thomas malloy wrote:
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/nucldata/HTML/A=18/18O_1959.shtml
Is that what those formulas prove? I was unable to understand them.
This was not intended to be proof, only a starting hypothesis. And admittedly, it could have been explained much better. Actually, I left out what could be the most important point about that relatively low resonance energy required, and its value- of slightly over one MeV.
The missing point is that the lowest resonance is close to the energy of electron-positron annihilation, which occurs when an electron and a positron (the electron's anti-particle) collide. Wiki has an entry on this.
Quantum physics and Dirac's equations (especially as interpreted by Don Hotson) suggests that all of what we see as "reality" is based, at the lowest level, on the 'epo' field- which is this pairing of electron-positrons. ZPE can even be identified with this field. Hotson's articles in IE are definitely worth a read.
On occasion, the sheer magnitude in the number of pairings of particle/antiparticles results in a random collision, or annihilation event, which is the conversion of the electron and positron mass into 'something else', often gamma rays, and the net energy released is similar to that required for the lowest resonance of carbon transmuting into heavy oxygen, at least when an alpha particle is present. To my knowledge, no one has picked up on this coincidence before now, and perhaps (showing some humility) this is for good reason as the values are not exact ;-)
Anyway, alpha particles are always present around certain radioactive elements - and their kinetic energy can supply the small deficit needed to make everything exact -- ERGO - - this environment in nature may be the locus of where heavy oxygen is formed (under this hypotheses).
Also we would expect epo annihilations to occur with higher probability in the 'decay-environment' since they can be envisioned as Mother Nature's way of balancing the books on energy conservation.
There are only a very limited set of possibilities for the final state of annihilation events. The most likely is the creation of two gamma ray photons, but in an alpha 'decay-environment' around thorium or uranium, there could exist a direct transfer of that net energy. Conservation of energy and linear momentum forbid the creation of only one photon, which would be a 'cleaner' way to accomplish this rare catalytic event (the putative transmutation of carbon into 18O).
In the most common case of epo annihilation, two photons are created, each with energy equal to the rest energy of the electron or positron (511 keV) but when that same net 1+ MeV of mass/energy is available at the precise moment of an alpha decay ( for instance of UC -uranium carbide) then 18O may result on rare occasions, which are cummulative over the past 5-6 billion years, and which provide the 'arguably high' abundance of this isotope. To be honest, I have been unable to verify that there is a real anomaly in the abundance of 18O on earth, but there is data to suggest that this is the case.
Alternatively, a transitory neutrino may form first. Since neutrinos also have a smaller mass than electrons, then it is possible for the annihilation event to produce neutrinos which serve as an energy transfer medium. The overall probability of this linkage of rare events could itself be enhanced in the 'decay-environment'. QM probability works that way.
There is one redeeming feature of all of this. Tentative proof of this hypothesis is possible, but as far as I know, this has never been done or tested. How could it have been? since the hypothesis itself is brand new. At least 'new to me.'
However, it is possible that someone else in the wide-wide world of physics (with mainstream credentials) has thought of this before now, and that all of the above has been merely 'rediscovered' from already published information. At any rate - the tentative proof (disproof) would be an analysis of the isotopic ratio of the oxygen which is found in antural minerals and chemically bound to uranium of thorium, especially where carbon is also found.
If the 18O/16O ratio should turn out to be enhanced in these circumstance, then that situation would not be solid-proof but would at least make a strong prima facie case for the hypothesis.
Jones
