How do you convince a skeptic?

  • Hi, I'm talking with a friend who doesn't believe in LENR based on the fact that there must be gamma emissions from these reactions, and Rossi should be dead by now if his devices are unshielded.


    Anyway, I want to find some papers that can convince a skeptic. Any papers from Mizuno are welcome too.


    I just don't know what papers to organize and give to my friend for reading to convince him. Any advice appreciated.

  • After 30 years of discussions in order to convince someone you need a working demonstrator that produces excess heat independently tested by scientific community worldwide, not other CF papers never accepted by GAS.

    As long as it does not exist (this is the current state of facts) your friend is right to not believe.

  • Hi, I'm talking with a friend who doesn't believe in LENR based on the fact that there must be gamma emissions from these reactions, and Rossi should be dead by now if his devices are unshielded.


    Anyway, I want to find some papers that can convince a skeptic. Any papers from Mizuno are welcome too.


    I just don't know what papers to organize and give to my friend for reading to convince him. Any advice appreciated.


    Show the doubting Tomas this SEM of LENR fuel. The bright stuff is metal, the dark stuff is carbon. Ask him how carbon can turn into metal before his own eyes.


    de7c0393bde731b1fe9e6c31c9fe44abf78e2a0d.jpg

    • Rossi is the worst example
    • First thing to confince an honest skeptic is (you did it) get reasonable discussion, understanding that without all data you have acquired not believing LENR is just rational. To understand how LENR is impossible, my advice is to read "the explanation of LENR" by Edmund Storms... You will find the skeptics have just a problem to trusts other's experiments, as you may not believe what I say on Globalization, LLNT or GMs.
    • You will also have to admit there is much bullshit in the domain, and beside BS, many shoestring experiments that are dubious, unfinished, but among all there are great results, and globally too many "unbelievable coincidences" that exclude it is only artifacts. You can also remind that if there is doubts, it should promote research, not silence it, proving that current situation to refuse to investigate, is a pathology.
    • By the way Ed in this book explains that there is no MeV gamma&alike, why it is a huge problem, but that there is a narrow corridors wher things are possible, because anyway it is proven. this is IMHO the best book for someone aware of physics and skeptical because of gammas and alike.
    • My advice is to share old article , when there was mainstream teams and millions of budgets. M4 experiment by McKubre is often cited. He4/heat papers are very good (read the review by Abd Ul Rahman Lomax in Current science). The Special section on LENR in Current Science is a good start too, if you follow the citation that inspire you. There are also tritium results that are convincing for someone educated in radiochemistry. The first book of Edmund Storms (the science of LENR), his numerous articles, his 2010 review in Naturwissenschaften, are great to start. JedRothwell sure know the best ones.
    • Another line of study is to follow the replications sequences... like F&P->Miles/McKubre&many others with PdD calorimetry... but also He4/heat replications... the gas permeation Fralick 89/Liu 2005 Biberian 2007 Nasa GRC 2008, Fralick 2012. Nedo funded study 2017+... Jed may help you.
    • Maybe the recent japanese Nedo funded, replicated, experiments may be intriguing. Beside that nothing recent is inspiring for me. (call that a depression).
    • The conferences by US Navy Spawar was great. maybe the interview of the pilars of LENR by Ruby carat on cold fusion now are probably very convincing
    • about misconducts, hate, harassment, it is a reality but it is probably counterproductive with mainstream supporters... In this domain, someone already interested but wonderwing how this could happen, may understand the key problems by reading "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette. You can also look for few article in infinite Energy by Mallove, some papers by Pam Boss&Miles, few articles by Jed, will explains the problems/fraud/mistake with MIT and caltech experiment. It can only be understood when you accept the data. There are debunking of Gary Taubes tritium myth.
    • Forget anything about companies, startups, inventors, and worst of all, theories... it is science

    there are many answers in quora, some by me, Jed, Abd...

  • The 'why are there no dead graduate students' meme to justify not believing on cold fusion goes back a long way. Actually it should not be confused with hot fusion at all, which as any fule do kno produces truckloads of radiation, there is a different mechanism at work entirely. Actually we have seen several different behaviours in various fuel mixes, sometimes several different behaviours in the same fuel. We have heat with no gammas, gammas with no heat, both together, and very strong gamma bursts from fuel kept at room temperature for days. The idea that gamma output is directly related and in proportion to the heat is wrong. We have seen 20+ watts of anomalous heat in a powered-down cooling reactor and very little gamma output If only 1 watt of that heat was produced by gammas hitting the relatively flimsy walls of our reactors, we would indeed be dead, but we are not quite there yet.

  • A great article here from ATTP blog referencing an interesting essay on what is science communication?


    https://andthentheresphysics.w…of-science-communication/


    It applies here. scientific communication should be abut giving people the facts, not trying to persuade them of a given viewpoint.


    Unfortunately, when issues are complex, it is difficult to be sure what is fact and what is judgement, and when there are judgements how to weight them.


    AGW is OK in this respect, it is very widely discussed any anyone with an open mind can weight the various arguments and align with the mainstream view - which however has quite a lot of uncertainty embedded in it, because there is quite a lot of uncertainty.


    In the case of LENR Jed here I think would say there is no uncertainty that experimental evidence proves it (though maybe there are many other uncertainties like can it ever be commercial). Many others would disagree, and say that overall the experimental data on LENR is interesting but inconclusive, and that after 30+ years of inconclusivity it will probably - though not certainly - not be proven.

  • Your extraordinary claims about excess heat are now, not it might..., it may..., it will... when (better to say: if a day) you will be able to demonstrate, anywhere, under third party verification and control of independent and qualified scientists of wordwide community what you claimed during these years, let me know.

    Otherwise are only chatter.



    As said my optician is based only on verifiable scientific facts, in other words simply "Science based", not on hopes or a wishful thinking postponed every time in the future.


    Claims made based on experimental evidence are not chatter. Admittedly most of Alan's claims are implicit based on experimental evidence not released. They are still not chatter, and of interest, but not convincing to anyone open-minded.


    It is true that claims made on the basis of fully divulged experimental evidence are not necessarily very strong, it depends on the level of implicit assumptions in the experiment interpretation, and the skills of the experimenter, and whether (relevant in one case we know) they are honest. But chatter is just saying that you are not interested. Fair enough - but then you don't have to pay attention to such threads!

  • My claims are not claims but bits of information, brief communications about my (and my colleagues) lab work meant for those who are interested, they do not require belief since they are not an attempt to convince anyone or change anyone's views or opinions. And as THH points out, they are not required reading.

  • Quote

    Claims made based on experimental evidence are not chatter.


    "Experimental evidence" never confirmed as before described is evidence just for him and (at least) for who believe to him.

    Show these evidences if are available.


    Quote

    But chatter is just saying that you are not interested


    I'm interested if there is verifiable evidence recognized by GAS, not based on an old 30 years claim unable to produce a verifiable demonstrator of the (alleged) phenomena.

    Have you seen this kind of evidence?

    I follow any discussion here, but never seen.

  • Hi, I'm talking with a friend who doesn't believe in LENR based on the fact that there must be gamma emissions from these reactions, and Rossi should be dead by now if his devices are unshielded.

    As noted, Rossi is the worst example. I would say there is no evidence Rossi's claims are true, and they have nothing to do with mainstream, academic cold fusion.


    The "dead graduate student" problem was obvious to everyone the moment cold fusion was discovered. We all know that if cold fusion were plasma fusion, the researchers would be dead. Since they are not dead, plasma fusion theory does not apply to cold fusion. When widely replicated, high signal to noise ratio results conflict with theory, the theory is wrong. That is fundamental to the scientific method.


    I think the most readable introduction to cold fusion is McKubre's paper:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf


    This is what I based my video on. The video is also a good introduction:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618



    I do not recommend engaging with most skeptics. They tend to be closed minded, irrational, or unwilling to read papers and do their homework. If the topic comes up, I recommend the McKubre paper and say nothing more. I think it is better to talk to people who are open minded, curious and willing to make the effort to learn about the subject. There must be hundreds of thousands of them, judging by the number of visits to LENR-CANR.org.

  • We are a talk forum, not a formal science body, so that means we talk about whatever is presented. Follow every lead. So please keep up the "chatter", or whatever one chooses to call it.


    Information is information, no matter how it is packaged and presented. We take it all here, and do not discriminate. There is no requirement it meet any scientific standards, or any burden of proof. The reader can ignore it or not, read it while holding their nose...that is their choice, but asking it to stop, defeats the purpose of what we are about. If it does not pass the smell test, it is deleted, or shuffled harmlessly to Clearance, or Playground.


    I for one love to hear whatever it is Alan, and Russ tell us. It is a very exciting story to follow. It may in the end be another false lead like the J5 story, but we will deal with that if, or when it happens. Never know though...this may be the one.

  • Quote

    My claims are not claims but bits of information, brief communications about my (and my colleagues) lab work meant for those who are interested


    OK, regarding your work I take note you have never raised any claim about production of anomalous excess heat by CF or LENR phenomena.

  • you will be able to demonstrate, anywhere, under third party verification and control of independent and qualified scientists of wordwide community what you claimed during these years, let me know.

    No other scientific claim has been held to this standard. No other claim has gone through these steps. I do not see why you hold cold fusion to a unique and difficult standard that no other new discovery has met, and that most of them could not have met.


    When the laser and the transistor were developed, many scientists did not believe they existed. Not one scientist other than the inventors could make one. It was a year or two before these devices could be replicated. Even now, it takes a skilled person to make one. There was never any "third party verification" or "control" over the experiments. Skilled people read the literature, visited the labs, and gradually learned how to replicate. Bell Labs published a detailed book and invited large groups to learn how to make transistors in September 1951.


    https://www.pbs.org/transistor…und1/events/symposia.html


    That is what happened with cold fusion. It was eventually replicated thousands of times in over 180 laboratories. If that is not enough to convince you it is real, nothing short of commercial development will convince you. Heck, the video of the boiling cell will convince anyone with the eyes to see, for the reasons I listed earlier, such as the fact that it is not boiling with electrolysis power and when it does boil, only the cathode is hot. That is better proof than a dozen papers. It overrules all skeptical blather. The skeptics here are reduced to saying: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?"

  • Quote

    When the laser and the transistor were developed, many scientists did not believe they existed.


    After few years from that date transistor was a consolidated fact for all scientists (in 1956 Brattain and Shockley were honored with the Noble Prize in Physics) because it was demonstrated that it works beyond any doubt.

    CF is a story without anything in hand after 30 years, still not recognized as working by GAS, bad example.

  • After few years from that date transistor was a consolidated fact for all scientists

    But that did not happen by the mechanisms and practices you described, such as "under third party verification and control of independent and qualified scientists." It happened by the normal channels of communicating and replication. The very same thing happened to cold fusion. After a few years it was widely replicated, and the success rate was about the same as it was for many early transistors. The difference is that cold fusion was rejected because of academic politics. The laser and many other discoveries were initially attacked and rejected, but not for 30 years. Fortunately, there was no opposition to transistors.


    If we apply normal, accepted, traditional academic practices and standards, then cold fusion is real. If any other experiment were so widely replicated, no scientist on earth would doubt it is real. These standards have worked well since modern science began circa 1600. They have revolutionized the world many times over. So I do not understand why you want to throw out these standards and invent new ones for cold fusion only.


    CF is a story without anything in hand after 30 years, still not recognized as working by GAS, bad example.

    Transistor research began in around 1924. Many people did reject it, until it finally panned out in 1949. That's 25 years. In 1931, Wolfgang Pauli said: "I don’t like this solid state physics . . . though I initiated it . . . One shouldn’t work with semiconductors, that is a filthy mess; who knows whether they really exist."


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf


    If you are looking for good examples of rejected discoveries that were later found to be valid, there hundreds to choose from.

  • Inappropriate compare because the technology of 21 century, science diffusion, knowledge, structure, labs, number of researchers, etc are absolutely not comparable with the situation of 1924.

    25 years at beginning of century are not comparable to 30 years elapsed under giant science and technology improvements of the current time.


    Conspiracy theory of academic is not more applicable after 30 years and in front of so large scientists community and nations, anyway if you still believe in it (academic politics conspiracy or sabotage) you or any cold fusionists can built a demonstrator of EH and submit it to a certified Lab tests and verification. You will see that none will reject certified data about measured energy gain (if really exists) when stated for example by UL or equivalent.

  • In the case of LENR Jed here I think would say there is no uncertainty that experimental evidence proves it . . .

    I am the last person who say that! Ed Storms may be the only person who knows better than I do how much uncertainty there is in the experimental literature. There are hundreds of doubtful claims. Hundreds of papers are so poorly written, it is hard to know what is being claimed. Some appear to be completely wrong. But you never know, and it is not a good idea to reject papers out of hand.


    Many papers describe experiments that failed to produce heat or neutrons, for reasons that were unclear in 1989, but we now know why. It would be unfair to call these "bad" papers. They are not experimental evidence that cold fusion does not exist. They show only that it is difficult to replicate. Everyone in the field knows that.


    There are also a whole constellation of claims that seem to be related to cold fusion that have not been tested. No attempt to replicate them has been made. So they are in limbo. For example, Ohmori did beautiful experiments that indicated gold cathodes produce cold fusion heat. He was very careful and he repeated the test hundreds of times, which dozens of cathodes that he showed me. As far as I can tell this is a valid claim, but no one else has tried it, and very few people are capable of doing such splendid electrochemistry, so we can't tell if it right or not.


