X-rays, Nuclear Fusion Are Electromagnetic Phenomena, Can Be Created At Home

[haidut]

A few months ago, I posted a fascinating article about reports of an anti-gravity force in real life, without the intervention of exotic technology created by 3-letter government agencies.
Force Similar To Anti-gravity Observed In Real Life

The observation above was made at a 3M plant in the USA and the explanation was that static electricity was somehow able to create an repulsive force capable of stopping any object (including humans) trying to enter in its field of action. In what is yet another striking example of synchronicity (Synchronicity - Wikipedia), which is the proper term instead of the more commonly used word "coincidence", this study below shows that another 3M product may be capable of electrical "magic". Using plain Scotch tape made by 3M scientsits observed that simply unpeeling it was able to create X-rays powerful enough to take a picture of a human finger against an X-ray film. Other brands of tape also seemed to work but were not as powerful as the 3M one. Maybe the reincarnation of Nikola Tesla has been living at 3M all along
Anyways, the reason the study is interesting is that the official version of physics taught in schools around the world and used for safety claims, states that ionizing (e.g. X-Ray) and non-ionizing (EMF) radiation types are distinct and do not lead to each other's emergence. This rigid separation of the radiation types is what also allows government authorities and companies to claim that non-ionizing radiation is inherently safe and cellphones do not pose any danger. However, in light of the above-reported phenomenon I am beginning to suspect that cellphones may also be capable of generating X-rays, possibly on a much smaller scale and distance. If that is true then the area closest to the antenna of the cell phone may actually be exposed to ionizing radiation (in this case X-rays) and this can easily explain the carcinogenic effects of cellphones confirmed in recent studies.
Perhaps even more importantly, the scientists believe that this electrical phenomenon can even trigger the nuclear fusion that powers stars. That would be perhaps the most direct confirmation of the Electric Universe Theory (EUT), which Peat has mentioned so many times. Opponents of EUT have so far cited the fusion process inside stars as a clear example of a non-electrical phenomena that the EUT fails to explain. Interestingly enough, the lead authors calls this tape phenomenon a "microscopic lightning effect", and I already posted about cosmic rays being created by thunderstorms.
Thunderstorms Can Trigger Nuclear Reactions; Are A Source Of "cosmic" Rays

Maybe we should all stock up on 3M tape as the next wave of "green energy" technologies Joking aside, this phenomenon has apparently been observed as early as the 1930s and has been confirmed multiple times. So, I think it is high time physicists start paying more attention to electrical phenomena as an explanation of the world around us instead of chasing imaginary multidimensional monstrosities (e.g. string theory) and bizarre ideas like "dark matter" or "dark energy".
@pimpnamedraypeat @Drareg @Such_Saturation @tyw

Correlation between nanosecond X-ray flashes and stick–slip friction in peeling tape
Scotch Tape Unleashes X-Ray Power
"...In a tour de force of office supply physics, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, have shown that it is possible to produce X-rays by simply unrolling Scotch tape. Next step: nuclear fusion. “We’re going to do that,” said Seth J. Putterman, a professor of physics at U.C.L.A. “I think it will work.”

"...In the current issue of the journal Nature, Dr. Putterman and his colleagues report that surprisingly fierce flows of electrons were unleashed as the tape was unpeeled and its gooey adhesive snapped free of the surface. The electrical currents, in turn, generated strong, short bursts of X-rays — each burst, about a billionth of a second long, contained about 300,000 X-ray photons. “Some kind of microscopic lightning effect,” Dr. Putterman said." The scientists even demonstrated that the X-rays were bright enough to take an X-ray of a finger."

"...The work is not unprecedented. In 1939, scientists showed that peeling tape emits light, an experiment anyone can conduct in a closet. But visible light photons have only about one ten-thousandth the energy of an X-ray photon. Russian scientists reported as far back as 1953 that from tape they had detected electrons energetic enough to emit X-rays. “But as far as I can tell, no one ever believed them,” Dr. Putterman said. “It was a big surprise to discover this deep dark corner of past research.”"

"...All of the experiments were conducted with Scotch tape, manufactured by 3M. The details of what is occurring on the molecular scale are not known, the scientists said, in part because the Scotch adhesive remains a trade secret. Other brands of clear adhesive tapes also gave off X-rays, but with a different spectrum of energies. Duct tape did not produce any X-rays, Dr. Putterman said. Masking tape has not been tested."

