Fred,
At one time, the hydrino --travelling at near c fit the properties of
the Cynet better than most hypothetical particles.
Now it would be interesting to look at a proton bound with two
fractionally charged electrons -- a.k.a. the old notion of Frederick
Sparber called: ta-da: the 'light lepton'.
For the fractionally charged (1/2 normal charge) electron to be 'light'
we are back to the issue of mass wrt charge.
In pursuit of 'the truth' (or at least any glimmer of same) and as one
who does not mind dredging up, and re-polishing, old Vo posts... here is
yet another "Swan song" so to speak.
This 'dark subject matter', as it turns out, is a
pun-play-segue not to be missed.... especially, as I have
handy one of several on the subject of "cosmic hydrinos"
.... not to mention a good chuckle to start off your
Sunday morning... if you should happen to be a movie fan of
the late comedienne, Madeline Kahn, and are a bit of a
Mutterspracher:
The hydrino may be a good candidate for the extraordinary
but once well-known cosmic particle, formerly known as the
"Cygnon," now known as the "Cygnet" (as the editors of
Physical Review have decreed). But did their decree have the
side-effect being as unwittingly confusing this
extraordinary particle with the enormous Schwannstecker ;-) .
This particle was a "hot" cosmology and physics topic in the
mid-80s and might have faded from view, were it not for the
elephantine memory of the internet. It is so extraordinary
that 90% of physicists do not have a clue about it, even
today - twenty years later.
When the "fat lady" sings (not Madeline, please) and Dr.
Mills finally proves the reality of the hydrino (or not),
this proof might also end up being the swan-song of this
other old-score <G> mystery. The following is a little bit
light-hearted, but not entirely half-hearted reminiscence of
an unfinished chapter in particle physics and cosmology.
Is it even remotely possible that the Cygnet can be
identified as a hydrino ?? one that has shrunken far below
ground state (1/137) and then been accelerated to almost
lightspeed... or weirder yet, if one accepts the reality of
the hydrino, but not necessarily the full reach of Mills'
GUT/CQM, that in some remote cosmic furnace the hydrino can
be built from the ground up, rather than forming later from
top down? This might happen via two fractionally charged
electrons which make the Cygnet neutral.
Some of the following has been paraphrased from an
interesting copyrighted piece:
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw12.html>
with further string theory analysis from Frederick Sparber.
Another reference is "Cygnons" M. M. Waldrop, Science 228,
1298 (1985)
Mt. Blanc is the largest mountain in the Alps, and through
it goes a tunnel which connects France with Italy. In a side
room near the tunnel midpoint, normally in total darkness,
resides a complex instrument containing many photomultiplier
tubes, inappropriately named NUSEX, which was designed to
observe the predicted decay of the proton. OK, maybe it is
an appropriate name, if one happens to be the grad student
stuck in there for weeks on end just to keep things plugged
in.
Although NUSEX saw no proton decays (another great theory
bites the dust) and has now been upgraded for neutrino
detection, for a decade or more it did detect something very
strange and very powerful coming from the direction of the
constellation Cygnus, the Swan.
This remarkable particle has been dubbed the cygnon, or
cygnet. It is hadron-like, meaning it looks like its got a
few quarks of its own.
Cygnets have truly enormous kinetic energy: thousands of
times more than particles from the largest earthly
accelerators. Gamma rays from Cygnus have the right energy,
but produce only 1/300 of the µ-mesons observed in cygnon
events. Cygnets must have no electric charge because they
travel in a straight bee-line path which is not curved by
the magnetic field of the galaxy. Because cygnets create so
many µ-mesons in the atmosphere, it is likely that they are
strongly interacting particles (like protons) rather than
photons or neutrinos.
The problem with cygnets being hadrons is they go too fast.
Cygnus X-3 is a binary star system on the other side of our
galaxy, with a neutron-star orbiting a normal star which
feeds it hydrogen. The system has an orbital period of only
4.79 hours. The period can be used as a sort of
"fingerprint" to tag radiation from Cygnus, which should
change with this characteristic period - and indeed the
cygnets do fluctuate on exactly the same 4.79 hour period.
