Electron-assisted fusion

In this thread I linked the water surface analogy of EMDrive. In this perspective the EMDrive behaves like the conical barrier, floating at the water surface. Try to imagine, we are doing ripples & splashes inside this barrier, which are bouncing back and forth, but because they cannot leave the barrier, they wouldn't spread into outside. If we would neglect the (existence of) underwater, then the floating barrier couldn't propagate in any direction in similar way, like the classical physics predicts for EMDrive in vacuum.

But the surface ripples also induce an underwater sound waves, which can escape the barrier beneath the water surface, and because it's wider at one end, the sound wave pressure will push it into reactive motion in opposite direction. The underwater sound waves also manifest itself like tiny turbulences at the water surface, which are speeding up the surface wave spreading.

The interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing very much to do with it, because the quantum mechanics disallows the EMDrive thrust by one interpretation of it or another one. In particular, the pilot wave is still surface ripple (kinda wake wave which is forming around particle in motion), so it cannot explain the spontaneous propagation of EmDrive. You would need hyperdimensional quantum field theory for to explain it.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

But the surface ripples also induce an underwater sound waves, which can escape the barrier beneath the water surface, and because it's wider at one end, the sound wave pressure will push it into reactive motion in opposite direction. The underwater sound waves also manifest itself like tiny turbulences at the water surface, which are speeding up the surface wave spreading.

This explanation appears to be equivalent to saying that the EMDrive pushes off of the aether. Do you agree?

@Jarek, I think you're missing an important distinction that is currently made between the aether and the EM field. The latter is an uncontroversial phenomenon, universally recognized in physics. It is understood to be frictionless and unable to carry momentum away. The former is a highly controversial topic, and, in your adaptation of it, it must be able to carry away momentum. In conflating the two concepts as you have knowingly done, you risk creating confusion for yourself and others in attempting to understand physicists' objections to the aether.

Whether pilot waves can do this duty is an interesting question. But I would not confuse them with the EM field as you have done.

http://www.nature.com/news/not…-my-dear-electron-1.10471

In condensed matter physics, spin–charge separation is an unusual behavior of electrons in some materials in which they 'split' into three independent particles, the spinon, the orbiton and the holon (or chargon). The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three, with the spinon carrying the spin of the electron, the orbiton carrying the orbital degree of freedom and the chargon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions they can become deconfined and behave as independent particles.

Building on physicist F. Duncan M. Haldane's 1981 theory, experts from the Universities of Cambridge and Birmingham proved experimentally in 2009 that a mass of electrons artificially confined in a small space together will split into spinons and holons due to the intensity of their mutual repulsion (from having the same charge).

LENR comes by way of the spinon, where a special construction of matter/light produces a super spinon that looks like the spin of the electron or photon but many orders of magnitude stronger. Usually charge is self limiting because like charges repel, but when charge is removed from particles and only spin remains, then spin can be amplified to any strength. When this super amplified fraction of the electron is directed at matter, matter begins to decay into energy under the strength of the super spinon.

Quote

Jarek: Let us not translate features of our effective models into fundamental properties of nature, like smearing elementary charge into quantum probability cloud.

Ed Storms states that we must setup the special conditions in which LENR occurs. That context only exists in condensed matter systems. There are contexts in condensed matter in which LENR exists. These contexts involves the production of quasiparticles that meet the special quantum mechanical requirements of LENR. A tachyon monopole does not exist in nature but this special particle can be build in a condensed matter system. To build such a quasiparticle, the electron must be split into its component parts whereby its electron and photon spins are isolated, amplified, and squeezed so that a spin condinsate is formed and made metastable. This is what LENR experimenters are doing in a trial and error exploration of condensed matter systems.

Quote from axil

LENR comes by way of the spinon, where a special construction of matter/light produces a super spinon that looks like the spin of the electron or photon but many orders of magnitude stronger.

Here the most complete paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.1954.pdf

Quote from Jarek

Condensed matter is full of quasiparticles like phonon - such split of charge and spin means only some difference in propagation of charge and spin-related perturbation of the lattice.

Jarek: Axil always sees no problem with mixing reality and imagination. Spinons, Holons occur in one dimensional systems and the separation effects are in the some 10meV up to some eV range.
He first had to prove that in the LENR NAE a strongly confined "one dimensionality" exists! (even at the high Rossi T's - 1400C - range .......)

Quote from axil

Ed Storms states that we must setup the special conditions in which LENR occurs. That context only exists in condensed matter systems.

This might easily be one off the big errors of LENR history. I do not say that a NAE is not able to somewhat support LENR, but since Storms himself proved that PdD LENR is running independently of the load factor, the NAE (Brouillon like one) is more or less out of the game...

/* This explanation appears to be equivalent to saying that the EMDrive pushes off of the aether. Do you agree? */

It depends on how we define the aether, after then. In pre-Einsteinian physics the aether was supposed to behave like very thin sparse gas pervading the space. Such an aether has been disproved with Michelson-Morley experiments and another ones.. But the true luminiferous aether cannot be very sparse gas, or it couldn't mediate very energetic waves of gamma and X-ray radiation. Such an aether must form the space-time instead and thus behaving like very dense matter instead. On this assumption whole the AWT theory and its water surface analogies are based. AWT handles the universe like the random field of probability states, which gets the properties of gas or fluid or foam at various distance/energy density scales.

IMO the EMDrive can be explained from intrinsic and extrinsic perspective, which both probably apply in similar way. The intrinsic perspective assumes, that the light changes its speed and energy along the length of resonator (Shawyer's theory). The extrinsic perspective considers, that the properties of light don't change inside it, but the light gradually converts itself into longitudinal waves, which are subsequently responsible for reactive force (Annila's theory). Both explanations violate established physics, which doesn't recognize neither scalar waves, neither variable speed of light - but only seemingly.

The trick is, that even the mainstream physics allows two processes: the polarization of light by reflection (intrinsic perspective) and materialization of photons into particles (extrinsic perspective). Both phenomena are possible once we assume that portion of photon momentum gets converted into angular momentum, i.e. the spin. The spin polarized photons can both lose their speed (group velocity), both they can interact mutually under formation of very light-weight particles (scalar waves, axions, sterile neutrinos). Both these processes may be even enforced with coupling of photons with metallic walls of resonator and their surface plasmons. For example the speed of light waves changes with polarization in minute extent only. But once these waves spread along metal surface, then the effect of their polarization gets very pronounced.

I've multiple indicia, that Roger Shawyer understands his device deeper, than he presents in his theory and he keeps this knowledge for himself as his private know-how. The construction details of his device point rather clearly to the fact, he's aware of polarization of photons in his device and importance of standing wave formation. This can also explain the controversial results of other replicators (Chineses, NASA), which still don't understand the principle of Shawyer device so well, because the performance of EMDrive thruster (as measured by thrust/energy ratio) strongly depends on polarization of waves under Brewster angle and geometry of standing waves in it. Occasionally these circumstances can nullify or even reverse the thrust completely. In this way or another, the EMDrive points to interesting physics, which the physicists shouldn't avoid, as it could point to quantum gravity theory and the way, in which relativity and quantum field theories could be reconcilled mutually.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

I've multiple indicia, that Roger Shawyer understands his device deeper, than he presents in his theory and he keeps this knowledge for himself as his private know-how.

@Zephir: Could it be that he had a look at Mills chapter 35? about "the Fifth Force" ?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Jarek: Axil always sees no problem with mixing reality and imagination. Spinons, Holons occur in one dimensional systems and the separation effects are in the some 10meV up to some eV range.
He first had to prove that in the LENR NAE a strongly confined "one dimensionality" exists! (even at the high Rossi T's - 1400C - range .......)

Holmlid's H(0) is a one dimensional nanowire where a spin wave covers the positive core. Keith Fredericks (http://restframe.com/) (http://restframe.com/downloads/tachyon_monopoles.pdf) shows that tachyon monopole quasiparticles are detected in LENR ash, so it is proper to deduce that these quasiparticles can beat the heat even beyond the melting point of nickel.

Quote from Alan Smith

Interesting papers, Axil. Many thanks.

Zig Ziglar: “Repetition is the mother of learning, the father of action, which makes it the architect of accomplishment.”

Yes, this has been a lot of repetition...I counted the number of my posts so far that have referenced the restframe experiments: 22.

From those experiments, it is easy to get the full qualitative and quantitative picture of what the NAE actually is. Keith Fredericks has not connected all the dots yet, and like the other dozen people who do this type of out of the box experimentation, talk of tachyon monopoles scare the bejesus out of the people who look at their work. But it is just a matter of establishing the proper context and topology, entering into the one dimensional nano mesoscopic world and the dots begin to come together.

Quote from damn_right _man

those monopoles and tachyons.

E) Axil, how often Do You want to try to convince us, that any of those unproven theories can be examined by people, who have nothing or not enough knowledge to either detect them, or are able to describe their examined results in terms of reliable physics ???

If the tracks of these quasiparticles are reliably and regularly found by a dozen individual experimenters on photo emulsions, how can you then ignore that evidence?