Committee on Scientific Ethics

Palm Harbor, Florida, March 3, 1998


Nobel Committee for Physics
Theoretical Physics Department
Royal Institute of Technology
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM, Sweden

Published in the Proceedings of the International Meeting
held in Beijing China, in August 1997
K. Liu et al. Editors
Hadronic Press, 1999

Dear Prof. Nagel,

I felt honored to meet you at the recent Sanibel Symposium 1998 in St Augustine, Florida, and to discuss with you your research on the phase-space representation of one-mode boson fields.

However, allow me to express, most respectfully, my reservations on your excessively orthodox view according to which there is no need at this time to go beyond quantum mechanics in particle physics. I have studied this problem all 32 years of my research activities since I completed my graduate studies in Torino, Italy, in 1966. Therefore, allow me to express and document the conceptual, theoretical and experimental reasons of my disagreement with your view. Owing to its widespread nature, I believe that the insistence on the final character of quantum mechanics for all possible aspects of the microcosm is responsible for the lack of truly major discoveries during the past decades, as well as for the major unsolved problems of our societies, such as nuclear waste, environment, and others.

Needless to say, I am conveying my viewpoint in full respect of your different view, without any expectation on my part or obligation on your part that you should agree.

1) The forgotten legacy of Lagrange. Jacobi, Schwarzschild and others. Until the early part of this century the physical reality was separated into the following two problems:

# Exterior dynamical problems in vacuum, characterized by particles moving in empty space under action-at-a-distance interactions in which case the particles can be effectively approximated as being point like.

# Interior dynamical problems within physical media, characterized by extended-nonspherical-deformable particles moving within physical media, in which case the particles cannot any longer be effectively represented as being point-like.

During my graduate studies in Torino I read in detail Lagrange‘s original work (in Italian) and learned there the first distinction between the exterior problem., in which only the function today called the Lagrangian is sufficient, and the interior problem, for which Lagrange had to add external terms to his equations. I then saw the same distinction with a similar treatment in Hamilton, Jacobi and other Founders of Dynamics.

The last significant study of the same distinction I know of is that by Schwarzschild who published two papers, one on the widely acclaimed exact exterior solution, and the second vastly ignored paper on the approximate interior solution.

As of today, the above legacy is generally ignored in all fields of physics, and the few researchers who study it (such as myself) are disqualified by the so-called “establishment”. Owing to the evident, dramatic, conceptual, topological and physical differences between the exterior and interior problem I believe that its ignorance undermines the very foundations of contemporary physics, and renders inevitable the emergence of problems of scientific ethics, particularly when large public funds are invested in interior problems under the unquestioned validity of the theories of the exterior problems.

2) The implication of the forgotten legacy for hadron physics. Rather than being superseded by fancy contemporary studies on solitons, strings and all that, I believe that the above historical distinction is more important today than ever. In fact, my studies essentially indicate that:

# Quantum mechanics can be safely assumed to be exactly valid for the exterior dynamical problems of particles in vacuum. To see this it is sufficient to consider the atomic structure or a contemporary particle accelerator for which the validity of quantum mechanics is beyond doubts. On this first profile we are therefore in complete agreement. However, the same studies support

# The expectation that quantum mechanics is “not” valid in the equally exact form for the complementary interior dynamical problems of particles. Opposing views would imply that an electron must necessarily orbit with a locally conserved angular momentum when in the interior of a collapsing star, a belief without any physical credibility. The case for hadronic constituents is identical, as elaborated below and in the enclosed papers. On this second profile (only) we therefore disagree.

The above view implies that the contemporary unitary, Mendeleev-type classification of hadrons into families has final character. To see this, it is sufficient to consider the truly incredible experimental verifications of the predictions of new particles made by the theory, thus confirming its final character for the “classification” of hadrons into families.

Jointly, the same view implies that the belief that quarks are physical constituents of hadrons under the exact validity of quantum mechanics is essentially political-nonscientific. To see this it is sufficient to look at the fundamental unsolved problems of quark conjectures. Besides the inconsistencies found in the literature, the biggest ones are kept hidden as the best “secrets of the trade”. I know them because I have reached the top of the US academia (a position at Harvard under DOE support) and left immediately thereafter as a necessary condition to conduct uncontrolled research. As an example, it has been rigorously proved that matter made up of quarks “cannot” have gravity. In fact, gravity can only be defined in our space-time while quarks can only be defined in mathematical unitary internal spaces without mixtures because of the ORaifearthigh’s Theorem (let us ignore supersymmetric extensions until experimentally established).

At this point physicists with vested interests on quarks voice the view that quarks have masses thus being able to characterize gravity. A separation between science and politics is here needed for our own dignity, let alone to remain scientists. The sole possible way for a mass to characterize gravity is that of being the eigenvalue of the second order Casimir invariant of the Poincare´ symmetry. This is positively, absolutely impossible for quarks, as well known.

The “Vera Veritas” which is the motto of our Institute (against Harvard sole “Veritas”) is that quark masses are purely mathematical parameters solely definable in the mathematical unitary space with no possible connection in our spacetime, thus being fundamentally unable to characterize gravity. Lacking a credible characterization of the mass of hadrons, the belief that quarks are the final physical constituents of hadrons is so unfounded, that can only raise questions of scientific ethics, because real science is based on the traditional “I am not sure” !

In any case, the history of science established three independent times that one single model cannot be used for the joint classification and structure problems. A physicist who tries to represent with the Mendeleev table both the classification of atoms into family as well as the structure of each individual atom is clearly outside the boundary of science, and exactly the same situation occurs for nuclei and molecules. In all these cases history established the need for two different yet compatible models, one of classification and a different one of structure.

Yet, via the use of academic power, rather than science, the unitary model is imposed as providing the solution of both the classification of hadrons into families and the structure of each hadron. Such a political posture can only create a historical distortion which increases in time, unless corrected with complementary research.

In summary, my studies bring to the conclusion that thanks to the validity of quantum mechanics for the exterior problem, the Mendeleev-type classification of hadrons has a final character. On the contrary, the complementary structural problems of hadrons is open at this writing precisely because of the historical, conceptual, epistemological, phenomenological, experimental and other evidence according to which quantum mechanics “cannot” be exact in the interior problem.

Again, we should not forget the historical teaching here. The solution of the problem of the structure of the atoms eventually demanded the construction of a new mechanics, quantum mechanics, evidently because of the structural differences of the two problems. It is an easy prediction that the structure of hadrons will eventually demand a yet broader mechanics, again, because of the dramatic difference between the study of isolated particles in vacuum (classification), and that of their hyperdense structure.

3. The forgotten legacy of Lorentz. As paradoxical as it may seem, the geometric foundations for the insufficiencies of quantum mechanics in particle physics were established before its birth and more specifically at the turn of this century. In the true spirit of true Founders, Lorentz was the first to identify the limitations of his own celebrated symmetry. In fact, in a vastly ignored paper (see its equally ignored review in Pauli’s book), Lorentz was the first to study deviations from the speed of light in vacuums caused by physical media, and attempted to identify the evident broadening of his symmetry which is needed for a locally varying speed of light (although he could not succeed because of the lack of sufficient mathematics known at that time, as shown below).

Lorentz’s teaching is that physical media alter the geometry of spacetime. This teaching alone is sufficient to establish the plausibility of deviations from relativistic quantum mechanics in the interior of hadrons.

Recall that hadrons are made up of ideal spheres with points in them only in academia. In the physical reality hadrons are some of the densest media measured by mankind in laboratory until now, being constituted by particles with extended wavepackets in conditions of total mutual penetration and overlapping one inside all others (each hadronic constituent, to be physical, must have a wavepacket of the order of 1 fm which is the size of all hadrons). If spacetime is already altered according to Lorentz in our relatively thin atmosphere, the possibility that spacetime (and therefore relativistic quantum mechanics) could be exact within the hyperdense media inside hadrons has little, if any, scientific credibility.

At this point physicists with vested interests in pre-existing theories, contrary to Lorentz’s teaching, posture that “conventional stuff can be regained via the reduction of the propagation of light to photons moving in vacuum and scattering among molecules.” This posture has been long disproved as being nonscientific for various reasons, such as: 1) the reduction to photon in second quantization of a purely classical elm wave propagating in our atmosphere with one meter in wavelength has no scientific credibility because the classical reality must be represented BEFORE operator treatments in second quantization may acquire some physical significance; 2) the reduction cannot evidently represent the recent experimental evidence in particle physics and astrophysics of causal speeds bigger than that in vacuum; 3) the reduction eliminates the primary geometric characteristics to be represented, such as the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of physical media, thus resulting in additional conflicts with certain implications of the latter; and other reasons.

