Responding to ogfusionist's most recent post lamenting Axil's ideas:
Is Axil a program something like Big Blue?
Probably not, but the effect is the same. Even though Axil claims "experiments" I have not seen any by Axil other than the psychological ones within "Axil's Web". I would not worry about Axil's fundamental errors, such as one time indicating that infra-red photons have more energy than visible photons [quickly edited away following my suggestion}..... it [Axil] is a good source of new ideas, often quite "mistaken", but that is what scientific revolutions look like. Axil may be "Wiki-intelligence" gone wild. But it is best to pay attention, nevertheless!
Axil recently caught me with my mesons down or up, I forget which... actually it was mainly that mu-mesons are now muons and are not really mesons at all-- and something about pions I have repressed, but they are not elementary unlike muons, that is pions have parts called quarks--- those other things from the imaginary world of sub atomic particle physics, which may still be thoroughly mysterious to us elders. At least muons are analogous to electrons and have unitary charge (they are heavy particles over 200 times the mass of electrons, but are "intermediate" in the "spectrum" of the particle "zoo" created only by many trillion eV collisions and cosmic rays, whose third and highest mass member is the Tau, which may be thousands of times the mass of the related electron). The muon, appears by "Axial" testimonial to now be important to the Holmlid view now overtaking Axil's "mind".
What will be next there? For Axil it will only be a moment, but for reality I suppose we must wait until Holmlid is more thoroughly accepted and subjected to potentially disconfirmatory testing or for some other remarkable LENR "replications". Of course Holmlid may have an inside track to the Nobel committee, being apparently Swedish with Icelandic collaborators. Holmlid has been published in journals the "skeptics" might snicker at. I take his work seriously and hope others will as well, until further confirmation and/or disconfirmation is reliably available.
I don't think Heisenberg's uncertainty principle expressed in a rather ridiculous looking equation, recently posted by Axil, makes for good press among those with only a term or two of matrix algebra. I preferred deBroglie's version.... much nicer to look at anyway. Heisenberg, a bit of a Nazi, does not even acknowledge deBroglie's earlier contribution as anything but "empirical". deBroglie an actual French "Prince" by heredity, seemed unoffended by Heisenberg's Nordic arrogance-- and the Nobel committee of the day awarded deBroglie the Prize for his interpretation of the "wavicle" notion, as you put it. That is lambda (essentially the rms uncertainty of particle position) equals h/p or in Newtonian terms h/mv. I once suggested here that perhaps confinement of electrons could result in them assuming great mass variability, which devolves from this [deBroglie's] "empirical' equation quite easily. That is as v approaches zero by confinement, lambda cannot have the high positional uncertainty dictated by the deBroglie equation. The only variable left is the mean mass of the electron.... if the equation is to hold.
I would not worry about Hawking. The "educated" public is enamored of the idea of a "pure mind". Of course the only place where that works in science is in cosmological theory and/or perhaps sub-atomic particle theory. Often no experiments possible--- perfect for the "pure" mind. At least Hawking makes some bold predictions... and hence subjects himself to possible later confirmations / disconfirmations. Hawking deserves credit for that, in my view. I predict that all that the public (read science journalists and "educated" folks) think they now understand about cosmology will be thoroughly different in just a few decades. Wait and see.