It takes many TeV to show the Higgs - not TeraWatts. A 1.0 TeV particle only has 1.6e-7 joules of kinetic energy, but that energy is in a single particle and can create a TeV event in a collision.
A TW laser will not really help. The individual laser photons are only eV level, and a TW laser would simply apply a lot of photons in approx. the same place at approx. the same time. If the probability of a photon interaction is X, where X is less than 1, then the probability of a simultaneous interaction with 2 photons is on the order of X^2. The probability of simultaneous interaction with 10^9 photons is on the order of X^10^9 - a really small number. If you had a condensate and simultaneously absorbed something like 10^9 photons you may get somewhere, but the problem is that before that happens you have probably already absorbed 10^6 photons and have completely destroyed your condensate. Actually the condensate may be completely destroyed by having absorbed a much smaller number of photons. I am more likely to explain muons seen by Holmlid as having been a mistaken ID. But I haven't concluded that yet - I am still digesting his papers. It is a long chain of experimental evidence. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, > > > > Good analysis. Subnuclear binding energy is significantly higher than > nuclear binding energy, in general. As we know, it takes many terawatts to > show evidence of the Higgs boson. After that, we must bootstrap power into > energy to make this happen. > > > > Fortunately – terawatt pulses are (or will be) available with moderately > costly lasers. Here is a story on a 10 terawatt laser for the well-equipped > garage lab … > > > > http://www.slashgear.com/10-terawatt-laser-fits-on-a-desktop-04300268/ > > > > You need high power to start things. After a high power laser pulse starts > a reaction, the energy in play for the next round (for MMDD to work in this > circumstance) – is limited to 24 MeV per incidence. That level is > significant, but it may not be enough - without some kind of follow-on > process, like a limited chain reaction, to add continuity. > > > > I’m trying to find further support for this alternative, but basically – > if one can show that a 24 MeV photon can dislodge a quark in a situation > where the strong force can be harnessed to do the rest, then maybe the > concept will go somewhere. > > > > Otherwise – how do we explain the muons seen by Holmlid? My fear is that > they are measurement error, but until that is determined, this suggestion > of muon chain reaction –MMDD - is a an alternative to consider. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > While this is interesting speculation, I have come to assess probabilities > of of heretofore unknown reactions based inversely on binding energy. If > we look at molecular binding energy, it is less than atomic binding. > Nuclear binding energy is greater than atomic binding. Sub-nucleon binding > would have to be even higher energy than nuclear. Between each of these, > there seems to be a factor of somewhere between 10^3 and 10^6 in binding > energy. With nuclear binding in the MeV range, sub-nucleon binding would > be in the GeV-TeV range. These binding characteristics are part of the > nature of the stable universe. > > > > So, to me, the probability of LENR being related to shenanigans in > sub-nucleonic physics is something like 10^3-10^6 less likely than > something happening in nuclear physics. > > > > With sub-nucleonic binding in the GeV-TeV range, how can something like a > laser with photons in the eV range have an effect? > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > MMPD .... Muon Mediated Deuteron Disintegration > > The work of Leif Holmlid and others has opened up the possibility of > understanding > what appears to be a new kind of nuclear reaction – a limited type of chain > reaction which is not fusion nor fission. The result of this reaction is > the complete disintegration of deuteron into quarks -- and then into muons. > The continuing reaction is propagated and catalyzed by muons before they > decay. Most of the net energy of the reaction is lost in the form of > neutrinos, but the fraction which is thermalized is still significant. > > This nuclear reaction is dependent on the prior formation of a population > of “ultra-dense deuterium” which is an isomer of hydrogen which forms as > a 2D (two dimensional) layer on selected surfaces. The densification > process has been recognized for many years and rigorously described in the > important paper from 2009 of Nabil Lawandy entitled “Interactions of > Charged Particles on Surfaces.” > > www.*lenr*-*canr*.org/acrobat/LawandyNMinteractio.pdf > <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LawandyNMinteractio.pdf> > > Individual deuterons are bosons which can occupy the same quantum state, > so long as their electrons are delocalized. This delocalization of > electrons is the key feature of ultra-dense deuterium, which becomes a > condensate at elevated temperature, thus allowing this novel reaction. > > Upon application of a laser pulse which irradiates the condensate, a few > muons will be emitted which then proceed as a limited chain-reaction to > catalyze further reactions. In this reaction of relatively cold deuterons, > gamma emission cannot proceed, and fusion to deuterium is suppressed in > favor of complete disintegration of protons and neutrons into quarks. > > The excess energy which would normally be expressed as very energetic > gammas is internalized to dislocate quarks from the bound state. Almost > immediately, quarks decay into muons – which have a greatly increased > lifetime (but still short) and muons are capable of catalyzing and > propagating > the further continuity of the reaction in a way reminiscent of nuclear > fission of uranium (in which neutrons are the mediator). Most of the net > energy of this reaction is lost to neutrino formation - but thermal gain > is still possible. > > More details to follow… > > Jones > > >
