Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The calculated external proton charge radius from magnetic moment is 
0.840869916fm (measured 0.84087fm).


But things are not always that simple. The internal charge radius is 
different and also the internal magnetic radius. That's all based on 
SO(4) physics that certainly will replace SM for dense matter.


Here the 90 year old formula for the electron mass based on magnetism.

m_e = µ_B ^2 */(**α *πε_0 *r*_*edbr* ^*3* *) *- r_edbr electron de 
Broglie radius!



Why these idiots for 90 years tried to find solutions with potentials is 
a mystery ...


J.W.


Am 31.08.19 um 04:19 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 23:58:02 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

The answer is simple

q^2 --> rm. Charge square is proportional to rotating mass. In a proton
much more mass is needed to produce the same charge. Ergo adding an
electron can do nothing...

J.W.

Given that both mass & charge of the proton are known, what radius do you
calculate?

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 23:58:02 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>The answer is simple
>
>q^2 --> rm. Charge square is proportional to rotating mass. In a proton 
>much more mass is needed to produce the same charge. Ergo adding an 
>electron can do nothing...
>
>J.W.
Given that both mass & charge of the proton are known, what radius do you
calculate?

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The answer is simple

q^2 --> rm. Charge square is proportional to rotating mass. In a proton 
much more mass is needed to produce the same charge. Ergo adding an 
electron can do nothing...


J.W.

Am 30.08.19 um 22:44 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 22:36:57 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

Unluckily charge is only known for the electron. The charge inside a
nucleus is given by a topological relation between waves. Charge is a
function of rotating mass. Thus your idea is to simple for next
generation of physics models.

J.W.

Then simplify the situation by only considering Hydrogen, which has the simplest
possible nucleus, comprising only a single proton, of which the charge is known
with great accuracy.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 22:36:57 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Unluckily charge is only known for the electron. The charge inside a 
>nucleus is given by a topological relation between waves. Charge is a 
>function of rotating mass. Thus your idea is to simple for next 
>generation of physics models.
>
>J.W.
Then simplify the situation by only considering Hydrogen, which has the simplest
possible nucleus, comprising only a single proton, of which the charge is known
with great accuracy.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Unluckily charge is only known for the electron. The charge inside a 
nucleus is given by a topological relation between waves. Charge is a 
function of rotating mass. Thus your idea is to simple for next 
generation of physics models.


J.W.


Am 30.08.19 um 21:45 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:59:28 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

First a small theoretical update.

A proton consists of a 2x2 core relativistic wave structure that couples
with a three wave excess-energy flux part and a two wave charge
structure. In SO(4) we have a 5 rotation structure where core mass only
can have 4 and charge has 5. This model is highly accurate and allows
e.g. to calculate nuclear properties like e.g. the magnetic moment of
Deuterium and of course it's exact mass.

 From an energy point of view it is completely impossible that adding an
electron to a proton will ever generate an anti proton because you would
need to completely inverse the flow of all magnetic mass. In the
electron case the annihilation is straight forward because the external
visible orbits do match in shape and energy! But a proton and electron
never match.

1) The energy of a ( positron + anti-proton ) = ( electron + proton ), thus from
an energy standpoint there is no problem.

2) They don't need to match, because we are not talking about annihilation, we
are talking about a charge exchange mechanism, where the proton becomes
negative, and the electron positive, i.e. electron -> positron & proton ->
anti-proton.

3) Annihilation occurs when the newly formed anti-proton meets another normal
proton, where the structures do match. (Ditto for the positron.)

Taking this into consideration, please have another go at explaining why it's
impossible. Note that I think you may be right, but would like to understand the
real reason why.






[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:59:28 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>First a small theoretical update.
>
>A proton consists of a 2x2 core relativistic wave structure that couples 
>with a three wave excess-energy flux part and a two wave charge 
>structure. In SO(4) we have a 5 rotation structure where core mass only 
>can have 4 and charge has 5. This model is highly accurate and allows 
>e.g. to calculate nuclear properties like e.g. the magnetic moment of 
>Deuterium and of course it's exact mass.
>
> From an energy point of view it is completely impossible that adding an 
>electron to a proton will ever generate an anti proton because you would 
>need to completely inverse the flow of all magnetic mass. In the 
>electron case the annihilation is straight forward because the external 
>visible orbits do match in shape and energy! But a proton and electron 
>never match.

