Andrew, I hope you don't mind I posted your reply on Vortex where this topic was initiated by Jones Beene. I got this reply - Jones Beene said on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:37:59 -0800 Enquiring minds want to know: 1) How does a Lochon differ from a Cooper pair ? 2) Is the formation of Lochons enhanced at cryogenic temperatures ? 3) Is the Lochon "deflated" ? ----------------------------------------------------- Now for my reply... Andrew, [snip] RE the Naudts orbit: The main argument against it is that it does not apply to fermions. However, I do not believe that anyone else has mentioned the fact that the 1s electron pair is a boson [/snip] I was unaware 1s pairs are considered bosons but it does make an interesting point. I think the equations by Naudts and Bourgoin are only valid in a catalytic environment. I am convinced that all catalytic action is based on a change in Casimir force and that Casimir force needs to be interperted relativisticlly. My point is the equations are only valid when quantifying the reactions from outside the cavity allowing the electrons to occupy the same "spatial " positions from the our perspective outside the cavity. Naudts equations describe a single solution many magnitudes beyond the fractional values solved for by Bourgoin. It is the fractional values that provide an intermediate energy souce oscillating between atomic and diatomic states powered by sudden change in Casimir force. This may assist the more energetic case your paper describes and attainment of fusion artifacts reported by some researchers.
Your reference to muon-catalysed fusion [snip] A potential importance of this naught orbit is the fact that it provides an intermediate stage for fusion of a mode that is well-known physics - muon-catalysed fusion [18]. Since the n=0 orbit radius is ~ 400 fm (at ~507 keV), n=0 hydrogen would be smaller than muonic hydrogen. But, just as a filled orbital H- ion is larger than the neutral atom, the lochonic n=0 hydrogen ion would be larger than a neutral naught-orbit atom. On the other hand, the naught-orbit molecule (H+ + H=) might be smaller than the muonic hydrogen molecular ion (and perhaps ionically bound rather than covalently bound). Details must be presented elsewhere; but, the implications for naught-orbit hydrogen and molecules for lattice mobility, lattice-site double occupancy, and muon-catalysed-type fusion are immense. Whether this is an unreal, a competitive, an incidental, or an assisting process is still to be determined.[/snip] is dead on! I have posited that just the increased time flow would concentrate the background incidence of these occurences but you seem to be making an additional case for spatial confinement where the orbital proximity is even closer than just the relativistic effect. In my theory the orbital never really changes in the local frame of the atom but you appear to be leapfrogging me by a whole new scale taking Casimir force down into the nuclei.. between neutrons? between thw nuclei and the orbital where the orbital cloud represents one of the plates? I have always felt the nuclei and orbital are both permeated by "something" traveling on the time axis that pass through our "spatial " axis and confers upon us our ability to sense time. If the rate were to change on average we would be unaware all else being unchanged the rate defines our concept of C. I believe this "something" whether ether or virtual particles or whatever, is what Puthoff refers to as restoring energy to keep the orbital from decaying or what Tesla was refering to regarding the sun "eating" more energy than it disburses. I think all material have a different level of opposition to this flow reflected in the periodic chart but conductive material exhibiting Casimir force has the ability to sum this opposition beyond the atomic level into the mesoscopic scale where we can exploit it.
