The church of SM physics

    Quote from JohnDuffield

    See for example the UCL small tutorial in gamma-gamma physics. It says this: “From Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) we know that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they don’t carry charge, but they can interact through higher order processes: a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion/anti-fermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple”.


    Photons are two rotation particles but charge coupling needs 4 rotations. As soon as two photons meet on a dense matter surface able to carry additional magnetic flux (Holmlid case) the "photons" potentially can interact.


    It's all mater of definition: Photons produce "virtual charge" because they are made of magnetic flux. But virtual charge does not directly interact with "real" 4 rotation charge.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Otherwise, application of statistical techniques to evidence will not distinguish between LENR as a genuine physical theory and LENR as a set of systematic artifacts.


    I own a large set of systematic artifacts usually called gamma spectra. One shows about 120 lines of a single isotope - besides others.


    Your thinking still is blocked by last millenniums fringe physics claims.


    Such spectra are one reason I'm 10000% confident that SM for dense matter is fringe science and SM only can be used to explain particle scattering.

    • Official Post

    New evidence supporting the existence of the hypothetic X17 particle


    A.J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatlos, L. Csige, J. Gulyas, M. Koszta, B. Szihalmi, J. Timar, D.S. Firak, A. Nagy, N.J. Sas, A. Krasznahorkay

    (Submitted on 23 Oct 2019)

    We observed electron-positron pairs from the electro-magnetically forbidden M0 transition depopulating the 21.01 MeV 0− state in 4He. A peak was observed in their e+e− angular correlations at 115∘ with 7.2σ significance, and could be described by assuming the creation and subsequent decay of a light particle with mass of mXc2=16.84±0.16(stat)±0.20(syst) MeV and ΓX= 3.9×10−5 eV. According to the mass, it is likely the same X17 particle, which we recently suggested [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 052501 (2016)] for describing the anomaly observed in 8Be.


    https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459

    Quote from Alan Smith

    We observed electron-positron pairs from the electro-magnetically forbidden M0 transition depopulating the 21.01 MeV 0− state in 4He. A peak was observed in their e+e− angular correlations at 115∘ with 7.2σ significance, and could be described by assuming the creation and subsequent decay of a light particle with mass of mXc2=16.84±0.16(stat)±0.20(syst) MeV


    You linked it quite some weeks ago... They see a resonance of the well known SO(4) 4-He wave structure. Nothing exciting.

    • Official Post

    X17 confirmed by BLP


    https://brilliantlightpower.com/x17-particle-mass-predicted/


    Classical physics predicts fundamental particle masses from the same analytical equations comprising fundamentals constants only that correctly predicted the fundamental cosmological parameters such as the acceleration of the expansion of the cosmos, the Hubble constant, and the curvature (See post of November 10.) The mass of the X17 particle which decays into a positron-electron pair is given by the equation that correctly predicts the masses of all leptons, the electron, muon, and tau. The predicted mass of X17 is 17.11 MeV in agreement with observations GUTCP Chp. 36.

    Quote from zorud

    Interesting...I was taught here, that the current SM is BS and cannot help to explain, measure or confirm/detect such things....


    Then please show us the SM prediction/calculation of this new 4-He resonance! Just for a fact check....

    May be they can do it like Mills. Just add a paragraph to an old chapter...


    A positron/electron pair does not explain a particle. It is just one way to convert higher rotation mass into photonic mass. The same finally happens in the kaon break up of the proton in Holmlids case. The classic error here is to assume that charge inside a nucleus has the same structure as the charge in the form of an electron.

    Instead of enlightening me it would probably make more sense if you would help those guys to find the right way and results...I am no expert in particle nor wave nor nuclear physics, but I try to follow those findings, reports and endeavors that help to explain and understand our world and where we came from and will probably go to better....

    Quote from zorud

    Instead of enlightening me it would probably make more sense if you would help those guys to find the right way and results...I am no expert in particle nor wave nor nuclear physics, but I try to follow those findings, reports and endeavors that help to explain and understand our world and where we came from and will probably go to better....

    I've been trying to do that, Zorud. See http://physicsdetective.com/. I'm afraid there's a lot of hostility.

    Quote from JohnDuffield

    I've been trying to do that, Zorud. See http://physicsdetective.com/. I'm afraid there's a lot of hostility.


    Hey, interesting write ups. How do your interpretations relate to the experimental results quoted by Lief Holmid and Randall Mills. Skimmed the most recent article. I have nothing personal against quantum field theories but classical derived theories seem more intuitive and intuitive physics is what has been stifled by overdependence on simulated models derived from imprecise simulated models stated as fact. Do ultra dense states of hydrogen and catalytic resonant energy transfers predicted from properties of non singularity electron orbits coincide?

    Quote from zorud

    Instead of enlightening me it would probably make more sense if you would help those guys to find the right way and results...


    I'm working on a second iteration of the 4-He spectral states. The first iteration using the averaging method did show that most states are more or less exact 1:1 mapping to SO(4) orbits. Already some months ago I posted that there could be some yet unknown neutral particles in the reported range. But as in the Muon case such particles most likely are only quasi stable in a relativistic regime.


    So far we here still deal with quasi particles. A real "free" particle must be measured at point 1 and confirmed at point 2 and the distance between 1,2 must be at least 5 x the full de Broglie wave length.

    • Official Post

    Electron Mediated Nuclear Reaction Theory - Andrea Calaon - Independent Researcher


    Features of the LENR Mechanism that need to to Be Explained


    ● LENR: produces energy in “nuclear amounts” without the huge quanta

    typical of nuclear reactions,

    ○ does not produce dangerous neutrons and energetic particles,

    ○ needs hydrogen nuclei,

    ○ has a strong preference for stable nuclei.

    ● The Coulomb barrier is somehow overcome.

    ● LENR affects not only light nuclei, but also heavy

    ones -> neutral particles must be involved.



    Electron_Mediated_Nuclear_Reaction_Theor.pdf


    - apologies if this 2016 paper is 'old news'.

    Quote from LeBob

    Hey, interesting write ups. How do your interpretations relate to the experimental results quoted by Lief Holmid and Randall Mills. Skimmed the most recent article. I have nothing personal against quantum field theories but classical derived theories seem more intuitive and intuitive physics is what has been stifled by overdependence on simulated models derived from imprecise simulated models stated as fact. Do ultra dense states of hydrogen and catalytic resonant energy transfers predicted from properties of non singularity electron orbits coincide?

    I don't think my interpretations relate to results quoted by Lief Holmid or Randell Mills. I saw this about Lief Holmid saying dark matter is some kind of ultra-dense hydrogen. I don't think it is - see my take on dark matter here. Nor do I agree with the idea of a hydrino. Neutrons apart, I don't think there are any ultra dense states of hydrogen. So I don't think there's any coincidence with non singularity electron orbits. However I don't think there's any issue with cold fusion. A welder uses blue heat and no pressure, a blacksmith uses red heat and hammering pressure, and cold welding uses no heat and massive pressure. IMHO the same general principle applies to nuclear fusion.

    Quote from JohnDuffield

    I don't think my interpretations relate to results quoted by Lief Holmid or Randell Mills. I saw this about Lief Holmid saying dark matter is some kind of ultra-dense hydrogen. I don't think it is - see my take on dark matter here. Nor do I agree with the idea of a hydrino. Neutrons apart, I don't think there are any ultra dense states of hydrogen. So I don't think there's any coincidence with non singularity electron orbits. However I don't think there's any issue with cold fusion. A welder uses blue heat and no pressure, a blacksmith uses red heat and hammering pressure. cold welding uses no heat and massive pressure. IMHO the same general principle applies to nuclear fusion.


    Interesting perspective, can't say i agree though.

    How about the idea that ultra dense H or D, hydrinos or hydrotons are just different theoretical perspectives of muon-bound H2/D2 molecules? I know this has been considered before on this forum and rejected - but several years of research time have passed since then - new work by Holmlid, Mills and others seems possibly consistent with this. (the spontaneous rate of proton disintegrations/fusion reactions could simply be due to atmospheric background muon trapping by Rydberg Matter (RM) - state H or D/possibly potentiated by neutrinos or antineutrinos but certainly boosted by IR laser photon absorption. The whole ultra dense H or hydrino story still defies rational explanation in the absence of very high pressures / very low temperatures. And you can't get round it by saying its all down to using a KFeO2 catalyst because all this really does is promote atomic species of D or H - maybe RM H or D has a much higher affinity for muons and extends their active lifetime beyond 2.2 usec?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.