Quote

One reason we need our highly qualified sceptics to sort out the BS from the possible, rare, advance in science or technology

We can read many useless crap on YouTube about let say string theory or dark matter, which are already obsolete and disproved by experiments. Their authors were well payed not only with YouTube impressions, but also from public grants dedicated to serious research etc. So that the income of scammers at YouTube is the least problem for me. Not to say, that flooding of fakes slows down the acceptation of real findings in the same way, like fringe ignorant objections of pathoskeptics and ignorance of pathoskeptics is actually quite ineffective for spreading of free energy crap at YouTube.

But there is way bigger problem in the fact, that widespread ignorance of breaktrough findings spread by ignorant pathoskeptic slows down their acceptation and progress in times of global energetic and environmental crisis, where just this type of findings is urgently, desperately needed. And such a damage is way more devastating for human society as a whole, than lost of informational monopoly for pathoskeptics on YouTube

So in brief, the crusade of pathoskeptics is not only ineffective against spreading of real crap - but it is also highly damaging for honest inventors and researchers and human society as a whole. We don't need these "highly qualified skeptics" for anything.

After all, we all are just on cold fusion forum, which has nearly the same (i.e. negative) reputation for mainstream physicists, like overunity findings (or just slightly better).

Now we can put a serious question: were attacks of cold fusion skeptics really more useful than damaging for progress of human society as a whole?

And if not - why some of you think, that overunity skeptics are so much better?

But we are paying scientists for more streamlined progress than just random mutations, where the laziest and dumbest die out first.

Even the progress in let say car or planes development which was driven by merely random trial&error approach rather than planned steps was faster than cold fusion progress, which was boycotted and ostracized by whole generations of mainstream physicists as a whole.

We aren't paying scientists for futile attacks of progressive ideas and findings and for testing, if they would survive - but for their pursuing in collective, streamlined and organized way instead.

https://www.nationalgeographic…odle-cat-paradox-science/

Quote

"In any physical system, without observation, you cannot say what something is doing," says Martell. "You have to say it can be any of these things it can be doing—even if the probability is small."

In a LENR system, observation of the LENR reaction means that the LENR reaction must be terminated in order for its results to be observed.

Quote from axil

In a LENR system, observation of the LENR reaction means that the LENR reaction must be terminated in order for its results to be observed.

What does that mean? In a LENR system, you can observe heat, tritium and helium production without terminating the reaction. Perhaps you have in mind transmutations of the reactant metal.

Quote from axil

In a LENR system, observation of the LENR reaction means that the LENR reaction must be terminated in order for its results to be observed.

axil : This is classic undergrad noise! Next time say what should terminate.

A single reaction D+D --> 4-He must of course terminate before you can see 4-He...

But the overall reaction which seems to be coupled with many other D-D fusion running in parallel can go on. 4-He is very lazy but likes to escape.....

Quote

In a LENR system, observation of the LENR reaction means that the LENR reaction must be terminated in order for its results to be observed.

It applies only to quantized systems driven by subtle energy changes, which LENR reactions definitely aren't. Trust me - flame of candle will burn you a long time after you spot and observe it.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

1. Buckling motion of graphene could be used to generate electricity from ambient thermal energy (synopsis)..
2. Thermoelectric Power Generation from Lanthanum Strontium Titanium Oxide through the Addition of Graphene
3. On-Chip Maxwell’s Demon as an Information-Powered Refrigerator
4. Graphite & quartz & rubber based solid state electric generator of GQenergy s.r.l.
5. Graphene-based "battery" for capturing the thermal energy of ions and converting it into electricity (PDF)
6. Carbon nanotube rectenna directly converts light into electricity
7. Electret-based cantilever energy harvesters for to capture Brownian noise in solids
8. Steorn's Orbo-Cube battery utilizes graphite suspended in wax electret matrix 1, 2
9. Silicon Crystal Graphite Battery of QuantaMagnetics, update
10. Victor Petrik prepares and tests graphite based thermoelectric generator before eyes of his scientific visitors
11. Self-charging "petrovoltaic cells" of Townsend T Brown also contain graphite and piezoelectric materials often
12. Electret apparatus for supplying electric power of Boyd Bushman
13. LED's efficiency exceeds 100%
14. Captret effect - capacitors have the ability to self-charge
15. Another captret experiments (overunity forums 1, 2, 3)
16. Carbon Magnesium Volta pile, 2, 3 of John Bedini and Marcus Reid. Crystal battery generating 135 Volts
17. Karpen pile from Romania may also serve as a rectenna, Karpen's cell revisited
18. Clarendon dry pile (Zamboni cell, Oxford bell) could also run on carbon battery
19. Diamagnetic graphite based motor and Superconducting generator of Andrew Abolafia could work on similar principle
20. A Self Charging Supercapacitor, Carbon fibre battery
21. Research of N.E. Zajev about cooling of dielectrics the changing field with energy generation, see also RU2227947 and RU2390907 patents.

I'll take no 13, simplest to explain.

This shows an LED with (light) output higher than its electrical input, and which therefore acts as a cooler, converting thermal energy from the led substrate into photonic energy.

OK - so does that contravene 2LOT?

No.

The electrical power in is enough (just as with a heat pump) to move energy from cold to hot, so even if the light equivalent temperature is higher than the led temperature that is OK. The emitted light must hit some surface somewhere and the reverse optical path means that photonic energy will also return from that surface to the LED. If the surface the LED light hits has the same temperature as the LED substrate that reverse light energy will be smaller than what is emitted and we have a heat pump obeying 2LOT, cooling the LED and warming the surface its light hits. The pumping will stop when the surface warmed gets hot enough for its reverse black body emission to equal the led light absorption. that will be below the Cranot limit established by the electrical power pumping the LED.

THH

PS - if there is ONE others of these that you think is specially convincing I'll answer that too.

Quote from Wyttenbach

axil : This is classic undergrad noise! Next time say what should terminate.

The coherence in the Bose condensate is terminated.

https://arstechnica.com/scienc…ing-proton-radius-puzzle/

Physics not “broken” after all? We’re close to resolving proton radius puzzle

New measurement confirms 2010 finding that proton is smaller than previously thought.

Quote

Most popularizations discussing the structure of the atom rely on the much-maligned Bohr model, in which electrons move around the nucleus in circular orbits. It's fine as a gateway drug to physics, so to speak, but quantum mechanics gives us a much more precise (albeit weirder) description. The electrons aren't really orbiting the nucleus; they are technically waves that take on particle-like properties when we do an experiment to determine their position. While orbiting an atom, they exist in a superposition of states, both particle and wave, with a wave function encompassing all the probabilities of its position at once. A measurement will collapse the wave function, giving us the electron's position. Make a series of such measurements and plot the various positions that result, and it will yield something akin to a fuzzy orbit-like pattern.

Quote from Max Nozin

Bohr model was a gateway for sure

According to one source

the Bohr model was a pup... not a gateway

and Dirac's 1927 can did not deliver what was on the label..

however on the 1962 can Dirac did deliver..with a spinlesssurface tension theory

"The present theory has no electron spin, so it cannot agree accurately with experiment."

However regardless ... despite such theory

electrons keep spinning magnetically 3600/24/7

in 3D and 4D

http://physicsdetective.com/a-…ory-of-quantum-mechanics/

"Perhaps that’s why Dirac’s 1927 paper on the physical interpretation of the quantum dynamics didn’t do what it said on the can. And why his 1928 paper the quantum theory of the electron doesn’t deliver a picture of the electron.

The Dirac equation is said to describe the electron, but try explaining it to your grandmother, and you realise it doesn’t.

Dirac wrote a paper in 1930 on the annihilation of electrons and protons, only they don’t.

In a theory of electrons and protons he said negative kinetic energy appeared to have no physical meaning.

That suggests he didn’t understand binding energy.

He said the electron energy changes from positive to negative and energy of 2mc² is emitted.

That suggests he didn’t understand E=mc².

He said the Pauli exclusion principle prevents electrons decaying, and the “holes” in the distribution of negative-energy electrons are protons.

That suggests he was talking out of his hat.

As did his 1962 paper an extensible model of the electron, which depicted the electron as a charged conducting sphere with a surface tension.

Yet in the Wikipedia timeline of quantum mechanics you can read that Dirac’s 1930 textbook Principles of Quantum Mechanics became a standard reference book that is still used today.

Then Schrödinger’s cat, which illustrated the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation, was hijacked by the peddlers of mysticism to demonstrate just how “spooky” quantum physics is.

Such people even advocate the many-worlds multiverse.

What happened? More to the point, what didn’t?

What didn’t happen at the 1927 Solvay conference was a discussion of what the photon was, or what the electron was.

Then Bohr sold his pup to the world, and it was all downhill from there.

The Real Meaning of Schrodinger's Cat

Quote from RobertBryant

According to one source

the Bohr model was a pup... not a gateway

and Dirac's 1927 can did not deliver what was on the label..

however on the 1962 can Dirac did deliver..with a spinlesssurface tension theory

"The present theory has no electron spin, so it cannot agree accurately with experiment."

However regardless ... despite such theory

electrons keep spinning magnetically 3600/24/7

in 3D and 4D

http://physicsdetective.com/a-…ory-of-quantum-mechanics/

"Perhaps that’s why Dirac’s 1927 paper on the physical interpretation of the quantum dynamics didn’t do what it said on the can. And why his 1928 paper the quantum theory of the electron doesn’t deliver a picture of the electron.

The Dirac equation is said to describe the electron, but try explaining it to your grandmother, and you realise it doesn’t.

Dirac wrote a paper in 1930 on the annihilation of electrons and protons, only they don’t.

In a theory of electrons and protons he said negative kinetic energy appeared to have no physical meaning.

That suggests he didn’t understand binding energy.

He said the electron energy changes from positive to negative and energy of 2mc² is emitted.

That suggests he didn’t understand E=mc².

He said the Pauli exclusion principle prevents electrons decaying, and the “holes” in the distribution of negative-energy electrons are protons.

That suggests he was talking out of his hat.

As did his 1962 paper an extensible model of the electron, which depicted the electron as a charged conducting sphere with a surface tension.

Yet in the Wikipedia timeline of quantum mechanics you can read that Dirac’s 1930 textbook Principles of Quantum Mechanics became a standard reference book that is still used today.

Then Schrödinger’s cat, which illustrated the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation, was hijacked by the peddlers of mysticism to demonstrate just how “spooky” quantum physics is.

Such people even advocate the many-worlds multiverse.

What happened? More to the point, what didn’t?

What didn’t happen at the 1927 Solvay conference was a discussion of what the photon was, or what the electron was.

Then Bohr sold his pup to the world, and it was all downhill from there.

Display More

John Duffield AKA Farsight who writes the physics detective is an interesting guy.

I find his history of QM a fun read. And it it is sure a fun idea that an electron is a knotted photon.

For his scientific writing, and its critique, I suggest you start with:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…28.7775&rep=rep1&type=pdf

And his conclusions are fair, and for those who understand the complexity of particle physics show the limitations of this style of pseudo-realist analogising:

The model herein is merely qualitative, it lacks mathematical rigor, and some of it may prove to be
incorrect. But the basic concepts that I have examined collectively appear to demonstrate a satisfying
degree of fit. In summary:
Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion
used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through
space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it.
Energy is the capacity to do work, and is in barest essence a volume of stressed space.
Mass is a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving with respect to the observer.
Charge is curl, charge is twist. The electromagnetic field is a region of twisted space, and if we move
through it we perceive a turning action which we then identify as a magnetic field.
Gravity is an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress, wherein the speed of light varies
resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.
Space is a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. The photon is energy, and is a rippling change
of distance. A change of distance is a distance, and space is distance so space light and energy are but
different aspects of a common fundament.
The photon is fundamental, it’s the ultimate quantum, a wave of distance variation, and we can tie it in
knots to make particles. But the distance variation underlies Planck’s constant, so each type of knot
comes in one size only. The electron is a trivial knot, a turn and a twist. The proton is a trefoil knot, the
neutron is a proton with two extra turns and a twist. The neutrino is a turn, a running loop, and muon
and tau neutrinos have more loops, as do the muon and tau themselves. The antiparticles go the other
way, and the unstable particles come undone. All the forces are but different aspects of the strength of
purest marble geometrical space, and it begins to appear that in a very real sense: the wave function is
the particle.
The degree of fit appears so coherent that the model appears to possess value. There is of course much
work to do. A revised mathematical formalism somehow needs to incorporate field equations with knot
theory and elasticity, assisted by computer modelling. We need to properly model all the leptons, we
need to confirm the geometry of the proton, and the neutron, then move on up to atoms and moleculesy
and down to all the hadrons and bosons and fermions that represent the ways in which space can be
configured. This will involve a fresh look at Quantum Physics, starting with Quantum ElectroDynamics
and new simple concept to replace “many paths”. Then we can look again Quantum ChromoDynamics
and review color and charm, whilst finally driving a stake through the heart of the Many Worlds
Interpretation. I’m not sure what we’ll end up with, or what it means for The Standard Model or
Cosmology. The Higgs Boson will go, gravity will come into the fold, and the result will hopefully be
simpler, more elegant, and more understandable.

And here is a (damning) comment on the limitations of such partial analogies as possible routes to a deeper

theory of particle physics (which God knows we need!). It (and the lack of mathematical rigour) shows why this guy

did not get published:

Cited as the "evidence" that photons form electrons: http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf

JG Williamson, MB van der Mark "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 22:2, 133-160 (1997)

Kind of precisely the type of negative endorsement that citations from certain sources brings.

