http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Li_Stockman_PRL_2013_Electric_Spaser.pdf
Electric Spaser in the Extreme Quantum Limit The normal state of the SPP is BEC because of their low mass. In Bose-Einstein statistics the quantum concentration Nq (particles per volume) is proportional to the total mass M of the system: Nq=(MkT/2πℏ2)3/2 where k Boltzmann constant, T temperature In a nutshell, a very low mass means certainty in BEC formation. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint <[email protected]>wrote: > Bob: > Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet my > definition of coherent. > > Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very likely > NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of > condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of > physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent > behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. > > I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years > which support a physical model I have in mind. > There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... > This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I > believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That quantum was absorbed > by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something > to the system which caused the quantum of heat to transfer to the other > atom, which began shaking, and the first became still. > > You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental > frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same thing > as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you remove all > heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will > oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency (which > we call a BEC, "all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONE quantum of > heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of the atoms, > causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it will be > 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed that > quantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, that > quantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat as > individual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely > small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta > are the 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossed > constantly. > > To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly even > 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different 'flavor', > and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially interacting > oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of energy can ONLY be > transferred between the different 'flavors' of oscillators if conditions > are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept of a type of > impedance-matching between the different types of oscillators. > > Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of > achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any significant > length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent... and that would > be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of physics and > chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to reproduce. > > Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE... > what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt > with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally > acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was > large enough, and no atoms entered it, it would be a perfect vacuum at 0K. > Are there photons of heat constantly flying thru it? Who knows... perhaps > the NAE boundaries present a higher barrier to atoms shedding heat quanta > so the NAE remains pretty much a perfect vacuum until a H or D atom > diffuses into it. Does that H or D atom then shed any heat quanta it has > to join any others which have also entered the NAE. If so, then wouldn't > they form, spontaneously, a BEC? > > -Mark > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook wrote: > > Mark-- > > One of the issues is what is the extent of Coherency--I have been calling > it coupling the material systems we know. > > Are crystals coherent?, are nano particles coherent?, > are molecules coherent?, are BEC coherent?, are semiconductor resistors > coherent? > > What in your experience defines the size of a coherent system? > > Bob > > *rom: **MarkI-ZeroPoint* > *To: **[email protected]* > *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:11 PM > *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in > evanescent light waves > > “ However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 > 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular > momentum generated by a * *circulating flow ** of energy in the wave > field of the electron.” > > This is at least somewhat understandable if one considers the vacuum as > a near-frictionless fluid under extreme pressure… you cannot have ‘flow’ > without a pressure differential. > > “ the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular > momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave.” > > I commented on the importance of “coherence” in a posting several days > ago… well, coherence involves not only a frequency component, but a > polarization (or phase relationship) component. The bulk matter, or > ‘chemistry’ that Dr. Storms has spent his life in, does NOT involve > coherency… the laws that he is intimately familiar with do not involve > systems where significant groups of atoms/electrons/SPP/??? are all > coherently interacting… LENR will require a new set of laws for these > regions of coherent entities. > > -Mark Iverson > > *From: *Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:08 PM > *To: *vortex-l > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in > evanescent light waves > > *http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf*<http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf><http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf> > <http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf> > *What is Spin? Am J. Phys. 54 (6) June > 1986*<http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf>. > The abstract is: > <http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf> > According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or some > other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no > concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no > classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by > Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be > regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of > energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment > may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave > field. This provides an intuitivelyl appealing picture and establishes > that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are “internal” — they are > not associated with the internal structure of the electron, but rather > with the structure of the field. Furthermore, a comparison between > calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields > shows that the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the > angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave. > <http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil < *[email protected]*> > wrote: > Regarding Belinfante spin momentum. > > Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as a > result of its wave function and not motion of forces within the > electron. > > Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular momentum > and the wave nature of photons. > > That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are > related if not identical. > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook < *[email protected]*> > wrote: > Jones-- > > It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months > ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out. I hope Ed takes note > and decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for > LENR.. > > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > *From: **Bob Cook* > *To: **[email protected]* > *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered > in evanescent light waves > > Jones-- > > the rabbit hole just became more crowded. > > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > *From: **Jones Beene* > *To: **[email protected]* > *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM > *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin > discovered in evanescent light waves > > These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect > in LENR and to SPP. > That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not > obvious to everyone, here is an additional point. > Mie scattering and Mie’s solution to Maxwell - is the scattering > of electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a > good radiator but does not make a good antenna, but there are > exceptions. When the sphere is a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded > with hydrogen and with nanometer geometry in the surface features > (tubules), all of this becomes relevant to SPP. > On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP “Recently, we > described such spin for surface plasmon polariton, and it was shown > that the imaginary longitudinal field component plays an important > role in optical coupling processes… > *From: *Mark Jurich > Mark Iverson wrote: > | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent > light waves > | > *http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html*<http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html><http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html> > | Paper Ref: > <http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html> > | > *http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html><http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html> > FYI: > <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html> > arXiv Preprint: > *http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf*<http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf><http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf> > (arXiv Abstract: > *http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547*<http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547>) > <http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547> > - Mark Jurich <http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547> > <http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547> >
