منتديات سودانيزاونلاين    مكتبة الفساد    ابحث    اخبار و بيانات    مواضيع توثيقية    منبر الشعبية    اراء حرة و مقالات   
News and Press Releases    اتصل بنا    Articles and Views    English Forum    ناس الزقازيق   

Home Search

Board Laws

Articles

Refresh

المنبر العام
Sudanese Videos

Archives

News in English

News in Arabic

Welcome Guest [Login]
Your last visit: 01-29-2023, 04:05 PM Home

Articles and ViewsWhy I Challenged the 2022 Nobel award in Physics for Photon and entanglement!
Printable Version   Forward   Threaded View « Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Jump to newest reply in thread »

Why I Challenged the 2022 Nobel award in Physics for Photon and entanglement!

12-03-2022, 04:37 PM
محمود الحاج يوسف
<aمحمود الحاج يوسف
Registered: 04-11-2017
Total Posts: 17





Why I Challenged the 2022 Nobel award in Physics for Photon and entanglement!

    04:37 PM December, 03 2022

    Sudanese Online
    محمود الحاج يوسف-Sudan
    My Library
    Short URL


    (Open Letter to Noble Prize Committee for Physics)

    To the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Subject: Why I am challenging your 2022 Nobel award in Physics to photon and entanglement related experiments!
    Alsalam Alikum (Peace upon You)
    At the end of 2001, or early 2002, I submitted a manuscript title “The Magnetic Interaction” to your reputable journal “Physica Scripta,” then on 17 June 2002, I received a replay from Prof. H. Pécseli, Department of Physics, University of Oslo, stated that, the editorial office in Stockholm forward him the paper, unfortunately, the referee unambiguously arguing against publication of the paper, then he apologized for unusually long refereeing period stating, “because it turned out to be difficult to find a referee willing to take responsibility of the paper,” and that the submission of a revised version also added to the delay [1].
    The report of the refereed, Ref. HP-173 [2] stated that:
    I have tried to read this paper as carefully as possible, in the original as well as in the revised version, the latter being slightly easier to read, mainly because of the improved typography. I am not able to recommend the paper for publication.
    It seems to me that the present paper is questioning the basic, hitherto accepted, expression and interpretation of the magnetic (Lorentz) force on charge particles as exerted by a magnetic field. Now this is a rather ambitious project: to justifying it one must be able to point to shortcomings of the existing model and its interpretation, remedy these, but do it in such a way that the cases where the previously accepted models agreements with observations are retained. It is for instance a result demonstrated to all necessary accuracy that a stationary magnetic field cannot energize a charge particle, since the force and the displacement are perpendicular to each other. Nevertheless, the author seems to claim in the beginning of Sec. 1:3 that work is done, Also, I fail to find a single reliable observation, which cannot be explained by existing models for the magnetic force. The fig. 1 used for discussing this problem is to me quite incomprehensible. It might be (I am not so certain) that there are some discrepancies between the energetic of charged particles as observed in the Earth’s near space, and some simplified models involving chock acceleration, as argued in the introduction, if so, the shortcomings are to be found in our understanding of the rather complicated dynamic process in the plasmas of our solar system, and not the basic physical law, which is experimentally verified to high accuracy.
    -End of the report-.
    During three years (2001-2003), I sent the paper to many journals including “Nature;” after three years full of frustrations, I published it in then internet journal of “The Theoretics” [3], latter scientists don’t want to recognized it because it was not published by a “peer reviewed journal,” while as mentioned all peer reviewed journals refused to publish it, even to hear my view, mainly because I am “questioning the basic, hitherto accepted, expression and interpretation of the magnetic (Lorentz) force on charge particles as exerted by a magnetic field,” as stated by your journal [2]; but did this really the truth؟ Or there is unspoken reason, which will become clearer.
    While reviewing the scientific history, I realized the formula I based my hypothesis in “The Magnetic Interaction” [3], was long been searched for, and it caused great disputes in the history of science, when Ørsted discovered the relation between magnetism and electricity in 1820, after which Ampere investigated it and published his electrodynamic theory, as he couldn’t justify the mechanism behind his force, he resorted to the concept “action at distance,” that was criticized by Ørsted, Biot, Savart, Faraday and Grassmann, who presented a mechanism based on “field concept,” but Ampere challenged them to derived a formula articulating that, when they failed Ampere stated “mathematics is important than mechanism” that started the mathematization of the physical science [4], ironically, the main formula in the article, rejected by your “Physica Scripta” introduced this long awaited formula, for the first time, and it managed to unified all the magnetic forces including (Lorentz) in one pattern of formula!
    The phrase “action at distance” used by Ampere, led to the emergence of the concept “entanglement,” described by Einstein as “spooky action at distance;” as both concepts emerged from Ampere’s “action at distance,” the main reason behind that was the failure by scientists since 1820 to response to Ampere’s challenge, although it was directed to Ørsted, Biot, Savart, Faraday and Grassmann, but in reality it was directed to all scientists everywhere, and at anytime, accordingly, my paper to your journal in 20002, titled “The Magnetic Interaction” [3], should have been considered from that perspective.
    Michael Faraday as one of the greatest scientists with great vision, introduced the concept “Line of force,” and he believed it could solve the “Ampere force” stating, “when they shortening or repelling each other, that produced the force” [5], which I named “magnetic force,” while Maxwell professed knowing the formula will enlarged human knowledge, when scientists discovered it [6], again when Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction in 1831, he explained it using this concept “Lines of Force,” but his contemporary scientists rejected his theoretical ideas, mainly because it was not backed with mathematical formula [7], unfortunately he couldn’t derived that formula, and for the second time his ideas of “Line of force” was rejected.
    Later, when Maxwell took Faraday’s lines of force, he worked on it with great devotion to derive the missing formula [5], but he failed to derive that specific formula, after which he diverted his attention to the vortices, his version of my Circular Magnetic Field (CMF) [8]. Great Einstein spent his last thirty years searching for this formula, to create the unified field theory to describe all the forces of nature and to demystify the quantum world [9]; even Feynman draw the circular line of force, and for sure he searched for the formula, which could have justified that drawing [10], as seen many Westerns scientists spent a lot of time searching for this formula, in nineteenth and twentieth century but in vain, later when I realized the importance of this formula not only for magnetic field, I generalized it, naming it “Field Interaction Formula,” in “The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces” by including the electric field in the generalized version, which can explain the interaction of any field [11], including the gravitational field, if it really existed [12]. As seen this formula is very important, because it showed the mechanism through which different magnetic and electric forces works, based on Faraday’s concept of lines of force as given in “The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces” [11], thus this formula crushed one of the fundamental concept in mathematical physics, that is the “action at distance” and its derivative “entanglement,” regardless of this formula, but you are trying to resurrect this concept through your decision to awarded 2022 Noble prize in physics to three quantum physicists for their experiments with the entangled photon [13]! Although both the “action at distance” and “entanglement” were been crashed by my “field interaction formula” in both “The Magnetic Interaction” [3] and “The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces” [11], thus you are completely wrong in that.
    As mentioned Einstein spent thirty years searching for the “field concept” formula to demystify the quantum world [9], although he initiated the emergence of Quantum Mechanics (QM), when he introduced the quanta (photon) in 1905 to knock electron from atom and to solve the mystified photoelectric effect [14], although he was awarded Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, but he doesn’t know what photon is, as he spent fifty years thinking about photon, this means the whole period after he first introduced quanta (photon) to existence in 1905, stating before the end of his life in 1955 “These days, every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong,” adding at different event “Every physicist thinks that he knows what a photon is, I spent my life to find out what a photon is and I still don’t know it” later he added “All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to the answer to the question: What are light quanta؟ Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself” [15].
    When Einstein introduced quanta (photon) in 1905, most scientists criticized that, including Millikan, Lorenz, Planck [16], and Bohr [17]; in 2015, I demonstrated with strong evidence, the correctness of those scientists, when I derived the missing formula, which proved a Magnetic Radiation Force (FmR) is embedded in electromagnetic radiation, as given by Eq. (24) in “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model,” when the force derived from the formula is multiplied on electron’s mass, it gives electron the momentum needed to leave the atom [18], and I can speculate, Einstein spent the fifty years not only thinking about photon [15], rather he was thinking about how to derive our Eq. (24) too [18].
    The discovery of this formula (24) supposed to represent a landmark in the physical science, because it exposed and shaken the credibility of the existence of the quanta (photon) for the first time since introduced in 1905; and as mentioned above, Einstein stated “All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to the answer to the question: What are light quanta؟ Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself” [15], the name photon which referred to the quantum of electromagnetic radiation, was coined by Gilbert Newton Lewis in 1924 [15]; but why Einstein described anyone who claimed to know photons as “rascal” although he doesn’t have such strong evidence like Eq. (24) which crumbled the quanta (photon) [18]؟ Maybe because he knows his formula of mass energy equivalent was misused by Compton, as I concluded in “Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum” [12]; therefore, this formula is the strongest evidence for the nonexistence of photon, showing the committee was totally wrong in awarding 2022 Noble prize in physics to Bell experiment that claimed the entanglement of photon, as if you are trying to resurrect this photon once again after its death by Eq. (24) [13]!
    Your decision to celebrate the “entanglement” which is the byproduct of the “action at distance” a simplest concept Ampere resort to, after failing to explain how the currents in the two conductors produced the Ampere force, that failure is akin to the failure by Einstein to justified how electromagnetic radiation removed electron from an atom, forcing him to use the massless photon to knock electron from an atom, strangely enough nobody questioned oneself how a massless photon can acquired momentum to knock a massive electron (compared to photon with zero mass)؟ Or an action at distance can produced a force (unless though magic)؟ Thus my strong justification to challenge these two odds concepts is based on the Eq. (A) in “The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces.” [11], and Eq. (24) in “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model” [18], thus the failure to get both formulas created the odd concepts; but the question which should worried scientists, what is your intention to resurrect these two concepts, when they were proved to be completely wrong, instead of throwing them in dustbin, you celebrate them with this prestigious Noble prize؟
    Before answering this, let us asked ourselves what Quantum Mechanics (QM) is, and is there any problem in physics؟ And what damage our two formulas inflicted on QM؟
    During eighties and nineties, many used to think the problem in physics started in early twentieth century, and there was a call to the Congress and the
administration to fully funded the America COMPETES Act, which would double the level of basic research supported by the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies [19], and physicists were working hard to develop a fundamental theory [20], while the string theorists hoped, it would unify all the four fundamental forces of nature [20]; but when tracing the history of science, I found that the gravity was interpreted by Newton in 1686 as an innate attraction between every pair of particles of matter [21], the failure to know that innate and how it works, makes gravity the first force to be conceived as “action at a distance” [22], although puzzle had created scientific debate around it, with some doubts [23], then came Ampere’s electrodynamics in 1820, which was the second major problem in classical physics, the failure by Ampere’s opponents to derived an alternative formula, strengthened the conviction in the magical “action at distance” leading many to believed in that magic resulted in the emergence of “entanglement” as one of the jargon of QM.
    The great achievement by Max Planck in showing the discrete nature of the energy of electromagnetic radiation in 1900 [24], was diverted by Einstein when he introduced quanta (photon) to knock electron from atom in the photoelectric effect [14], then the quanta (photon) was misinterpreted by Compton who interpreted the Compton Effect, while misusing Einstein’s mass-energy equivalent formula in 1921 to state that “a radiation quantum carries with it momentum as well as energy” [25], the interpretation of that experiment was rejected by some scientists, including Raman, who stated that “the classical wave-principles are not easily reconcilable with Compton effect because they have not been correctly interpreted,” [26], thus these failures by the classical physics to explain both phenomenon, led to the establishment of the Quantum Mechanics (QM), which was “discovered in the search for a mathematical scheme to explain classically unsolvable problems like the photoelectric effect, and why hydrogen atom radiates certain colors of light; it was formulated by dozen major physicists over 25 years, each discovered an essential piece of the puzzle, the mathematics moved farther with each piece away from our reality” [27], thus from the previous background, we can realize that, this mathematical scheme started by Ampere in 1820, when he defended his formula which was based on “action at distance” stating “mathematics is important than mechanism” [4], he launched that concept to justified his failure to explained the mechanism of his law, this fact blinded scientists afterwards from deepened their search for the mechanism represented by the “field concept,” although as stated many scientists since then searched for the “field interaction formula,” like Ørsted, Biot, Savart, Faraday and Grassmann [4], Maxwell [8], these failures compounded with Einstein’s quanta (photon), finally led to the establishment of QM lacking mechanism and common sense [28], and as stated by Raman “the classical wave-principles are not correctly interpreted” [26], he was correct, because the failure resulted from the missing of the crucial “field’s interaction formula,” and the failure to use the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF) produced by electric current (later realized to be produced by energetic charged particles), the moment this formula was discovered as I did in my first paper “The Magnetic Interaction” in 2003 [3], submitted to your journal in 2001/2002, although it was rejected, but it gave me the bases to solve all the unsolvable experiments in classical physics which led to the establishment of quantum mechanics [27], these experiments were:
    • In 1905 Albert Einstein introduced quanta (photon) to knock electron from the atom in “The Photoelectric Effect” [14], I re-explained this in “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model” by deriving Eq. (24), which showed the magnitude of Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR) embedded in the electromagnetic radiation, the FmR varied with frequency, thus given the related specific momentum to the electron, differ from each material to other, based on work function, the FmR removed electron from atom in photoelectric effect, based on radiation frequency, thus shows there is no need for photon [18].
