Call for review of quantum scenario (based on Ed Storm theory)

1st Official Post
    • Official Post

    Hi all,


    Following different theory discussion, Edmund Storms theory, and my modest understanding I am proposing a speculation about LENR.


    First of all I am working in the framework of Ed Storms theory, not as hydroton, but about the reason that led him to propose hydroton.
    I don't care what is the animal.


    as reference here is the book of Edmund Storms
    http://lenrexplained.com/
    here is an appendix about the QM part
    http://lenrexplained.com/wp-co…oads/2014/10/Appendix.pdf
    his theory is described with (too) less details
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf


    I don't follow alls the details of his explanation, but just question the most general mysteries, raised in his book (better than in his articles).


    His key observation is about Iwamura transmutations, and I match it with many other strange observations :
    LENR produce few radioactive products, few energetic gamma, few neutrons...


    Iwamura observed that in his experiments the fusion of target elements like Cs was involving an even number of deuterium.
    Even number of hydrogen is important for symmetry, but the big surprise is that between 2-4-6 deuterium , it seems the non radioactive outcome are prefered


    This make me think that this is not an accident but the natural target of the phenomenon called LENR.
    Ed storms key idea is that all happen in an insulated quantum object, of huge size, which dissipate the energy of fusion or transmutation, BEFORE the transmutation happen...


    I'm basically incompetent but I propose my (mis)understanding for review, in the standard model framework (please no hydrino, supergravitation... this is a game to stay in SM, like playing chess)


    My story is the following:


    For some reason (self building from gibbs energy) a big quantum object appears in hydrure material.
    All particles inside are entangled, and insulated from outside for some time.


    I propose that you consider that as a MEGA-ATOM... it is not a planetary system like an atom, but a similarly insulated quantum object, build from thousands of nucleus and electrons, a galaxy.
    it have energy level, states, and thus can radiate and absorb energy like an atom.
    (this is my understanding of Ed Storms theory, I invent nothing, at worst I deform)


    My idea is that (this is questionable) that MEGA-ATOM when created is not at it's bottom level because it is created from hot atoms, or from random geometry.
    It start radiating energy, by the smallest transition possible... I propose it is by quanta much below 100keV level, as it is observed.
    It may also eject some energetic particles like by evaporation cooling.


    the MEGA-ATOM goes to energy level like -24MeV for deuterium, -6MeV for hydrogen, or other values for system containing impurity as iwamura observe...


    At one moment as a MEGA ATOM, because of the geometry change induced by "cooling", the state is a quantum superposition including some fusion. When the quantum superposition disentangle it is possible that a fusion became reality, and this correct the loss of energy of the mega-atom.


    In fact I suspect that this kind of transition, because the mega-atom is in debt, is required. when losing entanglement, the megaatom have to propose a new disentangled state that is of lower energy, this mean fused, or fissioned.
    It can also be among the allowed low energy transition. for the megaatom transition from a state where the geometry is "compact low energy" to a geometry more "as usual" with one fusion, may be a small transition.


    Of course, this fusion will produce the least possible energy results.
    If it is helium, it won't be excited as with hot fusion, because the megaatom will have transitioned to a desexcitated helium before energy of excitation is added to an excitated helium ready to became tritium and neutron.


    I see many question in my scenario, that is where I ask for review


    One is if it is possible for an entangled insulated object to fall spontaneously to a lower energy level compared to it's non entangled components ?


    One is how can an entangled object evolve, when getting disentangled, after being at an energy state which is impossible as it's former structure, except by nuclear transition ?


    Note that I don't ask if electroweak , strong or any interaction can do it... it is just a question on any quantum theory... a question on energy state, on entanglement,...


    My idea is if it can explain the strange mystery that LENR seems to produce among the possibilities, the least radioactive one.
    If you are very very luck with dices, it probably mean the dice are loaded.


    Ready for review, I won't say peer review, because I'm incompetent.
    NB: sent on vortex too.

    WHUT? quantum scenario.. oh my. Just wondering why "quantum" is getting more and more crackpottish these days.

    Alain,


    Just a brief question since I am unfamiliar with your terminology here. "Intricated" and "disintricated". Can you get to a definition in English for your conceptual or definitional meaning.... since this term comes up a lot in your post above. A posting that I would hope to comment on, and certainly not in the vein of the previous post.


    Thanks,
    Longview

    Thanks AlainCo, the English language clarification helps greatly.


