Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device for pB11 fusion? This is a different use of the term degenerate state. The more specific term there is Fermi degeneracy as opposed to degenerate quantum states, which describes linked quantum states of the same energy, dual states of existence, states which require no energy for transition and which release no radiant energy upon transition. Fermi degeneracy occurs in stars when the density is so high that Fermi pressure prevents further collapse. Fermi pressure is said to be due to the fact that only one Fermion can occupy a given quantum state. It is also true that electrons in metals with absorbed hydrogen can, as the percent absorbed hydrogen increases to a sufficient level, occupy all the available quantum states. Electrons in this state are also said to be degenerate. I wrote about the possible relevance of this to cold fusion in the ELECTRON FUGACITY section of my I.E. cold fusion paper, page 6 ff, and in other places: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf Now, coincidentally, or not so much, outward orbital pressure is a result of quantum uncertainty. As an electron orbital is compressed, the Heisenberg principle results in a kinetic energy increase which manifests as (outward) pressure. It is this pressure in fact, that establishes the ground state energy and size of hydrogen atoms (and many other states.) It is this pressure, and given the volume displacement involved, energy, that I say can reinflate the orbital of trapped electrons, electrons that escape the heavy nucleus that traps them, when they do not have the kinetic energy to escape otherwise. This uncertainty pressure can be referred to as Schroedinger pressure or quantum pressure. I think it is also sometimes referred to as Fermi pressure. There is an intimate relationship between Schrodinger pressure and the Casimir force. I see these as different sides of the same coin, i.e of zero point energy. The two effects come into play in the formation of EV's, electron charge clusters, for example. See Puthoff's article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408114 The (expansive) energy due to Schrodinger pressure of the hydrogen atom, not so coincidentally, just balances the (contractive) Coulomb force energy at the Bohr radius, and this is a minimum energy state, thus a stable state. However, at the Bohr radius, the magnetic force and potential between the electron and nucleus are near zero and ignored. Also, the particles are not relativistic. At a small radius the magnetic binding energy can overcome the Coulomb binding energy and the Schrodinger pressure, at least momentarily. The Schrodinger kinetic energy of a hydrogen electron is a stochastic variable. This magnetic binding can happen for a short time but also at a high frequency, depending on lattice conditions. In a magnetic orbital the uncertainty energy of the electron decreases by a factor of 1/gamma of the electron, and the inverse square of r. As r decreases gamma increases. In the small orbital radii shown in my computations, the de Broglie wavelengths of the electron and nucleating body do not even overlap. Schoredinger pressure is entirely eliminated by relativistic effects, i.e. by the increase in electron and nuclear mass. This greatly increases the feasible lifetime of the configuration. When the highly magnetically bound electron plus nucleus jointly tunnel into a heavy nucleus, no kinetic energy is gained or lost via this tunneling process of the neutral ensemble, other than the magnetic potential with the nucleus. The hydrogen nucleus binds with the heavy nucleus by the strong force. This leaves the electron with insufficient kinetic energy to escape the nucleus. It is still magnetically bound with the nearby nuclear constituents, all of which have nuclear magnetic moments, and now suddenly bound by the Coulomb force of numerous protons. This creates an initial energy deficit from the tunneling action, and a newly fused nucleus. I hope this makes some sense of these concepts and does not merely confuse everything. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Anyway, your theory is somewhat similar to the stage III that of Takashi, when the nucleons of the TSC are captured by the nuclear force. TSC is really a deflated ground state, simply because electrons screen to the extreme the proton charge. But, the destiny of the electrons is not clear. Takashi, in his report the 12th meeting of CF in japan, used one of the electrons to be captured by one of the protons and yield He3 + p in NiH loaded lattices. After, he makes considerations from Ni + p collisions, all of them yield stable elements, although I am not sure about Ni60 not giving readioactive remains. 2011/12/30 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device for pB11 fusion? 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. A prolonged small state is only forbidden by QM if magnetic binding force and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian. I provided the deflated deuteron calculation as reference 3 in Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf It references this spread sheet: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I later provided the additional deflated state calculations: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate the main points. I expect to improve the calculations using custom code soon. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. The difference is indiscernible. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? Preferable to what for describing what? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes. Here you are referring to helium creation. This is the focus of many theories. I can not emphasize enough that this is a tiny portion of the field to be explored. The extreme energy anomalies, COE violations, are not associated with the helium
