, potentially offers so much. However, it does well to remember the old saying, 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating'. Why? Quite simply because this new theory, however unusual and even repugnant it may appear to some, has produced 'magnegas', a new clean fuel. Hence, this new theory is responsible for the actual production of something concrete. I am not claiming this means the whole theory is correct, merely that it makes it worthy of closer examination by scientists with completely open minds. This is, in my view, of particular importance because the theory indicates, amongst many other things, a safe in-house method for the disposal of nuclear waste. All that this requires is for three experiments to be carried out. If these are successful, a start could be made to designing and building a suitable facility for installation in nuclear power stations and other establishments with nuclear waste awaiting safe disposal. How much would these experiments cost to perform? In the grand scheme of things, probably relatively little and the prize awaiting a successful outcome must always be remembered. Also, in Britain, an experiment to detect neutralinos has been running for sixteen years - according to the B.B.C. - without any success and yet it has recently been awarded another one and a half million pounds to purchase a new detector. Is this another example of the power of 'conventional wisdom'? Always remember the neutralino is required to support the retention of the 'big bang' as the only acceptable model for the beginning of the universe! Further, one might enquire how much is being spent to construct and run LISA - the laser interferometer space antenna. This set-up which will consist of three spacecraft orbiting the Sun in an unchanging formation and following the Earth at a distance of roughly fifty million kilometres. It's purpose will be to look for gravitational waves from giant black holes. Note already the basic unstated assumption that black holes of varying sizes actually exist even though, as far as I know, no object has been discovered yet which satisfies the crucial inequality, first derived by Michell in 1784, for the ratio of the mass to the radius of a body whose escape speed is greater than, or equal to, the speed of light

M/R >/= c2/2G = 6.7 1026 Kg/m

It is then claimed that, once gravitational waves are detected, we will get fundamentally new insights into the universe and maybe even the first instant of time. We should 'see' black holes directly for the first time and detect objects that are dark and invisible to conventional telescopes. What phenomenal claims! Also, consider briefly how many basic assumptions are being made in just this short piece of pseudo-scientific blurb. From the point of view of pure science, proceeding in this way is possibly acceptable. However, it really does seem likely that this endeavour has been sanctioned because everything about it conforms to the dictates of 'conventional wisdom'; black holes and gravitational waves are assumed not only to exist but to be established scientific facts, any positive result will provide further support for the 'big bang'. What more could a money providing organisation want? The danger here is that any results obtained will have to support claims made to procure the grant. This brings us round full circle and back to the thoughts expressed by Feynman in 1964. It seems little changes!

To return for one moment to the question of hadronic mechanics and the possibility of it offering a means for disposing of nuclear waste safely and in-house. This problem of the disposal of nuclear waste is already a huge one but promises to assume gargantuan proportions in the not-too-distant future. The world is already faced with greatly increased atmospheric pollution problems as India and China strive to come into line with the western nations as far as living conditions for their populations are concerned. Africa has still to embark on this route and remember that many in Africa cannot read and study at night through lack of artificial light - something we all take for granted. As has been shown by George Cole (see 'Thermodynamics in Engineering and Physical Science' by G.H.A.Cole, published by Albion Publishing, Chichester, England, 1996) and more recently supported by me (arxiv: physics/0406046), as far as our present knowledge is concerned, the only way to supply the energy required by people in these nations is to use nuclear power. If this route is followed, sensible construction of nuclear power stations, together with the implementation of fail-safe mechanisms, can make the chance of accident virtually zero. However, the disposal of nuclear waste is another matter and it is here that the predictions associated with hadronic mechanics should be investigated independently and with open minds. It should be realised that both the British Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been made aware of this possibility by me. No doubt both referred the matter to their scientific advisers who dismissed the information as of no importance because the suggestion did not conform to 'conventional wisdom'.. Nevertheless, it is on record that both have been made aware of the possibility! It seems that the world's scientific élite are pinning their hopes on the enormously expensive project in France where a fusion reactor is to be built. At least, that is the stated claim. Is the science behind the project complete and watertight? Is the necessary technology available? This seems yet another very expensive gamble and one undertaken with the support of so many of the world's nations. The checking of the predictions of hadronic mechanics might, not unreasonably, be regarded by some as equally risky but the cost would be immeasurably less. Surely this latter course is the route for the world's nations to follow?

Once again, it seems that the power of 'conventional wisdom' is ruling, and, as seen above, not only in pure science. It is now, in my view, influencing governmental decisions which could, and probably will, have a decisive effect on the future of this planet. I put it to you, one and all, that this pernicious influence must be countered and rapidly defeated for the eventual good of mankind!

Jeremy Dunning-Davies,
Department of Physics,
University of Hull, England.

Dear Professor Dunning-Davies,

I can only express my deepest respect for the decency of your thoughts, your commitment to the serious conduction of science, and your determination in support of the search for basically new knowledge, all qualities establishing the difference between a scientific leader such as you, and the crowd of followers, as shown by your pioneering papers, such as your first quantitative and axiomatically consistent study of antimatter stars, your first study on scientific records of thermodynamics via an irreversible mathematics, and other seminal works.

Yours, Truly

Ruggero Maria Santilli



'Conventional Wisdom' or Scientific Truth?
Jeremy Dunning-Davies Department of Physics, University of Hull, England
ISBN 978-1-904275-30-5
256 pages, available at £15.99 for a short pre-order period at

In this book Jeremy Dunning-Davies deals with the influence that "conventional wisdom" has on science, scientific research and development. He sets out to 'explode' the mythical conception that all scientific topics are open for free discussion and argues that no-one can openly raise questions about relativity, dispute the 'Big Bang' theory, or the existence of black holes, which all seem to be accepted facts of science rather than science fiction.

In today's modern climate with Britain's radioactive refuse heap already big enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall. Edmund Conway, Economics Editor The Daily Telegraph 28.11.06, it is alarming that there are potential advances in hadronic mechanics which could conceivably pave the way for new clean energies and even a safe in-house method for the disposal of nuclear waste, that have not even been considered by the present establishment. These examples are from the field of physics but there can be little doubt that outside factors have affected the progress of most, if not all, branches of science for many years. Factors other than purely scientific ones still appear to be exerting tremendous influences on progress in a wide variety of fields. Is it too idealistic or naïve, to expect that science should remain pure and stay unaffected by such factors? Dr Dunning-Davies presents a beautifully written argument that if science is to progress, and be of any real use, these external factors must be held at bay.

It is to be hoped that scientists will read it with open minds and reflect honestly on what it has to say, that members of scientific organizations from the smallest of national bodies to even the august Nobel committee will also read it in a similar light, and finally that members of the general public, which ultimately funds all our scientific endeavours, will also read it and reflect on the wisdom with which their money is being spent.
Ruggero Maria Santilli
President, Institute for Basic Research U.S.A.
(Extract From The Foreword)


Dr Dunning-Davies encapsulates the meaning of micro-politics and epistemology in his book and makes a beautifully written plea for the pursuit of research that is trustworthy and honest.Š The book is replete with wisdom, provokes thought and certainly exemplifies the art of an archivist. I recommend the work without reservation.
Dr. Chris Botton
Centre for Educational Studies
University of Hull, England

Dr Dunning-Davies boldly confronts a controversial issue which underlies the process of scientific researchŠ with an interesting focus on the potential flaws in Einstein's theoriesŠ The book is refreshingly honest in its approach and, by all accounts, is long overdue.
Dr Charlotte Bean
University of Warwick, England

Professor Dunning-Davies has laudably discussedŠ, certain features of contemporary science whichŠ dispels the naïve notion that all scientists are principally motivated by a deep desire to objectively discover and understand the inner workings of Nature, in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Science is like any other human endeavour, and so it is inevitably and inextricably intertwined with those aspects of human nature, which are less than magnanimous. Vainglory, subjectivity and cupidity certainly have a significant role in the methods of many contemporary scientists, both individually and as a self-centred coterie, and to this end suppression of facts and ideas are, as a matter of purposeful course, not excluded by the ³conventional wisdom². This may serve to salve latent longings of those scientists, but it is pernicious in its effects on the progress of scientific thought. Professor Dunning-Davies is to be thanked for bringing these matters before a broader audience, despite the wails and cries of the magicians. Hopefully, science will one day soon rediscover scientific integrity, and be guided by it.
Stephen J. Crothers
Associate Editor, Progress in Physics (Australia)

