Monday, May 20, 2013

Cold fusion is becoming real

Cold fusion is gradually becoming real: see Tommaso Dorigo's posting telling that Rossi's findings seem to be real (thanks to Ulla for the link). The preprint reporting the results of the tests is titled "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device" and can be found from arXiv.

The history of cold fusion begins from the findings of Pons and Fleischmann around 1989. Cold fusion has also prehistory: books have been written about cold fusion in living matter before anyone spoke about cold fusion but official science of course has never taken them seriously (see refences in the chapter Nuclear String Hypothesis of "p-Adic length scale hypothesis and dark matter hierarchy").

Now cold fusion is studied behind the scenes but in public physics community refuses to take cold fusion seriously: it is against "the established laws of physics". And of course, the people doing hot fusion do not want to lose the impressive flow of research money to hot fusion research, which has continued decade after decade despite the absence of concrete results. Freeman Dyson has expressed his view about the situation here and here.

It takes especially long time for super stringers accustomed to think that physics has been reduced to Planck length scales to accept that there might be some genuinely new nuclear physics there and that the reductionistic narrative about natural sciences as a march towards super string theory might be a great illusion. The comments of Lubos Motl about Rossi represent a perfect example of the gigantic arrogance of a person who believes that string theorists belong to a new species intellectualy above all other human beings.

As a matter of fact, super string theory shares a lot with hot fusion. It is as unsuccessful as a theory just like hot fusion is a failure as technological project, and its news to the mankind is that the ultimate theory cannot predict nor explain and that we must just accept this message as a truth because the scientists who created it are so brilliant that they cannot be wrong.

Addition: The latest rant of Lubos about cold fusion appeared today. Now Lubos labels Tommaso Dorigo a crackpot, idiot, etc... The message is clear: everyone ready to consider the possibility that reductionism might not be quite correct, is lunatic. As usual, Lubos appeals to authority and attempts to give a label of swindlers to the group, which has performed the tests. This is much more convenient than saying something about contents. Lubos learns nothing: again and again he manages to be wrong but nothing beats him down! Lubos is completely immune to facts.

For TGD based views about possible new physics behind cold fusion see this and this.


Leo Vuyk said...

Very nice done Matti!
Are you convinced that zpe energy is at stake here? said...

To 11:

Brief answer: No.

Longer anser: I have been just reading Haisch's "God theory", which strongly relies on ZPE.

I agree in many respects with Haisch's vision about possibility to build bridge between fundamental physics and spirituality. This however requires that a lot of horrendous stuff of religions (such as eternal purgatory, the sadistic God of Old Testament killing his own son, etc...) is thrown away.

If one wants one could call the entire Universe "God", which is re-creating itself in every quantum jump and has us as mental images or to be more precise: as mental images of mental images of ..... of its mental images. The sequence could be rather long;-)! Free will is real and essence of consciousness.

Haisch shares the very attractive Buddhist vision about endless sequence of reincarnations as a kind of "life-school" in which one transcends life by life to higher levels of consciousness - to upper class in school (and sometime to same or even to lower one). This vision could have rather concrete realization in TGD framework: in the average sense personal CD grows in size scale quantum jump by quantum jump, biological death now and then does not stop this process. New sub-CDs also pop up. Asymptotically personal CD approaches infinite size - asymptotic Universe, asymptotic Godness;-)!

Haisch chooses idealistic philosophy and accept only first person perspective: consciousness is fundamental. Materialists choose matter/objective reality as fundamental and accept only third person perspective. In TGD both first and third person perspectives are present: consciousness is in quantum jump between quantum superpositions of objective realities identified as zero energy states.

Laws of physics and conservation laws are the basic problem of Haisch and all idealists. Haisch is also physicist so that problem becomes even more acute! How God can re-create the reality without breaking well-established conservation laws? Haisch hopes that ZPE could help God over this problem but to my opinion ZPE is mathematically hopelessly ill-defined and reflects the mathematical problems of quantum field theory rather than reality. In particular, the idea of Haisch et al about deriving Newtons equations from vacuum energy does not make sense to me.

In TGD framework ZPE is effectively replaced with ZEO - zero energy ontology instead of zero point energy. Zero energy states have vanishing total quantum numbers so that re-creation can be carried out without breaking conservation laws and standard laws of physics remain true. One can assign to the positive (say) energy part of zero energy state conserved energy and other quantum numbers and positive and negative energy parts correspond to initial and final state of physical event in the usual positive energy ontology. No states: just events! and there is room also for God.

A possible test for TGD would be creation of zero energy states apparently breaking conservation laws. In cosmology the non-conservation of gravitational energy takes place and can be understood in terms of ZEO: the energy and other quantum numbers are conserved only in in scale which correspond to spotlight of consciousness defined by one particular causal diamond (CD).

How to achieve this in laboratory? Quantum physicists would perhaps speak about generating long lived enough quantum fluctuations creating matter from vacuum. I remember having seen a popular article about a planned experiment in which very intense laser beams would generate particle pairs from vacuum.

The question is about the probability for generating CD containing matter. It could be very small!

Ulla said...

Two very interesting links The U experimenters in Israel have shown that they can entangle two photons that don't even exist at the same time.
- entanglement is space
- entanglement in time (particles 'without' fabric of time?) or with a very large CD-lightcone? Hubble redshift like? Time is distance in a way.

Ulla said...

About ZEO, if antimatter is of the same electric energy as 'positive state' then how is the violation done, and What happen to annihilated energy? Is it becoming dark? Take a proton where quarks pop in and out of existence (antimatter formation), but it is still ethernal, how really does this event look like?

Ulla said...

About metacognition

L. Edgar Otto said...

I guess I posted some on this too. If we had a clearer view or a new physics we would see that while we might say something was contaminating the experiment... say from quantum physics and GR thought experiments and so on--- that is we try to build such devices without a ground of some sort or cheat locally from some other ground, God, parallel universe or whatever... we have to create the vacuum before it creates matter and define causal and so on... the reality is on a level way above the thoughts of these kinds of experiments where we well one day see them not an issue at all--- and where Leo and your work finds better terms to accept this subtle truth as to the source of light and energy... we all seem to have part of the same source (a creative one) which most likely share the same or closely similar concepts. What where multiverse is the norm is the difference or connection between Leo's birth of the universe and hidden things and your p-adic fractals in a black hole or my neotrinomnium as if a particle? But again I use explicit informational or binary numbers- others seem empty to me to describe in the needed detail beyond what we are now doing in these higher topological realms :-)

Ulla said...
p 23.
entanglement (and flux tubes?) replaces the ugly 'collapse'?