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.com>wrote: > >> 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. >