Posts by axil

    That is a big hope, and I suspect one wish that will not be fulfilled. Rossi has more bounce and more angles that Serena Williams.


    There have been scores of sucessful LENR inventors that have failed to push their sucessful LENR systems into the collective consciousness of society. It will take a real bastard and lying ornery pig headed SOB to break through into the commercial marketplace. Form what we have seen, Rossi has all the requisite characteristics and talent to get this job done.


    Most of Rossi's followers understand what Rossi is and they accept him as a person who is vindictive, vicious, spiteful, malicious, callous, hurtful, ill-natured, and hard-hearted, enough do this job. It is almost identical to the way Trump followers overlook Trump's shortcomings in the hopes that he can meet his fanciful and unachievable promises.


    Frank Perdue: "It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken."

    IMHO, LENR experiments should move forward to extremely high temperature glow discharge types of LENR experiments. From what Rossi says about the QuarkX, there is no fuel processing involved. Only Nickel Aluminum hydride is involved with nickel electrodes. The reactor starts up in seconds; there is no days of heating and ramp ups needed. The COP involved is unambiguous and easy to detect because when the reactor works the COP is huge and easy to detect.


    Both Mills and Rossi are committed to a glow discharge type of tractor now and have move away from the Lugano type of reactor. So why is it in the interest of the LENR experimenter to become fixated on a magenial LENR reactor approach?

    If we are comparing theories, personally I am rather taken with Hotson...


    http://blog.hasslberger.com/Diracs_Equation_Hotson_Part1.pdf


    An interesting perspective on how the dirac equations apply to open systems reflecting the emergence of PT symmetry breaking is provided here:


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.00852

    Solitary waves of a PT-symmetric Nonlinear Dirac equation


    In an optical system where power is added to the system, PT symmetry is broken when the power level of the soliton reaches a critical level. At that critical point the optical soliton gains power exponentially. We know that in a whispering gallery wave, monopole magnetic field lines appear when PT symmetry breaks. We also know that LENR begins when the PT symmetry breaks. so it is important to understand how the PT symmetry power limit is reached and what happens when that limit is reached.


    The reference states


    Quote

    Notice that the charge of the new soliton is always higher than the charge of the initial one (see the oscillations of Fig. 4) and that the maximum charge increases with s. Interestingly, in all of these case examples we find that the (-independent) energy is very well conserved as is shown in Fig 5. When the maximum charge is above a threshold (this occurs for s & 0:995, i.e., for a deep quench), the frequency of the new soliton tends to zero and the solution starts to grow indefinitely as shown in Fig. 6. If a smaller value of 0 is taken, the same phenomenology persists, but the indefinite growth emerges for a smaller value of s. In Fig. 5 we have confirmed that both the energy conservation law and the moment equation (10) for the power are satisfied in our dynamics. The same is true for the case of Fig. 6 where the charge grows exponentially (in the case shown in the figure, for which

    s = 1, as exp(0:088t); although the characteristic growth rate depends on s). Here, the soliton does not collapse, as its shape and width are preserved during the growth. Again, this type of growth appears to be very different than, say, the collapse in the Hamiltonian NLS model [14]. In the latter, the width decreases and the amplitude increases, whereas here the entire solution grows without changing its spatial distribution.


    On the Journal of Nuclear Physics today, Rossi stated: “This morning we are making an experiment, testing the device to allow the QuarkX to be able to work either with battery or with AC power source, like a computer.”


    This announcement has sparked some interest, as many people over the years have expressed a hope that it might be possible to power a QuarkX with a battery, rather than having to have it dependent upon the grid for power. Battery powered E-Cats would provide a lot of flexibility and portability to the technology, and enable it to operate in places where a grid source of electricity was not available.



    The activating stimulus as defined by update 2 of Rossi’s patent states that a high voltage (50,000 TO 100,000 VOLTS) electrostatic potential is required to activate the LENR reaction. The knowhow for the generation of this potential using a lithium battery is of interest.





    The high voltage potential generated here is 60 kilovolts. This is right in the sweet spot for Rossi’s stimulus requirement.


    From the theory paper, the voltage that passes through the QuarkX reactor speaks against a spark discharge. The current is what would be expected in glow discharge. The theory paper also speaks about the movement of electrons and ions moving to the positive and negative electrodes. This happens in glow discharge.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_discharge


    440px-Glow_discharge_current-voltage_curve_vertical.svg.png


    From what Rossi has described as the configuration of the “fuse” like: QuarkX reactor, the high voltage wires would be connected at each end of the “fuse”. The spark gap requirement would defined the length of the tube to be about a minimum of 2 centimeters for a 50 kv spark gap.

    joshg


    The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (g-2).


