Yet Another LENR Theory

    @padam73
    We should have long switched to the Geometric Algebra approach to QM. Instead there are still physicists thinking that complex structure has a "magical" role in QM. Still saying that it is the square root of -1 ...
    Multiplication by i is just a rotation. Anyway ...


    About the puzzle about the size of proton charge radius I can only tell you a coincidence I found some time ago: the proton radius calculated with my extremely simplified approach with one single charge rotating at the speed of light (0.105154.. [fm]) corresponds almost exactly to 1/8th of the proton charge radius measured with muons. The difference is only 0.04%, inside the experimental error.


    The ZB of the muon should be different from that of the electron since the radius should be 207 times smaller, due to the larger mass.

    Quote from axil

    The enemies of LENR infected the link to the last Holmlid slide show with a virus. This site should protect this latest slideshow from infection as they have done for the first Holmlid link.



    Hey Axil, is this a joke: Or has SPAWAR been blind sided by Holmlid reproducing their patent (US 8,419,919 B1) which only partially disclosed the story??

    Dear all,
    I have recently updated the presentation describing my Electron Mediated Theory:
    electron_mediated_nuclear_reactions.pdf
    Since I first proposed it, my theory has changed a lot. I always like comments and critics, especially if constructive.


    The main recent changes are the following:

    • added some additional coupling energies inclusive those in the MeV range, which I had previously discarded,
    • improved the list of best NAE with the complete table from NIST (many of the ionization energies however are only calculated),
    • added some comments for the clarification of the mechanism in the NAE,
    • added comments about the decay of the Hydronions; is the Hyd a candidate for Dark Matter?
    • added comments on the possible evidences of the existence of the Hyd:

      • Anomaly in the Internal Pair Creation from Be8 when generated by Li7 bombardment with protons; the energy range at which the anomaly appears is one of the coupling energies of the EMNR model,
        Incompatibility of the neutron half-life with bottle and beam experiments: the neutron could actually decay producing a Hyd with a low branching fraction: n-> p+W -> pe + antineutrino.
      • A recent article suggests that a neutral particle with a sufficiently large cross section for deuterium and Be7 would resolve the so called Li7 problem (lack of Li7 in the universe compared to the best theoretical predictions),
    • added some additional comments on the extreme ultraviolet emissions measured by Randell Mills,
    • added the list of reactions Li7 should undergo with Hydronions.
    Quote from Andrea Calaon

    I have recently updated the presentation describing my Electron Mediated Theory


    Be8 usually decays into 2 Alphas. But what would happen if the incoming proton first captures an electron and temporary forms H* ? The standard model has ignored this intermediate state if H (H* H*;-1/137)and therefore never looked at this resonance. H* should have a “large” magnetic field/momentum, which could cause the angular deflections!

    @Wyttenbach
    With H* do you mean the Hydrino? I don’t think the theory of Mills makes sense. You need something different from the EM field to generate a neutral nucleus. In other words chemistry can not produce nuclei.
    Anyway we are speaking about a tightly bound state between an electron and a hydrogen nucleus; it is clearly neutral object, plus has a very large magnetic moment.
    I wrote to T. J. Ketel, and A. Krasznahorkay with some comments, on the line of your comment, but so far have received no answer. I do not have reputable published work on my side, so probably my suggestion went straight to the bin. I might give it a second go, but I doubt.
    Anyway the existence of the Hyd would:
    - Provide an explanation for Cold Fusion,
    - Provide an explanation for the neutron lifetime problem,
    - Provide an explanation for the lack of primordial Li7 in the universe,
    - Provide a very good candidate for Dark Matter (Light).
    - Explain the bump in the angular correlation of internal paris production by Be8 when bombarding Li7 with protons.
    Plus the magnetic attraction, which I think is at the origin of the Hyd, could be the additional ingredient that should be added to the electron Hamiltonian for orbitals near 85 [eV]. It would allow the application of the BCS theory to high temperature superconductors. In fact metallic orbitals (hosting Cooper pairs) float above external core orbitals, which in some cases would react strongly to nuclear displacements: phonons.


    So the mechanism at the origin of Cold Fusion would be something very difficult to spot precisely, but giving its signs in several different branches of Physics. As it MUST be if Cold Fusion is real … indeed!

    Quote from Andrea Calaon

    With H* do you mean the Hydrino? I don’t think the theory of Mills makes sense. You need something different from the EM field to generate a neutral nucleus. In other words chemistry can not produce nuclei.


    Did You read Mills' theory ?


