See the following email correspondence RE: the Subject.
From: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 10:43 PM To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>; Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com> Cc: Jean-Luc Paillet<mailto:jean-luc.pail...@club-internet.fr> Subject: Re: Theoretical basis for Nuclear-waste Remediation with Femto-atoms and Femto-molecules Bob, You're talking my language! comments below. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:34 AM bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Andrew— In the subject paper you make the following comment in the discussion section: “The DDL electrons, being close to (both inside and outside of) a nucleus, can accept the very-strong, but short-ranged, nuclear-generated fields and can convert their energy into strong fields in the distance. This ready transfer of nuclear energies to deep-orbit electrons, with the DDL frequencies being on the order of nucleon-component frequencies, is also a basis for DDL-electron-mediated internuclear interactions.” Questions/comments: 1. I assume you would agree that the electron/nucleon interactions are electro-magnetic phenomena with corresponding electric and/or magnetic force fields involved in the suggested interactions (reactions involving a change is a nuclear entity and its associated electronic structure. While I am not "wedded" to this concept, it is the goal I am presently pursuing. The concept of >100 MeV relativistic Coulomb potentials, to which J-L Paillet has exposed me, has opened a whole new world at the nuclear level. Other relativistic effects (e.g., the orientation of the angular momentum - and spin? - vector toward the velocity vector v and its precession about v)* may be able to account for the other characteristics of the nuclear forces and potentials. * Picture the relativistic "flattening" of a spherical object along its velocity vector. Any ang mom it has must be altered. The (pseudo-)torque required to change the direction of the ang mom vector, must induce a precession. This precession, IMHO. is the basis of the deBroglie wavelength. 2.The virial theorem involves averaging KE and PE over some period in time. If the period is long with respect to an interaction time, the theorem may not apply to LENR. This question has come at an opportune moment for me. I am presently pursuing a classical (relativistic) model for the deep-orbits and the virial theorem plays an important part in that. Unlike the quantum-mechanics model, the classical model assumes point-like electrons orbiting about the nucleus. While pondering the relationships between forces and potentials of finite bodies (e.g., F = -dV/dr), I finally realized that the virial thm is simply a statement of a stable orbit as one in which the Coulomb forces and the centrifugal (pseudo-)forces are equal. If the forces are equal, the net force is zero and this gives the condition of an inflection point (dV/dr = 0) for the net potential. So what does the time average have to do with this? In a circular orbit, dV/dr = 0 and dV/dt = 0, so the average is the same as the instantaneous values. Any deviation from the electron's circular orbit will alter the instantaneous forces and potentials experienced. However, if their averages sum to zero, the orbit is still stable. This can only occur when the net potential is a well, rather than a peak. For an ideal case, only a single cycle is required to obtain an average value; whereas for any stable orbit the interaction time is infinite. For a net-potential well, perturbations on the orbit will not destabilize it. Nevertheless, the average values for each cycle might change over many cycles. Thus, for the virial thm, an average must be taken over an extended period. The virial thm does not hold for an unbound orbit (although it would suggest that an unperturbed circular orbit could be considered bound even if it is on a peak rather than in a valley). Thus, mathematically, only unbound bodies have finite interaction times. I started my search for a LENR mechanism in the model of a 1-s atomic electron being able to be perturbed is such a manner that it could remain close to the H nucleus long enough to screen the Coulomb potential between fusing protons. The virial thm did not apply to this model; but, the concept of quantized time might have. When I found papers identifying deep-orbits for relativistic electrons, I changed my goals. 3. It seems that the logical assumption given item 1 above is that nuclear forces are really EM based forces. (There is no need for weak and strong nuclear force concepts.) I can suggest this and perhaps identify salient features to support it; but, I will not be able to "prove" it in this lifetime. 4. If time and/or space dimensions are quantized, how would this change the consideration of the interactions of point charges and EM fields at the origin point of the nuclear system coordinates. Would the HUP still be a necessary/valid concept? I don't believe that quantized dimensions are required to overcome a bias toward point charges and fields. I do believe that the HUP is a useful and valid concept. However, I think that it can be misapplied and its valid origin is sometimes unknown or ignored. 5. Does HUP apply for knowing a system’s angular momentum? If the answer is no, then HUP would not be involved in the interactions of spin states of nuclei and electronic systems coupled by EM force fields. I believe that the HUP can be applied for knowing a system’s angular momentum. The HUP is a basis for Jean-Luc's highly relativistic deep-orbit-electron interpretation of the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations. Nevertheless, I also believe that the true basis of the HUP allows for a low-energy, but relativistic, electron to satisfy both the HUP and the K-G and Dirac equations. Thus, I would expect the HUP to be applicable in a manner never before considered. Andrew PS This exchange might be useful to both the vortex and CMNS forums. Bob
