I would like to add some brain dribble to this issue. In solid matter the nuclei exist in a lattice and undergo oscillations. Adding heat increases the frequency and amplitude of these motions.
At absolute zero these oscillations continue as a zero oscillation condition is prohibited by the essence of the Heisenberg Principle.. When a system interacts with these QM required modes unanticipated energetic reactions can arise. For example, the magnetocaloric cooling of the Manelas system comes from magnetic spins interaction with the lowest oscillation modes (zero-point) ________________________________ From: bobcook39...@gmail.com <bobcook39...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 7:57 PM To: Stephen Cooke Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:ICIN-G Stephen— Cold has to due with temperature. Thus, you must have a careful, precise definition of temperature to understand what you are asking. There is a lowest temperature called absolute zero. It refers to a hypothetical condition of a closed 3-D space system where there is no motion between the particles making up the system, a classical physics concept. Another term is no phonic energy exists in the system. It means no motion between atoms. From a QM concept it means all electrons are in their lowest kinetic energy state possible of the closed system in question. There are no ambient electric fields or magnetic fields or gravitational fields that change with time within the system. (As far as I know this condition does not exist within the Universe.) On a cosmic scale the Universe is thought to be an adiabatic system with an expanding boundary near which there is nothing but space—no matter or any type of energy field—magnetic, electric or gravitational. Even the micro wave back ground radiation left over from the big bang does not exist there That radiation—photons—has only been able to move since the bang at the speed of light and thus cannot reach the boundary. The existing micro radiation only reduces its energy and on average changes its frequency to lower energy. Thus, there is a micro wave bath of energy, including outside any defined 3-D boundary. This makes a real closed system impossible and only a fictional creation. IMHO since quarks and gluons are not real particles—only virtual particles, I do not consider they fit within the concept of temperature I have described—a classical physics concept. If a nuclei is considered a closed system, then there may be an analogy of temperature in some peoples mind that involves vibrational states of those virtual particles. I have no idea how it would be measured—it would be a virtual idea—fictional and only an empirical model to explain observable phenomena. As you can deduce from my discussion above I do not consider quarks exist. I consider that the theories that indicate a combination of electrons and positrons as the constituents of heavy particles—neutrons and protons, muons etc., are better founded based on observable real time phenomena. William Stubbs’s and Philippe Hatt’s theories are pertinent, since they allow accurate prediction of measurable nuclear parameters—charge, rest mass, magnetic moment, spin, electron scattering results etc. I do consider that there are minimum quanta of angular momentum that exist associated with particles including photons. This stems from Planck’s theory and his empirical constant “h”. And I consider that any form of energy--potential or kinetic--can be interchanged with other forms of energy. The energy associated with spin is a key intrinsic characteristic of matter and radiation whose coupling between a nuclei and electrons of a atom or system of atoms is not well defined by math. However this coupling provides a mechanism for transfer of energy from a nucleus in the form of spin energy to orbital spin of a metal lattice of atoms, for example. The whole system of nuclei and electrons conserves energy and angular momentum, but realizes a large change in the form of energy from a potential energy of a nucleus to kinetic (phonic vibrational energy)—temperature—of the entireI lattice of atoms. Conservation of energy via energetic single particles (opposite electric centers of charge) does not happen. This is the crux of LENR where there is no energetic radiation (particles or EM) happening in the exchange. It does seem to lead to a “cooling” of the system of atoms which then in subsequent SLOW interactions with other matter systems radiates infrared EM photons to the universe. This may provide some answer to your inquiry of good questions IMHO. Bob Cook From: Stephen Cooke<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 6:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: [Vo]:ICIN-G The following thoughts are purely conceptual and speculative and lack the deeper understanding and critical analysis of most concepts discussed here but i have been wondering about them so i thought someone here might be able to help. I have been wondering over past months what happens when an atom in ground state becomes "colder". Both at electron orbital and nucleus level. In the past i questioned here i think but also on the physics stack exchange what happens to lower electron shell levels when a a nucleus undergoes decay or if some other transient particle interaction (such as a proton or neutron) inside the electron orbitals causes the electron existing energy to be insufficient to remain in the lower orbital. I was wondering if it could lead to "Hydrino", "Hyds" states for example or other less stable lower energy states of the electron or the energy would be recovered from elsewhere. (I suppose its would be also relevant to electrons higher orbitals if their energy was insufficient and what this would mean if lower energy electrons over populated the available orbitals). I was wondering if their could be some quantised photon emission signature in some transitions that could be observed when a system moved from a lower to higher energy state and what would happen if it moved from a higher to lower energy state. At the time a little over a year ago i think i had some reply on physics stack exchange that my question was relevant but in fact the electrons would remain in their orbitals due to their probability function and quantum mechanical nature of the electrons within atoms. Never the less if this were to happen i suppose energy would need to be extracted from the system to account for the energy removed by the interaction. I suppose that energy would need to come from the nucleus or extracted from some other external source. More recently i have been wondering about a another very speculative but related question: What happens in a nucleus if it is in ground state has energy extracted from it by some interaction (perhaps such as that above) such that it can no longer support the nucleons in ground state? Conservation rules would require the number of quarks to remain the same etc? but a lot of the energy (and mass) would be tied up in Gluons and the Strong force? Would there be a path where a Gluon could decay into photons but still retain conservation of states in a nucleus. If so the interactions between nucleons are often visualised as an exchange of virtual pions. What would happen to the nucleons if one of these were to disappear due to insufficient energy in the system? I'm wondering if there is a path here to "very cold nuclear effects" at local atomic/ nucleus level a kind of (Incredibly Cold Induced Nuclear de Generation [ICIN-G]). Are these thoughts and concepts credible? And if so has any work been done on these kinds of concepts?
