We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
In our discussion of the Zitterbewegung theory of electron condensation, there has been general support of the concept that a particle is a solid body that can be pushed around by virtual particles which are also solid particles. This idea of particles as solid things that have defined locations is an old version of physics call classical physics. This old physics has been replaced by quantum fields theory which treats a particle as a disturbance in a field. Take 15 minutes to watch a video that explains why Rossi is wrong about Zitterbewegung theory.
Quote ....fig. 3 shows the ﬁeld enhancement factors for spheroidal metal nanoparticles with an aspect ratio of three. It is observed that even for such a relatively small aspect ratio or morphological surface sharpness, enhancement factors over 100 are attainable for Pd, Ni, and Ti for a wide range of frequencies, through visible to infrared. Such nanoparticles or nanoscale surface roughness thus concentrate electromagnetic or optical energy in their vicinity like antennae.AlsoRemarkably, electromagnetic ﬁeld enhancement factors ofseveral thousand are observed for Pd, Ni, and Ti for the aspect ratio of 10 (Figure 4).AlsoThe large field-enhancement effect on the hydrogen-absorbing transition metals, Pd, Ni, and Ti, observed in the series of calculations in this study can be used for various hydrogen-energy applications. As discussed in Reference , potential applications include hydrogen storage, sensing [48,49], laser fusion , and condensed-matter fusion.
In addition, for the reported experiments so far, for instance,in the condensed-matter nuclear fusion field, it is highly possible that the deuterium-absorbed Pd, Ni, andTi surfaces contained certain degrees of nano- or micro-scale native random roughnesses [39,40,50,51] corresponding to such morphological aspect ratios as those studied in this article. Therefore, some of the experimental material systems may have unknowingly benefited from the plasmonic field enhancement effect.End quotes
The polariton is the bosonic form of the electron. From nanoplasmonics, it is well known how polaritons form.
When polaritons are confined in a cavity, they form a Bose condensate. This is where energy gain comes from. The loss of change and mass is actioned by the Higgs field. When the polariton condensate is no longer coherent, the charge and mass returns to the electrons and the Polariton condensate explodes in a BoseNova. This is when the energy that has been stored in the polariton condensate is released.
Rossi states on page 12 of his paper as follows:
"energy is generated by the electron transition from a coherent to an incoherent state"
In this Rossi is correct..
In plasma? Or bound to the chamber walls, or something?
Axil,Do you think Rossi's denial of LENR in his device has anything to do with his effort to get certified? Perhaps the mention of nuclear reactions may have a negative effect on his efforts.
The original LENR Meme is a ridiculous assertion that lattice compression will produce fusion of hydrogen. We now know that transmutation does not generate any energy and that energy from the reaction is derived from the electron's transition from a coherent to an incoherent state.
Axil,You have cited only one theory of the many proposed to explain the functioning of LENR. In my dealings with electrons while pursuing the various aspects of science( lasers, plasmas, communications, energy sources) I have encountered a never ending variety of properties that may be involved with the effects generated by this most interesting particle. From spin, angular momentum, precession frequencies, magnetic polar flipping, positronic behavior, condensation, clustering, ZBW, BECs, valences and other phenomena, just about anyone can compile a theory of its behavior and this has happened over the years. In my opinion, we must learn more before we can absolutely understand how they operate in the physical space.
We here are fortunate that we here have seen experiments that show what is going on. These experiments are mostly on video. Go back and look at the MFMP video library.
Axil,I have looked at the cavitation experiments and I have come away with more unexplained behavior to contemplate. What are the exotic interactions that eat away at the metals? What are the involved quasiparticles and how do they come into existence to interact? How can we control them if they do exist? Some attempts to explain these questions have been forwarded but I am still not convinced they have been adequate for my interest. But that is only my opinion and I am sure others have more faith in their beliefs.
I’m not sure that what you are saying it right, Axil. Any fusion with hydrogen would generate energy, wether is is between hydrogen atoms itself or hydrogen with the metal lattice atoms (that may then transmute this metal). The question is, however: could the circumstances within the lattice be such that this could happen?
It is interesting to note that you seem to agree with Rossi’s vision that the electron’s change from coherent to incoherent state is now the energy source. I have no idea what these states actually mean and why that would generate energy. Can you explain?
The ability of two fundamental particles to join together is at the heart of the explanation that you request.
When two different particles reach the same energy level, they can join together and created a new composite particle. This process of joining is called entanglement.
The new composite particle contains the properties of both of its parent particles. For the electron, the composite particle is called a polariton as you have seen in the video above.
The polariton has many properties of the photon, but the electron has lost its mass and charge.
You cannot confine of photon because it moves at the speed of light, but when its attached to another particle like an electron, then it can be confined.
This lost of mass and charge is when the polariton gains energy from the vacuum. The polariton can now form a condensate because it acts like a photon.
A trillion trillion polaritons can combine in a condensate to form one big polariton waveform that is coherent.
Eventually that condensate becomes unstable and the mass and charge returns to the polarions to reform them all back into electrons and photons. This is when a huge amount of stored up energy in the condensare is released. These highly energetic cloud of expanding incoherent electrons are being harvested by the SKL and this transition from a polariton condensate to a population of highly energetic electrons is where the SKL gets its energy from.
So, umm.. where's the mass and charge 'stored', then? How does this storage medium prevent me from simply accelerating the electron while it's part of the polariton, and thus gaining free work / energy when it collapses - the electron mass now having accelerated without inertia, and its charge, without back-EMF..?
Invoking non-conservation of mass and/or charge (let alone both) trivialises OU and reactionless thrust.. ie. that is, either we're 'geniuses', here.. or else our predicates are suspect... tum-tee-tum (taps fingers)..
So, umm.. where's the mass and charge 'stored', then?
Particles are comprised of quantum properties. The electron has two quantum properties that your question involves: the weak hypercharge and the weak isospin properties.
The Higgs field is where the weak hypercharge property is stored. In order for the electron to demonstrate both charge and mass, both the weak isospin and the weak hypercharge properties must be carried by the electron. When the electron loses mass and charge, the weak hypercharge property is absorbed by the Higgs field.
When an electron regains its mass and charge, the Higgs field gives back the weak hypercharge property to the electron.
When the electron becomes entangled with a boson, one of the quantum properties that it loses is the weak hypercharge property and the electron takes on the nature of the boson.
There is another complication involved, where the Polariton condensate becomes a dense Higgs cosmic bubble and transform into the ultimate distrutive agent. This is when the entanglement of the electron and the photon happens inside a superconductor. This condensate then becomes the distrutive Higgs abyss were the condensate grows through self amplifying auto-pumping and distroys any matter that it touches.
This is where you need to factor in the system's fluctuating Fermi levels as a function a) of condensing spin polarisations (esp. like-polarised pairs), and b) further electrons entering the plasma after such condensates have formed.
This results in an increase in effective electromotove force (ie. Voltage) present between such pairs when coherence collapses; they basically find that they're now too close together (even if they didn't physically move closer when cohering) because their former Fermi levels are now reoccupied and they now thus have higher unique quantum energy states, mutually repulsing and thus generating the output EMF's that Rossi's harvesting.
That's the gist of it, i think - each interacting fermion in the system has to have a unique quantum-energy state per Pauli exclusion, the number of such states / identities is thus equal to their population number, and so every like-polarised (up-up or down-down) coherence / condensation frees up n-1 lower-energy Fermi levels, which any higher-energy uncondensed electrons will automatically drop down into. A soon as coherence fails and the shared identity lost, the Fermi level between that former pair has increased, so their local charge density is too high and their subsequent motion back to a lower-density equilibrium is the output workload being harnessed, which has essentially been input by the vacuum / ZPE.
Any & all corrections and clarifications welcomed of course..
In the following exchange, aside from disavowing any relation to LENR, AR continues to assert Zero Point Energy. IMO, he has been working with other very skilled physicists for years. As yet, it appears that none have been able to argue strongly and effectively for the absence of ZPE.IMO, it is good that the SKLed, the "forever light bulb", is being introduced first as harnessing ZPE is a profoundly disruptive technology, presuming it stands up to further scrutiny.
Giusy Mantegazza April 28, 2021 at 10:59 AMDear Andrea:Do you still think that the lamp shown inhttp://www.ecat.comhas links to the LENR ?
Andrea Rossi April 28, 2021 at 12:07 PMGiusy Mantegazza:As I already said many times, I do not think anymore that LENR exist. I am convinced of the rightness of the theoretical threads inhttp://www.researchgate.net....The key words of what I think are:ZitterbewegungZero Point EnergyLow EntropyLong Distance Interactionsthe basics are in references 1, 17, 25, 32 of the paper above cited.Obviously, this is only an opinion and, as such, it could be wrong as convincing as it might be to me.Warm Regards,A.R.
The assumption behind Zitterbewegung is that the electron is a particle that has a position, not a wave that cannot be localized. In modern physics, we cannot know where the electron is. The position of the electron is defined by a probability. It is clear in current particle theory that Zitterbewegung is nonsence.
SummaryDoes zitterbewegung exist in relativistic QFT? The word zitterbewegung is normally used for a consequence of the assumption that the x in the Dirac equation is a position operator. That assumption is false in relativistic QFT, so relativistic QFT can't have zitterbewegung — not unless we redefine the word to mean something else like "the electron's velocity isn't strictly well-defined."
Sure, the mathematical circumstances that preclude the existence of a strict position observable are related to the mathematical circumstances that would lead to zitterbewegung if we wrongly assumed that x were a position observable. In that indirect sense, a person could insist that a vestige of zitterbewegung is still present in relativistic QFT, but that would just be playing word games. If we look past the words and focus on the concepts, the messages are simple:
Zitterbewegung is an artifact of mistaking the parameter x as a position observable.
Relativistic QFT doesn't have a strict position observable.In relatistic QFT, particle-detection observables can't be both perfectly noise-free and perfectly sharply localized in a finite region of spacetime. We can have one or the other, but we can't have both, and nothing about this statement contradicts anything we know from real experiments.
..and just last month you were convinced it was real, and caused by antiparticle transitions..
Rossi's come up with a stable consistent theory that seems to make useful predictions - such as the 437.2 nm emission line - and not least, the claimed SKL efficiency results themselves, so i'd say let's give it a fair hearing..
Note also that Rossi - in an apparent effort to clarify his position and so presumably with deliberate word-choice - doesn't merely discount LENR as a factor in Ecat tech, but as an actual putative field or concept; he doesn't believe in LENR per se..
How could this be so, what with obvs being cognizant of all the same evidence to the contrary that we're privvy to? The only logical interpretation is that he's hit the motherlode, knows exactly what's causing 'LENR'-type effects, and it ain't 'fusion'.. by any means.. but something else. Something involving vacuum / ZPE interactions..
and just last month you were convinced it was real, and caused by antiparticle transitions..
You must have been dreaming. Show my post were I was convinced that ZPE was real.
You were referencing positron-electron transitions as the cause of ZBW effects, as opposed to just positional uncertainty of the electron..
>> "in modern physics we cannot know where the electron is"
"Physicists have caught electron orbits in Exciton Quasi-particle for the first time"
Although it was delicate, time-consuming work, the team was able to finally measure the wave function of an exciton, which describes its quantum state. This description includes its orbit with the electron hole, allowing physicists to accurately predict the electron's position.
The position of the electron is a probabilistic prediction.
Nope! 'Prediction' is a forecast - they measure both the speed and path of the electrons
"This instrument [e-uscope] measures the speeds and trajectories of the electrons"
The author of the article appears to be applying the word 'predict' incorrectly, given the context of this 'first time' achievement!
Whatever floats your boat.
We wouldn't be able to resolve flutter at the Compton wavelength or frequency anyway, so it's all angels on pinheads in terms of Popperian science; nonetheless, pick your quantum phase of choice (ie. precessional magnetic moment or whatevs); if it's possible to crank thermal phase just into sympathetic resonance (mebe many octaves out, still), let alone 1:1 coherence, then you have a potential quantum-classical coupling and the possibility of thermodynamically opening the system to non-cancelling exchanges of +/- h-bar with vacuum. ZBW does seem a consistent application of the momentum / position covariance, tho; if it's also the electron's relativistic mass source per Hestenes et al, that would undeniably be a major theoretical breakthrough..
A claim so quickly abandoned ("in modern physics we cannot know where the electron is"), and replaced by a personal remark, obviously wasn't worth defending
Learn about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
and the measurement problem
Does "innovative way to control the physics of the electron" sound like "hydrino" theory?
"hydrino" theory states that the electron is a point particle. hydrino theory rejects quantum mechanics.
Whoa! Mills' theory describes the electron as an extended 2D surface of moving mass-charge, certainly not a point charge.
There are models of particles that facilitate their utilization and usages in differing technologies. R Mills is a chemist and concerned with classical models of the electron that produce accurate and reliable results in the field of classical physics. The standard model has other objectives and yet again condensed matter physics has still other objectives. Problems come up when an Inappropriate model is used to predict results in a disparate field..
In my opinion, the use of a chemical based classical model of the electron is inappropriate to describe accurate results in a subject that is primarily based on quantum mechanics.
I say this because the power density that the SunCell produces is far greater than any chemical reaction can approach.
BrLP states that the power density of the SunCell is 100 billion watts per liter. A chemical reaction cannot produce that level of power density. For example, fission produces a billion watts per liter. In comparison, the SunCell produces 100 times the power density of fission. So E=Mc2 produces 10^18 watts per liter. By comparison, the SunCell produces 10^14 watts per liter which is a significant fraction of the power density of total mass to energy conversion(E=Mc2)..
A COMPARISON OF ENERGY DENSITIESOF PREVALENT ENERGY SOURCES IN UNITSOF JOULES PER CUBIC METERhttps://www.drexel.edu/~/me...
Lots to say, but I'll keep it short. First, Mills does accept much of the old QM ; for instance Planck's constant, Debroglie wavelength, and so on. What he rejects are things like point particles and the probabilistic interpretation of nature.Secondly, the SunCell does not produce 10^14 watts per litre. It says in the April 2020 business presentation pdf :"We are running internal thermal field trials at a scale of 100-250 kW continuous power production and an extraordinary power density of up to 5MW/liter. "5 MW/liter is < 10^10 watts per later, and even that is greatly stretching the truth. It seems he is taking the most power dense small region within the SunCell and extrapolating that to a litre of size. In real life, the SunCell is running at about 200 kW, and that power is distributed in far more than one litre. Energy density is another matter ; roughly 20 times that of conventional chemical energy, but orders of magnitude less than nuclear energy.
R. Mills might have begun his product development career with a chemical based power generation mechanism. Early on, I remember he wanted to sell nickel powder that has been treated with hydrogen as a power source fuel.
But with the SunCell Mills hit upon a non chemical based mechanism, Mills has not changed his tune for reasons that I can't understand. You should not share in this emotional response to a changing situation. Accept reality without trying to fit that reality into your long held doctrinaire.
The SAFIRE team has experienced the same serendipity. But they accepted the reality that smacked them in the face and let reality tell them what to do next. Mills is not responding to that reality. He has too much invested in that old product technology MEME and is not willing to change.
The Raney nickel powder involved hydrino 'chemistry', not conventional chemistry. He wasn't trying to sell the powder, you may be confusing it with something else. I don't have a "long held doctrinaire". I merely take it seriously enough to become familiar with it, as I do other with some other competing theories, probably like many others here.
Brilliant Light Power’s Electricity-Generation Test of Automated Ignition System of Auger-Fed H2O-Based Solid Fuel Powder
A very small quantity of highly conductive H2O-based solid fuel powder was loaded in to a hopper and gravity fed into an auger overhead of rollers electrodes that were electrified with about 5V, 20,000A. The high current flow ignited the gravity fed fuel to produce 0.5 ms pulses of brilliant light-emitting plasma having power and power densities of one million watts and 100 billion watts per liter, respectively, from the conversion of hydrogen to hydrinos, a more stable form of hydrogen. The optical power of the white light having the same temperature as the Sun was converted to electricity using commercial solar cells surrounding the plasma. The sub-millisecond-time-scale power burst of each detonation event was spread out in time to give a near continuous illumination from a LED lighting array. The fuel detonations are concealed by an opaque structural enclosure upon which the photovoltaics (solar cells) are mounted. The unscreened, non-converted flashes of power can be seen at:
BLP YouTube channel.
Yes, but 100 billion watts per litre, as exaggerated as it is by Mills, is still three orders of magnitude less than your 10^14 watts per litre figure for the SunCell.
My mistake, 100 billion watts per litre is 10^11 watts per litre. A billion is 10^9. 100 billion is 10^11.
The energy density of nuclear energy can range from very great 1.5 · 10^15 watts/m3, forpurified uranium, to less than half a percent of this in the naturally occurring state.
A half a percent is about 10^-3. So this says that a low range nuclear reaction can have a power density of (10^-15)(10^-3)(10^-3) 0r 10^9
A power density of 100 billion watts per litre (10^11) falls within the range between 10^12 to 10^9.
Randell Mills is a Doctor of Medicine with a degree from Harvard and has a second PHD in Electrical engineering from MIT. He does have a BA in Chemistry from Franklin and Marshal College whoever they are...
Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (“BrLP” or the “Company”) believes that it has created a game-changing, nonpolluting fundamentally new primary source of energy from the conversion of hydrogen into a prior undiscovered, more stable form of hydrogen called “Hydrino®” that releases two hundred times more energy than burning hydrogen. This enormous chemical energy gain is thermodynamically enabling of using ubiquitous H2O water as the source of hydrogen fuel to form Hydrinos and oxygen
I wonder if you can figure out what I am trying to show.
I read the complete site, which was extensive and technically dense at that time, over a decade ago when it included half a dozen third party validations and then went on to read up on Mills' molecular modeling software and the third party commentary on that as well.
If you want to call the hydrino transformation chemistry there's no stopping you, but when I took chemistry chemical reactions required the interaction of atoms forming or breaking apart molecules. Now Mills may want to talk about the disassociation of water as a chemical reaction which is debatable, and burning hydrogen as it is a obvious chemical reaction but the formation of hydrinos solely involve the bound energy of the electron in relationship to the proton in the hydrogen atom and there is no chemistry involved.
Not only that but once the hydrogen atom is induced to become a hydrino, by non chemical means, it is for all intents and purposes chemically inert as the electron in that lower energy state no longer is accessible to participate in any chemical reactions, and it is, after all, the interaction of the electrons between bonded atoms that define chemistry and molecules.
That's a 'lower ground state' concept tho, involving electrons bound to nucleons. When Rossi talks of 'controlling electrons', he means to the exclusion of ions - the whole point of the plasma energisation regime is to only excite the electrons. This makes a little input energy go a long way, reaching potentially-extreme electron temperatures.. and resulting in entropy-reducing condensates that inter-react with ZPE.
Pretty distinct brainstorms from where i'm sitting..
Has anyone done a serious check of maths and hypotheses of the Rossi researchgate paper? How realistic is his "zitterbewegung lagrangian" (par. 2.4) ?A google search for "zitterbewegung lagrangian" gives only a link to the Rossi paper!
God knows i'm not a 'proper' scientician (honestly - this isn't even a proper scientician's hat, it's just a crash helmet with rocket stickers, look, it comes right off!), but i get the impression he's sufficiently into the margins that it's impossible to call, for now - down to test-and-refine, see if it makes good predictions etc. Intepretative splits on QM fundamentals are for the birds otherwise.
Fundamentally, remember, any system has precisely the right amount of energy for whatever its given conditions. Hence, 'excess energy' being a misconceived view on OU, which logically can only reduce consistently to an input-energy / work discount. This means the input-energy workload must be in a self-accelerating reference frame, inertially-decoupled from the lab / absolute FoR. Maybe the proposed Lagrangian is consistent with such an auto-accelerating FoR, i don't know (but presume an OU system couldn't be described in terms of Hamiltonians / time invariance). All i know is, at root, it has to be a +/- dp/dt (ie. +/- h-bar) asymmetry between charges and vacuum. The square of the velocity component of the accumulated non-cancelling dp/dt is thus the I/O gain factor.. and the sky is blue. Beyond that, i got nothing chief.
zitterbewegung is nonsense. See my post above.
I had a zitterbewegung, but its ubertangs went gungwangafang so we had to have it put down, IIRC.
Whatevs - high dv/dt EMF's => hot electrons => entropy-reducing quantum phase transitions, whatever axes you like, pick 'em out of a hat.. uncondensed / environmental free electrons thus resume those vacated Fermi numbers => condensate collapses => ZPE picks up the tab assigning necessarily-higher discrete quantum energy states to any electrons exiting integer-spin quasi-bosons.
Energy the most fundamental 'building-block' of the Universe - idea gaining traction
Cash here will presumably be all over this; i still don't get it tho.. a 'fragment of energy' = 'negative intensity divided by radius'?
Whereas, an electron oscillation obviously does produce an EM wave polarised to that same plane of motion, mirroring the same displacement and speed.. i mean, we get waves.. and particles, and when to use which.. wave/particle duality isn't some intractable dualism requiring more fundamental resolution, is it?
I answered your query about "negative intensity divided by radius" but it appears to have got Lost in Moderation - something that never happened to Bill Murray ;)
If it doesn't turn up on a later bus, i'll try once more before giving up
(Not enough ale)
Their equation doesn't preclude the use of factorisation - why assume "negative intensity"?
I see a picture of an 'energy contour map'; with their energy fragments flowing down the gradients, like water off the rain-soaked hills (good ale this!)
Interesting that their model can give an equivalent answer to the incongruence of the old Martian flypast
"We named it a fragment of energy. For the math and physics aficionados, it is defined as A = -⍺/r where ⍺ is intensity and r is the distance function."
Am i reading that wrong then? No wonder i'm not getting my head 'round it..
It was only a few weeks ago that McCulloch was deriving lambda, DE and DM from his quantised inertia theory (by assigning 'bits' to the Planck-scale coordinate space itself), but then Tajmar tried his suggested optimisations to an EM drive, which fell flat.. likewise, there's prolly all kinds of quirky-yet-inexplicably-accurate explanations for the Pioneer anomaly or whatevs, so.. might just be another lucky strike here. Plus i'm kinda set in thinking of 'energy' as being kind of incidental to momentum and time, rather than a fundament itself. Cheers for the heads-up tho, will keep an eye on it, maybe it'll click at some point..