What you might need to do in your book is justify the LENR view of reality before you get into detail. The electron and light are the same thing topologically. The electron is just a defect or break in light. Both the electron and light “emerge” from the fabric of the vacuum.
Without this new type of worldview, LENR is hard to understand. http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/cmp/2013/198710/#B30 Abstract “We review the progress in the last 20–30 years, during which we discovered that there are many new phases of matter that are beyond the traditional Landau symmetry breaking theory. We discuss new “topological” phenomena, such as topological degeneracy that reveals the existence of those new phases—topologically ordered phases. Just like zero viscosity defines the superfluid order, the new “topological” phenomena define the topological order at macroscopic level. More recently, we found that at the microscopical level, topological order is due to long-range quantum entanglements. Long-range quantum entanglements lead to many amazing emergent phenomena, such as fractional charges and fractional statistics. Long-range quantum entanglements can even provide a unified origin of light and electrons; light is a fluctuation of long-range entanglements, and electrons are defects in long-range entanglements.” On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:58 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > There are some interesting ideas here. I guess it could be possible that > he got a couple things right, it is not likely though. It seems to me if > cold fusion was really this successful there would be a lot more people > working on it. I one thing that is completely obvious to me is that all of > the math that this guy does is completely meaningless. He used a series of > equations completely out of their context that made relationships that were > nonsensical. It is ridiculous to model a photon as a capacitor. Photons > have no charge, yes a positive and negative component, but no electrical > charge. > > My feeling that that this book would be a waste of time to read, and that > it was written by a liar. I know that he used Planck's constant to find the > transitional velocity and not the other way around. If he could show us a > way to derive his transitional velocity that did not use Planck's constant > I would believe him. Until then please don't waste your time on this > nonsense like I did. > > ...................... > Cold fusion is real and we don't need reviews like this. > > The math is correct. > > He did not get the photon model. It clealys says that the transitional > velocity is the product of frequency and velocity. The frequency is that > of the emitted photon and the wavelength IN COMBINATION WITH THE > ELECTRIC CHARGE OF THE ELECTRON gives the energy of the of the photon. > In combination the model produces both the wave and particle like > properties of matter. > > I do produce Planck's constant from a fundamental analysis where I sent > the velocity of > sound in the nucleus equal the velocity of the transnational state. I > make no claim that > I did not know Planck's constant before I did this. > > Anyway he gives all one star reviews. > > Frank > > >
