This article will present various sections from the Monograph by Ruggerro Maria Santilli entitled “Isodual Theory of Matter with Applications to Antigravity, Grand Unification, and Cosmology.” These excerpts are in relation to Santilli’s Isodual mathematics towards the theory of Causal TimeSpace machines. Ruggerro Santilli’s Hadronic Mechanics utilizes a hierarchy of novel mathematics to generalize and uplift classical physics, one type of which was developed to classically treat antimatter.

I don’t necessarily agree with a few of the assumptions put forth such as outdated gaseous models of celestial bodies and relativistic notions of time-dilation,  but still find it highly intriguing. Santilli has amassed a large volume of literature with several practical applications including MagneGas, highly accurate biological modelling, and his so called “anti-matter telescope”, so it  may be worthy of a little investigation.

At the moment I leave Hadronic Mechanics in the “What If” pile of research. Who doesn’t want to consider the possibility of a time machine?

Basic Hadronic Mechanic Resources

http://santilli-foundation.org/news.html

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/

http://www.i-b-r.org/

Here is a great introduction article to Hadronic Mechanics and it’s implications in philosophy by Stein Johansen:
https://www.aetherforce.energy/initiation-of-hadronic-philosophy-by-stein-johansen/


An Interview by Ananda Bosman with Ruggerro Santilli: 
https://www.aetherforce.energy/interview-with-sir-prof-ruggero-maria-santilli-on-the-recent-advancements-of-hadronic-mechanics/

 

Other Hadronic Mechanics Materials on Aether Force

Stein Johansen
Kozyrev’s Flow of Time, Hadronic Mechanics, & Conch Shell Morphology

Rugerro Maria Santilli
Hadronic Mechanics and Insufficiencies of the Standard Model
Undeniable Arguments Against Gravity  

Barry Carter
ORMUS, Magnecules, & Hadronic Chemistry by Barry Carter

HADRONIC MECHANICS

1.5.1 Foreword

The isodual theory of antimatter is a particular case of a broadening of quantum mechanics known as hadronic mechanics. A knowledge of the latter mechanics is mandatory for any treatment of antiparticles, such as antiprotons and antineutrons, beyond the academic abstraction as being point-like, since the latter abstraction is necessary for the applicability of quantum mechanics.

In turn, the representation of antiprotons and antineutrons as they are in the physical reality, extended, nonspherical, deformable and hyperdense, can be best achieved via the study, first, of the representation of extended protons and neutrons within the context of hadronic mechanics, and then the transition to their antiparticle forms via isoduality.

When facing the limitations of special relativity and quantum mechanics for the representation of extended, nonspherical, deformable and hyperdense particles and antiparticles under linear and nonlinear, local and nonlocal as well as potential and nonpotential forces, a rather general attitude is that of attempting their generalization via the broadening into noncanonical and nonunitary structures, respectively, while preserving the mathematics of their original formulation. Despite the widespread publication of papers on theories with noncanonical
or nonunitary structures in refereed journals, including those of major physical societies, it is not generally known that these broader
theories too are afflicted by inconsistencies so serious to be equally called catastrophic.

A central scope of this monograph is the detailed identification of these inconsistencies because their only known resolution is that presented in the next chapters, that permitted by new mathematics specifically constructed from the physical conditions considered.

In fact, the broadening of special relativity and quantum mechanics into noncanonical and nonunitary forms, respectively, is necessary
to exit form the class of equivalence of the conventional formulations.

4.1 THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS OF ANTIGRAVITY

4.1.1 Introduction

Antigravity is one of the most ancient dreams of mankind, that has stimulated the imagination of many researchers, from various engineering fields (see, e.g., Refs. [1,2] that also list patents), to the most advanced branches of physics (see the prediction of antigravity in supergravity theories [3,4] and proceedings [5] for other more recent approaches).

An experiment on the gravity of antiparticles was considered by Fairbank and Witteborn [6] via low energy positrons in vertical motion. Unfortunately, the measurements could not conclusive because of interferences from stray fields, excessive upward kinetic energy of the positrons and other reasons.

