The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction.

  • FTFY.

    I have changed my mind. Fusion does occur at low temperatures as a result of electron sceening.

    Here's how...

    External Content
    Content 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.

    I now introduce a possible explanation about how the Pico cluster amplifies electron screening of the nucleus to enable fusion at ambient temperatures to occur.

    When a large aggregation of electrons form, this aggregation extracts energy from the Higgs field that is rendered as electron mass and reduces the Higgs field's vacuum potential (aka ability) to generate mass in the area concomitant with the electron aggregation. This reduction is the ability of the Higgs field to generate mass in a localized volume will also lower the mass of the quarks in nuclei within the zone of influence of the electron clustering. This reduction in quark mass will weaken the strong force holding the nuclei together making the fusion reaction more likely.

    But electrons can become bosons when a pico cluster forms. This cluster forms a super-electron where the entire volume of space in which the pico cluster is acting has a concentrated mass screening potential within that volume. In a coherent electron system, all coherent members are entangled thereby sharing the maximum electron screening potential of the entire group.

    An explanation about how a entangled coherent system shares energy is explained here:

    External Content
    Content 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.

  • if a spark hits wet plaster creating low voltage and you get a small steam release can the charge attach to the released steam to float up to the power soak to re-fire a Tesla type coil building a higher charge....

    The plaster being in the bottom of a box on the top of a aluminum plywood aluminum capacitor>

    Can an EVO.-.. sprite , at some point = dancing on top the mix metal plaster...... fill the Sprite..until it hits the wall, aluminum sheet or lead gold ect. releasing the charge into the water vape.

  • I have changed my mind. Fusion does occur at low temperatures as a result of electron sceening.

    Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 -

    Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 -…E5Q6I_ji/edit?usp=sharing

    Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 -

    During the last 7 years I have dealt with the physics of the hydrowave technology of Vladimir Stepanovich Afanasyev ... The biggest difficulty for me was the following - he had reactions involving "alpha particles" and for me there were two problems - 1st - how how he was able to synthesize these particles by simply rotating his ingenious rotor, and 2nd - how alpha particles overcame the huge "Coulomb barrier" ... My first luck smiled at me when I ran into the site of Philip Mikhailovich Kanarev and began to study his works ... I started reading his textbook 5 times and quit ... My brain, trained at MEPhI, refused to understand it ... I called him and he scolded me and ... called me a fool ... This provoked me ... C 6 times I still mastered reading and ... experienced happiness after I studied Kanarev's proof that electrons do not have orbital rotation around the nucleus of an atom ... Over 700 articles were shoveled over 5 years ... In addition, I attended seminars Samsonenko N.V. in RUDN... It turned out that there are quite a lot of experiments in the world in which researchers encountered the absence of a "Coulomb barrier"... This began to strain me... As a result of a long analysis, in December 2017, I came to the conclusion that that there is no electric charge in nature ... My confidence in this statement grew, but I did not have the opportunity to prove DIRECTLY ... After the presentation by Zaitsev F.S. his book written jointly with Bychkov V.L. I was going to write an article about this book with my critical remarks ... When I wrote out quotes from the book, then for the 9th or 10th time I wrote "electric charge" I just exploded and set myself the task of finding the one who first introduced this " bullshit" into our physics...

    Fortunately for me, I quickly found the original texts of Charles Coulomb on the website of the Association of French Physicists ... I translated the 2nd and 3rd notes and gasped - Charles Coulomb's paradigm was fundamentally different from the one presented in school textbooks and in university textbooks. .. Re-read Poisson, Weber, Ampère, Harris and Thomson. All of them thought in the Coulomb paradigm, i.e. talked about "charge" as a "mass of electricity" ... or about the mass of "electric fluid" ... By the way, I immediately noted for myself that in his article of 1848 Thomson (I read this article in a collection that was published in 1872) gave the Coulomb formula without a coefficient, i.e. there he had only the product of "masses of electricity" in the numerator, and the "square" of the distance between charges, and there was no coefficient ... Fortunately for me, I started a correspondence with Cherepennikov and we started a skirmish about Maxwell's "ether" .. Thanks to this, on January 19, 2021, I decided to look at Cherepennikov's website - "The Newtonian Society", and there, on the 1st page, to my satisfaction, I came across Maxwell's treatise from 1873 - "Electricity and Magnetism" ... I rushed to study the section "Electrostatics" and immediately discovered 6 trivial errors in Maxwell ... This both upset and delighted me ... Why upset me? Well, of course - the Great Maxwell makes "school mistakes" - it did not fit in my head ... But there was more joy - finally I found the culprit of all our troubles over the past 150 years - it was Maxwell who perverted the paradigm of Charles Coulomb! In fact, Maxwell treacherously calls his formula, which resembles Coulomb's formula only in its denominator, "Coulomb's Law"...

