Resend: vortex apparently lost the original post. Until 1939, nobody knew how fusion might proceed in the sun because the most obvious reaction in dense hydrogen plasmas would be two protons going to helium-2, which as it turns out would be unstable due to Pauli exclusion - thus immediately dissociating back to protons. That is when Hans Bethe proposed that one of the two protons periodically decays to a neutron in that short time span - transmuting to deuterium, which is far more stable. This decay by a positron is extraordinarily rare, but serves to limit a runaway PP chain reaction - and the rate comes to close to the known energy release level, which can be calculated accurately.
This work in solar nucleosynthesis won the Nobel Prize for Hans, but it led to a number of difficult issues - involving what became known as the solar neutrino problem. Currently, the solar neutrino problem is assumed to have been solved by a revised "understanding" of the properties of neutrinos - called oscillation. This 'fix' has itself been considered by some to be completely inadequate, due to conflicting experimental results. Experiments which should provide the best results for oscillation, like the MiniBooNE in 2007, end up contradicting prior findings. In short - oscillation may not have solved the problem after all. If not, we are back to square one. And according to the Standard Model, the three different kinds of neutrinos: electron, muon, and tau always presented a huge glossed-over "mass problem" if oscillation does happen, in that the mass difference between the three suggested the conversion of energy to mass at an unprecedented scale but with no indicia. Let's leave that for another day and return to the transitory helium isotope known as the "diproton" for an alternative explanation which address the neutrino deficit from the perspective of another reaction. IOW there is a second gainful energy release which is not necessarily fusion, and it does not necessarily occur in the solar core. But it is not Millsean 'shrinkage' either. First - the obvious: there is no deficit to explain when there is energy production equal to about half the known solar heat output, but coming from the solar corona, if the kind of reaction does not produce neutrinos. That is almost a "duh-moment" but is never mentioned in polite company, since it makes everyone a tad uncomfortable to suggest that something like hydrinos or even worse: ZPE - could provide about half the solar thermal output - yet without known nuclear fusion reactions. Heresy! You can see how the suggestion of ZPE would not just rock the boat, but rock the world of solar astronomy to its core. Still, ask you self how cranky this is, in comparison with an "oscillation model" that suggests massive changes in mass-energy of neutrinos, yet with no apparent side effects ! Next, in this simplified summary of the argument, we consider the solar corona and monatomic hydrogen as the solution to the problem. We know that the corona is far hotter than the interior of the sun, and the emission lines show that much of it is monatomic hydrogen, oscillating between plasma and monatomic states. No one can adequately explain why the corona is orders of magnitude hotter, especially if there is no basic energy production happening there ! Clearly, the standard model does not allow for gainful energy reactions in the corona. Randell Mills claimed to have solved the neutrino problem by suggesting that the neutrino deficit can be explained by non-nuclear (hydrino) reactions. His model has been neglected and ignored - but when considered closely by the few who will listen, it suffers fatally from what he did not explain - why the reaction would not be complete reversible in energy balance, and thus net neutral, due to the intense gamma radiation instigating 'reinflation'. Geeze, that is why we call them 'ground states', Randy! In the end, hydrinos are probably not the correct answer because the reaction would be nearly net neutral. BUT we must then ask: is there another 'corona model' to step-in where Mills' hydrino has failed? Maybe. This is the diproton QBEC model for creation of a transitory helium nucleus consisting of two protons and no neutrons which immediately decays BUT depositing net energy into the corona via ZPE. Whoa! You can hear the response from the mainstream already: Not the dreaded ZPE again! Diprotons are not stable due to spin-spin interactions and the Pauli exclusion principle, which forces the two protons to have anti-aligned spins and gives the diproton a negative binding energy. Thus they release net energy if they were able to use ZPE to form the transitory diproton first, since continuation to fusion that cannot happen as two fermions. However, a predecessor state might happen as a composite boson. A solution to all of this is monatomic hydrogen as seen as a composite boson, and the QBEC state. The quasi-BEC is a transitory state at high heat and high pressure, and it is purely statistical - resting on the rare random alignment of all energy states of two adjacent composite bosons. Single H has integer spin, and alignment of other states would be extremely rare, but probably not as rare as Bethe positron decay, in the final accounting. There could be a tiny statistical window for it, even at elevated temperature, due to monatomic hydrogen being the simplest of all composite bosons, and quantum entanglement providing semi-coherency to begin with. After all, the magnetic field in the corona is already aligning spin. In the solar corona, not the core - there would be net energy production that would completely solve the neutrino problem, since the reaction happens as a composite boson with immediate decay and no positron, and at a higher rate with no real fusion. The energy released has been harvested from the zero point field, and then supplements longer lasting fusion heat from the solar interior - to explain the lack of neutrinos (as inherent to two separate processes of approximately equal thermal output). OK - this is a very "green" hypothesis so far, in more ways than one, admittedly, since it relates back to an earthbound model - and certainly this speculation might be shot down by this afternoon. But as always, that is what we are here for. Lock and load. Jones
