Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
Basic math is basic math! Any rigid body is topologically equivalent to a sphere. You can reach every point on sphere by two rotations. Key is:: The reference system is not you it's the body! So in 3D you have two rotations only. The third axes only oscillates. The numerical solution space is a torus! J.W. On 26.08.2021 00:44, Robin wrote: In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 23:50:02 +0100: Hi, I just came across this again, and upon re-reading it, it occurs to me to ask what exactly you mean by an independent rotation? It seems to me that in 3D space there are 3 independent orthogonal vectors which may act as an axis of rotation, hence I would be inclined to say that one can have n independent rotations in n dimensional space, rather than n-1? [snip] Generally you can have n-1 independent rotations in n dimensional space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 23:50:02 +0100: Hi, I just came across this again, and upon re-reading it, it occurs to me to ask what exactly you mean by an independent rotation? It seems to me that in 3D space there are 3 independent orthogonal vectors which may act as an axis of rotation, hence I would be inclined to say that one can have n independent rotations in n dimensional space, rather than n-1? [snip] >Generally you can have n-1 >independent rotations in n dimensional space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
Charge is a topological effect of magnetic flux. Since more than 100 years people believe that the magnetic moments of particles/atoms are created by a ring current. In reality it's the other way round. Flux always travels at light speed. So the charge is stationary. But physics is symmetric (just assume the flux stays!) and the classic assumption delivers the same result. Magnetic lines do rotate according basic Maxwell laws. So in classic 3D space you can have 2 independent rotations. (Also classically known the two spherical harmonics in QM solutions). Generally you can have n-1 independent rotations in n dimensional space. From this picture it is trivial to see that for Euklidian space the rotations never cover the full space in a symmetric way. The cover only works for spherical shells that in reality are 2D isomorphous. So in average always on dimension is carrying less flux than the others. Just draw 2 circles on two neighbor sides of a cube, then you will see that one edge has double the flux than the other two. As the flux asymmetrically rotates in all dimensions there is always one preferred dimension (in the local frame of the particle) with a net flux that induces charge. If we say this frame rotates, then there is always in average a net charge generating flux! (This is 80% of the explanation. The flux tube needed for Farradays law is to complex to explain it here.) J.W. On 26.01.2021 21:54, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: A charge be the same as a changing B field intensity in a space volume quanta. The definition of resonance that Jurg uses is a key concept, I think an absolute time dimension does not exist, but is apparent from magnetic flux circulation in a locale, A better question is how are space and magnetic flux related IMHO. Is magnetic flux a dimension akin to space? And is it quantized? Spin—a rotating B flux is a potential resulting phonmenon. Bob Cook --- *From: *Robin <mailto:mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:02 PM *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:14:50 +0100: Hi, [snip] > From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of >the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know >it from the unbound state. > >The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that >breaks up. This then leads to the question...what is charge? [snip] -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:54:31 +: Hi, [snip] A changing electric field gives rise to a changing magnetic field, and vice versa, but what gives rise to a constant electric field? >A charge be the same as a changing B field intensity in a space volume >quanta. The definition of resonance that Jurg uses is a key concept, I think >an absolute time dimension does not exist, but is apparent from magnetic flux >circulation in a locale, > >A better question is how are space and magnetic flux related IMHO. > >Is magnetic flux a dimension akin to space?And is it quantized?Spina >rotating B flux is a potential resulting phonmenon. > >Bob Cook [snip]
RE: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
A charge be the same as a changing B field intensity in a space volume quanta. The definition of resonance that Jurg uses is a key concept, I think an absolute time dimension does not exist, but is apparent from magnetic flux circulation in a locale, A better question is how are space and magnetic flux related IMHO. Is magnetic flux a dimension akin to space?And is it quantized?Spin—a rotating B flux is a potential resulting phonmenon. Bob Cook --- From: Robin<mailto:mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:14:50 +0100: Hi, [snip] > From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of >the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know >it from the unbound state. > >The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that >breaks up. This then leads to the question...what is charge? [snip]
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:14:50 +0100: Hi, [snip] > From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of >the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know >it from the unbound state. > >The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that >breaks up. This then leads to the question...what is charge? [snip]
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
FWIW - This story in today's SciNews supports a three wave structure in superconductivity https://phys.org/news/2021-01-class-superconductors.html ... "s- wave, p-wave and d-wave channels" ... Jones Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: >From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of the >proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know it from >the unbound state. The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that breaks up. This picture only works for Hydrogen. In all other nuclei we have complex flux interactions among shell electron waves. J.W.
