Got mass? Scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy

Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons, but at the same time act as superconductors. A new study led by Princeton scientists shows that this happens because of a process known as quantum entanglement that determines the mass of electrons moving in a crystal. The discovery can help improve understanding of how certain materials become superconducting, which may have applications in areas such as power network efficiency and computing speed. Credit: the Yazdani Group

A Princeton University-led team of scientists has shown how electrons moving in certain solids can behave as though they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons, yet at the same time act as speedy superconductors.

The observation of these seemingly contradictory changes in the electron properties is critical to the understanding of how certain materials become superconducting, in which electrons can flow without resistance. Such materials could dramatically increase the efficiency of electrical power networks and speed up computers.

The concept of "heavy" electrons seems counterintuitive. The tiny particles flit through silicon chips to process information rapidly in digital electronics, and they flow with ease through copper wires carrying electricity to your desk lamp. But the Princeton research has revealed that a hard-to-measure process known as quantum entanglement determines the mass of electrons moving in a crystal and the delicate tuning of this entanglement can strongly alter the properties of a material.

Cool the electrons to far below room temperature in certain types of solid materials, and these flighty particles gain mass, acting like much heavier particles. Surprisingly, further cooling close to absolute zero makes these solids become superconducting, where the electrons, despite their heaviness, make a kind of perfect fluid that can flow without wasting any electrical power.

This video displays heavy electrons at different energies and shows their standing wave patterns (like water in a pond) around individual atomic defects placed intentionally in a compound. The patterns in these images allowed the Princeton scientists to understand the formation of heavy electron waves and to identify a hard-to-measure quantum entanglement process that controls their mass. Credit: The Yazdani Group. In a study to appear in the June 14 issue of the journal Nature, the Princeton-led team, which included scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the University of California-Irvine, used direct imaging of electron waves in a crystal. The researchers did so not only to watch the electrons gain mass but also to show that the heavy electrons are actually composite objects made of two entangled forms of the electron. This entanglement arises from the rules of quantum mechanics, which govern how very small particles behave and allow entangled particles to behave differently than untangled ones. Combining experiments and theoretical modeling, the study is the first to show how the heavy electrons emerge from such entanglement.

Observations made over the last 30 years indicate that electrons in certain solids behave as particles with masses hundreds to thousands of times larger than that of electrons moving freely in a vacuum. Until now, however, researchers had been unable to understand how this happens and lacked the tools to explore the connection between this process and the superconductivity of heavy electrons.

The published study comes after several years of setting up the precise experimental conditions needed to visualize these heavy electrons. The team employed a custom-designed cryogenic scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), which allows visualization of electron waves in a crystal. The researchers used STM to look at crystals prepared in such a way that their surfaces contained a few atomic imperfections. As they lowered the temperature in the experiment, the researchers saw the emergence of patterns of electron waves spread around the defects in a way similar to how ripples of water form around rocks in a pond. (See video.)

"It is remarkable to watch electrons moving in a crystal evolve into more massive particles as we cool them down," said Ali Yazdani, a professor of physics at Princeton and head of the team that conducted the study.

Making this groundbreaking observation of electrons as they transition from light to heavy particles is only part of the story. The researchers also showed how the process can be understood based on quantum theories of electron behavior. Subatomic particles such as electrons can exhibit strange behavior because of quantum entanglement, which can mix diametrically opposite behaviors together. By comparing the data with theoretical calculations, the study shows that heavy electrons emerge from entanglement of two opposite behaviors of electrons, one in which they are localized around individual atoms and the other in which they are hopping freely from atom to atom in the crystal.

"This is the first time we have a precise picture of formation of heavy electrons, thanks to our ability to probe them with high resolution," Yazdani said.

The degree of such entanglement appears to be the key to understanding what the heavy electrons do once they are formed and cooled even further. Adjusting the crystal composition or structure can be used to tune the degree of entanglement and the heaviness of electrons. Make the electrons too heavy and they freeze into a magnetized state, stuck at each atom in the crystal while spinning in unison. But tweaking the crystal composition so that the electrons have just the right amount of entanglement turns these heavy electrons into superconductors when they are cooled.

"What is neat, and our studies confirm this, is that you really need to be on the verge of these two kinds of behaviors — sluggish and speedy — to get superconductivity," Yazdani said. "That is the circumstance most favorable to occurrence of heavy electron superconductivity."

Understanding superconducting behavior of exotic electrons is at the forefront of research in physics, where there are many examples of magnetic materials that turn superconducting with subtle changes in their composition or crystal structure.

The experiments may help physicists unravel the mysteries of high-temperature superconductivity, said Subir Sachdev, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University who was not involved with the work. Many physicists have argued that understanding this transition between magnetism and superconductivity, known as a quantum critical point, could help explain why the materials are superconducting. But physicists have lacked experimental evidence to prove their ideas.

"We have been waiting for observations like this for many years, so it is very exciting that such a beautiful experimental system has been found and characterized so well," Sachdev said.

Sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps this article?

http://e-catsite.com/2012/01/06/celani-group-zeroes-in-on-lenr-markers-mechanism/

Celani Group Zeroes in on LENR Markers, Mechanism

Posted on January 6, 2012by Admin

Italian scientist Francesco Celani states that he and his research group have observed some interesting experimental evidence that may lead to a better understanding of the mechanism, stability and repeatability of the LENR phenomenon using copper-nickel alloys. While Andrea Rossi and Defkalion seemingly have solved the stability and replication issues with the e-Cat and the Hyperion respectively, Celani plans to make his findings PUBLIC at the 2012 World Sustainable Energy Conference from January 10-12 in Geneva, Switzerland. An abstract to his planned presentation can be found here. It does not give too many details about his presentation but it does offer a very good history of cold fusion from 1989 to present. A preview to his presentation has appeared on the 22Passi blog . Passerini reports: “Francis has authorized me to anticipate that an announcement of Geneva will be of great scientific value.” Updated abstracts and a more complete explanation will be made available shortly accordingly to Daniele Passerini of 22Passi. Part of an early draft reads as follows:

“In these weeks our group, working with long and thin wires having the surface coated with micro-nano-particles, get re-confirmation of a phenomenon, by us, seldom observed in some previous experiments: the specific alloy used (Cu-Ni), that usually has Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) of the resistance, if absorbs large amount of Hydrogen, changes to Negative TC. Such phenomenon is correlated to anomalous heat production and increases as the anomalous heat increases. If such key phenomenon will be kept under full control, because its behavior can be observed with simple instrumentation, it can be open the door to systematic work, worldwide, to find the “optimal” material and operating point.”

Although Andrea’s Rossi e-Cat is already in the process of commercialization, many remain skeptical because of a poor understanding of the mechanism in LENR as a whole. Celani’s presentation may help to address at least some of that skepticism.

In addition, many in the scientific community are hesitant to cast aside their extreme doubt about LENR without a clear theoretical understanding of the process. While the tendency to emphasize theory over experimental results, and in some cases totally ignore experimental results due to lack of a theory, is contrary to scientific inquiry, it is a very real mindset and is prevalent in many scientific circles. One can decry such close-mindedness as an obstacle to the acceptance of a variety of phenomena, including but not limited to LENR, but it a reality and must be accepted as such.

U.S. Department of Energy official Al Opdenaker III has re-enforced this mindset in yet another e-mail in response to an LENR inquiry. A member of the e-Cat Facebook community (Cold Fusion “Andrea Rossi” Method), David Lang, recently wrote Mr. Opdenaker thanking him for the open-mindedness he expressed regarding LENR in the e-mail exchange posted on this site a couple of weeks ago. In response, Mr. Opdenaker wrote:

“I was a total skeptic in 1989 with P and F. It sounded like total craziness to me. I have switched to a willing to see how things go with the Rossi device and several other similar ideas that are currently out there. I have tried not to get wrapped up in whether it is cold fusion or LENR or even magic if it can be demonstrated to work, I will accept it. Several people I respect say that the Rossi device can lead to real advances in energy in the next 10 years or so and that sounds like really good news for all of us. The proof needs to be in the pudding as they say. Let’s look at the experimental results and the theoretical backup and it can be judged from there.”

