In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:02:39 -0900: Hi, [snip] >>> If that were true then the de Broglie wavelength would be irrelevant >>> to any consideration and interference would be impossible because the >>> de Broglie wavelength existence would only be in the direction of >>> travel. Interference is due to the *lateral* wave extension, not >>> longitudinal. >> >> A lateral wave is still possible that lies on the surface of the >> sphere. De >> Broglie himself used a phase criterion in the De Broglie wave to >> calculate the >> radius of the Hydrogen ground state. > > >If an electron can specially change its nature just to be in a >hydrino orbital, and become a 2 dimensional object,
This may not be a "change" in it's nature at all. It may *be* it's nature. >a magic trick for >which there is no evidence that I have seen, then there is nothing to >prevent the radius of the orbital collapsing to a point. There are *at least* two things which prevent complete collapse. The first is centrifugal force, the second is that as the radius shrinks, the velocity increases. Eventually, it reaches the speed of light, and this happens before the radius of the nucleus is reached. The latter is Mills' ultimate barrier to shrinkage. Furthermore shrinkage is not possible under EM radiation (and hence can't be spontaneous). [snip] >> This is the case. In shrinking to a smaller orbital, electrostatic >> potential >> energy becomes available. However, if I'm not mistaken the energy/ >> time form of >> the HUP pertains to uncertainties in energy and time, not absolute >> values. > >The time is a time increment, delta t. The bigger the time increment >the smaller the uncertainty on energy (and thus momentum), and vice >versa. Indeed, and what I am saying is that the time increment is effectively infinite. > > >> >> Since the position of the electron is indeterminate, > >The position of the sphere is not indeterminate. You are apparently >attempting a projection of an electron's reality onto a 2 dimensional >surface, but choosing to ignore the fact that surface still exists in >a 3 dimensional space. Because the surface is curved upon itself, infinite distance is available in a finite space. (Think hamster in treadmill). [snip] > > > >> so is the time (at any >> given point), and hence the uncertainty in the time is also >> infinite, resulting >> in possible very precise energies. > >There is insufficient energy available to compress the orbital. It is >not available because the force between the electron and nucleus is >reduced when the nucleus is within the de Broglie wavelength of the >electron. In the "ground state" of the Hydrogen atom, the nucleus is already well within the De Broglie wavelength, which = 2*Pi*r. However the direction of the De Broglie wave is along the momentum vector, which in a Hydrino is tangential, not radial, and hence has nothing to do with the nucleus. In short, it is not the HUP which prevents the H atom from collapsing. It is other factors, and under the right circumstances it can be made to collapse, though cannot do this spontaneously (i.e. through EM radiation). BTW, if my version of Mills' theory is correct, then the primary reason for the latter is that it doesn't have enough angular momentum to create a circularly polarized photon. For emission of circularly polarized photons by atoms, see "Collective Electrodynamics" by Carver Mead (page 109 - and once again my thanks to whomever recommended this little book - you Horace?). >The uncertainty in position results in an uncertainty in >force direction. If not, then there is nothing to prevent the >spherical surface orbital from collapsing to a point. See above. > >The uncertainty of momentum for a particle constrained by distance >delta x is given, according to Heisenberg, by: > > (Delta m*v) = h/(2 Pi (delta x)) BTW, actually ">=". > >but since > > KE = (1/2) m v2 = (1/(2 m) )* (Delta m*v)^2 ? > > (delta KE) = (1/(2 m)) (h/(2 Pi (delta x)))^2 > > (delta KE) = h^2 /((8 Pi^2 m)*(delta x)^2) > >so the more you can confine the position of a particle the more >kinetic energy as well as momentum you statistically observe when you >sample that energy or momentum. Actually I think it just says that as the position of the particle is confined, then the uncertainty in the value of the energy measured increases. However my point is that in the direction in which it is traveling, the particle is not confined at all (the hamster can run till it gets tired). Hence the energy can be measured with a precision only determined by the instrumentation and environment, and not limited by the HUP. >The statistically higher momentum in >the reduced volume state results in an outward pressure the keeps the >orbital inflated. See above. > When the gravity of a star reaches the point such >pressure can be overcome, then the orbitals collapse and vast >quantities of energy are released as the Coulomb potential energy >becomes available. It isn't the "force" created by the HUP that is overcome when a star collapses to a neutron star. There is no such HUP force (see above). >It seems to me that if stable hydrino orbitals >were available, then stars could gradually shrink, at least to the >size corresponding to all atoms being the smallest hydrino, without >producing supernovas. The interiors of stars are so hot that most H exists as plasma, not as atoms, hence few Hydrinos. Furthermore, as already pointed out above, there are other reasons why shrinkage doesn't take place rapidly. Also, in stars the primary Mills catalyst available would be H itself, which because of the preponderance of plasma is in short supply. It is also not a very good catalyst, because it requires a three body reaction. Helium would be a better catalyst, and Hydrino production may increase (sometimes rapidly) with increasing Helium content. This should lead to increased fusion based upon the increasing Hydrino density, and thus even more Helium. This forms a positive feedback loop, and might be a reason for some stars going nova (although increasing energy output should result in greater ionization, and hence less H available to form Hydrinos - a negative feedback loop). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