Dunning-Davies pioneered the thermodynamics of antimatter, and is also a connoisseur in the history of physics and astronomy. This gives him a distinguished voice Š. [This book is] A must-read for anyone concerned about dangerous anti-scientific influences in our time, including those masquerading as scientific. The well known Kuhnian history of resisting scientific revolutions repeats itself as tragedy, but Dunning-Davies re-ignites the spirit of Einstein against the ongoing Phariseen sclerosis.
Prof. Stein Johansen, Ph.D.
Philosophy of Science

A long needed addition to the literature, whose goal is to unmask the mafia controlled grip on physics and science in general. It's time to find the answers to the questions that this book raises.
Professor Bernard Lavenda
Universita' degli Studi
Camerino, Italy


Comments from Dr. Martin Cloonan BSc, Ph,D. MRSC
Galway, , Ireland

To the Forum on the 20-th Century Theories

I wish to bring to this Forum new an independent research that supports the possibility that Quantum Mechanics and Chemistry are incomplete in support of Prof. Santilli's Hadronic Mechanics and Chemistry [1]. Not only is this research independent but it comes from the opposite end of the reductional hierarchy, from the realm of Complexity theory, the Robinson/Ingold electronic theory of Organic Chemistry and Organic Chemistry itself. This research is the recently published Cplex-isoelectronic Theory of Pericyclic Reactions and Aromaticity:

A new electronic theory of pericyclic chemistry and aromaticity is proposed: The Cplex-isoelectronic theory. Consistent with Santilli's hadronic chemistry , International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, in Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 7 July 2006, at

The Cplex-isoelectronic theory is an alternative to the present quantum based methods for pericyclic reactions and aromaticity, namely the Woodward-Hoffmann, the Frontier Molecular Orbital (FMO) and the modern ab initio approaches, all of which have received the Nobel prize. The Cplex-isoelectronic theory is not based on quantum mechanics but is in line with the Robinson/Ingold electronic theory of organic chemistry and Complexity theory. These quantum methods came to the fore in organic chemistry after the 1950's when the Woodward-Hoffmann rules emerged and nobody had been able to use the Robinson/Ingold electronic theory to rationalize pericyclic reactions. The Robinson/Ingold theory had been, prior to the 1950's, the major theoretical tool of the organic chemist. There is direct evidence for the assumptions of the Cplex-isoelectronic theory in pericyclic reactions and aromatic compounds and it makes predictions that are different from the present quantum chemical methods and the experimental evidence, when available, is found to be consistent with thw new chemical theory []1]. Thus this finding opens another door to the possibility that quantum mechanics is not complete.

I too have seen the ongoing scientific obscurantism and the protection of 'pet theories' denounced by Prof. Santilli in this Forum because at the expense of objectivity and the pure scientific method in my attempt to publish the Cplex-isoelectronic theory. One reviewer subjectively stated: how could the Cplex-isoelectronic theory be correct and how can the present quantum chemical methods be wrong when they are taught in every university in the world! In all cases the Cplex-isoelectronic theory was dismissed without any logic, scientific fact, law, principle or experiment being provided that disproved this new theory. On this vein I wish to compliment the Editors and Reviewers at the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy for their objectivity, their rigorous following of the pure scientific method and their openness to new and revolutionary ideas.

I stand astonished and amazed at the research and findings of Professor Santilli. His work also provides crucial independent research that backs up the deduction from the Cplex-isoelectronic theory that the present quantum chemical methods may be incomplete. In relation to the obscurantism Professor Santilli mentioned I wish to convey my admiration to Professor Santilli on his strength, courage and purity in the quest for new ideas and truth in science. History may very well look upon Ruggero Maria Santilli as one of the greatest scientists ever.

Dr. Martin Cloonan BSc, Ph,D. MRSC
Republic of Ireland

[1] R. M. Santilli, {\it Elements of Hadronic Mechanics}, Volumes I and II, 2-nd edition (1995) and Vol. III Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev (in press), pdf files available at [1a]; {\it Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry,} Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001) [1b]; {\it isodual theory of antimatter,} Springer (2006) [1c], and vast literature quoted therein.

Dear Dr. Cloonan,

Thank you for sending your important comments to the Forum. We believe that, thanks to your scientific courage and integrity on the need to surpass quantum chemistry in favor of its hadronic covering, you have put the foundations of basically new substances (or isocomplexes), that is, substances whose bond is only partially quantum valence (based on centuries old math) with the balance being given by Prof. Santilli's new magnecular isobonds (based on his new isomathematics) [1b]. As such, we believe that your discovery will have scientific, industrial and social implications for generations to come. The fact that famous chemists, including Nobel laureates, do not see this is due to their vast knowledge of old theories but their gross ignorance of new chemical knowledge, as a result of which they are now outside real science no matter how high is their academic status. Just ignore them and keep going with your 'independent' research.

I also appreciated your indication of the 'incompleteness' of quantum mechanics and, consequently, of quantum chemistry. Prof. Santilli has stated various times in his works that he was inspired since his high schools studies by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument (1935) on the 'lack of completion of quantum mechanics,' and dedicated his research life to the search for the appropriate 'completion' squarely along the E-P-R legacy (this illustrates the reason he has great admiration for Albert Einstein but extreme reservations on his followers because they have often manipulated Einstein's teaching for personal aims).

What makes Prof. Santilli stand above most contemporary and past scientists has been: his intuition that the achievement of a consistent 'completion' of quantum mechanics required the prior discovery of a suitable 'new math' (that is, new numbers, new spaces, new geometries, new algebras, etc.); his determination to build such a new math despite him being a theoretical physicist; his subsequent application of his new math to the 'lifting' (in his language) of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, superconductivity, chemistry, gravitation and cosmology to represent broader conditions; his experimental verifications of the new theories in all these sectors; and, dulcis in fundo ignored by orthodox academicians to their horrendous damage, hie new industrial applications (see, e.g.,

I searched throughout the history of science and found magnificent mathematicians, physicists, chemists, experimentalists, astrophysicists, etc. but found none who made basic contributions in all these fields comparable to those by Prof. Santilli (readers of this Forum are encourage to prove me wrong). Myself, my friend the late Prof. Jaak L\"ohmus from Estonia, and other scientists from the former US.S.S.R. recognized this and had the Estonia Academy of Sciences list Prof. Santilli among the most illustrious scientists of all times (see, the Nomination occurring during communist times to be known by Prof. Santilli only several years later.

Wishing you continued success

Mikhail N. Chormansky
Institute for Basic Research
from Georgia (Former U.S.S.R.)
(translated from Russian)


Comments from Professor Geoffrey Hunter
Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto, Canada


Please enlighten me about one aspect of your very interesting work - with reference to the third paragraph of the abstract:

It is appropriate here to recall that quantum mechanics and its underlying mathematics permitted a numerically exact representation of all experimental data of the hydrogen atom. By contrast, the same mathematics and quantum laws have not permitted an equally exact representation of the experimental data of the hydrogen molecule, since a historical 2 % of molecular binding energy has been missed for about one century (we exclude here the use of screened Coulomb laws since they can only be achieved via nonunitary transforms of the Coulomb law, thus exiting the class of equivalence of quantum chemistry).

I have been a practitioner of quantum chemistry specialising in accurate calculations on systems of a few nuclei and electrons (H2+,He,H-,H2). I am, of course familiar with the exact (analytical) solution of Schrodinger's equation (SE) for the hydrogen atom - the interaction potential being the Coulomb interaction between a point electron and a point proton - separation of the center of mass motion is exact; it reduces the SE to a 3-variable differential equation and the 3 variables are separable in spherical polar coordinates (and as I have read also in one other coordinate system [parabolic coordinates?]).

The hamiltonian consists of the relative kinetic energy of the electron and proton, and the Coulomb interaction between then. In this (SE) approximation the magnetic interactions arising from the spins of the particles are neglected - they arise naturally in Dirac's wave equation for the hydrogen atom - the wavefunction now has 4 components. Even the Dirac equation is not exact - there are QED corrections as well.

Your abstract (quoted above) says that the hydrogen atom is soluble exactly, whereas the hydrogen molecule cannot be so solved - there is a residual (essential) error of 2% in the molecular binding energy.

Accurate QM calculations on the H2 molecule are based upon a hamiltonian consisting of the (4) KEs of the 2 electrons and 2 protons together with the 6 Coulomb interactions between these 4 charged particles. Separation of the center of mass motion (exactly) leaves 3 KE terms in the internal (relative) hamiltonian. As for the H-atom magnetic interactions arising from the spins (magnetic moments) of the particles are neglected in this non-relativistic treatment.

