Here is a paper of interest which mentions cold fusion. The proposed
particle actually sounds a bit like the proposed PPP
(phonon-plasmon-polariton) in the form of a cluster of dense hydrogen,
which can exist at !-D even if not exactly Compton scale.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0034.
Electromagnetic Composites at the Compton Scale
Frederick J. Mayer John R. Reitz
A new class of electromagnetic composite particles is proposed. The
composites are very small
(the Compton scale), potentially long-lived, would have unique
interactions with atomic and nu-
clear systems, and, if they exist, could explain a number of otherwise
anomalous and conflicting
observations in diverse research areas.
[email protected] wrote:
Maybe we are seeing the beginning of the explanation of many of the so
called constants found in physical theories. For example, might not
an electron’s charge be explained as a tightly curled magnetic field
disturbance with small dimensions in the realm of the Planck scale?
Constants in theories only reflect limited understanding of the
natural laws IMHO. To get at the truth, we need to eliminate
constants from our logic and resulting truths. (Constants are ok for
engineers that try to develop some practical device.)
*Subject: *RE: [Vo]:Tresino, EZBW, Barut, h and bound state of
spinning magnets
The 1-D nature of strong magnetic fields IMHO is what increases the
odds of resonant coupling among particles with a magnetic moment. I
can imagine that this coupling would also work to couple with the
magnetic dipole entities making up nuclei, whether these entities are
quarks per the standard theory or positrons and electrons per the
Phillipe Hatt’s theory.or William Stubbs’ theory, both of which
explain the presence of muons, and electrons and positrons being
constituents of protons and neutrons.
As might be expected these theories find no traction in the
established physics community, which is looking face down, fat, dumb
and happy, bowing to their emperor with many holes in his suit.
H Ucar’s fresh idea about Plank’s constant being not really a
constant is very intriguing.
*From: *H Ucar <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *[Vo]:Tresino, EZBW, Barut, h and bound state of spinning
magnets
You may be aware of tresino model of F. J. Mayer which have similar
energy figures of hydrino. This model depends purely to electrostatic
and magnetostatic equilibrium, workable on 1D but likely unstable
under more degrees of freedom that Earnshaw theorem do not permit such
a equilibrium but here is still a possibility due to angular momentum
of electrons (or spin) may provide the angular stabilization like
Levitron but unlikely to tolerate disturbances. The article does not
evaluate such criteria and only give equilibrium in one axis. On the
other hand, bound state based purely on magnetic interaction on fermi
distances inside nucleons (where Coulomb forces can be safely ignored
in presence of very large magnetic interaction) or on combined
attractive Coulomb forces and repulsive magnetic interaction in
presence of proposable rotating or oscillation magnetic field provided
by involved particles (see my exeriments at
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3KwdWTgl7fisd3h_tK1YLhFeuzkPATNt
<http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3KwdWTgl7fisd3h_tK1YLhFeuzkPATNt>).
The latter can be formed in Compton wavelenth scale similar to
tresino. There is also a general model based on angular oscillation of
electron spin called Extended Zitterbewegung (EZBW) proposed by A.
Niehous which open a possibility to explain quantum behavior of
particles by classical mean. Indeed quantum mechanics definition of
spin (as z and x,y components) allows stochastic interpretations. All
is remaining is experimental evidence. If provided, Barut's
hypothesizes on unification of nuclear forces on electromagnetism and
building all particles from electron, proton and neutrino would be
realized.This open also the way to explain full quantum phenomena
classically. A newly submited paper on arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org>
"Derivation of Schrödinger’s equation
(https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01880) formulates the Planck's constant
with this comment:
From (58) it follows that the Planck constant is not a fundamental
physical constant, but rather a random variable which may be expressed
in terms of more basic parameters of a stationary stochastic process.
It would be nice that appearance of h in all formulas of physics would
make sense according this.
A note about bound states I obtained is they are highly stable under
disturbing effects most of time but some 'bad' resonances can kill them.
