Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter (as emitting entities). These are accumulated macro-states in the sense that the signature line comes not from a decay of any particle, but instead from accumulations of coherent particles, which can be a condensate, and which act together as a cohesive unit – over and above the particles involved.
This possibility has come up in regard to fragmentation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, which can occur given repulsive inter-particle interactions and a non-uniform external potential. The paper is older: “Some Remarks on the Fragmentation of Bose Condensates” by Spekkens et al. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9802053.pdf If one starts with that paper, then adds this: http://web.mit.edu/physics/greytak-kleppner/publications/LT22_Talk.pdf which treats atomic hydrogen as a composite boson which can be condensed, all of it raises the remote possibility that the emitting species in question (which would correspond to “dark matter” in general) is not necessarily a single entity but is a relic of the breakup of larger accumulations of dark matter. If we were talking about a BEC of atomic hydrogen as being dark matter, then the radiation which has been seen in the 3.7 keV range for instance, could be attributed to the breakup of a larger condensate – except that it seems improbable at first that there would be a favored size… which would need to be the case if there was a single line, but maybe not. Fragmentation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, along with recombination and even a macro-level of oscillating coherence can occur given bosonic repulsive inter-particle interactions and a non-uniform external potential. To paraphrase: It is customary to approximate the ground state of a coherent system of particles (spin free bosons) by the Hartree-Fock state, and as a normalized single particle wavefunction. One can, also consider states where the form is normalized but orthogonal single-particle wavefunctions, where we distinguish the first as ‘single condensates’ and the second as ‘dual condensates’ … so that what we identify as a characteristic signature of dark matter is in fact a relic of shifting condensate orientation – possibly representing the passage of gravity waves within a cloud of dark matter. It gets curiouser and curiouser… From: Bob Higgins Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for the galactic 511keV signal. He says in this paper that the previous calculations were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the problem should be solved using modern QED. For this, he refers to Dr. James Vary (Iowa State University) who is apparently continuing the DDL work with his graduate students. Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL work done by Dr. Va'vra and found no errors. Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers: * The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model. It doesn't predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground state due to relativistic effects not being included. The slower the electron is traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its solution is. * The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to the model, but not spin. The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that is very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state hydrogen is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi). * The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin. Dr. Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels. These levels are solutions to the "S-" portion of the equation normally discarded because conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a point source is presumed for the nucleus. This is solved by re-formulating the problem with a distributed charge source model for the nucleus. The resulting solution predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than the Shrodinger and KG equations. The Dirac DDL solutions include states with orbits less than 300 Fermi. * None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem. It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center of mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position. This effect is not accounted for in any of these equations. * These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create or absorb a photon [Meulenberg]. So, it becomes problematic for how energy is transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states. With this being the case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can exchange energy. This is a problem for detection of DDL states. * The DDL atom is also so small, it behaves more like a quasi-neutron and has a very low reaction cross-section. It will readily pass through containers. * Most agree that if two DDL hydrogen isotope atoms form a DDL molecule, they will fuse immediately (within 10's of picoseconds). Bob Higgins Bob Cook wrote: Jones-- Thanks for that repeat. I missed it the first time. Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite interesting including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a change from his actions in the 1993 paper. I wonder what changed his mind about addressing theory?
