Quote from Dr Richard

I don't know if you are familiar with Leif Holmlid's recent work & patent on muon catalysed nuclear fusion - but as yet they cannot explain how a 100W laser pulse can eject mesons from ultra dense hydrogen or UDD. All other research suggests Peta-Watt energies are required to fragment protons to release mesons. Your theory proposed an interaction of D with neutrinos, resulting in an activated state, which in tritium promotes/accelerates beta decay. The other strange behavior reported by Holmlid is a spontaneous release of mesons from UDH/D without any laser stimulation, which suggested to me that maybe this is a response to background radiation, and thus possibly to the high density of background neutrinos. Can you calculate what the energy increase might be when D or T are stimulated as you propose, by neutrinos, and whether in combination with laser pulses might be sufficient to stimulate the massive release of mesons reported by Holmlid/Norront Fusion?

Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give ...

https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › full

by L Holmlid - ‎2019 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

I have not suitable idea for that now. but I believe that the size of electrons changes depending on the applied voltage.

Muon (-) → electron + mu neutrino + anti-electron neutrino

The size of the electrons is more variable and the size determines the voltage.

>Large signals of charged light mesons are observed in the laser-induced particle flux from ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) layers.Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)

Lasers are powerful electric field pulses.When electrons receive a pulse of an electric field for a long time, the voltage rises and changes to muons and mesons.Isn't the meson generated after the laser irradiation started?

Quote from Dr Richard

HN(0) (s=1)→(p+e−)(p+e−) →K±+K0L+K0S+π±→ decay →μ−,HN0 s=1→p+e−p+e− →K±+KL0+KS0+π±→ decay →μ−,

It's similar to my theory, but needs some consideration.One thing is that protons and electrons do not combine as they are. Because electrons lose energy when they fall into protons. The electron needs to get energy just before it falls.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Re this thread: I don't see the point of it; asserting that physics as understood now is wrong on philosophical grounds without specifying the experimental results that are not correctly predicted. To prefer another theory the "better physics" would need to have some experiment it predicted correctly that normal physics gets wrong.

I disagree with 1,2,3,4,5

2,4 are plain and clearly wrong. (I can give examples if needed)

3,5 are meaningless without further clarification, and likely still meaningless with that.

1 is unevidenced and unlikely.

THH

Display More

Physics that lost philosophy becomes a playground for mathematics. I insist on being a natural philosophy.

please look this video.

If you see this video and you claim gravity, I will not say anything to you.

5.Space does not exist. Einstein introduced the mathematical concept "space" without verification

This is impossible to persuade as long as you believe in Pythagoreanism. I have been discussing with many people until I came to this forum. Physics is rationalism. Physics considerations cover not only atoms, but also the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe. New physics is required to be established under different conditions of these scales.

SEAM's predicted orbital electrons are not clouds.

Protonated hydrogen molecules are often found in interstellar matter in the universe.

Hydrogen molecules are bonded by combining the electric attraction and repulsion of electrons and protons.

The helium atom has two electrons in a point-symmetric position across the nucleus.

I summarized the structure of the nucleus when Faraday's lines of force were used. It is an image where protons are holding electrons together.

	n neutron(+1, -1) The apparent charge is neutral, but the neutron has a magnetic moment because the magnetic field due to the charge of protons and electrons comes out when it rotates.
	2H deuterium p+e+p (protpn、electron） +1,-1,+1 (Charge calculation） 　(+2, -1)（outer nuclesi charge）
	3He Helium 3 px3,ex2 +1,-1/2,+1,-1/2,+1 (+3,-1)
	3H tritium　p+e+p+e+p+e +1,-2/3,+1,-2/3,+1,-2/3 (+3,-2)
	4H Quadruple hydrogen px4,ex5 -2/3x4,-1/3 (+4,-3)
	4He helium px4,ex6 -1/3x6 (+4,-2)
	6Li litium px6,ex9 -1/3x3,-2/3x6 (+6,-5)
	7Li litium7 px7,ex11 -1/3x4,-2/3x7 (+7,-6)
	9Be beryllium9 px9,ex17 -1/3x6,-1/3x6,-2/3x4,-1/3 (+9,-7)

