Posts by Jarek

Regarding strange matter, indeed these are much heavier than standard hadrons - I really doubt you could get them in 1000K.

Regarding proton decay, this is a very interesting hypothetical possibility ... but again not for LENR - it would release GeV-scale energy, and so huge cascade of high energy particles - easily going through the thin lead shielding.
Theoretically proton decay would allow for complete matter->energy conversion (E=mc^2), which is ~100 times more than fusion, from any kind of matter - learning to stimulate it would give us an ultimate energy source, very helpful e.g. for traveling to other solar systems.
One question is if it is even possible - so baryogenesis needed it to create more matter than antimatter, hypothetical Hawking radiation convert baryons into photons, many particle models require possibility of violating baryon number (also as topological soliton - electric charge is guarded by the Gauss law, but there is no something like this for baryon number).
These are really extreme conditions, so if it is possible, we should expect it e.g. in the center of neutron star ... not in room temperature water pool as they were searching for it.
Another question is if it could be stimulated - available not only by just bringing to extreme conditions, but also by some very subtle e.g. x-ray pulse to get baryon out of its local energy minimum - this question is a great motivation for searching for really good models of baryons and nuclei.

Generally Gryzinski treats atoms effectively as oscillating electric multipoles.
E.g. for one electron, if it's far we have dipole, when it passes nucleus the dipole is gone, and so on cyclically.
For higher shells he gets oscillating electric dipoles, quadrupoles, octupoles - such effective picture allows him to get a good agreement for low energy scattering, e.g. in http://scitation.aip.org/conte…jcp/62/7/10.1063/1.430846

If we would like to simulate LENR in this picture, I think we should use complete simulation for the single assisting electron: traveling back and forth between the two nuclei, and treat the rest of the large atom as oscillating electric multipole ... but I am far from being able to perform such simulations ...
I am currently preparing to recreate the simulations for low energy p->H electron capture for Helbig-Evenhart above.

Quote from axil

Jarek is correct in that solitons play a central role in LENR. Superconductivity produces cooper pairs of electrons where the coulomb barrier is nullified. This indicates that LENR and superconductivity are like processes.

Regarding solitons, this is only the way I see particles (and e.g. Faber) - not as some separate entities (still acting on EM field), but just special localized configurations of some field (solitons).
For charges these are topological solitons, which are naturally quantized (only integer number), get attraction/repulsion if opposite/identical, can annihilate, pair create.
It would be perfect if having a single field which family of "stable" structures correspond to our particle menagerie - a simple field seems to qualitatively do it.
Essay: http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Duda_elfld_1.pdf
Slides: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/soliton.pdf
However, currently I don't see a need for some additional special solitons here (in superconductors there are fluxons/Abrikosov vortices: topological solitons nearly identical as I see spin or particles).

Quote from Wyttenbach

223eV protons are able to "tunel" through the Li coulumb barrierer. Tunnels have two ends and who tells you that the Li core doesn't feel the approaching proton? An approaching proton induces pressure on the electrons which are coupled to the central charge. May be somebody should try to modell this process. and look at the induced perturbations.

How do you know that there is no electron assistance here?
Electron traveling between this nucleus and proton.

Quote from Wyttenbach

QM assumes a "well shaped" probabilty cloud for electrons in the lattice. This works well for some calculations dealing with a few eV. But if there exist resonances, which live for a very short time, they wouldn't disturb the QM picture. Thus QM is no help for finding an explanatio

I think about QM as equilibrium state (from Maximal Entropy Random Walk) - I agree that it has issues with dynamical situations like scattering or LENR.
Gryzinski, who worked on scattering for half a century, was writing that QM is just terrible at predicting scattering, for example here is a picture from his book showing evolution of quantum predictions for ionization of atomic hydrogen with electrons:

Quote from Wyttenbach

Further on, the halo nuclei paper showed (confirms!!) that the range of the nuclear force may reach at least 7fm! ( for up to seconds!)
Conclusion: Our knowlege has deep holes. We just know the steady state, nothing about the intrinsic dynamics.

