[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

You state "In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton."
Since I believe that the proton is composed of relativistic leptons and
leptons of EM fields (expressed as photons?), you have presented something
that will take me time to examine. I hope to do so - eventually.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:22 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew
>
>
> Just one thing:
>
> I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral.
> If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear
> Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our
> incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the
> interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as
> a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far
> apart.
>
>
> In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact we
> can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and also
> the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. The later
> is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a solution. If I
> add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the precision is as
> good as the measurement (12 digits  done in Maple).
>
> All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the electron
> gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint production.
> As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two different EM
> flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the charge. I know it
> will take time to reset your brain to "nucleus internal view" as it is the
> exact opposite we know from external EM theory.
>
> So not charge-charge defines the force  - EM bound by charge is the force.
> And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal Lagrangian
> surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be.
>
> It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least a
> year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had to
> find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about it.
> There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of basic
> physics.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
>> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
>> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
>> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>>
>> Jurg,
>>
>> Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
>> rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
>>
>> Comments below
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
>>> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>>>
>> Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand
>> it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the
>> point.
>>
>> For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
>> than EM mass from radiation fields.
>>
> I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.
>
>> The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that you can
>> convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static
>> fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you
>> cannot connect the 2 different forms of mass inside one equation.
>>
> A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.
>
>> The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not
>> help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV
>> photon is a very rare exception 0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used
>> is pretty unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
>>
> I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation
> to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.
>
>> Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
>> proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
>> (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
>>
> These rotations are from your model(s).  They may or may not be
> consistent with other models or reality.
>
>>
>> From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a
>> bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus,
>> Dirac pertains.
>>
>> This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only use
>> halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as said the
>> bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what is not
>> compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.
>>
> Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of
> 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Andrew


Just one thing:

I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is 
neutral. If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with 
the nuclear Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would 
be one of our incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking 
at the interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a 
proton as a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not 
be that far apart.



In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact 
we can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and 
also the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. 
The later is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a 
solution. If I add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the 
precision is as good as the measurement (12 digits  done in Maple).


All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the 
electron gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint 
production. As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two 
different EM flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the 
charge. I know it will take time to resent your brain to "nucleus 
internal view" as it is the exact opposite we know from external EM theory.


So not charge-charge defines the force  - EM bound by charge is the 
force. And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal 
Lagrangian surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be.


It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least 
a year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had 
to find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about 
it. There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of 
basic physics.


J.W.


On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:




On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

Andrew,

I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear
that most of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level
physics based on wrong understanding of basic physics rules.

On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Jurg,

Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons
behind rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.

Comments below

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach
 wrote:

Andrew,

I could give you a very long list. First problem: _The Dirac
equation itself is only working for fields and never for mass. _

Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I
understand it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician,
could address the point.


For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different
topology than EM mass from radiation fields.

I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.

The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that
you can convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation
describes static fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for
radiation fields. So you cannot connect the 2 different forms of
mass inside one equation.

A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.

The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does
not help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same
mass. The 511keV photon is a very rare exception 0.01%. So all
Dirac/QED formalism used is pretty unphysical where physical means
as seen in experiments.

I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation 
radiation to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.


Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron)
or 5 proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on
the location (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.

These rotations are from your model(s). They may or may not be 
consistent with other models or reality.




From my view, it doesn't make sense.I consider the electron to be
a bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass.
Thus, Dirac pertains.


This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can
only use halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge
potential. But as said the bound electron makes 3 - not uniform
rotations = 3 waves what is not compatible with the solution for
the Dirac equation.

Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of 
directional fields. When appropriately bound and twisted, the photon 
field can be uniquely inwardly and outwardly directed. The 
inward-directed field is concentrated and becomes your "dense EM 
mass." An outward-directed field has reduced field density outside the 
bound photon and is a "stable" field, but would still correspond to 
your "EM mass from radiation fields". The lepton charge is determined 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Jurg,
>
> Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
> rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
>
> Comments below
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
>> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>>
> Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it.
> Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point.
>
> For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
> than EM mass from radiation fields.
>
I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.

> The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that you can
> convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static
> fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you
> cannot connect the 2 different forms of mass inside one equation.
>
A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.

> The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not
> help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV
> photon is a very rare exception 0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used
> is pretty unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
>
I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation
to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.

> Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
> proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
> (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
>
These rotations are from your model(s).  They may or may not be consistent
with other models or reality.