    What I say is that the top tier of papers from ~50 of the best labs are excellent. Labs such as Los Alamos, China Lake, BARC and the ENEA. I also say that no one has found and published any mistakes in any of these papers. Given the opposition to this field, if there were mistakes, I suppose someone would have found them by now. Morrison and Shanahan tied to find some, but in my opinion they failed. All other critiques boil down to the assertion that the experiments conflict with theory, so the experiments must be wrong. See Huizenga's book, for example.


    The top tier papers describe Pd-D cold fusion heat and helium, and tritium. All other claims are less well supported, or not supported at all, such as Ohmori's Au-D. Until Beiting published, I thought Ni-H and Ni-Pd cathodes were hardly supported, except by Takahashi, which is pretty good. One "pretty good" experiment is not enough. (I did not think much of the original version by Arata, for the reasons I explained in the paper by Rothwell & Storms.)


    Of course it is easy to find mistakes in the bad papers.

  • Inappropriate compare because the technology of 21 century, science diffusion, knowledge, structure, labs, number of researchers, etc are absolutely not comparable with the situation of 1924.

    25 years at beginning of century are not comparable to 30 years elapsed under giant science and technology improvements of the current time.

    That has to be one of the most ahistoric statements I have ever read! 1920 was smack in the middle of the golden age of physics. There were more fundamental discoveries in physics and technology, and more progress from 1880 to 1930 than any other time in history. Einstein alone in 1905 revolutionized whole areas of physics. If you go back and read the scientific papers from that era, you will see that the standards were as high and the research was as sophisticated then as it is now.


    For goodness sake, look at the people who attended the 1927 Solvay conference: A. Piccard, E. Henriot, P. Ehrenfest, E. Herzen, Th. de Donder, E. Schrödinger, J.E. Verschaffelt, W. Pauli, W. Heisenberg, R.H. Fowler, L. Brillouin, P. Debye, M. Knudsen, W.L. Bragg, H.A. Kramers, P.A.M. Dirac, A.H. Compton, L. de Broglie, M. Born, N. Bohr, I. Langmuir, M. Planck, M. Curie, H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, P. Langevin, Ch.-E. Guye, C.T.R. Wilson, O.W. Richardson. That's probably more talent than all of today's physicists tied together.


    The only major difference was that "computers" were people, not machines. Such as my mother. The people did prodigious amounts of computing. For example, human computers did all of the calculations needed for the first fission bombs. Machine computers were used to design the first fusion bombs a decade later. I am not sure I would call that progress.


    As Chris Tinsley pointed out, very few fundamental new technology was invented after 1950. Nearly every major technology that we consider ultra-modern, from computers to lasers, transistors and spacecraft, was invented by 1950. Except DNA, from 1952. And cold fusion, of course. The people who invented all those things were educated in the 1920s, and they worked in the traditions of academic free enquiry that were still widespread in the 1920s. Less so now. We are still coasting along with the momentum from geniuses circa 1920.

  • They were pioneers and big theorists, but you are comparing modern research structures, equipments, labs of Nuclear Science and matter knowledge to those of one century ago. Incomparable.

    Do you think that in the 21 century the study of "condensed matter" is a field of which only cold fusionists are the edge of knowledge or researchers working on?

  • They were pioneers, but you are comparing modern research structures, labs of Nuclear Science and matter knowledge to those of one century ago. Incomparable.

    I suggest you read some books about the history of science and technology. Do you have any idea how much nuclear science was discovered before 1950, by scientists of the Class of 1920 (or thereabouts)? Do you know who ran Los Alamos during WWII? Do some arithmetic and figure out when those people were born.


    I'll leave it at that.


    Do you think that in 21 century the study of "condensed matter" is a field of which cold fusionist are the only edge or researchers interested?

    I am not sure what that sentence means. Are you asking if there are other cutting edge physics and technology? I don't know much about modern science, but I can see that apart from biology not much is happening. String theory hardly compares to Einstein or Dirac. In technology, a lot is happening in computers and robotics, but nearly all of it is based on old breakthroughs. It is mainly based on von Neumann architecture circa 1945, C. Shannon's information theory 1948, integrated circuits of 1958, and neural networks circa 1943. We finally got neural networks to work, which is good, but I learned about them at Cornell in 1972. These things were old hat by that time. There have not been many fundamental improvements to computing that I did not hear about in the 1970s. Of course a million details were filled in, and progress was made, but it has been mainly incremental progress. Many of today's cutting edge ideas were described by Grace Hopper in detail in the 1950s. Some of her ideas have still not been implemented, and they darn well should be.


    Fiber optics came out of nowhere, unanticipated as far as I know, in 1964. The first person to transmit voice by light instead of electricity was A. G. Bell in 1880, so the idea has been around.


    Of course, planetary science is doing fabulously. It could not exist before 1950. The essential breakthroughs were made by K. Tsiolkovsky in 1903 and Goddard in 1926. That was a long time ago, and it was smack in the golden of science and technology, as I mentioned. There have been no fundamental improvements in access to space. I hope a space elevator is possible. The first serious work on space elevators was done by K. Tsiolkovsky in 1895. The same guy who invented rockets.

  • Quote


    Do you have any idea how much nuclear science was discovered before 1950, by scientists of the Class of 1920 (or thereabouts)? Do you know who ran Los Alamos during WWII? Do some arithmetic and figure out when those people were born.


    You ignore completely modern Nuclear Science and tests on matter. Explore IAEA database and you will discover that nuclear studies, huge number of tests and results are well beyond 1950 and continue to nowadays. Thousand of researchers work WW.

  • Conspiracy theory of academic is not more applicable after 30 years and in front of so large scientists community and nations, anyway if you still believe in it (academic politics conspiracy or sabotage)

    I do not believe in conspiracy theories. Not at all. A conspiracy is defined as "organized and surreptitious." These people are not organized. They are not competent. They don't actually know anything about cold fusion. They are noisy, not surreptitious. Another definition for conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." If academic politics were unlawful, just about every professor would be in jail.


    I am well acquainted with the principal opponents of cold fusion. I have met them and read their books. They are academic hacks. They could not conspire their way out of a paper bag.


    The opposition to cold fusion is academic politics run amuck. It is mainly from professors who fear their funding will be cut, especially plasma fusion researchers, who attacked cold fusion the day it was announced, calling it fraud and lunacy in the Boston newspapers and elsewhere. Their fears are well-grounded; their funding will be cut if cold fusion research is allowed.


    You have to understand that Szpak's dictum applies: scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. This is about money. It always has been.


    There has never been anything surreptitious about the opposition to cold fusion, or who leads it, or why they are doing it. On the contrary, it couldn't be more wide open. Opponents have billions of dollars in funding, and they darn well intend to keep it. Having all that money means they have influence and power, in Congress and in the mass media. From day one they trashed the research and the reputations of the researchers the Washington Post, the New York Times and Scientific American. They know the editors will not allow the cold fusion researchers to respond. Because money talks. Science is funded mainly by Uncle Sam, in Washington DC, where politics and money rule, and no one gives a fart about science.

  • Quote

    They are not competent. They don't actually know anything about cold fusion.


    Are you seriously? After the clamor aroused by F&P announce, all the world explored the cold fusion D+D in Pd hypothesis getting nothing as they claimed.


    Quote

    Science is funded mainly by Uncle Sam, in Washington DC, where politics and money rule, and no one gives a fart about science.


    Your analysis it seems a bit US-centerd, you forgot someone like: China, Russia (before as USSR), India (also these nations and researchers all money-less and slave of Washington DC?) besides Canada, UK, France, Germany, Israel...

  • You ignore completely modern Nuclear Science and tests on matter. Explore IAEA database and you will discover that nuclear studies, huge number of tests and results are well beyond 1950 and continue to nowadays.

    How many breakthroughs have there been to rival Heisenberg, Debye, M. Knudsen, Bragg, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie or Born? You will note, those people have their names all over modern physics. The rules and laws and major theories are all in their names. Do you think we have reached the end of history, and there is nothing more to be discovered? Physics are settled now? I doubt that! I have spent a lot of time with physicists. When you ask three of them a question, you get five different answers.


    It appears to me we now have extremely well funded incremental progress mainly confirming and extending things that people discovered in the 1920s. People with names like Debye and Dirac. Research is extremely well funded for a very good reason. Because funding is power and influence. Billions of dollars pouring into gigantic machines such as ITER are a goldmine for contractors and governments. That's why they do it. It has nothing to do with science, energy or progress. If it did, they would pour a few tens of millions into cold fusion instead.


    Even the Hubble Telescope is mainly about money. See the book "The Hubble Wars: Astrophysics Meets Astropolitics in the Two-Billion-Dollar Struggle over the Hubble Space Telescope." No one in Washington wants to fund cold fusion for a few million dollars when they can piss away billions of dollars a year indefinitely on hot fusion. Or the International Space Station. Or star wars space defense (SDI), which has cost $400 billion so far, and will cost $1 trillion. There is zero chance it will work effectively, and counter-measures to defeat it would cost a fraction of 1% of that $1 trillion.


    As I said, no one in Washington DC gives a fart about science. The only thing they care about are lavishly funded research projects in their home districts. These projects, such as hot fusion, run for decades without producing any useful results and without contributing to progress. That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who comes up with a cheaper, more promising alternative to these big ticket programs -- such as cold fusion -- will have his reputation trashed in the mass media and will be fired. There are many examples outside of cold fusion.

  • Quote

    How many breakthroughs have there been to rival Heisenberg, Debye, M. Knudsen, Bragg, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie or Born?


    It is not a race between past and future, Heisenberg, Debye, M. Knudsen, Bragg, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie or Born were theorists and pioneers but (as just normal in our world) the Science and Nuclear Science too is going on.

    Not remain stopped in the past time.


    Just as example starting from 1995:


    1955

    Production of antiprotons by using the Bevatron #, the proton accelerator of the Berkeley Lab at University of California, Berkeley. Alvarez's hydrogen chamber was used as a detector. Considering the 1932 discovery of positron, at this point the components of a complete antihydrogen atom were ready.

    Chamberlain O.

    Segrè E.G. (1959-p)

    Wiegand C.

    Ypsilantis T.


    1955

    Production of the actinide mendelevium (101Md) by bombarding 253Es with cyclotron-accelerated 4He ions (α-particles). Ghiorso et al. obtained 256Md (T1/2 ≈ 77 min). The most stable mendelevium isotope, 258Md, has a half-life of 52 d. This was about the last element discovered with major contribution from chemistry. This was also the last one produced by using a light projectile (α).

    Ghiorso A.

    Harvey B.G.

    Choppin G.R

    Thompson S.G.

    Seaborg G.T.


    1955-1960

    Establishing neutron spectroscopy, a method based on the inelastic scattering of neutrons and used for studying the dynamic properties of condensed phases.

    Brockhouse B.N. (1994-p)


    1956

    Confirmation of the detection of free neutrino (actually electron antineutrino), whose existence had been hypothesized by W.E. Pauli in 1930 to explain the "missing energy" (the continuous energy spectrum) of β-rays. The name "little neutron" was coined by E. Fermi in 1933, one year after Chadwick's discovery of the neutron.

    Reines F. (1995-p)

    Cowan C.L.

    Harrison F.B.

    Kruse H.W.,

    McGuire A.D.


    1956

    Designing a number of experiments that are suitable for checking the violation of parity conservation in general (and β decay/weak interaction in particular). The first successful experiment to test the incompleteness of right-left symmetry in the β decay was reported by C.S. Wu, E. Ambler, R.W. Hayward et al. in 1957. (They proved that left-handed electrons coming from the beta emitter 60Co slightly outnumber the right-handed ones.)

    Lee T.D.

    Yang C.N. (1957-p)


    1957

    Proving that neutrinos have negative helicity, i.e. their spins point backwards as they propagate. This property is also called left-handedness (see above). Antineutrinos are now known to be right-handed.

    Goldhaber M.

    Grodzins L.

    Sunyar A.W.


    1957

    Discovery of the antineutron. Considering the discovery of positron in 1932 and that of the antiproton in 1955, at this point all three subatomic components were "available" to build up a complete periodic table of antielements.

    Cork B.

    Lambertson G.R.

    Piccioni O.

    Wenzel W.A.


    1957

    Theoretically showed that all of the chemical elements from carbon to uranium could be produced by nuclear processes in stars starting with the hydrogen and helium produced in the big bang. Fowler also provided calculations for the solar neutrino investigations started a decade later. In a famous 1957 paper called B2FH (B squared F H) after the initials of its authors, the existence of the p- (proton process @), r- (rapid neutron-capture process @), and s-process (slow neutron-capture process) had been predicted. These processes, together with the rp-process (rapid proton-capture process, related with X-ray bursts @), are of great importance in nucleosynthesis.

    Burbidge G.

    Burbidge M.

    Cameron A.G.W.

    Fowler G.A. (1983-p)

    Hoyle F.


    1957

    Launching the synchrophasotron # of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna. With the proton energy of 10 GeV, it was the most powerful accelerator in the world at that time.

    Veksler V.M.


    1958

    Discovery and explanation of the recoilless resonance emission and absorption of atomic nuclei in solids. The so-called Mössbauer effect serves as a basis for Mössbauer spectroscopy, a method used among others in chemistry. A miniscule spectrometer was even sent to the Mars # to study iron-bearing rock samples on the spot.

    Mössbauer R.L. (1961-p)


    1958

    Production of the actinide nobelium (102No) by bombarding 246Cm (actually 244Cm that was the major component at 95%) with accelerated 12C ions. Ghiorso et al. supposed they obtained 254No with 3 s for half-life. Actually they obtained 252No (T1/2 ≈ 2.3 s), and the half-life of 254No is now known to be 50 s. The most stable isotope of nobelium, 259No, has a half-life of 58 min. This element was the first one of a series produced by hot fusion using heavy ions as projectiles.

    Ghiorso A.

    Seaborg G.T.

    Sikkeland T.

    Walton J.R.


    1958

    Proposing 1/12 of the mass of a 12C atom as a unit in which atomic masses are measured. The unified atomic mass unit (u) was accepted by both IUPAC and IUPAP in 1960.

    Kohman T.P.

    Mattauch J.H.E.

    Wapstra A.H.


    1959

    Radioimmunoassay (RIA) is accepted by the scientific community. The idea is that the concentration of the unknown unlabeled antigen is obtained by comparing its inhibitory effect on the binding of radioactively labeled antigen to specific antibody with the inhibitory effect of known standards. R. is for Rosalyn, another female Nobel Laureate of the few.

    Yalow R. (1977-m)


    1959

    Proposing the nuclear reaction model later named deep inelastic collision (grazing collision) involving heavy ions. The nuclei stick together forming a transitory complex, and then break up again fission-like due to Coulomb repulsion before a real compound nucleus could be formed.

    Kaufmann R.

    Wolfgang R.


    1960

    Discovery of muonium (Mu), an atom-like bound state of a positive muon μ+ and a negatron e-. Muonium, one of the exotic atoms, is quite similar to hydrogen both in size and chemical properties (much more similar than, e.g., positronium). Chemical applications include muon spin resonance (μSR).

    Hughes V.W.

    McColm D.W.

    Prepost R.

    Ziock K.


    1961

    Launching the first navigational satellite (Navy Transit 4A) for which electrical power was provided by a "radionuclide thermoelectric generator". RTGs directly convert the heat generated by the decay of plutonium-238 oxide to electricity.


    1961

    Production of lawrencium (103Lr), heaviest of the actinides, by bombarding 249,250,251,252Cf with 10,11B ions accelerated by the linear accelerator HILAC. (It would have been more appropriate perhaps to use a cyclotron instead invented by E.O. Lawrence, eponym of lawrencium.) Ghiorso et al. obtained 258Lr (T1/2 ≈ 4.1 s). For the most stable isotope, 262Lr, T1/2 ≈ 3.6 h.

    Ghiorso A.

    Larsh A.E.

    Latimer R.M.

    Sikkeland T.


    1962

    Discovery of the muon neutrino νμ whose existence (together with that of the νe) demonstrates that leptons come in pairs (i.e., e with νe, μ with νμ and - as it turned out later - τ with ντ).

    Lederman L.M.

    Schwartz M.

    Steinberger J. (1988-p)


    1962

    Discovery of nuclear shape isomerism. The first elongated shape isomer decaying with SF with very short half-life (14 ms) was 242fAm. The shapes are stabilized by shell effects.

    Polikanov S.M.

    Druin V.A.

    Karnaukhov V.A. et al.


    1963

    Discovery of muonic molecules pμp and pμd. Bleser et al. studied the fusion reaction p + d → 3He + γ catalyzed by muons from the Nevis synchrocyclotron stopped in liquid hydrogen. Neon added to the target trapped the muons forming muonic atoms with them. (In muonic atoms an electron is replaced by a negative muon μ-.)

    Bleser E.J.

    Anderson E.W.

    Lederman L.M.

    Meyer S.L. et al.


    1963-1964

    Creating the quark (q) concept #. According to the original idea three such particles (u, d, and s, i.e. up, down, and strange) were just enough to build up hadrons (i.e. mesons # and baryons #) and explain their properties. (The name quark comes from the book Finnegans Wake by James Joyce #.) This concept was of great use in classifying and predicting particles. One of the predicted particles, the omega minus baryon (Ω−) was supposed to be composed of three s quarks. To satisfy the Pauli principle demanding that the three fermions should be in different states, a new quantum-state descriptor, the color (red, green and blue - RGB) was created. Quark confinement translates to the rule that only colorless/white particles can be observed such as mesons (built from a quark and an antiquark of complementary colors, e.g. R and C) and baryons (built from three quarks of different RGB colors).

    Gell-Mann M. (1969-p)

    Zweig G. et al.


    1964

    Discovery of the strange (s) quark #, a 2nd generation quark at BNL while proving the existence of the omega minus baryon (Ω−) named and theoretically predicted by M. Gell-Mann.

    Palmer R.

    Samios N.

    Shutt R.


    1964

    Prediction of a peculiar particle named the Higgs boson (H0) which is supposed to be the source of the mass of other particles.

    Higgs P.


    1964

    Experimental evidence for the violation of CP symmetry (charge and parity symmetry). It was found that the long-lived neutral K meson (KL) decayed into two charged pions, a decay mode forbidden by CP symmetry. In simple terms, the results mean that matter and antimatter are not completely symmetric (as regards weak interaction), a conclusion very important for cosmology.

    Christenson J.

    Cronin J.W.

    Fitch V.L. (1980-p)

    Turlay R.


    1965

    Discovery of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, an important proof of Big Bang theory and the evolution of matter. (The Big Bang theory itself had been advocated by the Belgian astronomer G.-H. Lemaître since 1927. He referred to his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation", a proper metaphor for a Roman Catholic priest what he was.)

    Penzias A.A.

    Wilson R.W. (1978-p)


    1967

    First observation of the solar neutrino problem, namely, that the number of neutrinos coming from the Sun is only 1/3 of what was expected. The detector built in the Homestake Gold Mine was based on the reaction ν + 37Cl → e- + 37Ar. It contained 380 m3 of C2Cl4, from which the radioactive 37Ar (T1/2=35 d) was extracted with 36Ar every 2-3 months. Over a period of 25 years, 2200 37Ar atoms had been detected! (Davis Jr. also proved earlier that the neutrino and the antineutrino are different particles.)

    Davis Jr. R. (2002-p)


    1967

    Explaining the asymmetric fission # # of nuclei by introducing shell corrections to the liquid-drop energies during the deformation process that leads to fission.

    Strutinsky V.M.


    1967-1970

    First evidence for the existence of the up (u) quark and the down (d) quark, representing the 1st generation of quarks. The proof was provided by deep inelastic scattering experiments at SLAC. The u quark (charge/e = 2/3) is the one that makes the proton p (uud) a positive particle. The d quark (charge/e = -1/3) makes the neutron n (udd) neutral by counterbalancing the charge of u. Neutral particles, gluons, binding quarks in nucleons @ were also discovered in the same series of experimental/theoretical studies.

    Bjorken J.D.

    Feynman R.P.

    Friedman J.I.

    Kendall H.W.

    Taylor R.E. (1990-p) et al.


    1968

    Reaching the temperature equivalent to 1 keV (11.6 MK) in the Tokamak, a Soviet fusion reactor using magnetic confinement for keeping away plasma from the walls of the reactor chamber.


    1968

    Inventing the multiwire proportional chamber for the detection of the track of high-energy particles.

    Charpak G. (1992-p)


    1969

    Production of rutherfordium (104Rf), the lightest of the transactinides, by bombarding 249Cf with 12C ions. Ghiorso et al. obtained 257Rf (T1/2 ≈ 4.7 s). The most stable rutherfordium isotope produced as of 2006, 263Rf, has a half-life of 10 min.

    Flerov et al. also claimed the credit for the discovery on account of their 1964 experiment in which 242Pu was bombarded with 22Ne ions. (Until 1997, Rf was also known as kurchatovium, Ku.)

    Ghiorso A.

    Nurmia M. et al.

    Flerov G.N.

    Oganessian Yu.Ts. et al.


    1970

    Production of the transactinide dubnium (105Db) by bombarding 249Cf with 15N ions. Ghiorso et al. obtained 260Db (T1/2 ≈ 1.5 s).

    Dubna scientists (Flerov et al.) have also claimed the credit for the discovery on account of their experiment in which 243Am was bombarded with 22Ne ions yielding 261Db (T1/2 ≈ 1.8 s).

    Ghiorso A. et al.

    Flerov G.N. et al.


    1970

    Postulation of the existence of a fourth quark (c for charm). Experimental proof followed 4-6 years later in connection with the discovery and the interpretation of the J/ψ particle.


    Glashow S.

    Iliopoulos J

    Maiani L.


    1970

    First report on proton radioactivity. The observation was made with the nuclear isomer 53mCo. Proton decay @ from a ground-state nuclide (151Lu) was first observed in 1981 by S. Hoffmann et al. (β-delayed proton emission @ was discovered in 1964.)

    Jackson K.P.

    Cardinal C.U.

    Evans H.C. et al.


    1968-1972

    Elucidation of the quantum structure of electroweak interaction. The latter is considered as unification of the electromagnetic interaction propagated by photons (g) and the weak interaction # propagated by W+, W- and Z0 bosons.

    't Hooft G.

    Veltman M.J.G. (1999-p)


    1972

    Discovery of ancient nuclear reactor of natural origin at Oklo, Gabon (Oklo fossil reactor). It had operated for hundreds of millennia some 1.7 Ga ago. The possibility of the existence of natural fission reactors of similar type was predicted by P.K. Kuroda in 1956. In 1993, J.M. Herndon pointed out the possibility of another type of fission reactor that is supposed to be operating in the center of the Earth's core (geo-reactor). Its existence, however, is controversial.

    Bodu R.

    Bouzigues H.

    Morin N.

    Pfiffelmann J.P.


    1973

    Theory explaining asymptotic freedom of quarks, i.e. when they get close together the strong force acting between them vanishes. On the other hand, quarks are confined (e.g. in the nucleons in groups of three), i.e. they cannot be separated from each other because the same strong (color) force gets stronger with distance.

    Gross D.J.

    Politzer H.D.

    Wilczek F.A. (2004-p)


    1973

    Postulation of the existence of a 3rd generation of quarks consisting of the b (bottom) and t (top) quarks.

    Kobayashi M.

    Maskawa T.


    1973

    Creation of an electroweak theory by assuming four boson propagators: the mass-less photon (γ) and three heavy bosons (W+, W-, and Z0). Thus the Standard Model # of particles and interactions got completed as a theory. The hypothesized bosons were found ten years later.

    Glashow S.L.

    Salam A.

    Weinberg S. (1979-p)


    1974

    Producing the transactinide seaborgium (106Sg) by bombarding 249Cf with 18O ions in the Super-Heavy Ion Linear Accelerator. Ghiorso et al. obtained 263Sg (T1/2 ≈ 1 s.). Since transactinides are very short-lived and the atoms are produced rather infrequently one by one, single-atom chemistry is an important issue here. This was the heaviest element produced by hot fusion (during which several neutrons evaporate).

    Ghiorso A.

    Nitshke J.M.

    Alonso C.T.

    Alonso J.R.

    Nurmia M. et al.


    1974

    Simultaneous discovery of the J/ψ particle at SLAC (2.6-8 GeV electon-positron storage ring, SPEAR #) and BNL (high-intensity proton beam from the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron, AGS #). By 1976, J/ψ got interpreted as charmonium (on the analogy of positronium e-e+), consisting of a c quark (charm quark #, predicted in 1970), representing the 2nd generation of quarks, and its antiparticle.

    Richter B.

    Ting S.C.C. (1976-p)


    1974-1977

    Discovery of the tau lepton (also called tauon), τ, representing the 3rd generation of leptons (electron e: 1st generation, muon μ: 2nd generation). Contrary to its "family name" lepton (leptos means delicate) the tauon's mass is mτ ≈ 3477 me, i.e., it is almost as heavy as two 1H (protium) atoms or a 2H (deuterium) atom.

    Pearl M.L. (1995-p) et al.


    1977

    Discovery of the bottom (b) quark #, the fifth quark predicted by M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa. Fermilab scientists actually produced Υ (upsilon) particles which were immediately recognized as a composition of a b/anti-b pair (i.e. bottomonium).

    Lederman L.M. et al.


    1981

    Production of the transactinide bohrium (107Bh) by bombarding 209Bi with 54Cr ions at GSI, Darmstadt. Münzenberg et al. obtained six atoms of 262Bh (T1/2 ≈ 8 ms). The most stable bohrium isotope, 272Bh, has a half-life of 6-20 s. (The discovery of element 107 was first announced by JINR, Dubna, in 1976.) This was the first element produced by cold fusion @ (a term introduced by Oganessian et al. in 1975 for targets like Pb and Bi having closed nucleon shells). It is not to be confused with the controversial "cold fusion" supposedly observed at room temperature in 1989 using electrolysis.

    Münzenberg G.

    Hofmann S.

    Heßberger F.P.

    Reisdorf W.

    Schmidt K-H. et al.


    1982

    Production of the transactinide meitnerium (109Mt) by bombarding 209Bi with 58Fe ions using a high-energy linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt. Münzenberg et al. obtained 266Mt (T1/2 ≈ 1.7 ms). The most stable meitnerium isotope, 276Mt, has a half-life of about 0.5-1.5 s.

    Münzenberg G.

    Armbruster P.

    Heßberger F.P.

    Hofmann S.

    Poppensieker K. et al.


    1983

    Experimental observation of the vector bosons W+, W-, and Z0, the propagators of the weak interaction which were predicted by S.L. Glashow, A. Salam and S. Weinberg about a decade earlier. They turned out really massive, in the order of a Sr or a Mo atom, or - to take a more familiar example - two ethanol molecules.

    Rubbia C.

    van der Meer S. (1984-p)


    1984

    Production of the transactinide hassium (108Hs) by bombarding 208Pb with 58Fe ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt, with contribution from Dubna. Münzenberg et al. obtained 265Hs (T1/2 ≈ 2 ms). The discovery was convincingly confirmed by Hofmann et al. in 1989.

    Münzenberg G.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P.

