At 04:44 PM 8/17/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote:
My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any
neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the
singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of
them. It also devours them.
Stewart, this is embarrassing.
You have not defined "near vicinity." From the fact that the
singularities you propose don't grow beyond bounds, we must consider
"near vicinity" to be quite small. If it includes lattice atoms, it
would suck them in (or be attracted to them, if they are more massive
than it is). But this isn't the issue I'm addressing here.
A neutron created in the vicinity of the singularity will have an
initial velocity. If it is already a ULM neutron, that means that it
has very low velocity relative to the environment, and we must assume
that this also means relative to the singularity, which must not be
high velocity in the lattice, or else Katie Bar the Door. Such a
neutron has a high capture cross section, that's the importance of
ULM in LENR discussions.
Capture by what? An initial ULM neutron, near a singularity, will
merge with the singularity, I'd assume, for a similar reason that it
would be absorbed readily if not for the singularity.
You are proposing that "neutrons that escape" will be "very low
momentum, since the" [singularities] [sic] "gravity ... sucked all
the energy out of them." Gravity does not "suck energy" out of
things. It accelerates them, with a vector dependent on the field.
A neutron that escapes must have an initial escape velocity, which
depends on its location relative to the singularity. If the escape
velocity from a position is V(e), and the initial velocity of the
neutron is V(n), then the final velocity of the neutron, if it
escapes, will approach V(n) - V(e). Not zero or very low. With
thermal neutrons or higher-energy neutrons, a neutron ending up as
ULM would be a very rare coincidence, where V(n) happened to be
almost exactly equal to V(e).
Kinetic energy is relative. It's not something that can be "sucked
out" of a particle.
Note that a neutron would not be specially attracted to a singularity
over other particles in the vicinity. Charged particles might have
other forces acting on them, though. Nevertheless, a singularity
sitting at a lattice site (center of the cubic lattice) would rapidly
accumulate "food." Hydrogen nuclei prefer that site. The growth of
the singularity, from what I've read, casually, would be on the order
of 10^9 protons or deuterons per second. I have no idea if this would
result in net growth or would merely retard the evaporation of the singularity.
I'd expect to see, though, a *lot* of radiation from such a
circumstance. If the singularity grows to a size that it begins to
eat lattice atoms, it would rapidly grow beyond limit. Goodbye, planet Earth.
Steward, if you really do want to pursue this wild-hair idea, look at
the stability and predicted lifetime of very small singularities, how
fast they would have to be fed a diet of protons or deuterons to
actually grow. There are also electrons available for food, there is
always an electron presence anywhere in the lattice. But protons are
way, way fatter, deuterons double that.
We know they don't grow. So the issue would be how long they would
live if formed, and whether or not there are events, however rare,
that might occasionally allow them to eat the lattice. Because if
they eat the lattice, they will not stop there!
What is the critical size, how many AMU, is how I'd like to see it
expressed. I can't see how a lattice-contained singularity could
always avoid eating a lattice atom, unless its lifetime is very short
and it is always formed at a cubic central site, and can't survive
the journey to a lattice atom.
If it eats a lattice atom, say Pd, it would then be that size,
minimum. If it was low-mass before that, it would now be that mass.
What, then, would be its expected lifetime? How would such a
singularity behave?
In all this, if you are proposing singularities as an explanation for
LENR, you should understand that known LENR for PdD is a surface
effect. It does *not* take place, to any major degree, in the
lattice. At the surface, much is in motion .... Storms makes a good
case that the effect only takes place in surface cracks. Very messy.
