Posts by Jarek

    Dear AlainCo, I really don't understand how eV-scale lattice breathers could help crossing MeV-scale Coulomb barrier?



    Dear Andrea,
    I have looked at your materials and indeed there is a lot in common with Gryzinski's picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model
    He also explains de Broglie's clock/zitterbewegung as precession of electron's magnetic dipole moment: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00670821


    Look at electron's trajectories when we remember about magnetic dipole moment of electron - it explains why electrons don't fall on nucleus: there appears Lorentz force perpendicular to the velocity, bending the trajectory and preventing collision.
    Indeed the required symmetry for three-particle collapse seems improbable, but looking at trajectory of electron: remembering about magnetic dipole moment, there are closed trajectories jumping between two nuclei: free-falling on one nucleus, back-scattering, free-falling on the second, back-scattering and so on.
    There is still needed some initial nuclei velocity for the fusion, the probability of such event need to be calculated, but the scenario seems reasonable - without any exotic physics.


    Regarding the Bell inequalities, their violation comes from the "probability = amplitude^2" relation.
    You should look at Maximal Entropy Random Walk - repairing stochastic models to be in agreement with the (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle ... and "coincidentally" with quantum mechanics. The "probability = amplitude^2" relation also appears there.
    To understand why our world doesn't fulfill Bell's inequality, remember that all theories including QED are Lagrangian mechanics. One of formulation of Lagrangian mechanics is through action optimization: we can imagine that the history of our Universe is the action optimizing solution of the situation in the Big Bang and let say eventual Big Crunch in the future.
    My point is that in Lagrangian picture, we live in kind 4D jello: the present moment is equilibrium between past and future (see e.g. Wheeler experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…delayed_choice_experiment ), while in Bell we assume only past->future correlations.

    Hi AlainCo, thanks for the replies. Let me know if I can explain anything.
    I have briefly looked at the breathers of dr Dubinko.
    Generally particles are localized configurations of fields (among others, charge is singularity of EM field), and have an internal (de Broglie) clock/zittebewegung – so formally we can call particles as breathers.
    In contrast, dr Dubinko uses effective breathers of atomic lattice – I can see a possibility for sine-Gordon like breathers there (magnetic field for potential), but I don’t see how it could explain fusion?
    I don’t believe it could reach 782keVs for e+p->n. He uses the Heisenberg ignorance principle in explanation – magical/quantum curtain which is supposed to explain everything. If we want to really understand fusion, we need to raise this curtain and ask what’s actually happening there – for trajectories, also of the supporting actor: electron.
    Regarding the Ed Storms paper, I have read “Mechanism to overcome the Coulomb Barrier” and “Mechanism to dissipate excess mass-energy” sections and don’t see any explanation.


    Hi Longview,
    Regarding releasing the MeV-scale energy as cylindrical wave, I don't think orbital as antenna is a good picture here, it would loose eV-scale energy, creating a photon carrying also the angular momentum - what requires localization.
    Instead, the quickly collapsing p—e—p system is itself kind of a (single impulse) linear antenna, like in EMP weapon: http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm
    I got the cylindrical wave picture from particle model I consider ( as topological solitons: starting with Faber’s charge quantization as topological charge: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1416 , slides about topological soliton models: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/soliton.pdf ) - I usually get a reasonable explanation when I ask this model.
    So the symmetric p—e—p fusion there would start by aligning their spins in line - they close together on this line. In this model, electric charge is rotation on this line (can be fractional for “quarks”: baryon structure itself enforces some rotation – not necessarily a complete charge). Finally they can release the MeV-scale rotational stress – which is cylindrically symmetric. While I see the mechanism for particle creation while e.g. beta decay, here everything is too symmetric – and so also the releasing wave should be.


    But ... these impulses should produce an EM noise outside of very high frequency ... they might be too short to directly detect it (?), and most should be absorbed by medium (?)
    What observable effects should we expect for this explaination?


    And generally I don’t see any other reasonable possibility to release MeV-scale energy in a clean way (?):
    - High energy baryon would seem right … but there is no way to produce it,
    - As neutrino? This energy would escape the system, not heating it,
    - High-energy electron seems a reasonable alternative, but betas are told to be insufficient,
    - Hundreds … thousands of gammas … but it would require some enormously complicated relaxation mechanism,
    - I have seen phonons mentioned somewhere, but this the next step - first we we need to release this energy from the nucleus.

