The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin.
If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in > proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass > spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than > enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the > energy content of the standard mass is so great. > > Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have > shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion > of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must > have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty > has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass > uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that > case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored > energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am > Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism > > The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark > spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – > variability of proton mass. > > It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and > apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be > gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and > because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is > itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on > the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal > of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark > spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but > they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of > wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin > crisis”. > > There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying > to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark > mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark > mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. > > This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants > (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer theoretical > ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide gamma rays. > Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses to helium. > It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with 100% > success in any experiment where they should be seen. > > It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the > caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a > distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to > promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that > helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to > the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? > > That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. > ____________________________________ > > > Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an > emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. > > Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any > experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can > be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of > nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the > mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no > transmutation and no nuclear radiation. > > It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes > for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which > is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is > critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. > This material is permanently magnetized. > > In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is > critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several > papers around 350 C. > > In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not > possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. > Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field > alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be > intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is > a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and > happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of > “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we > speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” > > http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html > > Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. "Knowing the directional > dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict > the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical > equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, > implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very > strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions," > > This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetism > to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate > stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel > temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is > a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. > __________________________________ > > In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer > cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For > instance, the Otto cycle consists of: > > 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged > as > 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and > 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume > 4) As an "idealized" cycle, this never happens completely in practice, > but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial > understanding of the process. > 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the > Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism > > In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a > similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find > > 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and > superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle > 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two > reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative > classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary > 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally > stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) > 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the > ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. > 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile > medium, > which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly > paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) > 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the > ferromagnetic > nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. > 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of > spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. > 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the > ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the > oxide is not required. > > This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... > shall > we say... "attractive" :-) > >
