Re: [Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium
and in 18th century it is generally forgotten that unified field theory published >From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljkovic | | | | | | | | | | | >From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljk... "From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory": talk by retired Professor Dragoslav Stoiljkovic based on his... | | | On Saturday, 15 December 2018, 18:47:40 GMT, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: P were fully aware of all of this. They were indeed. I think Fleischmann told Mallove about it, and Mallove included it in his book. Fleischmann read many 19th and early 20th century journals. He said they were a treasure trove of forgotten discoveries and good science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium
I videoed a talk by this guy- Louis Hirsch Kauffman (born February 3, 1945) is an American mathematician, topologist, and professor of Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Louis Kauffman | | | | | | | | | | | Louis Kauffman Kauffman was valedictorian of his graduating class at Norwood Norfolk Central High School in 1962. He received h... | | | -that explains can unify quantum and relativity physics through knot theory On Sunday, 16 December 2018, 00:14:25 GMT, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: as per my talk this year: The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theoryof Everything Helge Kragh, Centaurus 2002:Vol. 44: pp. 32–114. Kragh explains that in Victoriantimes there was a unified theory. That old physics, is missed outfrom being taught physics students. So, they go through their education tobecome professors having missed out the old physics unified theory. Up to early 20th century the physicists were beingtaught things that are now omitted. According to Kragh: The vortex atomgave impulse not only to advances in mathematical hydrodynamics, but also to anew branch of topology, the theory of knots. Although knot theory can be tracedback to a work of 1847, by the German mathematician Johann Listing, it was onlywith Tait’s contributions that the field became recognised as an interestingbranch of mathematics. Originally inspired by Helmholtz’s paper on vortexmotion and its perceived relevance for quarternion analysis, Tait started about1870 to think seriously about topology. In this work, that soon led him to thestudy of knots, the theory of vortex atoms served as a strong impulse andbecame, in his mind, integrally linked with a topology of matter. -So, the vortex theory was leadingto study of new branches of mathematics The mathematics of the theorybecame too complicated Kragh: Given that the theory wasimmensely complicated from a mathematical point of view, it could always beargued that it was not yet understood sufficiently to be physically useful. Forexample, as early as 1872 Kelvin argued that the difficulties ‘‘are . . ., inall probability, only dependent on the weakness of mathematics’’ (Smith andWise 1989, p. 425). So, there is this old unifiedtheory that is no longer taught to physicists, but it influenced the creationof the maths that physicists are still using. i.e. physicists are losing touchwith the history of the development of their theoretical framework and itstools. Attempt was started to combineBoscovich’s theory of particles with vortex theory: Kragh: Pearson’s modified theory of1891, he sought to combine the merits of the extended vortex atom and theBoscovichian point atom. This he did by reducing the atomic sphere to a pointfrom which ether continuously flows in all directions of space, or what hecalled an ether squirt. He later described in his point atom as ‘‘somethinglike a tap turned on under water, except that the machinery of the tap isdispensed with in the case of the squirt’’ (Pearson 1900, p. 267). - I prefer term “point-particle” to“point-atom” On Sunday, 16 December 2018, 00:02:15 GMT, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: and in 18th century it is generally forgotten that unified field theory published >From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljkovic | | | | | | | | | | | >From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljk... "From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory": talk by retired Professor Dragoslav Stoiljkovic based on his... | | | On Saturday, 15 December 2018, 18:47:40 GMT, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: P were fully aware of all of this. They were indeed. I think Fleischmann told Mallove about it, and Mallove included it in his book. Fleischmann read many 19th and early 20th century journals. He said they were a treasure trove of forgotten discoveries and good science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium
as per my talk this year: The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theoryof Everything Helge Kragh, Centaurus 2002:Vol. 44: pp. 32–114. Kragh explains that in Victoriantimes there was a unified theory. That old physics, is missed outfrom being taught physics students. So, they go through their education tobecome professors having missed out the old physics unified theory. Up to early 20th century the physicists were beingtaught things that are now omitted. According to Kragh: The vortex atomgave impulse not only to advances in mathematical hydrodynamics, but also to anew branch of topology, the theory of knots. Although knot theory can be tracedback to a work of 1847, by the German mathematician Johann Listing, it was onlywith Tait’s contributions that the field became recognised as an interestingbranch of mathematics. Originally inspired by Helmholtz’s paper on vortexmotion and its perceived relevance for quarternion analysis, Tait started about1870 to think seriously about topology. In this work, that soon led him to thestudy of knots, the theory of vortex atoms served as a strong impulse andbecame, in his mind, integrally linked with a topology of matter. -So, the vortex theory was leadingto study of new branches of mathematics The mathematics of the theorybecame too complicated Kragh: Given that the theory wasimmensely complicated from a mathematical point of view, it could always beargued that it was not yet understood sufficiently to be physically useful. Forexample, as early as 1872 Kelvin argued that the difficulties ‘‘are . . ., inall probability, only dependent on the weakness of mathematics’’ (Smith andWise 1989, p. 425). So, there is this old unifiedtheory that is no longer taught to physicists, but it influenced the creationof the maths that physicists are still using. i.e. physicists are losing touchwith the history of the development of their theoretical framework and itstools. Attempt was started to combineBoscovich’s theory of particles with vortex theory: Kragh: Pearson’s modified theory of1891, he sought to combine the merits of the extended vortex atom and theBoscovichian point atom. This he did by reducing the atomic sphere to a pointfrom which ether continuously flows in all directions of space, or what hecalled an ether squirt. He later described in his point atom as ‘‘somethinglike a tap turned on under water, except that the machinery of the tap isdispensed with in the case of the squirt’’ (Pearson 1900, p. 267). - I prefer term “point-particle” to“point-atom” On Sunday, 16 December 2018, 00:02:15 GMT, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: and in 18th century it is generally forgotten that unified field theory published >From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljkovic | | | | | | | | | | | >From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljk... "From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory": talk by retired Professor Dragoslav Stoiljkovic based on his... | | | On Saturday, 15 December 2018, 18:47:40 GMT, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: P were fully aware of all of this. They were indeed. I think Fleischmann told Mallove about it, and Mallove included it in his book. Fleischmann read many 19th and early 20th century journals. He said they were a treasure trove of forgotten discoveries and good science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium
Jones Beene wrote: > P were fully aware of all of this. > They were indeed. I think Fleischmann told Mallove about it, and Mallove included it in his book. Fleischmann read many 19th and early 20th century journals. He said they were a treasure trove of forgotten discoveries and good science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium
This is the famous Paneth and Peters work which they later withdrew - after receiving much criticism. They were trying to replicate Tandberg who claimed a new way to make helium which was in great demand for Airships. Deuterium was not yet discovered. P were fully aware of all of this. Frank Grimer wrote: How interesting. One wonders what prompted them to look for helium in the first place.Was it ordinary hydrogen or heavy hydrogen? Nigel Dyer wrote: While looking for an article in a a copy of Nature from 1926 (as you do) I came across the following article describing how small quantities of helium had been seen when hydrogen was absorbed into palladium at room temperature. There is nothing new under the sun. https://www.nature.com/articles/118526a0?fbclid=IwAR3cI0_tWhMXny-_5VwiIZBr-OmiXLocmzd7gWgBCC1LKNtPHOShckdpUD4 The article I was really looking for was one of the early Klein papers on there being a fifth dimension, following up an idea that this might be part of the explanation of how hydrogen gets converted to helium.
Re: [Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium
How interesting. One wonders what prompted them to look for helium in the first place. Was it ordinary hydrogen or heavy hydrogen? On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:28, Nigel Dyer wrote: > While looking for an article in a a copy of Nature from 1926 (as you do) I > came across the following article describing how small quantities of helium > had been seen when hydrogen was absorbed into palladium at room > temperature. There is nothing new under the sun. > > https://www.nature.com/articles/118526a0?fbclid=IwAR3cI0_tWhMXny-_5VwiIZBr-OmiXLocmzd7gWgBCC1LKNtPHOShckdpUD4 > > The article I was really looking for was one of the early Klein papers on > there being a fifth dimension, following up an idea that this might be part > of the explanation of how hydrogen gets converted to helium. > >
[Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium
While looking for an article in a a copy of Nature from 1926 (as you do) I came across the following article describing how small quantities of helium had been seen when hydrogen was absorbed into palladium at room temperature. There is nothing new under the sun. https://www.nature.com/articles/118526a0?fbclid=IwAR3cI0_tWhMXny-_5VwiIZBr-OmiXLocmzd7gWgBCC1LKNtPHOShckdpUD4 The article I was really looking for was one of the early Klein papers on there being a fifth dimension, following up an idea that this might be part of the explanation of how hydrogen gets converted to helium.
