Dense hydrogen is nothing if not cold. Its deflated electron, its sole
contact with the world, has lost most of its angular momentum. How cold
is UDD or UDH, and can it remain cold on contact with adjacent warm
matter? That is the start of a house of cards - to be presented below.
Last year a thread here touched on the reality of temperatures "below
absolute zero" and the early experimental evidence for such:
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146
...where it was stated in a prestigious journal that a peculiarity of
the below-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy,' the
putative anti-gravity force which pushes Universal expansion against the
inward pull of gravity. This leads to an interconnection between dark
matter and dark energy - both being ostensibly cold.
Curiously, achieving ultracold involves laser cooling (aka Doppler
cooling) using coherent photons which are very hot. Several ironies
place the Holmlid experiments within the realm of ultracold (whether he
rejects the concept or not). Another slant on negative temperatures
which fits his situation is the realm of Casimir dimensions (few nm
range): "Evidence for the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions in
Quantum Vacuum"- Quantum Temperatures Below Zero Kelvin" by Calvet.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm
Dense hydrogen could be the key to opening an unexplored world of
quantum temperatures below zero K, along with time dilation in a model
that agrees with cosmology and recent findings on a Universal scale.
Moving on to "frangibility"... for those not familiar with the term - it
connotes the failure mechanism of ultracold, like thin ice. The end
result of ultracold dynamics is not fusion, decay or immediate
annihilation of protons into energy, but the quark–gluon plasma (aka
quark soup) which is a state of matter in quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
that can take on the various identities, including that of its longest
lived component - muons.
There is a semantics issue relative to any experiment having a
persistent "coldness" (zone composed of dense hydrogen) existing in a
relatively hot reactor, yet "refusing" to heat up - seemingly violating
common sense and laws of thermodynamics. The implication is that dense
hydrogen is both cold and experiencing time dilation. Dark energy would
be suspected to exhibit an altered time property (Feynman).
Unfortunately, it may be necessary to invoke both of these far-out
notions in order to explain the muons of Holmlid... but an adequate
explanation from less controversial physics has not been forthcoming and
probably never can be.
Can dense hydrogen, irradiated by a weak laser beam, really be so
fragile that it fractures into subatomic debris... even assuming it was
"frozen" in the ultracold realm by its own deflated electron? The result
is as if being blasted by a TeV beam. An exponential increase in
magnetic interaction is a factor (from Calvet) which would help to
explain the Holmlid effect– at least when the magnetic field interferes
with QCD color exchange. Importantly, consider the slides of Chernodub:
physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf.
... which can be understood to provide the mechanism we are looking for
- for proton frangibility via QCD color exchange in a magnetic field.
The fact that there is a geometric region within iron-oxide catalyst of
Casimir dimensions may be no accident, even if prior attempts to utilize
nano-porosity (without laser irradiation) have failed (e.g. Cool Essence
LLC).
This is admittedly a house of cards, but as of now - it could be the
only game in town to explain the appearance of muons. If Casimir
geometry is accurately modeled as a fourth power relationship in the
context of local magnetism, the combined effect with laser could push
the field strength at the focal point into the region where nucleon
disintegration is possible from QCD color exchange disruption. That
would be the working definition of "proton ultracold frangibility."
A final note. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Holmlid effect, at
least as presented above, will not scale up to higher power. It will be
a pity if the efforts to duplicate Holmlid start out with a scaled up
system which fails. The good news is that even the low power system can
be useful. To power a robot, for instance, to human levels of activity
only requires about 100 watts.
