deBroglie's equation and heavy electrons

  • Longview,


    Below is my calculation of the energy/momentum absorbed from the magnetic
    vector potential in a collision between an electron and a positively charged
    particle of nearly equal and opposite momenta in an intense current arc
    - based on the Feyman reference below ([3] p.21-4 "Two kinds of momentum).


    It is just copy of a past posting to Vortex-L. I want to check it again and
    revise it with some new data, but time does permit. For simplicity, I
    assume spinless particles. Perhaps such collisions occur in arcs, or near
    electrodes. The crude Ascii-graphics may have to be viewed with fixed
    font-size to appear correctly. It is a bit tedious to read and check:


    'Slow' arcing electrons can gain relativistic mass


    Widom-Larsen, Brillouin (and some others) propose that electrons acquire
    782 KeV mass/energy and overcome the electroweak barrier to combine with
    protons, deuterons or tritons to produce low momentum neutrons.


    Storms notes [1] that an electron must reach relativistic speeds to gain
    782 KeV in a lattice, - seemingly a very tall order, due to collisions.
    Others, e.g. Hagelstein, et al[2], doubt that field strengths in LENR
    experiments provide this extra energy ("renormalized" mass).


    In an arc, colliding electron-proton(deuteron) wave packets pairs are
    strongly squeezed together by equal, opposite magnetic forces.


    Even when the composite packet has velocity zero (lab frame), the packets
    continue absorbing field energy by becoming more oscillatory, localized and
    overlapping as spectra shift to high mass/energy eigenstates. In pictures:



    TIME Low resolution ASCII graphic of
    | e-p collision with (lab) velocity ~ 0
    |
    V PROTON ELECTRON
    | -----> <----- Decreasing
    | _____________ _____________ Magnetic
    | / \ / \ Vector Potential
    | / PROTON \ / ELECTRON \
    | / 'p' \ / 'e' \ A
    | -------------------+--------------------- ------------->
    |
    V |\ 'HEAVIER' |
    | | \ ELECTRON |
    | _____________ | \ /\ |
    | | \| \ / \ V
    | | | \/ \ /\ /\ |
    | | | \/ \/ \ A |
    | -------------------+--------------------\ -------> |
    | V
    | | A-field
    | |\ transfering
    | | \ | 'HEAVY' momentum
    | | \ |\ ELECTRON to e-p pair
    | ___________|___\ | \ | |
    | | | |\| \|\ |
    | | | | | | | |
    | | /\| | \ \ \ A |
    | -------------/------+-------\-\---------- ---> V
    V significant e-p electron wave packet
    wave packet overlap becomes squeezed, more
    localized, oscillatory,
    - spectrum shift to high
    mass/energy eigenstates


    Electron velocities in arcs are usually far below relativistic, but the arc
    magnetic field stores huge energy and momentum that is transferred to/from
    colliding particles when the arc current rises, falls, or is interrupted.


    To gain 782Kev in energy, an electron can equivalently acquire (see [6])


    momentum = 6.3480 * 10^-22 [N*sec] -- where [N] = newtons


    The following example shows that this does not require exotic lab equipment.


    Assume the electron is in an arc plasma uniformly distributed in a tube
    with radius=R, length=10*R, current=I aligned with the z-axis of 3-space.


    We want to compute how much field momentum can be transferred to a electron
    'e' in a collision at a radial distance 'r' from the tube center.


    =============================== x-axis
    ^ e \ /
    | ^ <----- I[Amps] \ /
    | | r \ /
    2R -------+------------------- <------x----- z-axis
    | / \
    | / \
    v / y-axis
    ===============================

    |<------ L = 10*R ------->|



    The (under-utilized) "magnetic vector potential" field (denoted A(r))
    depends only on local currents. Very conveniently [3,4] --


    q*A(r) = momentum impulse (as a vector) that a charge 'q' at point 'r'
    picks up if currents sourcing vector-field 'A' are shut off

    By ref[5], near the outer surface of the electron plasma tube (r = R),
    the momentum available to electrons, protons, or deuterons is


