Ruggero Maria Santilli

P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682

Curriculum Vitae

Please refresh/reload this page to see the latest version.

Last revision March 11, 2003

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS OF HADRONIC MECHANICS AND PROPOSAL OF FUNDAMENTAL NEW TESTS

1. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE MUTATION OF INTRINSIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOPARTICLES.

2. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION VIA THE BEHAVIOR OF MEANLIVES OF UNSTABLE HADRONS WITH SPEED.

3. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION VIA THE BOSE-EINSTEIN CORRELATION.

4. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS.

5. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY.

6. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN CHEMISTRY.

7. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY.

9. GENERAL REFERENCES ON HADRONIC MECHANICS.

************************************

** 1. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE MUTATION OF INTRINSIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOPARTICLES.
**

The most visible and convincing experimental evidence on the mutability of the intrinsic characteristics of elementary and composite particles (called mutation and first introduced by R. M. Santilli in the original proposal (38) to built hadronic mechanics) is the **lack of existence in nature of perfect rigidity.** In fact, the lack of rigidity implies the necessary **deformability** of wavepackets and/or charge distributions. In turn, the latter implies the necessary **alterability of the intrinsic magnetic moment. ** After ** one** mutation is established, the mutation, in general, of spin, rest energy, charge, meanlife, parity, and other intrinsic characteristics follows via simply compatibility arguments, or via the use of the Lorentz-Santilli isotransforms.

With the apparent sole exception of Ref. (38), the notion of mutation did not exist in the physics of the 20-th century because Hamiltonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, special relativity, rotational symmetry, Poincare' symmetry and all other basic methods of the physica of the 20-th century are irreconcilably incompatible with deformations. In fact, all these methods assume particles as being dimensionless points. It is evident that points cannot be deformed. Therefore, no mutation could exist in the physics of the 20-th century.

By comparison, our iso-Hamiltonian mechanics, hadronic mechanics, isospecial relativity, isorotational symmetry, Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry, and the other methods used in these studies have been conceived and constructed to represent extended, and therefore deformable particles, as stated in various titles of the references (see, e.g., the title of Ref. ((26) on the first isotopies of special relativity).

It should be noted that the mutation of individual characteristics depends on the physical conditions at hand. For instance, if we have the deformation of shape of an isolated charged and spinning sphere due to external fields, we do have a necessary mutation of the intrinsic magnetic moment, but there is no mutation of spin, as experimentally established in classical electromagnetism. However, if the same extended spinning charge is immersed within a hyperdense medium, the mutation of spin jointly with that of the intrinsic magnetic moment is necessary to avoid the belief of perpetual motions within physical media.

In this Part III, we shall provide various experimental evidence on mutations of particles. The first direct experimental verification of the deformability of the intrinsic magnetic moments of nucleons was announced by H. Rauch (228) in 1981 (at our Third Workshop on Lie-Admissible Formulations of hadronic mechanics, see Proceedings (73,74,75)) via a potentially historical neutron interferometric test of the 4p-spinorial symmetry of neutrons (see Refs. (229) for technical details).

Jointly, G. Eder (219) (who also participated in the same meeting) conducted various calculations for a thermal neutron beam exposed to the intense fields when passing in the vicinity of heavy nuclei, as it is the case for Rauch's experiment (see below). Eder's conclusions are that strong nuclear forces do not imply an appreciable effect due to the very small sectional area of their influence, while nuclear electric and magnetic fields do imply a measurable effect of the order of 1%, that is precisely the amount measured by Rauch and his collaborators.

************************************
**

************************************
**

In the experiment a thermal neutron beam is first coherently split by a perfect crystal. The beam then passes through an electromagnet gap in one (or both) branches with the magnetic field. The beam is then coherently recombined by the perfect crystal as shown in Figure 1. The experimenters calibrated the field of the electromagnet to the value 7,496 G to achieve exactly two spin flips, i.e., a rotation of 4p = 720^{o}, as predicted by the conventional value of the neutron magnetic moment in vacuum

(1.1) m_{neutron} = - 1.913148 ± 0.000066 m_{N}.

When the neutron beam travels in empty space (namely the electromagnet gap is empty), the experimenters confirmed the exact occurrence of q = 4p, thus providing a beautiful verification of quantum mechanics in the conditions under which it is applicable, that is, when the neutrons of the beam can be all well approximated as massive points.

However, in order to avoid stray fields at the gap borders, the experimenters filled up the electromagnet gap with Mu-metal sheets. This essentially provided a test of the spinorial symmetry of neutrons under the intense electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of Mu metal nuclei.

In all tests, Rauch and his collaborators **did not** find the expected angle of q = 4p = 720^{o} but found instead an angle of spin-flip whose median value is consistently **smaller** than 720^{o}, an effect that has been called by the author **angle slow down effect.** Rauch's best available experimental values are given by (228,229)

(1.2a) q = 715.87^{o} ± 3.8^{o},

(1.2b) q_{max} = 719.67^{o},
q_{min} = 712.07^{o}.

These measurements **do not contain the exact angle 720 ^{o} thus providing experimental evidence of the breaking of the SU(2)-spin symmetry.**

Needless to say, the experiment is not final and it must be repeated until the deviation is at least three times the error. By remembering that measurements (1.2) date back to 1978 (see later on for comments), these improvements can be done nowadays in a variety of ways, such as conducting the tests for a large multiple of 4p that would be resolutory, provided that the experimenters fill up the electromagnet gap with Mu-metal sheets or other heavy element (in which absence the tests would have no connection or relevance for the test of mutation).

Despite this unsettled aspect, Rauch measurements (1.2) are plausible indeed. In fact, they are confirmed by various deviation from quantum mechanical values of total nuclear magnetic moments (see, later on, Section 4). Also, as recalled earlier, perfectly rigid bodies do not exist in the physical reality. Therefore, the **amount** of mutation is certainly open to scientific debates at this writing, but its **existence** is beyond credible doubt.

****************************************

*****************************************

Also, he possible recovering of the full 720^{o} angle **is not** sufficient to claim full confirmation of quantum mechanics in the conditions herein considered because there are several other aspects that have to be obtained. One of them is the sinusoidal character of the curve on the coherent recombination of the two split neutron beams. The experimental data shown in Figure 2 show a clear loss of such a sinusoidal character in an amount that is indeed a multiple of the error. On strict scientific grounds, this is sufficient, alone, to provide experimental evidence of mutation.

************************************
**

**************************************

The physical interpretation of these data is so simple to be trivial. When the gap of the electromagnet is given by the vacuum, the neutrons cannot experience any mutation (see the l.h.s of Figure 3), and the predictions of quantum mechanics are exact.

However, when the gap of the electromagnet is filled up with dense Mu-metal sheets, neutrons experience a deformation of their charge distribution that, in turn, implies a necessary alteration of their intrinsic magnetic moment, as requested by Maxwell's electrodynamics of charged, spinning and deformed spheres. Note in this case that **the mutation of the intrinsic magnetic moment occurs without mutating the spin 1/2 of the neutron,** evidently in view of the long range character of the acting forces.

The fact that the measured angle is consistently **smaller** than that expected (angle slow down effect) implies that the intrinsic magnetic moment of the neutron is **decreased.**

The achievement of a numerical, exact and invariant representation of experimental data (1.2) via relativistic hadronic mechanics is also elementary. Since the neutron is a spinning particle, it is natural to assume that the only possible mutation is that of the charge distribution of the neutron from its spherical shape (necessary for quantum mechanics) to a spheroidal ellipsoid, in which case

(1.3) b_{1} = b_{2} ≠ b_{3}.

The ellipsoid will then be a prolate or oblate depending, respectively, on whether

(1.4a) b_{3}^{-2} > b_{1}^{-2} = b_{2}^{-2},

(1.4b) b_{3}^{-2} < b_{1}^{-2} = b_{2}^{-2}.

Rauch measured a deviation from the SU(2)-spin symmetry transform in the angle
q of spin precession along the third axis. Such a transform is best represented via Dirac's equation according to the well known law

(1.5) y' = R(q) x y = (e^{iG1 x G2 x q/2}) x y,

where the Gs are the conventional Dirac gamma matrices.

The use of our covering iso-Dirac equation and related isotopic SU^(2)-spin symmetry then implies the applicability of the following isolaw from the iso-Dirac equation of Section II.5

(1.6) y^' = R^(q^) * y^ = (e^{iG^1 x G^2 x q^/2}) x y^ =
(e^{ib1 x G1 x b2 x G2 x q/2}) x y^

where, the third expression is defined on isospaces over isofields, while the last expression is its projection on conventional spaces over conventional fields.

By using the third realization of the iso-Minkowskian metric (II.3.9) (that expressed via the characteristic quantity b) and the explicit form of the iso-Dirac gamma matrices, we obtain the expression

(1.7) q^ = b_{1} x b_{2} x q_{715.87o} = 720^{o}

where the exact value of 4p for the isoangle q^ should be expected by experts in isotopies. In fact, all isotopies reconstruct as exact on isospace over isofields conventionally broken symmetries. In this case, the reconstruction of the exact SU(2)-spin symmetry requires that the isoangle be equal to the exact value 4p. In this case the deviation occurs only in the **projection** of the isotheory in our conventional spacetime, exactly as realized in Eq. (1.7).

The above expression immediately provides the first numerical values of the characteristic quantities

(1.8a) b_{1} = b_{2} = 1.003,

(1.8b) b_{1}^{-2} = b_{2}^{-2} = 0.994.

Next, the mutation here considered cannot possibly change the density of the hyperdense medium inside the neutron, namely, the mutation must be **volume preserving.** By assuming that the original sphere has a radius normalized to one, this condition implies that

(1.9) b_{1}^{-2} x b_{2}^{-2} x
b_{3}^{-2} = 1,

from which we obtain the numerical value of third characteristic quantity

(1.10a) b_{3}^{-2} = 1.002,

(1.10b) b_{3} = 0.994,

namely, **relativistic hadronic mechanics characterizes an oblate spheroidal deformation, with a consequential decrease of the intrinsic magnetic moment, precisely as needed to represent the experimental data.**

To achieve a numerical value of the mutated intrinsic magnetic moment
m^ we assume that in first approximation

(1.11) m^/m = 715.87^{o}/720^{o}.

But, from Eq. (II.5.7) we have

'

(1.12) m^ = mx b_{3}/b_{4}.

Therefore, we have

(1.13a) b_{3}/b_{4} = 715.87/720,

(1.13b) b_{4} = 720 x 0.994/715.87 = 1.000

namely, the density of the thermal neutron beam is insufficient to affect the maximal causal speed, that remains the speed in vacuum (Isoaxiom II.4.1). The numerical value of the ** mutated intrinsic magnetic moment** is then given, in average, by

(1.14) m^ = m x b_{3} = -1.902 m_{N}.

namely, **the mutation of the intrinsic magnetic moment in Rauch's experiment (228,229) is of the order of 1 %.**

This completes the **numerical, exact and invariant representation of all experimental data of Rauch's 4p neutron interferometric experiment as permitted by hadronic mechanics, representation that is manifestly impossible for quantum mechanics.**

In summary, relativistic hadronic mechanics permits a simple, direct, numerical, exact and invariant representation of:

1) The actual, extended and nonspherical charge distributions of neutrons via the basic isounit

(1.15) I^ = Diag. (b_{1}^{2}, b_{2}^{2}, b_{3}^{2}, b_{4}^{2}) > 0,

where b_{1}^{-2}, b_{2}^{-2}, b_{3}^{-2} represent the **semiaxes** of the spheroidal ellipsoid and b_{4}^{-2} geometrizes the **density** of the medium in the electromagnet gap (that is, the medium in which neutron propagate);

2) All possible deformations of these shapes via a dependence of the isounit, e.g., on the intensity of the external electric and magnetic fields originating from the nuclei of the Mu-metal nuclei;

3) The **angle slow-down effect**, namely, the systematic decrease of the angle of precession due to a decrease of the intrinsic magnetic moment for the physical conditions considered;

4) The necessarily oblate mutation/deformation of the charge distribution of the neutron to represent said angle slow down effect;

5) All the above exact numerical representations are obtained by reconstructing the **exact SU(2)-spin symmetry on isospaces over isofield, while the same symmetry remains broken in conventional treatments.**

In closing, the author feels a duty to recall rather extreme political interferences by the academic establishment against the finalization of Rauch's fundamental experiment, in documented knowledge of its paramount importance for the prediction and treatment of clean new energies so much needed by mankind. In fact, Rauch's measurements reported herein date back to 1978. Following their presentation at our meeting of 1981, Rauch and his associates were prohibited to continue the experiment at its original laboratory in Grenoble, France, under the conditions herein considered (with the electromagnet gap filled up with heavy metals). ALL repetitions of the experiment occurred since that time (they are not quoted here because useless for new knowledge) were carefully conceived and conducted in such a way as to have the thermal neutron beam move in vacuum in order to know in advance the full preservation of quantum mechanics, and this fundamental experiment has not been repeated to this day because of the persistence until today (for over two decades !) of said political obstructions by organized interests on old doctrines, despite countless solicitations for its repetition.

Due to the societal implications of the case, the author felt obliged to denounce these organized obstructions in book (60) and document them in volumes (61). It is the deep conviction of this author that, until the ethical decay in the contemporary physics community is contained, no significant research for the much needed new clean energies can be effectively conducted.

**2. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION VIA THE BEHAVIOR OF MEANLIVES OF UNSTABLE HADRONS WITH SPEED.
**

A direct experimental verification of the validity of isorelativity and its underlying iso-Minkowskian geometry and Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry (Section II.4) in the interior of hadrons is provided by the **anomalous behavior of the meanlife of unstable hadrons with speed.** In fact, according to current experimental data reviewed below, such a behavior:

1) is at variance with the behavior predicted by special relativity,

(2.1a) t = t_{o} x g,

(2.1b) g = 1/(1 - b^{2})^{1/2},
b^{2} = v_{k} x v_{k}/c_{o} x c_{o},k = 1, 2, 3,

where c_{o} is the speed of light in vacuum;

2) confirms the behavior predicted by isospecial relativity (Isoaxiom II.4.3, Eq. (II.4.31)),

(2.2a) t = t_{o} x g^,

(2.2b) g^ = 1/(1 - b^^{2})^{1/2},
b^^{2} = v_{k} x
b_{k}^{2} x v_{k}/c_{o} x b_{4}^{2} x c_{o},k = 1, 2, 3

3) constitutes an indirect verification of the iso-Doppler law (Isoaxiom III.4.4, Eq. (II.4.32)).

Recall that the center-of-mass behavior of a particle in an accelerator must strictly obey the laws of special relativity (because the particle moves in vacuum under external electromagnetic interactions). Yet, nonlocal interactions are known to imply deviations from such laws. The issue is therefore *how nonlocal effects in the interior of hadrons can manifest themselves in their exterior behavior in a particle accelerator.*

Blokhintsev and his school at the JINR in Dubna (230) pioneered the hypothesis that such nonlocal internal effects can manifest themselves via departures from the Minkowskian behavior of the meanlife of unstable particles with speed, while the center-of-mass trajectory follows Einsteinian theories exactly, and submitted certain generalized time-dilation laws. The problem was subsequently studied by several authors, including Redei (231), Kim (232), Nielsen and Picek (233) and others. This resulted in a variety of generalized time dilation laws.

In 1983, Santilli (26) submitted the isotopies of the special relativity with underlying isotopies of the Minkowskian spacetimes and the Lorentz-Poincare' symmetry as a form of geometrization of the physical medium in the interior of hadrons with isotopic law (2.2). The latter law was subsequently proved by Aringazin (192) to be "directly universal," i.e., including all possible generalizations of the time dilation law (230-233) via different expansions in terms of different parameters and with different truncations ("universality") in the fixed reference frame of the experimenter ("direct universality").

The covering character of our isorelativity now acquires its full experimental significance. Prior to the unified isotopic laws, experimenters had to test a considerable variety of different time dilation laws without having any mean for a possible selection due to the unavoidable approximation. With the universal iso-Minkowskian laws these problems are eliminated and the tests can be restricted to the unifying law (2.2).

Preceding
generalized time dilation laws left basically unsolved the problem of their compatibility with the Einsteinian center-of-mass behavior, thus remaining unsettled even in the event of final experimental verifications. By comparison, the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry has been constructed for the purpose of yielding conventional center-of-mass trajectories, a feature achieved by preserving all ten Poincare' generators/conserved quantities and and isotopically lifting instead their Lie algebra into the form [A, B]* = AxTxB - BxTxA, where T is fixed for the hadron considered. Yet the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry admits generalized internal laws due to the new interactions represented by the isotopic element T. Therefore, the use of the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry assures the compliance of particles with Einsteinian center-of-mass behavior in particle accelerators, in a way fully compatible with nonlocal internal effects. Note that this is a fundamental point for the historical legacy on the nonlocality of the strong interactions.

The first phenomenological verification of the iso-Minkowskian geometry for the interior of hadrons has been provided by Nielsen and Picek (233) who computed deviations from the Minkowskian geometry inside pions and kaons via standard gauge models in the Higgs sector. These phenomenological studies resulted in a "deformed Minkowski metric" inside pions and kaons of the type

(2.3) m^ = Diag. [(1 - a/3), (1 - a/3), (1 - a/3), -(1 - a)],

where a is a constant with numerical values different for different mesons. It is evident that the above generalized metric is a particular case of our iso-Minkowskian metric in Eqs. (II.4.9) with numerical values in terms of the characteristic b-quantities via the the data of Ref. (233)

(2.4a) PIONS p^{±}:
b_{1}^{2} = b_{2}^{2} = b_{3 }^{2} =
1 + 1.2 x 10^{-3} , b_{4}^{2} = 1 - 3.79 x 10^{-3}

(2.4b) KAONS K^{±}: b_{1}^{2} = b_{2}^{2} = b_{3 }^{2} = 1 - 2 x 10^{-4} , b_{4}^{2} = 1 + 6.1 x 10^{-4}.

Note the change in numerical value of the isotopic element in the transition from pions to kaons, that is necessary because of the change of the density. In fact,** all hadrons have approximately the same size, but different rest energies, thus having different densities. Consequently any treatment of different hadrons via isorelativity requires different isounits.**

The first direct experimental verification of the anomalous behavior of the meanlives of unstable hadrons with speed was reached by Aronson et al. (234) who measured a clear anomalous behavior of the meanlife of the K^{o} in the energy range 30-100 GeV. Subsequent experiments conducted by Grossman et al. (235) confirmed the conventional behavior of the meanlife of the same particle in the **different** energy range 100-350 GeV.

Nevertheless, the latter experiment (235) is afflicted by equivocal theoretical and phenomenological assumptions reviewed below, to such an extent to raise doubt as to whether tests (235) were specifically intended to recover conventional laws (as it has been the case for all neutron interferometric tests following that by Rauch outlined in the preceding section). To appraise this case, one should never forget that special relativity is clearly inapplicable in media of low density such as air or water due to insufficiencies beyond credible doubt (See Section II.4). Therefore, the belief that special relativity is exactly valid in the hyperdense media inside hadrons has no credibility, thus casting doubts on excessive theoretical and phenomenological manipulations of raw experimental data.