Not only is this confirming evidence of where they come
from, it also means that they travel at essentially the
speed of light; otherwise a large spread of lower speeds
would wash out the time variations. But the variations are
distinct and that just can't be correct, can it?
To summarize the important properties of the Cygnet.
(1) It is has no electric charge (and most verities of
neutral atoms can be eliminated because the "empty space"
between Earth and Cygnus contains enough interstellar
hydrogen to strip electrons from energetic neutral atoms,
but possibly not from highly shrunken hydrinos).
(2) it has a rest mass that has been roughly estimated to be
somewhere about 1/20 of a proton mass - but that estimate
may be low as it was made working backwards on assumptions
of just how close to light speed any such particle could
travel
(3) it is a strongly interacting particle; and
(4) It must be stable or have a fairly long half-life.
The variants of particle theory provide us with a menagerie
of predicted but largely unobserved particles: Higgs bosons,
axions, gravitinos, monopoles, squarks, etc. but so far as I
know, even R. Mills hasn't ventured to cast the Cygnet
particle as a highly shrunken hydrino. But he's probably got
a few other pressing problems.
The string circle particle model treats a proton as two "up
or positive (+q) quarks" and one "down or negative (-q)
quark" energy circles with a radius R = kq2/E which each
originally contained 1/2 of the energy of the progenitor
photon going in a circle at velocity c with a wavelength
"lambda" of 2(pi)R.
Thus a proton can be a stable triad of three ~312 Mev
"quarks-circles" made from two pairs of "K Mesons" of ~ 560
Mev made from a "big bang" photon of 1.12 GeV, the
odd -man-out negative K meson decayed to the external
electron:
n* 1.02Mev/alpha = 8.00*1.02e6*137 = 1.12 Gev
The Antiproton is a stable Triad of two "down or negative
quarks" and one "up or positive quarks" with the odd-man-out
positive K meson decaying to the external positron. In
either case the bound quarks have an energy of ~312 Mev each
with the 560 Mev - 312 Mev = 248 Mev going into their
Binding Energy.
The Proton:
-----> +
<------ -
-------> + net spin + 1/2, net charge +q
The Neutron:
------> +
<------ -
-------> +
0 <------- neutrino
<------ -
Net spin - 1/2 net charge 0.00. Unstable when unbound.
The Cygnon (or highly shrunken Hydrino?)
------> +
<----- -
-------> +
<------ - originally a negative 6.8 eV lepton, one or more
------> + originally a positive 6.8 eV lepton, one or more
<------ - two fractionally charged paired electrons
Net charge 0.00, net spin 0.00, Stable Unbound.
6.8 ev = 1.02e6/(8.0 * 1372) or one of the numerous 6.8 ev
particles (light leptons) that could be made from the 13.6
ev interactions of a proton with it's shrinking external
electron, perhaps necessary to keep a neutrino-like
"cushion" in there, and of course, we have to get "alpha"
involved.
Since mcr = hbar the mass (m) can decrease as radius r
increases and vice versa allowing the "quarks" to exchange
energy/mass and radius while conserving energy and momentum.
In K electron capture where energies less than 1.0 mev is
given off, the captured electron is shrunk down to a radius
corresponding to more than 60 Mev which may or may not
correspond to the minimum stable hydrino orbit which I have
not heard Dr. Mills specify exactly. OTOH, when an electron
or positron is given off with energies of a few MeV they
swell up to their original radii. Going by this, Hydrino (or
Cygnon) formation could give KeV to greater than MeV
(binding energy) when formed. It's an intriguing question as
to what the lowest energy stable hydrino looks like.
Well this is a half-baked try, and it isn't grand, but we
need a continuing mystery to keep things interesting. Oh
yes, to add to the lingering mystery, Cygnus X-3 "switched
off" in 1996 but comes back on periodically.
Had not a lot of effort and documentation gone in to
understanding the particle, prior to that time, it would be
easy for the skeptic to write off the Cygnet as science
fiction ... not unlike the hydrino...
...or are we talking about the same thing, tarred and
feathered with two fractional charges ?
Jones
