Nuclear physics applications of "pushing photons" to target by laser, and its hypothetical CPT analogue: "pulling photons" from target?

  • Especially free electron lasers, wigglers/undulators ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser ) can produce very high intensity beams of gammas in a chosen energy spectrum.

    It could be used "to shake" nucleus to stimulate some transitions - maybe speeding up some decay processes, reaching some nucleus excited states (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafnium_controversy ) ...

    Could it be useful for some nuclear fusion/fission applications?

    E.g. shooting hydrogen with 782keV gammas - could it help with proton + electron + 782keV -> neutron + nu?

    Let me start a general thread for existing and new ideas for potential applications of such possibilities.


    Also, while in the above laser "pushes photons" to the target, CPT theorem suggests there might be also accessible its CPT analogue: "pulling photons" from the target: Ring laser might allow for revolutionary new effect suggested by CPT symmetry (I search for access/collaboration)

    In diagram below, looking at it from perspective after CPT transform would make the absorption equation apply to the target on the left, what means applying emission equation to it in standard perspective (no CPT).

    If possible, e.g. when there is a low probability nuclear transition with characteristic gammas, we might be able to "pull them" with free electron laser - hopefully increasing probability of this transition.

    Any ideas for nuclear physics applications of such hypothetical possibility?

    "Negative radiation pressure" as this "photon pulling": https://scholar.google.pl/scho…gative+radiation+pressure


    For example maybe stimulated proton decay - ultimate energy source: complete matter -> energy transition, ~100x energy density than fusion from any matter. Violation of baryon number is required e.g. by baryogenesis, Hawking radiation. They cannot observe it in room temperature water, but maybe it is a matter of proper conditions, like "pulling photons" of some characteristic energy (e.g. 511keV?) by some powerful free electron laser?

    It probably is doable, but might require multiple lasers for some precise sequence of photon pushing and pulling - optimization of which would require nearly perfect model of proton (as topological defect?) to swing it out of a very deep local(?) energy minimum ... probably a matter of a few decades.


    ps. List of free electron lasers (2017, up to ~40keV photons): http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/f…JACoW-FEL2017-MOP066.html

    Pulling with photons is done e.g. by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers

    EM radiation pressure is <E x H>/c ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…f_an_electromagnetic_wave ) - doesn't have to be positive.



  • There are not many free electron lasers now, but maybe the successor of NIF could be based on them - searching for stimulated proton decay ...

    E.g. by just scanning through MeV-GeV energies with multiple photon pulling + pushing for various energies - hopefully to swing proton out of very deep local energy minimum, searching for settings with some increased activity ...


    If CPT symmetry remains valid in macroscopic physics, change from "photon pushing" to "photon pulling" is just a matter of placing the target behind such asymmetric light source: in perspective after CPT symmetry it would be target in front for photon pushing, what in standard perspective (no CPT) means photon pulling (stimulated emission from target):


  • As a few persons here work on models of particles e.g. Wyttenbach , do you think baryon number is always conserved?

    It is violated e.g. in baryogenesis, Hawking radiation ... electric charge is ultimately conserved due to Gauss law, but there is no Gauss law for baryon number.

    If your model allows for baryon number violation, maybe you could think of stimulated proton decay (>100x energy density than fusion) - how to swing proton out of local minimum in your model?


    In the model I am considering (introduction: https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2856493 ), the simplest knots resemble baryons - enforcing hedgehog inside corresponding to electric charge, proton can just enclose it while neutron has to compensate it - what is costly, explaining why neutron is heavier.

    Stimulated proton decay here would be unknotting this knot - shaking it to make 2 vortexes goes through each other - tough calculations, but optimization of such shaking, photon pushing/pulling seems doable here.


  • If your model allows for baryon number violation, maybe you could think of stimulated proton decay

    Read Holmlid's work! He shows (in countless experiments) proton decay in matter formation.


    The true matter formation of light elements goes over 9H* --> 2 4-He + K0,K+ . So baryon's are not conserved in the matter formation process. This is a resonant energy transfer process!

    3-He 2-H is formed over H*x --> 12-C --> 4-He,3-He,2-H etc...Also here no conservation of baryon number.


    Forget all you know from SM. Its just garbage or fringe physics! Why ever could people believe to find new physics by doing high energy collisions? Holmlid's work (physic of cold matter) is desktop physics at a fraction of the CERN, SLAC, etc.. costs...

    The sooner you understand the reality, the more promising your future live will become.

  • Could you point some specific article? Briefly looking at Leif Holmlid articles, I see mostly atomic physics level: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7eoqJf8AAAAJ&hl=en

    Above reactions seem testable - were they verified?