Additional data on the gravity of antiparticles are those from the LEAR machine on antiprotons at CERN [7], although these data too are
inconclusive because of the excessive energy of the antiprotons and other factors, including the care necessary to extend the gravity of antiprotons to all antiparticles pointed out in Chapter 2, the proved impossibility for quarks to experience gravity, let alone antigravity, and other factors.

Additional experiments on the gravity of antiparticles are based on neutron interferometry, such as the experiments by Testera [8], Poggiani [9] and others. These experiments are extremely sensitive and, as such, definite and conclusive results continue to be elusive. In particular, the latter experiments too deal with antiprotons, thus inheriting the ambiguities of quark conjectures with respect to gravity, problems
in the extension to other antiparticles, and other open issues.

All further data on the gravity of antiparticles known to this author are of indirect nature, e.g., via arguments based the equivalence principle
(see, e.g., Ref. [10] and papers quoted therein). Note that the latter arguments do not apply under isoduality and will not be considered
further.

A review on the status of our knowledge prior to isodual theories is available in Ref. [11], that includes an outline of the arguments against
antigravity, such as those by Morrison, Schiff and Good. As we shall see, the latter arguments too cannon even be formulated under isodualities, let alone be valid.

We can therefore conclude by stating that at this writing there exists no experimental or theoretical evidence known to this author that is
resolutory and conclusive either against or in favor of antigravity. One of the most intriguing predictions of isoduality is the existence of
antigravity conceived as a reversal of the gravitational attraction, first theoretically submitted by Santilli in Ref. [12] of 1994.

The proposal consists of an experiment that is feasible with current technologies and permits a definite and final resolution on the existence
or lack of the existence of the above defined antigravity.

These goals were achieved by proposing the test of the gravity of positrons in horizontal flight on a vacuum tube. The experiment is
resolutory because, for the case of a 10 m long tube and very low kinetic energy of the positrons (of the order of µeV ), the displacement of the positrons due to gravity is sufficiently large to be visible on a scintillator to the naked eye.

Santilli’s proposal [12] was studied by the experimentalist Mills [13] to be indeed feasible with current technology, resolutory and conclusive.

The reader should be aware from these introductory lines that the prediction of antigravity exists, specifically, for the isodual theory of antimatter and not for conventional treatment of antiparticles.

For instance, no prediction of antigravity can be obtained from Dirac’s hole theory or, more generally, for the treatment of antimatter prior to
isoduality, that solely occurring in second quantization.

Consequently, antigravity can safely stated to be the ultimate test of the isodual theory of antimatter.

In this chapter, we study the prediction of antigravity under various profiles, we review the proposed resolutory experiment, and we outline
some of the far reaching implications that would follow from the possible experimental verification of antigravity, such as the consequential existence of a fully Causal Time Machine, although not for ordinary matter,
but for an isoselfdual combination of matter and antimatter.

[Section 4.2 can be viewed in the first pdf document displayed below. The next section describes the craft.]

 

Antigravity
The experimentalist J. P. Mills, jr., [13] conducted a survey of all significant experiments on the gravity of antiparticles in the field of Earth,
including indirect tests based on the weak equivalence principle and direct experiments with antiparticles, by concluding that the problem is basically unsettled on theoretical and experimental grounds, thus requiring an experimental resolution.

After considering all existing possible tests, Mills’ conclusion is that Santilli’s proposed test [12] on the measurement of the gravitational deflection of electrons and positron beams of sufficiently low energy in horizontal flight in a vacuum tube of sufficient length and shielding, is preferable over other possible tests, experimentally feasible with current technology, and providing a resolutory answer as to whether positrons experience gravity or antigravity.

As it is well known, a main technical problem in the realization of Santilli’s test is the shielding of the horizontal tube from external electric and magnetic field, and then to have a tube structure in which the internal stray fields have an ignorable impact on the gravitational deflection, or electrons and positrons have such a low energy for which the gravitational deflection is much bigger than possible contributions from internal stray fields, such as the spreading of beams.

The electric field that would cancel the Earth gravitational force on an electron is given by

E = me × g/e = 5.6 × 10−11 V/m. (4.2.3)

As it is well known, an effective shielding from stray fields can be obtained via Cu shells. However, our current understanding of the low
temperature zero electric field effect in Cu shells does not seem sufficient at this moment to guarantee perfect shielding from stray fields. Mills [13] then suggested the following conservative basic elements for shielding the horizontal tube.

Assuming that the diameter of the tube is d and the shielding enclosure is composed of randomly oriented grains of diameter λ, the statistical variation of the potential on the axis of the tube of a diameter d would then be [13]

∆V = λ / (d × √π’)  (4.2.4)

As expected, the effect of stray fields at the symmetry axis of the tube is inversely proportional to the tube diameter. As we shall see, a tube
diameter of 0.5 m is acceptable, although one with 1 m diameter would give better results.

Given a work function variation of 0.5 eV, 1 µm grains and d = 30 cm, we would have the following variation of the potential on the axis of the horizontal tube

∆V = 1 µeV.    (4.2.5)

Differences in strain or composition could cause larger variations in stray fields. To obtain significant results without ambiguities for the
shielding effect of low temperature Cu shells, Mills [13] suggests the use of electrons and positrons with kinetic energies significantly bigger than 1 µeV. As we shall see, this condition is met for tubes with minimal length of 10 m and the diameter of 1 m, although longer tubes would evidently allow bigger accuracies.

The realization of Santilli’s horizontal vacuum tube proposed by Mills [13] is the following. As shown in Figure 4.3, the tube would be a long
dewar tube, consisting of concentric shells of Al and Mu metals, with Pb and Nb superconducting shells and an inner surface coated with an
evaporated Cu film.

There should be two superconducting shells so that they would go superconducting in sequence [Nb (9.25 K), Pb (7.196 K)], evidently for
better expulsion of flux. Trim solenoids are also recommended for use within the inner shell and a multitude of connections to the Cu field for trimming electrostatic potentials.

As also shown in Figure 4.3, the flight tube should be configured with an electrostatic lens in its center for use of electron and positron beams in both horizontal directions, as well as to focus particles from a source at one end into a gravity deflection sensitive detector at the other end. The de Broglie wavelength of the particles results in the position resolution

d = 2.4 × π × αB × (c × L) / (v × D’)     (4.2.6)

 

 

where α = 1/137 is the fine structure constant, aB = 0.529˚A is the Bohr radius of hydrogen, c is the velocity of light, v is the electron or positron velocity, L is the length of the horizontal path, and D is the diameter of the lens aperture in the center of the flight tube.

The vertical gravitational deflection is given by

∆y = g × [L2 / (2 × v2′)]     (4.2.7)

Given L = 100 m, D = 10 cm, v/c = 10−5 (i.e., for 25 µeV particles), we have

∆y = 5 mm.     (4.2.8)

For 1meV particles the resolution becomes

∆y = 125 µm.     (4.2.9)

Therefore, one should be able to observe a meaningful deflection using particles with kinetic energies well above the expected untrimmed
fluctuation in the potential.

Mills also notes that the lens diameter should be such as to minimize the effect of lens aberration. This requirement, in turn, dictates the
minimum inside diameter of the flight tube to be 0.5 m.

The electron source should have a cooled field emission tip. A sufficient positron source can be provided, for example, by 0.5 ci of 22Na
from which we expect (extrapolating to a source five times stronger) 3 × 107 e+/s in a one centimeter diameter spot, namely a positron flux
sufficient for the test.

Ideal results are obtained when the positrons should be bunched into pulses of 104 e+ at the rate of 103 bunches per second. Groups of 103
bunches would be collected into macrobunches containing 106 e+ and 20 nsec in duration. The positrons would be removed from the magnetic field and triply brightness enhanced using a final cold Ni field remoderator to give bunches with 104 e+, 10 meV energy spread, an ellipsoidal emission spot 0.1 µm high and 10 µm wide and a 1 radian divergence.

However, stray fields are notoriously weak and decrease rapidly with the distance. Therefore, there is a diameter of the vacuum tube for which stray fields are expected to have value on the axis insufficient to disrupt the test via a spreading of the beams. Consequently, the proposed tests is also expected to be resolutory via the use of very low energy positrons as available, e.g., from radioactive sources.

As a matter of fact, the detection in the scientillator of the same clear gravitational deflection due to gravity by a few positrons would be
sufficient to achieve a final resolution, provided, of course, that these few events can be systematically reproduced.

After all, the reader should compare the above setting with the fact that new particles are nowadays claimed to be discovered at high energy laboratories via the use of extremely few events out of hundreds of millions of events on record for the same test.

The beam would then be expanded to 100 µm×1 cm cross section and a 1 mrad divergence, still at 10 meV. Using a time dependent retarding potential Mills would then lower the energy spread and mean energy to 100 µeV with a 2 µs pulse width. Even assuming a factor of 1,000 loss of particles due to imperfections in this scheme, Mills’ set-up would then have pulses of about 10 positrons that could be launched into the flight tube with high probability of transmissions at energy of 0 to 100 µeV.

The determination of the gravitational force would require many systematic tests. The most significant would be the measurements of the
deflection as a function of the time of flight (enhance the velocity v) ∆v(e±, ±v) for both positrons and elections and for both signs of the
velocity relative to the lens on the axis of the tube, v > 0 and v < 0, the vertical gravitational force on a particle of charge q is

Note that these are not simple averages, but the averages of the running averages. They depend on the direction of the velocity. In the
approximation that there are not significantly different from simple averages, the average of the four deflection ∆y for both positrons and
electrons and for both signs of the velocity is independent of ε and β and it is given by

< ∆y > = (g+ + g) × (L2/v2)    (4.2.14)

where g± refers to the gravitational acceleration of e±. Since we also have the velocity dependence of the ∆y’s, and can manipulate E and B by means of trim adjustments, it will be possible to unravel the gravitational effect from the electromagnetic effect in this experiment.
In summary, the main features proposed by Mills [13] for Santilli’s [12] horizontal vacuum tube are that:

1) The tube should be a minimum of 10 m long and 1 m in diameter, although the length of 100 m (as proposed by Santilli [12]) and 0.5 m in
diameter is preferable;

2) The tube should contain shields against internal external electric and magnetic fields and internal stray fields. According to Mills [13], this
can be accomplished with concentric shells made of Al, double shells of Mu metal, double shells of superconducting Nb and Pb, and a final
internal evaporated layer of fine grain of Cu;

3) Use bright pulsed sources of electrons and, separately, positrons, at low temperature by means of phase space manipulation techniques
including brightness enhancement;

4) Time of flight and single particle detection should be tested to determine the displacement of a trajectory from the horizontal line as a
function of the particle velocity;

5) Comparison of measurements should be done using electrons and positrons traversing the flight tube in both directions.

The use of electrons and positrons with 25 µeV kinetic energy would yield a vertical displacement of 5 mm at the end of 100 m horizontal
flight, namely, a displacement that can be distinguished from displacements caused by stray fields and be visible to the naked eye, as insisted
by Santilli [12].

Mills [13] then concludes by saying that “… an experiment to measure the gravitational deflection of electrons and positrons in horizontal
flight, as suggested by R. M. Santilli, … is indeed feasible with current technologies… . and should provide a definite resolution to the problem
of the passive gravitational field of the positron”.

 

4.3 CAUSAL SPACETIME MACHINE
4.3.1 Introduction

In preceding sections of this monograph we have indicated the far reaching implications of a possible experimental verification of antigravity predicted for antimatter in the field of matter and vice versa, such as a necessary revision of the very theory of antimatter from its classical
foundations, a structural revision of any consistent theory of gravitation, a structural revision of any operator formulation of gravitation,
and others.

In this section we show that another far reaching implications of the experimental detection of antigravity is the consequential existence of a
Causal Time Machine [14], that is the capability of moving forward or backward in time without violating the principle of causality, although,
as we shall see, this capability is restricted to isoselfdual states (bound states of particles and antiparticles) and it is not predicted by the isodual theory to be possible for matter or, separately, for antimatter.

It should be stressed that the Causal Time machine here considered is a mathematical model, rather than an actual machine. Nevertheless,
science has always surpassed predictions. Therefore, we are confident that, as it has been the cases for other predictions, one the Causal Time Machine is theoretically predicted, science may indeed permits its actual construction, of course, in due time.

As we shall see, once a causal Time Machine has been identified, the transition to a causal SpaceTime Machine with the addition of motion
in space is direct and immediate.

4.3.2 Causal Time Machine

As clear from the preceding analysis, antigravity is only possible if antiparticles in general and the gravitational field of antimatter, in particular, evolve backward in time. A time machine is then a mere consequence.

Causality is readily verified by the isodual theory of antimatter for various reasons. Firstly, backward time evolution measured with a negative unit of time is as causal as forward time evolution measured with a positive unit of time. Moreover, isoselfdual states evolve according to the
time of the gravitational field in which they are immersed. As a result, no violation of causality is conceivably possible for isoselfdual states.
Needless to say, none of these causality conditions are possible for conventional treatments of antimatter.

The reader should be aware that we are referring here to a “Time Machine,” that is, to motion forward and backward in time without
space displacement (Figure 4.4). The “Space-Time Machine” (that is, including motion in space as well as in time), requires the isodualities as
well as isotopies of conventional geometries studied in Chapter 3 and it will be studied in the next section.

The inability to have motion backward in time can be traced back to the very foundations of special relativity, in particular, to the basic
time-like interval between two points 1 and 2 in Minkowski space as a condition to verify causality

(x1 − x2)2 + (y1 − y2)2 + (z1 − z2)2 − (t1 − t2)2 × c2< 0.     (4.3.1)

defined on the field of real numbers R(n, ×, I), I = Diag.(1, 1, 1, 1).

The inability to achieve motion backward in time then prevents the achievement of a closed loop in the forward light cone, thus including
motion in space and time, since said loop would necessarily require motion backward in time.

Consider now an isoselfdual state, such as the positronium or the π◦ meson (Section 2.3.14). Its characteristics have the sign of the unit of
the observer, that is, positive time and energy for matter observers and negative times and negative energies for antimatter observers. Then a closed loop can be achieved as follows [14]:

1) With reference to Figure 4.4, expose first the isoselfdual state to a field of matter, in which case it evolved forward in time from a point at time t1 to a point at a later time t2 where the spacetime coordinates verify the time-like invariant (4.3.1) with t2 > t1;

2) Subsequently, expose the same isoselfdual state to a field of antimatter in which case, with the appropriate intensity of the field and the
duration of the exposure, the state moves backward in time from time t2 to the original time t1, where the spacetime coordinates still verify invariant (4.3.1) with t2 < t1 although in its isodual form.

We, therefore, have the following:

PREDICTION 4.3.1 : [14]: Isoselfdual states can have causal motions forward and backward in time, thus performing causal closed loops in the forward light cone.

Note that the above causal Time Machine implies gravitational attraction for both fields of matter and antimatter, owing to the use of an
isoselfdual test particle, in which case we only have the reversal of the sign of time and related unit.

Note also that the use of a particle or, separately, of an antiparticle would violate causality.

Numerous time machines exist in the literature. However, none of them appears to verify causality and, as such, they are ignored.

Figure 4.4. A schematic view of the simplest possible version of the “Time Machine” proposed in Ref. [14] via an isoselfdual state such as the positronium or the π◦ meson that are predicted to move forward (backward) in time when immersed in the gravitational field of matter (antimatter). The Time Machine then follows by a judicious immersion of the same isoselfdual state first in the fields of matter and then
in that of antimatter. No causality violation is possible because of the time evolution for isoselfdual states is that of the field in which they are immersed in.

Other time machines are based on exiting our spacetime, entering into a mathematical space (e.g., of complex unitary character), and then
returning into our spacetime to complete the loop.

Other attempts have been based on quantum tunnelling effects and other means.

By comparison, the Causal Time Machine proposed in Ref. [14] achieves a closed loop at the classical level without exiting the forward
light cone and verifying causality. [4]

4.3.3 Isogeometric Propulsion

All means of locomotion developed by mankind to date, from prehistoric times all the way to current interplanetary missions, have been based on Newtonian propulsions, that is, propulsions all based on Newton’s principle of action and reaction.

As an example, human walking is permitted by the action generated by leg muscles and the reaction caused by the resistance of the feet on
the grounds. The same action and reaction is also the origin of all other available locomotions, including contemporary automobiles or rockets used for interplanetary missions.

Following the identification of the principle of propulsion, the next central issue is the displacement that is evidently characterized by the
Euclidean distance. We are here referring to the conventional Euclidean space E(r, δ, R) over the reals R with familiar coordinates r = (x, y, z) × I, metric δ = Diag.(1, 1, 1), units for the three axes I = I3×3= Diag(1 cm, 1 cm, 1 cm) hereon used in their dimensionless form I = Diag.(1, 1, 1), and Euclidean distance that we write in the isoinvariant form D2 = r2 × I = (x2 + y2 + z2) × I ∈ R.     (4.3.2)

The geometric locomotion can be defined as the covering of distances via the alteration (also called deformation) of the Euclidean geometry
without any use of action and reaction. The only possible realization of such a geometric locomotion that avoid the theorems of catastrophic
inconsistencies of Section 1.5, as well as achieves compatibility with our sensory perception (see below), is the isogeometric locomotion [15b] namely, that permitted by the Euclid-Santilli isogeometry and relative isodistance.

The understanding of the above locomotion requires a knowledge of the isobox of Section 3.2. Consider such an isobox and assume that it
is equipped with isogeometric locomotion. In this case, there is no displacement at all that can be detected by the internal observer. However, the external observer detects a displacement of the isobox the amount x2 − x2/n21

This type of locomotion is new because it is causal, invariant and occurs without any use of the principle of action and reaction and it is
geometric because it occurs via the sole local mutation of the geometry.

The extension to the causal spacetime machine, or spacetime isogeometric locomotion is intriguing, and can be formulated via the Minkowski-Santilli isospace of Section 3.2 with four-isodistance

where n4>0

The main implications in this case is the emergence of the additional time mutation as expected to occur jointly with any space mutation. In
turn, this implies that the isotime tˆ = t/n4 (that is, the internal time) can be bigger equal or smaller than the time t (that of the external
observer).

Figure 4.5. An artistic rendering of the “SpaceTime Machine”, namely, the “mathematical” prediction of traveling in space and time permitted by the isodual theory of antimatter. The main assumption is that the aether (empty space) is a universal medium characterized by a very high density of positive and negative energies that can coexist because existing in distinct, mutually isodual spacetimes. Virtually arbitrary trajectories and speeds for isoselfdual states (only) are then predicted from the capability of extracting from the aether very high densities of positive and negative energies in the needed sequence. Discontinuous trajectories do not violate the law of inertia, speeds much bigger than the speed of light in vacuum, and similarly apparently anomalous events, do not violate special relativity because the locomotion is caused by the change of the local geometry and not by conventional Newtonian motions.

More specifically, from the preservation of the original trace of the metric, isorelativity predicts that the mutations of space and time are
inversely promotional to each others. Therefore, jointly with the motion ahead in space there is a motion backward in time and vice versa.

Consequently, the external observer sees the object moving with his naked eye, and believes that the object evolves in his own time, while in reality the object could evolve far in the past. Alternatively, we can say that the inspection of an astrophysical object with a telescope, by
no means, implies that said object evolves with our own time because it could evolve with a time dramatically different than that after adjustments due to the travel time of light because, again, light cannot carry any information on the actual time of its source.

To further clarify this important point, light cannot possibly carry information on the time of its source because light propagates at the speed c at which there is no time evolution. 

As a concrete example, one of the consequences of interior gravitational problems treated via Santilli’s isorelativity (see Section 3.5) is
that the time of interior gravitational problems, tˆ = t/n4, depends on the interior density n24, rather than the inertial mass, thus varying for astrophysical bodies with different densities. This implies that if two identical watches are originally synchronized with each other on Earth, and then placed in the interior gravitational field of astrophysical bodies with different densities, they will no longer be synchronized, thus evolving with different times, even though light may continue to provide the information needed for their intercommunication.

In particular, the time evolution of astrophysical bodies slows down with the increase of the density,

It should also be noted that the above effect has no connection with similar Riemannian predictions because it is structurally dependent on
the change of the units, rather than geometric features.

A prediction of isospecial relativity is that the bigger the density, the slower the time evolution. Thus, a watch in the interior of Jupiter is
predicted to move slower than its twin on Earth under the assumption that the density of Jupiter (being a gaseous body) is significantly smaller than that of Earth (that can be assumed to be solid for these aspects).

As stressed in Section 4.3.1, the above spacetime machine is a purely mathematical model. To render it a reality, there is the need to identify the isogeometric propulsion, namely a source for the geometric mutations of type (4.3.5).

Needless to say, the above problem cannot be quantitatively treated on grounds of available scientific knowledge. However, to stimulate the
imagination of readers with young minds of any age, a speculation on the possible mechanism of propulsion should be here voiced.

The only source of geometric mutation conceivable today is the availability of very large energies concentrated in very small regions of space, such as energies of the order of 1030 ergs/cm3. Under these conditions, isorelativity does indeed predict isogeometric locomotion because these values of energy density generate very large values of isounits ˆI, with very small values of the isotopic element Tˆ, resulting in isogeometric locomotions precisely of type (4.3.5).

The only possible source of energy densities of such extreme value is empty space. In fact, according to current views, space is a superposition of positive and negative energies in equal amounts each having extreme densities precisely of the magnitude needed for isogeometric locomotion.

The speculation that should not be omitted in this section is therefore that, one day in the future, the advancement of science will indeed allow  to extract from space at will all needed amounts of both positive and negative energy densities.

In the event such an extraction becomes possible in a directional way, a spaceship would be able to perform all desired types of trajectories, including trajectories with sharp discontinuities (instantaneous 90 degrees turns), instantaneous accelerations, and the like without any violation of the law of inertia because, as indicated earlier, the spaceship perceives no motion at all. It is the geometry in its surroundings that has changed.

Moreover, such a spaceship would be able to cover interstellar distances in a few of our minutes, although arriving at destination way
back in the time evolution of the reached system.

Science has always surpassed science fiction and always will, because there is no limit to the advancement of scientific knowledge. On this
ground it is, therefore, easy to predict that, yes, one day mankind will indeed be able to reach far away stars in minutes.

It is only hoped that, when that giant step for mankind is achieved, the theory that first achieved its quantitative and invariant prediction,
Santilli isorelativity, will be remembered.

Notes

1 Again, the author would appreciate the indication of similar contributions prior to 1974.
2 The author would appreciate being kept informed by experimentalist in the field.
3 The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to T. Goldman for the courtesy of bringing to his attention the important references [22–29] that could not be reviewed here for brevity, but whose study is recommended as a necessary complement of the presentation of this monograph.
4 The indication by colleagues of other versions of the spacetime machine with a proved verification of causality without existing from
our spacetime would be appreciated.
5 By “isoinvariance” we means invariance under conventional space or spacetime symmetries plus the isotopic invariance.
6 According to the contemporary terminology, “deformations” are alterations of the original structure although referred to the original
field. As such they are afflicted by the catastrophic inconsistencies of Section 1.5. The term “mutation”, first introduced by Santilli in Ref. [21] of 1967, is today referred to an alteration of the original structure under the condition of preserving the original axioms, thus requiring the formulation on isospaces over isofields that avoid said theorems of catastrophic inconsistency.

 

References

[1] D. H. Childress, The Antigravity Handbook, Network Unlimited Press, Stell, Illinois (1983).

[2] B. C. Ebershaw, Antigravity Propulsion Devices, D&B Associates, New York (1980).

[3] J. Sherk, Phys. Letters B 88, 265 (1979).

[4] J. Sherk, contributed paper in Supergravity, P. van Neuwenhulzen and D. Z. Freedoman, Editors, North Holland, Amsterdam (1979).

[5] M. Holzscheiter, Editor, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Antimatter Gravity, Sepino, Molise, Italy, May 1996, Hyperfine Interactions, Vol. 109 (1997).

[6] W. M. Fairbank and F. C. Witteborn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1049 (1967).

[7] R. E. Brown et al., Nucl. Instr. Methods, Phys. Res. B 26, 480 (1991).

[8] G. Testera, Hyperfine Interactions 109, 333 (1997).

[9] R. Poggiani, Hyperfine Interactions 109, 367 (1997).

[10] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and A. Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman, San Francisco (1970).

[11] M. M. Nieto and T. Goldman, Phys. Reports 205, 221 (1991), erratum 216, 343 (1992).

[12] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. 17, 257 (1994).

[13] J. P. Mills, jr., Hadronic J. 19, 1 (1996).

[14] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. 17, 285 (1994).

[15] R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Vols. I [15a] and II [15b], Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Second Edition (1995).

[16] R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. D 7, 351 (1998).

[17] D. Lovelock and H. Rund, Tensors, Differential Forms and Variational Principles, Wiley, New York (1975).

[18] R. M. Santilli, Ann. Phys. 83, 108 (1974).

[19] R. M. Santilli, Hyperfine Interactions, 109, 63 (1997).

[20] R. M. Santilli, contributed paper to New Frontiers in Hadronic Mechanics, T. L. Gill, Editor, Hadronic Press (1996), pp. 343-416.

[21] R. M. Santilli, Nuovo Cimento 51, 570 (1967).

[22] T. Goldman and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Lett. 112B, 437 (1982).

[23] T. Goldman, M. V. Hynes and M. M. Nieto, Gen. Rev. Grav. 18 67 (1986).

[24] N. Beverini et al., “A Measurement of the Gravitational Acceleration of the Antiproton,” LA-UR-86-260, experimental proposal submitted to CERN).

[25] T. Goldman, R. J. Hughes and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Rev. D 36, 1254 (1987).

[26] T. Goldman, R. J. Hughes and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Lett. 171B, 217 (1986).

[27] T. Goldman, R. J. Hughes and M. M. Nieto, in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Antimatter Physics at Low Energy, ed. by B. E. Bonner, and L. S. Pinsky, Fermilab (April 1986), p. 185.

[28] T. Goldman, R. J. Hughes and M. M. Nieto, in Proceedings of Second Conf. on the Intersections Between Particle and Nuclear Physics, (Lake Louise, May1986), AIP Conf. Proc. 150, ed. by D. Geesaman, p. 434.

[29] T. Goldman, R. J. Hughes and M. M. Nieto, in Proceedings of the GR11 Conference, Stockholm July 1986.

 

Read the Full Document and Other Related Resources on Santilli Time-Space Machines Here:

ISODUAL THEORY OF ANTIMATTER by RUGGERRO SANTILLI

Santilli Isodual Theory Antimatter


ISODUAL THEORY OF MATTER SANTILLI by P. M. Bhujbal 

Santilli Isodual Theory article


ISO-, GENO-, HYPER-MECHANICS FOR MATTER, THEIR ISODUALS, FOR ANTIMATTER,
AND THEIR NOVEL APPLICATIONS IN PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY ANDBIOLOGY

Iso-Geno-Hyper-paper


SPACE TIME MACHINE by RUGGERRO SANTILLI
(DOWNLOAD THIS ONE TO VIEW PROPERLY AS THE SCAN HAS PAGES IN DIFFERENT ORIENATIONS)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-10.pdf

 


DOWNLOAD THE HADRONIC MECHANICS COLLECTION HERE:
https://mega.nz/folder/vZUEjRyT#q7cCTj_kAjj5BfpgS_aGvw