>
> From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a
> bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus,
> Dirac pertains.
>
> This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only use
> halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as said the
> bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what is not
> compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.
>
Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of directional
fields. When appropriately bound and twisted, the photon field can be
uniquely inwardly and outwardly directed. The inward-directed field is
concentrated and becomes your "dense EM mass." An outward-directed field
has reduced field density outside the bound photon and is a "stable" field,
but would still correspond to your "EM mass from radiation fields". The
lepton charge is determined by whether the *E*-field is directed in or out.
Charge conservation and the means of forming it depends on equal splitting
of the photon fields into lepton pairs with net zero charge.

This is close to my model of the photon/lepton picture:
(PDF) A new linear theory of light and matter - ResearchGate

Note that the two leptons are both a torus.

> The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a
>> mathematician with no clue of physics.
>>
>> The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
>> equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
>> conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So
>> the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are
>> other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
>> finishing a paper about this.
>>
> I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting
> with incompatible assumptions for our models.
>
> Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound
> fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields
> (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such,
> they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply
> expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.)
>
>
> A bound "standing wave" is EM mass. It's not even a wave as the mass orbit
> is following the Clifford torus (CT) and only the projection into real
> space makes you claim its a wave. But I use the term wave too because
> people are used to it.
>
A standing wave can be linear. I think that a torus form may be a specific
EM type that is "self-bound". Both have mass; but, the linear has
alternating mass (+ & -, both gravitating, but going thru zero). The EM
Torus has a fixed mass (+ or -).

> The emitted photon is not a 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[H LV]

Jones,
I looked quickly at the patent by Haisch and Moddel but could not find
anything about cooling. However, the authors of this paper,
ttps://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5893
experimentally investigated the claims of Haisch and Moddel in section
2.3.2. They tried to find alternative explanations for the observed
emissions. They ruled out cooling caused by the Joule-Thompson effect as a
possible explanation.

Harry


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 5:12 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Harry - perhaps you should have a look at the work and patents of Haisch
> and Moddel on the Lamb shift mechanism using hydrogen or helium in Casimir
> cavities.
>
> The dynamical Casimir effect can be either positive or negative and Lamb
> shift photons would be cold. IIRC there was a measured cooling effect in
> some tests - not heating - which is what they wanted.
>
> H LV wrote:
>
> Now if energy levels below the ground state exist for a hydrogen atom then
> it may be possible to stimulate the electron-proton pair into this
> hypo-state, by exposing them to radiation which corresponds to the energy
> of the photon the pair is expected to release.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Photons are the universal = most basic form of energy. With photons you 
can transport energy over any distance. So here the equivalence relation 
E = mc^2 is obvious. Same for the Pointing power vector for a radiation 
field.


But if you write E = mc^2 and e.g. m is 4-He then the equation simply is 
wrong. E must be of photon type at the end. There is no way to evaluate 
the equation physically, what means you cannot transfer 4-He into 
photons. (This is claimed for solutions of the Dirac equation)But for 
this purpose you first must add the fusions energy you did gain from 4 
(p+e) --> 4-He. Even then you face the same problem one more time as 
there is no way to transform a proton into photons. For this you need to 
add an other 50 MeV/proton.


This makes clear that E = mc^2 is not an equation rather than an 
equivalence relation. But in the Dirac equation you mix an equivalence 
relation with an equation what is physical nonsense!


J.W.


On 25.04.2022 23:12, H LV wrote:
I think I have posted this before, but Einstein was also able to 
derive E=mc^2 without recourse to his theory of special relativity.Max 
Born presented this alternate derivation in his book Einstein's Theory 
of Relativity. Here is the proof:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QmOS5X3GR95t1rjr-SJQGVHun2_vykE5jDOVYc18La8/edit?usp=sharing

Harry

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:23 PM Robin 
 wrote:


In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022
16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major
nuclear powers, and explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)

>Andrew,
>
>
>I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
>itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The
inclusion of
>the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician
with no
>clue of physics.
>
>The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
>equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
>conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static
fields.
>So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense.
There
>are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails.
I'm just
>finishing a paper about this.
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:17:01 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .
>
>
>J.W.
That was assumed anyway. I.e. the change in mass is where the energy comes 
from. Are you saying that E=mc^2 is not the
total energy of the object, where m is the relativistic mass?

