Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1
This reference looks to me to be a model of how energy is shared between JCH cells when the cells are entangled. This is how the energy of a big quanta gets distributed to many cells. This solution also says that if entanglement is lost, the big quanta will not be broken up and released from the lattice. On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Axil Axil > > The model that describes this type of system is the > Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model > The connection I made is the same one that is made in this > model of polariton bound states including specific reference to the analogy > of the Josephson effect. > > The connection of dots is not required, there is > Nanoplasmonic science behind the point I made. > > This model works fine for visible or IR light photons but has little > applicability that I can see for gamma radiation. It's all about relative > proportion and wavelength. Nanocavities are wonderful for radiation > coupling > of wavelength which are in the proper geometry - which can go up into the > UV > range but this is orders of magnitude too long to be relevant to gamma > coupling. Even one nanometer is still UV range. > I am not sensitive. I am only countering ill-informed > opinion. > Not exactly - your present conduct indicates that you do not want to > address > informed opinion. If you have references for the JCH model being relevant > to > gamma radiation coupling, then by all means, let's see them. > When someone resists your bullying, you want them to leave > the forum rather than discuss the issue in an tolerant manor. > An appeal for factuality is not bullying. My apology if you got that > impression - if you really do want to discuss gamma thermalization in a > scientific manner, let's do that. What you describe as bullying, is what I > describe as requiring either factual evidence, or a good indication that > factual evidence will be forthcoming in a timely fashion. > I have not yet seen any indication, not the slightest bit - that gamma > radiation can be adequately shielded, suppressed or thermalized once > emitted. However, I am fully open to that possibility if you can dredge up > the slightest good evidence - with the emphasis on "good". > A far easier tact is the Hagelstein route of finding an arguable way to > couple to the emitter BEFORE the gamma is emitted. > With gammas, once it's out, there's no getting it back in. > Jones >
