Is a Theory Needed Before We Exploit a New Phenomenon? (Doug Marker)

This is an excellent piece. I regret that Doug Marker mis-spelled
Heisenberg as Heisenburg.
Marker makes several good points including this one:
"If we compare LENR to Quantum Computing we have the
remarkable situation where quantum computing devices
are being built and sold (DWave Quantum Computers) that
work, and in ways that no scientist can adequately explain,
to the satisfaction of science in general. A big difference
is that QIP (Quantum Information Processing) is not a threat
to anyone, on the contrary it is embraced and encouraged
and regarded by many in the IT field as the next big leap
forward in computing power. You won’t destroy your career
playing with qubits held in place in Bose Einstein condensate
and super conducting material." [end quote]

Longview writes:
There are differences between the two dynamics (energy capital
v. information processing capital). The differences, unfortunately
can be traced to the long history of public reverence physics has enjoyed.
Information processing has now for decades been predicated on
meeting the expectations of intensive market pressures (manifest as
but not so much driven by the rule of thumb of Gordon Moore's "Law").
The market driven expectations there, and the influence of market
capital there are much more dynamic. The marketplace determines the
reality in IP, something quite different has nursed physics along
all these decades since their glory days before before the
failure to recognize that the lithium in LiD would
participate dangerously in the power of the bomb test at Enewetak, before
Three Mile island, before Chernobyl, before the squandering of more than
$50 billion on hot fusion reactors that, even if they "worked", or especially
if they worked, could never be used.

[“Major Leap Toward Quantum Computing,” PCB 007, 14 July 2014] The article notes that information loss, or quantum error, is a major challenge for quantum computing. Yale physicist Rob Schoelkopf, Sterling Professor of Applied Physics and Physics, stated, “Ninety-nine percent of quantum computing will be correcting errors. Demonstrating error correction that actually works is the biggest remaining challenge for building a quantum computer.” The article continues:

“Schoelkopf’s group and other Yale collaborators tackled the first step in quantum error correction –successfully identifying errors as they happen, in their case by means of a reporter atom. Identifying quantum-computing errors in real time is particularly challenging: Qubits are so fragile that searching for errors can result in more errors. To determine if an error occurred, Schoelkopf and his team relied on an ancilla, or a more stable reporter atom, which detected errors without destroying the state and relayed that information back to the scientists on a computer. During their experiments, the scientists used a superconducting box containing the ancilla and an unknown number of photons, or light particles, which were cooled to approximately -459°F, a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. This minimized quantum errors induced by the environment.

The team then tracked the photons in the box over time to see if and when the photons escaped. Losing photons from the box indicated lost information, or the occurrence of a quantum error. The errors need to be detected without learning the exact conditions in the superconducting box, including the number of photons, because determining the conditions in the box can disrupt the qubit quantum state and result in more errors. So the ancilla reported only the photon parity — whether an even or odd number of quantum photons were present in the box — in real time. A change in parity — for example, from even to odd — indicated the loss of a single photon without revealing whether the box had changed from six to five photons or from four to three photons. The team found success in their first experiment and demonstrated for the first time the tracking of naturally occurring errors, in real time, as would be needed for a real quantum computer.”

Schoelkopf asserts, “It is hard to estimate how long it will be until we have functional quantum computers, but it will be sooner than we think.” That’s a claim we’ve heard before (see my post “Quantum Future: Just Beyond Our Grasp“). Let’s hope that this time the prediction is more accurate.

Good to see your input on that Axil. I await quantum computing, but not with as much optimism as LENR. For one thing, I don't think it is likely to be a positive planetary issue to have QIP, while it could be used in very negative ways if it met its long term performance goals, that is as a key component of mobile artificial super-intelligence, for example. But, perhaps reflecting wishful thinking, I have some doubt about the implementation, as it appears you do.

In spite of all those issues you rightly point out, QIP is in the marketplace, or so it is claimed

Whereas, unfortunately, LENR / CANR / CF etc. are apparently not really here in marketable form yet.

Nanoscale fusion, cold fusion, LENR, etc. are all subjects related to hydrogen fusion. This is the THE LENR forum and some mention of experiments related to the basic initiation of proton fusion would be expected. Instead all that appear are far fetched arguments related to strange particles, etc. A few replications of the simple low amu transmutation of hydrogen would be very refreshing, first watch the reaction happening and then start the hand waving. At this rate the forecast for discussions on this forum several years from now would still be at the particle postulation level. Let's spectulate that the protons are quantum entangled, blah, blah, blah.

Tyy, you are right on all three, all wrong. Realizing the pathology it's futile to argue. Although I notice the Freudian slip of using if LENR is real instead of a more positive statement.
For other reader's benefit, LENR in this basic mode of low amu hydrogen fusion is very real. Reactors world wide using nickel catalysts are producing useful heat. Some are low amu transmutation reactors.

[Essentially a response to ogfusionist's disgust with "quantum entangled blah blah blah" etc.]

I'm willing to briefly participate in a discussion that turns "exotic" in direction. The quest, for me, is to find viable mechanisms to explain how successful fusion on the benchtop works or might work. It does often seem to get far afield and jumps unnervingly and perhaps unnecessarily into the morass of modern speculative physics. I always keep an eye toward the end point of what is here called LENR. If the exotic particles or "wild" ideas turn out to be useful toward that end, then so much the better.

Much more gratifying to me are the occasional reports of actual excess heat from the likes of "replicators", and from Ed Storms.

Quote from Tyy

This is so wrong.

First, Dwaves quantum annealer is not an actual quantum computer, and only seems to help in very specific problems. Even this is in dispute.

Second, if LENR is real and we cannot understand how it works, it would be insane to build "reactors", based on still mysterious phenomenon.

Third, if LENR is real and you are grazy enough, just build the damn word saving apparatus. Where is it?

Display More

I know its hard for you putting together a non incoherent thought, but bravo on your word salad. Work on simple sentence construction next, then on logic. For now just leave the paragraphs alone okay? We get that people that do not agree with you are wrong.

Congrats Tyy on reaching 4 lines and avoiding personal attacks. I even gave you a like for it!

Quote from ogfusionist

Nanoscale fusion, cold fusion, LENR, etc. are all subjects related to hydrogen fusion. This is the THE LENR forum and some mention of experiments related to the basic initiation of proton fusion would be expected. Instead all that appear are far fetched arguments related to strange particles, etc. A few replications of the simple low amu transmutation of hydrogen would be very refreshing, first watch the reaction happening and then start the hand waving. At this rate the forecast for discussions on this forum several years from now would still be at the particle postulation level. Let's spectulate that the protons are quantum entangled, blah, blah, blah.

As far as I'm concerned, the discussion of LENR theory is over as witnessed by the successful prediction of meson production and meson decay products as experimentally verified by Lief Holmlid. If you fail to appreciate this theory and its experimental verification, that is your issue.

&"The quest, for me, is to find viable mechanisms to explain how successful fusion on the benchtop works or might work."

On my laboratory bench I assembled a quartz tube loaded with Al203fiberFrax strips soaked with nickelous oxide slurry. Included was a silver purifier to remove sulfur compounds from the hydrogen gas. The heater wire wound around the reactor tube was inconel and slowly heated to remove organics from the catalyst and reach fusion temperature at 830C. An RGA was included to analyze for transmutation products. Also flow proportional, GMC and silicon drifted lithium detectors for radiation. The quest was successful and a bane ever since. The inhabitants of this planet survive by burning carbon and are not ready for hydrogen fusion.

&"Problem like at a prison fence, is to guess who is prisoner, and who is free."

No problem, just walk away from the fence and realize that there is no escape no matter what side you are on.

&"The quest, for me, is to find viable mechanisms to explain how successful fusion on the benchtop works or might work."

So, with a little work the RGA quadrupole had sufficient resolution at low amu to study transmutation at 2 to 4. The nickelous oxide reactor fused hydrogen with increase gamma radiation. End of quest, it's just natures way of doing it simple. Simple proton transmutation on a benchtop.

&"Simple proton transmutation on a benchtop."

Not end of quest, this doesn't consider muons and other strange particles that might be involved. Now the results of the double slit experiment come to mind. OK, wavicles and now a good place to end the quest.

Multiparticle quantum entanglement has been experimentally verified through the detection of Hawking radiation coming from a acoustic EMF black hole.

See

Observation of self-amplifying Hawking radiation in an analog black hole laser

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1409/1409.6550.pdf

"It has been proposed that a black hole horizon should generate Hawking radiation. In order to test this theory, we have created a narrow, low density, very low temperature atomic Bose-Einstein condensate, containing an analog black hole horizon and an inner horizon, as in a charged black hole. We observe Hawking radiation emitted by the black hole. This is the output of the black hole laser.

We also observe the exponential growth of a standing wave between the horizons. The latter results from interference between the negative energy partners of the Hawking radiation and the negative energy particles reflected from the inner horizon. We thus observe self-amplifying Hawking radiation."

Axil you are not making it easy for me here to end my quest. With my limited understanding of the unconscious mind I realize that Stephen can travel to regions that are far out and then bring the material up to the conscious level. Beyond my scope. Anyway I'll followup on your post that may help end my quest.

Called up your post "Observation of self-amplifying Hawking radiation in an analog black hole laser" and have now definitely ended my quest. Thanks.

Axil, re Quantum computing. This is a special topic to myself and have been tracking developments for the past couple of years with the help of a smart friend who works in the QIP world.

While this particular issue is not exactly LENR, it is a follow-on from the original post. What can be said of QIP and QC is that the advances are occurring so fast that most news or web articles on the topic, are likely to be obsolete.

DWave have progressed through 3 generations of device and now run in excess of 1000 qubits. It is Google who are devising tests that have been run on the DWave device as it appears their own direct QC progress lags quite a bit.

The issue of error correction in a QC relates to the time-to-decoherence experienced between entangles pairs of particles built into any QC. AFAICT this is where various researchers are out of sync in what they are claiming. Some are months (if not years) behind others in improving the stability of the entanglement. One has to be very careful with what one comes up with on the web, on this topic, as there is a very high probability of reading obsolete reports. Also, the source of the reports needs careful weighting as to validity and usefulness. This same issue applies to reading pro and con arguments about the success or disputed success of the many tests conducted in the name of Bell's inequality testing. Reports published this year claim that the final 'loophole' (that some scientists always seem to conjure up) have been laid to rest (but we can be sure yet another claimed 'loophole' will be produced. The real issue re Bell's inequality testing is that each new and more rigorous test using ever more advanced testing techniques, repeatedly shows Bell's theorem is violated and confirms the non-locality case (without hidden variables).

But back to QC. My own understanding is that DWave have been able to demonstrate substantial advances in the use of their newest model and that while 'quantum annealing' might not be the same as conventional software computing with simple bit manipulation, it is working.

Cheers DSM