Technically not a boundary, but a saddle point. A point of zero curvature with curvature on each side. Hypothetically speaking of course, without good constraints on dark matter and dark energy.
Technically not a boundary, but a saddle point. A point of zero curvature with curvature on each side. Hypothetically speaking of course, without good constraints on dark matter and dark energy.
You see, I have the same questions for which I'm trying to find answers by asking and being optimistic about the kindness of someone to answer it scientifically. The quantum tunelling I think is one of those questions that has recently concerned some physicists regarding the LENR process in ECAT. By mainstream physics this phenomena is creating some confusion since practically Rossi has shown that something different may exist in this process to counteract the binding energy. However I think If all processes initiate from some kind of spacetime change, then the essence of creation of motion or release of energy could be realized.At a particular configuration of spacetime, quantum tunelling may occur.
As far as I know Rossi has demonstrated nothing at all. I would probably be breaching forum rules if I said what I thought he was doing.
Tunnelling is well understood and explained by quantum physics. As far as I know it does not involve curvature of spacetime.At a particular configuration of spacetime, quantum tunelling may occur.
There is no mainstream confusion about ECAT. There simply aren't any nuclear reactions happening, low-energy or otherwise. Rossi is a fraud, and not a very convincing one. His claims are physically bizarre, he has shown no hard evidence supporting his claims, what evidence he's shown turns out to be clumsily faked (isotope ratios matching natural abundances on Earth, no unstable isotopes), and if there were any truth to his claims there would be unmistakable, impossible-to-fake evidence in the form of huge amounts of radiation for which his shielding would be completely inadequate.
But aside from that, what does your hand waving about "a particular configuration of spacetime" do to explain, describe, or predict quantum tunneling? Or anything else for that matter?
No, there's no confusion. ECat is nonsense. Here's a thread that gets into a good amount of detail on this scam:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....yzer-or-E-Cat/
Rossi has not allowed any verifiable independent tests and his own demos look like fakes (for instance, he demonstrated a device plugged into a wall socket that produces the amont of steam you'd expect if the water were heated conventionally, using a coffee maker or similar). At one time, he said he was going to pay NASA Marshal to test his machine, and that temporarily boosted his credibility, but when it came time to do it, he turned around and demanded NASA pay him $15,000,000. So naturally there was no test.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Are you saying that there is enough pressure from sparse particlas and isolated atoms to constitute a medium which would convey a pressure as proposed by the OP as being analogous to a vacuum cleaner (ignoring for a second that the solar wind and interplanetary medium are listed as plasmas)? It was my understanding that these atoms and particles are too sparse to interact in the manner typical of what we call gas pressure and instead act as either a particle on an orbital trajectory or they a plasma bound by magnetic fields.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
As sparse as it is, interstellar gas still can function as a fluid on scales of many lightyears, when the expanse of the gas is large compared to the mean free path between collisions of the atoms. If a black hole is immersed in such a puff of gas, the gas will fall into it and generate some fireworks from the compressive heating near the hole.
"Mean free path" is probably the concept I was grasping at. But the OP is talking about pressure on the scale of a blackhole event horizon, which not be measured in light hears but, what, hundreds to thousands of miles? We had been talking about accretion disk pressure separately, in order not to conflate the two. After all, he was asking about photons.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
It didn't seem that clear to me. He was conflating a lot of ideas, so it's hard to respond to that without appearing to conflate ideas. One might try making blanket statements that approximate reality so that he might understand the difference and stop conflating them. Or we can attempt a thread of attrition by arguing in the trenches of nitpicking semantics and ignore that part where not only is he not right, he's not even wrong.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Tensor, cjameshuff
As far as I can remember from college physics text books, all atoms in a lattice vibrate.
Vibration is thought to be related to temperature, and collision of atoms is related to pressure and stress within lattice(similar to a gas under pressure at a temp above zero kelvin).
Now if there would be suction of spacetime within the lattice which might be the main cause of temp. and press. then this spacetime may vibrate and have +peak and -peak within the lattice. If vibration of individual atoms would be random,then at particular parts of the lattice these peaks may cause peak -curvature and +curvature. These peak +ve or ve- curvatures may provide the ability for quantum tunelling or fusion .For this reason I think inside BH, could exist very heavy elements as well.
It may give a clue if:
1- at zero kelvin, the rate of disintegration may reduce since atoms vibrate less(perhaps zero vibration). Surely experimental results exist to show what happens.
2- at zero kelvin it could be possible to vibrate the lattice in phase and create atomic resonance(I already have said a few words about this in my previous threads)?
3- imposing high frequency artificial vibration within a lattice leads to variation in the rate of tunelling.
In these cases the possibilty that spacetime suction exists could be boosted and may give a clue about quantum tunelling and halflives.
My last question is to some extent unrelated to the thread topic, but since +peaks may exist in spacetime curvature and fusion may take place, would it be possible to have cold fusion in this case?![]()
As far as you can remember? You mean you haven't even bothered to research if there has been any progress in this before making claims? Can you show how this works, in a lattice, AS CURRENTLY EXPLAINED, with second quantization?
Yeah, and how does the creation of phonons through second quantization affect your contention here?
Yeah, you still haven't shown suction of spacetime. Just some claims, which haven't been shown to make any kind of numerical predictions. And besides, as far as I can tell, it isn't a mainstream concept anyway.
Can you explain why you need spacetime to vibrate, when lattice waves, along with phonons, describe by quantum processes, describes the process quite well? Not to mention, these descriptions have the mathematics to back them up. Your math is, where?
If? You mean you haven't bothered to look into current thought on the matter?
Exactly how would this work, mathematically? How does this differ, mathematically, from quantum tunneling as described by Quantum Field Theory. How does Fusion differ here, from Quantum Field Theory?
By all means, show us how the interior of a black hole is similar to a lattice. How and where are the quantum processes operable within the black hole? And how, mathematically, this would lead to heavy elements.
None of the clues are anything more than extreme speculations that have no basis in experiment, in any kind of cognizant theory. Show us the experiments, the mathematical and theoretical background of your proposal, and how the math and theory match the experiment. Otherwise it's just more nonsense.