I'm not after a theory that is true or not but a fact. E.g. a receipt like
Arrange atoms A1,A2,... acorfing to .... >From known principles a good approximation of the system is H(...) Then when we calculate the probabilities of nuclear reaction we get P(system) >> P(single atom) So, I'm after a mathematical proof or indication from first principles, that you can induce a nuclear reaction this way. A meta theory would then be that LENR might take advantage of this mathematical principle, and a theory would mean more specific how this can happen! Hope that it's a bit clearer now. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I cannot judge whether any of the theory is "substantial proof." I can say > there is no theory that is generally accepted by most theoreticians in the > field. No one outside the field knows anything about the theories. > > Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There is copious experimental > proof that it is a nuclear effect, especially the heat produced per gram of > material, and the tritium. It is yet to be explained theoretically, to the > satisfaction of most people. > > Generally speaking, in science a theory is not "proof" of anything. > Theories explain that which experiments prove. > >
