main page   list of papers   library  

© Copyright - Karim A. Khaidarov, May 31, 2005
AETHER: THE STRUCTURE AND NUCLEAR FORCES

(Aethereal theory of the matter)

Dedicated to the bright memory of my daughter Anastasia

This paper states the concept and results of the author’s study, discovering real structure of the matter. It is shown that the existing physical theories based on relativistic postulates, empty space, an irrespective constancy of velocity of light are artifacts. It is shown that the modern problems of the Universe architecture and a problem of modern physics are solved within the frameworks of classical physics. The way for solution of a problem of integrating of fundamental physical interactions on the basis of the concept of a two-component aether is shown.

“… I will deliver him; I will protect him, because he knows my name".
[Psalm. 91]

For disclosing the real structure of physical world before readers, using a new knowledge received by the author during a study of properties of aether [1-19], and also leaning on results gained by classics of philosophy and physics Democritus, Immanuel Kant [20], Galileo Galilei [21], Robert Hooke [22], Daniel Bernulli [23], Leonard Euler [24], Karl Friedrich Gauss [25], Paul Gerber [26-29], we will consider a structure of aether recognized today, the forms of its motion and the forces operating within it.

Logic and physics

“Speaking about the point of view of sensible mind, we mean reason of the scientist though in its initiating simplicity, but disciplined during permanent studying in all fields of the practical knowledge and always aspiring to introduce to last the unity and possible greater simplicity.”

Philipp von Lenard [30/31]

Unfortunately, people, having learned the account in which they have reached great success, since ancient antique times they are not strong in logic. And we are obliged to ascertain narrowness and waning of human logic that affects to sluggishness of progress in science. To not be proofless, we will give examples of illogicalness of human ("scientific") thinking.

“The motion is change of spatial relations. Spatial relations are possible only in relation to the spatial quantities having the terminating sizes, instead of in relation to the empty space which is not having distinctive attributes. The motion can be studied therefore on experience only as change of the spatial relations, at least two material bodies in mutual relation”

Hermann von Helmholtz [32]

The Myth of a constancy of velocity of light – is a postulate introduced by the relativistic mathematical physics exactly 100 years ago. Its illogicalness consists in negation the concept of velocity arises only at the relative motion of bodies as a derivative of a trajectory of a motion on time of a motion, and a motion of one body or a wave cannot be presented unequivocally constant in relation to other objects of the physical world, moving with different velocity in different directions. The wrong interpretation of Michelson – Morley’s experiment: “The invariance of an interference figure means independence of velocity of light from the motion of objects of real physical world”, has led theoretical physicists to physically superficial and logically inconsistent postulation of an irrespective constancy of velocity of light. This illogical postulate has demanded for its survival a distortion of time, space, change of bodies’ proportions at subluminal velocities (Lorentzian shrinking), violation of the principle of causality (imagined twins paradox) and necessities of finiteness of the Universe (Einstein - Friedman model, a myth about Big Bang). For elimination of obvious illogicalness of a postulate of a constancy of velocity of light, mathematicians H. Lorentz, A. Poincare, O. Minkovski, D. Hilbert [33] have offered and developed the mathematical body allowing to join an observable reality to this principle. It has created a base for existence of physically absurd theories SRT and GTR of A. Einstein [34, 35].

Really, light as well as any physical wave in any physical medium has the various velocities defined to properties of medium. It is shown by classical experiments on passage of light through physical mediums of various densities. The coefficient of refraction on boundary of two mediums unequivocally defines the attitude of their optical densities. Deceleration of velocity of light in transparent mediums is obvious. The magnification at boundary of the metal surfaces having coefficient of a refractive less 1 is tacit.

Effects of Basov’s classical experiments [36] and their modern recurring by Wang – Kuzmich - Dogariu [37] on "superluminal” velocity of light in the active mediums are obvious. Experiments on "teleportation", “tangled states” where the pairs of quantum objects formed in medium of a birefringence remain the bound "superluminal" correlation on greater distances are obvious.

St. Marinov’s experiment in 1979 has obviously shown, that velocity of light in empty space is also alternative. It depends from sidereal directions of a beam [38, 39].

“The scientist not only can, but even is obliged most to pay attention carefully to discrepancies where he has found it, and to track them up to the extremity.”

Philipp von Lenard [30/31]

Myth about a space-time distortion. If we use not the "piecewise-scrappy", mathematical logic torn off from physics, but lean on all plurality of the physical facts, it is necessary to recognize, that for maintenance of a principle of causality – the base of a science, we should consider that the time is non manipulated, uniformly and unidirectional current. Otherwise, it is logically necessary to consider conservation laws untrue as the postulate of time homogeneity lays in its definitions as an initial measure. The same it is possible to tell about concept of Lagrangian which is valid only at homogeneity, uniformity of time flow (it lays in definition of this formalism).

"Points, lines and surfaces are abstract elements of euclidean geometry which can not be part of physical realty"

Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg

Myth about light as a wave moving in emptiness. The scholastic logic of relativism has led physics to illogical concept of waves-particles moving in the abstract emptiness. Some infringements of logic are visible at once:

– The wave is an oscillation, change of a state of medium. If the medium is the abstract emptiness it can form only emptiness, the oscillation of "anything" within "anything".

– As wet cannot be simultaneously dry without infringement of logic law, and the wave cannot be a particle.

– Electrical and magnetic field cannot be formed of the abstract emptiness, also as the written word "person" cannot by itself be transmuted into the real alive person. Concrete does not arise directly from abstract. These are incompatible categories.

“As quantum mechanics teaches us, with its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word ‘vacuum’ is a gross misnomer!”

Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg

Myth about the relativistic emptiness. Myths SRT and GTR cannot exist without their basic illogical statement about a relativity of space-time, that is denying aether, the world medium. If we recognize existence of aether that is timid and furtively done by the modern theoretical (mathematical) physics, it is necessary to recognize that Einstein's relativistic theory is lie and cannot be the basis of a serious science. The energy which is found out in aether they term as an “energy of zero-point” though the term “zero-point” we should apply to substance which energy is 10-125 part of energy of corpuscular aether of the Universe more likely. The oscillations that are found out in aether have a term “vacuum oscillations”. But, how the "anything" can oscillate? Around of what and by what? Being engaged in the perpetual renormalizations, physicists in any way do not wish to recognize that these renormalizations are a “fitting”, adjustment of empty-relativistic myths to aether reality.

“The most majority of things, even in pure material nature, remain hidden for our pity five or six feelings, and that, hence, the restriction absolutely eliminating these latent participating factors, is a restriction of really the horrifying volume. Such restriction of a natural-science pattern of the world only immediately accessible to observation can be termed as human, i. e. adjusted to human nature as it builds all on our feelings in advance. But it contradicts as well to a human nature as it is not considered with ability of human spirit and with aspiration proper in it to recreate in the imagination corresponding patterns of the participating factors hidden from us”

Philipp von Lenard [30/31]

The myth about a diffuseness of microcosm objects was begot by tangle in consciousness of researchers between reflection of a reality and the reality itself. If an available toolkit did not allow to physicists extract more fine objects it were considered nonexistent. If any parameter could not be certain by a direct experiment precisely the diffuseness of measuring was considered as a diffuseness of a reality.

If we seriously analyze a known principle of uncertainty we should recognize that it is physics-applied analog of known theorems of Kotelnikov, Nyquist and Shannon in information theory, and concerns not to objects of the physical reality in itself, but only to process of its measuring by the given method.

The statement about impossibility of simultaneous measuring an impulse and coordinates of a particle concerns only to the process of measuring by bombardment of the objects of a microcosm, but not to these objects. What it is possible to learn about dispositions of inhabitants of the Nanoworld, having only one method of transmission the information to them – bombardment of their cities and having one method of the analysis – determination “an effective section of interaction” by measuring growth of the area of their cemeteries in aerial photographs?

The relativistic reason based on thought that at lack in the nature of objects less the electron and magnification of energy with increasing of the characteristic size of a microscopic object there is not a method of recognizing of more fine particles, does not maintain criticism.

Actually restrictions operate only for direct, "stupid" collision of particles when the information on effect of collisions does not collect and is not analyzed. If we take advantage, for example, the Radon - Nikodim measures, that is done in a thomography and other methods of indirect investigations ( holography, thin spectrum analysis, new interferometry) we can recover a pattern of interaction up to any degree of clearness if we were not restricted by time and trial series. Thereby preserving Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty in single, simple measurement, it is possible to achieve any pinpoint accuracy and depths of penetration into microcosm using of measurements in complex experiment.

If, eventually, to put professional, logic mind it is possible to recover a pattern of invisible using indirect data. So 2500 years ago great Democritus did when he created the atomistic doctrine. So, for example, our contemporary professor A. A. Potapov (Irkutsk, Russia) is doing during study deep and thin properties of atoms, analyzing deformation and polarization properties of substance [40-43], so modern nuclear physics experimenters do contrary to relativistic doctrine, exploring for example a nuclear core and details finding in it more and more fine than resolving according to “uncertainty principle” in simple experiment.

Actually the problem is in new technologies of data processing and presence of logical thinking.

"The Universe is united, endless, still... It can not decrease or increase, since it is endless...

Giordano Bruno

Myth about “Big Bang” and expansion of the Universe. Illogicalness of this myth consists in that contrary to logic definition, that the Universe is everything, authors and apologists of this idea preach logically impossible process: expansion of this “all" into "nothing".

There are four clinical cases of logic violation.

  1. It is impossible to place something in missing, having zero volume. For example, it is impossible to put buck in a pocket if there is no this pocket.

  2. If there is no exterior measure of expansion it is impossible to approve, that this expansion exists really. Only baron Münchgausen managed to pull out itself from a bog for hair, leaning on nothing.

  3. Presence of the concrete moment of occurrence of “Big Bang” automatically means, that clocks of History already went that moment. That is the History and the Universe already existed. Only in fairy tales-fables the person happens his own grandfather who has given birth his father.

  4. Occurrence even terminating quantity of a substance from nothing, during any concrete moment of time contradicts to the principle of causality which is necessary for presence of the right of existence of a science as sciences, but not as a thieves' trick (see classical work of H. von Helmholtz [32]).

Red shift that is used by relativists as the proof of expansion of the Universe easily explainable as an attenuation of light on huge distances is known as the theory of “tired light” since times of Fritz Zwicky [1].

The myth about greatness of nuclear forces has more propaganda and household origin than scientifically physical. It is born more by a nuclear energy, which on concentration surpasses chemical energy on as much orders how much the atom is more than nucleon. However the energy [J] is not the force [N]. If nuclear forces, so-called “strong interactions” were really much stronger than electrostatic forces there would be no decay of nuclei, there would be no phenomenon of a ethereal-activity. Really, nuclear forces together with magnetic forces of nucleons are capable to retain a nucleus of atom from decay only in narrow “valley of stability” where nuclear attractive forces surpass electrostatic forces of a repulsion and the kinetic (thermal) forces of nucleus decay. Isotopes with excess of protons are decaying under activity of electrostatic forces, and isotopes with excess of neutrons are decaying from a kinetic energy of the last.

Having the volume comparable to electrostatic forces inside of a nucleus, nuclear forces are absolutely powerless outside of a nucleus. Nuclear forces in a modern physics are false chimerical integrating absolutely different forces, the nature of which is skipped because of relativistic doctrine.

Myth of the "Grand Unification” was born by desire to capture all physical world by one mathematical formula. Thus it is absolutely forgotten, that the mathematical description of a physical reality is only its simplified model. Leaning on false relativistic postulates, a primate of mathematics above physics, theory above the real facts, the up-to-date theoretical (mathematical) physics tries to carry out impossible. The impossibility of real “Grand Unification” within the frameworks of relativism naturally follows from falsehood basis of a relativistic physics:

Relativism has generated a set of other myths also, such as the theory of electrons – waves of probability, the electronic theory of a metallic conduction, thermonuclear pp-synthesis and ultrahigh (millions degrees) temperature of the Sun and stars interior. Actually all modern physics and the sciences related by it are infected by the relativistic mythology, being a powerful brake of an advancement of science and new technologies.

Taking a specimen from great predecessors - Philipp von Lenard [30, 31] and Arcady Timirjazev [44, 45], understanding such catastrophic situation and the great difficulties arising at the logic analysis, the author, having excluded, how much it is possible, mathematical details, will try to state clear and simple his own vision of aether, its structure, motions and the forces operating in it.

Aether and atomism

As antique thinkers Thales, Leucippus, Democritus have shown 2500 years ago, the atomism is logical consequence of the complex, eternal, perpetual and causal world. The atomism is a property of transition of the substance into other stable quality at critical change of complexity. As the situation of critical transition arises on a scale of gauges repeatedly we see "atoms" of different ranks: galaxies, stars and planets, stones and people, grains of sand and alive cells, molecules and chemical atoms, atomic nuclei and fundamental particles.

Naturally, the hierarchy of these levels prolongs below fundamental particles and above galaxies. However knowledge of the man are restricted by this diapason yet.

Is it possible to overcome these limits? Probably, yes. And the example of the antique philosophers who have developed the atomistic doctrine long before the physicochemical detection of nuclear structure, inspires.

What is guiding in such breakthrough?

1. At transition from "medial" levels of the macrocosm to levels of smaller gauge the monotony, the order in atomistic structure is increased. If in the macrocosm practically always there is a distinction in "atoms" (the stone always differs from a stone, grain of sand differs from other grain) in the microcosm there is precise monotony of chemical atoms of the same chemical element. At more fine levels of the Nature we may expect greater monotony. This feature is justified by the causality of our world where in general case smaller and simpler object is a consequence of smaller number of the parents, and, hence, it is a carrier of smaller variety.

2. The behavior of the upper levels is defined by properties of lower levels. Therefore, using these indirect data and logic, it is possible to recover” structure and parameters of the lower level. There are many examples of it, beginning from chemical detection of atoms [Dalton, Lomonosov, Lavoisier] and discovering its sizes by an indirect way [Avogadro, Loschmidt], up to detection of fundamental particles [Rutherford], discovering the quantum nature of radiation and the parameters of aether [Planck].

3. Generality of conservation laws for all levels and all kinds of the substance, as consequence of the general causal character of the Universe that has been unequivocally shown by M. Lomonosov in 1748, Helmholtz in 1847 [32], N. Umov in 1870-1874 [46 - 54].

4. Presence of a rational net of hierarchical levels and the System of Fundamental Units found by great Max Planck in 1899 [55, 56].

Concretizing last item, we will note, that in the Nature there are basic hierarchical scale levels which have a step of volume equal Planck's Grand Number

= ~2.7∙10 63, lg = ~63.4

and, accordingly, a step of the linear size equal to a cubic root from Planck's Grand Number

1/3 = ~1.4∙10 21, 1/3∙lg = ~21.1

Examples. The typical volume of a solid part of a planet concerns to volume of a fundamental particle as , its typical sizes – as 1/3. Planck's Highest Temperature

= 1/k(hc3/ γ)1/2 = 1.4∙1032 °K, h – Planck constant,

concerns to background temperature of Universe T0 = 2,723 °K as 1/2.

