[Turkmath:7863] Darkmatter

4 Eyl 2011 Paz 12:57:34 EEST

İlginç bir konu. İlgilerinize sunarım.
Saygılar.
Not: Bu konu fizikçiler için de ilginç olabilir. Fizikçilere aktarabilirseniz sevinirim.
:::::::::::::::::::::

Critical comments would be appreciated

INFORMAL SUGGESTIONS ON THE REPLACEMENT OF SUPERSYMMETRIES, DARK MATTER AND ALL THATRuggero Maria SantilliThe Institute for Basic Research, Florida, U.S.A.basicresearch at i-b-r.org
Dear Colleagues,
According  to widespread views, recent experiments at CERN have disproved the  validity of supersymmetries, dismissed the existence of the hypothetical  dark matter, and stimulate a call for a more appropriate theoryhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=beautiful-theory-collideshttp://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106674
Our  group has independently reached the same conclusions. In fact, we have  established experimentally the redshift of light propagating within  physical media without any relative motion, thus achieving a numerical  representation of the dynamics of galactic stars via the mere loss of  energy by light to the innergalactic medium without any need for  hypothetical conjectures. Additionally, we have identified decades ago  serious structural inconsistencies of  the supersymmetric theories, and  presented other views fully aligned with the indicated recent trend. The  astrophysical implications will be discussed at our forthcoming  meeting 
San Marino Workshop on Astrophysics and Cosmology for Matter and AntimatterSeptember 5 to 9, 2011http://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/
Workshop Aimhttp://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/workshop_aim.html
Experimental Confirmation of Santilli IsoShiftshttp://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/isoshifts.php
In  view of the above, I have been asked by various colleagues to outline  my views in the replacement of supersymmetries, dark matter and all  that, which I do below.
INITIAL DYNAMICAL CONSIDERATIONSMy  first suggestion is to resist the temptation of studying the problem at  the sole phenomenological level, but first examine the ultimate  dynamical foundations, and study phenomenology only thereafter.
Supersymmetries  can be connected to time evolutions of a (Hermitean) operator A  characterized by a combination of Lie and Jordan products
(1)            i dA/dt = (A, H) =  m [A, H] + n {A, H} = m (AB - BA) + n {AB + BA}
where m, n, m \pm n are non-nu scalars (see below for matrices) and the product AB  is associative.
Time  evolutions of type (1) are a particular case of the  Lie-admissible and  Jordan-admissible time evolutions I introduced in the mid 1960s as part  of my thesis for the graduate school (see the first paper [1] and  others of that period in my CV) which I wrote in the infinitesimal form
(2)            i dA/dt = (A, H) = p AH - q HA = m [A, H] + n {A, H},  p = m + n,  q = n - m
as well as in the exponentiated / finite form
(3)          A(t) = U(t) A(0) W^+(t) = [exp(i H q t)] A(0) [exp(- i t p H)].
with corresponding classical counterparts here ignored for brevity.
Hence, on dynamical grounds, supersymmetric structures of type (1) are a particular case of the (p, q)-deformations of Lie algebras. As  an incidental note, my late fried Larry Biedenharn knew paper [1] well,  but for some reason elected to launch in 1986 the smaller class of  q-deformations (with p = 1) without its quotation, an occurrence that  caused my dubbing as "the most plagiarized physicists of the 20th  century" due to the enormous number of papers in q-deformation without  quotation  of their origination  in my 196 paper.The irony is that, by  1986, I had abandoned the field because of very serious structural  inconsistencies identified below
I should  recall that a nonassociative algebra with product (A, B) is called  Lie-admissible (Jordan-admissible) when the attached totally  antisymmetric product [A, B]* = (A, B) - (A) (totally symmetric product  {A, B}* = (A, B) + (B, A)) verifies all Lie axioms (all Jordan axioms).
My  first objective was to replace the notorisous time-reversal invariant  character of quantum mechanics with a covering irreversible mechanics.  To do that, I had to break the symmetry of the Lie product under  anti-Hermiticity, [A, B] = - [A, B]^+. After years of search during my  graduate studies, Lie-admissible algebras turned out as being the best  for such a physical objective, as it is still the case today, since  Lie-admissible algebras are "structurally irreversible, in the sense  that A, B) \ne - (A,B)^+. Copnsequently, time evolutions are distinctly  different for motions forward and backward in time.
A  second objective was the representation of interactions not derivable  from a potential that, when combined with irreversibility, demand the  :nonconservation of the energy. Lie-admissible algebras also assure that  property since we generally have the energy releases to the environment  of the type
(4)              i dH/dt (H, H) = f(t) \ne 0.
Another  objective was to indicate that Jordan's dream of physical applications,  while notoriously impossible for Jordan algebras per se, becomes  possible in broader  Jordan-admissible algebras. In this way, rather  than being useless in physics, Jordan algebra have a very deep role,  particularly for the characterization of the irreversible component of  scattering processes,  that is still vastly unexplored to this day (see  comments below).
In summer 1967 I left my chair  in nuclear physics at the Avogadro Institute in Torino Italy, and moved  with my young family to  the University of Miami in Coral Gables,  Florida, to discover that Lie-admissible/Jordan admissible algebras were  completely unknown in the U. S. scientific community of the time, with  the sole exception of the late mathematician Marvin Tomber (who  subsequently became a good fiend of mine I still miss). Since I had a  family to feed and shelter,  I was forced to abandon the study of  Lie-admissible/Jordan-admissible mechanics and pass to write Phys. Rev.  papers which I did for a decade.
UNIVERSAL COVERING OF SUPERSYMMETRIESWhen  I became a member of Harvard University in 1977, I was requested by  David Peaslee of the DOE  to resume the study of Lie-admissible and  Jordan-admissible mechanics which I did with great appreciation (I had  met David during my preceding stay at MIT from 1974 to 1977 and informed  him about the implications of the new irreversible mechanics,  particularly for new energy processes, since they are notoriously  irreversibe). 
My first observation was that time  evolution of supersymmetries or, equivalently, of (p, q)-deformations  of Lie algebras, is characterized by a nonunitary transform. The  second observation was that the action of such a transform on the  dynamics produces the most general known  algebra as commonly understood  in mathematics (see the origination memoirs [2.3] of April 1978  subsequently formulated more rigorously in the monographs at  Springer-Verlag [4] I wrote when at MIT, and initially released as MIT  preprints, to be finalized when I was at Harvard, all works done under  DOE support I keep appreciating)
(5)         i dA/dt = (A, B)*  = P(A, B)Q^+ = ARS - BSA = (ATB - BTA) + (AJB + BJA) =                     = [A, B]*  +  {A, B}*,   PP^+ \ne I,  QQ^+ \ne I,  PQ^+  \ne I,
(6)             A(t) =  [exp(i H S t)] A(0) [exp(- i t R H)]
with Lie-isotopic particularization ("isotopic" being referred to the verification of all abstract Lie axioms)
(7)            i dA/dt =  ATB - BTA) = [A, B]*  
(8)             A(t) =  [exp(i H T t)] A(0) [exp(- i t T H)]
where  now R, S, T, J, R \pm N are nonsinguar ooperators or matrices but  otehrwise possess a totally unrestricted, non-linear non-local  integro-differential and non-Hamiltonian  functional dependence on all  possible variables, including time t, coordinates r, velocities v,  accelerations a, wavefunctions \psi, their derivatives, etc. 
I  also realized in the original memoirs [2,3] that  the product (A,B)* of  Eqs. (5) is "directly universal" in the sense of admitting all possible  produces of an algebras (universality)  without the need of  transformations (direct universality). In fact, the algebra with product  (A, B)* admits as particular cases: associative, Lie, Jordan,  Lie-isotopic, Jordan-isotopic,, supersymmetric, Kac-Moody,  nilpotent,flexible and any other possible algebras (defined as a set of  elements equipped with a bilinear composition verifying the right and  left distributive and scalar laws over a field of characteristic zero ).
Therefore, I proposed in memoirs [2.3] the construction of an irreversible covering of quantum mechanics (QM) under the name ofhadronic mechanics (HM),  and proved in Section 5 of memoir [3] its application to particle  physics via the representation, for the first time to my knowledge, of  "all" characteristics of the \pi^o meson in its synthesis from an  electron and a positron, e^+ + e^- => \pi^0 
Colleagues  should be aware that this result is impossible via QM because the rest   energy of the \pi^0 is 133 MeV "bigger" than the sum of the rest  energies of the electron and positrons, thus demanding a "positive  binding energy" under which the Schroedinger equation becomes  inconsistent. Section 5 of Ref. [3] essentially showed that a nonunitary  lifting of the Schroedinger equations resolved the insufficiency of  quQM thanks to the admission of "non, non, non" interactions due to  total wave overlapping of  the constituents, followed by the known  annihilation.
