From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Detection and Born Violations
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:15:07 GMT

Hi again,

(BTW - Apologies for the inadvertant resend of that last large posting.
I got bitten by a subtle "feature" of the vi editor when trying to send
this one.)

Might as well finish a closing point that I forgot to make:

In Article 3080 of sci.physics.fusion
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven E. Jones) said::

> But if an idea or field cannot be falsified by any experiments [e.g.,
> Dr. Jones idea of looking for X-rays], then this is not good science.
> It is metaphysics.

If the Twist idea works at all, the specific example of creating a
two-node wavefunction for a deuterium atom should produce gammas,
X-rays, possibly a few neutrons, and who knows what else.  The specific
assumption is that whatever mass you have at each node is what you have
available for "evaporation" from that point.

You don't have to strain you're brain too hard for the genesis of that
heuristic.  The idea is simply that chopping up the wavefunction into
discontinuous parts is tantamount to chopping up the atom into the
same number of discontinuous parts.  Standard global symmetries and
relativistic physics would then get to rearrange whatever is left over
into some plausible set of particles.  I guess I could quantify all
of that with a bunch of equations, but honestly, why bother?  All I'd
be doing is dressing up a very simple (but very unusual) Born Violation
hypothesis in a lot of equations that just restate well-known issues
from relativistic quantum mechanics.  If this violation exists at all,
the bottom line from relativistic QM is that you should be able to get
just about *any* type of particle whose mass is less than that of the
disjoint wavefunction node from which it was formed, with a probability
distribution not terribly different from those of high-energy head-on
collisions typical of high-energy particle physics.

How's that for predictability/detectability?  A motely profile of *very*
detectable particles whose spectrum depends directly on how large you
manage to make the discontinuous wavefunction nodes?  With the latter
being directly controlled by solid-state mechanisms?  It may be totally
and unbelievably *wrong*, but I think it can safely be said to not be
overly "metaphysical"...  :)

The TMC described in Twist focuses mainly on a different configuration
in which you have a very, very large number of nodes distributed through
an entire crystal structure.  Experimentally I'd judge the latter case
to be a lot more plausible to form "accidentally," and thus was more
relevant to the palladium excess heat discussion.  But if it works at
all, it's very difficult to see an easy way for that very-many-nodes
configuration to produce any significant nuclear products except perhaps
very low energy neutrinos.

(Actually, I guess I should be plugging that as a positive point.  Pd
heat anomolies certainly are supposed to be clean, aren't they?)

But if it's detectable verification of such strangeness that you are
interested in, go for the minimal-node cases.  If Born vilolations
exist at all, they'll be much easier (and much more interesting) to
detect by constructing minimal-node disjoint atomic wavefunctions.

.....

I'll try to get together some of my references on band solitions and
their curious effects on electrons, and post them sometime in the near
future.  I'd suggest a literature search on polyacetelyne (kinks and
solitons in particular) if you're in a hurry or just curious.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger