From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states 
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:52:20 GMT

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:

>Hi folks,

>In article <1993Jan21.192756.23373@ns.network.com>
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:

[ No scamm (Mills-Farrell-Kneizys Ni/K/H theory) from what I can tell..]

>> | You seem to be shooting for the idea that the electron will "stop" when
>> | it gets to the proton surface.
>>
>> Wouldn't the strong (or is it the weak) nuclear force insist?

>Nope.  Strong and EM normally don't usually "see" each -- they are two ships
>passing in the night, so to speak.  That has to be modified by the (very)
>weak interaction, of course, but even then I suspect that if you could
>somehow stably stuff an electron into a proton it would still be several
>minutes (comparable to neutron decay times) before the electron and some
>quark bumped into each other via the weak force.

>There is no "solid" surface to a proton, only the outer edge of a bag of
>three asymptotically (sp?) bound quarks moving at very high speed.  They
>don't like other quarks (protons, neutrons) much, but are generally
>indifferent towards electrons.

This is a fun one.  I really think Mill-Kneizys-Farrell's "Hydrino" theory
will some day be taught in graduate quantum classes all over the world. 
Not because it is correct, but because it is a masterpiece of deductive
logic given the Bohr model of single electron atoms.  If you can accept 
their first premise ["To radiate, the space-time Fourier transform of the
charge density function must possess components that are synchronous with
waves traveling at the speed of light. Alternately, for nonradiative states,
charge density functions must *not* possess space-time Fourier components
that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light."], then by
pure logic, you must accept all else. Yes Terry, their theory is that good! 

   In many respects this groups severe criticism of the hydrino is
justified, we now have QED in place of Maxwell for example. Are photons  
EM waves or an SR action at a distance where photons play gage?  Anyway,
sometimes mob criticism misses the beauty of a piece of work. I think this
is just one such case. *So* where does the collapse of a Hydrino lead?
To me, from what I read, a subground state 1-electron atom is has to be
inert (if it wasn't, then it would show up as absorption lines in 
hydrogen spectra!) According to the theory, once the shell-level becomes
a resonating cavity trapping an EM wave, It can not take any more photons.
This could be interpreted like a all inclusive EM force occurring between
the nucleus and the electron, and makes the system virtually neutral in
appearance. So how do you distinguish a neutron from a hydrino?  At what
point does a hydrino become a neutron?               

 John has given us figures for the hydrino shell radii, good going. 
Larry suggests they bond, or come in hydrinoets. Could be.. What's
to keep the same theory from applying to molecular bonds and their
transitions? Chaos you say? point well taken. Also, if they are that 
neutral, what is to keep them from interacting strongly, ala a tightly
bonded molecule?  


Well they paper calls for another read.  Until then,
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
  


 


     
     
   

   
   
 The reason I through out the Hydrino to Neutron
question is that if one follows    
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion