On Jan 6, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:02:39
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
If that were true then the de Broglie wavelength would be
irrelevant
to any consideration and interference would be impossible
because the
de Broglie wavelength existence would only be in the direction of
travel. Interference is due to the *lateral* wave extension, not
longitudinal.
A lateral wave is still possible that lies on the surface of the
sphere. De
Broglie himself used a phase criterion in the De Broglie wave to
calculate the
radius of the Hydrogen ground state.
If an electron can specially change its nature just to be in a
hydrino orbital, and become a 2 dimensional object,
This may not be a "change" in it's nature at all. It may *be* it's
nature.
By change in nature I mean that free electrons and electrons in
ordinary orbitals don't act like that. What changes their nature
into some new folded dimension type thing when they are in hydrino
orbit spheres?
a magic trick for
which there is no evidence that I have seen, then there is nothing to
prevent the radius of the orbital collapsing to a point.
There are *at least* two things which prevent complete collapse.
The first is
centrifugal force, the second is that as the radius shrinks, the
velocity
increases.
This all assumes no radiation is possible, which I agree is not a
necessarily bad assumption because ordinary orbital electrons do not
radiate despite their large acceleration, and the mechanism for
preventing that radiation is I think a matter of contention in
conventional physics.
Eventually, it reaches the speed of light, and this happens before
the radius of the nucleus is reached. The latter is Mills' ultimate
barrier to
shrinkage. Furthermore shrinkage is not possible under EM radiation
(and hence
can't be spontaneous).
OK, this I think I understand because the velocity and thus
acceleration remain bounded while the mass and thus centrifugal force
must increase upon taking on more energy, thus the radius must
increase to accommodate the extra energy, and thus more energy can
not be obtained from further radius shrinkage. Do you know what Mills
gives as a smallest radius?
[snip]
This is the case. In shrinking to a smaller orbital, electrostatic
potential
energy becomes available. However, if I'm not mistaken the energy/
time form of
the HUP pertains to uncertainties in energy and time, not absolute
values.
The time is a time increment, delta t. The bigger the time increment
the smaller the uncertainty on energy (and thus momentum), and vice
versa.
Indeed, and what I am saying is that the time increment is
effectively infinite.
Since the position of the electron is indeterminate,
The position of the sphere is not indeterminate. You are apparently
attempting a projection of an electron's reality onto a 2 dimensional
surface, but choosing to ignore the fact that surface still exists in
a 3 dimensional space.
Because the surface is curved upon itself, infinite distance is
available in a
finite space. (Think hamster in treadmill).
Yes but the surface still exists in 3D space, so Heisenberg should
apply, unless this new space is a newly formed special mini-universe
where ordinary rules don't apply. I suppose that is possible, but it
certainly stretches the imagination! That certainly is mulitplying
entities, entire universes, but even Occam would say it is possible
if necessary to explain experimental results.
[snip]
so is the time (at any
given point), and hence the uncertainty in the time is also
infinite, resulting
in possible very precise energies.
There is insufficient energy available to compress the orbital. It is
not available because the force between the electron and nucleus is
reduced when the nucleus is within the de Broglie wavelength of the
electron.
In the "ground state" of the Hydrogen atom, the nucleus is already
well within
the De Broglie wavelength, which = 2*Pi*r. However the direction of
the De
Broglie wave is along the momentum vector,
This is the part I find hard to understand. This is essentially a
longitudinal de Broglie wave. Two slit interference, for example, is
due to the radial extension of matter waves. Two pinhole
interference works as well, so the lateral extension exists in all
radial directions.
which in a Hydrino is tangential, not
radial, and hence has nothing to do with the nucleus. In short, it
is not the
HUP which prevents the H atom from collapsing. It is other factors,
and under
the right circumstances it can be made to collapse, though cannot
do this
spontaneously (i.e. through EM radiation).
BTW, if my version of Mills' theory is correct, then the primary
reason for the
latter is that it doesn't have enough angular momentum to create a
circularly
polarized photon.
A circularly polarized photon is merely one in which its spin is
oriented longitudinally. Circularly polarized photons still exhibit
two slit interference, don't they? Being circularly polarized does
not make the de Broglie wave longitudinal AFAIK. Now I think about
it, I do have to wonder about the possibility of ordinary
polarization though. If an electron can be polarized, like photons,
then the de Broglie wave could indeed vibrate tangentially, and thus,
assuming some mechanism exists to keep that plane tangential, then
the de Broglie wave could indeed be imbedded into a spherical surface.
For emission of circularly polarized photons by atoms, see
"Collective Electrodynamics" by Carver Mead (page 109 - and once
again my thanks
to whomever recommended this little book - you Horace?)
I don't think so, but my memory is not good. I have certainly
mentioned Carver Mead, but it has been quite a while.
The uncertainty in position results in an uncertainty in
force direction. If not, then there is nothing to prevent the
spherical surface orbital from collapsing to a point.
See above.
The uncertainty of momentum for a particle constrained by distance
delta x is given, according to Heisenberg, by:
(Delta m*v) = h/(2 Pi (delta x))
BTW, actually ">=".
I think you overlooked the phrase "constrained by" above. If x >= a,
then x is constrained by x=a. In other words, the equation given
describes the boundary condition. The use of this approach is valid
in this case in that the objective is to compute the minimum average
observable energy upon sampling.
but since
KE = (1/2) m v2 = (1/(2 m) )* (Delta m*v)^2
?
(delta KE) = (1/(2 m)) (h/(2 Pi (delta x)))^2
(delta KE) = h^2 /((8 Pi^2 m)*(delta x)^2)
so the more you can confine the position of a particle the more
kinetic energy as well as momentum you statistically observe when you
sample that energy or momentum.
Actually I think it just says that as the position of the particle
is confined,
then the uncertainty in the value of the energy measured increases.
Yes, but the range of energy observed upon sampling therefore also
increases, as does the boundary pressure. The increase in
uncertainty has profound effects when the dimensions are very small.
However my
point is that in the direction in which it is traveling, the
particle is not
confined at all (the hamster can run till it gets tired). Hence the
energy can
be measured with a precision only determined by the instrumentation
and
environment, and not limited by the HUP.
This is a very strange notion to me that the de Broglie wave is or
can be less than 3 dimensional. If it could be longitudinal only,
then interference as we know it could not exist. However, since
electrons can be polarized like light I guess I have to admit this is
possible.
The statistically higher momentum in
the reduced volume state results in an outward pressure the keeps the
orbital inflated.
See above.
When the gravity of a star reaches the point such
pressure can be overcome, then the orbitals collapse and vast
quantities of energy are released as the Coulomb potential energy
becomes available.
It isn't the "force" created by the HUP that is overcome when a
star collapses
to a neutron star. There is no such HUP force (see above).
Yes, I simply made a mistake above when referring to "orbitals". I
think it is still the same effect though that prevents stars from
collapsing, i.e. the Zitterbewegung. It is the force that underpins
both the Pauli exclusion principle, and orbital formation. It
prevents the collapse of plasma as well as atoms. There indeed is
such a force. It is the force that both provides and results from
increased momentum of confined particles, and thus the pressure that
results from that confinement. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
That article seems to be evolving considerably.
I think that behind that increase in momentum and pressure of
confined particles is a necessary increase in latent kinetic energy.
Momentum and energy are firmly related, so It seems to me that you
can't have one without the other, though some might disagree because
this means the vacuum can be a source of unlimited energy. I think
this energy is released upon matter collapse in supernovas, and is
available upon sampling the energy of highly confined particles, such
as those that exist in a nucleus.
It seems to me that if stable hydrino orbitals
were available, then stars could gradually shrink, at least to the
size corresponding to all atoms being the smallest hydrino, without
producing supernovas.
The interiors of stars are so hot that most H exists as plasma, not
as atoms,
hence few Hydrinos. Furthermore, as already pointed out above,
there are other
reasons why shrinkage doesn't take place rapidly.
I think supernovas involve a very rapid shrinkage. Maybe I don't
understand what you are saying here. I assume this is probably due to
my error above regarding orbitals in stars.
Also, in stars the primary Mills catalyst available would be H
itself, which
because of the preponderance of plasma is in short supply. It is
also not a very
good catalyst, because it requires a three body reaction. Helium
would be a
better catalyst, and Hydrino production may increase (sometimes
rapidly) with
increasing Helium content. This should lead to increased fusion
based upon the
increasing Hydrino density, and thus even more Helium. This forms a
positive
feedback loop, and might be a reason for some stars going nova
(although
increasing energy output should result in greater ionization, and
hence less H
available to form Hydrinos - a negative feedback loop).
[snip]
Interesting you bring this up. The deflated hydrogen state, as I
defined it Here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
is very similar in effect to hydrinos with regards to fusion. Who
knows, maybe there is a possibility of some kind of hybrid theory of
the two being realistic. In any case, your above comments all apply
to the deflated hydrogen state as well. The deflated state should
have a very high probability in a very dense energetic plasma, thus
it should increase the energy produced and increase internal star
pressure while hydrogen is prevalent.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