James and Coolidge first carried out calculations in the 1930s, and with the advent of computers this work was made numerically more accurate by Kolos and collaborators beginning around 1960. My belief is that the results of these accurate calculations are in agreement with the experimental (spectroscopic) measurements by Herzberg and others. [CITE] The Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule HM James, AS Coolidge - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2004 - The Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule. [The Journal of Chemical Physics 1, 825 (1933)]. Hubert M. James, Albert Sprague Coolidge.

[CITE] Potential-Energy Curves for the X 1 Óg+, b 3 Óu+, and C 1 ®¢u States of the Hydrogen Molecule W Kolos - The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1965

[CITE] Improved Theoretical Ground-State Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule W Kolos, L Wolniewicz - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2003 - Improved Theoretical Ground-State Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule. [The Journal of Chemical Physics 49, 404 (1968)]. W. Kolos, L. Wolniewicz

[CITE] Accurate Adiabatic Treatment of the Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule W Kol̸os, L Wolniewicz - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2004 - Accurate Adiabatic Treatment of the Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule

[CITE] energy curve and vibrational energies for the electronic ground state of the hydrogen molecule - group of 3 » W Kolos, K Szalewicz, HJ Monkhorst - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2006 -

[CITE] Relativistic energies of the ground state of the hydrogen molecule - group of 4 » L Wolniewicz - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2006 - Relativistic energies of the ground state of the hydrogen molecule. [The Journal of Chemical Physics 99, 1851 (1993)]. L. Wolniewicz

[CITE] Dissociation energy of the hydrogen molecule - group of 6 » A Balakrishnan, V Smith, BP Stoicheff - Physical Review Letters, 1992 - APS .. Ch. Jungen, I. Dabrowski, G. Herzberg and M. Vervloet, J. Chem ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS Dissociation Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule A. Balakrishnan, V. Smith, (a ...

[CITE] Dissociation Energy and Ionization Potential of Molecular Hydrogen - group of 2 G Herzberg - Physical Review Letters, 1969 - APS .. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS VOLUME 23 10 NOVEMBER 1969 NUMBER 19 DISSOCIATION ENERGY AND IONIZATION POTENTIAL OF MOLECULAR HYDROGEN G. Herzberg Division of Pure ...

[CITE]Š in diatomic molecules. V. The rotation-vibration spectrum of the hydrogen-deuteride (HD) molecule RA Durie, G Herzberg - Canadian Journal of Physics, 1960 - V. The rotation-vibration spectrum of the hydrogen-deuteride (HD) molecule Authors: Durie, RA; Herzberg, G. Journal: Canadian Journal of Physics. Vol. ... Cited by 21 - Related Articles - Web Search

To assist you, let me also cite the text by G.W.Series "The Spectrum of Atomic Hydrogen" wherein the magnetic and hyperfine interactions are acounted for.

I remain puzzled by the source of the "2% error in the binding energy of H2". I am even more puzzled by the implication that this arises from in the inapplicability of quantum mechanics to H2. The theoretical basis of all quantum chemistry is the hamiltonian consisting of a KE term for each electron and for each nulceus, and the N(N-1)/2 Coulomb interactions - where N is the number of electrons plus the nuber of nuclei. There are N-1 KE terms after (exact) separation of the center of mass motion.

You rightly exclude the "screened Coulomb potential" - this is never put into a QM hamiltonian because it isn't physics - it is a (purely theoretical) concept - an interpretation of some variational wavefunctions.

Although the Born-Oppenheimer separation (of nuclear from electronic motion) is widely applied, I recall calculations that avoided this (approximate) separation - I seem to recall by David Bishop of Ottawa probably in the 1980s.

[CITE] corrections for the vibrational energy levels of the X 1 Sigma+ g state of the hydrogen molecule DM Bishop, LM Cheung - The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1978 - Title: Radiative corrections for the vibrational energy levels of the X 1 Sigma + g state of the hydrogen molecule Authors: Bishop, David M.; Cheung, Lap M ...

[CITE] Vibrational spacings for H 2+, D 2+ and H 2 - group of 2 » DM Bishop, RW Wetmore - Molecular Physics, 1973 - Taylor & Francis .. Page 2. 146 DM Bishop and RW Wetmore ...

All of the above is incidental to your mesurements of the production of neutrons by reactions of electrons and protons. This is in the (high-energy) realm of nulcear physics and is quite distinct from the realm of quantum chemistry.

I look forward with pleasure to your reply telling me about the 2% especially how it is evidence for the inapplicability of QM.