The detailed description of this hierarchy is not included into main theme of present paper. We will remark only, that the most obvious sublevels in this hierarchy are the levels parted by number 1/8 = ~1.5∙105. There are an attitude of linear size of chemical atom to size of fundamental particle or a nucleus, an attitude of orbital niche of a star and typical radius of solid part of a celestial body.

“Such as I would like it to term, “the meta-aether”, or an initiating aether would be medium filling all space which forces particles of aether to obey conditions, established for its motion”

Philipp von Lenard [30/31]

Protoaether

Basing on these achievements of a classical science, the author will try to designate lowermost of visible and “the simplest” level of the matter. This base will allow to minimize further errors at build-up of more complex higher levels.

This lowermost level can be presented as a continuum (continuous and an infinite medium), consisting at more detailed viewing from identical, immeasurable, indiscernible “protoatoms” which, for difference from other levels of elementary quality, we will term protoamers, that is previous to a level of atoms of aether, the amers of Democritus. Amers of which the aether consists, in turn are “protoatoms” for fundamental particles, the elements of a hierarchical level of chemical atoms.

This medium, protoaether, should be all in the Universe. Everything, that other, the objects of highest levels, should consist of elements of this medium, that is represent various configurations and shapes of protoaether motion.

For the working model of protoaether it is enough to guess the following.

  1. The size (radius) of protoamer rpa = 1/3 = ~10 -56 [m], where = (γh/c3)1/2 = 1.61∙10-35 [m] – is Planck's Fundamental Length, radius of an element of aether of the following after protoaether a hierarchical level, h – is Planck constant,

  2. Protoamer of protoaether may exist in one of two states: motions or rest concerning the general protoaether medium, other protoamers.

  3. Velocity of protoamer motion is very high. It exceeds velocity of light on many orders.

  4. Immobile protoamers are a majority. The ratio of quantities of immobile protoamers to moving protoamers, probably, not less, than times. It is possible to present immobile protoamers as the symmetrical spheres (blobs), and moving protoamers as the deformed spheres having asymmetry (analog of wing or boomerang).

  5. Flying by in medium of immobile protoamers, moving protoamer packs this medium, doing medium near to own trajectory more impenetrable for other moving protoamers. It is clear, that transitivity of this sphere decreases with diminution of radius of a trajectory moving protoamer as the “drawing density” of sphere by a trajectory of protoamer’s motion becomes greater.

  6. Asymmetry of moving protoamers is formed from interaction with others moving protoamers (packing of protoaether medium along a trajectory of a motion) and leads to establishing quasi-circular trajectory of protoamer. If there is no exchange of energy (nonreversible action) from other protoamers the radius of curvature r trajectories is practically constant. There are only small fluctuations of a direction of a motion in a plane, tangential to this spherical surface, caused by discreteness of the immobile protoaether medium. Thus, protoamer “draw up” all surface of sphere of radius r, creating an original cocoon, similar to silkworm spinning cocoon. The radius of this "cocoon" is defined by force of pressure of the medium packed by trajectories of protoamers adjacent with considered.

  7. Energy of protoamer motion inversely proportional r3 or, that is inversely proportional to volume of drawing spheres. The minimal volume of sphere corresponds to Planck's Energy = (hc5/γ)1/2 = 1.956∙109 [J].

Corpuscular aether

Basing on protoaether definition and the investigations made by the author earlier [1-19] let’s try to depict a following hierarchical level of universal matter, the aether.

Moving protoaether particles naturally forms the aether. Protoamer moving on a trajectory of constant radius concerning a certain center forms the sphere interfering passage through it of other moving protoamers trajectories. Thus, all universal space is filled with such spheres, "cocoons" elastically pressing against each other.

Following to great Democritus we will term that sphere, a corpuscle of aether, as the amer, (αμερ is immeasurable), an element of universal aether. An aether consisting of these corpuscles we will term corpuscular aether.

Knowing properties of protoaether and moving protoamer it is possible to guess following properties of amers and the medium consisting of them.

Amer has the size defined by pressure of aether in the Universe. The author discovered this pressure in [6] by analysis of thermodynamics and elastic properties of cosmic aether. Really, considering corpuscular structure of an aether, knowing only two parameters: radius of corpuscle and cosmic background temperature To = 2.723 °K, according to classical Hooke’s (Boyle – Maryott) gas law we can find this pressure as

p = kT/V = 2.12∙1081 [Pa],

here k = 1.38∙10-23 [J/°K] – is "Boltzmann constant", actually a scaling ratio [°K] in [J], introduced by Max Planck; T= To; V – is a volume of amer.

This pressure corresponds to elastic energy concluded in every amer (really, in moving protoamer and an elastic protoaether medium), that is to Planck's Energy , and interior temperature of amer of corpuscular aether. For exterior interactions this temperature is represented as a potential energy of amers medium pressure p.

Exterior, cross oscillations of amers of corpuscular aether usually make only temperature To which in 1/2 times is less . "Usually" means a condition of free space without force fields.

Equality of the attitude of temperatures 1/2 is indicative of the deep equilibrium, thermodynamic balance of the Universe, eternally being in this state.

The author has found the characteristic thermal velocity of a corpuscular aether amers in [6]. It exceeds velocity of light on many orders. Its value can be found from thermodynamic requirements and a relation of amer and ethereal domain volumes

= c(Va / Vd)1/2= 1/2 c,

here c – is velocity of light, Va - volume corpuscular амера, Vd – volume of the ethereal domain.

The corpuscular aether medium is practically (integrally) immobile space medium concerning which as it was shown by St. Marinov 30 years ago and as have confirmed in recent experiments on anisotropy of a space thermal background, the Solar system moves with Marinov’s velocity 360 ±30 [km/s] within corpuscular aether. As the corpuscular aether can be found out only indirectly, the fact of its existence is not perceived seriously by official science till now.

Domains of a corpuscular aether

As it is shown by I. Prigogine [57], elastic mediums, like the medium of corpuscular aether, are subjects of synergetic processes, that is occurrence of stable and quasi-stable resonant oscillations. Such oscillations arise in corpuscular aether, doing its similar to liquid crystal medium.

According to investigations of the author lead earlier, synergetic meshes of such oscillations forming dodecahedral structures, have the characteristic radius and volume

rd = 1/3 = ~2.25∙10 -14 [m] ; Vd = ;

Naturally such domains without any additional requirements are ephemeric formations which always arise and collapse. However their presence leads to qualitatively new phenomena in aether.

In connection with that the peak amplitude synergetic oscillations амеров a corpuscular aether is reached on boundaries of domains, there are transient "instantaneous" local intercorpuscular rarefactions and transient peak peaks of pressures between corpuscles of an aether. As a result of it requirements for greater fluctuations of trajectories of protoamers are created. In rare cases it leads to fracture of a spherical protoamer trajectory and, accordingly to fracture амера a corpuscular aether. More precisely, протоамер transfers to the unbalanced trajectory, which is bending around the domain.

The radius of a trajectory becomes equal to radius of the domain. As it is easy to see the "interior" temperature of amer, distinct from , namely, To, corresponds to this radius. It means that in a new state an amer is in thermodynamic equilibrium with medium. An odds only that there are amers of corpuscular aether inside it. Such amer we will term the phase amer as the electromagnetic and other wave phenomena are related to it observationally.

In the working models of aether presented by the author earlier corpuscular and phase amers considered as counterpoised and unbalanced "heavy" gyros accordingly. It has been shown that if the corpuscular aether behaves as superfluid substance the phase aether has properties sated "two-dimensional" vapor, spread on interdomain boundaries.

