Francis, I basically agree. It also makes sense to me the time standard is an atomic clock. My sense is that "time" in our dimensions is really just the decay rate due to those particles popping in/out of the vacuum field, triggering low level ionization and decay in our 3 dimensions. Rossi/DGT have just figured out a way to increase the decay rate within the reactor using the collapsed hydrogen collapsing/oscillating in/out of the vacuum in coherence. In other words, they have "sped up time" in the core of that reactor, which is really just beta decay, etc. The energy released is from the quantum decoherence as those particles interact with ordinary matter, ionizing and decaying any/all around them. It think that is the same thing our weather is doing to us, as the background radiation typically increases during heavy rains. Radiocarbon dating is based upon the "normal" decay rate of Carbon 14. If I am right, you will age/decay even faster if you stand in the middle of a waterspout...:)
Stewart On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X <[email protected] > wrote: > Mark, > Just finished Puthoff’s 2012 paper and although I like his conclusion > below I still feel he is avoiding giving credit to the creation and > annihilation of pairs as powering all atomic and subatomic motion, he > refers to a “balance” between photon emission and ZP absorption but appears > to be paying homage to our ingrained assumption in physics that atomic > motion is just an inherent property of matter where I would argue that > matter would collapse and time would not even exist without these virtual > pairs streaming thru our spatial dimensions perpendicular to space.. [snip] > Atoms > therefore constitute open systems engaged in dynamic interactions with the > surrounding > vacuum states. Specifically, the on net radiationless characteristic of the > ground state is shown here to derive from particle‐vacuum interactions in > which a dynamic equilibrium is established between radiation emission due > to particle acceleration, and compensatory absorption from the zero‐point > fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field. Thus, the vacuum field > is formally necessary for the stability of atomic structures, and this > underlying principle therefore constitutes an important feature of > quantum ground states. [/snip] . > Fran > > _____________________________________________ > *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 04, 2013 12:35 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > Dammit Fran, ya made me leave the Dimebox Saloon to go look up the refs… > Good news is that my memory isn’t fading yet! > > 2012: Quantum Ground States as Equilibrium Particle‐Vacuum Interaction > States > *http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1952.pdf* <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1952.pdf> > > And his first paper on this in ’87: > *http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf*<http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf> > > Abstract > A remarkable feature of atomic ground states is that they are > observed to be radiationless in nature, despite (from a classical > viewpoint) typically involving charged particles in accelerated motions. > The simple hydrogen atom is a case in point. This universal ground‐state > characteristic is shown to derive from particle‐vacuum interactions in > which a dynamic equilibrium is established between radiation emission > due to particle acceleration, and compensatory absorption from the > zero‐point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field [1]. The > result is a net radiationless ground state. This principle constitutes an > overarching constraint that delineates an important feature of quantum > ground states. > > And this work by David Rodriguez which adds to the above: > > 2012: “Orbital stability and the quantum atomic spectrum from Stochastic > Electrodynamics” > *http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6168* <http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6168> > > Last part of Abstract: > Puthoff's work led necessarily to the quantization of angular momentum: > "if stable orbits exist... then their angular momentum must be quantized"; > now, too, we are able to do a much stronger statement: "the equations of > the system, in the presence of ZPF background, *lead necessarily to a > discrete set of stable orbits*". > > Rodriguez’s paper is extensive… > > Fran’s buying the next round of drinks!! > J > > -Mark Iverson > _____________________________________________ > *From:* Frank roarty [*mailto:[email protected]* <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:13 PM > *To:* *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > Mark, I think Puthoff fell short in suggesting ZPE keeps the electron and > nucleus spatially separated.. Jan Naudts 2005 paper on relativistic > hydrogen suggests f/h is relativistic based on Casimir suppression.. that > tells me the larger virtual particles are still present in a cavity but > appear contracted from our inertial frame. Rhueda and Haisch make the > analogy for Lorentzian contraction of a spacecraft approaching C as a car > driving thru a rainstorm.. the faster the cars forward speed the denser the > rain becomes in a Pythagorean relationship with the downward speed of the > rain. We know time dilation is undetectable except by relative measure and > the virtual particles measured in a lab near C, a stationary lab floating > in free space or a nano sized lab in a Casimir cavity would all see virtual > particles of normal size and be unaware of any time dilation. It is this > Pythagorean relationship that makes me posit a relativistic explanation for > Casimir effect and that the nucleus and electron are temporally displaced, > The electron is electrically tethered but is opposed from temporal > displacement by