IMO most of controversial opinions would disappear, if we would imagine how the world would look for us, if we would float like pieces of foam on the water surface and if we would interact/observe it with surface ripples ONLY (this is important!), i.e. in similar way, like we use to observe objects around us with transverse waves of vacuum. At the proximity/small scales our perspective would get blurred with Brownian noise (tiny density fluctuations of underwater), which would bring the quantum uncertainty for us. After all, the Casimir force is easy to demonstrate at the water surface.
New Paper from Quantum Gravity Research.
-
-
Quarks that are in a strong magnetic field will generate instantons. These instantons are quasiparticles formed from magnetism that add mass to the quark. The mass added by magnetism can be great enough to change the flavor of the quark(s) thus disrupting the hadron that confine the quark(s). This is what happens in Holmlid's experiment where a proton or a neutron is converted to a kaon by magnetism via instanton generation. The up and/or down quark is changed to a strange quark through the addition of new mass carried by the magnetically induced instantons.
Metallic hydrogen produced by Holmlid is a powerful generator of magnetism.
Related to the above, I have uncovered a new dot in the LENR puzzle to connect, it is called the Nelson-Barr mechanism. I will try to understand it and will post on it when I figure it out some. If anyone already understand this mechanism, please post on it.
To become familiar with the Quark jargon, here is a video that uses a lot of it.
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16100033
What the presenter is after is to show why the hadron is stable under the action of instantons, But he shows a condition of "danger" where quarks change their flavor. This danger condition is what LENR is all about. This video is where I first ran across the Nelson-Barr mechanism. -
-
What it the difference between quasi and virtual particles?
They use different washrooms
-
quasi virtual pseudo?
-
axil out of curiosity. What it the difference between quasi and virtual particles?
This quasiparticle is a composite particle like waveform that behaves like a fundamental particle.
By the way you are truly lazy. You can find the answer to your questions on google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
The is not such thing as virtual particles. The various EMF background fields are unstable and this instability is call virtual particles.
https://profmattstrassler.com/…-particles-what-are-they/
QuoteA virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.
-
-
Alan Smith you forget about duality. The can use either one.
-
depends what state they are in,
North Carolina is restrictive about washrooms
-
Alan Smith you forget about duality. The can use either one.
Except when at sea - it's something to do with the waves, They are plagued by uncertainty.
-
axil thanks. Of course everybody can Google it but I want axil to think about that one more time. Maybe he will see something different in that this time.
I don;t understand what you want me to see. Please explain in more detail.
-
-
axil I was hoping that you would say something like - nah, half of it is BS but you seem to sand up for every concept out there embracing physics across the board with all the quirks.
I see LENR as a divining rod that will winnow the wheat from the chaff as these various speculative theories of science are put to the ultimate test.
-
-
Aha. And what is your source on what most physicists think?
Epimetheus. I did not say I had one. My original comment was anecdotal - people I know - and therefore not scientific. I admit to no authority in this matter. However the paper here samples a highly selected set of physicists hence my comment.
-
I am not sure whether consensus among physicists is a common phenomenon.
this group of just 27 or so were pretty diverse.
-
axil let's throw any theory we have at it then till something sticks.
I share the idea that lenr and emdrive will make scientists to do some soul searching.
I have a scenario : a theory in mind for LENR; It involves the magnetically induced decay of hadrons AND NOT NUCLEAR FUSION. I look kindly on any existing scientific thinking that support that theme. Specifically thinking involving anisotropic magnetic field line generation, optical cavities, conversion of light into magnetism, state changes in quantum mechanics, nanoparticles, polaritons, ultra dense hydrogen, analog black holes, hawking radiation, superconductivity, grand unification of fundamental of forces, and much more...these fields are all connected by the aforementioned theme. LENR is highly complicated, multidisciplinary and interconnected.
-
The only reason, why mainstream physics considers LENR at least theoretically is, it admits the release of energy during merging of lightweight elements into a heavier ones. We are utilizing the residual excessive energy after explosions of supernovae so to say. Whereas the LENR by particle decay lacks even this last connection with physical reality: not only we wouldn't know about its possible mechanism, we even wouldn't know about possible source of energy, as the electrons and protons are the most stable particles in the Universe. You cannot get some energy by their decay even theoretically. The decay of protons and neutrons within neutron stars proceeds on the account of the gravitational energy of large pile of mass: the occasional radiation formed there is the product of gravity force, not internal tension of particles.
-
Zephir_AWT but we have more convenient term to use 'transmutation' so you don't have to choose between decay of fusion.
-
The current theory of transmutation energy is solely based on fusion/fission energy theory. At the end it just depends on energy content of resulting isotopes as calculated from binding energy curve.
Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.