Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
I don't remember seeing this : http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/another-set-of-slides-from-sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-forum/ Fralick Slides http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20111209NASA-Fralick-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf Slide 14 has a nice summary of theories (transcribed by hand) -- each with a little diagram Electron Screening (Parmenter and Lamb) Band States (Chubb Chubb) Shrunken Hydrogen (Maly, Vaura Mills) Ultra-Low Momentum Neutrons (Widom and Larsen) [ I think his title's wrong ... WEAK force capture of heavy electron and proton, giving U-L-M-N ] Dislocation Loops (Hora and Miley) [ I didn't identify this as a variant in my list] Bose Einstein Condensates (Kim)
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At 03:29 PM 12/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Ultra-Low Momentum Neutrons (Widom and Larsen) [ I think his title's wrong ... WEAK force capture of heavy electron and proton, giving U-L-M-N ] May BAD!!! That's the first few words from WL's title !
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At 08:28 AM 12/8/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library. Another link for you. It contains documents not included in http://lenr-canr.org : http://jcfrs.org/pubs.html Takahashi Now Includes Weak Interactions in LENR Theory http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/07/takahashi-now-includes-weak-interactions-in-lenr-theory-2/ Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking about low-energy nuclear reactions. For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR experimentalist and theorist, has been exclusively proposing strong force reactions in which deuterons theoretically overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. In the abstracts for the forthcoming Japan CF Research Society conference, Takahashi discusses the weak interaction p +e n + v and the neutron capture process 3p + n 3He + p.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking about low-energy nuclear reactions. For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR experimentalist and theorist, has been exclusively proposing strong force reactions in which deuterons theoretically overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. In the abstracts for the forthcoming Japan CF Research Society conference, Takahashi discusses the weak interaction p +e – n + v and the neutron capture process 3p + n – 3He + p. Right, but as I pointed out elsewhere, he appears to have the threshold energy for p+e-n wrong. The difference between a neutron and a proton mass is 1.293 MeV/c^2. Take away one electron mass (511 keV) and you're left with the q-value of 782 keV. He seems to have taken the electron mass away twice to get 272 keV. Maybe I'm reading something wrong, but as I see it, he's mistaken or WL (and Zawodny) are. Anyone can make mistakes of course, but this is kind of critical, and he claims the electrons can get 600 keV energy in his magical TSC state, which falls between 272 keV and 782 keV. My guess is that if he is in error, his theory will get tweaked to give the electrons another 200 keV. What's a few hundred keV for electrons that ordinarily have only a few eV in condensed matter? So, instead of imagining conditions in which deuterons theoretically overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature, now he's imagining conditions in which electrons theoretically overcome a much larger energy barrier.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library. Another link for you. It contains documents not included in http://lenr-canr.org : http://jcfrs.org/pubs.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library. Good job, but I'll play the devil's advocate by saying that many of them are not peer reviewed papers and because of this hard skeptics would reject them at once. By the way, have you checked if this archive contains things not included in lenr-canr.org ? http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm For Jed Rothwell: a quick suggestion. I think it would be useful a more detailed indexing/search system for lenr-canr.org, for example: - Sorting the archive by the original document date (not publication date on lenr-canr.org) - Options for filtering document type (peer reviewed papers, news articles, books, presentations, patents, other, etc) - Broad scope tags for narrowing for filtering the document content (theory research paper, research paper, etc) - A tag denoting when documents have been edited - Using more than one of the above filters at the same time - etc. This would probably need a website revamp (it's completely all in static html right now), access to more advanced server-side features (database, php) and a complete cataloguing work on the existing documents. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
In the W.L. case, I'd like to know where the value for the effective mass of the electron, above ~2.6, is calculated to be enough for catalyzed fusion. Also, why does breaking Born Oppenheimer approximation means that using a perturbative expansion around the W bosons is allowed, given that its mass is so big that its range is bellow a 1/1000 the radius of a proton. 2011/12/6 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org library. These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to weed out first impressions. I've tagged most of them with a date and a few keywords (for myself). I've also included a few non-theory papers that caught my eye. The VERY short answer is that there are PLENTY of ways for LENR to defy laws of physics and the Coulomb Barrier in particular. Almost all of them are concerned with D/Pd, not Hydrogen/Nickel .. but most say their theory could be used for Rossi. Kim's BEC preprint is first out of the gate with a Rossi-specific comment. --- Widom-Larsen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf 2005 weak force p+e - neutrino+n - n + lenr This one isn't in the library downloads. None of the other papers pick up on WL -- but I think it has some merit -- in concept, rather than details of how to make heavy electrons. I suspect that arguments against coulomb barrier also apply here. And see Lochons, below. The main themes I noticed are : SUPERPOSITION : there is no CB, because wave functions overlap, and nuclei are superimposed. This includes Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC) COULOMB LOWERED : electron screening PLUS positive charge screening means that CB is lowered. COULOMB NARROWED : even if CB remains high, it is narrowed, so tunneling is effective. RESONANCE : a lot of these paper consider resonance, plasmons, phonons so WL isn''t alone. HYDRINO/HYDREX : De/hydrogen atom is shrunk -- For Hydrex it's just another H-state. LOCHONS : two electrons form a composite boson. This could work with WL equation 3 -- the 2.4 mass requirement could be reduced to a 1.2 if we have a p+LOCHON penetration. SIMULATIONS : some of these papers take a theory and simulate the results. ODDBALL : ZPE, Casimir ... RELATED : Nuclear Physics ain't done yet .. see paper on Lattice model of nucleus. See Cook. Future work : I need to pick out a few papers as representative of these -- essential reading before you declare it to be impossible. If anyone want to ... reply, with the best papers. Disclaimer : this isn't my field. --- Brown : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf resonant tunnelling , coulomb narrowing, simulations Chubb : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiblochions.pdf 2004 D2 = Bloch Ions = superposed, not coulomb-separated http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiinhibite.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiiblochnu.pdf Also ties in with Kim / BEC III : Maxwell' demon http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAovercoming.pdf 2008 : superposed waves, Feschbak resonance, no Coulomb barrier, cf BEC Cook : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNthefccstru.pdf Lattice Nuclear Structure vs Water-drop, Shell models Czerski : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CzerskiKthehdphrea.pdf electron, +positive cohesive screening, coulomb, reaction rates Dardik : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf COP=6 for 24 hrs Dufour : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJexperiment.pdfHydrex/shrunken hydrogen Duncan : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DuncanRanoutsider.pdf review -- cf recent proposal for national action Engvild : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EngvildKCtripledeut.pdf 2003 : Triple-Deuterium Evans : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EvansABspacedirac.pdf 4-space-dirac Fisher : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FisherJCoutlineofp.pdf polyneutrons Fleischman : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf Theories 2003 Fou : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FouCinvestigat.pdf neutron-deuterium Frisone : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FrisoneFthecoulomb.pdf Coulomb barrier not static Hagelstein http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinunifiedpho.pdfphonon-coupled 2008
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
Something interesting regarding these papers, it is that the researchers that propose the theories that apparently fits better the experiments rarely cites each other. It seems there is no serious attempt to come up with a common basis for the LENR phenomena. 2011/12/6 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com In the W.L. case, I'd like to know where the value for the effective mass of the electron, above ~2.6, is calculated to be enough for catalyzed fusion. Also, why does breaking Born Oppenheimer approximation means that using a perturbative expansion around the W bosons is allowed, given that its mass is so big that its range is bellow a 1/1000 the radius of a proton. 2011/12/6 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org library. These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to weed out first impressions. I've tagged most of them with a date and a few keywords (for myself). I've also included a few non-theory papers that caught my eye. The VERY short answer is that there are PLENTY of ways for LENR to defy laws of physics and the Coulomb Barrier in particular. Almost all of them are concerned with D/Pd, not Hydrogen/Nickel .. but most say their theory could be used for Rossi. Kim's BEC preprint is first out of the gate with a Rossi-specific comment. --- Widom-Larsen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf 2005 weak force p+e - neutrino+n - n + lenr This one isn't in the library downloads. None of the other papers pick up on WL -- but I think it has some merit -- in concept, rather than details of how to make heavy electrons. I suspect that arguments against coulomb barrier also apply here. And see Lochons, below. The main themes I noticed are : SUPERPOSITION : there is no CB, because wave functions overlap, and nuclei are superimposed. This includes Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC) COULOMB LOWERED : electron screening PLUS positive charge screening means that CB is lowered. COULOMB NARROWED : even if CB remains high, it is narrowed, so tunneling is effective. RESONANCE : a lot of these paper consider resonance, plasmons, phonons so WL isn''t alone. HYDRINO/HYDREX : De/hydrogen atom is shrunk -- For Hydrex it's just another H-state. LOCHONS : two electrons form a composite boson. This could work with WL equation 3 -- the 2.4 mass requirement could be reduced to a 1.2 if we have a p+LOCHON penetration. SIMULATIONS : some of these papers take a theory and simulate the results. ODDBALL : ZPE, Casimir ... RELATED : Nuclear Physics ain't done yet .. see paper on Lattice model of nucleus. See Cook. Future work : I need to pick out a few papers as representative of these -- essential reading before you declare it to be impossible. If anyone want to ... reply, with the best papers. Disclaimer : this isn't my field. --- Brown : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf resonant tunnelling , coulomb narrowing, simulations Chubb : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiblochions.pdf 2004 D2 = Bloch Ions = superposed, not coulomb-separated http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiinhibite.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiiblochnu.pdf Also ties in with Kim / BEC III : Maxwell' demon http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAovercoming.pdf 2008 : superposed waves, Feschbak resonance, no Coulomb barrier, cf BEC Cook : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNthefccstru.pdf Lattice Nuclear Structure vs Water-drop, Shell models Czerski : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CzerskiKthehdphrea.pdf electron, +positive cohesive screening, coulomb, reaction rates Dardik : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf COP=6 for 24 hrs Dufour : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJexperiment.pdfHydrex/shrunken hydrogen Duncan : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DuncanRanoutsider.pdf review -- cf recent proposal for national action Engvild : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EngvildKCtripledeut.pdf 2003 : Triple-Deuterium Evans : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EvansABspacedirac.pdf 4-space-dirac Fisher : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FisherJCoutlineofp.pdf polyneutrons Fleischman : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At 11:47 AM 12/6/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote: By the way, have you checked if this archive contains things not included in lenr-canr.org ? http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm I didn't have that list. There do seem to be papers not in Jed's lenr-canr was hard to navigate -- but the tagging with basic categories was important ( I found it easier just to jump to a page and then use the browser's find to go to theory papers, than to go off the major category list) http://lenr-canr.org/LibFrame3.html For Jed Rothwell: a quick suggestion. I think it would be useful a more detailed indexing/search system for lenr-canr.org, for example: This would probably need a website revamp (it's completely all in static html right now), access to more advanced server-side features (database, php) and a complete cataloguing work on the existing documents.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At 11:47 AM 12/6/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Good job, but I'll play the devil's advocate by saying that many of them are not peer reviewed papers and because of this hard skeptics would reject them at once. I was just building a reading list (thanks anyway) ... and did a coupla-minute skim of each paper. But I think there are at least 10 hard core papers in there.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At the end of the day, it is quantum mechanics that is the operative principle behind LENR. For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even Einstein had trouble with it. Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, they go away or become invalid. Workers in the field have spent decades repeatedly redoing the double slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, each trying to glean some new revelation into how the world of the small works. There are even two major QM theories competing with each other; each having its own lists of acolytes; and each with differing implications for the view of the cosmos. Most people will not accept LENR in principle because they cannot accept QM as meaningful in their everyday experience: it is just too weird. So don’t think you will convince anyone based on theory. When the common man has a LENR boiler in this basement, he will assume that something neat is making it work, but few will really understand it. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf Kim states that you can know what is happening inside any given LENR reactor by looking at the many possible allowed exit reaction channels and their associated cross sections. When I do this, I see the probability that more than one QM mechanism is at play; may be as many as a handful. No one paper will tell the tail because the story is too complicated. When you have up to 40 elements transmuted, some very complicated and hard to understand QM processes are going on. PS: IMHO, many workers explore LENR in their research under the guise of QM research. Of course, I could just be looking at the world through QM colored glasses. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org library. These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to weed out first impressions. I've tagged most of them with a date and a few keywords (for myself). I've also included a few non-theory papers that caught my eye. The VERY short answer is that there are PLENTY of ways for LENR to defy laws of physics and the Coulomb Barrier in particular. Almost all of them are concerned with D/Pd, not Hydrogen/Nickel .. but most say their theory could be used for Rossi. Kim's BEC preprint is first out of the gate with a Rossi-specific comment. --- Widom-Larsen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf 2005 weak force p+e - neutrino+n - n + lenr This one isn't in the library downloads. None of the other papers pick up on WL -- but I think it has some merit -- in concept, rather than details of how to make heavy electrons. I suspect that arguments against coulomb barrier also apply here. And see Lochons, below. The main themes I noticed are : SUPERPOSITION : there is no CB, because wave functions overlap, and nuclei are superimposed. This includes Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC) COULOMB LOWERED : electron screening PLUS positive charge screening means that CB is lowered. COULOMB NARROWED : even if CB remains high, it is narrowed, so tunneling is effective. RESONANCE : a lot of these paper consider resonance, plasmons, phonons so WL isn''t alone. HYDRINO/HYDREX : De/hydrogen atom is shrunk -- For Hydrex it's just another H-state. LOCHONS : two electrons form a composite boson. This could work with WL equation 3 -- the 2.4 mass requirement could be reduced to a 1.2 if we have a p+LOCHON penetration. SIMULATIONS : some of these papers take a theory and simulate the results. ODDBALL : ZPE, Casimir ... RELATED : Nuclear Physics ain't done yet .. see paper on Lattice model of nucleus. See Cook. Future work : I need to pick out a few papers as representative of these -- essential reading before you declare it to be impossible. If anyone want to ... reply, with the best papers. Disclaimer : this isn't my field. --- Brown : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf resonant tunnelling , coulomb narrowing, simulations Chubb : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiblochions.pdf 2004 D2 = Bloch Ions = superposed, not coulomb-separated
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even Einstein had trouble with it. Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful predictions. Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, they go away or become invalid. 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. Workers in the field have spent decades repeatedly redoing the double slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, each trying to glean some new revelation into how the world of the small works. Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful. There are even two major QM theories competing with each other; each having its own lists of acolytes; and each with differing implications for the view of the cosmos. Not sure what you're referring to here. Surely not the heisenberg and schrodinger formulations, since they have been shown to be mathematically equivalent. And if you're referring to more philosophical interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation, it's important to understand that these are more for peace of mind. In the applications of the theory to interactions, the predictions are not ambiguous. Most people will not accept LENR in principle because they cannot accept QM as meaningful in their everyday experience: it is just too weird. That's nonsense. Everything around us depends on QM, and most people accept everything around us. People won't accept LENR because the evidence sucks. Light a match and they'll agree there's heat. Plug in an ecat, and wait 2 hours for a cup of tea, and no one's gonna think it's a big deal. And as for scientists, especially physicists, quantum weirdness has never been a barrier to accepting phenomena. They are skeptical of LENR for the same reason: the paucity of good evidence.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: For Jed Rothwell: a quick suggestion. I think it would be useful a more detailed indexing/search system for lenr-canr.org, for example: - Sorting the archive by the original document date (not publication date on lenr-canr.org) - Options for filtering document type (peer reviewed papers, news articles, books, presentations, patents, other, etc) - Broad scope tags for narrowing for filtering the document content (theory research paper, research paper, etc) . . . I have thought about modernizing. Most readers use Google these days for searching. It does not seem worth changing the index system since it is hardly used. Here is full index in text format, which is handy: http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
“Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful predictions.” I mean “Einstein had trouble with it” in the following sense: Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature that QM implied. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly. Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and cannot know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to God being an inveterate gambler, who always throws the dice. “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) This implies infinite parallel universes and tells you that you are just a 3D hologram projected from information laying on the 2D surface of the edge of the universe. String theory requires non-locality as per the pilot wave quantum theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle. A detailed QM study of LENR might resolve some of these theories and is worth the effort on this account alone. “Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful.” It is my contention that LENR requires non locality and entanglement to explain the lack of radioactive by-products derived from the reaction. “Not sure what you're referring to here. Surely not the heisenberg and schrodinger formulations, since they have been shown to be mathematically equivalent. And if you're referring to more philosophical interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation, it's important to understand that these are more for peace of mind. In the applications of the theory to interactions, the predictions are not ambiguous.” I am referring to the pilot wave theory that will explain a lot of what is going on in LENR. “That's nonsense. Everything around us depends on QM, and most people accept everything around us. People won't accept LENR because the evidence sucks. Light a match and they'll agree there's heat. Plug in an ecat, and wait 2 hours for a cup of tea, and no one's gonna think it's a big deal.” IMHO in terms of QM, evidence of transmutation has been conclusively demonstrated in LENR(via Miley and Arata). For me transmutation and cold fusion is synonymous. If there is transmutation, there is cold fusion. Excess heat is just a red herring. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even Einstein had trouble with it. Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful predictions. Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, they go away or become invalid. 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. Workers in the field have spent decades repeatedly redoing the double slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, each trying to glean some new revelation into how the world of the small works. Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful. There are even two major QM theories competing with each other; each having its own lists of acolytes; and each with differing
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
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.
