So its basic structures are lines having spin 1/2 configuration in cross-section (kind of Abrikosov vortex but in vacuum) and there are three types of them with growing energy density: electron, muon and taon spin loops. Electron is such electron spin line with 180 deg rotation inside - getting hedgehog configuration - topological charge which is interpreted as electric charge (Gauss-Bonnet thm acts as Gauss theorem).
Baryons would correspond to such loop around spin line (like above) - geometry says that they have to be of different types (electron-muon) and that such loop enforces some partial internal rotation - a fractional charge ("quark"). So baryon structure itself requires some (fractional) charge - proton has only this charge (can be narrow), while neutron has to compensate it with opposite charges like in the picture - has to be wide - has larger energy ... getting intuitive explanation of why proton is lighter than neutron. Next, deuteron is lighter than p + n because they can share their single charge like in the figure.
So how does it suggest the last moments of p-e-p collapse? I think they first would connect/synchronize their spins: so everything is happening on one electron spin line: one loop (proton) then internal rotation (electron), then second loop (proton). So these two loop nearly symmetrically travel on the spin line and finally release all the stress while forming the deuteron - it should be symmetric, so should create symmetric EM wave. Alternatively, there could be created neutrino (free spin loop) like in the picture for beta decay - they might also carry some of the energy ...
Imagine linear antenna: electrons running up-and-down a line ... producing cylindrical EM waves. Now imagine p-e-p collapsing faster and faster to nearly a point - wouldn't it be a single pulse of such linear antenna? Like an impulse from EMP weapon ...
Alain, the electron assistance is not limited to pep - one of nuclei can be larger (the second rather needs to have unitary charge). Remembering about the electron's magnetic dipole moment, there appear kind of bouncing trajectories like in the picture above (e.g. between the nuclei) - see materials here: Electron-assisted fusion
Regarding the question of not releasing high energy gammas, I have speculated there that it could be explained by symmetry of collapse - in symmetric p-e-p collapse, the energy could be released as a cylindrical EM wave (instead of photon) - it quickly looses energy density. We are used to localized photons - for example due to change of atomic orbital, carrying angular momentum. But why p-e-p like symmetric collapse couldn't produce a cylindrical EM wave instead?
Lots of recordings from interesting lectures on "emergent quantum mechanics" - including Couder's: http://www.emqm13.org/abstracts/
Why it concerns fusion? Imagine two protons and electron in the center - the Coulomb law says it should collapse - perform fusion. If we start asking about the trajectories of electrons, analogous to these walking droplets, due to electron's magnetic dipole moment there are possible trajectories with electron kind of jumping between two nuclei - screening their Coulomb repulsion.
Here is example of numerically found trajectory of electron with nucleus in zero - now imagine there is a proton approaching from the right ...
I apology, busy time. I don't think we need some additional electron donors to understand fusion - there are already lots of electrons there. What we need is to understand the behavior of single electron assisting in fusion scenario. Here is example of electron's trajectory for single proton (in (0,0)) from Mathematica notebook attached in the first post - electron performs nearly (angular momentum is nonzero) free-fall on the nucleus and Lorentz force (electron's magnetic dipole moment - proton's charge) bends its trajectory to nearly backscattering:
Now imagine another proton is approaching from the backcattering direction (x axis) - the electron screens the proton-proton repulsion. The question is finding the probability in Avogadro number scale of opportunities: - the approaching proton needs to have some initial velocity (Bolztmann) and direction (electron's attraction helps), - the electron needs to stabilize between the nuclei (attraction helps).
There are additional reasons for stabilization (hard to include in calculations) - that everything is happening in a field, trajectory had to "find a resonance" with the field (quantization condition).
Longview, a good intuition about tunneling can be found in Couder's paper ( http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i24/e240401 ) : the exact state of fields is practically random from the perspective of our limited measurement capabilities. This state can sometimes help e.g. crossing a barrier, sometimes make it more difficult - making it practically random from our perspective. How large can this influence be? Boltzmann distribution explains it: it can theoretically reach any value, but with exponentially dropping probability. And we have nearly the same for tunneling: particle can theoretically cross any barrier, but needs more time to accidentally reach energy required for crossing a higher barrier.