    During these two years, I wrote several articles on this subject and posted my article "Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 01/19/2021" on the website "". On my channel in YouTube - Physical Chemistry of the Microworld Aleksey Ivanovich Cherepanov -

    You will find more than 200 videos and several videos are devoted to the fact that in nature there are no "Maxwell electrostatic charges" on the proton and electron, in nature there are no "Maxwell electric fields", in nature there are no "Maxwell electric forces" and, accordingly, in nature there are no "Coulomb barrier". For this reason, all Maxwell's formulas that contain the symbol "E" - the strength of the electric field, are fake, since there are simply no electric fields in nature. The principle of superposition in physics is an absolute lie ... for the reasons presented above. Thus, according to Maxwell, there is no electromagnetic wave in nature...

    What is there? There is an electric current, which is the movement of an "ethereal mass" or "photon mass" in the conductor, and this movement is carried out by electrons that are located in clusters in the conductor (this model is in the first approximation) ... And what is instead of an electromagnetic wave or a sound wave ? These are photon waves that are formed by a photon mass (conditionally photons, which in the physical chemistry of the microworld of F. M. Kanarev have mass) ... You will find all the details either in my videos on YouTube or in the articles that are posted under my videos.

    I wish everyone success in knowing the truth ... Electric current and sound ... It turns out back in 2015, a graduate of the department No. 24 "Applied Nuclear Physics" Shadrin Alexander Alexandrovich at a seminar at VNIIAES presented his opinion on this matter and said - This is the same thing ...

    About the statement of Shadrin Alexander Alexandrovich in March 2015. -

    About the statement of Shadrin Alexander Alexandrovich in March 2015. -…Zxn-6JPI/edit?usp=sharing

  • Shown in today's volcano lightning, voltage from cloud lightning back to the ground stored in sediment " Obsidian" ect.= micro sparks heating the sediment into magma "mixed metals" releasing static charge back to the clouds accumulates and start over again.

    seems ... this would be easy to check.

  • External Content
    Content 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.

    To my mind, LION 2 - Diamond mining analysis overview, a simple experiment shows how LENR and the pico clusters function. All the pico clusters begin as deuterium clusters inside the diamond crystal imperfections. When the LENR reaction begins, the pico clusters in their thousands begin to consume the diamond lattice and eat their way within the diamond building tunnels. Three instances of this transmutation behavior happens with each instance producing a single element of either sulfur, aluminum or silicon.

    When the LENR reaction is active it is coherent which means that all the pico clusters act as one single entity and share a global energy store. while the pico clusters are moving and eating, diamond vanishes but when the LENR reaction terminates, all the pico clusters leave the same transmuted element, either sulfur, aluminum or silicon at the far end of their respective tunnel. When active, each pico cluster is an identical twin of all the others and do the same thing, they all start moving and they all eat diamond, then they all stop moving when the LENR reaction terminates and then the all leave the same element at the end of their respective tunnel.

    As explained in the paper "Experimental activation of strong local passive states with quantum information..." it is coherence and quantum entanglement that connect all the pico clusters together in a quantum mechanical vacuum based network and allows them to share energy via quantum teleportation of energy. But the lion experiment shows more quantum mechanical behavior not yet recognized by science, it shows that all the pico clusters share matter, the matter that they all transmute as a unified global entity.

    The paper "First Realization of Quantum Energy Teleportation on Superconducting Quantum Hardware..." predicts that the information about the shared transmuted element would be shared by all the active pico clusters when the LENR reaction was active.

    What makes all this happen is quantum mechanical coherence of all the pico clusters. This is why LENR will always produce polarized EMF radiation in the LENR reaction. Like any solid state laser, EMF that such a coherent system produces is always polarized.

    2021-04-02 17:11 KeithT

    Dear Andrea,

    Is the light emitted by the Ecat SKLed polarized?


    Keith Thomson.

    2021-04-03 08:34 Andrea Rossi



    Warm Regards,


  • Bod Cook has authored a post on teleportation of energy and the description (quantum information) of matter on Vortex as follows:

    The text of various papers follows below. These items are from the link:…412d179&mc_eid=1c22739553

    quantum gravity

    Wormhole Experiment Called Into Question


    Charlie Wood

    March 23, 2023

    Last fall, a team of physicists announced that they had teleported a qubit through a holographic wormhole in a quantum computer. Now another group suggests that’s not quite what happened.

    An illustration of a butterfly falling into a wormhole.

    A holographic wormhole would scramble information in one place and reassemble it in another. The process is not unlike watching a butterfly being torn apart by a hurricane in Houston, only to see an identical butterfly pop out of a typhoon in Tokyo.

    Myriam Wares for Quanta Magazine


    In January 2022, a small team of physicists watched breathlessly as data streamed out of Google’s quantum computer, Sycamore. A sharp peak indicated that their experiment had succeeded. They had mixed one unit of quantum information into what amounted to a wispy cloud of particles and watched it emerge from a linked cloud. It was like seeing an egg scramble itself in one bowl and unscramble itself in another.

    In several key ways, the event closely resembled a familiar movie scenario: a spacecraft enters one black hole — apparently going to its doom — only to pop out of another black hole somewhere else entirely. Wormholes, as these theoretical pathways are called, are a quintessentially gravitational phenomenon. There were theoretical reasons to believe that the qubit had traveled through a quantum system behaving exactly like a wormhole — a so-called holographic wormhole — and that’s what the researchers concluded. When it was published in November, the experiment graced the cover of Nature and was widely covered in the media, including in this magazine.

    Now another group of physicists has analyzed the result and determined that, while the experiment may have produced something vaguely wormhole-like, it wasn’t really a holographic wormhole in any meaningful sense. In light of the new analysis, independent researchers are coming to doubt that the teleportation experiment has anything to do with gravity after all.

    “I feel that the evidence for a gravitational interpretation is weakening,” said John Preskill, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology who was not involved with either study.

    The group did teleport something on the Sycamore chip, however, and they did it in a way that — at least on the surface — looked more wormhole-like than anything produced by earlier experiments. The dispute over how to interpret the experiment springs from rapid developments involving holography, which functions as a sort of mathematical pair of 3D glasses that lets physicists view a quantum system as a gravitational one. Studying wormholes through the gravitational lens has uncovered new ways to teleport quantum information, raising hopes that such quantum experiments might someday go in the other direction and probe quantum gravity in the lab. But the wormhole brouhaha highlights the fact that determining when the holographic lens works — and therefore whether certain aspects of quantum gravity might be accessible on quantum computers — may require greater subtlety than physicists imagined.

    When he read the new response, Vincent Su, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley who studies wormhole-like teleportation and is not involved with either group, wondered, “Is quantum gravity in the lab dead?”

    Scrambling Wormholes

    Wormholes have long been a fixture of science fiction writers in need of a mechanism for quickly moving their characters across the vastness of space, but the wormholes that appeared in Einstein’s theory of gravity initially seemed extremely improbable, requiring tricky manipulations of space-time that inevitably led to time-travel paradoxes. That changed in 2016, when three physicists — Ping Gao and Daniel Jafferis at Harvard University and Aron Wall, then at the Institute for Advanced Study — found an unexpectedly simple and paradox-free way to prop open a wormhole with a shock wave of negative energy.

    How does gravity work in the quantum regime? A holographic duality from string theory offers a powerful tool for unraveling the mystery.

    Video: How does gravity work in the quantum regime? A holographic duality from string theory offers a powerful tool for unraveling the mystery.

    Directed by Emily Driscoll and animated by Jonathan Trueblood for Quanta Magazine

    External Content
    Content 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.


    “It’s quite beautiful. It started the whole thinking in this direction,” said Hrant Gharibyan, a quantum physicist at Caltech. “There’s a narrow window that you can throw stuff from the left universe to the right.”

    The foundation of the work was one of the hotter trends in modern physics, holography.

    Holography involves the study of profound relationships known as dualities. On their face, dual systems look completely different. They have different parts and play by different rules. But if two systems are dual, every aspect of one system can be precisely related to an element of the other system. Electric fields are dual to magnetic fields, for instance. A major finding in modern physics is that dualities also seem to link certain gravitational systems to quantum systems.

    We might consider a collection of interacting particles, for instance, entirely within the framework of quantum theory. Or, as if by popping on a pair of 3D glasses, we might see the collection of particles as a black hole governed by the rules of gravity. Physicists have spent decades developing mathematical “dictionaries” that let them translate quantum elements into gravitational elements and vice versa, effectively putting on and taking off the glasses. They watch how particles, black holes and wormholes transform as one switches between the two perspectives. Calculations that are hard to do from one perspective are often easier from the other. A major hope of the field is to develop the ability to access the still mysterious rules of quantum gravity by studying better-understood quantum theories.

    But questions abound as to how far the glasses trick will hold. Does every conceivable quantum theory pop into a gravity theory when viewed holographically? Can physicists understand gravity in our universe by finding its better-behaved quantum twin? No one knows. But many theorists have dedicated their careers to exploring a few well-understood holographic pairs of theories and are constantly searching for new examples.

    Gao, Jafferis and Wall had already suggested in 2016 that passing through a wormhole (a gravitational enterprise) might have a quantum interpretation without the 3D glasses: the teleportation of quantum information. A couple of years later, another team made their speculation concrete.

    A smiling man in front of a chalk board.

    Daniel Jafferis, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University, helped develop the wormhole teleportation protocol. He was also one of the leaders of last year’s wormhole team.

    Paul Horowitz

    In 2019, Gharibyan and his collaborators translated traversable wormholes into quantum language, publishing a step-by-step recipe for a peculiar quantum experiment that showcases the essence of holography. With the 3D glasses on, you see a wormhole. An object enters one black hole, traverses a sort of space-time bridge, and exits the other black hole. Take the glasses off, however, and you see the dual quantum system. Two black holes become two gigantic clouds of particles. The space-time bridge becomes a quantum mechanical link known as entanglement. And the act of traveling through the wormhole becomes an event that appears quite surprising from the quantum perspective: A particle carrying a qubit, a unit of quantum information, enters one cloud and becomes scrambled beyond all recognition. The qubit unscrambles and exits the entangled cloud as another particle — a development as unexpected as watching a butterfly being torn apart by a hurricane in Houston, only to see an identical butterfly pop out of a typhoon in Tokyo.

    “Naïvely you’d never guess,” Gharibyan said, “that you could scramble and unscramble very chaotically, and the information comes out.”

    But viewed through a holographic lens, the proceedings make perfect sense. The entangled clouds of particles are not a literal wormhole in our universe. But they are dual to a wormhole, meaning that they have a matching behavior for anything a traversable wormhole can do — including transporting a qubit.

    This is what the team announced in the November Nature paper. They simulated the behavior of two clouds of entangled particles in a quantum computer and performed a teleportation that captured the essential aspects of traversing a wormhole from the holographic perspective.

    But that wasn’t the only way to interpret their experiment.

    Not All That Teleports Is Gravity

    Over the past few years, researchers made another surprising discovery. Although they had spotted the scrambling teleportation recipe while using the gravitational lens, gravity wasn’t always essential.

    Gravity scrambles information in a very particular way. In fact, theorists have argued that black holes must be the most efficient scramblers in nature. But when Gharibyan and his colleagues used clouds of particles that scrambled by different quantum rules than gravity, they realized that the clouds could still teleport by scrambling, albeit less efficiently. And when they looked at the alternative clouds through a holographic lens, they saw nothing — no wormholes.

    Gharibyan’s group and another team led by Norman Yao at Berkeley put everything together in a pair of simultaneous papers in 2021. (Yao has since moved to Harvard.)

    A black and white photo of a man smiling.

    Norman Yao, a physicist at Harvard University, led the team that poked holes in last year’s wormhole paper.

    Noah Berger for UC Berkeley


    These papers laid out some of the characteristics that seemed to distinguish gravitational teleportation from teleportation by more vanilla sorts of scrambling. In particular, they identified a feature of all quantum systems known as size winding, which can be linked holographically to the speed of a particle falling through the wormhole. When gravity was responsible for the scrambling, size winding had a particular mathematical property and was said to be “perfect” in the systems they studied. That gave the Nature team a specific signal to hunt for.

    “What was predicted in these earlier papers was that size winding is a holographic signature, almost like a smoking gun,” Su said.

    More Particles, More Problems

    Last spring, while the Nature paper was going through the peer-review process, Su and his collaborators carried out a teleportation-by-scrambling experiment on two quantum computers, one operated by IBM and another by Quantinuum. They called their teleportation demo “wormhole-inspired,” since they knew their quantum model used one of the nongravitational scrambling recipes. At the time, they suspected that an experimental demonstration of true gravitational teleportation would take a decade or longer.

    To understand why gravitational teleportation is so tough to pull off, it helps to keep in mind that these quantum computers don’t literally contain clouds of particles that scramble and unscramble information of their own accord. Instead, they contain qubits, which are objects that act like particles (qubits can be made from either literal atoms or artificial ones). When scientists program the computer, they tell it to make quantum changes to the qubits according to an energy equation called a Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian describes how the qubits change from one moment to the next. Effectively, this equation lets them customize the laws of quantum physics for the qubits. As the computer runs, it carries out a sort of simulation of how real clouds of particles governed by those laws would act.

    Here’s the rub: For a definitive showcase of gravitational teleportation, you need big clouds of particles. How big? The bigger the better. The theorists had done all the math in the context of essentially infinitely large clouds. For an experiment, researchers generally agree that 100 particles per cloud would suffice for indisputable wormhole-behavior to emerge.

    A gloved hand holding a square wafer.

    Last year’s experiment was run on seven qubits of Google’s Sycamore quantum computing chip.

    Peter Kneffel/dpa/Alamy Live News


    Yet as the number of particles goes up, the size of the Hamiltonian explodes. If you’re modeling the particles using one of the more tractable models of gravity, called the SYK model, your Hamiltonian must reflect the fact that every member of a group of particles can directly influence every other member. The Hamiltonian for 100 densely linked particles is an equation with a staggering 3,921,225 terms. This is far beyond what today’s quantum computers can simulate with a few dozen qubits. Even if one were willing to settle for a fuzzy wormhole dual to clouds of just 20 particles, the Hamiltonian would go on for an overwhelming 4,845 terms. This hurdle was a key reason why Su’s group thought that a true wormhole simulation was a decade away.

    Then last November, a team of researchers led by Jafferis, Joseph Lykken of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and Maria Spiropulu of Caltech surprised the community by announcing that they had run a quantum experiment displaying perfect size winding — the key signature thought to establish the existence of a gravitational dual, and thus a wormhole — using just seven particles. Even more surprising, they were able to stuff the behavior of this seven-particle system into a Hamiltonian with only five terms.

    A Holographic Wormhole on a Chip

    The core of the group’s work was a novel way of pruning many of those particle-to-particle connections described by the unwieldy SYK Hamiltonian. Numerous physicists have “sparsified” the SYK model for a given cloud size by dropping random terms, finding that simpler versions can keep the holographic properties of the original Hamiltonian.

    Instead of deleting connections at random, Jafferis and his collaborators thought to use machine learning to intelligently prune only the connections that don’t affect the cloud’s ability to teleport, a simplification strategy praised by other researchers.

    “I thought it was actually very clever,” Gharibyan said. “The sparsification I thought was a very great insight.”

    “It was a good idea,” Preskill said.

    The researchers took aim at the 10-particle SYK model, which has a Hamiltonian of 210 terms. They simulated teleportation between clouds of 10 particles on a standard computer and designed a machine learning algorithm to simplify the Hamiltonian as much as possible without breaking its capacity to teleport. The algorithm returned an extremely sparse Hamiltonian measuring just five terms that captured teleportation between two seven-particle clouds. (The machine learning algorithm apparently decided that three of the particles weren’t meaningfully contributing to the process.) The equation was simple enough to run on Google’s Sycamore quantum processor, a notable achievement.

