Electron-assisted fusion

Thanks Jarek for the very interesting linkouts. [Too bad the last two are pdfs.]

With respect to Couder (nice work!). It does appear in the video that the "corpuscles" are following some other force rather than even the pilot wave in the "interference" model. Perhaps the model is tilted? Anyway, this Couder video is quite instructive, particularly with respect to the concept of "guide waves" or "pilot waves" which in QM appear at least as fast as lightspeed. Couder's model is perhaps considerably more useful than the Schroedinger equation is itself (essentially insoluble, especially with d-orbitals on smaller elements where Hartree-Fock is not appropriate). As you know, a number of the orbital structures do take the electron(s) through the nucleus, others place the highest probability of materialization at the nucleus.

The real problem may not be getting an electron to the nucleus (or the proton in this particular case), but having it in the right [universal hidden variable?] phase relationship to join up [remember "bonding" and "anti-bonding" molecular orbitals]. As far as we know only k-shell capture "inverse beta-decay" is showing anything promising there. And Hagelstein appeared recently in JCMNS to show us that energetics are not likely to be the cause of making up the missing classical QM mass for p⁺ + e^- --> n^o + v_e work.

But if Schroedinger is too idealized and perhaps less instructive than Couder's silicone, then where do we turn?

Perhaps we should all take it from Mitchell Swartz that John C. Slater is where its at? (Slater I recently discovered in my personal library, also wrote a comprehensive book on Microwave Electronics.... amazing.... and perhaps not a coincidence for a Rochester, Harvard then MIT polymath, but merely the separate or vaguely related products of a genius). I see Slater was also the graduate advisor for both Bill Shockley (co-inventor of the transistor at Bell labs) and Donald Merrifield (developer of automated peptide synthesis). Who knows how many did post docs or had collaborations in or through his labs. Perhaps big names of solid state physics and opto-electronics, such as Schalow, Townes, Maimon and Gould ??

Or maybe we should pay more attention to the Lipinski's (Hubert the elder Lipinski, is a UCSD Ph.D. physicist, Stanford undergrad) very transparent WIPO patent application posted here a day or so back. Frankly, IMHO we should all be trying to replicate that as well and probably with more vigor than chasing the Rossi scheme. Everything is there in the Lipinski patent application. No BS, no gaming, they even tell you exactly how they developed their theory. In other online sources, they even show and tell the exact origin of their J_o, 0th order Bessel function and its historical sources. Every one of their dozens of experiments is apparently described in the WIPO application. Each major setup with dozens of variations, is described in exhaustive detail and diagrams, along with full tabulation of results of direct readouts and which then are abstracted to graphical representations for comparative analysis by us, the readers! They take admirable and great care to show exactly how their data were measured and recorded, down to the exact instrumentation brand and model, often with photos, and go on to give dates of calibration and servicing. The COPs there are (by the standard that is being used for Rossi reps) up to thousands. Until recently all their work was done in US National accelerator laboratories (Florida, Louisiana and Denton TX). Only recently have they completed acquisition of all the equipment to do everything in house near Palo Alto, CA. With that location, they should have little trouble attracting attention.... Elon Musk, are you paying attention?

Now that we have these kind of results (UGC, Lipinskis) we might as well get down to perfecting the instrument we've seen (if we care to look?).

Did Otto know how the internal combustion engine exactly worked-- and was that at 8 or 80 RPM? Did Watt or Newcomen understand everything (or even anything by today's standards) about thermodynamics?

We're lucky not to be starting from zero.

I appreciate very much that Jarek is steering our attention to these somewhat neglected alternative theories.... we all will need to select from them... it now appears sooner rather than later.

Quote from Jarek

I was thinking about the issue that LENR is "clean" - produces nearly no high energy particles ... and I think I might have a solution(?)

The direct way, e.g. p + e + p -> deuteron + 1.4MeV, looks much better than Widom-Larsen way: p + e + 782keV -> n, then n + p -> deuteron + 2.2MeV:
- we don't have first to climb 782keV up (where this huge energy comes from?),
- we don't have these additional 782keVs emitted while the proper fusion phase: n + p -> deuteron
However, there would be still MeV-scale energy, which is needed to be radiated in "clean" way.

So how to radiate MeV-scale excitation energy without high energy particles?

Again, imagine this perfect symmetric "p ---- e ---- p" system, collapsing in symmetric way to deuteron.

So this idealized situation would have cylindrical symmetry.
Without any symmetry breaking mechanisms, the final excited state should radiate the exceeding energy also as cylindrically symmetric (EM) wave!
Such a cylindrical wave, similar to wave from linear-antenna, would quickly loose energy density: proportionally to 1/R.
This energy should be absorbed by surrounding particles as kinetic energy - just heating the medium.

So the question is if gammas have to be localized?
Maybe they can be e.g. cylindrical EM waves in some reactions instead - it would explain LENR being clean ...

Display More

Fascinating prospect! And of course it appears that it would be consistent with the
Lipinski experimental results without completely rewriting physics as they appear to propose.

I did look over your dissertation up to
page 30 so far. I learned long ago not to get "hung up" trying to
completely or even partially understand maths and its notational
vagaries, particularly on a first "skim" reading. Very fortunately you
have plenty of visual and verbal cues, to fill in the gaps so I can
build on my own visually based and very rudimentary and laboriously
accumulated "modeling".

Nevertheless your dissertation is very
interesting reading not only from a physics, chemistry and electronic
standpoint, but also for me as an "old guy, with earlier social
"science" and a much more recent "real" science background, from a
political and social perspective. But I won't dwell much on the reasons
for the "flowering" of physics thought in the New eastern Europe. So not
only do you present a view that for many Americans would I suspect be
"fresh physics", and for many a series of challenges or delights
depending on their age and length of time studying US style physics. But
also for the many ideas that simply are not yet given much of a chance
in the US, but which are apparently and thankfully are thriving
elsewhere in the world outside of the US hegemony of overly
"established" and weapons-oriented physics. But enough of that perhaps
understandable but unfortunate-for-Americans (and I'm one) reality.

Did I see the cylindrical wave idea in your dissertation or only in your post here? Regardless,
let us take the proposal as analogous to an antenna (I like the idea!).
According to one online calculator [please double check!] a gamma of one
MeV energy would have wavelength in the range of little under a
picometer (i.e. ~ 0.8 X 10e minus 12 M). So the "antenna" is actually
more like an unshielded transmission line, and my modest experience with
antennas and transmission lines suggests that indeed it would certainly
radiate or vibrate strongly, as you suggest. It is quite analogous to
trying to send 50 or 60 Hz over a 5000 km powerline.... the reactance is
very wasteful even though the transmission line in that case is only a fraction
of a 60 Hz vacuum wavelength (about 5,000 km, because in
copper or aluminum, unshielded conduction speeds are considerably lower
than in a vacuum, so the wavelength might be less than 1000 km in a 60 Hz
powerline, as I dimly recall).

So the old guys here can
understand what you are saying is that a cylindrical shared orbital
(such as a p-e-p structure may act as an antenna of at least the size of
an atom and perhaps of some indefinite length, but certainly at least
an angstrom in length (that is 10e minus 10 M) so any perturbation
attempting to "transmit" along that path over one hundred wavelengths
will be attenuated strongly if not completely? That seems plausible
enough, but who am I to say?

Putting on the critical hat for a
second or two: But, perhaps too strongly dissipated? What is the
e-folding rule for unshielded transmission lines with respect to
wavelength? I forget... The counter point might be that the dissipation
is immediate, the transmission length is no farther than a couple of
atomic diameters, and thus the MeV photon is radiated immediately...
perhaps not solving the problem.

But countering my own point, an
angstrom or two is one or two hundred of the one MeV wavelengths, so it
would attenuate the sharp photo-electric (phonon of charge, that is the
inverse of a longitudinalization of what might otherwise be a
transverse photonic entity--- or put directly: a tranversalization
(radiated lower energy photons-- IR, light, soft X-rays etc) of a
longitudinally moving charge (the "antenna" made of anomalous
cylindrical electron distribution in a special sub-molecular orbital).
And hence, we could indeed expect very unusual behavior when phonon
disturbances in electron cloud structures are made to act like
unshielded transmission lines. The problem remaining is that much more
data from chemistry and molecular physics should be assembled to secure
the speculation... then the grant application and the "review" or theft
by "haters" and so on and on.....

But, I remain tentatively positive about this idea of Jarek's.

Are there other analogous molecular "antennas" that behave in ways suggestive of this nascent model?

Moving to the issue of MeV energies in an LENR context. I have never been too
troubled by the dogma of "big physics" with respect to gamma energies
supposedly being missing. They are part of what I call "collisional
physics", this world of LENR and CF is not really the same thing, and if
W-L-S were correct, not at all. For W-L-S an ultracold neutron can join
whatever nucleus is energetically feasible or "whatever it wants"
(according to them, if I understand correctly) and because of its
extremely broad deBroglie lambda it essentially does so almost
immediately at the nearest opportunity. I guess we are supposed to
accept that the binding "energy" (Note: a single neutronic addition, say
from proton to deuteron is large, I recall, but that is not what
happens in the nickel hydrogen schemes) is peacefully given to the
recipient nucleus and which then typically decays giving up that energy
as a beta of some considerable, but easily shielded energy, over a
usually relatively short decay life [see link below]. But I am not a
W-L-S believer, at least not recently. But, I'm still looking for things
that make sense, and I see that "collisional physicists" are often not
really meeting W-L-S on its own terms, even though they know enough to
claim to be trying.... We know from experience that
adherents to an old paradigm typically cannot even hear or see
the new (and of course the old simply die off eventually, rather than
ever understanding the new).

Your assumption that gammas come in
Widom-Larsen (Srivastava) is interesting. If the recipient of the
neutrons is fairly high on the "curve of binding energy" then the
incremental "fusion" energy released is quite small, the curve flattens
up there. You only see huge energies of fusion at the lighter weight
elements (Lithium is at least near the "knee" of the binding curve to be
sure).

I put out a table here some while back of the various expected
beta decay half lives from the addition of neutrons to every likely
element in the Parkhomov / Lugano/ Rossi etc. reactor. There were few if
any gammas seen there, a couple of internal capture-generated gammas
from beta pluses among the many beta minuses, might give rise to a very
few weak annihilation gammas in pairs at 511 keV. Nearly everything was
easily attenuated betas, most of substantial, but easily shielded,
energies.

See:
Brian Albiston - Parkhomov replication

The Lipinskis skate around the whole radiation issue nicely with
the formation of a Beryllium isotope (Be 7 or 8 from either or both Li 6
and/or Li 7 that each accept a proton of modest energy, and the more abundant
resulting Be 8 isotope is extremely short lived transferring all of its
energy by nearly symmetrical fission to He nuclei (alphas) of MeV energy
that are very easily shielded and have extremely high LET, delivering
the energy to the reactor's stainless steel walls and forming no
measurable radio-isotopic products there, simply giving up their MeV as
heat in the steel, perhaps on several bounces until finally becoming a
tiny residue of helium gas (mixtures of He 3 and He 4 depending on the
Li + p isotopic paths). They measure these alphas as radiation within
the chamber and then see them as helium gas (both stable isotopes) in
their commercial Residual Gas Analyser (RGA).

(I see a modest incongruity, according to the "never to be trusted..." online
encyclopedia, only Be 8 splits to He 4, untrusted-pedia has Be 7 decaying
with a T1/2 of 50 odd days by internal electron capture to Li 7.... I will
pursue this and the Lipinski's discussion further. However their story would
be largely unaffected by the behavior of Li 6 on proton addition.)

Dear Jarek,
You theory is in many ways similar to mine. The most important point we share is that we understood that the electron is what makes LENR possible. And Edmund Storms shares this as well.
On my web-page you can find my theory. The quickest way to look at it is through my poster and the draft article of ICCF19:
http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html

Last year I was convinced as you are now that the LENR are p/d/t-e-p/d/t. They would be ternuclear reactions (three particle react at the same time). But then I understood that the required symmetry (events synchronization) is too much even for a coupling mechanism. Moreover there MUST be a neutral intermediate particle which is NOT the neutron. In fact without a neutral particle there could be no transmutations far from the NAE and heavy nuclei should not react because are far too heavily protected by the electron shells from any intrusion of a charged particle. Think about Cs133 …

In addition, with ternulcear reactions you end up with inconsistencies with the experiments and you need to postulate strange things like the beta decaying H4 isotope.

Electrons do not not fall on the nucleus because they have a size which is much larger than the nucleons: the diameter of the ZB is around 386 [fm].

About Hidden Variables (HV):
HV have two drawbacks (Bell): They are non-local and Contextual.
My opinion: the non-locality comes from the fact that all particles are intrinsically light-like.
I think (I am not alone …) that the commonly accepted formalism of spin is, as unbelievable as it may sound, WRONG. So the theorem of Kochen and Specker cannot be applied and HV are NON-contextual. Sooner or later HV will be reconsidered and will supersede what is now the canonical interpretation.

Best regards

Andrea Calaon

Reality Checks:

Tunneling is the tool and the subject of many Nobel chemistry and physics prizes. Tomonaga, Schwinger, Josephson, Esaki.....

Lowering an activation energy is the stuff of chemical catalysis. Coulombic repulsion is a major part of the "activation energy" needed to catalyze the huge enthalpy of nuclear fusion. It is an accessible parameter for catalysis and hence also for tunneling.

1 MeV is 11.6 billion degrees C (or K). Not even the hot fusionists are saying the "activation barrier" is nearly that high. They seem to like a Boltzmann distribution around 450 million K. Fine, that is about 35 keV.

But the right structure, the right charge distribution, the right catalysis, aka "tunneling" could indeed lower that 35 keV or even an MeV down to a few eV or less.

Examples of high "activation energies" being lowered to near zero are abundant in chemistry. Examine catalytic approaches to converting C1 to C40+ crude petroleum into gasoline... it's impressively using everything from methane to polycyclics and paraffin. The smaller molecules are catalytically polymerized up to fuel, and the big stuff is typically reacted with hydrogen to give components that can be readily synthesized into convenient fuels. For more local or mundane examples look at the catalytic converter in an automobile or in the best wood, coal or sawdust fired heating stoves.

Even enthalpically unfavorable reactions can be and are driven in petroleum reforming. But that should be irrelevant here. There is nothing unfavorable about small element fusion, other than the fairly high activation energy, which in even the worst cases is a few percent of yield without catalysis i.e. "without tunneling". For example, the unrealistically high "1 MeV" would still give p + p a COP of 25, that is a theoretical 4% cost of doing that particular reactive "business".

Jarek's recent "two points" here. Point number one, still in discussion;
Number two, sounds good to me.

Yes, Boltzmann can reach any theoretical velocity, but don't expect the
sparse population of really high velocity nucleons to find each other.
It will be a rare event and certainly cannot thereby overcome the
decreased effective size (deBroglie) of high energy particles.

In a non-relativistic analysis, where the high velocity entity is
point-like, I suspect that the target still "looks" to the flyer's
trajectory as also similarly point-like. But, for fun, let's imagine
that for some reason, the high energy from the right hand tail of
Boltzmann colliding with a low velocity target could be more likely,
whether with another nucleon or an electron or the converse. In any
case, with respect to LENR, something mobile with something quite
immobile--- now the deBroglie issue might be answered. And particularly
if the collision were with say a fixed or slow proton shielded by a
resident electron-- or the exact opposite, or perhaps a hydrogen adhered
by bond, or otherwise to a low velocity solid or liquid substrate (such as a catalytic transition
metal droplet or nano-crystallite or nano-blob perhaps fixed in place
or flying on [or against] the "dust". All at something under a few thousand K to maintain at
least the possibility of low velocity for the target nucleon or target
electron.

Or possibly a charge
pair target of e with p, that is e somehow aligned with p but perhaps
with positions specifically defined by other other surrounding bonds or
other associations or forces.

Or taken another way from chemistry and quantum chemistry, an electron pair in some
specific vulnerable and quite easily donated context... for example a
classic very active, reactive or catalytic Lewis base, that is an
"electron pair donor". These are readily made and/or are readily
available, and they would be consistent with the sometimes or perhaps
frequently reported observation that alkaline conditions are favorable
to F-P cells and that many such cells fail in acid conditions -- in spite
of the intuitive ideas about protons. A hydroxyl (that is an OH
minus) is a prototypical electron pair donor. See:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrc3gvKxVHE

for an informative video with no obvious errors on that subject. Note there
toward the end (it is brief) that MeLi aka methyl lithium and the old
Grignard reagent are the "two strongest superbases one is likely to
encounter". Recall that nearly all liquid or soluble catalysts or co-reagents
typically have solid state equivalents-- superacids of industrial chemistry are often on ceramic substrates.

Similarly we can guess that superbases are also used industrially in
this way. It is simply often easier to keep such a reagent and reuse it in an
industrial (or lab) setting by rinsing with an appropriate
solvent, baking in say an inert or selected gas, and otherwise
regenerating.

And continuing with electrostatic charges: a negative or positive local
charge at one of those "target sites" might favor steering in a landing
and might already have the optimal p-e proximity and orientation
"pre-set" as it were. Further, it seems plausible that, having a
relatively fixed charge target locus might somehow orient the incoming
nucleon, or electron [one or a pair] to fulfill some aspect of the
ultimate assembly for collapse. And here we get into the possibility of
merging the ideas elucidated by Lou Pagnucco here a couple of months
back-- where electrical arcs were described as acting to enhance a large magnetic
vector, giving very high effective mass (momentum) to the "spearhead" to
use an analogy. And I recall this "tip of the arrow" idea has also been
mentioned to me by Alain here, possibly in different words.

See this thread, and particularly Lou Pagnucco's excellent comments:

deBroglie's equation and heavy electrons

Note: To support Jarek's Boltzmann point for modern readers who see
"exponential" from the mouths and keypads of folks in the US who often
appear not to know any better. The right hand high velocity "tail" on
Boltzmann's distribution takes on essentially an exponential DECAY, this
is why it goes out to a theoretical infinity, although in reality it
suffers eventual collapse to background and/or reaches the binary one or
none atomic limit (an example of a "quantum" effect not truly from QM
at all). See some decay curves here, which are easily defined
mathematically, as most may know:

google.com/search?q=exponentia…ay-graph%252F%3B490%3B336

As a bit of an aside, many here know that the "infinite" right hand
tail was the player in physics leading to the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe",
a prime motive for the development of QM. There may still be some
relevance for LENR in understanding that "catastrophe".

Note, Longview has decided that the safety issue posted as an aside here originally deserves its own
thread. I have cut it out and posted it in the Replication folder. I have attempted to inform Barty,
David and me356 about the issue [which involves possible or potential beryllium toxicity
in ANY lithium LENR reaction], until further clarification.... please read and pass on that concern. In short,
do not open these reactors outside of a glove box-- until further notice.

Further that "reaction coordinate diagrams", often seen in good chemical
textbooks, can show us a lot about the role of "activation energy" and
"tunneling" and how catalysis works.

For example here:

google.com/search?q=reaction+c…nate-diagrams%3B554%3B524

Keeping in mind that for fusion, looking at the image [hopefully] linked
above may give a very misleadingly HIGH estimate for the relative
effort needed and the diagram may give a misleadingly modest effect of
the catalytic tunneling that likely occurs when looking at most LENR and
possibly in Lipinski- but surely in a Rossi- style reactions.

Longview

Still awaiting responses here.

{Getting this right is probably as important as beryllium toxicity-- but avoiding the latter is easy by comparison]

Quote from Jarek

I apology, busy time. I don't think we need some additional electron donors to understand fusion - there are already lots of electrons there.
What we need is to understand the behavior of single electron assisting in fusion scenario.
Here is example of electron's trajectory for single proton (in (0,0)) from Mathematica notebook attached in the first post - electron performs nearly (angular momentum is nonzero) free-fall on the nucleus and Lorentz force (electron's magnetic dipole moment - proton's charge) bends its trajectory to nearly backscattering:

Now imagine another proton is approaching from the backcattering direction (x axis) - the electron screens the proton-proton repulsion.
The question is finding the probability in Avogadro number scale of opportunities:
- the approaching proton needs to have some initial velocity (Bolztmann) and direction (electron's attraction helps),
- the electron needs to stabilize between the nuclei (attraction helps).

There are additional reasons for stabilization (hard to include in calculations) - that everything is happening in a field, trajectory had to "find a resonance" with the field (quantization condition).

Display More

Jarek,

I did some calculations to see what transverse EM wavelength, that is say a laser light field but probably traveling parallel to the surface of reactivity (or as Surface Plasmon Resonance, if it were set up right) where the field oscillation might be set to correspond with the protons trajectory, a bit like surfing but on an extremely lateral cut. I decided for now to go with a 250 eV (used because of Lipinski, mainly) proton going 2 nm, which is a distance perhaps similar to your posted diagram above. Whether that is caused by an incoming or resident proton or by say an electrostatic impressed field. I am guessing a 90% probability envelope for a "p" like orbital (d, f ?) might be stretched out 10X beyond its normal excursion (although your diagram looks perhaps like more than that...and I don't know if the numbers represent any real metric values or are arbitrary units.) Anyway pushing ahead:

So if I did the calculations correctly (and of course I'm neglecting the intense field in the vicinity and what they do to EM propagation speed etc, but considering dielectric K and refractive indices usually don't exceed 3 or 4 (altering vacuum permittivity, with proportional effects on C etc).

I come up with a proton velocity at 250 eV of 0.0007295675 * C.

Taking that and the time necessary to travel the 2 nm, I get 2.28446 X 10^minus 15 sec. Coming back the other way to get a photon wavelength that might go through one full, or one half or even one quarter wave in the same time:

Keeping in mind my several somewhat arbitrary, and other perhaps erroneous assumptions: Full wave for lambda = vT: 2.285 x 10^minus 15 s X 3.00 x 10^8 m/s = 684 nm for full wave exposure-- seemingly giving and then taking away thus not so good. But 684 nm is close to some red commercial pointer style lasers-- by adjusting the electron or the proton energy parameters it might be possible to tune to the EM rather than other way round. Going to half wave exposure, that is not even approximating a continuous acceleration, but essentially pushing or pulling then letting the work be done on the electron collapse, perhaps-- anyway that would correspond to twice the wavelength, or in the range of 1370 nm, certainly lots of near IR laser equipment in that range and with high powers readily available. Finally, the quarter wave, in the range of 2740 nm where the push only (or pull only) is applied quite strongly through nearly the full incursion of the protons path to the nucleus. To get that long a wavelength in good power, there is a line for HeNe at 3391 (3.391 um) that has been available as a package, and might be surplused today. Of course again particle energy parameters could be adjusted, I would think, to meet the EM field rather than the inverse.

A simple transverse setup (reminding other readers that EM waves that we can manipulate easily are transverse not longitudinal), should be workable with the photon densities of modest power lasers. For SPR the powers have to be much higher to get decent field strengths, (or so I have been told). But SPR can move charges very nicely, we already know that. And of course the energy is dissipated right near the usually reflective surface.

Well, anyway, it will at least allow others to critique my notions, and maybe I can refine my understanding this way. Hopefully others can benefit as well.

Quote from Andrea Calaon

Dear Jarek,
You theory is in many ways similar to mine. The most important point we share is that we understood that the electron is what makes LENR possible. And Edmund Storms shares this as well.
On my web-page you can find my theory. The quickest way to look at it is through my poster and the draft article of ICCF19:
http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html

About Hidden Variables (HV):
HV have two drawbacks (Bell): They are non-local and Contextual.
My opinion: the non-locality comes from the fact that all particles are intrinsically light-like.
I think (I am not alone …) that the commonly accepted formalism of spin is, as unbelievable as it may sound, WRONG. So the theorem of Kochen and Specker cannot be applied and HV are NON-contextual. Sooner or later HV will be reconsidered and will supersede what is now the canonical interpretation.

Best regards

Andrea Calaon

Display More

Andrea, just re=examining your earlier comments:

So, with respect to HV (Hidden Variables) it has always occurred to me that this behavior (for want of another word) is simply understood if the phenomenon (e.g. coherence and decoherence and "spooky-action-at-a-distance" etc.) is Universal, and necessarily not susceptible to the limitation of the velocity of light. That is, (perhaps) HV represents some sort of underlying universal phase relationship -- that might be analogous or even identical to an underlying oscillation everywhere in our space-time manifold without any respect to transmission velocities. Coherence of electrons, photons and other particles (spin or otherwise) would be simply be an embedded manifestation of a fundamental property of space-time that we cannot see but can only infer.-- apparently immutably, making it "Universal"... Bell's Inequality and EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiments have, and are, providing a glimpse of this underlying feature of the Universe--- not mysterious now that we see that we might simply be one of an infinite number of event horizon "pinch offs" from yet some other system nearly inconceivable to us. I don't like the mysterious nature of it, but even as an agnostic, it is certainly obvious that the Universe exceeds our present understanding. Real understanding may well be blinding... the sort of insights you get after a life of science and cosmology.. The proofs based on Bell's Inequality show quite convincingly that there are no Local Hidden Variables. I take that as a Boolean affirmation that (barring other possibilities) there is then by necessity an immutable Universal HV. That's it. I've unloaded something I have been thinking since taking General Chemistry (majors style), and reading Physical Chemistry about 45 years back. I hope it helps someone, or that it has been obvious to everyone, or that I am beyond help. At least I got that out there and someone, such as you sir, might understand and eventually expand and expound on the notions.

My apologies, let's get back to the real business at hand....