Jones--
Assuming the Uncertainty Principle applies to a proton approaching the Dirac
sea it may gain substantial energy given the dimensional constraint. This
energy may be enough to allow it to react in 3-d space and explain the
coupling between the ZPE and the proton.
On the other hand the size of the Z point or line as it may be must be
pretty small, between the proton size and the Heisenberg dimension of about
10^-35 cm. It may be that the wave of the proton is such that it can "fit
inside" the dimension of the single line of the Dirac sea and become a
virtual charge, combine with an electron and hence pop out of the
constrained sea (line) as an H with lots of extra energy. Maybe the
production of the H in the Muzino experiment is the production of H from D
that must have a size about that of a proton and may fit inside the Dirac
sea better but end up as two protons being spit out with some energy.
Since quarks were not known when Dirac hypothesized the sea, he probably did
not address them.
Has anyone to your knowledge addressed quarks (not sharks) in the Dirac sea?
And could this explain the Heisenberg constant--ie., the association with
the "dimension" of the Dirac sea?
Lastly, I am surprised that you would say that the interaction between the
sea and 3-d is electrostatic and not also magnetic. It may be that the
Dirac sea has magnetic monopoles that get together with other virtual
particles to form the 3-d particles we know with magnetic moments. I read
about an experiment a month or so ago where a researcher had claimed
existence of a magnetic monopole for a short time near 0 degrees K.
I've got more questions than answers.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The "real" chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Bob,
Another point for consideration, especially in invoking a “Dirac sea”
modality for some or all of the energy gain in Ni-H involves magnetism, but
in the context of one dimensionality.
It is clear that many experiments (Ahern et al) show a peak in thermal gain
near the Curie point of nickel – (or the Néel temperature) meaning that the
modality is magnetic, to some extent. This is unlikely to be coincidental
and the implication is that there is oscillation around the Curie point (or
the Néel temperature which is an alternate magnetic modality).
H2 is diamagnetic. With monatomic H, the single electron provides an
effective field of something like 12.5 Tesla at Angstrom dimension. With the
bare proton, no electron, the situation is less clear. Believe it or not,
this has not been measured accurately.
The real problem is that the magnetic moment of the proton is 660 times
smaller than that of the electron, which means that any field is
considerably harder to detect from a distance. OTOH, due to inverse square,
at the interface with 1D, the effective magnetic field of the proton should
be in the millions of Tesla.
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html#jCp
<http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html>
Even if the Dirac sea does not normally feel a magnetic field from 3-space,
there is lots of negative charge in that dimension, and it should feel some
bleed-over from 3-space at the interface with a proton. Therefore a magnetic
component is likely to be found - in the situation where a bare proton
interacts with the Dirac sea in a gainful way.
_____________________________________________
From: Bob Cook
"In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional
(1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas
no other atom can easily do this."
Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of
interaction between the proton and the sea?
The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has
a pretty good writeup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be
angling for is the chiral anomaly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly
which can partially explain many things of interest … on the
fringe …
Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the
proton at the interface?
My assumption is yes.
Jones
From: Bob Higgins
Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are
describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically
deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with
other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic
H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy.
This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT
talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread.
(after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake.
We are talking about the bare proton only.
To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any
atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible
exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more
compact). Consider this:
Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about
0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton
is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or
0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to
the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of
that, if expressed as smaller volume).
This is like going from an inch to a mile !
and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of
the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can
be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must
define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like.
In short, monatomic H is about
1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps
it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial
excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac
sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with
that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this.
This would not be chemical, but would fall
into the category of ZPE.
The two are not incompatible. The only
reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of
Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO.
Such possibilities may exist (only
postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as "chemical".
Why not? We are talking about electron
effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not
a nuclear effect.
Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into
another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the
effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the
imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to
acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at
some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their
entire careers.
Jones
