Hi Jones, there is a new science in development that postulates that the universe emerges from entanglement. I wrote a number of posts about this idea. This thread fits into this subject.
Coherence is fundamental Throughout the vacuum, electromagnetic fluctuations are produced at a constant average rate under the purview of the uncertainty principle. The name that tags these fluctuations is virtual particle production. These fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime is called “quantum spin liquid”. The string theory science name for the pure vacuum without mass floating around in it is *de Sitter space. *This space produces only dark energy and is there General relativity works best. In this space, all the virtual particles are maximally entangled and the surface of space can describe what is going on inside since everything is connected to everything else by entanglement. This space forms a quantum spin liquids. This space may be considered "quantum disordered" ground states of spin systems, in which zero point fluctuations are so strong that they prevent conventional magnetic long range order. More interestingly, the vacuum as a quantum spin liquid is a prototypical example of ground state with massive many-body entanglement, of a degree sufficient to render these states distinct phases of matter. The vacuum is completely entangled at long range as identical patterns of virtual particle emerge throughout the vacuum, with each pattern strongly entangling other identical patterns. Just by chance, patterns of virtual particles come into existence at wide spread locations in the vacuum and become connected. Quantum entanglement, a phenomenon in which virtual particles as fluctuations in the electromagnetic field, shed their separate identities and assume a shared existence, their properties becoming strongly correlated with one another. The virtual particles act identically no matter how far away they are separated. Normally physicists think of these correlations as spanning space, linking far-flung locations in a phenomenon that Albert Einstein famously described as “spooky action at a distance.” Even harder to accept, there is a growing body of research investigating how these correlations can span time as well. What happens now can be correlated with what happens later, in ways that elude a simple mechanistic explanation. In effect, you can have spooky action at a delay. These correlations seriously mess with our intuitions about time and space. Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later. Each of these events is the cause of the other, as if each were the first to occur. But perhaps most important, researchers are working towards a new way to unify quantum theory with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the structure of spacetime. The world we experience in daily life, in which events occur in an order determined by their locations in space and time, is just a subset of the possibilities that quantum physics allows. Some physicists take this as evidence for a profoundly nonintuitive worldview, in which quantum correlations are more fundamental than spacetime, and space-time itself is somehow built up from correlations among events, in what might be called quantum relationalism. The argument updates Gottfried Leibniz and Ernst Mach’s idea that spacetime might not be a God-given backdrop to the world, but instead might derive from the material contents of the universe. In this view quantum entanglement is more fundamental than spacetime because quantum entanglement generates spacetime. Quantum entanglement is not sensitive to the constraints of spacetime, that is, quantum entanglement connects events without regard to walls of matter, distance or the past and future. The key to control spacetime and the forces that operate in spacetime is the control of entanglement and coherence. This is what LENR engineering is all about. On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Your quotes from the citation brings to mind the mystery connection to > HTSC (high temperature superconductivity). > > Since the early days there was thought to be some kind of vague and > undefined connection between LENR and HTSC. This is due primarily to the > fact that palladium hydride is superconductive but palladium isn't. The > quote you mentioned adds an explanation in the form of lattice vibrations. > The problem is the transition temperature. > > BTW - for those who are not aware of the history of this - Brian Ahern > (who was a USAF researcher at the time, specializing in SC) independently > discovered Pd-H superconductivity many years ago - only to find that it had > already been reported by someone else (and patented). It is still ignored > as a factor for gain in "cold fusion" due to the aforementioned problem of > transition temperature. This is probably one of the details that got Brian > hooked on LENR - even before P&F and he also discovered that an alloy of > nickel and palladium performs much better than palladium alone for excess > heat. > > For the heck of it, I did a quicky search to see if "nickel hydride" has > ever been reported with SC properties. This begs to be part of the > LENR-CANR library even if the rationale between LENR and HTSC is foggy. > > As it turns out - W-L also picked up on the cross-connection and found the > same citation I found: > *Superconductivity in the palladium-hydrogen and palladium-nickel-hydrogen > systems* > *Authors* - First published: 16 June 1972 by > T. Skoskiewicz > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210110253/abstract > > The paper is a poor scan, I am trying to find a digital version. This is > almost 45 years old ! Why is it seldom mentioned? > > This is a fine blog article from EM Smith on the situation (which I had > read but forgot), It is worth a reread. > > https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/widom-larsen- > superconducting-hydrides-and-directed-speculation/ > > > MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > > Vorts, > > > > Haven’t had time to do much sci-surfing in 2016, but as is quite common in > my life, when I get a nagging feeling to do it, I come across stuff that > could be very significant… > > > > Happened to go to physorg.com today when eating lunch at work and came > across this article: > > > > “Laser pulses help scientists tease apart complex electron > interactions” > > http://phys.org/news/2016-12-laser-pulses-scientists- > complex-electron.html > > > > Title doesn’t really sound all that breakthrough, but for some reason I > clicked on it and came across what could be the mechanism of action in LENR > reactions which gently sheds the energy to the lattice instead of ejecting > high-energy particles, i.e., the ‘expected’ mechanism. To quote the > article: > > > > “But they also discovered another, unexpected signal-which they say > represents a distinct form of *extremely efficient energy loss > <http://phys.org/tags/energy+loss/> at a particular energy level and > timescale* between the other two. > > > > "We see a very strong and peculiar interaction between the excited > electrons and the lattice where the *electrons are losing most of their > energy very rapidly in a coherent, non-random way*," Rameau said. At this > special energy level, he explained, *the electrons appear to be > interacting with lattice atoms all vibrating at a particular frequency-like > a tuning fork emitting a single note*. When all of the electrons that > have the energy required for this unique interaction have given up most of > their energy, they start to cool down more slowly by hitting atoms more > randomly without striking the "resonant" frequency, he said. > > > > "We know now that this interaction doesn't just switch on when the > material becomes a superconductor; it's actually always there," > > Although electron-based and not nucleus-based, it still makes me wonder if > this is one step in a multi-step process of energy transfer… nucleus to > electrons to lattice. > > > > It is in a very narrow energy range, and is obviously some kind of > resonance (coherent) condition… which also explains why it’s so hard to > reproduce. Wonder if the narrow energy kink is anywhere close to *FrankZ*’s > 1.094Mhz-meter? > > > > BTW, the research also used a setup which I’ve been ranting about for > years… the electron stroboscope. > > > > "By varying the time between the 'pump' and 'probe' laser pulses we can > build up a stroboscopic record of what happens - a movie of what this > material looks like from rest through the violent interaction to how it > settles back down," > > Merry Christmas to All, > > -mark iverson > > > > >
