One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons). If this estimate can be based on the FCC:
Alpha^-1 = 137.035,999,174. Such that 1/137 represents an “ideal” step in a progression - and we consider the non-integer fudge factor (36 parts per thousand of the final integer) as permitted variation per step, then we are getting somewhere in being able to estimate how much energy can be derived from a population of hydrogen atoms by harvesting only the “heaviest” fraction (densest one percent). We do not know the distribution curve – would be a bell curve or something more Maxwellian? Dunno. But the potential net gain per atom is still quite high – even if we are talking about being able to convert only the heaviest percent of any population. The mass-energy of a proton is roughly one giga eV and one percent of 3.6 MeV or 36 KeV per atom - is huge - in terms of comparative chemical energy. That can be optimized in fact, thus making this speculation “falsifiable” to some degree. Jones BTW - An obvious implication of this for the NiH experimenter (of the “well-funded” variety, if there are any) is to load only the heaviest (densest) protium into a NiH reactor. Don’t laugh, this is doable – even if it is not commercially practical at the present time. After all, some mass-spectrometers operate on a “mini-calutron” principle. Who cares if you waste a lot of hydrogen on a NiH experiment – if it proves an important point. Personal note: I could write a book based on this photo below – and might do that one day; but these machines are the ‘maxi’ version – not the ‘mini’ version needed for NiH … and they are still there (in Oak Ridge). Due to the wartime copper shortage, the electromagnets of these babies were made using literally millions of pounds of pure silver bullion “borrowed” from Fort Knox … but now irradiated and collecting dust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Y12_Calutron_Operators.jpg _____________________________________________ Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion that hydrogen mass is not quantized- at least not “in practice”. (to be explained) First off – it would be most unusual for only one isotope of one element in the entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the case if the proton were to be found quantized in practice. Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this hypothesis - it is possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation between the theoretical and the actual – such that there is a theoretical “ideal” – the so-called Bohr atom - which exists only on paper, and which is quantized. In the pursuit of experimental physics, however, there is variation and there is leeway, and there is a range of masses with an average which corresponds to an ideal value, with populations on either side of the average that exist “in practice”. Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent less than one half of its mass, combined with other bosons which are essentially “glue” - but most of them are said to be massless. It simply does not add up when you do the numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured easily and there is NO firm value - and QCD teaches that quark mass is subject to color change (with consequences to mass-energy release) so quark mass itself cannot be constant. If quark mass is not quantized, then it goes without saying that proton mass cannot be quantized. Again – we can define an “ideal” value – but do not expect to see it in practice. Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the standard model and is a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major category of massless particles is gauge bosons – like the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons BUT they cannot be massless to the extent the strong force is dynamic. Thus the entire structure of matter in the standard model is “built on a lie” – which is the massless particle. We know the “real mass” is actually a significant fraction of proton mass. Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which tells us their energy levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are quantized, but even so, these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their levels are also built on another sandy foundation – the FCC (fine structure constant). The FCC “ought to be” an integer value but is not since each frequency must correspond to an energy (hν) by Einstein’s equation. This photon energy must be the difference between two energy levels, since that is the amount of energy released by the electron moving from one level to the other but that does not depend on the mass of proton. The energy of a state can be characterized by an integer quantum number, n = 1, 2, 3, ... which determines its energy. The end number however is close to 137 – given by the fine structure constant but it is not exact and non-integer, so we suspect that every value in between is also not exact. Moreover, it is likely that this variation is tied to permitted mass variation in the proton mass. IOW there are fudge factors everywhere which are based primarily on the “real” proton having a variable mass (variable but within a narrow range). Even when you must conclude that the energies of electrons in atoms are "quantized," that is, restricted to certain values – the slight variation in these lines indicates that the same conclusion does not apply to the underlying proton. This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is quantized – then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can anyone think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in actual protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)? From: Eric Walker I wrote: What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous? I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the speed of light. It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c. So the mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary it will have a rest mass, and when it is travelling at relativistic velocities, it has a larger mass. Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a proton having an average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is the (rest) mass a continuous value or discrete across a range? Eric
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