    • In 1921 Arthur H. Compton explained “The Compton Effect” [25], leading to the recognition of the photon as a massless particle embedded electromagnetic radiation, I re-explained the experiment in “The Compton Effect Re-Visited,” illustrating the production of secondary electromagnetic radiation [29]
    • We exposed the misuse of Einstein formula of mass-energy equivalent by Compton, we showed how it’s impossible to be used as a momentum in electromagnetic radiation, where (E=m.c^2=h.c/λ) dividing each part on c it becomes (p=mc=h/λ), the two ends formed the base of the formula which convinced scientists, not aware about the formula at the center, regardless of its serious fraud and trick, as analyzed in “Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum” [12], I wonder how scientists accepted such severe mistakes without question؟
    • We explained “The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained” classically for the first time in history of science [30], regardless of the famous quote by Richard Feynman that, “we choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which is in the heart of quantum mechanics” [31].
    • We explained the “Electron Diffraction” in the “Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals),” this experiment which was in the core of wave-particle duality, was explained classically [32], this stripped quantum from one of its main evidence.
    • We re-explained the Stern-Gerlach Experiment which claimed charged particles have two spins in "Explaining the Stern-Gerlach Experiment: Using the Spinning Magnetic Field (SMF)." [33], we explained this regardless of Bohr, Pauli, and Mott believed this experiment can’t be explained classically [34], but we explained it and showed the mistake by the experimenters in their interpretation and illustrated my simple version.
    • Although I first presented an atomic model in “The Magnetic Interaction” [3], then I generalized it in “The Photoelectric Effects-Radiation Based With Atomic Model” [18], finally I concluded that, any electron in an atom is stabilized by the balance of both the Magnetic Force (Fm) and the Centripetal Force (FC) this is explained in "Explaining the Stern-Gerlach Experiment: Using the Spinning Magnetic Field (SMF)" [33].
    Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R) [35] and the developed Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) [36], can’t showed what’s “in-between” mechanics that causes an atom’s motion to be turned into an Electromagnetic Wave (EM-W) [37], they can’t even answer a simple question on what and how electric and magnetic fields emerged from, when and how both electric and magnetic fields integrated to produced the Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R), thus I suggested the “The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism” [38], and its energy in “Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant” [39], then I explained the Compton Effect as a production of secondary EM-R [29], I also explained details structure of the Spinning Magnetic Field (SMF-B1U) produced by proton [40], its unique characteristics in hydrogen atom produced the seven series of the spectral lines in hydrogen atom, then I elaborated details on how electromagnetic radiation is generated in "Explaining the Stern-Gerlach Experiment: Using the Spinning Magnetic Field (SMF)" [33].
    The “field interaction formula” managed to produce these papers, which demystified the quantum world, in a manner never imagined by Einstein, whose aim was to do the same [9], the formulas given by Eqs. (3). (5) and (8) in “The Magnetic Interaction” [3], and generalized by Eq. (A) in addition to the three magnetic forces, as it also solved the electric force in “The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces” [11], this finally ended 200 years quest for “field’s interaction formula,” and after the above brief historical background, and the disputes arises during the search for this formula, leading to mathematization of the physics by Ampere, then the mathematization trend by Gauss's and Weber's theories [41], which was finally generalized through the establishment of Quantum Mechanics, a history which supposed to be known to editors-In-Chief of different scientific journals, thus my paper “The Magnetic Interaction” [3] illustrated how I managed to resolved that quest, corrected and restored the natural mechanism and common sense to the physical world, after been striped by QM [29], all these were based on the discovered “field’s interaction formula” which supposed to represents a great achievement to attained the scientific truth, and this is the same formula presented to your journal “Physica Scripta,” in 2002, but since the referee in his report Ref. HP-173 [2], argued against the publication of “The Magnetic Interaction” [3], I would take this opportunity to exposed his decision from the points and analysis raised in his report [2]:
    • First I illustrated the shapes of the Circular Magnetic Fields produced by two conductors carrying electric currents shown in Fig. 1; the mechanism of the formula is based on these lines of force, as perceived by Faraday [5].
    • The paper didn’t only presented new interpretation for the magnetic (Lorentz) force as stated by the referee, but it solved all magnetic forces based on Faraday’s line of force, thus it solved and gave mechanisms for the following three magnetic forces:
    • The repulsive and attractive force between two conductors carrying electric current known as Ampere force, the force is due to the attraction and repulsion between lines of force illustrated in Fig. 2, they produced the attractive and repulsive magnetic forces given by Eq. (3).
    • The Catapult force or the motor effect force is given by Eq. (5) (we didn’t draw this due to space).
    • The Lorentz force is a magnetic force resulted from an interaction between electron’s Circular Magnetic Field (CMF-B2e) and any Magnetic Field (B1), its mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 3, and its formula is given by Eq. (8).
    • My scheme as suggested is an ambitious project, but I thought anyone who read my paper can realized how its different from the current model which was rejected by Ørsted, Biot, Savart, Faraday and Grassmann, even the developed one, but enforce by Ampere’s formula, then Ampere insisted “mathematics is important than mechanism” [4], my model in addition to the formulas it also contain the mechanism on how it works, cancelling the action at distance which generates entanglement.
    • The referee claimed quote “I fail to find a single reliable observation, which cannot be explained by existing models for the magnetic force.” This is untrue, how can you compare between this logical explanation and the imaginary concept of “action at distance,” which doesn’t have any mechanism؟ And its unscientific in principle, in comparison with my formula and mechanism explained in [3] and [11].
    • He stated that, “the Fig. 1 used for discussing this problem is to me quite incomprehensible,” but Fig. 1, illustrated the shape of the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF) produced by electric current in two conductors moving in the same direction, and two conductors each having current in opposite directions, even Feynman draw it before [10], this produced the force given by Eq. (3) and illustrated in Fig. 2, thus the figure explained the mechanism of the formula, which is in the core of the disputes between Ampere and his opponents in 1820, who draw the figure [4], but the lack of knowing how it works and the missing formula created the disputes.
    • In section 3, he claimed I stated quote “a stationary magnetic field cannot energize a charge particle.” But I didn’t stated that, rather what is written is contrary to that, which’s “Assuming a system (such as that of Fig.3) if the magnetic field which is denoted by B1 is rotating or in motion,” until now, nobody asked me how that works, I am supposed to be challenged to prove that, two decades since that, although I tackled very important propulsion mechanism, and regardless of the need for alternative renewable energy, nobody contacted me, unfortunately even NASA, everyone can guess the reason.
    • In regard to the energetic charged particles observed in the Earth’s near space, there is no any successful model to solve this problem [42]; the current models couldn’t explained the mechanism of such energization process, this could be due to wrong fundamental physics, which is rectified by our “field concept.”
