Reply to comment on ‘Ultradense protium p(0) and deuterium D(0) and their relation to ordinary Rydberg Matter: a review’

In this reply to an additional Comment by Hansen and Engelen it is shown that there is no violation of the baryon number conservation ‘law’ in the nuclear reactions in H0). In numerous well-known studies from large groups, baryons are both created and annihilated, without breaking the baryon number conservation ‘law’. This point was misunderstood in the Comment. H(0) molecules have very little in common with covalently bonded H2 molecules. The smallest H(0) molecules are H3(0) and H4(0). The picometer bond distances in H(0) are measured by the kinetic energy release in Coulomb explosions by neutral fragment time-of-flight experiments (not in TOF-MS experiments as stated in the Comment). The bond distances are further measured with femtometer precision in rotational spectroscopy experiments, with spin resolution for s = 2, 3 and 4. Many different molecular forms are observed for p(0), D(0) and pD(0).


Introduction
The quantum material ultradense hydrogen H(0) [1,2] has been studied experimentally with several methods since 2008 and there are now 65 publications in refereed scientific journals on H(0).Nevertheless, skepticism has existed in some physics circles but there has been no publication which has disproved any of the numerous experimental and theoretical results on H(0).Comments by Hansen and Engelen and replies to those comments exist [3][4][5][6][7].
So now I give my response to a new comment by Hansen and Engelen (H&E).I'll answer scientifically with citations from their text using the structure that they have chosen.First, from their list of keywords it seems that their comment includes something about hydrogen phase diagrams, but this is not the case.
'No independentexperimental confirmation on production and properties of UDH has been published, whilst possible explanations in terms of instrumental artefacts have been put forward'.
No 'instrumental artefact' has been 'put forward' in any normal scientific publication.Independent confirmation has been submitted for publication recently and will probably be published soon.More confirming reports are prepared by brave and skilled groups.If our results in any of the 65 published papers had been wrong, it would have been easy to publish the negative outcome, but this has not happened.

Baryon number conservation
'Besides theclaim of 'cold fusion' of deuterons in ultra-dense deuteriumK.' We do not claim cold fusion but muon-catalyzed fusion which is a well-known process that has been much studied since 1957.
'Kthat of the conservation of the total number of protons and neutrons in the universe'.The idea that the number of baryons is constant in the universe is wrong.Baryons are created in particle accelerators and the annihilation reactions of particularly antiprotons thus the destruction of baryons have been studied by many groups [8].The statement made by H&E is therefore not correct.
H&E further state: 'A violation of this conservation law has never been observed.Not in high energy particle physics experiments, nor in another other type of experiment.' The baryon number conservation law which H&E refer to here is not the same as the conservation of the number of baryons in the universe and it does not prevent the creation or annihilation of baryons [8].
The number of baryons changes but the baryon number in each particle reaction is constant according to definition.In a baryon-antibaryon annihilation reaction, two baryons disappear, but the 'baryon number' is constant since the antibaryon counts −1.So, this reasoning is due to a misunderstanding.
'They have all shown no proton decayK.'I have never stated that the protons in our experiments decay.Proton decay is irrelevant to baryon annihilation.
However, the reaction equation H&E cite in my publication [1], from 2019 is not entirely correct.The truth was more complex than anyone knew in 2019.The complete process has been published in 2021 [9,10].
The discussion by H&E about quarks is meaningless here.For example, they ask how the strangeness in the kaons can start to exist.These particles are formed in pairs of one particle and its antiparticle.This of course avoids violation of any conservation laws and explains how the strangeness in the kaons appears.The main error in the reaction in [1], was that I proposed 3 K (kaons) to be formed.I should have proposed 2 K + 2π (pions) but we had no final experimental evidence for the pions at that time.
'Ktheir suggested explanation completely disregards the difference between matter and antimatter' The difference between matter and antimatter is not very large and is often neglectable, as is well known.Neutral kaons are formed in the baryon annihilations, and they are their own antiparticles: thus, there is no difference between matter and antimatter in this case.Other neutral mesons like the D°mesons oscillate according to CERN in 2021 [11], between matter and antimatter forms.So, it is known that there is little difference between matter and antimatter.There is certainly no violation of any fundamental laws in our experiments.
Our first published baryon annihilation reaction [9,10] was Where the meson kinetic energies in parentheses were measured directly [9,10].
The energy in the baryon annihilation is thus conserved and the energy cycle agrees within 4 × 10 −4 .

Molecular structure of H 2
Why this part is included in the comment is difficult to understand since the review [1], is not concerned with covalently bonded hydrogen molecules H 2 .H&E mention no quantum numbers, no molecular orbitals and no angular momenta as important for an H 2 molecule but only its energy terms.The discussion here is not relevant to our original article.Ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) does not contain any H 2 molecules.The smallest H(0) molecules are H 3 (0) and H 4 (0) as described in several publications.I will just give a few short answers.
'This is what defines the size of thenormal and, we can safely add, to date the only observed form of the H2 molecule.' 'Kclaim the existenceofanother species of the hydrogen moleculewithbondlength 2.3 pm' There are no H 2 molecules with such a short bond distance.This was misunderstood by H&E.Based on this misunderstanding, they begin a discussion about H 2 molecules.But there are no H 2 molecules in H(0).The smallest H(0) molecules are H 3 (0) and H 4 (0) as described in several publications.Thus, there are no H 2 molecules with 2.3 pm bond length but numerous larger molecules like H 2N (0) with this bond distance.
'In their figure 1 the authors present their understanding of how this very short bond length cancome about.Their argument is that the molecule has six Coulomb interactionsK.'.
Figure 1 in reference [1], illustrates that there are four attractive Coulombic terms and just two repulsive terms in an H-H entity, all of the same size and with the same distance variation.Thus H(0) forms highly stable molecules when angular momentum is quantized.H(0) is defined by angular momentum quantization.This is not described in figure 1 but in [1].
'Kincrease of the Coulomb interaction with reduced distances,it will render smaller structures more stable than bigger structures.
This explanation begs the question of why there are any normal H 2 molecules.'This is a good question but outside the scope of the present reply.'Normal' H 2 molecules are maybe normal on Earth but not normal in many other places in the Universe.
'The kinetic energy term will therefore growfaster than the Coulomb terms will decrease (go more negative) when the molecular lengthscale is reduced.' No molecular length scale is reduced.We discuss an H 2 entity to show that it is stable from a potential energy aspect.It is not implied that the electrons are confined to small boxes.The interatomic distances are 2.3 pm in state s = 2 but it is not expected that the electrons are strongly confined.They are probably what is called delocalized and occupy orbitals over many pairs of hydrogen atoms in the chain-like molecules H 2N (0).
'By the argument of HZG, there istherefore nothing to prevent this atom from collapsing to a structure where the electron islocated on top of the nuclear charge.' The process H&E imply to be impossible indeed exists and is called beta capture or electron capture.It seems further that H&E think that the electron in an s orbital circles around the nucleus.The spherical s orbital is only the time-independent solution for an electron with zero orbital angular momentum, thus it is passing through the nucleus.The most likely location for an electron with l = 0 is in fact in the nucleus.The main factor which governs the electron motion in an atom is its quantized angular momenta.H(0) is defined by its quantized angular momenta as expressed very clearly in [1].
The discussion by H&E of spin couplings is of no concern for our review [1].The cancellation implied is not necessary for any of our conclusions.
However, the pairing of electrons with different spins, often referred to as up and down, is a well-known fact for example in the covalently bound H 2 molecule.One may just consider the fact that an orbital has almost the same shape whether there is one or two electrons in it.Thus, the cancellation of interelectron repulsion, which we observe in passing, indeed exists.
The spin, denoted as 's', in the H(0) state is not as simple as merely summing up the spins of the fundamental particles, contrary to what H&E have proposed.Thus we call it a 'mixed' spin [1].Skeleton motions in the molecules couple to this vector.A better term may be just J instead of s.Nomenclature will stabilize after some time.

Experiments, measurements
'Kemploying a standard, potassium doped, iron oxide catalyst producing clusters of various sizes of UDH' This sentence contains many errors.The catalyst is a crucial part of the experiments and it cannot be bought, so what makes it a standard catalyst?The catalyst is not potassium doped, the molecular form of the catalyst contains potassium as a main component as proved a long time ago by Ertl and co-workers [12].The catalyst produces molecules (not clusters) of H(0) as described in detail in [2].
'A common laser 1 then induces the explosive breakup of these clusters'.If there were clusters, the laser-induced Coulomb explosions would give an energy of one eV to the fragments, not the observed 630 eV.This high kinetic energy value immediately proves tightly bound molecules in H(0).A 'common' laser cannot give explosive breakup of 'common' materials.
'A dynode at −7 kV accelerates the positively charged reaction products towards a scintillator in front of a photo-multiplier.'This is a misunderstanding.A dynode at −7 kV cannot accelerate positively charged particles towards anything but itself.Secondary electrons from the dynode impact on the grounded scintillator.This should be obvious.No 'reaction products' are detected but fragments from the Coulomb explosions.
'Very hard to understand and not convincing.'Understanding parts of these publications demands a specialized background which of course not everyone can have.However, the expert reviewers in the respective journals found the arguments compelling.There are ten such publications (see a few examples [13][14][15][16]) that used the same methodology and were deemed convincing by the reviewers.
'The postulated bond length of a few picometers, in particular, is calculated from the observation of flight times in mass spectra.' This sentence contains numerous errors.How can the bond length be calculated if it is postulated?How can the bond length be calculated from flight times in mass spectra?Which mass spectra?The H-H bond length is not postulated but calculated from measured data.The calculation is based on the kinetic energy release from Coulomb explosions in neutral time-of-flight spectra, not in mass spectra.Please observe this mechanism very carefully: Coulomb explosions of the H(0) molecules give the kinetic energies of the fragments.The time-offlights of these neutral fragments are measured and this gives the kinetic energy of the fragments which is up to 630 eV.All the facts are in the publications.
'The peaks which, noted in passing, have extremely poor resolution,' The width of the neutral time-of-flight peaks is given by the energetics in the molecules during the Coulomb explosions and cannot be adjusted.See further [7,[13][14][15][16].The time resolution is certainly good enough for determining the bond distances with considerable precision and also for deriving the molecular shapes.
'No attempt has been documented of any attempt to rule out anyother explanation, for example the obvious suggestion that the spectra are due to chargingup of the sample.'Such data are indeed given in the publications but have apparently been misunderstood.How charging up of a metallic grounded sample is possible and how this can give nanosecond time-of flight spectra is up to H&E to explain.The spectra are reproducible.The laser target is pure metal.Changes in its applied voltage shift the TOF-MS spectra correctly.This proves conclusively that there is no charging effect in the ion mass spectra.No charging or shifting effect is of course possible in the neutral time-of flight spectra.
'this production rate corresponds to an energy output close to 98 kJ with an input of 0.5 J laser light.' The annihilation measurement cited is correct, however, the calculation performed by H&E is wrong.This experiment has been repeated many times over a period of several years and also published a few times [17,18].An energy gain of a factor 1000 is normal, not 200 000 as H&E state.We hope to soon reach 1 kW output, thus net energy production.
'Another is that it is made without any reference to radiation protection measures that should have been taken.This type of intensities will cause serious damage to living biological matter in the surroundings and even to the experimental equipment used..' The radiation that leaves the apparatus from H(0) annihilation is mainly neutral kaons and muons which give very little radiation damage.This has been published in several papers [18][19][20][21].We have measured both the particles and the radiation level which has never been risky.If we had had a gain of 200 000 as H&E erroneously calculated above instead of 1000 the situation might have been different.We are anyway well prepared and have never had any enhanced radiation levels in the lab.

Final comments
'The paper of Holmlid and Zeiner-Gundersen makes claims that would be truly revolutionary ifthey were true.' The claims are true.Please note that the review [1], was based on close to 50 published papers.H&E have not been able to spot any errors in the measuring and publishing of these 50 papers which are in many different fields.
'We have shown that they violate some fundamental and very well established laws in a rather direct manner.'H&E probably mean the baryon number conservation law, which they, as explained above, appear to have misunderstood .No other fundamental law was referred to.
'We believe we share this scepticism with most of the scientific community'.A fundamental principle of modern science is proving or disproving theories.In this process, if one is impeded by not being able to produce the 'standard' catalysts needed, there is a company [22], that can provide these catalysts at a reasonable price.In this way, one might be able to produce interesting results to share with the scientific community.The inability of the community to repeat or falsify the alleged simple experiments is unexpected.

Conclusions
The comment by H&E could rightly have touched upon some aspect of the review that summarized the results from nearly 50 published papers.H&E do not have any argument about the review as such.They mainly discuss issues that have been published in several other papers.How that content can form the basis of a comment on a review paper is difficult to comprehend.
Let us finally sum up some of the science of H(0).The important points are that H(0) exists and can be produced easily [2].A few very important experiments on H(0) which H&E never mention are the rotational spectra of H(0) in [23,24], also summarized in the review [1].These measurements show very clearly picometer distances in p(0), D(0) and pD(0) for spin quantum numbers s = 2, 3 and 4. Several molecular forms are observed.The uncertainty in the bond distances is as small as a few femtometers.The published bond distance in state s = 2 is 2.245 ± 0.003 pm thus 3 femtometer uncertainty.This proves beyond any doubt that H(0) exists and has pm-sized interatomic distances.Also, the molecular level description of the production of H(0) proves this [2].Baryon annihilation in H(0) has been proved with a precision of 0.1% in the energy cycles [9,10] as also shown above.The meson creation from baryon annihilation has been proved by accurate decay time measurements [18] with error limits of < 1% of the decay times for charged pions, charged kaons and long-lived neutral kaons.The comments by H&E have not been able to touch this core of important experimental results concerning H(0).Science on H(0) has made documented progress in several publications since 2019, see for example [2,9,10,18,19,[25][26][27].
The bonding in H(0) is far from understood in all its details and any contribution to this science would provide further benefit.Also, the annihilation reactions and combinations of fundamental particles into novel types of atoms and molecules [25], are of great importance.The understanding of the full properties of H(0) is likely to change our view of the Universe [26], including the solar system [27].