> thought I had is that the 0 spin (if it exists) is really a superposition of the + and – intrinsic spin states—an epo like particle held in place by gravity of the nucleus, circulating at a close radius consistent with the respective > masses of the “epo” and the rest the of coherent system mass. It would be a neutral boson making its way through the quark soup. Its orbital angular momentum would keep it going. If its orbit was an orthogonal path to > the other orbits or at a different radius, interactions to allow modification of orbital momentum may be rare. The total mass of the system would be somewhat greater than one without the neutral “epo” and account for the > ambiguous spin-mass parameter Mills is potentially suggesting.
Aha now I understand you Yes, a +1 and a -1 take out each other but it takes two electrons to do this not a single one and I think they are orbitpheres at slightly different radii. If this is the case Mills is modelling the atom differently than QM where the electrons of different spin occupy the same shell. Regards Stefan On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Stefan-- > > Thanks for those answers. > > A thought I had is that the 0 spin (if it exists) is really a > superposition of the + and – intrinsic spin states—an epo like particle > held in place by gravity of the nucleus, circulating at a close radius > consistent with the respective masses of the “epo” and the rest the of > coherent system mass. It would be a neutral boson making its way through > the quark soup. Its orbital angular momentum would keep it going. If its > orbit was an orthogonal path to the other orbits or at a different radius, > interactions to allow modification of orbital momentum may be rare. The > total mass of the system would be somewhat greater than one without the > neutral “epo” and account for the ambiguous spin-mass parameter Mills is > potentially suggesting. > > Bob Cook > > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 18, 2015 11:51 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Cross section reduction at lower energies > > > > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
