The quantum mechanical mechanism which supports this gamma suppression is entanglement.
Entanglement was introduced into QM to explain how two particles that had sprung from the same original, meaning identical systems, that is to say “cloned off from the same particle” would behave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cloning Quantum cloning is the process that takes an arbitrary, unknown quantum state and makes an exact copy without altering the original state in any way. Quantum cloning of two non-identical systems is not possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem Quantum cloning is forbidden by the laws of quantum mechanics as shown by the no cloning theorem Though perfect quantum cloning is not possible, it is possible to perform imperfect cloning, where the copies have a non-unit fidelity with the state being cloned. >From the referenced article in this thread, particle pairs are entangled, so suppression of gamma radiation is an exercise in quantum entanglement. I take this all to mean that we cannot turn two dissimilar systems into one system through entanglement but we can get these two systems to act the same. We cannot turn two different sheets of paper into a single sheet, but we can copy the information written on the first sheet onto another sheet. Of the most interest for us, we can get protons into an entangled state using entangle phonons in a metal lattice crystal that store those protons. Entangled protons can thermalize gamma radiation. Lasers can entangle other things like electrons. Entangled electrons can thermalize gamma radiation. Particle pairs are entangled so suppression of gamma radiation is an exercise in quantum entanglement. The bottom line, entangle systems share energy among their member units; this is how high energy radiation is thermalized. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm learning more and more how different the worlds of quantum mechanics > and high energy physics are from that of everyday experience. > > There's been an ongoing discussion about the viability of "active gamma > suppression," or the quenching of gammas, during a LENR reaction. This is > an interesting question because its outcome tells us something about the > kinds of reactions that are possible in light of the available experimental > evidence. In this context the question of the viability the quenching of > gammas under any circumstances is an important one. I'm starting to > collect a number of interesting articles and links that seem to be relevant > here, which I hope to put together in an email at some point. But before I > do that I wanted to share this particular link, which seems promising: > > "Automatic quenching of high energy γ-ray sources by synchrotron photons" > http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701633.pdf > > We investigate a magnetized plasma in which injected high energy gamma > rays annihilate on a soft photon field, that is provided by the synchrotron > radiation of the created pairs. For a very wide range of magnetic fields, > this process involves gamma-rays between 0.3GeV and 30TeV. We derive a > simple dynamical system for this process, analyze its stability to runaway > production of soft photons and paris [pairs], and find conditions for it to > automatically quench by reaching a steady state with an optical depth to > photon-photon annihilation larger than unity. We discuss applications to > broad-band γ-ray emitters, in particular supermassive black holes. > Automatic quenching limits the gamma-ray luminosity of these objects and > predicts substantial pair loading of the jets of less active sources. > > > Some important details here -- the gammas that are thought to be quenched > are 10 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the ones we're interested in. > So even though the conditions under which the quenching is thought to > happen are extreme, these ranges also provide an upper bound that is well > above what we would need. It is possible that the effect cannot be seen > below these energies, but perhaps it might. The authors require a magnetic > field, but they suggest that the effect can be seen between 10^-9 and 10^6 > G. The lower bound, 10^-9 G, is what you find in the human brain, and the > upper bound, 10^6 G, is greater than but not too different from the > magnetic field of a magnetic resonance imaging machine. > > The authors mention in passing a related paper looking at the nonlinear > effects of pair production generated by ultrarelativistic protons. A > recent article at phys.org discusses how laser light coherently > accelerates protons in a metal foil at higher energies than previously > thought. > > > http://phys.org/news/2012-07-higher-energies-laser-accelerated-particles.html > > > So we could potentially have ultrarelativistic protons in our optical > cavity, yielding pair production. The pair production cross section in > nickel also becomes non-negligible in the energy range of 1 to 30 MeV. > > http://imgur.com/MrE0K > > Eric > >
