*A mistake that many scientists make is assuming that a theory applies for all possible magnitudes and/or combinations of physical variables which affect the material under test.* ** In reply...
Today, most worldwide national scientific funding is allocated toward high energy physics. The legions of scientists that derive their livelihoods from this type of science see the universe through the narrow purview of this high energy perspective. These multi-billion dollar systems include hot fusion represented by ITER and like boondoggles, particle physics sanctioned by CERN and like projects, and government sponsored nuclear physics where bombs, reactors, and laser based inertial confinement fusion absorbs obscene levels of funding in the untold billions. When these disciples of the high energy paradigm say that LENR is contrary to the laws of physics, it is these high energy laws they have in mind; the laws they are comfortable with; the ones they works so long and hard to learn from their text books and spent so much to finance this learning; the ones they use every day where they work and know so well to the exclusion of all other alternative modes of thinking. They see their reality as a world of billiard ball particles that bounce around, ricocheting off of nuclei and always acting alone in absolute isolation having never been effected by resonance behaviors. LENR on the other hand, is entirely dependent on resonance and the resulting quantum mechanical coherence that this phenomenon generates. Coherent particles live in a different extra dimensional world than their deterministic Einsteinian billiard ball high energy brethren. The game that coherent particles play is a different one; it is more rightly a cosmic shell game. We can never know under which shell a coherent particle will reenter our world; it can appear anywhere at any instant when its time is right. When a high energy particle is pointed to fly at a nucleus, the laws of high energy physics rightly predicts that it will usually be deflected from its mark by the Coulomb force. But a coherent particle is a different beast entirely. When it reenters our world forsaking the anonymity of superposition, it may reappear effortlessly, motionless and without energy like a ghost anywhere in space/time including inside that hard to penetrate nucleus. The nucleus reorganizes in a whisper like a sleepwalker hardly knowing what has just happened to it. When the atoms in the neighborhood of this ghostly rematerialization are densely packed together like in a metal lattice, the chances are good that these ghost particles will fuse with some random lattice nucleus. The high energy acolytes just can’t accept this experimentally demonstrated quantum mechanical reality as a real law of nature. We who are interested in the wonders of condensed matter and its hand maiden, quantum mechanics must by necessity be patient. We will just have to grin and bear the abuse. We will hunker down and await peer review; we will await the rebirth the intellectual tolerance of the new scientific Renaissance where the narrow minded fall from authority; like the Illuminati of old, the acolytes of LENR will endure our trials until our time is once again right in the affairs of men. Best regards: Axil On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > Axil,**** > > Much appreciate your focusing on purely technical material… it’s a welcome > diversion to engage in the discussions.**** > > ** ** > > A mistake that many scientists make is assuming that a theory applies for > all possible magnitudes and/or combinations of physical variables which > affect the material under test. I have commented numerous times in the > past years about the fact that empirical data is obtained with test systems > that have specific operating regimes for various physical parameters, be > they temperature, pressure, electrical potential or current, magnetic field > strength, etc. Nearly all theories developed to explain empirical data > have implicit assumptions that the theoretical ‘laws’ **only apply** for > experiments where the physical variables are within the same operating > regimes as the data used in establishing the theory. I hope that’s not > confusing… **** > > ** ** > > It is quite common for an experiment with ‘far-from-equilibrium’ > conditions to ‘surprise’ the researcher. Here are the first two sentences > from a recent paper: > “Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a nonequilibrium lattice of Rydberg > atoms”**** > > http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v84/i3/e031402**** > > ** ** > > “The behavior of matter far from equilibrium is a fascinating area of > study. The presence of driving and dissipation can lead**** > > to remarkable phenomena that are not possible in equilibrium. This has > motivated much research on nonequilibrium physics.”**** > > ** ** > > Note the statement, “…can lead to remarkable phenomena that are not > possible in equilibrium.”**** > > ** ** > > D or H loaded metal lattices would certainly qualify as > far-from-equilibrium. In the case of LENR, the remarkable phenomenon is > excess heat and likely nuclear reactions at low energy and without the > ‘normal’ expected reaction products. These kinds of systems lead to > ‘remarkable phenomena’ because they are driven to extremes where ** > nonlinear** processes **dominate**. **** > > ** ** > > One way to drive a system into far-from-equilibrium condition is using > resonance… **** > > ** ** > > All this reminds me of the book by Nobel laureate, Ilya Prigogine, Order > out of Chaos, which I read perhaps 30 years ago!**** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** >
