Is LENR just "amplified" muon catalyzed fusion (MCF)?

  • On vortex-l Jones Beene made a very interesting suggestion:


    /msg104807.html">

    In retrospect - it's been one helluva month for surprising LENR revelations.
    and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once the resistance
    subsides - assuming replication).This has nothing, ostensibly. or maybe a lot to do with the
    harvest-blood-super-moon eclipse tomorrow :-) At least there is a
    "prophecy" angle which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions.
    Can we blame it on Obama?


    Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid's ultradense deuterium and
    muons - which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several weeks
    and months:
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/…mercial-fusion-power.html


    . and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:


    1) Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of
    gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and thus
    the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P&F.


    2) Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet of
    solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
    http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors


    3) P&F could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF (muon
    catalyzed fusion) but never realized it.


    4) A source of light appears to be important to muon creation -
    suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
    consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never been
    a recognized parameter for cold fusion


    5) "Cold Fusion" would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
    simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956.
    6) Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so easily.
    This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion itself.


    7) The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
    discovery of MCF by Alvarez.


    8) The P&F version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the same
    kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.


    9) The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF


    10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
    unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
    momentum of the muon).
    http://unifiedgravity.com/reso…ng-All-Forces-and-Predict
    ion-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf


    11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
    when conservation of charge is considered - the muons could be transferring
    from another dimension - Dirac's "sea". as explicated by Hotson. Or else
    muons and anti-muons are both forming.


    12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
    circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of the
    doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are disturbing
    to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion approach of the past
    25 years (somewhat ironic, isn't it)


    What do you think about this? Muon catalyzed fusion is well accepted by physics. But it's proven to be COP < 1 because the muon creation needs a lot of energy.
    But could LENR aka cold fusion just use an elegant way to create muons very "cheaply"?

  • Muons can be used for muon spin resonance imaging and moun tomography. They have been used to look at magma chambers inside volcanoes for example. However if I recall correctly it is not often used since it is difficult to find a source of muons with current technology. If these LENR devices can generate a lot of muons then maybe it can better enable this kind of technology.


    If if they can generate muons in a precise way perhaps they can be used to calibrate other instruments using muon or muon neutrino detection too.

  • Muons are massive. It means "generating (whatever that is supposed to mean) them requires a lot of energy.


    Of course, I am sure none of you forum crackpots will ever understand the relevance.


    Oh, Barry has a theory of cheap energy. I see.!

  • A little over a year ago, in a post submitted on EGO OUT titled "Fundamental Causation Mechanisms of LENR." axil predicted that LENR based SPP theory would produce mesons and those mesons would decay to produced pions, and muons thus resulting in muon catalyzed fusion.


    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.c…n-mechanisms-of-lenr.html


    A good theory makes predictions that are born out experimentally, and SPP theory has succeeded in this as expressed in the recent Holmlid results.


    Since then, this SPP theory has been perfected in that year's time to explain how gamma and neutron radiation has been neutralized and radioactive isotopes are stabilized through the action of SPPs as EMF black holes.


    Holmlid says that all sorts of sub atomic particles are produced in his experiments, not just muons, he includes mesons and pions in this collection.


    We need to add a few more dots to our analysis. High energy particles have also been detected using protium.


    See:


    F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, "Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense protium p(-1): laser-initiated self-compression from p(1)".Nucl. Intr. Meth. B 278 (2012) 34-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.01.036.


    Muons can also catalyze fission of heavy Z elements like uranium and thorium as seen in LENR


    The proper term for the fission reaction is "Muon induced fission"


    See


    https://plus.google.com/114022…8253558/posts/6h3gEA3YcSb


    The SPPs first generate mesons through Rydberg hydrogen matter then muons are produced by meson decay. Holmlid states that mesons are generated by Rydberg hydrogen matter when stimulated by light.


    Holmlid states that muons are detected even when stimulated by the fluorescent lights from his lab when this type of light excites the catalyst. No muons are produced in the dark.


    LENR is a reaction based on light. Yes, Rossi uses infrared light and Holmlid uses UV light. Light is converted to huge magnetic force that produces mesons from the vacuum through the Schwinger effect. Hydrogen rydberg matter produces SPPs which store light energy until the resultant magnetic force generated by the SPP is strong enough to produce mesons.