Geoffrey Hunter

Dear Geoffrey,

Thanks for your very learned and valid comments with several useful references I shall quote in future works. You touch the ultimate problem of contemporary physics and chemistry, namely, a problem whose treatment should not be restricted to the two of us because requiring the collegial participation of all academicians who really care about science. In fact, science advances precisely via exchanges of views such as this one. It is unfortunate that these exchanges are not made with greater frequency.

In regard to historical aspects, you know that I am a follower of Albert Einstein in his view that quantum mechanics is incomplete. I became a physicist because I read in high school Enrico Fermi statements (repeated also in his Nuclear Physics) that he did not believe conventional theories to apply in the interior of mesons, protons and neutrons, so I though that perhaps there was something for me to do.

I know you are a follower of Karl Popper from your excellent papers in fields he initiated. I assume you know that Popper explicitly supported the construction of hadronic mechanics in the preface of his last book. The number of authoritative supporters of the lack of terminal character of quantum mechanics could be long indeed.

A main problem raised by your comments is that of terminology. What do we mean with "validity" of quantum mechanics? If you refer to "applicability" and/or "approximately valid" the answer is definitely YES, quantum mechanics and chemistry are indeed applicable to and approximately valid for the H2 molecule.

However, if you refer to "exact validity" then the answer, in my view, is definitely NO in the sense that for the H-atom you do get indeed exact numerical solutions to the decimal you want from basic principles without ad hoc parameters, while for H2 that is not true. The statement is that "quantum chemistry misses 2% of the binding energy of the H2 molecule when used from first un-modified axioms without ad hoc parameters". I got it from several books in the structure of H2 and H2O listed in my monograph on "Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry [1]. You can have a summary in pdf formal available in the web from Chapter 9 of "Elements of Hadronic mechanics" [2].

I believe that the statement as formulated is correct because that is the very reason screened Coulomb potentials were introduced. They did improve the approximation and for that reason a couple of Nobel Prizes were granted. I agree that the recipients did deserve a prize because serious scholars with great records of achievements, but I strongly object against the use of "quantum chemistry" in the statement by the Nobel Committee since the very notion of quantum if energy is impossible for these "potentials".

The issue is somewhat obscured by the very calculations you mention. In fact, H2 is a four-body system that, as such, has no "exact solution" as for the H-system. Then, I can assure you that things can be "adjusted" to reach an exact solution via power series expansions on ad hoc parameters truncated in such a way to steer the results to fit the data. You can do the same with variational methods.

However, and here is the point where science goes down the drain unless we admit the limitations of all our efforts (including mine, of course), I can repeat the same calculations and show deviations via the use of different expansions based on different ad hoc parameters......

I believe that the "absence" of these alternative calculations for the H-atom establish the "exact validity" of quantum mechanics in that field, while the existence of "different calculations with different numerical results" establish the "approximate character" of the theory, but this is just a point of view on which you are welcome to disagree.

In my view, these expansion - variational methods have done the biggest disservice and damage to science in human history because they give the perception that quantum mechanics and chemistry are universally valid for all conceivable conditions in the universe, a view suppressing basic advances particularly those needed for the solution of our environmental problems now known not to be solvable with quantum mechanics. This is the main issue of the Forum on Old Theories

To cut these alternatives out, the senior US chemist Don Shillady and I worked out as part of hadronic chemistry a fully solvable restricted three-body formulation of the H2 molecule obtained via a deep correlation bond of the two valence electron into a quasiparticle. I can send you on request subsequent papers by independent colleagues showing that the Santilli-Shillady restricted three-body model of the H2 molecule does indeed admit exact solution and does indeed represent experimental data exactly and without ambiguities. After working at this for decades, I can assure you you cannot do that with quantum mechanics!

In any case, the same arguments you present apply for hadronic mechanics and chemistry by using the same words and equivalent references. So, the issue is: how do we distinguish which is a better theory?

The answer definitely cannot be restricted to numerical values in the solutions of differential equations and require a broader vista. It is at this point where I do accept quantum mechanics as being "exactly valid" for the H-structure but definitely not for the H2-structure.

The reasons are several. Let me mention a few.

I never accepted quantum chemistry as being exactly valid for molecular structures since my graduate studies in physics at the University of Torino, and I got in trouble for that to such an extent that no Italian university would give me a job and I had to come to the USA. I used to tell my teachers that quantum chemistry produces a pure "nomenclature" without science in regard to the notion of valence because for me to do science valence must verify the following:

1) identify precisely the physical or chemical origin of the ATTRACTIVE FORCE BETWEEN TWO IDENTICAL ELECTRONS needed to be called a bond on serious scientific grounds, that is, outside academic politics;

2) Such a force must be identified NUMERICALLY to have science; and, that just the beginning,

3) Such a numerical value of the bonding force in molecular structures must be proved to represent the binding energy in a numerically exact way.

Quantum mechanics and chemistry have been proved to be unable to do that in one century of efforts. As a matter of fact, the identical electrons in valence couplings REPEL, rather than attract each other according to quantum mechanics.

Hadronic mechanics and chemistry have resolved all all aspects 1), 2) and 3) (you cannot see this in a message and have to study the technical literature [1]). Hence, to do science, I have to prefer hadronic chemistry over quantum chemistry.

Another aspect is that quantum mechanics is a strictly reversible theories. Had to be that to be accepted for the Structure because atomic orbits are indeed reversible and that's another reason I accept quantum mechanics for the Structure.

Chemistry is a different situation. In fact, we bond together two Atoms to form the H2 molecule via a strictly irreversible process. I refused to accept quantum mechanics for irreversible process since my graduate studies and I intent to die without accepting it for conditions I do not consider scientific. In fact, if I use quantum mechanics for the reaction

H + H => H2 + 57 Kcal/mole

I can compute a finite probability to have the spontaneous disintegration under time reversal

H2 => H + H

I cannot do that. If I did not have other ways I may perhaps consider the use of quantum mechanics. However, we do have available for decades by now STRUCTURALLY IRREVERSIBLE theories, that is, theories whose mathematics is irreversible, see the latest memoir [3] reviewing works since the 1960s. Then, under these conditions the use of the fully reversible quantum mechanics for structurally irreversible process is purely political in my view.

Yet another argument is that to get any number even for modest molecules such as CH4 it takes the most powerful computers to work for huge periods of time. Various colleagues accept that. I do not.

The reason is everywhere in your message: the sole use of the hamiltonian for which power series tend to converge very slowly

A(w) = A(0) + w(AH - HA)/1!+ .....

Again, I would accept this so inefficient approach if I did not have a better way to do my calculations. But this better way has been in existence for decades. The fact that it continues to be ignored by colleagues is to their sole detriment because in so doing they cut themselves out of real research. The alternative way is given by the Lie-Santilli isotheory, namely, the lifting of the basic unit of Lie theory into a positive definite operator (or matrix)

I => E = 1 / T > 0,

with consequential lifting of the Lie product, algebras, groups, transformation theory, etc.

AB - BA => ATB - BTA, etc.

for which we have the power series expansion

A(w) = A(0) + w(ATH - HTA) / 1! + .... T << w

Don Shillady proved that the use of the Lie-Santilli isotheory accelerates calculations by at least one thousand time, that is, computer usage is are reduced one thousand time [1,2]. But then, why should colleagues use the slower approach? For inertia, lack of knowledge or politics?

The ultimate origin of the serious dilemma raised by your nice and important message rests in several parts of your message itself. You continuously refer to hamiltoniana. This implies the tacit assumption that all interactions in the universe are of potential type, an assumption that can be easily proved NOT to be universally true, e.g., from the fact that all known potentials are reversible, while nature is irreversible. Hence, the hamiltonian CANNOT represent everything in the universe. Of course, the hamiltonian does indeed represent exactly the H-atom, crystals, particles in particle accelerators and many other important systems. The point is that you cannot represent everything with H = K + V.

That is the ultimate origin of all the above aspects. In the Structure you have purely Colombian interactions at large mutual distances that, as such, are indeed purely hamiltonian. In the H2-molecule you hav e two electrons one mostly inside the other. Sure electrons have a "point like charge" but they do NOT have a "point like wave packet". People assume that the deep mutual penetration of wave packets does not constitute interactions because quantum mechanics says so.

I respect the view but disagree. Those are precisely the interactions missing in the treatment of the Hmolecules and all other systems of particles at short mutual distances. The problem is that they cannot be of potential type, namely, they are outside the hamiltonian, that is, to include contact interactions in a scientific - quantitative way the theory must be NONUNITARY, namely, have indeed the usual hamiltoniana, but also have an additional operator representing the contact nonpotential; interactions.

Quantum mechanics and chemistry are based on the use of the conventional hamiltonian for all conventional potential interactions plus the use of the operator T (as the inverse of Santilli's isounit) for the representation of all nonhamiltonian interactions and effects, resulting in the covering hadronic mechanics and chemistry.

It should be noted that the alternative quantum vs hadronic mechanics is open to debates for molecular structures, but not for other structures, such as the synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons as occurring in stars that you allude to, for which any attempt at trying to do science with quantum mechanics, let us be honest to each otter, would be pure politicos particularly under knowledge that hadronic mechanics does solve the problem fully and exactly.

All the above discussions, alternatives and ambiguities solely apply for chemistry. When passing to particle physics there are no alternatives as you can see in the denunciation in this Forum of manipulations via the use of ad hoc parameters originating from nowhere to claim quantum mechanics and special relativity as being exactly valid even for the paradoxical case of the Bose-Einstein correlations where to manipulate data "physicists" drop four ad hoc parameters in the two point correlation function, while the quantum axiom of vacuum expectation value allows only two. My God, how low our physics community has fallen just to support beloved "pet theories"!

But, this time thanks God, in passing to a number of problems in particle physics there simply is no room left for political manipulations of physical reality. A clear example is the synthesis of the neutron inside stars p + e => n (+ v?) [4,5] for which quantum mechanics is completely inapplicable (and not violated because not meant for that) since: 1) the synthesis requires a minimum of 0.78 MeV "positive" binding-like energy (because the neutron mass is 0.78 MeV bigger than the sum of the masses of the constituents) for which Schroedinger's equation admits no physical solution; 2) If protons and electrons have a relative kinetic energy of 0.78 MeV, quantum mechanics prohibits any synthesis because at that energy their cross section is extremely small; 3) the idea of manipulating facts via the reaction p + e + anti-v => n would be truly vulgar not only because the cross section of antineutrinos with protons and/or electrons is virtually null, but also because antineutrinos have negative energy while the synthesis requires positive energy. Shall I keep going? There is no need for physicists in good faith like you, while for physicists in bad faith no evidence holds and none is worth indicating in any case.

All in all, the idea that quantum mechanics and special relativity are the sole, final and terminal theories for all of the universe is amoral, ascientific and asocial, because sooner or later all physical theories will be surpassed by broader theories with the advancement of scientific knowledge. But then the issue is: why wait to look for them? Any waiting is certainly not in the interest of science!

I encourage and invite colleagues to search for coverings of quantum mechanics and special relativity other than those permitted by the isotopies, genotopies and isodualities of conventional theories [1-5]. However, in so trying colleagues should know that the indicated covering theories have been proved to be "directly universal" for all (sufficiently smooth) local and nonlocal, potential and nonpotential, linear and nonlinear as well as unitary and nonunitary interactions (universality) directly in the frame of the observer without any need to have coordinate transformations (direct universality), and that said covering theories have been proved to be the sole having invariance over time (predicting the same numbers under the same conditions at a later time) by avoiding the "theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies" of noncanonmical and nonunitary theories [3].

Again, thank you for your sincere, kind and learned message.

Wishing you and your family the best for 2007 I remain



Ruggero Maria Santilli
The Institute for Basic Research
Palm Harbor, Florida


R. M. Santilli Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, Kluwer (2001) [1]; Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Vols. I and II, 2-nd ed., 1995, Vol. III, in press, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (also available in pdf format at [2]; "Lie-admissible invariant representation of irreversibility for matter and antimatter at the classical and operator levels", Nuovo Cimento B 121, 443 (2996) [3]; "Confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons", Submitted for publication, available in the arXiv, a summary of the various scans are available in the web site [4]; "Neutrino and/or etherino?" submitted for publication, available in the arXiv as physics/0610263 [5].



Main Page | Table of Contents | Journals | Subscriptions | Submissions | Monographs | IBR Grants | IBR Conferences | Hadronic Mechanics | Latest Discoveries | About Us | CV of IBR Members | E-Mail Us

Last Revised: December 14th, 2001

Copyright © 1997-2003 Institute for Basic Research, P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682, U.S.A.
Tel: 1-727-934 9593 Fax: 1-727-934 9275 E-Mail:
All Rights Reserved.