"...Finally, there is the possibility of nuclear fusion. If energy from the breaking adhesive could be directed away from the electrons to heavy hydrogen ions implanted in modified tape, the ions would accelerate so that when they collided, they could fuse and give off energy — the process that lights the sun."

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Something is up with 3M. They know more than they're revealing.

 

[StephanF]

A student at our university (UNR) replicated this experiment and indeed, 'Scotch tape' does produce x-rays! My explanation is the friction forces create charge separation in the adhesive-tape interface and create high voltages that can launch electrons which are accelerated in these high electric fields. When these electrons are stopped (right after being launched) they emit 'bremsstrahlung' and the energy spectrum depends on the initial energy of the electrons. These x-rays can then be used to produce an x-ray of a finger, for example. But these x-rays ARE ionizing radiation. In order to ionize, you need photons with an energy of a minimum of a few eVs (electron volts). Soft x-rays energies can go down to a few 100 eVs. Here is a paper on the x-ray production using Scotch tape:

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1559&context=engpapers

This does not imply that cell phones produce x-rays! I don't know how you could jump to such a conclusion. The danger of cell phones is real but has nothing to do with x-rays.

Don't be fooled by synchronicity, I have experienced many such events. I think it has to do with one's thoughts modulating the quantum field (quantum configuration space) that then generates phenomena in our 'reality' as a result, it is similar to 'like attracts like' but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is important. It is you causing it!

The 'Electric Universe' is mostly a bunch of nonsense. Of course, the universe is filled with plasma and there are magnetic and electric phenomena. But the interstellar plasma is to be considered charge neutral. Electric phenomena, if they exist are localized close to their origin, example: there could be electric phenomena close to a black hole, where you have moving plasma and extremely strong magnetic fields.

And we have electric phenomena in thunderstorms, of course. And those may be triggered by cosmic rays that produce ionizing channels in the atmosphere that can lead to a discharge, rather than the other way around. Very similar to a spark chamber to detect ionizing radiation. And electrons accelerated by the high potential in lightning strikes can again produce ionizing radiation but not nuclear reactions. In order to initiate nuclear reactions, you need to accelerate protons into the 10s of thousands of electron volts so they can overcome the electric Coulomb potential of the nucleus of a target atom or ion to induce a nuclear reaction. The cross sections are not very large, my guess is that if these reactions take place, it is taking place at a very low rate.

 

[Such_Saturation]

This is interesting, maybe the scotch tape all coiled up could be acting like a capacitor with the glue as dielectric. Or maybe the glue is being charged when it is pulled apart in a piezoelectric kind of way.

 

[haidut]

A student at our university (UNR) replicated this experiment and indeed, 'Scotch tape' does produce x-rays! My explanation is the friction forces create charge separation in the adhesive-tape interface and create high voltages that can launch electrons which are accelerated in these high electric fields. When these electrons are stopped (right after being launched) they emit 'bremsstrahlung' and the energy spectrum depends on the initial energy of the electrons. These x-rays can then be used to produce an x-ray of a finger, for example. But these x-rays ARE ionizing radiation. In order to ionize, you need photons with an energy of a minimum of a few eVs (electron volts). Soft x-rays energies can go down to a few 100 eVs. Here is a paper on the x-ray production using Scotch tape:

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1559&context=engpapers

This does not imply that cell phones produce x-rays! I don't know how you could jump to such a conclusion. The danger of cell phones is real but has nothing to do with x-rays.

Don't be fooled by synchronicity, I have experienced many such events. I think it has to do with one's thoughts modulating the quantum field (quantum configuration space) that then generates phenomena in our 'reality' as a result, it is similar to 'like attracts like' but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is important. It is you causing it!

The 'Electric Universe' is mostly a bunch of nonsense. Of course, the universe is filled with plasma and there are magnetic and electric phenomena. But the interstellar plasma is to be considered charge neutral. Electric phenomena, if they exist are localized close to their origin, example: there could be electric phenomena close to a black hole, where you have moving plasma and extremely strong magnetic fields.

And we have electric phenomena in thunderstorms, of course. And those may be triggered by cosmic rays that produce ionizing channels in the atmosphere that can lead to a discharge, rather than the other way around. Very similar to a spark chamber to detect ionizing radiation. And electrons accelerated by the high potential in lightning strikes can again produce ionizing radiation but not nuclear reactions. In order to initiate nuclear reactions, you need to accelerate protons into the 10s of thousands of electron volts so they can overcome the electric Coulomb potential of the nucleus of a target atom or ion to induce a nuclear reaction. The cross sections are not very large, my guess is that if these reactions take place, it is taking place at a very low rate.

Thanks for this explanation. I guess the point on synchronicity would difficult to prove one way or another - i.e. whether it is caused by me or outside world. If caused by me it would suggest the mind can control (parts) of reality which would be fascinating to say the least.
As far as the cellphones and X-rays - I was making an association with the the thunderstorms study, which claims that intense electrical field can create cosmic rays and those cosmic rays are ionizing radiation. Thunderstorms create immense charge density on the path of a lightning, and this apparently can create "cosmic" rays as per the study above. Did you get a chance to look at the thunderstorm study? I think they are pretty convinced that thunderstorms create cosmic rays, not the other way around. Do you have any reference to the contrary?

"...To this end, Enoto et al. carried out ground-based observations of γ-ray emission from low winter thunderclouds above the coast of the Sea of Japan. On 6 February 2017, they detected an intense γ-ray flash that lasted for less than 1 millisecond, which they associated with a lightning stroke. After the initial γ-ray flash, the authors observed a prolonged γ-ray line at an energy of 0.511 MeV that lasted for about a minute (see Fig. 4 in the paper2). This line is a conclusive indication of electron–positron annihilation, and represents unequivocal evidence that photonuclear reactions can be triggered by thunderstorms."

"...Thunderstorm-induced nuclear reactions could occur in the atmospheres of other planets, such as Jupiter and Venus, and might therefore contribute to the isotopic composition of these atmospheres. However, determining the magnitude of this contribution will require detailed observations of γ-rays and neutrons from thunderstorms on these planets. Another implication of Enoto and colleagues’ discovery is that the neutrons are formed outside the plasma created by lightning. This suggests that these neutrons cannot provide information about the plasma, in contrast to expectations15. "

 

[Ras]

The Action Lab attempts to recreate this phenomenon.

 

[DrJ]

The 'Electric Universe' is mostly a bunch of nonsense. Of course, the universe is filled with plasma and there are magnetic and electric phenomena. But the interstellar plasma is to be considered charge neutral.

I would agree that the folks doing Electric Universe with the trademark (lol) are not really on the ball. However, I think the "interstellar plasma is to be considered charge neutral" is pretty hand-wavy. No one really knows as no measurements have been taken there, so I think it best to leave an open mind there. They use that as an assumption to move forward with their cosmological models (similar to how an assumption of a very simple mass distribution led to the concept of a black hole), which is fine, but best to be aware of what your assumptions imply for the validity of the model. Clearly, within solar systems it's not charge neutral as there must be a huge voltage drop from the sun to the heliopause (and assumed analogous in other solar systems) for there to be the solar wind of positively charged particles flowing outwards from the sun/central star.

There's actually considerable scholarly literature on what might be called plasma universe theory by mainly Alfven who wrote a book (Evolution of the Solar System) detailing how the solar system could form under his theory. The critical ionization velocity concept seems to be congruent with the chemical makeup of the planets in our solar system. I don't know exactly what led to a turn away from plasma universe to big bang (but I seem to gather it's the cosmic microwave background), but it seemed to be under active investigation until at least the mid 1950s or later.

After the initial γ-ray flash, the authors observed a prolonged γ-ray line at an energy of 0.511 MeV that lasted for about a minute (see Fig. 4 in the paper2). This line is a conclusive indication of electron–positron annihilation, and represents unequivocal evidence that photonuclear reactions can be triggered by thunderstorms."

It's funny to call that a nuclear reaction, although I guess it is. It's the same effect as used in positron emission tomography (PET). I'm not sure how they get to fusion from that, and maybe the guy they interviewed was being cheeky :)

I think an issue with the term "ionizing radiation" is that it means different things in different contexts. For someone studying a hydrogen gas, the threshold for "ionizing radiation" is much lower (infrared to optical light) than someone studying biological effects of, say, creating an ionizing event in a human cell nucleus (so x-rays or gamma rays). It's pretty certain that most communication band EM frequencies don't cause ionization in the human body, but I'm not sure how well established it is that the fields they induce within the body are not harmful, but a different effect than ionization for certain.

