Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF
In August I wrote: What is really interesting to me about the suggested +muon/electron system, > or a muon/positron system, is that the masses are not equal. My intuition > tells me that the matter/anti-matter combination should result in > annihilation, but I'm really curious what the decay products would be. > Here is an answer on Quora that says that a muon and a positron cannot annihilate via the electromagnetic interaction in the same way that an electron and positron do: http://www.quora.com/Can-a-muon-annihilate-with-a-positron (They can, however, interact via a less interesting two-stage process by way of the weak interaction.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Superconductivity give mass to photons. Superconductivity is like the Higgs field. The higgs field gives mass to particles and superconductivity gives mass to photons, This is why and electric field goes around a superconductor, the photons have mass. Dark matter must come from the superconductivity produced by Rydberg matter formed from hydrogen atoms in space. The photons that must deal with those superconductors get heavy and add mass to the universe. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47791/what-do-massive-photons-have-to-do-with-superconductivity
RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Since muon beam-lines are a reality at a few research facilities, there is a fair likelihood that a physical connection between LENR and muons will be proved (or falsified) in the near term – hopefully soon. If Holmlid has enough prestige or favorable opinion in the eyes of his peers, then this could happen within months, due to the importance of his recent findings on muons. Two or more potential details of interest keep cropping up - wrt to the muon and LENR. One is the possibility of muonic hydrogen having an emission line at 3.5 keV, which could make it a strong candidate for so-called “dark matter” … There seems to be differences of opinion on the value of this line, since there is a scaling factor involved, and the accepted values are in the range of 2.5 keV. In any event, for purposes of LENR, soft x-rays in this range are easily absorbed and could have escaped detection in the past… thus providing a convenient but robust source for excess energy which has been documented. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9709028 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9709028 Correspondingly - there seems to be a decent chance that the DDL, the densest from of hydrogen, which is the lowest Rydberg level, could form with a muon as the negative charge carrier, instead of the “plain electron” (or in addition to the plain electron). Actually, lest we forget - a muon is, in all likelihood, merely a plain electron combined with two neutrinos ! That description may not be a gross over-simplification. In fact, it could be helpful to imagine the two neutrinos as being the power supply of the muon, pushing its plain electron to near C naturally. That combination (of a plain electron and two neutrinos) is the basic rationale for why we can surmise that a long-lived version of the muon exits in certain circumstances (for the reason below). The stable muon would need to travel at very close to light-speed to be stable, and time dilation is absolutely proved in this case. We know that the neutrino components “always” travel at C and we know that muons traveling at 99.% of C live 10,000 times longer than normal. Therefore, if and when the plain-electron of hydrogen, in a deeply redundant ground state, naturally attracts these two neutrinos (which could happen in favored orbitals, due to resonance), then we have a stable version of muonic hydrogen, which could be identical to the DDL. The other possibility, for which there is more proof, is that the nuclear mass of the proton changes with a muon orbital, compared to a plain electron. The muon produces a stronger magnetic field inside the proton when it is orbiting, which changes the “chiral condensate” of pions and quarks, which changes the value of the proton mass. Quarks themselves have variable mass. This is important - to show that protons can supply large amount of energy without fusing into anything (other than lighter protons). DDL being equivalent to muonic hydrogen… wow… that is a shocker, no? … stable muonic hydrogen being real identity of dark matter… why not? You heard it first on vortex…. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Axil, much better said than my relativistic warp via confinement but we are on the same page. IMHO even catalytic action is a weak form of this mechanism. I think catalysis is just the rate of change in low level dilation due to the tapestry of geometry in active regions. I think LENR is bootstrapped from an intense form of catalysis where the dilation factors reach relativistic levels and because they are based on an inverse square cube [Casimir or other London form] they trump the gravitational square law causing breaches in the isotropy that LENR exploits. Regards Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:05 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is timed by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is energized so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W- will not appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down time. A excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone of negative vacuum energy is present. That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP. Negative vacuum energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why radioactive isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost instantaneously. That is because the ash from a fusion event is entangled with the inside of the SPP in which all the energy of the fusion event is delivered. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.commailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones, Eric and Axil-- I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still in the dark. The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred. The standard words explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, however an interaction with what?—it’s not said. And what happens to a muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact? It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge) bosons, the carriers of the weak force, are involved, but do they appear at random from the vacuum to disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay? And why is the half life of a free muon so short? If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to the boson? Does it disappear back to the vacuum? The bosons are said to be very short lived--10^-18 sec. Bob Cook . From: Axil Axilmailto:janap...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM To: vortex-lmailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Also muomic atoms occur—a +muon and an electron. This sounds like positronium -- a positron and an electron momentarily bound together. The positronium system is unstable, and the most likely decay is for the two to annihilate one another, emitting annihilation photons in opposite directions. What is really interesting to me about the suggested +muon/electron system, or a muon/positron system, is that the masses are not equal. My intuition tells me that the matter/anti-matter combination should result in annihilation, but I'm really curious what the decay products would be. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. From: Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob From: Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. *From:* Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob *From:* *Eric Walker* eric.wal...@gmail.com Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net Ø …the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater… This brings up the subject of “muonic hydrogen”. Since the muon is like a heavy electron, it can orbit the proton like an electron. This is fairly well studied. What is needed for LENR, in addition, is a way to significantly increase the lifetime of such an arrangement. In the literature, there is no mention of a decrease in the decay rate of muons - due to orbital capture by a proton. However, the muon is about 200 times heavier than the electron, and muonic hydrogen is the same 200 times smaller in diameter than ordinary hydrogen. In a magnetic field - where the muonic hydrogen is polarized - assuming “inverse-square” applies (and why wouldn’t it?) this situation would seem to create a magnetic near-field which is 40,000 times greater than the normal 12.5 T field. Thus … with a nickel substrate, notably ferromagnetic, or with Holmlid’s iron oxide, also ferromagnetic - perhaps there is a previously unknown phenomenon which is occurring to alter the decay rate of muonic hydrogen and do it via magnetism ? SPP also have a large effective magnetic field. We could be talking megatesla (1,000,000 Tesla field strength) in combination. Of course, near fields are always much stronger, but this is the magnetic field equivalent of a neutron star.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
May the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater, not from the Rydberg mater it selves. Its may be a kind of HAD. On source for muons may be pion-decay. Pion-exchange is a part in nuclear reactions and have been suggested by Takahashi. (side 574) _http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedl.pdf_ But the Pions in nuclear reactions are virtual particles. I know if a virtual particle can be real. On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:09:56 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muon s (as opposed to creating them from nothing) . I think that we all agree that extending the lifetime of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source - is functionally identical to making them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid's experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly - one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic - but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. FROM: Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob FROM: Eric Walker [2] Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a heavy electron with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … Maybe it's pretty high says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning - this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric Links: -- [1]
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is timed by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is energized so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W- will not appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down time. A excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone of negative vacuum energy is present. That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP. Negative vacuum energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why radioactive isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost instantaneously. That is because the ash from a fusion event is entangled with the inside of the SPP in which all the energy of the fusion event is delivered. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones, Eric and Axil-- I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still in the dark. The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred. The standard words explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, however an interaction with what?—it’s not said. And what happens to a muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact? It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge) bosons, the carriers of the weak force, are involved, but do they appear at random from the vacuum to disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay? And why is the half life of a free muon so short? If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to the boson? Does it disappear back to the vacuum? The bosons are said to be very short lived--10^-18 sec. Bob Cook . *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
See this reference about vacuum energy http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is timed by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is energized so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W- will not appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down time. A excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone of negative vacuum energy is present. That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP. Negative vacuum energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why radioactive isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost instantaneously. That is because the ash from a fusion event is entangled with the inside of the SPP in which all the energy of the fusion event is delivered. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones, Eric and Axil-- I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still in the dark. The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred. The standard words explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, however an interaction with what?—it’s not said. And what happens to a muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact? It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge) bosons, the carriers of the weak force, are involved, but do they appear at random from the vacuum to disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay? And why is the half life of a free muon so short? If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to the boson? Does it disappear back to the vacuum? The bosons are said to be very short lived--10^-18 sec. Bob Cook . *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack
