RE: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states--interesting note in Wilipedia regarding A-B effect.

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Andrew, Jones etal,--

The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect is also closely related to 
Dirac's argument that the existence 
of a magnetic monopole can be 
accommodated by the existing magnetic source-free Maxwell's 
equations if both electric 
and magnetic charges are quantized.

A magnetic monopole implies a mathematical singularity in the vector potential, 
which can be expressed as a Dirac 
string of infinitesimal diameter 
that contains the equivalent of all of the 4πg flux from a monopole "charge" g. 
The Dirac string starts from, and terminates on, a magnetic monopole. Thus, 
assuming the absence of an infinite-range scattering effect by this arbitrary 
choice of singularity, the requirement of single-valued wave functions (as 
above) necessitates charge-quantization. That is, 2 q e q m ℏ c {\displaystyle 
2{\frac {q_{\text{e}}q_{\text{m}}}{\hbar c}}} [2{\frac  
{q_{{\text{e}}}q_{{\text{m{\hbar c}}] must be an integer (in 
cgs units) for any electric 
charge qe and magnetic charge qm.

Like the electromagnetic 
potential A the Dirac 
string is not gauge invariant (it moves around with fixed endpoints under a 
gauge transformation) and so is also not directly measurable.
Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:17:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

Andrew, Bob

A good paper on this subject (longitudinal waves)  is
“Unravelling the potentials puzzle and corresponding case for the scalar 
longitudinal electrodynamic wave”
Donald Reed 2019 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1251 012043

Reed does not make the scalar to  neutrino connection, which  seems to serve 
the same purposes, which is to explore the line between what is real and what 
seems real because it balances equations.

The best thing one can say about QM is that it lends physical credulity to an 
imaginary world… but then again, what is real?

From: Andrew Meulenberg

…. At the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, the neutrino 
(considered to be similar to photons) would be in the "longitudinal photon" mode

Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results

[Jed Rothwell]

>From the video, I gather Deneum is are trying to measure heat with a single
thermocouple on the outside of the reactor. This is a bad idea. As I said
in the paper, you should use a calorimeter. If they were to get ~100 W of
excess heat I suppose they could detect it with a single thermocouple, but
it seems unlikely to me they will get that much heat in the first attempt.
I suppose that at best they will see 5 or 10 W, the same as Mizuno saw last
year. You cannot detect that with a single thermocouple.

Someone told me they would be disappointed of their replication produced
only 5 or 10 W. That makes no sense to me. Any certain level of excess
heat, even 1 W, is as good as 3 kW from a scientific point of view. It
proves the effect is real, and that Mizuno's larger results are real. You
can work from that to recapitulate Mizuno's efforts over the last few years
to gradually ramp up to 100 W, and then 3 kW. It will take you a year or
so, I suppose, because this is fundamental research into a phenomenon that
no one understands.

Someone suggested that a "valid replication" would have to be 100 W. I said
that would be a miracle, not a replication.

People should have realistic goals, and they should use every necessary
tool to achieve them, from a mass spectrometer to an air-flow (or Seebeck)
calorimeter. Taking shortcuts and leaving out essential steps and
instruments makes it unlikely you will succeed. As I said, perhaps you will
succeed if this experiment turns out to be much easier and more forgiving
than Mizuno and I think it is.

Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Jurg may have an idea about an effective diameter for the nucleon and/or 
its component sub entities.


The classic 3D,t equivalent radius of the proton can be exactly 
calculated as 0.837653007352fm. It is also the SO(4) charge radius of 
the alpha particle. It also is the radius you can use to get the masses 
of the two fake Higgs particles and the mass equivalent relation for p/e 
etc...


Way more interesting is the electron radius that seems to be absent if 
you use the (SO(4)) proton inner force equation. This is what 
experiments say too. Thus the electron looks like a special photon with 
no inner structure.


J.W.

Am 08.08.19 um 23:26 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


Andrew--  You noted    “…. I would consider the present concepts of 
spin, ang mom, mass, and even charge to be suspect. While what you 
have added in your most recent email contributes to my thoughts, I was 
hoping that you might have something that was absolutely convincing. 
I'll make a couple comments there.”


I consider that the use of normal calculus math for nature’s discrete 
dimensions , particularly relativistic effects that are a good  
approximation of nature at a space  made up of real space quanta and 
real angular momentum quanta and real time quanta (10^50 different 
combinations of the 5 natural dimensions I have suggested exist or 
mace dimensions exceeding 10^10 or a nominal sphere of 10 ^-24 cm 
diameter.


Jurg may have an idea about an effective diameter for the nucleon 
and/or its component sub entities.


Bob Cook

F*rom: *Andrew Meulenberg 
*Sent: *Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:30 AM
*To: *VORTEX 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

If my model of the neutrino is correct, then neutrinos have low 
probability of interacting with non-relativistic charges. If my model 
of quarks is correct, then they are composed of relativistic charges. 
Nevertheless. there is still the problem of frequency differences 
between neutrinos and the quark components, as well as the possibility 
that there are no accessible excited states of the quark components.


Andrew

_ _ _

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM Jürg Wyttenbach > wrote:


We very well know from experiments that the interaction of
neutrinos with dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate
the opposite you have also to show why the experiments are wrong.

On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to
describe the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational
mass is different from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong.

Jürg

Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:

Dear Bob C.

I can picture the neutrino as being involved in the
interaction between electron and nucleus. However, my picture
is definitely non-standard. At the short distance of
deep-orbits from the nucleus, the neutrino (considered to be
similar to photons) would be in the "longitudinal photon"
mode. I view the neutrino mass as oscillating (probably
averaging to zero) and therefore not subject to accurate
measure. This oscillation (if time dilated) could explain the
GSI time anomaly
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#GSI_anomaly).

With all of the contradictions and problems with present
neutrino models, I would consider alternative models to be
nearly as valid as "accepted" models. I would consider the
present concepts of spin, ang mom, mass, and even charge to be
suspect. While what you have added in your most recent email
contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping that you might have
something that was absolutely convincing. I'll make a couple
comments there.

Andrew

_ _ _

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:22 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com
 mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Andrew—

Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have
mass and carry spin angular momentum.   In addition they
are considered to consist as leptons of anti and regular
matter which can annihilate into pure EM energy like many
particle anti-particle pairs.

I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below,
neutrinos have a magnetic moment, or al least harbor
magnetons.   It seems they are much like massless photons
and travel when not caught up in a nucleon at c. n free
space (4-D space and time.)  In this regard they are real
particles vs virtual quarks.

Their annihilation energy release may be very small
considering their small rest mass. But nevertheless give
this up to atomic electrons as they pass thru their
electro-magnetic field (or their 

Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Nigel Dyer]

My hunch is that normally the interaction of neutrinos with dense mass 
is indeed next to zero but that the exception is where there are a large 
number of particles that interact with exch other such that they 
exchibit a macroscopc coherence.  This experiment appears to show one 
such example:


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0954-3899/40/5/055201/meta

I beleive that there are others, where different forms of interactions 
result in different, but still effective as far as neutrino interactions 
are concerned, forms of coherence. Most of the matter in e.g. the earth 
is not in this state, so neutrinos pass almost straight through.


Nigel

On 07/08/2019 14:01, Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
We very well know from experiments that the interaction of neutrinos 
with dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate the opposite 
you have also to show why the experiments are wrong.


On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to 
describe the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational 
mass is different from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong.



Jürg



Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:

Dear Bob C.

I can picture the neutrino as being involved in the interaction 
between electron and nucleus. However, my picture is definitely 
non-standard. At the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, 
the neutrino (considered to be similar to photons) would be in the 
"longitudinal photon" mode. I view the neutrino mass as oscillating 
(probably averaging to zero) and therefore not subject to accurate 
measure. This oscillation (if time dilated) could explain the GSI 
time anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#GSI_anomaly).


With all of the contradictions and problems with present neutrino 
models, I would consider alternative models to be nearly as valid as 
"accepted" models. I would consider the present concepts of spin, ang 
mom, mass, and even charge to be suspect. While what you have added 
in your most recent email contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping 
that you might have something that was absolutely convincing. I'll 
make a couple comments there.


Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:22 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 > wrote:


Andrew—

Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have mass and
carry spin angular momentum.   In addition they are considered to
consist as leptons of anti and regular matter which can
annihilate into pure EM energy like many particle anti-particle
pairs.

I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below, neutrinos
have a magnetic moment, or al least harbor magnetons.   It seems
they are much like massless photons and travel when not caught up
in a nucleon at c. n free space (4-D space and time.)  In this
regard they are real particles vs virtual quarks.

Their annihilation energy release may be very small considering
their small rest mass. But nevertheless give this up to atomic
electrons as they pass thru their electro-magnetic field (or
their unique combination of space, time, angular momentum and
magnetic field dimensions.)

A, C. Jessup”s theory , documented in a book, _AN IMPERFECT
PICTURE, _addresses the concepts associated with some of these
dimensions.  Nigel Dyer’s family blog includes pertinent excerpts
from this book, which is out of print as far as I know.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_

__

W. Stubbs’ book on nuclear structure, P. Hatt’s  papers and Jurg
Wyttenbach’s papers address the nucleon structure which seems to
involve neutrinos.  IMHO the coupling is at the Planck scale and
involves magnetic fields—no electric fields  associated with
intrinsic charge.

Bob Cook

*fm: *Andrew Meulenberg 
*Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
*To: *VORTEX 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

Bob,

You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin.
Can you provide some references to support them?

In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of
angular momentum from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think
that it is well accepted that the nucleus can transfer energy to
bound electrons via the Coulomb field. Nevertheless, I think that
Schwinger, along with his papers on cold fusion, was mocked for
suggesting that internal nuclear energy could be shared with the
potential energy of electrons and thus the lattice. However, as a
central force, this energy transfer cannot convey ang mom.

My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with
the internal structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and
possible sub-components. At close range, these bodies are no
longer providing just central forces. While the interaction is