New theory may explain the notorious cold fusion experiment from two decades ago
discovermagazine.com
discovermagazine.com
I know there are more syllables, but can we start using the word "hypothesis" when it is correct to do so?
It's hard enough combatting anti-science ideologies and repeatedly having to explain that the word "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, journalists, stop making it even more difficult by using the non-scientific connotation of "theory" when you mean "hypothesis".
Theories can be wimpy or really strong, can be good or bad. They are the connective tissue you use to try and explain certain phenomena. From these explanations arise predictions that help you formulate hypothesis. You then try to falsify those hypothesis and if you fail your theory is strengthened (and if you succeed your theory is wrong and at the very least has to be modified or thrown out altogether).
A hypothesis is not a theory in waiting. You make a similar mistake as Creationists do when they call Evolution “just a theory”.
Einstein's insight was to come up with a single coherent theory that explained everything which had been observed, all together.
Therefore there was no period before they managed to confirm it.
The general theory was produced in 1916, when people were preoccupied by WW I. Its first confirmation was the precession of Mercury's orbit, which had been known about since the 1800s. Most people only heard about it after the second confirmation in 1919 when Eddington measured gravitational lensing during an eclipse. The third confirmation was the measurement of gravitational redshift.
Therefore it too was considered confirmed by the time most heard about it.
I say "considered" because several decades later physicists realized that all three confirmations are explained by a wide variety of plausible theories that do not possess the nonlinear characteristics of general relativity. (Removing nonlinearity would be desirable because it would make it easier to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics.) This drove the development of better confirmations.
Note that theories are usually developed to explain existing observation, so the presence of confirmation before explanatory theory is actually quite common.
Wikipedia lists a number of alternatives to general relativity. But I can't find any that look linear. There may not have been a linear theory, just a set of heuristics that any linear theory would be likely to support. In particular when I took general relativity, my professor made the following points.
Let's model a concrete photon coming out of a gravitational potential well. We can calculate exactly how much mass it should lose. Apply the particle wave duality to that energy loss we get GR's gravitational redshift to first order. Based on the wave interpretation, you can predict, to first order, the amount that time slows in a gravitational well.
To model Mercury, assume that the Sun creates a potential well. At all points in its orbit, assume that Mercury moves as Special Relativity says that a body with fixed angular momentum and the appropriate kinetic energy for that radius should move. (I forget whether you need to toss in the aforementioned time dilation.) To first order, you recover the GR correction to the precession of Mercury.
I forget the argument for the bending of light (maybe just throw gravitational time dilation into the mix?), but there is a first-order heuristic that can give the correct figure there as well.
The point is that if a series of heuristic arguments pull out the correct prediction for the original 3 tests, then any theory that tries to reasonably combine QM, special relativity, and gravity, is likely to give similar predictions to first order.
That professor claimed that the first test which he did not have a heuristic explanation for involved the actual time that light took to get from one point to another. Looking on Wikipedia, I think he's talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay.
A correct calculation gives a neutron production rate from (1) about
300 times smaller than what estimated in [1–3], for the value of the
mass renormalization factor β ≈ 20 considered there. In turn, it is
questionable that values of β can be realized, in particular for
bound electrons, so large as to give rise to useful nuclear
transmutation rates. A more detailed analysis of the attainable
values of β is needed to obtain more definite conclusions on this
interesting phenomenon, should it exist at all.
“Erroneous wave functions of Ciuchi et al. for collective modes in neutron production on metallic hydride cathodes” A. Widom, Y. Srivastava, and L Larsen (v1 Oct. 17, 2012) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.5212v1.pdf
Abstract: “There is a recent comment [1] concerning the theory of collective many body effects on the neutron production rates in a chemical battery cathode. Ciuchi et al. employ an inverse beta decay expression that contains a two body amplitude. Only one electron and one proton may exist in the Ciuchi et al. model initial state wave function. A flaw in their reasoning is that one cannot in reality describe collective many body correlations with only a two particle wave function. One needs very many particles to describe collective effects. In the model wave functions of Ciuchi et al. there are no metallic hydrides, there are no cathodes and there are no chemical batteries. Employing a wave function with only one electron and one proton is inadequate for describing collective metallic hydride surface quantum plasma physics in cathodes accurately.”
