This ties into much of what I've been writing about magnets, electrons, how the triboelectric charge separation motor works and motionless electrical generators.

Hydrodynamics with Triangle Anomalies
Dam T. Son {1} and Piotr Sur´owka {2, 3}
{1} Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1550, USA
{2} Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1560, USA
{3} Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Reymonta 4, 30-059 Krak´ow, Poland

Quote from https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5044.pdf

We consider the hydrodynamic regime of theories with quantum anomalies for global currents. We show that a hitherto discarded term in the conserve current is not only allowed by symmetries, but is in fact required by triangle anomalies and the second law of thermodynamics. This term leads to a number of new effects, one of which is chiral separation in a rotating fluid at nonzero chemical potential.

In the local rest frame of fluid, the new contribution to the current is j = ¹/₂ ξ∇ × v, which means that there is a current directed along the vorticity. For example, in a volume of rotating quark matter, quarks with opposite helicities will move to opposite directions, a phenomenon which can be called hydrodynamic chiral separation.

Note that 'fluid' can be thought of as any actual fluid or the QVZPE field (a paramagnetic cold plasma, a superfluid).

This is exactly how and why magnets work the way they do... virtual photons mediate the magnetic field. The magnetic material is imprinted with magnetism in a magnetizer, which causes a temporal imparity within the magnet which causes a simultaneous (in our frame of reference, but time-shifted in the frame of the magnet) energy over-abundance and energy deficit within the magnetic material, which causes the magnet to suck in virtual photons from the QVZPE field at the outer perimeter of each of the magnet's pole faces, and expel virtual photons (which are subsumed back into the QVZPE field) at the center of each of the magnet's pole faces.

When a permanent magnet is being magnetized, the magnetic domains are all in one direction, but the magnetic material doesn't have sufficient magnetic hardness to withstand the magnetic forces internal to the magnet, so approximately half the magnetic domains unpin and flip to minimize the internal energy of the magnet... if it didn't do this, the magnetic material would be physically ripped apart by the magnetic stresses.

The two predominant domain directions within a permanent magnet cause two flows of virtual photons:
1} Out of the QVZPE field, into the outer perimeter of the North pole face of the magnet, through the bulk of the magnet and out the center of the South pole face, then back into the QVZPE field

2} Out of the QVZPE field, into the outer perimeter of the South pole face of the magnet, through the bulk of the magnet and out the center of the North pole face, then back into the QVZPE field

The virtual photons have opposite helicity for each flow route.

This ties into my recent post about sinusoids being circular functions. All single photons (and virtual photons) are circularly polarized. To get any other form of polarization requires more than one photon (or virtual photon) becoming entangled, as this study shows.

I've been thinking about how to separate out the helicities of the two flow routes on each pole face of a permanent magnet for quite awhile... the ability to separate out those two flows would make it easy to harness the flows to do work... to include generation of electricity, manipulation of gravity, and manipulation of time itself (since time, space, gravity and the EM fundamental force are loosely coupled).

The time imparity which is imparted onto a permanent magnet when it is magnetized is why electrical generators work the way they do, and is why they require motion to generate electricity:

Quote from Cycle on March 4th, 2016, 08:11 PM

The Inflowing interface on each pole face of a magnet (where virtual photons enter the magnet, on the periphery of each pole face) slows time down and expands space by reducing QVZPE field radiation pressure.

The Outflowing interface on each pole face of a magnet (where virtual photons leave the magnet, in the center of each pole face) speeds time up and contracts space by increasing QVZPE field radiation pressure.

These two effects cancel out, but it is the virtual photon flux we need to interface with the EM fundamental force and thus make electrons move. But to create an imbalance between the speeding-up and slowing-down of time by the Inflowing and Outflowing interfaces on each pole face, we must introduce a third factor... motion.

That motion slows time down. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of a second each hour, but apparently time contains an enormous amount of energy. Thus, if we could separate out the two fluxes on each pole face (the vortex and anti-vortex on each pole face, to put it into physics parlance) and re-align them so they no longer mutually cancel, we'd be able to generate a tremendous amount of electricity, without requiring motion, and thus without requiring fuel.

Apparently the rotational motion of the generator's rotor causes a perceived helicity imbalance... this is the reason why, if you reverse the direction of rotation of a generator's rotor, the current will flow in the opposite direction. This has odd implications in light of Special Relativity, since the helicity of a massless particle doesn't change, only the reference frame from which the helicity is observed can change. Massless particles have no rest frame, so the motion of the generator's rotor shouldn't have any effect upon their speed nor their helicity (unless the rotor can reach the speed of light, that is) from our frame of reference. So the generator must be operating in the frame of reference of the virtual photons themselves, and not in the frame of reference of the rotor or stator or even the observer (lab frame)... and since the rotor's motion is causing a difference in perceived velocity between left-helicity and right-helicity virtual photons, we thus get the helicity imbalance.

Just as it requires motion (in the form of rotation of the generator's rotor) to cause a perceived helicity imbalance of the virtual photon flux from the generator's magnets and thus induce current flow in a generator, it apparently requires relativistic rotation in order to separate the helicity of virtual particles, or the chirality of concretized particles (said relativistic rotation which is inherent in the electron spin and orbital angular momentum in a permanent magnet).

So perhaps we can use a macroscopic representation of a triangle anomaly by creating a triangular magnetic assembly with properly-positioned coils...  this would allow us to use the non-dissipative Chiral Magnetic Effect or Chiral Vortical Effect to generate electricity without any moving parts nor any energy input.

Here's a group of researchers who used zirconium pentatelluride to generate current from a static magnetic field using the Chiral Magnetic Effect:

Quote from https://phys.org/news/2016-02-chiral-magnetic-effect-quantum-current.html

"In a classic generator, the current increases linearly with increasing magnetic field strength, which needs to be changing dynamically. In these materials, current increases much more dramatically in a static magnetic field. You could pull current out of the 'sea' of available quasiparticles continuously. It's a pure quantum behavior." Li said.

We can mimic the behavior of zirconium pentatelluride in more common materials by separating the helicity of the two flows of virtual photons at each pole face of a magnet to generate current without motion and without any need of fuel... it's power directly from the quantum vacuum.

Any work done in moving the electrons in the coil of wire to generate a current reduces the orbital radius of the electrons in the magnetic material, which take energy from the quantum vacuum to regain their usual orbital radius. The quantum vacuum imparts energy to the orbiting electrons via the mechanism of vacuum polarization, which geometrically transforms the sinusoidal quantum vacuum waveforms into de Broglie waveforms of the orbiting electron, preventing it from spiraling into the oppositely-charged protons in the nucleus. Thus the quantum vacuum underpins the stability of all invariant-mass matter in the universe.

Just a note:

Gray tin under slight compressive stress is a 3D Dirac semimetal... we could mimic zirconium pentatelluride's Chiral Magnetic Effect using gray tin, to generate electrical current from a parallel static magnetic field and static electric field.

Tin is usually called "white tin", it's an elemental metal, it's cheap, it's nontoxic (it used to be used to line food cans before aluminum was used) and its readily available. It's a relatively tough metal.

But when white tin is taken to a very low temperature, it turns flaky and weak... gray tin. Once the temperature is raised, it remains as gray tin, so we have an easy way of creating gray tin.

Now all we have to do is figure out how to affix the gray tin to a substrate.

This ties into a previous post of mine. Remember, the "mass electron" is actually two particles with opposite chirality. So the Chiral Magnetic Effect is actually splitting those two particles which make up the "mass electron"... perhaps that's what other open-source researchers experienced when they talked about "cold" electricity.

Quote from Cycle on May 12th, 2017, 10:58 PM

So I continue studying quantum physics, and it gets weirder and weirder.

For instance, did you know that the electron we know actually consists of two particles? Yeah, the electron we know is formally known as a "mass electron", and is made up of a left-chirality electron and right-chirality anti-positron.

The elementary particle known as an 'electron' is a spin 1/2 (the measure of its quantum spin, or its resistance to perturbation when interacting with other elementary particles), charge -1 lepton which is left-chiral. It has the symbol e^-_L.

But when e^-_L interacts with the Higgs bosonic field, it flips its chirality, turning into the chiral-doppelganger of the electron, the anti-positron, with symbol e^-_R, spin 1/2 and charge -1. That's known as quantum mixing.

Then it interacts with the Higgs bosonic field again, and flips back to e^-_L. That interaction is what gives the "mass electron" its mass, as the universe attempts to keep the "mass electron" from moving backward or forward in time beyond the current temporal frame. This quantum mixing happens about 100 trillion trillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times a second, according to theoretical physicist Matt Strassler.

You'll note that while the electron (e^-_L) and anti-positron (e^-_R) have the same charge and spin (and are thus otherwise indistinguishable), they have opposite chirality, which makes them different particles. This type of particle is known as a "Dirac Mass" particle.

The other type of particle (the Majorana particle) is generally uncharged, and it only has the particle and its anti-particle, rather than the 4-spinor of the Dirac Mass particle.

So the "electron" is actually two different elementary particles (e^-_L and e^-_R)!
And the positron is actually e⁺_L (positron) and e⁺_R (anti-electron), as well!

It gets confusing due to the confusing language used... it's clearer when working with the electron, because its anti-particle is the "positron", instead of the "anti-electron"... had they named it the "anti-electron", then e⁺_R would need a new name. That is the case with other elementary particles. Some have taken to calling them anti-anti-particles.

I prefer this convention:

Old Convention	Symbol	New Convention
electron	e-L	electron (positron anti-particle)
positron	e+L	positron (electron anti-particle)
anti-positron	e-R	electron chiral-doppelganger (chidopp)
anti-electron	e+R	positron chiral-doppelganger (chidopp)

I wonder what it'd take to get actual particle physicists using the term "chidopp" to describe the chiral doppelgangers of the elementary fermions? :D

Now, take a look at this:


You'll note the quantum spin + velocity of the left-chiral electron (e^-_L) = -c, and the quantum spin + velocity of the right-chiral electron chidopp (e^-_R) = c. This means the "mass electron" (e^-_L + e^-_R) is a temporal particle! It's in balance, locked to our temporal frame because it equally switches between e^-_L and e^-_R.

Ever wonder why E = mc²? Now you know... the elementary particle must go one direction, slam into the Higgs field, reverse chirality and direction, and slam into the Higgs field again (again flipping its chirality and changing direction), etc., etc., in order for mass to be imparted to it... it attempts to do so at c.

This is why the weak fundamental force is a short-range force... the elementary particles are always trying to move at c (and in the absence of the Higgs field, they would), but they aren't allowed to travel very far before they interact with the Higgs field and slow down via a process known as tachyonic condensation... it's a process whereby the elementary particle slams into the Higgs field (a tachyonic, or scalar, field) and tachyons (Higgs bosons) would come out of the Higgs field except for the fact that the energy density is low enough that the velocity of the elementary particle is damped and the elementary particle has mass imparted to it, instead. For energies at or above 125.09 GeV/c², a Higgs boson does come out of the Higgs field (which is how they found it at the LHC), but it's such high energy that it immediately decays, via various decay modes, into gauge bosons or fermions, as the ATLAS experiment at CERN found.

In the earliest moments of the universe, the weak force (at the time combined with the EM force into the electroweak force) was a long-range force. Then, as the universe expanded and energy density fell, the electroweak force symmetry-broke into the weak fundamental force and the electromagnetic fundamental force, giving rise to the Higgs field and thus fermionic mass. Before electroweak symmetry breaking, there were 4 species of Higgs bosons in existence (the only things which had mass), but when electroweak symmetry breaking took place, three of them underwent quantum mixing (via the Higgs mechanism) with the isospin force and hypercharge force which existed at the time, making the W^-, W⁺ and Z⁰ bosons massive, and leaving only the H⁰ Higgs boson today (the H⁰ Higgs boson couldn't interact with the EM fundamental force, which means we were left with one Higgs boson and massless photons). The Higgs boson is virtual today because the universe's energy density is too low for it to be concretized. It pops into existence for a brief moment, but its energy density is so high that it immediately decays via destructive interference, smearing its energy back into the QVZPE field, leaving behind a molasses-like Higgs field instead which we sense as the other particles having mass.

ASIDE:
------------------------------
This means mass and gravity are two separate phenomena... the Higgs field causes mass, mass deflects space-time, that deflected space-time represents a change in potential energy of space-time, that negative potential energy is gravity. So gravity is emergent instead of fundamental, therefore there needn't be any gravitons mediating gravitational potential energy. It's merely a phenomenon of a higher potential energy of an object converting to kinetic energy as it reorients in space without anything blocking it from reducing its energy. It would entail mediating the transformation of the form of energy itself, and I don't believe a change in form of energy requires mediation. Remember, matter itself is a condensate of energy, as proven via Einstein's equation (E²=p²c² +m²c⁴), so if a change in energy form requires mediation, so does matter itself... and we know it doesn't.
------------------------------

This is also why electron quantum spin axis changes with electron velocity. As electron velocity increases, the spin axis becomes shallower to its direction of motion. An electron's spin points at a velocity-dependent angle from its momentum axis (higher velocities shrink the angle). If you were able to push an electron's velocity to c (which you'd not be able to do unless you were somehow able to shield the Higgs field, or else the apparent mass of the electron would increase as the electron interacts more with the Higgs field, so you'd add more energy to push the electron faster, which would make the electron interact more with the Higgs field, which would require more energy to push the electron faster, etc.), its spin axis would be aligned with its momentum axis, and thus its mass would be converted to energy... it'd be a photon (which always has its quantum spin axis aligned with its momentum axis).

You'll remember in my previous post, I'd described how the virtual photons which are emitted from the outflowing interface of each pole face of a magnet and pulled into the inflowing interface of each pole face of a magnet affected time:

Quote from Cycle on February 9th, 2017, 07:45 PM

So now lets look at magnets, the inflowing interface (where virtual photons enter the magnet from the QVZPE field) of a magnet is a reduced QVZPE field density, meaning time slows down. And the outflowing interface (where virtual photons come out of the magnet and are subsumed back into the QVZPE field) of a magnet is an increased QVZPE field density, meaning time speeds up.

Because the magnetic material we have is too weak to resist the internal forces, approximately half the magnetic domains unpin and flip to minimize the magnet's internal energy, which is why there is an inflowing and outflowing interface on each pole face of a magnet.

And because there is an inflowing and outflowing interface on each pole face of a magnet, the temporal effects cancel out. This is why, when you just place a stationary magnet next to a stationary wire, no voltage is induced.

So while the virtual photon flux of the magnet provides the EM fundamental force component to interact with electrons, we need to add something else to the mix in order to get those electrons to move. That 'something else' is motion, which slows time down, causing a perceived charge compression, which pushes the electrons out over the wire.

In addition to causing charge compression, we force the electron to remain in e^-_L mode for a tiny fraction longer than e^-_R mode. Thus the power we transmit over our wires is literally the time imparity we've imparted to the electron.

Now, we know that all particles (elementary or composite; concretized, resonance or virtual; massive or massless) are merely fluctuations in fields. This knowledge further implies that the "mass electron" is the result of two fields... the electron (e^-_L) and anti-positron (e^-_R) fields. So the Higgs field is causing the energy which comprises the "mass electron" to constantly transfer from the e^-_L to the e^-_R field and back. It is this constant 'pinging' back and forth which keeps the fluctuation in those fields concretized as the 'mass electron', and thereby that which gives it its mass. Without the Higgs field, the energy of those e^-_L and e^-_R fields would "smear out" the fluctuation that we know as a "mass electron" over time. In other words, electrons would be virtual, instead of concretized. The rest mass of the "mass electron" is simply the energy associated to a quanta of a standing wave in the EM field, divided by c², and it is the Higgs field which effectively converts the wave vectors of e^-_L and e^-_R into a standing wave.

This is why we can 'create' electrons (in fact, all elementary particles) with the right amount of energy (just as Chalmers University did in 2011 with photons, pulling them directly from the quantum vacuum)... we're merely setting up a standing wave in the quantum vacuum. If we learn how to do this more efficiently, we could increase the efficiency of generating electricity to the point that we could literally power civilization from the quantum vacuum, as Tesla predicted we would eventually learn how to do.

This is good reading Cycle but i'd like to ask a question about the Electrons traveling or trying to travel at C but are hampered by the Higgs field in doing so.
It concerns the Electron's hitting light speed and having no acceleration curve and the time reference frame around this function of the Electron.
Do you think because of the lack of an acceleration curve in Electrons and Photons for that matter is because their velocity can only be time reference framed in known fields and that there is a possibility that Electrons gather momentum or acceleration inside an unknown Quantum field before it enters a time referenced field?
I say this because technically speaking, to hit light speed without an acceleration curve means (or infers) that it temporarily did not exist (in our own time reference frames) from the time it was stationary or traveling less than C until the time it instantly reaches C.  Would such a concept of hitting C from a lesser velocity not create a black hole between the two events?
Or do you think that the Electron is in superposition with itself and is traveling at C or not C at the same time? Superposition would tidy up the lack of acceleration curve would it not?

But before you answer i'd like to present you with a problem. In a Universe that is infinite the answers to my question are different from answers in a finite Universe and you'll know that.
You'll also know that no atom or sub atomic particle in an infinite Universe can claim to be either stationary, accelerating or have a steady velocity, they can only reference any such notion by third parties or if the Universe is finite.
For example, in an infinite Universe that has no boundaries a solitary Electron can claim no velocity because it is always in the middle of the Universe, if by chance it meets another Electron and they pass each other at a certain velocity, neither Electron can claim to be stationary or moving because each one is respectively still in the middle of the Universe. In this model, such passings are regarded as relative to only each other and not the Universe. In a finite Universe, of course this argument is wrong because the edge of the Universe becomes a third party in which relativity becomes reality.
So imagine all the atoms and sub atomic particles in an infinite Universe, each one of the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of Electrons is always in the middle of the Universe in reality but in relativity they are of measurable consequence to each other but the real magic lies with the concept of 'middle of the Universe' in an infinite Universe.
The reason why it is a magic concept is because if every atom and sub atomic particle is always in the middle of the Universe then it means that the Universe only has to be the size of one single atom. But.....the atom is infinite and has no boundaries.
Just a few thoughts.....

Quote from nav on May 31st, 2018, 02:26 PM

This is good reading Cycle but i'd like to ask a question about the Electrons traveling or trying to travel at C but are hampered by the Higgs field in doing so.
It concerns the Electron's hitting light speed and having no acceleration curve and the time reference frame around this function of the Electron.
Do you think because of the lack of an acceleration curve in Electrons and Photons for that matter is because their velocity can only be time reference framed in known fields and that there is a possibility that Electrons gather momentum or acceleration inside an unknown Quantum field before it enters a time referenced field?
I say this because technically speaking, to hit light speed without an acceleration curve means (or infers) that it temporarily did not exist (in our own time reference frames) from the time it was stationary or traveling less than C until the time it instantly reaches C.  Would such a concept of hitting C from a lesser velocity not create a black hole between the two events?
Or do you think that the Electron is in superposition with itself and is traveling at C or not C at the same time? Superposition would tidy up the lack of acceleration curve would it not?

It's considered an elastic collision, so there is no energy loss of the electron (e^-_L) and anti-positron (e^-_R) field's kinetic energy to other forms of energy. It's a standing wave that has no damping forces, so it just keeps going. Hence the stability of the mass electron.

Any acceleration off the Higgs field would violate the law of energy conservation, as a prerequisite of acceleration is an energy input.

The electron (e^-_L) field and anti-positron (e^-_R) field wave modes travel at a velocity equal to c minus their quantum spin.

Why that speed? I discussed that here:

Quote from Cycle on April 11th, 2018, 09:01 PM

Quote from namirha on April 3rd, 2018, 01:28 PM

That's the image I wish I had each time I state that vacuum polarization (due to the high charge density around the nucleus of an atom) creates a geometrical transform of the scalar quantum vacuum wave modes to a circular (spherical, given the DOF) orbital path of the bound electron, because a sinusoid is a circular function. This is what feeds energy to a bound electron to prevent it 'spiraling in' to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus. At its ground state, the energy obtained from the quantum vacuum exactly equals the energy emitted via virtual photons (magnetism... which all invariant-mass matter exhibits (usually diamagnetism, although certain electron valence configurations allow ferromagnetism to override the underlying diamagnetism)), as Boyer, NASA and Haisch and Ibison showed,

You'll note the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You'll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 * pi radians, and the wavelength (wave period... the inverse of frequency) of a sinusoid is equal to 2 * pi radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.

Why is this? Well, it's because a sinusoid is a circle, spread out over space and time! It's a spiral. What we see on an oscilloscope is a sinusoid, but a truer representation would show a spiral over space and time... unfortunately, 4-D graphical displays don't exist.





The above image shows the real (cosine... labeled 'Re' in the image above) and imaginary (sine... labeled 'Im' in the image above) components of a sinusoid.

So when viewed in line with its direction of travel, it will appear to be a circle, and when viewed orthogonal to its direction of travel, it appears to be a sinusoid, when in reality it's a spiral.

(click to show/hide)

As an exercise, take a Slinky, stretch it out and shine a light behind it (it's best to do this with strong sunlight, as the light is nearly perfectly collimated, being from a distant 'point source'). You'll see its shadow is a sinusoid. So what we call sinusoids are really nothing more than shadows of a deeper reality. ;)

Why is the electron orbital spherical? The Higgs field causes invariant-mass matter (composed of nothing more than sinusoids of energy) to 'ping' back and forth off the Higgs field in a standing wave, which locks that energy to our frame of reference (which gives that energy the appearance of invariant mass and inertia). The electron (which has invariant mass) is orbiting in a spiral which is bound via the electromagnetic interaction to the nucleus (which has invariant mass), locked in time to our time frame by the Higgs field and thus forced to experience the passage of time, but free to move about the nucleus in 3-D space.

That's why Quantum Mechanics states that an electron orbit must consist of an integer number of de Broglie 'waves' (in actuality, an integer number of loops of a spiral), or it sets up a destructive-interference orbit... that's the 'why' of the quantization of quantum mechanics. That's also why it's so hard to pin down the electron's exact position in its orbit... it's spiraling in a circular orbit (imagine a spiral continually being pushed at a 90 degree angle due to the Lorentz force between electron and nucleus).



You'll note that electromagnetic energy, moving at c (the speed of light), experiences no time.

So the Higgs field causes energy to experience time, and the main difference between energy and invariant-mass matter is exactly that.

Quote from nav on May 31st, 2018, 02:53 PM

But before you answer i'd like to present you with a problem. In a Universe that is infinite the answers to my question are different from answers in a finite Universe and you'll know that.
You'll also know that no atom or sub atomic particle in an infinite Universe can claim to be either stationary, accelerating or have a steady velocity, they can only reference any such notion by third parties or if the Universe is finite.

The universe is a weird place... the best guess is that it's topologically flat (ie: it obeys Euclidean geometry... so the three angles in a triangle will always sum to 180 (Triangle Angle Sum Theorem); two parallel lines will never intersect; the sum of the areas of two squares on the legs of a right triangle equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (Pythagorean theorem); it obeys scaling of area and volume; etc.).

But topologically flat doesn't necessarily mean that it is, in actuality, flat. You can fold (transform) a flat piece of paper into a cylinder, and that cylinder into a torus. And the best guess for the actual shape of the universe is a horn 3-Torus. This means the universe beyond our cosmological particle horizon is so large that within our 'local' cosmological particle horizon, the positive and negative curvature of the 3-Torus is so small that we can't measure it... meaning the universe, while likely not literally infinite, is exceedingly large. This is bolstered by the findings of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe in 2001, which found a planar anisotropy in the CMB. This points to the universe being finite.

What we view as "expansion" is merely the 'rolling' of the surface of the 3-Torus away from its central spindle. When we reach the apex of the outer surface, we'll experience that as a slowing then stoppage of the "expansion", then when we roll over into the inwardly-rolling part, we'll experience that as a contraction.

Quote

Numbers and Geometry in the Bible... Looking in the circle, you will note that the bottom half of the square makes the Masonic square, while the top half of the triangle is the compasses. The compass and square are the triangle and square, and are the male and female symbols in this system. That is also the sign of the Mysteries. (Note the G formed in the center.)
http://dcsymbols.com/numbers/numbers.htm

Psalm 118:22
is where the cornerstone is mentioned; the stone which the builders refused.
If you look starting verse 10 you will see it written 'they compassed me about' FOUR times.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/118.htm

quatrefoil
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3122.msg46702#msg46702



Secret of MAGNETICUNIVERSE LOGO
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3134.msg49410#msg49410



Sacrifice of Isaac
http://www.travelingintuscany.com/art/lorenzoghiberti.htm

Gyroscopic Primer by Prof Eric Laithwaite
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpCEJxO6V9g

Tim Peake demonstrates gyroscope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8b_0adXMso

Lect 24 - Rolling Motion, Gyroscopes, VERY NON-INTUITIVE
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPUuF_dECVI

Quote from Cycle on May 31st, 2018, 09:19 PM

The universe is a weird place... the best guess is that it's topologically flat (ie: it obeys Euclidean geometry... so the three angles in a triangle will always sum to 180 (Triangle Angle Sum Theorem); two parallel lines will never intersect; the sum of the areas of two squares on the legs of a right triangle equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (Pythagorean theorem); it obeys scaling of area and volume; etc.).

But topologically flat doesn't necessarily mean that it is, in actuality, flat. You can fold (transform) a flat piece of paper into a cylinder, and that cylinder into a torus. And the best guess for the actual shape of the universe is a horn 3-Torus. This means the universe beyond our cosmological particle horizon is so large that within our 'local' cosmological particle horizon, the positive and negative curvature of the 3-Torus is so small that we can't measure it... meaning the universe, while likely not literally infinite, is exceedingly large. This is bolstered by the findings of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe in 2001, which found a planar anisotropy in the CMB. This points to the universe being finite.

What we view as "expansion" is merely the 'rolling' of the surface of the 3-Torus away from its central spindle. When we reach the apex of the outer surface, we'll experience that as a slowing then stoppage of the "expansion", then when we roll over into the inwardly-rolling part, we'll experience that as a contraction.

GRA PHI TY TO R US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi



What is the mathematical formula of a perfect vortex funnel shape?
http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/guide/physics.html





HYPERCUBE



In geometry, inversive geometry is the study of those properties of figures that are preserved by a generalization
of a type of transformation of the Euclidean plane, called INVERSION.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversive_geometry



INVERSION



You will notice that it is easier if you can toss the coin in with some spinning rotation to help it have balance. This is SIMILAR TO RIDING A BICYCLE. If you stop rolling down the street, you will fall over. Similarly, if the coin isn’t rotating, it will fall over. It is an amazing element of balance. A spinning coin effectively has a lower center of gravity than a non-spinning coin. This is true of any object. It creates a gyroscopic effect.



Readymades MD
http://duchamp-class3.wikispaces.com/+Fountain+and+other+Readymades

The Philosophy Behind The Pyramid Greenhouse Design
http://www.pyramidgreenhouse.com/philosophy.html

Decoding The Great Pyramid of Giza
http://prophecyanalysis.org/decodingpyramid.htm

...the surface of the 3-Torus...

Straight Soley, Berkshire, England. 20th July 2006


...the three angles in a triangle will always sum to 180...

TESLA 3 6 9 WITH RELIGION
http://rootshunt.com/tesla369withreligion/tesla369withreligion.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KS5XvP_rGI
TORUS rrrirror 2rUS



Quarks
3 UP
3 DOWN
sQuars

ludus puerorum



Free Energy, NO Fake
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3134.msg49622#msg49622

If you say that someone has TUNNEL VISION, you disapprove of them because they are concentrating completely on achieving a particular aim, and do not notice or consider all the different aspects of what they are doing.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=450828982013026&id=100012577835966&comment_id=450857232010201&reply_comment_id=450861112009813&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R5%22%7D

The quatrefoil had been sculptured in 1220...



“the philosopher is awake and keeps watch, patiently…..
the hard labors of Hercules are accomplished and his work has been reduced to the ludus puerorum,
or children play…“
http://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/alchemy-religious-art/amiens-cathedral-fulcanelli-and-two-paradoxical-wheels/

Quote from Cycle on May 31st, 2018, 09:19 PM

The universe is a weird place... the best guess is that it's topologically flat (ie: it obeys Euclidean geometry... so the three angles in a triangle will always sum to 180 (Triangle Angle Sum Theorem); two parallel lines will never intersect; the sum of the areas of two squares on the legs of a right triangle equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (Pythagorean theorem); it obeys scaling of area and volume; etc.).

But topologically flat doesn't necessarily mean that it is, in actuality, flat. You can fold (transform) a flat piece of paper into a cylinder, and that cylinder into a torus. And the best guess for the actual shape of the universe is a horn 3-Torus. This means the universe beyond our cosmological particle horizon is so large that within our 'local' cosmological particle horizon, the positive and negative curvature of the 3-Torus is so small that we can't measure it... meaning the universe, while likely not literally infinite, is exceedingly large. This is bolstered by the findings of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe in 2001, which found a planar anisotropy in the CMB. This points to the universe being finite.

What we view as "expansion" is merely the 'rolling' of the surface of the 3-Torus away from its central spindle. When we reach the apex of the outer surface, we'll experience that as a slowing then stoppage of the "expansion", then when we roll over into the inwardly-rolling part, we'll experience that as a contraction.

The Hubble constant is a clue. The Galaxies are moving apart at a given rate as the vacuum grows and it would be an unlikely scenario for the Universe to be an infinite size due to the Hubble constant. There can be no mathematical equation that shows a finite expansion such as Hubble's constant into an infinitely sized Universe but there are equations that fit the Hubble constant into an expanding Universe which revert back to the big bang and the Hubble constant being variable in those equations. I've always preferred the balloon analogy myself to describe it.

Cycle, your thinking on fermion interaction with the Higgs field might be extended into an explanation of how the mass of quarks can be made to increase. There are electrons that have 0 mass (Dirac electrons) and there are heavy electrons that can have a mass 10s of thousands of times greater  that an electron, so there must be a mechanism were the mass of fermions can be manipulated.


Please explain how a quark (as a elemental fermion like the electron) can change its flavor when under the influence of a magnetic field produced by a current of chiral polarized particle spins. This change of quark flavor is a result in the increase of mass of the quark to a point where the light quark changes it nature into a heavy(strange) quark.

Quote from Axil on June 2nd, 2018, 01:05 PM

Cycle, your thinking on fermion interaction with the Higgs field might be extended into an explanation of how the mass of quarks can be made to increase. There are electrons that have 0 mass (Dirac electrons) and there are heavy electrons that can have a mass 10s of thousands of times greater  that an electron, so there must be a mechanism were the mass of fermions can be manipulated.

No, the Dirac electron still has invariant-mass. What denotes a Dirac electron is that it behaves as though it were a photon... it doesn't appear to be affected by its mass as regards its momentum. Mass affects the energy-momentum curve. A massless particle (photon) has an energy-momentum curve which is just a straight line, whereas an invariant-mass particle has a parabolic curve. A Dirac electron (which is just a regular electron on a graphene (or bismuth below its critical temperature) substrate) has a straight line energy-momentum curve. It won't ever reach c, the speed of light, and it still has invariant-mass... but graphene does something strange that makes the electron behave differently than it would in other conductors. Think of what this means... a photon has no rest frame, it can never stop moving or it ceases to exist. An electron acting like a photon cannot stop or it will disappear, all its invariant-mass converted to energy... this is because the EM fundamental force is symmetry-broken for electrons on graphene (this is the opposite of what happens for superconductivity.. for superconductivity, the electron trades its magnetism for invariant-mass whereas here, the electron is transferring its invariant-mass to magnetism). So essentially graphene is a class of superconductor, but it's something completely different than what we've seen prior.

As for heavy electrons, in a Kondo lattice below the critical temperature, electrons trade the magnetic component of the EM fundamental force for effective mass (their magnetic component becomes tangled with magnetic anomalies in the Kondo lattice) and entangle their electronic component with other electrons. Thus they appear to have an effective mass that is greater than that of a free electron (they're less perturbed by impurities in the conductor). Photons do the same in certain superconductors... apparently not all because the effect is temperature dependent, and the temperature at which it takes place is dependent upon the lattice used. This is another form of unconventional superconductor.

Quote from Axil on June 2nd, 2018, 01:05 PM

Please explain how a quark (as a elemental fermion like the electron) can change its flavor when under the influence of a magnetic field produced by a current of chiral polarized particle spins. This change of quark flavor is a result in the increase of mass of the quark to a point where the light quark changes it nature into a heavy(strange) quark.

Well, let's try to reason our way through this.

First, we need a graphic:


Next we need some background info:
Quark Color
The color force (in the context of inside nucleons, this was previously known as the strong force) is the force between quarks. It's analogous to charge for the EM fundamental force. You can see from the graphic above that the color force is mediated by gluons, just as the residual strong force (in the context of outside nucleons but inside a nucleus) is. Since quarks make up baryons and the residual strong force takes place between baryons, you could say the color force is the source of the residual strong force. We know that the strong interaction is responsible for quark color change.

Don't get confused by the use of colors to describe the type of charge described here... the physicists had to find something to name it, and this is what they picked... but it's still a type of charge.

Gluons are mixtures of two color pairs (red/antiblue + blue/antired, for instance), and the difference between those two color pairs is the gluon's color "charge". Thus gluons are force carrying particles for the color force (previously known as the strong force inside nucleons). They're analogous to photons for the EM interaction, but photons have no charge so they just mediate the EM interaction, whereas gluons both mediate and participate in the strong interaction. Gluons have nine possible types:

Code: [Select]

(rb¯ + br¯)/√2
−i(rb¯ − br¯)/√2
(rg¯ + gr¯)/√2
−i(rg¯ − gr¯)/√2
(bg¯ + gb¯)/√2
−i(bg¯ − gb¯)/√2
(rr¯ − bb¯)/√2
(rr¯ + bb¯ − 2gg¯)/√6
(rr¯ + bb¯ + gg¯)/√3


although only 8 types exist because (red/antired + blue/antiblue + green/antigreen) is non-interacting (so the last one doesn't exist... it'd be colorless and thus able to exert the strong force infinitely far unless it attained significant mass... although experimental evidence does point to its existence being possible under a U(3) space, and in fact, what we now know as the (colorless and very massive) Z boson may in fact be that ninth gluon... which makes sense, the color neutrality of the ninth gluon would preclude it being able to interact with other color force carriers, but its mass would allow it to interact at short distances... it's the go-between for the strong and weak nuclear interactions. The W⁺, W^- and Z⁰ bosons are remnants of the Higgs symmetry breaking from its original 4 Higgs particles as universal expansion lowered energy levels, leaving only the H⁰ Higgs boson. So gravity may be a transform of the weak force under symmetry breaking. We know the weak force is a transform of the electroweak force under symmetry breaking, so it's related to the EM fundamental force, as is gravity (gravitoelectromagnetism)). Or, to put it extremely technically, the adjoint representation of SU(3) space (the Lie algebra symmetry group of the color force) of 3 x 3 hermitian matrices with trace equal to zero is 8 dimensional, therefore there are only 8 types of gluons.

Quarks are single-color, and they combine together (via gluons) to balance their color "charge", which is what forms baryons and mesons.

All mesons (a quark/antiquark pairing) must be in a color-singlet state of color-anticolor, using the same color (red/antired or green/antigreen or blue/antiblue). Mesons are, for all intents and purposes, the same as gluons, but they're color-balanced (ie: no net color "charge"), so they're not force carrying particles in the same vein as gluons, but they are color "dipolar", so they do mediate the residual strong force (which, if you'll remember from above, is the color force outside the nucleon) between nucleons to pull them together to make an atom's nucleus (ie: outside nucleons, but inside the nucleus).

All baryons (a quark/quark/quark triplet) must be in a color-singlet state of three colors (red/green/blue), and their antiparticles must do the same for antired/antigreen/antiblue.

Any given color-singlet state can interact with any other similar (but differently colored) color-singlet state (via mesons), but cannot stably interact with single or dual colors. It'll still interact, but it won't be stable because the color "charge" isn't balanced.

Gluons (having a color charge) and single quarks (having a color charge) will interact, in the process creating the hadrons (baryons (3 color charges combined) and mesons (2 color charges combined)), but once the gluons and quarks have interacted and balanced their color "charge", a single (virtual) gluon cannot interact with the resultant hadron. Mesons (being color dipolar) can interact between baryons to "glue" them together into a nucleus. But everything must balance in regards to color charge in order for the resultant particle to be stable.

So for instance, a neutron might have a red/green/blue color-singlet state, so it's color 'balanced'... and it will not interact with any additional gluons because gluons have a different color-singlet state, that of two colors. If it could interact, invariant-mass matter would be highly unstable. That's not to say that a nucleon can't swap, for instance, one red quark for an identical red quark (in fact, quark confinement pretty much necessitates that this takes place in some circumstances), but additional quarks can't just glom onto an existing color-balanced nucleon or nucleus.
Quark Flavor
The weak force is responsible for quark flavor change. It is mediated by the W and Z bosons.

"Flavor" can be thought of as "type". So when we speak of quark flavor change, it means the quark is changing what type of quark it is (from a Down quark to an Up quark, for instance).

The mass you're referring to is due to the mass-energy equivalency principle, so when we say that a quark changed flavor (and thus changed mass), what we're really saying is that the energy level of that quark has changed.

A quark with charge +²/₃ (Up, Charmed, Top) will always decay to a quark with charge -¹/₃ (Down, Strange, Bottom); and vice versa because the decay proceeds by exchange of W bosons, which must change charge by one unit.

So for instance, when a free (unbound) neutron (one Up quark, two Down quarks) decays, what causes that neutron to decay is a Down quark decaying into an Up quark by giving off a W^- virtual boson. The W^- virtual boson decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino, so the resultant particles are a proton (two Up quarks, one Down quark), an electron, an electron antineutrino and a photon (in ~0.1% of cases). It is believed free neutron decay is caused by impingement upon the neutron by a neutrino and the resultant interaction via the weak force (a neutrino impinges upon a quark, imparting some of its kinetic energy to the quark, which causes quark flavor change. This quark flavor change makes the neutron unstable, so it falls apart into a proton, and a W^- virtual boson, which decays to an electron and an electron antineutrino).

For another instance, during proton-proton fusion (as in our sun), an Up quark will decay to a Down quark by emitting a W⁺ virtual boson, which decays into a positron and electron neutrino, so the end products are a Down quark, a positron, and an electron neutrino. The positron annihilates with an electron, giving off two photons.

(You'll note the W^- boson always decays into an electron and electron antineutrino; and the W⁺ boson always decays into a positron and electron neutrino.)

ASIDE:

(click to show/hide)

What's really interesting is that ~3% of the sun's energy is carried away via electron neutrinos (energy levels are too low to generate muon or tau leptons, so muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos aren't produced in the sun, although neutrinos can oscillate (change) to those other flavors in transit), which don't interact with matter very readily... finding a way to utilize the neutrino flux (calculated to be ~7x10¹⁰ neutrinos / cm² / second at the Earth's surface) would be a tremendous energy source. Each neutrino from the proton-proton reaction in the sun reaching the planet is up to 400 KeV (energy levels vary), with other reactions producing fewer but higher-energy neutrinos.

Neutrino flux carries an energy flux equivalent to approximately 98% of the total solar energy our planet receives. But unlike solar cells, a neutrino cell would operate 24/7, in daylight and darkness.

The hard part is figuring out how to capture the neutrinos, which don't interact with other matter that easily. They only interact via the weak force and gravity. The weak force is extremely short-range, and gravity is extremely weak, so that doesn't leave us much to work with. Although the fact that neutrinos have invariant mass also implies that they have a magnetic moment, but it must be very small, since it's not been detected as yet. The neutrino has a mean free path length of ~10²⁰ cm (~621,371,192,237,334 miles), so catching them is pretty difficult.

The electroweak cross-section of the neutrino is extremely small (electron neutrino: 3.2 nanobarns; muon neutrino: 1.7 nanobarns; tau neutrino: 1.0 nanobarn). For reference, the electron neutrino size is ~3.2 billionths the width of a uranium nucleus, or ~10^-44 cm².

All neutrinos are left-helicity, and all antineutrinos are right-helicity. Neutrinos are produced via weak interactions as chirality eigenstates, and their minimal mass means they travel so quickly that time passes very slowly for them, so they rarely get a chance to undergo helicity mixing and thus change their helicity.

Daniel Freedman postulated 44 years ago that one could use coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering to capture neutrinos. Like any quantum particle, a neutrino acts like a wave, with a wavelength that grows shorter as the energy of the particle increases. When a neutrino impinges upon a quark, it causes that quark to change flavor, which causes nuclear transmutation.

So you can use a similar wavelength as a "tuned antenna" to capture neutrinos using neutrino magnetohydrodynamics.

Let's choose the most abundant neutrino flux, and the highest neutrino energy of that flux, 400 KeV and calculate the de Broglie wavelength for an electron neutrino (mass: ~2.05 eV). We'll assume neutrino velocity to be 99.99999999% of c.

We use the de Broglie formula for massive particles:

λ = h/p = h/mv
λ = the de Broglie wavelength (m)
h = Planck's constant (6.626069793e-34 Js)
p = momentum of a particle (kg x m/s)
m = mass of a particle (kg)
v = velocity of a particle (m/s)
c = 299,792,458 m/s

1 eV = 1.62 x 10-19 J so 400 KeV = 0.0000000000000648 J
Neutrino mass = 2.05 eV = 3.65445852669e-36 kg

λ = 6.626069793e-34 Js / ((3.65445852669e-36 kg) * (299,792,458 m/s * .9999999999))
λ = 6.626069793e-34 Js / ((3.65445852669e-36 kg) * (299792457.9700207542 m/s))
λ = 6.626069793e-34 Js / 1.095579104265895793582454629598e-27 kg * m/s
λ = 6.0480067274009092926490416857161e-7 m = 604.80067274 nm = 0.60480067274 um

That corresponds to a frequency of 495688.03659198 GHz, in the visible range.

The above is for the rest mass of the electron neutrino, and by the same token, we can calculate the wavelength for its mass-energy equivalency. This gives us a wavelength of 0.0031 nm (0.0000031 um), at 96707244516.12906 GHz, in the gamma ray range.

How to achieve that high a frequency? We use the already-existing "tuned active antenna" of some fundamental particle, perhaps an electron plasma arc in a strong parallel magnetic field. Perhaps that's why electrical arcs are so often found to lead to COP>1?

Conversely, we could use a contained plasma of the correct frequency (think a neon-type tube) filled with a custom mixture of gasses to resonate at the frequency of the electron neutrino. They're the 'active antennas' which will receive the energy of the electron neutrino. When a neutrino impinges upon one of the gas molecules, its vibrational and rotational quantum states will increase in energy (I don't think a neutrino will affect the electronic quantum state, since it interacts via the weak force, not the EM). For a sufficiently low mean free path length of the gas (so it'd have to be a high pressure, dense gas), due to collisional radiationless relaxation, those quantum states will be transferred to the translational energy of the other molecules, which will cause them to relax via emission of a photon. This would be a self-balancing process once initiated... when the neon-type tube is cold (not in operation), the neutrinos pass it by. An electric current would bring the gas up to the temperature at which they are at or near the resonant frequency of the neutrinos. If too much energy is absorbed from the neutrinos, the temperature of the gas will increase, the resonant frequency will increase, and the neutrinos will pass the gas molecules by, thereby allowing them to cool. Then we place a conventional solar cell to capture the photons being emitted by the gas. A sun in reverse, rather than it being powered by nuclear fusion and emitting neutrinos, it's powered by neutrinos. Fusion wouldn't occur because the conditions would preclude it (too low a pressure and temperature).

Now answering the rest of your question becomes rather easy... with the knowledge that quarks interact via the electroweak interaction (apparently inside a nucleon the electromagnetic and weak interactions are unified; ie: not symmetry-broken.). Glashow, Salam and Weinberg won the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics "for their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles"... that's the electroweak interaction (the unified weak and electromagnetic interactions) inside nucleons.