    A cryostat with lots of metal tubes.

    Google’s Sycamore quantum processor must be kept just above absolute zero in a cryostat such as this one.


    “It’s cool that they were able to run something on quantum hardware,” Su said.

    The Sycamore experiment confirmed that the Hamiltonian could carry out the teleportation, just as it had been trained to. But what really excited researchers was the fact that this gang of qubits also displayed perfect size winding — the supposed signature of a gravitational dual. Somehow a toy model of a toy model of a toy model of gravity had managed to maintain the holographic essence of its grandparent model. The researchers appeared to have done the equivalent of boiling down a tornado to a handful of molecules, which, despite being largely unable to interact with each other, still manage to keep the characteristic funnel shape.

    “They had actually a pretty nice way to measure the size winding as well,” Gharibyan said. “It was pretty exciting.”

    Many in the field were struck by just how simple the toy model was. One group in particular —Yao and his Berkeley colleagues Bryce Kobrin and Thomas Schuster — started to dig into how such a simple model could possibly capture the unspeakable chaos of gravity.

    Too Small to Scramble

    On February 15, the trio posted the results of their investigation, which involved analyzing the mathematical properties and behavior of the Nature team’s simple Hamiltonian. It has not been peer-reviewed. Their main finding is that the simple model departs from its parent model of gravity in crucial ways. These differences, the group argues, imply that the signals the researchers considered hallmarks of gravity no longer apply, and because of this, the best description of what the Nature team saw is not gravitational teleportation.

    The least gravitational thing about the simplified Hamiltonian is that, unlike in the original SYK model, the five terms are “fully commuting,” which means that they don’t have a certain kind of interdependence. Commutativity makes it much easier to simulate the clouds of particles, but it implies that the clouds can’t scramble chaotically. Since chaotic scrambling is considered a defining property of black holes and is an essential ingredient in gravitational teleportation, experts doubt that such a simple Hamiltonian could possibly capture complicated wormhole-like behavior. Put loosely, the system more closely resembles the gentle spiral of draining bathwater than it does the churning turbulence of Class V river rapids.

    A blonde woman with glasses in front of a laptop.

    Maria Spiropulu, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology, was one of the leaders of last year’s wormhole experiment.

    Bongani Mlambo for Quanta Magazine


    The researchers also proposed a nongravitational explanation for the supposed signature of holography, perfect size winding. The five-term Hamiltonian does have it, but so do other random five-term, commuting Hamiltonians that they tested. Moreover, when they tried to bump up the number of particles while keeping the commuting property, the size winding signal should have strengthened. Instead, it disappeared. The physicists reached a conclusion that researchers had not previously grasped because no one had studied such simple models holographically: Many fully commuting, small Hamiltonians seem to have perfect size winding, even though these models don’t have gravitational duals. This finding implies that, in small systems, perfect size winding isn’t a sign of gravity. It’s just a side effect of the system being small.

    Both groups declined to comment while they work out their differences through peer-reviewed publications. The Yao group has submitted their analysis to Nature, and the Jafferis, Lykken and Spiropulu group will likely have a chance to respond. But five independent experts familiar with holography consulted for this article agreed that the new analysis seriously challenges the experiment’s gravitational interpretation.

    Holographic Dreams

    The holographic future may not be here yet. But physicists in the field still believe it’s coming, and they say that they’re learning important lessons from the Sycamore experiment and the ensuing discussion.


    The Most Famous Paradox in Physics Nears Its End

    Wormholes Reveal a Way to Manipulate Black Hole Information in the Lab

    A Deepening Crisis Forces Physicists to Rethink Structure of Nature’s Laws

    First, they expect that showing successful gravitational teleportation won’t be as cut and dry as checking the box of perfect size winding. At the very least, future experiments will also need to prove that their models preserve the chaotic scrambling of gravity and pass other tests, as physicists will want to make sure they’re working with a real Category 5 qubit hurricane and not just a leaf blower. And getting closer to the ideal benchmark of triple-digit numbers of particles on each side will make a more convincing case that the experiment is working with billowing clouds and not questionably thin vapors.