    See references: google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&e…TUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ


    Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below:"Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water"


    arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830


    Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions


    arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf


    In these experiments, nano geometry of particles converts light energy from the laser into vortex motion of polaritons which are entangled electrons and photons in a nanoplasmonic “Dark Mode” soliton produced on the surface of the gold nanoparticles. Without the gold nanoparticles, laser light alone is ineffectual in producing these effects in this type of experiment. If neutrinos were involved, then the laser would not be needed to produce the LENR reaction.The powerful emission of a nano-scale magnetic anapole beam by the soliton produces the separation of the vacuum into positive and negative energy zones. Through quantum fluctuation damping, the magnetic beam also forces the entanglement of the soliton with the U232 nucleus by pumping high levels of magnetic energy into the vacuum. This vacuum energy pumping using EMF energy from microwaves also happens in the EmDrive system under development by NASA where some laser beam probes exceed the speed of light.

  • Muons are mesons (muon is synonymous with mu-meson). Pions are pi-mesons.



    Muons are leptons, a heavy electron. Mesons are a quark and an anti quark.



    A pion is a meson made of a quark and an anti quark.



    We can see if pions are produced randomly by SPPs, there will be confusion inside the nucleus.

  • Correct, only mu mesons aka muons among mesons are thought to be fundamental like the electron-- so really they are distinct in type and probably no longer deserve the term meson (if I am to believe the "never to be trusted" online encyclopedia). As Axil points out pi mesons and many other particles are thought to consist of quarks.


    But I am showing my age.... If we are lucky, perhaps we about to have widely utilizable new tools to learn a lot more about muons if they actually devolve from LENR.

  • Hi all


    One key factor that has been identified by many successful LENR experimenters has been the requirement for: sufficient loading, to saturate the Nickel, Paladium or other column 10 metal of the periodic table.
    If then LENR is a surface plasmon polariton effect, then the missing piece of the jigsaw is: why the high loading is needed?


    1. Since we are looking at geometry, as is Rossi with Prof. Norman D. Cook
    2. And the key form of geometry that is being dealt with in LENR loading, is the hydrogen filling the spaces between the atoms of the lattice.
    3. And since saturation requires filling both the octahedral interstitial chambers and the tetrahedral interstitial chambers of the lattice.


    We then need to consider what geometry of the surface is created when both the octahedral interstitial chambers and the tetrahedral interstitial chambers are filled; that allow Rydberg matter and muons to be created and photons to pump the matter on the surface.


    Kind Regards walker


  • When we look are the micrographs of the surface of palladium that has been prepared with the co disposition of deuterium and palladium, we see that a distinctly configured surface is built up consisting of nano particles. This surface is said to support the LENR reaction every time a experiment is run.


    This indicates to me that the key to the proper functioning of the LENR reaction is the configuration of the surface of the substrate. The LENR reaction (position of the NAE) occurs only on the surface of the metal.


    The Lugano test has shown us that the LENR reaction can reach deeply into the 100 micron micro particle of nickel to produce pure Ni62. This transmutation occurs without effecting the surface or the structure of that microparticle. This I call action at a distance.

  • axil: The animated diagram shows two nuclei exchanging a neutral pion. From the same Wiki article (for the Pion):


    "The π0 meson has a mass of 135.0 MeV/c2 and a mean lifetime of 8.4×10−17 s. It decays via the electromagnetic force, which explains why its mean lifetime is much smaller than that of the charged pion (which can only decay via the weak force). The main π0 decay mode, with a branching ratio of BR=0.98823, is into two photons"


    From the very short lifetime, it seems at least some will decay while between the nuclei. Assuming the two photons are of equal energy, what would their wavelength be?


    Axil wrote
    "We can see if pions are produced randomly by SPPs, there will be confusion inside the nucleus."


  • To me, as an amateur enthusiast, it has often seemed that high loading may have been the only way to maintain some necessary character or feature (concentration, kinetics, surface geometry, or?) in metals that are capable of such high d or p loading. So with Pd D in particular, the bulk loading capability is initially rapid enough to deload the surface and thereby prevent sufficient surface concentration for reaction. If that is so, then thin Pd on a non-loadable substrate should more rapidly load to saturation (>88%) and become active much more rapidly. I believe that has been seen, in some cases at least. With nickel on aluminum oxide we may have a similar situation....


    Now with the Rydberg and/or muon mechanistic theories there seems to be similar possibilities of surface to bulk transport effects. In fact the high effective concentrations reached make rapid flow to the interior, perhaps even more important... depending on relative kinetics between active site loading, active site-to-bulk transport rates, reaction rates at the active site/NAE, bulk saturation and consequent slowing or halting of active site deloading to the interior.


    Such a theory as outlined above suggests that there may be metals or even non-metals that do not load deuterium (deuterons) or protium (protons) well, that can nevertheless maintain say a Rydberg structure on the surface and may still may somehow act as a suitable hydrogen fusion catalyst. If there are no such alternate catalysts found, then the participation of partially filled d- or perhaps f- orbitals seen in transition metals may be another key (that is minimally required, a sine qua non) aspect of the LENR process. Further complicating the question is the seeming failure of pure protons to work well, but the reported frequent success of H- . Is there a simple way to understand that? Only the shielding models come to mind for me. I suppose a proton loaded surface can only be approached by a negative H, or perhaps by an atomic H or radical H. but not by another proton--- even before the Rydberg idea.


    Longview

  • According to our opinion, we must have three phenomena that occur successively:


    -A triggering phenomenon.


    -
    A Nuclear Active Environment (NAE)


    -
    A termination phenomenon


    -a)
    The triggering phenomenon.


    Muons from cosmic rays, or more probably, erzions discovered by the team of
    Prof. Bazhutov are probably the particles that trigger fusion
    reactions.


    But erzions and muons give rise to linear chains of fusion reactions.
    These chains are self-limited by termination events, for example the
    capture of the erzion by a nuclei. There is the need for an
    "amplificator", which allow to move from a linear chain
    reaction to a divergent chain reaction. This is what the Dr. Edmund
    Storm call NAE (Nuclear Active Environment)


    -b) The Nuclear Active Environment (NAE)


    Several prominent researchers, including Yeong E. Kim and Xing Zhong Li
    rightly believe that the formation of a Bose-Einstein would be the
    key to the formation of the NAE. During a "classical fusion"
    of two deuterium nuclei, the nucleus of excited helium resulting from
    the fusion cannot de-excitate itself without splitting. It will
    give a nucleus of helium-3 and a neutron or a tritium nucleus and a
    proton. (With a very low probability, it may also give a 24 MeV gamma
    ray) And yet we see very few neutrons and tritium, and very few gamma
    rays. The energy is released as heat.


    No crystal lattice is able of receiving 24Mev from an excited helium
    nucleus. But the authors note that it is not impossible, in a
    theoretical standpoint, for an excited helium nucleus to exchange
    energy with a Bose-Einstein condensate formed from deuterium nuclei.
    In fact:


    What
    is an excited helium nuclei ?


    -It’s not yet an helium nuclei,


    -But is not still two deuterons.


    -It is a mix, something strange between before and after, it is a
    "transition complex".


    A single helium nucleus excited can not give his energy without
    splitting. But because of his deuteron nature, a transition complex
    can exchange energy with thousands of deuteron nuclei of a
    Bose-Einstein condensate. A quantum phase like a Bose-Einstein
    Condensate can take off without difficulties the energy of excitation
    of one helium nucleus. 24 Mev is an huge energy for a nucleus, but a
    little one for a BEC. Of course, this energy exchange in not
    unidirectional: At the end, this energy is then thermalized, but
    before full thermalization, it is not impossible that a part of the
    energy be forwarded to some deuterium nuclei. These nuclei will
    become what we call "ballistic deuterons". If these
    «ballistic deuterons" bear an energy near 5 keV or over, they
    will become able to fuse. Thus, in theory, a fusion reaction
    initiated by an erzion could lead to thousands of fusions events
    before the Bose-Einstein Condensate become destroyed by the released
    energy.


  • The standard model is static and does not explain variable interactions between forces well. This is why standard model theorists are excited about finding supersymmetry. In this theory, this will allow the basic forces to be related. But supersymmetry is a bad theory, it is not compatible with reality, it will not be successful. LENR will tell us how the fundimental forces interact.