In conclusion, according to Lorentz’s teaching, the speed of elm waves is a function of the local physical characteristics of the medium in which it propagates. As a result, the assumption of the final character of relativistic quantum mechanics within physical media such as the hadronic structure in which the causal speed “cannot” be c (see below), has no scientific credibility.

4) The forgotten legacy of Rutherford. One of the episodes in the history of science for me scientifically most distressing is that on the conception of the neutron. In fact, this episode signaled a critical shift from sound physical research to mathematical considerations, first via the formulation of the isospin and, more recently, via quark conjectures which have caused in more recent times rather serious societal damages I hope to indicate below.

As it is well known, Rutherford conceived the neutron as “a compressed Hydrogen atom”, that is, the electron of a Hydrogen atom which is compressed in the core of a star down to the size of the proton. As such, Rutherford conceived the neutron as a bound state of one proton and one electron.

As it is equally well known, Rutherford’s hypothesis of the neutron was subsequently proved by Chadwick twelve years later and it is now part of the history of mankind.

However, Rutherford’s conception of the neutron was violently attacked by Pauli, Heisenberg. Schroedinger and other founders of quantum mechanics. The latter argued that the conception of the neutron as a bound state of one proton and one electron has the following flaws:

1) It does not permit the representation of the spin 1/2 of the neutron (because both constituents have spin 1/2);

2) it does not permit the representation of the rest energy of the neutron (because it would require the anathema of a “positive” binding energy (since the rest energy of the neutron is bigger than the sum of the rest energies of the constituents, in which case the indicial equation of Schroedinger’s representation becomes anomalous and gives no real total energy);

3) It does not permit the representation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the neutron (evidently because unattainable from those of the constituents);

4) it does not permit the representation of the meanlife of the neutron (the electron would escape the proton in a fraction of the 15’ meanlife); 5) It does not permit the representation of other characteristics, e.g., those due to scattering.

The tacit assumption in the above criticisms is that quantum mechanics is exactly valid in the interior of the proton. In reality, this assumption is fundamentally flawed and without credibility. As a consequence, objections 1)-5) have no final value.

Recall that the sole bound state for a proton and an electron predicted by quantum mechanics is the Hydrogen atom. Criticisms 1)-5) therefore implies the existence of a tiny Hydrogen atom in the INTERIOR of the proton, which evidently has no scientific credibility. Similarly, recall that quantum mechanics can only describe particles moving in VACUUM without any resistance due to a medium. Objections 1)-5) therefore imply that the electron freely orbits in the interior of the hyperdense protons without any resistance, which also has no scientific credibility. I could keep going with additional inconsistencies.

The scientific reality is that the total penetration of the electron’s wavepacket within the hyperdense medium inside the proton implies the emergence of new interactions which are nonlinear (in the wavefunction and their derivatives), nonlocal (of integral type over the volume of overlap) and nonpotential (because of contact zero-range effects for which the notion of potential has no mathematical or physical meaning).

The latter “non-non-non”interactions are dramatically beyond any credible hope of quantitative treatment via quantum mechanics, by therefore leaving as the only open scientific issue the identification of applicable theory.

At this point physicists with vested interest in old theories immediately posture by saying that “the problem of the creation of the neutron is solved by weak interactions” according to the celebrated reaction p + e ä n + v. This posture too is political-nonscientific or lacks sufficient historical-technical depth. In fact, the description of the creation of the neuron via weak processes is purely external. As such, it is indeed fully valid. Politics enters into the scene when the same process is assumed to be the sole applicable, thus implying the jointly representation the interior structural problem.

As shown in the enclosed set of papers, an exact representation of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron has already been achieved under a generalization of quantum mechanics capable of representing the indicated “non-non-non” internal interactions. In particular, the latter studies have resolved all presumed inconsistencies 1)-5).

5) Historical implications of Rutherford’s legacy. In my view, Rutherford’s approach had truly sound physical foundations. He essentially argued against Pauli, Heisenberg, Schroedinger and his other contemporary, that the neutron is formed in stars at their very early stages, i.e, when they are solely composed of Hydrogen. As a result, the neutron must be composed by stable physical particles, the proton and the electron. Rutherford argued that there were “hidden effects” that could resolve the problematic aspects of quantum mechanics for his model.

