Jones Beene wrote. > > Fred, > > At one time, the hydrino --travelling at near c fit the properties of > the Cynet better than most hypothetical particles. > I consired that too. Bound Electronium would fill the bill too since electron-positron pair production is so copious (gigatons per second according to a Google search):.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast25feb_1m.htm "Waiting for Cygnus X-3" " "When we looked at the images, lo and behold, there was definitely a one-sided radio jet, about 50 milliarcseconds long," recalled McCollough. "Two days later it extended to 120 milliarcseconds and then it disappeared. This likely makes Cyg X-3 a galactic blazar -- a jet source where we were looking straight down the jet." " "The Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory will be able to detect the spectral line at 511 keV that results from electrons and positrons annihilating one another. Jets like these might also entrain matter from the accretion disk or the stellar wind. If that happens we might be able to see that material by means of spectral line emission at x-ray energies." > I rest my case. Se what you get for changing the thread, Jones? :-) Fred > > 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 >