    [My comments below are as often from my own readings, and not in this case from any personally conducted experiments, but can include much of my own inductive and deductive conclusions] :


    Entanglement usually transpires when subatomic objects are created in the same instant of time. Disentanglement occurs when objects undergo differnent histories, or time line following their creation. While Bell's Inequality based experimentation definitely proves there are no "Local Hidden Variables" or LHV, the results either say nothing about "Universal Hidden Variables" or the interpretation I find useful: the results of such experiments imply that there is or are definitely UHV.


    How many UHVs are there?


    One possibility is that there are several UHVs and that at least one of them is a fundamental oscillation inherent in our Universe that has a period of Planck time (10 e -43 sec). Other UHVs might be universal such as mass oscillations on the Planck time scale, and / or further elaboration might involve fundamental oscillations in spatial dimensions [recall that if any aspect of string theory or M theory pertains, then there may be a surprising number of those dimensions folded up in our physical world, but only at very fundamental dimensions such as the Planck quantum of length 1.61619926 × 10 e-35 meters ]-- Because UHVs are universal, they would not propagate at any "speed" within our Universe, but instead would underlie everything and every observational tool we have.


    We already encountered another theoretical Planck oscillation, that is the possibility of mass oxcillation on that time scale. [see thread here at LENR Forum: deBroglie's equation and heavy electrons


    But, please don't mistake me for someone who necessarily believes in any of this, it just happens that it appears to constitute a fairly parsimonious way to explain a huge amount of very incontrovertible and otherwise puzzling QM data accumulated over the last 100 years and retested in many different ways.


    Later I will argue elsewhere that fundamental flaws may come from the dogmata of "collisional physics" if it is applied to slower speed events, the very events that might well be key to understanding CF and LENR. So you may find that I agree to some extent with the idea of "entanglement" being involved.


    But I would warn that "entanglement" is not something that can be easily synthesized, other than by simultaneous creation. So I suppose this supports Alain's (and other's) idea that simultaneous generation of 4 nucleon assemblies as a key to the Iwamura observations.


    Anyway, about enough for now. I do recommend Storms' new "blue book" The Explanation of Low Energy Reaction for its spirit and the comprehensiveness of his views. I don't quite like his treatment of Gibbs Free Energy, since "pressure" is not the only variable to influence "S" i.e. entropy in the Delta G formulation-- but certainly it is an important and accessible handle. More on that some other time.


    Longview

    • Official Post

    Maybe using entanglement is bad in my description.People seems to say collective effect, where some correlation appears between groups of entities, making them able to show states that are superposition of classical states, and interact in a non classical way.


    it seems, in my understanding, that it is what some call "pseudo particle". when the allowed non classical "megastates" can evolve like a QM particle... My best example is the hole, that you can see in semiconductors, a crystal, or in a suburban train... only in semiconductors is it quantum. Even bigger is the superconductivity, superfluidity, quantitized vortex in superfluids...


    those states interact weakly with more classical local states.


    maybe the comparison with "atom" is more rational. my megaatom is just a big quantum object that is enough bound so that it's states are not brownians, but more ordered


    In fact from the misunderstanding I see the key ideas in my vision, a naive and downgraded interpretation of Ed Storms (but not the hydroton) .


    first I acknowledge and revendicate miracles, and their consequences :

    • no gamma is emitted, thus I claim that all reaction or nearly with no momentum, this mean geometrically symmetric. p-e-p p-e/2-X-e/2-p ... I forget about the two body tables. here we always have many bodies.
    • no big energy quanta is emitted, thus energy is emitted before the reaction happen, and I claim reaction happen because energy have been already emitted, to pay the debt, or because it is already sold
    • reaction outcome clearly prefers low radioactivity, low excitation, low energy outcome, and I claim it is because it is the minimal energy to pay the debt. in fact I claim that the system emit energy until one nuclear reaction, the smallest one being symmetrical, recharge the system
    • for that to happen, with quanta above many keV but below MeV a quantum object able to emit keV and show quantum fusion transition have to appear, from a chemical context, from Gibbs energy, this mean from pressure or similar potential energy.

    My question is basically if it is possible :

    • Is it possible that a quantum object created from an unordered population of atoms, under pressure, became a structured quantum object able to show keV transitions
    • Is it possible that such an object spontaneously emit energy, like does an excited atom or nucleus, as it was before that nearly in thermodynamic equilibrium (beside some gibbs energy). Or is it stimulated (LASER?)? This mean that unexcitated atomes, condensed as a quantum object have became a big excitated object... is it possible ?
    • when such an object have emitted energy, and if there are allowed transition exchanging the energy debt with energy from fusion, is it possible to have such nuclear transition between a low excitation non fused state and a fused an reexcitated state ?

    I will propose a comparison with plasma physics...


    Imagine you have a plasma, a soup of quantum object called protons, electrons. they interact following thermodynamic laws.
    for some reason you increase pressure (and probably lower temperature?), and then some electrons pairs with protons to form atoms...
    atoms interact, but inside the proton and electron don't behave like statistical objects.


    the atom will start by being very excitated. it will emit photons.


    the problem is also that it will receive photons and unless energy is reduced, the atom will be dismantled quickly...


    but imagine that among the allowed state of the atom, there was a strange low energy state where proton and electron can merge (I don't defend 1/f, but just imagine it ) and produce energy (wrong in reality, it consume energy) . during the short time when the atom is in low energy state it can transition between the lower energy state non fused and a low energy state fused, where energy is transmited from the nucleus to something else (another electron, neutrino, gamma)... here I see that it is impossible because of symmetries, interactions and quantum numbers, but this is the idea.


    my feeling, far from a theory, is that since we observe many mysterious recurrent facts :

    • few gamma
    • few neutrons
    • non radioactive outcome
    • X+2,4,6D fusion

    It must be by design and not by accident: symmetric reaction involving electrons, pre-reaction emission of energy and pay-back transmutations.

    Alain,


    Kindly suggest where there is a good summary table of Iwamura or other results that show the transmutaions favoring 2,4,6 D ?


    And thanks for the further details on your ideas here.


    Perhaps "coherence" is a key word, or so Pr. Hagelstein suggests based on Karabut.

    • Official Post

    You are right that the data on favouring non radioactive are sparse
    For Iwamura remember that no radioactive elements was observed, but different multiple of 2D added.
    I should gather data
    http://dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.52.107301
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.41.4642


    anyway this is not a strict rule. there is tritium produced, and some evidence of fusion fission.
    I should find wher came that review. probably "the science of lenr"


    there is many transmutations observed but few radiation and radioactive outcome...
    http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0624.pdf
    some look like fission, but most like absorption of multiple deuterons


    if my hypothesis match p-e-p fusion, it seems not to determinate X+k.4H as Storms propose (it is an accidental fusion for him, anyway with an element very rich in neutrons, thus promoting beta- decay or fission)


    note that it seems storms theory on X+2D is that hydroton fuse d-e-d forming unstable 4H which can sometime merge into an element X, which decays quickly with beta...


    this is not what I imagined...


    about coherence, it is what I have in mind under the concept of "mega atom"... object who are quantum coherent, not statistic.
    Hagelstein, Preparata, Widom, Kim,... are probably right on that point (and Storms just propose a different machinery, but the same required coherence of the NAE)...
    There is probably many good ideas to mix, and some are in fact shared behind different appearance.


    one things that came to my mind currently is that TRipodi and others have identified type 2 superconductivity in PdH highly loaded hydrures...
    maybe is there something like the BEC ideas of Kim , or the coherent patch of Widom/Srivastava... or the hydroton... or a new animal.

    Thanks Alain,


    The BEC, superconductivity path was exactly what I imagined from reading your post. I don't know if I sent it, but I had a post in preparation that suggests that from a velocity standpoint "condensed matter" [that is solids and liquids], have nuclei that are very immobile, even though their momentum is that of the ambient temperature, the very large mass makes the v component very small. So for nuclear or nucleonic interactions, it is plausible that high temperature superconductivity is truly quite high, that is way above room temperature. Considering that proton diameters are so small (10 e -15 m) and their masses are so great (1836 X an electron) it is little surprise that unusual coherent and long range order interactions could at least be contemplated.


    And thanks for the reminders about PdH superconductivity and the macroscopic "quantized" effects seen around us.


    As humans and animals we have evolved to appreciate collligative properties very easily (hot, cold, hard, soft, heavy, light, liquid, solid etc.). The ultimate sources of these properties, that is quantum level events taken in aggregate are easy enough. The events themselves are quite unintuitive, even to physicists. Talbot A. Chubb made quite a lot of this in his Cold Fusion Clean Energy for the Future, 2008 book. He went so far as to say (as I recall it) that many physicists are still in the pre quantum era in terms of their understanding of issues such as CF / LENR. It does seem there is certainly some evidence to support that contention. The problem is not physicists, it is simple biology. We all cannot easily abstract or generalize what we cannot perceive.

    • Official Post

    Digging more and more, and with some answer from Edmund Storms, it seems I missed some points...
    My vision is not the one of Ed Storms on key details.


    In his theory, the reason why hydrotons emit radiation is not simple spontaneous transition but something, probably a force, that make nucleus coherent and able to loose mass, as some nuclear isomeric transition can make mass increase. This goes above my level ...
    My approach, guided by incompetence, is not to enter into mechanism.


    anyway it seems a mechanism have to exist to allow the "pay before killing". This mechanism seems a coupling between nucleus and not only the electrons as usual...



    Edmund Storms propose a mechanism, and link it with PdDx x=1 supraconductivity around 10K.
    for him this supraconductivity is not the cause, but an alternative to the LENR. when too cold the NAE cannot do LENR. thus remains HTSC.
    not clear either.



    I'm more and more troubled, but for me the theory is probably partially described in many existing theories...
    I like Hydroton because its match many experimental results, but others theories have gone deeper in the QM and the math. Have to merge all.

    There is a very interesting article / note from 1970 on Nuclear Isomers in Radiochimica Acta. It does appear that I cannot access it through ACS. It is published by de Gruyter and the full text is behind a fairly spendy paywall. I believe Hagelstein and others may have spent a fair amount of earlier career time under US Federal grants looking at nuclear isomers, probably as possible routes to "grasers" that is gamma ray lasers-- great for space warfare, it is said.


    http://www.degruyter.com/view/…32/ract.1970.13.3.132.xml


    But in the full first page, the authors mention the possibility of chemistry (tarnishing is suggested) substantially changing the radiological character of at least the silver isomer.


    Mass gain would be a genuine eye opener, Alain. I have seen published speculation that antiparticles might have antigravity... going so far as to use a centrifuge to enrich for them. I believe that generally anti particles are currently assumed to respond with positive rather than negative masses. But the analogue of positrons, that is "holes" in semiconductors may well have negative mass.... I still haven't centrifuged a pair of small LED, button battery powered flashlights to look for effects on their spectral output As I mentioned in a recent post, one result there is likely failure of the LED, the battery or its circuitry. But with luck one should be able to get a cheap little one to reach say 100 X g, since sometimes they survive such deceleration impacts with the floor.

    • Official Post

    It is a bit fringe for me, but you and Ed Storms seems to consider nuclear isomeric transition...
    and why not lighter nucleus inside LENR ashes. ?(


    The Wikipedia page is very interesting because it explains that some isomer can live long, and that it is linked with spin.Maybe is this related to some symmetries that change allowing energy to accumulate as nuclear isomeric transition, and be relaxed as fusion...


    Speculation about isomeric transition
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer
    http://www.daviddarling.info/e…/isomeric_transition.html
    puzzle me...
    Mixing with
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomeric_shift
    and with the mysterious name of the CERN measurement demanded by SKINR, maybe is it something to measure nuclear isomeric shift ?


    One problem is that 1Hydrogen have no nuclear isomer, but the (molecular) spin isomers ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen


    now if (mega molecular) hydroton endure spin isomeric transition, phase change, solitons, it can be fun...


    let us have fun. ^^
    No idea what will happen.


    PS: is there some theory based on nuclear spin phase change , solitons... or alike ?

    "quantum entanglement" great subject for conjecture on communicating over inter stellar distances. But why confuse the subject of nanoscale fusion here? Not good going off on a tangent, bad enough when we confine attention to the immediate subject.


    The reaction is simply that the NiO array allows the repulsion barrier between hydrogen nuclei to be overcome. The arrangement of the -Ni-O-Ni-O- spacing is critical. Guess my problem stems from having observed first hand the enormous thermal output from such a simple design and attributing it simply to what's going on everywhere in the universe. Also having detectors present that revealed no excess gammas helped. Of course, the reaction was simply producing a little helium without my having the sensitivity for alpha, beta and gamma detection. Every fool believes in seeing? Having experts present at the time that calculated how much helium was produced to generate the reaction observed did help.

    Quote from ogfusionist

    "quantum entanglement" great subject for conjecture on communicating over inter stellar distances. But why confuse the subject of nanoscale fusion here? Not good going off on a tangent, bad enough when we confine attention to the immediate subject.


    The reaction is simply that the NiO array allows the repulsion barrier between hydrogen nuclei to be overcome. The arrangement of the -Ni-O-Ni-O- spacing is critical. Guess my problem stems from having observed first hand the enormous thermal output from such a simple design and attributing it simply to what's going on everywhere in the universe. Also having detectors present that revealed no excess gammas helped. Of course, the reaction was simply producing a little helium without my having the sensitivity for alpha, beta and gamma detection. Every fool believes in seeing? Having experts present at the time that calculated how much helium was produced to generate the reaction observed did help.


    24 hertz not 28 hz here
    https://video-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpa1/v/t42.1790-2/10478613_805336382822718_1575024166_n.mp4?oh=f42e3674e756ba5ed0046a0397f2cc40&oe=55837959

    Alain has zero understanding about physics, as he so generously demonstrates us.


    Yes, it is amusing! That's the sole reason to remain interested in pseudoscience.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.