Also see: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole/
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
