Mark— I Actually understood that the authors were mostly the same people for the older paper. I wanted see what they said back then and how they changed their minds. The old paper had much more meat than the new summary I read. Plus it was free. I noted some of the differences in their conclusions. The biggest item IMHO was forgetting the idea of light quarks. If one believes in the reality of quarks per the SM, they are primary (fundamental) particles with charge and rest mass, although able to change various other characteristics. Without a rest mass and electric charge for target quarks, it is hard to make any sense out of all the scattering data—in fact its seems IMHO to be nonsense.
I recommend Bill Stubbs book on the history of inelastic high energy electron scattering experiments and their interpretation. He self published last summer. Electron, positrons and composite muons are apparent constituents in protons and neutrons. NO QUARKS. Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 ________________________________ From: Mark Jurich <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 3:26:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration Bob C.: FYI: If you snag the actual research paper (Nature, CLAS Collaboration) that the MIT Summary by Jennifer Chu is based upon, you will see that at least 3 of the 4 authors of the review paper you site below, are co-authors of the recent Nature Paper (O. Hen is from MIT), and they reference the review paper (Reference 1). - Mark From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration The link to the MIT paper discussion is a qualitative bunch of fluff IMHO. It assumes that quarks have “speed” avoiding consideration of velocity, nor a change in relativistic mass. It tries hard to reflect the “primary (fundamental) particle” characteristic of a virtual feature of the standard model, SM. A better discussion of the EMC effect is contained in the following link: Nucleon-Nucleon Correlations, Short-lived Excitations, and the Quarks ...<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjn9-yH18_gAhVLHzQIHaUhA5UQFjAAegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1611.09748&usg=AOvVaw0i3_ogi_GxxJYgZIm73Dw6> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjn9-yH18_gAhVLHzQIHaUhA5UQFjAAegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1611.09748&usg=AOvVaw0i3_ogi_GxxJYgZIm73Dw6> https://arxiv.org › nucl-ex<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjn9-yH18_gAhVLHzQIHaUhA5UQFjAAegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1611.09748&usg=AOvVaw0i3_ogi_GxxJYgZIm73Dw6> I would suggest review of the theory starting on page 44 and ending with the section entitled “ The way we think it is and the ways to check” on page 45. (Note the idea of “light quarks” is introduced at the end.) Bob Cook ________________________________ From: Axil Axil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 12:33:28 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration http://news.mit.edu/2019/quark-speed-proton-neutron-pairs-0220 Another article about the The EMC effect, but with more detail from MIT. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jones Beene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Axil, Yes, clearly dense hydrogen is necessary, and their IP does not limit the power going in to lasers. They have made a great effort to avoid reference to Mills version of dense hydrogen, but there is little doubt that patents will be contested if there is a commercial success. The company Norront Fusion Systems is very well funded and is using laser irradiation but does not want to broadcast that fact due to the IP which is already out there, mostly held by National labs in the US. BTW this company Norront - in Norway, says that they have 3 operating reactors producing muons, now! For all we know they could be months away from a big announcement. http://www.norrontfusion.com/ Holmlid seems to be fond of exaggeration at times and has said several things he would probably like to take back or clarify, such as the muon effect happening with fluorescent lighting and other nonsense. This is one of the reasons that some physicists refuse to even consider the validity of his experiments. They will get a big surprise soon IMO. Now that Holmlid has gone full tilt commercial and has big money involved - almost nothing said can be believed, except details in the patent which if false would jeopardize the legal protection. Axil Axil wrote: Jones, You may be placing too much emphasis on the laser reaction mechanism with Ultra dense hydrogen here. Holmlid has found that the laser pulse can be replaced with a spark and that spark can still get the same reactions to occur as that low powered laser pulse can. The indispensable role that Ultra dense hydrogen plays in this quark confinement disruption reaction is to reformat the stimulant EMF energy into the proper strong force disruption format.
