NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/3097

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 4.7 KB | 87 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some old data be wrong
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:58:21 GMT
Lines: 75

To: INTERNET:[e-mail]

I commented that if the heat from CF overturns previous theories, they must
go, along with some previous experiments, and a lot of dud CF experiments
from 1989 that did not show any heat. Actually, my bet is that Steven Jones
is wrong, and only a handful of old theories will be overturned, but I don't
know -- he is an expert, and if he says that the heat may hurt Einstein, let
us take him seriously, maybe he is right. Einstein has lasted longer than
most, so he is due for a modification or two I suppose.

Brian Rauchfuss asks:

"Surely you don't mean that the results of good experiments in the past are
to be thrown out because of new results?  I hope you mean to discard old
theories, not experiments.  Any new theory should explain both the old and
new results."

First of all, let me reiterate that Steve Jones thinks the old theories
stand in the way of the heat. Lots of equally qualified people, like
Schwinger and Hagelstein say: No, its not so bad, we can fit the heat into
existing physics without too much trouble; atomic plasma and metal lattices
are two completely different domains, and the theories that work with plasma
do not apply to lattices. I myself cannot judge whether Jones or Schwinger
is right, I am not taking sides in this debate. The only thing that I am
sure of is that the effect must be real -- since any fool can measure 30
watts -- so any theory or data standing in the way is manifestly wrong,
obsolete, and dead. I do not think we can say just which theories will be
impacted yet, to what extent.

But, to address your question: a tiny fraction of the old data may also
perish too. The old data will be found to work in the old domains to the
extent that the old instruments could measure it, but not in the new domain.
Perhaps new instruments, techniques or experiments will be developed to see
a CF-like effect even in atomic plasma. In other words, the old data will
shown to cover a limited range, a set of special cases. There may be very
slight inaccuracies that were written off as experimental errors, or were
too close to the noise to see previously. The same sort of thing has
happened many times before. For example, Newtonian physics appeared worked
just fine, and it is still used, of course, to compute the flight paths of
satellites, or to determine when two ships approaching one anther in the
ocean will pass. But special relativity showed that there is a slight,
undetectable error in these computations. In the case of the ships at sea,
you could not measure it with the best instruments on earth, but we know
that their relative speed does not quite add up correctly. Perhaps, if Steve
Jones and Yamaguchi are both right, we will someday look back at the plasma
physics experiments and see a slight error that points towards other types
of D-D fusion, that are enhanced by many, many orders of magnitude in metal
lattices, where 'regular' D-D fusion cannot occur, as everyone knows.

This is pure speculation. As I said, it is *Steve's* speculation, not mine.
I think it is much too early to say which theories appear to prevent CF from
occurring.

Also, of course, I take the traditional, rational, Western view that if any
theory does get in the way, it must be wrong, because nothing can stand in
the way of replicated data at 90 sigma. Jones, Huizenga, Morrison, and Close
believe in a new form of religion -- not science -- because they believe
that Man Knows Everything, and if Nature disagrees, however vehemently, She
is Wrong. They apparently believe that Theory overrules Facts. I thought
this mode of thinking died out with the Renaissance, I am shocked to
discover that people seriously believe it now. I am even more shocked to
find that people who call themselves "scientists" believe such topsy-turvy
nonsense. There is an old joke about an aeronautical engineer who looks at
a bumble bee and decides it cannot fly. Huizenga and Close apparently never
saw the humor in that: they have written books declaring war on the bumble
bee, and lambasting the poor creature for thinking she can fly. Fortunately,
the bees and the thermometers in this world do not care what fools say; they
go on doing what they have always done.

- Jed


Distribution:
  INTERNET:[e-mail]