    What you call Hydrino is just the first manifestation of H with decreased radius. Hydrino's final state H*1/137 is the complete shrunken H with the electron travelling very near the classical surface with a potential of -511kEv (below Plank radius.) This state has theoretically been deduced by many over the last 80 years...


    Mill's explains since more than 10 years that H* may be a candidate for dark matter especially since we know that some "dark environment" emit exactly -511kEv radiation. (This is still under discussion.)


    But unless the H* state is experimentally proven, this is just one assumption of many (Meulenberg, Maly, Paillet, ...)


    Contrary to QM Mill's theory can also "exactly" predict the angles of chemical bonds.. - as long as the electron orbits are well defined... At least his theory is a far more consistent approach to get a first answer than most others. Never the less: His theory, as all others is incomplete.

    @Wyttenbach,
    I have read only parts of Mill’s theory, enough to know more or less the basics you mentioned me, and to understand at least some of its critical points.


    Looking also at other threads of this Forum I see that you like the theory of Mills.
    So I will shortly comment the Hydrino theory.
    Dr Mills is quite bold in many of his statements, for example when he minimizes the engineering hurdles he would face in developing a working reactor (even imagining he had the complete understanding of the phenomena he shows), or when he criticizes Quantum Mechanics.
    I am not a professor of QM, but I would imagine that the thousands of professionals who invented and developed it were not that confused and blind. The classical picture is inconciliable with the evidences of the quantum world, which, by the way, is EVERYTHING around us.
    The following published article, which is a partial analysis of Mill’s theory, (as you probably already know) is not positive about it:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…088/1367-2630/7/1/127/pdf
    I tend to agree with the criticism of the article.


    About the prediction of the angles of molecules, as far as I know, standard Hartree Fock methods predict the angles generally within less than 1%.
    I can add a point: Mills suggests that the transition to the Hydrino states is mediated by chemical interactions. So why is the Hydrino not being produced in other chemical systems? What is so special in those chemical interactions?


    Um eine lange Geschichte kurz zu machen: meine Theorie wird sich nicht mit der Theorie for Randell Mills verwandeln.
    Mit freundlichen Grüßen


    Andrea Calaon

    Quote from Andrea Calaon

    iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127/pdf
    I tend to agree with the criticism of the article.


    I know this reference very well. There is also much discussion about it in the www. The assumptions of Rathke are wrong and thus his statement is only true if you assume sole chemical QM levels... (He had to retract his paper.)


    You obviously did not read vawra, paillet, meulenberg etc.. about deep H/Dirac levels.


    I never said that Mill's theory is correct. In contrary his H* modell seems to be to simple (as I explained in an other post), but as long as nobody makes serious research we cannot decide.

    Dear Wyttenbach,
    You say: “I never said that Mill's theory is correct. In contrary his H* model seems to be simple (as I explained in another post), but as long as nobody makes serious research we cannot decide.”.
    Pardon me, but I don’t get your point: I wouldn’t care if a theory is simple or not, if I think it is wrong. Probably I should read your other posts.


    From this exchange with you I take that in the presentation of my theory I can not skip the comparison of my Hydronion with at least some of the “mini-atom” theories (Edmund Storm calls them “virtual neutron theories”). As you say there are many mini-atom proposals; the most theoretically established ones are those solving the Dirac equation.
    You say that I OBVIOUSLY did not read any of them. Well my problem is more about remembering them …
    Let me say that personally I would not mix the imaginative suggestions of Mills (which you commented me) with the work of Dirac and others using its equation (which you only mentioned).
    Anyway. While assembling the first proposal of my theory (a while ago) I had a look at some of the mini-atom theories based on the unconventional solution of the Dirac equation. Those I looked at did not seem convincing to me and I discarded them as good candidates for explaining all the features of Cold Fusion.
    At ICCF19 I assisted from the forefront to the presentation of Paillet, who described his view of the “Nature of the deep-Dirac levels”.
    J.-L. Paillet and A. Meulenberg / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 18 (2016) 1–26.


