(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2) Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 Sponsored by Vangard Sciences PO BOX 1031 Mesquite, TX 75150 There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS on duplicating, publishing or distributing the files on KeelyNet except where noted! September 2, 1993 SSC.ASC -------------------------------------------------------------------- This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of George Dahlberg. -------------------------------------------------------------------- THE DESKTOP SSC Scientific Speculation By Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC From Research & Development - Oct. 1987 Pg. 15 Recent news about the 53 mile circumference superconducting super collider has me wondering if particle physicists aren't rubbing shoulders with the astronomers. It seems that for decades the astronomers were the only group who had a firm grasp on megalomania. Even more recent news has me thinking that solid state physicists are sharing some schnapps with the genetic and recombinant DNA community in contemplating the minuscule. Within the past year the phenomenon of superconductivity has captured the imagination of the global scientific community, and the media in turn have infected the public at large with the excitement of these viral discoveries. And now solid state aficionados are saying that future superconducting super colliders could share space on your desk next to the IBM "PC". As a practicing chemist for the better part of the past 30 years, my own druthers have tended towards the "small is beautiful" dictum because, as an analysts, my focus has been most naturally on atoms and molecules. Of course, I hasten to add that these Notebook entries have acknowledged from time to time somewhat larger scenarios than the four walls of a laboratory. But, the point being that I have built in empathy with the solid-staters. Last month I reiterated a 15 year old thought which suggested that an isotopically pure hexagonal crystal would present to the view of an electron - or perhaps another charged particle - a coherent matrix of tunnels. And if an electron beam were passed through this matrix symmetry, the array of atoms in the crystal lattice would act as waveguides, and what we would have then is the makings of a solid state accelerator. In other words, a merging of particle and solid-state physics. For some years prior to 1972 I had been convinced that hexagonal crystals would exhibit some physical property that would be unique and separate from that of cubic crystals, which claim Page 1 superconductivity as one of their own unique physical characteristics. This new physical property of hexagonal symmetry might be something never before observed in electron behavior in a lattice matrix. And after a broad, albeit sketchy, search of the literature, I concluded that this new characteristic might well be an enhancement of coherent dia-magnetism, or - in current parlance - dia-magnetic amplification by stimulated electron emission and phased array channeling. (However, it's admitted that the acronym daseepac doesn't have the selling power of laser.) The history of channeling in crystals goes back to 1912, when Johannes Stark of Germany suggested that hydrogen ions would penetrate deeper into a lattice when directed from certain favorable angles. But Stark's concept toward elucidating the structure of matter was overshadowed by the coincidental discovery of x-ray diffraction by another German physicist, Max von Laue. And it wasn't until some 40 years later that Stark's idea ushered in the era of ion implantation in solid-state devices, where the theory was put into practical use. In the March 1968 issue of Scientific American, Werner Brandt of NYU described experiments with channeled proton beams, experiments which were originally initiated by Karl Ove Nielsen and associates at Aarus, Denmark, in 1964. These experiments showed that "channeling resulted from the correlated deflections of the particles in the electrostatic-force field of the orderly array of atoms in the crystals". Resonances were found at distinct proton energy levels and, as the energy was increased, the gamma-ray yield rose in the channeling direction. Late in 1979 it was announced that Fermilab physicist Tim Toohig, and Edward Tsyganov of Dubna, near Moscow, collaborated on sending proton beams through channels in monocrystals grown in a microgravity space environment by cosmonauts. They found that if the crystals were also very carefully bent, the proton beam - of tera electron volt (10E12) energy - would follow the curvature. This was the first demonstrated example of the waveguide nature of individual atoms in a coherent crystal lattice, and the initiating experiment into the era of solid-state accelerators. But the silicon, germanium, and silver crystals used at Dubna, and grown in the Salyut space laboratory, are commonly cubic in form, and therefore the lattice structure symmetry may not be critical to the process of channeling as I had once thought, although the hexagonal form should enhance this effect. Also, late in 1979, a team of scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Stanford Univ., and Oak Ridge National Lab reported the tunable channeling of x radiation by an intense beam of electrons, using a silicon crystal. The x rays are generated by the electrons as they undulate through the channel lattice, and the x rays, themselves, are emitted only in the direction of electron travel. And what happens to the atoms in the crystal matrix during these Page 2 high-energy excursions by subatomic particles? Part of the answer might be contained in a note I wrote to myself almost 20 years ago, in that "orientation of orbital electrons in a phased matrix may radically change the structure of the crystal array by altering the quantum effects of the binding energy. The crystal may become fluid in a quantum sense while retaining the relatively solid structure of a crystal matrix." And what this means is that there should be altered states of matter which are metastable while high-density particle fluxes are passing through, probably pulsating at high frequencies with a concomitant distortion of space and time within discrete interatomic volumes. Taken as a whole, this is a mass effect, whereas the phenomenon of super-conductivity is a peripheral effect which does not penetrate very much below the surface of a conductor. And as a mass effect, it would take full advantage of incremental space described by interatomic voids, whereas contemporary particle accelerators utilize rather large evacuated chambers which approach free space in volume. A desktop super collider might not be de rigueur for everyone's office, but it would be a mite less expensive than the 17 mile diameter variety and one heck of a lot more fun with which to play around. -------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have comments or other information relating to such topics as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page. Thank you for your consideration, interest and support. Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet -------------------------------------------------------------------- If we can be of service, you may contact Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3