 I called the new mechanics  "hadronic" for its primary intent of being applicable in the interior of  hadrons, thus the interior of nuclei, stars, quasars and black holes,  under the condition of recovering QM uniquely and identically for all  exterior dynamics in vacuun, trivially achieved for R = S = T = I.  More  generally, HM recovers QM automatically, by constructioon, for all  "exterior dynamical probles" (point-partices and elm waves propagating  in empty space, thus solely admitting potential interactions) and solely  applies for "interior dynamiocal probens" (extended, therefore  deformable and nonspherical particles and elm waves propagating within  physical media, thus admitting potential as well as "non, non, non"  interactions).
The general Lie-admissible and  Jordan-admissible equations (5), (6) were suggested for the treatment of  irreversible events, while the simpler Lie-isotopic  equations (70, (8)  were suggested for reversible processes with "non, non, non" internal  interactions, as it is the case for the synthesis of the \pi^0, the  neutron and otehr hadrons. The rudiments of the Lie-admissible and  Lie-isotopic coverings of Lie's theory (nowadays known as Santilli  Lie-admissible and Lie-isotopic theories) were proposed in the first  memoir [2] to  as an evident necessary premise for phenomenological  elaborations.
By recalling that special  relativity and quantum mechanics are reversible over time,  a widespread  v20th century iew was that irreversibility is only "apparent" (sic!)  because, when  irreversible systems are reduced to their elementary  constituents, irreversibility "disappears" (sic!), and one recovers nice  QM particles in reversible conditions. By contrast, the first exercise I  requested to my graduate students was the proof of the following 
NO  REDUCTION THEOREM: An irreversible system cannot be consistently  reduced to a finite number of elementary constituents all in reversible  conditions and,  vice versa, a finite number of elementary particles all  in reversible conditions cannot possibly characterize an irreversible  system.
Lagrange and Hamilton proposed  their historical equations with external terms (truncated during the  20th century to achieve compatibility with special relativity and  quantum mechanics, but assued at the foundation of my works [4,10,11])  precisely to represent the irreversibility of nature. The above theorem  implies that, rather than "disappearing"  to fix things, irreversibility  originates at the most ultimate and elementary level of nature, e.g.,  for a spaceship during reentry in atmosphere, irreversibility originates  from the "non, non, non" interactions caused by the mutual penetration  of the peripheral electron orbitals of the spaceship with corresponding  electron orbitals of our atmosphere.
A point  important to prevent embarking physics into another generation of  experiments doomed to failures from their inception, is that the  irreversibility of high energy inelastic scattering processes simply  does not "disappear" with the reduction of the scattering region to nice  hypothetical quarsks and other intermediate hypothetical particles all  in reversible conditions and, consequently, said irreversibility must be  addressed to prevent the waste of anotehr generation of studies.
 THE LABORIOUS JOURNEY FOR MATURITYThe  abiove steps released in April 1978 [2,3] were the initiation of a long  journey that remains mostly unknown to  colleagues in supersymmetries,  dark matter and the like, to their peril. To prevent the indicated risk  of another generation of failed efforts, I believe it is important that  the scientific process underlying the construction of HM be subjected to  collegial scrutiny because the problems apply to ALL nonunitary  generalizations of QM, thus including most supersymmetric models,  quantum gravity, etc.
As indicated above, the  basic dynamical equations of HM are directly universal. Consequently,  the Lie-admissible and Jordan-admissible characters are preserved under  the most general known (non singular) nonunitary transforms, e.g.,
(9)                  P[(A, B)*]Q^+ =   A' R' B' - B' S' A' 
 (10)                 A' = PAQ^+ ,   B' = PBQ^+,  
(11)                   R' =  (PQ^+)^-1 (PRQ^+) (PQ^+)^-1 ,    (12)                    S' = (PQ^+)^-1 (PSQ^+) (PQ^+)^-1 
