New LENR paper - Journal of Physics: Conference Series

Not to make too much of it. But here around mid-February I began a thread, on February 26th I made it a thread with the name "deBroglie's equation and Heavy Electrons". In the initial post I deduced from perhaps the most fundamental equation in QM, that electrons must have mass variation. This argument appears to differ from any Mark Davidson brings up. Perhaps this can be used as one more support for his position. My argument has implications, some of which are mentioned in the complete posting.

The link is to the original thread initiating post. The text below the link are key paragraphs from that post, linked here:

deBroglie's equation and heavy electrons

And condensed below:
"Perhaps this topic will lead to a beneficial discussion.
Please look at this most fundamental quantum mechanical equation, considered "empirical" by Werner Heisenberg, but generally attributed to Louis deBroglie:

Lambda (that is wavelength, or RMS uncertaintly in position) = h/p, where p is classical Newtonian momentum, that is the product of mass and velocity. h is Planck's constant, known to be highly invariant, although sometimes given a few slightly different values depending on how it is derived.

Often somewhat misstated is the notion that one cannot specify an electron's position and its velocity simultaneously. More correctly it directly falls out of lambda = h/p, that is one cannot constrain MOMENTUM toward smaller values without simultaneously increasing lambda, that is the positional uncertainly of an electron. [The equation and the uncertainly relationship hold for larger and more massive objects, but the tiny mass of the electron make it particularly evident for that easily accessible particle.

In all this is the assumption that an electron has a constant mass. And surely the Co-Data value for the electron is specified very precisely, even when it is locked positionally in a Penning trap. However, what happens to the deBroglie equation above if an electron is squeezed down to a quite fixed position AND it is constrained to a near zero velocity? If lambda, or positional uncertainty is to decrease because the electron is in fact being restrained, and if the velocity is nearing zero, it leaves only one variable to retain the relationship as described by the equation... that would be mass. 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. [end quoted portion]

Longview