Dear Mr Storms I follow from far your discussion, and as a conservative engineer, with modest vision of QM (I see it more like a radio-guy, with quantum fields like EM-waves interacting, inside a lattice of antennas and wave guides, with some components) your approach match my way of mind.
do you have a paper about your vision of what is the constraints on theories, from LENR experiments and old-fashioned validated QM? Your CF review in NWS (2010) does not cover much on theory (good idea I agree). it seems your vision of topological defects looks like the quantum dots in some semiconductors lasers, or the defects in gems which give color... what you say is that few thing can happen inside the complex chemistry solution, nor in the bulk... it have to be done inside a specific local "component", stable and clean unlike solution or surface, localized unlike bulk... the NAE concept? do you see theories which agree with your vision. clearly not widom-larsen... does Takahashi-way seems possible for you? Kim-Zubarev? corrected to respect your p-e-p conclusion ? thanks in advance, and sorry for my naivety in QM. 2014-02-28 16:27 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>: > Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these > concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is > useless. > > I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to > a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a > person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and > what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being > explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original > question. > > Ed Storms > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > > Ed-- > > I agree with Axil. * I just wrote some other comments regarding this > item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP.* > > *Bob* > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > Ed: > Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. > > Axil: > No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle > and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the > electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from. > > > > >
