I would like to see an experimenter place a strong rare earth Neodymium magnet on a short half life radioactive source and see if the radioactive source is stabilized more quickly than would be expected.
Bose condensation as a force multiplier.
-
Could you please enhance (i.e. make bold) the section in the above post, which actually explains, how the magnetic field could affect the yield of cold fusion? If not, why are you posting it here?
In the reference, I have posted that an anisotropic magnetic field can produce LENR results but not how that is achieved.
I speculate how an anisotropic magnetic field might amplify the weak force through an adiabatic reaction force in previous posts within this thread.
-
Quote
how an anisotropic magnetic field might amplify the weak force through an adiabatic reaction force
Sorry, I don't understand it. Whole the concept of "amplification of forces" by Boson condensate, anisotropic magnetic field etc. remains obscured for me.
Albert Einstein — 'You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother"..
QuoteI would like to see an experimenter place a strong rare earth Neodymium magnet on a short half life radioactive source and see if the radioactive source is stabilized more quickly than would be expected.
The speed of radioactive decay can be affected with neutrinos, which can be also considered a monopoles, especially one they get trapped with atom nuclei, where they propagate rather slowly (see my remark concerning the analogy of neutrinos and Falaco solitons above). The speed of K-capture could be also affected with it (try to place the neodym magnet near bannana and to check, if it will start to glow at dark)...
-
Sorry, I don't understand it. Whole the concept of "amplification of forces" by Boson condensate, anisotropic magnetic field etc. remains obscured for me.
Albert Einstein — 'You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother"..
The concept is explained in a number of posts that you down voted as follows:
Bose condensation as a force multiplier.
The explanation of adiabatic reaction force is presented by Erik Verlinde - "The Hidden Phase Space of Our Universe" in the first part of that video. Maybe you did not view the video before you downvoted it?
-
Quote
The explanation of adiabatic reaction force is presented by Erik Verlinde - "The Hidden Phase Space of Our Universe"
I see, try to explain it by your own words - and we will see. What I'm saying is, the boson condensate or asymetric magnetic field doesn't amplify any forces, until you demonstrate the opposite with some meaningfull logic. The replication of explanation is an analogy of falsification of theories or experiments: until nobody is able to reproduce them, then they cannot apply as an evidence, because the world around us is full of random flukes, not to say about the crazy minds of our peers. :crazy:
-
I see, try to explain it by your own words - and we will see. What I'm saying is, the boson condensate or asymetric magnetic field doesn't amplify any forces, until you demonstrate the opposite with some meaningfull logic. The replication of explanation is an analogy of falsification of theories or experiments: until nobody is able to reproduce them, then they cannot apply as an evidence, because the world around us is full of random flukes, not to say about the crazy minds of our peers. :crazy:
I posted my interpretation here in this post
Bose condensation as a force multiplier.
Since you also downvoted that post, you must have not studied it too extensively either.
-
Quote
I posted my interpretation here in this post Bose condensation as a force multiplier. Since you also downvoted that post, you must have not studied it too extensively either
I downvoted it, because it's typical example, how AxillAxill incorporates everyday hypes in physics into explanation of cold fusion. This week Verlinde talks about entropic forces in online media, so you just conjured the word "amplification" and wrapped it with Bose condensation like a new topic at lenr-forum.com.
But does the Bose condensate really contain some mechanism for amplification of forces? Where we can see it, in which known physical effect, which could be extrapolated to cold-fusion systems? This is my question - whole this thread holds water in its very point.
The adherence on understability of ideas is not my private capric, manifestation of hostility the less: it's necessary condition for being able to extrapolate with another people and becoming usefull in this way. Once nobody can understand your idea, then no one can work with it and it becomes useless. Therefore it's in your very own interest to have ideas understandable.
-
Quote
Erik Verlinde is postulating is that reality is quantum information and its structure changes the way gravity behaves at the large scale (structure of information, what is it supposed to mean?). What defines the structure of quantum information locally is quantum entanglement and wormholes (why? how? wormholes - what is it supposed to mean?). What charges the way gravity works is entanglement on the local scale (lotta similar words follow...)
But what you can read nowhere is the explanation, why the gravity field should be formed just around massive bodies. And this is just the crucial question for every theory of gravity, don't you think? What is the phase space and why it should change just around massive bodies? Well, no answer, each interpretation is using tons of concepts which lack deeper explanation by itself. This is postmodern twaddling - not the way, how the actual explanation should look like...
Quotethe same mechanism could be at work in LENR where entanglement on the local scale can change the way the electromagnetic, electroweak, and strong forces interact. In this way at looking at things, LENR is an emergent behavior of high temperature superconductivity. LENR is the child of coherent entanglement.
And again - why the atoms should entangle during cold fusion, what their superconductivity actually explains? Just many words and the substance is elsewhere.
-
The actual reason why the modern people are forced to use dozens of fancy words borrowed from unexplained yet theories for to explain trivial things, like the gravity field around massive bodies is, they derailed from coherent thinking and from simple and robust aether models, which were postulated before centuries. Robert Hooke (1687) was first, who realized what the vacuum is all about: "All space is filled with equally dense material. Gold fills only a small fraction of the space assigned to it, and yet has a big mass. How much greater must be the total mass filling that space?" To remedy the concept of light and forces, Robert Hooke also first suggested that the (longitudinal) pressures transmitted by the ether may be oscillatory, because vacuum is dense form of elastic matter, filled with omnipresent undulations like the wiggling block of jelly. Another bright man and a friend of Newton Fatio deDuillier proposed, that gravity field between planets results from shielding of these longitudinal waves:
While this concept is simple - if not trivial - it immediatelly explains, why the intensity of gravity field ceases with square of distance. The relativity theory cannot account to it (it borrows this dependence from Newtons gravitational law instead), Verlinde theory the less. But the shielding model is way more complex in its very consequences and it can explain the origin of another composite forces.
For example, in this model the gravity force depends on influx of longitudinal waves from outside. But once these waves get shielded with massive bodies, then the another massive bodies cannot enjoy their mutual shielding so well like the isolated pair of bodies at free space. From this model follows, the mutual forces get weakened inside the large number of massive bodies arranged in a single row - and this is the factual basis of the sentence "Entanglement acts like a force multiplier whereby the electromagnetic and the electroweak forces can come together at a far lower energy levels".
As you probably remember, in my theory the cold fusion results from Astroblaster effect (momentum multiplication) during multiple collisions of atoms along a row and the decrease of forces in these rows is the added value of this geometric arrangement. The only question is, how much this effect may be significant for overcomming of Coulomb barrier - in my opinion not way too much and it definitelly cannot explain the cold fusion by itself.
-
BTW if you're interested about how the gravity force and inertia can be affected with presence of another massive bodies, you should be interested about Tamarack mine experiments, gravitational anomalies during solar eclipses (Allais effect) and planetary conjuctions, periodicity in gravity constant measurements, and so on. The microscopic effects are Lamb shift, Cassimir and Yukawa force and related stuffs (Hungarian boson, pentaquark, tetraneutronium etc). The experimental material is already quite rich about it, once you know, where to look at it.
-
Zephir,
I have asked you several times about this. Maybe you have not seen it. You are a aether specialist and you know history and detail. If you see this post favor it or respond to ack. I have asked several questions before on it. I think we need to have an aether thread relating to EM drive (not just a post in a side thread). -
-
-
axil: Verlinde entropic theory isn't theory of gravity in the same way, like the general relativity - if you believe so, try to explain with it, how is it possible that the gravity field occurs just at presence of massive bodies. Why the "phase imbalance" occurs just around our Earth?
General relativity is applicable in a space that is maximally entangled. However, when matter is added to the space, entanglement is broken and the space becomes excited. This state of excitement is what adds strength to the force of gravity on the large scale. Understand that I am no expert on this theory yet but I am motivated to understand. Try your luck with this video:
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
OK, lets start with what you do really understand about entropic gravity theory. The entropy of what? Which entanglement applies to lone massive body? Such a body still exhibits gravity field - i.e. the entanglement is irrelevant to it.
-
OK, lets start with what you do really understand about entropic gravity theory. The entropy of what? Which entanglement applies to lone massive body? Such a body still exhibits gravity field - i.e. the entanglement is irrelevant to it.
Entanglement of space/time.
-
Entanglement between what? So far I lived in impression, that entanglement applies to pairs of objects. It's easy to pile up the fancy words and concepts - but once we start to think about all of it, what we could actually deduce from it?
-
Entanglement between what? So far I lived in impression, that entanglement applies to pairs of objects. It's easy to pile up the fancy words and concepts - but once we start to think about all of it, what we could actually deduce from it?
See
QuoteAlso see
QuoteAlso see
Quote
