https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105844
So that's the structure on the right - of the "pi resonance" nonlocal 1/2 electron spin configuration inside the tublin - so that the microtubule is a negative permittivity meta-material.
Jafari, Hamid; Yazdi, Mohammadreza Haeri; Fakhrabadi, Mir Masoud Seyyed (2020). Damping effects on wave-propagation characteristics of microtubule-based bio-nano-metamaterials. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, (), 105844–. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105844
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1251/1/012010/pdf
and so
Quantum hyper-computing by means of
evanescent photons
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-the-square-momentum-of-a-virtual-photon-negative
evanescent waves have imaginary momentum, whereas virtual particles (would) have imaginary mass.
There it will be found, in particular, that the photon's 3-momentum isn't imaginary. By energy-momentum conservation it's equal to the difference between the real 3-momenta of one of the initial and final electron states, that are both on-shell. The rest is algebra and the result is that, if the two electrons are on-shell, the photon can't be.For any particle, energy and 3-momentum are related by the expression E^2-|p|^2c^2=(mc^2)^2. It's the mass of the particle that's Lorentz invariant, i.e. independent of the frame, not its energy or its 3-momentum. So it's wrong to state that a massive particle can have imaginary 3-momentum.The reason is that the squared 4-momentum is a Lorentz invariant. It means that in the rest frame such particles would have had imaginary mass.
So the invariant formulation is: why is the squared mass of a virtual photon negative?
There's a confusion between center of mass energy and momentum transfer. There are two independent 4-vectors, in a 2-particle collision (the third is related to the two others), p1+p2, that's time-like, its square is the center of mass energy; and p1-p2=q, that expresses the 4-momentum transfer. It isn't the virtual photons that had positive energy squared (115 GeV/c^2)^2 at LEP: the, on-shell electrons and positrons that were colliding, were carrying it (each half of it). And same holds for the LHC, the ILC and so on. Virtual particles aren't emitted on-shell-and they're described by a space-like 4-momentum, that's why.The colliding particles are on-shell.It's a standard exercise, once more, to check that a uniformly moving massive particle can't emit a massless paticle: energy-momentum conservation implies that not all three particles in the vertex can be on the respective mass shells
In the s-channel, the virtual exchanged particle has time-like 4-momentum; it's in the t-channel that it has space-like 4-momentum.
Now back to Meta-materials of microtubles.
They're the conversion of time-frequency momentum into space momentum as mass.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html
https://www.academia.edu/37223033/JSarfattiPQMBohm1952V3_pdf
We also point out that thefuture holographic dark energy de Sitter horizon is a total absorber (in the sense of retro-causalWheeler-Feynman action-at-a-distance electrodynamics) because it is an infinite redshift surfacefor static detectors. Therefore, the advanced Hawking-Unruh thermal radiation from the futurede Sitter horizon is a candidate for the negative pressure dark vacuum energy.
So Puharich is just taking about Proton spin coupling ....
https://www.puharich.nl/PDF/Elf_Magnetic_model_of_matter_and_mind.pdf
Puharich cites: Redfield, A. G. (1969). Nuclear Spin Thermodynamics in the Rotating Frame. Science, 164(3883), 1015–1023.
doi:10.1126/science.164.3883.1015
https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1126/science.164.3883.1015
OK NOW I understand.
So .125 is the NMR for the proton.
Coupling constants between proton sets on neighboring sp3-hybridized carbons is typically in the region of 6-8 Hz.
The proton-proton couplings in benzene are typically 7-9 Hz
the spin of one nucleus perturbs (polarizes) the spins of the intervening electrons, and the energy levels of neighboring magnetic nuclei are in turn perturbed by the polarized electrons. This leads to a lowering of the energy of the neighboring nucleus when the perturbing nucleus has one spin, and a raising of the energy whenwhen it has the other spin. The J coupling (always reported in Hz) is field-independent (i.e. J is constant at different external magnetic field strength), and is mutual (i.e. JAX = JXA). Because the effect is usually transmitted through the bonding electrons, the magnitude of J falls off rapidly as the number of intervening bonds increases. Coupling over one (1J), two (2J) and three (3J) bonds usually dominates the fine structure of NMR spectra, but coupling across four and five (4J, 5J) bonds is often seen, especially through π bonds (double and triple bonds, aromatic carbons).
https://organicchemistrydata.org/hansreich/resources/nmr/?page=05-hmr-03-jcoupl/
phase-spin echo interferometer
"Real and virtual particles have very different gravitational properties according to Einstein’s relativity special and general when combined with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and what is called the spin-statistics connection. It turns out that virtual photons must anti-gravitate just like the observed dark energy....My main point is that the speed of light in Maxwell’s above equation has dispersion. We are only interested in the near field of virtual photons. In general, the speed of light for virtual photons depends on both their energy hf and their linear momenta hk that are independent variables unlike the case of real photons where there is only one independent variable. ...This 2-cycle encloses N GMD point monopole defects in the three effective real O(3) Higgs field macroquantum coherent Penrose-Onsager off-diagonal-long- range-order post-inflation vacuum parameters...The key point for warp drive is repulsive antigravity like the cosmological dark energy accelerating the expansion rate of our observable universe, that Einstein’s field equation (1.1) together with WMAP and Type 1a supernovae z data say, is sandwiched between our Friedman-Walker-Robertson particle horizon and our future de Sitter event horizon. Our past particle horizon is the future light cone of the moment of inflation whose released energy made the hot Big Bang. Our future event horizon is the past light cone of our world line that we imaginatively stretch to infinite metric proper time that corresponds to a finite conformal clock time. We approach our future event horizon and recede from our past particle horizon."
Jack Sarfatti
No comments:
Post a Comment