Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
Mark-- I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of coherent regarding a semi-conductor. Semi-conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted theory. Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent system? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat to transfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first became still. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency (which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONE quantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of the atoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it will be 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossed constantly. To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different 'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of energy can ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of oscillators if conditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept of a type of impedance-matching between the different types of oscillators. Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent... and that would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of physics and chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to reproduce. Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE... what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was large enough, and no atoms entered it, it would be a perfect vacuum at 0K. Are there photons of heat constantly flying thru it? Who knows... perhaps the NAE boundaries present a higher barrier to atoms shedding heat quanta so the NAE remains pretty much a perfect vacuum until a H or D atom diffuses into it. Does that H or D atom then shed any heat quanta it has to join any others which have also entered the NAE. If so, then wouldn't they form, spontaneously, a BEC? -Mark On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- One of the issues is what is the extent of Coherency--I have been calling it coupling the material systems we know. Are crystals coherent?, are nano particles coherent?, are molecules coherent?, are BEC coherent?, are semiconductor resistors coherent? What in your experience defines the size of a coherent system? Bob rom:
[Vo]:Liquid metal batteries
At an MIT startup. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/03/liquid-metal-batteries-may-be-the-answer-for-cheap-energy-storage If we can get liquid-metal batteries down to $500 a kilowatt-hour, we'll change the world, Donald Sadoway, chief scientific adviser at Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Ambri Inc., said in an interview. We've heard that refrain before, haven't we? Still, it is true. - Jed
[Vo]:Jet-engine-powered eCat hybrid
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=841cpage=2#comment-923133 Andrea Rossi March 11th, 2014 at 11:27 AM Frank Acland: Perhaps you remember that we made RD also using gas as a fuel. That line of RD has been carried on and we are now preparing for a pilot jet engine gas fueled hybridized with an E-Cats assembly. This is exactly what I am working upon during these very days, while the work of the third indipendent party is going on with the hot cat. Obviously, the technology of the Hot Cat is strictly connected with the gas fueled Hot Cat. But remember: I still must say that: THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT IN COURSE MADE BY THE THIRD INDIPENDENT PARTY CAN BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AND NOTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THE FUTURE WORK CAN BE SAID UNTIL THE RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AS THEY MIGHT BE. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Jet-engine-powered eCat hybrid
Original question, answer discussion at http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/rossi-working-on-e-cat-jet-engine/ Frank was asking about sending heat FROM the ecat to a gas turbine. As I understand it, Rossi is planning to send heat from a jet engine TO the ecat, replacing the electrical input. (Significant military use : they have plenty of jet fuel around, and could do with the electricity)
[Vo]:E.C. Burtt, 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science'
It has, no doubt, been worth the metaphysical barbarism of a few centuries to possess modern science. Why did none of them see the tremendous difficulties involved? Here, too, in light of our study, can there be any doubt of the central reason? These founders of the philosophy of science were absorbed in the mathematical study of nature. Metaphysics they tended more and more to avoid, so far as they could avoid it; so far as not, it became an instrument for their further mathematical conquest of the world. Any solution of the ultimate questions which continued to pop up, however superficial and inconsistent, that served to quiet the situation, to give a tolerably plausible response to their questionings in the categories they were now familiar with, and above all to open before them a free field for their fuller mathematical exploitation of nature, tended to be readily accepted and tucked away in their minds with uncritical confidence. E.C. Burtt, 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science', Doubleday Anchor Book, 1954, pp. 305-306)
Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
Hi Bob,
No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve...
My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call
a coherent system...
Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if
that is so.
RE: your statement that,
If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same
time, responding instantaneously.
What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously???
Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15
seconds???
I seriously doubt it...
-Mark
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
Mark--
I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of
coherent regarding a semi-conductor.
Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor
to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor
occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are
in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change
their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think
this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is
accepted theory.
Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent
system?
Bob
- Original Message -
From: MarkI-Zeropoint
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24PM
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in
evanescent light waves
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Bob:
Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BECwould
meet my definition of coherent.
Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K arevery
likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized
region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the
laws ofphysics/chemistry which have been developed based on the
UNcoherent behaviorwhich defines bulk condensed matter.
I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research overthe years
which support a physical model I have in mind.
There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of
coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down
tonear-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That
quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking.
They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat
totransfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first
becamestill.
You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have afundamental
frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be thesame
thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you
remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators),
they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of
coherency(which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add
just ONEquantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine
with only one of theatoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly
different frequency, and it willbe 'out-of-balance' so to speak and
begin shaking... it wants to shed thatquantum to get back to its
fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, thatquantum will get
absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat asindividual
packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely
small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta
arethe 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossed
constantly.
To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs,possibly
even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different
'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially
interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of
energycan ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of
oscillators ifconditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's
concept of a type ofimpedance-matching between the different types
of oscillators.
Given the above picture, is it any wonder that theprobability of
achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any
significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent...
andthat would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws
of physics andchemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult
to reproduce.
Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton andenter a
NAE... what would you
Re: [Vo]:E.C. Burtt, 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science'
I think relation-arithmetichttp://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/Relation-arithmetic_Revived_v3.pdfimportant, not only as an interesting generalization, but because it supplies a symbolic technique required for dealing with structure. It has seemed to me that those who are not familiar with mathematical logic find great difficulty in understanding what is meant by 'structure', and, owing to this difficulty, are apt to go astray in attempting to understand the empirical world. For this reason, if for no other, I am sorry that the theory of relation-arithmetic has been largely unnoticed. -- My Philosophical Development by Bertrand Russell On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It has, no doubt, been worth the metaphysical barbarism of a few centuries to possess modern science. Why did none of them see the tremendous difficulties involved? Here, too, in light of our study, can there be any doubt of the central reason? These founders of the philosophy of science were absorbed in the mathematical study of nature. Metaphysics they tended more and more to avoid, so far as they could avoid it; so far as not, it became an instrument for their further mathematical conquest of the world. Any solution of the ultimate questions which continued to pop up, however superficial and inconsistent, that served to quiet the situation, to give a tolerably plausible response to their questionings in the categories they were now familiar with, and above all to open before them a free field for their fuller mathematical exploitation of nature, tended to be readily accepted and tucked away in their minds with uncritical confidence. E.C. Burtt, 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science', Doubleday Anchor Book, 1954, pp. 305-306)
Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
Axil: Is it clear that the internal temperature of an SPP is high? How would you measure temperature of an SPP in any case.? Is there such a thing as a binding energy for a Cooper pair? It would take some force field to create the concept of a binding energy I think. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency Axil-- You said: SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. Good point. The high angular momentum keeps the phonons at bay. The Cooper pairs seem to remain together. Maybe the high magnetic field is the cohesive binding agent? And it seems to maintain itself in the case of an SPP since there is no good way to get rid of the angular momentum. It sure seems like it might qualify as a coherent system. Axil--Why is it that many do not want to admit the existence of SPP's? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate Regarding condensation of electrons: Fermionic superfluids It is far more difficult to produce a fermionic superfluid than a bosonic one, because the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits fermions from occupying the same quantum state. However, there is a well-known mechanism by which a superfluid may be formed from fermions. This is the BCS transition, discovered in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer for describing superconductivity. These authors showed that, below a certain temperature, electrons (which are fermions) can pair up to form bound pairs now known as Cooper pairs. As long as collisions with the ionic lattice of the solid do not supply enough energy to break the Cooper pairs, the electron fluid will be able to flow without dissipation. As a result, it becomes a superfluid, and the material through which it flows a superconductor. SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Bob, No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve... My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call a coherent system... Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if that is so. RE: your statement that, If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously??? Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15 seconds??? I seriously doubt it... -Mark On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of coherent regarding a semi-conductor. Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted theory. Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent system? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BECwould meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K arevery likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localizedregion of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research overthe years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. Thatquantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat totransfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first becamestill. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a
Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
Mark-- I intended that Instantaneously is the same time frame that a BEC would respond to a signal--however long it takes for the wave function to change--probably 10^-33 sec, or whatever a nuclear reaction time frame is, maybe 10^-15 sec or less. I have never seen a time frame expressed for the Pauli Exclusion Principle to act. Its a time frame associated with the creation of a new wave function for the system affected. I do not think it has to do with the dimensions of the system and the speed of light. Particles with spin and no charge are managed by whatever causes the PEP to act. At one point I read a glossy item on a quantum theory of gravity. It indicated that the foam that made of the universe responded to changes throughout the universe at about 10^-35 sec intervals, in a sense that time is quantized and the Uncertainty Principle exists. (I tend to think that time may be quantized. Length and other dimensions seem to be. I have no basis to think time is continuous to 0.) Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency Hi Bob, No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve... My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call a coherent system... Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if that is so. RE: your statement that, If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously??? Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15 seconds??? I seriously doubt it... -Mark On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of coherent regarding a semi-conductor. Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted theory. Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent system? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BECwould meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K arevery likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localizedregion of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research overthe years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic ofcoherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down tonear-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. Thatquantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat totransfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first becamestill. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have afundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be thesame thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When youremove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency(which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONEquantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of theatoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it willbe 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossedconstantly. To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs,possibly even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a
Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate Regarding condensation of electrons: Fermionic superfluids It is far more difficult to produce a fermionic superfluid than a bosonic one, because the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits fermions from occupying the same quantum state. However, there is a well-known mechanism by which a superfluid may be formed from fermions. This is the BCS transition, discovered in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer for describing superconductivity. These authors showed that, below a certain temperature, electrons (which are fermions) can pair up to form bound pairs now known as Cooper pairs. As long as collisions with the ionic lattice of the solid do not supply enough energy to break the Cooper pairs, the electron fluid will be able to flow without dissipation. As a result, it becomes a superfluid, and the material through which it flows a superconductor. SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hi Bob, No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve... My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call a coherent system... Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if that is so. RE: your statement that, If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously??? Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15 seconds??? I seriously doubt it... -Mark On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of coherent regarding a semi-conductor. Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted theory. Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent system? Bob - Original Message - *From: **MarkI-Zeropoint* *To: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* *Sent: *Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24PM *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BECwould meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K arevery likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localizedregion of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behaviorwhich defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research overthe years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down tonear-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat totransfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first becamestill. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have afundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be thesame thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency(which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONEquantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of theatoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it willbe 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed thatquantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, thatquantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat asindividual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremelysmall time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta arethe 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossedconstantly. To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs,possibly even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of energycan ONLY be transferred between the different
Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
Axil-- You said: SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. Good point. The high angular momentum keeps the phonons at bay. The Cooper pairs seem to remain together. Maybe the high magnetic field is the cohesive binding agent? And it seems to maintain itself in the case of an SPP since there is no good way to get rid of the angular momentum. It sure seems like it might qualify as a coherent system. Axil--Why is it that many do not want to admit the existence of SPP's? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate Regarding condensation of electrons: Fermionic superfluids It is far more difficult to produce a fermionic superfluid than a bosonic one, because the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits fermions from occupying the same quantum state. However, there is a well-known mechanism by which a superfluid may be formed from fermions. This is the BCS transition, discovered in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer for describing superconductivity. These authors showed that, below a certain temperature, electrons (which are fermions) can pair up to form bound pairs now known as Cooper pairs. As long as collisions with the ionic lattice of the solid do not supply enough energy to break the Cooper pairs, the electron fluid will be able to flow without dissipation. As a result, it becomes a superfluid, and the material through which it flows a superconductor. SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Bob, No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve... My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call a coherent system... Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if that is so. RE: your statement that, If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously??? Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15 seconds??? I seriously doubt it... -Mark On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of coherent regarding a semi-conductor. Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted theory. Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent system? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BECwould meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K arevery likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localizedregion of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research overthe years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. Thatquantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat totransfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first becamestill. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have afundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be thesame thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When youremove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency(which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONEquantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of theatoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency,
[Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/ There are 6 simple videos showing arguments against various parts of Special Relativity. http://www.youtube.com/user/NeoclassicRelativity
Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf The mass of the SPP is 1/100,000 the mass of the electron. This translates to a very high BEC temperature. SPP couples strongly with each other and a SPP system is inverted like a laser: that is, More energy is pumped in than is pumped out and the lifetime of an SPP is short in terms of picoseconds. SPP condensation takes the form of vortexes. My guess is that the maximum BEC temperature is constrained only by reactor structural material properties well in excess of 2000C. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil: Is it clear that the *internal* temperature of an SPP is high? How would you measure temperature of an SPP in any case.? Is there such a thing as a binding energy for a Cooper pair? It would take some force field to create the concept of a binding energy I think. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency Axil-- You said: SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. Good point. The high angular momentum keeps the phonons at bay. The Cooper pairs seem to remain together. Maybe the high magnetic field is the cohesive binding agent? And it seems to maintain itself in the case of an SPP since there is no good way to get rid of the angular momentum. It sure seems like it might qualify as a coherent system. Axil--Why is it that many do not want to admit the existence of SPP's? Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate Regarding condensation of electrons: Fermionic superfluids It is far more difficult to produce a fermionic superfluid than a bosonic one, because the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits fermions from occupying the same quantum state. However, there is a well-known mechanism by which a superfluid may be formed from fermions. This is the BCS transition, discovered in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer for describing superconductivity. These authors showed that, below a certain temperature, electrons (which are fermions) can pair up to form bound pairs now known as Cooper pairs. As long as collisions with the ionic lattice of the solid do not supply enough energy to break the Cooper pairs, the electron fluid will be able to flow without dissipation. As a result, it becomes a superfluid, and the material through which it flows a superconductor. SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hi Bob, No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve... My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call a coherent system... Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if that is so. RE: your statement that, If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously??? Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15 seconds??? I seriously doubt it... -Mark On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of coherent regarding a semi-conductor. Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted theory. Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent system? Bob - Original Message - *From: **MarkI-Zeropoint* *To: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* *Sent: *Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24PM *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BECwould meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K arevery likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws ofphysics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behaviorwhich defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research overthe years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that
RE: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency
Bob: What exactly is meant by your statement: “If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously.” Does this only apply to conduction band electrons, and only those that make up the junction, or ALL electrons in the entire chip? -mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency Mark-- I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of coherent regarding a semi-conductor. Semi-conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted theory. Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent system? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat to transfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first became still. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency (which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONE quantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of the atoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it will be 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossed constantly. To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different 'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of energy can ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of oscillators if conditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept of a type of impedance-matching between the different types of oscillators. Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent... and that would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of physics and chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to reproduce. Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE... what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was large enough, and no atoms entered it, it would be a perfect vacuum at 0K. Are there photons of heat constantly flying thru it? Who knows... perhaps the NAE boundaries present a higher barrier to atoms shedding heat quanta so the NAE remains pretty much a perfect vacuum until a H or D atom diffuses into it. Does that H or D atom then shed any heat quanta it has to join any others which have also entered the NAE. If so, then