That a thunderstorm could create "cosmic rays" (really their earth-bound equivalent since the naming is by source more than particle) seems quite plausible as all it would need to do is create some free charge at decent velocity, which should be possible with enough voltage and low-Z molecules (like the composition of air) and is done in labs on the daily without seeming remarkable. More interesting is that cosmic rays might seed the lightning path by ionizing atmospheric molecules the cosmic rays interact with, which @StephanF alluded to. If the solar flares determine current flow around the earth and thus its shielding magnetic field that deflects cosmic rays, as we head into a new solar minimum, we may get more lightning than in the past decade when the cycle was on the 'up'.

 

[haidut]

It's pretty certain that most communication band EM frequencies don't cause ionization in the human body, but I'm not sure how well established it is that the fields they induce within the body are not harmful, but a different effect than ionization for certain.

How solid is the evidence of EMF not being able to cause ionization in cells? Wouldn't that depend on power output, distance of antenna from tissues, and thus charge density in a cell?

 

[DrJ]

How solid is the evidence of EMF not being able to cause ionization in cells? Wouldn't that depend on power output, distance of antenna from tissues, and thus charge density in a cell?

Well EMF is technically the whole range of photon energies up to gamma rays which clearly do cause ionization. But If you're talking about most communication band frequencies, they generally don't, and definitely would not anywhere in the interior of the body (although they might induce a field in the body or heating, but that is different than ionization). The wave/photon has to carry enough energy to break an electron out of it's orbital (ionization). If the wave/photon does not have this, there is no ionization no matter how much flux (power & distance driven parameter). It's a sharp cutoff. That's basically the photo-electric effect which Einstein received his Nobel prize for, and seems to be experimentally well-established for the last 100+ years.

If you do have an EM frequency with enough energy to break an electron out of its orbital, say a 'soft' x-ray, then the power and distance from the source (there's not really x-ray antennas) will determine the probability of interaction (one of which possibilities is ionization) so something the the average ionization rate per unit time from that source.

 

[Spokey]

Chris Busby mentions that the electromagnetic field around such devices can accelerate particles nearby to energies high enough to cause ionization. But I think only structures in cells need to resonate with a given electromagnetic frequency to change its behavour to cause problems. I seem to remember an experiment showing skin cells proliferate more readily exposed to certain frequencies of non-ionizing radiation typical of consumer electrical devices.

 

[haidut]

It's a sharp cutoff. That's basically the photo-electric effect which Einstein received his Nobel prize for, and seems to be experimentally well-established for the last 100+ years.

If you do have an EM frequency with enough energy to break an electron out of its orbital, say a 'soft' x-ray, then the power and distance from the source (there's not really x-ray antennas) will determine the probability of interaction (one of which possibilities is ionization) so something the the average ionization rate per unit time from that source.

So, in regards to the latter - wouldn't higher EMF frequencies get closer and closer to the ability to dislodge an electron? Something like the 60 Ghz frequency of 5G wireless networks, or even more so the terahertz EMF in airport scanners? I

As far as the photoelectric effect - I think it is not as solid as it is being sold as. I am very suspicious of "threshold" theories given that the theory of existence of "threshold" exposure to ionizing radiation for it to have a carcinogenic effect as it turned out to be outright fraud (NAS falsified data on radiation safety to justify widespread use!).
Biochemical Health Reduction And Oxidation, Politics And Science, 2015
"...RP: Yah. I think, Einstein himself succumbed somewhat to the authoritarian attitudes in the case of saying what an electron is. And 30 years later, I think he regretted having set things in motion in that particular direction when he never accepted the quantum mechanics view of reality as based on randomness. But he was largely responsible for setting that in motion with his theory of the photoelectric effect. And the idea of the electron as a discrete particle interacting with a proton as a discrete particle was the key idea in that photoelectric effect. A photon of a given energy would dislodge an electron from the solid state, giving it a certain voltage. So you can talk about the electron energy or voltage of a given frequency of light. That particularized, or atomized the idea of both light and electrons. And that's something that allowed theory to take over and cover up and reject a lot of empirical factual observations relating to light, color, electrons, molecules and so on, and I think life.

As far as EMF's effects on living organisms, they are far from limited to just heating. There was even an AMA discussion on Reddit about that last year with the guy who has studied this more than anybody else. EMF has powerfully suppressive effects on metabolism, and the effects are not through heating tissues up. One of the known mechanisms is EMF acting as calcium channel opener and increasing the synthesis of NO.
Science AMA Series: I'm Paul Héroux, a Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. I do research on health effects of electromagnetic radiation at all frequencies, both in terms of disease risks and therapeutic medical applications. AMA! • r/science
"...I'm Paul Héroux, a Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism at the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, in Montreal, Canada. Recent work in my laboratory has uncovered a mechanism by which extra-low-frequency magnetic fields interact with unstable molecular structures such as hydrogen bridges, altering the ability of protons to tunnel from one molecule to another. How this plays out in practice is that the reaction rates of certain enzymes can be altered by magnetic fields at very low intensities such as 25 nT, comfortably within the range of everyday exposures. This has not been found out until now mainly because the effect, although disruptive to the cell, does not increase quickly with field intensity, and drives an adaptation of the cell to the radiation. Metabolism is altered because one enzyme, ATP Synthase, is particularly vulnerable: the ratio between glycolysis and redox metabolism is changed. The mechanism we uncovered is likely to act not only at low frequencies, but also extending to microwave frequencies, implicating all broadcasting and radiating telecommunications systems. So, electromagnetic radiation may impact chronic disease rates such as cancer, diabetes and neurological disorders."

Even Very Low Doses Of EMF Exposure Can Cause Cancer
Blocking the negative effects of electromagnetic radiation

 

[haidut]

Chris Busby mentions that the electromagnetic field around such devices can accelerate particles nearby to energies high enough to cause ionization. But I think only structures in cells need to resonate with a given electromagnetic frequency to change its behavour to cause problems. I seem to remember an experiment showing skin cells proliferate more readily exposed to certain frequencies of non-ionizing radiation typical of consumer electrical devices.

Yep, they do, most likely due to increased glycolysis/OXPHOS ratio. Anything that increases glycolysis without concomitant increase in OXPHOS will trigger proliferation. See my quote above about the Reddit AMA. If you go through the discussion I think the guy goes into more detail on how even very low-power fields induce robust proliferation in all types of cells his group tested.

 

[lollipop]

I would agree that the folks doing Electric Universe with the trademark (lol) are not really on the ball. However, I think the "interstellar plasma is to be considered charge neutral" is pretty hand-wavy. No one really knows as no measurements have been taken there, so I think it best to leave an open mind there. They use that as an assumption to move forward with their cosmological models (similar to how an assumption of a very simple mass distribution led to the concept of a black hole), which is fine, but best to be aware of what your assumptions imply for the validity of the model. Clearly, within solar systems it's not charge neutral as there must be a huge voltage drop from the sun to the heliopause (and assumed analogous in other solar systems) for there to be the solar wind of positively charged particles flowing outwards from the sun/central star.

There's actually considerable scholarly literature on what might be called plasma universe theory by mainly Alfven who wrote a book (Evolution of the Solar System) detailing how the solar system could form under his theory. The critical ionization velocity concept seems to be congruent with the chemical makeup of the planets in our solar system. I don't know exactly what led to a turn away from plasma universe to big bang (but I seem to gather it's the cosmic microwave background), but it seemed to be under active investigation until at least the mid 1950s or later.



It's funny to call that a nuclear reaction, although I guess it is. It's the same effect as used in positron emission tomography (PET). I'm not sure how they get to fusion from that, and maybe the guy they interviewed was being cheeky :)

I think an issue with the term "ionizing radiation" is that it means different things in different contexts. For someone studying a hydrogen gas, the threshold for "ionizing radiation" is much lower (infrared to optical light) than someone studying biological effects of, say, creating an ionizing event in a human cell nucleus (so x-rays or gamma rays). It's pretty certain that most communication band EM frequencies don't cause ionization in the human body, but I'm not sure how well established it is that the fields they induce within the body are not harmful, but a different effect than ionization for certain.

That a thunderstorm could create "cosmic rays" (really their earth-bound equivalent since the naming is by source more than particle) seems quite plausible as all it would need to do is create some free charge at decent velocity, which should be possible with enough voltage and low-Z molecules (like the composition of air) and is done in labs on the daily without seeming remarkable. More interesting is that cosmic rays might seed the lightning path by ionizing atmospheric molecules the cosmic rays interact with, which @StephanF alluded to. If the solar flares determine current flow around the earth and thus its shielding magnetic field that deflects cosmic rays, as we head into a new solar minimum, we may get more lightning than in the past decade when the cycle was on the 'up'.

Interesting post. Thank you for taking the time.

 

[Spokey]

even very low-power fields induce robust proliferation in all types of cells his group tested.

 

[DrJ]

So, in regards to the latter - wouldn't higher EMF frequencies get closer and closer to the ability to dislodge an electron? Something like the 60 Ghz frequency of 5G wireless networks, or even more so the terahertz EMF in airport scanners? I

Yes, and it also depends on the ionization potential of the element/molecule it is interacting with. But the energy of a 300 Ghz EM wave is 1.2 milli-electron volts (meV). For example, the ionization potential (energy needed to remove an electron) of the first electron in a free hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, so about 10,000 times greater than that provided by the 300GHz wave. Thus, the communication bands are still very far away from ionizing any material. It's not until you get to about the infrared light in the nanometer wavelength (100s of THz) that you might be able to ionize some materials. Perhaps there are some weak bonds that can be broken at somewhat lower frequencies than infrared (but not down in the GHz range), but then that is not quite ionization either.

As far as the photoelectric effect - I think it is not as solid as it is being sold as. I am very suspicious of "threshold" theories given that the theory of existence of "threshold" exposure to ionizing radiation for it to have a carcinogenic effect as it turned out to be outright fraud (NAS falsified data on radiation safety to justify widespread use!).
Biochemical Health Reduction And Oxidation, Politics And Science, 2015
"...RP: Yah. I think, Einstein himself succumbed somewhat to the authoritarian attitudes in the case of saying what an electron is. And 30 years later, I think he regretted having set things in motion in that particular direction when he never accepted the quantum mechanics view of reality as based on randomness. But he was largely responsible for setting that in motion with his theory of the photoelectric effect. And the idea of the electron as a discrete particle interacting with a proton as a discrete particle was the key idea in that photoelectric effect. A photon of a given energy would dislodge an electron from the solid state, giving it a certain voltage. So you can talk about the electron energy or voltage of a given frequency of light. That particularized, or atomized the idea of both light and electrons. And that's something that allowed theory to take over and cover up and reject a lot of empirical factual observations relating to light, color, electrons, molecules and so on, and I think life.

The original experimenters with the photoelectric effect did not fathom the existence of the threshold and it was why they were so confused by their results. They would shine light on metal and see if they could get current (photo-electrons) to be produced. They found certain wavelengths of light could produce no photo-electrons no matter how high the intensity (power/distance of the emitting source). At other wavelengths they found photo-electrons would be produced at any intensity, and proportional to the intensity. Einstein explained this with the photoelectric-effect (the theory named after the observation). The theory also agrees with all valid models of the atom that have been produced. Basically, you can't remove an electron without overcoming the potential energy of it's bond to the atom, which goes back to the conservation of energy. There has been no experiments showing the contrary, and the experiments and theory are so simple to understand there is no need to be suspicious. If you didn't have the threshold, you could potentially get energy for free by shining low energy light on a high energy bond, release the bond, and thus obtain a higher energy potential than you originally had. The threshold is on pretty solid ground both theoretically and experimentally.

Ray appears to be talking about two things. Einstein succumbing to quantum theory, and the creation of quantum theory that was an eventual outcome of the photoelectric effect. Ray explains the photoelectric effect in your first bolded sentence. He then seems to say that allowed 'theory' (I assume he means quantum theory based on the context) to take over. Maybe, but it's still quite a ways from the empirical observations of the photoelectric effect to the probabilistic models of quantum theory. I don't perceive that Ray is attacking the photoelectric effect, only that he has a problem with a pure particularized theory.

But I don't think anyone is quite stuck on the electron being a particle. It clearly has wave properties, so the same duality interpretation. The photoelectric effect falls on the particle side, and then electron interference would fall on the wave side. There's may interpretations of this. I recall you like Bohm's. I think people still have quite an open mind on there, and no one is saying that the photoelectric effect means that electrons are strictly particles.

But basically, if you're looking for harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation, there are three categories:

• Ionization (does not happen for all frequencies)
• Field induction (would potentially happen for all frequencies, by far the least understood in biological tissue)
• Heating (would potentially happen for all frequencies)

The latter two being the most prevalent but probably the least studied in the human body. So yeah, I'm quite sure researcher's have found all sorts of problems created by EM waves, but it's important to understand and attribute them to the right mechanism.

 

[haidut]

If you didn't have the threshold, you could potentially get energy for free by shining low energy light on a high energy bond, release the bond, and thus obtain a higher energy potential than you originally had. The threshold is on pretty solid ground both theoretically and experimentally.

Yes, that's true but I meant it more along the way of a "cumulative effect" of sorts similar to the one for ionizing radiation on tissues. Is it possible, at least in theory, that beaming non-ionizing spectrum of EMF towards a cell for a long time and at close distance would eventually dislodge an electron somewhere in the cell? This way, there is no violation of conservation of energy. I know that the absorbed energy from EMF is explained away as being dissipated as heat but some experiments show that the heat does not account for all the energy absorbed in a cell exposed to EMF. So, that extra energy must go somewhere but so far nobody knows where. The current explanation is that the missing energy is in the form of stimulating enzyme activity in the cell, but that also does not explain completely the missing energy. I mean, if a scotch tape can easily generate X-rays through intense electron flow across highly electrostatic material like plastic, then I don't see why the same cannot happen inside a cell (which is also good at holding a high electrostatic charge) chronically stimulated by EMF. Anyways, just thinking out loud, it is speculation at this point as I don't know of anybody who has even looked at that.
Also, in regards to your earlier post in regards to EUT, would not the existence of Universe-wide magnetic currents (Biermann current) support the claims of the EUT crowd?
Physics - Viewpoint: The Seeds of a Magnetic Universe
"...The Universe is magnetized. This is true on “small” length scales, such as in planets and stars, and over much larger scales, such as across the tenuous gas in galaxies and galaxy clusters and, possibly, the even more rarefied intergalactic medium. Physicists are fairly certain that these magnetic fields weren’t created in the big bang (the reason has to do with the symmetry of Maxwell’s equations). Rather, for the most part, they assume that small “seed fields,” which formed some time after the big bang, were amplified into what we observe today. But how these seed fields materialized remains one of the great, unsolved problems in cosmology."

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

This is interesting, maybe the scotch tape all coiled up could be acting like a capacitor with the glue as dielectric. Or maybe the glue is being charged when it is pulled apart in a piezoelectric kind of way.

I definitely think the coiling has something to do with it. The tape is charged when it's rolled up and discharged when you unroll it.

 

[haidut]

I definitely think the coiling has something to do with it. The tape is charged when it's rolled up and discharged when you unroll it.

So, how big of an electrostatic charge would the tape have to hold to be capable of dislodging electrons from molecules and create X-rays? Is the rolled up scotch tape a battery of sorts?

 

[DrJ]

Yes, that's true but I meant it more along the way of a "cumulative effect" of sorts similar to the one for ionizing radiation on tissues. Is it possible, at least in theory, that beaming non-ionizing spectrum of EMF towards a cell for a long time and at close distance would eventually dislodge an electron somewhere in the cell?

No, and that what was what confuzzled them when they were studying beaming light at things to create electrons. They figured they could just turn up the intensity (photon flux) and finally get some electrons to pop out. But it didn't work how they thought it 'should.' I think a big thing that's not really understood, though, is what sort of effect a, say, GHz frequency EM wave has on polar molecules in the body (like water). It seems pretty plausible that 'wagging' something around a cell or somewhere in your body at high frequencies may have negative consequences, and that would fall under the field induction pathway.

 

[DrJ]

Also, in regards to your earlier post in regards to EUT, would not the existence of Universe-wide magnetic currents (Biermann current) support the claims of the EUT crowd?

Oops almost missed that. Yes, it would. When I said not on the ball I meant more the qualitative approach a lot of them take (and what's with the trademark symbol?) without hitting the math. But clearly there are lot of good researchers who do/did work supporting that like Alfven, Birkeland, and Peratt more recently.

I think with the tape creating x-rays, a chemical bond is broken when the tape is pulled up and that bond has an energy on the order of soft x-rays so an x-ray is emitted to conserve energy.