we would like to turn to the analysis of the field given in works by Prof. R.M. Santilli who did spend an effort and time more than 30 years ago and later fighting the orthodox vested interests in physics.

We would like to make substantial parts cited for providing the ground for what the great arguments R.M. Santilli had found for the cause and at the same time draw the line where we in some points departure from Santilli's point-mass, point-charge close to QM language.

Again, as soon as students and graduate students first of all will be mostly blocked from this kind of arguments and texts - we have a personal experiences with this, it would be much easier for students to reach the non-orthodox analysis on QM role by providing them with a spectrum of thoughts on the obsolete methods of QM and particle physics as a whole.

In his 1984 work (" Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An Insider's View," http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm, 354 pages, 1984) on ethics in the US physics and in another source of citing where Santilli wrote on QM and particle physics issues:

http://www.i-b-r.org/forum-old-theories.htm ***************************************

he put out the interesting arguments regarding the functions of QM in exchange with orthodox physicist:

"Comments from Professor Geoffrey Hunter

Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto, Canada

Ruggero:

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

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

I have been a practitioner of quantum chemistry specialising in accurate calculations on systems of a few nuclei and electrons (H2+, He, H-, H2).

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

(Our comments:

Why the Schrödinger's equation (SE) is taken as the finest picture of a realm?

Why - "the interaction potential being the Coulomb interaction between a point electron and a point proton "? You see, the orthodox physicists use openly the inadequate terms, definitions - "point electron and a point proton." This was established in 1920s and this is wrong definition and science they use and NOW. The size arguments are irrelevant because they (orthodox') use incorrect Electrodynamics (MHL) and they even don't use the correct statements for MHL electrodynamics!)

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

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

Accurate QM calculations on the H2 molecule are based upon a hamiltonian consisting of the (4) KEs of the 2 electrons and 2 protons together with the 6 Coulomb interactions between these 4 charged particles.

Separation of the center of mass motion (exactly) leaves 3 KE terms in the internal (relative) hamiltonian. As for the H-atom magnetic interactions arising from the spins (magnetic moments) of the particles are neglected in this non-relativistic treatment.

James and Coolidge first carried out calculations in the 1930s, and with the advent of computers this work was made numerically more accurate by Kolos and collaborators beginning around 1960.

My belief is that the results of these accurate calculations are in agreement with the experimental (spectroscopic) measurements by Herzberg and others.

[CITE] The Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule HM James, AS Coolidge - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2004 - link.aip.org

The Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule. [The Journal of Chemical Physics 1, 825 (1933)]. Hubert M. James, Albert Sprague Coolidge.

[CITE] Potential-Energy Curves for the X 1 ............ States of the Hydrogen Molecule W Kolos - The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1965

[CITE] Improved Theoretical Ground-State Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule W Kolos, L Wolniewicz - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2003 - link.aip.org

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

[CITE] Accurate Adiabatic Treatment of the Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule W Ko$\;\not l\;$os, L Wolniewicz - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2004 - link.aip.org Accurate Adiabatic Treatment of the Ground State of the Hydrogen Molecule

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

[CITE] Relativistic energies of the ground state of the hydrogen molecule - group of 4 » L Wolniewicz - Journal of Chemical Physics, 2006 - link.aip.org

Relativistic energies of the ground state of the hydrogen molecule. [The Journal of Chemical Physics 99, 1851 (1993)]. L. Wolniewicz

[CITE] Dissociation energy of the hydrogen molecule - group of 6 » A Balakrishnan, V Smith, BP Stoicheff - Physical Review Letters, 1992 - APS

.. Ch. Jungen, I. Dabrowski, G. Herzberg and M. Vervloet, J. Chem ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS Dissociation Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule A. Balakrishnan, V. Smith, (a ...

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

G Herzberg, G., "Dissociation Energy and Ionization Potential of Molecular Hydrogen," Phys. Review Let., Vol. 23. No. 19, pp. , (1969)

[CITE]Š in diatomic molecules. V. The rotation-vibration spectrum of the hydrogen-deuteride (HD) molecule RA Durie, G Herzberg - Canadian Journal of Physics, 1960 - adsabs.harvard.edu

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

Durie, RA; Herzberg, G., "The rotation-vibration spectrum of the hydrogen-deuteride (HD) molecule,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoffrey Hunter

GHunter@YorkU.Ca

Ruggero answers:

Dear Geoffrey,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that the "absence" of these alternative calculations for the H-atom establish the "exact validity" of quantum mechanics in that field, while the existence of "different calculations with different numerical results" establish the "approximate character" of the theory, but this is just a point of view on which you are welcome to disagree. In my view, these expansion - variational methods have done the biggest disservice and damage to science in human history (noted by us) because they give the perception that quantum mechanics and chemistry are universally valid for all conceivable conditions in the universe, a view suppressing basic advances particularly those needed for the solution of our environmental problems now known not to be solvable with quantum mechanics. This is the main issue of the Forum on Old Theories http://www.i-b-r.org/forum-old-theories.htm

To cut these alternatives out, the senior US chemist Don Shillady and I worked out as part of hadronic chemistry a fully solvable restricted three-body formulation of the H molecule obtained via a deep correlation bond of the two valence electron into a quasiparticle. I can send you on request subsequent papers by independent colleagues showing that the Santilli-Shillady restricted three-body model of the H molecule does indeed admit exact solution and does indeed represent experimental data exactly and without ambiguities.

After working at this for decades, I can assure you you cannot do that with quantum mechanics!

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

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

The reasons are several. Let me mention a few.

I never accepted quantum chemistry as being exactly valid for molecular structures since my graduate studies in physics at the University of Torino, and I got in trouble for that to such an extent that no Italian university would give me a job and I had to come to the USA.

I used to tell my teachers that quantum chemistry produces a pure "nomenclature" without science in regard to the notion of valence because for me to do science valence must verify the following:

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

(Our comments: now it can be explained via the electron Magnetic field model - see Ph.M. Kanarev; )

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

(Our comments: now it can be done;)

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

(Our comments: now it can be done;)

Quantum mechanics and chemistry have been proved to be unable to do that in one century of efforts (noted by us).

As a matter of fact, the identical electrons in valence couplings REPEL, rather than attract each other according to quantum mechanics.

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

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

(Our comments: we would disagree with the electron's and atom orthodox models.)

Chemistry is a different situation. In fact, we bond together two Atoms to form the H molecule via a strictly irreversible process.

I refused to accept quantum mechanics for irreversible process since my graduate studies and I intent to die without accepting it for conditions I do not consider scientific.

In fact, if I use quantum mechanics for the reaction

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

I cannot do that. If I did not have other ways I may perhaps consider the use of quantum mechanics.

However, we do have available for decades by now STRUCTURALLY IRREVERSIBLE theories, that is, theories whose mathematics is irreversible, see the latest memoir [3] reviewing works since the 1960s.

Then, under these conditions the use of the fully reversible quantum mechanics for structurally irreversible process is purely political in my view.

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

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

Again, I would accept this so inefficient approach if I did not have a better way to do my calculations.

But this better way has been in existence for decades. The fact that it continues to be ignored by colleagues is to their sole detriment because in so doing they cut themselves out of real research. The alternative way is given by the Lie-Santilli isotheory, namely, the lifting of the basic unit of Lie theory into a positive definite operator (or matrix)

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

for which we have the power series expansion

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

The ultimate origin of the serious dilemma raised by your nice and important message rests in several parts of your message itself.

You continuously refer to hamiltonian.

This implies the tacit assumption that all interactions in the universe are of potential type, an assumption that can be easily proved NOT to be universally true, e.g., from the fact that all known potentials are reversible, while nature is irreversible.

Hence, the hamiltonian CANNOT represent everything in the universe. Of course, the hamiltonian does indeed represent exactly the H-atom, crystals, particles in particle accelerators and many other important systems. The point is that you cannot represent everything with

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

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

Quantum mechanics and chemistry are based on the use of the conventional hamiltonian for all conventional potential interactions plus the use of the operator T (as the inverse of Santilli's isounit) for the representation of all non-hamiltonian interactions and effects,

(Our comments: that's true)

resulting in the covering hadronic mechanics and chemistry.