A quick note for people who might think this merits attention: the problem in fundamental physics is not to explain just one particle in terms of one other, but to explain all particles.

Both papers ignore the electron's interaction with the W and Z particles, and ignore the implications for the muon, tau lepton, and quarks. That's because even in their hand-waving, free-form speculation, they can see that their story explains nothing. Like the Ancient Greeks explaining sunrise and the change of seasons, a separate god has to be created to explain every facet of every particle, and they soon lose the track of their narrative. It is less a physical explanation than a dreary theistic soap opera, but instead of gods per se, it is stocked with airy conceits that the authors can't or won't put into math to be confronted with physical experiment.

That does not mean that an electron is not (in some deeper unified spacetime and QM theory) related to a photon. But we have many more particles to make sense of (if we are not to ignore experiment) and much other stuff too. So the story would need to be a lot more complex than is told here. The partial (and mathematically void) links made here are more likely to point in the wrong direction than the right.

THH

It was interesting to me that in 1962

after 30 years of theory Dirac came up a model of the electron

which was spinless.

I guess this is what happens when mathematicians attempt to

model the physical world.

"The present theory has no electron spin, so it cannot agree accurately with experiment."

https://royalsocietypublishing…bs/10.1098/rspa.1962.0124

However regardless ... despite such theory

electrons keep spinning magnetically 3600/24/7

in 3D and 4D

I can't spend time to read all of the mumbo jumbo here - but noted someone is saying that electrons dance through protons --- ya right. That's the old model talking. You need to wipe out a significant portion of modern physics to understand the physics of nature. In that respect, it is easier to start with a blank slate.

The next time someone says quantum mechanics gave us the modern world, computers, GPS, etc -- fact check it.

GPS is around because of the accuracy of an atomic clock, the atomic clock is around because we know the energy levels emitted from the cesium atom, the energy is modelled by E=hv...in short nature is quantized and we are using that to build a GPS. Quantum mechanics - the set of approximations (called theories) - is useful to taking advantage of nature but it is a model of reality.

If you want to build a GPS with Mills theory go ahead, it works.

Quote from Navid

GPS

GPS deals with UNDENSE space.

General relativity and special relativity give workable corrections for time changes.

GUTCP is unnecessary

IN contrast, for the DENSE space of the nucleus neither GR or GUTCP are very accurate.

Neither is SM's QED/QCD.

GUTCP is better though.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…nday/quantum-physics.html

Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics

Worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it.

By Sean Carroll

Dr. Carroll is a physicist.

“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman. That’s not surprising, as far as it goes. Science makes progress by confronting our lack of understanding, and quantum mechanics has a reputation for being especially mysterious.

What’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have.

Quantum mechanics, assembled gradually by a group of brilliant minds over the first decades of the 20th century, is an incredibly successful theory. We need it to account for how atoms decay, why stars shine, how transistors and lasers work and, for that matter, why tables and chairs are solid rather than immediately collapsing onto the floor.

Scientists can quantum mechanics with perfect confidence. But it’s a black box. We can set up a physical situation, and make predictions about what will happen next that are verified to spectacular accuracy. What we don’t do is claim to >em class="css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0">understandquantum mechanics. Physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device.

There are two problems. One is that quantum mechanics, as it is enshrined in textbooks, seems to require separate rules for how quantum objects behave when we’re not looking at them, and how they behave when they are being observed. When we’re not looking, they exist in “superpositions” of different possibilities, such as being at any one of various locations in space. But when we look, they suddenly snap into just a single location, and that’s where we see them. We can’t predict exactly what that location will be; the best we can do is calculate the probability of different outcomes.

The whole thing is preposterous. Why are observations special? What counts as an “observation,” anyway? When exactly does it happen? Does it need to be performed by a person? Is consciousness somehow involved in the basic rules of reality? Together these questions are known as the “measurement problem” of quantum theory.

The other problem is that we don’t agree on what it is that quantum theory actually describes, even when we’re not performing measurements. We describe a quantum object such as an electron in terms of a “wave function,” which collects the superposition of all the possible measurement outcomes into a single mathematical object. When they’re not being observed, wave functions evolve according to a famous equation written down by Erwin Schrödinger.

But what is the wave function? Is it a complete and comprehensive representation of the world? Or do we need additional physical quantities to fully capture reality, as Albert Einstein and others suspected? Or does the wave function have no direct connection with reality at all, merely characterizing our personal ignorance about what we will eventually measure in our experiments?

Until physicists definitively answer these questions, they can’t really be said to understand quantum mechanics — thus Feynman’s lament. Which is bad, because quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory we have, sitting squarely at the center of every serious attempt to formulate deep laws of nature. If nobody understands quantum mechanics, nobody understands the universe.

You would naturally think, then, that understanding quantum mechanics would be the absolute highest priority among physicists worldwide. Investigating the foundations of quantum theory should be a glamour specialty within the field, attracting the brightest minds, highest salaries and most prestigious prizes. Physicists, you might imagine, would stop at nothing until they truly understood quantum mechanics.

The reality is exactly backward. Few modern physics departments have researchers working to understand the foundations of quantum theory. On the contrary, students who demonstrate an interest in the topic are gently but firmly — maybe not so gently — steered away, sometimes with an admonishment to “Shut up and calculate!” Professors who become interested might see their grant money drying up, as their colleagues bemoan that they have lost interest in serious work.

This has been the case since the 1930s, when physicists collectively decided that what mattered was not understanding quantum mechanics itself; what mattered was using a set of ad hoc quantum rules to construct models of particles and materials. The former enterprise came to be thought of as vaguely philosophical and disreputable. One is reminded of Aesop’s fox, who decided that the grapes he couldn’t reach were probably sour, and he didn’t want them anyway. Physicists brought up in the modern system will look into your eyes and explain with all sincerity that they’re not really interested in understanding how nature really works; they just want to successfully predict the outcomes of experiments.

This attitude can be traced to the dawn of modern quantum theory. In the 1920s there was a series of famous debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory. Einstein argued that contemporary versions of quantum theory didn’t rise to the level of a complete physical theory, and that we should try to dig more deeply. But Bohr felt otherwise, insisting that everything was in fine shape. Much more academically collaborative and rhetorically persuasive than Einstein, Bohr scored a decisive victory, at least in the public-relations battle.

Not everyone was happy that Bohr’s view prevailed, but these people typically found themselves shunned by or estranged from the field. In the 1950s the physicist David Bohm, egged on by Einstein, proposed an ingenious way of augmenting traditional quantum theory in order to solve the measurement problem. Werner Heisenberg, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, responded by labeling the theory “a superfluous ideological superstructure,” and Bohm’s former mentor Robert Oppenheimer huffed, “If we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him.”

Around the same time, a graduate student named Hugh Everett invented the “many-worlds” theory, another attempt to solve the measurement problem, only to be ridiculed by Bohr’s defenders. Everett didn’t even try to stay in academia, turning to defense analysis after he graduated.

A more recent solution to the measurement problem, proposed by the physicists Giancarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini and Tulio Weber, is unknown to most physicists.

These ideas are not simply woolly-headed “interpretations” of quantum mechanics. They are legitimately distinct physical theories, with potentially new experimental consequences. But they have been neglected by most scientists. For years, the leading journal in physics had an explicit policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were to be rejected out of hand.

Of course there are an infinite number of questions that scientists could choose to worry about, and one must prioritize somehow. Over the course of the 20th century, physicists decided that it was more important to put quantum mechanics to work than to understand how it works. And to be fair, part of their rationale was that it was hard to actually see a way forward. What were the experiments one could do that might illuminate the measurement problem?

The situation might be changing, albeit gradually. The current generation of philosophers of physics takes quantum mechanics very seriously, and they have done crucially important work in bringing conceptual clarity to the field. Empirically minded physicists have realized that the phenomenon of measurement can be directly probed by sufficiently subtle experiments. And the advance of technology has brought questions about quantum computers and quantum information to the forefront of the field. Together, these trends might make it once again respectable to think about the foundations of quantum theory, as it briefly was in Einstein and Bohr’s day.

Meanwhile, it turns out that how reality works might actually matter. Our best attempts to understand fundamental physics have reached something of an impasse, stymied by a paucity of surprising new experimental results. Scientists discovered the Higgs boson in 2012, but that had been predicted in 1964. Gravitational waves were triumphantly observed in 2015, but they had been predicted a hundred years before. It’s hard to make progress when the data just keep confirming the theories we have, rather than pointing toward new ones.

The problem is that, despite the success of our current theories at fitting the data, they can’t be the final answer, because they are internally inconsistent. Gravity, in particular, doesn’t fit into the framework of quantum mechanics like our other theories do. It’s possible — maybe even perfectly reasonable — to imagine that our inability to understand quantum mechanics itself is standing in the way.

After almost a century of pretending that understanding quantum mechanics isn’t a crucial task for physicists, we need to take this challenge seriously.

Quote from axil

It’s hard to make progress when the data just keep confirming the theories

data is forced to fit theories and then the paradigm shift arrives