Since 'synchronicity' is apparently trying to juxtapose a remembrance of
Walter Russell with intriguing speculation about the identity of various
cosmic species from black holes - and other dark matter candidates...
...including perhaps, Russell's concept of an inert "helionon"
Then it would be remiss not to add something additional onto the
implication of the Laughlin quasi-particle - which is a subset of the
fractionally charged electron. Here is the recent story of 'new state of
matter' mentioned a few weeks ago. Notice that Millikan/ Ehrenhaft is
never mentioned. Potential big blunders seldom are.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/ns-hrf031407.php
After all - a Nobel came out of that work, and the fractional quantum
hall effect (FQHE) is mainstream, but lest one stray a little in any
direction from there and whoa ... pathological science <g>.
W. Russell had already predicted Neptunium and Plutonium, many years
ahead of their discovery- which elements were published in his
alternative periodic table of the elements in 1926. He named them
Uridium and Urium. He did not receive the Nobel for this prediction
however. He was not a mainstream tenured physicist - so how could he?
"We have to protect our phony baloney jobs," as Mel Brooks might opine.
Back to tenured physicists (at Stanford - i.e. Laughlin). From the
article: "In the experiment, electrons moving in the interface between
two semiconductors behaved as though they were made up of particles with
only a fraction of the electron’s charge."
This so-called fractional quantum hall effect (FQHE) suggested that
fully charged electrons may not be elementary particles after all.
Electrons under certain conditions can congregate in a way that gives
them the illusion of having fractional charge – an explanation that
earned Laughlin, Horst Störmer and Daniel Tsui [L.S.T.] the Nobel prize"
[in 1998]. It is not clear that Russell's table does not also predict
this particle, nor that quantum "half-spin" is not also a recognition
that this particle e- is never fully in our 3-space.
Even if it is, isn't the "illusion of having fractional charge" a nice
way of telling the mainstream - "hey, you already blew it once, but
we're not going to rub it in just yet, if we get the big prize"?
Enough salt in that wound.... which is a long way from healing.
Anyway - a further candidate particle, created under "certain
conditions" which should be mentioned in this context is a proton bound
by two fractionally charged electrons at a radius greatly below the Bohr
radius...
- and electrically neutral due to fractionally charge (each of 1/2
normal charge).
This is not the Mills hydrino-hydride, as he firmly predicts that
particular particle to have a -1 charge. That mistake on his part is
probably why he has never been able to demonstrate the species, at least
to a skeptical audience (and may never win the big one).
Next to consider: a variation of Fred Sparber's idea of the leptonic
triad "electronium" but this candidate species would be an uncharged
variety consisting of a fully charged positron and two fractionally
charged (1/2 normal charge) electrons. The advantage of this species
over Ps in certain situations - is that it can account for the
appearance of an electron in 3-space with no source (if one is willing
to dispense with any requirement for conservation of charge across
dimensional boundaries).
Is this food-for-thought... or merely time for a 'pepto' to prevent
indigestion?
Jones
