On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:
> ** ** > > I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement,**** > > “Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.”**** > > ** ** > > I think I need to explain resonance to you…**** > > Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or > energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing > resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium > to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them > head-on into each other. > I guess it depends what you mean by brute force physics. To me, when I push a child on a swing, I'm using brute force physics. And I know intuitively that if I push at the natural frequency of the pendulum, the amplitude of the oscillation is much higher. That's resonance. If I push at a random frequency, energy will be dissipated, and the child will cry. Resonance allows the efficient storing of energy, so it can be built up after multiple cycles. The output energy does not exceed the input energy. Resonance is so intrinsic a part of so many branches of physics that I regard it as brute force. It is certainly not exotic by any measure. > ** ** > > I came across the following article by Hagelstein, which I think is most > relevant to the issue of resonant atomic/nuclear processes. Note his > comment,**** > > ** ** > > “When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent > energy exchange process improves**** > > dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about > through the removal of destructive interference,”**** > > ** > So, no proposed mechanism. The rest of the lengthy quotation just emphasizes that he doesn't have a mechanism, and in any case talks more about how the nuclear energy might be thermalized: "perhaps deuterons are somehow reacting to make 4He. […] there are no previous examples in nuclear […] So, whatever process […] hasn’t been seen before. There are no previous relevant models[…] if there were a known mechanism […] there is no precedent for this; etc." > Why not use your brain to help Hagelstein and others, who are at least > open-minded enough to try thinking out of the box, to come up with a > plausible hypothesis to explain the ‘current-theory-says-its-impossible’ > evidence.**** > > ** > Because, the evidence to date does not merit it.
