Stephen—
Cold has to due with temperature. Thus, you must have a careful, precise
definition of temperature to understand what you are asking.
There is a lowest temperature called absolute zero. It refers to a
hypothetical condition of a closed 3-D space system where there is no motion
between the particles making up the system, a classical physics concept.
Another term is no phonic energy exists in the system. It means no motion
between atoms. From a QM concept it means all electrons are in their lowest
kinetic energy state possible of the closed system in question. There are no
ambient electric fields or magnetic fields or gravitational fields that change
with time within the system. (As far as I know this condition does not exist
within the Universe.)
On a cosmic scale the Universe is thought to be an adiabatic system with an
expanding boundary near which there is nothing but space—no matter or any type
of energy field—magnetic, electric or gravitational. Even the micro wave back
ground radiation left over from the big bang does not exist there That
radiation—photons—has only been able to move since the bang at the speed of
light and thus cannot reach the boundary. The existing micro radiation only
reduces its energy and on average changes its frequency to lower energy.
Thus, there is a micro wave bath of energy, including outside any defined 3-D
boundary. This makes a real closed system impossible and only a fictional
creation.
IMHO since quarks and gluons are not real particles—only virtual particles, I
do not consider they fit within the concept of temperature I have described—a
classical physics concept. If a nuclei is considered a closed system, then
there may be an analogy of temperature in some peoples mind that involves
vibrational states of those virtual particles. I have no idea how it would be
measured—it would be a virtual idea—fictional and only an empirical model to
explain observable phenomena.
As you can deduce from my discussion above I do not consider quarks exist.
I consider that the theories that indicate a combination of electrons and
positrons as the constituents of heavy particles—neutrons and protons, muons
etc., are better founded based on observable real time phenomena.
William Stubbs’s and Philippe Hatt’s theories are pertinent, since they allow
accurate prediction of measurable nuclear parameters—charge, rest mass,
magnetic moment, spin, electron scattering results etc.
I do consider that there are minimum quanta of angular momentum that exist
associated with particles including photons. This stems from Planck’s theory
and his empirical constant “h”. And I consider that any form of
energy--potential or kinetic--can be interchanged with other forms of energy.
The energy associated with spin is a key intrinsic characteristic of matter
and radiation whose coupling between a nuclei and electrons of a atom or system
of atoms is not well defined by math. However this coupling provides a
mechanism for transfer of energy from a nucleus in the form of spin energy to
orbital spin of a metal lattice of atoms, for example.
The whole system of nuclei and electrons conserves energy and angular momentum,
but realizes a large change in the form of energy from a potential energy of a
nucleus to kinetic (phonic vibrational energy)—temperature—of the entireI
lattice of atoms. Conservation of energy via energetic single particles
(opposite electric centers of charge) does not happen. This is the crux of
LENR where there is no energetic radiation (particles or EM) happening in the
exchange.
It does seem to lead to a “cooling” of the system of atoms which then in
subsequent SLOW interactions with other matter systems radiates infrared EM
photons to the universe.
This may provide some answer to your inquiry of good questions IMHO.
Bob Cook
From: Stephen Cooke
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 6:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:ICIN-G
The following thoughts are purely conceptual and speculative and lack the
deeper understanding and critical analysis of most concepts discussed here but
i have been wondering about them so i thought someone here might be able to
help.
I have been wondering over past months what happens when an atom in ground
state becomes "colder". Both at electron orbital and nucleus level.
In the past i questioned here i think but also on the physics stack exchange
what happens to lower electron shell levels when a a nucleus undergoes decay or
if some other transient particle interaction (such as a proton or neutron)
inside the electron orbitals causes the electron existing energy to be
insufficient to remain in the lower orbital. I was wondering if it could lead
to "Hydrino", "Hyds" states for example or other less stable lower energy
states of the electron or the energy would be recovered from elsewhere. (I
suppose its would be also relevant to electrons higher orbitals if