Can these deep orbits be related to the Lipinski's UGC theory in any simple or quantifiable way?
Their experiments did - as expected - show no correlation with their model. Classically deep orbits are (unstable) resonances of the fields. The Lipinski experiments show a very good agreement with the proton magnetic moment quantization, that is needed to explain the first deep magnetic orbit state (as seen and measured by Holmlid).
To convince the mainstream to hypothetical possibility of nuclear fusion in low temperature, we need a concrete mechanism for crossing this huge Coulomb barrier, and electron assistance seems the only possibility (? I still haven't seen any other ?)
However, it requires that electron remains localized between the two nuclei - while it is natural if considering its trajectory, mainstream requires swelling the electron into huge wavefunction, making such localization practically impossible - hence this possibility currently is not treated seriously.
To change that, it is crucial to show that such "swelling of electron" doesn't always have to occur - that its charge has a trajectory.
However, such trajectory picture requires "local realism", for which there is Bell violation counter-argument: standard view on "local realism" contains a misunderstanding we need to repair first - e.g. to maintain electron localization to screen for fusion of two nuclei.
The most obvious is Mermin's inequality - for binary A, B, C literally "tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal": Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1.
However, QM formalism allows to get sum below 1.
We can repair the standard: "evolving 3D" "local realism" misunderstanding by replacing it with time-symmetric: "4D local realism":
- in spacetime the basic object is trajectory, hence we should use their ensembles, e.g. Feynman path integrals are equivalent with QM,
- we have time/CPT symmetry in Lagrangian mechanics: we successfully use from QFT to GR,
- in Born rule rho~psi^2 one psi comes from past (propagator from -infinity), second from future (propagator from +infinity), like in TSVF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_vector_formalism
Here is example of construction of violation of such inequity by just assuming uniform distribution among paths ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_Entropy_Random_Walk ) :
Description of construction (details: page 9 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2724 ) :
The considered space is graph on the left with all 2^3 = 8 values of ABC: in 000 and 111 we have to stay, in the remaining vertices we can jump to a neighbor.
The presented measurement in time=0 ignores C - we have 4 possible outcomes (red squares) determining exactly AB.
Assuming uniform probability distribution among paths (from -infinity to +infinity in time like in TSVF), we get Pr(A=B) = (1^2 + 1^2) / (1^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 1^2) = 2/10.
Analogously for the remaining pairs, we finally get Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 6/10
Using ensemble of paths toward only one time direction, we would have first power instead of Born rules - the inequality would be satisfied.
Alternative construction: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00175
To convince the mainstream to hypothetical possibility of nuclear fusion in low temperature, we need a concrete mechanism for crossing this huge Coulomb barrier, and electron assistance seems the only possibility (? I still haven't seen any other ?)
However, it requires that electron remains localized between the two nuclei - while it is natural if considering its trajectory, mainstream requires swelling the electron into huge wavefunction, making such localization practically impossible - hence this possibility currently is not treated seriously.
The so called huge Coulomb barrier is a myth and only present in kinetic experiments. As soon as an electron binds to a nucleus its relativistic mass (as given in NPP2.0) binds as magnetic flux and acts as magnetic flux. The treatment of charge or charge equivalent mass is tricky as inside a nucleus charge is generated by magnetic flux and does only one rotation. Thus all ideas with relativistic electron on orbits lead to wrong results as there are no deep electron orbits that are stable.
But what we can see is that the electron equivalent mass flux is able to start on more rotation on as SO(4) torus surface what leads to the so called spin-spin pairing. This effect, generally working on magnetic flux, is one basic trigger for LENR.
Fusion of two nuclei is a very kinetic process
This is obvious nonsense! Fusion is the least kinetic process you can think off. True is only that most experiments so far did see fusion upon kinetic impact of mass. We see/measure LENR at room temperature!
https://revolution-green.com/s…d-larger-powerful-design/
Simon Derricut writes a nice introduction to this update article on the SkunkWorks fusion program. You may recall that SW's claimed 3 years ago, that in 5 years they would have something ready for market. No surprise they will miss their deadline , but still a chance they will get there a few years after that.
This is obvious nonsense! Fusion is the least kinetic process you can think off. True is only that most experiments so far did see fusion upon kinetic impact of mass. We see/measure LENR at room temperature!
You start with two nuclei in a large distance, need to take them to distance of nuclear forces (~fm), what due to Coulomb repulsion requires investing huge energy (MeV-scale).
How does their distance r(t) evolve in time? Where this energy comes from?
If you are saying that there are some additional energy levels of atoms - not known to atomic physics ... if having lower energy than ground state atom (like these "hydrinos"), everything should deexcitate to such state as physics searches for the lowest one - fortunately nothing like this is happening.
Otherwise, states are still extremely easy to confirm or disprove: e.g. through excitation or absorption spectra. Lack of corresponding energy lines: added or removed, means that there are no such states.
E.g. in stars all such hypothetical additional energy levels would be used, and well seen in energy spectrum - but nothing like this is happening - we see only known lines.
If your belief is based on a theory requiring additional states which were disproved in a countless of ways, don't be surprised that this field is not treated seriously.
If you indeed see fusion in room temperature, electrons are absolutely crucial there - but not to bind with nuclei what again requires investing huge energy (e.g. p + e + 782keV -> n), but to remain localized between the two nuclei, like in perfect "+-+" configuration collapsing to a point.
If you indeed see fusion in room temperature, electrons are absolutely crucial there - but not to bind with nuclei what again requires investing huge energy (e.g. p + e + 782keV -> n), but to remain localized between the two nuclei, like in perfect "+-+" configuration collapsing to a point.
Indeed the role of the electron in LENR is prominent as the initial path is e-e SO(4) base spin pairing, that allows to release energy and to assume a state that has the same symmetry as the relativistic core mass of the proton.
Regarding deep proton! (not electron!) states: May be you missed Holmlids work and Mills newest measurements of toroidal/dense Hydrogen. They are in line with the dark matter signal line (just above 3.5keV) we receive from the stars.
No phantasies everything undoubtfully measured.
In NPP2.1.8 I show the relation between charge and mass and how charge is generated by moving mass. The picture of physics is going to change.
Why e.g. in energy spectrum of stars we don't see its required additional lines: when this new state deexcitates to a known state, or the opposite?
Most energy levels that couple to LENR reactions seem indirectly to couple with phonon-level lines. That's why lower energy lines do not shine up.
The weak spin force - seen in spin-spin pairing - is proportional to 1FC the second torus radius force factor. But you have to know the perturbations of the coupling dimensions too. It's in the range of 11eV as seen e.g in 4-He. You also can use 1FC in connection with the one radius proton perturbation to get the correct (10 digits) ionization energy of Hydrogen. Unluckily the Bohr model does not use toroidal electron orbits and neglects the second radius force.
Wyttenbach you said:
Unluckily the Bohr model does not use toroidal electron orbits and neglects the second radius force.
So, we have to understand second radius force which appears to be radial for yourself, Therefore basically Bohr orbit picture already shows orbit's fluctuation as a radial force.
Finally it isn't true so Bohr radius model fluctuates following its tangent then you suggest rather the radius both ?
Incorrectness of Bohr model (assuming local realism against Bell violation) starts with wrong angular momentum: we know that ground state hydrogen has L=0 orbital angular momentum, while in Bohr it is huge.
Another basic counter-argument is e.g. electron capture - that sometimes nucleus can capture electron from orbital, what requires it getting to a distance of nuclear forces (fm-scale), while it Bohr it is ~5 orders of magnitude larger.
I don't think assuming trajectories on torus will repair any of above problems (?)
In contrast, Bohr-Sommerferld ellipse trajectories can help, especially when degenerating them to L=0 limit, getting free-fall atomic model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model
https://scholar.google.pl/scho…t=0%2C5&q=gryzinski&btnG=
I don't know if this is the "second radius force" you are referring to, but crucial neglected interaction he has included is classical analogue of spin-orbit interaction: mainly between traveling magnetic dipole of electron and charge of nucleus.
Explanation: nucleus traveling in field of electron's magnetic dipole gets Lorentz force, which through 3rd Newton law also acts on electron. Thanks to Lorentz invariance, it still works if changing the reference frame such that nucleus rests and electron travels. Derivation:
Gryzinski said by wiki you shared:
Gryzinski presents many other arguments, especially for agreement with various scattering scenarios, to focus on nearly zero angular momentum trajectories: with electrons traveling through nearly radial trajectories. Attracted by the Coulomb field they free-fall to the nucleus, then increase the distance up to some turning point and so on.
What you could suggest as experiment to link with these theorical thoughts ?
From my understanding, if you remember thermacore's case or Nasa 's Fralick, we have to consider cluster's of ionized things.
About thermacore, H+ cloud was ionized during loading onto 1kg Nickel particles, creating an electrostatic field.
Then electrons rebalanced H+ cloud by waves. Quickly.... you should meet Gryzinski scenario in this case.
The same about Fralick when H+ flux released from Pd bulk have sucked electron's around ( from Pd or air around) by waves too.
During rebalancing, i think that a thermal gradiant should help to increase electron's radial vector.
Summary:
Gryzinski electron's behavior works well if you consider nuclei's clusters, rather than just an nucleus and one electron, i suggest.
This thread was motivated by Gryzinski, you can find discussion on previous pages.
Free-fall repairs problems of Bohr model, in papers he also claimed good agreement with many types of experiments, especially scattering, screening coefficients, Stark effect - see slide 9 of https://www.dropbox.com/s/38xidhztpe9zxsr/freefall2.pdf ... there is much more in his papers and book.
From low energy fusion perspective, he was enthusiast of, I think the most important is that including this classical spin-orbit interaction, you can get nearly backscattering trajectories: which can "jump" localized between two nuclei, screening their Coulomb repulsion for fusion - bottom example below:
Mathematica simulator of trajectories with included spin-orbit interaction: http://demonstrations.wolfram.…icalSpinOrbitInteraction/
Free-fall repairs problems of Bohr model, in papers he also claimed good agreement with many types of experiments, especially scattering, screening coefficients, Stark effect - see slide 9 of
Gryzinski's model is still 3D,t based and works well for kinetic problems like scattering. But the electron is a particle as all others and basically it's mass is oscillating magnetic flux. Magnet flux always travels at light speed and covers two dimensions at least. Thus treating the electron classically (4 dimensions) will fail because only 2 space dimension are free for accelerating mass. In mass modeling the electron (mass) always is equivalent to the bond (field) energy between nucleus and electron - the potential energy!
In the Bohr case angular momentum 0 is OK only for the binding equivalent relativistic electron mass + half of the perturbative mass. The second torus radius rotating mass has a small momentum. The coupling of this small momentum is what exactly defines the missing energy in the reduced mass Bohr model.
The free fall model makes no sense as obviously a p-e nuclear bond is not stable and the electron emits (p-e decay) less energy than in gets from the free fall what is an other contradiction. K-shell capture works due to the fact that the nucleus does an internal reorganization with more dense orbits and thus overall the system is more stable. There is no magic strong force that attracts an electron.
Interesting debate between 2 theorists, breathe fresh air..fells good 
If there would be no strong force, the heaviest nucleus would have charge 1 - all larger would fall apart.
Of course there is a force but it's purely magnetic as B.Schaefer's scattering experiments show.
there is no way to torus-like trajectories, which would require some gigantic magnetic fields - not seen for these particles, well tested e.g. in Penning trap.
That's obvious but the SO(4) embedded Clifford torus is a single sided surface and for classic particles there is no other 3D orbit possible than classic ones. But magnetic flux can stay in 4 rotation dimensions and thus, from a classic perspective, it (e.g. the electron flux) seems to travel on both torus radii at the same time.
But first you need to understand that all mass is EM mass, what has serious implications if you switch to the nuclear frame of reference.