You'll remember that we can cause the weak and EM fundamental forces to recombine (as they were in the earliest moments of our universe) by increasing the energy level above ~246 GeV... apparently that's exactly what happens inside each and every nucleon in the universe. Outside the nucleon, the weak and EM fundamental forces are symmetry-broken... but inside they're unified. That's why, when a quark decays, it emits a W boson...  the W boson is produced by the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak symmetry. {1} The Higgs field is what causes the electroweak force to symmetry break. You'll note the gluon is massless, and while quarks do derive their mass from the Higgs it is the energy of their being combined into baryons which comprises the majority of that baryon's mass, it is not wholly derived from the Higgs field.

Remember, the color force is so strong that quarks are confined within the nucleon... color confinement due to the color force's energy E>mc²... try to pull a quark out of a nucleon and a new quark will be manifested from the quantum vacuum to replace the one you pulled out, and the one you pulled out will decay.

Due to the highly energetic conditions within the nucleon (due to the color force), the electromagnetic and weak interactions are unified.

How does magnetism affect quarks? Well, looking at it from the opposite perspective, we know that a dense quark fluid will generate an extremely strong magnetic field. This is what happens in a neutron star or magnetar {2}.

Thus conversely an external magnetic field will also have an effect upon quarks.

{1} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

Quote

In the Standard Model, the W^± and Z⁰ bosons, and the photon, are produced by the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak symmetry from SU(2) × U(1)_Y to U(1)_em, caused by the Higgs mechanism.

{2} https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0550321316302735

Quote from Cycle on June 3rd, 2018, 12:36 AM

Well, let's try to reason our way through this.

First, we need a graphic:

Next we need some background info:

æther
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3023.msg45131#msg45131

The concept of instantons formulates that magnetic flux lines can from quasiparticles and attach themselves to firmions. The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is postulated to be an example of how composite fermion  form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_fermion

Inside of nucleons, the concept of magnetic vortexes produce quasiparticles called instantons. Inside the proton, there is a sea of instantons that interact with each other. chiral magnetism affects these vortexes. Does chiral magnetism create mass?

It seems to me, that we need to understand how magnetism, intantons and the inside of the proton work to understand LENR.

Quote from Axil on June 4th, 2018, 10:07 PM

The concept of instantons formulates that magnetic flux lines can from quasiparticles and attach themselves to firmions. The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is postulated to be an example of how composite fermion  form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_fermion

Inside of nucleons, the concept of magnetic vortexes produce quasiparticles called instantons. Inside the proton, there is a sea of instantons that interact with each other. chiral magnetism affects these vortexes. Does chiral magnetism create mass?

It seems to me, that we need to understand how magnetism, intantons and the inside of the proton work to understand LENR.

I'm not a big proponent of instantons. They're an attempt to reconcile quantum mechanic's equations of motion with classical field equations in a non-commutative Euclidian space-time. Indeed, the instantons act as space-time in non-abelian gauge theory for a 4-D Riemannian manifold.

In other words, instantons are an attempt at quantizing translational motion. That's not possible. That's why the time-independent Schrodinger equation treats translational energy separately from quantum rotational, quantum vibrational and quantum electronic states, because translation (movement from Point A to Point B) is not quantized.

Further, the use of instantons as a mathematical kludge in Yang-Mills theory leads to the concept of magnetic 'monopoles'. Knowing the underlying physics of how magnets work, a true monopole is physically impossible. Some researchers claim to have created a synthetic monopole in spin ice and an external magnetic field, but all they've done is manipulated an external magnetic field to allow the spin ice to gain energy from that external magnetic field and thus manifest what they've deemed a 'monopole' (although it still has an 'energy-in' and 'energy-out' interface, so it's actually dipolar... they've just allowed the inflowing virtual photon interface to be from the external magnetic field).

https://youtu.be/HSDoIf5FY2s

Quote from https://phys.org/news/2014-01-physicists-synthetic-magnetic-monopole-years.html

After resolving many technical challenges, the team was rewarded with photographs that confirmed the monopoles' presence at the ends of tiny quantum whirlpools within the ultracold gas. The result proves experimentally that Dirac's envisioned structures do exist in nature, explained Hall, even if the naturally occurring magnetic monopoles remain at large.

That "quantum whirlpool" was the outflowing quantum vacuum interface (virtual photons being expelled from the magnetic material and subsumed back into the quantum vacuum). The other (inflowing) interface, rather than taking its energy from the quantum vacuum, was taking its energy from the external magnetic field. They 'cheated' a bit. That'd be akin to me putting two magnets together and claiming I'd 'created' a monopole because one of the magnets is getting its virtual photons from the other magnet (which is getting them from the quantum vacuum), rather than straight from the quantum vacuum.

In reality, the permanent magnets we have available today are actually 'quadrapolar' (or, more accurately, they have four interfaces with the quantum vacuum)... there are two interfaces with the quantum vacuum (from which the magnet gets and to which it sends virtual photons) on each pole face. Because the magnetic material isn't magnetically 'hard' enough, it cannot resist the internal magnetic forces after the material is magnetized, so approximately half the domains unpin and flip to minimize the magnet's internal energy (which is why you can cut a magnet and still have a N and S pole on each cut piece). Thus interspersed within all currently available permanent magnets, there are actually two magnets:
1} From the perimeter of the S pole face to the center of the N pole face
2} From the perimeter of the N pole face to the center of the S pole face

So what the researchers call a 'monopole' is in fact a dipole, as all magnets must be at their simplest... the energy (in the form of virtual photons) to mediate the magnetic field must come from somewhere, and it must go somewhere. A monopole with just a 'goes-in' interface would build up energy endlessly, a monopole with just a 'goes-out' interface would quickly lose all its energy. Neither would be stable, so neither can exist (outside the very controlled conditions and just-so wording of a laboratory).

There is an experimental finding that is commonly seen in LENR. Caterpillar tracks in LENR ash. These tracks are made by a magnetic monopole quasiparticle.

see

https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/lion-tracks-does-this-confirm-the-kieth-fredericks-tachyon-structure

There are two types of condensates seen in LENR experiments, dipole and monople. The monopole is generated from the dipole condensate through the application of the KERR effect. The dipole condinsate is called a petal condensate and leaves a double dot mark in LENR ash. The petal condensate contains two counter-rotating chiral spin currents. The monopole condensate contains a single polariton chiral spin current. I beleive that I have explained this in the LENR thread. It looks like you have not accepted this experimentally verified data.

These condensates generate the instantons inside nucleons that will destabilize them and cause them to transform into mesons as seen in Holmlid's experiments.

Quote from Axil on June 5th, 2018, 11:40 AM

There is an experimental finding that is commonly seen in LENR. Caterpillar tracks in LENR ash. These tracks are made by a magnetic monopole quasiparticle.

see

https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/lion-tracks-does-this-confirm-the-kieth-fredericks-tachyon-structure

There are two types of condensates seen in LENR experiments, dipole and monople. The monopole is generated from the dipole condensate through the application of the KERR effect. The dipole condinsate is called a petal condensate and leaves a double dot mark in LENR ash. The petal condensate contains two counter-rotating chiral spin currents. The monopole condensate contains a single polariton chiral spin current. I beleive that I have explained this in the LENR thread. It looks like you have not accepted this experimentally verified data.

These condensates generate the instantons inside nucleons that will destabilize them and cause them to transform into mesons as seen in Holmlid's experiments.

Edward H. Lewis discovered in 1996 that the "caterpillar tracks" and nuclear transmutation at passivation layer gaps of Ni were due to plasmoid ionization of the metal. He built upon the work by Andrei Lipson, Takuya Matsumoto, Irina Savvatimova, Ken Shoulders, Leonid Urutskoev and others.

A plasmoid is a coherent plasma-magnetic entity, a magnetohydrodynamic filament under similarity transform... a plasma cylindrical sheath which surrounds a magnetic flux, geometrically transforming the cylinder into a toroid.



See the toroidal rings emanating from supernova 1987a (viewed using spectropolarimetry)? Those are gigantic plasmoids.


J.L. Naudin uses a microwave oven to generate a stable amorphous plasmoid (ball lightning). In a parallel magnetic field of sufficient strength, he'd have a toroidal plasmoid.


A toroidal plasmoid generated by hydrodynamic shear of high-pressure water against a triboelectric surface. It gives off RF that interferes with cell phones.

The plasma causes a z-pinch of the magnetic flux, concentrating it to a high enough intensity that it can reach inside the nucleons without being perturbed (Coulomb screening) by the intense Coulombic forces inherent in every invariant mass particle, and interact via the electroweak interaction to affect the quarks.

There is no need to invent new particles to explain the phenomenon.

It is my belief that the reason this doesn't happen every single time is because the actual changes to the quarks come about due to impingement by neutrinos (which also interact via the electroweak interaction)... the plasmoid merely provides a 'conduit' and an 'active antenna' which attracts and funnels the neutrinos into the nucleon, thereby increasing the neutrino-nucleon interaction cross-section by increasing neutrino abundance within the nucleon. This would mean that one would have to generate a plasmoid with a size (and thus resonant frequency) which parallels the frequency of the neutrino in order for it to work as intended.

Quote from Cycle on June 3rd, 2018, 12:36 AM

Daniel Freedman postulated 44 years ago that one could use coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering to capture neutrinos. Like any quantum particle, a neutrino acts like a wave, with a wavelength that grows shorter as the energy of the particle increases. When a neutrino impinges upon a quark, it causes that quark to change flavor, which causes nuclear transmutation.

Remember, the weak interaction (a component of the electroweak interaction inside the nucleon) is, per the theory called Quantum Flavordynamics (QFD), responsible for important steps in both fusion and fission. Neutrinos only interact via the weak interaction and gravity (and the electroweak interaction inside nucleons).

This would also explain excess energy... the kinetic energy of the neutrinos is being converted to heat, and nuclear transmutation is releasing nuclear binding energy.

The caterpillar tracks that I presented to you were from the LION reactor that melted down in May 2017. LION keeps some ash over this last year and placed the ash on x-ray film last weak and saw both Caterpillar tracks and double dot tracks from the year old ash after 1 years time. Now how could those tracks have been produced from a plasmoid that you describe after a years time? These same shaped tracks were seen INSIDE INDUSTRIAL DIAMONDS that LION uses as fuel. Now how could plasmoids get inside diamonds?






The examination of LION diamond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqAqhp2uR7k

Quote from Axil on June 5th, 2018, 10:17 PM

The caterpillar tracks that I presented to you were from the LION reactor that melted down in May 2017. LION keeps some ash over this last year and placed the ash on x-ray film last weak and saw both Caterpillar tracks and double dot tracks from the year old ash after 1 years time. Now how could those tracks have been produced from a plasmoid that you describe after a years time? These same shaped tracks were seen INSIDE INDUSTRIAL DIAMONDS that LION uses as fuel. Now how could plasmoids get inside diamonds?






The examination of LION diamond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqAqhp2uR7k

The tracks on x-ray film are not the tracks on the metal within the reactor. You're conflating two entirely different things.

As for how a condensed plasmoid (a plasma/magnetic flux filament) could get inside a diamond... diamonds are carbon. Industrial diamonds are made via a chemical vapor deposition process (methane and hydrogen are ionized into a plasma which separates the carbon in CH₄ and deposits it onto a substrate. The excess hydrogen scrubs away any non-diamond carbon, converting it into CH₄, which is again ionized). This leaves them with a surface coated with hydrogen atoms. Thus their surface can be conductive. Electrostatic interaction can cause gaseous water molecules, oxygen and CO₂ in the air to attach to the diamond's surface hydrogen layer, creating a redox reaction which pulls electrons from the bulk of the diamond, creating charge carriers in the bulk of the diamond, turning it conductive, as well.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/researchers-crack-mystery-of-diamonds-conductivity/3003447.article

Your premise of long-term radiation evidence on x-ray film doesn't refute the science of condensed plasmoids... it's been seen before:

Look familiar?

Quote from http://condensed-plasmoids.com/iccf20_proceedings_jaitner.pdf

There is experimental evidence from Savvatimova and independently from Urutskoev (later reproduced by C. Daviau et. al), that CP can reside for hours and days in the remains of Ti wire explosions in water. From these remains CP can emit as “strange radiations”, which can leave peculiar traces at nuclear emulsions or X-Ray films brought in proximity to these remains

How can a plasmoid live in water for days or months?

The nuclear changes in the Ti wire decayed for days or months... the Ti wire was exploded in water. The wording was a bit ambiguous.

As for how long a magnetic vortex shielded and constrained by a plasma can exist... apparently for quite a long time. Especially if the electrons of that plasma are enveloped in an otherwise non-conductive coating such as diamond, so they can't go anywhere. It's Russ's 'Oh Nuts!' experiment writ small.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1PwgCk5r2U
lo shu Magic Square / solfeggio code Matrix

Quote from namirha on June 3rd, 2018, 01:18 AM

æther
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3023.msg45131#msg45131

64 tetrahedrons: the fundamental seed geometry of the Universe
• 64 codons in human DNA.
• 64 hexagrams in the I Ching.
• 64 classical arts listed in many Indian scriptures.
• 64 Runes in the Mayan Tablets of the Law of Time.
• 64 “tantras” (books) of the “tantrism”, which is a form of Hinduism.
• 64 primary dimensions in the Indian Vedic texts.
• 64 is the maximum number of strokes in any Chinese character.
• 64 Hertz is the third octave above the Schumann resonance of the Earth
• 64 is the number of cells we have before our cells start to bifurcate (differentiate) shortly after conception.
• 64 different kinds of β-carboline alkaloids are expressed by 8 plant families
• 64 is fundamental in computer memory bits and coding.
• 64 things are needed to be able to approach the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord according to the 2 copper scrolls found among 300 Dead Sea Scrolls.
• 64 is encoded in the description of the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Bible, which is the 4-letter theonym YHWH meaning God in Hebrew.
• 64 is the number of generations from Adam until Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke.
• 64 forms or manifestations of the Lord Shiva in Hinduism.
• 64 squares on chess and checker boards.
• 64 Braille characters in the old 6-dot system.
• 64 golden disks in the myth of the Tower of Hanoi.
• 64 demons in the Dictionnaire Infernal.
• 64 is the smallest number with exactly seven divisors.

SOURCE
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=378413539232043&id=100011901996265

Nickel-64 is another stable isotope of nickel.
Possible sources include beta decay from cobalt-64, and electron capture from copper-64
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel

A discussion / analysis of data from key experiments run by Dr Alexander Parkhomov.
...https://youtu.be/43lakTKhbLw?t=10m25s



Reply #20
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/37/86/ee/3786eeb352804041fa2a7a9ffe78da58.jpg
‭‭John‬ ‭8:12‬