Unfortunately for all of us, the scientific dispute was won by Pauli, Heisenberg, Schroedinger and the others. In fact, Rutherford’s physically sound conception of the neutron was abandoned and replaced by the mathematical unification of protons and neutrons via the unitary isospin. This signaled the birth of what I consider the most serious scientific episode of this century, the transition from the conduction of physics via real, physical, tangible particles, to the study of physics in terms of abstract mathematical conceptions.

In fact, the transition from SU(2)-isospin to SU(3)-quarks was only a logical subsequent step. The abandonment of serious scientific studies of Rutherford’s conception of the neutron is therefore the origin of the current well known problems of contemporary physics which has essentially turned physics into a true religion. This can be illustrated by the latest official announcement by Fermilab of the “discovery of the top quark”, while in rarity they have only measured one particle “predicted” by quark stuff, with the full awareness by experts that exactly the same prediction is admitted by theories for which quarks are not physical particles (see the enclosed papers).

The emerging scenario is that physics is today done via academic power and certainly not via the sole use of science. But physical realities do eventually emerge, sooner or later. Therefore, allow me to express my concern on the judgment by posterity on our current scientific condition, particularly on its lines of power such as Cambridge USA, Cambridge-England, etc. I hope you understand in this way the reason why I have taken all precautions to be known as keeping a distance with such a world. I became a physicist to do physical research rather than politics, and I do not intend to compromise on that basic aspect.

6) Societal implications of Rutherford’s legacy. After studying the problem for decades, it is my conviction that the abandonment of Rutherford’s conception of the neutron with physical constituents is the ultimate origin of some of the most serious problems of contemporary society. Allow me to indicate some of the reasons for this unexpected conclusion, and what are the claimed consequences.

Once subjected to serious scientific study, Rutherford’s conception of the neutron is a de facto mechanism for its synthesis. In turn, once this is achieved, the inverse reaction becomes within theoretical and technical reach. I am here referring to the possibility that the neutron can be stimulated to decay. After all, the neutron is naturally unstable, and acquires different meanlives when in different environments, e.g., it possesses a meanlife of a few seconds when a member of certain radioactive nuclei (rapid beta decays), 15’ when in vacuum, longer meanlives in other nuclei. If nature establishes such a variation, the conception of means to stimulate the decay of the neutron is only a matter of time. In reality, some have already been identified, preliminarily tested and patent applications are pending (see the enclosed papers). Others are under study.

In turn, the control of the life of the neutron provides de facto new means to recycle highly radioactive nuclear waste via the reduction of their very long meanlives to short values (see enclosed papers). In particular, as indicated by recent studies the expected recycling equipment is relatively small, thus usable by the nuclear power companies in their own plants. The new means therefore avoid altogether the transportation of highly radioactive material in public streets to a common (yet unknown) dumping area. The same recycling would also be evidently applicable in storage areas, and would actually render them more acceptable by the public evidently because of the reduction in the meanlife of the waste.

Moreover, the neutron is also the largest reservoir of clean energy available to mankind, inasmuch as in its decay releases electrons with over 0.5 MeV energy (your computer screen would melt in about 5 seconds for electrons with such an energy). Moreover, the electrons can be easily trapped by a metal shield (while the neutrinos are innocuous). By comparing the nuclear and neutron energies, the former releases highly dangerous radiations and waste, while the latter is clean for both radiation and waste.

I could reach similar results on environmental issues, e.g., the conception and production of new fuels which do not damage the environment.

In conclusion, it is my conviction that the widespread belief on the “final” character of quantum mechanics in particle physics is directly responsible for some of the largest unsolved problems of our societies. The embracing of such a belief by the establishment has suffocated, prevented or jeopardized serious scientific research in the problems considered. After all, “new” means for recycling nuclear waste, “new” forms of energy, “new” clean fuels, etc. are, by current definition for circles of true researchers, those beyond quantum mechanics. Yet these studies are systematically opposed, and the publication of qualified research in the field systematically suppressed.

7) The unreassuring scenario in nuclear physics, gravitation and other fields. Allow me to confess that, in my personal view and long experience, the current condition of nuclear physics can be only qualified as being distressing.

Quantum mechanics can be assumed to be exactly valid in the atomic structure because it represents the totality of the aspects in an exact way.

By the same token, quantum mechanics “cannot” be exactly valid in the nuclear structure for numerous reasons. First, it has failed to represent all data in an exact way, although the information is another “best kept secret of the trade”. For instance, after three-quarters of a century and river of public money, quantum mechanics has been unable to represent exactly total nuclear magnetic moments (1% is still missing for the deuteron, and 20%30% for big nuclei). Yet the exact validity of quantum mechanics is imposed by academic power, such as that at MIT, and true research process based on the laborious trial and error toward basic advances is systematically suppressed.

Besides the lack of exact representation of experimental data, the theoretical evidence on the impossibility for quantum mechanics to be exact for the nuclear structure is simply overwhelming, but it is another “best kept secret of the trade” with no hope of appearing in print in journals of the American, English or Italian Physical Societies.

A theoretical evidence is that nuclei have no nuclei. Recall that the pillar of quantum mechanics is the space-time symmetry, the Galilei or Poincare´ symmetry. But these symmetries are known to characterize Keplerian systems, that is, systems with the Keplerian nucleus at the center. The assumption of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics therefore necessarily implies the existence of a Keplerian nucleus in the nuclear structure which is notoriously false.

People who consider seriously open historical legacy will understand the above occurrence instantly. In fact, the atomic structure is the exterior problem (point particles in vacuum), and the nuclear structure is an interior problem (the constituents cannot any longer be approximated a being pointlike, and are instead extended and actually with a small overlapping of their charge distribution). The lack of exact validity of the former theory for the latter structure is then evident.

At this point physicists with vested interests in old doctrines voice all sorts of procedures in an attempt to salvage their beloved old theories. A separation of science from politics is here again needed: the removal of the Keplerian center from a spacetime symmetry requires the necessary exiting from its equivalence classes. I have studied this problem for decades and can prove it in any desired way (see the enclosed papers).

Needless to say, quantum mechanics allows to do excellent work in nuclear physics and the deviations can at best be small. The point is that, even though small, the deviations imply truly basic aspects and predict fundamentally novel advances. Ss such, they cannot be ignored.

Another field of physics I feel obliged to denounce as having been turned into a true religion is gravitation. Extremely grave is the complete ignorance these days of the Schwarzschild legacy on the two gravitational problems, the exterior problem in vacuum and the interior problem within physical media, thus using only one theory for both problems as widespread everywhere.

This has caused truly serious problems of scientific ethics, e.g., in the use of public funds for the study of gravitational collapse via theories for the vacuum without any mention of the limitations of the theory for the problem considered.

A collapsing star is a set of isolated points (a necessary condition to apply the topology underlying Riemann, let alone Riemann itself) only in academia. In the physical reality, a collapsing star is composed by the total mutual penetration and compression of a large number of hyperdense hadrons in a small region of space. These extreme physical conditions imply extreme nonlinear, nonlocal and nonpotential interactions which are dramatically beyond any credible hope of exact treatment via the Riemannian geometry. Any silence of this limitation can only provide myopic short-term gains, because it will be condemned by future historians. The same condemnation is expected on all the ”famous theorems” on gravitational collapse based on the geometry for the exterior problem. They do indeed have a physical value, PROVIDED that the papers identify the limitations of the geometry for the problem considered. Lacking the latter, science is turned into a religion, thus rendering unavoidable the raising of ethical issues.

The exterior gravitational problem itself is one of the most controversial issues of this century with too many unresolved disputes. It is here that the turning of science into a religion imposed via academic power reaches a climax of historical proportions.

The scientific reality, which is another “best kept secret of the trade” is that theories with curvature cannot be compared to experiments. This has been proved with rigorous theorem see the enclosed papers). You can see instantly the main lines. A reason for the majestic consistency of the special relativity is that the basic units of space (say 1 cm, 1 cm, 1 cm) and of time (say 1 sec) are expressed in a dimensionless way by the most fundamental invariant of the theory, the unit I = Diag.{ (1, 1, 1), 1} of the Poincare´ symmetry. The applicability of the theory to real measures is then beyond any possible doubt.Now, the transition from Minkowski to Riemann is known to be a noncanonical transformation at the classical level with its nonunitary counterpart at the operator level. As a consequence, all theories with non-null curvature do not possess invariant units of space, time, energy, etc. Their applicability to measurements is then a matter of religion, not science.

The situation for quantum gravity is even more dramatic and unreassuring. In fact, whenever formulated on conventional Hilbert spaces over conventional fields, quantum gravity theories are nonunitary, thus having a plethora of fundamental physical inconsistencies, including lack of invariant units; lack of preservation of Hermiticity in time; etc.

