Andras Verified User
  • Member since Jul 1st 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Andras

    Because the intermediate bond can be described with classical mechanics, there might be a quantum description for the 3 particles (electron+2d).

    Classically, an accelerating electron radiates energy away. I wonder how he proposes that the electron would avoid acceleration in the bond. In quantum mechanics, stable bonds correspond to acceleration-free standing electron waves (wavefunctions).

    As far as I know, the problem of axially symmetric molecular H2+ orbit is analytically solved in QM. This analytic solution in principle should show what inter-nuclear distances are possible.

    There is a 100 year old challenge to explain Quantum Mechanics in a logical way, deriving it from the fundamental laws of Nature.

    In this lecture, I aim to introduce Quantum Mechanics in a logical way:

    - without ad-hoc postulates

    - without violating General Relativity

    - without violating Maxwell's equation

    The lecture is based on our book titled Unified Field Theory and Occam's Razor. Refer to the book for further details.

    Here is the lecture link:

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    What does this have to do with nuclear structures? It is probably a good idea to firstly understand how Quantum Mechanics really works, and then consider what it implies for nuclear structures.

    In an other thread, in the Physics section of the portal, I informed about the publication of our book, titled "Unified Field Theory and Occam's Razor". Our aim is correct many of these fundamental contradictions.

    It is clear that LENR experiments signal many problems with nuclear particle theories.

    Related to your example: if we take a cylindrical capacitor, charge it, and place magnets along its axis (so that it is in an axial magnetic field), then this static configuration will have a circulating Poynting vector. This setup has puzzled physicists in the early 20th century, and it was debated whether there is any circulating energy flow within this static configuration. Today, this curious setup is not talked about any more.

    We bring up and analyze this issue in our book.

    Over the past few years, myself and co-authors have been intensively working on a book which has finally been published:

    The first half of our book is about physics theory. The second half applies our results to make sense of various experimental topics, including LENR, superconductivity, nuclear structures.

    The book's ambition is grand: to put theoretical physics back onto the right track, correcting some foundational errors that slipped in over the past 80 years. We consider that it has been a historic error to declare Maxwell's electromagnetism invalid in the microscopic scale (referred to as "renormalization") and to declare general relativity invalid in the microscopic scale (referred to as "wavefunction collapse"). We aim to understand the electron and its interactions without violating Maxwell's equation or the equations of General Relativity, and without introducing ad-hoc assumptions.

    On the other hand, our work fits into the historic trend of progressing from particle-oriented concepts to wave-oriented concepts. In the middle ages, light was thought to be a stream of "light balls". The first wave perspective was introduced in the 19th century, based on results of light interference and refraction experiments: then light was thought to be a wave of "aether particles" which were supposed to fill the vacuum. Proponents of the aether particle theory refused to teach Maxwell's equation for several decades until it became too uncomfortable: all radio engineers were using Maxwell's equation, while the aether particle theory remained useless for practical purposes. Thus the following light model was introduced in the 20th century: light was thought to be a stream of photon particles (particle perspective), which magically appear to engineers as Maxwell's equations based electric and magnetic field (wave perspective). It may take 100 years or 1000 years to completely develop the correct wave perspective based understanding, but there is no question that this process is in progress.

    Our work fits into this historic progress. We anticipate that it will take practical applications for the next step to gain wide recognition and acceptance: that is why the 2nd half of the book is dedicated to the applications of the theory.

    Obviously, our work is not for everyone. There are people who endorse many of the paradoxical "modern physics" ideas. These people believe that the reason their feet does not sink into the ground is because the atoms of their shoes and the atoms of the ground play a ping-pong game of photon particles. They believe that they move in the vacuum filled by a "Dirac sea of positrons", which remain undetectable and their infinite energy magically cancels out. They believe that neutron decay begins by the emission of an 80 GeV particle (which violates both energy and momentum conservation), and that 80 GeV particle disappears by emitting a 10 orders of magnitude lighter neutrino particle. They claim that although electrons have electric field energy, and although Einstein's E=mc^2 relation implies a corresponding mass, the electron mass is only generated via some weird ping-pong of >100 GeV Higgs boson particles. They might write negative comments in this thread.

    Our aim is not to argue with the particle-perspective oriented people, but to address those who are interested in a simplified and contradiction-free formulation of field theory.

    I will take anything that is better for sure!

    It's just using accelerators is not low-energy. But through this materials research they will hopefully find a hydrogen-loaded material that will activate as needed.

    The concept is to use accelerator for screening of many fuel candidates. The most promising candidates will be tested then in LENR reactors.

    A new EU-funded LENR research project will start on August 1 (i.e. tomorrow). The project title is "Clean Energy from Hydrogen-Metal Systems" (CleanHME)

    The project will run for 4 years, and many pioneering European LENR researchers participate in it.

    This support for LENR research is great news. Combining and steering the efforts of several groups helps the technology to progress forward. Also, this recognition by research funding agencies may help to alleviate academic opposition.

    The project will work on several LENR technology types, as well as physics theory development.

    For now, the project summary may be found here:

    The consortium has a collaboration with researchers at MIT.

    More updates will follow when the project website is ready.

    That is an interesting question to explore whether there are any synergies between Hydrogen producing photo-electrodes and LENR.

    By the way: after slandering Martin Fleischman on camera in '89, Nathan Lewis went on to collect funding for exactly this type of photoelectrochemical H2 production research.

    Robert: yes, the papers which are on pages 76 - 128 of JCMNS vol 25 are important foundation of the book. Looking at these papers already gives you an idea about two chapters in the book.

    The mathematical complexity varies across chapters. It is of course more important to get feedback on our description of complex parts than feedback on simple parts. I attach two excerpts of the more complex parts.

    In the first attachment the introduction is a straightforward motivation for why general relativity is relevant in the context of QM. Then you can get the feeling for the competence which is needed to handle this math. The resulting generalized Dirac equation gives a much deeper understanding than traditional Dirac equation, so it is important to review that we describe this part in a comprehensible way.

    The second attachment gives an example of new electromagnetics insight when working with Clifford algebra. No pre-existing knowledge of Clifford algebra is needed, as the first chapter goes through the needed math in detail. The calculation of e.g. equation 2.7.3 might look a bit scary, but it's actually quite straightforward once someone gets the hang of Clifford algebra. Let's see if the reviewer will agree. Understanding this attachment is the essence of understanding neutrinos. With this background, one can make sense of Parkhomov's neutrino experiments.

    Hope this gives an idea what the review is about.

    Metrics-and-Dirac-equation.pdfElectromagnetic symmetry and neutrino wave.pdf

    Holmlid dense hydrogen technology has similar problem like Randell Mills hydrino based technology: if they should generate an energy, then the resulting form of hydrogen should be thermodynamically very stable and widespread into account of this normal one. Which keeps me in belief, they're both bogus and if some energy generation is involved, then it's overunity effect. This doesn't imply, that dense hydrogen or even hydrino couldn't exist after all - but only as a metastable volatile form of matter.

    It is a very good point that ultra-dense hydrogen can't have lower energy state than ground state hydrogen, otherwise it would become the new ground state.

    However: if a metastable state catalyzes nuclear reactions (e.g. fusion), then the energy comes from the nucleus and not from the electron arrangement.

    I am looking for max 3 reviewers for the second edition of our book: "Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions".

    The theory part of the book answers those questions which you always wanted to know as a physics student, but were too afraid to ask. Questions such as: what are electrons made of?, how to reconcile QM with general relativity?, can we have QM without any postulates? what is the origin of the Pauli exclusion principle, what are neutrinos made of?, ...etc.

    As a reviewer, you get the book for free, you can be among the first one to read these new ideas in physics, and give your feedback. I think these ideas are VERY relevant to LENR.

    Needed qualifications: high expertise in QM and general relativity. Knowledge of algebraic geometry is a plus. Length of text to review: bout 180 pages.

    If interested, please send me a message.

    Robert: I think that Schaeffer has an important insight there, and we cite this observation in the book.

    If Rutherford's contemporaries would have noticed this electromagnetic "coincidence", they might have reconsidered thinking that it is a new force.

    The unusually high neutron capture cross section of certain (few) isotopes is somewhat of a mystery. 135-Xenon can be explained by magic

    numbers, the others cannot. Xing Zhong Li (Professor Emeritus Tsinghua University) believes that the GENERAL stability of such isotopes is also

    anomalous. He and I discussed this at some length at ICCF21 in Fort Collins last year.

    My hypothesis is that isotopes with high neutron capture cross section are halo nuclei. They have a regular pattern of nuclear Z numbers (Z=n*16). More details are in the "Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions" book.

    The "magic numbers" theory might as well be called "unicorn" theory. Lynn Bowen had a poster about that at ICCF22.

    Hi Stefan,

    The relationship between EM and QM equations is a good question, and very non-trivial. Certainly, a person truly

    interested in understanding Nature cannot accept the "shut up and calculate" mentality.

    Several people tried to establish the link between Maxwell and Dirac equations. You can search the literature for

    "optical Dirac equation" for instance. It's not easy to show how Maxwell equation leads to the Dirac equation,

    otherwise it would be in textbooks already. But it's one of the most important basic questions, in my view.

    In chapter 2, we show that the Dirac equation is the same as the Klein-Gordon equation. In chapter 4, we show that

    the Klein-Gordon equation is the same as the Proca equation. These are three faces of the same equation, yet most

    physicists consider them to apply to different kinds of particles. The problem is not with the equations, but with

    understanding their meaning and correct application to elementary particles.

    For instance, "i" is just treated as imaginary complex number in QM, without ever explaining what the imaginary values

    physically mean. We show that "i" of QM is the Clifford pseudo-scalar which we get by multiplying unit vectors:

    e_t*e_x*e_y*e_z. Understanding the correct geometry is the first step towards understanding what the equations mean.

    We make the first steps to derive the Dirac equation from Maxwell equation, but some points remain open. In the 2nd

    edition of the book, we plan to present the complete derivation of QM equations from EM equations.

    Regarding Wyttenbach's and Zephir's comments: obviously neither of you looked into the book.

    A wise person would not make dogmatic statements without first reading and understanding the authors' work.

    Especially not in a thread which is catering to those who are interested to understand this topic.

    Even more so when you have never yet written down a physical equation which is predictive, and not just numerology.

    The reason I am mentioning this is not for being mean to you, but to point out that your activity reduces my

    motivation to participate in this forum.

    Best regards,


    Hi Robert,

    Good question about the spectral evidence. There was an ICCF22 presentation by Stankovic, where he analyzed the

    spectrum of a special oxy-hydrogen plasma flame, which produces transmutations. The properties of such plasma

    flame were well reported by Bob Greenyer in his "Ohmasa gas" series.

    The new spectral lines showing up in the spectrum presented by Stankovic seem to match the nuclear Zeeman split

    emissions upon the establishment of ZBW electron state at 0.383 pm radius. I will report more on that in the near