    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27165


    LENR is not Hermitic. Quantum Mechanics cannot describe LENR because QM is Hermitic . LENR is an optical mechanism. It is PT Symmetric. In fact, breaking PT symmetry is what causes LENR.


    PT Symmetry


    When Dirac formulated the postulates of quantum theory, he required Hermiticity to be the fundamental symmetry for his equations. For Dirac, the requirement of Hermiticity was the mathematical device that he needed to ensure that all predictions for the outcomes of real-world measurements of quantum systems resulted in a real number. This is important since we only observe real outcomes in actual experimental observations. Dirac’s choice of Hermiticity as the fundamental symmetry of quantum theory was not seriously challenged for around seventy years.


    Hermiticity is a subtle and abstract symmetry that is mathematical in its origin. Broadly speaking, the requirement of Hermiticity imposes a boundary on a system. This is an idealization in which a system is isolated from any surrounding environment (and hence cannot be measured). While this gives a tractable mathematical framework for quantum theory, it is an unphysical requirement since all systems interact with their environment and if we wish to measure a system then such an interaction is required.


    In 1998, Carl Bender and Stefan Boettcher wrote a paper exploring the replacement of Hermiticity with another symmetry. They showed that they could replace the mathematically motivated symmetry of Dirac by a physically motivated symmetry preserving the reality of experimental outcomes. Their new theory, however, had interesting new features—it was not a like-for-like replacement.


    The underlying symmetry that Bender and Boettcher found was what they called “PT symmetry.” The symmetry here is geometric in nature and is hence closer to physics than is Hermiticity. The “P” stands for “parity” symmetry, sometimes called mirror symmetry. If a system respects “P” symmetry, then the evolution of the system would not change for a spatially reflected version of the system. The “T” stands for “time-reversal.” Time-reversal symmetry is just as it sounds—a physical system respecting this symmetry would evolve in the same way regardless whether time runs forward or backward. Some systems do individually exhibit P and T symmetries, but it is the combination of the two that seems to be fundamental to quantum theory.


    Instead of describing a system in isolation, PT symmetry describes a system that is in balance with its environment. Energy may flow in and out of the system, and hence measurements can be made within the theoretical framework of a system described by a PT symmetry. The requirement is that the same amount of energy that flows in must also flow out of the system.


    This subtler definition of a system’s relationship with its environment, provided by PT symmetry, has made it possible to describe a much wider class of systems in mathematical terms. This has led not only to an enhanced understanding of these systems but also to experimental results that support the choice of PT as the underlying symmetry in quantum mechanics. Several physical models for specific systems that had previously been studied and rejected, because they did not respect Hermiticity, have been re-examined and found to be PT symmetric.


    It is remarkable that the study of PT symmetry has progressed so rapidly. For many areas of theoretical physics, the time-lag between theory and experiment is now on the order of several decades. We may never be able to fully test string theory and experimental verification of the fifty-year-old theory of supersymmetry remains elusive.


    In the eighteen years since Bender and Boettcher’s 1998 paper, experimentalists have created PT lasers, PT superconducting wires, PT NMR and PT diffusion experiments to mention just a few validations of their theory.  As PT symmetry has matured, it has inspired the creation of exotic metamaterials that have properties that allow us to control light in new ways. The academic community, initially skeptical of such a fundamental change in quantum theory, has warmed to the idea of PT symmetry. Over 200 researchers from around the world have published scholarly papers on PT symmetry. The literature now extends to more than 2000 articles, many in top journals such as Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters.


    The future is bright for PT-symmetric quantum mechanics, but there is still work to be done. Many of the experiments mentioned have quantum mechanical aspects but are not full verifications of PT quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, existing experiments are already leading to exciting results. PT is a hot topic in the optics and graphene communities and the idea of creating a computer based on optical rather than electronic principles has recently been suggested. At the beginning of the 21st century, we are finding a new understanding of quantum theory that has the potential to unlock new technologies in the same way that semi-conductor physics was unlocked by the rise of quantum mechanics one hundred years ago.


    Also See


    http://www.europhysicsnews.org…2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf


    PT SYMMETRY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS: FROM A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY TO OPTICAL EXPERIMENTS

    Carl M. Bender

    ive been reading a fair bit and revisiting some Feynman lectures to get my head round QED again. Mills interests me as his claims are quite astounding regarding how they counter qm with classical physics and hark to maxwells work. Holmid sounds interesting I just get utterly confused by the sheer range of particles and effects that are discovered. I understand the annihilation principles but get to thinking about gamma rays, positrons and the theorised highs field and my mind just melts. I take solace in Feynman's words. If you think you understand qm then you're flat wrong. What's your perspective on mills work? I don't have the maths chops to figure out if the mans fantasising or not and just plugging in numbers to sound clever. Been watching lent with interest since 1989s big reveal which was as I understand basically voted not a theory. Then we've got mills who the mainstream consider a crackpot cos of young, michio kaku et all calling him a conartist. Then I read your stuff regarding mesons or is it muons which could be a dangerous product if the work of Rossi et all. Then there's Rossi. Who' appears to be an utter cunt whether he is onto something or not! Thanks for the response and I'd love pointing in the direction of some papers or work that can educate a layman like myself as to just a basic framework if what is known ,hypothesised and proven regarding particle quantum physics so I can answer my own question of is this mills guy full of shit or not!


    Anybody which includes Mills and Rossi that embraces the nuclear origin of their reaction especially if that reaction produces ionizing radiation will not field a commercially viable product. Sooner of later, such an ionizing product will be regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA}.


    Rossi has not come to the realization about the regulation of his product. Mills depends of the chemical explanation to avoid regulation, but it is just a matter of time before the true nature of the LENR/hydrino reaction is realized.

    http://m.slashdot.org/story/325135 Here's a story from the LHC, purporting a new particle discovery regarding a strange quark that can decay into an up quark. Muons are involved .I'm no particle physicist but its an unexpected result. Be interesting regarding whether Mills might have predicted it with his special sauce hydrino model.


    You don't need to be an expert. you only need to think with logic.


    Mesons and muons are not something that are produced by nuclear activity; they are only produced by sub atomic particle reactions. Up until LENR, only a particle accelerator was able to produce B mesons and kaons which contain strange matter. But with LENR, Holmlid can produce kaons and B-mesons with a weak laser irradiation onto an oil industry catalyst.


    At the LHC, breaking protons apart using collisions are producing B-mesons and kaion. The process that Holmlid uses produces the same causation. Holmlid is breaking protons and neutrons apart to convert ordinary quarks into strange matter.


    A nuclear based processes like the hydrino is too coarse a mechanism to break protons apart because hydrinos work at the nuclear level, not the sub atomic particle level. Mills has never claimed that he is breaking protons apart, but in order to get B-mesons and kaons. protons must be destroyed.


    Mills might be producing kaons but not as he understands the hydrino theory to function. LENR is the mechanism that generate sub atomic particle reactions.

    robert bryant: " I downloaded Millsian 2.0 and within about 5 minutes I had this picture of the ethanol molecule"

    Did you design dark matter using the BrLP software and verify that it is not reactive to any form of energy or matter?

    ZenoOfElea: I know that QM is the most accurate theory ever devised and has passed every test so far.


    QM has limited applications.


    QM applies to closed systems only where there is no transfer of energy or mass. PT -symmetric quantum theory that uses Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians applies to open systems like LENR and hydrino systems(if they exists).

    Directed muon beam weapons.


    The prospects of developing a muon beam weapon do disable enemy missiles is now certain. Muons can be formed into a tight beam and projected for many kilometers through the atmosphere with little attenuation. The muon beam will disrupt the electronics in missile guidance and control by catalyzing a zoo of other subatomic particles which are disruptive to electronic equipment,


    http://www.im2np.fr/news/artic…012_Muons_Proceedings.pdf


    Effects of Low Energy Muons on Electronics: Physical Insights and Geant4 Simulation


    The mechanism of negative muon capture and its effects on the occurrence of SEU in a 65nm SRAM circuit has been evaluated. Our simulation results show that negative muons with energies around 0.4 MeV can be stopped and captured in the vicinity of the sensitive drain region, then inducing upsets via nucleus evaporation which emits charged fragments (mainly silicon transmutation products: Al, Mg, Na ions, protons and alpha particles).




    3D distribution inside the SRAM circuit of the vertex positions

    related to the negative muon capture reactions for three different values of the

    incident muon kinetic energy: 0.1 MeV (white dots), 0.3 MeV (yellow dots)

    and 0.5 MeV (green dots).



