Radical New Nuclear Options

Because the positive need for new nuclear technology is now growing fast, even as the risks also grow... and because our life expectancies are allever more unpredictable... I have decided to just write down now a few of the most important little known nuclear technologies I have learned about, relevant to the life-threatening global strategic situation https://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2025/04/from-golden-dome-to-new-jerusalem.html .

Background

First, some background on the larger strategic picture in physics. A rational global strategy, aimed at maximizing the probability of humanity surviving this century, would of course not call for a "silver bullet." Like the "spiral development" strategies which John Mankins brilliantly expounded to his review panels when he ran HR&T ( a billions-dollars efforts at NASA under Bush)... it calls for parallel tracks, connected somewhat but each focused in a very strategic way on its own.

 

The Golden Dome technology is one of several reasons why we need a very strong stream of effort to "FIX QED" -- to develop all the more advancedmodels needed for electronic and photonic systems, like the program I developed and led at NSF before my retirement (https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.33, like what we now know about the level of consciousness we see in mammal brains (werbos and Davis), and like the many supporting papers for my patents

( https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3310 ) some of which are still private, held by several of us.

But we ALSO need a parallel, less open effort to "ADD A NUCLEAR COMPONENT TO THE RESULTING THEORY OF PHYSICS, AND IMPLEMENT THE MULTIPRONGED SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP TO THE FULLEST GOLDEN DOME OPTIONS." 

This entails building on the full foundation of crossdisciplinary resources summarized in the books https://photos.app.goo.gl/qAy8giPzEjp1tZkj9. Of course, this email cannot review all of these and their relevant connections, though I hope someone does someday, and I hope I can help.

A few key points --

When I got my PhD decades ago at Harvard, the common view was: "We now know the true Lagrangian which controls the universe, except for how we connect to gravity. It is defined by the standard model of physics' explained as electroweak theory (EWT) combined with Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), as defined in the official 

standard text by Weinberg [shown in that photo album], but with gravity somewhat LIKE Einstein's General Relativity (GR) but something we are working on.) QED is a well known well-proven limit case of EWT; it was invented by Feynmann, Schwinger and Tomonoga."

BUT -- I took my main courses in quantum field theory from Schwinger, whose group I stayed connected with. Feynmann and Schwinger both agreed that the canonical quantum field theory they invented was NOT CREDIBLE, and should be seen only as a place holder. I could say a LOT more...

but for now: EWT and QED do have a huge empirical foundation, which Schwinger added to far beyond what Feynmann ever learned about. nanohub.org contains great tutorials on subjects like NEGF, developed by Schwinger and extended very far by many people in electronics and photonics. It is fully consistent with the David Deutsch extended version of QED which is what he used whne he invented the modernn quantum Tyring machine, almost the only form of quantum computing known even now to most people in that field. But does not fit the foundations given in Weinberg's text. 

 

Schwinger did great work in QED, in QMHP... BUT HE ALSO DID WORK ON NUCLEAR INTERACTIONS.

Breakthroughs

I do not have this until this afternoon (at the earliest) to get deep enough even to the basics here.

BUt...

Schwinger did not believe QCD.

When I read his paper, A Magnetic Model of Matter, in Science, I was startled by the implications, but I wondered: could this be true? What is the evidence?

I worked hard, at hard core highest NSF standards, to evaluate the issue. I collected many papers, all included in my directories which I have  loaned to a few of you to copy. I was startled to see the evidence -- while incomplete -- strongly favored his views (at least in basic concepts included in his models) over QCD. Above all -- evidence indicated that the strong nuclear force is (can sometimes be) a LONG RANGE FORCE.

As a sanity check (part of the NSF tradition of CHECKING), I discussed with the empirical nuclear physicist Tetsuo Sawada of Japan. Many of his papers and our joint papers are in those folders.

When Pons and Fleischmann reported their work...

Schwinger dug VERY deep, and so did I. It changes the models a bit... but there is new empirical evidence from Japan, some even discussed in LENR conferences which Denis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of Langley, encouraged. They clearly imply nuclear transmutation, new energy sources, violation of baryon number conservation... I promised Teller and Schwinger I would cooperate with the new efforts to suppress such UNTIL HUMANITY IS READY OR UNTIL THE NEEDS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS.