    Therefore, from these points its clear the referee rejected the paper without any justification, and if he was really impartial, he could have directed for some amendments, particularly this is something new, which could correct and add to human knowledge, particularly that paper tackled one of the most contention issues since 1820, these are the “field concept” solved by the “field’s interaction formula,” given by Eqs. (3,4and5) in “The Magnetic Interaction” [3], which cancelled “action at distance” and “entanglement,” the paper also suggested a model for hydrogen atom with spectral lines; While the introduction of quanta (photon) by Einstein to solve the photoelectric effect [43] which was the strongest jargon in QM, that phenomenon was resolved using Eq. (24) in my interpretation of the photoelectric effect, in which I proved that Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR) embedded in electromagnetic radiation, when multiplied by the electron’s mass, it gives the proper momentum that expel electron from the atom, in “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model” [18].
    Since the established “field concept” formed a different fundamental physics, it opened great opportunity to explain different phenomena that were obscured for investigations, thus these efforts may helped in the advancement of human knowledge and in the advancement of the current technology to the level needed by humanity in future, thus in addition to the new interpretation of the above five experiments in classical physics, I also unified the forces of nature started by “The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces” [11], then “The Grand Unification: 2-The Nuclear (FN) and Weak (FW) Forces” [44], others phenomena I managed to explained are: “The Sunspots Mechanism” [45], “The Solar Flare Mechanism” [46], “The Production of Plasma Pillars Intense Magnetic Fields (PPIMF) and their Roles in Solar Activities (#AGU2020)” [47], “The Tsunami Mechanism (#AGU 2021)” [48], “Exploring the High-altitude Nuclear Detonation and Magnetic Storms” [49], “Newton‟s Gravitation Law is Wrong!” [23], “The Hydrostatic Force (FH) of Gravity (The Atmospheric Force of Gravity)” [50], “ELEMETS OF THE MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE” [51], “THE UNIVERSAL ENERGIES” [52], “The Weak Spinning Magnetic Force (FW) (The Weak Interaction)” [53], “The Faraday Effect Explained” [54], “The Source of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) Measured by Pioneer V” [55], “Solar or Interplanetary External Magnetic Field” [55], “EXTERNAL MAGNETIC FIELD PROPULSION SYSTEM (ExMF-PS)” [56], “What is Beneath the Sunspots؟” [58], “THE MODIFIED SEARL GENERATORS (M-Searl-G)” [59], “The Field’s Interaction and Atomic Mode” [60], “The Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR)” [61], “The Tsunami Mechanism” [62].
    Despite of the these publication, and while waiting for appreciation, I was shocked with the announcement of your decision to switch spotlight from my achievements, back to square one, where I buried “action at distance,” “entanglement” and “photon”, but why this setback, and returning these dead concepts again؟
    Unfortunately, Black Africans were treated during the past five centuries in the best as “White Man’s Burden” [63], and some may think I as a Black African, should not extended my dreams beyond praising the big brother who should be left to think, plan and care for genetically less developed inferior Africans, that is what was publicly propagated by some aggressive racist scientists like Dr. James D. Watson, founder of modern genetics, when he suggested, black people are intrinsically less intelligent than whites, Dr. Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist in 2007, that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.” Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” [64]. As a specialist in DNA’ double-helix structure, Watson’s allegations was interpreted by white supremacists as a confirmation to the fact that, Black Africans DNA is the reason for their lower achievements compared to the white [65], which means white supremacy is inherited in their DNA, hence such racist could have ventured into DNA’ studies to find differences in Chromosome [66] to widen the gap among humanity, thus such level of unscientific misleading conspiracy, compounded with long history of white achievements in scientific arena, led many, even among Blacks who were indoctrinated, to believe, only whites are genetically qualified to make scientific discoveries, although the truth about genetics is contrary to these allegations [67].
    Knowing how racism in modern society transformed itself into sophisticated level of guardianship, thus regardless of the above papers and more, I kept asking myself, why after these unimaginable accomplishments, my works never been appreciated, instead I have ben subjected to different types on inhuman practices, leave alone to be nominated for Noble prize in physics, although I deserved that! Then what would be your reaction if these two formulas were discovered by Einstein or any white scientist, like Dr. Watson for example؟
    Thus, instead of been treated like any white scientist, the message you sent me through this 2022 award, is that, whatever I achieved, they would never be recognized, and I am just wasting my time, because the white elite are the one to dictate and decide what’s best for the flock, and as Noble Prize in physics is regarded as the most prestigious award, I should never dream to come nearer that impossibility, because our fate have already been sealed by the influential White supremacists like the human tragedy of the Untouchable group in India hierarchy. It’s unfortunate, all these happened, while many claimed to believed in Human Rights and humanity, but it seems this believe is limited to continuing perceived Africans as “White Man’s Burden” [63].
    Before I published my first paper, white supremacists were sure every discovery in the scientific arena have been achieved, while the remaining are just the details, until I emerged with these unexpected discoveries, many were mad and annoyed, although some Westerns, Asians and Arabs scientists admired the findings and supported me immensely, even some scientific societies lay the ground for the recognition of these works, if not for the mounted political and financial pressures they may faced, I wonder how is it possible that, regardless of the clinical death of the photon by the above Eq. (24) and related articles, that you can override all these evidence to resurrect the photon [13], thus I start believing that your earlier decision not to publish my first paper, was intended to serve these goals؟ Because nothing justified this abnormal decision which stabbed the scientific progress in its core values of impartiality and the replacement of worn out with new findings that can better explained different physical phenomena, and the normal procedure to achieve that, should have been by the formation of a committee to study these findings and check and validate its capabilities and whether they explained the scientific phenomena in a better and nearly idealistic manner than the mathematical description of quantum mechanics or not; this should have been done regardless of race, religion or language, and this is the natural procedure as mandated by Nobel, instead of this noble goal, you as a paramount scientific beacon for humanity, resorted to protect the perceived inherited dominant hierarchy of the White race, what a shame!
    As stated I am quite sure about the strength of these two formulas and different papers which covered the micro and macro world, this is why I challenged your decision to award Noble Prize in physics 2022 for an experiment claimed to show the entanglement of photon, contrary to these formulas and papers, and regardless to Einstein’s above quotes about photon! But I am sure this award is intended to shut down any attempt by any party to recognize my discoveries, it’s the first time the committee is trying to mislead the human society, and it’s the first time its facing such reaction, and I would have never dare to do this without having these two formulas, and my reaction resulted from this openly, unhidden injustice I am been subjected to, the only reason for this, is simply because I am a Black African scientist, regardless of the mental, psychological and hardship, efforts I incurred during the past nearly three decades, an efforts which helped to correct what was perceived as quantum mechanics in a simplistic and logical manner, thus these findings and interpretations strengthened my ground to challenge your strange and racist decision, while as in the above replay from the editorial of your “Physica Scripta,” on 17 June 2002, in which Prof. H. Pécseli stated, “it turned out to be difficult to find a referee willing to take responsibility of the paper,” [1] one should ask a simple question, why referees don’t want to take the responsibility of my paper؟ Several answers could be stated, however as those referees are intellectual scientists, they realized the paper have solved the quest for “field concept” represented by the “field formula” searched by scientists since 1820, and if published, it will form a strong challenge to Ampere force, its developed version and quantum mechanics. Thus this can explain why all peer review journals like Nature, AGU, AAAS, APS, IPS and many other all refused to publish these papers؟ Doesn’t these discoveries deserved to be known؟ Or because it emerged from a continent its genuine thinkers shouldn’t allow to be known؟ So as not to restore their lost dignity and confidence; hence they can be directed like minors؟ And whatever this carries of meaning؟ Or there is other justification for these policies؟
