🚀 go-pugleaf

    



This note is intended to tell as much as I know about a suppressed
piece of research that has the potential to end the nuclear threat to
our world and our natural environment.  

    Some years ago, I had an interest in physics.  I struck up a
friendship with a Harvard postgraduate student in theoretical physics.
His specialty was in that obscure branch of physics that attempts to
explain certain physical forces in terms of hypothetical
multidimentional geometries, known as Kaluza-Klein theory.  Its a
perfectly legitimate, although obscure  sub-discipline of both general
relativistic physics, and of quantum mechanics.
 
    One day came to me and told me that he had discovered something
potentially very important.   He said that he thought it might be
possible to disarm nuclear-weapons by a taking apart their fissionable
materials, atom by atom.  He came on the idea, he said, while
attempting to derive a multidimensional model of a De Brogli wave. 

The basic principle, as best as I can recall, relied on creating and
broadcasting wave forms whose characteristics would be functions of
the atomic structure of specific isotopes used in specific weapons,
exploiting the inherant instability of fissionable materials.   To
disarm a given nuclear weapon, he said, a wave form would be
constructed that would excite it's payload's nuclei.  Exposure to such
a wave form would cause the nucleus to become unstable, but not so
unstable as to initiate a chain reaction. Instead, according to the
calculations, it would only shed particles.  I do not know if he was
concieving of this exitation as inducing a vibration in the nucleus,
or as something else.  More likely, he was imagining the mechanism in
a way that only a few of his colleagues could follow, woven out of the
rareified insights of differential calculus.  He was quite good at
calculus, and it was his primary tool.

   A nuclei that loses particles lowers its atomic weight.  The amount
of a fissionable material needed to produce a chain reaction is a
direct function of its atomic weight.  The higher the atomic weight,
the less of a material will be needed to create a chain reaction.
Over fairly brief periods of time, he said, the atomic weights could
be lowered to the point where the mass of the payload would no longer
be sufficient for a chain reaction.  Nuclear warheads exposed to the
signal would effectively be disarmed. 

I must be on my guard here.  There is nothing in our normal experience
that can provide adequate metaphors for subatomic processes.  There
are only two ways to describe the mechanism that will reduce the
atomic weight of heavy elements.  The first will be by a rigorous,
mathmatical, treatment..  The second will be by analogy.  I don't have
the nessessary qualifications for the first, and the second will be
misleading.

    Interestingly, my friend said that he was treating De Broglie wave
as 'waves of information', and that they would 'tell' the fissionable
nuclei to shed particles at a much faster rate than they do normally.
Perhaps these comments will provide a clue that a qualified physicist
will recognize.

Of course, each specific nuclear isotope would require its own
specific wave form. 

There are many variables in a description of a wave form.  I don't
know which of them my friend was looking at to produce the effects he
described, and I probably wouldn't have understood even if he'd told
me.  If a qualified researcher were to look at the problem  seriously,
I would encourage them to recall that my friend was handling De Brogli
waves when he hit on the idea. His rather recondite specialty
(multidimentional theory) required him to have an almost instinctive
grasp of the mathmatical 'personalities' of the fundamental physical
forces.

He said is that there were several media that might serve as carriers
for these waves.  Both electromagnetic waves and pulsed magnetic
fields seemed to be contenders.  That was 20 years ago.  Today, I feel
is safest to assume that improvements in the the shielding of nuclear
warheads might now rule out many types of radiation as viable carriers
for these signals.  Nevertheless, complex magnetic signals remain an
excellent contender because of their ability to penetrate most
materials, and to propagate long distances without appreciable
attenuation.

 Each variable associated with each carrier would have to be looked at
separtely.  For EM radiation, there is wavelength, amplitude, etc.
For magnetic signals, there is charge, pulsed vs. contunuous, and the
durations of each value within the wave form.  All of this is further
complicated by the possibility that the optimal wave form might
involve anisotropisms, or complex patterns, or that it might need to
be broadcast intermittantly in order to be effective.  There is also
the possibility that multidimentional models of both particles and
waves will need to be used.  That means that breakthroughs in
fundamental physical theory might even be needed. Add to this the
further complication that two or more signals, broadcast
simultanteously (slightly out of phase with each other), could produce
interference patterns which will also have the potential to carry
information.

Omnidirectional field generators can be built  to emit  either
magnetic or EM fields, broadcasting the signal all over the world.  An
array of such generators, each broadcasting a signal designed to
degrade to a specific isotope, could eventually render all fissionable
nuclear materials on earth inert. Further, other signals might be
derived that would target the most common nuclear wastes on the
planet, both residues from nuclear explosions and waste from nuclear
power plants, removing the threat they pose to our environment.

While he was working all of this out, my friend came to me, quite
shaken, and told me that he had received a visit from some employees
of the U.S. Federal Government.  They were physically violent with
him, and although he sustained no serious injuries, they took  his
notes and warned him that he must not, under any circumstances
whatever, continue this research.  They were especially interested to
know whom he had told.  He had only told two people.  One was myself,
and the other was his professor, a researcher in theoretical physics
at Harvard university,  and a former member of the Manhattan project.
My friend felt sure that is professor would support him in his efforts
to end of the "nuclear nightmare".  

As it turned out he was very much mistaken.  His professor was a
believer in the necessity for maintaining a a nuclear "balance of
power".  This professor, whose name I will not use here, lost no time
in contacting some friends in the federal government.  My friend and
former tutor was afraid for me because he had told them that I also
knew.  However, being something of an absent-minded intellectual, he
mis-remembered my last name, and I never received the warning to be
silent. Further, if my friend's research has been classified as
top-secret or as a matter of "national security", I have never been
informed of it.   

Perhaps, 20 years ago, there was some justification for suppressing
this research, but things are very different now.  The Soviet Union
and the Berlin Wall have both fallen. 

We had a nuclear weapons as a part of our military strategy for so
many years because we thought that it was necessary in order to
prevent the spread of communism.  Now we realize that the half-life of
a dangerous ideology is far shorter than the half-life of dangerous
radioactive materials.  To say "better to live free on a dead earth
than under communism on a living one", seems incredibly stupid now.

So, I offer this information to qualified physicists, or their
students, hoping that one among them might be able to figure out what
my friend was on to, and be able to pick up his research where he left
off.  It any are able to do so, I strongly urge them not to disclose
their work to any senior, "respected" physicists, and only to discuss
this with physicists who are vocally anti-nuclear. 

I am willing to provide the names of the principles in this story to
those who are actually qualified to use the information, or under
court order (of course).

It is my hope that,  using the Internet, which didn't exist 20 years
ago, I can spread this information so widely that it cannot be
suppressed again.  If the researchers employed by the companies who
design and produce nuclear weapons wish to oppose the development of
this technology, as they probably will, no doubt they will find
physicists to give good reasons why it's impossible. However, there
are many approaches that will have to be investigated before such a
conclution will be justified.   

Making this device work, or proving that it won't, is going to require
extensive efforts.  I would be somewhat sceptical of any offhand
'proofs' that it's not possible. There are just too many approaches to
be looked at for any one researcher to claim the expertise needed to
pass judgement on the hypothesis implied by this note.

A truly nuclear-free planet may have to be kept in mind by many
people, for quite some time, before it becomes a reality.  Perhaps a
kind of Manhattan project might one day begin; where top physicists
work round the clock to clean up the planet.

Happy New Year To You All.


Please send responses to durga@jps.net


Postscript:

This note is being posted and e-mailed to individuals and groups
involved in research, government, and anti-nuclear advocacy.  If you
have recieved this in error, please accept my apologies in advance,
and be informed that this mailing will not be repeated. 

According to definitions of 'spam' provided by several ISP help pages,
this is not spam due to its lack of commercial content.

Acknowledgements are due to the authors of the freeware programs
'Governmail' and 'Forte Free Agent' for making mass distribution of
this note possible without violating 'spamming' laws.