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know it from the unbound state. The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that breaks up. *This picture only works for Hydrogen. *In all other nuclei we have complex flux interactions among shell electron waves. J.W. On 26.01.2021 01:54, Robin wrote: In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:04:54 +0100: Hi, [snip] In fact there are no real electron orbits. The bound electron is in magnetic resonance with the nucleus This is the only way to get the correct result for the ionization energy. Here you say "The bound electron is in magnetic resonance with the nucleus" The Hydrogen ionization energy can be calculated without Coulomb and charge radius by a simple magnetic resonance formula. See SO(4) physics. The Bohr/QM formula is just the first order approximation. So no real(singular) angular momentum change as there is no particle like electron just the resonant waves. Here you say "there is no particle like electron just the resonant waves" ...so does the electron exist or doesn't it? Or only sometimes? The waves form a symmetric orbit that from all sides looks the same. This is also what we see in optics - given a homogeneous grid. J.W. On 25.01.2021 23:31, Robin wrote: In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:59:04 +0100: Hi Jürg, [snip] People always think that quanta are fix size. This is not the case. That depends on which quantity you are talking about. Of course are all electron orbits related by simple quantization rules that again are acting within second order coupling. So there are lines for certain well known isotopes e.g. the yellow of Na. But theies lines have a certain thickness, the same as you would draw it with fat pencil. True. Photons can only go into resonance with a line if these match the orbit, else these get ejected after a "halve turn + angle". I think that perhaps resonance is not enough. The change in angular momentum of the electron also has to match that of the photon if the photon is to be absorbed or emitted. Otherwise any atomic transition would be possible. Both energy and angular momentum need to be conserved for the electron/photon pair. Do also not forget that we live around 290K where all atoms (outer shell electrons/ chemical bonds) carry excess energy! Most of this energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the entire atom/molecule, which is the primary reason that the lines undergo Doppler broadening. IOW the line width changes with temperature. [snip] -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:04:54 +0100: Hi, [snip] >In fact there are no real electron orbits. The bound electron is in magnetic >resonance with the nucleus This is the only way to get the correct result for >the ionization energy. Here you say "The bound electron is in magnetic resonance with the nucleus" >The Hydrogen ionization energy can be calculated without Coulomb and charge >radius by a simple magnetic resonance formula. See SO(4) physics. >The Bohr/QM formula is just the first order approximation. > >So no real(singular) angular momentum change as there is no particle like >electron just the resonant waves. Here you say "there is no particle like electron just the resonant waves" ...so does the electron exist or doesn't it? Or only sometimes? >The waves form a symmetric orbit that from all sides looks the same. This is >also what we see in optics - given a homogeneous grid. > >J.W. > >On 25.01.2021 23:31, Robin wrote: >> In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:59:04 +0100: >> Hi Jürg, >> [snip] >>> People always think that quanta are fix size. This is not the case. >> That depends on which quantity you are talking about. >> >>> Of course are all electron orbits related by simple quantization rules >>> that again are acting within second order coupling. >>> >>> So there are lines for certain well known isotopes e.g. the yellow of >>> Na. But theies lines have a certain thickness, the same as you would >>> draw it with fat pencil. >> True. >> >>> Photons can only go into resonance with a line if these match the orbit, >>> else these get ejected after a "halve turn + angle". >> I think that perhaps resonance is not enough. The change in angular momentum >> of the electron also has to match that of >> the photon if the photon is to be absorbed or emitted. Otherwise any atomic >> transition would be possible. >> Both energy and angular momentum need to be conserved for the >> electron/photon pair. >> >>> Do also not forget that we live around 290K where all atoms (outer shell >>> electrons/ chemical bonds) carry excess energy! >> Most of this energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the entire >> atom/molecule, which is the primary reason that the >> lines undergo Doppler broadening. >> IOW the line width changes with temperature. >> [snip] >> >>
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
Of course are all electron orbits related by simple quantization rules that again are acting within second order coupling. I think that perhaps resonance is not enough. The change in angular momentum of the electron also has to match that of the photon if the photon is to be absorbed or emitted. . In fact there are no real electron orbits. The bound electron is in magnetic resonance with the nucleus This is the only way to get the correct result for the ionization energy. The Hydrogen ionization energy can be calculated without Coulomb and charge radius by a simple magnetic resonance formula. See SO(4) physics. The Bohr/QM formula is just the first order approximation. So no real(singular) angular momentum change as there is no particle like electron just the resonant waves. The waves form a symmetric orbit that from all sides looks the same. This is also what we see in optics - given a homogeneous grid. J.W. On 25.01.2021 23:31, Robin wrote: In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:59:04 +0100: Hi Jürg, [snip] People always think that quanta are fix size. This is not the case. That depends on which quantity you are talking about. Of course are all electron orbits related by simple quantization rules that again are acting within second order coupling. So there are lines for certain well known isotopes e.g. the yellow of Na. But theies lines have a certain thickness, the same as you would draw it with fat pencil. True. Photons can only go into resonance with a line if these match the orbit, else these get ejected after a "halve turn + angle". I think that perhaps resonance is not enough. The change in angular momentum of the electron also has to match that of the photon if the photon is to be absorbed or emitted. Otherwise any atomic transition would be possible. Both energy and angular momentum need to be conserved for the electron/photon pair. Do also not forget that we live around 290K where all atoms (outer shell electrons/ chemical bonds) carry excess energy! Most of this energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the entire atom/molecule, which is the primary reason that the lines undergo Doppler broadening. IOW the line width changes with temperature. [snip] -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:59:04 +0100: Hi Jürg, [snip] >People always think that quanta are fix size. This is not the case. That depends on which quantity you are talking about. > >Of course are all electron orbits related by simple quantization rules >that again are acting within second order coupling. > >So there are lines for certain well known isotopes e.g. the yellow of >Na. But theies lines have a certain thickness, the same as you would >draw it with fat pencil. True. > >Photons can only go into resonance with a line if these match the orbit, >else these get ejected after a "halve turn + angle". I think that perhaps resonance is not enough. The change in angular momentum of the electron also has to match that of the photon if the photon is to be absorbed or emitted. Otherwise any atomic transition would be possible. Both energy and angular momentum need to be conserved for the electron/photon pair. > >Do also not forget that we live around 290K where all atoms (outer shell >electrons/ chemical bonds) carry excess energy! Most of this energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the entire atom/molecule, which is the primary reason that the lines undergo Doppler broadening. IOW the line width changes with temperature. [snip]
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
People always think that quanta are fix size. This is not the case. Of course are all electron orbits related by simple quantization rules that again are acting within second order coupling. So there are lines for certain well known isotopes e.g. the yellow of Na. But theies lines have a certain thickness, the same as you would draw it with fat pencil. Photons can only go into resonance with a line if these match the orbit, else these get ejected after a "halve turn + angle". Do also not forget that we live around 290K where all atoms (outer shell electrons/ chemical bonds) carry excess energy! J.W. On 25.01.2021 21:27, Robin wrote: In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:15:18 +0100: Hi, [snip] The term quantization has been introduced by German theorist in good old plain vanilla mechanics of coupled rotating masses. The term then was transported to QM with. With h' somebody invented the myth a minimal quantum. Experiments do show that E=hv is just a proportionality relation nothing else. The frequency can assume any real valued number. Thus fractions of h' must occur! Even atomic orbits are not at all strictly quantized as orbits always have a dopler width. The point is that they are quantized to some extent, or there would be no lines at all, just a continuum. I think that atomic orbits are quantized because all photons have the same angular momentum. This provides a much simpler explanation for allowed and dis-allowed atomic transitions than the set of rules currently used in QM. In short, the photons, that would be emitted or absorbed, are responsible for the atomic quantization, not the electrons. That leaves the electrons free to behave as you would have it, provided that they don't need to interact with a photon. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:15:18 +0100: Hi, [snip] >The term quantization has been introduced by German theorist in good old >plain vanilla mechanics of coupled rotating masses. > >The term then was transported to QM with. With h' somebody invented the >myth a minimal quantum. Experiments do show that E=hv is just a >proportionality relation nothing else. The frequency can assume any real >valued number. Thus fractions of h' must occur! > >Even atomic orbits are not at all strictly quantized as orbits always >have a dopler width. The point is that they are quantized to some extent, or there would be no lines at all, just a continuum. I think that atomic orbits are quantized because all photons have the same angular momentum. This provides a much simpler explanation for allowed and dis-allowed atomic transitions than the set of rules currently used in QM. In short, the photons, that would be emitted or absorbed, are responsible for the atomic quantization, not the electrons. That leaves the electrons free to behave as you would have it, provided that they don't need to interact with a photon.
