http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf
The mass of the SPP is 1/100,000 the mass of the electron. This translates to a very high BEC temperature. SPP couples strongly with each other and a SPP system is inverted like a laser: that is, More energy is pumped in than is pumped out and the lifetime of an SPP is short in terms of picoseconds. SPP condensation takes the form of vortexes. My guess is that the maximum BEC temperature is constrained only by reactor structural material properties well in excess of 2000C. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil: > > Is it clear that the *internal* temperature of an SPP is high? How would > you measure temperature of an SPP in any case.? > > Is there such a thing as a binding energy for a Cooper pair? It would > take some force field to create the concept of a binding energy I think. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bob Cook <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency > > Axil-- > > You said: > > >>>SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC.>>> > > Good point. The high angular momentum keeps the phonons at bay. The > Cooper pairs seem to remain together. Maybe the high magnetic field is the > cohesive binding agent? And it seems to maintain itself in the case of an > SPP since there is no good way to get rid of the angular momentum. It > sure seems like it might qualify as a coherent system. > > Axil--Why is it that many do not want to admit the existence of SPP's? > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:09 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate > Regarding condensation of electrons: Fermionic superfluids > It is far more difficult to produce a fermionic superfluid than a bosonic > one, because the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits fermions from > occupying the same quantum state. However, there is a well-known mechanism > by which a superfluid may be formed from fermions. This is the BCS > transition, discovered in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert > Schrieffer for describing superconductivity. These authors showed that, > below a certain temperature, electrons (which are fermions) can pair up to > form bound pairs now known as Cooper pairs. As long as collisions with the > ionic lattice of the solid do not supply enough energy to break the Cooper > pairs, the electron fluid will be able to flow without dissipation. As a > result, it becomes a superfluid, and the material through which it flows a > superconductor. > > SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Bob, >> >> No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve... >> >> My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call >> a coherent system... >> Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if >> that is so. >> >> RE: your statement that, >> "If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same >> time, responding instantaneously." >> >> What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously"??? >> Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15 >> seconds??? >> I seriously doubt it... >> >> -Mark >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: >> >> Mark-- >> >> I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of >> coherent regarding a semi-conductor. >> >> Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor >> to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor >> occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in >> the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their >> energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this >> description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted >> theory. >> >> Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent >> system? >> >> Bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From: **MarkI-Zeropoint* >> *To: **[email protected]* >> *Sent: *Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered >> in evanescent light waves >> >> Bob: >> Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet >> my definition of coherent. >> >> Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very >> likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized >> region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws >> of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent >> behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. >> >> I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years >> which support a physical model I have in mind. >> There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of >> coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down >> to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That >> quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. >> They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat >> to transfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first >> became still. >> >> You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental >> frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same >> thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you >> remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), >> they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of >> coherency (which we call a BEC, "all wavefunctions overlapped). Add >> just ONE quantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with >> only one of the atoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different >> frequency, and it will be 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin >> shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental >> freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into >> another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy >> which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by >> the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes' >> of the atomic world getting caught and tossed constantly. >> >> To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly >> even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different >> 'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially >> interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of >> energy can ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of >> oscillators if conditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept >> of a type of impedance-matching between the different types of >> oscillators. >> >> Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of >> achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any >> significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent... >> and that would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of >> physics and chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to >> reproduce. >> >> Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE... >> what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt >> with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally >> acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was >> large enough, and no atoms entered it, it would be a perfect vacuum at >> 0K. Are there photons of heat constantly flying thru it? Who knows... >> perhaps the NAE boundaries present a higher barrier to atoms shedding >> heat quanta so the NAE remains pretty much a perfect vacuum until a H or >> D atom diffuses into it. Does that H or D atom then shed any heat >> quanta it has to join any others which have also entered the NAE. If >> so, then wouldn't they form, spontaneously, a BEC? >> >> -Mark >> >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook wrote: >> >> Mark-- >> >> One of the issues is what is the extent of Coherency--I have been >> calling it coupling the material systems we know. >> >> Are crystals coherent?, are nano particles coherent?, >> are molecules coherent?, are BEC coherent?, are semiconductor >> resistors coherent? >> >> What in your experience defines the size of a coherent system? >> >> Bob >> >> *rom: **MarkI-ZeroPoint* >> *To: **[email protected]* >> *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:11 PM >> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin >> discovered in evanescent light waves >> >> >> " However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante >> [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded >> as an angular momentum generated by a * *circulating flow ** of >> energy in the wave field of the electron." >> >> This is at least somewhat understandable if one considers the >> vacuum as a near-frictionless fluid under extreme pressure... you >> cannot have 'flow' without a pressure differential. >> >> " the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular >> momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave." >> >> I commented on the importance of "coherence" in a posting several >> days ago... well, coherence involves not only a frequency component, >> but a polarization (or phase relationship) component. The bulk >> matter, or 'chemistry' that Dr. Storms has spent his life in, does >> NOT involve coherency... the laws that he is intimately familiar with >> do not involve systems where significant groups of >> atoms/electrons/SPP/??? are all coherently interacting... LENR will >> require a new set of laws for these regions of coherent entities. >> >> -Mark Iverson >> >> *From: *Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:08 PM >> *To: *vortex-l >> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin >> discovered in evanescent light waves >> >> *http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf*<http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf> >> >> *What is Spin? Am J. Phys. 54 (6) June >> 1986*<http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf>. >> The abstract is: >> According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or some >> other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no >> concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no >> classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by >> Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may >> be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow >> of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the >> magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of >> charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitivelyl appealing >> picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment >> are "internal" -- they are not associated with the internal structure >> of the electron, but rather with the structure of the field. >> Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of angular momentum in >> the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the >> electrons is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a >> classical circularly polarized wave. >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil < *[email protected]*> >> wrote: >> Regarding Belinfante spin momentum. >> >> Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as >> a result of its wave function and not motion of forces within the >> electron. >> >> Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular >> momentum and the wave nature of photons. >> >> That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are >> related if not identical. >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook < *[email protected]*> >> wrote: >> Jones-- >> >> It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months >> ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out. I hope Ed takes note >> and decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory >> for LENR.. >> >> Bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From: **Bob Cook* >> *To: **[email protected]* >> *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin >> discovered in evanescent light waves >> >> Jones-- >> >> the rabbit hole just became more crowded. >> >> Bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From: **Jones Beene* >> *To: **[email protected]* >> *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM >> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin >> discovered in evanescent light waves >> >> These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir >> effect in LENR and to SPP. >> That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is >> not obvious to everyone, here is an additional point. >> Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the >> scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally >> a sphere makes a good radiator but does not make a good >> antenna, but there are exceptions. When the sphere is a >> micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with >> nanometer geometry in the surface features (tubules), all of this >> becomes relevant to SPP. >> On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we >> described such spin for surface plasmon polariton, and it was >> shown that the imaginary longitudinal field component plays an >> important role in optical coupling processes... >> *From: *Mark Jurich >> Mark Iverson wrote: >> | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in >> evanescent light waves >> | >> *http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html*<http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html> >> | Paper Ref: >> | >> *http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html> >> FYI: >> arXiv Preprint: >> *http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf*<http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf> >> (arXiv Abstract: >> *http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547*<http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547>) >> >> - Mark Jurich >> >> > >
