Subtle is the Math


The Mystery of Mathematics

What is possible, what is necessary, and what is impossible in the Nature?
This is what philosophers try to respond, from the epistemology of modality. The
philosophers are analyzing such a quest on by starting from the viewpoint that
some laws of quantum theory, despite seemed to be impossible, are necessary,
because were confi rmed by math and experiments. But are we sure that what the

math is pointing to us is exactly what we think it is pointing to? Here such question is analyzed, because the author’s eff ort to eliminate a paradox, in his theory of electric fi elds composed by fermions of the quantum vacuum, revealed to him something much more important than the own elimination on of the paradox, because he fi nally understood that what is subtle is not the Lord, as supposed by Einstein. What is subtle is actually the Mathematics. Thereby, before trying to respond the question on what is possible, necessary, or impossible in Nature, we have to be sure about what the math is pointing out to us. The most reasonable should be to suppose that it’s impossible that the imaginary number plays any role in the physical mechanisms from whichNature works. And that, as the quantum theorists use the imaginary number in their mathematics, the conclusion is that they use a math that proves that the impossible is possible.
Nevertheless, as will be shown here, the own Lord did be possible what seems to
be impossible.This is illustrated in the cover of the book: in the fraction of seconds
when the Universe was being created, the Lord pushed “-1”, forcing it to enter
inside the square root.

UGS : ND Catégories : , Auteur : .

Extraits du livre

the magnetic moments of many of those excited nuclei are not quoted in nuclear tables. A good reason to suppose that they are not quoted because they have null magnetic moments. Therefore cannot be detected by experiments, which explain why they are not quoted in nuclear tables.

So, I wrote a paper, entitled “Proposal of an experiment able to eliminate the controversy: are right, or wrong the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Theory?”, and submitted it to European Physical Journal A, in 15-Oct-2018.

The Editor-in-Chief, Prof Maria Borge, rejected the paper with the following Report:

Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A  « Hadrons and Nuclei ». The content of the article is not correct. It try to generalise the absent of data of magnetic moments for the 2+ states of conjugated nuclei to invalidate theory. Some of the cases you mentioned has been measured and there are good agreement with shell model calculations. I recommend you to read, for instance,  PRL114 (2015)062501 and even the old compilation of NJ Stone, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Table 90 (2005) 75 where some magnetic moments for 2+ states are already given.

Therefore, I cannot accept your contribution for publication in EPJ A.”


I have read that paper published in 2015 by Physical Review Letters, and I discovered the following error in the procedure of calculation:

  • The authors have considered that excited 12Mg24 has spherical shape. And for their calculations, they used a nuclear table, published by S. Raman in 2001.
  • But in 2012 the journal Nature published a paper, regarding an experiment which detected that nuclei with pair numbers Z of protons and N of neutrons have not spherical shape. This experimental finding of 2012 had demonstrated to be correct the prediction in the page 137, of my book Quantum Ring Theory, that atomic nuclei with Z pair, being Z=N, actually have ellipsoidal shapes.
  • Therefore, they had wrongly used the Raman’s table, which after 2012 no longer can be applied for pairs Z=N nuclei.

So, I wrote a new paper, entitled “Mandatory check for Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic Nuclei”, in which is showed that Physical Review Letters had published in 2015 a paper where a wrong math procedure is applied, and I submitted it to European Physical Journal A.

The paper was rejected by the Editor-in-chief Maria Borge, with the following Report:

Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A  Hadrons and Nuclei. However, the subject of this paper is outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A.
Therefore, I cannot acce
pt it for publication in EPJ A.”


The paper was published by Physics Essays in July 2019 – with the title “Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for the calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z=N even-even nuclei”.


Informations complémentaires

Format livre

542 pages

ISBN livre



Livre papier

A propos de l'auteur : Wladimir Guglinski

Wladimir Guglinski

Graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1973 at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, in 1989 a tragic event changed his perception of life and the world, and he felt the need to verify that what physicists had discovered really represented the exact picture of what exists in nature. Physicists say that the merit and veracity of a scientific theory are evaluated through the scientific method, whose fundamental parameter of confirmation is the confrontation of theory with experimental verification. Therefore, physicists guaranteed that, because they are totally faithful to the scientific method, if you develop a new theory, elaborated on new foundations and it is confirmed by experiments, then they will accept your theory. He believed what physicists say, that scientists are totally loyal to the scientific  method. And since he was sure that some principles adopted in physics could not be correct, so if he could find new principles that would eliminate the paradoxes, and his new theory gained experimental proof, physicists would recognize his theory, and accept it. confident in the fidelity of physicists to the scientific method, he decided to undertake an investigation. He abandoned engineering and dedicated himself to pursuit a new scientific truth. And he discovered new fundamentals of physics. But he also discovered something as surprising as the new fundamentals: he discovered that physicists lie, claiming that they are totally faithful to the scientific method.