Harry,
Interesting suggestion.
Proton mass is the property which is apparently not fixed. Mark Davidson has a
good paper on the broader topic
Davidson_2015_J._Phys.__Conf._Ser._615_012016or in the larger file
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedr.pdf
On Saturday, March 16, 2019, 11:30:49 AM PDT, H LV <[email protected]>
wrote:
Some years I noticed a curious parallel betweenl the shape of a typical stress
strain curve and the shape of the binding energy curve. If the parallelism is
more than just a coincidence then it suggests the standard binding energy curve
is only "apparent" and the true binding energy does not have a maximum.
In this link I placed a stress strain curve beside a binding energy curve.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5ZlUwRHNaaDQ0Qzg/view?usp=sharing
Engineers speak of an apparent stress strain curve when they ignore changes in
cross sectional area. Could physicists have been ignoring some equivalent area
in their model of nuclei? At first I thought about changes to the shape of the
whole nuclei but this has already been taken into account in their
calculations. What has not been considered - I could be mistaken - is that the
shape of a single proton is subject to deformation. Perhaps a proton
experiences elastic deformation when fused into lighter elements but
experiences plastic deformation when fused into heavier nuclei. This might be
related to the fact that Jones has often pointed out that a certain property of
protons (I forget which) is not known as definitely as other constants.
Harry
