IMO, the quest to explain origin of inertia (mass) in terms of an energy field (higgs field) is topsy-turvy, because historically and logically the concept of inertia is more basic than than the concept energy. Energy is a derived concept.
It is like trying to explain the origin of Judaism in terms of Christianity or Islam. Harry On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > CERN has spent $ten billion and counting to verify how particles get their > mass from the Higgs field. As I understand the Higgs theory (whose > implications about the acquisition of mass by particles I might not fully > comprehend) the Higgs mechanism is a process that is universal and constant > throughout the universe for all matter contained therein. > > If mass depletion happens on a per particle basis as a process that > underpins the quiescence conjecture in cold fusion, the decision makers who > spent all those euros on proton smashing hardware are derelict in their lack > of attention to the possibility of quiescence. > > Higgs theory and quiescence are not compatible or at least is very hard to > be made compatible. > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in >> the >> context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate >> source of gain in Ni-H. >> >> I had actually delayed moving on to a "Part 2" of this premise for a >> number >> of reasons including apparent lack of interest in the hypothesis: that >> hypothesis being that the proton alone has a modicum of excess mass to >> spare >> (to provide to a reaction). This would be in the sense of conversion of a >> bit of the non-quantized internal bosonic mass into energy - over and >> above >> whatever the "average" value of the proton turns out to be (or the minimum >> in that range). >> >> I was kind of "picking on" on the a.m.u. as a culprit in this earlier >> posting, knowing full well that long ago the definition of a.m.u. was >> effectively carved into stone (based on carbon mass and an average of >> fermions) and no longer related to "real results in real experiments." >> >> I think it is time for me to go back to this old thread and try to glean >> and >> reword the relevant issues into a Part 2. Again, the major hypothesis, is >> that the net proton mass is not quantized, but is in the vicinity of >> 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention). At >> best, this value becomes what is really an "average mass" based on >> whatever >> the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before >> recalibration. That average can vary a fractional percent or more, as >> either >> "overage" or "deficit". The overage is "in play" as the mystery energy >> source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, >> Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. >> >> Of course, some of that mass overage, when "in play" would be convertible >> to >> energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is >> where all of the mysteries of QCD, QM and QED comes into play. The >> standard >> model gives us 938.272013 MeV but the quark component of protons is the >> only >> component which is relatively "fixed" with a fixed value; and at least one >> hundred MeV is "in play". That is massive, but most of it must be retained >> since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. There is a range of >> expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - >> which >> is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the >> proton maintains its identity. >> >> Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be >> replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of >> the >> proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation relating to the major >> problem in moving forward. >> >> Jones >> >> _____________________________________________ >> From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint >> >> Jones: >> You might want to follow this thread: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html >> >> The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: >> "So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture >> doesn't >> work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't >> work," >> Arrington explained. "So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's >> really >> going on?" >> >> I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the >> 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not >> participate >> in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some >> relevance to the a.m.u. issue.... >> >> Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is >> impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, >> or >> some variant. >> >> -Mark >> _____________________________________________ >> From: Jones Beene >> >> Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called "unit" at the base of >> everything we know as "stuff" (matter) which is the atomic mass unit >> (a.m.u.) is a lie. >> >> That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all >> these >> years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN >> knows >> exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so >> to speak. It is also a "true lie" since we now use an assigned value to >> define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a >> value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it >> CANNOT >> vary by much. >> >> This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is >> "not exactly" equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 >> 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable >> within >> a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. >> Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must >> ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start >> looking >> at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect >> without >> "recalibration" - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are >> essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the "known >> value". How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. >> >> This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosophical matter, but it >> has >> a lot of practical meaning when we begin to dwell on hydrogen energy >> anomalies. That is because mass is convertible to energy, and the proton >> has >> such a large amount of potential energy, roughly a GeV, that it can >> provide >> thousands of times the energy of combustion, and still be hydrogen. IOW it >> has variable mass within a range and it is not a particular tight range, >> when the excess is multiplies by c2. >> >> This also relates to some of the mass of a proton being NOT quantized. >> Quarks are quantized but even their mass is at best a wild guess, insofar >> as >> far a firm values go and there is much more there than quarks anyway. More >> on that later, but write this off as another level of verisimilitude. >> >> BTW, the a.m.u. or atomic mass unit is actually smaller than the "average" >> of a proton and a neutron, in practice by 1% or so - since some mass is >> said >> to be involved in the binding energy of the nucleus. But hello ! ... even >> that is a lie, since if it were binding "energy" instead of force, then >> there would be a time delineated component and there isn't really. The >> proton does not decay (as best we can tell). >> >> More on this in later postings. My angle, as many vorticians are aware - >> is >> finding new kind of protonic nuclear reaction - one that does not involved >> very much radiation or transmutation. Working back from results in Ni-H as >> the defining question of our energy future - that forces one to reconsider >> nuclear and look at "subnuclear". >> >> Verisimilitude is a bitch. Pardon my French (or is it Italian) on that >> one, >> and Vada a bordo, CAZZO! >> >> Rossi may be taking on water faster than Mitt changes major policies, but >> the "Maru Ni-H" is getting more buoyancy by the hour. And that ain't all >> hot >> air. >> >> Jones >> >