Well, the experimental results are already there. One does not really have to look very far to find them. I think the real hold up is the “theoretical backup.” Reading between the lines of these comments by Mr. Opdenaker, I would say that he is getting the most resistance from his contemporaries on this issue, especially at the DOE where one his bosses until recently (November 2011) was Steve Koonin, a long-time opponent of coldfusion/LENR, who resigned in wake of the$535 million Solyndra scandal. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) Opdenaker’s willingness to talk openly about cold/fusion LENR seems to have begun just about the time of Koonin’s departure. But, make no mistake, he still faces significant doubt and resistance about this technology at the DOE and the fact that he has been so willing to discuss it of late is to his credit.

Hopefully, Francesco Celani will be able to provide information that, in the very least, will increase the ability of scientists worldwide to reproduce LENR experiments. If this is the case, experimental evidence due to relatively easy reproducibility will be undeniable. The Celani Group findings appear to offer new insight into the mechanism of the cold fusion reaction. Once the mechanism is understood, one could surmise that a comprehensive, widely-accepted theory explaining the phenomena would be forthcoming sometime in the near future.

Somewhat in the same light, a book has recently been published by Camillo Urbani that attempts to address theoretical issues regarding LENR. The book is based on regular installments that have appeared on the forum of Francesco Piantelli associate Roy Virgilio, energeticambiente.it. The book, in short, attempts to explain why cold fusion is not easily accepted by concrete-thinking, scientific fundamentalists (my words not his) such as many theoretical physicists. See a preview of the book here. While it reportedly attempts to explain some basic concepts of physics to us mere mortals, it also apparently tries to lay some theoretical framework for cold fusion that even its critics can understand.

Between the upcoming presentation of Celani and the new book by Urbani, as well as a number of existing theoretical works such as Widom-Larsen, The Control of the Natural Forces, Bose-Einstein, and Amplification of Energetic Reactions, among others, perhaps a broad theoretical framework for cold fusion is being laid right before our very eyes. Before we know it, cold fusion/LENR may be so easy to understand that even a theoretical physicist can do it.

a uni-directional force with no propellent expelled. ***That is what I postulated and also, that is what has been observed. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2896450/posts?page=12#12 Monday, June 18, 2012 1:11:27 AM · 12 of 20 Kevmo to All; y'all; et al Here’s my theory. On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode & cathode of a capacitor. In the below Quantum Potential article, a propulsive force was found that matches these conditions (except that we’re seeing it on a microscopic level). Asymmetric Capacitor Thruster http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The study [3] also focused on ACT thrust in high vacuum (10−5 to 10−7 Torr) and reports small (on the order of 10 nN) thrust in vacuum under pulsed DC voltage conditions. Furthermore, the study [3] reports observation of thrust when a piezoelectric dielectric material such as lead titanate or lead zirconate (high relative dielectric constants of k = 1750) was used between the ACT electrodes. The thrust was apparently produced by slow pulsing spark-‐initiated breakdown of the dielectric. The magnitude of the propulsive force increases with the intensity of sparking across the dielectric. The study [3] recommended further exploration of sparking across dielectrics as a source of propulsive forces in ACTs. Unfortunately, no such follow-‐up study was conducted. I believe this Asymmetric Capacitor force has been previously described as the Poynting Vector. I think it is enhanced by the advent of a spark across the electrodes. But I might be mistaken. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pft01.htm During a charging process of a flat capacitor, the Poynting vector ( S=ExH ) comes from outside the capacitor towards the wire connections, parallel to the surface of the armatures inside the dielectric medium. There is an energy flow directly proportional to ExB. This energy is not provided by the wires but comes from the surrounding space around the capacitor. ( ref: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics : Electromagnetism vol2, Chap: 27-5, fig 27-3" by Addison-Wesley Publishing company. ) So, this Poynting Asymmetrical Capacitor Vector generates a unidirectional force. Any protons within its path would be propelled into a nearby Hydrogen atom which is trapped inside a Palladium matrix. This force is enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier. A couple of guesses: There would have to be hundreds of thousands of these sparks every second, constantly spitting matter or protons or electrons in one direction similar to a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) particle accelerator, where only 1 in 100k particles actually collides with a nucleus of a hydrogen atom and fuses. This force is proportional to the distance between electrodes, so the effect would happen closer to the small vertex of the crack rather than the large ends of the crack. The transfer of energy of fused atoms is mostly heat because the collision is unidirectional, and the gamma rays that are emitted only come out in certain geometrical probabilities, and most of those probabilities are directly in line with host atoms on the palladium (or nickel) matrix. I look at it similar to a pellet gun hitting balloons -- most of the time the air escapes the balloon in almost the same regions each time. These reactions only occur one atom at a time, so the geometrically restricted release of gamma rays is similarly restricted. The released energy is absorbed by the matrix one atom-release at a time.

better formatting for the inevitable spoonfed whiners among us

a uni-directional force with no propellent expelled.
***That is what I postulated and also, that is what has been observed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2896450/posts?page=12#12

Monday, June 18, 2012 1:11:27 AM • 12 of 20
Kevmo to All; y'all; et al

Here’s my theory.
On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode & cathode of a capacitor. In the below Quantum Potential article, a propulsive force was found that matches these conditions (except that we’re seeing it on a microscopic level).

Asymmetric
Capacitor
Thruster
http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf
An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The study [3] also focused on ACT thrust in high vacuum (10−5 to 10−7 Torr) and reports small (on the order of 10 nN) thrust in vacuum under pulsed DC voltage conditions. Furthermore, the study [3] reports observation of thrust when a piezoelectric dielectric material such as lead titanate or lead zirconate (high relative dielectric constants of k = 1750) was used between the ACT electrodes. The thrust was apparently produced by slow pulsing spark-‐initiated breakdown of the dielectric. The magnitude of the propulsive force increases with the intensity of sparking across the dielectric. The study [3] recommended further exploration of sparking across dielectrics as a source of propulsive forces in ACTs. Unfortunately, no such follow-‐up study was conducted.
I believe this Asymmetric Capacitor force has been previously described as the Poynting Vector. I think it is enhanced by the advent of a spark across the electrodes. But I might be mistaken.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pft01.htm
During a charging process of a flat capacitor, the Poynting vector ( S=ExH ) comes from outside the capacitor towards the wire connections, parallel to the surface of the armatures inside the dielectric medium. There is an energy flow directly proportional to ExB. This energy is not provided by the wires but comes from the surrounding space around the capacitor. ( ref: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics : Electromagnetism vol2, Chap: 27-5, fig 27-3" by Addison-Wesley Publishing company. )

So, this Poynting Asymmetrical Capacitor Vector generates a unidirectional force. Any protons within its path would be propelled into a nearby Hydrogen atom which is trapped inside a Palladium matrix. This force is enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier.

A couple of guesses:
There would have to be hundreds of thousands of these sparks every second, constantly spitting matter or protons or electrons in one direction similar to a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) particle accelerator, where only 1 in 100k particles actually collides with a nucleus of a hydrogen atom and fuses.
This force is proportional to the distance between electrodes, so the effect would happen closer to the small vertex of the crack rather than the large ends of the crack.
The transfer of energy of fused atoms is mostly heat because the
collision is unidirectional, and the gamma rays that are emitted only come out
in certain geometrical probabilities, and most of those probabilities are
directly in line with host atoms on the palladium (or nickel) matrix. I look
at it similar to a pellet gun hitting balloons -- most of the time the air
escapes the balloon in almost the same regions each time. These reactions only
occur one atom at a time, so the geometrically restricted release of gamma rays
is similarly restricted. The released energy is absorbed by the matrix one
atom-release at a time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.