Jones,
I have been in this path of understanding for quite some time now. I agree with
your statement and I too, am waiting for the "scientific world" to wake up to
this understanding.
Thank you for your post. I am going to forward it to another research group who
specializes in monoatomic energy and ZPE.
Thank you
David
DVD
________________________________
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 2:19:22 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Does the diproton solve the neutrino problem?
Resend: vortexapparentlylost 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 comesto 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 havebeen 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 theMiniBooNE in 2007,end
upcontradictingpriorfindings.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
taualways 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 ofanother reaction. IOW there is a second
gainful energy release which is notnecessarilyfusion, and it does
notnecessarilyoccur 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 solarthermaloutput - yet without knownnuclear
fusionreactions. 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 crankythisis,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,especiallyif there is no basic energy production happeningthere!
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 theneutrinodeficit 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,itsuffersfatallyfrom what he did not explain– why the reaction
would not be complete reversible in energybalance, 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. Thisisthe diproton QBEC model for creation of a transitoryhelium nucleus
consisting of two protons and no neutronswhich 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 touse ZPE toformthetransitory diproton first,since continuation to
fusionthat cannot happen astwofermions. However,apredecessorstatemight happen
as
a composite boson.
A solution to all of this is monatomic hydrogen asseen asa 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, andat a higher ratewith
no
real fusion. The energy releasedhasbeen harvested from the zero point field,
andthen supplements longer lasting fusionheat fromthe 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
thisspeculationmight be shot down by this afternoon. But as always, that is
what
we are here for. Lock and load.
Jones
