Hi all,
Being without understanding of QM and not sharp enough to see the
theoretical explanations I think this is positive enough. I would focus on
the following:
You may try to think of any possibilities of constructing fundamental
scalar fields
(complex fields, of course) in some way or the other. But I believe that
this should not
be a proper starting point for the scalar field. Simply there exists no
fundamental
scalar field which can couple to the electromagnetic field. I believe you
may find
a good explanation of these theoretical points in the textbook Symmetry
and
breaking in quantum field theory.”* The Higgs mechanism itself is
physically not *
*acceptable. Unfortunately, people have been pretending that they
understood the *
*symmetry breaking theory, without examining its physics in depth. But in
reality they *
*did not understand the basic point of the vacuum structure in the symmetry
breaking *
*physics*. The success of the Glashow-Weinberg-Salem model is entirely due
to the
final version of their Lagrangian density which has nothing to do with the
gauge
theory.
At least any serious scientist should be required to either rebut that
statement or just accept it.
In my humble opinion that should open the doors to government grants as
those guys would like to CYA at least and either provide funds to show that
this is not correct or that a change is required. I am saying this with no
idea about what is not understood but I think that the decision makers in
the government is about my level and a standard government reaction is CYA.
I think that means that asking for funding to prove LENR is wrong. To ask
for funds to confirm that the Higgs mechanism requires a change in the
established way of thinking about those issues. Then using LENR to prove
what is right or wrong in this area.
The reason I bring it up is that it seems everyone is concentrating on
grants as the way to develop the theory. I might believe that there are
other ways with more monetary rewards - and larger risk. However, this is
probably a good approach for a Nobel-prize plus a help to
commercialization.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650
“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:21 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Ian Glen Walker walker...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all
More Scientists putting their head above the parapet. A paper positively
reviewing the work of Prof. Arata, by Florentin Smarandache and Vic
Christianto has appeared on vixra under the mathematics section:
“Unleashing the Quark Within: Lenr, Klein-Gordon Equation, and Elementary
Particle Physics”
http://vixra.org/abs/1404.0314
There appears to be a growing consensus in the scientific and engineering
communities that LENR/CF is real.
This is a theory paper.
As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review
of cold fusion: However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion
period would be revolutionary.
If you can't get scientists to look at the experimental data, you aren't
making progress -- largely because you can't find any scientists.
OK, I'll soften that just a touch to be kinder to theorists with this
caveat:
If, in a theoretic review, there appears proposals for experimental tests
that should be reliably replicable and decisive, the review would, indeed,
represent progress toward the mainstream.
