Posts by Jarek

    If by oxidation energy you mean of removing electron, it is popularly called ionization energy and for hydrogen atom it is R/n^2.

    In Bohr you get the same energy as in Schrodinger:

    Also in Bohr-Sommerfeld, which l=0 degeneration is basic model of Gryzinski, he has spin-orbit, Stark effect corrections.

    Ten digits sounds like hyperfine correction: using also magnetic dipole moment of nucleus.

    I haven't seen this kind of terms, numerical calculation was much more difficult in his times, but magnetic dipole of nucleus can be added there.

    And generally this is not my field of research - I can help in recreating his work, but don't feel competent to do it alone.

    ps. Talking about 10 digit energy accuracy - hyperfine level, the basic question to understand is why He3 and He4 behave so different - due to tiny difference of magnetic dipole moment of nucleus? Gryzinski comments it from perspective of his model in

    If you want to convince mainstream to LENR, introducing some crazy new unrelated physics is the last way - only further reducing credibility.

    In contrast, Gryzinski just repairs Bohr model - by using Bohr-Sommerfeld degenerated to l=0 (well known e.g. for hydrogen), also adding missing classical analogue of well known spin-orbit interaction - only using mainstream physics, and confirming predictions of his model with experiment in dozens of peer-reviewed papers over a few decades:…t=0%2C5&q=gryzinski&btnG=

    While mainstream physicists hold together, those outside usually go own ways - incompatible with others ... if you want to convince mainstream to LENR, Gryzinski is the only way - just repairing Bohr, no magical new concepts, shown agreement with experiments (also quantitative).

    Let say alpha particle overcomed Coulomb repulsion between two protons - this is gigantic force (MeV-scale), doing it with magnetic: Lorentz force is not realistic, would require gigantic velocities and magnetic fields ... in contrast, alpha particle has zero spin and nearly no magnetic field - what is well confirmed e.g. in energy spectrum of helium.

    Topological reasons can be used e.g. for charge/spin quantization, but atomic scale is much too large.

    Regarding connection between EM and mass, again physics disagrees: there are massive particles without EM (pi0, neutrino), or EM without mass: photon.

    ps. I have finally found some downloadable Gryzinski's CF paper "Theory of electron catalyzed fusion in Pd lattice":

    His lecture:

    Hot fusion overview paper from his group:…n___energy_for_future.pdf

    One (top)/two(bottom) electron trajectories for molecular bonds from his book, top-left is the one which could allow for fusion: with electron traveling between two nuclei, screening their Coulomb repulsion. In the paper above he writes that Pd lattice helps stabilizing such trajectories:

    Electron is a particle traveling in 3D, governed mainly by EM interactions (beside gravity and weak/strong very close to nuclei).

    EM interaction here is mainly ~1/r^2 Coulomb force (charge-charge).

    There is also ~v/r^3 electron magnetic dipole - nuclear charge, called spin-orbit interaction, included in Gryzinski's model as the most important correction to Bohr.

    Magnetic dipole of nucleus is ~3 orders of magnitude smaller (if nonzero) - such hyperfine corrections can be usually neglected.

    There are also ~1/r^4 (electron magnetic) dipole-dipole interactions for larger atoms, e.g. preferring opposite spins on a single orbital.

    That's basically all, there is no way to torus-like trajectories, which would require some gigantic magnetic fields - not seen for these particles, well tested e.g. in Penning trap.

    Regarding emitting energy by e-p pair, if it already reached the lowest possible energy (ground) state, it has no way to emit any more.

    If there would be no strong force, the heaviest nucleus would have charge 1 - all larger would fall apart.

    For electron capture EM is not sufficient - there are needed other interactions, which have ~fm range.


    This thread was motivated by Gryzinski, you can find discussion on previous pages.

    Free-fall repairs problems of Bohr model, in papers he also claimed good agreement with many types of experiments, especially scattering, screening coefficients, Stark effect - see slide 9 of ... there is much more in his papers and book.

    From low energy fusion perspective, he was enthusiast of, I think the most important is that including this classical spin-orbit interaction, you can get nearly backscattering trajectories: which can "jump" localized between two nuclei, screening their Coulomb repulsion for fusion - bottom example below:

    Mathematica simulator of trajectories with included spin-orbit interaction: http://demonstrations.wolfram.…icalSpinOrbitInteraction/

    Incorrectness of Bohr model (assuming local realism against Bell violation) starts with wrong angular momentum: we know that ground state hydrogen has L=0 orbital angular momentum, while in Bohr it is huge.

    Another basic counter-argument is e.g. electron capture - that sometimes nucleus can capture electron from orbital, what requires it getting to a distance of nuclear forces (fm-scale), while it Bohr it is ~5 orders of magnitude larger.

    I don't think assuming trajectories on torus will repair any of above problems (?)

    In contrast, Bohr-Sommerferld ellipse trajectories can help, especially when degenerating them to L=0 limit, getting free-fall atomic model:…t=0%2C5&q=gryzinski&btnG=

    I don't know if this is the "second radius force" you are referring to, but crucial neglected interaction he has included is classical analogue of spin-orbit interaction: mainly between traveling magnetic dipole of electron and charge of nucleus.

    Explanation: nucleus traveling in field of electron's magnetic dipole gets Lorentz force, which through 3rd Newton law also acts on electron. Thanks to Lorentz invariance, it still works if changing the reference frame such that nucleus rests and electron travels. Derivation:

    You are using some your very nonstandard physics, but generally I see you also want to operate on orbits of electrons - assume they have trajectories behind quantum wavefunction.

    The problem is that this is assuming "local realism" - a mainstream physicist will tell you is incorrect e.g. due to Bell inequalities: satisfied by local realistic theory, but violated by QM and nature.

    Anyway, in both cases we need to understand why physics can violate Bell if wanting to convince to possibility of low temperature fusion.

    My point is that we should use "4D local realism" instead: using paths as the basic object, e.g. for Feynman/Boltzmann path ensemble.

    Example of Bell violation construction for such uniform path ensemble is above.

    So what energy does this yours additional electron-proton state have?

    Why e.g. in energy spectrum of stars we don't see its required additional lines: when this new state deexcitates to a known state, or the opposite?

    This is obvious nonsense! Fusion is the least kinetic process you can think off. True is only that most experiments so far did see fusion upon kinetic impact of mass. We see/measure LENR at room temperature!

    You start with two nuclei in a large distance, need to take them to distance of nuclear forces (~fm), what due to Coulomb repulsion requires investing huge energy (MeV-scale).

    How does their distance r(t) evolve in time? Where this energy comes from?

    If you are saying that there are some additional energy levels of atoms - not known to atomic physics ... if having lower energy than ground state atom (like these "hydrinos"), everything should deexcitate to such state as physics searches for the lowest one - fortunately nothing like this is happening.

    Otherwise, states are still extremely easy to confirm or disprove: e.g. through excitation or absorption spectra. Lack of corresponding energy lines: added or removed, means that there are no such states.

    E.g. in stars all such hypothetical additional energy levels would be used, and well seen in energy spectrum - but nothing like this is happening - we see only known lines.

    If your belief is based on a theory requiring additional states which were disproved in a countless of ways, don't be surprised that this field is not treated seriously.

    If you indeed see fusion in room temperature, electrons are absolutely crucial there - but not to bind with nuclei what again requires investing huge energy (e.g. p + e + 782keV -> n), but to remain localized between the two nuclei, like in perfect "+-+" configuration collapsing to a point.

    The lowest energy state for electron + proton pair is ground state hydrogen atom: 13.6eV below them being far away.

    Otherwise e.g. space vacuum wouldn't be filled with hydrogen, but with this something different of lower energy. All hydrogen would just collapse to it

    To bind them: form neutron, we would need to invest

    m_n - m_p - m_e ~ 782keV

    what is many orders of magnitude higher than used in chemistry, in 1000K there is barely thermally available 1eV.

    Fusion of two nuclei is a very kinetic process - they have trajectories which need to end in ~fm distance so that nuclear force can take over.

    E.g. to get protons to 2fm we again need kee/r ~ 720keV.

    Where would like to get such energy in ~1000K? To get it thermally you would need ~10^9K instead.

    To make such fusion realistic, you need electron between them: according to Coulomb, perfect symmetric "+ - +" configuration would collapse into a point.

    To convince the mainstream to hypothetical possibility of nuclear fusion in low temperature, we need a concrete mechanism for crossing this huge Coulomb barrier, and electron assistance seems the only possibility (? I still haven't seen any other ?)

    However, it requires that electron remains localized between the two nuclei - while it is natural if considering its trajectory, mainstream requires swelling the electron into huge wavefunction, making such localization practically impossible - hence this possibility currently is not treated seriously.

    To change that, it is crucial to show that such "swelling of electron" doesn't always have to occur - that its charge has a trajectory.

    However, such trajectory picture requires "local realism", for which there is Bell violation counter-argument: standard view on "local realism" contains a misunderstanding we need to repair first - e.g. to maintain electron localization to screen for fusion of two nuclei.

    The most obvious is Mermin's inequality - for binary A, B, C literally "tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal": Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1.

    However, QM formalism allows to get sum below 1.

    We can repair the standard: "evolving 3D" "local realism" misunderstanding by replacing it with time-symmetric: "4D local realism":

    - in spacetime the basic object is trajectory, hence we should use their ensembles, e.g. Feynman path integrals are equivalent with QM,

    - we have time/CPT symmetry in Lagrangian mechanics: we successfully use from QFT to GR,

    - in Born rule rho~psi^2 one psi comes from past (propagator from -infinity), second from future (propagator from +infinity), like in TSVF:

    Here is example of construction of violation of such inequity by just assuming uniform distribution among paths ( ) :


    Description of construction (details: page 9 of ) :

    The considered space is graph on the left with all 2^3 = 8 values of ABC: in 000 and 111 we have to stay, in the remaining vertices we can jump to a neighbor.

    The presented measurement in time=0 ignores C - we have 4 possible outcomes (red squares) determining exactly AB.

    Assuming uniform probability distribution among paths (from -infinity to +infinity in time like in TSVF), we get Pr(A=B) = (1^2 + 1^2) / (1^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 1^2) = 2/10.

    Analogously for the remaining pairs, we finally get Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 6/10

    Using ensemble of paths toward only one time direction, we would have first power instead of Born rules - the inequality would be satisfied.

    Alternative construction:

    I am not aware of any evidence for violation of energy or momentum conservation - they are at heart of Lagrangian mechanics we successfully use from QFT to GRT.

    Regarding virtual particles - they are used in Feynman diagrams in perturbative approximation of QFT - assuming QFT is fundamental, perturbative QFT/Feynman diagrams is still an effective picture - practical approximation ... leading to countless number of divergences, usually removed by hand.

    But it is extremely universal practical tool defining objects as point particles through their interactions - it is very general algebra on particle-like objects ... like algebra properly concluding that "apple + apple = two apples" without any insights what apple is ... which can also handle non-point objects like fields by approximating them with a series of virtual particles.

    The basic example is Coulomb interaction e.g. proton - electron, which in pertubative (approximation of) QFT is handled with a series of point-like photons, instead of continuous EM field.

    It brought dangerous common misconception that EM field is always quantized, while it is just a continuous field, which optical photons are quantized due to discrete atomic energy levels ... but e.g. linear antenna produces cylindrically symmetric EM radiation - which energy density drops like 1/r to 0 - cannot be quantized to individual discrete photons localizing finite portions of energy.

    We have lots of quasi-paricles especially in solid state physics - starting with phonons: classically just Fourier/normal modes of the lattices, but perturbatve QFT treats them as real particles ... point-like.
    There is also virtual pair creation - while we imagine pair creation as a zero-one process, it is in fact continuous - field can perform a tiny step toward pair creation, represented as real (virtual) pair creation in perturbative QFT. Continuity of this process is nicely seen using topological charge as charge:

    Particle like electron is more than just a wave packet - it is among others stable localized configuration (nearly singular) of electric and magnetic field:


    It doesn't loose these localized properties when approaching a proton to form an atom - becoming huge probability cloud of quantum orbital - this is proper but only effective description, averaging over some hidden dynamics.

    They can perform real acrobatics on magnetic dipoles of these electron, like Larmor precession or even spin echo:…on_paramagnetic_resonance


    Coupled wave created by internal clock of electron (de Broglie's, zitterbewegung, experimental confirmation: ) has to become standing wave to minimize energy of atom - described by Schrodinger, giving quantization condition. It is nicely seen in Couder's walking droplet quantization, nice videos.

    If lenr is possible, there is needed a non-thermal way to overcome the huge Coulomb barrier between nuclei - the only mechanism I could imagine is (localized) localized electron staying between nucleus and proton due to attraction - screening their repulsion.

    QM is profoundly different from local models. You cannot get out of this, and it comes from experiment not theory.

    Of course the idea of locality, which we are fixated on, does not apply naturally in a quantum domain. That has profound consequences for the structure of spacetime - it is just that we have as yet not properly worked out the connections!

    You are saying that if proton and electron are far apart they are "classical" corpuscular ... but when they meet they became "quantum" wave-like ... so in which moment/distance this switch happens?

    Where exactly is the classical-quantum boundary?

    Do we really need such switch? - maybe they are both at the time. Like in popular Couder's walking droplets with wave-particle duality (Veritasium video with 2.5M views, great webpage with materials and videos, a lecture by Couder, my slides also with other hydrodynamical analogues: Casimir, Aharnonov-Bohm). Among others, they claim to recreate:

    1. Interference in particle statistics of double-slit experiment (PRL 2006) - corpuscle travels one path, but its "pilot wave" travels all paths - affecting trajectory of corpuscle (measured by detectors).
    2. Unpredictable tunneling (PRL 2009) due to complicated state of the field ("memory"), depending on the history - they observe exponential drop of probability to cross a barrier with its width.
    3. Landau orbit quantization (PNAS 2010) - using rotation and Coriolis force as analog of magnetic field and Lorentz force (Michael Berry 1980). The intuition is that the clock has to find a resonance with the field to make it a standing wave (e.g. described by Schrödinger's equation).
    4. Zeeman-like level splitting (PRL 2012) - quantized orbits split proportionally to applied rotation speed (with sign).
    5. Double quantization in harmonic potential (Nature 2014) - of separately both radius (instead of standard: energy) and angular momentum. E.g. n=2 state switches between m=2 oval and m=0 lemniscate of 0 angular momentum.
    6. Recreating eigenstate form statistics of a walker's trajectories (PRE 2013).

    This way QM is just one of two perspectives/descriptions of the same system, what we already had in coupled oscillators, or their lattices: crystals, which can be described classically or through normal/Fourier modes - treated as real particles in QFT ...


    The main problem with discussing dynamics of electrons below the probability clouds is the general belief that violation of Bell inequalities forbids us using such local and realistic models.

    While the original Bell inequality might leave some hope for violation, here is one which seems completely impossible to violate - for three binary variables A,B,C:

    Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1

    It has obvious intuitive proof: drawing three coins, at least two of them need to give the same value.

    Alternatively, choosing any probability distribution pABC among these 2^3=8 possibilities, we have:

    Pr(A=B) = p000 + p001 + p110 + p111 ...

    Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 1 + 2 p000 + 2 p111

    ... however, it is violated in QM, see e.g. page 9 here:…ill/ph229/notes/chap4.pdf

    If we want to understand why our physics violates Bell inequalities, the above one seems the best to work on as the simplest and having absolutely obvious proof.

    QM uses Born rules for this violation:

    1) Intuitively: probability of union of disjoint events is sum of their probabilities: pAB? = pAB0 + pAB1, leading to above inequality.

    2) Born rule: probability of union of disjoint events is proportional to square of sum of their amplitudes: pAB? ~ (psiAB0 + psiAB1)^2

    Such Born rule allows to violate this inequality to 3/5 < 1 by using psi000=psi111=0, psi001=psi010=psi011=psi100=psi101=psi110 > 0.

    I have just refreshed adding section III about violation of this inequality using ensemble of trajectories: that proper statistical physics shouldn't see particles as just points, but rather as their trajectories to consider e.g. Boltzmann ensemble - it is in Feynman's Euclidean path integrals or its thermodynamical analogue: MERW (Maximal Entropy Random Walk: ).

    For example looking at [0,1] infinite potential well, standard random walk predicts rho=1 uniform probability density, while QM and uniform ensemble of trajectories predict different rho~sin^2 with localization, and the square like in Born rules has clear interpretation:


    Considering ensembles (uniform, Boltzmann) of paths also allows to violate Bell in similar as QM way (through Born rules) - this is realistic model, and in fact required if we e.g. think of general relativity: where we need to consider entire spcatime, particles are their paths.

    It is not local in "evolving 3D" picture, but it is local in 4D spacetime/Einstein's block universe view - where particles are their trajectories, ensembles of such objects we should consider.

    511keV is just rest mass of electron - required e.g. to build it from photons (EM waves) during pair creation.

    Hence, energy conservation doesn't allow energy of electric field of electron to exceed 511 keVs.

    However, naive E ~ 1/r^2 assumption for point charge has infinite energy if integrating from r=0.

    We would get 511keV from energy of E ~ 1/r^2 electric field if integrating from r~1.4fm.

    Hence, energy conservation alone requires some femtometer scale modification of E ~ 1/r^2 electric field around electron.

    Is there experimental evidence forbidding deformation/regularization in this scale? (doesn't need e.g. 3 smaller fermions or electric dipole)

    Exactly, as this Feynman's lecture says: "the dependence on E is uniquely determined by dimensional analysis", getting sigma ~ 1/E^2.

    This is the line I was referring to.

    We are interested in size of non-Lorentz-contracted electron, so we need to extrapolate this sigma ~ 1/E^2 line to energy of non-Lorentz-contracted electron, getting sigma ~ 100mb, or ~2fm size.