Does anybody know where exactly in the history of science, the orthodoxy of physics first established this idea that fusion can only happen by way of high energy plasma? Or am I not understanding this correctly? If so, how would you describe this issue?
It seems that not even the condensed matter physics (CMP) people were receptive to this idea that fusion or fusion-like reactions could POSSIBLY occur somehow in other states of matter. With the state of things being that CMP concerns itself with the study of emergent phenomena, one might think this would create some open-mindedness to the idea, "hey, maybe there's a way to trigger a fusion reaction because of some unknown emergent effect we simply haven't noticed before". Yet, Robert Laughlin, a CMP scientist at Stanford, is pretty staunchly critical of CF. Why?
If you're interested, Laughlin gave a really enjoyable talk that's on YouTube, and he happens to mention his early experiences of CF, you can see it here (I added the timestamp for you):
He also makes a lot of other very interesting comments that are extremely critical of fundamental physics, and he argues that physicists approach science in a certain way because of religious orthodoxy. I'm not sure I actually buy that conclusion, but he does make a lot of interesting points. I would be interested to hear who here agrees with him on those things, or disagrees, and why.
Getting back to my question, where does this aversion to the idea of fusion POSSIBLY being able to occur outside of plasma, come from? I'm talking about the history, where in the past was this idea first established and where did all this conviction first originate? IOW, what evidence supports this idea? Some scientists believe in this quite strongly, so there must be a reason for it. What is that reason?
I was having a nice chat earlier today with Gregory Byron Goble and his friend, and they suggested I might find the answer in Mizuno's book, which I haven't read yet, but will soon.