RE: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
Robin and Jurg— The conjecture regarding a nuclear/atomic model for matter is a axiom I use in my applied logic. I also doubt the common conjecture that space is properly treated as a mathematical continuum to 0 and infinity/. Singularities are not apparent . It may be that space is quantized at some small volume like 1/10 e-130 meters. Another conjecture! A magnetic field may be associated with all space quanta My conjecture about quanta of AN. is based on experiments that have not determined any between 0 and ½-2 pi x h. Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Jürg Wyttenbach<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton The term quantization has been introduced by German theorist in good old plain vanilla mechanics of coupled rotating masses. The term then was transported to QM with. With h' somebody invented the myth a minimal quantum. Experiments do show that E=hv is just a proportionality relation nothing else. The frequency can assume any real valued number. Thus fractions of h' must occur! Even atomic orbits are not at all strictly quantized as orbits always have a dopler width. So nature is bit more complex than just Lego bricks. J.W. On 25.01.2021 02:16, Robin wrote: > In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:01:48 +0100: > Hi, > [snip] >> Sorry it's not quantized for photons. This is myth! >> >> >> J.W. > Are you saying that photons are the only thing that it's not quantized for, > or are you saying it's not quantized for > anything? > > -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
The term quantization has been introduced by German theorist in good old plain vanilla mechanics of coupled rotating masses. The term then was transported to QM with. With h' somebody invented the myth a minimal quantum. Experiments do show that E=hv is just a proportionality relation nothing else. The frequency can assume any real valued number. Thus fractions of h' must occur! Even atomic orbits are not at all strictly quantized as orbits always have a dopler width. So nature is bit more complex than just Lego bricks. J.W. On 25.01.2021 02:16, Robin wrote: In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:01:48 +0100: Hi, [snip] Sorry it's not quantized for photons. This is myth! J.W. Are you saying that photons are the only thing that it's not quantized for, or are you saying it's not quantized for anything? -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:01:48 +0100: Hi, [snip] >Sorry it's not quantized for photons. This is myth! > > >J.W. Are you saying that photons are the only thing that it's not quantized for, or are you saying it's not quantized for anything?
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
Sorry it's not quantized for photons. This is myth! J.W. On 24.01.2021 21:24, Robin wrote: In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:36:51 +: Hi Bob, [snip] I agree about conserving angular momentum, but can you prove that it is quantized for objects other than photons? (As near as I can tell this is an assumption made during the early days of QM that no one has ever questioned.) AaILXIL— I consider yor our interest in superconductive in LENR physics warrants a PHYSICAL model that includes a Higgs field an magnetic field relation express in a common math with measurable real parameters/ In addition the model should allow demonstration of n whether or or not ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS CONSERVED in quanta of ½ pi times Planck’s constant. A consideration of a phase space coupled by real magnetic fields is also probably required to reflect reality and scientific validation of fthe physical model. Bob Cook -- Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 12:30 PM To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton I am now interested in what happens when a superconductor is irradiated by EMF such as a laser or microwaves. This process may produce a self perpetuating Higgs vacuum field created inside a polariton condensate that forms inside a superconducting cavity. The superconductor forms a cavity in which polaritons are created from the mixing(aka entanglement) of electrons and EMF(aka photons). One result of this electron/EMF mixing is the creation of Bogoliubov quasiparticles which are neutral fermions (spin-1/2 particles). It is important to me to use the proper science names for major processes involved with LENR. That said, Rossi is producing Bogoliubov quasiparticles when he irradiates Holmlid's superconducting pico-clusters with microwaves in the SK, QX and SKL reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoliubov_quasiparticle Any electrons that are draw into the superconducting cavity will be converted to Bogoliubov quasiparticles when photons are being fed into the superconductor cavity. The production of polaritons will be unlimited because the superconductor will continue to attract additional electrons into its cavity because of charge and mass stripping of the electrons when the polaritons as formed. This is how EMF reaches its electroweak upper limit. For the math and additional details see https://s3.amazonaws.com/sf-web-assets-prod/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/30170003/Galitski_Flatiron_cavity_talk.pdf This article asks: "• Interesting question: what would condensing Higgs polaritons imply?" The answer is LENR. There is another type of polariton that I need to understand: Bardasis-Schrieffer polaritons -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:36:51 +: Hi Bob, [snip] I agree about conserving angular momentum, but can you prove that it is quantized for objects other than photons? (As near as I can tell this is an assumption made during the early days of QM that no one has ever questioned.) >AaILXIL > >I consider yor our interest in superconductive in LENR physics warrants a >PHYSICAL model that includes a Higgs field an magnetic field relation >express in a common math with measurable real parameters/ > >In addition the model should allow demonstration of n whether or or not >ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS CONSERVED in quanta of ½ pi times Plancks constant. > >A consideration