    Hofmann S. et al.


    1984

    Discovery of cluster decay (heavy-ion emission) of heavy nuclides with 223Ra that produces 14C. (Later on spontaneous however very rare emission of still heavier clusters such as 24Ne and 28Mg was also observed.)

    Rose H.J.

    Jones G.A.


    1984

    Observation of β-delayed triton emission (βt, t = 3H+) in 11Li. The latter turned out a little later to be one of the halo nuclei # #. According to P.G. Hansen and B. Jonson (1987), the extremely large nuclear radius of 11Li, e.g., can be explained by the halo effect, i.e. it can be visualized as a binary system consisting of a 9Li core surrounded by a weakly bound pair of neutrons.

    Langevin M.

    Détraz C.

    Epherre M. et al.



    1987

    First observation of double beta decay @ (2β or ββ) with 82Se (T1/2 ≈ 1020 a), when two neutrons simultaneously transform to protons emitting two electrons and two antineutrinos. Its longer abbreviation is ββ2ν or 2νββ to differentiate it from neutrinoless double beta decay (0νββ), a decay mode of considerable theoretical importance that has not been found so far.

    Elliott S.R.

    Hahn A.H.

    Moe M.K.


    1987

    Kamiokande II, a direction-sensitive neutrino detector built for observing solar neutrinos, (and two other ν-detectors) detected a burst of neutrinos (duration: 10 s) from the supernova explosion 1987A #. The neutrinos were registered 3 h before the first optical evidence (exposure of a photographic plate) was collected.

    Koshiba M. et al.


    1992

    Discovery of bound-beta radioactivity βb meaning that stable nuclides like 163Dy become unstable when they get completely stripped of their atomic electrons. The half-life of 163Dy66+ ions is a mere 50 days, whereas neutral dysprosium is stable. In a way βb-decay is a reversed EC, because the electron emitted gets trapped by one of the atomic shells.

    Jung M. et al.


    1994

    Production of the transactinide darmstadtium (110Ds) by bombarding 208Pb with 62Ni ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt. Hofmann et al. obtained 269Ds (T1/2 ≈ 100-400 ľs). Its most stable isotope, 281Ds, has a half-life of 11 s.

    Hofmann S.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P. et al.


    1995

    Discovery of the transactinide roentgenium (111Rg) by bombarding a 209Bi target with 64Ni ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt. Hofmann et al. obtained 272Rg (T1/2 ≈ 3-5 ms). The most stable isotope, 280Rg, has a half-life of about 2-8 s. The name roentgenium was approved in 2004. As of 2006 this is the heaviest element having a final name approved by IUPAC.

    Hofmann S.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P. et al.


    1995

    Discovery of the top (t) quark #, the last undiscovered quark belonging to the 3rd generation at Fermilab (director: J. Peoples) using the proton-antiproton collider Tevatron @. !!! It was announced as a simultaneous result of the efforts of several hundred scientists working in two competing teams represented by P. Grannis and H. Montgomery (DO Collaboration), and B. Carithers and G. Bellettini (CDF Collaboration). The t quark is a very massive particle - it "weighs" a little more than 10 H2O molecules.

    Carithers B. et al.

    Grannis P. et al.


    1996

    Claim of discovery of ununbium (112Uub) - a provisional IUPAC name for 112X - by bombarding a 208Pb target with 70Zn ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt, with contributors from JINR, Dubna. Hofmann et al. obtained 277Uub (T1/2 ≈ 450-1400 ľs).

    Hofmann S.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P. et al.


    1998

    Experimental proof of neutrino oscillation (neutrino mixing, change of flavor) involving 2nd and 3rd generation neutrinos. The Super-Kamiokande observations # show that a large part of muon neutrinos νμ produced in the atmosphere change into tau neutrinos ντ before they could reach the Earth's surface. Neutrino oscillation also means that neutrinos cannot be mass-less # like photons traveling at the speed of light.

    Koshiba M. (2002-p)


    1999

    Claimed production of ununquadium (114Uuq) by bombarding a 242,244Pu target with 48Ca ions. Oganessian et al. obtained 289Uuq with a half-life between 1.9-3.8 s (T1/2 ≈ 2.6 s). They also claim to have observed the decay @ of 288Uuq.

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Abdullin F.Sh.

    Lobanov Yu.V.

    Polyakov A.N.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al.


    1999

    Determination of the number of neutrino types. The four LEP experiments resulted in Nν = 2.984 +/- 0.008 that translates to 3.

    Mnich J. et al.


    2000

    Announcing the production of quark-gluon plasma @ at CERN by colliding high-energy lead ions.


    2000

    Direct evidence for the existence of the tau neutrino ντ (which is the 3rd and the last type). The last of the particles in the Standard Model of elementary particles # was discovered by an international collaboration of 54 physicists at Fermilab, after a three-year analysis of data from the Direct Observation of the Nu Tau (DONUT #) experiment. The discovery of all SM particles took a little more than a century.

    Kodama K. et al.


    2000

    Claimed production of ununhexium (116Uuh) by bombarding 248Cm with cyclotron-accelerated 48Ca ions. Oganessian et al. obtained 292Uuh (T1/2 ≈ 18 ms), which was identified by its decay chain. Uuh is the heaviest element so far (as of 2006) whose existence has been reported and reproduced.

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Abdullin F.Sh.

    Lobanov Yu.V.

    Polyakov A.N.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al.


    2002

    The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory # (SNO) confirmed that the flux of all neutrinos (νe etc.) coming from the Sun matches the prediction of the solar standard model for electron neutrinos alone. However, only half of them are electron neutrinos. This solved the solar neutrino problem. (Fusion processes in the Sun only produce νe. Physicists were puzzled when it turned out in 1967 that only 1/3-1/2 of the predicted number reaches the Earth. Now, if they can change into other types during the journey, the puzzle is solved.)


    2002

    Observation of two-proton decay in ground-state 45Fe, a proton-rich nuclide near the proton dripline. The half-life found is quite long (about 5 ms). (The first report on beta-delayed two-proton decay of 22Al was published in 1981 by M.D. Cable, J. Honkanen et al.)

    Giovinazzo J.

    de Oliveira Santos F.

    Grzywacz R.

    Borcea C.

    Brown B.A. et al.


    2003

    It was proved by experiment that bismuth is a radioactive element. Its only naturally occurring isotope, 209Bi, undergoes 3.137 MeV α decay with a half life of 1.9×1019 a to produce 205Tl, the more abundant of the two stable isotopes of thallium.

    de Marcillac P.

    Coron N.

    Dambier G.

    Leblanc J.

    Moalic J-P.


    2003

    Explanation of the extreme radiation resistance of Deinococcus radiodurans, called Conan the Bacterium by its fans ever since its 1956 discovery in γ-ray-sterilized canned meat that got spoiled. The red bacterium can withstand a thousand times higher dose than any other life form and three thousand times more than us humans. The key to its high radioresistance is supposed to be the ringlike structure of the genome.

    Levin-Zaidman S.

    Englander J.

    Shimoni E.

    Sharma A.K.

    Minton K.W.

    Minsky A.


    2004

    Announcement of the production of ununtrium (113Uut) at RIKEN by bombarding 209Bi with cyclotron-accelerated 70Zn ions. Morita et al. obtained 278Uut with T1/2 ≈ 0.24 ms (0.13-1.38 ms). As of 2006 this element would be the first one discovered by Japanese scientists.

    Morita K.

    Akiyama T.

    Goto S-i.

    Kaji D.

    Morimoto K. et al


    2004

    Collaborating Russian (JINR) and American (GTSI) scientists lead by Oganessian reported the synthesis of ununpentium (115Uup) in the reaction 243Am(48Ca,xn)287, 288Uup. The half-life of 287Uup was estimated 18-187 ms (T1/2 ≈ 32 ms), while that of 288Uup was 57-192 ms (T1/2 ≈ 87 ms).

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al. (JINR)

    Moody K.J.

    Patin J.B. et al. (GTSI)


    2006

    Collaborating Russian (JINR) and American (GTSI) scientists lead by Oganessian reported the synthesis of ununoctium (118Uuo) in the reaction 249Cf(48Ca,3n)294Uuo. The half-life of the α-decaying even-even isotope 294Uuo was estimated 0.57-1.96 ms (T1/2 ≈ 0.89 ms).

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al. (JINR)

    Moody K.J.

    Patin J.B. et al. (GTSI)


    2006

    A Princeton-led group reported discovery of bacteria 2.8 km underground (Mponeng Gold Mine, South Africa) deriving energy from the radioactivity of rocks rather than from sunlight. The life of these sulfate reducers (related to Desulfotomaculum) depends on the hydrogen produced by the radiolysis of water.

    Lin L-H.

    Wang P-L.

    Rumble D.

    Lippmann-Pipke J.

    Boice E. et al.


    2007

    An IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party is considering claims for the discovery of the "transroentgenium" elements with Z = 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, and 118.

    Karol P.J. et al.


    2008

    The 27 km long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN starts test runs in preparation for p-p collision experiments to study the conditions right after the Big Bang. The final collision energy is planned to be 14 TeV. To achieve this, proton beams moving in the opposite direction have to be accelerated to 7 TeV before head-on collision takes place between them.


    2009-2010 On July 14, 2009, press release from GSI, Darmstadt, suggested the name copernicium (Cp) for element 112Uub whose 1996 claim of discovery was accepted by IUPAC in May 2009. Later that year the suggested symbol was changed to Cn as it turned out that Cp was already in use till 1949 indicating cassiopeium, a synonimous name for lutetium, now outdated. On February 20, 2010, IUPAC announces official acceptance !!! of the name and symbol.

    2011 Discovery of the elements with Z = 114 and 116 has been accepted and the priority assigned by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) on the basis of several papers published by the Dubna-Livermore collaboration (Oganessian et al., 2004). See also the IUPAC report. The names of the elements would be proposed by the collaboration.

  • Are you seriously? After the clamor aroused by F&P announce, all the world explored the cold fusion D+D in Pd hypothesis getting nothing as they claimed.

    That is not even slightly true. That's light years away from true. All the world, my ass. There were not 20 people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year. Most of the others were trying to tune a piano with a sledgehammer. (See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf, p. 10, 11) Some of them reportedly confused the anode and the cathode.


    In the years that followed, more people were able to replicate, but there was never a time when "all the world" could do this.


    Let me again suggest you learn something about cold fusion before commenting. Read the critiques in the mass media, and compare them to the facts. You will see the authors of these critiques know nothing about the subject. None of them published a paper in literature as far as I know, and I would know, wouldn't I?


    Here is a depressing example:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294


    Huizenga and Frank Close are exceptions, of course. I suggest you read Huizenga's book. See for yourself. Read Beaudette's summary, which I summary-summarized here:


    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html



  • Good scientists believe what they think is true, not what other people tell them. Sure, there are people who don't care, as there are in any profession.


    THHuxley, from whom I take my nom de plume:


    My convictions, positive and negative, on all the matters of which you speak, are of long and slow growth and are firmly rooted. But the great blow which fell on me seemed to stir them to their foundation, and had I lived a couple of centuries earlier I could have fancied a devil scoffing at me and them — and asking me what profit it was to have stripped myself of the hopes and consolations of the mass of mankind? To which my only reply was and is — Oh devil! Truth is better than much profit. I have searched over the grounds of my belief, and if wife and child and name and fame were all to be lost to me one after the other as the penalty, still I will not lie.


    But the longer I live, the more obvious it is to me that the most sacred act of a man's life is to say and to feel, 'I believe such and such to be true.' All the greatest rewards and all the heaviest penalties of existence cling about that act. The universe is one and the same throughout; and if the condition of my success in unraveling some little difficulty of anatomy or physiology is that I shall rigorously refuse to put faith in that which does not rest on sufficient evidence, I cannot believe that the great mysteries of existence will be laid open to me on other terms.... I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and hopes upon weaker convictions. I dare not if I would.

  • 2011 Gran Sasso: Claimed discovery of muon neutrinos whose speed exceeds the speed of light in empty space. The relative difference was claimed to be significantly larger than the statistical and systematic error together. (See some comments: Neutrino stories move faster than the speed of science.) The claim was withdrawn by CERN in a press release on June 8, 2012. Adam T. et al.

    Perhaps you should not have included that one? It doesn't look good.


    I am acquainted with modern science. I subscribe to Scientific American. The breakthroughs you list are impressive, but nothing like the breakthroughs and the progress of the early 20th century. Perhaps we really have reached the end of history, and there are no more big discoveries to be made. I doubt that. The physicists I know doubt that. I think it is more likely that funding, peer-review and other attributes of modern scientific are dysfunctional. Note that peer-review as we know it did not exist in 1920. Einstein and others were surprised and nonplussed when it was introduced. I regard it mainly as a method by which old establishment scientists suppress young scientists and steal their ideas. I will grant that Mel Miles and other think highly of it.


    In any case, all of these breakthroughs together are not 0.1% as important as cold fusion will be, if it is ever funded and made into a practical source of energy. I have no doubt it can be made practical, because it has already achieved the temperatures and power density of a fission reactor core, in reactions lasting for weeks, as I explained in my video. If it can happen once, it can happen a billion times a day. However, I am increasingly pessimistic that research will ever be funded. So, it will probably be forgotten.

  • Quote

    All the world, my ass. There were not 20 people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year


    I'm a bit skeptics to believe that you have checked all what they did in all nations of the world, nothing comes up also after 1989.

    Anyway I suggested you here how to bypass the issue, if you are really sure of yourself why not perform it.


    Quote

    In any case, all of these breakthroughs together are not 0.1% as important as cold fusion will be


    To be precise, you believe.