    While the W particles are force carriers of the weak force, they themselves carry charges under the electromagnetic force. While it is not so strange that force carriers are themselves, the fact that it is electromagnetic charge suggests that QED and the weak force are connected. Glashow's theory of the weak force took this into account by allowing for a mixing between the weak force and the electromagnetic force. The amount of mixing is labeled by a measurable parameter, the coupling constant.


    Unifying forces


    The full theory of electroweak forces includes four force carriers: W+, W-, and two uncharged particles that mix at low energies—that is, they evolve into each other as they travel. This mixing is analogous to the mixing of neutrinos with one another. One mixture is the massless photon, while the other combination is the Z. In order for a particle to gain speed, it must loss mass. Also the range of it influence increases as energy is added. So at high energies, when all particles move at nearly the speed of light, particles loss all mass.


    At high energy, the W particles behave like photons and QED and the weak interactions unify into a single theory that we call the electroweak theory. A theory with four massless force carriers has a symmetry that is broken in a theory where three of them have masses. In fact, the Ws and Z have different masses. Glashow put these masses determined by experiment into the theory by hand, but did not explain their origin theoretically. Because of this, the coupling constant that relates this force is static, a snapshot at the point that the coupling was determined.


    This single mixing parameter is critical in LENR, It predicts many different observable phenomena in the weak interactions. First, it gives the ratio of the W and Z masses (it is the cosine of ). It also gives the ratio of the coupling strength of the electromagnetic and weak forces (the sine of ). In addition, many other measurable quantities, such as how often electrons or muons or quarks are spinning one way versus another when they come from a decaying Z particle, depend on the single mixing parameter. Thus, the way to test the electroweak theory is to measure all of these things and see if you get the same number for this one parameter.


    A sickness and a cure


    While the electroweak theory could successfully account for what was observed experimentally at low energies, one could imagine an experiment that could not be explained. If one takes this theory and tries to compute what happens when Standard Model particles scatter at very high energies (above 1 TeV) using Feynman diagrams, one gets nonsense. Nonsense looks like, for example, probabilities greater than 100%, measurable quantities predicted to be infinity, or simply approximations where the next correction to a calculation is always bigger than the last. If a theory produces nonsense when trying to predict a physical result, it is the wrong theory. This issue suggests that the way that the coupling constant was determined is flawed.


    A "fix" to a theory can be as simple as a single new fix-em-up field (and therefore, a new particle). As is their practice, the standard model theorists felt the need to invent a new particle to help Glashow's theory, so we'll call it H. If a particle like H exists, and it interacts with the known particles, then it must be included in the Feynman diagrams we use to calculate things like scattering and decay cross sections. Thus, though we may never have seen such a particle, its virtual effects change the results of the calculations. Introducing H in the right way changes the results of the scattering calculation and gives sensible results.


    In the mid-1960s, a number of physicists, including Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, wrote down theories in which a force carrier could get a mass due to the existence of a new field. This field explains how a particle gets mass and therefore explains how the range of its interactions change. In 1967, Steven Weinberg (and independently, Abdus Salam), incorporated this effect into Glashow's electroweak theory producing a consistent, unified electroweak theory. It included a new particle, dubbed the Higgs boson, which, when included in the scattering calculations, completed a new theory—the Standard Model—which made sensible predictions even for very high-energy scattering. It predicted how a W particle changed mass as energy is added to became a photon at high energies.


    A mechanism for mass


    The way the Higgs field gives masses to the W and Z particles, and all other fundamental particles of the Standard Model (the Higgs mechanism), is subtle. The Higgs field—which like all fields lives everywhere in space—is in a different phase than other fields in the Standard Model. Because the Higgs field interacts with nearly all other particles, and the Higgs field affects the vacuum, the state of the vacuum affect the Higgs field, the coupling constant, and the range that the weak force can act. the space (vacuum) particles travel through affects them in a dramatic way: It gives them mass and restricts the range of interaction. The bigger the coupling between a particle and the Higgs, the bigger the effect, and thus the bigger the particle's mass.


    If the Higgs field does not act as the standards model predicts, the way the weak force and electromagnetism couples is not well defined. This variation in the state of the vacuum, the range of the weak force, and how electromagnetism affects the weak force come into question.


    If the vacuum can be manipulated such that a volume of space can be partitioned into a zone of high energy and an adjacent zone of low energy, the zone of negitive vacuum energy would allow the weak force to be more readily modified by EMF to increase it range and change its mode of interation. Such behavior has been seen when LENR increases the rate of nuclear decay of radio active isotopes in LENR experiments.


    This uncertainty in the coupling constant and the associated Higgs mechanism now seen in the standard model give LENR a opening and a place at the table in the full sunshine and acceptance by the standard model.


    The pion may be produced by the vacuum via the Casimir force.


    See:
    Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potentials
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf


    If the vacuum is modified by intense EMF, then the pion's lifetime and range of action might change. The vacuum may produce more pions then when the vacuum is not excited. How intense EMF effects the vacuum and what these changes in the vacuum forces do to the nucleus is the subject of future standard model physics as reflected by LENR science.

  • Axil wrote: "Also the range of it influence increases as energy is added. So at high energies, when all particles move at nearly the speed of light, particles loss all mass."

    Perhaps you meant to say one or another W or Z rather than "all particles"? And even if so, why and how are we to forget that for massive particles, under Relativity mass increases to a limit of infinity as velocity approaches C?


    i.e.:
    m = mo/((1 - v2/c2))1/2


    It may be much better to read D. L. Hotson, at least there is a promise of unification, since there the implication of negative time and negative mass are shown to be easily conveyed by Dirac's original wave equation.


    I have not yet been convinced that we have to understand a whole "zoo" of particles generally only seen or synthesized at very high (TeV) energies from the SSC or ultrahigh energy "cosmic rays" simply to understand CF / LENR, which are quite at the other end of the energy spectrum (eV, keV to low MeV) . On the contrary, modern physics appears to have already failed miserably in the CF pursuit and many other pursuits detailed in Lee Smolin (The Trouble with Physics), or Alexander Unzicker (Bankrupting Physics or in his 2013 The Higgs Fake).


    I would recommend a lot more attention to condensed matter theory or CMT, even though it has some of its own comparatively minor problems.... at least there are everyday manifestations and implications and relatively inexpensive ways to conduct experiments there. It is far closer to the energy scale of CF / LENR as we know it so far. I have mentioned before that Mitchell Swartz has been an advocate of understanding CMT. Swartz' LENR successes (Nanors, Phusors), or at least his explanations of them, appear to rely on CMT.


  • See


    Exchange forces


    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/exchg.html



    Quote

    If a force involves the exchange of a particle(Boson), that particle has to "get back home before it is missed" in the sense that it must fit within the constraints of the uncertainty principle. A particle of mass m and rest energy E=mc2 can be exchanged if it does not go outside the bounds of the uncertainty principle in the form


  • The path to controlling CF / LENR productively (high COPs etc.) still seems destined to come from empirical experimental efforts.


    Funny thing, the photons, protons, electrons, atoms, molecules all seem to know how to do the computations for the full n-body wave equation, in real time.


    But maybe they are ignorant of muons and can then be tricked (I write half joking).

  • And for any with an interest: Smolin's book is the "The Trouible with Physics" 2006 and mainly deals with string theory... but provides a view of how untethered from empirical science some parts of physics have become.


    I'm certain this is due to the brilliance of physicists of the last century and their great accomplishments. Unfortunately, it has created a bit of a "faith" with all the trappings and the appearance of dogmatic sense of certainty few religions can rival today.

  • With respect to Heisenberg, I briefly commented on him in relation to deBroglie here:
    deBroglie's equation and heavy electrons


    The comparison is interesting, if not instructive. As detailed in Hotson's articles, Heisenberg and other's critiques caused Dirac to essentially obliterate half of his wave equation. Too weird at the time, to think of "negative energy" (implied negative mass and negative time). Now the original Dirac looks like an island in the storm.


    Heisenberg, well what can I say.... certainly far reaching, as are many other institutions and ideas from his era.

  • I recently read an article on Space Daily about atoms during a supernova:


    http://www.spacedaily.com/repo…ernova_explosion_999.html


    It talks about X-ray interactions in Supernova producing an exotic plasma state where the inner electrons are ejected from atoms.


