[Vo]:The double domino effect

[H LV]

Vivid demonstration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plw718jHth8

Explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkBctqyKic

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[H LV]

My spring and water system was intended more as model of a hypothetical
fluid on which work is performed.

It bears some similarity with models of viscoelasticity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVK1qVkXfC4

but in my model the spring doesn't spontaneously relax after the load is
removed and the permanent deflection of the dashpot would represent the
heat produced.



Harry



On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:15 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Harry—
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Your thought experiment IMHO clearly swapped potential energy of the
> gravitational system of earth mass and weight mass to an electrically
> coupled system of atoms in the spring as well as heating the water with
> added phonic energy in the form of increased linear kinetic energy of water
> molecules as well as an increase in the average of their spin energy in the
> form of angular momentum.
>
>
>
> It’s a good example of a macroscopic system changing potential energy into
> kinetic, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics and reflecting
> what happens in coherent systems involved in LENR.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *H LV 
> *Sent: *Friday, June 9, 2017 7:47 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:07 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> animation explaining Joule's apparatus and his calculations.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yOhSIAIPRE
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:43 PM, H LV  wrote:
>
>
>
> Joule's apparatus used a spindle with paddles which was turned by a
> falling weight outside the calorimeter. The motion of the falling weight
> did not result in the generation of potential energy. It only resulted in
> the warming of the water inside calorimeter. However, if the falling of the
> weight were to wind up a spring in addition to turning of the paddle then
> the same energy input - in the form gravitational potential energy (i.e.
> the weight time the height through which the weight falls) would warm the
> water AND store energy in the spring. According to Joule the amount of heat
> generated is only a function of how far the weight falls. It is not a
> function of how quickly it falls, so even if the spring slows the descent
> of the weight the calorimeter will read the same rise in temperature with
> or without the spring attached.
>
> ​
> This thought experiment demonstrates how two systems can have the same
> energy input and generate the same temperatures but one can store energy
> and the other can't.
>
> t
>
>
>
> ​
> What I said above is not correct. In my thought experiment where I add a
> spring to Joule's original experiment (described in the video link given
> above) the amount of heat generated will be reduced because the weight will
> fall more slowly as it has to overcome both the resistance of the water and
> the spring.  What needs to be emphasized is that Joule's original
> experiment implicitly assumes that the water does not store energy because
> the the amount of heat generated is claimed to be only dependent on the
> height the weight falls. Another way of stating this assumption is that all
> the resistance experienced by the falling weight is converted into thermal
> energy and none of it is stored energy.
>
>
> Harry​
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[H LV]

This parrellel circuit model is a better way to model my hypothetical
fluid, although to reiterate the spring does not spontaneously relax after
the load is removed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9emsMcG8cc

Harry

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:41 PM, H LV  wrote:

> My spring and water system was intended more as model of a hypothetical
> fluid on which work is performed.
>
> It bears some similarity with models of viscoelasticity:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVK1qVkXfC4
>
> but in my model the spring doesn't spontaneously relax after the load is
> removed and the permanent deflection of the dashpot would represent the
> heat produced.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:15 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Harry—
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your thought experiment IMHO clearly swapped potential energy of the
>> gravitational system of earth mass and weight mass to an electrically
>> coupled system of atoms in the spring as well as heating the water with
>> added phonic energy in the form of increased linear kinetic energy of water
>> molecules as well as an increase in the average of their spin energy in the
>> form of angular momentum.
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s a good example of a macroscopic system changing potential energy
>> into kinetic, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics and
>> reflecting what happens in coherent systems involved in LENR.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail  for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *H LV 
>> *Sent: *Friday, June 9, 2017 7:47 PM
>> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:07 AM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> animation explaining Joule's apparatus and his calculations.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yOhSIAIPRE
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:43 PM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Joule's apparatus used a spindle with paddles which was turned by a
>> falling weight outside the calorimeter. The motion of the falling weight
>> did not result in the generation of potential energy. It only resulted in
>> the warming of the water inside calorimeter. However, if the falling of the
>> weight were to wind up a spring in addition to turning of the paddle then
>> the same energy input - in the form gravitational potential energy (i.e.
>> the weight time the height through which the weight falls) would warm the
>> water AND store energy in the spring. According to Joule the amount of heat
>> generated is only a function of how far the weight falls. It is not a
>> function of how quickly it falls, so even if the spring slows the descent
>> of the weight the calorimeter will read the same rise in temperature with
>> or without the spring attached.
>>
>> ​
>> This thought experiment demonstrates how two systems can have the same
>> energy input and generate the same temperatures but one can store energy
>> and the other can't.
>>
>> t
>>
>>
>>
>> ​
>> What I said above is not correct. In my thought experiment where I add a
>> spring to Joule's original experiment (described in the video link given
>> above) the amount of heat generated will be reduced because the weight will
>> fall more slowly as it has to overcome both the resistance of the water and
>> the spring.  What needs to be emphasized is that Joule's original
>> experiment implicitly assumes that the water does not store energy because
>> the the amount of heat generated is claimed to be only dependent on the
>> height the weight falls. Another way of stating this assumption is that all
>> the resistance experienced by the falling weight is converted into thermal
>> energy and none of it is stored energy.
>>
>>
>> Harry​
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:47:12
+:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin—
>
>
>In reply to your message of  Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:15:51
>
>
>My suggestion about allowable locations for Bose particles reflects the 
>Introduction below form
>The following document noted by Axil:
>
>‘Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in
>non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates’
>
>BY:  Paul R. Eastham, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland and
>Bernd Rosenow University of Leipzig, 04009 Leipzig, Germany
>
>“INTRODUCTION
>It is twenty years  weakly-interacting ultracold gas. In other settings,
>namely superconductivity (which we understand in terms of a Bose-Einstein
>condensate of Cooper pairs), Bose-Einstein condensates have been available
>in laboratories for over a century. Yet their behaviour is still startling.
>Because the many particles of the condensate occupy the same quantum
>state, collective properties become described by a macroscopic wavefunction,
>with an interpretation parallel to that of the single-particle wavefunction
>of Schrodinger's equation
[snip]
Note that he says "state", not "place"/"location".


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

Entanglement is not subject to space time. A particle is a wave function
that can combine with another identical wave function copies to produce a
new wave function that is double the magnitude of each original identical
wave functions.

The addition of wave functions is true for any BEC on "N" particles. The
composite wave function is singular but N times the magnitude of each
member of the BEC aggregate.

Particles are not billiard balls; they are waves.

[image: Inline image 1]

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:28 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sat, 10 Jun 2017
> 22:47:12
> +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Robin—
> >
> >
> >In reply to your message of  Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:15:51
> >
> >
> >My suggestion about allowable locations for Bose particles reflects the
> Introduction below form
> >The following document noted by Axil:
> >
> >‘Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in
> >non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates’
> >
> >BY:  Paul R. Eastham, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland and
> >Bernd Rosenow University of Leipzig, 04009 Leipzig, Germany
> >
> >“INTRODUCTION
> >It is twenty years  weakly-interacting ultracold gas. In other settings,
> >namely superconductivity (which we understand in terms of a Bose-Einstein
> >condensate of Cooper pairs), Bose-Einstein condensates have been available
> >in laboratories for over a century. Yet their behaviour is still
> startling.
> >Because the many particles of the condensate occupy the same quantum
> >state, collective properties become described by a macroscopic
> wavefunction,
> >with an interpretation parallel to that of the single-particle
> wavefunction
> >of Schr odinger's equation
> [snip]
> Note that he says "state", not "place"/"location".
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Gents,

A different and maybe clearer wording of what Robin is saying is that 
the collective quantum "state" in a packed palladium matrix, which could 
lead to an overlap of location if it were perfect, is never really 
localized in 3 space, due to macro movement of earth in orbit around a 
Sun in orbit around the Milky Way, etc. etc ...


And since the state itself of any two particles cannot have exactly zero 
momentum (in the real world of a Universe in motion) in fact not even 
close -  then the Heisenberg principle ALWAYS puts a lower limit on the 
degree to which localized packing of particles can be densified when 
they are composite bosons. And it is always far from perfect - usually 
no different from high mechanical pressure.


If the bosons in question are composite bosons, such as deuterium in 
LENR, and they have non-zero momentum due to rapidly changing position 
in 3-space, and the "state" of each must the include the constituent 
parts - which are moving relative to each other (Fermionic parts like 
the electrons) and which are never in complete alignment due to macro 
movement. The fermionic bits of each atom are then are REQUIRED to obey 
the Pauli principle as if they were independent and not bosonic. If this 
were not so, then a flawless diamond could occasionally disappear when 
brought to near zero k.


Consequently, and despite the allure of an easy route to fusion, a BEC 
can never really be condensed down to an extremely dense accumulation, 
leading to easy fusion.


As a practical matter, composite bosons must be treated as fermions when 
it comes to ultimate packing ratios. This is not the easy route which 
proponents of LENR first imagined.


Jones

mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message:

My suggestion about allowable locations for Bose particles reflects the 
Introduction below form The following document noted by Axil:

‘Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in
non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates’

BY:  Paul R. Eastham, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland and
Bernd Rosenow University of Leipzig, 04009 Leipzig, Germany

“INTRODUCTION
It is twenty years  weakly-interacting ultracold gas. In other settings,
namely superconductivity (which we understand in terms of a Bose-Einstein
condensate of Cooper pairs), Bose-Einstein condensates have been available
in laboratories for over a century. Yet their behaviour is still startling.
Because the many particles of the condensate occupy the same quantum
state, collective properties become described by a macroscopic wavefunction,
with an interpretation parallel to that of the single-particle wavefunction
of Schrodinger's equation
[snip]
Note that he says "state", not "place"/"location".


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

The polariton is the exception to Jones' conjecture. The polariton is of
boson not subject to the Pauli principle and can form a BEC at
any temperature. The electons that are part of the polariton are all
syntonized in a dipole oscillation and the photons are contained in a
whispering gallery wave based soliton where INTERFERENCE coordinates their
entanglement thus guaranteeing absolute coherence where position in space
does not matter.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Gents,
>
> A different and maybe clearer wording of what Robin is saying is that the
> collective quantum "state" in a packed palladium matrix, which could lead
> to an overlap of location if it were perfect, is never really localized in
> 3 space, due to macro movement of earth in orbit around a Sun in orbit
> around the Milky Way, etc. etc ...
>
> And since the state itself of any two particles cannot have exactly zero
> momentum (in the real world of a Universe in motion) in fact not even close
> -  then the Heisenberg principle ALWAYS puts a lower limit on the degree to
> which localized packing of particles can be densified when they are
> composite bosons. And it is always far from perfect - usually no different
> from high mechanical pressure.
>
> If the bosons in question are composite bosons, such as deuterium in LENR,
> and they have non-zero momentum due to rapidly changing position in
> 3-space, and the "state" of each must the include the constituent parts -
> which are moving relative to each other (Fermionic parts like the
> electrons) and which are never in complete alignment due to macro movement.
> The fermionic bits of each atom are then are REQUIRED to obey the Pauli
> principle as if they were independent and not bosonic. If this were not so,
> then a flawless diamond could occasionally disappear when brought to near
> zero k.
>
> Consequently, and despite the allure of an easy route to fusion, a BEC can
> never really be condensed down to an extremely dense accumulation, leading
> to easy fusion.
>
> As a practical matter, composite bosons must be treated as fermions when
> it comes to ultimate packing ratios. This is not the easy route which
> proponents of LENR first imagined.
>
> Jones
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message:
>>
>> My suggestion about allowable locations for Bose particles reflects the
>> Introduction below form The following document noted by Axil:
>>
>> ‘Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in
>> non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates’
>>
>> BY:  Paul R. Eastham, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland and
>> Bernd Rosenow University of Leipzig, 04009 Leipzig, Germany
>>
>> “INTRODUCTION
>> It is twenty years  weakly-interacting ultracold gas. In other settings,
>> namely superconductivity (which we understand in terms of a Bose-Einstein
>> condensate of Cooper pairs), Bose-Einstein condensates have been available
>> in laboratories for over a century. Yet their behaviour is still
>> startling.
>> Because the many particles of the condensate occupy the same quantum
>> state, collective properties become described by a macroscopic
>> wavefunction,
>> with an interpretation parallel to that of the single-particle
>> wavefunction
>> of Schr odinger's equation
>> [snip]
>> Note that he says "state", not "place"/"location".
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

 Axil Axil wrote:

The polariton is the exception to Jones' conjecture. The polariton is 
of boson not subject to the Pauli principle and can form a BEC at 
any temperature.


But the polariton is a quasi-particle, meaning "less than real" if not 
imaginary.


Nevertheless, the argument is alluring.

We need to see evidence that quasi-particles can undergo the same 
reactions that real particles undergo.

RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Robin—
It’s the last sentence in the introduction that is pertinent.  It makes the 
point that the BEC
Can be described by a wave function as if it were a single particle.  The wave 
function would include spacial parameters relative to its charge center or with 
respect to its axis in a magnetic field.

You suggest that a coherent system state as described by a wave function does 
include a specification of probable . relative location of charge centers 
and/or magnetic dipole centers.  What  are the parameters of the system state 
that you believe the paper considers are pertinent?

Bob Cook








mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 12:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:47:12
+:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin—
>
>
>In reply to your message of  Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:15:51
>
>
>My suggestion about allowable locations for Bose particles reflects the 
>Introduction below form
>The following document noted by Axil:
>
>‘Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in
>non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates’
>
>BY:  Paul R. Eastham, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland and
>Bernd Rosenow University of Leipzig, 04009 Leipzig, Germany
>
>“INTRODUCTION
>It is twenty years  weakly-interacting ultracold gas. In other settings,
>namely superconductivity (which we understand in terms of a Bose-Einstein
>condensate of Cooper pairs), Bose-Einstein condensates have been available
>in laboratories for over a century. Yet their behaviour is still startling.
>Because the many particles of the condensate occupy the same quantum
>state, collective properties become described by a macroscopic wavefunction,
>with an interpretation parallel to that of the single-particle wavefunction
>of Schrodinger's equation
[snip]
Note that he says "state", not "place"/"location".


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—
I believe wave functions specify a probability of a particle being at 
coordinates of a continuous special system function of continuous time.  I do 
not think that uncertainty principle comes into play in wave functions in a 
secondary manner.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 1:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

Gents,

A different and maybe clearer wording of what Robin is saying is that
the collective quantum "state" in a packed palladium matrix, which could
lead to an overlap of location if it were perfect, is never really
localized in 3 space, due to macro movement of earth in orbit around a
Sun in orbit around the Milky Way, etc. etc ...

And since the state itself of any two particles cannot have exactly zero
momentum (in the real world of a Universe in motion) in fact not even
close -  then the Heisenberg principle ALWAYS puts a lower limit on the
degree to which localized packing of particles can be densified when
they are composite bosons. And it is always far from perfect - usually
no different from high mechanical pressure.

If the bosons in question are composite bosons, such as deuterium in
LENR, and they have non-zero momentum due to rapidly changing position
in 3-space, and the "state" of each must the include the constituent
parts - which are moving relative to each other (Fermionic parts like
the electrons) and which are never in complete alignment due to macro
movement. The fermionic bits of each atom are then are REQUIRED to obey
the Pauli principle as if they were independent and not bosonic. If this
were not so, then a flawless diamond could occasionally disappear when
brought to near zero k.

Consequently, and despite the allure of an easy route to fusion, a BEC
can never really be condensed down to an extremely dense accumulation,
leading to easy fusion.

As a practical matter, composite bosons must be treated as fermions when
it comes to ultimate packing ratios. This is not the easy route which
proponents of LENR first imagined.

Jones

mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message:
>
> My suggestion about allowable locations for Bose particles reflects the 
> Introduction below form The following document noted by Axil:
>
> ‘Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in
> non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates’
>
> BY:  Paul R. Eastham, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland and
> Bernd Rosenow University of Leipzig, 04009 Leipzig, Germany
>
> “INTRODUCTION
> It is twenty years  weakly-interacting ultracold gas. In other settings,
> namely superconductivity (which we understand in terms of a Bose-Einstein
> condensate of Cooper pairs), Bose-Einstein condensates have been available
> in laboratories for over a century. Yet their behaviour is still startling.
> Because the many particles of the condensate occupy the same quantum
> state, collective properties become described by a macroscopic wavefunction,
> with an interpretation parallel to that of the single-particle wavefunction
> of Schrodinger's equation
> [snip]
> Note that he says "state", not "place"/"location".
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The mechanics of Bosenovas, which seem to entail a fast release of EM energy 
that exceeds the energy associated with single nuclear reactions suggests a 
larger system of reacting particles.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 1:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature


 Axil Axil wrote:
The polariton is the exception to Jones' conjecture. The polariton is of boson 
not subject to the Pauli principle and can form a BEC at any temperature.

But the polariton is a quasi-particle, meaning "less than real" if not 
imaginary.

Nevertheless, the argument is alluring.

We need to see evidence that quasi-particles can undergo the same reactions 
that real particles undergo.

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:53:59 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Entanglement is not subject to space time. A particle is a wave function that 
>can combine with another identical wave function copies to produce a new wave 
>function that is double the magnitude of each original identical wave 
>functions.
>The addition of wave functions is true for any BEC on "N" particles. The 
>composite wave function is singular but N times the magnitude of each member 
>of the BEC aggregate.
>Particles are not billiard balls; they are waves.

Since your head is made of particles (sorry waves), and the wall is made of
particles (sorry waves), then you shouldn't have any difficulty shoving your
head through the wall, now should you?

(Somehow I doubt you will try this though.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

You are correct. This concept is called tunneling. There is alway some
probability that you can pass through a wall. That probability does down as
a function of the number of particles in your body but that probability is
always non zero.

A single particle has a good chance of tunneling through a wall.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:27 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:53:59 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Entanglement is not subject to space time. A particle is a wave function
> that can combine with another identical wave function copies to produce a
> new wave function that is double the magnitude of each original identical
> wave functions.
> >The addition of wave functions is true for any BEC on "N" particles. The
> composite wave function is singular but N times the magnitude of each
> member of the BEC aggregate.
> >Particles are not billiard balls; they are waves.
>
> Since your head is made of particles (sorry waves), and the wall is made of
> particles (sorry waves), then you shouldn't have any difficulty shoving
> your
> head through the wall, now should you?
>
> (Somehow I doubt you will try this though.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:19:54
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>Robin—
>It’s the last sentence in the introduction that is pertinent.  It makes the 
>point that the BEC
>Can be described by a wave function as if it were a single particle.  

Not exactly "as if". You missed the word "parallel". IOW the two wave functions
share some properties in common, but not necessarily all. In fact he says
"collective" properties, IOW those properties which can be shared by a
collection. That doesn't include position.
[snip]
>You suggest that a coherent system state as described by a wave function does 
>include a specification of probable . relative location of charge centers 
>and/or magnetic dipole centers.  What  are the parameters of the system state 
>that you believe the paper considers are pertinent?

For that I would have to read the whole paper, and I am not so inclined at the
moment. But if you find something to support your position, and post it here,
I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

When particles are entangled, they are connected to each other by a
wormhole that circumvents normal space time correlations.

see

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/new-einstein-equation-wormholes-quantum-gravity

Space time is now believed to be connected through long range entanglement.
The forces of nature are emergent from entanglement.  This is why BECs are
important in LENR because the nature of these fundamental forces are
affected by the BEC. These forces are called entropic forces.

Without a BEC, LENR produces radioactive isotopes. With a BEC, LENR
produces stable isotopes. The BEC increases the activity of the electroweak
force.

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:49 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 12 Jun 2017
> 00:19:54
> +:
> Hi Bob,
> [snip]
> >Robin—
> >It’s the last sentence in the introduction that is pertinent.  It makes
> the point that the BEC
> >Can be described by a wave function as if it were a single particle.
>
> Not exactly "as if". You missed the word "parallel". IOW the two wave
> functions
> share some properties in common, but not necessarily all. In fact he says
> "collective" properties, IOW those properties which can be shared by a
> collection. That doesn't include position.
> [snip]
> >You suggest that a coherent system state as described by a wave function
> does include a specification of probable . relative location of charge
> centers and/or magnetic dipole centers.  What  are the parameters of the
> system state that you believe the paper considers are pertinent?
>
> For that I would have to read the whole paper, and I am not so inclined at
> the
> moment. But if you find something to support your position, and post it
> here,
> I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:40:58 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>You are correct. This concept is called tunneling. 

That's not what you drew. What you drew was superposition of waves. That happens
all the time on a macroscopic scale. Most obviously in the sea on a windy day.
Also with waves in air, both sound and EM. However particles don't seem to like
doing that (witness the bump on your head. ;)
Note also that mechanical waves are only possible precisely because the
particles don't pass through one another, but pass their kinetic energy and
momentum on from one to another (actually via EM fields at the atomic scale).
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

We were talking about a particle passing through a wall not superposition.

Particles can pass through a wall lock stock and barrel via tunneling.

See

https://www.livescience.com/20380-particles-quantum-tunneling-timing.html

SKIP

Sometimes, particles can pass through walls.

Though it sounds like science fiction, the phenomenon is well documented
and even understood under the bizarre rules that govern the microscopic
world called quantum mechanics.

Now, scientists have measured the timing of this passing-through-walls trick

more
accurately than ever before, and report their results in today's (May 17)
issue of the journal Nature.

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:11 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:40:58 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >You are correct. This concept is called tunneling.
>
> That's not what you drew. What you drew was superposition of waves. That
> happens
> all the time on a macroscopic scale. Most obviously in the sea on a windy
> day.
> Also with waves in air, both sound and EM. However particles don't seem to
> like
> doing that (witness the bump on your head. ;)
> Note also that mechanical waves are only possible precisely because the
> particles don't pass through one another, but pass their kinetic energy and
> momentum on from one to another (actually via EM fields at the atomic
> scale).
> [snip]
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

Here is the description of entropic force and why there is not dark matter
particle,,,hydrino.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

LENR will prove this theory and change science and cosmology.

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> When particles are entangled, they are connected to each other by a
> wormhole that circumvents normal space time correlations.
>
> see
>
> https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/new-einstein-
> equation-wormholes-quantum-gravity
>
> Space time is now believed to be connected through long range
> entanglement. The forces of nature are emergent from entanglement.  This is
> why BECs are important in LENR because the nature of these fundamental
> forces are affected by the BEC. These forces are called entropic forces.
>
> Without a BEC, LENR produces radioactive isotopes. With a BEC, LENR
> produces stable isotopes. The BEC increases the activity of the electroweak
> force.
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:49 AM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 12 Jun 2017
>> 00:19:54
>> +:
>> Hi Bob,
>> [snip]
>> >Robin—
>> >It’s the last sentence in the introduction that is pertinent.  It makes
>> the point that the BEC
>> >Can be described by a wave function as if it were a single particle.
>>
>> Not exactly "as if". You missed the word "parallel". IOW the two wave
>> functions
>> share some properties in common, but not necessarily all. In fact he says
>> "collective" properties, IOW those properties which can be shared by a
>> collection. That doesn't include position.
>> [snip]
>> >You suggest that a coherent system state as described by a wave function
>> does include a specification of probable . relative location of charge
>> centers and/or magnetic dipole centers.  What  are the parameters of the
>> system state that you believe the paper considers are pertinent?
>>
>> For that I would have to read the whole paper, and I am not so inclined
>> at the
>> moment. But if you find something to support your position, and post it
>> here,
>> I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
>> [snip]
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>