Subject: The Covariant Theory - Status Report
From: jgc@magi.com (John G. Cornfield)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 05:18:07 GMT
TCT Status Report
As of this posting about 135 people have downloaded the introduction and first
nine chapters of Part 1 of the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and Nuclei". Part
2 is now being released, on a chapter by chapter basis, at the web site given
below. Chapters 10 and 11 are now available.
During the past month, two readers have come forward to help me out with the
project, one to act as the moderator for an email based discussion group for
serious readers, and the other to redesign and operate my web site. I am
grateful for this as it will allow me more time to spend on producing the
documentation. If you are interested, more details are available on the
"Status Report" page at the web site, the URL for which follows the article
below.
I have been posting the following article to this newsgroup for a year now,
about twice a month. Due to the above developments I see no reason to continue
this, since there is now an interested group of readers who wish to continue
looking into the theory. As this was my only real objective, I will, as they
say, take my leave.
Thanks for your attention, and who knows, depending on how things develop at
the web site, you may be hearing about the Covariant Theory again - in the
future.
If you are a new subscriber to this newsgroup, and find the article below of
interest, perhaps a visit to the URL will see you joining the above group of
"readers"?
Cheers - John
THE COVARIANT THEORY
In the last few chapters of "A Brief History of Time"(Bantam 1988), Stephen
Hawking writes about an earlier idea of his concerning a new frame of
reference in which to consider physical reality. In essence it is:
- a four dimensional, non-linear frame, finite but unbounded,
(like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions),
- using imaginary time as a mathematical device, making the frame
Euclidean,
- the above producing no singularities and causing the distinction
between time and space to disappear.
The above proposal appears to describe very closely a theory I have been
interested in for the past 30 years. It is called "The Covariant Theory" and
is not my own, but the work of another man. It is unpublished, the original
author losing interest in it many years ago. Since I did show interest, he
gave me his original writings, about 1500 pages, which I first organized into
some 60 folders back in 1969.
In 1993 I retired from being a physics teacher (after 34 years!), and have
just recently acquired a new computer. For fun, I've started to put the work
into an electronic form, and am willing to share it with anybody who is
interested. There is no copyright on the material and you can work with it,
communicate, publish etc. as you see fit.
First let me assure you that it does indeed propose a change in the frame of
reference in which to view reality. It is a unique non-linear four dimensional
frame in which space and time are related in a covariant manner, and thus the
name of the theory. It is because the theory is based on a frame change, that
even though the draft was produced over 30 years ago, developments since that
time , such as quark theory and the standard model for example, can be
accommodated, in my opinion, within the theory. The central ideas then, seem
to me to still be viable.
The frame appears to have the capability of unifying the forces of nature in a
new way, since some of the initial predictions relate to meson masses and
properties, nuclear binding energy and structure, and relationships between
ionization potentials across the periodic table. In addition, as a result of
field geometry, various physical constants, such as "e", "h" and "c", are
intimately co-related, thus predicting the existence and value of the fine
structure constant.
The range of topics dealt with requires the potential reader to be comfortable
with the quantum, electromagnetic, and relativity theories and their
mathematical formalism. Generalized mechanics and knowledge of various nuclear
models is also required. In general then it is the theoretical physicist, with
a special interest in nuclear theory, to which this posting is directed, since
rigorous scholarly review and assessment is required.
Now there are a number of problems associated with the preparation and
transfer of the material as well as the central problem of communicating a
frame change. You have to start some place however, and I have decided to
prepare a pre-publication draft of the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and
Nuclei", which comes from about 30 of the 60 folders.
If you are interested in looking into the Covariant Theory, please proceed via
the WWW
to
where you will find a web site providing documentation that should be read
before you access the theory. I have set it up this way to help you make a
decision, since I do not want you to feel you are wasting your time.
Please do not e-mail me until after you have visited my home page.
Thanks - John
Subject: Re: Can ETAs count marbles?
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:08:28 GMT
In article <199612041537.KAA51495@pilot19.cl.msu.edu>, Richard A Blue wrote
:
[snip]
>So let's examine the "Nuclear Jelly" hypothesis. The magic word
>here is clearly "Boson". Say boson ten times while stirring the
>pot anticlockwise and you can invoke endless miracles. But what
>is a boson? When is 6Li a boson and when is it an ensemble of
>3 protons and 3 neutrons - each of which is a fermion?
