MIT suggests new physical model for condensed matter

Arxiv.org and Vortex-L ^ | Feb 8 2012 | David Ledin

[Kevmo]

[Vo]: MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter

The Vorts have some great comments about this theory.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63015.html
David ledin Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:40:12 -0800
MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter to explain many
observations of anomalies in condensed matter systems. they named
Fleischmann , Pons and Piantelli but not rossi .

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.4377.pdf



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63024.html
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:07:44 -0800
The key phrase in the abstract is:
"In the resulting model, there appears a new term in which nuclear
transitions
are coupled to lattice vibrations."

I wonder if Hagelstein has been reading Znidarsic's work?
:-)

-m



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Rich Murray Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:00:43 -0800
A scientific layman's quick assessment:

a gifted theoretical physicist and colleague have been working
steadily for years with experimenters --

they carefully studied and rejected many theoretical dead ends for
various anomalous phenomena --

finally they started to apply standard theoretical routes, while
starting fresh with a comprehensive overview that held the nuclear
level and the electronic level together on an equal basis --

finding new subtleties that indicate transactions between nuclear and
electronic levels that so far seem may turn out to fit the puzzling
experimental data --

publishing results quickly in many papers, thus inviting public
critical examination by their peers --

thus, all the hallmarks of mature scientific breakthrough...




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Rich Murray Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:20:12 -0800
more and more, faster and faster, capable professionals will explore
this breakthrough, while we amateurs will be left yipping in the
yard...

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

>> A scientific layman's quick assessment:
...
>> thus, all the hallmarks of mature scientific breakthrough...
>
> And your point is . . .?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Axil Axil Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:05 -0800
Regarding (emphasis added):



These experimental results, and many others, have motivated us to explore
new models that might be relevant. A major issue that we have been
interested in is the *possibility of coherent energy exchange between
quantum systems with mismatched **characteristic energies*, which we
considered to be the biggest theoretical problem associated with the
anomalies. Coherent energy exchange between mismatched quantum systems
occurs in high harmonic generation [22], so we know that it is
possible in principle.
However, there seems to be no analog to Corkum’s mechanism [23],[24] present
in the condensed matter system. A lesser version of the effect is known
within the multiphoton regime of the spin-boson model, which is used to
model basic linear interactions of two-level systems with an oscillator
[25],[26],[27]. We found that if the two-level system is augmented with
loss, the coherent energy exchange rate is increased dramatically. This is
due to the fact that destructive interference limits the rate at

which coherent energy exchange occurs in the spin-boson model, so
augmenting the

model with a mechanism that removes this destructive interference would be
expected
to improve coherent energy exchange rates [28],[29],[30],[31].

Coherence transfer between systems is indeed absolutely required.

The answer to this one is clear. Rossi has told us what does this job for
him.

“no analog to Corkum’s mechanism”...micro cavities that do this job.

Micro-cavities allows protons (one quantum system) to be made coherent in
the lattice via coherent lattice photons (another quantum system).

Put some protons in a micro-cavity and shake until coherent.

Rossi’s powder does this job. In the heavy water experiments,
micro-cavities have done the same job in that system but not as intensely
as it is done by the Rossi’s powder or Piantelli’s rough surface coating.

The are many new quantum mechanical experiments done recently that show how
quantum wells transfer coherence between quantum particle types of all
kinds.

I just saw one where a photon can spin a tinny quantum wheel...light to
mechanical energy.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:40:13 -0800
Axil wrote:

"There are many new quantum mechanical experiments done recently that show
how quantum wells transfer coherence between quantum particle types of all
kinds. I just saw one where a photon can spin a tiny quantum wheel...light
to mechanical energy."



Here's the reference:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/nature10787.html



Yes, there have been several developments in the last few months about
coupling between different energy types. I think the pieces of the puzzle
will be coming together this year.

-Mark


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kevmo]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.4377.pdf

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63015.html

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144

[Kevmo]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.4377.pdf

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex- href=”mailto:l@eskimo.com”>l@eskimo.com/msg63015.html

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

---

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144

[mamelukesabre]

hahaha!

I thought the title read: “Mitt suggests new physical model for condensed matter”

[Track9]

Ping

[Mike Darancette]

I know about condensed matter.

[Kevmo]

abstract of the theory:


Including nuclear degrees of freedom in a lattice Hamiltonian

P L Hagelstein1, I U Chaudhary2

1 Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139,USA
E-mail: plh@mit.edu
2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Engineering and
Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

E-mail: irfanc@mit.edu


Abstract.

Motivated by many observations of anomalies in condensed matter systems, we
consider a new fundamental Hamiltonian in which condensed matter and nuclear
systems are described initially on the same footing. Since it may be possible that
the lattice will respond to the mass change associated with a excited nuclear state, we
adopt a relativistic description throughout based on a many-particle Dirac formalism.
This approach has not been used in the past, perhaps due to the difficulty in separating
the center of mass and relative degrees of freedom of the nuclear system, or perhaps due
to an absence of applications for such a model. We recently found a way to separate
the center of mass and relative contributions to the Hamiltonian for the many-particle
Dirac model, which leads to somewhat different expressions for the kinematic mass,
Newton mass, and deBroglie mass of the many-particle Dirac composite. It is not clear
at this time whether such a difference is reflected in experiment. This separation allows
us to reduce the condensed matter and nuclear Hamiltonian into a more manageable
form. In the resulting model, there appears a new term in which nuclear transitions
are coupled to lattice vibrations.

[DonnerT]

Hmmmm,

Condensed matter, coherent light, oscillation, resonant frenquency, regenerative feedback.

Galt energy? :-)

[super7man]

Association Time:

Kevmo is to cold fusion as

Willie Greene is to ........

[garjog]

Could someone please translate this? It is a bunch of nonsense to me.

[Kevmo]

Basically the theoretical physicists are groping for ways to show that vibration energy couples to the metal matrix in Nickel or Palladium, causing the Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions and excess heat.

[Brad’s Gramma]

REAL friends PING their friends to threads!!!

:)

[MHGinTN]

It’s all about resonance, my boy, all about resonance. You want to be with it in the future, get resonance in the planar present using energy from the linear past.

[reed13]

bfl

[Milhous]

bttt

[Dogbert41]

Did somebody mention Mit?

[Moonman62]

I was ready to believe until I got to this part.

Put some protons in a micro-cavity and shake until coherent.

Rossi’s powder does this job. In the heavy water experiments, micro-cavities have done the same job in that system but not as intensely as it is done by the Rossi’s powder or Piantelli’s rough surface coating.

[Moonman62]

Basically the theoretical physicists are groping...

You may want to stop confusing people with your fancy scientific jargon.

[count-your-change]

Sure. The claim is being made that the nucleus of excited (unstable) atoms can transfer energy to the lattice (the regular frame work the metal) by the change of some of the atom's mass into energy that is coherent (same wave length, etc.) as vibrations in the lattice.
Since the wave length isn't the same for each excess energy is produced as heat as the atomic nucleus becomes more stable.
But moving to a more stable state should produce a gamma ray which is why gamma rays were sought as proof that actual nuclear reactions were taking place.

The problem has been showing the two systems, lattice and nucleus, together can produce more energy than either or both separately operating.

That's my rather broad understanding of what is being claimed. I welcome any corrections.

[eclecticEel]

Could someone please translate this? It is a bunch of nonsense to me.

Yeah, that's the point: it is nonsense.

[Johnny B.]

Rossi’s powder does this job.

It's probably a mistake to try to develop a theory based on the work of a con man.