On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > “QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in > history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as > tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood > and completely unambiguous, even if statistical in nature.” > > How do you explain all the brouhaha over “spooky action at a > distance”(a.k.a non-locality) > Spooky action at a distance is mainly mental gymnastics. It's difficult to observe manifestations of entanglement, which is why it took so long to prove Bell's theorem, and even now it is controversial. There seems to be some progress toward exploiting it in quantum computing. But what I meant was the application of QM to calculation of energy levels, scattering amplitudes, stable configurations, etc etc in physics is spectacularly successful, *and* unambiguous, if tractable. It's got spooky implications, and yet straightforward (in principle) application to systems of particles. > A detailed QM study of LENR might resolve some of these theories and is > worth the effort on this account alone. > 22 years of detailed QM studies of LENR don't hint at that. And that could be said about any phenomenon someone proposes, hopes for, but can't prove. It's clearly not worth the effort for every such possibility, or nothing else would get done. It is my contention that LENR requires non locality and entanglement to > explain the lack of radioactive by-products derived from the reaction. > Sure, but that's based on a vague dream and nothing more. Science is evidence based. The lack of radioactive byproducts is most easily explained by the lack of nuclear reactions. > I am referring to the pilot wave theory that will explain a lot of what is > going on in LENR. > Again, I think that's wishful thinking. It is more or less accepted that these sorts of extensions of quantum mechanics, whether they involve hidden variables or not, do not provide a more accurate description (or better explanation) of experimental outcomes. This year someone claims to have published a proof of that, but I imagine that will be controversial too. IMHO in terms of QM, evidence of transmutation has been conclusively > demonstrated in LENR(via Miley and Arata). > Then they should be able to nail down the reactions definitively, but they can't. If transmutations were conclusive in general, you couldn't keep scientists away. But of course, in the humble opinion of most scientists, there is no proof of transmutation. Just like heat, the results are always kind of marginal. It's a field that has more different ways to find marginal evidence than one would think possible. Just by chance, you might think one of those results would stand out.
