When energy is pumped into the vacuum, then that energy begins to change the very nature of the vacuum. At low levels of pumped energy, the number of virtual photons produce per unit time will proportionally increase. This will increase the rate of radioactive decay of isotopes.
When a bit more energy is pumped into the vacuum, pions are produced as a result of the decay produced of meson condensation from the vacuum. At the highest energy pumping levels, the matter in the volume of the reaction breaks down into a quark/gluon plasma that will completely reconfigure the matter input into the reaction along the lines that are defined by the nature of the quarks as they recombine. There might be a number of separate energy strength based reactions catalyzed in the vacuum that occur in a line along the length of the energy beam as the strength of the bean decreases with distance. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > To Eric's discussion of downconversion ... > > When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it > in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, > with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches > with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the > relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. The strong force is > like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a nucleon diameter), you > have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you end up with 3 > possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest and hits and > sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, and 3) the > proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the same time > and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron is > released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you get > tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. This would predict > that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be very rare. However, > because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei approach each other, > it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons more likely to face > each other, but this only happens at the last minute. Because of this, 2) > may be slightly more favored. I don't like to think of this plasma fusion > as a black box wherein two nuclei collide and through some magic this set > of statistical outcomes emerges. Once you start thinking about why these > channels emerge, you can begin to think about why LENR leads to its own > output channels. > > Downshifting reminds me of subharmonic conversion since I come from an EE > background. You cannot get subharmonic conversion without coupling to a > very strong nonlinearity. Even then, the output resonance must be > harmonically matched to the input frequency for any kind of efficiency. > When everything is tuned up perfectly, and with a very strong > nonlinearity, you get fairly efficient conversion, but that may mean 20-40%. > > One of the things about Hagelstein's proposition that bothers me is that > the excited nucleus does not want to stay excited for very long - it decays > in an incredibly short time. Suppose you are de-exciting a dd* that wants > to release 24 MeV of energy with a set of phonons at 10THz. The frequency > difference is 24MeV=5.8e21Hz compared to 10THz=1E13Hz or a ratio of 5.8E8. > If you are taking the energy away with a 5.8E8x lower frequency phonon, it > seems like it would take 5.8E8x as long to extract the energy. Can an > excited nucleus be coerced into waiting to burp that long? It seems like > it would require extreme coupling between the excited nucleus and the > lattice for that to happen - much more coupling than the exchange coupling > of the electronic lattice can provide. > > Axil has been talking about interacting waves ... > > My EE training also tells me that waves are 2 ships that cross in the > night and neither knows that the other is there and neither affects the > other UNLESS there is the presence of a nonlinear medium that they both > traverse simultaneously. I am not saying that the vacuum is perfectly > linear, but by most of our experience in the macro world, the vacuum is > nearly perfectly linear; otherwise radio would not work as we know it. As > we get to nuclear scales, this may be different. Also note that solitons > are solutions to a nonlinear equation - it seems that the nonlinearity must > be present for solitons to propagate. If it is the case that the "wave" > nature of elementary particles is more soliton-like, it may be indicating > that the vacuum is not linear at the scales of elementary particles. Once > the nonlinearity is invoked at that scale, there may be wave-to-wave > coupling. > > Bob Higgins > >
