http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221233120.htm
The 500 phases of matter: New system successfully classifies symmetry-protected phases This example is just one of the 500. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: > > “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, > fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” > > “Physicists predict new state of matter” > http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html > > And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… > ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only > our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably > delayed > discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other > experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of > what > subatomic particles really are. > > -mark > > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away > > > From: Steve High > > Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with > open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where > does > spin energy come from? [snip] > > A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to > other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying > to > explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known > nuclear source - is this paragraph. > > “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the > apparent > violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” > when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and > does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don > shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” > restoring > conservation.” > > OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the > inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the > interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be > sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. > > The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the > interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a > ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will > instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either > dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for > conservation of spin which is generally ignored. > > However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it > can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple > the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. > > This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from > matter > and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” > since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in > LENR. > > One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI > was > that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the > Dirac > sea – which Brian showed. > > Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report > which > we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. > > That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac > explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). > > Jones > >
