Bob said: The following quote from the abstract cited below from Nature seems like a lot of hand waving to me.
Axil says: >From what I can tell, this theory of how the fractional quantum hall effect(FQHE) works is universally accepted in science and is one of the backbone theories of how cooper pairs of electrons form in a superconductor, Bob said: "In effect, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between electrons is overscreened in the = 5/2 state by the formation of composite fermions, resulting in a weak, attractive interaction." Overscreened by what? Axil says: A magnetic field will produce a pair of vortexes of magnetic flux that connects themselves to the electron. As the magnetic field increases, addition pairs of vortexes are created in quantum steps. These are Anyons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon “In physics, an anyon is a type of particle that occurs only in two-dimensional systems, with properties much less restricted than fermions and bosons; the operation of exchanging two identical particles may cause a global phase shift but cannot affect observables. Anyons are generally classified as abelian or non-abelian, as explained below.” These vortexes are also called quasiholes. They have fractional positive charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect “Laughlin states and fractionally-charged quasiparticles: this theory, proposed by Laughlin, is based on accurate trial wave functions for the ground state at fraction as well as its quasiparticle and quasihole excitations. The excitations have fractional charge of magnitude e=c/q.” Bob asks: A positive Coulomb charge? Axil answers: Yes, a fractional positive charge. Bob asks: Or maybe holes in the electron sea that seem a little positive with respect to the rest of the sea? Axil answers: Yes. These are quasiholes that form in a two dimensional system in the vacuum by a magnetic field and connect themselves to the electron. GOOGLE quasiholes to see the theory behind the concept and observe how much work has gone into this theory. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Axil and Dave-- > > The following quote from the abstract cited below from Nature seems like a > lot of hand waving to me. > > "In effect, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between electrons is > overscreened in the [image: nu] = 5/2 state by the formation of composite > fermions, resulting in a weak, attractive interaction." > > Overscreened by what? A positive Coulomb charge? Or maybe holes in the > electron sea that seem a little positive with respect to the rest of the > sea? It seems that whatever is causing the attraction must get between the > two particles being paired if its a screening effect. > > I think it is more likely that the charge of an electron is distributed > over a volume--at least the source of the virtual photons that carry the > force from an electron emanate from a volume of the electron. As the > volumes of the pairing electrons coincide there is a reduced repulsive > force, since the centers are inside the surface of each of the respective > electron's spherical surfaces and the virtual photons can have no effect of > force on the center of mass of either electron. Of course TMK no one > knows the volume or the structure of an electron nor the charge density as > the radius goes to 0 radius at the effective center. The spin attraction > is a much shorter range force and acts within the spherical boundaries of > the electrons. > > In effect the electron surface boundary is a surface like the vacuum > surface in ZPE theory. Inside the surface you have virtual photons coming > and going in equal amounts, establishing a force field that affects other > electrons and electrically charged particles. The center of the electron > is made of a fine line of virtual + and - magnetic monopoles that are > segregated at each end of the fine line. The virtual magnetic monopoles > are constant spin particles and transmit the magnetic force outside the > boundary of the electron as a magnetic field. > > They obey the theory of constant spin particles being touted by the likes > of Schuster and Toto in Canada. See the item cited below. > > arXiv:1302.3225v2 [hep-th] 1 Nov 2013 > > > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:58 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6798/abs/406863a0.html > > *Cooper instability of composite fermions* > > > This should answer your question about cooper pairing and how it happens. > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> I am a bit confused about how the electron pair acts like a -2 charge in >> an atom according to your theory. Do you visualize the -2 charge pair >> orbiting a nucleus of hydrogen for example in this description? Or, are >> they moving together as a pair that does not require a positive charge to >> keep them together? >> >> It is good to see that you have been considering the pairing of electrons >> as a unit. That is the root of my question about whether or not electrons >> repel each other at all normal distances. Much depends upon how the spin >> generated magnetic field falls off with distance when compared with >> electric field fall off. >> >> The Dirac articles imply that the energy associated with the spin >> magnetic field is greater than that of the energy needed to free up the >> epos. I find this very interesting and also leads me to question the >> normal pair production concept. My tendency is to cling to the COE with >> all claws until no other explanation can be proven. >> >> If epos actually exist, they would be neutral and difficult to isolate. >> One might suggest that a large magnetic field might be able to pull them >> apart in a matter somewhat like we are considering for the activity of LENR >> systems. There seems to be so many possible avenues to explore as we >> attempt to explain how nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures. >> Spin coupling via strong magnetic forces still offers the best solutions in >> my estimate. It will be ironic if it turns out that the high energy >> physics experiments totally miss this means of interaction due to the very >> fact that they operate at such elevated energy levels and low densities. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 6:50 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance >> >> Dave-- >> >> Also it has been my concept that the pair act like a -2 charge in an >> atom. The dipole interaction distance is fairly short compared to the 1/r >> associated with a bare charge. I also like to think of the attraction as >> a spin coupling effect not unlike the spin orbit force discussed in the >> following item: The mechanism is not described very well in this item >> however. >> >> arXiv.org <http://arxiv.org/> > >> nucl-ex<http://arxiv.org/list/nucl-ex/recent>> arXiv:1401.1593v1 >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:06 AM >> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance >> >> Dave asked: >> “The fact that a pair of electrons can work together even though they >> are repelled by the electric charge they possess leads me to wonder how >> they ever work as a pair.” >> Just one more of the inconsistencies in modern fizzix dogma… >> >> If the electron/hole is modeled as a dipole-like oscillation, then the >> answer to your question Is very simple… two electron-oscillations 180 >> degrees out of phase will ‘couple’, and the complementary ends together >> will cancel what we call ‘charge’, the pair is free to move w/o being >> influenced by other charged entities in the lattice. >> >> -Mark >> >> *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com <dlrober...@aol.com?>] >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:57 AM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject:* [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance >> >> We have been discussing spin coupling as one element that might allow >> LENR to proceed without dangerous radiation emissions. And, it is well >> known that super conductive materials use Cooper pairs of electrons to >> operate. >> >> The fact that a pair of electrons can work together even though they are >> repelled by the electric charge they possess leads me to wonder how they >> ever work as a pair. The force of repulsion between two like charges >> varies as the square of the distance separating them according to the E >> field distribution. The closer they approach each other, the stronger is >> the repulsion. But magnetic near field effects vary as the third order >> with distance for two pole sources. >> >> If the electrons find a way to allow the magnetic attraction to be >> positive by for example having opposite spin, then is there a certain >> distance where the two forces balance out? If so, one might expect the two >> to actually become attracted to each other when closer approach occurs. >> So, does spin of an electron lead to a magnetic field that can actually >> allow a pair to become attracted at very close ranges? >> >> If the attraction possibility exists would it be demonstrated in a beam >> of electrons traveling within a vacuum? The relative velocity and hence >> temperature variation along the beam can be reduced significantly by >> adjusting the source and control electrodes. >> >> Another question that immediately comes to the table is whether or not >> pairs of electrons are the natural manner in which they exist within >> metals, etc. Do techniques exist that can prove that they are individuals >> under normal conditions or do we just make that assumption? Perhaps >> slightly elevated temperatures break apart the weak connection that exists >> between pairs or relatively small electromagnetic fields tear them apart >> under test conditions. >> >> One observation that appears valid is that electrons certainly occur in >> pairs around nuclei. Could that be their normal state of existence? >> >> Dave >> >> >
