RE: [Vo]:Fermi-Lab discovers NEW PARTICLE, another flavor of Neutrino, possible insight into dark energy.
Yes, this new neutrino is big news. And another paper due out soon is worth considering in this regard: Georges Lochak's four photon model (not yet in publications). One reason to give it credence is *lepton fourfold symmetry* which would be implied in having four neutrinos along with four flavors of photon. Georges Lochak was deBroglie final graduate student and is also an interpreter of Dirac. Some of the background on Lochak's thinking is found in earlier works on magnetic monopoles. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r21x574p01353158/ But aside from this, please keep a lookout for his new paper: A theory of light with 4 different photons : Electric and Magnetic with spin 1 and 0 .. I should mention that Don Hotson has had a look, and is not enthusiastic about Lochak. His first take on this paper was to consider Lochak's theory to be a giant step backwards, since Don's interpretation of Dirac calls for basically no photons. Some of this is semantics, since Don considers the 'photon' to be something akin to an elemental IOU - an illusory bundle of angular momentum, and who needs four of them? I am hoping he will have a closer look, if only because symmetry is nice. However, in the end I think that physics will want to keep up the appearance of verbal continuity is its description of fundamental particles, even if they are non-particles . and even those who suspect that Hotson is ultimately correct in his main premise - will continue to address the situation is the almost the same way as before. Photons are photons, and if there are 4 flavors, so be it. Ockham be damned. BTW - Don Hotson is in poor health and our thoughts and prayers should be with him. He is truly a great thinker, even to those of us who can just barely comprehend what he is talking about. Jones From: seattle truth. This is big news But because it slaps the current models in the face, all the scientists involved will probably lose their grants and get blacklisted. ; ) I wouldn't be surprised. By the way, it seems that this new neutrino is immune from the weak nuclear force. Only gravity effects it, or something like that. Read for yourself. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/fermilab-experiment-hints-exis tence-new-elementary-particle Physicists working with a Fermilab neutrino experiment may have found http://www.rdmag.com/News/2010/11/General-Science-Physics-Physics-Experimen t-Suggests-Existence-Of-New-Particle/ a new elementary particle whose behavior breaks the known laws of physics. If correct, their results poke holes in the accepted Standard Model of particles and forces, and raise some interesting questions for the Large Hadron Collider and Tevatron experiments. The new particle could even explain the existence of dark matter.
RE: [Vo]:Fermi-Lab discovers NEW PARTICLE, another flavor of Neutrino, possible insight into dark energy.
Oops I should have made it a little clearer why four versions of photons might translate into four derivative versions of electrons - in the pursuit of lepton symmetry. However, doing a good job on that task, especially first thing in the morning, is a little above my pay scale. Jones From: Jones Beene Yes, this new neutrino is big news. And another paper due out soon is worth considering in this regard: Georges Lochak's four photon model (not yet in publications). One reason to give it credence is *lepton fourfold symmetry* which would be implied in having four neutrinos along with four flavors of photon. Georges Lochak was deBroglie final graduate student and is also an interpreter of Dirac. Some of the background on Lochak's thinking is found in earlier works on magnetic monopoles. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r21x574p01353158/ But aside from this, please keep a lookout for his new paper: A theory of light with 4 different photons : Electric and Magnetic with spin 1 and 0 .. I should mention that Don Hotson has had a look, and is not enthusiastic about Lochak. His first take on this paper was to consider Lochak's theory to be a giant step backwards, since Don's interpretation of Dirac calls for basically no photons. Some of this is semantics, since Don considers the 'photon' to be something akin to an elemental IOU - an illusory bundle of angular momentum, and who needs four of them? I am hoping he will have a closer look, if only because symmetry is nice. However, in the end I think that physics will want to keep up the appearance of verbal continuity is its description of fundamental particles, even if they are non-particles . and even those who suspect that Hotson is ultimately correct in his main premise - will continue to address the situation is the almost the same way as before. Photons are photons, and if there are 4 flavors, so be it. Ockham be damned. BTW - Don Hotson is in poor health and our thoughts and prayers should be with him. He is truly a great thinker, even to those of us who can just barely comprehend what he is talking about. Jones From: seattle truth. This is big news But because it slaps the current models in the face, all the scientists involved will probably lose their grants and get blacklisted. ; ) I wouldn't be surprised. By the way, it seems that this new neutrino is immune from the weak nuclear force. Only gravity effects it, or something like that. Read for yourself. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/fermilab-experiment-hints-exis tence-new-elementary-particle Physicists working with a Fermilab neutrino experiment may have found http://www.rdmag.com/News/2010/11/General-Science-Physics-Physics-Experimen t-Suggests-Existence-Of-New-Particle/ a new elementary particle whose behavior breaks the known laws of physics. If correct, their results poke holes in the accepted Standard Model of particles and forces, and raise some interesting questions for the Large Hadron Collider and Tevatron experiments. The new particle could even explain the existence of dark matter.
