A not so distant mirror...

1st Official Post

    Looking over older Wall Street Journals piled up since my mother's death a some months ago, I was struck by a review of a biography of Enrico Fermi. Allow me to quote a bit from that review by Jeremy Bernstein on David N. Schwartz' "The Last Man Who Knew Everything" dated December 16-17, 2017, p. C15 of that WSJ:


    ...."[Fermi] published a paper describing his discovery of "transuranic" elements, which was one of the achievements for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1938. Not long afterward, however, a chemist named Ida Noddack published a brief note in which she took issue with Fermi. Mr. Schwartz incorrectly identifies Noddack as a physicist. Perhaps if she had been a physicist she would have asked more questions--such as how the process she was suggesting could conserve energy, a basic requirement of physics. She proposed that the neutron, rather than being absorbed to form a nucleus heavier than the original uranium, had broken up the uranium nucleus 'into several large fragments.' Indeed fission [as we here at the LF know] involves cleaving of the nucleus into two large fragments. Noddack's suggestion was rejected at first because it seemed to violate the conservation-of-energy requirement and because she proposed no mechanism by which the process could take place. That such a process could conserve energy was first explained in December 1938 by Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch."


    Bernstein, the reviewer, who is likely a physicist, recommends this book, but points to a fair number of scientific errors. At the end of this WSJ review, he also "recommend[s] 'The Pope of Physics' by Gino Segrè and Bettina Hoerlin for a scientifically accurate biography."

    • Official Post

    Longview,


    I see the analogy you are trying to make between the discovery of the neutron, mainstream snobbery, and how hopefully the LENR story will conclude in the same fashion. However, another conclusion one can take from any of the many "Golden Age of Physics" books, is that the most gifted minds in history did not discover LENR. If it exists, and I believe it does, it must be a particularly difficult nut to crack. Like dark matter/energy.


    It makes me wonder if it's secrets can be unlocked without mainstream fully on board?

    I was particularly struck by the chemist v. physicist parallel to LENR today (granted a much slower time scale now). That aspect, and by the reviewer's attestation that "physics requires" conservation of energy. For me, with perhaps more chemistry than physics training, LENR is likely a matter that can readily be portrayed using a "reaction coordinate diagram", and of course spontaneity is easily visualized using that tool. So for a "delta G = delta H - T delta S" to prevail as a reality, one only has to conjure the appropriate catalyst to lower whatever "Ea", that is activation energy barrier. There is no doubt about the possibility of spontaneity, the delta H is overwhelmingly favorable for many energetically favorable fusion reactions (hot or cool) displayed at the low end of the "curve of binding energy". The typical barrier, or "Ea" has generally been coulombic repulsion for most fusion scenarios. Circumventing such a barrier is not inherently impossible at all in a terrestrial condensed matter regime (aka LENR). Ironically, the totality of hot fusion efforts show that it might be much more difficult, practically speaking, in a plasma regime under terrestrial circumstances.


    I think it is likely no mere accident that chemists as a group seem to have a stronger affinity for the possibility of LENR.


    But, without a comprehensive theory of what is happening it has been difficult to move forward, to make reliable over-unity devices, to gain patent protection, to gain funding, to encourage learned discussion, to foster collaborations etc. Hopefully the required paradigm shift (in the Kuhnian sense) won't require decades more to crystallize. There is a need to place theories in the context of popular understanding.... if that is possible. Since most learned amateurs probably don't manipulate Hamiltonians or LaGrangians with ease, it may take some time. Here is where adequate visualization tools may well be a key. As it has already, perhaps more computer-aided modeling might help bring a popular, and a needed cross-disciplinary understanding of the restraints and possibilities for LENR.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Longview

    . Since most learned amateurs probably don't manipulate Hamiltonians or LaGrangians with ease, it may take some time.


