Not only do the photons and dipoles couple very strongly in the lattice, they also couple to the quantum vacuum as evidenced by the appearance of *vacuum Rabi splitting *in the spectroscopic analysis of the associated EMF photon radiation.The appearance of virtual dipoles drive the dipoles in the lattice. Other photons add to the energy of the dipoles over what is provided by vacuum energy.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Roarty, Francis X <[email protected] > wrote: > Lou,**** > > I also think the frequency of photons emitted in an NAE > are going to be frequency shifted proportional to their contracted state. > In my old animation circa 2010 I show a red photon for H2 disassociation > outside casimir plates while f/H2 photons emitted inside plates are blue > where the moving plates represent different values of Casimir geometry. > http://byzipp.com/finished1.swf ** ** > > Fran**** > > ** ** > > *From:* francis [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, June 07, 2013 8:41 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...**** > > ** ** > > On Thursday June 6th Harry said **** > > Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start > **** > > with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. > **** > > I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes*** > * > > as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local > **** > > fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well.**** > > ** ** > > Harry, I share your position and think this is also due to the quantum > effect of the geometry. I think the suppression concentrated in the NAE > must be balanced by a “diluted” region outside the cavity walls that > responsible for this “segregation” of vacuum pressure… although vacuum > wavelengths appear much shorter inside a cavity they must, IMHO, appear > slightly longer spread over the atoms behind the cavity to avoid a COE > violation..you aren’t getting something for nothing..the geometry is simply > segregating pressure like Chicago city scape separates wind. This by itself > won’t give us any source of energy since it is just a hill to run up and > roll down but there has always been an energy source associated with gas > motion.. you have temperature which will fall when harnessed and then you > also have HUP which keeps helium from freezing solid even at 0 kelvin that > can never be exhausted. We are told HUP which is responsible for the > random motion of gas is unusable energy that can’t be considered under > conservation of energy –They say a Maxwellian demon to separate hot from > cold is impossible to implement at OU. I disagree, I think the NAE pits > different forces of nature against each other to create heat and cold via a > back door method. You have physical confinement and axial alignment of H2, > you have supplied ambient heat forcing motion to initiate the process, You > have Ed’s energy sink due to opposing charges on either side of the cavity > where resonance causes the nucleus to emit energy as photons, or, my model > of near disassociation f/h molecules getting the threshold discounted by > the force trying to change the fractional value which only gives of a > single photon upon reassociatio at the new f/h level.. Granted both forces > go back to the same initial source..virtual particle pairs but they are on > vastly different scales where one is very fast comparable to ac current > moving gas atoms while the other is a locally accumulated pressure – a > small gravity hill with a concentrated peak in the cavity and a wide valley > extending out from the cavity walls that segregates the pressure we > consider isotropic out here in the macro world. Anomalous cooling and > retarded radioactive decay of gases are harder to detect but have both > been reported..just not as concentrated or as frequently as anomalous heat > and accelerated decay. My posit is that beyond diffusion the random motion > of gas is harnessed to keep Ed’s hydrotron resonanting or pushing my near > disassociation f/h over the threshold so it can form another molecule. *** > * > > Fran**** >