RE: [Vo]:Fermi-Lab discovers NEW PARTICLE, another flavor of Neutrino, possible insight into dark energy.
... However, in the end I think that physics will want to keep up the appearance of verbal continuity is its description of fundamental particles, even if they are non-particles. ... It's not only a matter of verbal continuity. Five hundred years of materialism will not dissappear with the discovery of a new particle, independently of how elusive, virtual or etheric it could be. By the way, neutrinos and virtual particles are the ghost haunters of scientists. Not to talk about dark energy and dark matter, the two modern obscurum per obscurius twins, the heralds of obscurantism.
[Vo]:Palladium is unique in one way
Whenever any element seems to work better than all of the others, it makes sense to look at the totality of physical properties for that element. Even those which may not be obviously connected to the way in which it works best. To that end, one must ask: Is there any way in which palladium is unique - in the sense of a singularity ? Yes, there is at least one - and the possible connection to LENR is not obvious. There could be others, but there is one for sure, and I've not seen this alluded to before in the literature - even as trivia, so it is worth a mention. At this point, my original plan was to leave you guessing as to what the unique physical property consisted of, but in the interest of full disclosure, let's cut to the chase: after much diligence it has been noticed that Palladium is apparently the only element in the periodic table where there are elements with a lower atomic number which nevertheless have more electron shells! Doooh, do I hear someone mumbling where's the beef? Well, you might say that this so-called singular property is a bit underwhelming to begin with, since it is dependent on precise wording. Maybe so. Still it does indicate uniqueness in electron structure; and presumably electron orbitals are the first problem, at the angstrom level, which an approaching deuteron must deal with if it wants to react . to wax a bit anthropomorphic. This is a type of structural parsimony that is likely to be more interesting in the context of other properties, who knows? My main concern is - does this property relate in any other non-obvious or compound way, which is useful to promoting robust LENR ? Does it imply a way to look for other elements or alloys that can do it better? The answer is yes, but I will leave you guessing on that one. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Starting website based on Z's theories
From Seattle: Just so you guys know, I purchased the domain http://quantumtransition.com the other day and a kind soul in the UK is designing the site and donating hosting. It will be up soon. Please keep us posted as developments unfold. Some on this list will be curious. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:This was fun: Physics Forums
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=448456 Thread closed rapidly. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2990936postcount=21 My guess is that someone complained. Typical. I have no idea what the moderator will decide. Still, I got in quite a few refutations of the nonsense being confidently asserted by pseudoskeptics. It might get through to some, whether them or someone else seeing the thread from searches. I originally found the thread because it popped up in a search for Storms Status of cold fusion (2010) which is how I quickly find the links to the paper. And I'm responding to the responses to me that started to come in. The usual intense bogosity confidently asserted as if it were the Scientific Consensus and Who the Hell are You to Question Me? See http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7618367/ Really funny, and all too true, video on pseudoskepticism. I like especially the last lines, where the cool and collected scientist blows him away by saying, in response to his comment about aliens, I know aliens are real because I have seen them. Typically for a pseudoskeptic, he doesn't ask her what she means, shows no curiosity that someone who doesn't look at all crazy would say such a thing, he just says, You're crazy, I'm out of here. What did she mean? I have no idea! And, I think, that's the point. Pseudoskeptics reject stuff when they have No Idea what is meant. Maybe she meant, I see one right now, your views are alien to the very concept of science, as built up using the scientific method. Characteristic of pseudoskeptics is a profound lack of curiosity. Nobody has to drop everything because someone says they saw a ghost! But if I were actually talking with someone who said that, I'd ask *lots* of questions. What did you see, exactly? Sounds? What else was happening? How did you feel later? And on and on. And I'd watch them closely as they responded, allowing them to communicate through all the media including their eye movements and body language. I'd let them know that I was truly listening to them. Did they actually see a ghost? What the hell is a ghost? Is it outside the mind or inside it? To flat-out deny, without specific evidence, someone's experience, reported by them, is phenomenally rude, for starters. To try to understand it is the opposite. There could be many possible explanations for ghost, some interesting, some not. I'll never know if I knee-jerk reject what someone is standing in front of me, telling me. Their experience. I don't have to accept their conclusions! I'll respond to the comments on my posts in a response to this.
Re: [Vo]:Fermi-Lab discovers NEW PARTICLE, another flavor of Neutrino, possible insight into dark energy.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I should mention that Don Hotson has had a look, and is not enthusiastic about Lochak. His first take on this paper was to consider Lochak's theory to be a “giant step backwards”, since Don’s interpretation of Dirac calls for basically “no photons”. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/17/breakthrough-mysterious-antimatter-created-captured/?test=latestnews http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/17/breakthrough-mysterious-antimatter-created-captured/?test=latestnewsHave you ever considered the relationship between Ken Shoulders charge clusters and Hotson's explanation of the masses of the proton and neutron? I consider the epo to be a rotation of mirror particles between the - + universes with the transition occurring near the breast of the candle dancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYBqIRM8GiY (1 min. 12 sec) Could the energy of the referenced foxnews article clip the rotation sequence at the breast and create charge clusters of positrons. Elohim! I love speculations! (And merlot) T
Re: [Vo]:This was fun: Physics Forums
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2990888postcount=17 Re: General consensus on Cold Fusion better known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions L Originally Posted by Abd Lomaxhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2990858#post2990858 Storms is quite conservative. I don't think the following quote from his 2010 review paper can be called conservative: Starting in 1963, L.C. Kervran (1963, 1972, 1980) proposed that living organisms could create elements they needed by transmuting available elements. This idea was widely rejected for lack of believable data and because it seemed impossible. In 1993, Thompkins and Byrd (1993) expanded on the idea in the book The Secret Life of Plants. In 1992, Komaki (1992, 1993) at the Biological and Agricultural Research Institute in Shiga-ken, Japan undertook a study of molds and yeasts when the organisms were denied essential elements in their culture. They attempted to determine if the necessary elements could be created by transmutation. Using modern analytical tools, these living organisms were shown to increase the concentrations of potassium, magnesium, iron, and calcium in their cells over the amounts available. Vysotskii and coworkers at Kiev Shevchenko University, Ukraine (Vysotskii, Kornilova et al 1996; Vysotskii and Kornilova 2003; Vysotskii, Kornilova et al 1996; Vysotskii, Kornilova et al 2001; Vysotskii, Tashyrev et al 2008) carried the work further by making Fe57 from Mn55 when a collection of bacteria were grown in D2O. The Fe57 was detected using the Mossbauer effect, which is uniquely sensitive to this one isotope and could be used to monitor the reaction rate. The process also has been found to accelerate radioactive decay of some elements. Consequently, bacteria are being explored as a way to rapidly decontaminate soil. While such claims are hard to accept, evidence for them is mounting. If real, the claim adds one more process an explanation must address. In particular, an explanation must account for how the resulting large nuclear energy is released without killing the organism; otherwise the claimed ability obviously could not have been developed by evolution. Further simplification of an explanation can be achieved by assuming the initiation process and the method of energy release used by life-forms applies to all cold-fusion reactions regardless of the products or experimental conditions. The author realizes that many people find a claim for occurrence of nuclear reactions in living cells hard to accept and that many more replications are required before the claim can be fully justified. Nevertheless, the evidence is growing and needs to be debated in the context of cold-fusion. A fuller quote of what I wrote: Storms is quite conservative. The evidence supports the claim. That understates the strength of the evidence. It is not marginal. That comment was not a general comment about Storms, but about the specific statement made. This writer, http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=211768bcrowell, active on Science Forums, has taken the statement out of context. This particular argument has been alleged before about Storms on Wikipedia, specifically because Storms mentions the work of Vysotskii in his book (2007), and the arguments of bcrowell are very familiar Wikipedia arguments, as if taken from a standing playlist. However, that comment from the review is actually conservative. Storms does not state that biological transmutation is real, but is noting a rather obvious fact: we reject the concept of biological transmutation because we reject the concept of nuclear reactions at low temperatures. If cold fusion is real -- and it is -- then we cannot quite so confidently reject it out-of-hand. Storms notes, correctly -- I'm made the same point many times, that many more replications are required before the claim can be fully justified. Let me explain that a little. Vyosotskii's claims are very well supported by what he reports of experimental evidence. But major claims like this cannot be given deep credence until and unless verified independently. Until that happens, we cannot present his results as fact, but it is standard scientific courtesy to report his observations as if they are actual observations and not fraudulently presented -- or totally bogus and the result of what bcrowell asserts below. What bcrowell is doing is grandstanding, presenting arguments that could be expected to produce knee-jerk responses, i.e., based on the idea that any mention of biological transmutation must be totally insane, kooky, not to mention fringe. It is fringe, to be sure, but fringe is not a synonym for bad research, bogus, fraud, or complete idiocy. That's a pseudoskeptical position. It is not at all scientific. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2990904postcount=19 e: General consensus on Cold Fusion better known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions L
Re: [Vo]:Starting website based on Z's theories
Whow Lane. Thanks. You need to make some money. Sell some stuff please. Sell videos. Sell Jed''s book. I want to get the de bed bug technology working so we can sell it. Frank -Original Message- From: seattle truth seattle.tr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 17, 2010 12:14 pm Subject: [Vo]:Starting website based on Z's theories Just so you guys know, I purchased the domain http://quantumtransition.com the other day and a kind soul in the UK is designing the site and donating hosting. It will be up soon. Also I am basically doing a rewrite of Znidarsic's newest papers more along the lines of quantum transition for dummies wherein it can be understood by a laymen from the first read through. All of the papers (Znidarsics originals, AlienScientists new paper, and my paper) will be hosted on the website... I hope that this will give people the Goldilocks level of academic stimulation that they need (mines for beginners, Z's for intermediate, AlienScientist for calculus). But the MOST IMPORTANT part of the website will be the dedicated forum with many subsections. My goal is that this forum will turn into a never-ending Copenhagen convention wherein like minds can work together to both learn the math/theory (and get help when needed), but also to take the math to a new level and solve new quantum mechanical equations in terms of Vt. And of course, the webpage will have the entire video series embedded in one place. Also I've been contacted by a CGI developer, he wants to help make some computer generated illustrations of the quantum transition. Not sure how that will work out (English isn't his first language) but either way this website will give people the opportunity to learn, discuss, and debate Znidarsic's theories.
RE: [Vo]:Fermi-Lab discovers NEW PARTICLE, another flavor of Neutrino, possible insight into dark energy.
From: Terry Blanton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYBqIRM8GiY Fabulous animation, especially at the end .