    Here are my comments:
    If one considers:
    - the Dirac equation (fully relativistic) and
    * a non-pointwise central potential, plus
    * the corrections of QCD, …
    - or if one uses a potential which fits the known properties of the innermost core orbitals (those which overlap most with the nucleus),
    one can get orbital bound solutions that are more bound than the Hydrogen atom and much smaller in size. Some call the solutions Deep Dirac Levels (DDL).
    1) These orbitals can shrink below the Zitterbewegung size, which, from my point of view is impossible, since that is the intrinsic size of the electron itself. And in fact the deepest DDL have to deal with a series of problems especially related to the hypothetical interaction of the electron with a “naked” point particle without an intrinsic structure.
    2) All “anomalous” solution to the Dirac equation for a p-e system have a potential which is singular (or even hypersingular) at the origin. I do not think this makes sense, neither the “smearing” proposals which have been put forth. In fact smearing does not even correspond to the reality of the quark pointwise charges inside nucleons;
    3) Using the Klein Gordon equation (Jan Naudts does it in order to make the wave function square-integrable) means forgetting about the spin, which in turn is the ZB, .... so it would mean to forget about the very nature of the electron (similar to my first point),
    4) Even very excited DDL are hundreds of keV below the 13.6 eV of the hydrogen orbital. This should lead to a rapid decay of any hydrogen atom to these states. Why does it not happen? My guess is that, if the governing equation, which defines DDL, is the same which determines the standard hydrogen levels, there should be no obstacle to the decay. Instead I think that the mechanism defining the tightly bound state must be different from the Coulomb attraction to a central charge. Instead it must be a mechanism that is always inaccessible, apart from some special conditions. Coulomb attraction from a central charge would work as for any standard orbital and, if the solutions were “physically admissible”, the electron in any hydrogen atom would decay to DDL.
    5) The energy limit of the DDL is around 511 keV, the mass of the electron. It is as if by forcing the electron near to a point charge, it became possible to build a second electron. This seems to suggest that an ingredient is missing, because the electron seems to build an image of itself around the fixed point charge of the nucleus.
    6) The Dirac equation suggests strongly the existence of the electron Zitterbewegung, but, in the search for DDL, it is solved with boundary conditions representing particles (nucleons) without any (nuclear) ZB. So the solution can not possibly reflect the presence of the magnetic attraction I think is at the base of the nuclear force. I don’t know what would happen if the proton were modeled/represented by a shrunken electron with radius=r_e/1836.1526… and a corresponding higher ZB frequency.


    Please correct me if you think I am saying something wrong. I am definitely not an expert in the solution of the Dirac equation.

    Andrea said
    "I assisted from the forefront .... Paillet"


    I looked at Paillet’s deep femtometer orbitals paper
    - huge electron ionisation energies of 136000 to 350000 eV..
    But LENR phenomena do not require huge energies to initiate,
    -in the 10 -100 ev range.
    I was also bothered by the contrast btw the exact femto radius calcs
    and the hand waving when it came to the fundamental issue of explaining why the electron did not fall into the nucleus.


    e.g1. A “subtle” magnetic force? “a repulsive core near the origin...repulsive interaction that forces the wavefunction away from the singularity.”
    e.g2. Centrifugal forces? only the deep orbits ‘see’ the repulsive barrier, imposed by centrifugal forces at small r, as significant.”


    I prefer the EMNR theory with frequency harmonics between the zittering proton/electrons
    because it yields lower energy levels(1- 100 eV) for LENR initiation.


    The zitterbewegung has justification from Hestenes(1990) Gouanere(2007) Bauer(2014) and others.


    fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4580


    In 1990 Hestenes argued that
    "The zitterbewegung is fundamental for the interpretation of the Dirac equation
    and à fortiori for interpretation of quantum mechanics."


    Planet Physics in 2016 still appears to have not heard Hestenes
    but hopefully we can see in the near future


    zitterbewegung trending and a QED mathematical explanation
    for the harmonics of the
    electron-proton interaction in the Calaon EMNR hyd.










    .

    Quote from Andrea Calaon

    1) These orbitals can shrink below the Zitterbewegung size, which, from my point of view is impossible, since that is the intrinsic size of the electron itself. And in fact the deepest DDL have to deal with a series of problems especially related to the hypothetical interaction of the electron with a “naked” point particle without an intrinsic structure.


    The Zitterbewegung of electron's is known as larmor precision and is well integrated into QM! Do You say that there exist's even more Zitterbewegung ?



    Quote from Andrea Calaon

    5) The energy limit of the DDL is around 511 keV, the mass of the electron. It is as if by forcing the electron near to a point charge, it became possible to build a second electron. This seems to suggest that an ingredient is missing, because the electron seems to build an image of itself around the fixed point charge of the nucleus.


    The deepest orbits allowed are around -511kEv. This means + 511keV of energy are freed if the orbit shrinks. If You get a "free 511keV" then you cannot convert them to any particle You like to have... CERN Protons have many 100 GeV and this does also not produce thousands of protons if they are stopped...


    One more remark: If you believe that a proton is made up of quarks, then it is clear, that there is no explanantion for a point charge. This is only true for the far field. Otherways the Quarks should contain themselvs...


