In 1993 Guglinski had undertaken a deep investigation in the field of Nuclear Physics. And he has arrived to the conclusion that any current nuclear model, (where a nucleon moves - having interaction with other ones - by only Coulomb forces, strong nuclear forces, and spin-interactions) is not able to reproduce the nuclear magnetic moment of some nuclei.

So he understood that there was need to consider a model where the nucleons are captured by a sort of strings formed by magnetons. Obviously there was need to consider a source for the production of the strings, and then he had concluded that all nuclei have a central nucleon 2He4, responsible for the production of the strings. Later he has realized that even-even nuclei with Z=N, formed by nucleons captured by those strings (composed by a flux of magnetons) could not have null magnetic moment, and therefore there was need to suppose that those strings were formed by a flux of other elementary particles of the aether, instead of magnetons. And so the magnetons were replaced by gravitons.

Several hexagonal floors are formed around the central 2He4, with each of the 6 corners occupied by a deuteron. Due to Coulomb repulsions, the six deuterons oscillate, in order that the structure of oxygen-16 is not a flat hexagon. Actually it assumes an ellipsoidal shape. All the light even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape. Silicon-28 is formed by two complete parallel hexagonal floors. The new nuclear model was baptized as “Hexagonal Floors Model”. With the growth of the quantity of hexagonal floors, even-even nuclei approach the spherical shape, as for instance the 92U.

According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have ellipsoidal shape (a dogma in which nuclear physicits believed along 80 years). And therefore the nuclear model with hexagonal floors could not be considered seriously by nuclear theorists, because they knew not only that the principles of the SNP requires a spherical shape for those nuclei, but also because they knew those nuclei have null electric quadrupole moment, and therefore it was mandatory they have spherical shape. Besides, as in that new nuclear model there is a central 2He4, and the nucleons are captured by a string formed by a flux of gravitons (instead of be bound by strong nuclear force, as considered in all current nuclear models), the nuclear theorists had more strong reasons why do not consider seriously a “strange” model formed by hexagonal floors.

Obviously the author was aware that a paper, proposing the exotic new nuclear model, would never be accepted for publication in any reputable peer journal of physics. That’s why in 2004 he has decided to meet his several papers in a book form, and to look for a publisher. In the end of 2005 an editor has accepted to publish it, and the book was published in August 2006, with the title Quantum Ring Theory (QRT).

This is how was born the new nuclear Hexagonal Floors model, as explained in the paper “On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation”:

https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/a ... 330114/149

In 2012 the dogma (in which the nuclear theorists believed along 80 years) was brought down by an experiment published in the journal Nature: the experiment confirmed that silicon-28 (as also the light even-even nuclei with Z=N) has not spherical shape. They have ellipsoidal shape, as predicted correctly in Guglinski’s book published in 2006.

As many new experiments coming to light after 2009 were evidencing that the current foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong, in 2016 Guglinski decided to undertake a new challenge: to write new papers, so that to prove that the new foundations proposed in this Quantum Ring Theory are correct.

The first paper was entitled “Re-evaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta dacay”, in which Claudio Nassif contributed with some comments, because his Symmetric Special Relativity (SSR) and Guglinski’s theory are complementary. Both theories have as fundamental background the existence of a non-luminiferous aether, and whereas Guglinski’ research is in the field of atomic and nuclear physics, Nassif’s theory is an evolution of Einstein’s theory (as Einstein's relativity was an evolution of Newton's classical theory).

The paper was submitted to the Pramana Journal of Physics in the beginning of 2016, with Nassif as co-author. When the paper was rejected by the editor of Pramana, it was submitted to other journals, as the International Journal of Modern Physics, Canadian Journal of Physics, Physical Review Letters, European Physical Journal, and others. All them declined.

In this first paper is proposed a new experiment, and if be performed in the Jefferson Lab, the result can comprove the new model of neutron proposed by Guglinski, as seen in the Abstract:

"Another published paper of the author proposes that proton and neutron radii have contraction inside the atomic nuclei, generating a discrepancy of 8s between the neutron lifetime measured in beam and bottle experiments. According to the present theory, the neutron radius in beam experiments dilates from 0.26fm up to 0.87fm during the initial 8s, after which begins the process of decay. The present paper proposes a new neutron model with quark structure d(u-e-u), with an electron sandwiched between two up quarks. It reproduces very well all neutron properties, as for instance the radial charge distribution, impossible to be reproduced considering the current quark model ddu. So, the radial charge distribution of neutrons (obtained from beam experiments, if measured in the first initial 8 seconds of their lifetime) has to exhibit a curve a little different of that measured in 2007 in the Jefferson Lab. Here is proposed to JLab to repeat the experiment under such new condition."

Since 2008 Nassif’s papers have being published in the most reputable journals, as seen in the References of the paper “Re-evaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta dacay”, published in 2018 by International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences:

https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/a ... 330112/143

Because his SSR is being published in several reputable mainstream journals of physics, and his theory defies the current theories (where it is missing the contribution of the aether for the production of physical phenomena), Nassif is victim of persecution of his colleges in the university where he teaches theoretical physics. And he was afraid that, being co-author of a paper published by an alternative journal as IJFPS, the persecution of his colleges would be worst. That’s why he asked to Guglinski to remove him as co-author.

In 2016 Guglinski has also faced other challenge. He started up a new research to prove that (from his new nuclear model) it is possible to get success in an enterprise in which have succumbed all the current nuclear models (developed under the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics): to calculate with good accuracy the magnetic moments for all the light atomic nuclei.

The success of such enterprise is shown in three papers:

1- “Calculation of magnetic moments for light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30”:

https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-a ... nd-z30.pdf

2- "Testing the equations of the new nuclear model of Hexagonal Floors"

This paper will be published by SciFed in August.

Beyond the successful calculation of magnetic moments for several light atomic nuclei, the paper also shows that from the new foundations proposed by Guglinski it is possible to explain an enigma which invalidates all the current nuclear models: the reason why even-even nuclei with Z=N, excited with spin 2, have null magnetic moment (impossible to explain by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics).

3- "Mathematical confirmation for the nuclear properties K(O)= K(Ca)= ½.K(Si)= ½.K(Fe)"

Also will be published in August.

The paper shows that each hexagonal floor works as a magnet (and this is one among the reasons why many nuclear properties cannot be explained by the current nuclear models). Oxygen and calcium isotopes have one magnet (in calcium isotopes two hexagonal floors cancel each other their magnets). Therefore, due to the charge of protons, the rotation of oxygen and calcium isotopes induce the same magnetic induction-factor: K(O)= K(Ca). Unlike, silicon and iron isotopes have two magnets. That’s why the rotation of silicon and iron isotopes induce the same magnetic induction-factor, K(Si)= K(Fe), and they are twice of the induction-factor for oxygen and calcium isotopes: K(Si)= K(Fe)= 2.K(O)= 2.K(Ca) The calculation of magnetic moments gives values very close to the experimental data.