The  first crucial point for the replacement of supersymmetries is that,  even though algebraically magnificent, transformations (9) are a total  disaster from a physical viewpoint. This is due to the fact that in an  interior problem (think at the interior of a high energy scattering  region) all conventional potential interactions are represented with the  usual Hamiltonian H, while all "non, "non, non" interactions are  represented with the R and S operators. Consequently, the maps R =>  R' and S => S' of Eqs. (11), (12), represent the transition from one  event to another, e.g, from the Higgs boson to the neutralino or  whatever else.
The second point important for  the replacement of supersymmetries is the following. We physicists are  accustomed to what I have called  "the majestic axiomatic structure of  quantum mechanics" because it assures: the preservation over time of the  numerical value of the units used in measurement; the same numerical  predictions under the same conditions at different times; the  preservation of Hermiticity (thus observability) under the time  evolution of the theoryl and other features crucial for physical  consistency particularly needed in the conduction of experiments. Most  colleagues assume that these majectic properties are preserved for  whatever generalized  theory we like! Unfortunately, this is not the  case, as expressed by the following
INCONSISTENCY  THEOREM (see Ref. [5] with large preecding literature): When formulated  via the mathematics of quantum mechanics (Hilbert spaces over a field  of complex numbers, etc.) nonunitary time evolutions are afflicted by  the following inconsistencies:
1) Lack  of preservation over time of the numerical value of the units used for  measurements (from the very definition of a nonlinear transform);
2) Lack of prediction of the same numerical values under the same conditions at different times;
3) lack of preservation over time of Hermiticity, with consequential loss of observability (Lopez lemma);and others.
Any  theory that deviates from the unitary character of the time evolution  of QM, and is treated with the QM formalism,  is afflicted by the above  inconsistencies. This is the case also for supersymmetries since they  generally require a deviation from the conventional unitary  characterization of  Lie's theory. This is a reason I had anticipated  the recent experimental dismissal of supersymmeytries at CERN.
The  resolution of the above catastrophic inconsistencies  required indeed a  long series of trials and errors over decades. In fact, the  Lie-admissible / Jordan-admissible branch of HM reached maturity only  recently in the 2006 memoir at Il Nuovo Cimento [6] thanks to the  construction of a new mathematics specifically constructed for the scope  at hand.
I cannot possibly review in an  informal email the new mathematics and its resolution of the  catastrophic inconsistencies (see the letures for the general physics  audience of Level II in the WLS [9]). However, I believe that it is  important to convey at least some central points. We all know how to  formulate potential interactions in a way invariant over time. The new  task is that of formulating in a way equally invariant over time  interactions that are not representable with a Hamiltonian by central  assumption. The results of decades of studies of this problem is the  following.
The new "non, non, non" interactions  are represented in HM by the R and S operators. The ONLY possible way  to achieve the needed invariance is to embed them in generalized units   since the units are the basic invariant of all possible theories. This  simple condition led to the formulations of TWO new mathematics, first  achieved in the mathematical memoir [7] of 1996, one with generalized  unit
(13)         I^>(t, r, v, a, \[so, \partial\psi,...) = 1 / S
with all products ordered to the right, representing motion forward in time, and a second mathematics with generalized unit 
(14)           <^I(t, r, v, a, \psi, \partial\psi, ...) = 1 / R
   and all products ordered to the left, representing motion backward in  time. The difference of the above two units assures irreversibility. The  entire mathematics of QM had to be reconstructed twice, one for motion  forward and the second for motion backward in time.
Let us recall  that, despite their irreversibility, the total energy is conserved in  deep inelastic scattering processes. Therefore, I have to recall for the  non-expert in the field that Lie-admissible time evolutions elaborated  with the old mathematics of Lie's theory evidently imply the  non-conservation of the energy because i dH/dt - H(R + S)H \ne 0.  However, when Lie-admissible theories are elaborated with their own  mathematics, the total energy is indeed conserved because the term HRH  computed with respect to the generalized unit ^<I = 1/R yields the  same numerical results of the term HSH computed with respect to the  generalized unit I^> = 1/S, and we can write

