On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stefan-- > > Thanks for reporting on your study of GUTUP. > > That’s a nice explanation of Mill’s theory. > > Do you see a magnetic field couple between the nuclear spin and the > electronic spin (angular momentum of the orbitshperes), and, if so, does > it change with the size of the nucleus? > Mills uses this path of argument from the spin of the nucleus and magnetic force on the electron to deduce the corrected mass. But this depends on a change of reference system which I can't follow and also there is a good fit to data with the atomic mass, which he uses, in stead of the nucleus spin + mass as a parameter so I can't really see how the magnetic force come to play as Mills is suggesting. Maybe I'm all wrong here, but A direct application of a loop producing the right spin and mass and taking the limit of zero radius, gives a B-field. Using that field onto the moving electron leads to a correction close to the 6th decimal in the ionization energy. Mills goes between the light reference frame and the laboratory frame with the same B field and due to this get a 1000 times higher force that yields the reduced mass in the end. Actually I'm trying to get some answers from Mills because I view these objections as valid objections. > > If the electron has 3 different intrinsic spin states—+, –, and 0---it > may explain the so call degeneracy of the 3 orthogonal electronic orbits. > As far as I know there is only a + and - spin state. The spin comes from the layout of the current loop network and it only contains two topological variants as far as I understand for the same z direction. The network has crossings. > How does Mills address intrinsic spin, if at all? > Intrinsic spin comes from the current loops and the same can be said about the nucleus which Mills claim is a variant of the orbitsphere constructed by three quarks. I don't really know the details of the nuclear physics according to Mills. I have not gotten there yet. I'm stuck with understanding what the heck the light reference frame is and why the correction moving between them are what they are. I think that if Mills could explain that concept in much more detail much of his work could be followed. > > Bob Cook > > /Stefan > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:14 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