    The impact of Ampere force on the mathematization of electrodynamics exerted by Ampere's, Gauss's and Weber's theories [41], had created great debate among scientists during the past two centuries, many talented great scientists tried to solve this enigma, which was based on deriving the formula for the “Field Concept,” that was led by Ørsted, Biot, Savart, Faraday and Grassmann [4], followed by Maxwell [6], and Einstein [9], and ended with many who worked in silence, while the fundamental unification of Amp`ere’s electrodynamics with electrostatics was performed by Wilhelm Weber in 1846 [4], thus if this “field concept” was discovered by a scientist from the Western hemisphere, how would you reacted to what could be designated as a great achievement by humanity؟ Then who among the white can undermine such achievement؟ Unexpectedly the formula was discovered by a scientist in the African cotenant؟ But for an ideal society which I hope we will achieve one day, such oddness should have strengthened human relations to eliminate the historical injustices suffered by more than half of humanity, for no reason except their inherited color, but you don’t want to believe in the ability of an African to achieve this, even many Africans don’t believed in this, but who created both groups, isn’t He the same Almighty God؟ While saying this, the astonishing revelation by Allah to Prophet Mohammad (Peace upon him), in (Ayat-ulKorsî), in The Holly Quran, 1,400 years ago, where my case can be found directly in this verse, where Allâh stated:
    “Allah – there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission؟ He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.” (The Holly Quran 2-255) [68]
    Now can you imagine why Ørsted, Biot, Savart, Faraday, Grassmann, Gauss, Weber, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman and many others, all of them were very intelligent/genius scientists, but they failed to get this formula, although each of them spent several years searching for it but in vain; however nobody expected this discovery to emerged from Africa, even African scientists couldn’t imagined this to take place in Africa, after been convinced on that, if so then how does this happened؟ It happened simply because of the above verse in Ayat-ulKorsî 2-255 in The Holly Quran, because Allâh alone determined who is to make such discovery, by stating “they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills.” But what requirements needed to solve the compounded problems in classical physics؟
    In the history of science we read how Benjamin Franklin, who attended Boston Latin School although he didn't graduated; but continued his education through voracious reading to add greatly to the scientific knowledge [69], like Franklin, Michelle Faraday received little formal education, to become one of the most influential scientists in history [70], thus the level of education is not supposed to be a measure that prohibited unique production from spreading, therefore those diverting attention for hidden agenda, their behaviors reflected an intellectual failing, mainly due to a moral failure as correctly stated by Bonheoffer’s theory of stupidity, and as clearly derived “civility requires us to see and respect the humanity and dignity of others—including people unlike us, those who can do nothing for us, and those we disagree with.” [71], if the father of modern physics Galileo Galilei was condemned by the Catholic Church for vehement suspicion of heresy 380 years ago [72], how come half of humanity failed after such an experience to developed its moral values to recognized the mental capabilities of the other half؟ The main problems in the fundamental physics is due to what happened between Ampere and his contemporary scientists, which dated back to 1820, therefore solving these only required a rational minded person having the present and past knowledge, with an ability to understand different mechanisms and mathematical structures such as QM, with ability to derive formulas, and above all the blessing of Allâh, as stated in the above Ayat-ulKorsî, The Holly Quran 2-255 [68].
    Therefore, how can any scientist verify the correctness of these hypotheses؟ And that I deserved the 2022 Noble prize in physics, more than this Unfair and strange decision؟ Particularly if we take the known published excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel, who stated “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows:- - -/ one part to the person who shall made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics …” [73]; yeas I made this most important discovery in form of the “field concept formula” and (force concept formula) which canceled entanglement and photon, which was searched by many physicists since 1820, and I read your procedure for nomination, any one of you could have nominated me, only if there is impartiality, this doesn’t required ideal leaders, it just required honest leaders; and my eligibility for winning the prize can be known and confirmed by answering the following questions:
    • Is the “field’s interaction formula,” given by Eqs. (3,4and5) in “The Magnetic Interaction” [3] and generalized by Eq. (A) and related equations in “The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces” [11], is the “field concept,” searched by Ørsted, Biot, Savart, Faraday and Grassmannin 1820 [4] and years after that, and does it solved the force between two conductors carrying electric current, the Catapult force and the force between charged particles and magnetic field, and the electrostatic force؟ Did they explained the mechanism of how these forces works, thus ended both the long lasting concepts of “action at distance” and related “entanglement”؟
    • Did Eq. (24) in “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model” [18]; showed that when an electron is subjected to electromagnetic radiation, this caused the Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR) embedded in electromagnetic radiation, to endowed the electron with the force that produced momentum which ejected electron from the atom, and explained the photoelectric effect؟
    • When Michael Faraday stated that, the shortening or repelling of lines of force with each other, produced the “Ampere force” [5], after which Maxwell professed the formula will enlarged human knowledge, when scientists discovered it [6], whom did he meant؟ Did he mean white scientists only, or any scientists within the Human Body؟ This means, is solving critical problems in theoretical physics and any other issues is restricted only for White scientists, or it’s opened for any able and intelligent member of the human body, including Black Africans؟
    • Is there any secrete condition in Noble will prohibited Black Africans from been awarded his prize in physics؟
    The answers for these questions are obvious, while those with consciousness will judge before history did so, but I will assure you, my “field concept formula” deserved the Noble prize in Physics since 2002 and in 2022 it deserved more than your declared winner, it even deserved more than that.
    With my best regards
    Mahmoud E. Yousif
    [email protected]
    Thinker Space science and Inventor
    December 1, 2022
    Profiles are at:
    ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mahmoud_E_Yousifhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mahmoud_E_Yousif
    Linked: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mahmoud-e-yousif-75a61344/https://www.linkedin.com/in/mahmoud-e-yousif-75a61344/
    Academia: https://independent.academia.edu/MahmoudEYousifhttps://independent.academia.edu/MahmoudEYousif
    Personal website: http://exmfpropulsions.comhttp://exmfpropulsions.com

    Reference

    • Letter from Physica Scripta : http://exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Letter.pdfhttp://exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Letter.pdf
    • Report from Physica Scripta : http://exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Report.pdf
    • M E Yousif, The Magnetic Interaction, Comprehensive Theory Articles, Journal of Theoretics, vol. 5, 2003.
    • A K T Assis, J P M C Chaib; A M Ampère,Ampère's electrodynamics: analysis of the meaning and evolution of Ampère's force between current elements, together with a complete translation of his masterpiece: Theory of electrodynamics phenomena, uniquely deduced from experience (PDF). Montreal: Apeiron. ISBNs: 978-1-987980-04-2, 2015.
    • M Faraday, "On the physical character of the lines of magnetic force", Philosophical Magazine, 1852.
    • J C Maxwell, On Physical Lines of Force, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Fourth Series, March 1961.
    • Wikipedia.org, Faraday’s law of induction, the free encyclopedia, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
    • Edited by W. D. NIVEN, THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL, Volume One, DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC., NEW YORK, 1965.
    • Folger T., Einstein's Grand Quest for a Unified Theory, Discover Magazine, 2004. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-grand-quest-for-a-unified-theoryhttps://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-gran...for-a-unified-theory
    • R P Feynman, Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2: Mainly Electromagnetism and Matter, Addison-Wesley, Reading. 1964.
    • M E Yousif, The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric and Magnetic Forces, IOSR J. of ApplPhys (IOSR-JAP), e-ISSN: 2278-4861. Volume 10, Issue 5 Ver. I, 57-73, DOI: 10.9790/4861-1005015774, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328134515_The_Unified_Force_of_Nature_1-The_Electric_Magnetic_Forceshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/328134515_The_Unifi...tric_Magnetic_Forces
    • M E Yousif, Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum, OSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 10, Issue 1 Ver. I, PP 30-40, 2018a. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_Quantumhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_w...en_Using_the_Quantum.
    • Can the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics Resurrect Photon! https://lnkd.in/ggh4t3UAhttps://lnkd.in/ggh4t3UA
    • A. Einstein, and into English, T., Concerning an Heuristic point of view toward the emission and transformation of light. American Journal of Physics, 33(5), 367, 1965.
    • M.-F. Shih, Developing Ideas about Photons: (since the First Paper about Photoelectric Effect by Einstein in 1905). AAAPPS Bulletin, Vol.15 (1), 2005.
    • R A Millikan, A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck’s “h” Physical Review, vol. 7, 1916.
    • A H Compton, and S. K. Allison, X-rays in Theory and Experiment D. Van Nostrand New York, 1935
    • M E Yousif, The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model, International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences (IJFPS), vol. 5, 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274509898_The_Photoelectric_Effects-Radiation_Based_With_Atomic_Modelhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/274509898_The_Photo...ed_With_Atomic_Model
    • Highlights of selected studies, 2012 REPORT TO CONGRESS, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNC
    • S Sahoo and M Goswami, UNIFICATION AFTER 150 YEARS, arXiv:1210.0154 [physics.gen-ph], 2012.
    • T S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA of UNIFIED SCIENCE, VOLUMES I AND II • FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITY OF SCIENCE VOLUME II • NUMBER 2, 1970
    • A K T Assis, J E A Ribeiro, A Vannucci, The field concepts of Faraday and Maxwell, in: Trends in Physics, São Paulo, 2009.
    • M E Yousif, “Newton‟s Gravitation Law is Wrong!” IOSR J. of ApplPhys (IOSR-JAP), e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 10, Issue 4 Ver. I, 34-38, DOI: 10.9790/4861 - 100401 3438, 2018b. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326393684_Newtonhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/326393684_Newton's_...itation_Law_is_Wrong) (https://www.academia.edu/37729303/Newtons_Gravitation_Law_is_Wronghttps://www.academia.edu/37729303/Newtons_Gravitation_Law_is_Wrong)
    • Planck, M., On the law of distribution of energy in the normal spectrum. Annalen der Physik, 4(553), 1, 1901.
    • Compton, A. H.  "A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-Rays by Light Elements", Physical Review, vol. 21, pp. 483, 1923.
    • Raman, C. V. A classical derivation of the Compton Effect, Indian J. Phys, vol. 3, pp.361,1928.
    • C Blood, A Primer on Quantum Mechanics and Its Interpretations, arXiv:1001.3080, 2010.
    • L NHoang, The Essence of Quantum Mechanics, Science 4 All, 2013.
    • M E Yousif, The Compton Effect Re-Visited, J AdvApplPhys, 1:004, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299347018_The_Compton_Effect_Re-Visitedhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/299347018_The_Compton_Effect_Re-Visited
    • M E Yousif, The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained, J Phys Math 7: 179. doi:10.4172/2090-0902.1000179, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307122920_The_Double_Slit_Experiment_Re-Explainedhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/307122920_The_Doubl...eriment_Re-Explained
    • R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures in Physics Volume 3, Section 1–1, Addison–Wesley,1965.
    • M E Yousif, Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals), IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 8, Issue 5 Ver. II, PP 99-116, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308947884_Electron_Diffraction_Re-Explained_The_Intense_Magnetic_Fields_Interactions_within_Crystalshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/308947884_Electron_...ions_within_Crystals
    • M E.Yousif, "Explaining the Stern-Gerlach Experiment: Using the Spinning Magnetic Field (SMF)." IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), 13(6), pp. 43-69, 2021. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356641828_Explaining_the_Stern-Gerlach_Experiment_Using_the_Spinning_Magnetic_Field_SMF/statshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/356641828_Explainin...etic_Field_SMF/stats) (https://www.academia.edu/67611445/Explaining_the_Stern_Gerlach_Experiment_Using_the_Spinning_Magnetic_Field_SMFhttps://www.academia.edu/67611445/Explaining_the_Stern_Gerla...g_Magnetic_Field_SMF)
    • H Majlesi, Observing the spin of free electrons in action “The Stern-Gerlach Experiment by Free Electron”, arXiv:1504.07963v3 [quanta-ph], 2015.
    • J C Maxwell, A Treatise On Electricity And Magnetism, UNABRIDGED THIRD EDITION, VOLUME TWO, DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. NEW YORK 1953, CLARENDON PRESS, 1891.
    • Wikipedia.org, Quantum electrodynamics, the free encyclopedia, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
    • SciForums.com, What is the shape of electromagnetic radiation؟ Science: Physics and Math (2011. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php؟106967-what-s-the-shape-of-electromagnetic-radiationhttp://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php؟106967-what-s-the-sh...romagnetic-radiation
    • M. E.Yousif, The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism, International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences (IJFPS), vol. 4, 2014a.
    • M. E.Yousif, Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant, International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE), vol. 1, 2014b.
    • M E Yousif, THE SPINNING MAGNETIC FORCE, Comprehensive Theory Articles, Journal of Theoretics, vol. 5, 2003b. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870538_THE_SPINNING_MAGNETIC_FORCEhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870538_THE_SPINNING_MAGNETIC_FORCE
    • Salvo D Agostino, History of the Ideas of Theoretical Physics, Essays on the Ninteenth and Twentieth Century Physics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000
