Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let me try to be more specific on this point:
>
>Ø 
>
>Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as at 
>CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not absolutely 
>mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of some kind of 
>cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may relate to antimuon 
>annihilation.
>
> 
>
>Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons are 
>collided at high energy to form muons. 
>
> 
>
>http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons

Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation. If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us can
use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, I would like to hear your arguments of evidence that the muons CAME
from the proton.

My first observation is that muons are ~100MeV particles by positive mass
energy.  That says that ~200MeV could wrench a muon - antimuon pair into
existence (presumably from the Dirac sea).  Since this was a 14TeV
collision, enough energy was present to liberate 70 muon - antimuon pairs -
forgetting entirely about the presence of the protons.  That they saw 4
muons emerge does not strike me as evidence they came from a proton.

Second, I thought these collisions were conducted in a vacuum.  An antimuon
is just a +charged muon, and in a vacuum I would not think an antimuon
would be subject to more rapid recombination than than the ordinary muon.
It should have been observed.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Let me try to be more specific on this point:
>
> Ø
>
> Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough
> (as at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not
> absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of
> some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may
> relate to antimuon annihilation.
>
>
>
> Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons
> are collided at high energy to form muons.
>
>
>
> http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons
>
>
>
> Note that in this collision, the only massive particles with any
> appreciable lifetime are the protons being collided and the muons seen in
> the debris. The Higgs boson may or may not have existed at all, and
> everything else is converted into energy – within picoseconds.
>
>
>
> On the surface, this happenstance could be argued (if you support the
> Stubbs theory) to demonstrate that a proton is built of 9 basic particles –
> 4 muons and 5 antimuons. The antimatter does not survive for any
> appreciable time, so the only particles remaining after high energy proton
> decay are the 4 muons, and they too decay quickly, but can be said to be
> the only mass in the debris which is identifiable for an appreciable time
> (nanoseconds).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Ron Wormus]

Jones,
Brightsen's Clustron Model of the nucleus also has antimatter in the 
nucleus.


I have pdf's of all his papers if anyone is interested.
Ron

--On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 5:58 PM -0700 Jones Beene 
 wrote:




Of interest - wrt the "9 muon model" of the proton is an old paper
by Harold Aspen where he came up with the same conclusion.

http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/books/Asp/1988c.pdf

Aspden missed the important detail about binding energy showing up as
mass deficit, but still it is more than coincidental to Stubb's model.

One more point for John Berry about antimatter and matter coexisting in
the nucleus without annihilating. It turns out that the standard model
of physics has the quark and antiquark coexisting without annihilation,
so there is an exact precedent for this, already in place and no good
reason the muon and antimuon cannot do the same.

I haven't had the time to review exactly how Don Hotson imagined the
proton to be constructed, but epo pairs are likely to be involved – so
here too we have a similar situation of bound matter and antimatter
showing up as building blocks. Stubbs mentions something like this in
one of his papers but rejects electrons in favor of muons, yet the muon
itself could be imagined to be 103 epos plus an electron .

Instead of "turtles all the way down"… it's looking more and
more like "leptons all the way down"

For the turtle challenged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[John Berry]

If Protons are are made of Muons, then could Muons or anti-Muons fired at a
Proton/atom not cause Proton Decay and atomic Transmutation/Fission?

Particle physics isn't my bag, anyone know what results?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> You don’t see any quarks.
>
>
> I believe this ad hoc result falls under the notion of "color
> confinement," meaning you don't find partial color charge in the wild.
> Instead you get a "hadron jet" of quark-antiquark pairs, whose number
> depends upon the kinetic energy of the scattering particles.  If we're
> going to do away with quarks, we'd better think up an explanation for these
> jets.
>
> The point being that the name “quark” is merely a place-marker which will
>> be returned to when physics has a better understanding.
>
>
> To replace quarks, we're going to have to come up with an alternative to
> the "uud," "udd," etc., description, for describing things like beta +/-
> decay, which sounds like a daunting project.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid's research is worth at least 20 billion euros. CENR wants to build
a Muon factory that cost that huge amount, but has not figured out how to
reduce the energy of the muons that they will produce to low levels.
Holmlid produces very mild muons from the getgo.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   Jones, I would like to hear your arguments of evidence that the
> muons CAME from the proton.
>
> Bob,
>
> The CERN report is certainly aware of the implications of pair formation.
> Good evidence comes from that - and the next best comes as implications
> from Holmlid’s papers.
>
> I am assuming, based on prior reports from the LHC that they understand by*
> position* (relative to the impact zone) whether a particle derives from
> pair formation or not – since there is a time delay for pairs. CERN
> apparently considers these muons to be derived from the collision as
> primary debris, based on their report.
>
> I picked up on that story in support of Stubb’s papers, but I do not
> necessarily agree that he is correct. I only stumbled on his site a
> couple of days ago, and am trying to gauge the informed objections to it
> (such as your own). However, if Holmlid is correct, then Stubbs muon
> theory goes a long way to explain those amazing results. They are
> extremely important results - for LENR, perhaps the most important for
> theoretical understanding in the 25+ year history of the field.
>
> Holmlid is getting a lot of attention in the science press, most of it
> negative. I have a feeling that one or more groups (especially someone at
> SLAC) will endeavor to replicate his experiment. If they should find the
> anything similar, then the focus of the field will probably shift (pun
> intended). That is, the focus will shift to laser input (or at least
> semi-coherent light).
>
> I know you are familiar with the Letts/Cravens effect. I think those
> gentlemen opened the door for this and I hope they go back and take full
> advantage of that earlier effort.
>
> Jones
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