Amers of phase aether are "glue" for domains, doing them inconvertible and giving to them absolutely new properties, such, for example, as presence of force, similar the superficial tension. Aethereal domains are "bodies", "preparations" of fundamental particles. Being shown in experiments for an instant, they appear to physicists as virtual particles: the electron – positron pairs, gluons and the virtual mesons. Influencing on atomic nuclei by vigorous particles, experimenters for an instant see amers of phase aether, being bounding of fundamental particles – aethereal domains, and term them “quarks”.

The bound phase aether

Let's score, that the basic property of aether consists in it bicomponentness. In the offered concept the aether exists in two phase states: in the form of corpuscular aether (the condensed, symmetrical state) and the phase aether (pseudo-gas) filling interdomain space and collecting in domains, particles of substance.

Domains of a corpuscular aether which are perpetually assembled and disassembled from amers of corpuscular aether by undular synergetic oscillations, move carried away by phase aether and substance (there where it is).

High velocity of oscillation amers of corpuscular aether does such process of the making up and disassembling imperceptible, and process of a motion of domains sees as smooth and free from Marinov’s velocity. Therefore many experiments on detection of a motion of aether come to an end with failure. At the best they measure a drift of phase aether.

Being dependent of boundaries of domains the phase aether entrains by surrounding substance, making impression of the full relativity of the motion (seems as relativism).

Thus, around of each ethereal domain there is a "niche" filled by amer of phase aether. It’s linear size in 1021 times larger than radius of amer of corpuscular aether. This amer carries out a role of an original string-bag, the net providing on the one hand integrity of a domain as structure, and on the other hand the free motion (rest is more exact) of amers of corpuscular aether. Thickness of interdomain space filled by amers of a phase aether less of radius of amer of corpuscular aether, that is less than Planck's Length . An aether consisting from such amers we will term as the bound phase aether. The cause of its formation is domain boundary and by itself it defines the integrity and the shape of domain.

The quantity of amers of phase aether in the Universe is times less than quantity of amers of corpuscular aether. Thus, the energy share of phase aether is less in that ratio. However, as it has been found out earlier by the author, there is also the free phase aether, amers of which are not related rigidly to the concrete domain. They move on boundaries of domains and gather inside of domains of substance (in fundamental particles). , By last they provide occurrence of a gravitational interaction.

The free phase aether

The phase aether is another state of amers than amers of corpuscular aether. As it has been told above, it is similarity of gas while the corpuscular aether is similarity of superfluid, such helium. Last experiments in 2004 with firm helium [58] confirm this point of view: a superfluid phase of helium is actually analog of the unsteady sand, which is not having friction and intermolecular communications.

Loss of the gyro equilibrium by amer of corpuscular aether is analog of transpiration. And on the contrary, restitution of the balance motion is analog of condensation.

As it is found out by the author earlier, net-volume of a phase aether amer, that is volume of "shell", or the space borrowed by amer without taking into account an interior volume, borrowed by amers of corpuscular aether, is in 30 times more than volume of amer of corpuscular aether. Phase transition of amers creates change of amers’ volume and, accordingly, existence of local pressure drop in a corpuscular aether. This is the process of gravitation.

Around of particles of substance (protons, electrons) rarefaction, which causes an attraction of bodies to each other, is created. Around of particles of the antimatter redundant pressure which pushes apart them is created, that is creates an antigravity.

It is the parent of an apparent asymmetry of the Universe on substance and antimatter. That antimatter which was formed during energetic reactions of a birth of pairs of particles – antiparticles, departs to far Space, accumulating in intergalactic cells, for a long time observable by astronomers. As it is clear from properties of antimatter following from offered model of aether, it cannot form atoms more difficult than anti-hydrogen.

The free phase aether is formed during an antigravity of antimatter. Its streams flow from dark depths of metagalactic cells to galaxies. During gravitation of usual substance it is immersed, transferring into amers of corpuscular aether.

The content of a phase aether in each particle of substance is proportional to gravitational mass of a particle. By estimation of the author it is 5.01∙1070 [amer/kg].

The phase aether is responsible for the electrical phenomena. The weak phenomena of electrical polarization of aether (Casimir’s effect, electromagnetic waves and electric field) are observed everywhere. The strong phenomena, such as formation of two opposite polarized particles (electron – positron, proton - antiproton) occur in conditions of activity of physical forces of greater concentration and energy.

Thereby in proposed concepts of aether the balance of attitudes between corpuscular aether, phase aether and substance in Universe is appears. The general attitude is the Planck’s Large Number . It is shown in following table.

 

average density of energy

average density of inertia (mass)

corpuscular aether

~10113 [J/m3]

~1096 [kg/m3]

phase aether

~3 1049 [J/m3]

~3 1032 [kg/m3]

substance

~10-14 [J/m3]

~10-31 [kg/m3]

Mass density of substance fits to astronomical data. Besides amount of substance in galaxies equal to amount of antimatter ("dark matter") in metagalactic cells, providing "baryon symmetry" of the Universe.

Light quanta and substance

As the author earlier finds it out, both light quanta and substance represent by themselves poles of joint oscillations of corpuscular and phase aethers.

Velocity of light corresponds to a “slow mode” - a clot of the polarized phase aether. However it only one component of quantum (light) oscillations. Other component is oscillations of a corpuscular aether. The last are observed experimentally in the form of “vacuum oscillations” in various experiments, for example, in experiment with a quantum maser [59]. As the author finds it out, an advance of oscillations of corpuscular aether determines interference figures of light waves and phenomena of “entangled states”, “teleportation”.

Velocity of acting of mass gravitational forces is equal to velocity of light also as the stationary pressure within aether creating by amers volume change moves with this velocity. Fast thermal motions of amers of corpuscular aether in usual conditions of space aether can not change a pressure in aether because amers of aether have the gyro properties interfering superluminal propagation.

The mass (inertia) of substance is defined by a degree of strain of aether around of this substance and is attribute of aether. By itself a fundamental particle is only a pole of this strain, and any substantial (mass) body is the unit of such poles.

Fundamental particles are ethereal domains in the special, excited states.

Earlier the author had been offered a model of electron, the ethereal domain in which a single-mode electromagnetic wave of single light quantum is excites [3, 8]. In the same way the meson can be presented as the ethereal domain with two-modal oscillation, a proton is three-modal excited domain, and some resonances have four-modal oscillations and it is possible greater number of modes.

Let's view the structure of the basic particles more detailed.

The structure of fundamental particles

Earlier the author had been gave a model of ethereal electron in detail [3, 8, 9]. Here we will depict only necessary for the further drafting.

The electron is ethereal domain, which grasped an electromagnetic wave. In a flat exterior electric field it has the shape of ellipsoid of revolution (fig. 1.a). The grasped electromagnetic wave subjected to effect of the full interior reflection changes a phase of a crest (or a node) on surface of an electron with the frequency corresponding to a rotation frequency of single electrical charge. Being convoluted into the domain, the resonator of the single quantum mode of an electromagnetic wave it gets spin s = ½. The magnetic moment of electron as it is shown in [3] should be equal Me = 1 + 1/861 due to change of a phase on 1/861 for a circular cycle of gyration of a wave on 2π (from here α = 2π/861 = ~1/137). Value of equatorial radius of an electron depends on intensity of an exterior electric field, that is, having constant volume, the electron under activity of an electric field is stretched in a plane of equator (fig. 1.a). At absence of an exterior electric field the electron is stretched in the most thin disk having radius of the order of Rydberg’s constant (~10-7m). The shape of an electron and its compliance can be calculated, using classical formulas of the superficial tension of Laplace for a drop of a fluid.

