How does Mills know that what he is seeing in his experiments are electrons. They might be muons that obit at very low orbitals.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many > years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the > system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as > a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't > necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be > used in linear combination to form the general solution. > > > > Bob, although you may not have intended it this way, your post made me > think of an even better-fitting scenario for describing the details of > hydrogen oscillation, and for supplying thermal gain, instead of Mills > permanent fractional state. > > > > Imagine that there is no lasting state of redundant orbitals as Mills > claims, but also imagine that the electron of the confined hydrogen atom > oscillates through redundant ground states and can, on occasion, be reduced > to the lowest 1/137 orbital - and then reinflate almost immediately. This > would be symmetric for energy balance - on every other reduced orbital but > the last, and in most oscillations, there would be no gain. > > > > However, this deep orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the > nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. > Coincidentally, the strong force it is 137 times stronger than > electromagnetism, and if the strong force were to exert a bit of extra pull > on the electron in the last orbital, then the electron becomes even > heavier. The electron will then be able to give up more energy on > reinflation than it borrowed on redundancy. > > > > Thus the extra energy comes from the strong force, and from proton mass. > The gain is 3.7 keV at this final orbital which matches the “dark matter” > signature but in a way that has been missed by Mills. > > > > This viewpoint keeps the gain as “nuclear” and avoids invoking ZPE, which > is a turn-off for many observers. It also avoids Mills theory and most > other LENR theories. > > > > Therefore, it pleases very few of those who have a pet theory to promote > ... > > > > Jones > > >
