Hydrino fractional quantum states only exist from a relativistic perspective.


September 11, 2009
Uncategorized

The Hydrino was dismissed by mainstream physicists because it was defined as having orbital states lower than ground state. Jan Naudts later published a paper “On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom” that proposed the hydrino could be a relativistic anomally but it wasn’t until 2007 that Ron Bougoin published “Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom” that showed the general wave equation solved for the 137 inverse principal quantum states indicated by Mills. Both authors used math normally reserved for photons dictating a relativistic perspective when applied to electrons. In a related paper Bourgoin solved for orbital velocity as C/n where 1< n <137. The equations he used dictate this velocity is only apparent from a relativistic perspective outside the cavity and can only be applied to electrons when in different inertial frames. the orbital velocity remains unchanged locally inside the same inertial frame. The relativistic interpretation is based on “Cavity QED” by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which proposes that Casimir cavities break gravitational isotropy forming an abrupt equivalence boundary between Casimir plates. The classical “displacement” of longer “slower” wavelength vacuum flux in between Casimir plates can be re-interpreted as a change in inertial frames simply making them appear faster or shorter. (see animation virtual particle vs. depiction changed wavelength). This puts a relativistic twist on the QED theory of “up conversion” of vacuum flux frequency due to Casimir effect. the gas atoms inside vs outside a Casimir cavity appear contracted and their clocks appear slower relative to each other. The observer in the faster gravitational field outside the cavity ages slower than the “shielded ” hydrogen dragging behind in the slower gravitational field inside the cavity. the hydrogen diffused inside a Casimir cavity experiences an “equivalent de-acceleration” the reverse of an ” equivalent acceleration” a spaceship would experience in a deep gravity well relative to a remote observer. The cavity keeps the hydrogen inside essentially stationary relative to outside the cavity but the plates partially shield the gravitational field falling outside from the inside. This means the small difference in acceleration is “equivalent” acceleration and accumulates velocity on the time axis. This interpertation may also be suggesting something about the true nature of catalytic action. Although the “depletion” zone in a cavity appears to accelerate reactions the suppression of spontaneous emission inside a microwave cavity suggests that microwave energy can also accomplish segregation of “concentration” and “depletion” zones but un the case of suppression the orbital would need to react with “concentration” zones to account for the delay.

The classic interpertation of Casimir cavity is described as a restriction of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations which are replaced with shorter wavelengths that can fit between the plates in a whole number of multiples. A relativistic interpretation however is that space-time curves allowing the longer wavelengths to appear shorter from our perspective outside the cavity. This “less” curved space places any atoms diffusing through the region into a different inertial frame and it expriences an “equivalent” change in acceleration complements of the Casimir effect. The differential rate between the internal and external frames allows the external world to steadily accumulate velocity away from the trapped atoms in the cavity but because the cavity walls keep the contents spatially stationary relative to the external world the difference in velocity may account for the anomalous heat and time dilation. I propose when compounds form at high velocity the opposition to the confinement increases for diatomic compounds and if cavity geometry is properly selected for this quality like Rayney Nickel it can act like a membrane. This would still harvest a photon and then restore the atoms to monatomic energy levels by sacrificing some of the accumulated velocity. The odd vector of the accumulated velocity also escapes the normal mechanical linkage back to our space outside the cavity through displacement in time. Atoms are pushed sidewise in time instead of in a spatial direction effectively trading time for energy and avoiding the expected back pressure of circulating gas through these cavities – instead we produce “much older” hydrogen and excess heat when the molecules are immediately torn apart by a rigid cavity. The hydrogen is free to re-accumulate velocity and oscillate between H1 and H2 powered by this break in isotropy.

A little history, On August 12th 2009 BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) announced that scientists at Rowan University independently formulated and tested fuels that on demand generated energy greater than that of combustion at power levels of kilowatts using BLP’s proprietary solid-fuel chemistry. Rowan University professors have reported a net energy gain of up to 6.5 times the maximum energy potential of the materials in the system from known chemical reactions. Unlike previous validations in the fall of 2008 using powder provided by Black Light Power this was accomplished using off the shelf chemicals with only a recipe provided by Black Light Power. In both cases the energy produced exceeded known chemistry but using off the shelf chemicals quiets much of the speculation regarding some overlooked energy source in the method of preparation. This is not to say I agree with BLP theory which I do not and most certainly do not accept the fractional state hydrino but rather present their results as a recent example of excess heat. Other reports include Arata in Japan, Energetics in Israel and SPAWARS in California. This whole subject of anomalous heat production regarding monatomic hydrogen and different catalysts has been a long standing mystery in the scientific community. From Irving Langmuir’s circa 1939 Nobel Prize work with Atomic Hydrogen to Ponds and Fleischman work in the 80′s and a bevy of recent reports all around the world. Trying to unravel this mystery has taken many paths, Cold Fusion, bubble fusion, LENR, cavitations and Casimir cavities to name a few. Much of the controversy has revolved around claims of a fractional quantum state where the orbital radius drops below the Bohr radius. I am proposing these so called fractional quantum states or hydrino states as defined by BLP are not real but rather relativistic and can only be observed from outside an equivalence boundary like a Casimir cavity. Atoms inside the cavity remain unchanged relative to each other in the same manner that the model Twin Paradox of physics allows the twin approaching C or an event horizon to remain unchanged relative to his own frame nothing happens.

A little theory, Casimir plates are inherent in a rigid catalyst and create a “depletion zone” where a whole number value of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations cannot fit between the plates. These wavelengths are thought to “up convert” to shorter wavelengths according to QED theory although, from a relativistic perspective of up conversion one might say the vacuum fluctuation simply de-accelerates relative to the gravitational field outside the cavity and therefore only “appears” faster from our perspective (space-time “unstretches” inside the cavity vs. outside). the wavelength
“turns” on the time axis presenting a faster smaller profile from our perspective -see animation The theory that space inside a Casimir cavity has equivalent acceleration ( actually “de-acceleration” is more appropriate compared to ambient gravity field outside the cavity) was first proposed by Di Fiore et all in a 2002 paper “Vacuum fluctuation force on a rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational field“. They proposed the possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational field. Their calculations show a resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration, their calculations indicates an equivalent acceleration between the gravitational fields “falling “outside the cavity relative to inside the cavity. This force of only 10 E^-14 N appears inconsequential but it is a constant acceleration which accumulates into frame divergence. I prefer to call this de-acceleration because the isotropy is broken by a Casimir shielding effect that leaves the depletion zone dragging behind the “faster falling” external gravitational field. Hydrogen atoms inside these inertial fields are locally unaware of any change but from our perspective outside the cavity appear smaller and faster accounting for the relativistic nature of the Hydrino.

Black Light Power’s definition of the “hydrino” and other “fractional quantum state hydrogen” definitions are wrong. Here Mills’ should be commended for excellent technical skill in capturing valuable data and improving the output despite a seriously flawed theory. Not that his mistake is surprising since DiFiore et all did not introduce the idea of a Casimir cavity until 2002 the obvious assumption to explain the increased energy had to be a change in the orbital diameter since Planks constant and time were the only other variables involved and there was no reason to suspect a relativistic effects at the time! Mills had to work without the 2002 paper by the Italian researchers proposing the Casimir cavity as a source of equivalent acceleration and it wasn’t until 2005 the term “relativistic hydrogen” was proposed in a paper by Jan Naudts“ On the hydrino state of relativistic hydrogen atom” . This is a much more appropriate term sometimes called “fast” hydrogen which should be applied. Naudts calculations showed that detractors of Mills’ hydrino and other fractional quantum theories had overlooked relativistic effects inside a Casimir cavity. Naudts should have been clearer in conveying that relativistic hydrogen is not the fractional quantum hydrino as defined by Mills – the orbital radius never drops below ground state. Naudts equations did show that at least one stable state could be explained relativistically but was orders of magnitude too high for the 137 fractional states implied by data from BLP and, more importantly, it established the relativistic link. Two years later Ron Bourgoin released a paper “Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom” that showed the general wave equation predicts exactly the 137 inverse principal quantum states claimed by BLP using Warkowski 4D co-ordinates. Both Naudts and Bourgoin used equations normally reserved for photons and skeptics argued that 1/2 spin electrons cannot occupy the same space and state and that the fractional states would simply fall away if the appropriate Dirac equations were used! A 1996 paper “Cavity QED* ” by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula addresses this with the destruction of isotropy inside a cavity and resulting effect on invariance under transformations of the Poincare group which I believe supports the equation selection by Naudts and Bourgoin and also establishes the relativistic nature of their solutions. I would state this as math performed from a relativistic perspective allows electrons to occupy what only appear to be the same spatial coordinates and states from an external perspective due to hydrogen populations at different acceleration rates but spatially near stationary, a back door way to extend the use of spin 1 equations when dealing with diverging inertial frames.

The frequent criticism regarding the stability of a fractional state hydrino is moot because the Hydrino doesn’t exist. “Relativistic” hydrogen is what Dr Mills mistook for fractional quantum states. Deiform et all proposed that the inside of a rigid Casimir cavity is a source of equivalent acceleration all the way back in 2002. So it is their calculated 10E-14 newtons of force which accumulates between the “more stationary” hydrogen atoms inside the cavity relative to the faster falling gravitational field outside the cavity (As Zofia stated the isotropy is broken by the Casimir cavity). This has the unlikely result of spatially confined hydrogen inside a cavity exhibiting Lorentz contraction and time dilation to an observer outside the plates without astronomical distances or deep gravitational wells. In fact it represents a gravitational “hill” due to depletion rather than the more familiar concentration effect of gravity “well”.

A Casimir depletion zone drags behind the exterior gravitational field to produce a differential force opposite the direction of the external gravity field. The velocity attained by hydrogen atoms in this spatially confined field is concentrated on the time axis and result in the divergence of time co-ordinates in the Warkowski space-time system. Although the 10E-14 N force seems inconsequential it only reflects the opening of the temporal confinement which heat and gas law energy can now contribute to further diverge the frame on the time axis. I am interpreting the Casimir cavity as a depletion zone where the isotropy of the gravity field is broken and the restriction of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations reduces the more gravitationally active flux below 2 THZ as proposed by Christian Beck and Michael Mackey. Their papers, “Measureability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy” and “Electromagnetic dark energy” propose virtual photons with frequency less than 2 THz are more gravitationally active than those above. Their claims are presently only theoretical awaiting experimental evidence to prove slower virtual photons are more gravitationally active. I infer from their work the ratio of short to long vacuum flux increases with mass so the time dilation in a depletion zone is opposite to a gravity well meaning the hydrogen inside a relativistic cavity will speed up instead of slow down further increasing the rate of frame divergence. It seems to act very much like catalytic action and could be the underlying mechanism behind all the columbic barrier and oxidation surface theory presently used to describe a catalyst.

Locally inside the cavity hydrogen remains just hydrogen and the Bohr radius is never violated. The acceleration inside the Cavity is at a different relative angle to time which accumulates into time dilation and Lorentz contraction which, as previously mentioned, looks suspiciously like what we more commonly refer to as catalytic action. With the appropriate choice of rigid catalyst (Rayney nickel or Pd) this “catalytic action” can be leveraged into producing excess heat. The acceleration and attained velocity of relativistic H1 inside the cavity opposes the confinement of Pd or Rayney Nickel when it forms relativistic H2 and is immediately broken apart restoring monatomic energy levels. nonrelativistic H2 remains confined by the geometry of the cavity unless disassociated such as BLP’s use of a tungsten filament in a reactor with their Rayney Nickel powder.

Hydrino fractional quantum states only exist from a relativistic perspective.
N =1 is assumed to be 45 degree for flat space sharing dimensions equally. As Velocity increases toward C on spatial axis XYZ time is suppressed (event horizon), As velocity increases toward C on time axis the spatial axis XYZ are suppressed (Casimir cavity).