a stream of virtual particles passing through our physical > plane on the temporal axis… it is this orientation that is responsible for > relativistic measure as it establishes our time metric individually for our > inertial frame like the little zip toys that kids would pull the gear tape > and then let fly…. We don’t know how fast the ether [gear tape] is spinning > us up locally since it represents our clock it always seems like C from our > local measure. > I jumped on Jones post because I am always on the look out for a self > assembling Maxwellian demon like process that will prove the HUP can be > exploited. The concept of changing the Casimir force thru migration while > an IRH/heavy electron is locked into a p orbital of Ni is intriguing.. a > self assembled rectifying agent? Where random motion of gas is supposed to > cancel out spatially this scenario doesn’t have to become directionalized > as long as it moves between areas with different values of Casimir force it > will stress the heavy electron because the f/h will be translating to > different values but the electron is unable to leave the p orbital…. You > need this asymmetry where the f/h value can oppose random motion and > discount the thermal energy required for chemical reaction..in this case I > think it may ionize the Ni, immediately reform to the appropriate > fractional value for it’s local geometry and reform in the p shell as a > heavy electron again in an endless reaction based on changes in Casimir > force. This may even be close to the Mills animations… nice hypothesis by > Jones! > Fran > _____________________________________________ > *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint > [*mailto:[email protected]*<[email protected]>] > > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 1:04 PM > *To:* *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > Jones/Fran, > Wish I had time to read more; my vortex folder has 560 unread msgs! This > may have been suggested before, but I’ll throw it out there into the > collective to see if it strikes accord with anyone… > > In thinking (heretically, of course!) about f/H states, and how the > mainstream thinks sub-ground-state states are figments of our imaginations, > I may have an explanation. > > I think it was Puthoff who suggested that a continual interaction (xchng > of E?) between the ZPF and electrons is what maintains them at some > distance from the nucleus. Well, when atoms find themselves in a Casimir > cavity, and some of the larger wavelength ZPF is EXCLUDED, then there is > LESS ZPE (E not F) to maintain what we know as the ground state of > electrons of those atoms. Thus, the electrons fall to a lower level which > balances with whatever level of ZPE is present in the Casimir cavity… am I > behind the 8-ball on this? Has this been proposed yet? > > -Mark Iverson > > _____________________________________________ > *From:* Jones Beene [*mailto:[email protected]* <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:23 AM > *To:* *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > _____________________________________________ > *From:* Frank roarty > > …just staying with Ni and f/h would this hypothesis be consistent with the > anomalous spectrum emitted? Would this f/h acting as a heavy electron give > off photons when changing state..and again how would it change state if it > is locked into the p orbital..could the fractional value change states > while still acting as a heavy electron? > > Fran > > I see where you are going with this suggestion, which is provocative - but > the answer is unknown. It looks like you are trying to move beyond the > Mills’ theory into a zero point explanation. We have discussed before that > there is a known connection between ZPE and phase-change, but most of the > evidence for this is in other fields. > * > http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/bioscience/changes-in-proton-zero-point-energy-responsible-for-dna-phase-change11125.html > *<http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/bioscience/changes-in-proton-zero-point-energy-responsible-for-dna-phase-change11125.html> > > Actually there is a niche of science concerned with materials which are > tailored to exhibit large phase changes. Below the authors demonstrate that > phase change materials (PCMs) which are > known to switch reproducibly between an amorphous and a crystalline phase, > are very > promising candidates to achieve a significant oscillation force without a > change of composition. > *http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4065.pdf*<http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4065.pdf> > > Of course we know that phase change can happen with large thermal > consequences. In short, we have to ask: is nickel hydride a kind of > inadvertent PCM, and does it’s thermal activity depend on a precise loading > of hydrogen, and then cycling around the phase-change parameter; or indeed > does this depend on a loading with an isomer of hydrogen instead of plain > hydrogen (such as the reduced ground state) ? > > Since we know that in many NiH reactions there are no gammas, but there is > a rather distinct connection between the thermal anomaly and nickel > phase-change, then a ZPE hypothesis would be strengthened by showing how > higher energy photons can be emitted continuously and anomalously – > especially in the IR range of 10-20 microns. > > Since we know that nickel alone will not do this other than in a Mills > scenario – we have to ask if an inclusion of below ground state hydrogen > will act as the “antenna for ZPE”, so to speak. This seems to me to be a > satisfactory way to move away from a nuclear basis for LENR to a zero point > basis. A magnetic anomaly seems to fit into a ZPE explanation better than > it fits into a nuclear explanation. > > What is needed is falsifiability. > > > > > > > >