    Russ George and I were discussing the difficulties we faced in coming up with a 50-factor Hamiltonian (in the style of Peter Hagelstein) just yesterday. We have so much data from just one experiment that at times it seems overwhelming, Russ however is determined to dig his way through it, and he is certainly putting in the hours and stretching his brain -and mine- more than a little at the same time.

    Quote from Longview

    That aspect, and by the reviewer's attestation that "physics requires" conservation of energy.


    @This is the last (least) but strongest condition. Further momentum conservation should also hold - a thing QM avoids... Not to speak of a complete Lagrangian most beloved if it is fully relativistic.


    The good news is, that we know by experience that all stable energy states can be expressed by Eigenvalues. If we find them we can do reasonable calculations of static (Energy levels) nature by using the found Eigenvalues.


    Quote from Longview

    But, without a comprehensive theory of what is happening it has been difficult to move forward, to make reliable over-unity devices, to gain patent protection, to gain funding, to encourage learned discussion, to foster collaborations etc. Hopefully the required paradigm shift (in the Kuhnian sense) won't require decades more to crystallize.


    The problem with current physics is the dogmatic (religious) nature that has overwhelmed most "thinking". One dogma of nuclear physics was that Maxwell laws do not hold on nuclear level. Now we know they in fact do hold and the door is wide open to new physics. Mills started one part - with more and sometimes less success, - the second step has been done by myself.


    The last nail into the coffin of the standard model is the 126GeV claimed Higgs CERN recently measured: In fact it is a simple and well explained (exact value given by 4D physics Eigenvalues) proton resonance. While "fools celebrate" their finding, it gave us the last proof for the Maxwell physics defined magnetic mass of the proton!

    Please identify what the negative solutions to the Maxwell equations imply to the physics of the LENR reaction.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    "One dogma of nuclear physics was that Maxwell laws do not hold on nuclear level. Now we know they in fact do hold and the door is wide open to new physics."


    Axil, since Wyttenbach did not, to my knowledge, write here of "negative solutions", perhaps you can enlighten us as to the implications of these "negative solutions to the Maxwell equations" for LENR....

    Quote from Longview

    Axil, since Wyttenbach did not, to my knowledge, write here of "negative solutions", perhaps you can enlighten us as to the implications of these "negative solutions to the Maxwell equations" for LENR....


    The "negative solutions" of Maxwell equations describe the negative energy states of the solutions.


    We cannot discount the "negative energy'' solutions since the positive energy solutions alone do not form a complete set. Many theorists discount the negative solutions as non physical but these solution are in many cases in fact physical. For example,in the Dirac equations the electron which is localized in space, will have components of its wave function which are "negative energy''. The more localized the state, the greater the "negative energy'' content.


    I am asking if there is a physical description of these Maxwell equations solutions in Wyttenbach's LENR theory.

    Quote from axil

    We cannot discount the "negative energy'' solutions since the positive energy solutions alone do not form a complete set. Many theorists discount the negative solutions as non physical but these solution are in many cases in fact physical. For example,in the Dirac equations the electron which is localized in space, will have components of its wave function which are "negative energy''. The more localized the state, the greater the "negative energy'' content.


    Source (quoted verbatim): https://quantummechanics.ucsd.…0a/130_notes/node490.html

    Quote from can

    axil

    Nice evasion. Stop cut&pasting text from other websites without making it clear that you did. This is usually called plagiarism.

    One of the major accomplishments of the standard model is the discovery of anti matter. This comes right out of Maxwells equations. I just wanted to see if the put down of the Standard model was justified by Wyttenbach's superior reworking of Dirac's concepts in his theory as applied to LENR. You let the cat out of the bag. Now Wyttenbach knows he has to account for anti matter. But what does those negative solutions mean for LENR? I think that you can now explain it, but by your rules do it in your own words.

    • Official Post

    axil as you posted elsewhere : A cornerstone of modern physics is mathematics. Like it or not, without the tools provided to physicists by mathematics, physics would be dead in the water. But (and this is something that all of us forget on occasion) solving equations is not the same as understanding the physics. A critical step in the development of physical insight is to recognize which solutions to an equation might correspond to reality, and which do not.


    So all your things like antimatter, virtual particles etc can be just a mathematical formula artifacts which have nothing to do with reality.

    Quote from axil

    The "negative solutions" of Maxwell equations describe the negative energy states of the solutions.


    To my understanding negative energies are mathematical artifacts. Some people mix up energy holes with negative energy.


    An other miss-conception is the term antiparticle. From a Maxwell point of view it is just inverse flux (-change).


    But the most irritating reference you make is to mention the Dirac equation. I clearly stated that dense matter physics & LENR is magnetism. Magnetism is not part of any QM equation, with the exception of a constant - potential like external field.


    The magnetic mass equation can also be found in Mills' work 32.48b or even more simple in the definition of the electron spin/De broglie radius relation.


    The proton magnetic mass is not straight forward. To exactly derive it, you need to have base knowledge of SO(4). But the math do get it is trivial!


    Here once more a classic Mills equivalent derivation of the dense mass increase factor needed for the pseudo Higgs: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320110017 first 10 pages.


    Here you will encounter complex time, a similar misnomer like negative mass. But the relation with De Vries alpha is a useful side note.

    Wyttenbach, you really need to go back to the drawing board. You are so far off that you are not even wrong. I am sorry to say that you are wasting your time. Study the standard model and grow to love it.

    Quote from Max Nozin

    axil as you posted elsewhere : A cornerstone of modern physics is mathematics. Like it or not, without the tools provided to physicists by mathematics, physics would be dead in the water. But (and this is something that all of us forget on occasion) solving equations is not the same as understanding the physics. A critical step in the development of physical insight is to recognize which solutions to an equation might correspond to reality, and which do not.


    So all your things like antimatter, virtual particles etc can be just a mathematical formula artifacts which have nothing to do with reality.

    See: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501052


    Introduction to PT-Symmetric Quantum Theory


    See


    https://www.quantamagazine.org…mann-hypothesis-20170404/


    Physicists are attempting to map the distribution of the prime numbers to the energy levels of a particular quantum system.


    How using complex numbers solve problems that are critical in LENR.


    I address this issue here


    The process by which the proton decays in LENR


    In general use Quaternions: a generalization of complex numbers.


    Science is using a new number system now that more accurately describes vector position in 3d space. Its called Quaternions: a generalization of complex numbers. Somebody could rework Gibbs-Heaviside math based on this new number system.

    Maxwell's equations might fit nicely into the Quaternion notation without much loss of generalization.


    It's something useful that Wyttenbach can do.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.







    Quote from axil

    Maxwell's equations might fit nicely into the Quaternion notation without much loss of generalization.


    Its something useful that Wyttenbach can do.


    axil : Your memory is weak and remembering posts of others is far from your habits...


    I mentioned quaternions as a simplification of Standard model math a long time ago. But even with new math you cannot fix an unphysical model.., like the nonsensical strong force potential...


    The standard model is an oversimplification of physical reality. It is like the first language a child learns. Spin is just a bit of information, no clue how to calculate a real nuclear rigid momentum. The same holds for particles. Inventing names and a pseudo hierarchy replaces more deep understanding - e.g. treating muons as heavy electrons.., but having no clue about their real physical connection.


    Do you know the physics about why and how a proton decays? Can you calculate any particle starting from the proton? We can do it, but you can only dream.

    Quote from axil

    Science is using a new number system now that more accurately describes vector position in 3d space. Its called Quaternions: a generalization of complex numbers. Somebody could rework Gibbs-Heaviside math based on this new number system.

    Maxwell's equations might fit nicely into the Quaternion notation without much loss of generalization.


    Quaternions aren't new maths - They are so old that Maxwell used them in the first place! ...Heaviside removed them, to simplify things.

    http://www.rexresearch.com/maxwell1/20equations.pdf

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.