What is Santilli's anti-matter telescope?

JeanTate

Illuminator
J
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
4,001
Over in Zooniverse Talk*, there's a ~3 weeks' old thread "I was wondering if the Santilli telescope can be used in the zooniverse or to classify antimatter stuff and antimatter galaxies?" (link). Yesterday, a quite new someone with the handle sferwnhafs6tggs posted a bit of material on this telescope, including this:

R. M. Santilli, "Apparent detection of antimatter galaxies via a telescope with convex lenses," Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications vol. 3, 2014, pages 1-26 (Cambridge, UK)

P. Bhujbal, J. V. Kadeisvili, A. Nas, S Randall, and T. R. Shelke Preliminary confirmation of the detection of antimatter galaxies via Santilli telescope with concave lenses, Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 3, pages 27-39, 2014 (Cambridge, UK)

S. Beghella-Bartoli, Prashant M. Bhujbal, Alex Nas, Confirmation of antimatter detection via Santilli telescope with concave lenses, American Journal of Modern Physics Vol. 4, pages 34-41 (2015)
Click to expand...

The abstract for the last one is quite eye-popping:

"Following decades of mathematical, theoretical, and experimental research on antimatter, recent results have announced the apparent detection of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays via the use of a new telescope with concave lenses known as the Santilli telescope. This article presents results providing additional confirmations that Santilli has indeed achieved the first known detection of antimatter in the large scale structure of the universe, and identifies the main implications."

Such a ground-breaking discovery, you'd think it'd be published in ApJ, or even Nature, wouldn't you? Yet it's in "Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications" - strange journal for something that's about astronomy and astronomical instruments - and "American Journal of Modern Physics". The latter seems to be a very odd journal, and the last paper cited does not come up when I search ADS.

Does anyone have any insight into this?

* The Zooniverse is home of a lot of citizen science-based projects, perhaps the best known being Galaxy Zoo; "Talk" is its umbrella forum
 
Wow, who knew that there was an entirely different kind of light emitted by antimatter? From http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12448979.htm

"During my Ph. D. studies in physics at the University of Torino, Italy, in the mid 1960s, I became interested in ascertaining whether a far away galaxy is made up of matter or of antimatter," Dr. Santilli states, "I soon realized that20th century physical theories were inapplicable (rather than violated) for the study of antimatter galaxies due to the lack of a classical conjugation from neutral matter galaxies to their neutral antimatter counterpart. This insufficiency set the need for a scientific journey that lasted for half a century. When I was at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University in the late 1970s, I had to build first a new mathematics specifically conceived for the classical representation of neutral or charged antimatter bodies, today known as Santilli isodual mathematics, Then, I had to build the isodual conjugate of 20th century physical theories, including the reformulation of special and general relativities for antimatter, and verify their compatibility with all available experimental data" (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-79.pdf).
"Following these basic studies," Dr. Santilli continues, " in the early 2000, I was able to identify the new physical laws of the isodual optics for antimatter light, by discovering that the transition from matter to antimatter requires the conjugation of all features of conventional optics, thus including the conjugation of the conventional, positive angle of refraction of light into a negative angle of refraction. By remembering that the Galileo telescope for the detection of matter galaxies uses 'convex' lenses due to the positive angle of refraction of light, I was finally able to build a new telescope for the detection of antimatter galaxies, now known as Santilli telescope, with 'concave' lenses because required by the negative angle of refraction" (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/antimatter-asteroids.pdf).
Click to expand...
Here's his radical new telescope design:
picture.php


To steal a line from Man of La Mancha: "I can hear the cuckoo singing in the cuckoo-berry tree"
 
Hmm. It's also published in the "American Journal of Modern Physics" which is a huge red flag; it's a "pay to publish" journal of dubious standard that's published plagarised rubbish before.
Santilli is a well known pseudo-scientist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory peddler, involved with the "Thunder Energies Corporation" free energy (Magnegas/HHO) scam.
 
I have to use my anti-glasses to see the anti-light from my anti-matter telescope to see them thar' anti-objects.

Aside form that, it works just like any other telescope.
 
Ah, Santilli again. He's a notorious crackpot with a bizarre collection of half-fake journals, collections of acolytes and "coworkers" many of which are thought to be sockpuppets. The post above, for example:

R. M. Santilli, "Apparent detection of antimatter galaxies via a telescope with convex lenses," Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications vol. 3, 2014, pages 1-26 (Cambridge, UK)
Click to expand...