Conclusions: “No significant argument has been provided against our nuclear physics results. The experimental evidence of neutron production and nuclear transmutations in properly designed plasma discharge electrolytic cells [5] agrees with our theoretical analysis and belies the theoretical arguments given in [1] against a hefty production of neutrons in hydride cells.”
Lewis Larsen President and CEO Lattice Energy LLC
Note that ultimately it still comes down to low-energy fusion, in this case it's the fusion of two neutrons and Li-6 into Beryllium-8 which then decays into He-4 nuclei. This is somewhat similar to the CNO cycle whereby you keep adding protons to C-12 and the subsequent products until ultimately you end up with C-12 again plus a He-4 nuclei, and a lot of fusion energy along the way.
Fortunately there are several clear-cut experiments that can be conducted to verify each element of this theory, so we should see some progress on this (one way or the other) in the coming years.
They don't have extraordinary evidence, or any evidence. Apparently I'm supposed be enthused about this future experiment, the outcome of which could be extraordinary, although there's no particular prior expectation for this.
. . . .
"So far, Larsen still has only a theory and some circumstantial evidence."
In other words, the operative word in the subtitle of the submitted article (used as the submission headline here) is "may." There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence yet that the process described in the article actually produces net energy output.
P.S. I heartily approve of (and have upvoted) the first comment this comment received, pointing out that there isn't even evidence that the speculated process described in the article even exists.
Massive overstatement. They don't have evidence the process exists in any form.
See the very same Joseph Zawodny speak of "It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy.." in a much more candid way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlKc0TaqPs
For a good compilation of LENR related evidence, see this presentation from ICCF-17 in September: http://www.slideshare.net/tylervan/lenr
I followed the links, but the links I couldn't find an article with enough technical details about the experiments. I think that you know more about what is published in the subject, so can you please give me:
* One link to a paper where the excess of energy is clearly measure experimentally, that is published in a peer reviewed indexed journal with a high impact index.
* One link to an article with the technical details to reproduce the effect in the laboratory and measure the excess of energy. (Something like "Experimental LENR for dummies" would be nice.)
I saw the webpage only for a few minutes, and most of the links look like special edition books and conference proceedings. I couldn't find the information I was looking for.
Calorimetric measures are extremely difficult to do correctly, so I would like to see:
) One paper in a well known journal, to be sure that an independent expert in the subject has read it thoughtfully.
) One clear description of the experimental setup, so I could try to convince some friends to reproduce it.
And wouldn't putting a sample of the water (post-experiment) through a mass-spectrometer immediately reveal the presence of Beryllium?
But this is certainly a very interesting theory.
Extremely low energy neutrons created through quantum interactions makes a lot more sense then something majickally defeating the coulomb barrier with regularity (sure there are tunneling effects, but those don't happen with regularity.) While this area of physics is full of some quacks (Rossi for instance), I am glad this is starting to get more attention over the last few years. There is so much that happens as a result of quantum physics that is just counter intuitive, and really so much is left to understand about how the realm of the small effects our macro level reality. I really wish Feynman would have been alive when the first cold fusion craze was announced, perhaps he could have had clues to offer that made people think twice about possible quantum effects instead of the obvious craziness of fusion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4952167.html http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n
Is this the same phenomenon?
Edit: Additional question - If the palladium based device described in 60 Minutes consistently outputs more energy than input (they just don't know how long each reaction will take, exactly how much energy will be output, or quite frankly how it works), wouldn't it be a trivial matter to daisy chain hundreds of these devices and get a relatively more consistent average energy output?
It stuck with me and I was glad to see someone revisiting the idea again.
http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Ice-Searching-Behind-Fusion/dp/18...
The Believers movie just came out a week ago: http://www.thebelieversmovie.com/
Also Rossi is featured in this month's Popular Science: http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/9602208_Andrea-Rossis_Black-Box--...
He has a mysterious device. He refuses to submit it to tests where anyone but him gets to measure the sytem's energy inputs and outputs. It hasn't been properly evaluated by third parties. He makes wild claims about both the product and how well it's selling. AND he has a history of this if you read about his previous ventures.
It has every hallmark of a con. At this point I'm genuinely interested - how can you believe it?
I hope to see some serious development from other parties like NASA. Could be really cool.