Norman Cook on the Lattice Representation of the Nucleus and LENR (Video)

This might be of interest to readers here — and thanks for Joseph Fine for sharing this on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

Dr. Norman Cook, who has collaborated with Andrea Rossi on the recently published paper “On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the E-Cat” has created a short video which is an entry for a competition sponsored by the The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi).

Following an explanation of the lattice model of the nucleus, he ends with an interesting statement:

“So there you have it, there is a geometry to the atomic nucleus. But ask any university professor who teaches nuclear structure theory about nuclear stereo chemistry, and he will tell you that the lattice representation of the nucleus is wrong for so many reasons that he doesn’t know where to start. He might even mumble something about “phantasmogorically frivolous puffery”. But I would suggest that the future already belongs to those studying low energy nuclear reactions in light of the geometry of quantum mechanics.”

The video is below.

  • James Andrew Rovnak
  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Just a great video, thanks for sharing Dr Cook, currently reading you book as a result of video!
    Also check recent videos by Martin Gibson & the following!
    https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/619575797691645952

  • Stephen

    Norman Cook is brilliant in my view and I enjoyed reading his book. Nature seams to like geometry and settles into these forms naturally through often simple and sometimes chaitic principles. I can’t help thinking something about the spin nature of the nucleons combined with charge directly or more more subtly could lead to this kind of nucleus structure physically as particles or morel averagely as wave functions or in some analogous way.

    This along with external magnetic stimulation due to NMR for example may have a role in proton absorption. Norman Cook mentioned in his paper with Andrea Rossi that if Li7 was in an excited state it’s geometry would be such that proton absorption could easily lead to 2 alpha decay. He also mentioned that in this excited state it was more likely to absorb a proton, but was not sure why if I remember right. Perhaps this excited state of the nucleus has just the right uprising spin state to that of a proton to absorb it if they are appropriately aligned and of correct magnitude in a magnetic field. This would be a kind of a magnetic attraction and be rather like election pairs in electon orbitals. Actually perhaps the alignment of the k shell electron orbitals in the magnetic field also helps support proton absorption.

    Perhaps RF with different frequencies for different nuclei types could enhance NMR for those nuclei and proton absorption in those Nuclei providing they have the right receptive spin states

  • bachcole

    I am pretty sure that in the background is the University of California at Berkeley, one of my old stomping grounds.

    • GreenWin

      Dr. Cook is on the Informatics faculty at Kansai University, Osaka, Japan. http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/

      But who knows where he travels. If he is around Berkeley, or LLNL, they might regain some prestige squandered on projects like the National Ignition Facility.

  • Eyedoc

    I like this …..I like this alot. So pure and simple, but handles the complexities so well. ( Also apparently ‘handles LENR well !! re Rossi ) The momentum keeps gathering

  • GreenWin

    Describing the quantum state atomic nucleus with simple x,y,z geometry will engender an ocean of “harrumphs” from consensus science. But Dr. Cook leads us down a well trod path toward geometrical representation of… everything.

    “In nature, we find patterns, designs and structures from the most minuscule particles, to expressions of life discernible by human eyes, to the greater cosmos. These inevitably follow geometrical archetypes, which reveal to us the nature of each form and its vibrational resonances.” http://www.geometrycode.com/sacred-geometry/

    As George H. would say, “Wonderful day!”

    • georgehants

      George H says, consensus science can believe what ever it wants, one day these fools will understand that what the priests believe is irrelevant, only the Truth will find our reality.

    • bkrharold

      I remember a course I took at college on symmetry. I was amazed at how the use of simple principles based on symmetry almost magically simplified complex problems, and the solutions just appeared as if by magic. I cant quite see how this all fits in with LENR, but I hope someone on this thread can figure it out.

      • GreenWin

        bkrharold, thanks for your comment. Symmetry is a clear and curious constant in our universe. The geometry code link above points the way.

        Another version of the geometric model coined as “Lattice Nested Hydreno” LNH by Mark Poringa appeared around 2006. It differs from Mills’ “hydrino” in not applying fractional ground states to electron orbitspheres AFAIK. But the similarities to Dr. Cook’s QND are unmistakeable. http://www.lnhatom.com/synopsis.html

        As Dr. Cook suggests, those investigating LENR will inevitably stumble upon these geometric coincidences, eventually leading to a new nuclear science. Which will likely turn out to be anything but “new.” Instead, in sacred geometry we find common ground in the pyramids of Giza, spiral galaxies, Fibonacci series, geometric nucleons, and perhaps even the cyclic expansion and contraction of our universe. Quite a lot of fun really. 🙂

        • MasterBlaster7

          Hmmm…I wonder if Antony Garrett Lisi and his E8 theory has a place here. Since we are talking geometry and fundamental particles.

        • Mats002

          My brain can not wrap around the concept of any direct pulling force, to me all fundamental forces must be pushing. An expanding universe at the smallest scale might be a solution but better yet is the concept of a default pressure like Zero Point Energy as Mark Poringa suggests.
          “A major implication of the new model, is that the Strong force is understood to be an ultra-close range Casimir Effect, that literally holds the nucleus together from the outside by virtue of the continuous, impelling force from the photon, radiation pressure of the Zero-Point Field energy, estimated to be >1018 kPa, rather than the conventional view of internal “glue” like bonding.”
          and
          “The foundational concepts of the model also happen to be applicable to the wider scope of the physical sciences including: what causes mass, gravity and inertial forces; why matter and mass are not the same thing; the real nature of so called dark matter.”
          I believe mainstream nuclear scientists are in an corner from which they can not evolve, restart from another angle, new approaches, needed.

          • GreenWin

            Yes Mats this is an idea worth greater study. Bernard Haisch and Rueda suggest a ZP “gravity” theory – where the vacuum pressure assists the Strong & Weak force to particles at the Planck and cosmic scales.

            Of course as more scientists accept the “holographic universe” theory – all this becomes a simple matter of writing code to generate matter and energy in any way imaginable.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Could Bose-Einstein Condensates be the clustering of these QND units that share there electrons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGPAb4obs8

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Pardon me
      ..share their electrons.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    QND is a lot like the Copernican Revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolution

  • bkrharold

    Very interesting idea, I like it because of its simplicity, and it appears to agree with experimental evidence. I wish he had spoken more about low energy nuclear reactions and explained how he thinks they are connected to the nucleon lattice theory.

    • Eyedoc

      I’m sure that will be coming …..in due time. Enjoy

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe this is important work. Norman Cook made a theory which relates the 3D quantum positions of the nucleus to the energy the nucleus has and he has verified that with tests. I hope he is right and he checked it thoroughly and not in the way this article describes how science died do this: http://www.wired.com/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/2/