This refers to Feynman's 1949 theory. See http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/AntiMatter/AntiMatter.htmllink text <http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/AntiMatter/AntiMatter.html>
>From there: "Feynman's Theory of Antimatter In 1949 Richard Feynman devised another theory of antimatter. The spacetime diagram for pair production and annihilation appears to the right. An electron is travelling along from the lower right, interacts with some light energy and starts travelling backwards in time. An electron travelling backwards in time is what we call a positron. In the diagram, the electron travelling backwards in time interacts with some other light energy and starts travelling forwards in time again. Note that throughout, there is only one electron. Some might find the image of an electron travelling backwards in time, interpreted by us as a positron, to be scary. Feynman in his original paper proposing this theory wrote: "It is as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road." (Physical Review 76, (1949), 749.) Note that Feynman's theory is yet another echo of the fact, noted above, that a negatively charged object moving from left to right in a magnetic field has the same curvature as a positive object moving from right to left. Feynman's theory is mathematically equivalent to Dirac's, although the interpretations are quite different. Which formalism a physicist uses when dealing with antimatter is usually a matter of which form has the simplest structure for the particular problem being solved. Note that in Feynman's theory, there is no pair production or annihilation. Instead the electron is just interacting with electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. Thus the whole process is just another aspect of the fact that accelerating electric charges radiate electric and magnetic fields; here the radiation process is sufficiently violent to reverse the direction of the electron's travel in time. Nambu commented on Feynman's theory in 1950: "The time itself loses sense as the indicator of the development of phenomena; there are particles which flow down as well as up the stream of time; the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past." (Progress in Theoretical Physics 5, (1950) 82). On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dirac's concept of negative energy and negative mass come from solutions > in his equation, but nobody believed that those predictions were real. But > Feynman reinterpreted the this imaginary solution as the position. Feynman > said that the position was a particle that travels backward in time. This > backward time direction of the positron is accepted by science. > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/ > > In the tachyon section, this article shows that the direction of time is > based on the reference frame of the observer: how the observer moves in > relation to the tachyon. It's a relativity thing. > > In the case of LENR, the tachyon does not move faster than light or go > backward in time. > > Yes, LENR will be more difficult for people to understand and to accept. > Holmlid will have a hard time showing that K-mesons are being produced > using room lighting when muon factories at CERN will cost 10 billion euros > to do the same thing. > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> 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* >> <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* <http://restframe.com/rf/home.html> >> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Jones Beene <*jone...@pacbell.net* >> <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* <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/* <http://www.bio-page.org/boriskina/> >> >> >