    [e]*|A(R)| = [e] * (u0/4*pi) * ln(2L/R) * I
    = (1.6*10^-19 [C]) * (10^-7 [N/Amp^2]) * ln(20) * I
    = 4.8 * 10^-26 [C] * [N/Amp^2] * I

    So, the minimum current which can provide a colliding electron (at a
    radial distance R) in this arc with 782 KeV is


    I = {6.348 * 10^-22 [N*sec]} / {4.8 * 10^-26 [C*N/Amp^2]}
    = 1.33 * 10^4 [Amp]


    -- [e] = electron charge = 1.6*10^-19 [C], [C] = coulomb
    u0 = permeability of free space = 4*pi*10^-7 [N/Amp^2]
    ln = natural log, ln(20) ~ 3
    [Amp] = [C]/[sec]


    Much greater arc currents are routinely achieved [7].


    NOTES -
    1) Only electrons can acquire significant relativistic mass from
    a momentum "kick" in arcs due to their small mass.
    More massive protons, deuterons or tritons will not gain much mass.


    2) The equation for |A(r)| is singular at r=0 (see [5]).
    This is not "unphysical" since volume integral is still finite.
    It shows that much smaller currents still can produce "heavy electrons"
    at the center of current flow, but less frequently.


    3) It is not obvious whether inner K-shell electrons of an atom in an
    arc can be forced into the nucleus - resulting in "electron capture"


    4) Perhaps a similar analysis applies to currents in emulsions of metal
    particles in dielectric fluids [8].


    REFERENCES -
    [1] (p. 29) "A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion"
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf


    [2] "Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems"
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.3810.pdf


    [3] "Feynman Lectures on Physics" Vol.3, Ch.21 (p.5)
    http://www.peaceone.net/basic/Feynman/V3 Ch21.pdf


    [4] "On the Definition of 'Hidden' Momentum" (p.10 - note cgs units)
    http://hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/hiddendef.pdf


    [5] UIUC Physics 435 EM Fields & Sources - LECTURE NOTES 16 (p. 8)
    http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/s…re_Notes/P435_Lect_16.pdf


    [6] Accelerating Voltage Calculator
    http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/bmz5364/calc-kv.html


    [7] "EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CURRENT DENSITY AND THE HEAT-FLUX
    DENSITY IN THE CATHODE ARC SPOT"
    http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~aruy/publicacoes/PDF/IfZh current density and U.pdf


    [8] AMPLIFICATION OF ENERGETIC REACTIONS - Brian Ahern
    United States Patent Application 20110233061
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0233061.html - EXCERPT:


    Comments/criticisms are welcome.

  • Lou Pagnucco,


    I am not quite able to decipher all of your clever diagrammatic typography, but it is a worthy attempt. But, by following up with some skim reading of the great reference you give of Hagelstein & Chaudhary arXiv [quant-ph] article of 2008, which here I will call H&C, I am at least getting some picture (useful to me anyway) of your "arc" magnetic vector potential and its implications for electron mass / momentum.


    H&C have an interesting comment concerning electron mass shifts, (and I paraphrase) that longitudinal fluctuations are associated with position changes, and that transverse fluctuations are associated with momentum changes. This seems to be excessively dogmatic, at least in view of the many eamples of LENR / CF now seen or thought to be seen. Now I see that this is likely the genesis of Hagelstein's later J of CMNS assertions concerning the Coulomb gauge.


    I know that visualization can often be misleading when trying to understand quantum / subatomic physics. But I'm stuck with a fairly deep visually-aided understanding of these things / phenomena (I was a ham radio operator in the 7th grade, age 13 but while scientifically precocious was not a true maths genius by any means). I am most appreciative of your patient explications. What is most important to me is that it may help us all find common mechanistic underpinnings for CF / LENR.
    For that reason, I am fascinated by your "arc" explanation [even if you did not originate it], but also find it difficult to generalize it to what might be "non-arc" situations of apparent LENR / CF.


    Here would be my primitive attempt to make some such generalizations:


    1. For F&P electrolytic cells, could the "cratering" represent localized mini-arcs under nearly incidental structural situations in a Pd-D lattice ? The NAE there might be just a localized breakdown of the electrostatic field, leading to a rapid and very localized discharge of very high current containing counter propagating protons (deuterons) and electrons. Said discharge points perhaps being spatially limited by inductive effects.


    2. For Rossi, Piantelli, Focardi, Parkkomov et al hot gas and powder type cells, could there be some sort of collisional analog to arcing? Perhaps small particles of intensively agitated hot metal develop large charge differentials of stochastic (random probabilistic fluctuation) origin that on nearing physical proximity, discharge these accumulated "static" charges in the presence of protons or hydride (H minus, that H with two electrons) to produce W-L-S type slow neutrons? But if so, why do they seem to function [and perhaps even better] with melting?


    3. For Mitchell Swartz types (Phusors, Nanors and ?), we already know that there is an Optimal Operating Point OOP, which suggests that too strong a field (a discharge?) can be associated with failed LENR / CF-- or is that simply too much current (heat, neutrons?) disrupting vital structures. While Swartz results seem the most consistent among the diverse exploratory types, it does suggest that "arcs" might be too much of a good thing. For me, I'm still disposed to high potential, low current as a possible important feature. This may be a reminiscence of Mizuno's preoccupation with the possibilities of Nernst pressure--- [convincing to me when I first was exposed perhaps because of a fairly strong background in neurophysiology where Nernst is very important AND because I happened to read Mizuno's book early on].


    4. What of the evidence in Pd-D work of the necessity of dislocations in lattices, eg. crystalline 99.9999% Pd, when deuterated "never" works, but addition of selected impurities and/or lattice irregularities can confer good functionality?


    5. Are there common elements to the "tip of an arrow" analogy and the "threads of an intense arc" ? OR can we consider them identical? OR completely distinct?


    6. And finally, what about nearly pure arc situations, that is plasma to solid, such as fluorescent bulbs with long arcs terminating on tungsten filaments....


    Now that we have seen (and supposedly rejected as misleading data) the isotopic shifts in Hg of fluorescent bulb scrap mercury as (I paraphrase) "due to differential isotopic absorption by glass", perhaps it might give a bit of insight into the mercury within ASEA (roughly Swedish General Electric Corp.) "valves" early on used for Ultra High Voltage AC rectification for High Voltage DC Power transmission "Interties"-- in which huge mercury rectifier tubes of the first US thousand mile transmission lines, were subsequently superseded by all solid state optically switched / controlled silicon rectifiers-- last I knew.


    Perhaps Matts Lewan or others in Scandinavia might know what became of that old ASEA valve mercury and what might be seen in its isotopic composition.... Or if perhaps such old "valves" might still exist, and residual Hg and related nuclides now be isotopically analyzed with mass spec.


    Longview

  • Good questions, Longview


    I can only speculate on them.
    BTW, I do not claim Hagelstein is wrong - only that (barring any miscalculation of mine) QED/QFT and simple QM analyses seem contradictory.
    It's impossible for me to characterize and analyze the very messy physics of (alleged) LENR.
    But, here are my best guesses, without guarantees -


    1) Possibly the very large electric field gradients involved in plasmon charge foci (colliding e+p) localize e+p pairs so that enough mass/momentum is acquired.
    I tried to do some calculations with large numbers of "classical" electrons confined in a steep (2 x 10^11 V/m) electric potential well, but it got too messy.
    But, if the effect is real, arcing may only be one route to achieve the reaction.


    2) I suppose all of your conjectures could be correct. Only experimentation will reveal which, if any, happen.


    3) No idea. An interesting (but probably wrong) possibility, is something like the Branly effect.
    For example, see "Cold Fusion And Branly Effect" - http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27676
    There are more papers on this at the Arxiv.org website.


    4) Good question. I have no opinion.


    5) Yes. A "classical" electron in a current is coupled to the others by the magnetic vector potential.
    Some of the W-L papers use the "Darwin Lagrangian" which gives the coupling terms between electrons explicitly.
    In any case, the classical electron does not want to stop during a collision, and borrows energy/momentum from the other electrons to resist stopping
    - analogous to the way the atom a the tip of an arrow does from the arrow body.
    The Feynman reference presents the math pretty clearly.


    6) I do not know if the many arc experiments (e.g., Irion-Wendt) purporting to show transmutations were correctly analyzed.
    They should be fairly simple to repeat, but it would take a brave experimentalist to challenge the established beliefs.
    One of the papers George Miley co-authors claims some very bizarre effects can occur in intense arcs.



  • Hello again Lou Pagnucco,


    I found a seemingly uncompromised Chapter 21 of Feynman's Lectures in Physics:


    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&biw=&bih=&q=Feynman+Lectures%2C+vol.3+%22Two+kinds+of+momentum%2C%22&oq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=


    Hopefully that is the complete link. If not (for our readers) it came up searching the string: Feynman Lectures Vol.3 "Two kinds of momentum"


    And it was as you, Lou, indicated, both relatively easy to understand and certainly provides a good feel for the magnetic vector potential and its likely role in electron effective mass or m* or meff and its apparent identity with what Feynman there calls "p-momentum" and others sometimes call "dynamical momentum". The difference being an added "qA" which can add (or subtract) from that other type of momentum.


    kinematic momentum: p = mv


    dynamical or Feynman's "p" momentum: p = mv + qA


    Just to fold back to the origin of this thread. How would this second momentum fit with deBroglie's equation?


    I'm still somewhat concerned whether we can generalize this concept to most or all of the situations where a Widom-Larson or other proton + heavy electron --> neutron situations. I think your citations cover arcs well, and I can conceive of the mechanism working in "hot gas and metallic powder" devices.


    I guess electrolytic schemes and their many examples will have to be regarded as a bit of a mystery, at least to me.


    I do recall (dimly) a situation where flat Pd electrode did not function for over-unity LENR, but that a coiled one did under otherwise similar chemistry and physics. Of course the success there might relate to surface defects from the coiling, rather than, or in addition to, magnetic effects.


    More later,
    Longview

  • Longview,


    I just attempted to post an answer, but somehow it got lost due to my hitting the wrong key.
    If it does appear, ignore this one. But, I will condense what I tried to write earlier --


    Regarding your question "How would this second momentum fit with deBroglie's equation?" --


    It's important to distinguish between a wave packet's group velocity (translational motion) and
    its phase velocity. A particle standing still (group velocity = 0) can still possess a spectrum with
    high energy/momentum components (i.e., with high "phase velocities") - These have short
    deBroglie wavelengths, but when all are superposed, there is no motion.


    If I understand the theories correctly, this can occur in (at least) two ways -


    First, when a colliding particle borrows energy (via e-m field coupling) from the parallel traveling
    particles nearby - analogous to the atom the tip of an arrow.
    Or, when a trapped particle is resonantly excited to amplify its high energy spectrum without
    causing motion (e.g., see thread "New preprint on D-D LENR in metal deuterides") - analogous to
    how water waves in a tank grow when shaken resonantly.


    Only speculation. No assertions. Trust only experiments.

  • Lou Pagnucco,


    And it seems this phase velocity is quite analogous to standing waves. From Schrodinger's initial work, I believe that has been part of the model.... certainly is something emphasized in chemistry discussion of electron orbitals.


    Another perhaps related subject:


    Something you wrote in a post a while back has been sticking with me.


    In an early post in this thread you mentioned "both particles (but, especially the electron) borrow large momenta, i.e., "effective mass," from this field."


    Then more recently (March 25) you reiterated: "Only electrons can acquire significant relativistic mass from
    a momentum "kick" in arcs due to their small mass. More massive protons, deuterons or tritons will not gain much mass."


    I can certainly understand that in solving for momentum, an 1836 times heavier particle (proton) will have to gain 1/1836 the velocity to give the same "p". Further, since the electron is reaching near relativistic velocities much more readily-- as a unitary charge in an given electrostatic potential, it will accelerate 1836 times faster than the oppositely accelerated proton also of unitary charge in the same potential.


    Now I'm wondering if Feynman's discussion of kinematic v. dynamical or "p" momentum (the one with the qA, magnetic vector potential) would show us that indeed the proton, while not nearly as fast and hence gaining only vanishingly small relativistic mass, has nevertheless also gained a nearly equivalent added effective mass through the "p" momentum mechanism? Or does velocity contribute to that form of mass or momentum increase as well? As I read it p = mv + qA, does not show an obvious v component in the second term. I see charge density there, I see moving charge curvature there, so I guess current implies number of charges passing through an orthogonal-to-flow slice of space per unit of time....


    Can we argue that it is nearly the same mass gain, for modest velocities as a percent of C (electron at say 10%, or ~0.5% mass increase and proton at way under 0.01% or ~zero mass increase) likely to be seen in many CF / LENR experiments often involving very short range accelerations? Or not?


    [You can no doubt detect that I am here attempting to maintain a theoretical and practical recognition of a possible general role for protons in CF / LENFR other than as simple targets... but which would be OK as well.]


    Thanks Lou, for any clarification you bring to this.


    Longview

  • Logview,


    Difficult questions.


    I believe that the "qA" term will result in an effective mass increase for conduction
    charge (positive or negative) equivalent to the field energy divided by number of
    conduction charges - in direct collisions. In the case of a common inductive circuit,
    I believe the field energy density is not high, and most field energy is just thermalized
    in soft collisions, each of which extracts only a small amount of field energy.
    This is all "hand wavey" - only an attempt to look at classical limits.


    A particle in a fixed pure momentum state is a standing wave, and its phase velocity
    is proportional to its frequency (inversely to its wavelength.) So a particle with
    properly phased momenta components can be energetic and still move slowly,
    and be highly localized, due to destructive phase interference away from the
    average position of its waveform.


    I believe that some of the theories could support proton (or other heavy particle)
    involvement if they are in trapped in potential wells and acquire energy (i.e., a
    dispersed momentum spectrum) via a resonant excitation. I believe that the
    thread on Vladimir Vysotskii's theory -
    "The Problem of Creating a Universal Theory of LENR Vladimir Vysotskii"
    lenr-canr.org/acrobat/VysotskiiVtheproblem.pdf
    - proposes this. Only successful, repeatable experiments can confirm.

  • Since the topic is coming up here once again with Mark Davidson's ICCF-19 presentation on his J. of Physics Conference Proceeding paper. I feel it is best to keep the deBroglie approach in view by responding here. And once again thanks to Lou Pagnucco for bringing Davidson's presentation to us. I've quoted my mass variation argument below. Perhaps not as as elegant as Mark Devidson's, but also not as difficult for non-physicists to understand.


    Longview


  • - A class of relativistically rigid proper clocks -


    R C Jennison


    Journal of Physics A General Physics 12/1998; 19(12):2249. DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/19/12/013
    ABSTRACT The principles of proper time-keeping are considered and it is noted that an ideal solution may be represented by a system of helical null lines in 4-space. This construction is translated into 3-space and it is shown that it may be interpreted as a self-contained and coherent system of waves having a well defined boundary. These waves benefit the de Broglie components which interfere to form a rotating particle. Three configurations are considered. In each of these the localised wave system has two components of energy, one of which is at rest in the chosen frame and the other is circulating relative to it. These proper clocks appear to have very many of the properties of fundamental particles of matter and yet they are formed from non-particulate waves. It is finally suggested that the de Broglie waves in these particular configurations may be intrinsically of the same substance as electromagnetic waves trapped in an unfamiliar rotating configuration following a cataclismic event which has squeezed the fields together into a condensed, rotating state which is non-linear in its radial geometry and from which they cannot escape. The stable entities are an example of pure non-particulate matter which may also be applicable on a cosmic scale.


    - The formation of charge from a travelling electromagnetic wave by reduction of the effective velocity of light to zero -


    R C Jennison


    Journal of Physics A General Physics 12/1998; 15(2):405. DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/15/2/013
    ABSTRACT An experiment is described in which an electromagnetic wave is retarded in a slow-wave structure and finally brought to rest relative to the laboratory by revolving the structure, in the opposite sense, at the same angular frequency as that of the wave. The static field system forced from the wave may be considered as electric charge having its origin in the distributed wave field.




    [url]https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=y8sSFTDkQ20C&lpg=PA310&ots=XYfftFbdO0&dq=jennison phase locked cavities&pg=PA310#v=onepage&q=jennison phase locked cavities&f=false


    [/url]
    https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=SLm8sXLIO8oC&lpg=PA97&ots=X6n6Xa12C-&dq=jennison phase locked cavities&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q=jennison phase locked cavities&f=false



    https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=lA8tgLMRu2kC&lpg=PA173&ots=EPiIn9nj_S&dq=jennison phase locked cavities&pg=PA173#v=onepage&q=jennison phase locked cavities&f=false


    https://www.academia.edu/11093…_a_Phase-Locked_Resonator

  • The Jennison material looks like it could be relevant--


    But I don't quite grasp what the main point from Jennison would be for us at the Forum. Is the main revelation here a way to describe the origin or ultimate nature of matter, and particularly the electron? Does the mention of deBroglie in this context refer to any possibility of variable mass? We know that Aharonov-Bohm is relevant because Bohm and Schwinger said so, if I recall that correctly.


    Please help us more experimentalist or engineer types to understand the implications, particularly for LENR / CR / CANR. Thanks for the interest in the topic Mike Fld, in any case.


    I see some diagrams in the last reference. I read the words, but something is unclear, to me anyway.

  • Since the MEAN mass of the electron is precisely known, there may be only the possibility that the mass becomes time variant about that mean. Possibly related to this, an examination of "heavy electron" theory, will show that generally mass variation for electrons or "effective electrons" is vectorial, that is an increased effective mass in one direction is accompanied by decreases in at least one of the other spatial dimensions. I should note that the "deBroglie equation" has more complex variants that specify the variables with subscripts of x, y and z. Further there are relativistic versions. The general idea holds nevertheless.


    I see in David Bohm's text "Quantum Theory" (1989 Dover Reprint of the original from Prentice-Hall, 1951) what I should have known already, quoting Bohm, page 69:

    "De Broglie's derivation has the advantage, however, that it shows the relation E = h[nu] and P = h/[lambda] are relativistically invariant."

  • We know that Aharonov-Bohm is relevant because Bohm and Schwinger said so, if I recall that correctly.

    Randell Mills has a classical explanation of the purportedly quantum mechanical AB effect in GUTCP.

    Í look at GUTCP on my desktop

    for a few minutes at a time.. then get some paracetamol- acetaminophen for a headache

  • Heavy electrons play an important role in Widom-Larsen theory of cold fusion and they're simply normal electrons involving relativistic effects. Dense aether model handles space-time like dynamic foam of density fluctuations of hypothetical ultradense gas, similar to supercritical fluid. Particles which are moving across this foam make that foam temporarily more thick and dense like being surrounded of dense atmosphere or coat of vacuum fluctuations. Quantum mechanics handles this situation by so-called pilot wave concept, i.e. wake wave of vacuum undulated by particle moving through it. You can imagine it like wave formed above fish floating beneath water surface. The space-time deformed by pilot wave gets literally more dense for light waves and thick for particles. Note that pilot wave slows down light and speed of time for particle in motion in exactly the way, that the resulting speed of light would remain invariant - in this way the quantum mechanics plays well with special relativity. In dense aether model the speed dependent component of inertia, i.e. relativistic mass of particle represents simply mass of pilot wave which surrounds it. The faster the particle is moving, the more deformed space-time around it gets, the more dense the pilot wave looks like and the more the vacuum deformed by it adds to the effective mass of particle.


    Ksls4zp.gif gMM2sv0.gif


    The Widom-Larsen theory thus considers, that the electrons are moving fast, so that they get heavy. These heavy electrons, i.e. electrons of high relativistic mass also play a role in many chemical and physical properties of heavy elements, the atoms of which are so large, that the electrons in outer orbital shells are forced to revolve them at high speed. Because such an electrons are thus more massive, their orbitals get shrunken, which brings a number of anomalies into periodic table of elements..

  • Quote

    Possibly related to this, an examination of "heavy electron" theory, will show that generally mass variation for electrons or "effective electrons" is vectorial, that is an increased effective mass in one direction is accompanied by decreases in at least one of the other spatial dimensions.


    If we take a look at pilot wave, we realize that it deforms vacuum only in direction of particle actual motion, that means that in another directions the vacuum remains relatively flat. The perceived/observed inertia of electrons would thus correspond the deform of vacuum observed from particular direction. The effective mass of electron doesn't decrease in perpendicular directions - except the fact, that increased vacuum density makes the rest mass of electron relatively lower as a whole. What de-Broglie wave affects instead is the projection of particle spin into direction of particle motion: the half-integer spin of electron changes gradually into integer spin of boson - in another words, the fast moving particle gets widespread and it gradually changes into a charge wave.


    KtQ7szF.gif

    Quote
    Can we argue that it is nearly the same mass gain, for modest velocities as a percent of C (electron at say 10%, or ~0.5% mass increase and proton at way under 0.01% or ~zero mass increase) likely to be seen in many CF / LENR experiments often involving very short range accelerations?


    Yep, any acceleration of particle ads another undulation to its pilot wave - actually the more, the higher derivatives of motion gets. In my theory the cold fusion results from Astroblaster effect during sharp collisions of multiple atoms along single line, during which the orbitals at the place of collision get literally shaken and their electrons gain high relativistic mass for a brief moment of time.

  • If we take a look at pilot wave, we realize that it deforms vacuum only in direction of particle actual motion, that means that in another directions the vacuum remains relatively flat. The perceived/observed inertia of electrons would thus correspond the deform of vacuum observed from particular direction. The effective mass of electron doesn't decrease in perpendicular directions - except the fact, that increased vacuum density makes the rest mass of electron relatively lower as a whole. What de-Broglie wave affects instead is the projection of particle spin into direction of particle motion: the half-integer spin of electron changes gradually into integer spin of boson - in another words, the fast moving particle gets widespread and it gradually changes into a charge wave.


    KtQ7szF.gif


    Yep, any acceleration of particle ads another undulation to its pilot wave - actually the more, the higher derivatives of motion gets. In my theory the cold fusion results from Astroblaster effect during sharp collisions of multiple atoms along single line, during which the orbitals at the place of collision get literally shaken and their electrons gain high relativistic mass for a brief moment of time.

    Dear Zephir,

    Could your model be related with polaritron plasmons and latest Google patent explanation ?

  • ..heavy elements, the atoms of which are so large, that the electrons in outer orbital shells are forced to revolve them at high speed.

    These heavy electrons, i.e. electrons of high relativistic mass also play a role in many chemical and physical properties of heavy elements, the atoms of which are so large, that the electrons in outer orbital shells are forced to revolve them at high speed. Because such an electrons are thus more massive, their orbitals get shrunken, which brings a number of anomalies into periodic table of elements..


    This "electrons in outer orbital shells..." is nonsense - may be a typo: "inner shell orbits are supposed to move faster. But calculations show that there is no classic correlation between relativistic mass increase due to higher speed in deeper nuclear orbits. The main reason is that inner electrons move on SO(4) orbits and not on classical ones...


    Even worse: If you look at e.g. gold then you cannot see inner electrons on orbits anymore. One more modeling challenge.


    Only free electrons acquire classic relativistic mass but these certainly play no direct role in LENR. But they could provide the oscillating fields we need.

  • Quote

    " is nonsense - may be a typo: "inner shell orbits are supposed to move faster


    Of course I do many typos, but according to Kepler law the electrons should move the faster, the father from atom nuclei are.

    This is also why the relativist mass affects gold but not lightweight atoms.

  • according to Kepler law

    Kepler's law may not be tested on orbital electrons..

    Mills has a whole lot to say about outer orbital electrons


    however inner electrons in the K shell he hardly mentions

    especially not for atoms like gold. palladium unfortunately..


    since these may be operational in LENR.

    GUTCP has severe limitations