On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any "new physics" is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.
LP
I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the
deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic
effects combined with magnetic effects. This is why I took the state
down to such extremely low radii in my computations:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf
A QM description could describe a larger volume state.
At close radii, the deBroglie wavelengths of the entities are smaller
than the orbital radius, thus describing a Rydberg like state,
wherein QM need not be applied. The state then is relativistic
Newtonian. It is the transition between states that requires a full
QM treatment, and I don't know that such a treatment is feasible.
However, since zero energy is required for the transition between
deflated state and ordinary ground state, the two states are
degenerate and QM permits the two states to be co-existent. Co-
existent degenerate electron states exist in some molecules, wherein
the electron wavefunction is split between distant parts of the
molecule, with forbidden zone(s) in between. It seems to me not much
of a stretch, without QM computations, for the deflated state to have
a similar characteristic.
I realize my writing is not clear, and that some of the material in
my articles is out of date, evolving, and needs correction. I need
to create a FAQ, or write a book. I have been diverted from that by
the Rossi circus. Now my personal life is overcoming my ability to
spend time on physics.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