An exact fit of the anomalous measurements of Ref. (234) between 35 and 100 GeV was done by Cardone et al (110) by reaching the numerical values (see Figure 4 for the plot)

(2.5a) b_{1}^{2} = b_{2}^{2} = b_{3}^{2} = 0.9023 ± 0.0004,

(2.5b) b_{4}^{2} = 1.003 ± 0.0021,

(2.5c) b_{1} = b_{2} = b_{3} = 0.949,

(2.5d) (2.5d) b_{4} = 1.001,

Cardone et al (111) also achieved an exact fit via iso-Minkowskian law (2.2) of the two seemingly discordant measurements (234) and (235) for the energy range from 35 to 400 GeV for the interior of the K^{o}-particle, resulting in the following **experimental values for the characteristic b-quantities for K ^{o}**

(2.6a) b_{1}^{2} = b_{2}^{2} = b_{3}^{2} = 0.909080 ± 0.0004,

(2.6b) b_{4}^{2} = 1.002 ± 0.007,

(2.6c) b_{1} = b_{2} = b_{3} = 0.0954,

(2.6d) b_{4} = 1.001,

(2.6e) Db_{k}^{2} = 0.007, Db_{4}^{2} = 0.001,

that are of the same order of magnitude of values (1.4).

************************************
**

**************************************

Measurements (233-235) also confirm the prediction of the iso-Minkowskian geometry in the range 35-400 GeV according to which the b_{4} quantity (being a geometrization of the density of a given hadron) is constant for the particle considered (although varying from hadron to hadron), while the dependence in the velocity rests with the b_{k}-quantities.

Note the reconstruction of the exact Lorentz and Poincare' symmetries at the isotopic level for all anomalous time behavior of meanlives, as proved in Ref. (26). In fact, the quantity a of Eq. (2.3) was called by Nielsen and Picek (233) the **Lorentz asymmetry parameter.** In reality the Lorentz symmetry is exactly valid for the deformed metric (2.3), that only calls for its construction with respect to the new unit

(2.7) I^ = diag. [(1- a/3)^{-1}, (1- a/3)^{-1}, (1- a/3)^{-1}, - (1- a)^{-1})],

and related isomathematics. In particular, note that the conventional Lorentz transformations are necessarily broken for metric (2.3). Only the Lorentz symmetry remains exact, although realized in a more general way.

In summary, all available conceptual, theoretical, phenomenological
and experimental evidence establish deviations from the Minkowskian
geometry inside hadrons with the sole exception of
the Fermilab tests (235). A comprehensive critical analysis of the latter tests was done by Arestov et al (120) and can be summarized as follows.
Arestov et al. re-examined tests [3b] by
focusing the attention first on the range-energy selection rule
that can be applied to re-elaborate the initial data on
decays. By taking into account the results
as they were done, Ref. (120) performed Monte Carlo simulations
of the main features of experiment (235) via the use of the same statistics and reached conclusions dramatically different than those of ref. (235).

Attention in Ref. (235) was also given to the parameters used in Ref. (235) in the formula dN/dt for the proper time
evolution. The strong correlation of said parameters causes a generally regular dependence
of the parameters on entities not present in the formula, such
as
number of runs, energy, etc., apart from the systematic uncertainties.
Therefore, the above dependence
shadows the weak energy dependence that is dominant in this case,
as can be seen from the large values of the correlation elements in Ref. (235).

Ref. (235) solved the problem of non-correlated fit
by selecting the kaon momenta greater than 100 GeV/c. By means of that
energy cut off, Ref. (235) obtained the data sample in which the CP violating terms
contribute up to 1.6 %. However, it is unrealistic to look for the deviations from the Minkowskian decay law of the order of 1.6 percent.
More realistic is to test the decay law for the kaons for deviations of the order of 10^{-3} percent,
as suggested in the fits by Cardone et al (110,111).

In fact, the assumption of 1.6 % contribution from PC violation
in the data elaboration of Ref. (235) implies looking for a large energy dependence of their tau function, thus rendering it meaningless to look
for more realistic deviations.

The large inefficiency (error) of tests (235) occurred because they had not
been optimized for the problem at hand. Basically, the experimental design and
data
selection rules followed those of conventional relativistic studies in weak interactions, thus implicitly assuming special relativity in the data elaboration,. as shown in Figure 6.

************************************
**

***************************************

Thus, in the selected number of events, both fits achieve a good mean
value of the hidden parameter
determining the energy dependence in the neutral kaon decays.
However,
the error bars differ strongly, although both results for fitting values
are still insignificant statistically even in the selected sample of
events. Therefore,
the 100 % error bar in the fit of Ref. (120) illustrates the insufficiency of tests (235) quite clearly, since such error permits
manipulations of the selection procedure aiming at achieving a predetermined
result.

In conclusion, the apparent results of tests (235) (apparent confirmation of special relativity within the hyperdense media inside the kaons) have no conception or epistemological credibility; they are far from being resolutory in their energy range of 100 to 400 GeV due to an excessive number of equivocal theoretical and phenomenological manipulations of the raw experimental data, besides having insufficient statistics and excessive error; and, even assuming that they are eventually confirmed by future tests, the same results confirm the inapplicability of the special relativity within kaons when fitted with other tests in favor of the covering isorelativity.

The exact fit of experimental data (234,235) of Refs. (110,111) constitutes experimental evidence on the following predictions of isospecial relativity:

1) **Photons propagate inside kaons at speeds bigger than that in vacuum,**

(2.7) c = b_{4} x c_{o} = 1.001 x c_{o},

**with maximal causal speed inside kaons bigger than the local photons (as it occurs for water, Section II.4)** (Isoaxiom II.4.1)

(2.8) V_{Max} = c_{o} x b_{4} / b_{3} =
1.001/0.953 x c_{o} = 1050 x c_{o} > c;

2) **The time within kaons t^ (isotime) is different than our own time t, and it is given by**

<

(2.9) t^ = t x b_{4}

3) **The unit of isotime decreases with the increase of the density,** as shown by the data in the transition from pions to kaons, thus predicting that the isotime for gravitational singularities is null.

As we shall see, the validity of the iso-Minkowskian geometry and the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry inside hadrons is truly fundamental for the scientific study and industrial development of new clean energies. Despite their transparent scientific and societal importance, ALL major particles laboratories in the U. S. A., Europe and Russia have refused to conduct resolutory experiments on the behavior of the meanlives of unstable particles with speed following formal petitions by the author as well as numerous other concerned scientists.

As reviewed in book (60) and documented in volumes (61), beginning in 1978, this author suggested to all major particle laboratories the conduction of said fundamental tests because necessary for scientific accountability in the use by particle laboratories of large public funds, all crucially dependent on the exact validity of special relativity within the hyperdense medium inside hadrons.

Since, on one side, new clean energies are crucially dependent on **deviations** from the exact validity of special relativity inside hadrons, and since, on the other side, organized interests have systematically prevented or otherwise jeopardized the experimental verification of basic physical laws within hadrons, the only possible conclusion is that, as it was the case for Rauch's fundamental interferometric experiment, **no serious advancement toward new clean energies is possible without concerned people first addressing issues of scientific ethics and accountability in particle physics. Remeber, "your" environmnent is at stake.**

**3. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION VIA THE BOSE-EINSTEIN CORRELATION.
**

Hadronic mechanics has been built for quantitative treatments of the nonlocal-integral character of the hadronic structure and the strong interactions at large. Therefore, the most fundamental verifications of the new mechanics are those directly dealing with nonlocal interactions.

Among various possible experimental verifications of this type, the most important is that with the **Bose-Einstein correlation.** We are here referring to the collision of protons and antiproton at high or low energy, their annihilation forming the so-called "fireball," and the subsequent emission of a number of unstable massive particles whose final product is a set of correlated mesons (see, e.g., review (236) and Figure 7 below).

************************************
**

Evidently, the **approximate** validity of quantum mechanics for the Bose-Einstein correlation is beyond scientific doubt. However, any firm belief on the **exact** character of quantum mechanics for the event here considered is a scientific misconduct, particularly if proffered by experts in the field, because:

1) the Bose-Einstein correlation is necessarily due to nonlocal-integral effects originating in the deep overlapping of the wavepackets of protons and antiprotons;

2) The mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (such as its topology), let alone its physical laws, are inapplicable for any meaningful representation of said nonlocal interactions (those occurring in a volume that, as such, cannot be consistently reduced to a finite set of isolated points as requested by quantum mechanics); and

3) The fundamental quantity needed for the representation of experimental data on the Bose-Einstein correlation, the two-point correlation amplitude (see below), is irreconcilably incompatible with the basic axioms of quantum mechanics.

As an example, the basic quantum mechanical axiom of expectation values of a Hermitean, thus diagonal operator A (observable) solely permits structures of the type

(3.1) C_{k} = S_{k=1,2,3,...}(s_{k}| x A_{kk} x |s_{k}),

as expected to be known by "experts."

By comparison, as also expected to be known by "experts," a quantitative representation of the Bose-Einstein correlation necessarily requires cross terms of the type

(3.2) C_{ij} = (s_{i}| x A x |s_{j}), i ≠ j,

that are impossible for the quantum axiom of expectation value.

Admittedly, there exist a number of semiphenomenological models in the literature (236) with a good agreement with the experimental data. Scientific misconduct occurs when these models are claimed to be compatible with the basic axioms of quantum mechanics. In fact, as we shall see better below, any agreement with experimental data on the Bose-Einstein correlation achieved by throwing in parameters and functions of completely unknown physical origin constitute mere adulterations for pre-meditated schemes.

Of course, the selection of the appropriate **generalization** of quantum mechanics for quantitative representations of the Bose-Einstein correlation
must be open to scientific debate. The scientific misconduct occurs when its **need** is denied for personal equivocal gains. At any rate, an inspection of the huge deviations from the predictions of quantum mechanics and experimental data on the Bose-Einstein correlation indicated in Figure 9 below is sufficient to unmask said scientific misconducts.

After studying the problem for years, Santilli (112) proposed in 1992 the treatment of the Bose-Einstein correlation via relativistic hadronic mechanics for the following reasons:

i) Relativistic hadronic mechanics has been built precisely for the quantitative treatment of the nonlocal-integral interactions in general thus including those occurring in the fireball of the Bose-Einstein correlation;

ii) The basic axioms of relativistic hadronic mechanics have been built to admit the needed cross terms in the expectation values of Hermitean operators, which cross terms are merely permitted when Hermitean isotopic operator T has non-diagonal elements,

(3.3) C^_{ij} = (s_{i}| x T_{ik} x A_{kk} x T_{kj} x |s_{j}), i, j = 1, 2, i ≠ j,

iii) Relativistic hadronic mechanics reconstructs the exact Poincare' symmetry for the Bose-Einstein correlation because all nonlocal-integral effects are embedded in the generalized unit;

iv) Relativistic hadronic mechanics is the **only** known generalized mechanics outside the class of unitary equivalence of quantum mechanics that achieves **invariance,** thus avoiding the catastrophic physical and mathematical inconsistencies of Theorem II.2.1;

v) As it was the case for the behavior of the meanlife with speed, relativistic hadronic mechanics is directly universal, thus including as particular cases all possible nonunitary generalizations of quantum mechanics.

The analysis of Ref. (112) can be outlined as follows. The rigorous application of the unadulterated axioms of relativistic quantum mechanics predicts the following **two-point correlation function**

(3.4) C_{2} = N x (1 + e^{-r2 x q2}),

where N is a renormalization constant, r is the radius of the fireball and q the relative four-momentum of the proton-antiproton system. However, the above expression is dramatically far from experimental data.

A chain of adulterations of the exact expression (3.4) were then worked out in the literature in order to achieve a fit of experimental data while still claiming exact validity of quantum mechanics (236). The first adulteration was the following one

(3.5) C_{2} = N x (1 + C x e^{-r2 x q2}),

where C is an *ad hoc* quantity called "chaoticity parameter," and introduced without any physical motivation or origin.
Expression t(3.5) also resulted in being excessively far from experimental data. Therefore, additional adulterations became necessary with expression of the type (236)

(3.6) C_{2} = N x (1 + + C_{1} x e^{-r12 x q2} + C_{2} x e^{-r22 x q2} + ...),

It is at this point where scientific misconduct occurs whenever the above empirical expression is claimed to be compatible with quantum mechanics, particularly when the claim is ventured by "experts." In fact, it is well known to "experts" that the addition of exponential terms in expression (3.6) necessarily requires exiting from the quantum axiom of expectation values because of the need for cross terms as in Eq. (3.2).

The representation of the Bose-Einstein correlation via relativistic hadronic mechanics can be outlined as follows. First, the new mechanics permits a direct representation (i.e., a representation via the isometric itself) of the actual **shape** of the fireball with the characteristic quantities b_{1}^{-2}, b_{2}^{-2}, b_{3}^{-2} representing the semiaxes of the spheroidal ellipsoid, as well as of its **density** of the fireball via characteristic quantity b_{4}^{-2}, resulting in the isounit, isotopic element and isometric of the type (see Section II.4 for details)

(3.7a) I^ = Diag. (b_{1}^{-2}, b_{2}^{-2}, b_{3}^{-2}, b_{4}^{-2}) = 1/T > 0,

(3.7b) T = Diag. (b_{1}^{2}, b_{2}^{2}, b_{3}^{2}, b_{4}^{2}),

(3.7c) m^ = T x m = Diag. (b_{1}^{2}, b_{2}^{2}, b_{3}^{2}, - b_{4}^{2})

where m = Diag. (1, 1, 1, -1) is the conventional Minkowski metric.

However, the above diagonal expression is insufficient for the proton-antiproton correlation due to the need of the indicated cross terms. Therefore, the complete isominkowskian metric M^ is given by the above expression m^ multiplied by the following nondiagonal Hermitean matrix

(3.8) M^ = m^ x

| C_{11} C_{12} |

| C_{21} C_{22} |

where C_{11} and C_{22} are real valued, C_{12} = C_{21}^{+}, and the four Cs are given by all possible integrals in the inner product of wavefunction 1 for the proton and 2 for the antiproton (see Ref. (112) for brevity), thus resulting in the needed terms 11 and 22 as as occurring for quantum mechanics, plus the cross terms 12 and 21 solely admitted by hadronic mechanics, resulting in a total of **four** terms.

The isotopies of the conventional relativistic derivation, done for the first time by Santilli in Ref. (112), yield the following **two-point isocorrelation function**

(3.9) C^_{2} = 1 + (K/3) x S_{k=1,2,3,4} m^_{kk} x e
^{-qt2 / bk2}

where q_{t} is the momentum transfer needed to fit experimental data (that are expressed precisely via the momentum transfer), m^ is expression (3.7c) and K has the following form

(3.10) K = b_{1}^{2} + b_{2}^{2} + b_{3}^{2} = 3,

where the normalization to 3 is requested to admit a consistent relativistic limit.

Note that isocorrelation function (3.9) predicts the following **maximal and minimal values**(112)

(3.11a) C_{2}^{max} = 1 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 - 1/3) = 1.67.

(3.11b) C_{2}^{min} = 1.

Moreover, relativistic hadronic mechanics predicts the following **maximal value for the fourth characteristic quantity (density of the fireball)**(112)

(3.12a) 1 + K^{4} / 3 + 3 x K^{2} x b_{4}^{2} = 1.67,>

(3.12b) b_{4}^{2} = n_{4}^{-2} = 2.33

(3.12c) b_{4}^{-2} = n_{4}^{2} = 0.429.

,p>
(3.12d) b_{4} = 1.526,

(312e) n_{4} = 0.654.

**IT SHOULD BE INDICATED THAT THE ABOVE NUMERICAL VALUE OF THE DENSITY OF THE FIREBALL COINCIDES WITH THAT NEEDED FOR THE EXACT NUMERICAL REPRESENTATION OF RUTHERFORD'S CONCEPTION OF THE NEUTRON AS A BOUND STATE OF ONE PROTON AND ONE ELECTRON AT ONE FERMION MUTUAL DISTANCE, AS PRESENTED IN PART V. Note that this is purely theoretical prediction prior to experimental verifications,. Note also that this is a "limit" density, and that the actual one for the Bose-Einstein fireball is expected to be different because it depends on the energy.**

Therefore, relativistic hadronic mechanics predicts that **the speed of photons inside the Bose-Einstein fireball is bigger than that in vacuum,**

(3.13) c = b_{4} x c_{o} = 1.526 x c_{o},

and that **the intrinsic time of the fireball (isotime) is decreased with respect to our time**

(3.14) t^ = t / b_{4} = 0.654 x t.

A comprehensive phenomenological study of the above prior theoretical derivation by Santilli (112) was conducted by F. Cardone and R. Mignani (113), resulting in an outstanding fit of all experimental data on the Bose-Einstein correlation reproduced in Figure 8 below. Cardone and Mignani also provided the following **experimental data on the characteristic iso-Minkowskian quantities for the Bose-Einstein correlation**

(3.15a) b_{1} = 0.267 ± 0.054 , b_{2} = 0.437 ± 0.035 , b_{3} = 1.661 ,

(3.15b) b_{4} = 1.653 ± 0.015.

with related values here computed because quite useful for subsequent calculations

(3.16a) b_{1}^{2} = 0.071 , b_{2}^{2} = 0.191, b_{3}^{2} = 2.759,

(3.16b) b_{4}^{2} = 2.732,

(3.16c) n_{1} = 3.745, n_{2} = 2.288, n_{3} = 0.602,

(3.16d) n_{4} = 0.605,

(3.16e) n_{1}^{2} = 14.025, n_{2}^{2} = 5.235, n_{3}^{2} = 0.602,

(3.16f) n_{4}^{2} = 0.366,

Note the very elongated character of the fireball, as indicated by the above experimental values of its semiaxes n_{k}^{2}, k = 1, 2, 3. Note also that the density of the fireball, b_{4}^{2} = 2.732 is **bigger** than the limit theoretical value b_{4}^{2} = 2.33, thus implying bigger local speeds of the photons, as expected from the very large energy of the proton and antiprotons.

************************************
**

************************************
**

,p>

The above fit provide a major experimental verification of the following aspects:

I) The predictions of relativistic hadronic mechanics are confirmed with an exact fit of the experimental data;

II) The fits of experimental data provide a clear confirmation of the maximal value 1.67 and minimal value 1 of the two-point isocorrelation function;

III) The experimental fits provide a clear confirmation of the theoretical prediction (3.12b) for the value of the density of the proton-antiproton fireball, that is crucial the new structure model of hadrons with physical particles presented in these pages, the experimental value (3.16b) being greater than the theoretical value due to the relative energy of the proton and antiproton;

IV) The experimental fits confirm the nonlocal, nonpotential and nonunitary nature of the correlation at the very foundation of hadronic mechanics;

V) The fits confirm the validity of the Minkowski-Santilli isogeometry for the interior of the proton-antiproton fireball with isometrics of the type (3.8);

VI) The fits confirm the capability of relativistic hadronic mechanics of reconstructing the exact Poincare' symmetry at the isotopic level for the proton-antiproton annihilation under isounits (4.11).

VII) The fits confirm that the speed of photons within hyperdense hadronic media is bigger than the speed of photons in vacuum as per Eq. (3.13), and that the intrinsic time of the fireball is different than our time, as in Eq. (3.14).

When the above experimental verification is joined with the preceding one, it is expected that even the most resilient (or opposed?) reader will accept the evidence of the validity of hadronic mechanics in the physical conditions in which quantum mechanics cannot be exactly valid.

By combining the above experimental values with those of the preceding section, we can have the following values of the isounits of time

(3.17) I^_{t}(pions) = 1.004, I^_{t}(kaons) = 0.998 , I^_{t}(protons) = 0.366,

As one can see, the above data clearly indicate the **decrease of the isounit of time with the increase of the density,** thus implying a null isotime at the limit of a gravitational singularity.

The cosmological implications of the above numerical results are significant, because they imply the **prediction by isorelativity that stars and other astrophysical bodies with different masses have different times, and, in particular, stars and other astrophysical objects that have the same mass but different densities have different times.** A significant is that we are referring to predictions of a local time that is not predicted by general relativity. As an illustration, the prediction implies that the flow of time here on Earth and that on Jupiter is different in rates not predicted by general relativity, a prediction that can be one day tests when a clock can be immersed in Jupiter's gravitational field and retrieved for comparison to a twin clock on Earth.

**4. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS.
**

**4.1. THE DISTRESSING CONDITION OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS.**

There is no doubt that, thanks to quantum mechanics, nuclear physics achieved truly historical discoveries during the 20-th century. However, on true scientific grounds, a discipline can be said to be exactly valid for given specific field only when that discipline represents the totality of the experimental data in an exact and invariant way via the rigorous use of the original axioms, without their adaptations to fit the data. If the discipline provides only an approximate representation of the experimental data, then any claim of "exact" validity is a scientific misconduct.

Along these lines, quantum mechanics can be claimed to be exactly valid for the structure of the hydrogen atoms (not so for heavier atoms!) because, in that particular field, the mechanics represented all experimental data in an exact and invariant way without any adulteration of its basic axioms. By the same argument, any claim that quantum mechanics is exactly valid in nuclear physics is purely political because of the well known, historical inability of the discipline to represent all nuclear data.

The first evidence on the lack of exact character of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics dates back to the 1930s where it emerged that experimental values of nuclear magnetic moments could not be exactly explained with quantum mechanics, since there were deviations of the order of a few percents for the simplest possible nucleus, the deuteron, with increasing deviations with the increase of the mass, all the way to embarrassing deviations for large nuclei, such as the Zirconium (see Figure 10 below).

Despite these deviations, quantum mechanics was continued to be claimed as being exact in nuclear physics throughout the 20-th century on grounds that the existing disparities would be solved by "deeper theories," such as quark theories, when in reality the deviations and problematic aspects increased, rather than decreased with quark conjectures, e.g., because of their inability to represent correctly even the spin of nucleons, let alone their magnetic moments.

************************************
**

************************************
**

Additional serious disagreements between the prediction of quantum mechanics and nuclear data existed since the inception of the field and continued to increase, rather than decrease, in time. A second disparity is given by the disagreement between the predictions and experimental data in inelastic scattering of nucleons on nuclei.

Unfortunately for human knowledge, as soon as these disagreements were found, excellent fits with experimental data were quickly obtained via the adaptation of theoretical predictions with *ad hoc* parameters without physical motivation or origin, resulting in the claim, again, that quantum mechanics is exact. However, in reality, these adulterations and parametrization constitute a quantitative measurements of the **deviations** of quantum mechanics from nuclear realities, as it has been the case for the Bose-Einstein correlation and other fields.

************************************
**

**************************************

Perhaps the most distressing, yet suppressed, insufficiency of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics has been in its notoriously failed attempt to represent **nuclear forces.** Recall that a necessary condition for the applicability of quantum mechanics is that ALL interactions have to be derivable from a potential, trivially, because the mechanics can only represent systems via the Hamiltonian.

The original concept that nuclear forces were central soon resulted in being drastically disproved by nuclear reality, thus requiring the addition of non-central nuclear forces. Subsequently, there was the need to introduce exchange, van der Waals, and numerous other types of potentials in an attempt to represent nuclear forces. As of today, after about one century in keeping adding new potentials to the Hamiltonian, we are still far from an **understanding, let alone a quantitative representation of the nuclear forces, despite the fact that we have now reached the unreassuring addition of some twenty or more different nuclear potentials to the Hamiltonian**br>

(4.1) H = S_{k=1,2,...,N}p_{k}^{2}/2m_{k} + V_{1} + V_{2} + V_{3} + V_{4} + V_{5} + V_{6} + V_{7} + V_{8} + V_{9} + V_{10} + V_{11} + V_{12} + V_{13} + V_{14} + V_{15} + V_{16} + V_{17} + V_{18} + V_{19} + V_{20} + .........

It is evident that this type of process cannot be kept indefinitely without risking condemnation by posterity. The time to stop adding potentials to the Hamiltonian in the dream of reaching a satisfactory representation of the nuclear forced passed decades ago.

In summary, the **approximate** character of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics is, evidently, beyond scientific doubt. However, a rather vast evidence establishes that the **lack of exact character of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics is beyond credible doubt.** The open scientific issue is the selection of the appropriate **generalization** of quantum mechanics for nuclear physics, but not its **need. **

Admittedly, the deviations here considered are small, as we shall see. However, **the small deviations of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics directly imply new clean energy that cannot be even conceived, let alone treated via quantum mechanics. Therefore, we have a societal duty to conduct serious investigations on the applicability of broader mechanics in nuclear physics.**

Santilli proposed the covering hadronic mechanics for more accurate studies of nuclear physics since the original proposal. (38) of 1978 for the following reasons.

The comparison of nuclear volumes with the volumes of the nucleons reveals that **nucleons in nuclei are in conditions of mutual penetration of about 1/1000 of the volume of their charge distribution.** This is sufficient to establish that, when members of a nuclear structure, **nucleons are in condition of mutual penetration and overlap of their charge distributions.** In turn, this experimental evidence is sufficient to establish the **necessary presence of contact, nonlocal, nonlinear and nonpotential terms in the nuclear force.**

Therefore, the first and perhaps most fundamental implication in the use of hadronic mechanics in nuclear physics is the **truncation of keeping adding potentials to the Hamiltonian, and the separation instead of nuclear forces into a potential component represented with the Hamiltonian, plus a contact nonpotential component represented with the isounit**

(4.2a) H = S_{k=1,2,...,N} p_{k}^{2}/2xm_{k} + V,

(4.2a) I^ = Diag. (b_{1}^{-2}, b_{2}^{-2}, b_{3}^{-2}, b_{4}^{-2}) x e^{F(t, r, p, |s>, ...)},

where the characteristic quantities b_{k}^{-2} = n_{k}^{2}, k = 1, 2, 3, permit, for the first time, a direct representation of the actual, nonspherical and deformable **shape** of the charge distribution of nucleons, b_{4}^{-2}= n_{4}^{2} permits, also for the first time, a direct representation of the **density** of nuclei, and the function F permits, again for the first time, a representation of the contact, nonlocal,. nonlinear and nonpotential nuclear forces.

The broadening of the representational capability of hadronic mechanics over quantum mechanics is then evident to all readers in good faith. Note also the covering character of hadronic over quantum mechanics. In fact, at the limit when all nucleons are perfectly spherical (b_{k} = 1), the density of nuclei is abstracted into that of the vacuum (b_{4} = 1) and all forces are of potential type (F = 0), quantum mechanics is recovered identically. Note also that **hadronic mechanics recovers quantum mechanics identically for all distances bigger than one Fermi.** In fact, all isounits are restricted to verify the rule

(4.3) Lim I^_{r >> 1 Fermi} = I.

The first process initiated by hadronic mechanics is then the **re-interpretation** of which nuclear force is truly of potential and which is of nonpotential type, a process that is under way and will be reported at some future time.

Another reason for recommending the use of hadronic mechanics in particle physics is that their basic isosymmetries, the Galilei-Santilli isosymmetry (52-53) for nonrelativistic treatment, and the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry (54-55) for relativistic studies, have been conceived and constructed precisely for the nuclear structure under the following conditions:

i) The generators of the spacetime isosymmetries coincide with the conventional generators of quantum mechanics, thus assuring that the total ten conserved quantities of the Galilei or Poincare' symmetry remain conserved under isotopies (for all isolated nuclei);

ii) The spacetime isosymmetry guarantees the lack of a Keplerian center, thus permitting the representation of nuclei without nuclei, thanks to their foundations on the generalized unit that represent precisely contact interactions among extended nucleons, while recovering Keplerian systems at the limit (4.3).

iii) The exact validity of the spacetime isosymmetries assures the achievement of **invariant** descriptions of contact nonunitary effects, thus avoiding the catastrophic inconsistencies of Theorem II.2.1.

.

**4.2. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS OF HADRONIC MECHANICS IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS.
**

*
*
A number of applications and experimental verification of hadronic mechanics in nuclear physics will be presented in Part IV. In this section we provide the **experimental verification of hadronic mechanics via the first known exact, numerical and invariant representation of ALL nuclear magnetic moments.**.

The first historical hypothesis for the correct interpretation of the anomalous behavior of the nuclear magnetic moments dates back to the time of Fermi, Segre, and others in the 1940's. The hypothesis propagated to various treteases in nuclear physics in the first half of the 20-th century. For instance, in the treteases in nuclear physics by Blatt and Weisskopf (not quoted here because it is excessively known) one can read on page 31:

*It is possible that the intrinsic magnetism of a nucleon is different when it is in close proximity to another nucleon.*

The reader should be aware that the Santilli hypothesis on the mutation of the intrinsic characteristics of particles (38) was based precisely on this historical legacy of Fermi, Segre, Weisskopf and other founders of nuclear physics.

The study of this so simple and effective a hypothesis was abandoned in the second half of the 20-th century when researchers understood that deformations of the intrinsic characteristics of nucleons are strictly prohibited by Einsteinian doctrines, evidently because in flagrant disagreement with the Poincare' symmetry. As a result, the history of physics has now on record a truly incredible number of papers published in the past half a century in the study of nuclear magnetic moments all centrally dependent on Einsteinian theories for evident political reasons, yet ALL of which failed to reach an exact representation precisely because of the political premises of the research.

As of today, **quantum mechanics has been unable to reach an exact representation of the magnetic moment of the smallest nucleus, the deuteron, since about one percent is still missing, despite all possible relativistic and other corrections,** as shown, e.g., by V. V. Burov and his associates (238) at the JINR in Dubna, Russia. Rather embarrassing deviations exist for heavier nuclei.

Most unreasuringly, studies on the magnetic moment of the deuteron have been based on the use of a **mixture of different states, while the magnetic moment has been measured, specifically, when the deuteron is in its ground state.**

The quantitative treatment via relativistic hadronic mechanics of the above historical legacy of Fermi, Segre, Weisskopf and other founders of nuclear physics was first presented by R. M. Santilli at the meeting "Deuteron 1993" at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia (238) and then treated in other papers (see Ref. (114) for a comprehensive treatment of nuclear physics via hadronic mechanics). Most effective for the task herein considered is the use of the Dirac-Santilli isoequation (see Section II.5) since it provides a direct representation of the mutation of the intrinsic magnetic moment of nucleons.

We assume here a knowledge of Part II, with particular reference to the fact that, according to hadronic mechanics, **the nuclear constituents are not protons and neutrons, but their isotopic image called "isoprotons" and "isoneutrons", or, collectively, "isonucleons."** Since the contributions due to mutual penetrations are small, **isonucleons can be assumed in first approximation to maintain the conventional spin 1/2 and charge, but experience a mutation of their magnetic moments as well as of other characteristics identified below.**

This implies that isotopic treatment of nuclear magnetic moments can be obtained via the simple method of subjecting conventional treatment to a nonunitary transform representing precisely the mutation as in Eq.s (I.3.6) (technically, this means that the isorepresentation of the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry are "regular" and not exceptional). Moreover, the new conception of nuclei permitted by hadronic mechanics implies that **each isonucleon has its own shape generally different from other isonucleons** that is expressed by the characteristic functions of the iso-Minkowskian isogeometry b_{k}, k = 1, 2, 3.

A simple isotopy of the conventional quantum mechanical treatment of nuclear magnetic moments (available in any treteases in the field) leads to the following **isotopic total nuclear magnetic moments** expressed for simplicity along the third axis

(4.4a) µ^_{tot} = S_{k=1,2,...,N} (g^_{k}^{L^} x L^_{k3} + g^_{k}^{S^} x S^_{k3}),

(4.4b) g^_{k}^{L^} = g_{k}^{L} x b_{3} / b_{4}, g^_{k}^{S^} = g_{k}^{S} x b_{3} / b_{4},

where L (S) represents the angular momentum (spin, the gs are the conventional gyromagnetic factors with explicit values with conventional values

(4.5a) µ^{S} = µ_{P} g^{S} x S,
µ^{L} = g^{L} x L,

(4.5b) g_{p}^{L} = 1, g_{n}^{L} = 0

(4.5c) g_{p}^{S} = 5.585, g_{n}^{S} = - 3.816, µ_{P} = 1,

L^, S^ and g^ are the isotopic expressions, and N is the total number of isonucleons.

To a good approximation the **density** b_{4} of the isonucleons can be assumed to be the same for all these isoparticles. We select the use of value (3.16) because it represents the density of nucleons as derived from other fits. We therefore have the expression

(4.6a) b_{4} = n_{4}^{-1} = 1.652, b_{4}^{-14 = 0.605,
}

(4.6c) g^_{k}^{L^} = 0.654 x b_{k3} x g_{k}_{k}^{S^} = 0.654 x b_{k3} x g_{k}^{S},

where we have assumed in first approximation that the isoproton and the isoneutrons experience the same mutation.

It is easy to see that the above model provides a quantitative resolution of the historical open problem of total nuclear magnetic moments. Consider first the case of the **deuteron,** that is a p-n bound state in triplet S-state (L = 0), the state with L = 1 being unallowed by parity (that is preserved under isotopies).

We have the following **quantum mechanical (QM) and experimental values of the deuteron magnetic moment**

(4.7a) µ^{D}_{QM} = g_{p} + g_{n} = 0.879 ,

(4.7b) µ^{D}_{exp} = 0.857 (for µ_{p} = 1)

Note that the quantum mechanical representation is in **excess** of the experimental value. Therefore, the exact representation requires a **reduction** of the above theoretical values. In turn, this implies **the prediction of a prolate spheroidal deformation** (in which the rotation occurs along the major semiaxis), because an oblate deformation would imply an increase of the magnetic moment (due to the rotation around the smaller semiaxis).

By comparison, we have the following **deuteron magnetic moment as exactly represented by hadronic mechanics (HM) (238)**

(4.8a) µ^{D}_{HM} = (b_{3}/b_{4} x (g_{p} + g_{n}) = µ^{D}_{exp} = 0.857,

(4.8b) b_{3} = n_{3}^{-1} = 1.490,

(4.8b) b_{4} = n_{4}^{-1} = 1.652

The remaining two semiaxes of the isonucleons (evidently assumed to be a spheroidal ellipsoid due to spin) can be identified via the condition used earlier that mutations of shape must conserve the density (or volume) of the nucleon. Therefore, we have the condition

(4.9) n_{1}^{2} x n_{2}^{2} x n_{3}^{2} = 1,

from which we obtain the value of all semiaxes of the two isonucleons in the deuteron

(4.10) n_{1}^{2} = n_{2}^{2} = 1.490, n_{3}^{2} = 0.450.

As one can see, **hadronic mechanics achieves an exact and invariant representation of the deuteron magnetic moment, by confirming the prediction that the deformation is prolate.** The physical interpretation of the representation is so simple to be trivial (see Figure 12 below). The above model should be refined via different mutations of the isoproton and the isoneutron, evidently expected from their different absolute value of the magnetic moments. This study is left to the interested reader.

************************************
**

<

**************************************

The above results will be re-examined in Part VI with a deeper structure model of the deuteron in which the neutron is reduced to its constituents.The extension of the above model for an exact representation of the magnetic moment of the tritium and ALL other nuclei is straighforward and it is left to the interested reader, jointly with refinements due to D-couplings, pionic currents and other aspects here basically inessential to illustrate the exact representational capability of quantum mechanics compared to the approximate capabilities of quantum mechanics.

**5. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY.
**

**5.1.THE DISTRESSING CONDITION OF SUPERCONMDUCTIVITY.
**

*
*
There is no doubt that superconductivity has made major advances in recent decades. However, there is equally no doubt that superconductrivity currently is at the stage of atomic physics in the early part of the 20-th century before the discovery of the structure of atoms. In fact, superconductivity is based on electrons bonded in Cooper pairs, yet no quantitative model exists or is actually permitted by quantum mechanics for such pairs, thus resulting in a discipline that studies systems on which there is no serious knowledge.

Superconductivity is another field in which the exact validity of quantum mechanics has been stretched well beyond its limit for various reasons. As well known, individual electrons cannot be brought to superconducting conditions because their intrinsic magnetic field interferes with the stray atomic fields in conductors, by creating in this way what we call **electric resistance.** Superconductivity is only reached by **Cooper pairs** that are deeply correlated electron pairs in singlet bonds. In particular, these electron pairs are so stable to have been detected crossing potential barriers in said bonded form. The total magnetic field of the Cooper pair is dramatically smaller than that of individual electrons (due to the antiparallel alignment of the two electrons). Therefore, Cooper pairs experience much less resistance in their hopping from one atom to another in a conductor, thus permitting **superconductivity** (see Figure 13).

************************************
**

******************************************

There is no doubt that **quantum mechanics provided an excellent description of an "ensemble" of Cooper pairs each abstracted as a point,** the latter condition being necessary from the very structure of the theory. However, it is equally well known that **quantum mechanics has been unable to provide ANY structure model of ONE Cooper pair,** trivially, because electrons repel each other according to the fundamental Coulomb law. Therefore, the belief that quantum mechanics provides a complete description of superconductivity is equivalent to the construction of atomic physics without any model at all of the atomic structure, resulting in transparent political-nonscientific misconduct.

Due to the absence of such a fundamental knowledge, researchers were forced to introduce new interactions seemingly experienced by electrons that have no counterpart in any other branch of physics. I am referring to the introduction in superconductivity of the notion called **phonons** and related new electron-phonon interactions. Inspection of all other branches of physics reveals that phonons exist in the sound theory, but not at the particle level, thus casting justified shadows in the actual existence of phonons beyond the level of a conceptual abstraction. Alternatively,the lack of existence of electron-phonon interactions outside superconductivity casts doubts as to whether the conjecture of phonons will survive after the achievement of deeper and more accurate theories.

Above all, the stretching of the validity of quantum mechanics for systems for which it was not built for is best manifested by the exhaustion of predictive capacities. In fact, all possibilities of increasing the superconducting temperature have been exhausted, while all advances are attempted via phenomenological trails and errors without a sound guiding theory.

As it was the case for the preceding fields, the approximate character of quantum mechanics in superconductivity is beyond doubt. Equally beyond doubt is its lack of exact character and the need for a deeper theory capable of providing q quantitative structure model of the Cooper pair, representing the various aspects in a way compatible with experiments and exhibiting novel predictive capacities for further advances.

