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

### LEARNED EXCHANGE BETWEEN PROFESSORS KESWANI AND KADEISVILI ON THE LOCAL VARIATION OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT WITHIN PHYSICAL MEDIA OR LACK THEREOF.

On May 23, 2003, Prof. G. H. Keswani has kindly provided a learned presentation explaining the interpretation according to special relativity on the lack of variation of the speed of light within physical media that is available in Word in the web page
<Keswani's interpretation according to special relativity>

On June 21, 2003, Prof. J. V. Kadeisvili has released the following statement for uploading in this site.

Dear Prof. Keswani,

Sincere appreciation must be expressed for taking the time and care of providing the best and most learned presentation on the constancy of the speed of light within physical media as predicted by special relativity.

Nevertheless, for the sake of science, I feel obliged to indicate that your argument is not conclusive for various reasons expressed by Prof. Santilli in this web site, e.g., Part III, Section 8, that can be summarized as follows:

1) The special relativity argument does not apply for electromagnetic waves with long wavelength of one meter or so, because the reduction of such a wave to photons scattering among atoms is not possible. Yet, there is ample experimental evidence that electromagnetic waves with long wavelength slow-down when entering into planetary atmospheres or into astrophysical chromospheres, as established by the recording of NASA probes at the initiation of their passing beyond planets or beyond the Sun. The same slow-down has also been measured for radio waves propagating in our atmosphere.

2) The experimental; evidence of electromagnetic waves propagating at speed bigger than the speed of light in vacuum [1-7} is simply crushing, since an entire Beethoven symphony has been propagated at measured speeds bigger than c. It is evident that the interpretation of the propagation of light via photons scattering among atoms cannot possibly chield speeds bigger than c since said photons propagate in vacuum at the speed by central assumption.

3) Assuming that the above experimental disproofs can be somehow bypassed, we remain with the violation of basic axioms of special relativity whenever electromagnetic waves propagate within physical media. For instance, as pointed out by Prof. Santilli several times in his writings, if the speed of light within the medium considered is assumed as the maximal causal speed, there is the evident violation of the principle of causality because we can have physical particles such as electrons moving within the medium at speeds bigger than the maximal causal speed. Vice-versa, if the speed of light in vacuum is assumed as the maximal causal speed for propagation within physical media, there is the violation of the relativistic addition of speeds because the sum of two speeds of light does not yield the speed of light.

Above all, Prof. Santilli has identified an epistemological argument that convinced me to keep accepting special relativity in vacuum, and abandon it in favor of Santilli isospecial relativity when dealing with any physical media. I reproduce his argument below from a letter I received from him over a decade ago:

Palm Harbor, Florida, February 12, 1991.
In full honesty, and with due respect to the towering Founding Fathers of our physical knowledge, I consider unquestionable the validity of special relativity for the propagation of light and particles in empty space (vacuum), but I cannot and will never accept the validity of the same relativity within physical media because such an assumption literally implies the absence of physics for media that are opaque to light. As we all know well, in special relativity everything is based on the speed of light, beginning with the maximal causal speed. But then, when we have a medium opaque to light, the insistence on the validity of special relativity would imply the abandonment of any quantitative science since I have no light at all.

I simply cannot do that. I am a physicist. My primary duty is expected to be the search for quantitative treatments. If special relativity applies, so be it. However, if special relativity does not apply, I cannot abandon my duty. When light does cannot propagate within the medium considered, anybody who remains attached to special relativity exists the boundaries of science, because of the evident need to search for a different theory.

This epistemological point has been the primary reason for my working out a covering of special relativity in which the maximal causal speed is defined in a way completely independent as to whether light propagates or not, of course, under the condition of coinciding with special relativity in vacuum, while resolving in this way known objections, such a the validity within physical media of relativistic sums, etc.

Stated differently, the validity of the speed of light as the maximal causal speed in vacuum is a mere coincidence, for the reason that when light cannot propagate, the principle of causality "must" be still assumed to be valid, thus mandating the use for the maximal causal speed of a new notion NOT based on light, although recovering light in vacuum.

Another reason why I cannot and will not accept the validity of special relativity within physical media is of historical nature. As clearly stated by its founders, special relativity was clearly formulated for propagation in vacuum, and the extension of its applicability within physical media has been essentially done by the followers, and not by the originators. For instance, Lorentz himself was the first to admit the inapplicability of his celebrated symmetry within physical media and attempt the construction of a generalized symmetry for locally varying speeds C = c/n, where n is the known index of refraction (this study is also quoted by Pauli in his book).

Above all, I cannot and will not accept the validity of special relativity within physical media for our societal needs of new clean energies and fuels. ALL possible energies predicted by special relativity have been identified following studies by hundred of thousands of scientists during the past century and I simply exclude that a basically new form of energy verifying special relativity can be discovered. On the contrary, the assumption of the lack of validity of special relativity within physical media (read, under contact-resistive forces) does indeed imply basically "new" and clean energies.

I have the societal duty to study these new energies and fuels, that is, I have the societal need to reject the validity of special relativity within physical media and search for more adequate theories. Please help me in this difficult task!

Wishing you the best

Ruggero Maria Santilli

Following this letter I abandon the validity of special relativity within physical media in favor of Santilli's Isospecial Relativity [2], and wrote monoghraph [3].

In faith

[1] A. Enders and G. Nimtz, J. Phys. France {\bf 2}, 1693 (1992). G. Nimtz and W. Heitmann, Progr. Quantum Electr. {\bf 21}, 81 (1997). F. Mirabel and F. Rodriguez, Nature {\bf 371}, 464 (1994). J. Tingay et al., Nature {\bf {374}}, 141 (1995). D. Baylin et al., IAU Comm. 6173 (1995). P. Saari and K. Reivelt, Phys. Rev. Letters {\bf 79} (1997), in press. E. Recami and R. M. Santilli, Hadronic Journal {\bf 23}, 279 (2000).

[2] R. M. Santilli, Isotopic Generalization of Galilei and Einstein Relativities, Volumes I and 2, Hadronic Press, 1991

[]3] J. V. Kadeisvili, Santilli's Isotopies of Contemporary Algebras, Geometries and Relativities, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Second Edition 1997.

### OPEN LETTER E-MAIELD TO SELECTED SCIENTISTS: WHY IS NUCLEAR PHYSICS A RELIGION?

Because in about one century of research, quantum mechanics has been unable to provide any scientific (that is quantitative and numerical) explanation of the most basic properties of the simplest possible nucleus, while being claimed to be exact by the vast majority of nuclear physicists. For example:

=> In one century of research QM has left completely unexplained in quantitative terms the STABILITY OF THE DEUTERON (the neutron is unstable and, therefore, the deuteron should be unstable too).

=> In about one century of research QM has left completely unexplained in quantitative terms THE SPIN ONE OF THE GROUND STATE OF THE DEUTERON (QM axioms require that the ground state of two particles with the same spin should be a singlet with spin zero).

=> In about one century of research QM has been unable to represent the MAGNETIC MOMENT OF THE DEUTERON (2.6% are missing up front; relativistic "corrections" - read "manipulations" - reduce the error to 1% but via the the mixture of different states that do not exist in the ground state of the deuteron besides having different parities, thus resulting in a minestrone, not to mention the progressively increasing, embarrassing deviations of QM from physical reality with the increase of mass).

=> Etc., etc.