of a phase space coupled by real magnetic fields is also >probably required to reflect reality and scientific validation of fthe >physical model. > >Bob Cook > > >-- >Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 > >From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 12:30 PM >To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >Subject: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton > >I am now interested in what happens when a superconductor is irradiated by EMF >such as a laser or microwaves. This process may produce a self perpetuating >Higgs vacuum field created inside a polariton condensate that forms inside a >superconducting cavity. The superconductor forms a cavity in which polaritons >are created from the mixing(aka entanglement) of electrons and EMF(aka >photons). > >One result of this electron/EMF mixing is the creation of Bogoliubov >quasiparticles which are neutral fermions (spin-1/2 particles). It is >important to me to use the proper science names for major processes involved >with LENR. That said, Rossi is producing Bogoliubov quasiparticles when he >irradiates Holmlid's superconducting pico-clusters with microwaves in the SK, >QX and SKL reactors. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoliubov_quasiparticle > >Any electrons that are draw into the superconducting cavity will be converted >to Bogoliubov quasiparticles when photons are being fed into the >superconductor cavity. The production of polaritons will be unlimited because >the superconductor will continue to attract additional electrons into its >cavity because of charge and mass stripping of the electrons when the >polaritons as formed. This is how EMF reaches its electroweak upper limit. > >For the math and additional details see > >https://s3.amazonaws.com/sf-web-assets-prod/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/30170003/Galitski_Flatiron_cavity_talk.pdf > >This article asks: " Interesting question: what would condensing Higgs >polaritons imply?" The answer is LENR. > >There is another type of polariton that I need to understand: >Bardasis-Schrieffer polaritons
RE: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton
AaILXIL— I consider yor our interest in superconductive in LENR physics warrants a PHYSICAL model that includes a Higgs field an magnetic field relation express in a common math with measurable real parameters/ In addition the model should allow demonstration of n whether or or not ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS CONSERVED in quanta of ½ pi times Planck’s constant. A consideration of a phase space coupled by real magnetic fields is also probably required to reflect reality and scientific validation of fthe physical model. Bob Cook -- Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 12:30 PM To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton I am now interested in what happens when a superconductor is irradiated by EMF such as a laser or microwaves. This process may produce a self perpetuating Higgs vacuum field created inside a polariton condensate that forms inside a superconducting cavity. The superconductor forms a cavity in which polaritons are created from the mixing(aka entanglement) of electrons and EMF(aka photons). One result of this electron/EMF mixing is the creation of Bogoliubov quasiparticles which are neutral fermions (spin-1/2 particles). It is important to me to use the proper science names for major processes involved with LENR. That said, Rossi is producing Bogoliubov quasiparticles when he irradiates Holmlid's superconducting pico-clusters with microwaves in the SK, QX and SKL reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoliubov_quasiparticle Any electrons that are draw into the superconducting cavity will be converted to Bogoliubov quasiparticles when photons are being fed into the superconductor cavity. The production of polaritons will be unlimited because the superconductor will continue to attract additional electrons into its cavity because of charge and mass stripping of the electrons when the polaritons as formed. This is how EMF reaches its electroweak upper limit. For the math and additional details see https://s3.amazonaws.com/sf-web-assets-prod/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/30170003/Galitski_Flatiron_cavity_talk.pdf This article asks: "• Interesting question: what would condensing Higgs polaritons imply?" The answer is LENR. There is another type of polariton that I need to understand: Bardasis-Schrieffer polaritons
[Vo]:The Higgs polariton
I am now interested in what happens when a superconductor is irradiated by EMF such as a laser or microwaves. This process may produce a self perpetuating Higgs vacuum field created inside a polariton condensate that forms inside a superconducting cavity. The superconductor forms a cavity in which polaritons are created from the mixing(aka entanglement) of electrons and EMF(aka photons). One result of this electron/EMF mixing is the creation of Bogoliubov quasiparticles which are neutral fermions (spin-1/2 particles). It is important to me to use the proper science names for major processes involved with LENR. That said, Rossi is producing Bogoliubov quasiparticles when he irradiates Holmlid's superconducting pico-clusters with microwaves in the SK, QX and SKL reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoliubov_quasiparticle Any electrons that are draw into the superconducting cavity will be converted to Bogoliubov quasiparticles when photons are being fed into the superconductor cavity. The production of polaritons will be unlimited because the superconductor will continue to attract additional electrons into its cavity because of charge and mass stripping of the electrons when the polaritons as formed. This is how EMF reaches its electroweak upper limit. For the math and additional details see https://s3.amazonaws.com/sf-web-assets-prod/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/30170003/Galitski_Flatiron_cavity_talk.pdf This article asks: "• Interesting question: what would condensing Higgs polaritons imply?" The answer is LENR. There is another type of polariton that I need to understand: Bardasis-Schrieffer polaritons