    • Lehnert B. 1964 Dynamics of Charged Particles, North- Holland Publication co. Amsterdam.
    • A. Einstein, and into English, T., Concerning an Heuristic point of view toward the emission and transformation of light. American Journal of Physics, 33(5), 367, 1965.
    • M E Yousif, The Grand Unification: 2-The Nuclear (F_N) and Weak (F_W) Forces, RA JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH, ISSN: 2394-6709, Vol. 04. Issue 11, 2106-2115, DOI:10.31142/rajar/v4i11.02, 2018d. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329102184_The_Grand_Unification_2-The_Nuclear_F_N_and_Weak_F_W_Forceshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/329102184_The_Grand..._and_Weak_F_W_Forces
    • M E Yousif, The Sunspots Mechanism, Int. J. of Res and Rev in App Sc, Vol. 16, Issue 4, ISSN: 2076-734X, EISS: 2076-7366, 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258508471_The_Sunspots_Mechanismhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/258508471_The_Sunspots_Mechanism
    • M E Yousif, The Solar Flare Mechanism, Personal website, 2011. http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/The_Sunspots_Mechanism.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870630_The_Solar_Flare_Mechanismhttps://www.academia.edu/37764651/The_Solar_Flare_Mechanismhttp://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/The_...olar_Flare_Mechanism
    • M E Yousif, The Production of Plasma Pillars Intense Magnetic Fields (PPIMF) and their Roles in Solar Activities, essor, DOI:10.1002/essoar.10505402.3, 2020. https://www.essoar.org/doi/10.1002/essoar.10505402.2https://..._in_Solar_Activities
    • M E Yousif, The Tsunami Mechanism, essor, DOI: 10.1002/essoar.10509559.1 https://www.essoar.org/pdfjs/10.1002/essoar.10509559.1https:...he_Tsunami_Mechanism
    • M E Yousif, Exploring the High-altitude Nuclear Detonation and Magnetic Storms, J Astrophys Aerospace Technol 2: 105. doi:10.4172/2329- 6542.1000105, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265510073_Exploring_the_High-altitude_Nuclear_Detonation_and_Magnetic_Stormshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/265510073_Exploring..._and_Magnetic_Storms
    • M E Yousif, “The Hydrostatic Force (FH) of Gravity (The Atmospheric Force of Gravity)” IOSR J. of ApplPhys (IOSR-JAP), e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 10, Issue 4 Ver. II, 45-53, DOI: 10.9790/4861-1004024552, 2018c. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327013261_The_Hydrostatic_Force_F_H_of_Gravity_The_Atmospheric_Force_of_Gravityhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/327013261_The_Hydro...ric_Force_of_Gravity
    • M E Yousif, ELEMETS OF THE MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE, Journal of Theoretics, Vol. 5-5, Comprehensive Theory Articles, 2003c. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870552_ELEMETS_OF_THE_MAGNETIC_LINES_OF_FORCEhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870552_ELEMETS_O...NETIC_LINES_OF_FORCE
    • M E Yousif, THE UNIVERSAL ENERGIES, Comprehensive Theory Articles, Journal of Theoretics; pp 1, 14, 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235972109_THE_UNIVERSAL_ENERGIEShttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/235972109_THE_UNIVERSAL_ENERGIES
    • M. E.Yousif, The Weak Spinning Magnetic Force (FW) (The Weak Interaction), IOSR J. of ApplPhys (IOSR-JAP) e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 8, Issue 6 Ver. III, 77-88, DOI: 10.9790/4861-0806037788, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311401022_The_Weak_Spinning_Magnetic_Force_F_W_The_Weak_Interactionhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/311401022_The_Weak_...The_Weak_Interaction
    • M. E.Yousif, The Faraday Effect Explained, OSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 9, Issue 5 Ver. II, PP 74-84, 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320004068_The_Faraday_Effect_Explainedhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/320004068_The_Faraday_Effect_Explained
    • M E Yousif, The Source of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) Measured by Pioneer V. J Astrophys Aerospace Technol 2: 108. doi:10.4172/2329-6542.1000108, 2014.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265510247_The_Source_of_the_Interplanetary_Magnetic_Field_IMF_Measured_by_Pioneer_Vhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/265510247_The_Sourc...easured_by_Pioneer_V
    • M E Yousif ,Solar or Interplanetary External Magnetic Field, Personal website. , 2012. http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/Solar_or_Interplanetary_External_Magnetic_Field.pdfhttp://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/Sola...l_Magnetic_Field.pdf
    • M E Yousif, EXTERNAL MAGNETIC FIELD PROPULSION SYSTEM (ExMF-PS), Personal website, 2007. http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/New_Energy/Propulsion/ExMF-PS.pdfhttp://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/New_Energy/Propulsion/ExMF-PS.pdf
    • M E Yousif, What is Beneath the Sunspots؟ Personal website, 2012. http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/What_is_Beneath_the_Sunspots.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/235257197_What_is_Beneath_the_Sunspotshttp://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/What...Beneath_the_Sunspots
    • E. M Yousif, THE MODIFIED SEARL GENERATORS (M-Searl-G), Personal website, 2007. http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/What_is_Beneath_the_Sunspots.pdfhttp://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/SpacePhysics/What...ath_the_Sunspots.pdf
    • ME Yousif, The Field’s Interaction and Atomic Model, Poster, APS, MAR2021-3488868, Session/H71.263, March 2021. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021APS..MARH71263Y/abstracthttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021APS..MARH71263Y/abstract
    • ME Yousif, The Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR), Poster, APS 2021, Vol. 66, N 5, April, 17-20, 2021, APR2021.00077, Session/ KP01.77, April 2021. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017APS..APRY10005Y/abstracthttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017APS..APRY10005Y/abstract
    • M E Yousif, The Tsunami Mechanism, Poster, AOGS, AOGS2021, 2/8/2021, Session/SE11-A028, August 2021
    • Wikipedia.org, The White Man's Burden, the free encyclopedia, 2022b. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man’s_Burden
    • James Watson Had a Chance to Salvage His Reputation on Race. He Made Things Worse, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html
    • T'ings 'n Times, https://mightyminnow.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/black-people-are-less-intelligent-says-dr-james-watson-nobel-prize-winner-and-dna-pioneer/https://mightyminnow.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/black-people-a...ner-and-dna-pioneer/
    • Wikipedia.org, Chromosome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome
    • Vivian Chou, How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-res...debate-21st-century/
    • Ayat-alKursi, Surahquran.com/, The Holly Qur’an https://surahquran.com/Ayat-alKursi.html#:~:text=%EF%B4%BF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87%20%D9%84%D8%A7%20%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%87%20%D8%A5%D9%84%D8%A7%20%D9%87%D9%88,%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%85%20%EF%B4%BE%20%5B%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A9%3A%20255%5Dhttps://surahquran.com/Ayat-alKursi.html#:~:text=%EF%B4%BF%2...B1%D8%A9%3A%20255%5D
    • Wikipedia.org, Benjamin Franklin Benjamin Franklin, publisher and political philosopher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#:~:text=Be...itical%20philosopher
    • Wikipedia.org, Michael Faraday. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
    • Alexandra Hudson, When does an intellectual failing become a moral one؟ Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity. https://www.civic-renaissance.com/p/when-does-an-intellectual-failinghttps://www.civic-renaissance.com/p/when-does-an-intellectual-failing
    • Wikipedia.org, Galileo Galilei. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
    • The Nobel Prize in Physics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/




