In reply to Robin van Spaandonk message of Friday, October 30, 2009 7:08 PM
[Snip] What I am trying to get at is how close can these atoms approach one
another. Information that is necessary in order to determine the fusion
rate. [End Snip]
Robin,
We know the atoms will eventually collide; the million dollar
question is how they got accelerated to these velocities. I may be in a
minority proposing Naudts relativistic hydrogen inside a Casimir cavity
represents an intermediate energy source but I think there is a growing
consensus that the nuclear artifacts are in fact the result of some as yet
undefined intermediate energy source where the nuclear reactions are simply
a side effect.
Regards
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
In reply to [email protected]'s message of Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:20:27
+0000
(UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>
>Robin,
>
> If you mean the basic reason you can't have a "real" sub ground state
the kinetic energy argument is here http://www.phact.org/e/z/hydrino.htm
E= -me^4/2h^2 OR
This derivation makes the same basic error that Feynman made, confusing x
with
delta x and p with delta p.
Furthermore, Mills' orbitals have a fixed radius, and hence the radius is
irrelevant to the calculation. Proper conjugate variables are angular
momentum
and angular position. Since the angular position is completely
indeterminate,
the uncertainty therein is effectively infinite, and hence the angular
momentum
may be determined to any desired degree of accuracy. In fact, it's a
constant
(at any radius). (Note that even in QM angular momentum is a constant -
given
AFAIK without further explanation).
Hence Heisenberg can't be used as an argument to restrict the size of the
orbitals. (This may be different for QM orbitals where the motion of the
electron varies in three dimensions, if I understand it correctly).
Note also that if the uncertainty in momentum really were as large as
suggested
in the paper above, then there would also be a large uncertainty in energy.
Such
an uncertainty in energy would IMO lead to fuzzy spectral lines (in fact a
complete blur), yet that is not what is seen. Sharp spectral lines imply
well
defined energies, which in turn imply small uncertainties in the energy. IOW
the
width of the spectral lines is a measure of the uncertainty.
>
> The hydrino and other unlikely states by Norm Dombey
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608095 also argues the hydrino is non
physical in 3 dimensions but ignores relativistic solutions -A point that is
valid for the hydrino as defined by Mills but ignores Naudts suggestion that
there is a relativistic solution.
If Rydberg orbitals really are circular, then that proves that circular
orbitals
are possible, regardless of what Dombey says.
>
> I'm not sure if I understand what you are seeking regarding math - as
Bourgoins 2006 paper indicates you simply divide C by the quantum number to
get the radial velocity for different fractional states which is what I am
proposing are actually inertial frames and that the velocity is unchanged
from the perspective of the atom itself inside the frame. Whether this
seemingly "shrunken" atom can now fit between narrower plates is what I
think you are alluding to and it is a question I have been considering for
some time.
What I am trying to get at is how close can these atoms approach one
another.
Information that is necessary in order to determine the fusion rate.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
