It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Element 115 and ZPF: how it might work, and it is a revolution.

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2021 @ 03:07 AM
link   
www.tsijournals.com...

Page FP9 (second page)

In any case the full paper explains the strategy.

Regarding nature, we already have reached a level of development that enables us to make devices that does not exist in nature. There is a long list

edit on 17-11-2021 by Dineutron because: typos

edit on 17-11-2021 by Dineutron because: typos



posted on Nov, 19 2021 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Dineutron

This is one part (of many) that puzzles me. "A possible idea is to find a suitable nuclear species that has dineutrons floating near or on the surface of a core nucleus"
Does this imply a nucleus composed of a particle soup? It would seem that with everything else in the atomic world having a structure that the nucleus should have one also.



posted on Nov, 19 2021 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Dineutron

This is one part (of many) that puzzles me. "A possible idea is to find a suitable nuclear species that has dineutrons floating near or on the surface of a core nucleus"
Does this imply a nucleus composed of a particle soup? It would seem that with everything else in the atomic world having a structure that the nucleus should have one also.
Nuclear physics is complicated and the calculations are difficult, so a lot of what we know is based on observation more than calculations.

Here's an article about that topic:

Dineutron emission seen for the first time

Physicists in the US claim to have witnessed, for the first time, the emission of a neutron pair in the decay of an atomic nucleus. Such “dineutron” decay could extend our understanding of the strong force, which is responsible for holding nuclei together, and the processes taking place in neutron stars...

The obvious place to begin searching for dineutron decay is in nuclei that contain too many neutrons – that is, those nuclei that would want to lose at least two neutrons in order to become more stable. Such neutron-rich nuclei tend to decay one neutron at a time, rather than two at once. But not all nuclei opt for a step-by-step decay: beryllium-16 does not readily emit a single neutron because that would leave a nucleus of beryllium-15, which is more unstable.

Spyrou’s group examined beryllium-16 for dineutron decay. They created the isotope at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University by removing a single proton from a boron-17 beam. Immediately, the resultant beryllium-16 decayed into two neutrons. After examining the energy and position information for all three particles – the two neutrons and the remaining beryllium-14 nucleus – the researchers calculated that the two neutrons were emitted together and in the same direction.

Spyrou says that the direction is important for labelling the process as dineutron decay. If the neutrons had been left the nucleus separately, she says, the angle between them would have been almost random.
“Ferreting out “true events

Bob Charity, a chemist specializing in nuclear structure and reactions at Washington University in St Louis, US, thinks the results are impressive. “A single neutron may interact with one part of a detector and in the process scatter and then interact with another part, making it hard to differentiate a single-neutron event from a true two-neutron event,” he says. “The experimental effort…should be praised for ferreting out the two-neutron events from this background of ‘fake’ two-neutron events.”

However, some scientists, including Charity, are sceptical that the dineutron should be considered a well-defined entity. Since the emitted neutrons are already correlated inside the beryllium nucleus’s halo, these scientists say, they are likely to be correlated outside, too – but that does not mean the neutrons are truly bound together.

“I am not convinced that what they see is a new type of particle,” Marek Pfützner told physicsworld.com. Pfützner is a nuclear physicist at the University of Warsaw in Poland and believes that the concept of a dineutron is “a very simplified way to describe the data, which is used a when more detailed and rigorous description is missing”.

So we have a claimed dineutron being observed, and we also have some healthy skepticism if what was observed was really a dineutron or whether it was just two neutrons. The experimentalists will now probably try to figure out what would need to be done to convince the skeptics.



posted on Nov, 19 2021 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Would having a defined nuclear structure help or hinder this observation? It would seem that with a nucleus soup of particles, having both neutrons with the same energy and vector would dictate the existence of a dineutron. With a structured nucleus, this becomes less compelling.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Would having a defined nuclear structure help or hinder this observation? It would seem that with a nucleus soup of particles, having both neutrons with the same energy and vector would dictate the existence of a dineutron. With a structured nucleus, this becomes less compelling.
I don't think anybody can tell you with certainty what the nuclear structure is. We have different models and they have different strengths and weaknesses but as far as I know, none of the models are accurate enough to explain all observations.

What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".