Yet, most nuclear physicists continue to adore and solely use their beloved quantum mechanics, even though, after two decades of research by hundreds of scientists, the covering hadronic mechanics has provided an EXACT and INVARIANT resolution of ALL insufficiencies of QM for ALL nuclei, as one can see in http://www.neutronstructure.org/part6.htm
<

But then the unavoidable question is: WHY there is this resiliency against basic advances in full knowledge of being cut out of science in so doing? Is it because of peer pressures or the slavery of the mind that is rather widespread in contemporary academia? Is it because of opposition against scientific research on the new clean energies permitted by hadronic (but prohibited by quantum) mechanics? Or because the nuclear physics of the new millennium is not intended to be a science, but just a political or religious arena to grab \$-EUROS-YENS? Why?

Thanks and Regards
INSTITUTE FOR BASIC RESEARCH

First in my sincere reply to you, I need to say that to the extent that nuclear physics is a religion at the present , its orthodoxy has a but a very tiny few zealots spread around the globe. All the true experts on the standard model of cosmology, including the very latest best QM and Nuclear Physics & particle physics technology and it's so called "established" science, do not worship current theory and there are many top publications by many top scientists beginning with Einstein that agree with the upshot of your research and for much better explained reasons.

The individual living scientist that I think understands QM and its comprehensive theory the best, Jim Baggot of the UK, does not believe in QM and thinks very few others of note do. See his book "The Meaning of Quantum Theory" and read his closing remarks beginning on page 210. That may be all you need.

Will get back to you and I am very excited to get your inquiry. QM is a successfully predicting overall but is mechanically false at its problematic wave function roots just as Einstein was convinced of until his death. . See excerpts at my website www.angelfire.com/wi/HolisticScience. This in initial response to your

Yours, Truly

L. F. Morgan

Thanks for your open letter on nuclear physics. I must admit out of scientific honesty that the problems you identify have not been, indeed, resolved by quantum mechanics, as you correctly state.

Yet, allow me to disagree on the "religious" profile because physics is an approximation. As such, nuclear physics has indeed provided a good approximation of the nuclear phenomenology and, as such, it is not a religion.
Respectfully Yours,

Robert Le Clerc

Dear Prof. Le Clerc,

Permit me to clarify that nuclear physics is not turned into a religion by real scientists such as you, who admit the approximate character of quantum mechanics.

Nuclear physics is turned into an asocial religion by pseudo-scientists who do not admit the limitations of quantum mechanics for personal gains, proffer the final character of the theory, and use their academic stand to oppose any advance in nuclear physics not compatible with their preferred theory.

That type of behavior has nothing to do with science, and should be treated in reality by a jury of a criminal court because the definition of "crime" is "damage to society".

Yours, Truly

THANK YOU, CONGRATULATIONS, EUREKA for your open letter. It shows that physics is not dead after all. The so called "leading academic places" such as those in Cambridge USA or Cambridge England, have not produced anything really new in nuclear physics during the past fifty years and, in actuality, they have obstructed novel research, resulting in nuclear nightmares such as that for the recycling of nuclear waste which nightmare provides the best patent for their real qualifications.

Prof. Santilli should be praised for his dedication, consistency and insistence over decades on surpassing quantum mechanics, qualities that have now paid off with clear resolutions of quantum insufficiencies achieved in a professional way (via new, let alone advanced math!). Keep doing the good work. The action of one man against many can change the course of science, as it occurred so many times in the past.

Yours, Truly

Kenneth Hall

### AN ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTAL EVDIENCE ON THE LACK OF CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT..

I attended 1998 PIRT conference and I found your e-mail address from Dr. Duffy¹s message. Here I would tell you that I and my colleagues recently conducted a Œmodified Sagnac experiment¹ and have a paper published in Physics Letters A. Our finding is that the travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is uniform or circular. In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Dl, the travel-time difference is 2vDl/c2.The pdf file of the paper is attached at the end of this note.

As you can imagine, when we submitted our paper, we just made it a purely experimental report. Now since it has been printed, we could freely discuss its implication to the constancy of the speed of light. I would mention three aspects:>br>

1. The key point of the debates about the implication of the Sagnac effect to the constancy of the speed of light lies on whether or not the Sagnac effect only appears in rotation. Now our experiment gave it a very clear answer as mentioned above.

2. We mentioned in our paper that the travel-time difference Dt = 2vDl/c2 in our experiment is independent of the refractive index n, as in the Sagnac type experiment. It implies that the same should occur in vacuum (refractive index n = 1), which could be tested by using a FOC with a hollow-core single-mode fiber in which light is guided in vacuum or in air. Now we are trying to get a hollow-core fiber. If we conduct the experiment with that kind fiber and get the same result, I think we can say that the principle of the constancy of the speed of light is falsified.

3. There already have been a lot of Sagnac type experiments, with different sizes ranging from the FOG to GPS, with different media ranging from air (vacuum) to glass, with different configurations ranging from loops (original Sagnac experiment and the FOG) to GPS¹ one-way Sagnac effect. If we put these and our experimental results together, I think we can say that the principle of the constancy of the speed of light is not correct.

Sincerely yours,

Ruyong Wang
St. Cloud State University
Mailroom - CH 37
720 - 4th Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498, USA
Office: 320-255-4249
Fax: 320-529-1514
e-mail: ruwang@stcloudstate.edu
Web Site: http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang

Dear Professors R. Wang, Yi Zheng, A. Yao and D. Langley,

Allow me to express my congratulations for your excellent experiment, that, no doubt, constitutes a new page of new physics. However, permit me to express my view that you have in reality established the local character of the speed of light within physical media.

In fact, the Sagnac experiment is proportional to v/c, as you correctly state. As such, the effect is directly proportional to the increase of the speed v and inversely proportional to the decrease of the speed of light c.

There is no doubt whatever, and this has been experimentally verified in any case, that the speed of light within fiber optics IS NOT the speed of light in vacuum c but the speed of light within physical media with value C = c/n < c.

Therefore, you have something more complex than the "standard Sagnac case" in the sense that, in addition to the Sagnac effect, you have a lower value of the speed of light. Perhaps you should consider recalculating again the results under the physical value of the speed of light within physical media such a fiber optics, and then identify its impact on the Sagnac effect.

Stated in a different language, you have provided an indirect verification of Prof. Santilli's decades old *yet still unanswered) proposal to measure the expected redshift of sunlight in the transition from the Zenith to the horizon. The first order contribution to the frequency is 1 - v/C = vn/c, as well known, where v is the relative motion of the observer with respect to the Sun and c is the local speed of light. Therefore, we have a redshift not only with the increase of the speed v, but also with the decrease of the speed of light C (since v/C << 1). Your correction term v/c is along similar lines. Note also the suggestion to verify the possible presence of a redshift in your experiment.

More generally and more deeply, your experiment belongs to the geometry of physical media that cannot possibly be the Minkowskian geometry, and it given instead by the universal Minkowski-Santilli isogeometry (since it applies to ALL possible spacetimes) and related universal invariance of all possible local speeds C = c/n, the Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry (see my monograph [1] and original contributions therein).

In view of the above, I support your proposal of repeating the test in vacuum. However, please note that straigh fields from the internal walls of the tube of the proposed dimension will definitely acquire a dominant character in your proposed test, and definitely alter the speed of light, since straight fields can be assumed to be null only for diameters of the order of one meter, as assumed in sensitive tests such as neutron interferometric tests. Therefore, I believe it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to repeat your experiment REALLY IN VACUUM, that is, in the absence of physical effects altering the speed of light.

Wishing you continued success, I remain

Yours, Truly>br>

[1] J. V. Kadeisvili, Santilli's Isotopies of Contemporary Algebras, Geometries and Relativities, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Second Edition 1997.

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

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

Last Revised: January 22, 2003

Copyright © 2002-2015 Institute for Basic Research, P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682, U.S.A.
Tel: 1-727-934 9593 Fax: 1-727-934 9275 E-Mail:
ibr@gte.net