**5.2 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS OF HADRONIC MECHANICS IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY.
**

*
*
The research reported in this section was originated with Santilli's (38) hadronic bound state of one electron and one positron at short distance originated by nonlocal, nonlinear and nonpotential interactions due to deep wave overlappings (see Part IV for more details). Animalu (169,170) recognized that the strength of the new non-Hamiltonian interactions is such to overcome the Coulomb repulsion, and therefore be applicable also to the electron-electron correlation. Via the use of Santilli results (38), Animalu (loc. cit.) then applied hadronic mechanics to produce the first known structure model of the Cooper pair and built a new theory today known as **Animalu isosuperconductivity.** Finally, Animalu and Santilli (116) completed the structure model of the Cooper pair via hadronic mechanics.

It is assumed the reader is aware of the fact that, according to hadronic mechanics**the constituents of the Cooper pair are "isoelectrons" and not conventional electrons.** As a matter of fact, it will soon become evident that, **without the isotopic interpretation of particles, a structure model of the Cooper pair is impossible, thus confirming the basic limitations of quantum mechanics.**

It is evident that we can only outline here some of the main aspects of isosuperconductivity and its clear experimental verification. To avoid the "illusion" of novelty, the first step is to exit from the class of equivalence of quantum mechanics. This= task can be easily achieved via the method of nonunitary transforms of Eqs. (I.3.6).

Consider the Schroedinger equation for one electron with mass m and charge -e in the field of an identical electron

(5.1a) H x |e> = (pxp/2m + e^{2}/r) x |e> = E x |e>,

(5.1b) p x |e> = - i D_{r} |e>.

where, due to insufficient symbols in HTLM, D_{r} represents partial derivative with respect to r. The image of the above equations under a nonunitary transform is given by

(5.2a) U x U^{+} = I^ = 1 / T ≠ I,

(5.2b) (U x U^{+})^{-1} = T,

(5.2c) U x (H x |e>) = (U x H x U^{+}) x (U x U^{+})^{-1} x (U x |e>) = H^ x T x |e^> = E x |e^>,

(5.2d) U x (p x |e>) = (U x p x U^{+}) x (U x U^{+})^{-1} x (U x |e>) = p^ x T x |e^> = - i U (D_{r} |e>) = - i D^_{r} |e^> = - i I^ x D_{r} |e^>,

where e^ represents the wavefunction of the **isoelectron**, and D^_{r} represent partial isoderivative (Part I).

(5.3) H^ x T x |e^> = [p^xTxp^/2m^ + e^{2}/r)xI^] x T x |e^> = E x |e^>

However, the creation of Cooper pairs requires an "external trigger' (in the labnguage of hadronic mechanics). In fact, since identical electrons repel each other, and since the new attractive non-Hamiltonian interactions only occur at short distances of the order of 1 Fermi, without an external action (called trigger) identical electrons would never form the Cooper pair.

It is evident that the "trigger" for formation of the Cooper pair requires must be constituted by positive charges. Studies of the issue have discovered that the hadronic trigger for the Cooper pair is provided by Cuprate ions. The latter are purely quantum mechanical (because they act for large distances as compared to the range of applicability of hadronic mechanics). Therefore, their interaction of Cuprate ions must be merely added to the short range hadronic state (5.3) resulting in the expression

(5.4) H^ x |e^> = [p^xTxp^/2m^ + e^{2}/r)xI^ - z x e^{2}/r]]xTx|e^> = E'x|e^>

where the positive charge ze is the ionic valence and the conventional quantum nature is expressed by the lack of multiplication by I^. Note that one could equivalently write structure (5.4) at the quantum level and add the hadronic effects at short range by achieving the same results.

At this point Animalu (169,170) and Animalu and Santilli (116) selected the following realization of the isounit and isotopic element:

(5.5a) I^ = e^{- (e^up|x|e^down) x edown / e^down} = 1 - (e^_{up}|x|e^_{down}) x e_{down} / e^_{down}

(5.5b) T = e^{+ (e^up|x|e^down) x edown / e^down} = 1 + (e^_{up}|x|e^_{down}) x e_{down} / e^_{down}

where e^_{up} and e^_{down} represents the wavefunction of the isoelectron with spin up and down, respectively, e_{down} represents the wavefunction of the ordinary electron, and (|x|) represents the volume integral between e^_{down}^{+} and e^_{up}.

Note that isounit (5.5a) provides a direct representation of the new interactions caused by deep waveoverlapping of the wavepackets of the isoelectrons that are **nonlocal** because represented by the volume integral (|x|), **nonlinear** because depending on the wavefunctions in a nonlinear way, and **nonpotential** because of clear contact/zero range type not representable with a Hamiltonian.

Most importantly, readers should keep in mind the short range character of the above isotopic lifting since isounit (5.5a) recovers the trivial unit I for all distances sufficiently greater than 1 Fermi (10^{-13} cm) for which the volume integral (e^|x|e^) is null. Under these conditions hadronic mechanics recovers quantum mechanics uniquely and identically. Therefore, **we are here presenting new correlations solely occurring at short distances where quantum mechanics is inapplicable, while recovering quantum mechanics identically for all longer distances.** This point is important because it will eliminate the need for the conjecture of phonon as physical quantity beyond its value of a mere formalism.

In order to obtain an explicit structure equation for the Cooper pair, we use the following behavior

(5.6a) e_{down} = A x e^{- r / R}

(5.6b) e^_{down} = B x (1 - e^{- r / R})/r,

where the first expression is known from atomic physics, the second expression was identified in Ref. (38), and R represents the charge radius of the Cooper pair. After substitution in Eq. (5.4) and turning the isokinetic energy into a renormalization m' of the electron mass m (another standard procedure of hadronic mechanics), we obtain the differential equation

(5.7) [p^{2}/2xm' + (z - 1)e^{2}/r - V x e^{- r / R} / (1 - e^{- r / R}) ] x |e^> = E x |e^>,

where one recognizes the familiar Hulten potential. The solution of the above equitation was worked out in detail in the original proposal (38) of 1978 and can be summarized as follows (see Part IV for details).

(5.8) [p^{2}2xm' + - K x e^{- r / R} / (1 - e^{- r / R}) ] x |e^> = E x |e^>,

where K is the new constant (in view of the original V) absorbing the coefficient of the repulsive Coulomb force.

The solutions of the equation (5.8) yields the familiar **Hulten energy spectrum**(38)

(5.9) E = - (m/xKxR^{2} / h^{2} x n - n)^{2} x h^{2} / 4xm'xR^{2}, n = 1, 2, 3, ...

where h represents h-bar.

Santilli (38) identified the solution for the structure of the p^{o} via the introduction of the two parameters

(5.10) k_{1} = h/2xm'xR^{2} = 0.34, k_{2} = m'xKxR^{2}/h = 1 + 8.54 x 10^{-2},

reviewed in Part IV. Animalu (169,170)identified the solution for the Cooper pair via the parametrization for the ground state

(5.11a) k_{1} = F x R / h x c_{o}, k_{2} = KxR/F,

(5.11b) | E_{Cooper Pair} | = 2 x k_{1} x [ 1 - ( k_{2} - 1 )^{2} / 4 ] x h x c_{o} / R,

where F is the **Fermi energy of the isoelectron.** Eq. (5.11b) can be written in good approximation

(5.12) | E_{Cooper Pair} | = k_{2} x T_{c} / q_{D}

where T_{c} is the **superconducting temperature** and q_{D} is the Debye temperature.

Animalu then worked out several examples, such as

(5.13a) Aluminum: q_{D} = 428^{o}K, T_{c} = 1.18^{o}K, k_{1} = 94, k_{2} 1.6 x 10^{-3}

(5.13b) YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6x}: k_{1} = 1.3 x z^{-1/2} x 10^{-4}, k_{2} = 1.0 x z^{1/2},

where the effective valence z varies from a minimum of z = 4.66 for YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6.96}, T_{c} = 91^{o}K, to a maximum of z = 4.33 for YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6.5}, T_{c} = 20^{o}K. The general expression predicted by Animalu isosuperconductivity for YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6-x} is given by [Eq. [5.15], p. 373, ref. (169)]

(5.14) T_{c} = 367.3 x z e^{- 13.6 / z},

and it is in remarkable agreement with experimental data (see the figures below).

************************************
**

**************************************

A few comments are now in order. The connection between the proposed model and the conventional theory of the Cooper pair is intriguing. As studied in ref. (169, the constant in the Hulten potential can be written

(5.15) K = h x w

where w is precisely the (average) phonon frequency. Expression (5.11b) can then be rewritten

(5.16) | E_{Cooper Pair} | = 2 x k_{1} x k_{3} x c_{o} / R x (e^{1 / NV}),

where NV is the (dimensionless) electron-phonon coupling constant. The main results of our model can therefore be reformulated in terms of the electron-phonon interactions, as expected. However, as expected, the conjecture of the phonon is replaced in our model with the new non-Hamiltonian interactions for the simple reason that phonons do not yield an attractive force between identical electrons, while our non-Hamiltonian interactions do.

The mechanism for the creation of the attraction among the identical electrons of the pair via the intermediate action of cuprate ions is a general law of hadronic mechanics according to which nonlinear, nonlocal and nonhamiltonian interactions due to wave-overlappings at short distances are always attractive in singlet couplings and such to absorb Coulomb interactions, resulting in total attractive interactions irrespective of wether the Coulomb contribution is attractive or repulsive. As noted earlier, the Hulten potential is known to behave as the Coulomb one at small distances, being must stronger than the latter and therefore absorbing the latter.

**************************************

************************************
**

Another main feature of the model is characterized also by a general law of hadronic mechanics, according to which bound states of particles due to wave-overlappings at short distances in singlet states suppress the atomic spectrum of energy down to only one possible level. This occurrence is called the **hadronic suppression of the atomic energy spectra.** In fact, the non-Hamiltonian forces would disappear for any excited state, thus resulting in conventional quantum energy levels, while the hadronic level can only one.

************************************
**

**************************************

The solutions for the Cooper pair also reduce the finite spectrum down to only one admissible level, that of the Cooper pair. Excited states are indeed admitted, but they imply large distances R for which nonlinear-nonlocal-nonhamiltonian interactions are ignorable, thus resulting in repulsion. Alternatively, we can say that, in addition to the conventional, quantum mechanical, Coulomb interactions among two electrons, there is only one additional system of hadronic type with only one energy level per each couple of particles.

The case of possible triplet couplings also follows a general law of hadronic mechanics. While singlets and triplets are equally admitted in quantum mechanics (that is, coupling of particles under their point-like approximation), this is no longer the case for hadronic mechanics (that is, couplings of extended particles one inside the other). In fact, all triplet couplings of particles under conditions of mutual penetration are highly unstable due to evident repulsive forces, the only stable states being the singlets.

This law was first derived in Ref. (38) via the "gear model", i.e., the illustration via ordinary gears that experience a known highly repulsive force in triplet couplings, while they can be coupled in a stable way in singlets. The possibility of applying the model to a deeper understanding of Pauli's exclusion principle is then consequential, and will be indicated later.

**6. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN CHEMISTRY.
**

**6.1. THE DISTRESSING CONDITION OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY.
**

*
*
Chemistry is another branch of science that achieved simply historical advances in the 20-th century thanks to quantum mechanics. Despite that, chemistry is a field where the exact validity of quantum mechanics has been stretched beyond the limit of credibility because of truly incontrovertible limitations or sheer inconsistencies.

With the understanding that the **approximate** validity of quantum mechanics for the description of chemical structures is beyond doubt, the sole issue open to scientific debates is the identification of the appropriate **generalized** of mechanics providing a more accurate description of molecular structures and chemical processes at large, while the continued belief on the terminal character of quantum mechanics in chemistry becomes a clear scientific misconduct due to the nature, dimension and implications of said limitations and inconsistencies.

A systematic study of the limitations and inconsistencies of quantum mechanics in chemistry has been conducted by Santilli in monograph (59). The identifications and resolution of these limitations and inconsistencies is too technical for the limited capacities of the htlm format of these pages. Therefore, we are regrettably forced to the sole presentation of conceptually outlines in the figures below.

************************************

Such a deviation from experimental data was dismissed throughout the 20-th century on grounds that it is "small", or that "it can be resolved via appropriate parametrization," and the like. Unfortunately for human knowledge, chemists suppressed the fact that **2 % of the binding energy of the hydrogen molecule correspond to about 950 Kcal/mole, thus implying an error in thermochemical calculations of about TWENTY TIMES the energy of a reaction such as that for the formation of water (that releases about 50 Kcal/mole).** While quantum chemistry has continued to be assumed as exactly valid in chemistry under the use of large public funds, the author refused a research contract for thermochemical calculations based quantum chemistry because of fear that, when errors of such dimensions are uncovered, he might risk criminal charges for fraud.

*
After the insufficiency of the basic axioms of quantum chemistry was proved beyond doubt, chemists were forces to initiate their adulterations. The most effective for the improvement of the representation of experimental data has been the use of the so-called screened Coulomb potentials, namely the Coulomb potential multiplied by an exponential (or other functions) of the type*

(5.1) V = N x e^{ r x b} / r.

* The resulting models have still been qualified as belonging to "quantum chemistry." However, the use of the above potentials implies the loss of the very notion of "quantum," since, as well known, quanta can only occur in between purely Coulomb energy levels. Moreover, screened Coulomb laws can only be reached via nonunitary transforms of the Coulomb law, as also well known. Therefore, the use of potentials of type (5.1) is concrete evidence for exiting the class of equivalence of quantum chemistry, besides suffering of the catastrophic physical and mathematical inconsistencies of Theorem II.2.1. Therefore, the qualification of models based on potentials (5.1) as belonging to "quantum chemistry" is essentially a political posture deprived of serious scientific content.
*

*
The known effectiveness of "screened Coulomb laws" is a visible evidence of the validity of hadronic chemistry for a more accurate representation of molecular structures. In fact, the new discipline is structurally nonunitary, thus including as particular cases all possible generalized potentials of type (5.1). Their treatment via the novel isomathematics then resolves the catastrophic inconsistencies of Theorem II.2.1. Despite these results, for reasons conceptually outlined in the following figures (see monograph (59) for a comprehensive treatment), hadronic chemistry would remain basically insufficient to resolve the main inconsistencies of quantum chemistry without a basically new notion of valance bonds developed by Santilli and Shillady (125,126).*

************************************

*
Note that nuclei cannot participate in molecular bonds evidently due to their extreme distances (for the particle world). Therefore, as universally admitted, molecular bonds are due to the bonding of valence electrons. At this point the insufficiencies of quantum chemistry appear in their full light because quantum mechanics cannot provide any ATTRACTIVE force between IDENTICAL valence electrons due to the repulsive Coulomb force, as it was the case for the Cooper pair in superconductivity (Section 5).*

************************************

*
On technical grounds, the origin of this large inconsistency is due to the inability by quantum mechanics to restrict the valence bond to TWO electrons. This is a general, well known problem in chemistry, since all experimental data establish that correlation solely occurs in pairs, while molecular models in chemistry generally have no restriction at all, thus implying the inconsistency of this figure. It is regrettable for human knowledge that the existence of the above inconsistency is generally suppressed in technical papers, conference presentations and Ph. D. courses in chemistry.*

************************************

************************************

* A pillar of quantum mechanics, superconductivity and chemistry is the fact that the new contact forces due to weep wave-overlappings in singlet couplings results to be STRONGLY ATTRACTIVE, thus permitting basically new structure models in various branches of sciences that are inconceivable for quantum mechanics. The new strongly attractive contact forces were first identified by Santilli in his original proposal (38) of 1978 to build hadronic mechanics. The same forces were then discovered to be applicable with great success to superconductivity by Animalu (1169) in 1993. Finally, the use of the new forces for the introduction of a basically new notion of valence bond was developed by Santilli and Shillady (125,126) (see monograph (59) for a comprehensive presentation).*

************************************

**6.2. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS OF HADRONIC MECHANICS IN CHEMISTRY.
**

*
*

Such a strong valence bond can only occur for pairs, thus avoiding the inconsistency of Figure 20. In fact, the bond creates a quasiparticle called **isoelectronium** that has charge -2 but spin and magnetic moment zero. As a result, a third electron with spin 1/2 cannot form any stable correlation/.bond with such a quasiparticle state with spin zero. Moreover, said strong valence bond implies that electrons pairs orbit in the two H atoms in **opposite directions** as shown in the figure, thus preventing any net total magnetic polarity, and avoiding the inconsistency of Figure 19.

It should be indicated that **the isoelectronium cannot be a fully stable particle** in view of the uncertainty principle and other laws. In any case, in the event the isoelectronium would be a stable particle, molecular binding energies would be prohibitively large.

It should be finally mention that **the isoelectronium has permitted the first known quantitative interpretation of Pauli's seclusion principle** (59). This basic principle is accepted in quantum mechanics without any quantitative explanation for the following reasons. For an electron to be able to "exclude" another electron with the same characteristics in the same energy level, there has to be some form of interaction. The sole interactions admitted by quantum mechanics, those of potential type, are grossly inapplicable for an understanding of Pauli's principle because they would imply large departures from spectral lines and other disagreements with experiments (since they would grant additional energy to the electrons that does not exist in nature). Hadronic mechanics has permitted the first quantitative interpretation of Pauli's exclusion principle because the interactions occurring in this case, as represented with the isounit, HAVE NO POTENTIAL, thus being consistent with experimental data.** Note the exclusion of triplet couplings that is another basic law of hadronic (but not of quantum!) mechanics.**

*
To state it differently, the existence of Pauli's exclusion principle in nature is, perhaps, the strongest individual evidence on the existence of contact nonpotential forces in the ultimate layers of nature, and the consequential validity of hadronic mechanics as their sole invariant description known at this writing.*

************************************

************************************

As an illustration of the need to exercise scientific caution before venturing judgments without the prior acquisition of a serious knowledge of the new hadronic chemistry, it is generally believed that "the hydrogen molecule is diamagnetic and, therefore, it cannot experience a magnetic bond." Such a view is scientifically vacuous because the new bond in Santilli magnecules occurs at the level of **individual atoms,** and NOT at the level of molecules. As such, the new magnetic bond can occur for ALL natural elements irrespective of whether diamagnetic or paramagnetic.

Another judgment deprived of scientific foundations is the belief that "individual atoms cannot be bonded in clusters unless they are bonded via valence couplings into molecules." This belief, also due to lack of technical knowledge of the experimental evidence in the new chemical species, is immediately disproved by calculations showing that **one unbounded atom can have a magnetic bond much stronger than that of the same atom when valence bonded to another.** This is due to the fact that, in the former case there is the additional availability of the polarized intrinsic magnetic moment of peripheral electrons (that is very large for particle standards). The latter bond is absent when the same atom is under a valence bond to another because the isoelectronium has no measurable magnetic field, as indicated earlier.

*
The need to exercise scientific caution before venturing technically unsubstantiated beliefs comes into full light by noting that the magnetic bond of isolated atoms has a fundamental role for the development of new clean burning combustible fuels so much needed by our society. As an illustration, magnecular clusters rich in "isolated" hydrogen atom can effectively replace hydrocarbons while being dramatically cleaner (patented and international patents pending) because, when the clusters decompose under combustion, we have the formation of H2 with the release of large energy (105 Kcal/mole) as part of the combustion itself. Therefore, questions and scientific discussions are welcome, solicited and appreciated. However, the venturing of technically unsubstantiated objections in the new science herein reported is de fact opposition against the search of new clean energies and fuels for which main purpose hadronic mechanics, superconductivity and chemistry have been built.*

************************************

************************************

**7. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS IN ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY.
**

**7.1. THE DISTRESSING CONDITION OF ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY.
**

*
*
There is no doubt that astrophysics and cosmology also achieved historical advances in the 20-th century. However, it is equally true that astrophysics and cosmology have been afflicted by a real scientific obscurantism because of the systematic adaptation of the universe to organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines, rather than adapting the doctrines to the universe, as any serious scientific process would require.

The first dominant reason for the distressing condition of the field is the widespread belief on the **"universal constancy of the speed of light,"**

(7.1) c_{o} = universal constant,

that is a well known, central pillar for the validity of Einsteinian doctrines. However, in the physical reality, **the speed of electromagnetic waves is a local variable with a rather complex functional dependence on the light frequency w and various other characteristics of the medium in which it propagates,**

(7.2) c = c(w, ...) = c_{o} / n_{4}(w, ...) = c_{o} x b_{4}(w, ...),

where n_{4} = 1/b_{4} is the familiar index of refraction.

The local character of the speed of electromagnetic waves was discussed in Section II.4. Due to its relevance for astrophysics and cosmology, let us review it again. It has been experimentally established since Newton's times that **the speed of light in media of low density, such as air, water, etc., varies from medium to medium and it is smaller than the speed of light in vacuum**

(7.3) c < c_{o} for low density media.

Speeds c > c_{o}
have been experimentally measured by A. Enders and G. Nimtz (240)
in the tunneling of photons between certain guides
(see review (241) for additional references and details). Speeds
c > c_{o} have also been identified in
astrophysical events (242-244) (see also the recent data 246)).
A comprehensive review of all speeds c > c_{o} can be found in Ref. (247). Therefore, we shall write in general

(7.4) c > c_{o} for special and hyperdense media.

When faced with the experimental evidence such as the refraction of light (see Figure 25 below), a rather universal posture (intended, or implying in any case salvaging Einsteinian doctrines) is that such a local variation is only "apparent" because the decrease of the speed of light is due to the scattering of photons among the atoms of the medium, thus implying a longer travel. In this way, the universal constancy of the speed of light (7.1) is salvaged because photons would travel in vacuum, and Einsteinian doctrines are consequently preserved. However, such a political posture has no scientific credibility for the following reasons:

1) The local character of the speed of light has also been established for electromagnetic waves, e.g., of one meter in wavelength, in which case said reduction to photons is a pure nonscientific nontechnical nonsense due to the excessive size of the wavelength that prevent any meaningful reduction to photons.

2) The existence of electromagnetic waves propagating at speeds bigger than that of light in vacuum is today an experimental reality (240-247), in which case the reduction of such superluminal propagation to photons scattering the atoms of the medium is an additional nonscientific nontechnical nonsense.

3) Even assuming that, somehow, the "universal constancy of the speed of light" could be made compatible with these local values smaller and bigger than the speed in vacuum, special relativity remains grossly inapplicable within physical media for the various reasons identified in Section II.4, e.g., the violation of the principle of causality within physical media when "the local speed of light" is assumed as the maximal causal speed (e.g., because electrons can travel faster than light in water), the violation of the relativistic law of addition of speeds of light in the event "the speed of light in vacuum" is assumed as the maximal causal speed within physical media (because the sum of two speeds of light in water does not yield the speed of light in water), and numerous other serious inconsistencies.

4) Assuming that both the "universal constancy of the speed of light" and special relativity could be salvaged, somehow, within physical media, the reduction of light to photons remains grossly unable to represent the local dependence of the speed on the frequency and other characteristics as occurring, e.g., in the spectral decomposition of light by a crystal.

5) The essentially political nature of the reduction of the propagation of light within physical media to photons scattering among atoms is finally established by the lack of any q treatments published in refereed journals providing a QUANTITATIVE-NUMERICAL explanation of ALL the behavior of light within physical media.

The widespread posture on the "universal constancy of the speed of light" and the universal validity of Einsteinian doctrines within physical media becomes truly paradoxical when one notes that **most physical media are not transparent to light, in which case the use of light for any geometric treatment is pure nonsense, thus establishing the need for fundamentally new notions to characterize the maximal causal speeds within physical media NOT based on the speed of light.**

The scientific reality is that **Einsteinian doctrines are inapplicable to physical media** (the term "violation" would not be appropriate and would actually be a form of lack of respect toward the memory of Albert Einstein because the doctrines were solely conceived for the vacuum, and their applicability was stretched to physical media by Einstein's followers, and NOT by Einstein himself).

In the hope of initiating systematic studies on the geometrization and treatment of physical media, Santilli proposed isotopic covering and unification of special and general relativities with the underlying unification of the Minkowskian and Riemannian geometries into the iso-Minkowskian geometry, and the underlying Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry that resulted to be universal for all infinitely possible geometrization of physical media with signature (+, +, +, -). The experimental verifications of isorelativity, when applicable, have been presented in the preceding sections. In this section we shall present the experimental verifications in astrophysics and cosmology.

************************************

It then follows that current view on the dimension and expansion of the universe are pure personal beliefs by individual scientists, and not scientific facts backed by real experimental evidence. The lack of addressing these issues for several decades can only be qualified as being distressing because it has turned astrophysics and cosmology into nonscientific fields governed by academic power, rather than scientific truths, and implemented via the mere ignorance of opposing views published in refereed journals without quantitative rebuffals also published in refereed journals.

*
Serious studies on the dimension and expansion of the universe require prior serious QUANTITATIVE studies of the inhomogeneous and anisotropic DEVIATIONS of the geometry of physical media from the perfectly homogeneous and isotropic character of empty space, and their DEVIATIONS from Einsteinian doctrines. As recalled in Section II, isorelativity with the underlying iso-Minkowskian geometry and Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry were constructed to initiate studies on the geometrization of inhomogeneous and anisotropic media (26-33,52-55) and, as of today, they remain the only theories providing a UNIVERSAL INVARIANCE for the dynamics within physical media capable of bypassing the catastrophic physical and mathematical inconsistencies of Theorem II.2.1. *

************************************

Once the physical evidence of the local variation of the speed of electromagnetic waves within physical media is admitted, the distressing condition of astrophysics and cosmology of the 20-th century appear in its full light. In fact, the dimension and expansion of the universe are essentially established by interpreting the cosmological redshift as being due to the relative speed v between the source and the observer. However, ALL astrophysical bodies have physical media in their environment, which media have to be traveled by light before reaching empty space. But, **the decrease of the speed of light c within astrophysical chromospheres implies a Doppler redshift fully equivalent to the increase of the relative speed v, thus reducing current views on the dimension and expansion of the universe to personal beliefs deprived of true scientific backing at this writing.**

To see the above occurrence, one should expand the Minkowskian form of the Doppler law in powers of v/c_{o} (e.g., for the case of null angle of aberration)

(7.5) w' = w x
[ 1 - (v/c_{o}) / 1! + (v/c_{o})^{2} / 2! - ...].

Since c_{o} << v, we have v/c_{o} << 1, and w' < w, thus causing the tendency toward the red called **redshift.** The possible interpretations of cosmological redshift are the following three:

I) The rather universal interpretation of the redshift throughout the 20-th century has been via a **non-null value of the speed v,** thus resulting in the expansion of the universe.

II) Essentially the same result can be achieved via **the decrease of the speed of light in astrophysical chromospheres** according to which light exits these media already redshifted.

III) We have a combination of both preceding possibilities, relative speeds v and decrease of speed of light c < c_{o}, which third possibility is evidently the most plausible.

Since we have no information on the dimension and density of astrophysical chromospheres, the only scientific conclusion possible at this writing is that *THE DIMENSION AND EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE ARE BASICALLY UNKNOWN AT THIS WRITING.*

Another major insufficiency of astrophysics and cosmology of the 20-th century has been the absence of quantitative studies on the** antimatter component of the universe.** Due, again, to the intent of adapting the universe to Einsteinian theories, gravitational studies of antimatter were relegated to a mere change of the sign of the charge. However, such an approach is known to have no technical foundations for a various reasons, e.g., the existence of only one quantization channel under which classical "antiparticles" characterized by the sole change of the sign of the charge are mapped into ordinary "particles" with the wrong sign of the charge, rather than charge conjugated antiparticles.

The scientific reality is that **both special and general relativities are "inapplicable" for a CLASSICAL description of antimatter** (again, they are not "violated, because antimatter did not exist at the time of the inception of these relativities). A reason is that a classical description of antimatter capable of yielding under quantization the correct charge conjugated antiparticles must necessarily be based on a **new mathematics** that is anti-isomorphic to the mathematics used by special and general relativities.

These problems have been studied in details in Refs. [3] via the so-called **isodual mathematics** (a new mathematics based on **negative definite units,**) that permits a consistent CLASSICAL description of antimatter beginning at the purely classical, Newtonian level, and then passing to all subsequent levels, until reaching second quantization where isoduality becomes equivalent to charge conjugation.

The aspect important for this section is that **classical isodual theories of antimatter necessarily imply antigravity** (22), that is, the gravitational repulsion of antimatter in the field of matter and vice-versa. The existence of antimatter galaxies would, therefore, explain the expansion of the universe.

However, due to the virtual complete lack of quantitative studies until recently, ** THE AMOUNT OF ANTIMATTER IN THE UNIVERSE IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNKNOWN AT THIS WRITING.** The isodual theory of antimatter predicts a new photon, the

************************************

************************************

The lack of sufficient information on the expected antimatter component of the universe has major negative implications for virtually all studies in astrophysics and cosmology. As an illustration, **current studies on the "age of the universe" may result to have no physical meaning because, in the event of equal amounts of matter and antimatter, the age of the universe could be identically null.** This is due to the fact that, to avoid the inconsistency in quantization indicated earlier, the sign of all physical characteristics of particles must be changed, including time. The null total time of the universe for an equal distribution of matter and antimatter then follows.

At best we could consider **the age of the matter branch of the universe.** However, this notion too may result to be fundamentally untenable if the prediction of isorelativity regarding the dependence of local isotime from mass AND density is correct. In this case a more consistent study would be that of **the "average" age of the "matter" branch of the universe,** or, separately, of the antimatter branch.

In conclusion, the status of current true knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology is so limited that, not only the dimension and expansion of the universe are grossly unknown, but basic notions themselves are questionable, such as that for the age of the universe.

In the hope of initiating quantitative studies toward the future resolution of these issues, R. M. Santilli (34) proposed the **Iso-Self-Dual Cosmology,** that threats classical antimatter via the isodual theory [3], and is based on the **universal invariance**

(7.6) P^(3.1) x P^^{d}(3.1),

where P^(3.1) is the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry for the universal invariance of all possible inhomogeneous and anisotropic spacetimes for matter, and P^^{d} is its isodual for antimatter. The cosmology also has a new invariance called "iso-self duality" in the sense that it coincides with its isodual at the classical level and its charge conjugate at the operator level, essentially as it is the case for a particle-antiparticle state.

Intriguingly, the Iso-Self-Dual Cosmology is patterned on the newly discovered symmetries of the conventional Dirac equation (21) that has resulted to be invariant under symmetry (7.6) rather than only under P(3.1) as popularly believed throughout the 20-th century, while the Dirac gamma matrices have resulted to be iso-self-dual,, that is, invariant under conjugation from matter to antimatter.

Some of the predictions of the Iso-Self-Dual Cosmologies are:

A) The universe is expanding g because of the matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, although at a rate much smaller than that of current beliefs;

B) The dimension of the universe is a fraction of that currently believed because of the cosmological redshift created by the decrease of the speed of light in astrophysical chromospheres, as well as the fact that space itself becomes a physical medium at intergalactic distances, thus causing an additional cosmological redshift, particularly for far away galaxies and quasars;

C) At the limit of equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, the total time of the universe is identically null, while local times depend on the mass and density (local isotime) and are generally different for different astrophysical bodies even when they have the same mass but different sizes/densities;

D) At the limit of equal amounts of matter and antimatter, all other characteristics of the universe, such as total energy, total linear momentum, etc. are also identically null, thus avoiding any singularity at the creation of the universe, and permitting quantitative studies for the act of creation itself;

E) There is no need for the missing mass because the energy equivalent of stars, galaxies and quasars is a multiple of what currently believed from Isopostulate II.4.5, according to which E = mxc^{2} = mxc_{o}xb_{4}, since according to all experimental evidence considered in this section, b_{4} is much greater than 1 for all hyperdense media, such as those in the interior of stars, planets and all astrophysical bodies.

,p>

*
*
Let us review the experimental; verification of isorelativity for the cosmological redshift of quasars when physically connected to their associated galaxies. As it is well know, H. Arp (248,249) was among the firsts to present astrophysical evidence that certain quasars are at rest with respect to their associated galaxies, even though their cosmological redshifts are dramatically different. Since such a prediction is at clear variance with Einsteinian doctrines, H. Arp was terminated in his position at Harvard University (as the author personally recall since he was a member of Harvard University near that time).

J. Sulentic (250) subsequently provided a major astrophysical evidence of the correctness of Arp's view via gamma spectroscopy proving the existence of an actual physical contact between certain quasars and their associated galaxies, despite dramatic differences in their cosmological redshifts (see Figure 27 below). The occurrence was more recently confirmed by other astrophysical observations and it is now a physical reality. In this was, Harvard University cut itself out of basic advances in human knowledge, as it occurred in various other fields (see Refs. [III,1,1] and [III,1,2] at the end of Sect. 1).

************************************

(7.7) z = 0.07,

*while the associated galaxy NCG 4316 has a redshift of only*

(7.8) z = 0.0056.

*Any plausible interpretation of this difference requires dramatic departures from special relativity, since the latter implies that physically connected astrophysical bodies have the same cosmological speed. Other interpretation intended to be compatible with special relativity (such as Arp's hypothesis on the creation of matter in the interior of quasars (251)) are lesser plausible than those permitted by deviations from special relativity, as we shall see.*

************************************

A number of non-Doppler interpretations appeared in the literature, such Arp's theory on the creation of matter in the interior of quasars only (251), theories based on the polarization of the vacuum and other mechanisms all intended to achieve compatibility with organized Einsteinian interests.

By ignoring the latter organized interests, in 1988 R. M. Santilli (252d) proposed the isotopic interpretation of Arp-Sulentic data via isorelativity and iso-Minkowskian geometry (see also (29,55)). Santilli's main hypothesis was simply that light exits the huge quasars chromospheres already redshifted due to the internal decrease of its speed c as in Eq. (7.3), rather than the speed v, according to the iso-Doppler's law invariant under the Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry

(7.9) w^ = w x { 1 - (v / c_{o}) x (b_{s} / b_{4})] / 1! + [(v / c_{o}) x (b_{s} / b_{4}]^{2} / 2 ! - ...},

here written only in first approximation due to the limitations of the htlm format, where c_{o} is the speed of light in vacuum, b_{s} is the average of the space characteristic functions for the quasar's chromosphere, and b_{4} is the average chromosphere density.

************************************

************************************

Numerical calculations along proposal (252d) were done by R. Mignani (118) in 1992. These calculations confirmed that iso-Doppler's law can represent the two dramatically different redshifts while reducing the speed of the quasar all the way to that of the associated galaxy in accordance with the experimental evidence of Figure 27. The case of expulsion of quasars at low speeds implies a small correction in the characteristic b-quantities that can be here ignored.

In essence, Mignani (118) elaborated several data by Arp (248,249) via the following relation for the cosmological redshift derived from isodoppler law (7.9)

(7.10)

b_{s} [(Dw + 1)^{2}-1]x[(Dw^+1)^{2}-1]

-- = ----------------------------------- = B,

b_{4} [(Dw + 1)^{2}+1]x[(Dw^+1)^{2}+1]

where Dw^ represents the isotopic redshift for the quasar and Dw represents the measured conventional redshift for the associated galaxy.

The above values provide a clear confirmation of the isorelativity and underlying iso-Minkowskian geometrization of physical media. In fact, the data show that all B values are positive and bigger than one, exactly as predicted.

************************************

************************************

The identification of the individual values b_{s} and b_{4} requires at least one additional experimental measurement, such as the average speed of light c = c_{o} x b_{4} in the quasar chromospheres. Such a value would fix b_{4}. Then b_{s} could be computed from the B-ratios. As an indication, the assumption for quasar UB1 of the average speed of light in its chromosphere c = 0.80 x c_{0} would yield the value b_{s} = 40.

Note that the above isotopic interpretation of the quasar redshift implies a considerable reduction of the current estimates on the dimension and expansion of the Universe, as indicated earlier.

It should be also indicated that, in reality, the cosmological quasar redshift can result to be much more complex of what indicated above. In fact, the Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry predicts that light emitted in the hyperdense **interior** of quasars is **isoblueshifted.** The same light is then **isoredshifted** when traveling in the quasar chromospheres. Therefore, the redshift measured could well be the result of several contributions, including the **difference** between the isoblueshift in the hyperdense medium in the quasar interior, and the isoredshift in the much lighter quasars chromosphere.

**7.3. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION VIA THE COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT OF GALAXIES.
**

*
*
The preceding analysis refers to the possibility of merely reducing the quasars to the same distance as that of their associated galaxies. Three different revisions are suggested by isorelativity on the separate problem of the distance of galaxies from Earth, each one implying a **reduction** of current estimates.

The first revision originates from the evidence that, at intergalactic distances, space is an ordinary medium since it is filled up with electromagnetic waves, particles and hydrogen atoms, thus activating the a conventional Doppler effect due to the decrease of the speed of light within physical media of low density. Intriguing, this revision would imply that the observed increase of the expansion of the universe with the distance is only apparent, since it could be due to the longer travel of light within said intergalactic medium, with consequential bigger redshift.

The second revision is due to the fact that the cosmological redshift of the galaxies can itself be, either partially or entirely, of isotopic origin (252d), that is, due to the fact that galactic light must also travels within chromospheres before reaching empty space, thus experiencing an isotopic redshift, with consequential reduction of the distance from Earth and reduction of the expansion of the universe.

The third revision is possible in the event the physical medium in intergalactic space is anisotropic and such that B = b_{s}/b_{s} ≠ 1.

At the limit, these revisions are such to permit the complete interpretation of the cosmological redshift of galaxies as being of isotopic type, in which case the galaxies can be at rest with respect to us and to each other. The author does not favor this solution because, in the event part of the universe is made up of antimatter, its expansion is inevitable based on current knowledge.

It should be stressed that we are referring to limit conditions deserving a study. On the basis of currently available data, we can only claim the **need** for reductions of current dimension and expansion of the universe, but we cannot identify their **numerical value** owing to the lack o more accurate astrophysical measurements.

The basic point however persists: the new isoselfdual cosmology does indeed permit as a limiting case a numerical representation of current astrophysical data on the cosmological redshift of galaxies in which the entire universe could be stationary.

**7.4. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS VIA THE QUASARS INTERNAL REDSHIFT AND BLUESHIFT.
**

*
*
In addition to the difference in cosmological redshifts between quasars and their associated associated galaxies when physically connected, quasars possess an **internal redshift and blueshift** that is a typical manifestation of the **dependence of the speed of light on its frequency,** Eq. (7.2)

While alternative theoretical predictions on the difference in cosmological redshifts between quasars and their associates galaxies are available, the sole exact numerical interpretation of the internal quasar redshifts and blueshifts is that permitted by isorelativity and presented by Santilli (253) at the *International Conference on the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics,* held in Olympia, Greece, in 1993.

