The most interesting distinction in all of physics comes into focus with Ni-H, assuming that it is NOT a nuclear reaction (as normally understood). There is no proof that Ni-H is primarily nuclear, and many indications that it is not, and there are also indications that there is some secondary nuclear activity which cannot account for more than a tiny fraction of the excess energy seen. If not primarily nuclear, then how does chemistry enter the picture?
Short answer: non-Newtonian gravity at femtometer geometry. Long answer, QCD
mass-to-energy conversion. The two are interrelated.
The common assumption is that chemistry is fully reversible and symmetric,
whereas with nuclear energy, mass is converted into energy in a one-way
reaction. Therefore, to the mainstream, any reaction involving hydrogen in a
metal matrix must be nuclear, if there is to be gain. That is the normal
expectation and it could be wrong.
A number of so-called "unification" theories (TOE) operate on the premise
that gravity becomes much stronger below picometer distances. Curiously, the
proponents of some of these theories appear to not realize how relevant they
can be to explaining Ni-H - in a non-nuclear way.
In fact, when we hone our verisimilitude meter to its most subtle reading,
chemical energy also is also a conversion of mass to energy. The small mass
involved has caused more than a few chemists to miss this distinction.
Problem is, for understanding Ni-H in the context of chemistry - and despite
depending on mass conversion, we have been taught for decades that chemistry
is "symmetric" (so far as we have been able to determine) and more energy
cannot be removed than can be provided by mass in some form. The trump card
here is "mass in some form".
This is where the situation becomes more complex than you might think,
because the distinction between mass and energy disappears at a certain
geometry below nanometer. This geometry happens before we must call into
play such exotic concepts as wave<=>particle duality.
There are two basic definitions of mass, when reduced to the bottom line:
1. The quantity that determines an object's resistance to a change in
motion
2. The quantity that determines an object's response to a gravitational
field
Since mass and energy are already convertible thanks to old Alf, energy
actually satisfies both of these definitions, so have we really accomplished
anything in clarifying that chemical energy is mass-based, just like
nuclear? Well, another point of interest with hydrogen (and hydrogen alone)
is the effect of #2 above when cast into the concept of density. And this
entire question is only relevant with protons - vis-a-vis molecular or
atomic hydrogen.
An object that has more energy - of any form - will be respond more strongly
to a gravitational field. This creates the intriguing anomaly with hydrogen,
since it is in a unique place among all of the 100 or so other elements.
When a single electron is removed from atomic hydrogen, its effective
density soars by massive proportions. By density, we are using the common
definition of mass per unit of volume. A proton has a diameter which is
about 1.6 femtometers (fm) in diameter. There are 1000 fm in a picometer
(pm). Contrast that with atomic hydrogen with a diameter of about 60 pm.
Thus the proton is >30,000 times smaller in diameter - and the cubic
conversion to volume can give the proton what seems like a "special
response" to gravity with another proton. Of course, at the same distance,
the same mass exerts the same force. It's just that for denser objects like
two protons, if and when you can get much closer and the distances get
shorter, the force gets exponentially larger (inverse square). This is of
greatest importance in "unification" theories where the gravity attraction
between two protons offsets Coulomb repulsion at some distance (depending on
whose theory is most accurate).
It goes without saying that with all other elements, even helium, on removal
of a single electron, density remains relatively constant. But when dense
protons get close enough to where quantum non-Newtonian gravity overrides
electrostatics, they can collide with each other but cannot fuse. And since
only the quarks inside the proton are quantized (less than half the mass)
something gives and the protons can gain energy from mass conversion in that
recoil.
There is a lot of excess energy to spare in proton collisions to push the
two apart at a faster rate than they come together. Nuclear bosons in
protons have over 500 MeV and some of that is in play. Thus the gain, which
is both nuclear and non-nuclear in a way, can be significant with no
transmutation and no gamma. In a sense, this is like a chemical reaction in
which the quarks play the role of the atoms and gluons play the role of
electrons.
In this case the energy involved derives from the binding particles (various
bosons - gluons, pions etc) instead of electromagnetic mass-energy. In other
words, about half of what we normally consider the "mass" of the proton
actually comes from the interactions between the quarks, rather than the
quarks themselves. So when protons "react" with each other, you could be
correct in saying that some of the nuclear mass was converted to non-nuclear
energy. When you look closely, the only significant change in the reactants
is that the average mass of all protons involved is slightly less than
before.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