Indeed the halo nuclei are very interesting entities.
I have some intuitions from the soliton particle model I consider (essay above) - so spin is like Abrikosov vortex there - it is nearly 1D structure and nucleons are small torii around this vortex (like beads on a necklace) - this vortex can make loop on a larger distance (like these 7fm).

Indeed understanding the nuclear part of LENR is also a big (even much bigger) challenge, but we should start with understanding how nuclei could get so close - crossing the Coulomb barrier, for which assistance of electron seems necessary.

Preferable atoms is an extremely complex question of dynamics of multi-electron atom.
One of nuclei should have charge 1 (H, D, T) so electron could screen it, but the restrictions for second nucleus and "the specific conditions" is a really complex question.
Gryzinski writes in his book that he has some working theory in this direction, but I couldn't access any papers.

Could you please list these factors/effects which could help nuclei cross the Coulomb barrier (beside attraction of electron between them)?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

If the electrons could manage it itself, then we would have LENR everywhere, don't you think?

Not true.
Without assistance, energy required to cross the barrier would require ~10^9K temperature.
Electron's assistance is to "catalyze" (increase probability) from virtually impossible (like 10^-100 probability) fusion, to "statistically existent under specific conditions" - electrons doesn't make it frequent, just statistically not-negligible. Crossing the Coulomb barrier is still extremely difficult (improbable) in 1000K.

Regarding resonances, there are more of them:
- quantization of electric charge (e.g. electron) as topological soliton can be seem as a resonance of a field resulting to electromagnetism (Faber),
- for electrons, beside Bohr-Sommerfeld, there are also these resonances for low energy scattering, e.g. as in this results from Helbig Evenhart 1965: http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.140.A715

Quote from Wyttenbach

Since LENR works despite coulumb barrier, it is more like that it is not the key! If the real trigger is a nuclear resonance (Li 230 eV) then the coulumb barrier is broken/overcome inside out, which is easier than the other way round.

I don't understand how would you like to overcome Coulomb barrier "inside-out"?
There is Coulomb repulsion on a distance much larger (~1000 times) than the distance where nuclear force could help - you need a concrete mechanism to pass this distance/barrier. In high energy fusion it is just thermal energy.

What option other than electron do you see for LENR to cross this distance/barrier?

For electrons, the entity to find resonance with is the surrounding EM field, and this resonance condition is the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition.

For nuclei it is much more complex, we should start with understanding EM field structure of leptons first - why charge is quantized? why it has finite energy? (point charge has infinite) why there are 3 families? Topological solitons seem to answer these questions: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/soliton.pdf

However, if we want to understand LENR, we don't have to get into nuclear physics - the crucial question is crossing the Coulomb barrier: getting to a distance where nuclear forces can start acting.
Crossing this Coulomb barrier is a question about dynamics of electrons - understanding why they have remained between two nuclei for a sufficiently long time.

Such remaining between two nuclei is hard for circularly orbiting electrons, but much simpler for radially traveling ones ...

Wyttenbach, your description with infinite orthogonal circles brings me Hopf fibration to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_fibration

Faber sees optical photons this way, for me it is rather configuration of vector field for neutrino.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Gryzinski is only looking at scattering orbits, which are of no help to define the intrinsic behavior of an atom.

So what is an atom?
For me it is nearly fixed position nucleus, plus complex dynamics of electrons (... plus complex dynamics of surrounding EM field)
If we want to understand this dynamics, the closest to direct way is bombarding with massive particles of comparable energy - this is exactly how Gryzinski was inferring and confirming his models.
If we want to understand the nucleus itself, we should use much larger energies - but this is a separate story.