    If possible, stimulated proton decay could give ~100x energy density than fusion from any matter ...


    ps. "negative radiation pressure" - like this "photon pulling": https://scholar.google.pl/scho…gative+radiation+pressure

  • Could you point some specific article? Briefly looking at Leif Holmlid articles, I see mostly atomic physics level:

    You can find most of them on RG :: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif-Holmlid


    Cracking proton is the ultimate source of energy as you need almost zero input energy.


    But the dirt (K,P,m,n) you produce needs a huge containment of 10m radius at least because K decay takes some time.


    If you are interested in some you can't get use sci-hub or I possibly can send you some by e-mail or through conversation thread.

    "negative radiation pressure"

    The photon adsorption process is a multi step procedure and involves "energy holes" = resonant energy structure of nuclei/orbitals. The activation of an energy hole consumes some fraction of the photon energy, what classically can be interpreted as pulling (negativ) pressure.

  • While we agree stimulated proton decay would be ultimate energy source, I highly doubt it could be achieved with low energy reactions.


    It might be already happening e.g. in colliders like LHC - I have talked with some specialists, but they told the current experiments cannot confirm nor deny.

    Another place for proton decay I would suspect are cores of neutron stars - close conditions to of Hawking radiation violating baryon number ... e.g. "Bizarre object 10 million times brighter than the sun defies physics, NASA says", 100x or more higher intensities they can explain - "proton burning" could explain, but again it seems it is not even considered by the mainstream.


    Naively it seems simpler than fusion - we don't need to make two objects meet against Coulomb, only "swing out" proton of local energy minimum ... but it would be extremely deep local minimum (if finite).

    For hypothetical practical "stimulated proton decay power station" in a few decades, I imaging a few free electron lasers pulling/pushing photons in some extremely precise sequence optimized based on models of protons.


    Probably there are various ways to get "negative photon pressure", "photon pulling" - free electron laser, synchrotron, ring laser above ... in the negative radiation pressure articles they want to get it for mechanical waves on graphene.


    ps. Thinking about fusion application, maybe it is worth to shoot hydrogen with 782keV gammas - could it help with proton + electron +782keV -> neutron + nu?

  • ps. Thinking about fusion application, maybe it is worth to shoot hydrogen with 782keV gammas - could it help with proton + electron +782keV -> neutron + nu?

    This is absolutely impossible and may be fueled by classic misunderstandings. The neutron structure can only exist inside a nucleus where it expresses a 5 rotation structure = node of a strong force bond. A proton cannot make an additional strong force bond with an other proton. Also 2-H is a decay product of 12-C with just one remaining single side strong force node. But 2 H has no neutron structure at all as Sardins experiments clearly show.


    Cracking a proton factually needs no external energy except for the generation of a high vacuum and the synthesis of a styrene catalyst. Homlid could measure reactions induced by switching on the lab light.

  • Jurg I’m inherently interested in your outside the norm theories despite our arguments of the past. I have one question, I think the best way to convince someone that your theory is correct is to produce something practical or useful (something we agree the LHC will never do). Has Holmlid been able to produce confirmed energy output based on these interesting theories of his?

  • The COP 1000 is not shown in this paper. It is presented as heresy only. Is there a paper which describes the experiment in detail?

    I think you meant hearsay, but it is mentioned by Holmlid that an energy gain by a factor of 1000 is common in his experiments, in retort to the critics to whom he is answering in this paper, that claim that a COP of 50.000 is impossible.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I see this article is about annihilation, which is great but requires antimatter - how to get it in large amounts?

    Proton decay, if possible and could be stimulated, would lead to the same energy density as annihilation (>100x of fusion) from matter alone.


    Returning to free electron lasers, it seems the maximal energy of produced photons is ~20keV, proposed are for ~40 keV: https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/fel2017/papers/mop066.pdf

    For nuclear transition with free electron lasers there are some papers about 14.4 keV Mössbauer Fe57: https://journals.aps.org/prres…PhysRevResearch.4.L032007

    If reaching e.g. 782keV, it should allow to produce large amounts of free neutrons (p + e + 782keV -> n + nu), then maybe fusion with positive energy balance (?)

  • I see this article is about annihilation, which is great but requires antimatter - how to get it in large amounts?

    How do you know?? This - antimatter needed - is a silly postulate made by mathematicians with no physics education. The difference between matter - antimatter is left or right winding EM flux.

    A Kaon has no anti particle because its a rare 4 rotation particle that is both left and right winding flux.

    Please just forget all the garbage postulated by the standard model adepts that still have no clue of basic physics. They not even understand basic physical fields and mix them up with mathematical fields. (What approximatively works just for the far field and point sources...)

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.