Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Why not two dimensions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle The universe is just a gigantic turing machine: https://who.rocq.inria.fr/Gilles.Dowek/Publi/universality2d.pdf On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote: There is a movement in quantum physics that I am partial to, that movement involves the 5th dimension. Some big names in physics think that the 5th dimension holds the path to new and better explanations involving the subatomic world. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13070896/#.UrcvUbmA2AI “SEATTLE - The cosmos would make perfect sense … if it turns out we're living in a 10- or 11-dimensional realm where gravity is bubbling off a different plane entirely. At least that's what's emerging as the hottest concept on the frontier of physics.” The 5th dimension makes sense to me as a hidden dimension that provides communication between subatomic particles and supports the infrastructure of gravity. http://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html Creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole The quarks are connected by a wormhole that exists in the 5th dimension where space and time does not exist. The 5th diminution is where wormholes exist, and where space and time does not. Those who are interested in LENR might want to look beyond the billiard ball model of the universe into waves and strings of light and their tips (topological defects). We can see this multi-dimensional principle in operation in a two dimensional allegorical world on the surface of a swimming pool where the counter rotating solitons are connected in a higher third dimension within the depths of water in the pool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=909o_kbCdFg Quarks are localized and confined vortexes (aka solitons) of energy that exist in the Higgs field that do not dissipate because of the agency of the superfuildic superconductivity of the Higgs field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ederft9dkag Baths and Quarks: Solitons explained Entanglement exists and is mediated in the 5th dimension and entanglement stores energy when the quarks are formed or when the quarks are moved apart. The 5th dimension is where the connective strong force operates. When a subatomic particle forms, its isospin is rooted deep in the 5th dimension with just its vortex tip projecting into our 4 dimensional world. Electrons are just the tips of broken light strings whose spin is imbedded into the 5th dimension. A cooper pair of protons or electrons is connected by an energy channel that projects into the 5th dimension. Most of the energy that makes up matter is stored in the 5th dimension. Since all quarks are entangled, this entangled 5th dimension is where dark energy lives and gravity operates. Since the strong magnetic fields produced by LENR can destroy the superconductivity that the quarks exist in, the connective energy between the quarks is retrieved from the 5th dimension and made real again to reappear and reenter back into our world. LENR is a way to manipulate the quantum world of the 5th dimension. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in common sense. How can one NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In fact QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. No good mental model and ignoring what is real are both complete cop-outs. I agree that Quantum tunneling is what may be behind this, and a few Å is enough for it to start do it's work, But the validity of calculation of the expansion with a virtual particle that temporally breaks the momentum conservation for quite some distance, makes me vary and want to wait for the paper to be moderated by experts in the field. I could be wrong here but that's my current intuition, that you need much smaller distances for the expansion to be valid. Anyhow if one can show that the tunneling is
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Frank, First, pardon my lack of knowledge on your theory. My question may be naïve. The Diosi-Penrose model of quantum collapse merges QM with gravitational force. See, for example - Newton force from wave function collapse: speculation and test http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6404 Gravity-related wave function collapse: Is superfluid He exceptional? http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5364 Is your theory similar in any way to the above? -- Lou Pagnucco Frank Z wrote: The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the proper mathematical interpretation of reality. I agree. I noted a velocity in cold fusion and gravitational experiments. 1,094,000 meters per second. I assumed it was the velocity of a longitudinal mechanical wave in the nucleus. When I set this velocity equal to the velocity of light in the electronic structure of the atom; the quantum condition emerged. Planck's constant emerged from this classical analysis. To date no one cares but I am sure that someday they will. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Sun, Dec 22, 2013 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Extra dimensions are a way to make the math work in string theory. But no one is able or willing to make this math world match up with the real world. Math guys do not have very active imaginations. It took some time of Einstein's general equations to be mapped onto a valid view of the universe. For example, black holes are a projection of the math onto a physical reality that turned out to be real. I would say this differently, Axil. Black holes are a logical and necessary consequence of gravity interacting with mass-energy. The equations are only another way to describe this necessary event. The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the proper mathematical interpretation of reality. I agree. Ed Storms On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say about that argument. I just saw in the swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion about science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of the expert was that it was too much things that fell on place that they argue that the theory should be pretty much correct and that the theory predicted things that was shown correct. But then when I take my statistical and mathematical hat on I just see to much opportunity to add variables that are fitted in experiments and then the whole thing matches a theory of a certain order, that should by some expansion fit to a more conventional albeit perhaps a bit more nonlinear model. Then of cause the high dimensional theory would predict the right things if what is probed is for example the second order effects of the model. Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we live it must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply alternative arguments. As an example take the realization that if the physical constants was just a little of, then the universe would not allow us to live and because we live, the parameters are as they are assuming a multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all things have really fewer parameters and hence that the parameters really are dependant. But you never hear that possibility in the TV shows, which shows a good piece if overconfidence of what we have today. Cheers! /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I'm basing my remarks on what is known to be real. You seem to be impressed by the social status of the authors and the reputation of QM. I have great respect for QM but I have great disappointment with how it is frequently applied. Modern physics is so dominated by mathematical constructs, they ignore what is real, and then excuse this by saying that this approach is ok because the quantum world is so strange. They seem to make it as strange as possible just to avoid a challenge. I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. People do have tried to make it more tractable to calculate interactions with tools like Feynman diagrams and a well thought out mathematics that kind of translates between Newtonian mechanics and QM through the set of corresponding operators. Then