Re: [Vo]:Physicists Simulate Strongly Correlated Fermions

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

In the peer-reviewed journals, though, the debate, for now, is over. Cold
> fusion survived. What's dead is the highly skeptical position.
>

I'm grateful cold fusion research has survived.  But it seems like the
highly skeptical position is not yet dead, and the most well-regarded
journals are still not publishing.  On the message boards I hear the
question, "where are there effects that are significantly above error
reported in a well-regarded journal?"  Maybe I've missed some recent
developments?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Physicists Simulate Strongly Correlated Fermions

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:01 AM 3/21/2012, James Bowery wrote:
In a sense, the _scientific_ source of the cold fusion debacle was a 
conflict over _interpretation_ of existing theory.  When 
establishment scientists repeated their catechisms that "it flies in 
the face of theory", not only were they denying the cardinal rule of 
science, which is that theory is subordinate to experiment, but they 
were denying their own theories by imposing upon them simplifying 
_interpretations_ from which they drew the unsound conclusion that 
"it flies in the face of theory".


Exactly. Pons and Fleischmann reported anomalous heat from palladium 
deuteride, under conditions that were not initially well-described. 
They also reported neutrons, which confused the hell out of everyone. 
Missed in the flap was that the neutron report was a far lower levels 
than would have been expected from the source of the excess heat 
being ordinary deuterium fusion. Pons and Fleischmann's actual 
published report included the neutron findings because that would 
have demonstrated that a nuclear reaction was occurring, but this was 
almost dicta. When the neutron findings were debunked -- and they 
*were* in error -- that still left the basic claim, and the need to 
either confirm or replicate and demonstrate the source of any error.


The scientific community totally dropped the ball, and believed that 
the game was over, based on what amounted to a set of gross 
misunderstandings, such as the claim that the Pons and Fleischmann 
experiments could not be replicated. It was reasonable for the very 
early U.S. ERAB report to claim replication failure, for that's what 
they had seen by that time. However, Miles, whose negative results 
they noted, called them before they were finished to tall them he was 
now seeing positive results. It was ignored, the call was not returned.


Later, Huizenga noted, with recognition of importance, that Miles was 
reporting helium as the nuclear ash, with very good evidence. 
Huizenga -- the co-chair of that ERAB panel, and highly skeptical -- 
wrote however, that it was likely that Miles would not be confirmed, 
giving as his reason the lack of gammas.


However, if it is actually an "unknown nuclear reaction," predicting 
gammas was based on  nothing. Not all nuclear reactions, surely, 
produce gamma rays!


Miles was confirmed. But the meme that "cold fusion results could not 
be replicated" remained rampant, I've seen it in recent reports in the media.


In the peer-reviewed journals, though, the debate, for now, is over. 
Cold fusion survived. What's dead is the highly skeptical position.


The reaction itself remains a mystery, with what Storms calls 
"plausible theories," which means that people who understand them 
aren't falling off their chairs laughing. But no theory is adequate, 
so far, to predict the experimental data, beyond the "single 
replicable experiment" that I've described before. I'm now seeing 
work that may narrow down the experimental conditions, that's about it.


The single replicable experiment?

Set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, in palladium deuteride, 
using the state of the art, which will allow you to see the anomalous 
heat, if you have followed the protocols, a good percentage of the 
time. Do this with a series of cells, and report excess heat from all cells.


Measure helium in the effluent gases.

Does the helium correlate with the heat? Bonus question: At what Q 
(heat/helium)? 

Re: [Vo]:Physicists Simulate Strongly Correlated Fermions

[James Bowery]

In a sense, the _scientific_ source of the cold fusion debacle was a
conflict over _interpretation_ of existing theory.  When establishment
scientists repeated their catechisms that "it flies in the face of theory",
not only were they denying the cardinal rule of science, which is that
theory is subordinate to experiment, but they were denying their own
theories by imposing upon them simplifying _interpretations_ from which
they drew the unsound conclusion that "it flies in the face of theory".

Of course, the presence of a simulation tool that allows _numeric_
interpretation of the most fundamental physical theories will not concern
them, since they are not truly concerned with _science_.

What this tool _will_ do is allow cold fusion _theorists_ to cease their
continual babbling and get down to some serious work.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM,  wrote:

> Maybe they will discover my megahertz-meter relationship.
>
>  Frank
>
> ensed matter and ultra-cold atoms.
>

Re: [Vo]:Physicists Simulate Strongly Correlated Fermions

[fznidarsic]

Maybe they will discover my megahertz-meter relationship.


Frank

ensed matter and ultra-cold atoms.

[Vo]:Physicists Simulate Strongly Correlated Fermions

[James Bowery]

Physicists Simulate Strongly Correlated
Fermions

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2012) — Combining known factors in a new way,
theoretical physicists Boris Svistunov and Nikolai Prokof'ev at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst, with three alumni of their group, have
solved an intractable 50-year-old problem: How to simulate strongly
interacting quantum systems to allow accurate predictions of their
properties.  It could open the door to practical superconductor
applications, as well as to solving difficult "many-body" problems in
high-energy physics, condensed matter and ultra-cold atoms.