What Jones is getting at is duality in physics. This is a hard idea to
understand. Bul let is try to understand this proven idea.

Meaning of Duality in Physics

Posted on November 1, 2012 by Suresh Emre

The literal meaning of the word “dual” implies two but in philosophy “dual”
usually means “not one.” In physics dual means equivalent. There are
multiple descriptions of physical reality. These descriptions are not
necessarily equivalent but if they are then we call those dual theories.

The concept of duality in physics can be best described by dual universes.
We do not know whether dual universes actually exist or not, but we can
think of them as mathematical universes.

Physical laws are expressed in terms of equations. What is an equation? It
has a left hand side and a right hand side. The equation of a physical law
maps the physical quantities on the right hand side to the physical
quantities on the left hand side. An equation expresses a functional

If there is a dual universe every physical quantity in this universe would
have a corresponding physical quantity in the dual universe in such a way
that the mathematical equation of the physical law is the same in both
universes. This is the key point. After the transition to the dual universe
the mathematical form of the physical law remains the same but the physical
quantities are replaced by their duals.

Transition to the dual universe is known as duality transformation which
transforms all physical quantities into their duals. Duality
transformations typically involve simple rotations but these duality
rotations can be very abstract too.

I mentioned earlier that in physics dual means equivalent. The equivalence
refers to the equivalence of the form. Dual theories are equivalent because
their equations have the same form. The physical quantities, however, are
different. For example, an electron in this universe may appear as a
magnetic monopole in the dual universe. In both universes the physical law
is expressed using the Maxwell equations. The equations are exactly the
same but the physical quantities have been switched with their duals. This
is the idea behind the unification through a duality transformation.

If an electron in this universe appears as a magnetic monopole in the dual
universe and if I know the details of the duality transformation then I
know something about the nature of the real entity (unified field or
particle) that exists, perhaps, in a higher dimensional realm. Electron is
one projection and magnetic monopole is another projection of the same
entity in the dual universes.

In this type of unification the equation itself is taken as the fundamental
entity. The physical quantities are mere projections. The implication is
that the abstract realm of the equation is more fundamental than the
physical realm.

Discovering the laws of physics and writing them down as mathematical
equations is one thing and finding the solutions of those equations is
another. It took Einstein a decade to formulate the law of gravitation in
terms of an equation. It took a century and hundreds of physicists to find
all the mathematical solutions of that equation in different physical
settings. People are still solving the Einstein equation. Same goes for the
Dirac equation. It took Dirac only a year to come up with his famous
equation for the relativistic motion of an electron. People are still
applying Dirac equation and finding solutions in the presence of various
external fields. Finding solutions can be more difficult than formulating a
law of physics in terms of an equation.

Under the duality transformation the equation remains the same while the
physical quantities are exchanged by their duals. This means that we
understand both universes in terms of the same law. If it is difficult to
solve the equation for a particular physical quantity we then switch to the
dual universe and solve the same equation for the dual quantity then
convert that solution to it equivalent in this universe.

Finding a solution for the dual quantity is sometimes easier.


IMHO, what UDH is as a duel of the monopole tachyon. This synthetic
particle follows closely all the math equations that as used to describe
the tachyon.

One of the qualities that the tachyon is suppose to possess is the ability
to turn energy into mesons through hadronization.

The tachyon is one of the main players in string theory. There is a pile of
math that has been developed in string theory that predicts what the
tachyon will do and it turns out that this behavior is exactly what Holmlid
is seeing in his experiments.  Ultra dense hydrogen is a duel of the

It is convenient to have a boatload of math equations that we can give to a
scientist that explains LENR in mathematical detail.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> The Higgs boson with spin 0 is now proved, at least to most physicists. It
> is the only spin 0 massive particle known to exist in nature, if it is not
> a funding vehicle for CERN  ;-)
> A hypothetical particle of interest (wrt UDH) is known as the chameleon
> particle. It has zero spin and other possible features which are compatible
> with those of UDH.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon_particle
> The $64 question: Could UDH actually be the chameleon, and/or is it spin
> 0?
> One way to both detect and modulate the virtual neutron, if it exists in
> the form of UDH and has spin, would be by the Larmor frequency in a
> magnetic field (NMR).
> The Larmor frequency can be visualized as magnetic precession along a
> force axis, analogous to a spinning top. Here is the range of frequencies
> for related particles (you will not be able to see this table in plain
> text):
> Particle Spin wLarmor/B
> s-1T-1 n/B
> Electron 1/2 1.7608 x 1011 28.025 GHz/T
> Proton 1/2 2.6753 x 108 42.5781 MHz/T
> Deuteron 1 0.4107 x 108 6.5357 MHz/T
> Neutron 1/2 1.8326 x 108 29.1667 MHz/T
> The spin of UDH, considered as a neutron-like unit containing 3 quarks,
> but not an elementary particle (or is it?) is an interesting subject but
> there is very little authoritative guidance.
> If UDH has effective QM spin of 0 then easy detection is going to be
> difficult and its usefulness diminished.
> In 1955, Italian Physicist Don Carlo Borghi synthesized neutrons in a
> Klystron filled with hydrogen and irradiated with microwaves. Neutrons were
> verified by the assorted radioactive isotopes following activation, and
> their decay rates. The experiment was validated by Missfeldt in 1978 in
> Germany. The experiment was further validated by William Gray of Menlo Park
> CA circa 2000.
> Mainsteam science generally overlooks these experiments... and especially
> the validation by Santilli, who actually is selling a commercial version as
> a neutron generator -- but possibly the high level rejection is for the
> wrong reason. The experiments were very likely making dense hydrogen, not
> neutrons. UDH or ultra-dense-hydrogen has many of the same characteristics
> as the neutron and can be called a "virtual neutron". The decay mode is
> even similar.
> Gray used a Cyclotron to energize protons to 0.78 MeV and an Electron Gun
> to match their velocities, and got high yields. In its virtual neutron
> state, the orbital electron travels at 2.74 x 10^8 m/s, according to Gray -
> not light speed, because the proton and electron radii limit the orbital
> size to 2.76 fm. Gray also fused the species into helium. He calls this
> process Modulated Quantum Neutron Fusion.
> Many of Gray's papers can be found at mqnf.com
> Finnish theoretical physicist Matti Pitkanen discusses some of this here:
> http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2017/06/neutron-production-
> from-arc-current-in.html

Reply via email to