Axil I didn't know that was the focus of Peter Hagelstein's work. However, he says he adds a "weird kind of loss" to his model. Any idea what he means?
BTW, It occured to me that a "failed" model, i.e. a classically unstable model, could also produce a similar result, where a given amount of energy is emitted continuously over a certain range of frequencies instead of being emitted all at once as a gamma photon at one frequency. Harry On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows: > > So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model > that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the > physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's > basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic > oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's > just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of > the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math > really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death. > People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on > how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability > to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30 > individual quanta. > > Axil says: > Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons: > > The Jaynes–Cummings model. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model > > Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches > us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It > describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode > of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of > a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and > absorption). > > MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in the interview as follows: > > What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's > hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that > makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a > weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold > fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the > physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of > loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy > exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively > weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is > exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and > chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found. > > Axil says: > > This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF > radiation to the near field by eliminated far field emissions. > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> * >> >> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows: >> * >> >> So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no fast >> electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if it >> were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is >> that — if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being >> nuclear is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one >> 4He for every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way >> of a theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work >> like the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on. >> So that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many >> years. >> >> The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum mechanics issue. >> The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it didn't get >> broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as energetic >> particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the approach we've >> taken is that we've said "the only conceivable route for making sense of >> these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta have to get sliced >> and diced up into a very very large number if much smaller energy quanta." >> The much larger number is on the order of several hundred million. In NMR >> physics and optical physics, people are familiar with breaking up a large >> quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could argue that there are some >> experiments where you could argue that maybe that numbers as high as 100 or >> so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV quantum and chop it up >> into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> If a bunch of low energy photons is equivalent to the energy of 1 high >>> energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear reaction sometimes >>> produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma photon? According >>> to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it considered >>> impossible? >>> >>> harry >>> >>> >>