If relativistic H1 forms relativistic H2 it is also denied mobility just like hydrogen molecules near the mouth of the cavity that were unable to diffuse into the depletion zone. The relativistic H2 however has accumulated velocity, is still in a frame with a different acceleration rate and is subject to gas law – heat still trying to diffuse the molecule in opposition to this confinement. The vacuum fluctuations of this still diverging relativistic frame build “organized” boundary conditions with the covalent bond of the confined molecule which breaks the bond and restores the atoms to monatomic levels using ZPE. You could also say the energy is provided by gas law for those opposed to ZPE :_)

When relativistic H2 forms inside a cavity it emits a photon and becomes more spatially confined in opposition to the high velocity of the relativistic H2. relativistic H2 and normal H2 both resist mobility when the appropriate geometry rigid Casimir cavity is selected but the relativistic H2 however has already attained high velocity in opposition to this confinement. This opposition immediately tears apart the ionic or covalent bond of the compound and restores the atoms to monatomic energy levels still at significant velocity. These relativistic H1 atoms are free to repeat the procedure again and again while emitting photons to further heat the cavity and restore some of the lost “temporal” velocity while not even combusting the hydrogen, the energy is supplied by a gravitational difference creating a temporal vector that allows a trigonmetric exchange between space and time. The product is excess heat and very “old” hydrogen.. see animation

A patent US 7,379,286 B2awarded May 27, 2008 to Bernard Haisch and Garret Moddel leverages Casimir force which they refer to as Casimir -Lamb shift. Their planned prototype of Casimir columns formed by milled columns through metallic plates separated by insulation layers are arranged in a stack. They drill an array of .1 micron columns through the stack which unlike Rayney nickel has a feed through path separated by insulators that force the depletion zones in each plate of each column to translate through its full range of values which is a vast improvement over the skeletal catalyst used by Mills. A recent discovery by Peng Chen at Cornell University Finds nanotubes only have catalytic action at ends and at defects where plate spacing changes. This indicates The Haisch – Moddel cavity columns with insulation breaks is superior to skeletal catalysts used by Mills. Although the skeletal catalyst has stronger depletion fields due to much smaller geometry the Rowan validations appear to release a burst of energy and then the Mills reactors are finished while the Haisch – Moddel model is designed to run continuously. Their .1u diameter cavities are much weaker, form columns that allow circulation control and mixing ratios of diatomic to monatomic gases and simpler heat exchange. Although the methods of confinement and the physics being exploited differ they both require the Casimir cavity to establish a differential zone where normal reactionary forces are partially suspended allowing what appears to be over unity but is actually rectifying energy from the ZPF.


23 Responses to Hydrino fractional quantum states only exist from a relativistic perspective.

  1. Anonymous December 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    M.I.T. NEWS ON FRACTIONAL QUANTUM STATES

  2. Bob February 24, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    “They drill an array of .1 micron columns through the stack which unlike Rayney nickel has a feed through path separated by insulators that force the depletion zones in each plate of each column to translate through its full range of values which is a vast improvement over the skeletal catalyst used by Mills. ”

    You seem to be making broad assumptions and comparing vastly different research as though each piece fit nicely into a puzzle. For example, you compare here Bernard Haisch and Garret Moddel’s work to Mills when the two have nothing in common. Mill’s work is not dependent on “Rayney nickel” or “skeletal catalysts” or only can occur in “short bursts” as you assert. Each of these may be part of some of Mills’ experiments but they do not characterize the whole.

    I suspect that cavity QED, LENR and Mills’ hydrino work are three separate phenomona and do not have a single cause. If true, there will be several new energy sources in the future.

    BTW, Mills reports continuous processes of heat and energy. Many experiments are run in closed vessels with limited hydrogen so there are short bursts and are not indicative of inherent limitations of the process. Also, the material characterization of tightly bound states seems real enough to merit the simplest explanation, that they are just what they seem.

  3. froarty September 23, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Fred, Please accept my overdue thanks and yes your criticsms did illuminate some major failures, It wasn’t until I read my message from your perspective I realized just how clouded my message was, Only a handfull of people familiar with the research would have understood where I was going and they were not my target audience. The title is now an immediate clear message that states my case and a clear demarcation from the fractional quantum state theories -This had been my sticking point since the math wasn’t lying but lack of proper interpretation had turned a relativistic solution into a non relativistic poison.
    I have deprioritized that message and now just trot out to kill the hydrino since it is too late to re-define it, The math of Bourgoin is still valuable but it can wait for another time to cleave it away from all the misplaced sub-ground state associations.
    Best Regards
    Fran

Leave a Reply

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *