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 <jone...@pacbell.net> 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/seeing-inside-a-proton.html> > > *http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html* > <http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html> > > *http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html* > <http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html> > >
