On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Nonsense. It is a fundamental principle.
Not nonsense at all to my thinking, nor fundamental.
Many others better equipped to argue this point believe that it is
both subjective, arbitrary and of little substantive value:
"We have seen that the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship is not
fundamental in physics. We will now see that the amount of
information lost, described as h/2p, is not absolute but quite
arbitrary. It depends on the units chosen."
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HEISENBERG/Chapter3.html
A very interesting article, but focused on the wrong set of conjugate
variables, i.e delta E * delta t instead of dealt P * delta x. It
is the space limitation that is relevant to our discussion at this
point. Further, that all relates to the ability of a photon
*staying* in atom. My question was how does a big photon *get into*
the atom in the first place - without the wave function collapse that
is called the photoelectric effect, ejecting the electron, or
bouncing it up a to a higher orbital. No matter though. If you can
discount the limits on one set of conjugate variables that's the end
to all conjugate variables, as they are all highly related. Quantum
mechanics is over, kaput. The predictive ability of QED to 1 part in
10^-12 must be a fluke. (And yes you can find all kinds of folks that
dispute QED and it's test.)
This is from Professor Paul Marmet, Order of Canada, Fellow of the
Royal Society of Canada, President of the Canadian Association of
Physicists who died recently. He was a dissident physicist, but
that goes without saying.
Well that precludes his getting a Nobel for obliterating quantum
mechanics - if he did that is.
Surely you must have some sense of the shaky ground of your arguments
and sources. Further, we are just hashing over old ground. This
gets things nowhere, advances nothing. It is a waste of time
debating Mills' theory. That's been done to extremes here. The
question at hand it seems is whether it provides explanations of CF
or helps produce CF devices.
It doesn't really matter if Mills is right or wrong if he produces
nothing of value and does not advance the field. He's spent a lot of
money and had a very long time to produce some commercial results, or
even demonstrate a highly reproducible definitive experiment.
Further, the success or failure of Mills' theory is irrelevant to the
validity of deflation fusion, which is a very different thing from
hydrino concepts.
I say that given QM is good enough to design radios and computers it
should be good enough to design cold fusion devices, and CQM is not
necessary, if it is even right in any sense whatsoever. That is not
to say deflation fusion is correct or or even correct yet according
to QM. However, I think it must be fairly close. It gives answers to
some very important questions, makes sense of various experimental
results, and provides a significant boost in ideas for future CF
configurations. Mills is irrelevant to all that.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
