We are talking Quantum Mechanics here, not billards. In QM, superposition means that the muon can be in many places at once while it is in the entangled state. Distance does not matter. Where the muon ends up is based on decoherence of what has entangled the muon with the LENR reaction. It is all random and not predictable.
A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only be made in terms of probabilities A travelling particle As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later time tB. Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the probability that the particle in question can be detected at location B at time tB. The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from A to B, is the following. Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse detours. There exists an infinity of possibilities. The particle can visit New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain information about velocities. The first part of the particle's trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however outlandish they may seem. The second step is to associate a number with each of these possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school, but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum canceling each other, others adding up. The resulting sum tells us the probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all possibilities a path integral or sum over histories. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather > becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the > muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by > suppression appears to achieve negative light speed relative to observers > outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO > catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer > wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the > perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay > and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean relationship > to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we instwead > perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial > displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite > direction and to some extent cancel? > > Always out on a limb, > > Fran > > From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:38 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons > > > > In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed: > > The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which > is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this > would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and > decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. > > > > There are a number of things wrong with this. First, most commonly > encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies. At these > energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of > light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation > in its decay. Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the > cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds. This is why > cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without > having decayed. > > What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this > is a measure of velocity squared. One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2. > In Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the > velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c. For Holmlid's report of a > measure of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c. This is only an > approximation for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases > special relativity must be invoked in the solution. Special relativity > would reduce the velocity from this equation as it started approaching c, so > the actual velocity will be somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, > and a slight time dilation would be experienced. > > So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at > a v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 > meters. However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter > because the particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, > just run into the dense electronic orbitals. The more dense the condensed > matter, the greater the stopping power for the muon. > > If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would > escape Mills' reactor vessel. > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are > related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further > thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid > has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt > laser beam. > > Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the > Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo > will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more > than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much > longer demo. > > Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s > laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of > the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions > of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be > from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the > accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away > from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus > far. > > The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which > is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this > would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and > decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the > effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and > Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are > exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is > well-tolerated. > > Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his > associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an > unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit. > > The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which > is curious. > >