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory because it is about ground state of Landau's quantization. Some time ago I did this calculation, and at non relativistic regime around 10fm. The magnetic field is around 10 trillion Tesla. Check it out. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device for pB11 fusion? This is a different use of the term degenerate state. The more specific term there is Fermi degeneracy as opposed to degenerate quantum states, which describes linked quantum states of the same energy, dual states of existence, states which require no energy for transition and which release no radiant energy upon transition. Fermi degeneracy occurs in stars when the density is so high that Fermi pressure prevents further collapse. Fermi pressure is said to be due to the fact that only one Fermion can occupy a given quantum state. It is also true that electrons in metals with absorbed hydrogen can, as the percent absorbed hydrogen increases to a sufficient level, occupy all the available quantum states. Electrons in this state are also said to be degenerate. I wrote about the possible relevance of this to cold fusion in the ELECTRON FUGACITY section of my I.E. cold fusion paper, page 6 ff, and in other places: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf Now, coincidentally, or not so much, outward orbital pressure is a result of quantum uncertainty. As an electron orbital is compressed, the Heisenberg principle results in a kinetic energy increase which manifests as (outward) pressure. It is this pressure in fact, that establishes the ground state energy and size of hydrogen atoms (and many other states.) It is this pressure, and given the volume displacement involved, energy, that I say can reinflate the orbital of trapped electrons, electrons that escape the heavy nucleus that traps them, when they do not have the kinetic energy to escape otherwise. This uncertainty pressure can be referred to as Schroedinger pressure or quantum pressure. I think it is also sometimes referred to as Fermi pressure. There is an intimate relationship between Schrodinger pressure and the Casimir force. I see these as different sides of the same coin, i.e of zero point energy. The two effects come into play in the formation of EV's, electron charge clusters, for example. See Puthoff's article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408114 The (expansive) energy due to Schrodinger pressure of the hydrogen atom, not so coincidentally, just balances the (contractive) Coulomb force energy at the Bohr radius, and this is a minimum energy state, thus a stable state. However, at the Bohr radius, the magnetic force and potential between the electron and nucleus are near zero and ignored. Also, the particles are not relativistic. At a small radius the magnetic binding energy can overcome the Coulomb binding energy and the Schrodinger pressure, at least momentarily. The Schrodinger kinetic energy of a hydrogen electron is a stochastic variable. This magnetic binding can happen for a short time but also at a high frequency, depending on lattice conditions. In a magnetic orbital the uncertainty energy of the electron decreases by a factor of 1/gamma of the electron, and the inverse square of r. As r decreases gamma increases. In the small orbital radii shown in my computations, the de Broglie wavelengths of the electron and nucleating body do not even overlap. Schoredinger pressure is entirely eliminated by relativistic effects, i.e. by the increase in electron and nuclear mass. This greatly increases the feasible lifetime of the configuration. When the highly magnetically bound electron plus nucleus jointly tunnel into a heavy nucleus, no kinetic energy is gained or lost via this tunneling process of the neutral ensemble, other than the magnetic potential with the nucleus. The hydrogen nucleus binds with the heavy nucleus by the strong force. This leaves the electron with insufficient kinetic energy to escape the nucleus. It is still magnetically bound with the nearby nuclear constituents, all of which have nuclear magnetic moments, and now suddenly bound by the Coulomb force of numerous protons. This creates an initial energy deficit from the tunneling action, and a newly fused nucleus. I hope this makes some sense of these concepts and does not merely confuse everything. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory because it is about ground state of Landau's quantization. Some time ago I did this calculation, and at non relativistic regime around 10fm. The magnetic field is around 10 trillion Tesla. Check it out. If you look at the spread sheet I provided in 2007, you will see the magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated state is given as 4.0210e+14 T: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I was there when he first proposed this more recent version of his theory. There is more to cold fusion than D+D--He, or multiples thereof. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory because it is about ground state of Landau's quantization. Some time ago I did this calculation, and at non relativistic regime around 10fm. The magnetic field is around 10 trillion Tesla. Check it out. If you look at the spread sheet I provided in 2007, you will see the magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated state is given as 4.0210e+14 T: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I was there when he first proposed this more recent version of his theory. There is more to cold fusion than D+D--He, or multiples thereof. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. How can the ground state be degenerate? Do you have any arguments using bra-ket notation? Preferable to what for describing what? Isn't the Takahashi approach preferable to the deflation fusion approach because it maintains the standard model? The only reference to deflated hydrogen comes from vortex. Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element transmutation. Can you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found them? there was no prior indication that such energetic events were taking place. I see. There really are several phenomena all confusingly anomalous! I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend. I do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I have not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a child can follow them. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list, at any rate, wants or needs more math for convincing. Math only obscures the underlying concepts. I've never heard a scientist express this sentiment before. For me, I find rather the opposite. My eyes glaze over when confronted by paragraph after paragraph of prose, without equations to really explain what's going on. I don't think children should understand this material! -- Never did I see a second sun Never did my skin touch a land of glass Never did my rifle point but true But in a land empty of enemies Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want A uranium angel Crying “behold,” This land that knew fire is yours Taken from Corruption To begin anew
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
What part do you not understand: a. the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron b. the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron c. the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion energy d. why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion nuclear electron e. the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but often when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in any article, but which I had assumed was included in an article. Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think maybe they were figments of my imagination. On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in Phase III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't use many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your papers. Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers. I will surely read it, because I just could start to figure out anything from you only when I had a similar idea. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net What part do you not understand: a. the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron b. the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron c. the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion energy d. why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion nuclear electron e. the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but often when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in any article, but which I had assumed was included in an article. Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think maybe they were figments of my imagination. On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
What is Takahashi analogue to the deflated electron? On Dec 30, 2011, at 13:21, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in Phase III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't use many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your papers. Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers. I will surely read it, because I just could start to figure out anything from you only when I had a similar idea. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net What part do you not understand: a. the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron b. the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron c. the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion energy d. why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion nuclear electron e. the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but often when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in any article, but which I had assumed was included in an article. Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think maybe they were figments of my imagination. On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Phase II of his theory. The eigenvalue radius of the ground state dynamically shrinks due to the screening of protons and electrons. It just happen with a very specific tetrahedron configuration of protons/deuterons and electrons. 2011/12/30 Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com What is Takahashi analogue to the deflated electron? On Dec 30, 2011, at 13:21, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in Phase III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't use many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your papers. Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers. I will surely read it, because I just could start to figure out anything from you only when I had a similar idea. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net What part do you not understand: a. the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron b. the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron c. the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion energy d. why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion nuclear electron e. the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but often when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in any article, but which I had assumed was included in an article. Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think maybe they were figments of my imagination. On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. How can the ground state be degenerate? Do you have any arguments using bra-ket notation? There are two orbital modes, one the normal atomic mode, the other the deflated state mode. The mean orbital radius of the two states differs, and differs for multiple circumnavigations of the nucleus. They are distinct sates. It takes no energy to hop between the two states, and no radiation occurs between states. The two states are thus degenerate. The two states are, or should be, part of the same Hamiltonian. However, absorbed hydrogen is not like atomic or molecular hydrogen. There is not room at a normal lattice site for either atomic or molecular hydrogen orbitals. The electron (statistically) associated with the absorbed hydrogen is essentially ionically bonded, populates conduction bands. The partial orbital structure I think exists there differs from ordinary molecular orbitals, that the electrons involved have a dual conduction band and partial orbital existence. For some notes from 1999 see p. 13 ff of: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PartOrb.pdf This analysis has a significant relationship with degenerate lattice electrons . Unfortunately, it has been long overdue for a rewrite, and melding with the rest of my theory. In any case, on top of having to account for relativistic effects, and magnetic binding potentials, this kind of *additional* electron dual existence makes defining a Hamiltonian difficult. Preferable to what for describing what? Isn't the Takahashi approach preferable to the deflation fusion approach Preferable for describing what? Preferable for answering which questions regarding the lack of signature events, or conservation of energy? because it maintains the standard model? The only reference to deflated hydrogen comes from vortex. I assume you mean the problem is deflation fusion theory only comes from an amateur? As for external references, did you not see the reference I provided you to Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf The table of contents is here: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue80/index.html Also, see Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions, Journal of Nuclear Physics (Nuclear experiments blog), March 28, 2010: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179 The pdf version is no longer available there without authorization, but I keep a copy here in which some typos etc are fixed: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Perhaps you are referring to Journals referencing my work? No chance of *that* happening! Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element transmutation. Can you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found them? there was no prior indication that such energetic events were taking place. I see. There really are several phenomena all confusingly anomalous! Yes, much more anomalous than deuterium fusion. I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend. I do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I have not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a child can follow them. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list, at any rate, wants or needs more math for convincing. Math only obscures the underlying concepts. I've never heard a scientist express this sentiment before. For me, I find rather the opposite. My eyes glaze over when confronted by paragraph after paragraph of prose, without equations to really explain what's going on. I don't think children should understand this material! You should keep in mind that I am an amateur writing for an amateur audience. As I wrote on my web page: It has been said ideas are only one percent inspiration vs the 99 percent that is perspiration. Given that, if anything here provides even 1 percent of the inspiration for something truly important to mankind, then the effort has all been worthwhile. Similarly, if the outlandish thoughts here make anyone, especially a self learning physics student like me, question what we really know about the universe, and that leads on to meaningful investigations, then that too makes the effort worthwhile. If a concept is flawed, why is it flawed? I think in the end, if deflation fusion concepts are useful for leading the way to any successful experiments and devices, they
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi?
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. Any such theory that is adequate to do this can not assume neutrons precede the cold fusion reactions, because neither neutron activation nor radioactive byproducts are observed except in very small amounts that do not correspond to the overall transmutation rate. I think heavy element transmutation is where the essence of the field lies. It is unfortunate so much thinking is focused on D+D. Perhaps it is assumed that since D+D is difficult to explain, that X+H or X+D is far more difficult or impossible to explain, or even does not exist. This I think is far from the truth. The most critical impediments are tunneling distance and tunneling energy. These are impediments overcome by the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice sites, and the net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated state hydrogen. Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and probable to me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the latter does not even happen to any significant degree. The lack of conservation of energy, both on the positive and negative sides, is explained by the trapped electron concept, which is also not conventional thinking, but rather part of the deflation fusion concept. The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the initial EM pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small increments, and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with greatly elevated probabilities due to extended lingering time. In some cases it may help induce fission. Understanding the trapping mechanism in the first place, once tunneling is accepted, is high school physics. Understanding how the electron can escape without a weak reaction, however, takes some understanding of zero point energy. My theory is really just common sense. I am surprised that it is so non-palatable. I have assumed that is because my writing skills are so bad and because I need pictures. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all though. Many cold fusion theories are only accepted by their authors. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. Any such theory that is adequate to do this can not assume neutrons precede the cold fusion reactions, because neither neutron activation nor radioactive byproducts are observed except in very small amounts that do not correspond to the overall transmutation rate. I think heavy element transmutation is where the essence of the field lies. It is unfortunate so much thinking is focused on D+D. Perhaps it is assumed that since D+D is difficult to explain, that X+H or X+D is far more difficult or impossible to explain, or even does not exist. This I think is far from the truth. The most critical impediments are tunneling distance and tunneling energy. These are impediments overcome by the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice sites, and the net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated state hydrogen. Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and probable to me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the latter does not even happen to any significant degree. The lack of conservation of energy, both on the positive and negative sides, is explained by the trapped electron concept, which is also not conventional thinking, but rather part of the deflation fusion concept. The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the initial EM pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small increments, and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with greatly elevated probabilities due to extended lingering time. In some cases it may help induce fission. Understanding the trapping mechanism in the first place, once tunneling is accepted, is high school physics. Understanding how the electron can escape without a weak reaction, however, takes some understanding of zero point energy. My theory is really just common sense. I am surprised that it is so non-palatable. I have assumed that is because my writing skills are so bad and because I need pictures. I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all though. Many cold fusion theories are only accepted by their authors.
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. A prolonged small state is only forbidden by QM if magnetic binding force and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian. I provided the deflated deuteron calculation as reference 3 in Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf It references this spread sheet: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I later provided the additional deflated state calculations: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate the main points. I expect to improve the calculations using custom code soon. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. The difference is indiscernible. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? Preferable to what for describing what? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes. Here you are referring to helium creation. This is the focus of many theories. I can not emphasize enough that this is a tiny portion of the field to be explored. The extreme energy anomalies, COE violations, are not associated with the helium production itself. The heat from He production was measured to 23 MeV within experimental error, i.e about 50% if I recall. What is missing is the energy, and the giant signatures, that should have accompanied the Pd transmutations which occur simultaneously. This missing energy and the missing signatures are associated with Pd+D experiments, as well as numerous other cold fusion heavy element transmutation modes, including protium initiated modes. Those who look for heavy element transmutations, even in the original Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, find them, even when they don't expect them. For example, see Table 1 in: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf There are references to heavy isotopes in Storm's book and some of
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device for pB11 fusion? 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. A prolonged small state is only forbidden by QM if magnetic binding force and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian. I provided the deflated deuteron calculation as reference 3 in Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf It references this spread sheet: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I later provided the additional deflated state calculations: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate the main points. I expect to improve the calculations using custom code soon. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. The difference is indiscernible. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? Preferable to what for describing what? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes. Here you are referring to helium creation. This is the focus of many theories. I can not emphasize enough that this is a tiny portion of the field to be explored. The extreme energy anomalies, COE violations, are not associated with the helium production itself. The heat from He production was measured to 23 MeV within experimental error, i.e about 50% if I recall. What is missing is the energy, and the giant signatures, that should have accompanied the Pd transmutations which occur simultaneously. This missing energy and the missing signatures are associated with Pd+D experiments, as well as numerous other cold fusion heavy element transmutation modes, including protium initiated modes. Those who look for heavy element transmutations, even in the original Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, find them, even when they don't expect them. For example, see Table 1 in:
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
There is no need for down-conversion to explain the lack of high energy gammas associated with excess heat of LENR, provided those gammas are not produced in the first place. If an energetically trapped electron in the nucleus carries away the reaction heat away from the nucleus in the form of kinetic energy, but that energy is insufficient to overcome the trapping energy (shown in brackets in the deflation fusion reactions I provide) then the electron will radiate until zero point energy, uncertainty energy, expands its wavefunction sufficiently for it to escape the nucleus, or a weak reaction follows. On Dec 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is absorbed by one atom or collectively by N-atoms. A coherent multi-atom absorption will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and (N-1) ground state atoms, which should still radiate at the same lower frequencies. However, multi-atom absorption could result in strong variation in emitted intensity bursts (superradiance). But, maybe there's more to it than that. Some anomalous down-conversion of gamma-rays were reported in the 1930s. I do not know whether they have been explained since then. If interested, the papers are at: The Nature of the Interaction between Gamma-Radiation and the Atomic Nucleus http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/136/830/662.full.pdf +html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. II http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/681.full.pdf +html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. III http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/706.full.pdf +html Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. [...] Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP There is no need for down-conversion to explain the lack of high energy gammas associated with excess heat of LENR, provided those gammas are not produced in the first place. If an energetically trapped electron in the nucleus carries away the reaction heat away from the nucleus in the form of kinetic energy, but that energy is insufficient to overcome the trapping energy (shown in brackets in the deflation fusion reactions I provide) then the electron will radiate until zero point energy, uncertainty energy, expands its wavefunction sufficiently for it to escape the nucleus, or a weak reaction follows. On Dec 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is absorbed by one atom or collectively by N-atoms. A coherent multi-atom absorption will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and (N-1) ground state atoms, which should still radiate at the same lower frequencies. However, multi-atom absorption could result in strong variation in emitted intensity bursts (superradiance). But, maybe there's more to it than that. Some anomalous down-conversion of gamma-rays were reported in the 1930s. I do not know whether they have been explained since then. If interested, the papers are at: The Nature of the Interaction between Gamma-Radiation and the Atomic Nucleus http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/136/830/662.full.pdf +html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. II http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/681.full.pdf +html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. III http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/706.full.pdf +html Some insights from quantum mechanics Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. [...] Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. This is why I took the state down to such extremely low radii in my computations: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf A QM description could describe a larger volume state. At close radii, the deBroglie wavelengths of the entities are smaller than the orbital radius, thus describing a Rydberg like state, wherein QM need not be applied. The state then is relativistic Newtonian. It is the transition between states that requires a full QM treatment, and I don't know that such a treatment is feasible. However, since zero energy is required for the transition between deflated state and ordinary ground state, the two states are degenerate and QM permits the two states to be co-existent. Co- existent degenerate electron states exist in some molecules, wherein the electron wavefunction is split between distant parts of the molecule, with forbidden zone(s) in between. It seems to me not much of a stretch, without QM computations, for the deflated state to have a similar characteristic. I realize my writing is not clear, and that some of the material in my articles is out of date, evolving, and needs correction. I need to create a FAQ, or write a book. I have been diverted from that by the Rossi circus. Now my personal life is overcoming my ability to spend time on physics. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I should have noted that my application of zero point energy to nuclear reactions is possibly new physics, though the concepts applied are not new at all, i.e. Casimir force, uncertainty energy, Fermi pressure, etc. What is new is the concept of the energetic trapping of electrons in heavy nuclei. This concept requires no new physics I think, just an understanding of a simple mechanism by which a net zero charge ensemble can enter the nucleus via tunneling and a net magnetic energy gain. That this is feasible is to me self evident. The basic concept behind the deflated state is simple conventional physics - namely that the magnetic force, a 1/r^4 force, becomes larger than the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at close radii. The basic theory is very simple. It has to be. I'm a self trained simple minded amateur. Of course it could be all wrong! It does make useful predictions and suggest many experimental avenues of research, so it seems to me at least useful in that regard. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I should have noted that my application of zero point energy to nuclear reactions is possibly new physics, though the concepts applied are not new at all, i.e. Casimir force, uncertainty energy, Fermi pressure, etc. What is new is the concept of the energetic trapping of electrons in heavy nuclei. This concept requires no new physics I think, just an understanding of a simple mechanism by which a net zero charge ensemble can enter the nucleus via tunneling and a net magnetic energy gain. That this is feasible is to me self evident. The basic concept behind the deflated state is simple conventional physics - namely that the magnetic force, a 1/r^4 force, becomes larger than the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at close radii. Feynman and Wheeler computed there is enough energy in the vacuum of a light bulb to boil the oceans of the earth. The energy of the zero point field is vast. More specifically, in: http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRAv49_678.pdf Haisch, Reuda, and Puthoff give the spectral energy density rho by (virtual) photon angular frequency omega as: rho(omega) d omega = (h_bar/(2 Pi^2 c^3)) omega^3 d omega Integrating for omega = 0 to omega1 obtains energy density E_rho: E_rho(omega1) = (h_bar/(8 Pi^2 c^3))) omega1^4 E_rho(omega1) = 4.95707 kg s m^-1 omega1^4 Using the Planck angular frequency, 1.85487x10^43 s^-1, for omega1 we have energy density: E_rho = 5.86784x10^111 J/m^3 Note that this also represents a pressure to the vacuum of 5.8678x10^111 Pa. Using m = E/c^2 that also represents M_rho = E_rho/c^2 = 6.5289x10^94 kg/m^3 This, to me, is and indication that the photons of the zero point field are virtual and have no mass. Obtaining use of the vacuum pressure requires exclusion of the virtual photons from a given volume, the source of the Casimir force. Uncertainty energy and the Casimir force can be viewed as different sides of the same coin. There is a vast pool of energy all around us. All we have to do is figure out a way to tap it. The system is then no longer closed, and it is no longer a zero sum game. I think close electron-nucleus interaction may be the way to tap this energy. Such close interactions can be induced with low energies using various means, including resonant effects. In 2007 I first estimated the magnetic binding force on a stable electron orbital on deuterium, one in which the electron deBroglie wavelength was less than the orbital radius: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf This was referenced in my first article on deflation fusion, published in I.E. The magnetic force was 4 orders of magnitude larger than the Coulomb force. It seems to me that Jefimenko has it right when he shows magnetism is just the relativistic effects, the effects of retardation of the action of the Coulomb field. It is retardation effects due to virtual photon velocity. If so, then this is a key link into the energy sea of the zero point field. This link may provide some of the energy of LENR. The Casimir force may even provide some insight to the mechanisms of weak reactions. The energy of a particle is constrained by Heisenberg to be delta KE ~= k2 / (delta x)^2 The Coulomb potential Uc is: Uc = k1 / x so Heisenberg energy overcomes the Coulomb potential at some radius. The magnetic potential Um is given by: Um = k3 / x^3 Here k1, k2 and k3 are constants. Therefore, given that k2 is positive and k1 and k3 are negative, as distance between an electron and nucleus goes to zero, uncertainty energy opposes and overcomes the Coulomb potential, but eventually the magnetic potential opposes and overcomes the uncertainty energy. All that is needed for a small magnetically bound hydrogen state to be entered is (1) wavefunction collapse, (2) tunneling of the electron to the magnetically bound state, or (3) the electron to act like a point particle in the wavefunction. If itinerant electrons approach an absorbed hydrogen nucleus, with zero angular momentum, then a direct pass through of the nucleus will occur. It is notable here that angular momentum is quantized, so an approaching electron either will have some quantum of orbital angular momentum, or exactly zero orbital angular momentum, thus directly passing through the nucleus. Further, the electron, if t has zero orbital angular momentum, and if not magnetically captured, or otherwise perturbed, can oscillate back and forth through the nucleus, increasing the exposure rate to magnetic capture. When considering a zero angular
[Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. In quantum optics, when energy is shared between two entangled particles with one particle being excited and the other standing off at a distance, that energy is not equally divided into 1/2 the energy of the original excited particle. Energy is conserved though, and the division is *very* close to equal. When entangled particles share energy from a nuclear reaction, that energy emerges from the nuclear reaction, but the photons come out slightly off axis. The actual variation in this angle is, to a small extent, a measure of the variation of the energy/wavelength of the photon stream. To say it another way: what is collected and used in experiments is extremely close to equal, but there is a dispersion of particles which are not collected which is less close to equal. Rserence: http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf See equations 15 and 16 in the reference. The above consideration explains how the lattice does not melt after a cold fusion nuclear reaction and there is no gamma rays that emanate from a cold fusion nuclear reaction involving N entangled particles. More specifically, those entangled particles are one or more entangled copper pairs of protons configured in an entangle proton ensemble comprising N protons.
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
This is an interesting discussion but I have one question. The reference you mentioned suggests that the process of down conversion is extraordinarily inefficient and that the probability of a gamma being down converted is virtually nil. Did I misunderstand this for some reason? Is the process much more efficient for high energy photons? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:47 am Subject: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. In quantum optics, when energy is shared between two entangled particles with one particle being excited and the other standing off at a distance, that energy is not equally divided into 1/2 the energy of the original excited particle. Energy is conserved though, and the division is *very* close to equal. When entangled particles share energy from a nuclear reaction, that energy emerges from the nuclear reaction, but the photons come out slightly off axis. The actual variation in this angle is, to a small extent, a measure of the variation of the energy/wavelength of the photon stream. To say it another way: what is collected and used in experiments is extremely close to equal, but there is a dispersion of particles which are not collected which is less close to equal. Rserence: http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf See equations 15 and 16 in the reference. The above consideration explains how the lattice does not melt after a cold fusion nuclear reaction and there is no gamma rays that emanate from a cold fusion nuclear reaction involving N entangled particles. More specifically, those entangled particles are one or more entangled copper pairs of protons configured in an entangle proton ensemble comprising N protons.
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
In Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) as a process in quantum optics, a nonlinear crystal is used to split photons into pairs of other photons. The efficiency of that process is proportional to the amount of quantum mechanical entanglement that is produced by the incident laser on the nonlinear crystal lattice used to split photons into pairs of photons. The frequency at which this entanglement is produced is low as a funtion of the number of photons that are contained in the incident UV laser beam. On the other hand, we known from the copper isotopes that are produced as ash in the Rossi reactor, thanks to the analysis of both DR, Kim and Horace Heffner, almost all cold fusion nuclear reactions involve the fusion of entangled cooper pairs of protons in the nucleus of nickel atoms. So in the case of the Rossi reaction, the probability of entanglement is very high. Therefore the probability of power and frequency splitting of the radiation produced by the cold fusion nuclear reactions in the nickel lattice as well as its teleportation into the surrounding hydrogen envelope is almost certain. On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is an interesting discussion but I have one question. The reference you mentioned suggests that the process of down conversion is extraordinarily inefficient and that the probability of a gamma being down converted is virtually nil. Did I misunderstand this for some reason? Is the process much more efficient for high energy photons? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:47 am Subject: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. In quantum optics, when energy is shared between two entangled particles with one particle being excited and the other standing off at a distance, that energy is not equally divided into 1/2 the energy of the original excited particle. Energy is conserved though, and the division is *very* close to equal. When entangled particles share energy from a nuclear reaction, that energy emerges from the nuclear reaction, but the photons come out slightly off axis. The actual variation in this angle is, to a small extent, a measure of the variation of the energy/wavelength of the photon stream. To say it another way: what is collected and used in experiments is extremely close to equal, but there is a dispersion of particles which are not collected which is less close to equal. Rserence: http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf See equations 15 and 16 in the reference. The above consideration explains how the lattice does not melt after a cold fusion nuclear reaction and there is no gamma rays that emanate from a cold fusion nuclear reaction involving N entangled particles. More specifically, those entangled particles are one or more entangled copper pairs of protons configured in an entangle proton ensemble comprising N protons.
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Perhaps the same entanglement is responsible for the fusion such that if a seemingly low probability fusion event occurs under these circumstances then the down conversion will also occur? Two different facets of the same environmental cause? Fran Axil Axil Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:33:20 -0800 In Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) as a process in quantum optics, a nonlinear crystal is used to split photons into pairs of other photons. The efficiency of that process is proportional to the amount of quantum mechanical entanglement that is produced by the incident laser on the nonlinear crystal lattice used to split photons into pairs of photons. The frequency at which this entanglement is produced is low as a funtion of the number of photons that are contained in the incident UV laser beam. On the other hand, we known from the copper isotopes that are produced as ash in the Rossi reactor, thanks to the analysis of both DR, Kim and Horace Heffner, almost all cold fusion nuclear reactions involve the fusion of entangled cooper pairs of protons in the nucleus of nickel atoms. So in the case of the Rossi reaction, the probability of entanglement is very high. Therefore the probability of power and frequency splitting of the radiation produced by the cold fusion nuclear reactions in the nickel lattice as well as its teleportation into the surrounding hydrogen envelope is almost certain.
RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Fran: Good point. I think the evidence supports the hypothesis that, *whatever* LENR is, it is not a single event; there are likely several different processes happening depending on what kind of system one has (e.g., electrochemical or gas-phase), and that it may also be a cascade of separate 'reactions'. If this down-conversion is happening, then perhaps the 'chain' in chain-reaction is that one or two of the many resulting separate reactions does indeed trigger another cascade; at least until it hits some unconformity which kills the domino-effect. -mark From: francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 11:26 AM To: janap...@gmail.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) Perhaps the same entanglement is responsible for the fusion such that if a seemingly low probability fusion event occurs under these circumstances then the down conversion will also occur? Two different facets of the same environmental cause? Fran Axil Axil Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:33:20 -0800 In Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) as a process in quantum optics, a nonlinear crystal is used to split photons into pairs of other photons. The efficiency of that process is proportional to the amount of quantum mechanical entanglement that is produced by the incident laser on the nonlinear crystal lattice used to split photons into pairs of photons. The frequency at which this entanglement is produced is low as a funtion of the number of photons that are contained in the incident UV laser beam. On the other hand, we known from the copper isotopes that are produced as ash in the Rossi reactor, thanks to the analysis of both DR, Kim and Horace Heffner, almost all cold fusion nuclear reactions involve the fusion of entangled cooper pairs of protons in the nucleus of nickel atoms. So in the case of the Rossi reaction, the probability of entanglement is very high. Therefore the probability of power and frequency splitting of the radiation produced by the cold fusion nuclear reactions in the nickel lattice as well as its teleportation into the surrounding hydrogen envelope is almost certain.
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is absorbed by one atom or collectively by N-atoms. A coherent multi-atom absorption will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and (N-1) ground state atoms, which should still radiate at the same lower frequencies. However, multi-atom absorption could result in strong variation in emitted intensity bursts (superradiance). But, maybe there's more to it than that. Some anomalous down-conversion of gamma-rays were reported in the 1930s. I do not know whether they have been explained since then. If interested, the papers are at: The Nature of the Interaction between Gamma-Radiation and the Atomic Nucleus http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/136/830/662.full.pdf+html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. II http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/681.full.pdf+html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. III http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/706.full.pdf+html Some insights from quantum mechanics Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. [...]
