The hypothesis of enhancing a "QM probability field" within the LENR, which can positively alter end results has been mentioned here before, but is given little more than passing notice by most experimenters... probably because it has not reached a threshold of "meme" entanglement yet. But it is meme-related, and is also in the News today.
In the journal Physical Review Letters, a transition process from quantum to classical world is described as a "decoherence" process that involves a kind of evolutionary progression - somewhat analogous to Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection. We never think of these two dynamics as being even remotely related, but the way in which they could be related can also be described as "altering randomness". The authors of the Paper (Ferry and Burke from ASU) do NOT go this far, and instead they built on prior theories called 'decoherence' and 'quantum Darwinism', proposed by Wojciech Zurek at Los Alamos National Labs. Try saying that name three times rapidly and you will have an instant grasp of the neologism: "decoherence" :) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100702092200.htm The decoherence concept holds that many potential quantum ground states are "selected" in a kind of time reversal while tentatively interacting with the environment. Through a Darwinian process they can arrive at a "pointer state", which is fit enough to be transmitted through the environment without collapsing. This could also be related to a putative "probability field" of QM, which influences reaction rates and can effectively turns true randomness into stochastic likelihood (if 'time is on your side'). I am using 'stochastic' not in the traditional sense, but as a cross-over condition between true randomness and full predictability. The implication of 'stochastic' is that over millions of years seemingly random occurrences seem to appear to be goal-directed (to humans who are so inclined). Needless to say, there can be both theological and 'pathological' implications (i.e. pathological science). This can be seen most famously in a controversial techniques which Rusi Taleyarkhan used to increase the neutron yield in cavitation experiments - which involved "seeding" the reactor with a tiny secondary source of radiation which would create a few neutrons on its own. There was no duplicity - this was planned and explicit. However, he did not mention enhancing the "probability field" by name, as being his underlying rationale for doing it: and to his great detriment IMHO... since the seeding technique became a focal point of contention from almost bloodthirsty critics. His results were positive, and found to be orders of magnitude greater, even after the contributing source was factored out. In effect these results offer validation for the idea of enhancing the "probability field" but blindly, and without his explicit direction. Too bad. The strategy can be framed as this: any form or baseline "continuity" (even at very low level, but persistent) creates a "spatial probability field" within its "zone" which can massively alter the reaction rate of what would otherwise be extremely rare QM reactions within that zone. Let's say (using artificial numbers) that the background rate for neutrons on your detector is one per minute and you add a source of neutrons that brings this up by an orders of magnitude which is still low (10/min) but is now within a range that can "alter probability". You have found this out from trial and error. When you turn on your sonicator, then with the added stimulus you now get 500/min. but before, and without the 'probability enhancer you only were getting 20/min. Is there a better way to describe these dynamics, than "alteration of the QM probability field" ? Perhaps there is (positive feedback looping, for instance) but at least now the statistical dynamics can be framed in a way that has a more general applicability than what can be perceived and an 'intent to deceive' (via seeding). Jones BTW to finish up on the sad Taleyarkhan saga: he got a lot of criticism for the seeding technique (primarily from ignorant, or jealous competitors for sonofusion funding, but also some of the problem could be from his failure to adequately explain the rationale behind it)... ...and the underlying concept is, well ... arguable if not sound, in QM. See I.E. # 1, p. 46, "Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation," by Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III. IOW there is a reputed "probability field" in QM in which the likelihood of a rare reaction is governed in stages of probability plateaus - by what can best be described as "the presence of the past" to use Sheldrake's terminology ... which is to say, it is influenced by "habit" or "continuity" ...leading to a altered probability states over true randomness (once there is a threshold level) ... which threshold level, in effect, creates a positive feedback loop, and leads to a drastically higher probability field at a new plateau.