My points are: 1) eV-scale phenomena have negligible influence on crossing MeV-scale barrier 2) this thermodynamically averaged picture neglects the details, which seems crucial for the fusion - we can do better: try to understand whats actually going on there, like particle trajectories.
One can say that there can be some tricks regarding 1) like stochastic resonance - sure, but we need to get into details of such process - see point 2).
I see belief not explanation. Tunneling is another, to "it's quantum" and Heisenberg principle, magical buzzword which sound is supposed to explain everything ... used by physicists when they don't understand what's going on. No, even tunneling will not help eV-scale phenomena to cross MeV-scale barrier. If we want to understand LENR, we need to ask what is really going on there - including trajectory of electron.
Look at electron's trajectories when we remember about magnetic dipole moment of electron - it explains why electrons don't fall on nucleus: there appears Lorentz force perpendicular to the velocity, bending the trajectory and preventing collision. Indeed the required symmetry for three-particle collapse seems improbable, but looking at trajectory of electron: remembering about magnetic dipole moment, there are closed trajectories jumping between two nuclei: free-falling on one nucleus, back-scattering, free-falling on the second, back-scattering and so on. There is still needed some initial nuclei velocity for the fusion, the probability of such event need to be calculated, but the scenario seems reasonable - without any exotic physics.
Regarding the Bell inequalities, their violation comes from the "probability = amplitude^2" relation. You should look at Maximal Entropy Random Walk - repairing stochastic models to be in agreement with the (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle ... and "coincidentally" with quantum mechanics. The "probability = amplitude^2" relation also appears there. To understand why our world doesn't fulfill Bell's inequality, remember that all theories including QED are Lagrangian mechanics. One of formulation of Lagrangian mechanics is through action optimization: we can imagine that the history of our Universe is the action optimizing solution of the situation in the Big Bang and let say eventual Big Crunch in the future. My point is that in Lagrangian picture, we live in kind 4D jello: the present moment is equilibrium between past and future (see e.g. Wheeler experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…delayed_choice_experiment ), while in Bell we assume only past->future correlations.
Hi AlainCo, thanks for the replies. Let me know if I can explain anything. I have briefly looked at the breathers of dr Dubinko. Generally particles are localized configurations of fields (among others, charge is singularity of EM field), and have an internal (de Broglie) clock/zittebewegung – so formally we can call particles as breathers. In contrast, dr Dubinko uses effective breathers of atomic lattice – I can see a possibility for sine-Gordon like breathers there (magnetic field for potential), but I don’t see how it could explain fusion? I don’t believe it could reach 782keVs for e+p->n. He uses the Heisenberg ignorance principle in explanation – magical/quantum curtain which is supposed to explain everything. If we want to really understand fusion, we need to raise this curtain and ask what’s actually happening there – for trajectories, also of the supporting actor: electron. Regarding the Ed Storms paper, I have read “Mechanism to overcome the Coulomb Barrier” and “Mechanism to dissipate excess mass-energy” sections and don’t see any explanation.
Hi Longview, Regarding releasing the MeV-scale energy as cylindrical wave, I don't think orbital as antenna is a good picture here, it would loose eV-scale energy, creating a photon carrying also the angular momentum - what requires localization. Instead, the quickly collapsing p—e—p system is itself kind of a (single impulse) linear antenna, like in EMP weapon: http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm I got the cylindrical wave picture from particle model I consider ( as topological solitons: starting with Faber’s charge quantization as topological charge: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1416 , slides about topological soliton models: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/soliton.pdf ) - I usually get a reasonable explanation when I ask this model. So the symmetric p—e—p fusion there would start by aligning their spins in line - they close together on this line. In this model, electric charge is rotation on this line (can be fractional for “quarks”: baryon structure itself enforces some rotation – not necessarily a complete charge). Finally they can release the MeV-scale rotational stress – which is cylindrically symmetric. While I see the mechanism for particle creation while e.g. beta decay, here everything is too symmetric – and so also the releasing wave should be.
But ... these impulses should produce an EM noise outside of very high frequency ... they might be too short to directly detect it (?), and most should be absorbed by medium (?) What observable effects should we expect for this explaination?