(15)       i dH/dt  =  (H, H)* = HRH_{1/R}  -  HSH_{1/S}  =  0.

This  occurrence can be best illustrated by nothing that the elaboration of  Lie;\'s theory with the Lie-admissible mathematics is the same nonsense  as elaborating Lie-admissible theories with Lie's mathematics.

The  invariant formulation of the original parametric (p, q)-deformations of  QM, Eqs. (2), (3), was achieved in the 1997 paper [8]. The invariant  formulation of the universal, operator, (R, S)- Lie-admissible /  Jordan-admissible equations required several additional years of work,  and was achieved in the 2006 memoir [6]. 
The theoretical conclusion of my fifty years of studies in irreversibility are the following:
1)  A broadening - covering of QM is unavoidable because the No Reduction  Theorems prohibits the representation of interior structural problems  via the riversible linear formalism of QM. The historical value of  supersymmetries is their manifestation of such an inevitable advance.
2)  The sole true broadenings of QM are those characterized by "non"  unitary time evolutions, since all remaining presumed broadenings in  reality belong to the unitary class of equivalence of QM. 
3)  The only axiomatically consistent nonunitary broadening of QM that  bypasses the inconsistency theorems is HM in its various branches [9].  In view of the direct universality of Lie-admissible / Jordan-admissible  algebras, any claim of novelty over HM is vacuous.
I  should indicate that most irreversible processes can be studied in good  first approximation via the simpler Lie-isotopuc formalism of HM, and  then pass to a full Lie-admissible / Jordan-admissible treatment. as An  illusytrtation, the propaghation of light within physical media can be  consistently studied via the Kie-isotopuc formalism becaiuse the  additional Jordan-isotopic contribition solely represent the dispersion  of the beam considered.
Colleagues interested  in acquitting a technical knowledge of the field, may first listen to  the series of lectures [9], then inspect the detailed presentation in  Ref.s [10] with upgrade and experimental verifications in monographs  [11].
I should indicate that a large number of  mathematicians, theoreticians and experimentalists have contributed to  the study of Lie-admissible / Jordan-admissible and their Lie-isotopic  particularization (see the 50 pages long bibliography in Vol. I of Ref.  [11]).
I can only mention here the initiation  in the 1990s by John Ellis and his group at CERN [12] of irreversible,  Lie-admissible studies of the structure of astrophysical bodies. It is  unfortunate that, for some reason, John did not continued these studies,  thus preventing astrophysics from passing to the inevitable higher  level of direct compatibility with thermodynamical laws 6]. The  continuation of these stiudies would also have promoted a bigger  awareness at CERN of the need serious consideration of irreversible  contributions in the notoriously irreversible, high energuy particle  experiments.
I finally mention the work by  Steven Adler [13] who, immediately following the the appearance of  memoirs [2.3], essentially proposed the study of the Lie-admissible  covering of supersymmetries. Hence, even though supersymmetries were  identified as particular cases of Lie-admissible algebras in Refs.  [2.3], the origination of the proposal of this email (replace  supersymmetries with Lie-admissible theories) can be identified as being  due to Steven Adler in 1978. It is also unfortunate for particle  physics, as well as for his people and for the IAS in Princeton, that,  for some reason, Steven too halted his research in the field immediately  following the appearance of the imortnt paper [13]. In fact, by knowing  Steven's capability, had him continued the research in the field,  particle physics would be nowadays at a much more advanced stage.