    No one expects today’s rudimentary quantum computers to be up to the challenge of the punishingly long Hamiltonians required to simulate the real deal. But now is the time to start chiseling away at them bit by bit, Gharibyan believes, in preparation for the arrival of more capable machines. He expects that some might try machine learning again, this time perhaps rewarding the algorithm when it returns chaotically scrambling, non-commuting Hamiltonians and penalizing it when it doesn’t. Of the resulting models, any that still have perfect size winding and pass other checks will become the benchmark models to drive the development of new quantum hardware.

    If quantum computers grow while holographic Hamiltonians shrink, perhaps they will someday meet in the middle. Then physicists will be able to run experiments in the lab that reveal the incalculable behavior of their favorite models of quantum gravity.

    “I’m optimistic about where this is going,” Gharibyan said----


    My recent comments on vortex-l give with the theories presented above; however , the link fails to connect gravity and magnetic dipole fields with entangled with primary particle spin—energy and angular momentum – identified by a Hamiltonians equation which described the balance of potential energy and kinetic energy …

    Bob Cook

  • Tiny tunnels inside garnets appear to be the result of boring microorganisms
    Complex systems of microscopic tunnels found inside garnet crystals from Thailand are most likely the result of microorganisms making their homes inside these…

    Tiny tunnels inside garnets appear to be the result of boring microorganisms

    Intricate tunnels in garnets from soils and river sediments in Thailand – Possible endolithic microborings
    Garnets from disparate geographical environments and origins such as oxidized soils and river sediments in Thailand host intricate systems of microsized…

    Intricate tunnels in garnets from soils and river sediments in Thailand – Possible endolithic microborings

    IMO, the article has interpreted the article incorrectly. The Tiny tunnels inside garnets could not have been produced by neither biologic nor abiologic causes. These tunnels could only have been produced by LENR active EVOs many millions of years ago.

    The case against abiologic causation.

    Garnets are relatively hard minerals (Hpyrope = 7.5) resistant to abrasion and chemical attack. A corresponding hardness ratio for the current garnets (Hpyrope = 7.5), would require a mineral millstone with a hardness of 9 or above to form ambient inclusion trails (AITs). Possible candidates would be corundum (Hcorondum = 9, including the varieties sapphire and ruby) or diamond (Hdiamaond = 10). Such extremely hard abrasive minerals are absent in the river sediments and extremely rare in the residual soils. Besides, considering the number of tunnels in one single garnet (sometimes more than 100), an excess of such mineral grains would have been needed in these environments to form the garnet tunnels. That is simply not the case in any of the examined localities.

    The case against biologic causation

    In frame C, there are many hundreds of regularly spaced and totally straight non intersecting tunnels that all look to be formed simultaneously (see also frame D) and happen to turn at the same instant in their formation process.

    The tunneling displays a substantial range of appearance and morphological traits, from strictly organized palisades of parallel tunnels to irregularly branching and anastomosing networks. In the most organized variety, straight and strictly parallel tunnels form almost perfect rows (Fig A above); more commonly the tunnels, although parallel, are not lined up but are more irregularly scattered (Fig B). A recurring feature is a parallel, seemingly coordinated, curvature of the distal parts of each tunnel in such palisades (Fig C and D). There may also be two or more sets of palisades within a crystal, where internally parallel tunnels in each set make distinctive angles to co-occurring sets projecting in other directions (Fig E).

    Formation of anastomosing(1,2) tunnels by biology would require some type of communication between separated organisms or at least organismal parts such as different hyphae of a fungal mycelium within a substrate. Such communication could be chemically controlled by fungi excreting molecules at the hyphal tip. Another mode of communication in a transparent substrate could be light. Natural bioluminescence is known among fungi to attract invertebrates for spore dispersal or as warning signals to repulse fungivores, but not for communicative purposes Without supporting observations among live species in controlled laboratory experiments fungal communication within a substrate is so far hypothetical.

    IMO, bugs cannot work so closely together because they do not have the ability to communicate in such a timely way as to produce such well structured tunnels.

    1. To open one structure into another directly or by connecting channels, said of blood vessels, lymphatics, and hollow viscera; also incorrectly applied to nerves.

    2. To unite by means of an anastomosis, or connection between formerly separate structures.

    B) Tomographic reconstruction (volumetric rendering) showing the hexagonal cross section of multiple tubular structures. C) An orthoslice of a tomographic reconstruction showing the cross-sectional hexagons or rectangles of the tunnels. D) SEM image of a four-angled polygonal entrance hole. E) SEM image of a six-angled polygonal entrance hole that is filled. F) SEM image of a tubular structure that tapers off further into the mineral. Note how the tunnel have a polygonal shape at the mineral surface but further in gets more circular as it tapers off. G) Microphotograph of a tubular structure that tapers off and also starts with a polygonal shape at the mineral surface but gets more circular as it penetrates further into the mineral and tapers off. H) Microphotograph of tubular structures that tapers off. The branching of the tunnels results in offspring tunnels with less diameter than the originating tunnel.

    Chemical erosion by bugs cannot produce regularly sharply defined geometric contours as the bugs eat their way through super hard garnet. All the tunnels change their contorting profile as the tunneling comes to a close.

    Also chemical residue of bug remains cannot be offered as proof that the bugs produced the tunnels because the bugs could have populated the tunnels long after they were excavated.

    The case for EVO tunnel creation and what we can learn about the nature of the excavating EVOs from characterization of the tunnels.

    Entangled EVOs could have excavated the tunnels in a totally coordinated fashion. Many entangled EVOs can move as one excavating particle and produce N identical tunnels that are shaped identically in both their horizontal girth and geometric shape and vertical profiles.

    We have seen EVOs excavate tunnels through diamond in the LION fuel, so garnet penetration is no problem.

    As the EVOs lose power, the volume of their excavation shrinks to a point until their level of power production is to weak to continue with extending the excavation.

    The way that all the tunnels in the garnet devolve to a sharp needle like point simultaneously witness to a shared energy store held between and among all the excavating EVOs.

    The hexagonal tunnel shaped profiling is indicative of the structure of the molecule that is supporting the EVO and producing the excavating magnetic flux tube. Such shapes have been seen in the holes bored in the structure of the LION reactors. The flux tube that is doing the boring through the garnet is a monopole that extends straight forward and normal to the hexagonal Rydberg cross section of the EVO.

  • These could be EVO powered bugs. Evolution could have created tiny creatures capable of each capturing and harnessing a tiny EVO. They would be self-organizing by nature, and able to eat away matter using LENR. By capturing and breeding these bugs, a new breeder reactor could be created, like a termite infested structure that could release gigawatts.

  • These could be EVO powered bugs. Evolution could have created tiny creatures capable of each capturing and harnessing a tiny EVO. They would be self-organizing by nature, and able to eat away matter using LENR. By capturing and breeding these bugs, a new breeder reactor could be created, like a termite infested structure that could release gigawatts.

    Humans are 90% not-human creatures so why should not the mantle be 90% infested with garnet-eaters.

  • The LENR reaction is more complicated and confusing then most think because LENR operates in two distinct but connected states. One incoherent and another coherent.

    In the incoherent state DD fusion is possible. Deuterium fusion can produce helium in reactions like lattice confined fusion. Here neutrons, tritium, gamma rays and helium are produced.

    In the coherent state, transmutation of heavy elements will occur where elements like iron, rare earths and lead can be produced. Fusion cannot produce these heavy elements. Only supernova explosions can create such heavy elements. Fusion cannot produce these elements on earth.

    For example, SAFIRE is a system that is producing transmutation of rare earths. Unlike fusion, energy is not produced by nuclear processes in transmutation. In fact, no energy is produced by transmutation. Transmutation can make matter disappear without any trace.

    It is extremely easy for the LENR reaction to slip from the incoherent state to the coherent state. The indication that such a transformation has occurred is when heavy elements like carbon and iron are seen in the ash of the reaction. This transformation in coherency is very confusing to the LENR experimental community.

    The onset of superconductivity is a process that illustrates a system where a system transforms from a incoherent to a coherent state. When a LENR system shows superconductive and other quantum mechanical behavior like entanglement, lack of nuclear radiation, energy production and unstable isotopes in reaction ash, the slowdown of light, and heavy element production, is when transmutation rather than fusion is active.

    Next, I would like to discuss how coherency via superconductivity might explain how the vacuum reaction works.