A letter to Keith Fredericks on ‘Strange Radiation’ Mentioned in Geneste Paper (Axil)

The following post was submitted by Axil

Regarding Geneste’s paper, the ‘strange radiation’ tracks described were replicated by Keith Fredericks and reported at ICCF18:

http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/

Your analysis suggested they might be superluminal tachyons.

I would like to suggest something else.

These tracks are produced by analog black holes called “dark mode surface plasmon polaritons” (dark mode SPP). From nanoplasmonics, it is well known that these polariton solitons produce monopole magnetic fields. Being a black hole, the inside of the soliton contains negative energy due to the fact that loads of magnetic power is being projected as an anapole magnetism beam. This power projection segregates the vacuum into positive and negative energy.

Things that travel in negative vacuum go faster than light in a neutral vacuum as found in the laser probes used in the EMdrive experiments.

Hawking radiation will easily entangle these solitons and also help to produce negative vacuum energy.

The huge power content of these solitons come from a positive feedback mode between the soliton and the this SPP.

Nanoplasmonics explains these solitons and how they project a monopole magnetic beam. In fact I have a micrograph of this beam.

Your estimation of the power content of the soliton of 64 GeV puts the anapole magnetic field in range for it to produce muons and mesons born from the vacuum pair production as seen by Holmlid and the quark soup produced in the LeClair cavitation experiments.

For and overview on this supject see as follows:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2147-A-freed-polariton-soliton/

This soliton mechanism is already well defined in physics and I have the papers to show you.

also see
Prof. Daniele Faccio: “Black Holes, With A Twist” – Inaugural Lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I

Axil

  • Mats002

    Since when do you consider this LENR theory based on SPP conclusive? Or is it still refined as new data comes along?

    One of the problem with atom theory is the large space of terms, of which many refer the same phenomena with different words. The atom reaction language needs a clean up.