I am not very familiar with the view of Mills,
so Gryzinski's free-fall hydrogen with 120deg scattering (jumping between edges of equilateral triangle) was 1972: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0375960172906378
his multi-electron also goes this way - see recent lecture: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html
these free-falling trajectories make atom effectively a pulsating electric multipole (dipole, quadrupole) - such pulsating multipole was crucial for him to explain the Ramsauer effect and agreement for low energy scattering, see e.g.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…10.1103/PhysRevLett.24.45
http://scitation.aip.org/conte…jcp/62/7/10.1063/1.430845

However, for molecules he considered also more complex trajectories, like for H2+ above, but these are results of long complex analyzes and I haven't seen circular trajectories there - some possibilities considered in his lecture http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor7ang.html

If "deep orbits" are highly relativistic, indeed de Broglie's clock slows down proportionally to gamma = sqrt(1-v^2) (e.g. Hestenes Time zitter ...).
Generally, this was Gryzinski's view of neutron, as described e.g. in Eganova paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1547477116020096
But this slowing down does not seem sufficient for quantization condition - that the clock will perform one tick during the closed orbit (?)

Regarding H2+, here is the original 1994 Gryzinski paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0009261493E1417F
His more recent lecture has a long discussion finally leading to a different model: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor7ang.html

It can dynamically change depending on parameters.

Wyttenbach, thank you, I have looked at the paper.
It starts with what we agree on "It was recognized early in the CF development that the best (perhaps the only) means of fusion at low temperatures and energies was to increase the time that negative charge spends between fusing nuclei. This means of overcoming the Coulomb barrier between nuclei is a continuing theme and is addressed in most models of LENR (...)"

However, then there are these femtometer orbits, closer than the ground state - as I have just written, they contradict the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition, so EM field cannot evolve in a resonant way, there are needed some nasty high energy fluctuations there.
Such state cannot be stable, cannot be low energetic also because it would become the ground state in this case - we would observe such hydrogen as the casual one.
The ground state hydrogen is just the lowest energy dynamical configuration for p+e.

In contrast, in free-fall picture electrons also get very close to nucleus ... but only for a very short time.
And as Gryzinski has showed in many papers in the best journals (Phys rev etc, one has 1300 citations), in contrast to circular orbits, these radial ones are in agreement with scattering experiments: predicted cross-sections, capture probabilities while scattering on atoms with electrons or protons.

While circular trajectories are excluded in LENR explanations in so many levels, with radial trajectories everything fits (even without taking electron's magnetic dipole into consideration):
Bohr-Sommerfeld ellipse trajectory degenerates for 0 angular momentum (1s hydrogen) into back-scatteering radial trajectory. If another nucleus is approaching from its direction, this electron will remain between them, screening the Coulomb barrier - exactly as required.
Here is example of electron trajectory with included magnetic dipole moment of electron into consideration:

No magical hypothetical additional entities are needed.

Wyttenbach, I have googled this "inverse Rydberg matter" and see that you mean electron trajectories closer than the ground state.
So personally I see them forbidden due to Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition (int pdq = nh): that the internal periodic process of electron (zitterbewegung/de Broglie's clock) has to perform integer number of ticks during a closed orbit. This "inverse Rydberg matter" would require 0 < n < 1 number of ticks.
Couder gives great picture why these conditions (closed orbit and integer n) are crucial (below from http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.full ) - it is required to find resonance with the surrounding EM field. Otherwise high energy fluctuations would be additionally required.

I am not talking here about some exotic hypothetical states of matter, but just understanding electron dynamics in standard matter, like casual hydrogen.

The picture from experiment from my previous post is just classical 3 body problem: you have classical hydrogen modeled as circular Bohr's or radial free-falling trajectory, you pass another proton nearby and ask for the probability of electron capture: that this incoming proton will steal the electron.
As we can see in that picture, only radial model gives agreement with experimental data here.

Wyttenbach, understanding electron dynamics in LENR is a separate problem from nuclear physics - here we only focus on understanding how electrons could shield Coulomb barrier down to a distance when nuclear physics can take over (picometers).

Also experiments are very different - instead of using photons (e.g. X-ray), which have extremely complex and not understood structure of EM field, he focuses on massive particles in his scattering considerations: mainly electrons and protons.
From the perspective of classical physics, you have a e.g. 3 body problem, and just ask which electron trajectory fits the experiment better: e.g. circular of Bohr, or radial/free falling (Bohr-Sommerfeld degenerated to zero angular momentum, as QM says 1s hydrogen is).

Here is example of such experiment from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1547477116020096

ps. Just found some his cold fusion conference paper! (sadly no pdf) : http://scitation.aip.org/conte…ing/aipcp/10.1063/1.40688

"Theory of electron catalyzed fusion in Pd lattice"
"When an electron is placed in the center of mass of two deuterons, those
being attracted by a negative charge of the electron may reach zero
separation and fuse. The idea which forms in fact the essence of Coulomb
barrier tunnelling is applied to interpretation of cold fusion
experiments. Theoretical model describing behaviour of hydrogen in
Pd‐lattice is presented and molecular mechanism of nuclear fusion is
described. Accordingly to the formulated theory hydrogen in Pd lattice
exists mostly in the form of linear H+2(D+2, DH+)
quasimolecules, which during α→β phase transition may lose stability
and may collapse, forming tighly bound nuclear system. Synthesis of
tritium from deuterons and protons, accordingly to the scheme D+e+p→T+h∫dη,
is, therefore, quite possible. It is a characteristic feature of
electron catalyzed nuclear fusion that energy is in principle released
in the form of soft X‐rays. Arguments are presented that a
single‐crystal Pd‐electrode has to be used to achieve high fusion rates."

As electrons seem crucial in (hypothetical) LENR, the first step is really understanding their dynamics (this thread was supposed to be about) - not only probability density predicted by quantum mechanics, but also the actual local directions of their dynamics (finally leading to quantum probabilities).

The best way to ask nature about these kind of questions is scattering - bombarding atoms with electrons or heavier particles, and look at statistics of the results, compare with theoretical predictions.
That was the way of Gryzinski, whose e.g. 1965 "Classical Theory of Atomic Collisions. I. Theory of Inelastic Collisions" has 1308 citations. Between 1957 and 1999 he had more than 20 papers in the best journals (Phys Rev etc.):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model (added much more papers ... but someone wants to delete the article - please help defending it)

His conclusion is that much better agreement than Bohr's circular orbits, give radial "free-falling" trajectories of electrons.

I have finally found time to start deeply reading these papers (all on sci-hub) and they are really impressive, also comments from citations - I would gladly discuss about them.
He was also a believer in cold fusion (comment in Nature in 1989), however, I couldn't reach his later papers on this topic - maybe someone has access?

Maybe let's finally try to discuss what this thread was intended to be about - dynamics of electrons and how to use it LENR predictions?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from Jarek: “These are muuuuuuch more extreme conditions than we want for an explanation of LENR.”

I fully agree with this view, albeit we cannot exclude that the proton reaction might (rarely) happen too. The occurring LENR transmutations are certainly not in line with frequent proton decays. Super clean Pd-DD fusion with an excess of He3 could prove the contrary.

From a theoretical viewpoint I would focus on the work about "the basic structure of space/'ether' " as e.g. Krasnoholovet does. Susi is dead since a long time, as also the standard model is dead, at least from a viewpoint that it can explain everything.

I just remind you, that also Einstein worked a live long on the idea, how he could add the property of space to his equations...So, it must be a tremendous task.

Display More

I don't see how introduction of proton decay with GeV-scale photons could help with explaining lack of MeV-scale photons?
But the first problem of LENR is taking two nuclei together - I also don't see how proton decay could help here?
The later issue seems to be clear if considering trajectories of electrons, the former could be explain by radiating this energy by cylindrically symmetric EM impulse (instead of gamma): Electron-assisted fusion

Regarding "the basic structure of space/'ether' ", I agree that we should search for a concrete field which localized structures (solitons) recreate our particle menagerie and their dynamics ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1416 ).
Far from particle we have only electromagnetism+gravity, with Gauss law for charge(/mass) conservation - the entire field guards charge conservation. There is nothing like that for baryon number, so there is no reason to believe that baryon number has to be always conserved. However, such violation would require extreme conditions.