And generally I don’t see any other reasonable possibility to release MeV-scale energy in a clean way (?): - High energy baryon would seem right … but there is no way to produce it, - As neutrino? This energy would escape the system, not heating it, - High-energy electron seems a reasonable alternative, but betas are told to be insufficient, - Hundreds … thousands of gammas … but it would require some enormously complicated relaxation mechanism, - I have seen phonons mentioned somewhere, but this the next step - first we we need to release this energy from the nucleus.
Thanks for the interest about MERW, let me know if you have some question.There have recently appeared dozens of applications in network analysis, image analysis, neural tractography and others (our PRL paper has >60 citations) – I hope stochastic specialists will finally look at the physics applications: “quantum” corrections to stochastic models, what may be crucial e.g. in molecular dynamics or to understand electron’s trajectories e.g. in semiconductors.
I was thinking about the issue that LENR is "clean" - produces nearly no high energy particles ... and I think I might have a solution(?)
The direct way, e.g. p + e + p -> deuteron + 1.4MeV, looks much better than Widom-Larsen way: p + e + 782keV -> n, then n + p -> deuteron + 2.2MeV: - we don't have first to climb 782keV up (where this huge energy comes from?), - we don't have these additional 782keVs emitted while the proper fusion phase: n + p -> deuteron However, there would be still MeV-scale energy, which is needed to be radiated in "clean" way.
So how to radiate MeV-scale excitation energy without high energy particles?
Again, imagine this perfect symmetric "p ---- e ---- p" system, collapsing in symmetric way to deuteron. So this idealized situation would have cylindrical symmetry. Without any symmetry breaking mechanisms, the final excited state should radiate the exceeding energy also as cylindrically symmetric (EM) wave! Such a cylindrical wave, similar to wave from linear-antenna, would quickly loose energy density: proportionally to 1/R. This energy should be absorbed by surrounding particles as kinetic energy - just heating the medium.
So the question is if gammas have to be localized? Maybe they can be e.g. cylindrical EM waves in some reactions instead - it would explain LENR being clean ...
Hi Longview, thanks for the reply. The last link is definitely mathematica notebook, here are Gryzinski’s lectures: http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/indang.html I have also his book, but it is in Polish. Sadly he has died in 2004. I plan to test his work when I will have more time.
Regarding Couder, there are definitely essential differences comparing with the microscopic physics, like that his waves are rather short-range (pilot wave is long-range), or that he uses external clock, while particles seem to have internal one (zitterbewegung/de Broglie’s clock) – which can be now directly observed: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10701-008-9225-1 However, he brings great intuitions about basic “quantum” phenomena: - interference pattern in double-slit experiment (particle goes a single trajectory, but it interacts with waves it created - going through all trajectories): http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v97/i15/e154101 , - tunneling depending on practically random hidden parameters (highly complex state of the field): http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i24/e240401 , - orbit quatization condition (that particle has to 'find a resonance' with the field - after single orbit, its internal phase has to return to the initial state): http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515 , - Zeeman splitting analogue for these discrete orbits (Lorentz force was simulated by Coriolis force): http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i26/e264503 .
Regarding the “As you know, a number of the orbital structures do take the electron(s) through the nucleus, others place the highest probability of materialization at the nucleus.”, indeed we should be careful about blindly using the Schrodinger equation, for example because it neglects the interaction with the nucleus. Also, while thinking about multi-electron orbitals, we usually forget about electron-electron repulsion. If we do helium right, we see that position of these electrons are strongly anti-correlated.