In essence, astrophysics and cosmology of the 20-th century assumed the "universal constancy of the speed of light" c_{o}, Eq. (7.1), thus preventing any possible interpretation of the internal redshift and blueshift consistent with such an assumption. However, the moment the speed of light is admitted as it exists in the physical reality according to incontrovertible experimental evidence, a "local variable" c = c_{o} / n_{4}, Eq. (7.2), quantitative interpretations of the event here considered are direct and immediate ** because all indices of refraction have a complex dependence on the frequency of light and other variables,** n_{4} = 1/b_{4}. Note that **the local dependence of the speed of light from its frequency is irreconcilably incompatible with Einsteinian doctrines,** and that explains why such a dependence is so strongly opposed by organized interests on said doctrines.

In essence, all cosmological redshifts are computed at a given basic frequency, usually assumed at 4689 A^{o}. In this case we have the following more explicit form of the B-quantity of Eq. (7.10)

(7.11) B = (b_{4} / b_{4}) x f(w,...))_{w} = 4680 A^{o},

The use of the following explicit dependence

(7.12) f(w) = N_{1} x exp [ - N_{2} (w^ - w)^{2}],

leads to the following expression for the iso-Doppler law valid in good first approximation

(7.13) w^ = w x ( w^ - w)^{2},

that provides an **exact and invariant fit of Sulentic's experimental data** (see the figure below).

************************************

************************************

In summary, according to isorelativity, the quasar cosmological redshifts and their internal red- and blue-shifts are due to interior physical characteristics of the quasars chromospheres and, more specifically, to their inhomogeneity and anisotropy, that is, to the **departures** from (rather than verification of) the geometry of empty space as occurring within physical media. An understanding is that, again, the fit of Figure 30 can ultimately result to be due to the difference between the isoredshift in the chromospheres and the isoblueshift in the hyperdense interior of quasars.

**7.4. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS VIA THE REDSHIFT OF SUNLIGHT THROUGH THE SUN CHROMOSPHERE.
**

*
*
In addition to the redshift of galaxies and quasars, we also have experimental evidence of the **redshift of Sun light** that can only be interpreted as due to the propagation of light within the Sun's chromosphere and, geometrically, can only be due to the **departure>** from (rather than verification of) the geometry of empty space within physical media such as atmospheres or chromospheres at large.

To achieve compatibility with organized interests on special relativity, the redshift of Sun light has been rather universally interpreted via the scattering of light among the atoms in the Sun chromosphere (see, e.g., Marmet (246) and references quoted therein). In this way, the photons travel in vacuum at speed c_{o} and the universal constancy (7.1) is recovered.

But, as reviewed earlier, the interpretation of the local speed of light within physical media via photons scattering among atoms is afflicted by a host of inconsistencies. Therefore, the data on the Sunlight redshift constitute some of the most direct experimental confirmations of isospecial relativity, as well as of the isotopic character of the quasars redshift.

Recall that, unlike galaxies, the Sun is moving at a speed v with respect to Earth so slow to prevent its use for a credible interpretation of the redshift of Sunlight. Thus, the iso-Doppler law must be different than that for quasars and galaxies. For the case of the Sun, the global averaging must be done on the expression

(7.14)

w x [1 - (v x b_{s} / c_{o} x b_{4}) x f(w)]

------------------------------------ = w^

1 - Bxf(w)

that can be rewritten in good first approximation

(7.15) w^ - w = B x w x f(w).Br.

and provides a **numerical, exact and invariant representation of the experimental data on the redshift of Sunlight**(61), as any interested reader can verify.

The d ata on the redshift of Sunlight provide another experimental verification of isorelativity given by the **decrease of the redshift with the increase of the density.** Recall that, for sufficiently high densities, isorelativity predicts an isoblueshift. The need for a smooth behavior of the isoshift with density then requires precisely a reduction of the isoredshift with the density, up to a point of lack of shift and then the initiation of the isoblueshift.

**7.5. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION ON SUNLIGHT REDSHIFT IN EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE.
**

*
*Since the experimental evidence on the redshift of light within atmospheres and chromospheres is simply overwhelming, the current denials of a redshift contribution inn the tendency of Sunlight toward the red at sunset is sheer scientific corruption. We may debate the **amount** of such redshift component and, its **measurability** at this time, but not its **existence.**

Yet, it is almost universally believed that the tendency toward the red of Sunlight at Sunset is due to scattering, absorption and other conventional events, while the presence of at least a Doppler contribution is rather vigorously denied, despite the indicated astrophysical evidence, because, if actually measured, it would provide resolutory experimental evidence on the lack of applicability of special relativity within physical media.

In reality, the sky is blue at the Zenith and, in case scattering, absorption and other events were predominant at Sunset, we should see a tendency toward the blue, rather than the red. In any case, none of these beliefs is substantiated by **quantitative studies published in refereed journals providing a numerical explanation of the transition from the predominance of BLUE at the zenith and the predominance of RED at sunset.** Therefore, we are dealing with personal conceptual beliefs without serious scientific backing.

In reality, the prediction of both the Doppler and iso-Doppler component in the tendency toward the red of Sunlight at Sunset are indeed measurable with current technology, and the measurement is recommended (see next section) because the results would provide invaluable knowledge for the corresponding redshift caused by astrophysical chromospheres with consequential direct implications for the dimension and expansion of the universe.

With respect to Figure 31, the geometry of sunlight at sunset implies the following three aspects:

1) The tangential speed at sunset due to the rotation of Earth is **away** from the Sun (as it is the case for cosmological redshifts) and of about

(7.16) v = 330 m/sec.

thus causing a **conventional** (Doppler) redshift via the term v/c_{o} in an amount fully measurable with current technology;

2) light decreases its speed in the transition from the Zenith to the horizon because of the evident increase of density as well as of travel in our atmosphere, thus causing an additional **isotopic** redshift based on the decrease of the speed c in the term v/c;

3) Earth's atmosphere is not only inhomogeneous, but also anisotropic, thus implying a **third** contribution to the redshift given by the additional lifting of v/c into the expression vxb_{s}/c_{o}xb4, where b_{s} is the average of the space characteristic quantity of Earth's atmosphere. Note that the latter lifting also **increases** the redshift because b_{s} < b_{4} for Earth's atmosphere.

Note that the above analysis also explains why **the tendency toward the read at Sunrise is smaller than that at Sunset,** as everybody may have observed. This is due to the fact that the tangential speed of Earth at Sunrise is now **toward** the Sun. The fact that a redshift still persists despite such reversal of the sign of the speed is a confirmation of the rather dominant character of the isotopic nature of the redshift over relative speeds.

To have an estimate of the term B = b_{s}/b_{4}, from the data of Figure 29 we obtain the average values

(7.17) Aver.(B) = 72.78, Aver.(Dw^) = 1.15, Aver.(Dw) = 0.01,

Where D stands for delta. The above data yield the value

(7.18) Aver.(Dw^) - Aver.(Dw) = 1.14,

that is of entirely isotopic origin, as well as in an amount that is of about **115 times the conventional redshift.**

Assuming that the quasar chromospheres are 10^{5} denser than our atmosphere, and that the isoredshift is proportional, in first approximation, to the density, we reach the following isotopic contribution in the tendency toward red of Sunlight at Sunset

(7.19) Aver.(Dw^)_{Earth} = 1.14 x 10

that is fully measurable with available instruments. For smaller ratios of the densities of quasar and planetary atmospheres, the effect evidently becomes bigger, thus establishing the need for actual measurements.

************************************

************************************

We now outline a number of much needed experiments that are crucial for new clean energies because they deal with truly fundamental aspects, such as the applicability or inapplicability of Einsteinian doctrines within physical media. As it will be evident in the next parts of this web site, if Einsteinian doctrines are inapplicable within media such as that in the interior of hadrons, basically new and clean energies are indeed possible, otherwise they are impossible.

It should be indicated that, in view of this basic character, the experiments proposed below have been systematic rejected for consideration, let alone conduction, by virtually all major physics laboratories in the U.S.A., Europe and Russia, following proposal by the author as well as other physicists for decades. These rejections, indicated in part in Ref. (60) and documented in (61), have created a serious problem of apparent lack of accountability in the use of large public funds by various national and academic laboratories for the evident reason that ALL public funds are spent today by international physics communities under the imposition that Einsteinian doctrines are valid for whatever physical conditions exist in the universe, while, in reality, they are valid only for the conditions originally conceived by Einstein, point particles and electromagnetic waves moving in empty space.

The shadow of possible large problems of scientific accountability is another reason for the obstructions against the conduction of these much needed basic experimental resolutions, and the preference in the conduction of innocuous tests, such as such as the 20-th measurement of the 15-th decimal number in the electron magnetic moment, or for the search of some esoteric new particle that has no visible meaning or value for society or science. These occurrences illustrates the reason for the view expressed in this web site, that the real pursuit of basic advancement in physical knowledge is not possible without the prior addressing of issues on scientific ethics and accountability at national and academic physics laboratories, as well as at their funding agencies.

It should be finally indicated that, since their complexity escapes the understanding of non-experts, the manipulation of experiments for pre-determined political aims is nowadays widespread, and easily done by adding free parameters, achieving the needed fit and then claiming exact validity of Einsteinian doctrines, as often denounced in this experimental page. Therefore, to prevent future experiments manipulated for the pre,meditated intent of disproving doubts on the validity of Einsteinian doctrines, of which kind there are already too many in the literature, the conduction, elaboration and publication of basic experiments should be supervised by an international ethics committee and its comments published jointly with the personal experimental beliefs expressed by the authors (see, as one example among too many the case of Grossman's (235) experimental beliefs on the behavior of the meanlife of unstable hadrons with speed in Section 2).

In this section we present opposed fundamental experiments dealing, specifically, with the verification or disproof of basic geometries and relativities within physical media. Additional experiments more specifically intended for new clean energies, are proposed in the subsequent parts of this web site.

*
*
As reviewed in Section 1, a pillar of Einsteinian doctrines is the symmetry under rotation. In the late 1970s Rauch and his associates conducted neutron interferometric tests on the spinorial symmetry and discovered the existence of deviations whenever neutrons are exposed to intense electric ands nuclear fields, such as when thermal neutron beams pass through sheets of heavy metal placed in the electromagnet gap. As soon as deviations from the spinorial symmetry were announced by Rauch (228), he was prohibited from continuing his tests at the Grenoble Nuclear laboratory in France, where he had conducted all preceding tests due to pressures originating from high ranking academicians primarily in the U.S.A. as publicly denounced in (60) and documented in (61).

Since the occurrence of this episode of about two decades ago, it has been impossible to repeat and finalize this experiment despite the availability of neutron interferometers in various national and academic laboratories in the U.S.A., Europe and Russia all under public funds. All funded tests of this type were carefully restricted to have the thermal neutron beam move in vacuum to assure in advance that no deviation from Einsteinian doctrines was possible. Following failed attempts for two decades, it is the opinion of the author that no finalization of this basic aspect of human knowledge is possible until governmental officers and/or concerned individuals address the problem of scientific ethics and accountability in the use of public funds via neutron interferometric equipment.

To understand the gravity of the ethical condition of physics in this particular case, it is sufficient to note that perfectly rigid bodies cannot exist in nature. Therefore, as discussed in details in Section 1, the deformability of the charge distribution of neutrons under external fields is simply beyond doubt, only its amount is open to scientific debate, and so are the consequential deviations from the spinorial symmetry. The finalization of Rauch;'s experiment is strongly opposed, disrupted or otherwise jeopardized by organized academic-governmental interests because they are full aware that the outcome of the experiment, sooner or later, will indeed establish deviations from the central pillar of Einsteinian doctrines, the rotational symmetry and its spinorial covering.

*
*
Another pillar of Einsteinian doctrines is given by the Minkowskian spacetime and the related Lorentz symmetry from which all Einsteinian postulates follow. The validity of the Minkowskian spacetime in empty space is beyond doubt. However, it is known that the Minkowskian spacetime is inapplicable to physical media, such as our atmosphere, trivially, because of its inhomogeneous and anisotropic character that are at variance from the perfect homogeneity and isotropy of empty space.

As outlined in Section 2, deviations from the Minkowskian geometry in the interior of the hyperdense hadrons manifest themselves via a non-Einsteinian behavior of the meanlife of unstable hadrons with speed, while their center of mass trajectories in a particle accelerator remain fully Einsteinian. Two important experimental studies (233,234) indicate the existence of clear deviations up to 100 GeV, while study (235) indicates an apparent verification of the Einsteinian law although in the different range from 100 GeV to 400 GeV, and the elaboration of the experimental data is highly questionable (120). It is then clear that this most fundamental aspect of hadron physics requires an experimental finalization. Proposals submitted to FERMILAB have been dismissed for years on grounds that Grossmann's tests (235) establish the exact validity of the Minkowskian geometry within hadrons. Similar proposals made to CERN were dismissed on grounds of being "excessively speculative." Proposals made through the years to SLAC, DESY, JINR, and other laboratories were completely ignored.

Since all of hadron physics is based on the Minkowskian geometry and special relativity, the lack of final experimental resolution of this fundamental aspects creates a large problem of scientific accountability by all particle physics laboratories, a problem that is growing, rather then decreasing in time. The occurrence has been denounced publicly by the author in 1984, following the failure of all proposal (see Refs. (60,61)). Following decades of personal experience, it is the author's firm conviction that the experimental resolution of this fundamental aspect of human knowledge will be prohibited, disrupted or otherwise jeopardized by organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines until responsible governmental officers and/or individuals will first address the problem of scientific ethics and accountability in publicly funded laboratories.

To understand the gravity of the condition due to excessive lack of ethical control, it is sufficient to note that, according to massive experimental evidence beyond any possible doubt, the Minkowskian geometry is violated within physical media of very low density such as our atmosphere. Therefore, the belief that the same geometry can be valid within the hyperdense media inside hadrons has no conceptual, theoretical, phenomenological or experimental credibility. Yet large public funds continue to be spent on such a belief, while the proponents of the tests (such as the author) are "disqualified." How long should individuals permit the continuation of this so equivocal a condition without becoming accomplices in misuse of large public funds? Remember, reader, that this is not an academic game. The environment on Earth for you, for your children and for your grandchildren is directly at stake on this.

*
*
The ultimate pillar of Einsteinian doctrines is the "universal constancy of the speed of light" that is rather universally adopted even though clear experimental evidence establishes that light is a local variables with a complex dependence on frequency, density etc., as known since Newton';s time. This belief can be disprove in a final way via measurement on the redshift of light or electromagnetic waves when passing through planetary atmospheres or astrophysical chromospheres, since, due to the dependence of the redshift on the ratio v/c, the decrease of the speed of light c causes essentially the same redshift due to increase of the relative speed v.

As stressed in Section 7, all our current knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology is based on the adaptation of reality to Einsteinian doctrines, rather than adapting the doctrines to reality, as requested by ethics and accountability, let alone science.
The predictable consequence of this political conduction of the research has been that our enter knowledge on the dimension and expansion of the universe is a personal beliefs of Einstein's followers, rather than a scientific truth, because of the alternative that cosmological redshift could be caused by the decrease of the speed of light when propagating through the huge astrophysical chromospheres prior to reaching empty space.

As also stressed in Section 7, ALL research in astrophysics and cosmology and relative public funds have been restricted to the sole interpretation via the increase of the relative speed because the alternative via the decrease of the speed of light would imply the irreconcilable loss of Einsteinian doctrines. As a result of this political occurrence, and in view of the complete absence of ethical control by funding agencies as well as governments at large, the measurement of the redshift caused by light traveling through planetary atmosphere or astrophysical chromospheres has been opposed, suppressed and jeopardized, while its proponents (such as the author) have been "disqualified" to such a point of preventing their participation to scientific meetings.

The much needed measurements have been proposed years ago and can be realized in a variety of ways, all feasible and resolutory with current technology (that is the reason why the measurement are opposed in the first place), such as:

**Experiment 8.3.A: **Measure the redshift of light from a distant star or quasars just before and then after passing through a planetary atmosphere such as that of Jupiter, or through a chromosphere such as that of the Sun, and see whether or not light has acquired a redshift after the usual gravitational corrections.

**Experiment 8.3.B:** Measure the redshift for light as well as ordinary electromagnetic waves caused by the Sun chromosphere with particular reference to its variation with the density by comparing spectra lines received from the sun and similar lines originating from a problem in the back of the Sun (that is needed for comparison to prevent manipulations of data and theoretical assumptions that would eliminate the unwanted effect). Equally basic are existing data at NASA (if obtainable without adulterations for the nature of their study) on radio communication of planetary satellites just before and then when transmitting while passing in the back of the Sun chromosphere.

**Experiment 8.3.C:** Measure the redshift of Sunlight at Sunset expected merely from the tangential speed of Earth (of 330 m/sec) by following a spectral line from its position at the Zenith and its position at Sunset. The large decrease of the speed of light within our atmosphere when at the horizon as compared to that at the zenith is expected to yield a contribution to the redshift much greater than that caused by speed. A third contribution is expected to originate from the anisotropy and inhomogeneity of Earth's atmosphere.

Each of these fundamental tests can be done at any astrophysical laboratory anywhere on Earth with conventional spectroscopic apparata. However, any time the author has proposed Any of the above tests, he has been "disqualified" and has been prohibited to access to the laboratory for the evident reason that each of these tests implies the irreconcilable invalidation of the ultimate pillar of special relativity, the "universal constancy of the speed of light." In view of the immense academic pressure against these fundamental tests, the author believes that, again, the tests will not be possible until funding agencies and.or concerned individuals will first address the problems of scientific ethics and accountability by astrophysical laboratories in the use of large public funds.

**PROPOSED EXPERIMENT 8.4: MEASURE THE GRAVITY OF POSITRONS IN HORIZONTAL FLIGHT ON EARTH (22,55,160).
**

*
*
In order to maintain the universal validity of Einsteinian doctrines for all possible conditions in the universe, the doctrines are generally assumed to be valid for the CLASSICAL representation of antimatter. The technical reason why this is sheer scientific corruption have been indicated in Section 7 (see also Refs. [3]) due to a host of inconsistencies published in refereed journals all ignored by the establishment. The best way to resolve whether or not Einsteinian doctrines apply for antimatter is via the measure of the gravity of antiparticles in the field of Earth. The experimental verification of a gravitational repulsion (antigravity) would irreconcilably prove that Einsteinian doctrines are inapplicable to antimatter, in favor, of course, of more adequate theories. Because of this known fact, real tests on the gravity of antiparticles are vigorously opposed by organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines, with preference to more fuzzy tests where data can be easily manipulated into desired results. This is the case of recent statements originating from CERN claiming that antiprotons experience gravitational attraction. However the political nature of the statement is easily unmasked due to the very large energies of the proton as compared to the very small gravitational contributions, under which disparity any claim of clear results is very equivocal at best.