    A very low energy damped muon beam can disable a missile in the lunch phase causing a lunch fissile. Now that muons have been produced in large quantiles, their control concentration and projection is easily accomplished via known particle beam control technologies. An array of LENR muon sources like the QuarkX could be configured to produces 10e25 muons per second. Such large volumes of muons can easily counter any atmospheric attenuation that might be encountered between the particle beam weapon and the missile.


    Muons cannot be shielded. In fact shielding results in enhanced production of neutrons, protons, alphas, and neutral particle fragments.


    Muon based weapons may already be in active use in counter missile interdiction tasks. The major world powers are on the brink of being able to easily project pure energy at their foes. Instantaneous, mostly untraceable weapons that could be fired from kilometers away will change international politics. Once that happens, the future will truly be here. Will the major world powers allow the active components of such a potent defensive weapon to be made available in the commercial market place when such a weapon will make nuclear tipped intercontinental missiles obsolete?

    I would not expect that Rossi will be honest about the details of his future experiments. If Rossi's QuarkX is producing mesons and pions as his first theory paper states, Rossi will never acknowledge the production of muons as a decay product of those mesons. Muons detection will place Rossi's certification efforts into the crapper. Even so, honesty is the best policy. If Rossi begins production of the QuarkX in a big way without acknowledging this muon generation overhanging his invention, he will be in big trouble with nuclear regulators. It is best to be honest and pay the price early on then be ruined at a later time.

    /* Some esoteric process is causing the proton to decay in LENR */


    It doesn't and no experimental evidence for it exists. End of story, you may return to your homes, nothing to see is here.


    No evidence...except as listed in post 31. In addition...


    There are also laser irradiation of gold nanoparticles in a water solution where the fission of thorium and uranium were generated.


    Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in

    the presence of Thorium aqua-ions

    A.V. Simakin and G.A. Shafeev


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf


    Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt

    A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev

    Dec 01 2009 physics.gen-ph nucl-ex arXiv:0911.5495v1

    https://www.quantamagazine.org…k-the-riemann-hypothesis/


    Physicists Attack Math’s $1,000,000 Question

    There is a connection between the riemann hypothesis and cold fusion. The expansion of quantum mechanics to include complex numbers and time/parity symmetry is a doorway into how energy is extracted form matter. What the 1/2 connection to the real number components of the solutions in this quantum mechanical solution set is a mystery that tantalizes the imagination.

    http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/pd…09_jstqe.2016.2545644.pdf


    Unidirectional Perfect Absorber


    The Whispering Gallery mode optical cavities of the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) can form a perfect absorber of energy from the LENR based catalyzed nuclear reaction and share that energy between all the SPPs in the SPP aggregation. Energy is fed into the SPP network and it is shared equally among all the SPP members. Energy goes into the the SPP aggregate and it is stored there. Fano resonance converts all the stored optical energy to the same common frequency among the entire population of SPPs in the system.

    That is one way to look at it, but the "high-energy helium-4" is usually not shown in path 1. The more conventional notation has the neutron (2.45 MeV) ejected as part of the reaction, which is generally seen in hot plasma fusion but not in LENR.


    I understand your thinking differs from the usual approach to the nuclear process(es) in LENR (cf. Storms). Can you explain why you think your path 1 above is the correct one? If it is in fact the dominant path, there would be lots of neutrons and thus secondary radiation (and dead experimenters).


    According to the experimental results produced by Holmlid and now more recently by Rossi, mesons and pions are the byproducts of the LENR reaction. These byproducts come from the disintegration of sub atomic particles. Holmlid also has identified kaons which are composed of at least one strange quark. These Kaons and the strange matter that they contain can only come from the decay of the proton.


    diagrams-ek.png


    The exploding titanium foil experiments of Leonid Urutskoev show fission of uranium which can only have been produced by muons in the absence of detectable neutrons.


    Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

    Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf


    The oneway entangled transfer of energy from the proton to the SPP keeps the LENR reaction products from becoming excited and radioactive. The detection of muons as a reaction product of stored catalyst when stimulated by UV light points to the production of mesons by hadronization.


    Any fusion products detected in these types of meson centric experiments are a result of muon catalyzed fusion. The evidence of transmutation products produced by fission without the detection of neutrons indicates muon production and resultant muon catalyzed fission.

    It may not look like it, but all the posts that I have authored are all connected and comprise a complete description of a theory of LENR that replaces the coulomb barrier penetration theory that Pons and Fleischmann invented back in the day. That fusion based theory was disruptive to understanding and acceptance of LENR as real. More than that, the LENR fusion theory also kept LENR from being reproduced in the Lab since the fusion theory of LENR was nonsense.


    Nuclear theory—the theory of how protons and neutrons interact—explains how fusion works and generates many expectations about what we should observe when fusion actually happens. According to nuclear theory, deuterium atoms fuse and release energy in a two-step process:

    1)The two deuterium atoms unite to form a single atom of helium-4 (helium with two protons and two neutrons).

    2) This helium-4 atom has a lot of energy—so much energy that it is unstable.

    The unstable atom quickly discharges some of this energy in one of three ways: releasing a neutron, proton, or gamma ray (a type of electromagnetic radiation) . In LENR experimentations, these fusion signs were not seen, so professional science discounted both LENR and LENR theory as pseudo-science.


    If professional science were to accept LENR, another nuclear based reaction was responsible for LENR and the experimental results that were seen in LENR had to support that nuclear reaction.


    It turns out that this nuclear reaction is the decay of the proton. The decay of the proton must have happened just after the Big Bang for the universe to exist, so why does it not happen today? Professional sciences are running some very expenses experiments to try to find out are the proton is decaying. LENR theory explains why the proton decayed after the big bang and why it is stable today but not when the proton is acted on in a in the very unusual conditions set up in a LENR experiment.

    This material is very complicated, far more complicated than the coulomb barrier and its penetration thereof. So I will try to pull things together in a better way.


    The Surface Plasmon Polariton(SPP) is the optical cavity that holds the soliton of photons as described in post 5 above. That soliton is a whispering gallery wave. That whispering gallery wave projects monopole magnetic field lines when it is exposed to the KERR effect that is produced by using a high voltage electrostatic potential whose description was added to the Rossi patent in update 2. Without the application of the KERR effect, the SPP is inoperative as the active agent in LENR.


    From this post:


    https://animpossibleinvention.…u-people-wouldnt-believe/


    Fabiani remarks about the KERR effect as the E-Cat stimulus E-Cat reaction as follows:


    Quote

    “Over the years we realized that the reaction needs more stimuli than only heating. Everyone thinks that thermal stimulus is enough but that’s just the beginning. It’s not enough for maximum efficiency. It’s the base, the synthesis of the reaction. But the reaction has almost behaviors as of living matter, and it has responses as a function of the stimuli. They can be of many types other than thermal. And these are the ones that trigger, let’s call it the most fun part of it, allowing excellent gains in terms of response to the stimuli.”


    Fabiani then talks about the SPP as a soliton of photons(ball lightning) and the KERR effect that activates that soliton as follows:


    Quote

    Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues:


    “With the failures, I found myself having to believe in it. Why? Because when something fails, you see the behavior of the object. The next time you adjust it, then you see that it behaves very differently. And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed, which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive.


    The creatures that emit pure light are the SPPs which is activated by a high voltage electrostatic field: the activating stimulus. In Rossi's patent, he defines this stimulus potential as being between 50 and 100 thousand volts.


    Bob calls these SPPs the EVO defined by KEN Shoulders.

    Rigel and Robert Bryant

    robert bryant

    Thank you for the response. I commented in the other thread (meson based model) with an easter egg (for old Tommy C.)


    A great video. I will look at your links, but I think I found the answer in the comments look for someone named David S. Please never take what I say as a conflict, I just did not understand as the graphic as it showed it... but I did not see the connection. I just have a tendency to follow up questions that I do not understand. We have such great minds here... Spending them on Rossi to me is like trying to fix burnt toast by scraping it off. Holmlid may have something, I am unaware if he has a video of what he thinks is going on. Mills quite honestly I have serious doubts of as he moves his target by financial quarter just like ITER or big science does. Anyway I enjoyed the video immensely.


    The video covers the fusion-centric thinking that predominated LENR in the early 1990s. This thinking has be superseded by more recent experimental insights in the LENR process. The most prominent is the transmutation results that come from many LENR systems: i,e the Ni62 transmutation anf the Li7 to Li6 transformation. These reactions cannot be explained by fusion. Then there are the Mesons seen by Rossi and Holmlid. The only why that these mesons can form is from sub atomic particle decay. Fusion as a prime mover in LENR should be disregarded.

    In this edition of EGO OUT (Tuesday, April 11, 2017) Peter has referenced a wonderful and impactful idea in this article:


    Proton-nuclei smashups yield clues about 'quark gluon plasma' Physicists probe exotic state of nuclear matter at Europe's LHC

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…ly%3A+Top+Science+News%29


    Science is studying the "chiral magnetic effect" (CME) in Quark-gluon plasma, or QGP. The magnetic fields that are generated in the QGP have a similar effect on quarks that LENR has on protons. The CME that appeared after the big bang in the QGP that existed back then was strong enough to keep energy from condensing into protons. Now-a-days, such vacuum altering magnetic fields are only seen in LENR. As stated by Jorn Kerst Boomsma in the summary of his thesis:


    https://www.nikhef.nl/pub/serv…_pdf/thesis_J_Boomsma.pdf


    Effects of instanton interactions on the phases of quark matter

    IMHO, this thesis is a goldmine for LENR theory.


    Quote

    "Summary”


    “There are strong indications that in heavy-ion collisions a new phase of matter is created, quark matter, which is a state of matter with deconfined quarks. Besides being created in heavy-ion collisions, it is also believed to have existed in early universe.


    Today it might exist in the interior of very dense neutron stars. In this thesis we have studied how quark matter is influenced by instantons. These nonperturbative effects are closely related to the QCD vacuum angle θ. Because of the existence of instantons observables can become θ-dependent. In Nature θ appears to be very close zero, an additional argument for this was presented in Chapter 4 of this thesis. In heavy-ion collisions θ may effectively become nonzero, at least that conclusion is drawn from an effective low-energy theory of the strong interaction. When θ is different from 0 (mod π), the theory is not invariant under CP."


    As additional background on this subject, the following article explains why CP violation is important to how the universe was created after the big bang:


    http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28092

    The QCD vacuum angle θ (AKA theta angle) is central to the decay of the proton, When this angle is very small, the proton does not decay. But when instantons are formed inside the proton, the theta angle increases. This change in the nature of the vacuum produced by instanton formation generates proton decay.


    https://www.nikhef.nl/pub/serv…_pdf/thesis_J_Boomsma.pdf


    Effects of instanton interactions on the phases of quark matter


    IMHO, this thesis is a goldmine for LENR theory.


    This paper explains how the formation of instantons inside the proton will produce P symmetry breaking which will result in proton decay.


    Another example of pseudo particle formation from magnetic energy is the formation of magnetic instantons in the fractional quantum hall effect. This demonstrates an example of how magnetic field lines can generated fractionally charged pseudoparticles as typified by composite fermion theory.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_fermion


    http://inspirehep.net/record/1119586/plots


    monopole-pair-instanton.png


    An instanton is critical in the decay of the proton. An instanton is a pseudo particle that is produced as a condinsate of magnetic force.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instanton


    Monopole flux line will interconnect as shown above in the figure to form a particle. These instantons form inside the proton in the presence of monopole field lines. These instantons destabilize the actions of the quarks inside the proton and the proton decays.


    I have always wondered why magnetic field lines that don't connect were important to the LENR process. This instanton creation process inherent in the connection between magnetic flux lines is made possible by the parallel topology of these monopole flux lines.

    Axil,

    I am missing your point above completely. The Hermitian link is a stub. But the link on Carl M. Bender getting the prize was interesting. I also *read the comments. The user Hyperfuzzy looks like one of our posters here. I noticed the style of attacking others for proposing an idea. I have seen that somewhere...hmm.


    This seems out of scope for LENR. Needs a better tie in.

    Here is more information about PT symmetry in quantum physics and Non Hermitian quantum mechanics from Bender


    http://www.europhysicsnews.org…2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf


    The tie in is symmetry breaking. In an open system like radioactive decay, symmetry is broken when a particle is converted into another particle. When the neutron decay, an electron and a neutrino are created. To make this decay happen, a symmetry violation is required.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ion#Violation_of_symmetry


    Quote

    The laws of nature were long thought to remain the same under mirror reflection. The results of an experiment viewed via a mirror were expected to be identical to the results of a mirror-reflected copy of the experimental apparatus. This so-called law of parity conservation was known to be respected by classical gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong interaction; it was assumed to be a universal law.[20] However, in the mid-1950s Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee suggested that the weak interaction might violate this law. Chien Shiung Wu and collaborators in 1957 discovered that the weak interaction violates parity, earning Yang and Lee the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics.[


    also see


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation