From: Bob Cook
"In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the
bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom
can easily do this."
Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction
between the proton and the sea?The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as "chemical". Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
