Fred, there are many unexplored possibilities assuming the
existence of a useful level of electronium (*e) in nature. But let
me digress a bit with an excursion into the twilight zone of
quantum mechanics.
In an ultimate irony - and in an ultimate affront to high priests
of the status-quo, the following line of logic is actually very
close to mainstream physics.
If we assume the ubiquitous existence of a "quantum foam" of
virtual Ps, which is the mainstream physics viewpoint (proving
that the mainstream is not that stogy on rare occasion) and then
build-up on this predominant view, it gives us the foothold to
state with more certainty that (at the very least) a *transitory
form* of electronium (*e) is always a real possibility in nature,
since the quantum foam and the electron cloud will always share a
common interface at angstrom dimensions.
From that stage, all we need to do to demonstrate, and to
effectively prove the existence of a useful level of electronium
(*e) is to show evidence from real and unrelated experiments that
the Ps- (negative ion) is *longer-lived* then the Ps itself.
I believe that there is indeed evidence for this claim in the
current literature, some of which you have mentioned in past
postings.
This transitory version of the particle would be relevant even IF
a very long lived version of electronium (*e) is also a part of
nature.
Having established the existence of a useful natural level of
electronium (*e) with a lifetime long enough to catalyze either
stripping or low energy fusion - then we seem to be a giant step
ahead of having to work down from only a raw presumption that (*e)
also exists in a permanent long lived state. I believe that it
does, but that it is such a low percentage of the normal electron
population, that it will hard to prove working form the top down.
Whereas working from the bottom up, it is much easier to gain a
foothold.
IOW even if there is some stable (*e) undetected - we can work
around the lack of proof and show that it must be there in a
transitory state. When mainstream physics permits the introduction
of virtual particles - then they cannot suddenly close the door
and say - "no, we only allow the virtual particles that we invent"
<g>
I would also suggest that this view is not that far off from that
of Horace's two-electron concept, and it actually makes sense that
even if two electrons could join-up independently of electronium
(*e) ab initio ... because even then, at some point in their
lifetime of interaction with the quantum foam at the angstrom
level - the increase in charge-density, acting on the quantum
foam, would capture the positron.
Sorry for the digression into the twilight zone - but I'm still
trying to figure out what happened last night on the West Coast. I
was awakened by what seemed like thunder lasting for 20 seconds in
an area where thunder is rarer than earthquakes - a once per ten
year rarity ... making me head for the door (living on the San
Andreas fault)... but there was no shaking... except in my creaky
brain which is still in a semi-panic state.
Jones
----- Original Message -----
From: Frederick Sparber
To: vortex-l
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Electroniumized Deuterons & Low Energy Deuteron
Stripping
For your low energy deuteron stripping question Jones.
The P-e-P ----> D reaction is well known, but, if instead a
heavier electronium (*e-)
participates:
P-(*e-)-P ----> (*D)
Stripping: (*D) -----> P + (*n)
Then: (*n) ----> (*e-) + P
What happens to the D - D Fusion reactions when they change to D -
(*D)
or (*D) - (*D)?
Fred
