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

    Quote from Drgenek

    Your many comments seem to have been better expressed by dynamic theory. Exploring 5 Dimensions | The Dynamic Theory of Pharis Williams: A New View of Space-Time-Matter | by Observing The Anomaly | Predict | Medium

    Thanks for the info.

    No, I have my own theory on a fundamentally different foundation. Pharis Williams unifies all modern theories in a five-dimensional space-time. I first unite our moving World into one single whole, and then describe it with one theory of movement in six-dimensional space-time.

    My theory explains gravity and cold fusion.

    Quote from Drgenek

    After nearly 5 years of attempting to get an honest review of facts and models on this forum, I am convinced that there is no means to get consensus on this forum.

    Surely consensus would be the death of science? By expressing different views and trying different experiments or investigations based on those views is how we progress our understanding of the universe and all it contains. We need to listen to other views, but it would not be healthy if we were to automatically adopt them.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    But electrons are matter, and since they are fundamental particles they are unable to decompose.

    The electron situation is a very strange case when it comes to the polariton. Quantum mechanics says that the electron can be in two places at once.


    Electrons can be in a "superposition" of being in two separate places simultaneously. This is possible because an electron is a highly unified "bundle" of electron-positron field energy.


    Modern quantum physics understands electrons as being distributed within orbitals. Orbitals are mathematical descriptions that represent the probability of the electrons' existence in more than one location within a given range at any given time.


    Scientists discovered about 80 years ago that it is possible to be in two locations at the same time for an atom or a subatomic particle, such as an electron.


    For example in the double slit experiment, a single electron can pass through two slits at the same time to create an interference pattern.


    In the case of the exciton-polaritons where the EVO can move away from the place of its creation, the electron partly remains within the exciton at a fixed position, but the electron partly resides within the polariton which is also inside the EVO.


    When the EVO terminates, the polariton decomposes into electrons and photons. The superposition of the electron resolves to completely locate the electron to the EVO. This is how the LENR reaction produces energy. High energy from the EVO is carried by electrons and photons which are both produced when the polariton decomposes, and then the electrons excite the surrounding atoms to produce heat. The photons also transfer their energy to the surrounding atoms in the same way.


    Furthermore, the EVO does live in two worlds, one in which the Higgs field manifests inside the EVO. In this low energy condition massive EMF amplification produces fusion of deuterium into helium. But when the negative energy of the vacuum inside the EVO reaches a threshold level, then the Higgs field is excluded from inside the EVO, and transmutation takes over and energy production outside the EVO is stopped.


    As an example of this transition case, this is why Egely sees transmutation begin when the power density of his reaction exceeds a threshold and carbon begins to appear on his electrodes.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Why? A dark brain fart will be converted into a white EVO, that will generate a new universe with humans that now have white brain farts!

    The universe is mostly dark; it is 96% dark with dark matter dominating matter and dark energy dominating energy. So the universe is mostly dark brain fart and the space that we call home is bright brain farts.


    So the universe is two universes existing together but they are connected in a state of equilibrium by a process that is somehow controlled by the EVO.


    I have a theory about this.


    The universe was found to be in a steady state in terms of the size of the universe up to 10 billion years ago. Then after that time, the universe began to expand at an increasingly accelerating rate. What caused this accelerated expansion?


    According to arXiv, superconductivity in palladium deuteride is observed below 54 K.


    Superconducting transition temperatures in compressed hydrogen-rich materials range from 20–75 K. In 2018, a hydrogen-rich solid, LaH10, was reported to have a superconducting transition temperature of −23 °C.


    High-temperature superconductors (high-Tc or HTS) are materials with a critical temperature above 77 K (−196.2 °C; −321.1 °F). This is the boiling point of liquid nitrogen.


    These superconductive dust particles then served as an optical cavity in which EVOs could form.


    I beleive that as the universe grew older, it because cooler and the temperature of the universe eventually dropped below the superconductor temperatures one after another of these various types of superconductor dust particles.


    This new type of superconductive dust became able to generate EVOs that began to increase the production of dark matter and dark energy. As more of this dust is created, then more dark energy is produced which leads to an accelerating expansion of the universe.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    You have no clue of QM. The electron can be at any place at the same time with a given probability! 2 is total garbage.

    The total probability of electron existence is 1. The probabilities of all the superpositions of the electron add up to 1.


    In explanation, the probability of finding an electron at a single point is always zero. This is because the square of the wavefunction, |ψ(x)|2, is the probability density to detect the electron at any particular place in space and probability densities necessarily assign zero probability to single points.


    However, the probability of finding an electron within a certain region of space is not zero. This region of space is called an orbital. Orbitals are commonly represented by the boundary surfaces that enclose the region where there is a 90-95 % probability of finding the electron.


    The total probability of finding an electron somewhere in space is 1. This is because the sum of the probabilities of finding the electron in all possible orbitals is 1.


    The probabilities of all the superpositions of the electron add up to 1. This is because the superposition of two or more wavefunctions is a new wavefunction that is a linear combination of the original wavefunctions. The probability of finding the electron in the superposition state is the sum of the probabilities of finding the electron in each of the original states.

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    Dear young guard!

    Further one cannot achieve success by inventing new entities, be they dark or colored photons, rainbow particles, dark matter and dark energy, negative or positive vacuum states, “dark” hydrogen and a “square” or toroidal atom, and the like. On this path we have reached a dead end.

    The complete theory of the LENR reaction is far more complicated than just the activation of a fusion reaction. There are many complications that need to be fitted symaltainiously into the entire rubric of the reaction.


    For example, why is the hallmarks of the LENR reaction seen when fusion of deuterium occurs and not when other types of nuclear reordination are manifest?


    Why are some LENR systems able to capture electrons without the production of heat?


    Why can LENR systems stabilize radioactive isotopes?


    There are many more types of characteristics that must be explained all at the same time. Fusion is just one small feature of the reaction. There has been a large number of LENR system developed over these many years with each having a unique set of reaction ideosysrocies. We must look at all these systems to find a single theory that explains them all.


    Needless to say, that complete theory will be complicated.


    An example of a "explain it all" theory is general relativity. Science has tested that theory in many hundreds or thousands of experiment over 100 years or more, And with each test, that theory holds up perfectly. The LENR reaction is proving to be far more complicated that general relativity.

    What kind of logic is this that a good theory must be complex? In my opinion, it’s the other way around: simplicity is a sign of a good, true physical theory.

    Our World is very simple.

    "There is nothing simpler than a star!" Eddington.

    And planets are no fundamentally different from stars!!!

    And nuclear fusion occurs in them.

    'Wavy space-time' may explain why gravity won't play by quantum rules
    Could 'wavy space-time' bridge the gap between quantum physics and general relativity?
    www.space.com



    'Wavy space-time' may explain why gravity won't play by quantum rules

    Could 'wavy space-time' bridge the gap between quantum physics and general relativity?


    This new theory suggests that the unification between quantum physics and general relativity has eluded scientists for 100 years because huge "fluctuations" in space and time mean that gravity won't play by quantum rules.

    But if those fluctuations in spacetime can be removed, it might be possible to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity.

    For example, being a negative vacuum, the EVO has no virtual particles production in its spacetime to make the vacuum uncertain.

    Could the Higgs field produce this unstable vacuum state?

    Yes, the Higgs field can produce an unstable vacuum state.

    Quote

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-H…ore%20symmetry%20breaking. Is the Higgs field unstable? - Quora Apr 4, 2017 — The Higgs field of the Standard Model of particle physics is indeed unstable, as it has a nonzero vacuum expectation value. What that means is that the lowest energy state of the field is not the state in which all excitations (particles) are absent. But this describes the state of affairs before symmetry breaking.



    The Higgs field is a scalar field with two electrically charged components and two neutral components. It's unstable because it has a nonzero vacuum expectation value. This means that the field's lowest energy state isn't the state where all excitations are absent.

    The Higgs field is thought to be metastable, meaning it's only in its local minimum energy and not yet in a true vacuum state.

    The Higgs field can break out of its false vacuum in a domino effect called vacuum decay. A bubble of vacuum decay would spread throughout the universe at the speed of light.

    Since the Higgs field is not present inside the EVO, science could observe how quantum mechanics effects gravity by observing the the internals of the EVO.

    It is in principle impossible to combine quantum mechanics with the theory of relativity, because they are built on different foundations:

    1) quantum mechanics: elementary particles-waves in absolute space,

    2) general theory of relativity: matter deforms space-time, with inhomogeneity of time the conservation law is not satisfied energy.

    It is not necessary to unite theories, but first to unite our World in our heads, and then to describe it with one unified theory.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Surely consensus would be the death of science? By expressing different views and trying different experiments or investigations based on those views is how we progress our understanding of the universe and all it contains. We need to listen to other views, but it would not be healthy if we were to automatically adopt them.

    Our forum is not a church with authority to burn heretics. It is not University with authority fire faculty. But it can and should limit prejudice and may need to expel a bad actor on occasion. It is not possible for the forum to cause any view to be automatically adopted. Anyone who think that by volume of his/her post that he/she is cause his/her views to achieve consensus is just fooling themselves. It would not be health to progress to stop listening to other views. Neither is it health to one's understanding to listen without deciding for oneself what is helpful or useless.


    In the nearly 5 years I have participated in this forum; I have paid attention to many new ideas and ignored many more. Further, I have offered what I thought to be good quality comments for the general usefulness. I may be guilty of pushing too much for comments on the facts I have discovered or my models. If I seem to be trying to force consensus, I tell you that it was not my intent. I believe a good comment should be persuasive but not a data dump. I find it hard to find just the right balance. This forum has the best research partner that I had in my many years.


    I appreciate the feedback. Keep it coming.

    Yes Tarasenko, Axil..

    In this second case about this copy/paste actor,it remind me what i think about the AI behavior so highly highlighted here as the new fashion way to discover great things..

    Strangly a former and experimented as Jed Roswell was a great protagonist of this publicity.

    Ai is well capable to create interesting and relevant things by crossing datas which can appear unsensed by our human eyes at first look.

    However all these datas come from what was already understood and created/ created by all the manking since centuries and centuries.

    But Ai is totally unable to imagine things with some still undiscovered thing because is unable to think by itself as humans..

    This is why sometimes i imagine that Axil could be this of AI machine by his ( its?) ability to stay only with datas only created by others never by him.

    Quote from Cydonia

    This is why sometimes i imagine that Axil could be this of AI machine by his ( its?) ability to stay only with datas only created by others never by him.

    No Axil just makes sh#tt up and mixes it together with wikipedia content and pop-sci articles so it is not clear who wrote what. A quarter of what he writes is his own BS so he is definitely not an AI bot. He also exhibits the fact that he doesn't understand high school math.

    Quote from Drgenek

    Our forum is not a church with authority to burn heretics. It is not University with authority fire faculty. But it can and should limit prejudice and may need to expel a bad actor on occasion. It is not possible for the forum to cause any view to be automatically adopted. Anyone who think that by volume of his/her post that he/she is cause his/her views to achieve consensus is just fooling themselves. It would not be health to progress to stop listening to other views. Neither is it health to one's understanding to listen without deciding for oneself what is helpful or useless.


    In the nearly 5 years I have participated in this forum; I have paid attention to many new ideas and ignored many more. Further, I have offered what I thought to be good quality comments for the general usefulness. I may be guilty of pushing too much for comments on the facts I have discovered or my models. If I seem to be trying to force consensus, I tell you that it was not my intent. I believe a good comment should be persuasive but not a data dump. I find it hard to find just the right balance. This forum has the best research partner that I had in my many years.


    I appreciate the feedback. Keep it coming.

    Our Forum, led by the helmsman Alan Smith, reminds me of the raft that we grabbed onto to escape the sinking "Titanic" of modern science.

    I am grateful that on this forum I can express new crazy ideas, receive the latest information, and hope to meet outstanding theorists and experimenters.

    I will row to the best of my ability so that our raft will sail to the fertile island of new science, where we will build a cold nuclear fusion generator.

    Well, why could not you join the best experimenter of your country, Tarasenko ? in this way, you will do together a win/win team ?

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    Our Forum, led by the helmsman Alan Smith, reminds me of the raft that we grabbed onto to escape the sinking "Titanic" of modern science.

    I am grateful that on this forum I can express new crazy ideas, receive the latest information, and hope to meet outstanding theorists and experimenters.

    I will row to the best of my ability so that our raft will sail to the fertile island of new science, where we will build a cold nuclear fusion generator.

    Quote from Cydonia

    Ну, а почему бы вам не присоединиться к лучшему экспериментатору вашей страны Тарасенко? таким образом, вы будете вместе работать в команде «выиграть/победить»?

    On the "Titanic", advice was given by those who had a life jacket, but in cold water a life jacket will not help you.

    Quote from axil

    The probability of finding the electron in the superposition state is the sum of the probabilities of finding the electron in each of the original states.

    This is classic old quantum garbage long time falsified by real physical experiments. The electron bound to a proton is a three rotation wave-like structure in 4D and certainly does not follow the classic QM probability that relates to the linear Coulomb force that unluckily is not linear on nuclear level. EM-flux can only superimpose in harmonic relations on a per wave basis and not total space like.

    Quote from axil

    This new theory suggests that the unification between quantum physics and general relativity has eluded scientists for 100 years because huge "fluctuations" in space and time mean that gravity won't play by quantum rules.

    Both models are rotten garbage and can only be used for engineering. GR per definition cannot handle mass, QM leads to a violation of the momentum conservation we also know from SRT (special relativity theory).


    In general physics lost ground with the introduction of general field theories also called tensor fields, that have no real physical counterpart for >2 dimensions - as used in GR.... QM on the other side is just (topologically) a 1D model hence does not cover any real physical problem space (2D).

    Such deep misconceptions happen because people usually mix up number of coordinates with number of physical dimensions.

    In physics the dimensions are only defined by the action path. A closed circular path has dimension "0" = zero. On a torus the path is not circular and thus 2D. Any closed surface counts as 1D only. So any path on a 2-sphere = ball surface is maximally 2D. Albeit you can give the sphere in 3D coordinates. This is the difference between topology and dilettante physics.

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.