On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
The theorist is always looking for experimental results to confirm
his reality. That is a situation that is pleasing and conformable.
But when the experiment confronts the theorist with the unexpected
and the disturbing, the theorist must adjust his reality to match
what is real.
Quantum mechanics in its many interpretations is hard to accept for
many because it does not conform to their reality. The expectations
of causation, the conservation laws, and the flow of time do not
necessarily apply on the subatomic level. Thermodynamics was
developed with the heat engine and it is natural to expect that its
rules would not apply to subatomic particles and waves.
Axil, you clearly show why physicists ignore thermodynamics. They fail
to consider that what we see in the macroworld is the sum total of
what happens in the quantum world. The parts MUST add up and create
the whole. Although a local region might violate the thermo laws for a
brief time, the average behavior MUST be consistent with what is
experienced in the macroworld. Yet, they propose processes that would
not sum to the observed total. That is the problem I'm describing.
Even LENR does not always conform to what is expected in quantum
mechanics. LENR in its many and confusing guises is a wonderland of
the unexpected and the imponderable; a land where imagination are
the best tools of perception and where all that might ...just might…
seen is a smile.
Why do you say LENR "does not always conform to what is expected in
quantum mechanics"? I see no conflict, except when QM is poorly
applied. I get the impression that people think QM is a single concept
like a hammer. I see no acknowledgment that QM can be used in poor
ways, such as using a hammer to fix a headache.
Ed Storms
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Alain, the phenomenon of LENR itself does not violate the laws of
thermodynamics but some of the explanations do. Apparently, this is
a problem that physicists have. Many of them do not understand or
accept the laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, they waste a lot of
time discussing ideas about LENR that have no relationship to reality.
Ed Storms
On Jan 4, 2014, at 1:28 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
that some people said LENR claims do violate laws of thermodynamic
made me fall on my bottom...
it remind me the book of Beaudette about what he call skeptic (in
fact deniers)
page 134 (164) in the box:
summation
Characteristics of the Scientific Skeptic
In general, skeptics display the following habits.
1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it
will be subject to peer review.
2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment
along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based
when they are merely guesses.
4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the
boundaries of the claimed observation.
5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc
reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These
rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some
physical conservation law.
7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if
it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps
to find a source are acceptable.
2014/1/4 <pagnu...@htdconnect.com>
Jed,
I think the phrase "low-energy nuclear reactions" must have been
inspired
by current claims. On p.5, under the "PROGRAM OVERVIEW", it states -
(Projects which)"Are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g.,
violates a law of thermodynamics)"
Most current LENR theories do not violate the conservation laws.
So, I believe they are eligible under these criteria.