when one start to read about relativistic QM with the Dirac Equation and the standard model it all becomes a huge mathematical generalization with many dimensions (degrees of freedom). Personally I believe that we can condense the descriptions to a conceptual representation in 3D or space time, but with actually a infinite dimension w.r.t. the number of freedoms. I base that on the concept of maybe the Higgs field. Then for one point in space you can see that you for each direction have a certain intensity e.g. the number of infinite degrees of freedom is the intensity per direction. Consider from this deviations from an even distribution according to first and second order variations. On top of this I would try to churn in the forces, for this I would note that the plane waves for EM has one direction of variation and two directions of no variation in space at any given time, the number of variates of this is ((constant) (changing) = (0 3) (1 2) (2 1) (3 0)) e.g. 4, and there is 4 known forces. To show that this description, probably modified to a good degree, but correspond to the standard model is not a small work if it bears some truth. But this is what kind of truth we should seek for and really exclude as a possibility before resting on descriptions that basically looks like a huge mathematical trick. When it comes to the actual article, I read that as if we have a three way interaction between two slow d for example and a free electron the can cause a fusion with much higher degree then at first sight if the paper have done the QM correct. I find it interesting because this is a new principle for how one can produce a nuclear reaction. But as noted getting two slow d and a free electron to collide to such a degree that the calculation is, well uncertain! Have fun! /Stefan
[Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
The comments yesterday of Tampe and Storms - dissing QM while trying hard not to sound too much like luddites - are not just regrettable and silly - almost unforgiveable in the pursuit of a solid scientific foundation for LENR ... especially since Storms is so widely known and respected. Storms: I have great respect for QM but I have great disappointment with how it is frequently applied. Modern physics is so dominated by mathematical constructs, they ignore what is real, and then excuse this by saying that this approach is ok because the quantum world is so strange. He then goes on to propose his own theory for LENR based on an equally unreal reaction, perhaps more improbably. Go figure. Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in common sense. How can one NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In fact QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. No good mental model and ignoring what is real are both complete cop-outs. I think Kalman has hit the nail on the heat with a version of neutron exchange which is applicable to LENR, but to be honest my mental model of the tunneling dynamics may not yet be what he is proposing. I hope that my understanding will be refined soon - since an attempt to contact Kalman has been made. My LENR-transposed model suggests that the two isotopes (Ni61and Ni58, and the other combinations) which are in the active nickel alloy, are adjoining at a few angstrom distance when an electron of modest energy (or more likely in LENR - a polariton) screens the two isotopes in such a way that a neutron tunnels from the Ni61 to the N58, leaving Ni60 and Ni59 - but otherwise the electron does not react. What we have in the end is the common isotope of Ni60 and also Ni59, but since the Ni59 goes to cobalt by EC with no gamma, that fact makes this proposal FALSIFIABLE. The half-life is long but in fact small amounts of cobalt have been reported in LENR. Tampe says he cannot get his mind around the Kalman model of quantum tunneling, due to the mathematics - even though he is sitting in front of a computer which is doing billions of QM tunneling reactions per second to put his words into cyberspace - and that CPU can do the mathematics for him. One type of tunneling in nuclear and the other is electromagnetic but they are part of the same QM phenomena - where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount. In fact, the nuclear version came before the semiconductor version and yet the later verifies the former. Is this a case of not seeing the forest for the trees? I hope that it is not an indication of a new type of circle-the-wagons mentality - or a reactionary response to the failure of the early experimenters to come up with an adequate theory after 23 years. The field is complicated and strange - but it cannot be defined in overly simplified platitudes. When all is said and done LENR is quantum mechanical to its core, and it behooves us all to try hard to accommodate that fact, with or without the mathematics. Kalman may have provided one huge clue for an M.O. that opens up everything. It is too early to say but it is way too early to dismiss this paper as being too strange or too mathematical. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in common sense. How can one NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In fact QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. No good mental model and ignoring what is real are both complete cop-outs. I agree that Quantum tunneling is what may be behind this, and a few Å is enough for it to start do it's work, But the validity of calculation of the expansion with a virtual particle that temporally breaks the momentum conservation for quite some distance, makes me vary and want to wait for the paper to be moderated by experts in the field. I could be wrong here but that's my current intuition, that you need much smaller distances for the expansion to be valid. Anyhow if one can show that the tunneling is so strong at these distances the paper will be a very nice piece of evidence. Also the QM mechanism behind this expansion, can perhaps lead to further development so I would not throw the paper away. I think Kalman has hit the nail on the heat with a version of neutron exchange which is applicable to LENR, but to be honest my mental model of the tunneling dynamics may not yet be what he is proposing. I hope that my understanding will be refined soon - since an attempt to contact Kalman has been made. My LENR-transposed model suggests that the two isotopes (Ni61and Ni58, and the other combinations) which are in the active nickel alloy, are adjoining at a few angstrom distance when an electron of modest energy (or more likely in LENR - a polariton) screens the two isotopes in such a way that a neutron tunnels from the Ni61 to the N58, leaving Ni60 and Ni59 - but otherwise the electron does not react. What we have in the end is the common isotope of Ni60 and also Ni59, but since the Ni59 goes to cobalt by EC with no gamma, that fact makes this proposal FALSIFIABLE. The half-life is long but in fact small amounts of cobalt have been reported in LENR. May be so Tampe says he cannot get his mind around the Kalman model of quantum tunneling, due to the mathematics - even though he is sitting in front of a computer which is doing billions of QM tunneling reactions per second to put his words into cyberspace - and that CPU can do the mathematics for him. One type of tunneling in nuclear and the other is electromagnetic but they are part of the same QM phenomena - where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount. In fact, the nuclear version came before the semiconductor version and yet the later verifies the former. It's not the tunneling that I do not understand, I have not followed all calculations and I'm really not an expert here with about a semester of QM 15 yeras ago, but I do not want say that it works and perhaps I need to stress it, it may work I don't know really. Kalman may have provided one huge clue for an M.O. that opens up everything. It is too early to say but it is way too early to dismiss this paper as being too strange or too mathematical. I do not dispute that this might be the final verdict of the paper, if I come through as a harch critic, I'm sorry for that, Just that it is wise to await peer review. Cheers!