Of interest - wrt the “9 muon model” of the proton is an old paper by Harold 
Aspen where he came up with the same conclusion.
http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/books/Asp/1988c.pdf
Aspden missed the important detail about binding energy showing up as mass 
deficit, but still it is more than coincidental to Stubb’s model. 
One more point for John Berry about antimatter and matter coexisting in the 
nucleus without annihilating. It turns out that the standard model of physics 
has the quark and antiquark coexisting without annihilation, so there is an 
exact precedent for this, already in place and no good reason the muon and 
antimuon cannot do the same.
I haven’t had the time to review exactly how Don Hotson imagined the proton to 
be constructed, but epo pairs are likely to be involved – so here too we have a 
similar situation of bound matter and antimatter showing up as building blocks. 
Stubbs mentions something like this in one of his papers but rejects electrons 
in favor of muons, yet the muon itself could be imagined to be 103 epos plus an 
electron .
Instead of “turtles all the way down”… it’s looking more and more like “leptons 
all the way down”
For the turtle challenged:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Jones, I would like to hear your arguments of evidence that the muons 
CAME from the proton.

Bob,

The CERN report is certainly aware of the implications of pair formation. Good 
evidence comes from that - and the next best comes as implications from 
Holmlid’s papers.

I am assuming, based on prior reports from the LHC that they understand by 
position (relative to the impact zone) whether a particle derives from pair 
formation or not – since there is a time delay for pairs. CERN apparently 
considers these muons to be derived from the collision as primary debris, based 
on their report.

I picked up on that story in support of Stubb’s papers, but I do not 
necessarily agree that he is correct. I only stumbled on his site a couple of 
days ago, and am trying to gauge the informed objections to it (such as your 
own). However, if Holmlid is correct, then Stubbs muon theory goes a long way 
to explain those amazing results. They are extremely important results - for 
LENR, perhaps the most important for theoretical understanding in the 25+ year 
history of the field.

Holmlid is getting a lot of attention in the science press, most of it 
negative. I have a feeling that one or more groups (especially someone at SLAC) 
will endeavor to replicate his experiment. If they should find the anything 
similar, then the focus of the field will probably shift (pun intended). That 
is, the focus will shift to laser input (or at least semi-coherent light).

I know you are familiar with the Letts/Cravens effect. I think those gentlemen 
opened the door for this and I hope they go back and take full advantage of 
that earlier effort. 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid also states that many other types of sub atomic particles are
produced. Mesons of various types and pions are mentioned. The muon is a
decay product of mesons. It is unclear what is initially produced and what
is a decay product. The higher energy particles have a very short lifetime
compared to the muon so the muons will appear more prominently in low
resolution detection methods. It will take expensive particle detection and
identification equipment to resolve what rydberg matter is generating. That
equipment will not be available until LENR gains full credibility in
particle physics. This might take some time.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> A provocative model of the proton has appeared on the web this year which
> can help explain the surprising results of Leif Holmlid. It comes from a
> retired nuclear engineer – Bill Stubbs. Stubbs also has an older book
> available on Amazon called “Nuclear Alternative”.
>
> Here is the gist of it (paraphrased to account for Holmlid):
>
> The proton is composed of nine similar particles whose mass is each about
> 1⁄9 that of a proton - there are three groupings of three. Those particles
> are identified as the muon/antimuon. The muon and the antimuon have unit
> negative and positive charge, respectively so that there is a net
> positive charge of 1. The combined mass of nine muons is 1,863 electron
> masses which is 27 electron masses greater than the proton's mass of 1,836
> -- but since the interaction is “binding” in the technical sense, a mass
> defect similar to that seen in all nuclear binding will reduce the net
> mass of bound muons to what is 204 equivalent electron masses, and they
> cannot annihilate in bound form. The common name for the high energy
> version of proton disintegration is “quark soup” but the muon will be by
> far the longest lived component of a  low energy version (Holmlid’s
> version). Thus quarks are really muons which is a radical departure from
> present models.
>
> Unfortunately, the reflexive comment from the physics establishment will
> be to label this as a crank notion. Maybe it is. Were it not for
> Holmlid’s results, meshing directly into the detail of the Stubbs model,
> it will probably end at that, instead of gaining traction. But given that
> Holmlid could be proved correct, and very soon, it is wise to keep an
> open mind until you read what Stubbs has to say, in the context of
> Holmlid. In short, there is little experimental evidence to validate the
> Stubbs model, outside of Holmlid’s work – but it appears to me that both of
> them together form a very compelling argument to explain LENR (or one
> version of it) with the apparent production of muons* in situ*.
>
> *http://wlsprojects.com/seeing-inside-a-proton.html*
> 
>
> *http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html*
> 
>
> *http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html*
> 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Bob Cook]

A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's resultsJones--

A similar notion of the model of the proton, neutron etc. made up of electrons 
and positrons has been presented by Philippi Hatt at the ICCF-19 and also 
presented recently  to the Russians at their invitation.  Peter Gluck also  
recently noted Hatt’s theory on his blog as being of interest.  I reported his 
work on Vortex-l on April 26 2015 for those interested.  

Hatt’s  theory predicts the mass of the proton and neutron, their magnetic 
moments etc.  It is good to many significant figures and correctly predicts the 
empirical parameters now associated with these particle attributes.  I think 
his does apply to the Holmlid results.  See the links below for Hatt’s theory.  

The theory describes a many-step process for creation of protons in small time 
increments until a stable configuration is achieved.  This involves negative 
mass and anti mass concepts.   Its new and probably not accepted even though it 
is correct to many significant figures based on current experimental mass 
determinations and magnetic moment determinations.  

The muon may be an acceptable subdivision of protons and neutrons considering 
their electron-positron  makeup.  I am not sure what Hatt’s theory say about 
the makeup of muons.  

As suggested above, the exciting thing about Hatt’s theory is that it provides 
very accurate predictions of rest masses etc., that may be confirmed by 
experiments that provide more accurate measurements.

http://philippehatt.com/document1.pdf

The authors web cite:

http://www.philippehatt.com/

Bob Cook 


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 8:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

A provocative model of the proton has appeared on the web this year which can 
help explain the surprising results of Leif Holmlid. It comes from a retired 
nuclear engineer – Bill Stubbs. Stubbs also has an older book available on 
Amazon called “Nuclear Alternative”.


Here is the gist of it (paraphrased to account for Holmlid): 

The proton is composed of nine similar particles whose mass is each about 1⁄9 
that of a proton - there are three groupings of three. Those particles are 
identified as the muon/antimuon. The muon and the antimuon have unit negative 
and positive charge, respectively so that there is a net positive charge of 1. 
The combined mass of nine muons is 1,863 electron masses which is 27 electron 
masses greater than the proton's mass of 1,836 -- but since the interaction is 
“binding” in the technical sense, a mass defect similar to that seen in all 
nuclear binding will reduce the net mass of bound muons to what is 204 
equivalent electron masses, and they cannot annihilate in bound form. The 
common name for the high energy version of proton disintegration is “quark 
soup” but the muon will be by far the longest lived component of a  low energy 
version (Holmlid’s version). Thus quarks are really muons which is a radical 
departure from present models.


Unfortunately, the reflexive comment from the physics establishment will be to 
label this as a crank notion. Maybe it is. Were it not for Holmlid’s results, 
meshing directly into the detail of the Stubbs model, it will probably end at 
that, instead of gaining traction. But given that Holmlid could be proved 
correct, and very soon, it is wise to keep an open mind until you read what 
Stubbs has to say, in the context of Holmlid. In short, there is little 
experimental evidence to validate the Stubbs model, outside of Holmlid’s work – 
but it appears to me that both of them together form a very compelling argument 
to explain LENR (or one version of it) with the apparent production of muons in 
situ.

http://wlsprojects.com/seeing-inside-a-proton.html

http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html

http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[John Berry]

If Protons were composed of Muons and Anti-Muons, both short lived and
annihilate with each other, how could there be no evidence of Proton Decay?

