Jurg, Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
Comments below On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > Andrew, > > I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation > itself is only working for fields and never for mass. * > Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point. >From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus, Dirac pertains. > The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a > mathematician with no clue of physics. > > The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed from the Poincaré > equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré) > conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So > the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are > other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just > finishing a paper about this. > I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting with incompatible assumptions for our models. Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such, they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.) > The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation that > should define the limit of such an orbit. > The Dirac equation does not address the nucleus beyond a point charge. We have been exploring the effects of the different potentials from, and interactions with, the nucleus. These are important; but, so far, we have not found anything to change more than the energies of the deep orbit. I, at least, am finding some insight and, I hope, some physical understanding of the situation. > Further a bound electron is neutral and behaves as EM mass = waves. So > beyond the Bohr radius you cannot use the Coulomb formula as an orbit > equivalent. > I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral. If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far apart. Feynman expressed the Coulomb potential as valid up to the nuclear region. In his elementary lectures on the H atom, he did not directly mention the relativistic aspects of it. > Real physics is not defined by mathematical fantasies. Look at SOP (SO(4) > physics). There is show the simple (all 10 digits exact) solution for the > e-p basic orbit energy. I also show the nature and exact energy of the > H*-H* p-p bond. All this is based on magnetic mass resonance energies. > I am too old and too slow in my mathematics to go thru your SOP model. Nevertheless, I *am* interested in magnetic and resonance effects. However, since I agree with the statement that "magnetic fields are just relativistic effects of electrodynamics", I am not sure that I would find a major difference from the path I am pursuing. > Initially I too liked the idea of deep orbits, but then I did understand > that charge/Coulomb is just a secondary effect of magnetic mass and a basic > solution can never be based on it. > I am appreciative of your ability to do the math and of finding important connections. I don't presently understand your statement about not basing a solution on the magnetic "mass". I assume that, if I had the time and capability of properly understanding your model I would see your reasoning. Andrew _ _ _ > J.W. > > > On 25.04.2022 16:02, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > Jurg, > > I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the > deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit" > results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic > effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible. > > Andrew > _ _ _ > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > >> I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from >> of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods by >> Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H* >> bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from multiple >> bonds. >> >> The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just >> mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not >> mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the other >> way round physics defines the math that must fit. >> >> >> So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper or >> Holmlid. >> >> >> (R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ; >> BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108) >> >> J.W. >> >> >> On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> >> On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ? >> >> Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as the >> metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably) >> diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story. >> >> Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also is >> catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his Rydberg >> values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few possibilities >> are opened up in the search for how that feat can be accomplished. >> >> An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as helium >> is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane. >> >> >> >> HLV wrote: >> >> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist >> >> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134 >> >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624 >> >> >> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few >> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably the dense >> version would provide anomalous heat. >> >> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z* >> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one >> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton >> charge of the nucleus,.." >> >> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for >> extracting anomalous heat from Helium? >> >> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to >> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ... >> >> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ?? >> >> >> >> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could >> play a role in forming such atoms. >> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed >> atom. This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the >> ground state. >> >> Harry >> >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >> -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
