The hypothesis of enhancing a "QM probability field" within the LENR, which
can positively alter end results has been mentioned here before, but is
given little more than passing notice by most experimenters... probably
because it has not reached a threshold of "meme" entanglement yet. But it is
meme-related, and is also in the News today.

In the journal Physical Review Letters, a transition process from quantum to
classical world is described as a "decoherence" process that involves a kind
of evolutionary progression - somewhat analogous to Charles Darwin's concept
of natural selection. We never think of these two dynamics as being even
remotely related, but the way in which they could be related can also be
described as "altering randomness".

The authors of the Paper (Ferry and Burke from ASU) do NOT go this far, and
instead they built on prior theories called 'decoherence' and 'quantum
Darwinism', proposed by Wojciech Zurek at Los Alamos National Labs. Try
saying that name three times rapidly and you will have an instant grasp of
the neologism: "decoherence" :)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100702092200.htm

The decoherence concept holds that many potential quantum ground states are
"selected" in a kind of time reversal while tentatively interacting with the
environment. Through a Darwinian process they can arrive at a "pointer
state", which is fit enough to be transmitted through the environment
without collapsing.

This could also be related to a putative "probability field" of QM, which
influences reaction rates and can effectively turns true randomness into
stochastic likelihood (if 'time is on your side'). I am using 'stochastic'
not in the traditional sense, but as a cross-over condition between true
randomness and full predictability. The implication of 'stochastic' is that
over millions of years seemingly random occurrences seem to appear to be
goal-directed (to humans who are so inclined). Needless to say, there can be
both theological and 'pathological' implications (i.e. pathological
science). 

This can be seen most famously in a controversial techniques which Rusi
Taleyarkhan used to increase the neutron yield in cavitation experiments -
which involved "seeding" the reactor with a tiny secondary source of
radiation which would create a few neutrons on its own. There was no
duplicity - this was planned and explicit. 

However, he did not mention enhancing the "probability field" by name, as
being his underlying rationale for doing it: and to his great detriment
IMHO... since the seeding technique became a focal point of contention from
almost bloodthirsty critics. 

His results were positive, and found to be orders of magnitude greater, even
after the contributing source was factored out. In effect these results
offer validation for the idea of enhancing the "probability field" but
blindly, and without his explicit direction. Too bad.
 
The strategy can be framed as this: any form or baseline "continuity" (even
at very low level, but persistent) creates a "spatial probability field"
within its "zone" which can massively alter the reaction rate of what would
otherwise be extremely rare QM reactions within that zone.

Let's say (using artificial numbers) that the background rate for neutrons
on your detector is one per minute and you add a source of neutrons that
brings this up by an orders of magnitude which is still low (10/min) but is
now within a range that can "alter probability". You have found this out
from trial and error. 

When you turn on your sonicator, then with the added stimulus you now get
500/min. but before, and without the 'probability enhancer you only were
getting 20/min. 

Is there a better way to describe these dynamics, than "alteration of the QM
probability field" ?

Perhaps there is (positive feedback looping, for instance) but at least now
the statistical dynamics can be framed in a way that has a more general
applicability than what can be perceived and an 'intent to deceive' (via
seeding). 

Jones


BTW to finish up on the sad Taleyarkhan saga: he got a lot of criticism for
the seeding technique (primarily from ignorant, or jealous competitors for
sonofusion funding, but also some of the problem could be from his failure
to adequately explain the rationale behind it)...

...and the underlying concept is, well ... arguable if not sound, in QM. See
I.E. # 1, p. 46, "Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability Enhancement
by Boson Stimulation," by Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III. 

IOW there is a reputed "probability field" in QM in which the likelihood of
a rare reaction is governed in stages of probability plateaus - by what can
best be described as "the presence of the past" to use Sheldrake's
terminology ... which is to say, it is influenced by "habit" or "continuity"


...leading to a altered probability states over true randomness (once there
is a threshold level) ... which threshold level, in effect, creates a
positive feedback loop, and leads to a drastically higher probability field
at a new plateau. 









Reply via email to