On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Axil: > > > Is there such a thing as a binding energy for a Cooper pair? It would > take some force field to create the concept of a binding energy I think. > > > Fano-Feshbach resonances http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~mesuma04/CONTRIBUTIONS/strinati.pdf > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency > > Axil-- > > You said: > > >>>SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC.>>> > > Good point. The high angular momentum keeps the phonons at bay. The > Cooper pairs seem to remain together. Maybe the high magnetic field is the > cohesive binding agent? And it seems to maintain itself in the case of an > SPP since there is no good way to get rid of the angular momentum. It > sure seems like it might qualify as a coherent system. > > Axil--Why is it that many do not want to admit the existence of SPP's? > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:09 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: System Coherency > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate > Regarding condensation of electrons: Fermionic superfluids > It is far more difficult to produce a fermionic superfluid than a bosonic > one, because the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits fermions from > occupying the same quantum state. However, there is a well-known mechanism > by which a superfluid may be formed from fermions. This is the BCS > transition, discovered in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert > Schrieffer for describing superconductivity. These authors showed that, > below a certain temperature, electrons (which are fermions) can pair up to > form bound pairs now known as Cooper pairs. As long as collisions with the > ionic lattice of the solid do not supply enough energy to break the Cooper > pairs, the electron fluid will be able to flow without dissipation. As a > result, it becomes a superfluid, and the material through which it flows a > superconductor. > > SPPs are bosons and easily support very high temperature BEC. > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > >> Hi Bob, >> >> No time to answer at length now, but will later this eve... >> >> My initial thought is that even a semiconductor is not what I would call >> a coherent system... >> Perhaps the junction is, but I would need more details to determine if >> that is so. >> >> RE: your statement that, >> "If one electron leaves the system, all change their energy at the same >> time, responding instantaneously." >> >> What exactly is their definition of 'instantaneously"??? >> Has this been definitively established with a resolution of 10^-15 >> seconds??? >> I seriously doubt it... >> >> -Mark >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: >> >> Mark-- >> >> I have an additional question for you regarding your definition of >> coherent regarding a semi-conductor. >> >> Semi- conductors depend upon electrons that flow in the semi-conductor >> to respond to voltages and that all the electrons in the semi-conductor >> occupy separate energy levels since they obey Fermi statistics and are in >> the same QM system. If one electron leaves the system, all change their >> energy at the same time, responding instantaneously. I think this >> description of a semi-conductor and response of electrons is accepted >> theory. >> >> Why would not the semi-conductor meet your definition of a coherent >> system? >> >> Bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From: **MarkI-Zeropoint* >> *To: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* >> *Sent: *Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered >> in evanescent light waves >> >> 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: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* >> *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:janap...@gmail.com] >> *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> >> >> *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: >> 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. >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil < *janap...@gmail.com*> >> 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 < *frobertc...@hotmail.com*> >> 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: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* >> *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: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* >> *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> >> | Paper Ref: >> | >> *http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html> >> FYI: >> arXiv Preprint: >> *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>) >> >> - Mark Jurich >> >> > >