At the Sanibel Symposium 1998 you have perhaps seen the limitations expected in quantum chemistry due to its inability o provide a quantitative treatment of the short-range interactions in deep wave-overlapping of the valence electrons, an occurrence which is absent in the atomic structure. As a result, the theory which is exactly valid for individual atoms, cannot possibly be claimed to be exact for their bonds.

Equal fundamental shortcomings occur in superconductivity, astrophysics, cosmology, and other fields.

8) Isotopies, genotopies. hyperstructures and their isoduals. Another long standing historical teaching is that the resolution of new physical problems requires new mathematical methods. Among all possible mathematical methods for the problems herein considered, I have selected the use of new methods called isotopies, genotopies and hyperstructures for the study of interior problems which are reversible, irreversible and multivalued, respectively, as well as their antiautomorphic images called isoduals which we use for the classical and operator representation of antimatter.

The above methods are based on the idea of representing all deviations from established theories via progressive generalization of the unit of Hermitean type (isotopies), nonhermitean type (genotopies), multivalued type (hyperstructures, and their negative images (for antimatter).

The reasons for selecting the unit rather than other quantities are several. The first is that the selection assures the achievement of an invariant description, precisely because the unit is the most fundamental invariant of any theory, whether conventional or generalized.. The second is that the generalization of the unit essentially implies the preservation of all original axioms, thus guaranteeing the preservation of quantum axioms and physical laws (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Pauli’s exclusion principle, causality, probability, etc.), as presented in detail in the enclosed papers.

During our conversation I had the impression you were aware of criticisms against the isotopies moved by nonexperts in the field. To have a scientific appraisal of these criticisms you should keep in mind that, as treated in details in the enclosed papers, the isotopies yield the only known invariant generalized theories. All other generalized theories (those outside the class of equivalence of quantum mechanics) suffer of truly severe problems of physical consistency, such as:

1) lack of invariance of the basic units of time, space, etc., with consequential lack of applicability to real measurements;
2) Lack of preservation of the hermiticity in time with consequential lack of physically acceptable observables;
3) lack of unique and invariant numerical predictions;
4) violation of causality and probability laws; and
5) suffer of other shortcomings.

By comparison, the isotopies resolve all the above inconsistencies by their very conception and realization of being “axiom-preserving” (see the enclosed papers for technical details).

Moreover, the isotopies have been proved to be directly universal, i.e., applicable for all infinitely possible, signature preserving, well behaved generalizations of existing theories (universality), in the fixed inertial frame of the experimenter so as to avoid nonlinear maps to noninertial frames with consequential violation of the special relativity as it is the case for the use of Darboux’s transformations (direct universality). Therefore, the isotopies apply even when not desired for political reasons. By comparison, other theories, such as q-deformations, yield a rather minuscule class of generalizations.

Finally, criticism on isotopies appear in their full light when one inspects the evidence according to which generalized theories routinely published at the American, British, Italian and other Societies transparently violate Einstein special relativity (because deformed spaces and symmetries are not isomorphic to the conventional structures). On the contrary, isotopic generalizations preserve by construction Einstein’s special relativity and actually render it direct universal, i.e., applicable for arbitrary speeds of light within arbitrary media (again, please inspect the included papers for technical details).

By no means I claim that my studies are final (in fact, along the teaching by Lorentz, I have identified myself the limitations of the isotopies and constructed broader methods of genotopic, hyperstructural and isodual type. However, to be in good faith, colleagues who criticize my studies in favor of other generalized theories should: 1) prove the physical consistency of the preferred theories; 2) show their invariance; and 3) construct generalizations of Einstein axioms, prove their axiomatic consistency and, after all that, establish them experimentally. Without the achievement of these results via articles published in refereed Journals (rather than vague talks in academic corridors), the dismissal of my studies in favor of other theories becomes manifestly political-nonscientific.

9) Organized obstructions against fundamental experiments on the limitations of quantum mechanics (see Refs. [1,2,3] for details and documentations). You and I are physicists. The ONLY way for us to resolve our different views is via experiments. Unfortunately, it is here where the biggest problems of our contemporary physics community emerge in all their gravity. No mature judgment of the content of this letter can be reached without an open consideration of this aspect.

I believe it is in your interest to known the existence of organized opposition against the conduction of fundamental tests on the limitations of established doctrines for interior conditions irrespective of their outcome. This knowledge will then allow you to keep a distance from high ranking, yet equivocal figures in academia.

According to decade of documented personal experience, said opposition is realized first by discrediting the supporters of potentially basic experiments, then by suppressing any papers in “official” journals in the USA and Europe treating truly novel experiments and, finally, when these obstructions are resolved, by prohibiting the physical conduction of the experiments themselves via academic pressures and other forms of scientific banditism.

The most documented [2], unreassuring and internationally denounced case is that of the neutron interferometric measures of the 4? spinorial symmetry of thermal neutron passing through intense electric and magnetic fields, as those in the vicinity of heavy nuclei. The last measures were conducted by H. Rauch at the Grenoble Laboratory back in 1978. As soon as Rauch announced at our meeting in Boston of 1981 the expectation of about 1% deviation, Rauch was prohibited access to the laboratory for the repetition and finalization of the same measures apparently by political pressures originating from “leading” academic institutions in the USA [1,2]. This opposition has remained in effect to this day despite documented countless petitions by numerous concerned scientists the world over.

The politics of this experiment is that, under the indicated conditions, the neutron is expected to experience a small deformation of its shape with consequential small deformation of its intrinsic magnetic moment (while the intrinsic angular momentum remains unchanged). In turn the latter deformation implies a small departure from the predicted angle of two spin flips which, in turn, implies an unquestionable departure from the pillar of quantum mechanics and nuclear physics: the rotational symmetry. That is the experimental knowledge organized interests in the USA and in Europe have succeeded in suppressing for twenty consecutive years until now.

You should know that the more implications of the experiment were disclosed, the more intense the organized opposition. In fact, the experimental detection of the alterability of the intrinsic magnetic moment implies, as a direct and unavoidable consequence via the use of the conventional or isotopic Lorentz transforms, the possibility of stimulating the decay of the neutron. In turn, the latter possibility implies new means for recycling nuclear waste, new forms of energies, and other truly basic advances. The primary preoccupation of the organized scientific banditism in high ranking academia in USA and Europe is precisely that of suppressing, discrediting or otherwise jeopardizing these unwanted advanced.

Numerous neutron interferometric experiments are routinely permitted at various laboratories in the USA and Europe but, at a close scrutiny, they all result to be totally compatible with established doctrines by assured advanced knowledge.

After two decades of search world wide, I finally managed to convince A. Joffe at the H.-Meitner Institute in Berlin to repeat the measures, to later discover that he is doing them in vacuum, that is, without the intense electric and magnetic fields responsible for the deformations of neutrons, under which conditions no deviation whatever from conventional stuff is evidently possible.

All conditions for an obscurantism in this basic issue are therefore set. In fact, the organized interests are all rejoicing at Joffe’s re-runs evidently because they can use it to confirm the exact validity of quantum mechanics. What a colossal condemnation by posterity will this be ! After all, the case has been denounced in a number of books, papers, etc. (not included here, but at your disposal on request) to make sure that it will not escape to posterity.

Another unreassuring case I feel obliged to bring to your attention in your own interest is that of the measures of the behavior of the meanlives of unstable hadrons with energy. As stressed earlier, the exact validity of quantum mechanics for a hadron in a particle accelerator is beyond scientific doubt. But this is an exterior dynamical problem. Blockhintsev, Redeu, Kim, and other physicists argued that interior deviations from quantum mechanics are expected to manifest themselves in the outside precisely via deviations from the relativistic quantum behavior of the meanlives with energy.

As you can see in the enclosed Paper 14, all available, historical, conceptual, epistemological, phenomenological and experimental information point toward such a deviation, which is independently backed by other experimentally established deviations (see the other enclosed papers).

When I was at Harvard University in the late 1970’s-early 1980’s I used to write a “yearly letter” to Fermilab and to Cern petitioning, most respectfully, the conduction of the fundamental measure of the behavior of the meanlives of unstable hadrons with energy, with the consequence of being instantly disqualified and prohibited from visiting these laboratories. I still have the dry answer by Nobel Laureate Lederman’s, Director of Fermilab at that time, stating that “... you (I) do not understand particle physics”, while a worse occurrence resulted from my scientific requests to Cern (Cern has done no experiment of this fundamental type to date, despite numerous additional pressures by other concerned European physicists, and continues to use large public sums fundamentally based on the use of experimentally unverified laws).

An experiment was finally conducted by Aronson et al. at Fermilab in 1983 which did show clear deviations from relativistic quantum mechanics in the range from 30 to 100 GeV.Interests in established doctrines then immediately organized themselves and a new experiment was conducted by Grossman et al. in 1987 which claimed no deviations in the DIFFERENT range from 100 to 400 GeV. Even though in a range different than the former, basically flawed because of questionable theoretical assumptions, and fundamentally unsettled one way or another because of excessive errors and insufficient statistics, the “establishment” immediately claimed the “exact verification” of relativistic quantum mechanics in the interior of hadrons “because established by the Grossman experiment” ! Any additional paper in the field has been suppressed by the Journals of the American, British and Italian physical Societies via formal rejections based precisely on “verification” by Grossman et al. !

Again I see here the foundations of another obscurantism of potentially historical proportions. At any rate, claims of the above type by high ranking physicists can only be qualified as being oceanically outside science.

Yet another unreassuring case I feel obliged to report to you, as a further illustration of the reasons why we cannot resolve our differences at this writing, is that dealing with data elaborations of deep inelastic scattering experiments. These elaborations are evidently done via the conventional potential scattering theory, that is, via a theory which is the ultimate manifestation of quantum mechanics. It is then evident that all numbers derived from experimental data via the potential scattering theory are compatible with quantum mechanics by their very conception.

One of the primary objectives of the isotopies has been that of building an axiom-preserving covering of potential scattering theory to include internal, nonlinear, nonlocal and nonpotential contributions expected in deep inelastic scattering, which has now reached operational maturity (see my monographs on hadronic mechanics). This alternative theory, called isoscattering theory, evidently permits the derivation of new numbers from the same experimental data.

But . . . we need the experimental data to conduct these alternatives elaborations and compare the results with the conventional ones. Regrettably, rather than obtaining the needed data from particle laboratories I have experienced nothing but organized obstructions and disqualifications for the very consideration of the research.

Again, you should be aware that this additional condition implies another sizable obscurantism in particle physics. To understand the dimension, you should know that all the so-called “final experimental numbers” of contemporary particle physics which are derived from experimental data via the potential scatting theory are subjected to necessary numerical revisions whenever internal nonlinear, nonlocal and nonpotential effects are admitted. This implies necessary numerical revisions of quark “masses” and numerous other data currently believed to be “final experimental numbers”.

You should be aware that the above cases of documented, organized, international scientific banditism om high ranking academia are not the only ones. This is due to the fact that nobody really cares about scientific ethics and the few who have been on record with public denunciation of the current condition, such as myself and others, are considered a sort of weird outcasts. To give you elements of judgment, allow me to lament the existence of the additional:

> organized international obstructions against the test of Rutherford’s legacy (whether or not neutrons can be synthesized in laboratory from protons and electrons only under the threshold energy of 0.80 MeV), despite its very low cost, its evident historical character, and its scientific implications for whatever the outcome;

> organized international obstructions against the the test whether or not neutrons can be stimulated to decay, despite its very low cost, and the potential playback of a new energy;

> organized, at times hysterical obstructions against the study of novel means of recycling nuclear waste which can be used by nuclear power companies in their own plant because opposed to the billion-dollar scientific lobby that has been created around the transportation and storage of the waste;

> organized obstructions of studies on nonlocal-integral origin of the Bose-Einstein correlation; and other unreassuring documented cases.

Since the equivocal nature of these suppressions is evident to all, and so are the societal implications, allow me to voice serious reservations and unreassuring feelings for the future of our physics community. They all originate from the same basic point: the unsubstantiated belief by high ranking physicists of the terminal character of quantum mechanics in the microcosm.

I hope I did not abuse your time and courtesy. Please feel no obligation of any nature to acknowledge or comment on this presentation, although any critical comment would be received with utmost gratitude and appreciation.

Yours, Truly

Ruggero Maria Santilli
The Institute for Basic Research
Editor in Chief
Algebras, Groups and Geometry
Hadronic Journal
Hadronic J. Suppl.
J. Balkan Geom. Soc.
Intern. J. Phys.


[1] R. M. Santilli, Il Grande Grido, Ethical Probe of Einstein’s Followers in the USA: An Insider’s View, Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, Massachusetts, 1984.
[2] R. M. Santilli, Documentation of il Grande Grido, Volumes I, II and III, Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, Massachusetts, 1985.
[3] G. F. Weiss, Scientific, Ethical and Accountability Problems in Einstein’s Gravitation, Societa’ Editrice Andromeda, Bologna, Italy, 1991.


Copyright © 1999-2002 Committee for Scientific Ethics.
First updated July 18th, 1999. Revised July 31st, 2001