By the way, it is known that when the atomic number is increased from helium to lithium, the atomic radius suddenly increases. Looking at the structure of the above nucleus, the lithium nucleus increases the electron charge (extranuclear charge) from -2 to --5 for helium. It is thought that the orbital radius increases because the negative charge of the increased electrons moves away the electrons on the orbit with repulsive force.

how electromagnetic waves are transmitted? please look here.

Light travels through particles

So neutrinos are electric field pulses.

Neutrino ― pulse of shortest electric field

Neutrons are beta-decayed by neutrinos.

Neutron decay by neutrino

I have written several articles in Japanese. I will introduce it in Google translation little by little, but if you are interested, please read the Japanese article.

破壊学事始

This thread continues from: Photons have mass: Robert J Martineau's Photodynamics
There are five mistakes in modern physics.

1. Universal gravitation → No. Different mechanism of gravity between outer space and surface
2. Mass does not produce gravity. Cavendish experiment is wrong
3. Electric field lines are not neutralized. Maxwell misunderstood Faraday's lines of electric force
4. Changes in the magnetic field do not produce an electric field
5. Space does not exist. Einstein introduced the mathematical concept "space" without verification

1 and 2 will be explained later. 5 is clear. Has anyone proved that the mathematical space is real? Therefore, there is no "field".

3.Electric field lines are not neutralized. Maxwell misunderstood Faraday's lines of electric force

Maxwell, 24-year-old, first formulated Faraday's electric field lines. However, this mathematical electric field line was very different from Faraday's image. Faraday's electric lines of force were the image of the power that plus and minus exert power straight. Maxwell, on the other hand, had the effect that the positive and negative lines of force neutralize each other along the way. In other words, in Faraday's electric field lines, plus and minus act on the object separately, and the resultant force appears inside the object, but Maxwell is added and subtracted because the electric field lines are neutralized in the middle. It was. The reason for the resultant force in the object may be that the mathematical formula becomes complicated.

Electric field lines are not neutralized, and plus and minus reach the object separately.

3.Changes in the magnetic field do not produce an electric field

The change in the magnetic field moves the electrons inside the copper wire, so the change in the electric field appears.

Change of magnetic field → transfer of charge → change of electric field

Based on the above, consider Bohr's atomic model. There was a defect which can not be explained by classical physics in this atomic model. Niels Bohr thought about the reasons for electrons to travel around the nucleus without losing energy. Since negative electrons are attracted to the plus nucleus, they should have fallen into the nucleus. The De Broglie wave and the quantization were introduced there.

As a result of introducing a de Broglie wave and a wave function, electrons became clouds unnoticed. Uncertainty principle, Schrödinger's cat is the cause of being born. Let's think about it more.

The electrons around the nucleus need not fall. Neutrons in the nucleus are made up of protons and electrons. There is a minus electron in the nucleus. Electrons are attracted to the plus of nuclei, but they repel minus. Electrons are loosely fixed near the nucleus by electric attraction and repulsion. This mechanism is similar to planetary revolution.

nucleus has minus

The nucleus has a structure in which protons and protons are bonded by electrons. The point that neutrons are made up of protons and electrons is the same as SAM. However, SAM does not seem to acknowledge the influence of the electron coulomb power inside the nucleus on the outside.

In order to distinguish this idea from SAM(Structured Atom Model), I want to call atomic model loosely fixed around atomic nucleus SEAM(Static Electron Atom Model).

Tritium beta decay

This is a diagram where tritium beta decay into helium 3. I think that the difference between SAM and SEAM is well understood. Interestingly, SEAM can explain well about the neutrinos associated with the beta decay.

Continue :how electromagnetic waves are transmitted.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Atoms are maintained by neutrinos supplied with electric charge.

Neutrino density determines atomic behaviour, and cold fusion is one of those phenomena.

I use woo woo technically to mean statements like this that are contentious and speculative.

Karsten Kossert, a physicist at PTB, says that his own research, with others, on decay rates has shown that there are “some fluctuations in some instrument readings”. “However, since different instruments and/or measurement techniques show different variations, we can exclude solar neutrinos as a common reason for these variations.” He adds: “In some cases, we have shown a clear correlation between environmental parameters – such as temperature, humidity, air pressure – and instrument readings.”

Neutrinos and muons are related to perihelion and perihelion.

Should I create a new thread?

Quote from Alan Smith

@THH - no need to apologise, you have posted very little yet.

I'm sorry for posting SF-like content. But is the atom a perpetual motion machine?

Atoms are maintained by neutrinos supplied with electric charge.

Neutrino density determines atomic behavior, and cold fusion is one of those phenomena.

Quote from RobertBryant

does your hypothesis extend to the occurrence of LENR reactions eg D+D + 'catalyst' --> He +'catalyst' +heat

which based on the Coulomb interaction that QED etc of standard Model are very unlikely at 700C?

I guess D-T reaction is here. D-D is similar pattern.

In an environment with many neutrinos, the proton-coupled electron-meson is excited.

Deuterium is easily attracted towards the center of the three protons.

I expect electrons to be born in the gap when protons collide.

I think that the generated heat is caused by electromagnetic waves generated when a part of protons are converted to electrons.

Quote from RobertBryant

Hypothesis is possible..

thank you,

My hypothesis extends to the revolution of the solar system, the rotation of the earth, and the generation of gravity that mainstream science and Electric Universe cannot explain. It will be another opportunity.

Quote from RobertBryant

any response from Jenkins et al to this counterevidence after2008?

This paper has the same conclusion.

Power Spectrum Analysis of BNL Decay-Rate Data

Quote from Wyttenbach

Can you present us the physics of the neutrino particle & how it connects to the SO(4) magnetic flux structure of the proton?

One approach to interpret neutrinos is to associate them with the relativistic flux "nodes" inside a proton. A change in node numbers can possibly free neutrinos.

But for this we need your neutrino particle structure. (check Mills 39.12 ! )

Neutrinos are not particles. The shortest electric field pulse. It is evidence that it is not particles that fly away at the speed of light when it occurs.

Neutrinos are transmitted using charged particles as a medium in the same way as other electromagnetic waves. Think about why neutrons decay beta in 15 minutes. On Earth, 66 billion neutrinos pass per second per square centimeter.Enormous neutrinos pass through nuclei in matter.

The neutrino electric field that collided with the neutrons knocks out the electrons attached to the protons.

In the tritium nucleus, protons are bonded by three electrons, but if high-energy neutrinos enter here, they may eject electrons when they pass through the bonded electrons.

Beta decay correlates with the distance between the sun and the earth.

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

Quote from Alan Smith

......these dead-ends continue to represent the fields in which the leading theorists and experimentalists cluster to investigate. These blind alleys, which have borne no fruit for literally two generations of physicists, continue to attract funding and attention, despite possibly being disconnected from reality completely. In her new book, Lost In Math, Sabine Hossenfelder adroitly confronts this crisis head on, interviewing mainstream scientists, Nobel Laureates, and (non-crackpot) contrarians alike. You can feel her frustration, and also the desperation of many of the people she speaks with. The book answers the question of "have we let wishful thinking about what secrets nature holds cloud our judgment?" with a resounding "yes!"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/s…on-nonsense/#149b4aa97566

1. Neutron is a composite particle of proton and electron.
2. Electric field lines are not neutralized.
3. Proton oscillations due to neutrinos create a standing wave of gamma rays.

If these three are recognized, quantum mechanics will return to the original thermodynamic domain, and new mechanics representing atoms will be born.

Quote from RobertBryant

Faraday probably doesn't experience gravity any more

Faraday is experimenting with special coils.

30 August 1849, Diary, 5:167, par. 10129.

Michael Faraday. Faraday’s Diary. ed. Thomas Martin, 7 vols. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1932-1936.

Quote from RobertBryant

Stephan Schlamminger at NIST writes about Cavendish's G..(1797)

More impressive still is the fact that the error in G_C, relative to the CODATA 2014 recommended value, G2014 = 6.674 08 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 [46],

is only 0.34 %.

G was of no concern to Cavendish, and neither did Newton introduce it in thePrincipia [50].

More than 70 years would have to elapse after Cavendish “weighed the Earth”,

Cavendish wasn't even trying to calculate G.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09551.pdf

Display More

Faraday discovered that lead was a diamagnetic material 50 years after the Cavendish experiment.

Faraday's last experiment was to measure the atmospheric current that creates gravity.

Although the last experiment failed, Faraday is convinced that gravity is an electromagnetic force.

Big G fluctuates considerably.

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-0…tional-constant-vary.html

Quote from Wyttenbach

But I'm open for any philosophical interpretation!

If physics loses philosophy, it becomes magic using mathematics.

We should return to Descartes mechanical world view.

also, I found 4 mistakes in modern physics.

Universal gravitation → The gravity of the ground and space is different.

Mass does not produce gravity. Cavendish experiment is wrong

Electric field lines are not neutralized. Maxwell misunderstood Faraday's lines of electric force

Space does not exist. Einstein introduced the mathematical concept "space" without verification

It is necessary to review these mistakes.

Quote from Drgenek

So what is your objection to changing states of matter being the EM-force called gravity? Doesn't the energy produced by burning a fuel ( change of states) come from relativity? Isn't relativity what most of us associate with gravity?

I think the theory of relativity should be ignored.

There are two types of gravity, and ground gravity is electromagnetic mass.

In solar sails, when light hits the sail, an electric field is generated and acceleration occurs.

On the ground, the Schumann resonance irradiates the object.

The Schumann resonance is ELF and has high permeability.

The reason gravity cannot be shielded is due to ELF.

The other is the gravitational force in outer space, because most substances have electric charges, so electric attraction and repulsion are mixed to create very weak attraction.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Charge reacts with fields not so the neutrino. Do not believe any conclusions made based on SM models for dense matter. SM is a fringe approach and only deals with potentials generated by moving particles. SM has no power to make any conclusion about mass as it is obviously not able to give any relations between particle masses.

The neutrino only documents the failure of SM to explain anything about dense mass.

I do not know about SM model. it is my idea.

Neutrino ― pulse of shortest electric field

Quote from Alan Smith

https://novostienergetiki.ru/v…-ot-kosmicheskix-chastic/

Neutrinos can generate electricity because they are pulses of the same electric field as light.

Considering the neutrino oscillation that neutrino has mass, the muon neutrino that has passed through the earth is damped.

This can be interpreted as passing a charge through the earth.

Neutrinos are not particles, so there is no mass.

Quote from Drgenek

Hence, all gravity would be due to the absorbance of light to some kind of state. The flip side of that is entropic gravity since to drive the states we call gravity there would be lost of some the light energy from the system. So then all gravity is indeed electromagnetic of a sort.

Is it possible to generate gravity or anti-gravity in that way?

According to Descartes' view of the mechanical world, natural phenomena occur when objects are engaged like gears.

Space and fields are not things. "entropic" is same.

Practical physics

Quote from Wyttenbach

There is no separate strong nuclear force. All 4 basic forces are of electromagnetic origin, where as the coulomb interaction is the most easy to understand.

yes, I agree. pion is an excited electron.

When it goes out of the nucleus, it decays from muon to electron.

There are two types of gravity, both of which are electromagnetic forces.

Complex Earth's gravity