    Thanks for the interest about MERW, let me know if you have some question.There have recently appeared dozens of applications in network analysis, image analysis, neural tractography and others (our PRL paper has >60 citations) – I hope stochastic specialists will finally look at the physics applications: “quantum” corrections to stochastic models, what may be crucial e.g. in molecular dynamics or to understand electron’s trajectories e.g. in semiconductors.

    I was thinking about the issue that LENR is "clean" - produces nearly no high energy particles ... and I think I might have a solution(?)


    The direct way, e.g. p + e + p -> deuteron + 1.4MeV, looks much better than Widom-Larsen way: p + e + 782keV -> n, then n + p -> deuteron + 2.2MeV:
    - we don't have first to climb 782keV up (where this huge energy comes from?),
    - we don't have these additional 782keVs emitted while the proper fusion phase: n + p -> deuteron
    However, there would be still MeV-scale energy, which is needed to be radiated in "clean" way.


    So how to radiate MeV-scale excitation energy without high energy particles?


    Again, imagine this perfect symmetric "p ---- e ---- p" system, collapsing in symmetric way to deuteron.
    So this idealized situation would have cylindrical symmetry.
    Without any symmetry breaking mechanisms, the final excited state should radiate the exceeding energy also as cylindrically symmetric (EM) wave!
    Such a cylindrical wave, similar to wave from linear-antenna, would quickly loose energy density: proportionally to 1/R.
    This energy should be absorbed by surrounding particles as kinetic energy - just heating the medium.


    So the question is if gammas have to be localized?
    Maybe they can be e.g. cylindrical EM waves in some reactions instead - it would explain LENR being clean ...

    Hi Longview, thanks for the reply.
    The last link is definitely mathematica notebook, here are Gryzinski’s lectures: http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/indang.html
    I have also his book, but it is in Polish. Sadly he has died in 2004. I plan to test his work when I will have more time.


    Regarding Couder, there are definitely essential differences comparing with the microscopic physics, like that his waves are rather short-range (pilot wave is long-range), or that he uses external clock, while particles seem to have internal one (zitterbewegung/de Broglie’s clock) – which can be now directly observed: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10701-008-9225-1
    However, he brings great intuitions about basic “quantum” phenomena:
    - interference pattern in double-slit experiment (particle goes a single trajectory, but it interacts with waves it created - going through all trajectories): http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v97/i15/e154101 ,
    - tunneling depending on practically random hidden parameters (highly complex state of the field): http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i24/e240401 ,
    - orbit quatization condition (that particle has to 'find a resonance' with the field - after single orbit, its internal phase has to return to the initial state): http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515 ,
    - Zeeman splitting analogue for these discrete orbits (Lorentz force was simulated by Coriolis force): http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i26/e264503 .


    Regarding the “As you know, a number of the orbital structures do take the electron(s) through the nucleus, others place the highest probability of materialization at the nucleus.”, indeed we should be careful about blindly using the Schrodinger equation, for example because it neglects the interaction with the nucleus.
    Also, while thinking about multi-electron orbitals, we usually forget about electron-electron repulsion. If we do helium right, we see that position of these electrons are strongly anti-correlated.


    Anyway, returning to trajectories, if we add thermodynamics there: randomly perturb trajectories and average them over time, I believe we should get exactly the Schrodinger probability clouds.
    I have got to this conclusion, and generally to the search for physics below QM, thanks to working on Maximal Entropy Random Walk (my PhD thesis: http://www.fais.uj.edu.pl/docu…71-4eba-8a5a-d974256fd065 ).
    Specifically, the way we choose stochastic processes turns out not always being in agreement with the basic for statistical physics: the (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle. Doing it right - starting with maximizing entropy production: Maximal Entropy Random Walk, leads to getting exactly to the ground state probability density of Schrodinger equation.
    Here is a comparison of evolution of density of both approaches on a defected lattice (all nodes but the marked ones have self-loop):
    Standard random walk/diffusion would say that electrons on a defected lattice should have nearly uniform probability distribution, that semi-conductor should still conduct well - one of reasons for rejecting trajectories a few decades ago.
    MERW and QM say that electrons are localized (Anderson) as the quantum ground state probability density – trapped in (entropic) wells, can be difficult to conduct.
    Slides about MERW: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/MERWsem.pdf


    Regarding “The real problem may not be getting an electron to the nucleus”, getting electron into proton costs m_n - m_p - m_e ~ 782keV – it is huge energy from chemistry point of view. I don’t believe some lattice excitations could make such process reasonably high probable.
    From the other side, think about this “ p ---- e ---- p ” symmetric configuration – without any additional energy, it should just collapse and fuse into deuteron.
    So maybe we shouldn’t think about two-body p+e->n collisions, but rather about three body p+e+p or nucleus+e+p processes – because electron can attract both nuclei.
    How to do it? Shooting electrons at nuclei, for some parameters we have backscatting: the electron goes back to the source. So imagine two closing nuclei and electron performing a few backscatterings between them: jumping between them, screening their Coulomb repulsion, making fusion much more probable.
    Gryzinski’s model suggests this is quite a reasonable scenario, and his classical scattering paper has more than 1000 citations (google “Classical Theory of Atomic Collisions”).


    Anyway, in contrast to other explanations of LENR, the only "exotic" assumption of electron-assisted fusion is considering trajectories of electrons.
    Other non-standard assumption is adding electron's magnetic dipole moment to Bohr-like considerations (classical spin-orbit interaction).


    ps. Another argument against Widom-Larsen like models (beside the need for huge 782keV energy for p+e->n), is production of gammas (and others) when this neutron would be finally absorbed by some nucleus - not observed in LENR.
    As in the "p - e - p" example, three body electron-assisted fusion should allow for direct crossing of the Coulomb barrier - without starting with going up the barrier (e.g. 782 keVs).

    Imagine zero velocity situation: two protons and electron in the middle between them ( p ---- e ---- p ).
    The Coulomb force says that electron-proton attraction is four times stronger than proton-proton repulsion.
    So this simple 3 body system should collapse – down to fusion into deuteron.


    This trivial example suggests that electron could be very helpful in overcoming Coulomb barrier for LENR.
    What is wrong with this picture? That it requires” classical” trajectory of electron, while we are expected to consider the quantum picture: with electron smeared into a probability density cloud – making such electron assisted fusion practically improbable.


    So the main question here is: can we consider a trajectory of electron? For example averaging to the quantum probability distribution.
    There are many arguments that we can, for example equivalent dBB interpretation: that inserting psi = rho * exp(iS) to Schrodinger equation, we get continuity equation for the density (rho) and “classical” Hamilton-Jacobi equation for action S, with h-order correction/perturbation: of interaction with the pilot wave.
    Great intuition about this picture provides e.g. “classical-quantum” Couder experiments , getting for example interference: the corpuscle travels one paths, while its “pilot” wave travels multiple waves, influencing trajectory of the corpuscle (e.g.

    ).


    So imagine there is some (semi-classical) trajectory of electron’s corpuscle inside atoms, piloted by its wave, averaging to Schrodinger’s probability cloud.
    What trajectories should we expect? The first answer is Sommerfeld-Bohr’s elliptic trajectories. However, the ground hydrogen has zero angular momentum: we should degenerate the ellipse into a line: a free-fall trajectory.
    What is missing in Bohr-Sommerfeld is taking electron’s magnetic dipole moment into consideration – it is corrected in the free-fall atomic model of Gryzinski.
    This correction, classical spin-orbit interaction, has large influence on the free-falling trajectories.There appear also backscattering trajectories: when electron turns 180 degrees – allowing it to jump a few times between two nuclei, screening the Coulomb repulsion. And so Gryzinski has a note in Nature about cold fusion in 1989.


    Gryzinski's papers (~30 from Phys. Rev. type of journals, ~3000 total citations): https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski
    Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model


    Slides about free-fall atomic model: https://www.dropbox.com/s/38xidhztpe9zxsr/freefall2.pdf
    Simple simulations in Mathematica: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/KeplerProblemWithClassicalSpinOrbitInteraction/


    What do you think about it?


    update: simulations of atoms with electron's magnetic dipoles taken into consideration (classical spin-orbit interaction):


    update: gentle introduction to Maximal Entropy Random Walk - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_Entropy_Random_Walk

    2017 paper about its connection with QM: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2724v2.pdf

    showing why standard diffusion models are only approximation (of the Jaynes maximum uncertainty principle required by statistical physics models), and that doing diffusion right there is no longer disagreement with thermodynamical predictions of QM (Anderson localization):


    General_picture_for_Maximal_Entropy_Random_Walk.png


    Update: Gryzinski's 1991 CF paper "Theory of electron catalyzed fusion in Pd lattice": https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.40688

    One (top)/two(bottom) electron trajectories for molecular bonds from his book, top-left is the one which could allow for fusion: with electron traveling between two nuclei, screening their Coulomb repulsion. In the paper above he writes that Pd lattice helps stabilizing such trajectories:

    9136-pasted-from-clipboard-png