Nigel and all, The proton pairing seems to be an extremely relevant issue - but it could be a mistake to think that it relates only to sequential oscillation (see-sawing) between the paired state and the singlet within the Ni matrix.
The paper cited earlier by Axil along with the implications of JS Brown suggests that there is a significant advantage to fermion pairing of protons wrt QM tunneling - i.e. there is a counterintuitive advantage for pairs, compared to singlets. Pairs are favored for a complex rationale that I cannot recite from memory, but let's assume it is correct. However, from there on - it would be a mistake to imagine that this means the pair tunnels all the way into a nucleus to create a nuclear reaction. That is most unlikely. And the see-sawing is not asymmetric, unless we are invoking the Lamb Shift, which is low energy. But maybe the asymmetry is just enough energy to bootstrap "something else", such as the proverbial "proton slingshot". That would be at a much lower energy level, which does not really involve the overcoming Coulomb repulsion at the nucleus. Are you with me so far? In fact, if you look at nickel standard reduction potentials of its valence electrons, then the IP4 of nickel sits at a potential of 54.9 eV. Consequently, there could be no need to tunnel deeper than the valence shell, if we borrow a bit from JS Brown and a bit from Mills (and reject the rest). This IP4 level sits at very close to the 4* Ry (Rydberg) value of 54.4 eV. That value would otherwise invoke Mills CQM, but actually it would not help us much if we were using a strict interpretation of Mills. This is because the Ni would need to shed 4 electrons and recover the first 3 in order to provide that level "hole" (as he calls it); and this would seldom happen in metal matrix at 400 C. Plus the hydrogen must be atomic. So, a strict interpretation of Mills is not applicable to this situation. However, there is a similar, or Millsean-like possibility that I have never heard mentioned before, and that would be that the bound PP tunnels into the IP4 level, benefiting from electrostatics. That is where the pair breaks up, leaving one proton with the borrowed valence electron of the correct Rydberg energy - while ejecting the other proton. Note that Mills is very specific that the reaction only occurs with atomic hydrogen and an energy hole - and NOT with the benefit of bound protons. We are cherry-picking here. We are saying there is no energy hole at all, and there is no atomic hydrogen, but instead we have the bound pair PP, which can tunnel into a level where nature allows (encourages) one of the pair to "steal" an electron. We would expect the typical (but truncated) Mössbauer cascade, following this "theft", no? That cascade is your excess energy. But this does not explain the ultimate source of excess energy, which seems to still be related to "expendable non-quantized proton mass". I will save the complete explanation of the process, down to the "gluino color change" for another day. Set your spam filters accordingly, as it will be a long posting. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
