The atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate follow the Jaynes-Cummings model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model
Jaynes–Cummings model More to the point, when a Ni/H system get going after state up, the systems becomes totally entangled. This type of system is described by the Jaynes–Cummings–Hubbard model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model Drawing a connection between the Ni/H reactor and a Bose-Einstein condensate as follows: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20208523 In spite of their different natures, light and matter can be unified under the strong-coupling regime, yielding superpositions of the two, referred to as dressed states or polaritons. After initially being demonstrated in bulk semiconductors and atomic systems, strong-coupling phenomena have been recently realized in solid-state optical microcavities. Strong coupling is an essential ingredient in the physics spanning from many-body quantum coherence phenomena, such as Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity, to cavity quantum electrodynamics. Within cavity quantum electrodynamics, the Jaynes-Cummings model describes the interaction of a single fermionic two-level system with a single bosonic photon mode. For a photon number larger than one, known as quantum strong coupling, a significant anharmonicity is predicted for the ladder-like spectrum of dressed states. For optical transitions in semiconductor nanostructures, first signatures of the quantum strong coupling were recently reported. Here we use advanced coherent nonlinear spectroscopy to explore a strongly coupled exciton-cavity system. We measure and simulate its four-wave mixing response, granting direct access to the coherent dynamics of the first and second rungs of the Jaynes-Cummings ladder. The agreement of the rich experimental evidence with the predictions of the Jaynes-Cummings model is proof of the quantum strong-coupling regime in the investigated solid-state system. This says to me that the Ni/H system obeys the same rules as the BEC. I showed you that in such a Jaynes-Cummings system, the atoms share the frequency of a quantum as defined by a coupling constant. This how the FREQUENT of a gamma ray quantum is shared(chopped up) between all the ensemble members of the NI/H system. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Axil, I have no idea what your comment means in the context of the subject > we are discussing here. Please explain. > > Ed Storms > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf > > *Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells* > ** > We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum, > stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes-Cummings > systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal > field modes, and *we solve and characterize the combined system for the > case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy. > * > > > Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy > > You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of the > quantum based on the coupling constant. > > > See figures 3 and 4. > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The laws >> of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and how >> the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not address >> the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that cannot be >> identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of thermodynamic. >> Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, regardless of how >> it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics. NO VIOLATION >> EXISTS. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t >> seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a >> de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is >>> more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. >>> >>> This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd >>> law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation >>> showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t >>> believe their lying eyes. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental >>>>>> result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not >>>>>> good"? >>>>>> >>>>>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right >>>>> and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. >>>>> >>>> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. >>>>> >>>> ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. Most people still assume >>>> it's wrong. There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment >>>> could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which >>>>> appear to be wrong on the face of it. >>>>> >>>> ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows >>>> BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas >>>> in LENR. Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up. First, it >>>> was high temperature BECs forming. Second, it is that BECs absorb energy. >>>> BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas >>>> do. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Jed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