1) The energy of a ( positron + anti-proton ) = ( electron + proton ), thus from
an energy standpoint there is no problem.

2) They don't need to match, because we are not talking about annihilation, we
are talking about a charge exchange mechanism, where the proton becomes
negative, and the electron positive, i.e. electron -> positron & proton ->
anti-proton.

3) Annihilation occurs when the newly formed anti-proton meets another normal
proton, where the structures do match. (Ditto for the positron.)

Taking this into consideration, please have another go at explaining why it's
impossible. Note that I think you may be right, but would like to understand the
real reason why.






[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Robin—



I think you are close to the real model of protons  and neutrons.  This 
consideration reflects P. Hatt’s model of nucleons as validated by high energy 
inelastic electron scattering experiments.



The experiments have been evaluated by William Stubbs in several papers and in 
his recent book on nuclear physical structures.  The analyses he has 
accomplished brings into question the generally accepted  model of quarks and a 
“sea” of  gluons.



Bob Cook






From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 7:37:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:59:00 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>PS: And please forget the matter anti matter story. It is childish old
>physics thinking. Why e.g. can a nucleus expel antimatter 
>(positron...) Annihilation is only one option when e- e+ meet.

Perhaps under the right conditions, an electron can combine with a proton,
expelling a positron, and converting the proton into an anti-proton.
Then the anti-proton annihilates a normal proton.
The expelled positron annihilates an external electron.
Charge is conserved because two electrons & two protons have gone.
The net result is the complete conversion of mass into energy.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

First a small theoretical update.

A proton consists of a 2x2 core relativistic wave structure that couples 
with a three wave excess-energy flux part and a two wave charge 
structure. In SO(4) we have a 5 rotation structure where core mass only 
can have 4 and charge has 5. This model is highly accurate and allows 
e.g. to calculate nuclear properties like e.g. the magnetic moment of 
Deuterium and of course it's exact mass.


From an energy point of view it is completely impossible that adding an 
electron to a proton will ever generate an anti proton because you would 
need to completely inverse the flow of all magnetic mass. In the 
electron case the annihilation is straight forward because the external 
visible orbits do match in shape and energy! But a proton and electron 
never match.


Jonathan:

Now to the Tesla coil setup. You will see the same as we see in side a 
nucleus. Two parallel ring currents induce by two quasi "parallel" 
(toroidal!) fields currents do a coupling according Biot Savard. This 
happens as a virtual mass. The weight of this this virtual mass is = the 
energy needed to separate the two toroidal fields. So far no virtual 
particles no energy gain nothing just plain physics.


But we have no clue how the background (ether) works. This is beyond 
SO(4) physics, that certainly will replace most of SM nonsensical 
inventions like Higgs particles virtual particle coupling etc..
Around 1910 physics (e,p,h,alpha,c) have been defined around the 
electron magnetic mass. Then came the mathematicians that only could 
solve square equations and bingo they switched from magnetism to 
potentials...
Thus most SM is nonsense or fringe science (exchange particles, time 
reversal, parity violation, quark, bifidus, yogurt...Higgs, hick's,..)




Am 30.08.19 um 04:37 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:59:00 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

PS: And please forget the matter anti matter story. It is childish old
physics thinking. Why e.g. can a nucleus expel antimatter 
(positron...) Annihilation is only one option when e- e+ meet.

Perhaps under the right conditions, an electron can combine with a proton,
expelling a positron, and converting the proton into an anti-proton.
Then the anti-proton annihilates a normal proton.
The expelled positron annihilates an external electron.
Charge is conserved because two electrons & two protons have gone.
The net result is the complete conversion of mass into energy.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:59:00 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>PS: And please forget the matter anti matter story. It is childish old 
>physics thinking. Why e.g. can a nucleus expel antimatter  
>(positron...) Annihilation is only one option when e- e+ meet.

Perhaps under the right conditions, an electron can combine with a proton,
expelling a positron, and converting the proton into an anti-proton.
Then the anti-proton annihilates a normal proton.
The expelled positron annihilates an external electron.
Charge is conserved because two electrons & two protons have gone.
The net result is the complete conversion of mass into energy.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:59:00 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Some years ago people feared that CERN might produce black holes...
>
>the imagination of such things is deep old children instinct driven 
>behavior that outplays the brain.

No, it's just caution, which is wise, if a potential exists to blow up the
planet.

>
>To split a proton you need to add about 53MeV. You can do this only with 
>dense Hydrogen as this state is able to directly accept and store 
>photons of e.g. a laser. The splitting - chain reaction - for a total 
>conversion of proton mass to photons is restricted to the tiny area of 
>condensed dense hydrogen. There is absolutely no chance that such a 
>reaction goes farther as the produced energy has the form of K,Pi,Muon 
>and is transported miles away before it starts to react again.

That wouldn't matter if miles away it encounters another massive particle that
repeats the process. Such a situation is guaranteed to be encountered within the
Earth itself. However if it's a one to one relationship, i.e. no growth, then
the output from a single ongoing reaction would only be a few micro-watts, and
consequently not a problem. However if it grows exponentially, then it would
become problematic eventually.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

A neutron plus a positron many form to produce an anti-proton.  P Hatt may 
consider this possible, given his model of nucleons—which I consider has much 
merit.  Thus,  annihilation may happen.



Bob Cook







Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10




From: Jürg Wyttenbach 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 4:59:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

Some years ago people feared that CERN might produce black holes...

the imagination of such things is deep old children instinct driven
behavior that outplays the brain.

To split a proton you need to add about 53MeV. You can do this only with
dense Hydrogen as this state is able to directly accept and store
photons of e.g. a laser. The splitting - chain reaction - for a total
conversion of proton mass to photons is restricted to the tiny area of
condensed dense hydrogen. There is absolutely no chance that such a
reaction goes farther as the produced energy has the form of K,Pi,Muon
and is transported miles away before it starts to react again.

J.W.

PS: And please forget the matter anti matter story. It is childish old
physics thinking. Why e.g. can a nucleus expel antimatter 
(positron...) Annihilation is only one option when e- e+ meet.


Am 29.08.19 um 22:21 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:
> Hi,
>
> Suppose that an anti-proton annihilates a proton. If any of the resultant
> particles have a negative charge, and are capable of converting another proton
> into an anti-proton, then in dense matter, the result may be chain reaction 
> that
> ends up converting all matter into gamma rays.
>
> Perhaps this is the origin of "gamma ray bursters". Some poor race, looking 
> for
> a new energy source ends up instantly converting their entire planet into a
> burst of gamma rays, going out with a bang, and alerting the rest of the 
> galaxy
> to the fact that they once existed.
>
> Motto:- Be very careful, it may just be a matter of doing enough conversions 
> at
> once to act as the match that sets off the powder keg.
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>
>

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Anti-matter

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Some years ago people feared that CERN might produce black holes...

the imagination of such things is deep old children instinct driven 
behavior that outplays the brain.


To split a proton you need to add about 53MeV. You can do this only with 
dense Hydrogen as this state is able to directly accept and store 
photons of e.g. a laser. The splitting - chain reaction - for a total 
conversion of proton mass to photons is restricted to the tiny area of 
condensed dense hydrogen. There is absolutely no chance that such a 
reaction goes farther as the produced energy has the form of K,Pi,Muon 
and is transported miles away before it starts to react again.


J.W.

PS: And please forget the matter anti matter story. It is childish old 
physics thinking. Why e.g. can a nucleus expel antimatter  
(positron...) Annihilation is only one option when e- e+ meet.



Am 29.08.19 um 22:21 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

Hi,

Suppose that an anti-proton annihilates a proton. If any of the resultant
particles have a negative charge, and are capable of converting another proton
into an anti-proton, then in dense matter, the result may be chain reaction that
ends up converting all matter into gamma rays.

Perhaps this is the origin of "gamma ray bursters". Some poor race, looking for
a new energy source ends up instantly converting their entire planet into a
burst of gamma rays, going out with a bang, and alerting the rest of the galaxy
to the fact that they once existed.