A RESOLUTORY experiment on the gravity of antiparticles was proposed in Ref. (215). It suggests the measurement of the gravity of antiparticles such as the positrons in HORIZONTAL flight on Earth. The proposed test consists of a a horizontal vacuum tube of 10 m in length and 1 m in diameter with internal collimators on the inlet side and a scintillator at the other side. The initial use of collimated photons will identify on the scintillator the point of no gravity. The use of a VERY LOW ENERGY collimated electron beams (with energy of the order of milli-Electron-Volts) would provide on the scintillator the downward displacement due to gravitational attraction. The experiment is then complete with the use of a VERY LOW ENERGY collimated positron beam. The experiment is resolutory because the displacement due to gravity on the scintillator would be visible by the naked eye (being of the order of centimeters). The experimentalist Mills (160) confirmed the feasibility as well as the resolutory character of the test, the only remaining issue being the interferences caused by stray fields originating from the atoms of the tube. However, such stray fields can be easily proved to have no measurable effect on the axis of vacuum tube with 10 m in diameter).

Because RESOLUTORY, this test has been opposed by various laboratories in favor of other fuzzy tests in which the data can be manipulated for pre-determined results. As an example, the first test of the gravity of positrons was conducted by Faibanks at SLAC, although it resulted to be inconclusive due to the vertical character of the trajectory. Therefore, the author submitted the test with the horizontal tube to SLAC, because it is traditional in science to follow previous tests. The proposal was immediately rejected on grounds that "it was not sufficiently elaborated" and Nobel Laureate Ritcher, SLAC Director, prohibited the author, a U.S. scientist and taxpayer, from visiting his laboratory under public U. S. support. The author then proposed the conducted of the test at the National High Magnet Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida. Due to the evident world wide interest of the test irrespective of their outcome, the Florida legislation because so interested for partial or full funding, and the test appeared to be approved for conducted until all efforts were halted by governmental pressures from Washington, D.C., expectedly originating from the National Science Foundations that support the Tallahassee laboratory. The rejection of similar proposal are perhaps even more distressing, and will be denounced at some appropriate future time. A reason proffered by opponents of the test is that "Einstein gravitation does not predict antigravity for various known reasons." The very use of the theory to be tested as a reason to oppose the test is scientific corruption. In any case, ALL objections against antigravity for antiparticles in the field of matter are resolved by the isodual theory of antimatter [3] that predicts indeed the NECESSITY of said antigravity (technically, all objections based on Einsteinian doctrines collapse because the UNITS of antimatter are negative, as a result of which all arguments against antigravity are turned in its favor).

What a pity for basic human knowledge! The possible experimental verification of the antigravity of antiparticles in the field of matter will have such large implications for all of science that the location of its discovery is expected to become a place of pilgrimage for the next 500 years.

**PROPOSED EXPERIMENT 8.5: TEST PAULI'S EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE UNDER 'EXTERNAL' STRONG INTERACTIONS (38).**

The fifth and most fundamental experiment here proposed is the test of Pauli's exclusion principle, NOT in the conditions for which it was conceived (atomic orbits), but instead under EXTERNAL strong interactions, such as inelastic collisions of nucleons on nuclei considered as EXTERNAL. However, the mere proposal to test Pauli's principle generally causes a political-nonscientific hysteria, with consequential suppression of science for personal gains. This is unfortunate indeed for society because, as it will be evident during the course of our analysis (particularly Parts V and VI), the issue has fundamental relevance for new clean energies.

Objections against the test of Pauli's principle are soon uncovered as having political-nonscientific motivations because of the following reasons. An evident necessary condition for the validity of Pauli's principle in inelastic collisions of nucleons is the preservation of the EXACT value 1/2 of their spin at the time of the collisions themselves. Such an assumption is not necessarily verified whenever nucleons are admitted as they are in the physical reality: extended, nonspherical and deformable charge distributions. As stressed in Part II, until nucleons are exposed to long range interactions, we can have at best the deformation of their shape with consequential alteration of their intrinsic magnetic moments in according with the historical legacy of Fermi, Segre and other founders of nuclear physics indicated earlier in this Part III. However, the value of the spin cannot be altered under long range interactions.

By contrast, whenever we have COLLISIONS WITH CONSEQUENTIAL CONTACT INTERACTIONS, the preservation of the exact value of spin at the time of impact is essentially impossible. This feature is quantitatively represented by hadronic mechanics via the isotopies of SU(2)-spin (28,29,33).

Throughout the 20-th century the actual extended-deformable character of nucleons and the consequential contact interactions have been studiously bypassed via action-at-a-distance interactions among dimensionless quarks. However, the latter are purely conjectural and cannot be defined in our spacetime. Therefore, any use of quark conjectures to void the need for testing Pauli's principle under non-orbital conditions is a political-nonscientific argument.

Moreover, the contact interactions occurring in high energy inelastic collisions of nucleons on nuclei are necessarily nonunitary (because not representable with a potential in a Hamiltonian). It is known in the Lie-Santilli isotheory that the isotopic SU(2) spin admits irregular representations under which the original spin value 1/2 is mapped into a **locally varying value of spin** (see the review in Section II-5). These nonunitary effects are eliminated by conjectural quarks interactions mediated by additional conjectural particles that cannot be formulated on our spacetime. It is evident that these types of theoretical manipulations cannot be credibly used to dismiss a test as fundamental as that of Pauli's principle.

As soon as the test of Pauli's principle is mentions, nuclear physicists present an apparent river of experimental evidence seemingly confirming the validity of Pauli's principle in inelastic nuclear collisions. It is at this point where scientific corruption becomes transparent. In fact, the TOTALITY of the referred literate elaborates experimental data in the CENTER-OF-MASS via the use of quantum theories that are centrally dependent on Pauli;'s principle. The scientific corruption originate from the elaboration of experimental data via theories crucially dependent on the principle to be tested. By comparison, science can only be done for the test of Pauli's principle by CAREFULLY AVOIDING center-of-mass analysis and testing the behavior of nucleons colliding with nuclei assumed as EXTERNAL (that is, NOT represented with the Hamiltonian). The current posture in nuclear physics in regard to Pauli's principle is reminiscent of the alleged existence of three point-like particles in the structure of baryons obtained via the elaboration of experimental data based on SU(3) models that are notoriously dependent on such triplets.... How can possibly such "results" be considered as "science" particularly when conducted under large public funds?

R. M. Santilli was among the firsts to indicate the need of testing (Einstein's special relativity as discussed in preceding proposals) and Pauli's exclusion principle in the very TITLE of the paper proposing the construction of hadronic mechanics (38) (see the pdf file in Section IV.5). Rather than assisting in this basic scientific needs, the Lyman Laboratory of Physics of Harvard University (where paper (38) was written) opposed the proposal to test Einstein's relativity and Pauli's principle to such an extent of preventing the author from receiving his own salary from his own grant from the U. S. Department of Energy, whose administration had to be moved to Harvard's Department of Mathematics. The case is reviewed in all details in book (60) and documented also in all detail in Refs. (61). The opposition by Harvard University against these basic tests subsequently propagated to the prohibition to publish articles in the field in the journals of the American, British, Swedish and other physical societies, as also internationally known and denounced (see http://www.scientificethics.org).

H. Rauch was the first experimentalist who indicated at the meeting on hadronic mechanics of 1981, see Ref. (228), the plausibility of the existence of small deviations from Pauli's principle in inelastic collision of nucleon on nuclei, and their possible measurements via neutron interferometry of thermal neutron beams colliding with external nuclei. Rauch's associate, G. Eder (219) elaborated theoretically this plausibility via small fluctuations of the spin at the time of the impact realized in terms of Santilli mutations algebras (8). However, as recalled earlier in this section, immediately following his presentation in Boston, Rauch was prohibited by the Nuclear Physics Laboratory in Grenoble, France, to continue his interferometric measurements, and no additional significant test has been conducted since that time to the author's best knowledge (the indication of tests of serious, un-manipulated Pauli's principle in recent decades would be gratefully appreciated).

In conclusion, we have here yet another central open problems of physical knowledge whose serious study cannot be even initiated without the prior addressing of problems of scientific ethics and accountability in our physics community.

*THE SUGGESTION OF ADDITIONAL BASIC TESTS IS SOLICITED.*

**9. GENERAL REFERENCES ON HADRONIC MECHANICS.
**

[1] ** HISTORICAL REFERENCES:**

(1) I. Newton, * Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica* (1687),
translated and reprinted by Cambridge Univ. Press. (1934).

(2) J. L. Lagrange, * Mechanique Analytique* (1788), reprinted by
Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1888).

(3) W. R. Hamilton, * On a General Method in Dynamics* (1834), reprinted
in {\it Hamilton's Collected Works,} Cambridge Univ. Press (1940).

(4) S. Lie, * Over en Classe Geometriske Transformationer,* English translation by E.
Trell, Algebras Groups and Geometries {\bf 15}, 395 (1998).

(5) A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. {\bf 47}, 777 (1935).

(6) P. A. M. Dirac, * The Principles of Quantum
Mechanics,* Clarendon Press, Oxford, fourth edition (1958).

(7) A. A. Albert, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. {\bf 64}, 552 (1948).

[2] ** BASIC MATHEMATICAL PAPERS:**

(8) R. M. Santilli, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 51}, 570 (1967).

(9) R. M. Santilli, Suppl. Nuovo Cimento {\bf 6}, 1225 (l968).

(10) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 3}, 440 (l979).

(11) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 8}, 25 and 36 (1985).

(12) R. M. Santilli Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 10}, 273 (1993).

(13) R. M. Santilli and T. Vougiouklis, contributed paper in {\it New Frontiers in
Hyperstructures,} T., Vougiouklis, Editor, Hadronic Press, p. 1 (1996).

(14) R. M. Santilli, Rendiconti Circolo Matematico di
Palermo, Supplemento {\bf 42}, 7 (1996).

(15) R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. D {\bf 7}, 351 (1998).

[3] ** ISODUAL FORMULATIONS:**

(16) R. M. Santilli, Comm. Theor. Phys. {\bf 3}, 153 (1993).

(17) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 17}, 257 (1994).

(18) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 17}, 285 (1994).

(19) R. M. Santilli, Communication of the JINR, Dubna, Russia,. No. E2-96-259 (1996).

(20) R. M. Santilli, contributed paper in {\it New Frontiers of Hadronic Mechanics,}
T.L.Gill, ed., Hadronic Press (1996).

(21) R. M. Santilli, Hyperfine Interactions, {\bf 109}, 63 (1997).

(22) R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. A {\bf 14}, 2205 (1999).

[4] ** ISOTOPIC FORMULATIONS:**

(23) R.M.Santilli: Hadronic J. {\bf 1}, 224 (1978).

(24) R. M. Santilli, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 20}, 555 (1979).

(25) C.Myung and R.M.Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 1277 (1982).

(26) R. M. Santilli, Novo Cimento Lett. {\bf 37}, 545 (1983).

(27) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 8}, 25 and 36 (1985).

(28) R. M. Santilli, JINR Rapid. Comm. {\bf 6}, 24 (1993).

(29) R. M. Santilli, J.Moscow Phys.Soc. {\bf 3}, 255 (1993).

(30) R. M. Santilli, Chinese J.Syst.Ing. \& Electr.{\bf 6}, 177 (1996).

(31) R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. {\bf 27}, 635 (1997).

(32) R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. Letters {\bf 10}, 307 (1997).

(33) R. M. Santilli, Acta Appl. Math. {\bf 50}, 177 (1998).

(34) R. M. Santilli, contributed paper to the {\it Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Modern Modified Theories of Gravitation and Cosmology,} E. I. Guendelman, Editor, Hadronic Press, p. 113 (1998).

(35) R. M. Santilli, contributed paper to the {\it Proceedings of the VIII M. Grossmann Meeting
on General Relativity,} Jerusalem, June 1998, World Scientific, p. 473 (1999).

(36) R. M. Santilli, contributed paper in {\it Photons: Old Problems in Light of New Ideas,} V. V.
Dvoeglazov, editor, Nova Science Publishers, pages 421-442 (2000).

(37) R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. Letters {\32}, 1111 (2002).

[5] ** GENOTOPIC FORMULATIONS:**

(38) R. M. Santilli: Hadronic J. {\bf 1},574 and 1267 (1978).

(39) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 2}, 1460 (l979) and {\bf 3}, 914 (l980).

(40) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 4}, 1166 (l981).

(41) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 264 (l982).

(42) H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 1367 (l982).

(43) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. Suppl. {\bf 1}, 662 (l985).

(44) R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. {\bf 27}, 1159 (1997).

(45) R. M. Santilli, Modern Phys. Letters {\bf 13}, 327 (1998).

(46) R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. A {\bf 14}, 3157 (1999).

[6] ** HYPERSTRUCTURAL FORMULATIONS:**

(47) R. M. Santilli, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 15}, 473 (1998).

[7] ** MONOGRAPHS:**

(48) R. M. Santilli, {\it Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics}, Vol. I,
Springer--Verlag, Heidelberg--New York (1978).

(49) R. M. Santilli, {\it Lie-admissible Approach to the Hadronic Structure,}
Vol.I, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1978).

(50) R. M. Santilli, {\it Lie-admissible Approach to the Hadronic Structure,} Vol.
II, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1981).

(51) R. M. Santilli, {\it Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics}, Vol. II,
Springer--Verlag, Heidelberg--New York (1983).

(52) R. M. Santilli, {\it Isotopic Generalizations of Galilei and Einstein Relativities,}
Vol. I, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1991).

(53) R. M. Santilli, {\it Isotopic Generalizations of Galilei and Einstein Relativities,}
Vol. II, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1991).

(54) R. M. Santilli, {\it Elements of Hadronic Mechanics},
Vol I, Ukraine Academy of Sciences,
Kiev, Second Edition (1995).

(55) R. M. Santilli, {\it Elements of Hadronic Mechanics},
Vol II, Ukraine Academy of Sciences,
Kiev, Second Edition (1995).

(56) C. R. Illert and R. M. Santilli, {\it Foundations of Theoretical Conchology,}
Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1995).

(57) R. M. Santilli {\it Isotopic, Genotopic and Hyperstructural Methods
in Theoretical Biology}, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (1996).

(58) R. M. Santilli, {\it The Physics of New Clean Energies and Fuels According to
Hadronic Mechanics,} Special issue of the Journal of New Energy, 318 pages (1998).

(59) R. M. Santilli, {\it Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry with Applications to New
Clean Energies and Fuels,} Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston-Dordrecht-London
(2001).

(60) R. M. Santilli, {\it Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An insider's view,} Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, MA (1984).

(61) R. M. Santilli, {\it Documentation of the Ethical Probe,} Volumes I, II and III, Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, MA (1985).

(62) H. C. Myung, {\it Lie Algebras and Flexible
Lie-Admissible Algebras,} Hadronic Press (1982).

(63) A.K. Aringazin, A. Jannussis, D.F. Lopez, M. Nishioka, and B. Veljanoski,
{\it Santilli's Lie-isotopic Generalization of Galilei's and Einstein's
Relativities,} Kostarakis Publishers, Athens (1991).

(64) D. S. Sourlas and G. T. Tsagas, {\it Mathematical
Foundations of the Lie-Santilli Theory,} Ukraine Academy of Sciences,
Kiev (1993).

(65) J. L\^{o}hmus, E. Paal and L. Sorgsepp, {\it
Nonassociative Algebras in Physics}, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, FL,
USA (1994).

(66) J. V. Kadeisvili, {\it Santilli's Isotopies of
Contemporary Algebras, Geometries and Relativities},
Second Edition, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev , Second Edition (1997).

(67) R. M. Falcon Ganfornina and J. Nunez Valdes, {\it Fondamentos de la Isoteoria de
Lie-Santilli,} (in Spanish) International Academic Press, America-Europe-Asia,
(2001), also available in the pdf file
http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/spanish.pdf

(68) Chun-Xuan Jiang, {\it Foundations of Santilli's Isonumber Theory,}
with Applications to New Cryptograms, Fermat's Theorem and Goldbach's Conjecture,
International Academic Press, America-Europe-Asia
(2002) also available in the pdf file
http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/jiang.pdf

[8] ** CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS AND REPRINT VOLUMES:**

(69) H. C. Myung and S. Okubo, Editors, {\it Applications of Lie-Admissible Algebras
in Physics,} Volume I, Hadronic Press (1978).

(70) H. C. Myung and S. Okubo, Editors, {\it Applications of Lie-Admissible Algebras
in Physics,} Vol. II, Hadronic Press (1978).

(71) H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the Second Workshop on
Lie-Admissible Formulations,} Part I, Hadronic J. Vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1252-2033 (l979).

(72) H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the Second Workshop on
Lie-Admissible Formulations,}Part II, Hadronic J. Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-725 (l980.

(73) H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the Third Workshop on
Lie-Admissible Formulations,}Part A, Hadronic J. Vol. 4, issue no. 2, pp. 183-607 (l9881).

(74) H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the Third Workshop on
Lie-Admissible Formulations,} Part B, Hadronic J. Vo. 4, issue no. 3, pp. 608-1165 (l981).

(75) H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the Third Workshop on
Lie-Admissible Formulations,} Part C, Hadronic J. Vol. 4, issue no. 4, pp. 1166-1625
(l981).

(76) J. Fronteau, A. Tellez-Arenas and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Nonpotential Interactions and their Lie-Admissible
Treatment,} Part A, Hadronic J., Vol. 5, issue no. 2, pp. 245-678 (l982).

(77) J. Fronteau, A. Tellez-Arenas and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Nonpotential Interactions and their Lie-Admissible
Treatment,} Part B, Hadronic J. Vol. 5, issue no. 3, pp. 679-1193 (l982).

(78) J. Fronteau, A. Tellez-Arenas and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Nonpotential Interactions and their Lie-Admissible
Treatment,} Part C, Hadronic J. Vol. 5, issue no. 4, pp. 1194-1626 (l982).

(79) J. Fronteau, A. Tellez-Arenas and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Nonpotential Interactions and their Lie-Admissible
Treatment,} Part D, Hadronic J. Vol. 5, issue no. 5, pp. 1627-1948 (l982).

(80) J.Fronteau, R.Mignani, H.C.Myung and R. M. Santilli, Editors, {\it Proceedings of the
First Workshop on Hadronic Mechanics,} Hadronic J. Vol. 6, issue no. 6, pp. 1400-1989
(l983).

(81) A. Shoeber, Editor, {\it Irreversibility and Nonpotentiality in Statistical Mechanics,}
Hadronic Press (1984).

(82) H. C. Myung, Editor, {\it Mathematical Studies in Lie-Admissible Algebras,} Volume I,
Hadronic Press (1984).

(83) H. C. Myung, Editor, {\it Mathematical Studies in Lie-Admissible Algebras,} Volume II,
Hadronic Press (1984).

(84) H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli, Editor, {\it Applications of Lie-Admissible Algebras
in Physics,} Vol. III, Hadronic Press (1984).

(85) J.Fronteau, R.Mignani and H.C.Myung, Editors, {\it Proceedings of the Second Workshop on
Hadronic Mechanics,} Volume I Hadronic J. Vol. 7, issue no. 5, pp. 911-1258 (l984).

(86) J.Fronteau, R.Mignani and H.C.Myung, Editors, {\it Proceedings of the Second Workshop on
Hadronic Mechanics,} Volume II, Hadronic J. Vol. 7, issue no. 6, pp. 1259-1759 (l984).

(87) D.M.Norris et al, {\it Tomber's Bibliography and Index in Nonassociative
Algebras,} Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, FL (1984).

(88) H. C. Myung, Editor, {\it Mathematical Studies in Lie-Admissible Algebras,} Volume III,
Hadronic Press (1986).

(89) A.D.Jannussis, R.Mignani, M. Mijatovic, H. C.Myung B. Popov and A. Tellez Arenas,
Editors, {\it Fourth Workshop on Hadronic Mechanics and Nonpotential Interactions,}
Nova Science, New York (l990).

(90) H. M. Srivastava and Th. M. Rassias, Editors, {\it Analysis Geometry and Groups:
A Riemann Legacy Volume,} Hadronic Press (1993).

(91) F. Selleri, Editor, {\it Fundamental Questions in Quantum Physics and Relativity,}
Hadronic Press (1993).

(92) J. V. Kadeisvili, Editor, {\it The Mathematical Legacy of Hanno Rund}, Hadronic Press
(1994).

(93) M. Barone and F. Selleri Editors, {\it Frontiers of Fundamental Physics,} Plenum, New
York, (1994).

(94) M. Barone and F. Selleri, Editors, {\it Advances in Fundamental Physics,} Hadronic Press
(1995).

(95) Gr. Tsagas, Editor, {\it New Frontiers in Algebras, Groups and Geometries
,} Hadronic Press (1996).

(96) T. Vougiouklis, Editor, {\it New Frontiers in Hyperstructures,}
Hadronic Press, (1996).

(97) T. L. Gill, Editor, {\it New Frontiers in Hadronic Mechanics,} Hadronic Press (1996).

(98) T. L. Gill, Editor, {\it New Frontiers in Relativities,} Hadronic Press (1996).

(99) T. L. Gill, Editor, {\it New Frontiers in Physics,}, Volume I, Hadronic Press (1996).

(100) T. L. Gill, Editor, {\it New Frontiers in Physics,}, Volume II, Hadronic Press (1996).

(101) C. A. Dreismann, Editor, {\it New Frontiers in Theoretical Biology,} Hadronic Press
(1996).

(102) G. A., Sardanashvily, Editor,{\it New Frontiers in Gravitation,} Hadronic Press (1996).

(103) M. Holzscheiter, Editor, {\it Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Antimatter Gravity,} Sepino, Molise, Italy,
May 1996, Hyperfine Interactions, Vol. {\bf 109} (1997).

(104) T. Gill, K. Liu and E. Trell, Editors, {\it Fundamental Open Problems in Science at the
end of the Millennium,}} Volume I, Hadronic Press (1999).

(105) T. Gill, K. Liu and E. Trell, Editors, {\it Fundamental Open Problems in Science at the
end of the Millennium,}} Volume II, Hadronic Press (1999).

(106) T. Gill, K. Liu and E. Trell, Editors, {\it Fundamental Open Problems in Science at the
end of the Millennium,}} Volume III, Hadronic Press (1999).

(107) V. V. Dvoeglazov, Editor {\it Photon: Old Problems in Light of New Ideas,} Nova Science
(2000).

(108) M. C. Duffy and M. Wegener, Editors, {\it Recent Advances in Relativity Theory} Vol. I,
Hadronic Press (2000).

(109) M. C. Duffy and M. Wegener, Editors, {\it Recent Advances in Relativity Theory} Vol. I,
Hadronic Press (2000).

[9] ** EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS:**

(110) F. Cardone, R. Mignani and R. M. Santilli, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.
{\bf 18}, L61 (1992).

(111) F. Cardone, R. Mignani and R. M. Santilli, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. {\bf 18}, L141
(1992).

(112) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 15}, Part I: 1-50 and Part II: 77134 (l992).

(113) Cardone and R. Mignani, JETP {\bf 88}, 435 (1995).

(114) R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. of Phys. {\bf 4}, 1 (1998).

(115) R. M. Santilli Communications in Math. and Theor. Phys. {\bf 2}, 1 (1999).

(116) A. O. E. Animalu and R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Quantum Chem. {\bf 26},175 (1995).

(117) R. M. Santilli, contributed paper to {\it Frontiers of Fundamental Physics,} M. Barone and
F. Selleri, Editors Plenum, New York, pp 4158 (1994).

(118) R. Mignani, Physics Essays {\bf 5}, 531 (1992).

(119) R. M. Santilli, Comm. Theor. Phys. {\bf 4}, 123 (1995).

(120) Yu. Arestov, V. Solovianov and R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. Letters {\bf 11}, 483 (1998).

(121) R. M. Santilli, contributed paper in the {\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Large Scale Collective Motion of Atomic Nuclei,} G. Giardina, G. Fazio and M. Lattuada,
Editors, World Scientific, Singapore, p. 549 (1997).

(122) J.Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos and D.V.Napoulos in {\sl Proceedings of the
Erice Summer School, 31st Course: From Superstrings to the Origin of Space--Time},
World Sientific (1996).

(123) C. Borghi, C. Giori and A. Dall'OIlio Russian J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 56}, 147 (1993).

(124) N. F. Tsagas, A. Mystakidis, G. Bakos, and L. Seftelis, Hadronic J. {\bf 19}, 87 (1996).

(125) R. M. Santilli and D., D. Shillady, Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy {\bf 24}, 943 (1999).

(126) R. M. Santilli and D., D. Shillady, Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy {\bf 25}, 173 (2000).

(127) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 21}, pages 789-894 (1998).

(128) M.G. Kucherenko and A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic J. {\bf 21}, 895 (1998).

(129) M.G. Kucherenko and A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic Journal {\bf 23}, 59 (2000).

(130) R.M. Santilli and A.K. Aringazin, "Structure and Combustion of
Magnegases", e-print http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0112066, to be published.

,
[10] ** MATHEMATICS PAPERS:**

(131) S. Okubo, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 1564 (1982).

(132) J. V. Kadeisvili, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 9}, 283 and 319 (1992).

(133) J. V. Kadeisvili, N. Kamiya, and R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 16}, 168 (1993).

(134) J. V. Kadeisvili, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 9}, 283 (1992).

(135) J. V. Kadeisvili, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 9}, 319 (1992).

(136) J. V. Kadeisvili, contributed paper in the {\it Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Symmetry Methods in Physics,} G. Pogosyan et al., Editors,
JINR, Dubna, Russia (1994).

(137) J. V. Kadeisvili, Math. Methods in Appl. Sci. {\bf 19} 1349 (1996).

(138) J. V. Kadeisvili, Algebras, Groups and Geometries, {\bf 15}, 497 (1998).

(139) G. T. Tsagas and D. S. Sourlas, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 12}, 1 (1995).

(140) G. T. Tsagas and D. S. Sourlas, Algebras, Groups and geometries {\bf 12}, 67 (1995).

(141) G. T. Tsagas, Algebras, Groups and geometries {\bf 13}, 129 (1996).

(142) G. T. Tsagas, Algebras, Groups and geometries {\bf 13}, 149 (1996).

(143) E. Trell, Isotopic Proof and Reproof of Fermat¹s Last Theorem Verifying Beal¹s
Conjecture. Algebras Groups and Geometries {\bf 15}, 299-318 (1998).

(144) A.K. Aringazin and D.A. Kirukhin,, Algebras, Groups and
Geometries {\bf 12}, 255 (1995).

(145) A.K. Aringazin, A. Jannussis, D.F. Lopez, M. Nishioka, and B. Veljanoski, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 7}, 211 (1990).

(146) A.K. Aringazin, A. Jannussis, D.F. Lopez, M.
Nishioka, and B. Veljanoski, Algebras, Groups and
Geometries {\bf 8}, 77 (1991).

(147) D. L. Rapoport, Algebras, Groups and Geometries, {\bf 8}, 1 (1991).

(148) D. L. Rapoport, contributed paper in the{\it
Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on
Hadronic Mechanics,} H.C. Myung, Edfitor, Nova Science Publisher (1990).

(149) D. L. Rapoport, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 8}, 1 (1991).

(150) C.-X. Jiang, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 15}, 509 (1998).

(151) D. B. Lin, Hadronic J. {\bf 11}, 81 (1988).

(152) R. Aslaner and S. Keles, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 14}, 211 (1997).

(153) R. Aslander and S. Keles,. Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 15}, 545 (1998).

(154) M. R. Molaei, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 115}, 563 (1998) (154).

(155) S. Vacaru, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 14}, 225 (1997) (155).

(156) N. Kamiya and R. M. Santilli, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 13}, 283 (1996).

(157) S. Vacaru, Algebras, Groups and Geometries {\bf 14}, 211 (1997).

(158) Y. Ylamed, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 1734 (1982).

(159) R. Trostel, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 1893 (1982).

[11] **PHYSICS PAPERS:**

(160) J. P. Mills, jr, Hadronic J. {\bf 19}, 1 (1996).

(161) J. Dunning-Davies, Foundations of Physics Letters, {\bf 12}, 593 (1999).

(162) E. Trell, Hadronic Journal Supplement {\bf 12}, 217 (1998).

(163) E. Trell, Algebras Groups and Geometries {\bf 15}, 447-471 (1998).

(164) E. Trell, "Tessellation of
Diophantine Equation Block Universe," contributed paper to {\it Physical
Interpretations of Relativity Theory,} 6-9 September 2002, Imperial College, London.
British Society for the Philosophy of Science, in print, (2002).

(165) J. Fronteau, R. M. Santilli and A. Tellez-Arenas, Hadronic J. {\bf 3}, 130 (l979).

(166) A. O. E. Animalu, Hadronic J.{\bf 7}, 19664 (1982).

(167) A. O. E. Animalu, Hadronic J. {\bf 9}, 61 (1986).

(168) A. O. E. Animalu, Hadronic J. {\bf 10}, 321 (1988).

(169) A. O. E. Animalu, Hadronic J. {\bf 16}, 411 (1993).

(170) A. O. E. Animalu, Hadronic J. {\bf 17}, 349 (1994).

(171) S.Okubo, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 1667 (1982).

(172) D.F.Lopez, in {\it
Symmetry Methods in Physics}, A.N.Sissakian, G.S.Pogosyan and X.I.Vinitsky, Editors (
JINR, Dubna, Russia (1994).

(173) D. F. Lopez, {\it Hadronic J.} {\bf 16}, 429 (1993).

(174) A.Jannussis and D.Skaltsas,{\it Ann. Fond. L.de Broglie} {\bf
18},137 (1993).

(175) A.Jannussis, R.Mignani and R.M.Santilli,
{\it Ann.Fonnd. L.de Broglie} {\bf 18}, 371 (1993).

(176) A. O. Animalu and R. M. Santilli, contributed paper in {\it Hadronic
Mechanics and Nonpotential Interactions} M. Mijatovic, Editor,
Nova Science, New York, pp. 19-26 (l990).

(177) M. Gasperini, Hadronic J. {\bf 6}, 935 (1983).

(178) M. Gasperini, Hadronic J. {\bf 6}, 1462 (1983).

(179) R. Mignani, Hadronic J. {\bf 5}, 1120 (1982).

(180) R. Mignani, Lett. Nuovo Cimento {\bf 39}, 413 (1984).

(181) A. Jannussis, Hadronic J. Suppl. {\bf 1}, 576 (1985).

(182) A. Jannussis and R. Mignani, Physica A {\bf 152}, 469 (1988).

(183) A. Jannussis and I.Tsohantis, Hadronic J. {\bf 11}, 1 (1988).

(184) A. Jannussis, M. Miatovic and B. Veljanosky, Physics Essays {\bf 4}, (1991).

(185) A. Jannussis, D. Brodimas and R. Mignani, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 24}, L775 (1991).

(186) A. Jannussis and R. Mignani, Physica A {\bf 187}, 575 (1992).

(187) A.Jannussis, R.Mignani and D.Skaltsas Physics A {\bf 187}, 575 (1992).

(188) A.Jannussis et al, Nuovo Cimento B{\bf 103}, 17 and 537 (1989).

(189) A. Jannussis et al., Nuovo Cimento B{\bf 104}, 33 and 53 (1989).

(190) A. Jannussis et al. Nuovo Cimento B{\bf 108} 57 (l993).

(191) A. Jannussis et al., Phys. Lett. A {\bf 132}, 324 (1988).

(192) A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic J. {\bf 12}, 71 (1989).

(193) A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic J. {\bf13}, 183 (1990).

(194) A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic J. {\bf 13}, 263 (1990).

(195) A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic J. {\bf 14}, 531 (1991).

(196) A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic J. {\bf 16}, 195 (1993).

(197) A.K. Aringazin and K.M. Aringazin,Invited paper, in the {\it Proceedings of the Intern.
Conference 'Frontiers of Fundamental Physics',} Plenum Press, (1993).

(198) A.K. Aringazin, K.M. Aringazin, S. Baskoutas, G. Brodimas, A. Jannussis, and K. Vlachos,
contribuuted paper in the {\it Proceedings of the Intern. Conference 'Frontiers of Fundamental
Physics',} Plenum Press, (1993).

(199) A.K. Aringazin, D.A. Kirukhin, and R.M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 18}, 245 (1995).

(200) A.K. Aringazin, D.A.Kirukhin, and R.M. Santilli, Had-ronic J. {\bf 18}, 257 (1995).

(201) T. L. Gill, Hadronic J. {\bf 9}, 77 (1986).

(202) T. L. Gill and J. Lindesay, Int. J. Theor,
Phys {\bf} 32}, 2087 (1993).

(203) T. L. Gill, W.W. Zachary, M.F. Mahmood and J. Lindesay,
Hadronic J. {\bf 16}, 28 (1994).

(204) T.L. Gill, W.W. Zachary and J. Lindesay,
Foundations of Physics Letters {\bf 10}, 547 (1997).

(205) T.L. Gill, W.W. Zachary and J.
Lindesay, Int. J. Theo Phys {\bf 37}, 22637 (1998).

(206) T.L. Gill, W.W. Zachary and J.
Lindesay, Foundations of Physics, {\bf 31}, 1299 (2001).

(207) D. L. Schuch, K.-M. Chung and H. Hartmann,
J. Math. Phys. {\bf 24}, 1652 (1983).

(208) D. L. Schuch and K.-M. Chung, Intern. J. Quantum
Chem. {\bf 19}, 1561 (1986).

(209) D. Schich 23, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 23}, 59, (1989).

(210) D. Schuch, contributed paper in {\it New
Frontiers in Theoretical Physics,} Vol. I, p 113, T. Gill Editor, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor
(1996); D. L. Schuch, Hadronic J. {\bf 19}, 505 (1996).

(211) S.L. Adler, Phys.Rev. {\bf 17}, 3212 (1978).

(212) Cl.George, F. Henin, F.Mayene and I.Prigogine, Hadronic J. {\bf 1},
520 (1978).

(213) C.N.Ktorides, H.C.Myung and R.M.Santilli, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22}, 892
(1980).

(214) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 13}, 513 (1990).

(215) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 17}, 311 (1994).

(216) A.J. Kalnay, Hadronic J. {\bf 6}, 1 (1983).

(217) A. J. Kalnay and R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 6}, 1873 (1983).

(218) M. 0. Nishioka, Nuovo Cimento A {\bf 82}, 351 (1984).

(219) G.Eder, Hadronic J. \underline{\bf 4,} (1981) and {\bf 5}, 750 (1982).

(220) H. E. Wilhelm, contributed paper in {\it
Space, Time and Motion: Theory and Experiments}, H., E. Wilhelm and K. Liu, editors,Chinese J.
Syst Eng. Electr., {\bf 6}, issue 4 (1995).

(221) C.A.Chatzidimitriou-Dreismann, T. Abdul-Redah, R.M.F. Streffer, J.Mayers
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 2839 (1997).

(222) C.A.Chatzidimitriou-Dreismann, T. Abdul-Redah, B. Kolaric
J. Am. Chem. Soc. {\bf 123}, 11945 (2001).

(223) C.A.Chatzidimitriou-Dreismann, T. Abdul-Redah,
R.M.F. Streffer, J.Mayers J. Chem.
Phys. {\bf 116}, 1511 (2002) (see also
www.ISIS.rl.ac.uk/molecularspectroscopy/EVS).

(224) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. Suppl. {\bf 1}, 662 (l985).

(225) R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. {\bf 11}, 383 (l981).

(226) R. M. Santilli, "Iso-m geno-, hyper-mechanifor matter and their isoduals for antimatter," in press at *Journal of Dynamical Systems and Geometric Theories,* also available in pdf format.

(227) R. M. Santiulli, Comm. Thgeor. Phys. {\bf 4} 123 (1995).

(228) H. Rauch et al., Hadronic J. {\bf 4}, 1280 (1981)

(229) H. Rauch et al., Phys. Lett. A {bf 54}, 425 (1975). G. Badurek et al., Phys. Rev. D {bf 14}, 1177 (1976). H. Rauch et al., Z. Physik B {\bf 29}, 281 (1978). H. Kaiser et al., Z. Physik A 291, 231 (1979).

(230) D. I. Blochintsev, Phys. Lett.{\bf 12}, 272 (1964)

(231) L. B. Redei, Phys. Rev. {\bf 145}, 999 (1966)

(232) D. Y. Kim, Hadronic J. {\bf 1}, 1343 (1978)

<233) H. B. Nielsen and I. Picek, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 211}, 269 (1983)

(234) S. H. Aronson et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 28}, 495 (1983)

(235) N. Grossman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59} , 18 (1987)

(236) B. Lorstad, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 4}, 2861 (1989).

(237) V. V. Burov et al., JINR Communication E4-95-440 (1995), Dubna, Russia.

(238) R. M. Santilli, in *Proceedings of "Deuteron 1993",* JINR, Dubna, Russia (1994).

(239) R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy {\bf 28}, 177 (2003).

(240) A. Enders and G.
Nimtz, J. Phys. France {\bf 2}, 1693 (1992).

(241) G. Nimtz and W. Heitmann,
Progr. Quantum Electr. {\bf 21}, 81 (1997).

(242) F. Mirabel and F. Rodriguez, Nature {\bf 371}, 464 (1994).

(243) J. Tingay et al., Nature {\bf {374}}, 141 (1995).

(244) D. Baylin et al., IAU Comm. 6173 (1995).

(246) P. Saari and K. Reivelt, Phys. Rev. Letters {\bf 79} (1997), in press.

(247) E. Recami and R. M. Santilli, Hadronic Journal {\bf 23}, 279 (2000).

(248) H. Arp, * Quasars Redshifts and Controversies,* Interstellar media, Berkeley, 1987.

(249) H. Arp, contributed paper in * Frontiers of Fundamental Physics,* F. Selleri and M. Barone, Editors, Editors, Plenum, New York (1994).

(250) J. W. Sulentic, Astrophys. J. {\bf 343}, 54 (1989).

(251) H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar and N.C.Wicramasinghe, Nature {\bf 346}, 807 (1990)

(252) R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. Suppl. 4A, issues 1 (252a), 2 (244b), 3 (252c) and 4 (252d), 1988.

(253) R. M. Santilli, contributed paper in * Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, F. Selleri and M. Barone, Editors, Editors, Plenum, New York (1994).
*

*
(254) P. Marmet, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. {\bf 17}, 238 (1988)
*

*
***********************
*

*
*

*
Home Page | Part I | Part II
| Part III | Part IV
| Part V | Part VI | Part VII | IBR Web Site | Magnegas Web Site | Nuclear Waste Recycling Web Site | E-Mail Us
*

*
Last Revised: January 22, 2003
*

*Copyright ©
1997-2015 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: ibr@gte.net
All Rights Reserved.*