    Conclusion: We have no proven explanation for the structure of a proton hence for all other nuclei.

    @Wyttenbach

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The deepest orbits allowed are around -511kEv. This means + 511keV of energy are freed if the orbit shrinks. If You get a "free 511keV" then you cannot convert them to any particle You like to have... CERN Protons have many 100 GeV and this does also not produce thousands of protons if they are stopped...


    Probably I should have said that the electron "opens up" loosing all its energy? Do you like it?


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The Zitterbewegung of electron's is known as larmor precision and is well integrated into QM! Do You say that there exist's even more Zitterbewegung ?


    I think you meant Larmor precession. Given the controversial literature about the ZB I would not be sure that it is well integrated into QM. I think robert bryant is right when he says

    Quote from robert bryant

    Planet Physics in 2016 still appears to have not heard Hestenes


    The ZB is only partially visible from the Dirac equation in its complex formulation (4x4 complex matrices). Using Geometric Algebra it appears more clearly:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2728


    What do you mean with your comment about the multiplication?


    I think the ZB is the essence of the electron. The point charge of the electron appears as travelling at the speed of light on a circular orbit at fixed radius and frequency around the centre of mass of the particle. The plane of the rotation defines the spin direction. For relativistic speeds the apparent radius shrinks exactly as the (relative) mass increases. What traps a photon in a very localized circular motion (along which it looks like it interacts with itself) is not known. My guess is that there is something causing a local very large spacetime curvature, so that a plane wave looks like a circular orbit, and half of the wave (the part with the positive sing) is hidden. The mysterious origin of the curvature could have an "opposite" which can leave the positive part of a photon wave visible, giving origin to the positron. So you would have two opposite "curvatures", which behave in two different ways with respect to the electric charge.
    In fact the Dirac equation says that any moving electron carries a fraction of a positron. This presentation on Youtube is very nicely layed out:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCuaBmAzqek
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR6UebCvFqE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DL-Xa1f3QI


    Please note that all these rumbling speeches about the electron and the positron have no part in my EMNR theory and are just what I can imagine about the origin of the electron in connection with the concept of the trembling motion.


    There are some recent articles suggesting the experimental evidence of the ZB, it should not be impossible:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4580v2
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7037

    I find Mills theory very interesting. The reason is that it is a fact that there is charge densities that does not radiate and Mills uses the spherical shell ones.
    To base the theory on those are sound. Also I find a surface singularity much more probable than a point singularity. Then when the theory produces the
    right spins and angular momenta together with quite accurate ionization energies I can't fathom why no serious treatment is done nailing the basics of Mills
    theory and try trampoline from those into a more sane theory than we have now (The standard theory is a mess and QM has fundamental flaws that is
    too unbelievable to not search for something else). Mathematically QM fitt's but then again if you search the mathematical space in stead of trying a physical
    approach you can get burned by nasty coinsidences like what we have with QM. Most probable where the approximation of QM fails is on the scale of
    Heissenbergs uncertainty. And due to the setup of interpreting misses on that scale as acceptable misses QM never get questioned. The trap is really
    beautifully done and science have swallowed it fully. If I could get a grant to take a second phd, this time in physics, doing the nessesary work of helping sanitizing
    physical science I would do that (I already have one paper of an alternative proof of non radiationless of Mills charge distributions) But I would not get such
    a grant and to be honest there are better persons and younger phd's out there who's job is to do this work and are better suited. ATM this will only happen if Mills
    succeeds to productize a suncell. But that can take many many years. For your information I can't follow the exact argument for hydrinos and I suspect that the
    full theory matching Mills knowledge is not in print for us to read. But there are gems that can be followed and if you do this one realizes that this theory is really
    really interesting.

    @stefan

    Quote from stefan

    The standard theory is a mess and QM has fundamental flaws that is
    too unbelievable to not search for something else


    And again:

    Quote from stefan

    If I could get a grant to take a second phd, this time in physics, doing the necessary work of helping SANITIZING physical science I would do that


    QM is the result of the effort of many of the best minds of the 20th century. An unbelievable masterpiece. Do you REALLY think you would be able to simply pop in and improve it? Do you really think the pitfalls are that obvious? What do You know about quantum mechanics?
    Before making your claims, if I were you I would make sure I know at least the basics:
    http://theoreticalminimum.com/…tum-mechanics/2012/winter
    http://theoreticalminimum.com/…antum-mechanics/2013/fall


    But first I would listen carefully to this nice podcast by the BBC:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b051ryq8

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.