Japan was ready and able to start producing the systems not so long ago. My files also point to other competent suppliers, fortunately not highlighted in the LENR conferences.

There is an obvious analogy to fusion -- an energy barrier which appears insuperable, but can be overcome by a laser. Such lasers are now closer at hand, and I even funded projects at NSF which develop necessary enabling technologies. (My papers citing Glauber and Sudarshan certainly give foundations of how advanced lasers work.)

BUT the nanopatterned devices are a better hope for now. The only POSITIVE value for knowing the real Lagrangian (better describing strong nuclear interactions) is to help in THAT kind of design, which would require help from folks like Stan Williams of Texas A&M (totally QED, but the same kind of math needed).

Or folks like quantum dot array designers. Also relevant are the nonlinear electric/optic crystals used by Leitenstorfer and those who cite him. 

Best of luck,

  Paul   

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 3:49 PM Paul Werbos <pwerbos@gmail.com> wrote:

Last week, I was hoping for a chance to visit someone in reach of me by Washington Metro, to give them a "brain dump" on "existential"

nuclear variables which in my view are crucial to future possibilities,

(It is odd how France24 used the word "existential" at exactly the moment I was typing it. There are connections. A major goal would be to pass on information crucial to implementing https://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2025/04/from-golden-dome-to-new-jerusalem.html .)

I have mentioned how Ed Teller and Juian SChwinger both came to me, during my first years at NSF, and declared: (1) they could tell I was catching on to physics they knew, supported by new empirical work, which would threaten the very existence of our species if made public under the political conditions of the time;

(2) they asked me to help them keep it deeply quiet, until and unless conditions warrant a change in strategy. Conditions HAVE changed... NOT enough to make me trust email or video calls for the details, but enough for a brain dump, TO people I would trust in a place I would trust. (There are many such in the DC area,

but I will never forget my visit long ago to the "Star Wars" Headquarters in Crystal City, where the head of the place Janis (sp?) told me to expect our conversations to be overheard by  folks who also shared the technology of monitoring vibrations of windows.)  

Absent such an option now, at a time of some urgency, I am thinking of breaking down and documenting some things by internet. Even as Trump meditates on  what to do next, so too do I.

When and How can we just leave it in the hands of God?

A friend worries that we may have to leave some things in the hands of God. This certainly resonates with a core aspect of my own thinking, at a time when the challenges before nus are overwhelming. But to think rationally about that aspect , we need to sharpen our vision of "What IS God?" 

JULY 4 2025: Major Revision As I Look At the Math\--AFTER

Earlier version:

A higher intelligence we are connected to?

Low as we are compared to all that exists, there are many intelligences higher than us. Fuzzy or fanciful pantheism is not so clear as picking a few to pay most attention to. 

For me  right now  I focus most on a kind of great trinity: (1) the universe itself; (2) the full noosphere organism of our solar system; and (3) my wife. Only (1) is in any sense omniscient. I struggle hard every week to better understand and better connect to all three.

I bcc the friend who recommended Jung's red book to me. I now refer to it as "my New testament", the closest I have to a second trusted holy book. "God" 2 often reflects what Jung calls "the spirit of the times". Jung's experience of the complexity of real life in the 1920s and later is relevant to what WE are facing now, though the challenges have all grown much greater. Our connections with higher intelligence are all two way connections, giving us ever more responsibilities, unless we choose just to fold and rest in peace, or dig a hole to hide in -- which is familiar to all higher intelligences and which they will accommodate with grace and sadness.

New Version:

The universe itself IS a KIND of intelligent system, maximizing (or minmax) the sum of its Lagrangian

over space time. BUT NORMALLY this sum is a highly nonconvex function. High level but finite

intelligent systems, with or without Quantum AGI capability, normally have evolved mechanisms to

reduce loss due to nonconvexity.  And so, for"miracles" at a practical level, still higher than archetypes,

we have more hope working with "Amaterasu"(as I describe, the entire solar system)and the related entity Jesus called "Father",more of the deep. Finite intelligence requires partnership.