You can always rely on a good skeptic to bring things into focus.:)
Thanks Dick, for finding the weak spot and poking it.
You made me think more deeply about the issue. This is what I have come up
with.
What is really needed is that many nuclei move "in sync" so that
they share long De Broglie wavelengths. I knew this meant that they all
had to occupy the same energy state, and immediately thought "Bosons!".
But I didn't initially think it through quite far enough. The entities that
need to occupy the same energy state are the vibrations in the lattice.
These are represented by phonons, which of course are Bosons.
Therefore it seems that any nuclei will do, not only those that are
themselves Bosons, but also bits and pieces of nuclei, provided that they
carry a charge, and are swept along in the acoustic waves in the lattice.
>
>Now, correct me if I am wrong on this point, but don't me need
>a collection of IDENTICAL bosons to form a condensate, and don't
>we have to have an ordered ensemble of bosons in some sense?
This is precisely why I envisage the "soup" primarily involving the highest
possible energy phonons in the lattice. I.e. those with a frequency equal
to the cut-off frequency proposed by Debye. As the lattice is heated up,
with the temp. rising ever further above the Debye temperature of the
substance, more and more phonons occupy the highest possible energy state.
Eventually, large portions of the lattice will be vibrating "in sync".
(Provided that the shortest wavelength waves are all forced to be oriented
in the same direction).
>Suppose we start off with the appropriate level of order to lead
>into the state of sublime nuclear jelly. Do we have in the mix
>right from the start the proper neutron/proton ratio to reach
>the final state of your choice - for example lead?
Usually yes, but it may be possible to inject other nuclei into the mix
without disturbing it beyond recovery (provided that they injected at
thermal velocities, or slow down to thermal velocities before entry).
>
>If the answer is to be yes, please describe the initial ingredients,
>i.e. tell us what ensemble of identical bosons you are offering
>as the miracle jelly. If the answer is to be no we need to talk
>about changing charge states in nuclear jelly.
Please see above.
>
>However, let us pause to contemplate the highly ordered state that
>is, possibly, achieved by electrolysis of CETI beads (or some
>imitation version thereof). In the end we have replaced up to 40%
>of the original matrix with a rather disordered assortment of stuff.
>My question is how can the reaction that requires some special state
>keep running at essentially the rate that was achieved with virgin
>beads?
I hope to have answered that above. I.e. phonons remain phonons.
>
>If you are going to invoke atomic electrons to change the charge of
>marbles or jelly we have to talk about electron states, don't we?
>
>Dick Blue
>
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on
temperature.
"....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Subject: Re: Can ETAs county marbles?
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:08:31 GMT
In article <583uam$m0e@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>, Richard Schultz wrote :
>Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@netspace.net.au) wrote:
>
>: >(1) Is there any way this "baryon soup," which you claim has a finite
>: >lifetime, can be detected experimentally, or is it merely a miracle
>: >invoked to explain the supposed product distribution?
>
>: It's a miracle invoked to explain the supposed product distribution.:>
>: But for the moment, I believe it's about the best miracle that we can come
>: up with. BTW all scientific theories are miracles which explain results.
>: As to detection, yes it can be detected by measuring the resultant
>: products.
>
>This is known, BTW, as "reasoning in a circle": we know there's a baryon
>soup because of the product distribution, and we get the product
>distribution because of the baryon soup.
You are correct. Unfortunately, the only other evidence I can come up with
that multiple nuclei in a lattice sometimes behave as though they were a
single nucleus is the Moessbauer effect.
>
>: >(2) How does your "baryon soup" manage to create all of the product
>: >nuclei in their ground states -- and how does it manage to release all
>: >of the exothermicity as heat?
>
>: Second: Heat.
>: Actually, I think most of the energy that is released comes out in the form
>: of kinetic energy of charged particles. Probably a good mixture of H, He4,
>: and various other heavier product nuclei. These should result in some
>: x-rays being produced, though in Ni or water these will be of such low
>: energy as to require very careful experimental techniques to discover them.
>: Those from Pd (~24keV), should be more easily detected, and I would advise
>: careful measurements on any Pd experiments that claim excess heat.
>: [snip]
>
>(1) No Brehmsstrahlung?
This is the tough question I have been avoiding for some time. It
demonstrates another aspect of my ignorance. I would like to break up my
reply into two parts. One dealing with nuclei directly, and one dealing
with electrons.
First the electrons. If my classical mechanics hasn't let me down, then
maximum energy transfer from a heavy particle to a light particle depends
upon the mass ratios of those particles. The greater the mass ratio, the
lower the proportion of energy transferred.
The formula I came up with is Em/Et = 4*n/(n+1)^2, where n is M/m (M the
large mass, m the small), Em is the resultant energy of the small mass, and
Et is the initial energy of the large mass. I have assumed that the small
mass initially had no energy.
The largest energy transfer to an electron from a heavier particle occurs
when the heavier particle is a proton. In this case the electron gets about
1/460 of the proton's energy. So it would take a 23 MeV proton to produce a
50 keV electron. This electron would then at most produce 50 keV
bremsstrahlung. I think that in reality the number of 23 MeV protons will
be few and far between. (Despite my previously having used a similar
example for the production of lead:). In fact I wouldn't be in the least
surprised if the energy were more evenly distributed across multiple
nuclei, such that each had considerably less.
Now to the nuclei. To be quite frank, I have no idea how much
bremsstrahlung is produced by charged nuclei interacting with one another
directly, however I would expect that it would be relatively small, given
that it is an acceleration based phenomenon, and these particles are pretty
heavy and slow moving. Perhaps measurements taken on typical alpha emitters
would give some idea of it. Maybe you would like to supply some numbers?
>
>(2) You are aware that people have looked for X-rays from Pd, aren't you?
>How much have they found? How many CF researchers have taken up Steven
>Jones's offer?
Yes, I am aware of some people looking for x-rays. However if you could
point me to a report where these were sought but not found, in an
experiment with Pd, where excess heat was reported in the same experiment,
I would be grateful.
I'm not sure whether or not researchers taking up Dr. Jones offer is
necessarily a good measure. I suspect that all sorts of political
implications are involved here as well (politics in the broad sense of the
word).
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on
temperature.
"....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir"
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:31:54 +0000
In article <01bbe211$acdff360$e85020a6@karim.ns.mci.com>, Karim Alim
writes
>You: Oh yeah??? PROVE IT!!!
>
>That's not "talking science." What you should have said was:
>
>You: The result of experiment x conducted by Merriman on mm/dd/yy showed no
>excess heat and therefore implies that CETI claims are false.
>
>THEN I could have followed up by questioning the validity of the Merriman
>results because of the non-CETI beads etc., but NOOOOOOOO, you would rather
>pick on someone whose name you don't recognize, assume that a) they are new
>to the group and b) don't know what they're talking about, then ask them
>"how long they've been actively involved" and whether they have any
>"financial interest" etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam, which is all TOTAL BULLSHIT
>and has NOTHING to do with "TALKING SCIENCE."
>
>YOU should follow YOUR OWN FUCKING ADVICE.
>
>By the way, *I* never made such claims, but that's almost irrelevant at
>this point since facts like that seem to slip by you. (I did jokingly
>answer -- AFTER you claimed that I made those claims -- that yes it does
>OUTPUT "kilowatt heat" if you ignore the INPUT.)
>
>YOU talk science or go away, asshole.
Good to see the TBs remain up to their previous level of argument
quality. And that Gene Mallove seems to have bought himself another nom-
de-plume for trolling here.
Just what do you think you proving, "Karim"?
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Were diu werlt alle min von deme mere unze an den Rijn
des wolt ih mih darben,
daz diu chunigen von Engellant lege an minen armen!
Subject: Re: "Fundamental Limitations on Plasma Fusion Systems ..."
From: Arthur Carlson TOK
Date: 05 Dec 1996 09:08:04 +0100
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
> Arthur Carlson TOK (carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
> : fuel P_brem/P_fus
> : ------- ------------
> : p-B11 1.74
> : ... The nearly aneutronic fuels are not
> : merely more difficult, but are impossible, unless you can find a very
> : large loophole.
>
> It looks to me that he is assuming an ignited reactor: all the power to
> heat the plasma comes from the fusion reactions. On the other hand, if
> you could collect that bremsstrahlung and use it to re-heat the plasma
> with some means of auxiliary heating (eg, ECRH or somesuch), you could
> get the net loss down below 1 (note this is a different matter than what
> is discussed in Rider's thesis under "recirculating power"). I admit
> this is very nontrivial technically, but we are interested in physical
> possibility, and I'm still not convinced that a p-B11 tokamak (or other
> magnetic confinement device) is impossible.
Bremsstrahlung leaves the plasma as x-rays with a broad spectrum, so
nobody knows how to begin to do "direct conversion" to electricity (as
would be conceivable with synchrotron radiation). So you're stuck with
heat, which is, unfortunately, deposited on the surface of your first
wall, not volumetrically as with neutrons. Since the temperature of
the surface is limited (by melting, plastic flow, sublimation,
chemical reactions), the temperature of the coolant is even lower, so
it is difficult to get a decent thermal conversion efficiency. But
let's say you can manage 40%. So a reactor producing 1 GW with p-B11
loses 1.74 GW to bremsstrahlung, which is converted to 0.70 GW
electric. If your ECRH system is 100% efficient, you can add this to
the fusion power, so you only need to draw 0.04 GW of electricity from
the net to keep your plasma burning. Or did you want to actually
produce power?
I think we are just quibbling over the difference between "very
nontrivial technically" and "impossible". 43% thermal efficiency would
not violate the Carnot limit and would allow in this model at least a
trivial amount of net power out. The bigger problem is that no
allowance has been made for fuel dilution and bremsstrahlung from the
ash and other impurities, nor for synchrotron radiation losses, nor
for anomalous or even classical heat conduction. Any of these alone
would, I believe, soundly terminate any chance of net energy
production from p-B11. The trouble is that the assumptions going into
the argument cannot be phrased so cleanly in terms of "fundamental"
laws of physics.
> I also have the impression that in the DD number he is neglecting
> secondary reactions, which could dominate the power production if you
> got the parameters right.
That's right. Analyzing D-D is messy because you can choose so many
assumptions about the burnup. If you burn up the He3 but not the
tritons, you reduce the fraction of power in the neutrons from 36%
down to 10%, but the bremsstrahlung fraction presumably doesn't change
much (see table). But maybe the bremsstrahlung fraction really is
bigger than for either reaction alone, since the optimum temperature
for D-He3 is 100 keV, but that for D-D (pure) is 500 keV. Propose a
scenario and we can work it through, but I suspect there is a fairly
robust relationship between reducing the neutron power fraction and
increasing the bremsstrahlung power fraction.
--
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~awc/home.html
Bruce and I are both expressing our personal opinions, which may not
only conflict with each other, but also with that of the IPP.
Subject: Re: CETI Demo at American Nuclear Soc. Mtg.
From: ianj@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 15:54:15 GMT
Karim Alim (karim.alim@mci.com) wrote:
: I Johnston wrote in article
: > Where, as a matter of interest, have you "gathered" this?
: WHY, "as a matter of interest," do you want to know where I gathered this?
Because you claim repeatedly results which, if true, would upset a
century's worth of physics and engineering. Saying "It's true 'cos I say
it is, so there" cuts little ice or mustard.
: That -- making new observations and not assuming they must
: be right or wrong -- might be something resembling SCIENCE. You know,
: "SCIENCE," like in the first three letters of this newsgroup?
Exactly. Let's have some observations, not assertions.
: > For them to reduce their calorimetric claims from 1.3kW excess to around
: > 1W, then say "we're tired of that game" does not exactly inspire
: > confidence.
: There is the little matter of input power, but... *sigh* never mind. I
: suspect you've already made up your mind on this point and introducing
: ANNOYING little things called FACTS might upset the static equilibrium of
: your little universe.
A year a go CETI's chums claimed a device producing 1.3kW excess heat.
"Way beyond calorimetry" we were told. Now they can't come up with one
excess watt, and find calorimetry boring. Input power, in this context,
is pretty irrelevant. If they could make a free kilowatt a year ago, why
don't they wantto any more. Let's have some FACTS!
: 2) I don't give a shit if YOU or ANYONE ELSE thinks I'm "making a fool of
: myself." I have to answer to MY conscience, NOT YOURS.
So why are you so keen to persuade this newsgroup that you have the
ANSWER if only we trust you?
: 3) Pat summary but you've misrepresented me, at any rate. I have never
: told anyone "THIS IS REAL!!!"
But you get really worked up about it when your claims are treated
sceptically....
: For people whose minds are NOT closed, there are plenty of interesting new
: observations that can be rationally criticized and/or supported.
So give some which don't originate from people with track records in
hopeless naivete or blatant fraud.
Ian