EXPERIMENTAL IMPLICATIONSThe  most important lesson that should be gained from the recent  experimental dismissal at CERN of supersymmetries and related  conjectures is that particle physics laboratories should hereon no  longer spend public money in testing theories that are catastrophically  inconsistent on dynamical grounds, particularly when the theory to  be tested is unable to predict the same numerical values under the same  conditions at different times. The inconsistency  theorems for  nonunitary extensions of quantum theory have been published in various  refereed journals and, therefore, the fact that they are not widely  spoken, does not void hereon their existence.
Once  the axiomatic consistency of a nonunitary theory has been verified by  theoreticians, experimentalists have to face a number of rather radical  and simply unavoidable departures from conventional, 20-th century,  experimental settings, such as:
1) Absence of new particles. The  continued 20th century process of trying to predict new particles and  then attempting their experimental verifications is halted by  Lie-isotopic or Lie-admissible formulations because they provide a more  detailed representation of processes without any need for new particles.  The best illustration is the first known, quantitative, time invariant  representation of "all" characteristics of the neutrons in its synthesis  from a proton and an electron in the core of stars (see review [14] for  both nonrelativistic and relativistic derivation and original  literature quoted therein). This representation is another case for  which HM was proposed [2,3] because QM provides no  quantitative  treatment due to the fact that the mass of the neutron is bigger than  the sum of the masses of the proton and the electron, thus calling for a  "positive binding energy" which is anathema for QM. In Ref. [15] I was  forced to introduce the "etherino" under repeated stressing that it does  not refer to a new hypothetical particle but solely represent the  "process" of transferring the missing energy, spin and other quantities  from the environment to the neutrinos. Quarks are reduced to what they  are, mathematical representation necessary for the excellent SU(3)-color  Mendeleev-type classification of hadron. The point is that quarks  cannot be even defined in spacetime, thus stimulatig a "necessary return  to sanity in physics" (as stated by Karl Popper following the appearace  of Refs. [2.3]). It is hoped that the recent experimental disproof at  CERN on supersymmetries signals the end of the now futile search for new  hypothetical particles.
2) Mutation of intrinsic characteristics.Lie-isotopic  and Lie-admissible formulations require a revision of the numerical  value of the masses of hypothetical particles mediating high energy  scattering processes, because nonunitary interactions imply new  renormalization (called mutations) of all intrinsic characteristics of  particles, beginning with their mass, but also including spin and other  characteristics. In plain language, I  exclude that an electron in the  core of a black hole has the same characteristics as those when rotating  in vacuum around a proton in the hydrogen structure (that would imply  perpetual motion within physical media!). To conduct studies that may  resist the test of time, I have to identify the most general possible  deviations of conventional intrinsic characteristics in interior  conditions and make final selection depending on experimental result,  rather than preset theologies. In short, the very value of the mass  of the Higgs boson, let alone its existence, is in doubt  once we admit  the reality of  "non, non, non" interactsions in the interior of the  scattering region due to the absence in nature of "point-like  wavepackets," as onfirmed by 96% of the experimental results at CERN  analyzed so far. This second implication  is best identified by the covering scattering theory of hadronic mechanics studied in details at the 2011 Nepal International Conference on Lie-admissibille Treatment of Irreversible processes (see the five papers by Santilli and Animalu in Proceedings [16]).
3) Frequency shifts without relative motion.My  former colleague at Harvard, Halton Arp, discovered in the 1970s  quasars physically connected to associated galaxies, yet with  dramatically different cosmological redshift [17], thus providing  evident of clear violations of Einstein special relativity in cosmology  (under which validity, quasars and galaxies should have been separated  billions of years ago). The isotopies of spacetime symmetries (known as  the Galilei-Santilli (GS) or the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli (LPS) isosymmetries [10],  see also Lecture IIIA of WLS [9]) predict the existence of a redshift  of the frequency of light propagating within physical media at low  temperature without any relative motion 9first proposed in Ref. [18] of  1991)  by providing a time invariant, causal and numerical  representation of the different redshifts in Arp's associated  quasars-galaxies [19]. Following two decades of dismissal by  laboratories around the world to test my 1991 predictions of anomalous  shift, I conducted the experiment myself in a 60 feet long pressure tube  [20] (see also Ref.s [21,22]). This anomalous shift has now been  independently verified as merely consisting in the release of energy by  light to the medium at low temperature (IsoRedShift), or in the gain of  energy by light from the medium when at high temperature (IsoBlueShift)  [23,24]. This provides a numerically exact and time invariant  representation of the dynamics of galactic stars as due to energy loss  by light to the innergalactic