In reply to froarty...@comcast.net's message of Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:20:27 +0000 (UTC): Hi, [snip] > > >Robin, > > If you mean the basic reason you can't have a "real" sub ground state the >kinetic energy argument is here http://www.phact.org/e/z/hydrino.htm E= >-me^4/2h^2 OR
This derivation makes the same basic error that Feynman made, confusing x with delta x and p with delta p. Furthermore, Mills' orbitals have a fixed radius, and hence the radius is irrelevant to the calculation. Proper conjugate variables are angular momentum and angular position. Since the angular position is completely indeterminate, the uncertainty therein is effectively infinite, and hence the angular momentum may be determined to any desired degree of accuracy. In fact, it's a constant (at any radius). (Note that even in QM angular momentum is a constant - given AFAIK without further explanation). Hence Heisenberg can't be used as an argument to restrict the size of the orbitals. (This may be different for QM orbitals where the motion of the electron varies in three dimensions, if I understand it correctly). Note also that if the uncertainty in momentum really were as large as suggested in the paper above, then there would also be a large uncertainty in energy. Such an uncertainty in energy would IMO lead to fuzzy spectral lines (in fact a complete blur), yet that is not what is seen. Sharp spectral lines imply well defined energies, which in turn imply small uncertainties in the energy. IOW the width of the spectral lines is a measure of the uncertainty. > > The hydrino and other unlikely states by Norm Dombey >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608095 also argues the hydrino is non physical >in 3 dimensions but ignores relativistic solutions -A point that is valid for >the hydrino as defined by Mills but ignores Naudts suggestion that there is a >relativistic solution. If Rydberg orbitals really are circular, then that proves that circular orbitals are possible, regardless of what Dombey says. > > I'm not sure if I understand what you are seeking regarding math - as >Bourgoins 2006 paper indicates you simply divide C by the quantum number to >get the radial velocity for different fractional states which is what I am >proposing are actually inertial frames and that the velocity is unchanged from >the perspective of the atom itself inside the frame. Whether this seemingly >"shrunken" atom can now fit between narrower plates is what I think you are >alluding to and it is a question I have been considering for some time. What I am trying to get at is how close can these atoms approach one another. Information that is necessary in order to determine the fusion rate. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