The question of possibility of proton decay, or in other words: can baryon number be violated, is a crucial one.
Such violation is required for example to create more matter than anti-matter while Big Bang/baryogenesis, or to convert mater into mass-less radiation in hypothetical Hawking radiation.
As proton decay is extremely unlikely (or even impossible) in room temperature, it would need really extreme temperatures - much higher than for hot fusion(!), beside Big Bang, the required conditions might be fulfilled in the center of a neutron star - before it reaches infinite density required to form the horizon, leading to huge energies released as gamma-ray bursts, preventing collaps into a black hole
http://www.scienceforums.net/t…ay-allow-for-black-holes/

These are muuuuuuch more extreme conditions than we want for an explanation of LENR.

ps. A star which seems to require proton decay to explain enormous luminosity - while having a few solar masses, it is 10 million times brighter, mostly in X-rays. Wikipedia article says: "shining about 100 times brighter than theory suggests something of its mass should be able to."
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014…ockingly-bright-dead-star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_X-2

My point was only that their energy has similar order as electron - should easily go through relatively light shielding they use.

Quote from Eric Walker

What is the spectrum of bremsstrahlung photons expected for energetic electrons in this energy range? (Characteristic photons from electronic transitions will be in the range of 0-40 keV, say, along some kind of curve.)

From http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332005000500008 :

I'm afraid you would still obtain MeV-scale photons from bremsstrahlung of 0-6MeV electrons - which should be observed: here are absorption coefficients for lead - 1cm gives only 2-3x reduction for MeV-scale photons:

Assuming LENR has indeed happened and no gammas were observed, EM impulse seems the only reasonable explanation (?)

Thanks - the internal conversion indeed also seems a reasonable way to release the energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conversion
however, MeV-scale electrons should still lead to observable effects in the experiments (?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…raction_with_other_matter

Cylindrical EM-impulse would be much softer - directly heating the surrounding, very difficult to detect (?)

Quote from Eric Walker

Amplification isn't needed if the requisite energy is already available and is simply released through a trigger of some kind. Radioactive nuclides are a notable example. If something could be done to induce increased activity, then you would have MeV of energy release without the need to build it up or concentrate it.

If there would be a hidden energy there, thermodynamics says it should be released ... unless there is a huge barrier on the way, like for hypothetical proton decay - the question is if there is a smarter way for crossing this barrier, like going around it.
But what is this going around the barrier? Electron's assistance can be seen as such catalizer.
Otherwise, there is p + e + 762keV -> n or electron capture - both of them require large investment of energy.

Quote from Eric Walker

Perhaps something similar to internal conversion, but drawing from a surplus electrons in the solid state environment brought there under unusual or nonequilibrium conditions, such as the buildup of static charge.

After fusion you have a nucleus with MeV scale of excess energy, which should be quickly released - the question is how it's done:
- as a single gamma - seems usually excluded by experiment,
- as lots of gammas - it would require a long sequence of intermediate states (?),
- as nonlocalized EM impulse (not gamma), like cylidrical wave for "linear antenna"-like p-e-p collapse.

Personally, I have only tested electron trajectories with included Lorentz force (magnetic dipole of electron - charge of nucleus) and there are naturally appearing trajectories of electrons jumping between two nuclei (successive back-scatterings).
It is very far from a complete LENR theory - which requires understanding atomic and molecular trajectories first - then finding statistics of such successive back-scatterings between approaching nuclei ... this requires huge work ... now it only shows that no magic is needed: just a matter of simulating trajectories of electrons and nuclei (... taking also field into considerations, which causes e.g. quantization).

Regarding p-e-p collapse as linear antenna, I completely don't insist on any of these modes - only say that any of them would solve the problem of missing gammas.