Anyway, returning to trajectories, if we add thermodynamics there: randomly perturb trajectories and average them over time, I believe we should get exactly the Schrodinger probability clouds. I have got to this conclusion, and generally to the search for physics below QM, thanks to working on Maximal Entropy Random Walk (my PhD thesis: http://www.fais.uj.edu.pl/docu…71-4eba-8a5a-d974256fd065 ). Specifically, the way we choose stochastic processes turns out not always being in agreement with the basic for statistical physics: the (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle. Doing it right - starting with maximizing entropy production: Maximal Entropy Random Walk, leads to getting exactly to the ground state probability density of Schrodinger equation. Here is a comparison of evolution of density of both approaches on a defected lattice (all nodes but the marked ones have self-loop): Standard random walk/diffusion would say that electrons on a defected lattice should have nearly uniform probability distribution, that semi-conductor should still conduct well - one of reasons for rejecting trajectories a few decades ago. MERW and QM say that electrons are localized (Anderson) as the quantum ground state probability density – trapped in (entropic) wells, can be difficult to conduct. Slides about MERW: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/MERWsem.pdf
Regarding “The real problem may not be getting an electron to the nucleus”, getting electron into proton costs m_n - m_p - m_e ~ 782keV – it is huge energy from chemistry point of view. I don’t believe some lattice excitations could make such process reasonably high probable. From the other side, think about this “ p ---- e ---- p ” symmetric configuration – without any additional energy, it should just collapse and fuse into deuteron. So maybe we shouldn’t think about two-body p+e->n collisions, but rather about three body p+e+p or nucleus+e+p processes – because electron can attract both nuclei. How to do it? Shooting electrons at nuclei, for some parameters we have backscatting: the electron goes back to the source. So imagine two closing nuclei and electron performing a few backscatterings between them: jumping between them, screening their Coulomb repulsion, making fusion much more probable. Gryzinski’s model suggests this is quite a reasonable scenario, and his classical scattering paper has more than 1000 citations (google “Classical Theory of Atomic Collisions”).
Anyway, in contrast to other explanations of LENR, the only "exotic" assumption of electron-assisted fusion is considering trajectories of electrons. Other non-standard assumption is adding electron's magnetic dipole moment to Bohr-like considerations (classical spin-orbit interaction).
ps. Another argument against Widom-Larsen like models (beside the need for huge 782keV energy for p+e->n), is production of gammas (and others) when this neutron would be finally absorbed by some nucleus - not observed in LENR. As in the "p - e - p" example, three body electron-assisted fusion should allow for direct crossing of the Coulomb barrier - without starting with going up the barrier (e.g. 782 keVs).
Imagine zero velocity situation: two protons and electron in the middle between them ( p ---- e ---- p ). The Coulomb force says that electron-proton attraction is four times stronger than proton-proton repulsion. So this simple 3 body system should collapse – down to fusion into deuteron.
This trivial example suggests that electron could be very helpful in overcoming Coulomb barrier for LENR. What is wrong with this picture? That it requires” classical” trajectory of electron, while we are expected to consider the quantum picture: with electron smeared into a probability density cloud – making such electron assisted fusion practically improbable.
So the main question here is: can we consider a trajectory of electron? For example averaging to the quantum probability distribution. There are many arguments that we can, for example equivalent dBB interpretation: that inserting psi = rho * exp(iS) to Schrodinger equation, we get continuity equation for the density (rho) and “classical” Hamilton-Jacobi equation for action S, with h-order correction/perturbation: of interaction with the pilot wave. Great intuition about this picture provides e.g. “classical-quantum” Couder experiments , getting for example interference: the corpuscle travels one paths, while its “pilot” wave travels multiple waves, influencing trajectory of the corpuscle (e.g.
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.
).
So imagine there is some (semi-classical) trajectory of electron’s corpuscle inside atoms, piloted by its wave, averaging to Schrodinger’s probability cloud. What trajectories should we expect? The first answer is Sommerfeld-Bohr’s elliptic trajectories. However, the ground hydrogen has zero angular momentum: we should degenerate the ellipse into a line: a free-fall trajectory. What is missing in Bohr-Sommerfeld is taking electron’s magnetic dipole moment into consideration – it is corrected in the free-fall atomic model of Gryzinski. This correction, classical spin-orbit interaction, has large influence on the free-falling trajectories.There appear also backscattering trajectories: when electron turns 180 degrees – allowing it to jump a few times between two nuclei, screening the Coulomb repulsion. And so Gryzinski has a note in Nature about cold fusion in 1989.
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.
showing why standard diffusion models are only approximation (of the Jaynes maximum uncertainty principle required by statistical physics models), and that doing diffusion right there is no longer disagreement with thermodynamical predictions of QM (Anderson localization):
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:
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.More DetailsClose
