If Protons were composed of Muons and Anti-Muons, both short lived and annihilate with each other, how could there be no evidence of Proton Decay?
I didn't even finish reading, so maybe this was explained later, but that's all I had the time or head space to observe. On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > A provocative model of the proton has appeared on the web this year which > can help explain the surprising results of Leif Holmlid. It comes from a > retired nuclear engineer – Bill Stubbs. Stubbs also has an older book > available on Amazon called “Nuclear Alternative”. > > Here is the gist of it (paraphrased to account for Holmlid): > > The proton is composed of nine similar particles whose mass is each about > 1⁄9 that of a proton - there are three groupings of three. Those particles > are identified as the muon/antimuon. The muon and the antimuon have unit > negative and positive charge, respectively so that there is a net > positive charge of 1. The combined mass of nine muons is 1,863 electron > masses which is 27 electron masses greater than the proton's mass of 1,836 > -- but since the interaction is “binding” in the technical sense, a mass > defect similar to that seen in all nuclear binding will reduce the net > mass of bound muons to what is 204 equivalent electron masses, and they > cannot annihilate in bound form. The common name for the high energy > version of proton disintegration is “quark soup” but the muon will be by > far the longest lived component of a low energy version (Holmlid’s > version). Thus quarks are really muons which is a radical departure from > present models. > > Unfortunately, the reflexive comment from the physics establishment will > be to label this as a crank notion. Maybe it is. Were it not for > Holmlid’s results, meshing directly into the detail of the Stubbs model, > it will probably end at that, instead of gaining traction. But given that > Holmlid could be proved correct, and very soon, it is wise to keep an > open mind until you read what Stubbs has to say, in the context of > Holmlid. In short, there is little experimental evidence to validate the > Stubbs model, outside of Holmlid’s work – but it appears to me that both of > them together form a very compelling argument to explain LENR (or one > version of it) with the apparent production of muons* in situ*. > > *http://wlsprojects.com/seeing-inside-a-proton.html* > <http://wlsprojects.com/seeing-inside-a-proton.html> > > *http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html* > <http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html> > > *http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html* > <http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html> > >
