A Fano interference is an Interference between a background and a resonant scattering process that produces the asymmetric line-shape.
In a lattice, the background frequency is infrared heat, the resonant scattering process is dipole hole/electron oscillation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance Fano interference blocks EMF radiation out of the cavity, and redirects it inward to focus on the inside of the cavity. Fano resonance is a means to concentrate EMF into a sub-nanometer volume by imposing a dark mode into the EMF. The "weird kind of loss" is the loss of far field EMF radiation. This process produces EMF that are near or at the atomic scale in a ultra small volume "Hot Spot - aka NAE". For more info see “Spaser” The BEC of the spaser is what thermalizes the gammas see *Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil > I didn't know that was the focus of Peter Hagelstein's work. However, he > says he adds a "weird kind of loss" to his model. Any idea what he means? > > BTW, It occured to me that a "failed" model, i.e. a classically unstable > model, could also produce a similar result, where a given amount of > energy is emitted continuously over a certain range of frequencies instead > of being emitted all at once as a gamma photon at one frequency. > Harry > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows: >> >> So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a >> model that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out >> in the physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' >> that's basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a >> harmonic oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system >> — that's just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do >> with two of the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes >> the math really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to >> death. People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, >> depending on how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or >> the ability to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into >> nearly 30 individual quanta. >> >> Axil says: >> Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons: >> >> The Jaynes–Cummings model. >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model >> >> Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches >> us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It >> describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode >> of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of >> a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and >> absorption). >> >> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in the interview as follows: >> >> What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's >> hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that >> makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a >> weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold >> fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the >> physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of >> loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy >> exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively >> weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is >> exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and >> chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found. >> >> Axil says: >> >> This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF >> radiation to the near field by eliminated far field emissions. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> * >>> >>> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows: >>> * >>> >>> So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no fast >>> electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if it >>> were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is >>> that — if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being >>> nuclear is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one >>> 4He for every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way >>> of a theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work >>> like the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on. >>> So that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many >>> years. >>> >>> The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum mechanics issue. >>> The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it didn't get >>> broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as energetic >>> particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the approach we've >>> taken is that we've said "the only conceivable route for making sense of >>> these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta have to get sliced >>> and diced up into a very very large number if much smaller energy quanta." >>> The much larger number is on the order of several hundred million. In NMR >>> physics and optical physics, people are familiar with breaking up a large >>> quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could argue that there are some >>> experiments where you could argue that maybe that numbers as high as 100 or >>> so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV quantum and chop it up >>> into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> If a bunch of low energy photons is equivalent to the energy of 1 high >>>> energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear reaction sometimes >>>> produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma photon? According >>>> to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it considered >>>> impossible? >>>> >>>> harry >>>> >>>> >>>
