Would UDH be traceable when performing isotopic analysis

Very good question.

i suppose small chunks would still be light enough to give an identifiable small shift in mass? I.e. 2 D D(0) would be heavier than He? Also maybe the lack of neutrons may affect the mass response in the EM field?

i hope Sven can give us some insight.

About EM spectra:

if I remember correctly the electrons are not bound in shells but more like conduction electrons in a metal. But Alan's idea about the H=H bond resonance is a very interesting idea.

I'm speculating as a non expert but i wonder if the electrons would be stimulated to generate breaking (bremsstrahlung) radiation. And if that could generate a signature.

The Inter nuclei distance of 2.3 pm is close to that that occurs in degenerate matter in white dwarf stars. Would this mean the electron plasma frequency was in the 10s of KeV s 100s of keV range? If so perhaps there is a spectrum cut off bellow these frequencies.

Could it also affect the local magnetic or electric field min some measurable way?

Quote from Alan Smith

Spectral analysis would be my guess- densification should (probably) move the resonant frequency of the H=H bond.

For H(0) nmr spin-flipp resonance would be the choice to measure it. Just send the stuff (quick enough) through a strong field and measure.

Quote from Rob

With recent discussions focussing on Ultra Dense Hydrogen (UDH and/or UDD), I wonder whether these forms of Hydrogen would be traceable when performing isotopic analysis. Would it? Or what other analysis methods would reveal the presence of UDD/UDD?

This is an interesting question for a rather indirect reason. Holmlid's H(0) speculation has very little theoretical substance. For example, the precise properties of H(0) can be guessed but have not been theoretically determined. Indeed the existence of H(0) has not been theoretically shown, the only argument I've seen involved D(0) only.

Almost anything is possible if you invoke quantum coherence over large distances between objects not normally considered to be capable of this, so I'm not saying that some such theory is impossible. However, it has not been worked out. If it were worked out, most likely simple measures of decoherence from local e-m interactions (unavoidable in a system with p or d), would show it absolutely not to be possible. Quantum decoherence is something that engineers see as a big issue (vs quantum computing) and if you study it you can see that avoiding it is immensely difficult.

As an aside. In a solid state system at normal temperatures (so that thermal energy pushes you out of lowest energy level) quantum coherence between nuclei would require quantum coherence between every charged component on the lattice - otherwise strong electrostatic interactions with local charged components would rapidly decohere the system. The exceptions come from specific systems where there are unusual mechanisms that create artificially high separation between energy levels. You can get that from electrons where their wave functions operate in a potential landscape highly controllable and vibrations in nuclei (because much heavier) have a relatively small effect on electrons. Not from nuclei. Somone can correct me if this admittedly high level statement is wrong. Looking for specific gaps in it, and validating them, would be the right territory for anyone wanting to go down a "quantum coherence" route.

Anyway, without detailed analysis, and with no independent experimental evidence to go on, speculation becomes loose, and as such can be made to fit experiment all too easily because the number of possible distinct qualitative comments that can be made is large and they can seem correct with a high probability (50% if they are typical "expect bigger" or "expect smaller" remarks).

Holmlid's papers do this - they take experimental results and impose on them very specific interpretations. That has merit only if the whole ends up coherent - and I don't see this.