The basic requirements originally requested by Pauli and Fermi for the new particle, later called *neutrino*, are essentially three: it is electrically neutral and it must have the same mass and spin of an electron. Hence, if the mass of the *neutrino *(*n*) corresponded to that assumed by Pauli and Fermi, the *βd*^{-}*mass gap problem* would be brilliantly solved.

However, the current upper limits of the mass of the *n* are < 2eV.

Here we show that a clear incongruity comes out: the mass attributed to the *n* will never be able to solve the *energy gap problem* of the *βd*^{-}* ^{ }*: it takes ≃ 250,000

Unless we consider, instead of *n*, another particle, probably still unknown, as the 3^{rd} particle of* βd ^{-}*. To find a solution, we hypothesized the existence of an electron with no electric charge: a neutral electron (e°).

We Measured the global energy efficiency of Faraday’s induction, during each electric discharge into the emitter of the primary circuit. We also measured evolution of the peak primary discharge current, and of its derivative, versus the initial charge voltage. We observed systematically a much larger than 100% energy efficiency. That energy efficiency increases with the primary discharge energy. The peak discharge current is observed to be much larger than predicted by Ohm’s Law, and the discharge current derivative is also observed to be much larger than classically predicted.

Same experiments, performed with “normal conductive devices (control)”, gave energy efficiencies much lower than 100 %, independent of the stored energy. And their peak discharge currents and derivatives followed Ohm’s Law.

From these confirmations of predicted results, we proposed and tested successfully concepts of Autonomous electric Generators prototypes, extracting their energy from the cosmological Gravitational quantum field. Their industrial use into electric vehicles should preserve Earth fossil energy resources, as well as reduce the detrimental climate effects of greenhouse gases emissions. Hypotheses are suggested to explain the observed experimental facts.

]]>1. Einstein discussed special relativity extensively using a system that **was not a relative system**.

2. The synchronous transfer rule defined by Einstein is wrong.

3. The physical model (rays in inertial motion relative to a rigid rod) used by Einstein to derive the special theory of relativity was wrong, and the resulting mathematical model (Lorentz transformation, etc.) was also incorrect.

4. Countless contradictory calculation results caused by passive relativity.

5. Why did Einstein repeatedly emphasize that there is no “relative system that maintains absolute simultaneity?” Why people cannot find a relative system maintaining absolute simultaneity before? We proved countless relativistic systems maintain absolute simultaneity.

]]>Humanity waits for a united theory of physics. Science has two ways to reach this final result: first, infinitesimally detailed scientific research, and second, the study of general trends. The painful lesson of our centuries of research reveals that when one tries to the more detailed the research result, the deeper we go into the endless confusion of information. Instead, the scientific study of the macroscopic and general levels is radically different, like a view from a high mountaintop: no doubt, crystal-clear, easy to understand, ordered, and including the gateway to detailed research. Additionally, the theory of everything is not as complex as theorists think, but very simple, beautiful, and perfect.

]]>