----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
W&L's proposal is for a surface effect, no?
OK there are several semantic issues here. W&L have propsed a
specific mechanism, true, but that could be one of perhaps
several - for low energy reactions, all arguably related to QM and
quantum tunneling.
Even if they believe theirs to be the only mechanism, we are not
compelled to follow that closely in their thinking. Also as to
"surface" this cannot be literal in that sense of a single atomic
layer - as the mechanics of subsequent neutron abosorbtion would
seem to demand some minimum thickness of interfacial metal.
I would think that we should be talking in terms of near-surface
"excitons" being the active structure for all of these mechanism
which include perhaps one or two other QM mechanisms, perhaps
acting in consort.
Ockham be damned. Ockham is little more than an aesthetic
principle anyway, and I find QM very anti-aesthetic from the
git-go.
An exciton would be smaller than a normal metal "grain" but still
could be called a "surface" feature - perhaps going down a few
hundred nm in thickness?
What I like about the paper is the 'more general' ideas of
1) the 'heavy' electron, although I find Fred Sparbers concept for
that item preferable to theirs...and the EVO even preferable to
that if the circumstances permit, which often they do not - but
indeed there could be those three concepts for a heavier
temporal-lepton-conglomerate - in addition to the self-generated
muon.
2) the energy deficient neutron
Perhaps you have some alternative - or more specific objections to
W&L, to share, along those lines? ...giving them the leeway of not
being "either-or" or overly inclusive, that is....
Jones
