See https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402
http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces > hawking radiation. > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI >> >> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any >> wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water. >> >> See >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I >> >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields. It >>> is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact >>> strongly with nucleons. Is there reason to believe that magnetic >>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate? The multiparticle >>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR. >>> >>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it! >>> :-) >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI >>> >>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the >>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle >>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see >>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM >>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another. Why is there any >>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR >>>> reactions? I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI >>>> >>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of >>>> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might >>>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas >>>> is transformed into a solid. But the reaction does not take off >>>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce >>>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be >>>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM >>>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest? >>>>> >>>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that >>>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do >>>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage >>>>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional >>>>> energy input. >>>>> >>>>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick >>>>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel >>>>> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to >>>>> become active. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not >>>>> powerful enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper >>>>> level. An electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the >>>>> solitons. >>>>> >>>>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. >>>>> It will save a lot of time. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Very much so. I should spend some time looking at the raw data. >>>>>> Holmlid may have something interesting. His interpretation may have >>>>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his >>>>>> results >>>>>> that he may be a little in a bind. Energy conservation considerations >>>>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part. >>>>>> >>>>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having >>>>>>> these nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a >>>>>>> patho-skeptic. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all. What is important is to not write off raw experimental >>>>>> data. Explanations of the data are always fair game. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
