See this reference about vacuum energy http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is > timed by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is > energized so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W- > will not appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down > time. A excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone > of negative vacuum energy is present. > > That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP. Negative > vacuum energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why > radioactive isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost > instantaneously. That is because the ash from a fusion event is entangled > with the inside of the SPP in which all the energy of the fusion event is > delivered. > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jones, Eric and Axil-- >> >> I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am >> still in the dark. >> >> The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any >> constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including >> neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred. >> The standard words explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, >> however an interaction with what?—it’s not said. And what happens to a >> muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact? >> >> It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge) bosons, the carriers of the weak >> force, are involved, but do they appear at random from the vacuum to >> disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay? And why is the half life of a >> free muon so short? If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to >> the boson? Does it disappear back to the vacuum? The bosons are said to >> be very short lived--10^-18 sec. >> >> Bob Cook >> >> >> >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM >> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF >> >> There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by >> Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg >> matter is exposed to light. >> >> As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: >> >> " The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and >> days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase >> the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes >> even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short >> time." >> >> But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not >> open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If >> the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open >> ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since >> cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . >> >> I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the >> coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. >> >> Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about >> 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid >> in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were >> produced locally by Rydberg matter. >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility >>> of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the >>> lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). >>> >>> I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic >>> particle >>> like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural >>> source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either >>> case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with >>> protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is >>> subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of >>> energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. >>> >>> In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something >>> other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense >>> hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? >>> >>> This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the >>> thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves >>> muons >>> interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be >>> either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following >>> the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does >>> not involved gamma radiation. >>> >>> This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal >>> anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse >>> to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. >>> Another >>> possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is >>> unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My >>> suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the >>> catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to >>> Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of >>> proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton >>> exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a >>> renewed muon. >>> >>> Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing >>> debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other >>> . >>> >>> *From:* Bob Cook >>> >>> Eric-- >>> >>> >>> >>> Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* *Eric Walker* <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>> D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) >>> >>> … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction >>> and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction >>> that it catalyzes. >>> >>> The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise >>> that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. >>> The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … >>> “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as >>> well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be >>> more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. >>> >>> A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would >>> otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do >>> you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? >>> >>> >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
