RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
Bob , didn’t mean Casimir cavity per se but was trying to suggest the fractional hydrogen plasma loading deeper and deeper into the lattice powder inside the reactor expands into a larger area of Casimir like suppression that opposes the dilation direction of the muon. My rabbit hole was your initial post wrt to an office worker some distance from the reactor getting sunburned without explanation while techs and engineers working on the reactor remain unaffected. I was looking for some relativistic wormhole that might explain. In my initial investigation into similarity between skeletal cats of Mills and nano powders of Rossi I theorized the Casimir cavities and suppression geometry of Ni nano powders are inverses of the other and are equivalent but I prefer to take a neo Casimir perspective. When a muon with SR delayed radioactive decay intersects my proposed Casimir like plasma it is suddenly inside an inertial frame that now accelerates the decay rate in opposition to the SR velocity of the muon. As always time doesn’t change from a local perspective but there is suddenly more distance available for the muon to continue forward inside the reactor from a local perspective while the plasma seems to keep shrinking away. I think we have an odd relativistic situation where SR dilation by virtue of the muons velocity slows time AND the vacuum suppression of the reactor accelerates time COMBINE to give the muon a strange temporal vector, if this was simple polar coordinate addition the opposing temporal additions would simply cancel and spatial location remains fixed but SR is a Pythagorean relationship between velocity thru space and time while suppression is only based on geometry of the surrounding environment the particle is passing thru. There is also a distinct difference in the type of Lorentzian contraction to be considered, SR has a single axis of contraction while suppression seems to be symmetrical. My point is that this might allow for your odd prediction of a safe spatial zone immediately surrounding the reactor and muons returning from a “temporal long way round” vector to poison the remote office worker? Ok, after re-reading this is even a long shot for me but will still send so you don’t think I was suggesting the muon was traveling thru a few Casimir cavities –obviously we would have measured an anomalous decay rate a long time ago if it were that easy to deal with radioactive waste. From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons Hi Fran, I am unable to imagine how something special would happen in that case. A muon in slow motion may have a greater chance of interaction if its energy is near the ionization energy of the atoms upon which it is incident - but this is only a small energy - less than 10eV. At higher energy, it is probably more likely that the muon is going to ionize the atom and then scatter at lower energy. The distances are so small in condensed matter that the scattering will happen rapidly and will reduce the muon to the sweet spot wherein it can interact with the chemical (electronic) structure of the next atom it meets. How would a brief passage though a Casimir geometry alter these behaviors? On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by suppression appears to achieve negative light speed relative to observers outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean relationship to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we instwead perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite direction and to some extent cancel? Always out on a limb, Fran
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
Hi Fran, I am unable to imagine how something special would happen in that case. A muon in slow motion may have a greater chance of interaction if its energy is near the ionization energy of the atoms upon which it is incident - but this is only a small energy - less than 10eV. At higher energy, it is probably more likely that the muon is going to ionize the atom and then scatter at lower energy. The distances are so small in condensed matter that the scattering will happen rapidly and will reduce the muon to the sweet spot wherein it can interact with the chemical (electronic) structure of the next atom it meets. How would a brief passage though a Casimir geometry alter these behaviors? On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather > becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the > muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by > suppression appears to achieve negative light speed relative to observers > outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO > catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer > wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the > perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay > and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean > relationship to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we > instwead perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial > displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite > direction and to some extent cancel? > > Always out on a limb, > > Fran > >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
Axil's post is one interpretation of QM, other could be that the QM fields represents real fields e.g. no particles in space. This means that you can view QM as billiard with fields in stead of balls and things get to be much less mystic. Also Mills is starting to get real evidences of over unity now. With that comes his theory that after all have guided him to success, which means that when the suncell, if it works, start to get noticed, then Mills theory might as well become the standard way of interpretting physics. His theory have non of the mysteries in QM and can be viewed as billiard with fields in stead of balls using classical thinking. I myself are pretty certain that the theory are the best way to view the world but it is difficult to come to this conclusion. His book is hard to see through. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > We are talking Quantum Mechanics here, not billards. In QM, > superposition means that the muon can be in many places at once while > it is in the entangled state. Distance does not matter. Where the muon > ends up is based on decoherence of what has entangled the muon with > the LENR reaction. It is all random and not predictable. > > A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory > is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only > be made in terms of probabilities > > A travelling particle > > As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts > at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later > time tB. > > Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the > particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is > either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the > probability that the particle in question can be detected at location > B at time tB. > > The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist > Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical > probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from > A to B, is the following. > > Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A > to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the > possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse > detours. > > There exists an infinity of possibilities. The particle can visit > New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before > arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain > information about velocities. The first part of the particle's > trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final > millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely > different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first > step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however > outlandish they may seem. > > The second step is to associate a number with each of these > possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school, > but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers > associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum > canceling each other, others adding up. The resulting sum tells us the > probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the > location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all > possibilities a path integral or sum over histories. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X > wrote: > > Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather > > becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that > the > > muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate > by > > suppression appears to achieve negative light speed relative to > observers > > outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO > > catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer > > wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the > > perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay > > and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean > relationship > > to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we instwead > > perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial > > displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite > > direction and to some extent cancel? > > > > Always out on a limb, > > > > Fran > > > > From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:38 AM > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons > > > > > > > > In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed: > > > > The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, > which > > is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this > > would
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
We are talking Quantum Mechanics here, not billards. In QM, superposition means that the muon can be in many places at once while it is in the entangled state. Distance does not matter. Where the muon ends up is based on decoherence of what has entangled the muon with the LENR reaction. It is all random and not predictable. A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only be made in terms of probabilities A travelling particle As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later time tB. Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the probability that the particle in question can be detected at location B at time tB. The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from A to B, is the following. Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse detours. There exists an infinity of possibilities. The particle can visit New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain information about velocities. The first part of the particle's trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however outlandish they may seem. The second step is to associate a number with each of these possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school, but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum canceling each other, others adding up. The resulting sum tells us the probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all possibilities a path integral or sum over histories. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather > becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the > muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by > suppression appears to achieve negative light speed relative to observers > outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO > catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer > wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the > perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay > and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean relationship > to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we instwead > perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial > displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite > direction and to some extent cancel? > > Always out on a limb, > > Fran > > From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:38 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons > > > > In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed: > > The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which > is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this > would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and > decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. > > > > There are a number of things wrong with this. First, most commonly > encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies. At these > energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of > light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation > in its decay. Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the > cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds. This is why > cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without > having decayed. > > What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this > is a measure of velocity squared. One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2. > In Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the > velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c. For Holmlid's report of a > measure of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by suppression appears to achieve negative light speed relative to observers outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean relationship to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we instwead perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite direction and to some extent cancel? Always out on a limb, Fran From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed: The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. There are a number of things wrong with this. First, most commonly encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies. At these energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation in its decay. Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds. This is why cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without having decayed. What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is a measure of velocity squared. One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2. In Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c. For Holmlid's report of a measure of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c. This is only an approximation for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity must be invoked in the solution. Special relativity would reduce the velocity from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation would be experienced. So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters. However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the dense electronic orbitals. The more dense the condensed matter, the greater the stopping power for the muon. If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape Mills' reactor vessel. On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam. Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much longer demo. Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus far. The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are exposed to a constant flu
