Electron-assisted fusion

  • Potential energy is negative: deuteron + electron -> deuterium + 13.6eV


    Jarek : This summary is correct. But the problem is much deeper. If we assume that the energy comes from the proton field only, then we have an asymmetry. Why should only the proton (deuteron) feel the potential mass (27.2eV) loss?

  • Jarek : This summary is correct. But the problem is much deeper. If we assume that the energy comes from the proton field only, then we have an asymmetry. Why should only the proton (deuteron) feel the potential mass (27.2eV) loss?


    The proton - electron system has COM very close to the proton, since electron is so much lighter. It is the system which has this P.E. mass - but realistically that approximates well the proton.


    QM is profoundly different from local models. You cannot get out of this, and it comes from experiment not theory.


    Of course the idea of locality, which we are fixated on, does not apply naturally in a quantum domain. That has profound consequences for the structure of spacetime - it is just that we have as yet not properly worked out the connections!

  • QM is profoundly different from local models. You cannot get out of this, and it comes from experiment not theory.


    Of course the idea of locality, which we are fixated on, does not apply naturally in a quantum domain. That has profound consequences for the structure of spacetime - it is just that we have as yet not properly worked out the connections!


    You are saying that if proton and electron are far apart they are "classical" corpuscular ... but when they meet they became "quantum" wave-like ... so in which moment/distance this switch happens?

    Where exactly is the classical-quantum boundary?


    Do we really need such switch? - maybe they are both at the time. Like in popular Couder's walking droplets with wave-particle duality (Veritasium video with 2.5M views, great webpage with materials and videos, a lecture by Couder, my slides also with other hydrodynamical analogues: Casimir, Aharnonov-Bohm). Among others, they claim to recreate:

    1. Interference in particle statistics of double-slit experiment (PRL 2006) - corpuscle travels one path, but its "pilot wave" travels all paths - affecting trajectory of corpuscle (measured by detectors).
    2. Unpredictable tunneling (PRL 2009) due to complicated state of the field ("memory"), depending on the history - they observe exponential drop of probability to cross a barrier with its width.
    3. Landau orbit quantization (PNAS 2010) - using rotation and Coriolis force as analog of magnetic field and Lorentz force (Michael Berry 1980). The intuition is that the clock has to find a resonance with the field to make it a standing wave (e.g. described by Schrödinger's equation).
    4. Zeeman-like level splitting (PRL 2012) - quantized orbits split proportionally to applied rotation speed (with sign).
    5. Double quantization in harmonic potential (Nature 2014) - of separately both radius (instead of standard: energy) and angular momentum. E.g. n=2 state switches between m=2 oval and m=0 lemniscate of 0 angular momentum.
    6. Recreating eigenstate form statistics of a walker's trajectories (PRE 2013).

    This way QM is just one of two perspectives/descriptions of the same system, what we already had in coupled oscillators, or their lattices: crystals, which can be described classically or through normal/Fourier modes - treated as real particles in QFT ...


    1MUFTXu.png

  • You are saying that if proton and electron are far apart they are "classical" corpuscular ... but when they meet they became "quantum" wave-like ... so in which moment/distance this switch happens?

    Where exactly is the classical-quantum boundary?


    No i'm not saying that. And agree with you that no boundary is needed. Trivially, if you use Many Worlds interpretation (or a few variants thereof) there is no waveform collapse and therefore no need to distinguish. Both classical and quantum results emerge from the same maths in different domains.


    Specifically, particles are described (in a spatial basis) as wave packets and have both particulate and wave aspects, with position and momentum uncertainty emerging naturally from this.

  • Particle like electron is more than just a wave packet - it is among others stable localized configuration (nearly singular) of electric and magnetic field:

    xAKaQQl.png


    It doesn't loose these localized properties when approaching a proton to form an atom - becoming huge probability cloud of quantum orbital - this is proper but only effective description, averaging over some hidden dynamics.

    They can perform real acrobatics on magnetic dipoles of these electron, like Larmor precession or even spin echo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…on_paramagnetic_resonance

    GWM_HahnEchoDecay.gif


    Coupled wave created by internal clock of electron (de Broglie's, zitterbewegung, experimental confirmation: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9225-1 ) has to become standing wave to minimize energy of atom - described by Schrodinger, giving quantization condition. It is nicely seen in Couder's walking droplet quantization, nice videos.


    If lenr is possible, there is needed a non-thermal way to overcome the huge Coulomb barrier between nuclei - the only mechanism I could imagine is (localized) localized electron staying between nucleus and proton due to attraction - screening their repulsion.

  • Not sure this is the correct thread, but I have a basic QM question about virtual particles. From Wikipedia, "Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. " From Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arborhttp://www.scientificamerican.…re-virtual-particles-rea/

    the quote from "Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy". I fail to see how this is a well understood theory if two different experts say the opposite thing. I understand how with the uncertainty principle that position and momentum can not be known together at infinite precision, but yes or no, do these particles obey conservation of energy? That should be an easy qustion to answer without handwaving. Thanks if you can clear it up. The reason it came up in my mind was Rossi's probably ridiculous claim that his ecat power was from virtual particles annihilating or something to that effect. And I was wondering how these virtual particles could possibly violate COE.

  • I am not aware of any evidence for violation of energy or momentum conservation - they are at heart of Lagrangian mechanics we successfully use from QFT to GRT.


    Regarding virtual particles - they are used in Feynman diagrams in perturbative approximation of QFT - assuming QFT is fundamental, perturbative QFT/Feynman diagrams is still an effective picture - practical approximation ... leading to countless number of divergences, usually removed by hand.

    But it is extremely universal practical tool defining objects as point particles through their interactions - it is very general algebra on particle-like objects ... like algebra properly concluding that "apple + apple = two apples" without any insights what apple is ... which can also handle non-point objects like fields by approximating them with a series of virtual particles.


    The basic example is Coulomb interaction e.g. proton - electron, which in pertubative (approximation of) QFT is handled with a series of point-like photons, instead of continuous EM field.

    It brought dangerous common misconception that EM field is always quantized, while it is just a continuous field, which optical photons are quantized due to discrete atomic energy levels ... but e.g. linear antenna produces cylindrically symmetric EM radiation - which energy density drops like 1/r to 0 - cannot be quantized to individual discrete photons localizing finite portions of energy.


    We have lots of quasi-paricles especially in solid state physics - starting with phonons: classically just Fourier/normal modes of the lattices, but perturbatve QFT treats them as real particles ... point-like.
    There is also virtual pair creation - while we imagine pair creation as a zero-one process, it is in fact continuous - field can perform a tiny step toward pair creation, represented as real (virtual) pair creation in perturbative QFT. Continuity of this process is nicely seen using topological charge as charge:

  • Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions


    Abstract:

    In this paper, a simple Zitterbewegung electron model, proposed in a previous work, is presented from a different perspective that does not require advanced mathematical concepts. A geometric-electromagnetic interpretation of mass, relativistic mass, De Broglie wavelength, Proca, Klein-Gordon and Aharonov-Bohm equations in agreement with the model is proposed. Starting from the key concept of mass-frequency equivalence a non-relativistic interpretation of the 3.7 keV deep hydrogen level found by J. Naudts is presented. According to this perspective, ultra-dense hydrogen can be conceived as a coherent chain of bosonic electrons with protons or deuterons at center of their Zitterbewegung orbits. The paper ends with some examples of the possible role of ultra-dense hydrogen in some aneutronic low energy nuclear reactions.

  • ...

    ..

    .

    his last try to explain included one small boy who dropped his physics degree... IIRC, Carl Oscar Gullstrom.

    ... so what should we think about this new approach ?

  • dropped his physics degree


    Personally, and as an amateur physics afficionado, I find this first paper to be a beautiful exposition (and will eventually read the others). I first became aware of the use dimensionless "natural unit" equations in my 1990s professional training, under the rubric of Henry's Law with respect to "global distillation".


    To "Lobster": What should we think of the role of character assassination in modern science?

  • The limit for classic deep electron orbits is 3.43pm where the stored magnetic energy is equal to the potential gain.


    There is a stable deep magnetic orbit at around 2.15pm as measured by Holmlid. To understand this you need to be able to work in 4D homogeneous space. Further you must model the electron as magnetic flux around the proton.

  • The limit for classic deep electron orbits is 3.43pm where the stored magnetic energy is equal to the potential gain.


    There is a stable deep magnetic orbit at around 2.15pm as measured by Holmlid. To understand this you need to be able to work in 4D homogeneous space. Further you must model the electron as magnetic flux around the proton.

    ...

    ..

    .

    where is the source for this ? pm are pico meters ?

  • Personally, and as an amateur physics afficionado, I find this first paper to be a beautiful exposition (and will eventually read the others). I first became aware of the use dimensionless "natural unit" equations in my 1990s professional training, under the rubric of Henry's Law with respect to "global distillation".


    To "Lobster": What should we think of the role of character assassination in modern science?

    ...

    ..

    .

    first letter ist a "I" not an "L" .

    ...depends... what we should think. As long, as Rossi does not fall under this category, modern science is performing well...





  • ...

    of course... this all happened in times, where some people still believed in myth, ghosts, the devil, etc...


    fortunately these times are over...


    ...and our society is used to "technical process looking like magic"...

    ...and lightbulbs are standard today...

  • The limit for classic deep electron orbits is 3.43pm where the stored magnetic energy is equal to the potential gain.


    There is a stable deep magnetic orbit at around 2.15pm as measured by Holmlid. To understand this you need to be able to work in 4D homogeneous space. Further you must model the electron as magnetic flux around the proton.


    Can these deep orbits be related to the Lipinski's UGC theory in any simple or quantifiable way? Last I looked at the Lipinski's theory, I recall they predict a "window" for low energy proton + Li 7 interaction at ~223 eV based on their Bessel function minima, and their extensive empirical results suggest high cross sections down to 100 eV, but less effective as one moves up, especially above 2 to 3 keV?.