The equatorial line is a trajectory of a motion of an elementary electrical charge, which creates a magnetic field of an electron. On the same line there is a process of phase transition of aether, that is process of gravitation.

This model is exaggerated and simplified. Actually the point charge of finite quantity cannot exist, as it brings about the perpetual quantity of energy. It is necessary to note that the electric field charges do not exist as objects in the offered concept. The electric field is the process. It goes into one or other side (see [11]) owing to asymmetry in phase transition of aether. In this process a pressure inside of phase aether declines in the greater or smaller side from pressure of corpuscular aether. In the classical physics a pressure of phase aether is termed as electrical potential. Two following expressions

where E – is an electric intensity, F – is a force, q – is a charge, p – is a pressure, s – is an area;

describe the same physical process from different positions. And, both in the first case discreteness of charge and in the second case discreteness of the area is consequence of discreteness and identity of the smallest unity of the substance, amer.

 

Fig. 1. Structure of electron (a), proton (b) and neutron (c).

(1 – is a streamline of the elemental charge; 2 – is a spanned in “navel” streamline of electron captured by proton; 3 – an exterior boundary of the bound electron; Me, Mp, Mn – are magnetic moments of particles)

The proton is the ethereal domain with three modes (three quanta) electromagnetic oscillations (see fig. 1.b). Two modes correspond to "positronic" type of excitation of electricity, that is the plus charge, and one corresponds to negative, “electronic” type. Gyration of the negative charge occurs in a underside concerning positives. Therefore the total magnetic moment reaches almost three units. Because the positive charges repel from each other and are drawn to negative, between trajectories of the positive charges the angle is 2α = 58.48°, that leads to a following total magnetic moment

Mp = 1 + 2 * cos 29.24° = 2.79275

The total spin of a proton from three modes convoluted gamma quantum

s = sq- + sq+ + sq+ = - ½ + ½ +½ = ½

The proton, unlike an electron, in connection with a greater superficial tension in known 1836,15 times, has more rigid and definitely the spherical shape. It is not “diffused" substance as it is considered by modern nuclear physics. It has very precise and smooth boundaries. The radius of a proton is equal ½ classical radius of an electron.

The neutron (see fig. 1.c) is not a fundamental particle. It is atom of hydrogen which nucleus has grasped an electron of a nuclear shell. So great Ernest Rutherford represented it in the “Berkleyan Lecture”, 1920 [60]. He guessed, that the neutron is strongly bound state of an electron and a proton.

In the further, under a pressure of ideas of N. Bohr about flying electrons and electrons – clouds of probability by Schroedinger, and also a notion about acting of relativistic electrons in atom nucleus, this correct idea has been rejected.

W. Heisenberg, arguing formally correctly, but, leaning on Bohr’s mythical notion about "flying" electrons, in 1926 has stated an idea, that electrons by virtue of a principle of uncertainty cannot be inside of atom nucleus [61]. In 1933 E. Fermi approved in [62], that the electron does not contain in a nucleus, and it is formed during the moment of β-decay as the quantum is formed as a result of quantum transition.

Thus, in the physics the correct idea of E. Rutherford was denying, and a myth about neutron as a fundamental particle exists till now.

Actually the neutron is linking of two ethereal domains, two fundamental particles, a proton and an electron. The electron in a neutron covers a proton completely, and the equatorial "charged" line is spanned almost in a point, depriving an electron of “fermion” property (a half-integer spin), transmuting it in a boson. Thus, the spin of a neutron is the same as at proton. The magnetic dipole moment of a neutron due to change of angles between the plus electrical modes becomes equal

Mp = – 1 + 1 + 2 * cos 18.79° = 1.91348

The total spin of a neutron from four modes convoluted gamma quantum

s = seb + sq- + sq+ + sq+ = - 1 - ½ + ½ + ½ = - ½

The size of a neutron is defined by two values: radius of the "rigid" sphere of a proton (½ classical radius of an electron) and radius of the "soft" electronic shell approximately equal to classical radius of an electron. In a nucleus where the temperature is a lot of above standard temperature for an empty aether 2.7 ºK, the radius of this shell considerably decreases. Generally, the volume of ethereal domain is inversely proportional to a quadrate of temperature of aether.

Owing to such structure of a neutron during the moment of its decay the electron always with the negative spin because the electron flies away "back".

Domains of mesons have 2 modes of gamma quantum oscillations. By a spin 7/2, domains of short-lived resonances can have up to 7 modes.

Neutrino is not a corpuscle. It is a phonon, a wave in aether, existing, apparently, in several types just as there are many types of seismic waves (Love’s, Rayleigh’s, longitudinal, traversal …). So-called weak interactions are events initiated by exterior neutrino (seal of aether, nuclear temperature increasing) and yielded by nuclear objects (neutrons, nuclei) during the moment of β-decay.

At losses of stability, a separation of the bound electron in a neutron the original shock wave arises which is carrying away a part of energy. This shock wave of the quantum nature is the neutrino. As the neutrino is a wave, instead of a particle it has an odd to process of reflection.

The nature of nuclear forces

Distinction of concepts "energy" and "force". For the further discourses it is important to note the following. At calculation of integrity of nuclear (and generally physical) structure paramount importance has an attitude of forces: retaining and breaking off. At excess of the last over the first integrity of structure is broken. Thus it is not so binding, that the potential energy of system was negative (recall a charged arbalet). Closer example – a neutron maintaining integrity despite of excess of interior energy potential above conventionally "zero" level of a proton, a yield of its decay.

Unlike offered (and quite logical) approach the up-to-date nuclear physics is guided only by concept of the negative energy potential pit that is methodologically untrue. It is the parent of occurrence of chimeras like "tunnel effect", "quarks" with fractional charges and so forth.

Discoursing about strong interactions, someone manipulate exclusively a category of energy. Thus they forget, that energy [J] is only indirect attribute of acting forces [N].

As well as in other fields of sane physics, at the analysis of nuclear integrity it is necessary to count not a balance of energy, but attitudes of consolidating and destroying forces.

As it will be shown below, really in a nucleus some types of forces operate:

Consolidating:

Destroying:

If about electrical and magnetic forces in physics there are more or less sensible concept, it is impossible to tell the same about knowledge of nuclear forces (there are strange, color and stinking sharmthings breaking any logic).

Let's show that naturally nuclear forces are a special case of gravitational forces. As according to the ethereal doctrine of gravitational forces it is forces of strain in aether, arising during phase transition. For understanding of a principle of activity of nuclear forces we will consider features of the process generating a strain of nuclear particles. Difference of heavy particles from an electron consists in that the phase transition of amers (that is process of gravitation) occurs in hadrons not only on one "equatorial" line as at an electron. This process covers all surface of a particle. It defines the activity of hadrons in nuclear interactions. We will consider this mechanism more in detail.

The contact nature of nuclear forces. As it is known since Hooke’s time, the gravitational force inversely proportional to a quadrate of distance up to a heavy body. Though as the author shows in [19, 20] there are some differences from the quadratic law related to cubic dependency of initial force, the change of pressure in aether. The question on force nuclear interactions actually consists what we must to accept as the distance up to a body?

The offered model of process of gravitation as phase transition on surfaces of fundamental particles gives us the answer to this question and the general simple solution.

As the size of amer of corpuscular aether, an end-product of process of gravitation and a source of "sucking" force is in 1/3 times less than radius of a fundamental particle, the domain of aether, at direct contact of hadrons the distance up to a source (pole) of gravitation becomes in ~1021 times smaller than radius of a particle. Accordingly the attractive force will be in 2/3 = ~1042d times more (d = 1/118 … 1/1420 – a part of surface of the hadron which is being in contact with each other). At a take-off of one particle from another "nuclear interaction", that is gravitational forces between hadrons will fall in ~1040 times. It is solving of the nuclear force riddle.

Contact pad of a proton. As nuclear forces directly depend on a contacting area between particles definition of this area is a key question. Due to bulkiness of a deduction the author gives only physical reasons led to them.

Let's consider, that there is a contact of two spherical particles (see fig. 2.a) on which surface there is a first-kind phase transition which have the certain fixed difference of pressure of a reagent (phase aether) created on a surface of a particle. Intensity of phase transition on whole free surface of sphere is identical. Besides these spherical particles have the fixed interior pressure creating the fixed elasticity of form.

Such contact leads to restriction of phase transition by frameworks of the remained free surface. It means, that at the certain value of the area of a contact pad, straightening force of elasticity of a surface of sphere counterpoises pressure on a pad.

As it is found by the author, for a proton such value is ~1/1420.866 of surfaces on one hadronic contact .

At contact of two protons with each other each of them loses 1/1420.866 active surface, and accordingly, power of phase transition and a corresponding part of the mass, which is consequence of occurrence of strain in aether at phase transition on a surface of a particle. The asymmetry of forces leading to cohere of particles arises.

Quanta of energy and force in atom nucleus

Contact quanta. In connection with discrete, that is the quantum nature of the aether parted on domains, in a nucleus consisting of small number of domains, the discrete properties of this medium reveal itself obviously.

As the author discovers during investigation, accordingly to three kinds of motions (processes) in aether: gravitation, electricity and magnetism, three pairs of energy and force quanta exist in atom nucleus.

For share of the energy corresponding to losses of inertness (in another way: mass or energy) a proton during phase transition (gravitation) for one contact pad the constant and important for calculation nuclear interactions quantity of energy exists

= Ep / 1420.866 = 660 [KeV]

(1)

where Ep – is an energy of rest proton.

Knowing value (1) and that the radius of proton equal to half of classical radius of an electron, it is easy to define a cohesive force of two protons (nucleons)

= /re = 37.55 [N], [kg m/s2]

(2)

Contact gravitational forces are proportional to the area of touch of nucleons and equal to zero at lack of direct contact of nucleons. Knowing topology of a nucleus, that is the number of internucleon contacts it is possible to know precisely what part of mass concerning the free proton the nucleus loses (the share of a binding energy caused by contact gravitational forces).

Knowing topology of a nucleus, quantity (2) and forces of Coulomb interaction, it is possible to determine requirements of stability of a nucleus.

Electrical quanta. Other pair of quanta is the known quantum of energy of an electric field of an electron and force of a repulsion of two contacting protons.

= q2/(4πε0εre) = mec2 = 511 [KeV],

(3)

here q – is natural unit of electric charge (a charge of proton, electron); ε0ε – is dielectric permittivity; re – is classical radius of electron; me – is inertia (mass) of rest electron, c - velocity of light in an empty aether.

Force of a repulsion of two elementary charges residing apart a radius of electron (two radii of proton) is equal

= / re = q2/(4πε0εre2)= 58.14 [N], [kg m/s2]

(4)

Electrical forces are the greatest in a nucleus. They create not only "potential pits" by closeness of opposite charges, but also “potential hills" - “Coulomb barriers” by closeness of like charges. As it is visible from (4), electrical forces decrease in inverse proportion to a quadrate of distance from a charge.

Magnetic quanta (quanta of elasticity). The third pair of nuclear quanta is known magnetic forces. They are quantized owing to existence of quantum of a magnetic flux and discreteness of elastic properties of aether, that is trajectories of distribution (closure of a magnetic flux). Otherwise they can be interpreted as quanta of elastic states of electrons in a nucleus. The quantum of energy of magnetic interaction of one mode of quantum of the electromagnetic oscillations concluded in the ethereal domain (electron, proton) is equal

= Φ0 = L02/2 = Ep /1199.166 = 782.4 [KeV],

(5)

here Φ0 = h/2q – is a quantum of a magnetic flux; L0 – is a quantum of inductive coupling; – is a quantum of electric current.

Quanta of elastic states can create both potential "hills", and potential “pits” depending on a sign of elastic (magnetic) forces. Values of the magnetic forces operating between nuclear particles are difficultly analyzed yet, but they is weaker than electrical forces besides with distance they weaken more sharply than electrical forces.

It is necessary to recognize that now there are more questions than answers about quanta of this type. Therefore their magnetic nature can be accepted only with some clauses, as a working hypothesis.

That energy of decay of a "quiet" nucleus develops of the whole values of nuclear quanta is remarkable. The odds between the total of the whole values of quanta and gives an observable binding energy of nucleus Edec kinetic energy Ekin concluded in nuclear particles

Edec = a + b + c - Ekin,

(6)

here a, b, c – integers;

QuantityEkin makes few KeV for stable and long-lived isotopes. From proposed concepts it is possible to draw a conclusion that by means of the known way of magnetic cooling, it is possible to enlarge stability of nuclei that is to say artificially enlarge half-life or completely transform the radioactive nuclei into stable if that will allow by degrees of liberty of nuclear configuration (the isomeric state), see below.

The concept of nuclear structure

For simplification of understanding of the further enunciating we will depict the blanket concept of a structure of the atom nucleus, offered by the author. It differs radically from the up-to-date relativistic concept, developed last 80 years.

It is grounded on primary concepts of Prote, 1820 and the Rutherford, 1920 [60], guessed about an opportunity of formation of a nucleus from atoms of hydrogen.

Being grounded at opening by the author of existence of a meta-solid state of substance [15] according to which the neutron is the meta-stable, compressed state of atom of hydrogen, in which an electron is in Bose state, it is possible to prolong development of this idea on a construction of a nucleus.

As it is shown by author’s investigation the atom nucleus representing by itself quasi-crystal core (kern) and mobile halo. It consists not of protons and neutrons only. More precisely, neutrons in a nucleus exist mainly in halo. Quasi-crystal core consists of the proton clusters bounded by contact nuclear forces and common electronic shell. A typical cluster – an alpha-particle consisting of four protons and the "Cooperian" pair of electrons surrounding them.

Direct acknowledgement of this model is not only discovering by the author of the contact nature of nuclear forces, but the phenomenon of nuclear gamma-ray resonance discovered by German physicist Rudolf Mössbauer in 1958 [63].

Any competent physicist can say that the most thin resonance lines are possible only at presence of a high quality factor of oscillation source. The physics knows that such sources are crystals – natural resonators. In the plastic structures having essential absorption, such phenomenon is impossible. Thus Mössbauer’s gamma-ray resonance shows presence of nuclear core crystal structure, high stiffness and high elasticity of interior connections.

The phenomenon of the giant resonance shows presence in the nucleus of structures of other sort – electronic shells of the nuclear clusters, which are being both plastic and immersing.

The offered concept easily explains magic numbers by filling the symmetrical configurations of nuclear clusters. It becomes clear a reason of leap energy of emission of protons and alpha particles near to magic numbers. It occurs when electronic density of halo is sharply impoverishing.

S. V. Adamenko's the newest discovering (“PROTON-21”, Kiev, Ukraine) confirms the concept of existence of a meta-solid phase of substance when under action of hyper pressure there is a demolition of electronic shells of atoms and usual substance transfers into a state of nuclear matter. Under favorable conditions the return transition of a nuclear matter into usual substance occurs with delay and forms the most stable isotopes, the iron mainly. The meta-stable state of nuclear matter shows uncertainly great nuclear mass, defined by lumpiness of this matter only [64-80]. The neutron, the elementary natural meta-solid nuclear matter in a meta-stable state outside of a nucleus is known for a long time, but is interpreted untruly.

The elementary atom nuclei

Let's begin viewing nuclear forces from the neutron. Within the frameworks of the offered concept it consists of a proton and densely covering it electron, which is being in Bose state. The Bose state of this electron explained by small radius of a current loop (see fig.1.c). It seems that in neutron there is no nuclear interaction. However the shell of an electron on ~1/1200 increases strain of aether at a surface of a proton and, accordingly, velocity of phase transition of aether. As a result of it the mass of a proton mp in structure of the neutron increases on this value, and total mass of neutron mn becomes

mn = mp + mp/1199.166 +me = [1836,1516 (1 + 1/1199.166) + 1] me = 1838.6827 me

here me – mass of an electron.

On the other hand the force retaining an electron in Bose state on a surface of a proton can be shown as a force of elasticity of amer surface of an electron which is retained in this state by magnetic (Ampere) forces of a current coil of an electron. Energy of decay of a neutron is equal precisely to nuclear quantum of elasticity. Unlike all other nuclear formations the neutron is not in a potential pit, but on "hill" and exists in this state, while casual thermal (neutrino - phonon, weak interaction) will not break this meta-stable state.

The deuteron is linking of a proton and a neutron. It is retained by contact force of interaction of two nucleons and magnetic forces. The energy of its decay up to 2 protons and an electron is equal

Edec= + (2-1) = 1,442 MeV,

and it’s decay only up to a neutron and a proton is equal

Edec= + 2 = 2,225 MeV,

The half-length of a deuteron according to the offered concept is equal re + rp = 4.22·10-15[m], it is precisely corresponds to observationally known value.

Biproton is impossible formation, as nuclear contact force less than breaking off electrostatic force . It is confirmed experimentally [81].

In the triton, a nucleus of tritium, three contact pads operate, and nuclear contact forces together with magnetic forces provide stability of a nucleus (see fig. 2).

Energy of decay of tritium up to 3 protons and 2 electrons is equal

Edec= 3 + 5 + 2 = 6,918 MeV,

here the electrical component is given by interaction of two electrons.

He3 nucleus has almost same energy of decay at other configuration

Edec= 3 + 7 - = 6,937 MeV,

Sign of an electrical component here is other as there is a breaking off electrostatic force of two protons.

In nucleus He4 (alpha particle) we see the new phenomenon – formation of the "Cooperian" pair surrounding a nucleus. Its presence leads to essential magnification of interior connection of this cluster and simultaneously creates boundary (barrier) for occurrence inter-cluster connections (see fig.3).

Apparently, the He4 nucleus can exist in several isomeric states which are characterized by practically identical energy of decay and stability, for example

Edec= + 51 = 26,721 MeV,

Edec= 6 + 1 + 43 = 26,716 MeV,

Edec= 4 + 4 + 41 = 26,721 MeV,

Thus it is possible to recover topology of nuclei by known composition, a spin, energy of decay and other indirect attributes.

Fig. 2. The elementary atom nuclei (red spots show contact pads).

Conclusions

As a result of applying of ethereal approach to a nuclear physics and the analyzing not only energy but forces also, the author offers the consistent concept, in which:

Aknowledgments

The author is grateful to Prof. Alexey A. Potapov (Institute of Dynamics of Systems and Theory of Control of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk, Russia), to Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg (Nevada University, Reno, USA) and to Nikolay N. Noskov (National Nuclear Center, Almaty, Kazakhstan) for scientific and moral support.

Karim Khaidarov
Almaty, May, 31, 2005

References
  1. Khaidarov K. A. Eternal Universe. - Borovoye, Kiev – Nit, 2003.
  2. Khaidarov K. A. Gravitating aether. - Borovoye, 2003.
  3. Khaidarov K. A. The New Lights. - Borovoye, 2003.
  4. Khaidarov K. A. Aethereal Breathing. - Borovoye, 2003.
  5. Khaidarov K. A. Aethereal Thermodynamics. - Almaty, 2003.
  6. Khaidarov K. A. Fast Gravitation. - Borovoye, 2003.
  7. Khaidarov K. A. Aethereal Atom. - Borovoye, 2004.
  8. Khaidarov K. A. Aethereal Electron. - Borovoye, 2004.
  9. Khaidarov K. A. Aethereal Theory of Conduction. - Borovoye, 2004.
  10. Khaidarov K. A. The Origin of Masses by Means of Natural Aeter Disturbing. - Almaty, 2004.
  11. Khaidarov K.A. The Nature of electricity as Motion of the Phase aether. - Almaty , 2004.
  12. Khaidarov K.A. The Nature of Light as Combined Oscillation of Phase and Corpuscular Aethers. - Borovoye, 2004.
  13. Khaidarov K.A. Aethereal Wind. - Almaty, 2004.
  14. Khaidarov K.A. Aethereal Energy. - Almaty, 2004.
  15. Khaidarov K. A. The Structure of Celestial Bodies. - Almaty, 2004.
  16. Khaidarov K. A. The origin of the Sun and Planets. - Almaty, 2004.
  17. Khaidarov K.A. Real Solar Dynamics. - Borovoye, 2004.
  18. Khaidarov K.A. Aethereal Mechanics. - Almaty, 2005.
  19. khaidarov K.A. Aether, The Great Watchmaker. - Borovoye, Kiev - NiT, 2005.
  20. Kant I. Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie Des Himmels, Koenigsberg, 1755.
    21.
  21. Galilei Galileo De motu gravium, 1590.
  22. Hooke R. An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth by Observations, London, 1674.
  23. Bernoulli D. Hydrodynamica, sive de viribus et notibus fluidorum commentarii. Argentorati, 1738.
  24. Лойцянский Л.Г. Механика жидкости и газа. 5-е изд. - М., 1978.
  25. Gauss C. F. Werke, Vol. 5. Koenigliche Geselschaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen, 1867.
  26. Gerber P. Die raumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation. Z. Math. Phys., 43, 93-104, 1898.
  27. Gerber P. Die Fortpflanzungsgeschwindigkeit der Gravitation. Programmabhandlung des stadtische Realgymnasiums zu Stargard in Pomerania, 1902.
  28. Gerber P. Die Fortpflanzungsgeschwindigkeit der Gravitation. Annln. Phys. (Lpz.), Ser. 4, 52, 415-441, 1917.
  29. Гербер П. Пространственное и временнное распространение гравитации. (пер. Й. Керна, 2004)
  30. Ленард Ф. О принципе относительности, эфире, гравитации. – Москва, ГосИз, 1922.
  31. Lenard P. Ueber Relativitatsprinzip, Aether, Gravitation", Starks Jahrbuch d. Etherealactivitat und Elektronik, Bd. 15, S. 117, 1918.
  32. Helmholtz H. On the Conservation of Force, 1847.
  33. Hilbert D. Koenigliche Geselschaft der Wissenschaften Nachrichten, Math.-phys. Klasse. 1915.
  34. Bjerknes Ch. J. Albert eINSTEIN - the INCORRIGIBLE pLAGIARIST .- XTX, 2001.
  35. Bjerknes Ch. J. Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity. – XTX, 2003.
  36. Басов Н. Г., Амбарцумян Р. В., Зуев В. С., и др. ЖЭТФ, 50, 23, 1, 1966.
  37. Wang L.J., Kuzmich A., Dogariu A. Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation. – Nature, 406, 2000.
  38. St. Marinov, Measurement of the Laboratory’s Absolute Velocity, General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 12, No 1, 57-65, (1980)
  39. St. Marinov, Экспериментальные нарушения принципов относительности, эквивалентности и сохранения энергии. / Физическая мысль России , 1995. N2. C. 52-77.
  40. Потапов А. А. Энергия связи многоэлектронных атомов по данным их поляризуемостей и ее периодичность в таблице Д.И. Менделеева, // Электронный журнал "Исследовано в России", 048/050219 , стр. 541-553
  41. Потапов А. А. Абсолютный радиус многоэлектронных атомов по данным их поляризуемостей // Электронный журнал "Исследовано в России", 049/2005,02,19, стр. 554-570
  42. Потапов А. А. Вириальная теория деформационной поляризации, Электронный журнал "Исследовано в России", 186/2003,11,01 , стр. 2228-2241
  43. Потапов А.А. Деформационная поляризация. Поиск оптимальных моделей. – Н., Наука, 2004, 510 с.
  44. Тимирязев А.К. О принципе относительности, М. 1922
  45. Тимирязев А. К. Кинетическая теория материи, М, 1953.
  46. Умов Н.А. Законы колебаний в неограниченной среде постоянной упругости. - (1870). Избранные сочинения. Гостехиздат, М.- Л., 1950.
  47. Умов Н.А. Теория термомеханических явлений в твердых упругих телах (1871). – Избр. сочинения.
  48. Умов Н.А. Теория взаимодействий на расстояниях конечных и ее приложение к выводу электростатических и электродинамических законов, М., 1873.
  49. Умов Н.А. Исторический очерк теории света. "Записки Новороссийского университета", т. IX, 1873.
  50. Умов Н.А. Теория простых сред и ее приложение к выводу основных законов электростатических и электродинамических взаимодействий. Одесса, 1873.
  51. Умов Н.А. Уравнения движения энергии в телах (1874). - Избранные сочинения.
  52. Умов Н.А. Прибавление к работе "Уравнения движения энергии в телах" (1874).- Избр. сочинения.
  53. Umov N. Albeitung der Bewegungsgleichungen der Energie in continuirlichen Kцrpern (Вывод уравнения движения энергии в непрерывных телах). "Zeitschrift fьr Mathematik und Physik", Bd. XIX, 1874, H. 5.
  54. Umov N. Ein Theorem ьber die Wechselwirkungen in Endlichen Entfernungen. (Теорема относительно взаимодействий на расстояниях конечных). , "Zeitschrift fьr Mathematik und Physik", Вd. XIX, 1874.
  55. Max Planck: 'Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge'. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 5, p. 479 (1899)
  56. Планк М. О необратимых процессах излучения. §26 Естественные единицы измерения. // Избранные труды, М. Наука, 1975.
  57. Пригожин И., Стенгерс И. Порядок из хаоса, М., 1986.
  58. Chan M., Eun-Seong Kim, Nature, 15 January (2004)
  59. Loudon R. What is a photon? – Journal of the Optical Society of America, Oct, 2003.
  60. Резерфорд Э. Ядерное строение атома: Берклианская лекция. – в кн.: Нейтрон: Предыстория, открытие, последствия. – М., Наука, 1975, с. 139.
  61. Heisenberg W., Goudsmit S., Uhlenbeck G. E. 'Die Kopplungsmoglichkeiten der Quantenvektoren im Atom." Physikalische Berichte 7, 2nd half, 981, (1926)
  62. Ферми Э. К теории β-лучей. – 1933.
  63. Мёссбауэр Р. Эффект RK и его значение для точных измерений, в кн. “Наука и человечество”, 1962.
  64. S. V. Adamenko and V.I. Vysotskii. Mechanism of synthesis of superheavy nuclei via the process of controlled electron-nuclear collapse. Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 17 No. 3. June 2004, p. 203-233.
  65. S. V. Adamenko, A. S. Adamenko, and V.I. Vysotskii. Full-Range Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory. Stable Superheavy Elements: Experimental Results and Theoretical Descriptions. ISSUE 54, 2004. Infin. Energy. p.1-8.
  66. Адаменко С.В. Концепция искусственно инициируемого коллапса вещества и основные результаты первого этапа ее экспериментальной реализации. Препринт 2004, Киев, Академпериодика, с. 36.
  67. S. V. Adamenko , A. S. Adamenko. Isotopic composition peculiarities in products of nucleosynthesis in extremely dense matter. Proceedings of Int. Symp. New Projects and Lines of Research in Nuclear Physics, 24–26 Oct. Messina, Italy, p. 33-44 (2002)
  68. S. V. Adamenko , V.I. Vysotskii. Possible explanation of the anomalous localization effect of the nuclear reaction products stimulated by controlled collapse and the problem of stable superheavy nuclei. Proceedings of Int. Symp. New Projects and Lines of Research in Nuclear Physics, 24–26 Oct. Messina, Italy, p. 383-391 (2002)
  69. S. V. Adamenko, A. S. Adamenko. Analysis of laboratory nucleosynthesis products.
  70. S. V. Adamenko, A. S. Adamenko, I. A. Kossko, V. D. Kurochkin, V. V. Kovylyaev, S. S. Ponomarev, and A. V. Andreev. Estimation of the amount of the nuclear transformation products formed under explosion-induced compression of a substance to the superdense state.
  71. S. V. Adamenko, A. S. Adamenko, and S. S. Ponomarev. Study of the composition of products of controlled nucleosynthesis by local Auger-electron spectroscopy.
  72. S. V. Adamenko, A. S. Adamenko, A. V. Andreev, I. A. Kossko, S. S. Ponomarev, V. V. Kovylyaev, and A. N. Zakusilo. On the unidentifiable peaks in characteristic X-ray spectra.
  73. С. В. Адаменко, А. В. Пащенко, И. Н. Шаповал, В. Е. Новиков. Процессы с обострением и дробление масштабов в плазменно-полевых структурах // ВОПРОСЫ АТОМНОЙ НАУКИ И ТЕХНИКИ, Серия: Плазменная электроника и новые методы ускорения, 2003, №4, с. 172-176.
  74. С. Адаменко. Несиловий метод керованого нуклеосинтезу. Вісник НАН України, 2003, №2, с. 23–26.
  75. С.В. Адаменко, П.А. Березняк, И.М. Михайловский, В.А. Стратиенко, Н.Г.Толмачев, А.С. Адаменко, Т.Н.Мазилова. Инициирование электрического вакуумного разряда ускоренными наночастицами // Письма в ЖТФ. 2001. т. 27. в. 16. с. 15-20
  76. V. I. Vysotskii, S. V. Adamenko, V. A. Stratienko, N.G. Tolmachev. Creating and using of superdense micro-beams of subrelativistic electrons. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, V. 455, Issue: 1, Nov. 21, 2000, pp. 123-127
  77. S. Adamenko, E. Bulyak, V. Stratienko, N. Tolmachev. Limits of plasma focusing of high current electron beams. Proceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference, New York,1999, p.3269
  78. S. Adamenko, E. Bulyak, V. Stratienko, N. Tolmachev. Effect of auto-focusing of the electron beam in the relativistic vacuum diode. Proceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference, New York,1999, p.3271
  79. Адаменко С.В., Долгополов В.В., Кириченко Ю.В., Стратиенко В.А. Фокусировка скомпенсированного неоднородного пучка электронов. Радиофизика и электроника, Харьков, ИРЕ НАНУ, 1998, т.3, №1, с.94-95.
  80. Стратиенко В.А., Адаменко С.В. и др. Получение и использование плотных микропучков и вторичных излучений. ВАНТ, серия: Ядерно-физические исследования. 1997г., вып. 4-5(31,32), с. 163.
  81. Bain C.R. et al. Phys. Lett. B373, 1996, p.35.

main page   list of papers   library