medium, without any need for the  hypothetical dark matter  (that, debides derailing tye attention from  the evident departure from special relativity, has not represented the  intended data in clear terms). The redness of the Sun at Sunset has been  experimentally established as being due to IsoRedShift in our  atmosphere without any relative motion, thus eliminating the universe  expansion, acceleration of the expansion and the big bang (all mandating  a return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe to  maintain the validity of special relativity in cosmology). The  elimination of dark energy is based on the IsoBlueShift of light and its  implication that the total energy of the universe is about 80 times  that believed until now, without any need of the hypothetical dark  energy (that, in any case, according to Einstein gravitation,  would  imply the contraction rather than the acceleration of the expansion of  the universe)/ All these and other advances studied at our forthcoming  meeting http://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/   suggesting a much needed return to sanity in astrophysics and cosmology.
4) Arbitrary speeds of light.Another  implication of the LPS isosymmetry is the prediction of completely  arbitrary speeds of light within physical media in a fully causal and  time invariant way [18,10].  This prediction has been experimentally  confirmed by the pioneering tests conducted by Enders and G. Nimtz  [25,26] via the transmission of elm waves at speed bigger than c when  propagating within certain guides, thus within a physical medium. The  same preduction of arbitrary speeds bigger than c has been confirmed by  ALL fits of experimental data in particle physics (see Vol. IV of Ref.  [11]). It should be noted that this aspects is achieved by preserving  the quantized "absorption" of light for suitable frequencies as stated  by Einstein, but on the impossibility of reducing any elm waves to  photons during its "propagation" within a physical medium because  excessive insufficiencies, such as   inability to represent  quantitatively: the angle of refraction; the reduction by anput 1/3 of  the speed; the propagation along a straight line with minimal diffusion;  the diffraction; etc., besdes the inability of reducing to photons elm  waves with large wavelength that mandates a return to the Maxwellian  conception of light as a wave with local speed C = c/n.
5) Surpassing special relativity.Even  though not admitted for some reason, supersymmetries do imply a  structural surpassing of special relativity because the application of  their time evolution to relativity axioms implies their broadening. The  replacement of supersymmetries with Lie-isotopic or Lie-admissible  theories renders mandatory the surpassing of special relativity within  physical media (only!) in favor of a covering formulation. By recalling  that no change of light is conceivably possible without an alteration of  spacetime, the most fundamental implication of the studies herein  considered is that the presence of matter (or energy) implies a  structural change of spacetime characterized by the mutation of the  Minkowski metric into the most general known symmetric metric in  (3+1)-dimensions under the universal Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli  isosymmetry  that that provides the invariance as particular cases  Minkowskian, Riemannian, Finslerian and any otehr geometry ion  (3+1)-dimension (Lecture IIIA [9], and refs. [10,18]). All aspects  considered above, as well as in the about 20,000 pages of publications  to date, are a mere consequence of this primitive geometric aspect.  Einstein stated quite clearly that his theory was valid under the  following three conditions: A) for point particles and elm waves; B)  moving in empty space; and C) referred to inertial systems. By  maintaining the exact validity of special relativity under these  conditions (e,g., for atomic structures, particles in accelerators,  etc.), it is time for physics laboratories to admit that the violation  of any one of conditions A, B, C implies the inapplicability of special  relativity as technically discussed by experimentalists at the  forthcoming San Marino meeting. This implies that special relativity  in its 20th century formulation is nowhere exact for the interior of  hadrons as well as of high energy particle experiments (see Vol.IV of Refs. [11] for numerous experimental fits). Even at the astrophysical level, the above evidence implies that special relativity (also in its 20th century formulation) is nowhere applicable in the universe, because  intergalactic and innergalactic spaces are physical media, while matter  stars, quasars and black holes constitute physical media of high  density. The inapplicability of special relativity for antimatter stars,  quasars and black holes is established by numerous evdience, such as  the lack of any distinction between neutral matter and antimatter and  otehr insufficiencies [27]. After all, to prevent the abuse of the name  of Albert Einstein, colleagues are expected to admit that antimatter was  discovered years following the formulation of special relativity. What  the physics community does not appear to have understood (with due  numerous exceptions) and, if so, not to have appreciated to its peril,  is that, rather than abusing the name of Albert E Einstein for  conditions dramatically beyond those of the original conception and  experimental verification, I have honored Albert Einstein by preserving  his axioms at the abstract level and broadening the conditions of their  applicability via broader "realizations" permitted by new mathematics  specifically built in His Honor.