    عناوين الاخبار بسودانيزاونلاينSudaneseOnline اليوم الموافق December, 03 2022
  • كاركاتير اليوم الموافق كاركاتير اليوم الموافق 03 ديسمبر 2022 للفنان عمر دفع الله
  • عصابات نيقرز تهاجم مستشفى جنوب الخرطوم


عناوين المواضيع المنبر العام بسودانيزاونلاين SudaneseOnline اليوم الموافق December, 03 2022
  • اليوم الذكرى الاولى لرحيل كابلى السودان توثيق عن كابلى
  • سوداني يستولى على شريحة اتصال كانت معلقة على (طائر) و يستخدمها بتلفونه الخاص!!
  • الطبخة المسمومة!
  • البرهان يعترف بمشاركته في إنقلاب حزب البعث، اعترافات وتناقضات
  • اجمل هدف في مونديال قطر 2022 هو هدف الكاميروني ابوبكر في صربيا
  • ترتيب الجمليه ومستحليه جامعة الخرطوم و افضل 100 جامعه فى العالم امريكا
  • "....عن عيون لا تخشى في الغرودة لومة لائم.."
  • انا لله وانا اليه رجعوان وفاه الشاب صلاح محمد التجاني

    عناوين المقالات بسودانيزاونلاينSudaneseOnline اليوم الموافق December, 03 2022
  • سودانيون على مقاعد المتفرجين والمطبلين كتبه شوقي
  • هل سيرفض المكون العسكري التوقيع علي الاتفاق الاطاري بحجة انه لا يحدد تكوين مجلس اعلي للقوات المسلح
  • المعلقة السودانية ـ موديل الاتفاق الإطاري كتبه فيصل علي الدابي\المحامي
  • التكتل المخابراتي وتجميع هوام متحدون ضد الثورة كتبه عمر الحويج
  • داعمو الانقلاب يخسرون..!! كتبه اسماعيل عبدالله
  • قصة قصيرة:ممنوع الموت يوم زواج العم بابكر! كتبه أحمد الملك
  • أمنة الجيدة رائدة تعليم المرأة لوحة بأهية بدرب الساعي كتبه عواطف عبداللطيف
  • البرهان .. حميدتى .. الحد الاخير ... كتبه طه احمد ابوالقاسم
  • الهامش الرخيص كتبه د.أمل الكردفاني
  • عرينُ الأسود وأسودُ الأطلس صفحاتُ عزٍ وتاريخُ مجدٍ كتبه د. مصطفى يوسف اللداوي
  •                   

    Arabic Forum

    Title Author Date
    Why I Challenged the 2022 Nobel award in Physics for Photon and entanglement! محمود الحاج يوسف12-03-22, 04:37 PM

    [Post A Reply] Page 1 of 1:   <<  1  >>

    Comments of SudaneseOnline.com readers on that topic:

    Why I Challenged the 2022 Nobel award in Physics for Photon and entanglement!
    at FaceBook
    Report any abusive and or inappropriate material



    Articles and Views
    اراء حرة و مقالات
    News and Press Releases
    اخبار و بيانات
    اخر المواضيع فى المنبر العام
    Latest Posts in English Forum



    فيس بوك جوجل بلس تويتر انستقرام يوتيوب بنتيريست Google News
    الرسائل والمقالات و الآراء المنشورة في المنتدى بأسماء أصحابها أو بأسماء مستعارة لا تمثل بالضرورة الرأي الرسمي لصاحب الموقع أو سودانيز اون لاين بل تمثل وجهة نظر كاتبها
    لا يمكنك نقل أو اقتباس اى مواد أعلامية من هذا الموقع الا بعد الحصول على اذن من الادارة
    About Us
    Contact Us
    About Sudanese Online
    اخبار و بيانات
    اراء حرة و مقالات
    صور سودانيزاونلاين
    فيديوهات سودانيزاونلاين
    ويكيبيديا سودانيز اون لاين
    منتديات سودانيزاونلاين
    News and Press Releases
    Articles and Views
    SudaneseOnline Images
    Sudanese Online Videos
    Sudanese Online Wikipedia
    Sudanese Online Forums
    If you're looking to submit News,Video,a Press Release or or Article please feel free to send it to [email protected]

    © 2014 SudaneseOnline.com


    Software Version 1.3.0 © 2N-com.de