    A supernova is obviously a different environment than that discussed in Leif Holmlid experiment and the article does not talk at all about either cold or hot fusion but I wonder if the high temperatures and energies produced by the lasers might be creating a similar environment on a local scale that has a similar atomic effect that LENR can then maybe take advantage of.


    I could not help wondering if this could play a part in Rydberg matter formation. Also if the inner vacancies from the ejected photons could capture a muon before the outer electrons rearrange and fill these positions.


    Note according to the article high energy X-rays are produced as a consequence of this effect which i understand are not seen in LENR experiments. I wonder if the XUV light seen in sonoluminescence experiments and by Mills is at similar frequencies?


    Could there be characteristic photon emission from transitions in muon shell levels similar to those from electrons and at what frequencies these occur. Could these be observed experimentally?


    If characteristic radiation can be seen from muon energy level transitions then it could be interesting to see if radiation of these frequencies occur astronomically, either in supernovae or other energetic shocks and boundaries such as associated with different parts of solar flares. Given the muon half life if the radiation occurs well way from known sources such as high in the solar corona rather than just close to the photosphere then it may tell us something about how and where they are formed.


    I like Axils ideas about the SPP directly producing the radiation but on a slightly different tack I wonder if in the absence of lasers could the SPP mentioned by Axil generate similar disruptions to the inner electrons either directly or magnetically or through the radiation generated by the SPP solitons?


    If muons are seen do we know if they are positive or negative or do we see both, I suppose in order to form muonic atoms and allow muon catalysed fusion they would need to be negative?


    I suppose even if muons could be generated from some process perhaps involving decay, interaction or resonance of virtual pions in the nucleus quite a lot of energy would be needed? Would the high temperatures of 50 to 500 MK be sufficient for this? Am I right in saying this is equivalent thermally to about 4.3 to 43 keV? This seems quite low to generate pions or muons. Or is the specific laser frequency also important?


    Once produced in a nucleus would negative muons wave function naturally move into the available orbital due to overlap with the nucleus or would conservation of momentum require them to be ejected?


    If negative muons are produced from a negative pion in the nucleus I suppose conservation rules would require a Neutron to change to a Proton. If these come from the deuterium this implies it forms He2 + which I suppose would immediately decay to 2 Protons or by beta + decay back to deuterium. Do we see a change in protium/deuterium ratio consistent with this?


    Looking further I read that beta decay rates are sometimes modified in highly ionised atoms and sometimes bound beta decay where an emitted election is transferred to a bound state can occur.


    http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/~jcpei/meeting/201408/litvinov.pdf


    I wonder if this could also occur for muons generated from pion decay in the nucleus, particularly as the orbitals for muons have greater overlap with the nucleus when compared to electron orbitals. Could it be that atoms in Rydberg state or with ionised lower orbitals are more likely to generate muons or capture negative muons from a nucleus? I suppose this would have been previously observed if this is the case, however. I'm not sure how conservation of momentum is respected in bound beta decay however maybe the momentum not included in the neutrino is taken up by the atom. I suppose any positive muons produced would be ejected and form muonium.


    Still it is difficult to account for the energy required if they do come from the nucleus.


    Edit: I wonder if to some extent all nucleons exist in a cloud of one or more virtual mesons according to the quark composition of the nucleon and how their wave functions would behave and interact. I wonder if a highly charged environment such as a collection of nuclei in a Rydberg matter or UDD or an an atom with ionised inner orbitals such a transition of a pion and muon decay can be more likely. Could it be in Rydberg matter the nuclei are too closely packed for beta decay to occur due to the size of the electron wave function in the first electron orbital but pion-muon decay would still be possible? In normal matter with electrons in occupied inner orbitals could this prevent muon decay occurring and instead favour nucleon integrity from a conservation of energy point of view and beta decay? Could such a behaviour be evaluated and measured in terms of half lives and size of wave functions and quantum tunnelling effects?


    A crazy question... Could a bound nucleon such as a neutron theoretically decay into to or temporarily exist as 3 pions? EDIT: Interestingly 3 pions would have less than half the mass of a nucleon but I suppose other conservation rules would need to be respected, i'm not sure if this is possible. But if it was could this be an alternative source of energy?


    I'm also speculating a lot as an amateur enthusiast… and probably sprouting rubbish in my enthusiasm. So I hope someone with more knowledge can clarify and knock some holes in what i just said.