Neutronium

The dineutron, containing two neutrons, was unambiguously observed in 2012 in the decay of beryllium-16.[8][9]It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived resonance state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence in nuclear reactions produced by helions (helium 3 nuclei, completely ionised) that result in the formation of a proton and a nucleus having the same atomic number as the target nucleus but a mass number two units greater. The dineutron hypothesis had been used in nuclear reactions with exotic nuclei for a long time.[10] Several applications of the dineutron in nuclear reactions can be found in review papers.[11] Its existence has been proven to be relevant for nuclear structure of exotic nuclei.[12] A system made up of only two neutrons is not bound, though the attraction between them is very nearly enough to make them so.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 02:50 PM
link   


What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".


In the spheron model of the nucleus (Linus Pauling) :
scarc.library.oregonstate.edu...

Spheron model:
www.pnas.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dineutron



What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".


In the spheron model of the nucleus (Linus Pauling) :
scarc.library.oregonstate.edu...

Spheron model:
www.pnas.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
I have no idea what you're trying to say with your sentence fragment and three links. Perhaps the reason few seem to talk about Pauling's model specifically is because "Pauling promised that the quantum mechanical calculations enabled by his polyspheron theory were essentially the same as those that had been made using various other models in the past."


In an effort to assure the scientific rank and file that he was not seeking to upend their entire understanding of nuclear physics, Pauling promised that the quantum mechanical calculations enabled by his polyspheron theory were essentially the same as those that had been made using various other models in the past.

Perhaps unwittingly, this assurance left many colleagues within the field wondering why Pauling was bothering to develop this theory at all. For many physicists, Pauling’s work seemed redundant, or perhaps merely an attempt to change the names of existing terms to new ones that fit more elegantly into Pauling’s conceptual framework of atomic structure.


So if the calculations are the same as with the other models, it's not radically different.

I re-read your proposed scheme in the OP and it sounds extremely inefficient. Whatever gravitational waves you might possibly get from dineutrons if you can excite them to produce gravitational waves would probably be too small to measure or harness, and would likely be less energy than you put into the process to produce them. Maybe if you're using some astronomical figure for Zero Point energy you think you can get some of that, but I think we've established such high values of ZPE are not consistent with observation. Observations suggest a very low amount of vacuum energy, slightly greater than zero. You probably can't harvest that, but even if you could, there's not much there to harvest as explained in my thread on that topic posted earlier.

Finally, please learn enough physics to figure out that Lazar's ideas should not be given any credence, as explained in the "Lazar Critique by Dr. David L. Morgan" I posted earlier.



posted on Nov, 22 2021 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Would having a defined nuclear structure help or hinder this observation? It would seem that with a nucleus soup of particles, having both neutrons with the same energy and vector would dictate the existence of a dineutron. With a structured nucleus, this becomes less compelling.
I don't think anybody can tell you with certainty what the nuclear structure is. We have different models and they have different strengths and weaknesses but as far as I know, none of the models are accurate enough to explain all observations.

What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".

Neutronium

The dineutron, containing two neutrons, was unambiguously observed in 2012 in the decay of beryllium-16.[8][9]It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived resonance state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence in nuclear reactions produced by helions (helium 3 nuclei, completely ionised) that result in the formation of a proton and a nucleus having the same atomic number as the target nucleus but a mass number two units greater. The dineutron hypothesis had been used in nuclear reactions with exotic nuclei for a long time.[10] Several applications of the dineutron in nuclear reactions can be found in review papers.[11] Its existence has been proven to be relevant for nuclear structure of exotic nuclei.[12] A system made up of only two neutrons is not bound, though the attraction between them is very nearly enough to make them so.


If there is not enough binding energy available to produce a stable particle, is there enough for one neutron to drag another along? This would imply that the drag along energy is greater than that binding the neutron to the nucleus.



posted on Nov, 23 2021 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
If there is not enough binding energy available to produce a stable particle, is there enough for one neutron to drag another along?
Maybe. There was a proposed resonance mode, but I don't really understand that, and I'm not sure if that proposed method is confirmed.


This would imply that the drag along energy is greater than that binding the neutron to the nucleus.
In the case of beryllium-16 decaying into beryllium-14, the reason it does so is because beryllium-15 is even more unstable than beryllium-16. So you could be right about that in the case of beryllium 16 decay into beryllium 15, in fact I couldn't find any mention of that decay mode. It seems beryllium-15 and beryllium-16 both decay to beryllium-14.
edit on 20211123 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join