On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tampe: I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend > to > get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental > model how it all works. > > > Oh my. This is nonsensical to the max. No one is asking you to learn the > deepest secrets of QM. An adequate mental model is available with zero math > - but - it is not the same logic as one finds in "common sense". How can > one > NOT have a mental model for quantum tunneling after all these years? In > fact > QM is more a process of ridding oneself of the wrong mental model than > learning a new one. One can mentally accept time reversal, for instance, > without leaning the intricacies of CPT symmetry and Kramer's theorem. "No > good mental model" and "ignoring what is real" are both complete cop-outs. >
I agree that Quantum tunneling is what may be behind this, and a few Å is enough for it to start do it's work, But the validity of calculation of the expansion with a virtual particle that temporally breaks the momentum conservation for quite some distance, makes me vary and want to wait for the paper to be moderated by experts in the field. I could be wrong here but that's my current intuition, that you need much smaller distances for the expansion to be valid. Anyhow if one can show that the tunneling is so strong at these distances the paper will be a very nice piece of evidence. Also the QM mechanism behind this expansion, can perhaps lead to further development so I would not throw the paper away. > I think Kalman has hit the nail on the heat with a version of neutron > exchange which is applicable to LENR, but to be honest my mental model of > the tunneling dynamics may not yet be what he is proposing. I hope that my > understanding will be refined soon - since an attempt to contact Kalman has > been made. My LENR-transposed model suggests that the two isotopes (Ni61and > Ni58, and the other combinations) which are in the active nickel alloy, are > adjoining at a few angstrom distance when an electron of modest energy (or > more likely in LENR - a polariton) screens the two isotopes in such a way > that a neutron tunnels from the Ni61 to the N58, leaving Ni60 and Ni59 - > but > otherwise the electron does not react. What we have in the end is the > common > isotope of Ni60 and also Ni59, but since the Ni59 goes to cobalt by EC with > no gamma, that fact makes this proposal FALSIFIABLE. The half-life is long > but in fact small amounts of cobalt have been reported in LENR. > May be so > Tampe says he cannot get his mind around the Kalman model of quantum > tunneling, due to the mathematics - even though he is sitting in front of a > computer which is doing billions of QM tunneling reactions per second to > put > his words into cyberspace - and that CPU can do the mathematics for him. > One > type of tunneling in nuclear and the other is electromagnetic but they are > part of the same QM phenomena - where a particle tunnels through a barrier > that it "classically" could not surmount. In fact, the nuclear version came > before the semiconductor version and yet the later verifies the former. > It's not the tunneling that I do not understand, I have not followed all calculations and I'm really not an expert here with about a semester of QM 15 yeras ago, but I do not want say that it works and perhaps I need to stress it, it may work I don't know really. > Kalman may have provided one huge clue for an M.O. that opens up > everything. > It is too early to say but it is waaaaay too early to dismiss this paper as > being too strange or too mathematical. > > I do not dispute that this might be the final verdict of the paper, if I come through as a harch critic, I'm sorry for that, Just that it is wise to await peer review. Cheers!
