Andrew—
1. Regarding a statement in comment #2: . “Since mass interaction is always attractive, a non-zero average mass might be measured, even if it oscillates equally along the time axis from matter to antimatter,” I note the following. Cosmologists consider that dark energy is causing the expansion of the Universe in opposition of mass and associated its attraction. This suggests a negative mass is equivalent to negative energy. But dark energy is considered positive energy as I understand theory of GR used by the cosmologists. In your model is anti-matter like the cosmologist’s dark energy with a repulsive force to real matter? Oscillation along the time axis seems to be a key concept that distinguishes matter and antimatter. Is this consistent with SM or GR? Regarding your comment #4, can I infer that nuclear angular momentum is quantized for the same reason that electrons energies in nuclei are quantized in their orbits. Jurg may be able to shed light on this inference. Bob Cook From: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:58 AM To: VORTEX<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride BOB, Your 3 questions below can all be answered in the context of a "nuclear electron". On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:38 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Is a free neutrino a magnetic resonance or magnetic flux rotation? And why do neutrinos seem to emanate from nuclear/nucleon reactions? And why is the parameter “angular momentum” only observed in discrete quanta or as a discrete differential values on an otherwise continuous scale of space and time? 1. I propose that the neutrino is to beta decay as a photon is to atomic-electron orbit decay. However, 2. the neutrino is EM plus mass (EMM?) oscillation from a bound relativistic electron. And, just as a photon does not have a fixed electric or magnetic field, I do not believe that neutrino mass is a fixed quantity. Since mass interaction is always attractive, a non-zero average mass might be measured, even if it oscillates equally along the time axis from matter to antimatter. 3. Angular momentum is discreet for the same reason that electron orbits are quantized. Integration along a closed path in a conservative system has delta E = 0 (from one path to the next). The path closure depends on all degrees of freedom. The direction of a body's ang mom axis, which precesses, as a result of its motion (a relativistic effect that gives the deBroglie relation) and from its binding potential (providing a torque), must be cyclic (just as the body's position and momentum must be cyclic for a stable path) if path closure is to be achieved. Item 3 is the classical basis for QM. Items 1 & 2 are not yet considered for the neutrino in nuclear and QM physics. Andrew _ _ _ (Maybe space and time are also discrete quanta on an otherwise continuous scale of a classical geometric math abstraction from Newton on.) Axil’s familiarity with SM may be able to answer these simple questions. IMHO Jurg’s SO(4) physics model with no universal time scale—only discrete differential frequencies associated with magnet flux rotation in distinct discrete volumes---may help explain the angular momentum quanta deduced from experimental observations. As Russ George has noted, Jurg’s different nuclear magnetic resonance calculations stemming from the SO(4) Physics model of specific nuclear isotopes has borne fruit in designing good LENR fuel systems, subject to magnetic manipulations in a reactor. Bob Cook From: aJs ones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride Jürg This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to engineer proton disintegration with minimal input energy. To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance wavelengths in question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th waves). From that information, one could presumably try to maximally disrupt that resonance, possibly with a beat wave. Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a lower value which works? In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton is around 1.5 fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with available lasers. Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a laser. Holmlid may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength which is not optimum. Who knows? Perhaps his laser somehow stimulates a much shorter wavelength. Jones ---------------- Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves. The proton base state has 9 > waves.... The Holmlid proton split seen from the proton is: One out of 9 > proton waves starts the an orthognal 1/7 resonances what leaves behind a > (2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without the biding glue of the 3D/4D waves. This > wave pack (4x4) is repulsive as seen in 8-Be. The basic energy 53MeV for the > split is delivered from the resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be) conversion.
