Just a small caveat regarding your statement “relative motion between the 
devices”… inside this environment you can have equivalent accelerations 
/gravitational changes to these devices that don’t obey the square law where 
tiny spatial displacements can result in huge changes in inertial frames due to 
suppression by geometry changes. This is why I see the quantum geometry as a 
contributing party to the multibodies under discussion.
Fran
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions



      From: David Roberson

I find the P+P <-> H2 fusion reaction to be an interesting concept to speculate 
upon… Unless energy of an adequate quantity is released by some mechanism at 
the precise time of the collision, the kinetic energy of the relative motion 
between the devices is restored and they fly apart.


Correct. That is the problem in a nutshell. In fact, the kinetic energy is 
largely restored! It is spin energy of bosons in the proton which is slightly 
depleted. The effect from that, on kinetic energy, is negligible.

It is very difficult, at this point in a discussion, to introduce “QCD color 
change”, but it is the mechanism which must be involved in reversible strong 
force reactions - for there to be a small amount of gain (derived from the 
transitory 2He nucleus, as it flies apart without diminished kinetic energy). 
QCD is about as popular a topic, even among non-specialist scientists - as 
modern poetry, aka rap.

In the end - it’s hard enough to convince observers that proton mass varies 
between atoms in any population - instead is an “average mass” which is not 
quantized. But there are hundreds of precise measurement over time (and 
especially in other countries) where mass value does not correspond to the 
currently accepted value in the USA. Close but not the same. Efforts to 
quantize the proton like this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512108

are hopeless, and actually make a strong case for the opposite conclusion.

Jones



Reply via email to