Another possibility is that the atom will accept muons at a orbital very close to the nucleus, these orbitals are in the kilovolt energy range.
No electrons need to be displaced when muons are absorbed into an atom. Mills has never considered the possibility that 10 mm emission line might come from an excited muon orbital state. The ground state of muon orbit is in the kilovolt electron volt range. There is a muon detector that can be used to see if moons or around during a Mills or LENR reaction see http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muonphysics.pdf On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > In posts yesterday you have raised a number of good observations - and > there > is a bit more information floating around cyberspace this week about the > putative single Dirac (KG) ground state, which can refine the idea of a > stable fractional state for LENR, which is also the identical state of dark > matter. Thus - a new subject heading, as this is not Mills territory > anymore. > > The prior "strong force" suggestion (acting on hydrogen oscillation) for > explaining gain in LENR was a hasty error... my bad. The beauty of not > being > tied to any one explanation is that "instant redirection" is possible :-) > > The flavor of the day hypothesis is that hydrogen may possess two ground > states: one at half an Angstrom orbital radius and one about 40 times less. > Most of the hydrogen in the Universe is in the deeper, denser, colder and > more stable state. Ostensibly, it is 64,000 times more compact than > hydrogen > but is spread out in a "thinner-than-gas" form which does not aggregate. > The > lack of gravitational self-interaction is the mystery. Does the lower > ground > state itself "flip" hydrogen into the category of "mirror matter"? i.e. > lack > of P-symmetry or mirror reflection symmetry? > > Other experts provide mathematical evidence that there is no such state, so > there are arguments either way - but the bottom line could be coming from > cosmology - and the dozens of new papers on emission peaks from clouds of > supposed dark matter, the identity of which can now be hypothesized to > simply be a cold isomer of hydrogen which loses most of its mutual > attraction. The actual radiation which is detected comes from new hydrogen > going into the cloud, since there is a remnant weak attraction in mirror > matter. There is the possibility that the dark matter cloud is itself > related, or can be identified as the inverse of the black hole, meaning it > is connected via a wormhole to a black hole somewhere else in space. But > let's stick to LENR implications. > > The Klein Gordon equation for the single deep level gives the ground state > value 3.7kev, which is interesting wrt dark matter (and the mounting > evidence of x-rays at ~3.5 keV which value has been red-shifted, due to > distance). The eigenfunction has a distance which is reduced from 50 pm > (Bohr radius) down to 120 fm. This is near the value obtained by the Dirac > equation. Emission in this range also have a value which could have been > undetected in 24 years of LENR, since instrumentation for x-ray detection > in > this spectrum is commercially absent, outside of NASA. > > One further implication of this cross identity of LENR and dark matter in > the cosmological context is that we have a very stable deep ground state, > one which will not decay, as is the usual explanation for the signature. > What we see coming from these clouds of dark matter is new hydrogen > emitting > the radiation signature. As for nanomagnetism, the magnetic field of the > new > f/H species, being inverse square goes from 12.5 Tesla to 156 T yet there > is > no magnetic attraction either, possibly diamagnetism - meaning that this is > a new form of matter, not just dark but dark and mirrored. > > This points to a way towards the accumulating proof of an LENR <-> dark > mater <-> DDL connection which is most likely already in evidence in the > Letts/Cravens effect. > > I will save that for another post. > > From: Eric Walker > > Why wouldn't the extra energy be lost again when the > electron eventually returns > to a higher orbital? (Since it would have to escape the > strong force again.) > > Electrons don't feel the strong force. (Although are > affected by Coulomb attraction.) > > Eric > > >
