Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Dear Andrew, Thank you for contacting me again and thank you to Bob Cook for having helped. As I told you I think that there are a lot of convergences in our thinking .I appreciate your point of view seeking for new ways on basis of pertinent knowledges which are not challenged by the scientific community .This is a thorough scientific process . I came to same conclusions as you on the functioning of the nucleon through different ways .I considered the neutron and the proton ,as well as the alpha particle .These three particles have interesting particularities .The neutron has a abnormal dipolar magnetic moment ,as well as the proton and the alpha particle .The neutron decays into proton with a slight loss of mass and big modification of its dipolar magnetic moment .The alpha particle has a loss of mass much more important than the proton and no dipolar magnetic moment. For me it is a sign that there are unknown processes at the heart of these particles .Indeed ,there are (partial) explanations of these anomalies .I was not satisfied with them and found worth to look at deeper explanations ,especially because three fundamental interactions are at stake :electromagnetism ,weak and strong nuclear forces. I first looked at the alpha particle because only one interaction ,the strong nuclear force is at stake ,it's dipolar magnetic moment being null ,probably neutralized by the interactions between the four nucleons which compose the alpha particle.I could easily quantize the loss of mass of alpha particle as you can see on my website : www.philippehatt.com I compared these losses to the mass of neutron and proton and deduced a structure of the neutron and the proton which is shown on my blog.What about the validity of that structure ? It is only based on coincidences ,I agree .Nevertheless several coincidences could lead to give more solidity to a theory .And there are a lot of correlations you could discover on my blog. I come now to your problem :the deep orbital electron .If you look at the structure displayed on my blog you notice that there are three parts :the trunk of 1800 electron masses ,the 71 /2 electron masses and the other little masses .Actually ,what concerns the electrons ,we see that the structure is : 18+1800+18in alternatively with 18+1800+17 In other terms every second time an electron is lacking in the neutron .When introduced it stays at another place than the other electrons and disturbs the structure of the neutron so as to create the proton.Moreover ,trying to take its "normal" place has as consequence that another electron is ejected from the core which has always 71/2 electron masses .This sort of "yo yo "process explains why the electron is falling on the proton,the two opposite charges being annihilated .As the stability of the whole requires 71/2 electrons + one orbiting ,another electron is taking the place of the former one on the orbit .So there is not one electron orbiting at high relativistic speed around the proton .There are many electrons ,one at each quantized instant ,which do not move around the proton but have a translated movement from proton to "orbit "and again to proton.This explains the holes in the "orbit "and the fact that the "speed " of electron is not measurable at the same time than its position .When the electron is on its position it has no speed.Indeed ,a vary classical explanation .More explanation is on my blog. We can also conclude that the proton is neutralized at each quantized instant and taking again the stable state of proton + electron at the following quantized instant .This has consequence on LENR. Happy to discuss, Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp > Le 25 janv. 2018 à 18:42, Andrew Meulenberg a écrit : > > Dear Philippe, > > The reason that I enjoyed our extended conversation so much was that we had > come to much the same views, but from somewhat different directions. We still > have differences; but, I certainly see room for convergence (and learning in > the process). > > Comments below. > _ _ > >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Philippe Hatt wrote: >> >> Dear Bob, >> >> Thank you for your support ,again.I would also see Andrew Meulenberg address >> my theory on massification /demassification. >> I met him in Sendai ,together with Jean-Luc Paillet .We had a very >> interesting evening conversation .I saw immediately that their deep orbit >> theory had a tremendous interest (as well as Mill's and Jacques Dufour 's >> ones).The problem is that the deep orbit theory is considered by the >> majority of physicists as being in contradiction with the quantum mechanic( >> problem of ground state of proton).For me ,this appa
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Dave, This is absolutely true and not challenged at all. My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass into energy .Mathematically mass and energy are related through Einstein's equation .Nevertheless mass is physically different from energy .Also the speed of the two created photons is different from that of the initial electron and positron.The problem is how can two masses be converted into energy and lose their mass ,especially as this two masses are positive .So, I guess there is a process creating mass and an opposite process annihilating mass .These two processes should enter in resonance to annihilate the two masses and convert them into energy. Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp > Le 25 janv. 2018 à 17:04, Dave Roberson a écrit : > > Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron > combine and two photons emerge? The total mass-energy is the same. > > Dave > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Philippe Hatt > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM > To: Jürg Wyttenbach > Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; > mules...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest > > Dear Jürg, > > Thank you for your answer. > > On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative > mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence > a hole of mass .This is what happens > between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving > at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because > they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of > the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To > better illustrate the phenomenon let us consider the process of > massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a > positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant > through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So > the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass > as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the > opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified > comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is > an anti (positive)mass. > > On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built > with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding > energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was > the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are > enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in > the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR. > > See you soon in Paris, > > Philippe > > > Envoyé de mon iPadp > > Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach a écrit : > > Dear Philippe > > Thanks for Your information. > > From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic > moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected > value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a > proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe > do exist. > > The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always > interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in > proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the > E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This > indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing > the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only > have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some > physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent > to proton/electron measurements...) > > But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the > mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus > topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a > better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view the > use of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a > 4D-->3D torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math > rules. > > Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy > finally is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building > rule. Whether it is straight forwa
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Dear Jürg, Thank you for your answer. On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a hole of mass .This is what happens between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better illustrate the phenomenon let us consider the process of massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti (positive)mass. On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR. See you soon in Paris, Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp > Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach a écrit : > > Dear Philippe > > Thanks for Your information. > > From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic > moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected > value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a > proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe > do exist. > > The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always > interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in > proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the > E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This > indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing > the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only > have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some > physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent > to proton/electron measurements...) > > But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the > mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus > topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a > better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view > the use of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a > 4D-->3D torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math > rules. > > Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy > finally is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building > rule. Whether it is straight forward or not has to be shown. > > I personally do not like the term anti-mass. In the 4(6)D model of the > nucleus, we can show that all nuclear interaction (gamma levels) are exactly > defined by the energy - holes (quasi negative energy) left behind during the > building of the nucleus. These holes are connected to the existing > mass/magnetic flux and must be (re-) filled to become active. > If you can define negative mass as being flux from "real" mass to holes, then > all is fine. Negative mass would imply negative energy, what even for a > positron (antimatter) does not hold. > > An other difficulty is to directly compare the electron/proton mass with the > magnetic moment. The nuclear magneton is defined as eh'/2mp (Units J/T) what > needs a field to make the masses compatible. If you make a quotient like > 1.913 / 2.793 then this formal "problem" factors out. > > What I would like to remind everybody: To explain LENR we, at the end, need a > formula which allows to calculate the stimulation fields needed, what > includes their strength, topology, and most likely their frequency. (The same > holds for the LENR energy releasing phase...) With knowing the exact > energies, we can only derive some base frequencies! "Nothing" is said about > the other factors. > > Thus more work is needed! >
