But I will try once more in the the hopes that we still might get there. My position is not that the elementary charge is smeared over the probability distribution. It is that the supposition that the electron is a particle riding on a pilot wave is one among several competing explanations for what underlies the experimental results explained by quantum mechanics, and a minority one at that
I am not asking about interpretations of our subjective theory (QM) ... often requiring human free will like in theology (humans are unimaginable small part of time and space of Universe),
only while there are plenty of experiments showing that elementary charge is practically a point (e.g. scattering, Penning trap), is there a single experiment showing or suggesting that elementary charge is objectively smeared?
After many threads you have finally given two such experiments ... but then didn't respond to my objections - why do you think they conclude objective smearing of elementary charge?
The main problem I see with Gryzinski's explanation has to do with the movement of the electrons around the nucleus, as we’ve already discussed. They’re like a planetary system, and a three-dimensional planetary system with many moving bodies will exhibit chaotic rather than ordered movement.
So your objection is possibility of chaos - could you elaborate why do you think it would be a problem?
I have two complementing views how quantum probability cloud emerges from trajectories:
1) Trajectories should be thermodynamically pertubed e.g. by interaction with neighboring atoms - thermodynamics says that we should assume Boltzmann distribution among possible paths, what from euclidean path integrals (/Maximal Entropy Random Walk) we know that leads to probability clouds from QM,
2) Everything is happening in a field, particle has to find resonance with: make it a standing wave to avoid synchrotron radiation - this standing wave is described by QM.
Locally 2) is crucial - staying at resonance (field) prevents local chaos ... but still there are some thermodynamical perturbations and after a long time probability distribution for finding particle averages to predicted by QM due to 1) .
But you will have to choose either between pilot waves, which give predictions indistinguishable from other interpretations of quantum mechanics, and an approach that purportedly gives predictions that are better than quantum mechanics. You cannot have both.
Why we cannot have both - as two complementary perspectives on the same system?
For example imagine coupled pendula - you can describe evolution of their positions (classical), or go to normal modes - where you have exactly unitary evolution like in QM:
Now take a lattice of pendula (crystal) and its normal nodes are called phonons, directly used in QM description ... but you can still ask for classical evolution of atom position in this lattice - alternative, complementing perspective.
I don't know of anyone who has suggested that tritium, in LENR or anywhere else, comes from fission.
There are at least two ways to tritium from fission: through neutrons or direct: according to Wikipedia, in about 1:10000 fissions tritium is directly created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Fission