REFERENCE
[1] R. M. Santilli,  Nuovo Cimento {\bf 51}, 570 (1967), available in free download from the link\\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-54.pdf
[2] R. M. Santilli, "  Hadronic J. {\bf 1}, 223-423 (1978), available in free pdf download from \\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-58.pdf
[3] R. M. Santilli,   Hadronic J. {\bf 1}, 574-901 (1978), available in free pdf download from \\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-73.pdf
{4]  R. M. Santilli, {\it Foundation of Theoretical Mechanics,} Volume I  (1978) [10a], and Volume II (1982) [10b], Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,  Germany, available as free download from\\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-209.pdf \\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-69.pdf
[5] R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. {\bf 14}, 3157 (1999, available as free download from\\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-104.pdf  
[6]  R. M. Santilli, ''Lie-admissible invariant representation of  irreversibility for matter and antimatter at the classical and operator  levels,"   Nuovo Cimento B {bf 121},  443 (2006), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Lie-admiss-NCB-I.pdf
[7] R. ~M.~Santilli,  Rendiconti Circolo Matematico Palermo, Suppl. {\bf 42}, 7-82  (1996), available as free download from\\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-37.pdf  
[8] R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. {\bf 27}, 1159 (1997), available in free pdf download from the link \\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-06.pdf  
[9] J.Pace, Chairman, World Lecture series http://www.world-lecture-series.org/  
[10] R. M. Santilli,  {\it Elements of  Hadronic Mechanics},Vol. I  and II (1995), Second Edition,Academy of Scienceshttp://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-300.pdf\\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-301.pdf  
[11]   R. M. Santilli, {\it Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry,},  Vols. I, II, III, IV, and V, international academnioc press, (2008),  http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm  
[12]  J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos in Proceedings of the  Erice Summer School, 31st Course: From Superstrings to the Origin of  Space-Time, World Scientific (1996).
[13] S. Adler, Phys. Rev. 17, 3212 (1978) 
[14]  J. V. Kadeisvili, "The Rutherford-Santilli neutron."  html version http://www.i-b-r.org/Rutherford-Santilli-neutron.htm free pdf downloadhttp://www.i-b-r.org/Rutherford-Santilli-II.pdf "> http://www.i-b-r.org/Rutherford-Santilli-II.pdf  
 [15] R. M. Santilli "The etherino and the neutrino hypothesis,"  Found. Phys 2007; 37, 670, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/EtherinoFoundPhys.pdf
[16] C. Corda, Editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Lie-admissible Treatment of irreversible processes,Kathmandu University, Ne[pal, 2011http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Nepal-2011.pdf
[17] H. Arp, Frontiers of Fundamental Physics,   Barone M. and Selleri F. editors. Plenum 1994.
[18] R. M. Santilli,  {\it Isotopic Generalizations of Galileiand Einstein Relativities,} Vol.~I (1991) [12a] and Vol. ~II (1991) [12b],  HadronicPress, Palm Harbor, Florida, available in free pdf download from\\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-01.pdf\\http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-61.pdf
[19] R. Mignani, "Quasars redshifts in iso-Minkowski spaces," Physics Essay 1992; 5, 531, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-31.pdf
 [8] R. Mignani, "Quasars redshifts in iso-Minkowski spaces," Physics Essay 1992; 5, 531, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-31.pdf
[20]  R. M. Santilli,  The Open Astronomy Journal, 2010, Vol. 3, page 1-43m http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf
[21] R. M. Santilli, Contributed paper in the  Proceedings of the International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics,Rhodes, Greece, September 19-25, 2010,   T. E. Simos, Editor,  AIP Conference  Proceedings Vol. 1281, pp. 882-885 (2010)http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Isoredshift-Letter.pdf  [22] R. M. Santilli, Contributed paper  in Cosmology, Quantum Vacuum, and Zeta Functions,  Diego Sáez-Gómez • Sergei Odintsov  Sebastià Xambó Editors, Springer, 2011.http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Isominkowskian-Geom.
[23] R. Anderson, "Confirmation of Santilli IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift,"http://www.santilli-foundation.org/icnf.html
[24]  G. West and G. Amato, "Independent experimental confirmation of  Santilli IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift," to ppears as lecturte in WLS [9]  as well as in the proceedings of the 2011 San marino Workshop.
[25] A. Enders and G. Nimtz, "On superluminal barrier traversal," Journal Phys 1. France 2 (1992), 1693-1698. 
]26]  G. Nimta,  D"Do evaniscent modes violate relativistic causalituy?"  Lectures Notes in OPhysics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg (2006).}
[27] R. M. Santilli, {\it Isodual Theory of Antimatter with Applications to Antigravity, GrandUnifications and Cosmology,} Springer (2006).

TO  UNSUBSCRIBE 

please send an email to
sf-list-request at santilli-foundation.org 

with the word "unsubscribe" in the "Re:" section
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
The R. M. Santilli Foundation's mailing list
Sf-list at santilli-foundation.org
http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/sf-list

P.S...Support  www.ieja.net by publishing  papers.

 Prof.Dr.Abdullah Harmancı

Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Matematik Bölümü
Beytepe,Ankara
Türkiye.

harmanci at hacetepe.edu.tr,

www.ieja.net

http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~harmanci/     

-------------- sonraki bölüm --------------
Bir HTML eklentisi temizlendi...
URL: <http://yunus.listweb.bilkent.edu.tr/cgi-bin/mailman/private/turkmath/attachments/20110904/e18a567f/attachment-0001.htm>