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

All the above discussions, alternatives and ambiguities solely apply for chemistry.

When passing to particle physics there are no alternatives as you can see in the denunciation in this Forum of manipulations via the use of ad hoc parameters originating from nowhere to claim quantum mechanics and special relativity as being exactly valid even for the paradoxical case of the Bose-Einstein correlations where to manipulate data "physicists" drop four ad hoc parameters in the two point correlation function, while the quantum axiom of vacuum expectation value allows only two.

(Our comments: that's true and a good statement )

My God, how low our physics community has fallen just to support beloved "pet theories"!

But, this time thanks God, in passing to a number of problems in particle physics there simply is no room left for political manipulations of physical reality. A clear example is the synthesis of the neutron inside stars

for which quantum mechanics is completely inapplicable (and not violated because not meant for that) since:

1) the synthesis requires a minimum of 0.78 MeV "positive" binding-like energy (because the neutron mass is 0.78 MeV bigger than the sum of the masses of the constituents) for which Schroedinger's equation admits no physical solution;

2) If protons and electrons have a relative kinetic energy of 0.78 MeV, quantum mechanics prohibits any synthesis because at that energy their cross section is extremely small;

3) the idea of manipulating facts via the reaction

would be truly vulgar not only because the cross section of antineutrinos with protons and/or electrons is virtually null, but also because antineutrinos have negative energy while the synthesis requires positive energy.

Shall I keep going? There is no need for physicists in good faith like you, while for physicists in bad faith no evidence holds and none is worth indicating in any case.

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

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

(Our comments: that's a good suggestion and we would make the statement of - that the covering theories for QM and SR are the HSP-VAT, 2P Particle Physics, Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P.

Now for the new generations of students in physics and natural sciences - How good are these arguments by R.Santilli? How knowledgeable he is on the field? )

REFERENCES:

[1] R. M. Santilli Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, Kluwer (2001)

[2] Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Vols. I and II, 2-nd ed., 1995, Vol. III, in press, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (also available in pdf format at http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm)

[3] Lie-admissible invariant representation of irreversibility for matter and antimatter at the classical and operator levels", Nuovo Cimento B 121, 443 (2996)

[4] Confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons", Submitted for publication, available in the arXiv, a summary of the various scans are available in the web site http://www.neutronstructure.org/neutron-synthesis.htm

[5] Neutrino and/or etherino?" submitted for publication, available in the arXiv as physics/0610263 .

==================================================================

It is of interest would be for students also to put forward here in conjunction with the particulate media physics in HSP-VAT and one by R.M. Santilli. In his book -

"Ruggero Maria Santilli- Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry Volume I: Iso,Geno, Hyper-Formulations for Matter and their Isoduals for Antimatter"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78488793/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli-Hadronic-Mathematics-Mechanics-and-Chemistry-

Volume-I-Iso-Geno-Hyper-Formulations-for-Matter-and-their-Isoduals-for-Antimat)

DRAFT DATED AUGUST 25, 2007

Santilli, R.M., HADRONIC MATHEMATICS, MECHANICS AND CHEMISTRY, Volume I: Iso-, Geno-, Hyper-Formulations for Matter and Their Isoduals for Antimatter, (2007)

In p. IX in "Preface" Santilli writes:

"There is no doubt that quantum mechanics permitted in the 20-th century the achievement of historical advances in various fields. These successes caused a widespread belief that quantum mechanics is exactly valid for all possible conditions of particles existing in the universe. Such a belief is ascientific, particularly when ventured by experts. As established by history, science will never admit final theories. No matter how valid any theory may appear at a given time, its structural generalization for a representation of previously unknown conditionsis only a matter of time."

and

"Needless to say, quantum mechanics is exactly valid for the physical conditions of its original conception, point-like particles and electromagnetic waves propagating in vacuum, as occurring in the structure of the hydrogen atom, the structure of crystals, the motion of particles in an accelerator, and numerous other conditions."

