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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Nigel,

About 3 decades ago, someone was proposing the use of diamonds as
appropriate platforms for neutrino emitters and detectors for a
"thru-the-earth" communications system. I believe that the model was based
on "large" coherent structures as you suggest.

Andrew

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:26 AM Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> 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 <
> 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
>> <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,
>>
>>

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

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Andrew, Jones and Jurg

A magnetic field may be a natural dimension like space dimensions, time 
dimension and angular momentum dimension.

The idea that it is quantized supports this conjecture IMHO.

Bob Cook


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 9:22:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states--interesting note in 
Wilipedia regarding A-B effect.

MY LAST COMMENTS WERE BASED ON DISCUSSION IN Wikipedia REGARDING THE MAGNETIC 
AHARONOV-BOHM EFFECT.

The Dirac string idea is new to me.  It smacks of a quark-like explanation of 
something that cannot be measured—a virtual entity.
b
If the magnetic mono-pole exists as a primary particle (fundamental as in the 
SM) anti-magmatic mono p0les may also exist as a negative(magnetic entity.   
The Dirac string would also begin and end on it.   A negative and regular mono 
pole would act as a magnetic dipole displayed by many SM structural entities.

BOB COOK




Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states--interesting note in 
Wilipedia regarding A-B effect.


Andrew, Jones etal,--

The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect is also closely related to 
Dirac's<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> argument that the existence 
of a magnetic monopole<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole> can be 
accommodated by the existing magnetic source-free Maxwell's 
equations<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_units> units) for any electric 
charge qe and magnetic charge qm.

Like the electromagnetic 
potential<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> 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<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>

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

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

MY LAST COMMENTS WERE BASED ON DISCUSSION IN Wikipedia REGARDING THE MAGNETIC 
AHARONOV-BOHM EFFECT.

The Dirac string idea is new to me.  It smacks of a quark-like explanation of 
something that cannot be measured—a virtual entity.
b
If the magnetic mono-pole exists as a primary particle (fundamental as in the 
SM) anti-magmatic mono p0les may also exist as a negative(magnetic entity.   
The Dirac string would also begin and end on it.   A negative and regular mono 
pole would act as a magnetic dipole displayed by many SM structural entities.

BOB COOK




Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states--interesting note in 
Wilipedia regarding A-B effect.


Andrew, Jones etal,--

The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect is also closely related to 
Dirac's<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> argument that the existence 
of a magnetic monopole<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole> can be 
accommodated by the existing magnetic source-free Maxwell's 
equations<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_units> units) for any electric 
charge qe and magnetic charge qm.

Like the electromagnetic 
potential<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> 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<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Bob,...

Such models - as strings  - that start and stop at a single monopole are 
obvious nonsense as per definition a monopole can only have starting 
points or termination points but not both independent of how small you 
make it. Otherwise you have to invent two different types of unconnected 
monopoles.. and yes what about the EM energy of the field will it just 
once "fly" from one monopole to the other??
Here a vibrating string is not allowed as a solution as it violates the 
monopole assumption...as the monopoles only can be connected if they 
exchange energy!! What leads to a one time pulsed monopole only!


Please also show the physics that inside the monopole generates the 
classic magnetic field? An EM field contains energy! How is it produced 
inside the monopole??


*I**see an other problem*. Does isolated charge really exist??

The latest modeling did show that at least in a nucleus charge is a 
topological effect and depends on rotating mass. This is what we learn 
from experiments that are conform with 1FC "spin-pairing like" orbits.


Thus the electron seems to be the only true charge (in our physics 
model) as it has no defined EM mass radius.


But here too I do believe that we can find a classic model that shows 
how charge is generate by nested EM flux.


Thus the other way round (no real charge) seems to be much more promising.

J.W.


Am 09.08.19 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


Andrew, Jones etal,--

The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect is also closely related to Dirac's 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> argument that the existence 
of a magnetic monopole 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole> can be accommodated 
by the existing magnetic source-free Maxwell's equations 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_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 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_string> of infinitesimal diameter 
that contains the equivalent of all of the 4π/g/ 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 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_units> units) for any electric 
charge /q/_e and magnetic charge /q/_m .


Like the electromagnetic potential 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> 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 <mailto:mules...@gmail.com>

**

*….* 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




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> argument that the existence 
of a magnetic monopole<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole> can be 
accommodated by the existing magnetic source-free Maxwell's 
equations<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_units> units) for any electric 
charge qe and magnetic charge qm.

Like the electromagnetic 
potential<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> 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<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>

…. 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]: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 <mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:30 AM
*To: *VORTEX <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*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 <mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> 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> 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 th

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 
<mailto: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 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 <mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
*To: *VORTEX <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
    *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 provi

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

[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







From: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:30 AM
To: VORTEX<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 
mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> 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> 
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 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<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
To: VORTEX<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 transfe

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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

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 <
> 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
>> <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 potent

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

[JonesBeene]

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]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

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> <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
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 <mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
*To: *VORTEX <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
    *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 not
photonic in the normal sense (i.e., via transverse EM waves), it
_can_ be considered via longitudinal photons. Again, internal
conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be transferred in
such interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer cannot
occur, only that it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar.
(If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction.)

Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred
to the EM field to form photons. However, is there any information
on ang mom of quarks? If so, this could lead to speculation about
non-scalar coupling between a proton and

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

[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 <
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
> <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 not photonic in the normal sense
> (i.e., via transverse EM waves), it *can* be considered via longitudinal
> photons. Again, internal conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be
> transferred in such interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer
> cannot occur, only that it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar. (If
> I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction.)
>
>
>
> Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred to the
> EM field to form photons. However, is there any information on ang mom of
> quarks? If so, this could lead to speculation about non-scalar coupling
> between a proton and a deep-orbit electron.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
&g

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

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

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<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
To: VORTEX<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 not photonic in the normal sense (i.e., via transverse EM 
waves), it can be considered via longitudinal photons. Again, internal 
conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be transferred in such 
interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer cannot occur, only that 
it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar. (If I am wrong about this, I 
would appreciate correction.)

Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred to the EM 
field to form photons. However, is there any information on ang mom of quarks? 
If so, this could lead to speculation about non-scalar coupling between a 
proton and a deep-orbit electron.

Andrew

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10




Robin—

You raised the following questions and comments:



1) What is this "coherent system", and specifically, in what respect is it

coherent, i.e. which property of the system?

2) How do you propose that the nuclear energy is actually coupled to the phonic

energy?

3) Changes in angular momentum of nuclei are usually paired with emission of a

gamma ray or particle to conserve angular momentum. If you want to avoid this,

then you need to provide an actual physical mechanism by which the angular

momentum is transferred to the lattice, and specifically what it is in the

lattice that it couples to. Furthermore, what is it that makes this method

preferable above the usual methods (e.g. gamma emission)?

ANSWERS:


  1.  A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local packets 
of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a EM field 
that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy additions or 
losses by changing the space relation of the energy packets.  A good example is 
a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet of energy and very 
quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction  electrons.  There is 
no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy state across the 
macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which harbor phonic energy are 
coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a whole without any time dely.

The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of energy and 
angular momentum in accordance 

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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

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 not photonic in the normal sense
(i.e., via transverse EM waves), it *can* be considered via longitudinal
photons. Again, internal conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be
transferred in such interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer
cannot occur, only that it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar. (If
I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction.)

Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred to the
EM field to form photons. However, is there any information on ang mom of
quarks? If so, this could lead to speculation about non-scalar coupling
between a proton and a deep-orbit electron.

Andrew

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robin—
>
>
>
> You raised the following questions and comments:
>
>
>
> 1) What is this "coherent system", and specifically, in what respect is it
>
> coherent, i.e. which property of the system?
>
> 2) How do you propose that the nuclear energy is actually coupled to the 
> phonic
>
> energy?
>
> 3) Changes in angular momentum of nuclei are usually paired with emission of a
>
> gamma ray or particle to conserve angular momentum. If you want to avoid this,
>
> then you need to provide an actual physical mechanism by which the angular
>
> momentum is transferred to the lattice, and specifically what it is in the
>
> lattice that it couples to. Furthermore, what is it that makes this method
>
> preferable above the usual methods (e.g. gamma emission)?
>
>
>
> ANSWERS:
>
>
>
>1. A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local
>packets of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a
>EM field that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy
>additions or losses by changing the space relation of the energy packets.
>A good example is a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet
>of energy and very quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction
> electrons.  There is no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy
>state across the macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which
>harbor phonic energy are coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a
>whole without any time dely.
>
>
>
> The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of
> energy and angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized
> energy and quantized angular momentum.  In addition the coherent system
> will adjust the relative positions of energy packets to increase their
> relative motions (kinetic energies) and reduce their total potential energy
> increasing entropy per the second law of thermodynamics..
>
>
>
>1. As noted above the coherent system is coupled by EM
>fields—primarily magnetic fields that connect electron orbital angular
>momentum with nuclear angular momentum, including energy packet intrinsic
>spin  angular momentum which  reflects the magnetic moment associated with
>those packets of energy.
>
>
>
>1. There is no gamma emission within the coherent system—only
>instanteous changes of  angular momentum  and/or energy between between
>locations within the coherent system.  (Later in time adjacent coherent
>systems may conduct heat between them selves via radiant EM coupling or
>other coupling involving phonic energy changes of the original coherent
>system.  Too much phonic energy will destroy the lattice of the system in
>question.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>

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

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:52:00
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]

Have you found any evidence that gamma ray emitters don't emit gamma rays when
the nucleus emitting the gamma ray is incoporated in a semi-conductor crystal? 

Note that absorbtion of external gamma rays by semi-conductors, that then
convert the gamma energy into other forms is very inefficient (2%)*, which is
something I would not expect if the lattice as a whole were absorbing the
energy. (Of course you may argue that since the source of the gamma in this case
is external, the nucleus from which it was emitted had no opportunity to couple
with the lattice. Hence my question above.

* See e.g.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330650579_Direct_Energy_Conversion_From_Gamma_Ray_to_Electricity_Using_Silicon_Semiconductor_Cells


As I understand it, an external gamma ray is usually at least partly absorbed by
an atomic electron, which results in the atom being ionized, and the electron
leaving with at least some of the energy of the gamma. The electron may then in
turn ionize other atoms. The net result is lots of ionized atoms and free
electrons.

If those free electons are anywhere other than in the junction of a diode, then
their energy will eventually be converted to heat when they recombine with the
ions. Even those electrons that are in the junction will lose some of their
energy to electrical resistance. Given that the junction is usually only a small
part of a semi-conductor diode, the overall efficiency may be expected to be
low, as seen in the paper quoted here above.


>ANSWERS:
>
>
>  1.  A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local 
> packets of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a 
> EM field that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy 
> additions or losses by changing he special relation of the energy packets.  A 
> good example is a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet of 
> energy and very quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction  
> electrons.  There is no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy 
> state across the macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which 
> harbor phonic energy are coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a whole 
> without any time dely.
>
>The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of energy 
>and angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized energy 
>and quantized angular momentum.  In addition the coherent system will adjust 
>the relative positions of energy packets to increase their relative motions 
>(kinetic energies) and reduce their total potential energy increasing entropy 
>per the second law of thermodynamics..
>
>
>  1.  As noted above the coherent system is coupled by EM fields—primarily 
> magnetic fields that connect electron orbital angular momentum with nuclear 
> angular momentum, including energy packet intrinsic spin  angular momentum 
> which  reflects the magnetic moment associated with those packets of energy.
>
>
>
>  1.  There is no gamma emission within the coherent system—only instanteous 
> changes of  angular momentum  and/or energy between between locations within 
> the coherent system.  (Later in time adjacent coherent systems may conduct 
> heat between them selves via radiant EM coupling or other coupling involving 
> phonic energy changes of the original coherent system.  Too much phonic 
> energy will destroy the lattice of the system in question.
>
>
>
>Bob Cook
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Sent from Mail for Windows 10




Robin—

You raised the following questions and comments:



1) What is this "coherent system", and specifically, in what respect is it

coherent, i.e. which property of the system?

2) How do you propose that the nuclear energy is actually coupled to the phonic

energy?

3) Changes in angular momentum of nuclei are usually paired with emission of a

gamma ray or particle to conserve angular momentum. If you want to avoid this,

then you need to provide an actual physical mechanism by which the angular

momentum is transferred to the lattice, and specifically what it is in the

lattice that it couples to. Furthermore, what is it that makes this method

preferable above the usual methods (e.g. gamma emission)?

ANSWERS:


  1.  A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local packets 
of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a EM field 
that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy additions or 
losses by changing the space relation of the energy packets.  A good example is 
a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet of energy and very 
quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction  electrons.  There is 
no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy state across the 
macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which harbor phonic energy are 
coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a whole without any time dely.

The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of energy and 
angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized energy and 
quantized angular momentum.  In addition the coherent system will adjust the 
relative positions of energy packets to increase their relative motions 
(kinetic energies) and reduce their total potential energy increasing entropy 
per the second law of thermodynamics..


  1.  As noted above the coherent system is coupled by EM fields—primarily 
magnetic fields that connect electron orbital angular momentum with nuclear 
angular momentum, including energy packet intrinsic spin  angular momentum 
which  reflects the magnetic moment associated with those packets of energy.



  1.  There is no gamma emission within the coherent system—only instanteous 
changes of  angular momentum  and/or energy between between locations within 
the coherent system.  (Later in time adjacent coherent systems may conduct heat 
between them selves via radiant EM coupling or other coupling involving phonic 
energy changes of the original coherent system.  Too much phonic energy will 
destroy the lattice of the system in question.



Bob Cook