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Jones, I know you have a different opinion but please try not to get personal. I provide facts to support my opinions, not personal comments. If you believe the Kalman approach is correct, please provide some objective support based on what is known to occur in nature. The claim, based on pure math, has no support that I'm aware of, neither in how CF behaves or in how nuclear reactions occur normally. Even if the proposed process actually occurred, it would not generate energy. QM only is useful if it actually describes actual behavior or actually explains something useful. To be clear, since you did not acknowledge what I said, I have great respect for QM when it is properly applied. Ed Storms On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote: The comments yesterday of Tampe and Storms - dissing QM while trying hard not to sound too much like luddites - are not just regrettable and silly - almost unforgiveable in the pursuit of a solid scientific foundation for LENR ... especially since Storms is so widely known and respected. Storms: I have great respect for QM but I have great disappointment with how it is frequently applied. Modern physics is so dominated by mathematical constructs, they ignore what is real, and then excuse this by saying that this approach is ok because the quantum world is so strange. He then goes on to propose his own theory for LENR based on an equally unreal reaction, perhaps more improbably. Go figure. Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in common sense. How can one NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In fact QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. No good mental model and ignoring what is real are both complete cop- outs. I think Kalman has hit the nail on the heat with a version of neutron exchange which is applicable to LENR, but to be honest my mental model of the tunneling dynamics may not yet be what he is proposing. I hope that my understanding will be refined soon - since an attempt to contact Kalman has been made. My LENR-transposed model suggests that the two isotopes (Ni61and Ni58, and the other combinations) which are in the active nickel alloy, are adjoining at a few angstrom distance when an electron of modest energy (or more likely in LENR - a polariton) screens the two isotopes in such a way that a neutron tunnels from the Ni61 to the N58, leaving Ni60 and Ni59 - but otherwise the electron does not react. What we have in the end is the common isotope of Ni60 and also Ni59, but since the Ni59 goes to cobalt by EC with no gamma, that fact makes this proposal FALSIFIABLE. The half-life is long but in fact small amounts of cobalt have been reported in LENR. Tampe says he cannot get his mind around the Kalman model of quantum tunneling, due to the mathematics - even though he is sitting in front of a computer which is doing billions of QM tunneling reactions per second to put his words into cyberspace - and that CPU can do the mathematics for him. One type of tunneling in nuclear and the other is electromagnetic but they are part of the same QM phenomena - where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount. In fact, the nuclear version came before the semiconductor version and yet the later verifies the former. Is this a case of not seeing the forest for the trees? I hope that it is not an indication of a new type of circle-the-wagons mentality - or a reactionary response to the failure of the early experimenters to come up with an adequate theory after 23 years. The field is complicated and strange - but it cannot be defined in overly simplified platitudes. When all is said and done LENR is quantum mechanical to its core, and it behooves us all to try hard to accommodate that fact, with or without the mathematics. Kalman may have provided one huge clue for an M.O. that opens up everything. It is too early to say but it is way too early to dismiss this paper as being too strange or too mathematical. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
There is a movement in quantum physics that I am partial to, that movement involves the 5th dimension. Some big names in physics think that the 5th dimension holds the path to new and better explanations involving the subatomic world. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13070896/#.UrcvUbmA2AI “SEATTLE - The cosmos would make perfect sense … if it turns out we're living in a 10- or 11-dimensional realm where gravity is bubbling off a different plane entirely. At least that's what's emerging as the hottest concept on the frontier of physics.” The 5th dimension makes sense to me as a hidden dimension that provides communication between subatomic particles and supports the infrastructure of gravity. http://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html Creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole The quarks are connected by a wormhole that exists in the 5th dimension where space and time does not exist. The 5th diminution is where wormholes exist, and where space and time does not. Those who are interested in LENR might want to look beyond the billiard ball model of the universe into waves and strings of light and their tips (topological defects). We can see this multi-dimensional principle in operation in a two dimensional allegorical world on the surface of a swimming pool where the counter rotating solitons are connected in a higher third dimension within the depths of water in the pool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=909o_kbCdFg Quarks are localized and confined vortexes (aka solitons) of energy that exist in the Higgs field that do not dissipate because of the agency of the superfuildic superconductivity of the Higgs field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ederft9dkag Baths and Quarks: Solitons explained Entanglement exists and is mediated in the 5th dimension and entanglement stores energy when the quarks are formed or when the quarks are moved apart. The 5th dimension is where the connective strong force operates. When a subatomic particle forms, its isospin is rooted deep in the 5th dimension with just its vortex tip projecting into our 4 dimensional world. Electrons are just the tips of broken light strings whose spin is imbedded into the 5th dimension. A cooper pair of protons or electrons is connected by an energy channel that projects into the 5th dimension. Most of the energy that makes up matter is stored in the 5th dimension. Since all quarks are entangled, this entangled 5th dimension is where dark energy lives and gravity operates. Since the strong magnetic fields produced by LENR can destroy the superconductivity that the quarks exist in, the connective energy between the quarks is retrieved from the 5th dimension and made real again to reappear and reenter back into our world. LENR is a way to manipulate the quantum world of the 5th dimension. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in common sense. How can one NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In fact QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. No good mental model and ignoring what is real are both complete cop-outs. I agree that Quantum tunneling is what may be behind this, and a few Å is enough for it to start do it's work, But the validity of calculation of the expansion with a virtual particle that temporally breaks the momentum conservation for quite some distance, makes me vary and want to wait for the paper to be moderated by experts in the field. I could be wrong here but that's my current intuition, that you need much smaller distances for the expansion to be valid. Anyhow if one can show that the tunneling is so strong at these distances the paper will be a very nice piece of evidence. Also the QM mechanism behind this expansion, can perhaps lead to further development so I would not throw the paper away. I think Kalman has hit the nail on the heat with a version of neutron exchange which is applicable to LENR, but to be honest my mental model of the tunneling dynamics may not yet be what he is proposing. I hope that my understanding will be refined soon - since an attempt to contact Kalman has been made. My LENR-transposed model suggests that the two isotopes (Ni61and Ni58, and the other combinations) which are in the active
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote: There is a movement in quantum physics that I am partial to, that movement involves the 5th dimension. Some big names in physics think that the 5th dimension holds the path to new and better explanations involving the subatomic world. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13070896/#.UrcvUbmA2AI “SEATTLE - The cosmos would make perfect sense … if it turns out we're living in a 10- or 11-dimensional realm where gravity is bubbling off a different plane entirely. At least that's what's emerging as the hottest concept on the frontier of physics.” The 5th dimension makes sense to me as a hidden dimension that provides communication between subatomic particles and supports the infrastructure of gravity. http://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html Creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole The quarks are connected by a wormhole that exists in the 5th dimension where space and time does not exist. The 5th diminution is where wormholes exist, and where space and time does not. Those who are interested in LENR might want to look beyond the billiard ball model of the universe into waves and strings of light and their tips (topological defects). We can see this multi-dimensional principle in operation in a two dimensional allegorical world on the surface of a swimming pool where the counter rotating solitons are connected in a higher third dimension within the depths of water in the pool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=909o_kbCdFg Quarks are localized and confined vortexes (aka solitons) of energy that exist in the Higgs field that do not dissipate because of the agency of the superfuildic superconductivity of the Higgs field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ederft9dkag Baths and Quarks: Solitons explained Entanglement exists and is mediated in the 5th dimension and entanglement stores energy when the quarks are formed or when the quarks are moved apart. The 5th dimension is where the connective strong force operates. When a subatomic particle forms, its isospin is rooted deep in the 5th dimension with just its vortex tip projecting into our 4 dimensional world. Electrons are just the tips of broken light strings whose spin is imbedded into the 5th dimension. A cooper pair of protons or electrons is connected by an energy channel that projects into the 5th dimension. Most of the energy that makes up matter is stored in the 5th dimension. Since all quarks are entangled, this entangled 5th dimension is where dark energy lives and gravity operates. Since the strong magnetic fields produced by LENR can destroy the superconductivity that the quarks exist in, the connective energy between the quarks is retrieved from the 5th dimension and made real again to reappear and reenter back into our world. LENR is a way to manipulate the quantum world of the 5th dimension. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in common sense. How can one NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In fact QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. No good mental model and ignoring what is real are both complete cop- outs. I agree that Quantum tunneling is what may be behind this, and a few Å is enough for it to start do it's work, But the validity of calculation of the expansion with a virtual particle that temporally breaks the momentum conservation for quite some distance, makes me vary and want to wait for the paper to be moderated by experts in the field. I could be wrong here but that's my current intuition, that you need much smaller distances for the expansion to be valid. Anyhow if one can show that the tunneling is so strong at these distances the paper will be a very nice piece of evidence. Also the QM mechanism behind this expansion, can perhaps lead to further development so I would not throw the paper away. I think Kalman has hit the nail
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Ed, These theorists and experimentalists are determined. They have spent 50 years and 10 billion bucks just to verify the existence of the Higgs field. So quantum mechanic understanding is not cheap or easy. What will be great is that LENR will give the world a new tool in the process of discovery, in which you will be in the vanguard. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote: There is a movement in quantum physics that I am partial to, that movement involves the 5th dimension. Some big names in physics think that the 5th dimension holds the path to new and better explanations involving the subatomic world. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13070896/#.UrcvUbmA2AI “SEATTLE - The cosmos would make perfect sense … if it turns out we're living in a 10- or 11-dimensional realm where gravity is bubbling off a different plane entirely. At least that's what's emerging as the hottest concept on the frontier of physics.” The 5th dimension makes sense to me as a hidden dimension that provides communication between subatomic particles and supports the infrastructure of gravity. http://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html Creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole The quarks are connected by a wormhole that exists in the 5th dimension where space and time does not exist. The 5th diminution is where wormholes exist, and where space and time does not. Those who are interested in LENR might want to look beyond the billiard ball model of the universe into waves and strings of light and their tips (topological defects). We can see this multi-dimensional principle in operation in a two dimensional allegorical world on the surface of a swimming pool where the counter rotating solitons are connected in a higher third dimension within the depths of water in the pool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=909o_kbCdFg Quarks are localized and confined vortexes (aka solitons) of energy that exist in the Higgs field that do not dissipate because of the agency of the superfuildic superconductivity of the Higgs field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ederft9dkag Baths and Quarks: Solitons explained Entanglement exists and is mediated in the 5th dimension and entanglement stores energy when the quarks are formed or when the quarks are moved apart. The 5th dimension is where the connective strong force operates. When a subatomic particle forms, its isospin is rooted deep in the 5th dimension with just its vortex tip projecting into our 4 dimensional world. Electrons are just the tips of broken light strings whose spin is imbedded into the 5th dimension. A cooper pair of protons or electrons is connected by an energy channel that projects into the 5th dimension. Most of the energy that makes up matter is stored in the 5th dimension. Since all quarks are entangled, this entangled 5th dimension is where dark energy lives and gravity operates. Since the strong magnetic fields produced by LENR can destroy the superconductivity that the quarks exist in, the connective energy between the quarks is retrieved from the 5th dimension and made real again to reappear and reenter back into our world. LENR is a way to manipulate the quantum world of the 5th dimension. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in common sense. How can one NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In fact QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. No good mental model and ignoring what is real are both complete cop-outs. I agree that Quantum tunneling is what may be behind this, and a few Å is enough for it to start do it's work, But the validity of calculation of the expansion with a virtual particle that temporally breaks the momentum conservation for quite some distance, makes me vary and want to wait for the paper to be moderated by experts in the field. I could be wrong
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say about that argument. I just saw in the swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion about science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of the expert was that it was too much things that fell on place that they argue that the theory should be pretty much correct and that the theory predicted things that was shown correct. But then when I take my statistical and mathematical hat on I just see to much opportunity to add variables that are fitted in experiments and then the whole thing matches a theory of a certain order, that should by some expansion fit to a more conventional albeit perhaps a bit more nonlinear model. Then of cause the high dimensional theory would predict the right things if what is probed is for example the second order effects of the model. Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we live it must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply alternative arguments. As an example take the realization that if the physical constants was just a little of, then the universe would not allow us to live and because we live, the parameters are as they are assuming a multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all things have really fewer parameters and hence that the parameters really are dependant. But you never hear that possibility in the TV shows, which shows a good piece if overconfidence of what we have today. Cheers! /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Extra dimensions are a way to make the math work in string theory. But no one is able or willing to make this math world match up with the real world. Math guys do not have very active imaginations. It took some time of Einstein's general equations to be mapped onto a valid view of the universe. For example, black holes are a projection of the math onto a physical reality that turned out to be real. The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the proper mathematical interpretation of reality. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say about that argument. I just saw in the swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion about science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of the expert was that it was too much things that fell on place that they argue that the theory should be pretty much correct and that the theory predicted things that was shown correct. But then when I take my statistical and mathematical hat on I just see to much opportunity to add variables that are fitted in experiments and then the whole thing matches a theory of a certain order, that should by some expansion fit to a more conventional albeit perhaps a bit more nonlinear model. Then of cause the high dimensional theory would predict the right things if what is probed is for example the second order effects of the model. Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we live it must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply alternative arguments. As an example take the realization that if the physical constants was just a little of, then the universe would not allow us to live and because we live, the parameters are as they are assuming a multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all things have really fewer parameters and hence that the parameters really are dependant. But you never hear that possibility in the TV shows, which shows a good piece if overconfidence of what we have today. Cheers! /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Extra dimensions are a way to make the math work in string theory. But no one is able or willing to make this math world match up with the real world. Math guys do not have very active imaginations. It took some time of Einstein's general equations to be mapped onto a valid view of the universe. For example, black holes are a projection of the math onto a physical reality that turned out to be real. I would say this differently, Axil. Black holes are a logical and necessary consequence of gravity interacting with mass-energy. The equations are only another way to describe this necessary event. The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the proper mathematical interpretation of reality. I agree. Ed Storms On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say about that argument. I just saw in the swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion about science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of the expert was that it was too much things that fell on place that they argue that the theory should be pretty much correct and that the theory predicted things that was shown correct. But then when I take my statistical and mathematical hat on I just see to much opportunity to add variables that are fitted in experiments and then the whole thing matches a theory of a certain order, that should by some expansion fit to a more conventional albeit perhaps a bit more nonlinear model. Then of cause the high dimensional theory would predict the right things if what is probed is for example the second order effects of the model. Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we live it must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply alternative arguments. As an example take the realization that if the physical constants was just a little of, then the universe would not allow us to live and because we live, the parameters are as they are assuming a multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all things have really fewer parameters and hence that the parameters really are dependant. But you never hear that possibility in the TV shows, which shows a good piece if overconfidence of what we have today. Cheers! /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Stefan, The only reality I trust is based on consistent patterns of behavior - the more consistent the more real. Of course, these patterns can be and are described by mathematical equations. However, the equations prove nothing that the patterns have not already revealed. Nevertheless, the equations can make extrapolation and interpellation easier. The basic concept, if true, can be explained in normal language. The field of mathematics has provided tools (language) to describe reality but the tools are not reality any more than English is reality. Yet some people assume the equations can make a concept real or that the equation itself is real. I know people who think the phonon and the Hamiltonian are real conditions in Nature rather than being mathematical constructs created for convenience. Ed Storms On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say about that argument. I just saw in the swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion about science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of the expert was that it was too much things that fell on place that they argue that the theory should be pretty much correct and that the theory predicted things that was shown correct. But then when I take my statistical and mathematical hat on I just see to much opportunity to add variables that are fitted in experiments and then the whole thing matches a theory of a certain order, that should by some expansion fit to a more conventional albeit perhaps a bit more nonlinear model. Then of cause the high dimensional theory would predict the right things if what is probed is for example the second order effects of the model. Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we live it must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply alternative arguments. As an example take the realization that if the physical constants was just a little of, then the universe would not allow us to live and because we live, the parameters are as they are assuming a multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all things have really fewer parameters and hence that the parameters really are dependant. But you never hear that possibility in the TV shows, which shows a good piece if overconfidence of what we have today. Cheers! /Stefan
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the proper mathematical interpretation of reality. I agree. I noted a velocity in cold fusion and gravitational experiments. 1,094,000 meters per second. I assumed it was the velocity of a longitudinal mechanical wave in the nucleus. When I set this velocity equal to the velocity of light in the electronic structure of the atom; the quantum condition emerged. Planck's constant emerged from this classical analysis. To date no one cares but I am sure that someday they will. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Sun, Dec 22, 2013 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Extra dimensions are a way to make the math work in string theory. But no one is able or willing to make this math world match up with the real world. Math guys do not have very active imaginations. It took some time of Einstein's general equations to be mapped onto a valid view of the universe. For example, black holes are a projection of the math onto a physical reality that turned out to be real. I would say this differently, Axil. Black holes are a logical and necessary consequence of gravity interacting with mass-energy. The equations are only another way to describe this necessary event. The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the proper mathematical interpretation of reality. I agree. Ed Storms On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line. Ed Storms I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say about that argument. I just saw in the swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion about science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of the expert was that it was too much things that fell on place that they argue that the theory should be pretty much correct and that the theory predicted things that was shown correct. But then when I take my statistical and mathematical hat on I just see to much opportunity to add variables that are fitted in experiments and then the whole thing matches a theory of a certain order, that should by some expansion fit to a more conventional albeit perhaps a bit more nonlinear model. Then of cause the high dimensional theory would predict the right things if what is probed is for example the second order effects of the model. Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we live it must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply alternative arguments. As an example take the realization that if the physical constants was just a little of, then the universe would not allow us to live and because we live, the parameters are as they are assuming a multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all things have really fewer parameters and hence that the parameters really are dependant. But you never hear that possibility in the TV shows, which shows a good piece if overconfidence of what we have today. Cheers! /Stefan
[Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Apologies in advance for the long posting. Earlier is was suggested: The downside for Rossi - if Kalman's paper is correct, is that he blew it and has little IP protection ... since essentially, in his filing, Rossi bet the farm on Ni62 being the active isotope. However, it is unlikely that the neutron exchange reaction is the only gainful reaction in any experiment, or even a main reaction - and it could be only contributory. In light of the Kalman paper and the fact that the proposed neutron exchange reaction has hit a raw nerve amongst many who are striving to find accurate answers to the underlying modality of LENR, and the active isotopes - there are a few more points to consider. Keep in mind that Kalman requires Ni61 instead of Ni62 (Rossi patent). Many months ago, it was learned from a source in the isotope enrichment business - who prefers to remain anonymous, that Andrea Rossi had indeed purchased enriched nickel isotopes for testing. That is essentially all that was learned - other than the price paid (very high) and the fact that Rossi was longer a customer of this supplier. The main value of this information now, as we go into 2014 - is that it came near the time that Rossi's patent application was changed to focus essentially on this one specifically named isotope (Ni-62) AND that it verified that indeed, Rossi had used enriched nickel isotopes in testing. Many had doubts that Rossi would have gone to great expense of doing this since he made the claim that he did not need to enrich. But that was a half-truth. Yawn? Maybe this detail is not a yawner - thanks to the new paper. The emerging value of