Abd, I intend to do some more research on this - plasmonics is pretty dicey.
I'm not sure whether a nanowire has a cross-section large enough to scatter gammas originating at any significant distance, thoug, unless they are extremely collimated. But, I am more optimistic than you are that W-L would pass this test. According to the calculations in the paper I cited, the enormous effective (not relativistic) mass of those electrons make each look like a subatomic battering ram to any particle unfortunate enough to collide with one. I will try to find a local college with appropriate lab resources. There's a slim chance I can get it done. Probably expensive. Too bad I lost the lottery. Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 03:29 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: >>Abd, >> >>Regarding the absence of gammas - >>... is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would >>experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before >>escaping as a less energetic photon? If this is plausible, could we >>confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires >>and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally >> scattered >>during current flow? > > Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the > supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, > drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be > seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma > energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this > should not be difficult to detect. > > Since Larsen patented this, it's really on him to demonstrate it. I'm > not about to try setting up some complex experiment just to prove a > wild theory wrong. > > Now, if I had a reason to believe W-L theory, if I were a proponent > of it, then, sure, the experiment would be very much in order. > > Widom and Larsen are raising a highly unlikely theory *without any > experimental evidence specifically supporting it.* > > If they published a gamma screen paper, with sufficient detail for > replication, and showing their own results, *then* we'd see some > movement on this. Until then, it's fancy pie in the sky. > > That wouldn't prove W-L theory, but a successful prediction is golden > for moving ahead with new science. > > >