Our Comments:

We are quite familiar with methods used in experimental physics to meet ends as it desired. Meanwhile - we would not agree and support this statement - "exactly valid" as soon as conditions of "point-like particles and electromagnetic waves propagating in vacuum, as occurring in the structure of the hydrogen atom, the structure of crystals, the motion of particles in an accelerator, and numerous other conditions" are exactly never happened in nature, but into conjectureous schemes experimental data reduction, analysis.

As shown first of all by Ph.M. Kanarev - the determination of words "electromagnetic waves" are senseless for classic MHL electrodynamics, see in our - "Electrodynamics 2" :

In p. X he writes:

"Contrary to a rather popular belief, quantum mechanics is only approximately valid for a number of particle conditions at short mutual distances. A clear example is the Bose-Einstein correlation in which protons and antiprotons collide at very high energy, annihilate each other, and result in the production of a large number of mesons that remain correlated at large mutual distances.

On strict scientific grounds, a theory constructed for the orbiting of point-like electrons in vacuum around atomic nuclei is not expected to be exactly valid for the dramatically different conditions occurring in the mutual penetration of the hyperdense protons and antiprotons. In fact, the fit of experimental data by the two point function of the Bose-Einstein correlation requires four arbitrary parameters of unknown physical or mathematical origin (significantly called the "chaoticity parameters"). But theHamiltonian is Hermitean and two-dimensional, thus allowing only two parameters for the diagonal elements 11 and 22. Additionally, the remaining two parameters interconnect off-diagonal elements 12 and 21, a feature absolutely prohibited by the quantum axiom of expectation values for a Hermitean, thus diagonal Hamiltonian.

These and other features establish beyond scientific or otherwise credible doubt that the four parameters needed to fit experimental data are a direct measure of the approximate character of quantum mechanics for the Bose-Einstein correlation.

During the course of our analysis we shall identify numerous additional cases of approximate validity of quantum mechanics because of irreconcilable incompatibilities with the ultimate axioms of the theory, such as: the approximate character of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics (due to the incompatibility of the spin 1 of the deuteron with quantum axioms requiring spin 0 for the ground state of two particles with spin 1/2 and numerous other reasons); the approximate character of the conventional "potential scattering theory" for deep inelastic scatterings of extended and hyperdense hadrons (due to the need for contact, non-Hamiltonian,thus nonunitary contributions outside the class of equivalence of quantum mechanics).

The approximate character of superconductivity (because of structural problems in the Cooper pair); and other cases.

Finally, quantum mechanics is basically inapplicable for a number of particle events, such as the synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons asoccurring in stars, or, more generally, the synthesis of strongly interacting particles (called hadrons), such as the synthesis of the meson from electrons and positrons. All consistent quantum bound states (such as nuclei, atoms and molecules) require a negative binding energy for which the rest energy (or mass)of the final state is smaller than the sum of the rest energies (or masses) of the constituents.

However, experimental data establish that the synthesis of the neutron via the familiar reaction requires a positive binding energy because ......"

Our Comments: Perfect and obvious arguments by Santilli on the inapplicability of QM for pretty important tasks - still within the COHP physics, which is interesting by itself.

Quite strong disagreement is with the words "theory constructed for the orbiting of point-like electrons in vacuum around atomic nuclei" that are not refelcting the reality of particle-nucleus dynamics. Again this is better ascribed in - Electrodynamics 2:

In p. XI he writes:

"rest energy of the neutron is 0.78 MeV bigger than the sum of the rest energies of the proton and the electron. Under these conditions, quantum mechanics is unable to provide any meaningful treatment at all because, as we shall see in details in this and in the subsequent volume, Schrödinger's equation admits no physical solution for positive binding energies, as the skeptic reader is encouraged to verify. The attempt of salvaging quantum mechanics via the conjugate reaction ,

namely, the dream of using the hypothetical antineutrino to provide the missing energy, has no credibility because the hypothetical antineutrino has an absolutely null cross section with protons and electrons. A similar basic inapplicability of quantum mechanics occurs for numerous other cases whose treatment is generally ignored or claimed as not needed, such as the synthesis of the via the known reaction , as well as for the synthesis of all unstable particles."

Our Comments: Continuation of arguments for inapplicability of QM for nuclear physics by obvious arguments by Santilli - again, still within the postulates of COHP physics.

In p. XVI he writes:

"One of the biggest scientific imbalances of the sciences of the 20-th century has been the quantum treatment of biological structures via quantum mechanics

without the identification of the limitation of the studies. We teach in first year graduate schools that quantum mechanics is incompatible with the deformation theory because the latter causes the breaking of the central pillar of quantum mechanics, the rotational symmetry. This is the reason for the great effectiveness of quantum mechanics for the treatment of crystals. But then, any use of quantum mechanics in biology implies that biological structures are perfectly rigid, something beyond the boundary of science."

Our Comments:

It's seems impossible to talk even on QM and any issue of biology? Nevertheless, while getting financing these "researchers" could apply the QM to any subject only to save their positions.

"Additionally, we also teach in first year graduate school that the very axioms of quantum mechanics are irreversible in time. This is the reason for the great effectiveness of quantum mechanics to represent irreversible atomic orbitals, as well as provide an explanation for their eternal character. But then, quantum mechanical studies in biology imply that biological structures are eternal, something truly beyond any minimum of scientific ethics and accountability. The complexities of biological structures, beginning with a simple cell, are such to be beyond our most vivid imagination. Any attempt of treating these complexities with a theory conceived for the atomic structure should be dismissed as non-scientific."

Our Comments:

It is the source of fun when reading that people would study the biological matters as what "quantum mechanical studies in biology imply that biological structures are eternal".

Crazy orthodox physicists that can think that the one scale theories can subdue the biological problems.

In p. XVIII-XIX we can find that:

"The second illustration of the need for new mathematics is given by the relativistic description of deep mutual penetrations of the wavepackets and/or charge distributions of particles as occurring in the synthesis of hadrons, deep inelastic scatterings, electrons valence bonds, etc. The very foundations of conventional mathematics, its local-differential topology, identifies quite clearly its inapplicability to the problem considered due to its nonlocal-integral character. An additional time consuming search in the mathematical libraries of the Cambridge-Boston area was conducted in the late 1970s with no result.

More specifically, the search did identify a number of new topologies, some of which of integral type, but they violated the central physical conditions of being a covering of the conventional local-differential topology so as to allow the new physical theories to be coverings of the old ones."

Our Comments: what R.Santilli says by this is the very known in HSP-VAT premise. We have been working over these issues since 1970s.

"Hence, the mathematics needed for the quantitative treatment of the indicated nonlocal-integral conditions of particles had to be built.

Following additional trials and errors, the new mathematics was constructed beginning with the original memoirs of 1978 to construct hadronic mechanics [4,5] and then continuing in numerous works (see the mathematical presentation [19] of 1996. The new mathematics carries today the name of Santilli isomathematics and permits a classical and operator treatment of extended, nonspherical and deformable particles under linear and nonlinear, local and nonlocal and potential as well as nonpotential interactions. Santilli isodual isomathematics then holds for the corresponding conditions of antiparticles [18]."

Our Comments:

Well, here we can say that we have been going by the different path since 1970s. And we also can say that - we would like also to make the statement of - that the covering theories for QM and SR are the HSP-VAT, 2P Particle Physics, Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P. These sciences alike what R.Santilli writes are also " permit a classical and operator treatment of extended, nonspherical and deformable particles under linear and nonlinear, local and nonlocal and potential as well as nonpotential interactions."

More on that - the HSP-VAT is the covering for all the COH physics.

In p. XX we can find that:

"The indicated lack of final theories in science was confirmed by the fact that all the preceding six different mathematics (conventional, isotopic and genotopic, and their isoduals) resulted to be insufficient for serious studies in biology since, for reasons we shall see, the latter require multi-valued methods. This occurrence can be intuitively seen from the fact that, e.g., a few atoms in a DNA can generate a complex organ with a huge number of cells.

A multi-valued mathematics did exist in the literature, the so-called hyperstructures, but they had no possibility of applications to biological structures due to the absence of a left and right unit (evidently crucial to permit measurements), the use of rather abstract operations not compatible with experiments, and other reasons."

Our Comments:

Well, here we can see obviously - that the "tools" in this search which is "mathematical only" is completely has shadowed, shifted to a remote location the initial goal of research, which is - To find out and possibly to study the ways in which nature is performing the Biological live development, support, reproduction, genesis and zymosis of infection, etc.

Here we observe the only way suggested for biology theoretical philosophy and modeling - is the mathematical one with ab initio claim and of a one scale!

This means the method (mathematics only and first of all), which probably is of limited proliferation, completely substituted the real subject and aim of the biological science ? Could it be ? You judge for yourself reading the above excerpts.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) Our short history and analysis of theoretical reasons for QM appearance and the necessity of its use when there were no theories and methods at the beginning of XX for many-body and volumetric particle arrays theorizing and modeling is of the simple, but hardly disputed character.

2) In any way, the intent of our citing of R.M. Santilli's great half-orthodox, half-dissident physical analysis of the field of QM and its applicability is of profound interest for students and professionals. Santilli had shown the narrow area of QM applicability in physics and reasons for that. It is the approximate theory for well determined artificial conditions - point-like particles and electromagnetic waves propagating in vacuum (?). We have pointed out that the dynamics of arrays of particles can be presented as a wave-like dynamics mathematically, using the Hierarchical mathematics (for the Upper scale) tools, and in experiments it is supported by experimental data because for most of experiments the data shown after the somehow averaged data reduction.

Interesting for us here in these texts by Santilli is the numerous statements and facts of invalidity of QM for the real particulate sub-atomic media in particle physics and nuclear physics.

3) It is clear for readers that the field of any electromagnetism theory is of low interest and knowledge in all R.M. Santilli's mathematically originated theories. We cannot compare neither MHL electrodynamics nor any other electrodynamics in application to particle physics here in this analysis as soon as Santilli is religiously believing into MHL electrodynamics. Without checking its validity as he does for the QM validity.

4) One of the mechanisms of QM propaganda is the persistent advertisement by journalists (often with low qualifications) in mass media of ridiculous schemes that orthodox physicists have been developing during the >80 years of QM and its following mathematical "advancements". The problem is that this "science" became the cat that is strolling by itself, without connection to reality. This is the feature of metaphysical theories - remember the medieval disputes of monks? What was the result? Any development, revolution?

REFERENCES:

1. Santilli, R.M. , Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An Insider's View, http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm; 354 pages, (1984)

2. Santilli, R.M. , "Forum on Old Theories. Comments from Professor G.Hunter," http://www.i-b-r.org/forum-old-theories.htm; retrieved 07/11/2013

3. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Modelling the Photon and Analyzing Its Electromagnetic and Physical Nature ," Journal of Theoretics, Vol.4-1, pp. 1-12, (2002)

4. Kanarev, Ph.M., Photon, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

5. Kanarev, Ph.M., Nuclei of Atoms, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

6. Kanarev, Ph.M., Answers to Microworld Questions, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Answers"; retrieved 05/05/2013

7. Kanarev, Ph.M., Introduction to New Electrodynamics, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

8. Travkin, V. S., "Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P (Polyphase-Polyscale-Polyphysics)," "http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn2/index.htm;" retrieved 06/05/2013

9. Travkin, V. S., "What is the Particle Physics Now?" "http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/whatispp/whatispp.htm;" retrieved 08/25/2013

10. Travkin, V. S., "Concepts: HSP-VAT Conceptual Vision and Methods in Application to Particle Physics," "http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/conceptspp/conceptspp.htm;" retrieved 08/25/2013

11. Travkin, V. S., "What's Wrong with Particle Physics and Atomic Science Regarding the Averaging Assessment and Prohibited Idea of Scaling in Them?" "http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/whatwrong/whatwrong.htm;" retrieved 08/25/2013

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

Any information displayed here is the propriatary information in the area of "Quantum Mechanics-Why Not? What's Wrong? Some of the History."

This is also the well known problem - still can not be solved within the Homogeneous One-Scale particle physics, electromagnetism, gravitation theories.

479) UNDER CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT