Axil, Firstly, more physicists are convinced that faster-than-light particles cannot exist than think that LENR cannot. The evidence for LENR is stronger and most notably there is no problem with violation of causality in LENR – so why introduce it? String theory does not demand tachyons by any means. That was discredited 30 years ago.
You cannot minimize problems with causality in any viable theory. This eliminates tachyons from rational discussion. But mostly and as a practical matter it makes no sense to try to justify one controversial area of physics by recourse to an even more contentious hypothesis – really just a kludge which has zero real evidence behind it. In short, tachyons are not consistent with the known laws of physics whereas LENR can be made consistent, depending on how it is explained, but it is the experimental proof for LENR which is not up to the standards of physics, at least not so far in terms of reliability. Yet at least large amounts of proof exists, which is not the case with tachyons. From: Axil Axil Tachyons explain were the K-mesons are coming from in the Holmlid experiment. See Plasma-Balls in Large N Gauge Theories and Localized Black Holes http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0507219v3.pdf Axil Axil wrote: My quest for truth goes where the dots take me. String theory predicts many of the strange results that we are seeing, but these theorists believe that the applications of these theories are only cosmological. A major tenant of string theory is the tachyon. There has been photographic evidence of this sort of particle track observed in LENR experimentation for many years. Recently, the chief scientist at AIRBUS released a paper on this subject and this area or research is big in Russia. It is possible to estimate the energy content of these monopole tachyons together with their kinetic energy content using photographic emulsions by placing the ash from the recent LENR experiment on the photographic emulsions and wait for a 24 hour exposure. I believe what we are seeing are tachyons. Here is a site that documents the LENR research in this area and I hope that our research includes a search for particle tracks on photographic emulsions. For exotic particle approach to LENR theory, see for theory and experimental results as follows: http://restframe.com/rf/home.html On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: From: Axil Axil Ø …The following article explains way rotating light is important in explaining the various miracles associated with LENR. This also takes us up to and beyond the cutting edge of science and string theory…. Prof. Daniele Faccio: "Black Holes, With A Twist" - Inaugural Lecture Few observers have a problem with black holes on a cosmological scale. However, even the smallest possible black hole provides absolutely no insight for understanding LENR - and in fact, using the term simply provide the skeptic with another place to hang a hat. It is a crank notion. Sure, there is a tiny minimum mass for black holes to exist, so they do not have to be only cosmological - but that minimum mass is known, and it is much higher than anything seen in real experiments – such as the Holmlid effect. In principle, the smallest possible black hole will have a minimum mass equal to or above the Planck mass. That is indeed small on the scale where we usually encounter black holes. However, the Planck mass is calculated to about 22 micrograms – which is about 10^19 hydrogen atoms. That is the smallest possible size. The energy necessary to produce such a nano black hole is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the total energy available from the LHC, indicating that even the Large Hadron Collider cannot produce mini black holes… and obviously they have no bearing on the identity of SPP. Therefore, IMHO - it is rather silly to throw out a term which cannot be justified in theory or in experiment, especially when it adds nothing intuitive. As I said, this term merely reinforces the notion among some physicists that the LENR community is grasping at straws to explain results. Jones Beene wrote: A key paper for those who subscribe to the SPP modality in LENR – which is operational in at least one form (the Holmlid effect) is: “Plasmonics with a Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale” by Svetlana V. Boriskina (MIT). http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657 Boriskina provides insight into the plasmonic focusing mechanism – which is necessary to focus wavelengths of visible coherent light (in the range of green to yellow, or 535 nm to 580 nm) down to approximately 1 nm and below. She explains this by invoking an analogy of the 'photon fluid' (and magneto hydrodynamics) where light waves will be locally amplified and upshifted via convective vortex acceleration. The result is like an eddy current of photons up to a million time more powerful than before. Thus, the Holmlid effect is explained by trapped light which is swirled into optical vortices by EM fields. These are transitory tornado-like areas of circular/helical motion of flux. The result is magnetic fields of extreme local intensity (kilo-Tesla to mega-T.) which effectively compress and densify hydrogen into a new phase which can be well beyond metallic. Metallic hydrogen required compressive forces in the range of 500 GPa, but dense hydrogen requires at least an order of magnitude more force, which is well beyond the mechanical strength of a diamond anvil, for instance. The payoff is Holmlid’s new phase of dense hydrogen which becomes stable, once formed, without added pressure. Metallic hydrogen is not stable in an unpressurized condition and immediately reverts to the gas. The specific resonance values for the vortex formation depend on the matrix metal. With Holmlid’s experiments using iron-oxide matrix, the resonance value for photons is 535 nm which is green light. For palladium, using PdCl and LiCl electrolyte the strongest emission line is 542 nm which is yellow green. Electrolysis creates its own internal photons at the emission lines of the electrolyte. BTW – Boriskina apparently has no present connection to LENR per se, but as a theorist, she could become more important to the field than almost any other theorist (including Hagelstein) – to the extent that the SPP modality is shown to be correct. She appears to be relatively young which is bonus, should her insight prevail - since LERN field is aging rapidly. http://www.bio-page.org/boriskina/