If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[H LV]

I think I have posted this before, but Einstein was also able to derive E=mc^2
without recourse to his theory of special relativity. Max Born presented
this alternate derivation in his book Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Here
is the proof:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QmOS5X3GR95t1rjr-SJQGVHun2_vykE5jDOVYc18La8/edit?usp=sharing

Harry

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:23 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
> Hi Jürg,
>
> If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear
> powers, and explain to them why their bombs don't
> work. ;)
>
> >Andrew,
> >
> >
> >I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
> >itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of
> >the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no
> >clue of physics.
> >
> >The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
> >equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
> >conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields.
> >So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There
> >are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
> >finishing a paper about this.
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[H LV]

I was thinking about LASERS (Light amplification by Stimulated Emission of
Radiation) and it occurred to me that the notion of cooling radiation is
already present in quantum theory, but it is disguised as "stimulated
emission" in order to respect the mid 19th century doctrine that cooling
radiation is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Now if energy levels below the ground state exist for a hydrogen atom then
it may be possible to stimulate the electron-proton pair into this
hypo-state, by exposing them to radiation which corresponds to the energy
of the photon the pair is expected to release.


Harry

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:23 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ?
>

> Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as the
> metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably)
> diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story.
>
> Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also is
> catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his Rydberg
> values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few possibilities
> are opened up in the search for how that feat can be accomplished.
>
> An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as helium
> is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.
>
>
>
> HLV wrote:
>
> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>
> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
> version would provide anomalous heat.
>
> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>
> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>
> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>
> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .


J.W.

On 25.04.2022 21:23, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and 
explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)


Andrew,


I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of
the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no
clue of physics.

The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields.
So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There
are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
finishing a paper about this.

If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Andrew,

I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that 
most of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics 
based on wrong understanding of basic physics rules.


On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Jurg,

Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons 
behind rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.


Comments below

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

Andrew,

I could give you a very long list. First problem: _The Dirac
equation itself is only working for fields and never for mass. _

Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand 
it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the 
point.


For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology 
than EM mass from radiation fields. The Dirac equation has been 
formulated based on the believe that you can convert e+/- into energy 
aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static fields only and EM 
mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you cannot connect the 
2 different forms of mass inside one equation. The other problem is that 
also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not help as e+/- almost never 
decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV photon is a very rare 
exception 0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used is pretty 
unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.


Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5 
proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location 
(field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.




From my view, it doesn't make sense.I consider the electron to be a 
bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus, 
Dirac pertains.


This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only 
use halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as 
said the bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what 
is not compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.




The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by
a mathematician with no clue of physics.

The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this
(Poincaré) conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not
for static fields. So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation
are plain nonsense. There are other more severe reasons why the
Einstein equation fails. I'm just finishing a paper about this.

I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be 
starting with incompatible assumptions for our models.


Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are 
bound fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound 
fields (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, 
as such, they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have 
trouble simply expressing the difference between emission and 
radiation of field energy.)



A bound "standing wave" is EM mass. It's not even a wave as the mass 
orbit is following the Clifford torus (CT) and only the projection into 
real space makes you claim its a wave. But I use the term wave too 
because people are used to it.


The emitted photon is not a radiation field. It's a particle.

A radiation field (produced by a sender) is a flux of EM mass as unbound 
waves. Such a wave couples with magnetic resonance = a local wave of 
same or harmonic weight.



The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation
that should define the limit of such an orbit.

The Dirac equation does not address the nucleus beyond a point charge. 
We have been exploring the effects of the different potentials from, 
and interactions with, the nucleus. These are important; but, so far, 
we have not found anything to change more than the energies of the 
deep orbit. I, at least, am finding some insight and, I hope, some 
physical understanding of the situation.



The deep orbit models miss the explanation how "mass" is bound by the 
central force. As said. There is no Coulomb force below the Bohr radius 
for the bound state! Further there are no point charges. Charge is a 
topological effect of nested EM flux. Are you aware that even the 
magnetic moment of the proton does not generate a static field? And 
classically one must show a ring current for its production - what 
contradicts a point charge.


The magnetic moment vector is following the internal topological charge. 
So it points never into the same direction, what caused an external 
field to change at each point in space - what also contradicts the Dirac 
equation assumption for a static vector potential.



Further a bound electron is neutral and behaves as EM mass =
waves. So beyond the Bohr radius you cannot use the Coulomb
formula as an orbit equivalent.

I assume that you 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and 
explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)

>Andrew,
>
>
>I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation 
>itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of 
>the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no 
>clue of physics.
>
>The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré 
>equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré) 
>conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. 
>So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There 
>are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just 
>finishing a paper about this.
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.

Comments below

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>
Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it.
Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point.

>From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a bound
photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus, Dirac
pertains.

> The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a
> mathematician with no clue of physics.
>
> The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
> equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
> conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So
> the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are
> other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
> finishing a paper about this.
>
I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting
with incompatible assumptions for our models.

Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound
fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields
(solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such,
they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply
expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.)

> The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation that
> should define the limit of such an orbit.
>
The Dirac equation does not address the nucleus beyond a point charge. We
have been exploring the effects of the different potentials from, and
interactions with, the nucleus. These are important; but, so far, we have
not found anything to change more than the energies of the deep orbit. I,
at least, am finding some insight and, I hope, some physical understanding
of the situation.

> Further a bound electron is neutral and behaves as EM mass = waves. So
> beyond the Bohr radius you cannot use the Coulomb formula as an orbit
> equivalent.
>
I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral.
If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear
Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our
incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the
interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as
a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far
apart.

Feynman expressed the Coulomb potential as valid up to the nuclear region.
In his elementary lectures on the H atom, he did not directly mention the
relativistic aspects of it.

> Real physics is not defined by mathematical fantasies. Look at SOP (SO(4)
> physics). There is show the simple (all 10 digits exact) solution for the
> e-p basic orbit energy. I also show the nature and exact energy of the
> H*-H* p-p bond. All this is based on magnetic mass resonance energies.
>
I am too old and too slow in my mathematics to go thru your SOP model.
Nevertheless, I *am* interested in magnetic and resonance effects. However,
since I agree with the statement that "magnetic fields are just
relativistic effects of electrodynamics", I am not sure that I would find a
major difference from the path I am pursuing.

> Initially I too liked the idea of deep orbits, but then I did understand
> that charge/Coulomb is just a secondary effect of magnetic mass and a basic
> solution can never be based on it.
>
I am appreciative of your ability to do the math and of finding important
connections. I don't presently understand your statement about not basing a
solution on the magnetic "mass". I assume that, if I had the time and
capability of properly understanding your model I would see your reasoning.

Andrew
_ _ _

> J.W.
>
>
> On 25.04.2022 16:02, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Jurg,
>
> I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
> deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
> results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
> effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.
>
> Andrew
> _ _ _
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from
>> of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods by
>> Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H*
>> bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from multiple
>> bonds.
>>
>> The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just
>> mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not
>> mathematics e.g. the Dirac 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Andrew,


I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation 
itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of 
the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no 
clue of physics.


The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré 
equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré) 
conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. 
So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There 
are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just 
finishing a paper about this.



The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation that 
should define the limit of such an orbit. Further a bound electron is 
neutral and behaves as EM mass = waves. So beyond the Bohr radius you 
cannot use the Coulomb formula as an orbit equivalent.


Real physics is not defined by mathematical fantasies. Look at SOP 
(SO(4) physics). There is show the simple (all 10 digits exact) solution 
for the e-p basic orbit energy. I also show the nature and exact energy 
of the H*-H* p-p bond. All this is based on magnetic mass resonance 
energies.



Initially I too liked the idea of deep orbits, but then I did understand 
that charge/Coulomb is just a secondary effect of magnetic mass and a 
basic solution can never be based on it.


J.W.


On 25.04.2022 16:02, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Jurg,

I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by 
the deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous 
orbit" results, I don't think that we would have looked for the 
relativistic effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) 
possible.


Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only
existing from of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured
by multiple methods by Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also
Holmlid tried to measure the H*H* bond energy but he did work with
clusters of H* that suffer from multiple bonds.

The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just
mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not
mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the
other way round physics defines the math that must fit.


So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper
or Holmlid.


(R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ;
BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)

J.W.


On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:


On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the
"alpharino" ?

Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so
long as the metal is nonporous. The first step in densification
is (probably) diffusion... but that problem may not be the
end-of-story.

Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is
also is catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and
his Rydberg values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage
then a few possibilities are opened up in the search for how that
feat can be accomplished.

An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as
helium is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.



HLV wrote:

A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist

Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624


Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that
there are a few other atoms besides hydrogen which may
'densify' : Presumably  the dense version would provide
anomalous heat.

Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized
“small-/Z/atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would
create atoms, where one electron is trapped on a small
radius, effectively shielding one proton charge of  the
nucleus,.."

Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the
possibility for extracting anomalous heat from Helium?

There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H -
due to inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and
over ...

Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??



I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation
could play a role in forming such atoms.
Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term
depressed atom. This would compliment the term excited atom for
atoms above the ground state.

Harry


-- 
Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from
> of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods by
> Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H*
> bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from multiple
> bonds.
>
> The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just
> mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not
> mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the other
> way round physics defines the math that must fit.
>
>
> So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper or
> Holmlid.
>
>
> (R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ;
> BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
> On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ?
>
> Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as the
> metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably)
> diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story.
>
> Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also is
> catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his Rydberg
> values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few possibilities
> are opened up in the search for how that feat can be accomplished.
>
> An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as helium
> is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.
>
>
>
> HLV wrote:
>
> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>
> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
> version would provide anomalous heat.
>
> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>
> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>
> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>
> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from 
of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods 
by Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the 
H*H* bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from 
multiple bonds.


The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just 
mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not 
mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the other 
way round physics defines the math that must fit.



So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper or Holmlid.


(R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ; 
BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)


J.W.


On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:


On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ?

Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as 
the metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably) 
diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story.


Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also 
is catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his 
Rydberg values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few 
possibilities are opened up in the search for how that feat can be 
accomplished.


An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as 
helium is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.




HLV wrote:

A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist

Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624


Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are
a few other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' :
Presumably  the dense version would provide anomalous heat.

Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized
“small-/Z/atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create
atoms, where one electron is trapped on a small radius,
effectively shielding one proton charge of  the nucleus,.."

Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
extracting anomalous heat from Helium?

There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due
to inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...

Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??



I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could 
play a role in forming such atoms.
Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed 
atom. This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the 
ground state.


Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​small hydrogen

[Jeff Driscoll]

If  the  2.8328 fermi mentioned in the paper is multiplied by the inverse
of alpha, the fine structure constant (alpha =1/137.035999),  then you
get the radius of  Randell Mills' TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624

  the radius of  Randall Mills' TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere)  is the
bohr radius ( r = 0.52946 Angstroms) multiplied by the fine structure
constant, alpha or:

TSO radius = (0.52946 Angstroms) *  (1/137.035999) = .00386298 angstroms =
386.298 fermi

and  386.298/2.8328 = 136.366 which is close to the inverse of alpha (error
of 1 part in 204)

Randell Mills created GUTCP (the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics)
and the TSO radius (also known as the particle production radius) is
prominent throughout.  This TSO radius has interesting properties where
five energies using this radius exactly equate to the rest mass of the
electron 510998.896 eV.  To get the higher accuracy, the bohr radius
without the reduced mass correction is used (a correction of 1 part in
1836) because at particle production, the positron (the anti-electron)
orbits around the electron with each having the TSO radius. In other words,
each has the same mass and therefore they orbit each other at the same
radius around a common centerpoint.
I describe those 5 energies starting on page 14 of a pdf that I created 7
years ago:

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf
The particle production energies that all equal the electron rest mass of
510998.896 eV are:

   1.

   Photon energy equation - based equation found in college physics textbook
   2.

   Resonant energy (LC circuit equivalent) - based on equation found in
   college physics textbook
   3.

   Electric potential energy equation - based on equation found in college
   physics textbook
   4.

   Magnetic energy equation - this one is derived in GUTCP and is
   complicated but the result is a simple equation with integer exponents and
   standard physical constants (i.e. permeability of free space, plancks
   constant etc.).
   5.

   Mass/Space time metric energy. This is *not* an energy and the
   derivation is in GUTCP and is complicated, but the result is a simple
   equation with integer exponents and standard physical constants (i.e.
   Gravitation constant, plancks constant etc.).

The equations in the paper from sciencedirect that give 2.8328 fermi are
similar to Mills's GUTCP equations which I try to summarize starting on
page 86 of my pdf linked above.

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:07 PM H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> HLV wrote:
>>
>> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>>
>> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>>
>>
>> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
>> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
>> version would provide anomalous heat.
>>
>> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
>> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
>> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
>> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>>
>> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
>> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>>
>> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
>> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>>
>> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​small hydrogen

[H LV]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> HLV wrote:
>
> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>
> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
> version would provide anomalous heat.
>
> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>
> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>
> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>
> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>


I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could play
a role in forming such atoms.
Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
state.

Harry