The reverse reaction to pair production from the vacuum may also explain energy loss and momentum disappearance. Conservation of angular momentum is another question that appears to occur in 4-D space time, but may not be necessary for pair production and its reverse reaction where the energy is emitted to the vacuum.
Also unobserved neutrinos may carry off angular momentum as well as kinetic energy and linear momentum and rest mass energy. Catalytic reactions leave the catalytic agent unchanged, as I understand such reactions. If the agent is changed then a many- bodied nuclear/atomic reaction would be involved—as per Schwinger, who was "scorned" when he proposed that nuclear energy could be shared with bound electrons , as Jones recently noted. Bob Cook ________________________________ From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 3:47:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:This could be an indication of "dense hydrogen" from solar origin In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:04:23 +0200: Hi, [snip] >There is a severe problem with this (your) approach as due to the >conservative field rules the delta of the potential energy must be equal >to the added/released kinetic energy. Otherwise the momentum transfer >doesn't work out. Where does the kinetic energy go to? As with Mills, energy is lost during catalysis. This may be in the form of photons or kinetic energy of particles, or both. During the catalysis process, angular momentum may be exchanged with the catalytic particle(s). > >Assuming that the electron rest-mass is proportional to the (rest-) >field would indicate the the electron mass a kind of "evaporates..". It gets converted into both kinetic energy and energy lost during catalysis. It's really just conservation of mass/energy. If you extract energy from an atom, then the total mass of the atom must reduce. >This is in fact not the case as all experiments show that true electrons >(in deeper shells) respond to radiation. ..yes, but in deeper shells they still have some mass. > >An other even more severe problem is that the Einstein metric and the >Lorenz B-factor cannot be applied to a mass that already has light >speed. ...but it doesn't (in my model anyway). >All particles can be exactly modeled (See NPP2.0) by magnetic >masses (that is at light speed) and only the perturbative mass is not >rotating at light speed. > >Mills H(1/4) can be modeled with the magnetic force/energy. In his >presentation he is always slightly cheating as his too simple >Hydrino-equation is in fact about 1% off the reality but still good >enough for modeling the radiation. 1% sounds close to the find structure constant. I wonder if this is a coincidence? > >And last: The classic spin model is just good enough for a nomenclature. >The true spin of any particle can be calculated as the remaining >asymmetric rotating mass. > >Jürg BTW, I'm not wedded to my model. It's just a suggestion really. :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