What's this journal? Its web page is broken. MathSciNet stopped indexing it (!) at Volume 2. The Cambridge "publisher" purportedly responsible looks like a half-abandoned open-journal mill whose mailing address is a home in a residential area in the UK. If you google for the paper title, you find it on Santilli's personal web page and nowhere else.

P. Bhujbal, J. V. Kadeisvili, A. Nas, S Randall, and T. R. Shelke Preliminary confirmation of the detection of antimatter galaxies via Santilli telescope with concave lenses, Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 3, pages 27-39, 2014 (Cambridge, UK)
Click to expand...

Same nowhere-indexed non-journal with no web-facing contents. "Kadesvili" was the topic of this fascinating story: http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/articles/finding-jerdsey-v-kadeisvili-or-mailing-with-ruggero-m-santilli/ which ended with a Santilli sockpuppet hastily announcing (under pressure to reveal any information about Kadesvili---contact info, Ph.D. institution, etc.) that Kadesvili had passed away, on several dates in early 2014.

S. Beghella-Bartoli, Prashant M. Bhujbal, Alex Nas, Confirmation of antimatter detection via Santilli telescope with concave lenses, American Journal of Modern Physics Vol. 4, pages 34-41 (2015)
Click to expand...

The first author has Santilli's personal "institute" as his only affiliation. The third author has Santilli's weird corporation as his only affiliation. If you Google for the first author he's supposedly an employee of Santilli's weird corporation. Whatever.
 
Myron Evans (May 2008) said:
Discussion with Stephen Crothers and Ruggero Santilli

As far as I can judge, ‘hadronic physics’ is also well thought out and also produces new technology. So that is the acid test of a theory, it can be used for engineering. I agree that the behavior of people in the standard view of physics is very regrettable, very disappointing, very negative and intellectually very dishonest, but at the same time I am more optimistic than ever about science, and over the foreseeable future will apply ECE (Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory) to as much of physics and chemistry as possible.

http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=s...on_with_Stephen_Crothers_and_Ruggero_Santilli
Click to expand...


Birds of a feather…
 
Crossbow said:
I have to use my anti-glasses to see the anti-light from my anti-matter telescope to see them thar' anti-objects..
Click to expand...

...but you're not thinking clearly here Mr Crossbow. Antimatter brings great dangers with it, so you will need a pair of "peril sensitive sunglasses" as well.


* * * * * *

TBH, this all sounds like a consignment of geriatric shoe repair experts to me..... a load of old cobblers!!
 
I clicked through to the "AJMP" paper since at least it's actually on the Web. Amusingly:

a) The Santilli-affiliated scientists don't actually have personal email addresses. Their contact info is the generic contact email for two of Santilli's institutions. The other author has a Yahoo email address and his home institution ("N. A. College, Umrer", apparently referring to "Nutan Adarsh Arts, Commerce & Smt. M.H. Wegad Science College") seems not to exist.

b) They outfitted a cheap telescope with convex lenses, but couldn't figure out how to point it. (Fair enough; it's doable but perhaps the method would be obscure to an amateur.) But they also couldn't figure out how to *steer* it, so it doesn't actually point to known sky coordinates, or track sky motion, which is not merely "easy to do" but, I mean, the Celestron motor that turns a alt-az telescope mount into a sky-tracking telescope mount costs $39.99. It's in-stock and it ships immediately.

3) They are not merely claiming to have detected "antimatter light". They are claiming to have detected actual darkness-ray that *anti-exposes* film and *un-charge-couples* CCDs. Their claimed "detections" are supposedly (on a piece of film lightly exposed by background/light pollution/handling) streaks of darkness. Um. Supposedly it works better on film than on CCDs. Um.

4) They developed the film and there were all sorts of dark streaks on it. In various directions and lengths. Straight dark streak? "It's an antigalaxy!" Crooked dark streak? "It's an anti-meteor annihilation"! Dark blob? "It's an anti-cosmic-ray!" Good think they didn't find, say, a watermark or a date-stamp on the film---they would have discovered anti-aliens beaming messages down from the anti-Kodak corporation to tell us what anti-time it was.
 
Thanks everyone - especially ben m - for providing important background, and especially for explaining what the "anti-matter telescope" actually is (and what images it produces, or not).

Here's one thing which I find really strange: I am a keen reader of the various Zooniverse astronomy projects' fora, and an active participant in a couple of them (and have been for several years now). Yet this is the first time, that I can recall, anything like this* happening! :jaw-dropp I mean, we rarely get even a whiff of woo/pseudoscience/promotion of pet theories/etc, and nothing like the full-on stuff which sferwnhafs6tggs posted.

It's almost as if Santilli (or someone doing PR for him) deliberately worked on getting an item into Google alerts (in this case, a piece in the Australian edition of International Business Times, IBT; link), which was picked up by an unsuspecting zooite. Then it seems as if Santilli (or his marketing guy) scoured the internet for fora where this piece was mentioned, and pounced.

I wonder if sferwnhafs6tggs is, in fact, Santilli himself?

The IBT piece quotes a "Professor Svetlin Georgiev of the Sorbonne University, Paris, France"; I wonder if he actually exists? And if he does, does he work in the astronomy, physics, or mathematics department?

I posted a link to this thread in the Zooniverse Talk thread (which has since been locked, DZM: "I believe this discussion has no further merit related to the purpose of this board. Take it to the places where these sorts of discussions are welcome. This is indeed not the place.") I wonder if sferwnhafs6tggs will turn up here soon, to continue the, um, discussion?

* to be clear, I mean sferwnhafs6tggs' posts.
 
JeanTate said:
The IBT piece quotes a "Professor Svetlin Georgiev of the Sorbonne University, Paris, France"; I wonder if he actually exists? And if he does, does he work in the astronomy, physics, or mathematics department?
Click to expand...

1) There is no "Sorbonne University". "The Sorbonne" was the unofficial name, until 1970, of the University of Paris. In 1970, The Sorbonne fragmented into a bunch of institutes with various names.

2) There is a loose consortium of institutes called "Sorbonne Universities". Nobody---really nobody, zero hits on the high-energy physics database---lists "Sorbonne University" as their affiliation. You'd list your affiliation as "University of Paris VI" or "University Pierre et Marie Curie" (UPMC) if you were a scientist at the sciencey institute in this consortium.

3) The UPMC web site has zero search results for "Georgiev".

4) There is a "Svetlin Georgiev", mathematician, Ph.D Bonn 2005 according to the Mathematics Genealogy Project, listed in *one* directory of faculty at University of Sofia. He's there in the math department directory, supposedly under "differential equations" but with no web page, photo, email, or phone. The "differential equations" division lists its members and their research on a separate page, and he's not there.

5) He attended a spam conference in China which put his (presumably self-submitted) bio up on a webpage, which lists his affiliation as "Sorbonne University, Bulgaria" (?) in one place and "Sofia University", since 2002, in another. Oh, and that conference bio proudly lists him as editor-in-chief of "Clifford Algebras".
 
ben m said:
"Kadesvili" was the topic of this fascinating story: http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/articles/finding-jerdsey-v-kadeisvili-or-mailing-with-ruggero-m-santilli/ which ended with a Santilli sockpuppet hastily announcing (under pressure to reveal any information about Kadesvili---contact info, Ph.D. institution, etc.) that Kadesvili had passed away, on several dates in early 2014.
Click to expand...

There was a complex "pump & dump" corporate scam run by the Santilli family in Tampa Bay, Florida. The company is called Magnegas. It floated on "secret Santilli technology" but has now moved to distribution.
http://magnegas.com/about-the-team/

I suggest that Santilli's 70's & 80's "scientific publications" are simply "ground work" for conning small time investors, in various "secret science" schemes that started in the 90's. For example, Santilli's research laboratory in Australia, turned out to be a bread & breakfast hotel.
 
JeanTate said:
The IBT piece quotes a "Professor Svetlin Georgiev of the Sorbonne University, Paris, France"; I wonder if he actually exists? And if he does, does he work in the astronomy, physics, or mathematics department?
Click to expand...
There is a Svetlin Georgiev who has written at least one book on real mathematics: Theory of distributions. So he exists - unlike other Santilli sock puppets such as JV Kadeisvili.
On the other hand, Georgiev has drunken the Kool-Aid by writing several books on "iso-differential calculus".

ETA: Prof. Svetlin G. Georgiev, Assistant Professor, Department of Differential Equations, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Sofia "St. Kliment Ohridski", Sofia, Bulgaria.
 
Last edited:
An ex-colleague of Santilli, Christian Corda, co-authored a paper Confusion in Cosmology and Gravitation.
It is on vixra and due to be published in a special issue of Entropy (wrong subject and minor? journal). But the analysis of Santilli's work shows Santilli's misconceptions about science clearly. The clearest example is Santilli insisting several times that the Big Bang was an actual explosion that makes the Earth the center of the universe :eek:!
 
Another part of that press release "Scientists Confirm Santilli Detection of Antimatter Galaxies, Cosmic Rays and Asteroids" the dubious claim that astrophysicists/scientists confirmed this woo. It is easy to confirm if someone is an astrophysicist - look for their publications. No publications and at the best we have a competent amateur but their inability to use a telescope says that is not the case.
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Nothing for Simone Beghella-Bartoli.
A few abstracts for Bhujbal, P. M but not in astrophysics!
Nothing for Alex Nas.

There is a Simone Beghella-Bartoli with a Master's Degree in Space Engineering.
The Prashant Bhujbal associated with Santilli is not an astrophysicist.

Thus "astrophysicist" in the press release is a lie.
 
Looking for Alex Nas uncovered another Santilli delusional paper with this Alex Nas: Confirmation of the laboratory synthesis of neutrons from a hydrogen gas (PDF) in Journal of Computational Methods inSciences and Engineering 14 (2014) 405–41.
The science is that an electron can be forced into a nucleus if you can provide enough energy to overcome the degeneracy pressure, e.g. in neutron stars.

Santilli's delusion is that he can make this requirement go away with iso-mathematic magical thinking and cartoons (see Fig 2).

He claims to have detected neutrons from a "reactor" with his apparatus. He may have done that (I am not a nuclear physicist) but his claim that this confirms his idea is a fantasy because he has no prediction for the production of neutrinos to match the observations.

What I did not see was any accounting for background neutron radiation or a control test, e.g. runs with an empty reactor.

What I did not see is any actual results. There is just one image of a reading (No. 45 of how many runs?) and assertions about values and results.

What I did see is several runs of the reactor "under the same conditions" over a couple of days that confirmed a neutrino count of 1.9 CPS. That is experimentally dubious - there should be some spread in the measurements and that should be cited.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
There was a complex "pump & dump" corporate scam run by the Santilli family in Tampa Bay, Florida. The company is called Magnegas. It floated on "secret Santilli technology" but has now moved to distribution.
http://magnegas.com/about-the-team/

I suggest that Santilli's 70's & 80's "scientific publications" are simply "ground work" for conning small time investors, in various "secret science" schemes that started in the 90's. For example, Santilli's research laboratory in Australia, turned out to be a bread & breakfast hotel.
Click to expand...


What?!?! Like researchers don't need a bed and some breakfast?!?!? Not a bad idea, the B&B can help fund research and it gives you a ready source for test subjects tour guests.
 
Santilli is suing me for defamation because of a blog post I wrote on this telescope.

See w_w_w_.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/11/sued-by-ruggero-santilli/ for details
[I still have less than 15 messages on this forum, so no clickable link, sorry]
 
ben m said:
1) There is no "Sorbonne University". "The Sorbonne" was the unofficial name, until 1970, of the University of Paris. In 1970, The Sorbonne fragmented into a bunch of institutes with various names.

2) There is a loose consortium of institutes called "Sorbonne Universities". Nobody---really nobody, zero hits on the high-energy physics database---lists "Sorbonne University" as their affiliation. You'd list your affiliation as "University of Paris VI" or "University Pierre et Marie Curie" (UPMC) if you were a scientist at the sciencey institute in this consortium.
Click to expand...

Indeed I can confirm, I was from Pierre and Marie Curie , Paris 6. That's where I published my first article. We were not far away from the plushy amphiteater but never allowed there ;).
 
Reality Check said:
An ex-colleague of Santilli, Christian Corda, co-authored a paper Confusion in Cosmology and Gravitation.
It is on vixra and due to be published in a special issue of Entropy (wrong subject and minor? journal). But the analysis of Santilli's work shows Santilli's misconceptions about science clearly. The clearest example is Santilli insisting several times that the Big Bang was an actual explosion that makes the Earth the center of the universe :eek:!
Click to expand...

Isn't there no such thing as a center of the universe? I'm very rusty on my physics... like 22 years rusty ;).
 
The usual analogy is an expanding balloon with dots on it. Think about sitting on its surface and only knowing about that surface so that there is no exterior or interior to the balloon. You will see all of the dots going away from you. You are at the "center" of the surface. Move to a different point on the surface and you will come to the same conclusion.

The expansion of space in the Big Bang is the 3D equivalent of the balloon surface. There is no center of the universe, i.e. us.

That is not even undergraduate cosmology - I am sure that high school science students know more cosmology than Santilli!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom