Woke up thinking about "dark matter", and I hope it was not an omen for anything more serious than an impending recession <g>. However, it could be related to a nemesis of another kind, so to speak... to be explained at the end.
Anyway, it has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions - or more like admissions - of profound human ignorance about our universe. Cosmologists do not like to own-up to this, but it is true that the inability to determine the nature of this "missing mass", which is more than 90% of the universe, is the most embarassing failure in cosmology, and perhaps in all of physics. One naive definition which is out there for dark matter suggests that most of hwat is 'missing' (which is detectable from gravity interactions) in non-baryonic and does not interact with the electromagnetic force - which would exclude hydrinos (Hy) from consideration. Of course, few of the cosmologists who crafted the underlying assumptions for this definition, are even aware of the evidence for the Hy species - and have not yet factored it into consideration. That will change. There is a more inclusive definition of dark matter which includes "hard-to-detect" baryonic matter. BTW baryon are protons and neutrons but other unstable baryons exist as well. Baryons are a subset of the hadrons (which are all of the particles made of quarks) and which participate in the strong interaction. The density of ordinary baryons and radiation in the universe is about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter of space but (as inferred from gravitational effects) that is only about 4% of the total energy density which can be seen directly. A good site from NASA which leads to other good sites is: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html In NASAs current view, about 20-25% of the rest of the universe is thought to be composed of dark matter and the remaining 70+ % to consist of dark energy. This is all based on assumptions which could change with any new discovery. Therefore "hard-to-detect" baryonic matter is the looming "wild card" in this discussion, which is believed to make some contribution to the identity of dark matter, but no one knows how much. The main problem which I see for identifying most of dark matter with hydrinos is the (supposed) strong magnetic field of the hydrino, which should cause pronounced clumping instead of diffusion. What is the gain in magnetic field strength when monatomic hydrogen is forced into redundancy (putative) at various levels (i.e. the first few levels of hydrino)? If Mills knows, I cannot yet find a good reference for it. But the sample material BLP has collected, if there is much of it in there, should be stronger than any permanent magnet when aligned but one suspects that there is only micrograms not grams which have been collected. For normal hydrogen, the electron is at a distance r equal to ~0.5*10^-10m from the proton. The electrostatic force acting on the electron is equal to F(el) = 8.2 *10^-10N. The magnetic force acting on the same electron, however is F (mag) = 3.5*10^-5N which is more than 1000 times stronger than the electric force. This is very important for appreciating what happens following 'shrinkage.' I would have thought that this is addressed in CQM and it probably is, in later editions, plus my old version is not indexed. Can anyone direct me to the citation? I was able to find from other sources that the internal magnetic field of monatomic H is (apparently) .4 Tesla. I had thought it would be much higher. This figure comes from the red H-alpha line of hydrogen via the application of the Schrodinger equation gives the wavelength of 656.47 nm for hydrogen and 656.29 nm for deuterium. The difference is about 0.2 nm and the splitting of each of them is about 0.016 nm, corresponding to an energy difference of about 4.5*10^-5 eV corresponding to an internal magnetic field on the electron of about 0.4 Tesla. If the radius drops to 1/3 in a 54.5eV "hole" does the reverse-square rule mean that the field is nine times stronger? following which it just keeps going-and-going? Dunno. This would likely mean that any putative "hard-to-detect" baryonic matter composed of Hy, if it is out there in large quantities, is constantly accumulating due to the intense mutual attraction, and probably constantly forming into something akin to cold neutron stars - once a certain density is achieved. This can be a clue as to where some of this "hard-to-detect" baryonic matter will be found eventually - not as diffuse atoms in interstellar gaps but as cold dense i.e. quasi-neutron stars which formed in an entirely different way than from supernovae - and probably exist in far greater numbers than can be inferred from the rare collapse a supernova. In fact we already be onto discovering many candidates for this cold dark accumulation- which have been detected by the Swift and Chandra satellites - one being the smallest class of known stars. These are very difficult to detect unless close by - because they are cold, and it is not surprising that we have missed them up till recently. The study mentioned below is/was part of a program that looks for magnetic fields in these ultracool dwarfs: http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?q=node/261 But that mentioned star is far from a rarity and the only candidate. I think that if and when Mills work convinces more skeptics of the reality of this species - that we could see a new chapter in cosmology opening up. It would not even surprise me if one of them were even a close neighbor. That would be 'nemesis'. Nemesis has always been thought to be a hypothetical red dwarf star, orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 70,000 AU and beyond the Oort cloud, which we know to be cold. The existence of this star was postulated to explain the periodicity in the rate of biological extinction in the geological record. Perhaps the reason that we do not see a red dwarf where one should be, for this nemesis postulate to be correct - is that it is an ultracold dwarf instead of a hot red dwarf. Perhaps it is composed mostly, or partly, of cold solar hydrinos; and perhaps it gets bigger every time it passes through the Oort cloud. Perhaps we will discover it when we start looking for a magnetic signature, not a photonic signature. You heard it first on Vortex <g> ... which a few readers prefer to think of as edging closer to SciFi than SciMy (which is 'what I was taught') ... so be it... Jones
