On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge >> distribution >described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for >> electron >degeneracy levels? Are they explained by having several >> orbitspheres >coexisting simultaneously at the same radius? If the radius >> of each >orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained? >> >> I do believe that the orthogonallity is behind Mills approach as well, >> the traped photons Is of the nature jl Ylm exp(iwt). then at the radius r, >> the bessel jl is zero and the outside has zero electrical potential due to >> a boundary condition of the form C*Ylm*exp(iwt) on the sphere. >> > > I understand you to be saying that in Mills there are degenerate > orbitspheres to account for the degenerate electron energy levels known in > mainstream chemistry. I also understand the above to mean that, in your > understanding, several orbitspheres sometimes coexist at the same radius > but are orthogonal to one another (in a purely mathematical sense) to allow > this degeneracy. > This is how I understand it > A followup question: are there similarly degenerate electron levels below > the ground state, where there are several orbitspheres at the same radius? > If not, why not? > I have not looked much at the hydrinos so I don't know - it does look like GUTCP is a bit to low on details for this in my current understanding. I would like to add to this discussion an observation. In Mills radii calculation for hydrogene the reduced mass is used. There is a potential interesting argument behind the reduced mass that has implication on ideas of cold fusion. To reconcile: Mills constructs the electron field as a network of uniform current-loops that yield the correct spin and a charge distribution and mass, these loops are all geodesics on the sphere. If we assume that there is a similar matching geodesic at the nucleus, and if we assume that a small segment at this loop shall match a similar segment in the nucleus loop and try to balance this as much as possible we get that the nucleus is a spherical object with radii of the distance from the mass centrum to the nucleus if we assume a two body setup and the radius of the electron shell is the distance from the electron to the mass centrum in a two body interaction. By matching the electrical force on a segment on the electron shell with the momentum of the current we get a the expression Mills have for the hydrogene atom and one electron ions. When calculating the ionisation energies one need to add the effect of removing the electron and shrinking the nucleus size, maybe that will be the same or very similar to the ionization calculation that mills is doing. It is exactly the same if we do this ionization analysis on each pairing, but it's unclear if it is true globally. The end result is that you get a 6 digit match between calculated and meassured ionisation energy for Hydrogene and similar accuracy for the one electron ions. An interesting thing is that this enlargement of the nucleus is seen for one electron atoms you don't get it when you have two electrons because the matching is a three body and the system balances quite well. Also this indicates that the cross section of the nucleus can be larger then expected by normal theory. At least this is my speculation from trying to make sense of GUTCP and the cold fusion indications we have. It would be nice if the list could chime in with some experimental evidences that could shoot this idea down, I don't know the subject well enough to have a say about the reality of this idea - it's just a consequence of my struggle to understand theory. Regards Stefan