Motto:- Be very careful, it may just be a matter of doing enough conversions at
once to act as the match that sets off the powder keg.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:anti-matter production

[H LV]

This is off topic but I have speculated that the eye creates a very small
amount of light so it might be place where spontaneous hawking radiation
occurs.
Harry

On Sat., Aug. 24, 2019, 8:49 p.m. Axil Axil,  wrote:

> Rossi said that the SL reactor produces photons in the 100 to 200 nm
> range. This is the photon energy that resolves when Hawking's radiation is
> extracted from the vacuum. Those photons have negative frequency.
>
> As I have repeated a few time: SK energy does not come from transmutation
> but from Hawking radiation. Rossi has found how to minimize transmutation
> and produce energy by extracting photons from the vacuum. Photons extracted
> from the vacuum have negative frequency. This means that they are in the UV
> or EUV energy frequency range.
>
>
> See:
>
> Testing Hawking radiation in laboratory black hole analogues
>
> https://phys.org/news/2019-...
> 
>
> In their study, Leonhardt and his colleagues made light out of positive
> and negative frequencies. Their positive-frequency light was infrared,
> while the *negative-frequency one was ultraviolet*. The researchers
> detected both of them and then compared them with Hawking's theory.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:09 PM  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Rossi seems to think the Compton wavelength of the electron is important,
>> and
>> Proton21 uses 600 keV electrons.
>> Perhaps 511 keV is the minimal energy needed by an electron to convert a
>> proton
>> into an anti-proton (pair -production??).
>>
>> If so then the theoretical maximum energy gain per reaction is a factor
>> of
>> 2 x (mass of proton) / (mass of electron) = 3672.
>>
>> That ought to be enough to cover conversion inefficiencies. ;)
>>
>> It also has the great advantage that a star ship wouldn't need to carry
>> around
>> massive amounts of dangerous anti-matter, but rather could make what they
>> need
>> on-the-fly from ordinary matter. In fact they may even be able to harvest
>> hydrogen from interstellar space to use as fuel, ensuring that the
>> initial fuel
>> load would only need to be sufficient to get them up to a speed where
>> they can
>> collect it as fast as they use it.
>>
>> Combine this with a reactionless drive, and one has a near light speed
>> capability to reach the stars. :)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> local asymmetry = temporary success
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:anti-matter production

[Axil Axil]

Rossi said that the SL reactor produces photons in the 100 to 200 nm range.
This is the photon energy that resolves when Hawking's radiation is
extracted from the vacuum. Those photons have negative frequency.

As I have repeated a few time: SK energy does not come from transmutation
but from Hawking radiation. Rossi has found how to minimize transmutation
and produce energy by extracting photons from the vacuum. Photons extracted
from the vacuum have negative frequency. This means that they are in the UV
or EUV energy frequency range.


See:

Testing Hawking radiation in laboratory black hole analogues

https://phys.org/news/2019-...


In their study, Leonhardt and his colleagues made light out of positive and
negative frequencies. Their positive-frequency light was infrared, while
the *negative-frequency one was ultraviolet*. The researchers detected both
of them and then compared them with Hawking's theory.




On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:09 PM  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Rossi seems to think the Compton wavelength of the electron is important,
> and
> Proton21 uses 600 keV electrons.
> Perhaps 511 keV is the minimal energy needed by an electron to convert a
> proton
> into an anti-proton (pair -production??).
>
> If so then the theoretical maximum energy gain per reaction is a factor of
> 2 x (mass of proton) / (mass of electron) = 3672.
>
> That ought to be enough to cover conversion inefficiencies. ;)
>
> It also has the great advantage that a star ship wouldn't need to carry
> around
> massive amounts of dangerous anti-matter, but rather could make what they
> need
> on-the-fly from ordinary matter. In fact they may even be able to harvest
> hydrogen from interstellar space to use as fuel, ensuring that the initial
> fuel
> load would only need to be sufficient to get them up to a speed where they
> can
> collect it as fast as they use it.
>
> Combine this with a reactionless drive, and one has a near light speed
> capability to reach the stars. :)
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>