this factoid, given a reinterpretation - is that it can be a strong clue to where we stand today IF (big if) the Kalman neutron exchange reaction is accurate for a large percentage of the gain which is seen in the Rossi reaction, especially in the HotCat - and the Ni62 route is relatively minor. Both could be active but one could be far more active. It should be realized that the prime function of free electrons in the Kalman paper can be supplied by plasmon-polaritons in a thermal zone, and that the Rossi HotCat seems to be an ideal vehicle for all of these major types of polaritons (which can supply the charge disruption which is required for neutron substitution). They are: 1) Phonon-polaritons result from coupling of an infrared photon with a thermal phonon; 2) Exciton-polaritons result from coupling of photons with excitons 3) Intersubband-polaritons result from coupling of an infrared photon in the conduction band of a semiconductor heterostructure (like SiC). What Kalman seems to have missed, but which we can now have the luxury to re-evaluate in the context of the HotCat is that the charge disruption (preceding neutron substitution) can be of either negative or positive polarity, probably does not require electrons per se, and that a polariton would be an good substitute vehicle for this task ! One other thing. If we assume that Rossi did actually try a number of isotopes before deciding to risk everything in his IP protection on only one isotope - doesn't this pretty much rule out the Kalman neutron shuffle - since that modality absolutely demands Ni61 ? The answer is a resounding NO! In fact it shows precisely where Rossi could have made his big mistake in trying to cut corners with the high price of isotopes. Hint. If you must use enriched isotopes in any process, it is much easier and less costly to remove either the heavy fraction OR the light fraction, rather than to try to isolate a single isotope. Removal by density gradient can often be done in an ultracentrifuge (meaning that almost any lab could do it). The cost difference between buying nickel which is enriched in the heavy fraction (by removing only Ni58 and Ni60) and any pure isotope is about 1000:1. The light isotopes (58 and 60) are over 94% or natural nickel, so to deplete them preferentially can give one a high multiple of enrichment in the heavy fraction for about $20 gram (in high volume) instead of $20,000 per gram for pure Ni62. This is a ballpark estimate. Thus - a tentative hypothesis, taking all of this old info into account in the new context, is that sometime in 2012 Rossi learned that the heavy isotope fraction of nickel was where the activity was, and to reduce cost - he thereafter bought nickel which was depleted in the light isotopes. My apology for the complicated attempt to explain all of this in a single posting, and I realize that most who have followed Rossi will balk at this explanation, given that it is dependent on a new understanding (Kalman) which is unproved. Especially disappointed will be those who have been enamored with DGT. However, it would be a mistake to overlook this possibility, especially since the spokesman for Defkalion stated emphatically that all the isotopes all work, other than Ni61. In fact, the truth (if Kalman
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Jones, I know it is fun to speculate and play mental games in science, but why waste time when the game has no value. This paper you find interesting is a mathematical game having no relationship to reality. If anything, this exercise shows just how flawed the theory being used really is. Kalman proposes that application of an electron from an outside source can convert one isotope of an element into another isotope of the same element or one element into another. This requires an electron to jump from one nucleus to another that is perhaps 4 Å distant in a chemical structure simply because an electron hit the material. A net gain or loss of electrons does not occur. This would be equivalent to simultaneous and spontaneous beta emission by one nucleus followed by k-capture at the adjacent nucleus. Not only would such a process be obvious in an ordinary mass spectrometer but it would frequently produce a radioactive product, which would be too obvious to be ignored. In the case of Ni, conversion of all the Ni isotopes to Cu result in radioactive products. For example, Ni62 would form Cu62, which is a positron emitter that decays back to Ni62. Consequently, no energy results from the process and no driving force exist to cause the reaction. As for the Rossi's claim for heat to result from transmutation of Ni. The is obviously wrong and reveals that Rossi knows nothing about nuclear chemistry. Ed On Dec 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Apologies in advance for the long posting. Earlier is was suggested: The downside for Rossi - if Kalman's paper is correct, is that he blew it and has little IP protection ... since essentially, in his filing, Rossi bet the farm on Ni62 being the active isotope. However, it is unlikely that the neutron exchange reaction is the only gainful reaction in any experiment, or even a main reaction - and it could be only contributory. In light of the Kalman paper and the fact that the proposed neutron exchange reaction has hit a raw nerve amongst many who are striving to find accurate answers to the underlying modality of LENR, and the active isotopes - there are a few more points to consider. Keep in mind that Kalman requires Ni61 instead of Ni62 (Rossi patent). Many months ago, it was learned from a source in the isotope enrichment business - who prefers to remain anonymous, that Andrea Rossi had indeed purchased enriched nickel isotopes for testing. That is essentially all that was learned - other than the price paid (very high) and the fact that Rossi was longer a customer of this supplier. The main value of this information now, as we go into 2014 - is that it came near the time that Rossi's patent application was changed to focus essentially on this one specifically named isotope (Ni-62) AND that it verified that indeed, Rossi had used enriched nickel isotopes in testing. Many had doubts that Rossi would have gone to great expense of doing this since he made the claim that he did not need to enrich. But that was a half-truth. Yawn? Maybe this detail is not a yawner - thanks to the new paper. The emerging value of this factoid, given a reinterpretation - is that it can be a strong clue to where we stand today IF (big if) the Kalman neutron exchange reaction is accurate for a large percentage of the gain which is seen in the Rossi reaction, especially in the HotCat - and the Ni62 route is relatively minor. Both could be active but one could be far more active. It should be realized that the prime function of free electrons in the Kalman paper can be supplied by plasmon-polaritons in a thermal zone, and that the Rossi HotCat seems to be an ideal vehicle for all of these major types of polaritons (which can supply the charge disruption which is required for neutron substitution). They are: 1) Phonon-polaritons result from coupling of an infrared photon with a thermal phonon; 2) Exciton-polaritons result from coupling of photons with excitons 3) Intersubband-polaritons result from coupling of an infrared photon in the conduction band of a semiconductor heterostructure (like SiC). What Kalman seems to have missed, but which we can now have the luxury to re-evaluate in the context of the HotCat is that the charge disruption (preceding neutron substitution) can be of either negative or positive polarity, probably does not require electrons per se, and that a polariton would be an good substitute vehicle for this task ! One other thing. If we assume that Rossi did actually try a number of isotopes before deciding to risk everything in his IP protection on only one isotope - doesn't this pretty much rule out the Kalman neutron shuffle - since that modality absolutely demands Ni61 ? The answer is a resounding NO! In fact it shows precisely where Rossi could have made his big mistake in trying to cut corners
