Axil's post is one interpretation of QM, other could be that the QM fields represents real fields e.g. no particles in space. This means that you can view QM as billiard with fields in stead of balls and things get to be much less mystic. Also Mills is starting to get real evidences of over unity now. With that comes his theory that after all have guided him to success, which means that when the suncell, if it works, start to get noticed, then Mills theory might as well become the standard way of interpretting physics. His theory have non of the mysteries in QM and can be viewed as billiard with fields in stead of balls using classical thinking. I myself are pretty certain that the theory are the best way to view the world but it is difficult to come to this conclusion. His book is hard to see through.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:38 AM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > 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. > > > > > >