I didn't even finish reading, so maybe this was explained later, but that's
all I had the time or head space to observe.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> A provocative model of the proton has appeared on the web this year which
> can help explain the surprising results of Leif Holmlid. It comes from a
> retired nuclear engineer – Bill Stubbs. Stubbs also has an older book
> available on Amazon called “Nuclear Alternative”.
>
> Here is the gist of it (paraphrased to account for Holmlid):
>
> The proton is composed of nine similar particles whose mass is each about
> 1⁄9 that of a proton - there are three groupings of three. Those particles
> are identified as the muon/antimuon. The muon and the antimuon have unit
> negative and positive charge, respectively so that there is a net
> positive charge of 1. The combined mass of nine muons is 1,863 electron
> masses which is 27 electron masses greater than the proton's mass of 1,836
> -- but since the interaction is “binding” in the technical sense, a mass
> defect similar to that seen in all nuclear binding will reduce the net
> mass of bound muons to what is 204 equivalent electron masses, and they
> cannot annihilate in bound form. The common name for the high energy
> version of proton disintegration is “quark soup” but the muon will be by
> far the longest lived component of a  low energy version (Holmlid’s
> version). Thus quarks are really muons which is a radical departure from
> present models.
>
> Unfortunately, the reflexive comment from the physics establishment will
> be to label this as a crank notion. Maybe it is. Were it not for
> Holmlid’s results, meshing directly into the detail of the Stubbs model,
> it will probably end at that, instead of gaining traction. But given that
> Holmlid could be proved correct, and very soon, it is wise to keep an
> open mind until you read what Stubbs has to say, in the context of
> Holmlid. In short, there is little experimental evidence to validate the
> Stubbs model, outside of Holmlid’s work – but it appears to me that both of
> them together form a very compelling argument to explain LENR (or one
> version of it) with the apparent production of muons* in situ*.
>
> *http://wlsprojects.com/seeing-inside-a-proton.html*
> 
>
> *http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html*
> 
>
> *http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html*
> 
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

From: John Berry 

 

Ø  If Protons were composed of Muons and Anti-Muons, both short lived and 
annihilate with each other, how could there be no evidence of Proton Decay?

 

There is plenty of evidence of the aftermath of proton decay following a high 
energy collision, so I’m assuming you mean a natural or radioactive decay is 
not seen. 

 

But ask yourself what is seen following a high energy proton decay. Yup – muons.

 

And consider the alternative. The standard model proposes 3 fictitious 
particles called “quarks” …but … quarks have NEVER been directly observed or 
found in isolation after a collision …  so essentially they have zero lifetime 
and are not really particles at all. 

 

Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as at 
CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not absolutely 
mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of some kind of 
cross-identity. You don’t see any quarks. The reason there are 4 instead of 9 
probably relates to antimuon annihilation.

 

The point being that the name “quark” is merely a place-marker which will be 
returned to when physics has a better understanding. If it turns out that the 
up quark consists of two muons and one antimuon, then we can look at this as 
Borromean ring stability (Efimov-like state), which is bound so strongly that 
it does not decay.

 

In short, bound states of antimatter do not necessarily annihilate. It would 
take too long to tie this into Hotson’s epo model but the pairing of opposites 
could be intrinsic to all of reality. The epo is more fundamental than the 
muon, and therefore the proton could be described that way as well.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

You don’t see any quarks.


I believe this ad hoc result falls under the notion of "color confinement,"
meaning you don't find partial color charge in the wild.  Instead you get a
"hadron jet" of quark-antiquark pairs, whose number depends upon the
kinetic energy of the scattering particles.  If we're going to do away with
quarks, we'd better think up an explanation for these jets.

The point being that the name “quark” is merely a place-marker which will
> be returned to when physics has a better understanding.


To replace quarks, we're going to have to come up with an alternative to
the "uud," "udd," etc., description, for describing things like beta +/-
decay, which sounds like a daunting project.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

Let me try to be more specific on this point:

Ø 

Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as at 
CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not absolutely 
mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of some kind of 
cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may relate to antimuon 
annihilation.

 

Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons are 
collided at high energy to form muons. 

 

http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons

 

Note that in this collision, the only massive particles with any appreciable 
lifetime are the protons being collided and the muons seen in the debris. The 
Higgs boson may or may not have existed at all, and everything else is 
converted into energy – within picoseconds.

 

On the surface, this happenstance could be argued (if you support the Stubbs 
theory) to demonstrate that a proton is built of 9 basic particles – 4 muons 
and 5 antimuons. The antimatter does not survive for any appreciable time, so 
the only particles remaining after high energy proton decay are the 4 muons, 
and they too decay quickly, but can be said to be the only mass in the debris 
which is identifiable for an appreciable time (nanoseconds).