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
When we consider isotopic reactions, we are talking about isospin. Isospin is the most fundamental properties of matter. Charge emerges from isospin. When isotopes are changed through a LENR reaction, the character of matter that matters is isospin. When we consider what isotopes react of don’t react, we are really considering what isospin is doing through the reaction. The LENR reaction causes the isospin of the nucleus to change. This should be impossible because of the conservation law dealing with isospin. So something is overriding the natural laws that govern the behavior of isospin. That factor is not a constant. This factor acts on isospin based on its strength. We cannot generalize how isotope transmutation will behave from one system to another because the strength of this elusive “LENR transmutation factor” is different from one system to another. This LENR transmutation factor is of course “magnetism”. Each system will produce magnetism in a unique way and that magnetism will be generated in a system specific range of strength, and because of this magnetic strength variability, each system will require a different isotope to function when the magnetism that is produced is weak. But the strength of magnetism is unlimited and some systems will not be constrained by the strength of the magnetism it can produce. So there is a continuum of LENR reaction transmutation characteristics form minimal (Rossi) to intermediate (DGT) to unlimited like LeClair. Magnetism imparts no kinetic energy into the transmutation reaction so the resultant isotope is stable meaning that it is not excited (radioactive). This magnetic transmutation process will find the most stable configuration for the resultant isotope. When the magnetic fields are strong, and the screening of charge is near complete, many combinations of protons and nuclei may become involved in the transmutation process and the resultant isotope will tend to form magic number based configurations. On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Apologies in advance for the long posting.
RE: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
Ed, You must be joking. Are you really implying that QM is a mental game having no value for LENR? This paper does not strike me as any kind of frivolity, since it is based on data accumulated over many years - but your remarks ring of tunnel vision and are hard to take seriously. I can only hope that somewhere along the way you have not missed or ignored ... or are not in denial about quantum mechanics - and especially QM relative to Kalman's conclusions - including wave function, probability density and position-space. They have model called the solid state internal conversion process which is based on accumulated data from low energy accelerator physics. They hope to apply that model to other phenomena, including LENR. If you were not aware of it, it is in the third citation. This paper is about measuring the probability for that reaction, a which is known to happen at low energy. The problem for transposing to LENR is that the probability may not be high enough. What I expected to see from skeptics is that their estimate is too high, but not that this is some kind of game... LOL. If you want to issue a blanket denial of the reality of QM for LENR then say so - as that seems to be the conclusion which makes the most sense from your remarks. That - or a knee-jerk rebuttal to any theory not you own. Jones -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, I know it is fun to speculate and play mental games in science, but why waste time when the game has no value. This paper you find interesting is a mathematical game having no relationship to reality. If anything, this exercise shows just how flawed the theory being used really is.
Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper
On Dec 21, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed, You must be joking. Are you really implying that QM is a mental game having no value for LENR? No Jones I'm stating that the QM methods they are applying are nonsense. Of course QM is a good and powerful tool if used properly. As you must notice, QM is applied a lot of different ways. This paper does not strike me as any kind of frivolity, since it is based on data accumulated over many years - but your remarks ring of tunnel vision and are hard to take seriously. I can only hope that somewhere along the way you have not missed or ignored ... or are not in denial about quantum mechanics - and especially QM relative to Kalman's conclusions - including wave function, probability density and position-space. I'm basing my remarks on what is known to be real. You seem to be impressed by the social status of the authors and the reputation of QM. I have great respect for QM but I have great disappointment with how it is frequently applied. Modern physics is so dominated by mathematical constructs, they ignore what is real, and then excuse this by saying that this approach is ok because the quantum world is so strange. They seem to make it as strange as possible just to avoid a challenge. They have model called the solid state internal conversion process which is based on accumulated data from low energy accelerator physics. They hope to apply that model to other phenomena, including LENR. If you were not aware of it, it is in the third citation. This paper is about measuring the probability for that reaction, a which is known to happen at low energy. The problem for transposing to LENR is that the probability may not be high enough. What I expected to see from skeptics is that their estimate is too high, but not that this is some kind of game... LOL. If you want to issue a blanket denial of the reality of QM for LENR then say so - as that seems to be the conclusion which makes the most sense from your remarks. That - or a knee-jerk rebuttal to any theory not you own. And which knee are you jerking? :-) Ed Jones -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, I know it is fun to speculate and play mental games in science, but why waste time when the game has no value. This paper you find interesting is a mathematical game having no relationship to reality. If anything, this exercise shows just how flawed the theory being used really is.
