1995.10.03 / Matt Austern / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 03 Oct 1995 10:43:54 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience) In article <44pino$bbp@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > Its not worth expressing too much, because regardless of what > philosophical gyrations Mitch Jones may go through, the > fact remains that he apparently believes classical mechanics > is a more useful model at the atmoic > level than QM. Oddly enough, though, he talks about photons. I have no idea how anyone can believe in photons but not believe in quantum mechanics. -- Matt Austern He showed his lower teeth. "We matt@physics.berkeley.edu all have flaws," he said, "and http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt mine is being wicked." cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / A McCoubrey / Newsgroup Archives? Originally-From: andrewmc@ee.mcgill.ca (Andrew McCoubrey) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Newsgroup Archives? Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 21:57:14 -0400 Organization: Computer Engineering, McGill University Do any archives of this group's traffic exist? Where might I find them? How far back do they go? I'm interested in looking back at the debates in the group over the past few years. Any help is greatly appreciated. Andrew McCoubrey Electrical Engineering McGill University cudkeys: cuddy02 cudenandrewmc cudfnAndrew cudlnMcCoubrey cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / mitchell swartz / Kasagi paper Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Kasagi paper Subject: Kasagi paper Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:21:58 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <44cj46$1pp@soenews.ucsd.edu> Subject: Kasagi paper barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: = "Now, the normal lifetime of (D + D)* would be ~ h/dE, where dE is = the transition energy, which, being ~ 1MeV, gives a lifetime = of about 10^-20 seconds. So, all we would need is a metastable state = that lasts an additional 10,000 x longer to make this feasible.... = possible?" = "Barry Merriman = UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center = UCLA Dept. of Math = bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)" The width of the transition energy is related to the lifetime, not the transition energy. delta-E (width) * delta-T = h/2pi Your error in this matter, confusing energy band width with the band itsef, is consistent but wrong. Please get a book on this matter since you are at UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center and UCLA Dept. of Math and should get it correct. Thanks for considering this again. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / mitchell swartz / Why no CF maybes? Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Why no CF maybes? Subject: Why no CF maybes? Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:23:43 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <199509291423.KAA38107@pilot03.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Why no CF maybes? blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: = Cindy Lundgren does an excellent job of summarizing the surface = chemistry aspects of CF electrolysis. Her comments would, it = seems to me, confirm my notion that the maintenance of rather = fussy surface conditions throughout the entire course of a CF = run would be somewhat unlikely. That is to say CF involves = chance. Hmmmmm. Dick Blue would like us to think that surface and volume changes which occur for palladium (and not all its alloys incidentally) upon successive loadings indicate that some portion of the system (electrode surface he states, but possibly means the double layer covering the electrode) is 'fussy'. True. He then extrapolates to 'conclude' CF is 'chance' and therefore -as is his wont- does not exist (ignoring hundreds of papers describing positive results). High technology Analysis of Dick Blue's Argument: -------------------------------------------------------- The superior cambered surface of a jet wing is fussy, as are the streamlines of air rushing by; fussy streamlines which separate good flightpaths from a stall. By such "thinking" one can "infer" that jets fly only by 'chance'. Do they now? How about semiconductor chips and their "fussy surfaces"? More chance? Depends upon the air-quality of the lab in which the GaAsP (etc.) is fabricated. Summary: Argument flawed. Perhaps Dick Blue should concentrate on the issue of flightworthiness of tested aircraft and convince the FAA that Boeing 747s pose a threat because of such chance performance based upon Dick's investigations of 'fussy surfaces'? ;-)X Low technology Analysis of Dick Blue's Argument: -------------------------------------------------------- Souffl‚ can be 'fussy'. It is chance for me? Perhaps, and in this one case Dick maybe correct. But how about for an experienced chef? Now the probability appears to depend upon the chef and not the recip‚. Summary: Corroborates above. Chances are that Dick's argument is simply flawed. Best wishes, and good luck on your excellent vaporcriticisms of the subject, Dick. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / x / Re: Help:Anything new on Fusion & Fission Originally-From: desblast@ix.netcom.com (x ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Help:Anything new on Fusion & Fission Date: 3 Oct 1995 14:04:16 GMT Organization: Netcom In <005whp.2@cosmos.wits.ac.za> 005whp@cosmos.wits.ac.za (P.WHEELER) writes: > >I'm Writing an essay on nuclear energy, I was wondering If there's >anything new happening in Fusion & Fission. >Can anyone help me with information about the pebble bed reactor? >If you can help me, E-Mail to: 005WHP@cosmos.wits.ca.za > >Cilla Wheeler > > I think they've found fusion hurts more than fission.:) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendesblast cudlnx cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Mario Pain / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 3 Oct 1995 14:12:49 GMT Organization: cea gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) wrote: >Into the breach, again... >If nobody else expresses an interest in this >thread I am going to end it here. Although I did not intervene in this thread I was very interested in it... but not for scientific reasons. > You have a strikingly limited visual sense. What visual sense >evidently means to you is "something *I* can understand without >thinking too hard, and certainly without disrupting the world-view >I've developed through my life's experiences". Sorry for the insulting >tone, but that's how I read it. I have no trouble "visualizing" >quantum many-body physics, even if I can't necessarily _calculate_ >everything I'd like to! Dear Martin, I must say I admire your patience and your teaching skills. You have striven in front of deliberate ignorace to defend with rational arguments science and the scientist. I have discussed a little with people in this newsgroup (including Mitchell), and I must say I am appalled by the level of the exchanges. I do not think there is any interest in exchange with people whose opinions a matter of faith. The best example is the discussion about QM. Curiously enough, people who have not studied it allow themselves to state that they (to put it mildly) do not believe there is any scientific value in it. They do not care about the sum of experimental evidence that could be interpreted by (and up to now only by) the QM theory. They are ready to resuscitate all the XIX century intuitive view of the world just to prove their point. And their true point, if you read what they say in depth, is that "official science" is a tall tale and "official scientist" are "welfare queens in white coats" (sic). It suits their paranoiac belief in "true scientists" whose works are wrecked by "official scientists". I have stopped discussing this matters because it serves no purpose. You are not going to convince this people because they do not want to be convinced. They want to believe you can build a power plant in your garage and become independent from the "big establishment". And because they WANT to believe it, they will go on believeng however good your arguments. Irrationalism is on the move.... Regards, Mario Pain cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Mario Pain / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 3 Oct 1995 14:36:53 GMT Organization: cea matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) wrote: >In article <44pino$bbp@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > >> Its not worth expressing too much, because regardless of what >> philosophical gyrations Mitch Jones may go through, the >> fact remains that he apparently believes classical mechanics >> is a more useful model at the atmoic >> level than QM. > >Oddly enough, though, he talks about photons. I have no idea how >anyone can believe in photons but not believe in quantum mechanics. Ignorance and bad faith can work miracles... cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Mario Pain / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: 2 Oct 1995 15:19:45 GMT Organization: cea bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote: > >> No country (not only France, I would welcome examples) can be trusted >>to honor its word on the matter. Nevertheless, that is true for a lot >>of things. Should we require such a "bond" every time some ship containint >>dangerous substances enter our territorial waters ? Do you ? The potential >>risk of a ship loaded with arsenic is much worse than the Mururoa nuclear >>waste.... > >Yes, I think an "environmental protection bond" would be a good idea >for *all* forms of toxic shipments. It would encourage the shipping >companies to take a little more care and could well serve to reduce >the number of evironmental disasters that occur with seemingly >increasing regularlity these days. Then you reserve all the business of shipping to VERY large companies. Given for instance the cost of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill, very few companies could get such a "bond" of guarantee. >But firemen get to make their own choices about whether to risk their >lives or not. The situation in the south pacific is different -- >France is not giving those people the choice. > I do not know how the fire service is organised in your country. In France firement are military: they do not get any choice whatsoever. >>>By the way ... just look at what your damned nuclear testing has done >>>to New Zealand already! A huge volcanic erruption and numerous >>>earthquakes. Coincidence -- maybe so -- but can you prove it? :-) >>> >> Sorry, but that is the most irrational statement I have seen for a long >>time ! It is not me that has to prove that there is a coincidence, there >>is you that has to prove the link. Otherwise I could affirm that the >>economic crisis in France is all caused by your bloody sheep exports. Can you >>disprove it ?? > >I'm sure you spotted my smiley there .... and you no doubt realised >that this *was* a blatantly frivolous statement. > No I did not. I can be very thick sometimes.... >BTW: I hear on the news this morning that France is offering to >provide a "nuclear umbrella" for its neighbours. That is to say, >France is prepared to offer the protection of its nuclear force to >other European countries such as Germany. > >If France is unwilling to rely on the nuclear umbrella offered by >NATO, why sould Germany be prepared to rely on France? It sounds like >a poorly conceived attempt to counter the objections from Germany >regarding France's testing programme. Agreed. It is a very stupid move. De Gaulle would have stood in the gale of international protest and defended its move on its own merits. But Chirac is not De Gaulle.... >Another relevant news item.. France is preparing to make military >moves in a "former" French territory off the coast of Africa. >Apparently a coup has occured and France seems to feel that it has a >right to get involved in the politics of another "sovereign" state's >business. I am not yet fully aware of the facts so I won't go as far >as to say that this is yet another example of France's eagerness to >become involved in another country's wars... but it is worrying. I presume you are speaking about the new Bob Denard's coup in the Comores. Frankly speaking, do not believe that because I approve the nuclear tests I approve any act of French foreign policy. I do not. Regards Mario cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Mario Pain / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: 2 Oct 1995 15:40:01 GMT Organization: cea bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote: >Mario Pain wrote: > >>bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote: > >> True. But that is true for any region of France as well. Only Paris and >>its sorrowndigs are strictly "french". The rest was taken from the Romans, >>the Burgundians, the Britons, the Arabs, and so on. Nice, which today is >>unquestionably considered as being French, was "annexed" to France in the >>middle of last century. > >So is annexation an "acceptable" act? No. Just an historical truth. I do not see history in a moral way, with "acceptable" or "unacceptable" acts. Negating history is never a very constructive position. If the Tahitian want their independence, let's them have it. Not because they were "occupied", not because they were a "nation" in the past, but because what they want in the PRESENT. The past can help to understand the attitudes, fears and hopes of people. But it should not be used to justify anything. >> My argument does not try to prove the nuclear tests are NECESSARY. I am >>not wholly convinced they are. My argument is that ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN >>ANNOUNCED, THEY MUST BE PERFORMED. If Chirac changes his mind under >>international pressure, the french nuclear deterrent will have no >>credibility whatsoever. > >I do not see how Mr Chirac showing common-sense and diplomacy would >make the French nuclear arsenal any less effective. I you could prove that M Chirac changed his attitude because of common sense AND NOT BECAUSE INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE, then it would be ok. How could this proof be made ? Because if there is an ounce of doubt about wether international pressure can change M Chirac mind on such matters, then the credibility of the deterrent is nil. > >> See my previous answer. Let's for the sake of the argument accept that >>everybody is persuaded that the French nuclear capability is enough to >>inflict unacceptable losses. But who will believe that Chirac would be >>READY TO USE IT in a crisis if he backs down now under pressure ? > >But there is simply no comparison between continuing a course of >action out of sheer bloody-mindedness in the face of world-wide >condemnation and reacting with force to any would-be invader. > You are interpreting the intentions of M. Chirac. Is he continuing his course of action "out of sheer bloody-mindedness" or is he still convinced the tests are necessary ? You cannot say for sure. If he cannot "react with force" in front of international condemnation, how can you trust him to react otherwise in front of a would-be invader ? >> Could you please give me an example ? We are talking of issues where the >>capacity of taking a decision and keeping by it is important (see previous >>paragraphs). > >What about President Clinton's decision to send troops into Somalia. >This decision was ill conceived and poorly implemented. Under >pressure from home and abroad he recanted and the troops were >withdrawn. He seemed to lose very little credibility from this and >the US has not suffered a lack of credibility as a result. Do you thing an humanitarian action is an issue "where the capacity of taking a decision and keeping by it is important" ? I do not think so. Of course you do not lose credibility because you stop an "humanitarian" action. If the USA had stopped their intervention in the Gulf (that is, an intervention where essential interests where at play), it would have gone very differently. > >> No they did not. I lived a long time in Britain so I know Anglo-saxons >>have another view of recent history. But WWII was a classic example. The >>"allies" intervened late, negociated with Petain up to the last limit, >>and wanted to impose on France an American administration (I can give >>you the references if you like). De Gaulle had enormous difficultys to >>prevent the Americans from installing this administration. > >I was not aware of this (history was never my strongest subject :-) >If this is indeed the case (and I have no reason to doubt your >claims), then I can see that France may well feel that her allies have >not performed as well as could be hoped. It is not that. We are in France much more cynic that the Ango-saxons are. We do not believe that our allies "have not performed well". Our "allies" defended their own interests the best they could. In the same situation, we would have done the same. Politics is not a game about good and evil. >However, I believe that the >world is a very different place today and that thanks to vastly >improved global communications and an "awareness" of the importance of >cooperation (both economically and militarily) the risk of this >happening again is *very* small -- I'd wager that it's actually >smaller than the risk faced by south-pacific nations faced with >France's nuclear testing. If I ever believed that, I no longer do after the Gulf war... > >> May I remind you that the territory where the American tests were carried >>was taken from the Indians in about the same times. Would you object to that ? > >Yes.. these issues are also relevant to New Zealand. The indigenous >peoples were effectively annexed by an invading force which said "sign >here or we take what we want by force". Only today are we (NZ) >beginning to address the inequities that this produced. Annexation is >not something to be proud of, or repeat. I condemn the US's treatment >of the aborigine population also. I am not proud of french annexation of Tahiti, and I am not proud of our nuclear tests either. I consider the first a part of our history, that has to be adressed with its good sides and bad sides. I consider the second as a sad necessity, but a necessity nevertheless. >> I do not think that arrogance (however irritating) has ruined any politician >>standing. The career of a very successfull british prime minister is there to >>prove it. > >But what is more important ... the good of the country or the good of >the country's leader? I was answering your point that arrogance has ruined the standing of M. Chirac. I do not care for M. Chirac standing, but I care for the standing of France's president. >> I do not know why the Australian Prime Minister chose to take this >>position. But it certainly did. > >Well I can't speak for the Australians (even though I was born there). >The Aussie politicians are indeed a strange bunch.. when I found that >I didn't agree with the way the country was being run I moved to New >Zealand which is not without its own problems .. but is at least >substantially more principled and open. I would love to know both countries. I lived a long time in the UK and I liked it very much (so, you see, I am not a horrible nationalist !) and I discovered people from Australia and NZ there, very nice in general. I hope they would not turn me down when they see my passport... However much we disagree about the nuclear issue. Regards Mario cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Mario Pain / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: 2 Oct 1995 15:44:08 GMT Organization: cea bobp@bga.com (Bob Pendleton) wrote: >Hmm, how to say this? I think the world is much more fearful of France >now than it was before they restarted nuclear testing. I think the >world is much less respectful of France now. France is doing a very >good job of converting respect (what little it had) into fear. Unfortunately, that is all about nuclear deterrents. They do not work out of "respect". They work out of fear. Anyway, we should not worry. Apparently we have converted "very little respect" in a lot of fear. Good business, hey ? >It's rather like finding out that your neighbors Doberman has rabies. A little superficial, perhaps. Unless you think your neighbour injects rabies to his Doberman to make its deterrent effect stronger. It would be a strange thing to do... but you never know. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Alan M / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 11:05:54 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <44pkue$cjc@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > you principle seems to conflict some of the philosphy surrounding > QM, and that system is a hell of a lot more sound than your single vague > priciple. You've forgotten, Barry (Jeez - how could you ever forget the words of a master!) that Mitchell has 'nothing but contempt' for QM, which I guess might likely be labelled a symmetric relationship. Mitchell is a dead ringer for an idiot who hangs out on the Science and Astronomy Forums of CompuServe, and insists that light must have a constant velocity in some undefined absolute frame of reference, because "that's the way ripples work on water". When you ask him why the M-M experiment didn't pick up this absolute velocity, he replies simply that *it* was rigged specifically to miss this effect, but that anybody who carries out the (effectively identical) experiments he proposes will see it. He, for a related but unspecified reason, has 'nothing but contempt' for Einstein, and for 'all fools who follow him blindly'. You will probably have noticed that Mitchell is at his most abusive when asked the most reasonable question, such as "Has anybody ever observed any physical phenomenon which could plausibly be interpreted as evidence that photons might in some circumstances travel in vacuum at a speed of less than c?", since the only available answer to this and similar questions clearly labels his 'Principle of Continuity' as a simple statement of pseudo-religious faith, to be maintained in spite of all counter-indicating evidence, knowledge and analysis. I'd love to see his efforts in coming to terms with the 'ultraviolet catastrophy', since presumably he insists on continuity in the emission spectrum of a radiating black body. Indeed, I wonder what he makes of discrete spectral lines at all? -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Brian PCD / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: brauchfu@fiw149.fm.intel.com (Brian Rauchfuss - PCD) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: 3 Oct 1995 17:03:58 GMT Organization: Intel Corporation, Folsom CA In article <21cenlogic-0210951120570001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote: >And the same goes for Mark North and all the other would-be censors who >seek to stifle debate and thereby protect their contentless beliefs. You As far as I can see, your opponents are debating you, and therefore not trying to stifle debate. While you were defending your Principle of Continuity you claimed that induction requires a closed system, and that breaking the principle would eliminate closed systems. I contend that there is no closed system in existence today smaller than the universe, yet science uses induction on many systems that are only "mostly closed". Chemists cannot prevent inpurities and reactions involving the vessel. In physics, stray radiation can mess up neutrino measurements. Yet induction is still used, as long as the magnitude of the stray effects if understood. Likewise, as long as discontinuities have a predictable nature, there is no reason why induction cannot work with them in the universe. Brian cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnPCD cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Brian PCD / cmsg cancel <44rqsl$4q3@mcd1.fm.intel.com> Originally-From: brauchfu@fiw149.fm.intel.com (Brian Rauchfuss - PCD) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <44rqsl$4q3@mcd1.fm.intel.com> Date: 3 Oct 1995 17:12:21 GMT Organization: Intel Corporation, Folsom CA, USA <44rqsl$4q3@mcd1.fm.intel.com> was cancelled from within trn. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnPCD cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Brian PCD / Re: Pathological Skepticism! Originally-From: brauchfu@fiw149.fm.intel.com (Brian Rauchfuss - PCD) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism! Date: 3 Oct 1995 17:13:09 GMT Organization: Intel Corporation, Folsom CA In article , Matt Austern wrote: >I wouldn't assume that. I've followed energy politics pretty closely >for the last fifteen years or so, and I'm quite convinced that most >people simply don't understand the distinction between energy >production and energy conversion. Witness the widespread enthusiasm >for "clean" electric cars: not one article in a dozen asks the obvious >question of where all that electricity will come from and whether >electric generating plants are really all that clean. (There is a The last one I read certainly asked that question. (The article was in "Science", which has higher standards than, say, "Popular Mechanics"). It claimed that even using oil to produce electricity to run the cars produced about 10 times less pollution to move the cars the same distance. It was much more efficient use of oil, too. I would like to see the same analysis done for coal. Brian cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnPCD cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / jedrothwell@de / Cold Fusion at SOFE '95 Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion at SOFE '95 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 16:32:49 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Cold Fusion at SOFE Cold fusion is on the agenda at a plasma fusion conference being held this week in Champaign, Illinois, Oct. 1 - 5. It is the 16th biannual Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE '95), which is sponsored by the IEEE, the American Nuclear Society, and the University of Illinois. Most of the conference is devoted to "hot" fusion topics like Fusion Blanket Technology, fusion neutronics, tritium breeding and ITER, but there will also be three papers, a panel discussion, and a demonstration of cold fusion. The papers are from Professor Peter Hagelstein (MIT), Dr. Kohji Kamada (National Institute for (hot) Fusion Science, Nagoya), and Dr. Edmund Storms (Los Alamos National Laboratory - retired) who will also be on the panel discussion. The demonstration is being done by a group from the University of Illinois. I should say I hope it is being done, and last I heard it was looking good to go. I am in Atlanta and the conference is near Chicago, so I will not hear the story until next week. The U. Ill. group is working with a CETI light water device, which is one of the most robust and reliable cold fusion cells. A similar cell was successfully set up and demonstrated at the Fifth International Conf. on Cold Fusion (ICCF5) in April 1995. When I last spoke to the researchers, they were confident that they would be able to move the experiment -- calorimeter and all -- from the lab into the conference Exhibit Hall, and then restart it. I hope they can, but the people who set up the ICCF5 demonstration had to work until the early morning hours before the conference assembling and tweaking the equipment, so there is always a possibility it will not work. The U. Ill. cell has been producing ten times more output than input for a while now. A similar CETI cell at another lab recently ran uninterrupted for seven weeks, producing a steady 20 watts excess, which adds up to 85 megajoules. That should get the attention of the hot scientists for several reasons, especially: 85 megajoules is 14 times more energy than the biggest hot fusion test on record produced, at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) in 1994. The cold fusion device costs a few dollars to manufacture, and it is roughly the size of a person's thumb. The hot fusion device cost billions to manufacture and it is as big as a factory. The cold fusion device produces ten times more energy out than you put in, whereas the hot fusion output is only 0.3 times input. Hot fusion devices produce a huge flux of deadly radiation, whereas cold fusion produces only very low levels of radiation, which can easily be shielded. I am glad to see the two camps finally getting together in the U.S. They have been cooperating in Japan for many years. It is about time the hot fusion people got serious about cold fusion, because the commercial prospects for cold fusion have never looked better, and dozens of Japanese corporations are working on cold fusion, whereas hot fusion is only supported by the national governments. Government support for hot fusion is rapidly waning in the U.S., Europe and Japan. The PPPL recently laid off 246 scientists. Robert Walker (R-Pa), the chair of the House Space, Science and Technology Committee, has been lukewarm towards hot fusion. In the October 1995 issue of Popular Science he says, "I'm also personally interested in the so-called cold fusion area. It's not fusion, obviously. But there's something that producing additional heat, and it's being found in laboratory after laboratory." The hot fusion scientists are beginning to wake up and realize that cold fusion is a practical source of energy that will soon be widely commercialized, so if they want to remain employed they should get to work on it. Here is part of the abstract from the Storms paper: "More than six years have passed since the modern era of 'cold fusion' was started by Profs. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (then at the University of Utah). Their claims of being able to produce nonpolluting energy from a renewable source using a simple apparatus created great initial excitement. However, difficulties in repeating the work, combined with the absence of any acceptable explanation, caused most scientists to conclude that the claims were based on delusion. Nevertheless, some people continued to explore the possibilities. Criticisms made by skeptics were taken seriously, errors have been reduced or eliminated, and a wide variety of studies have been done using very modem equipment in many countries. The early problem of reproducing the effect has been largely eliminated, nuclear byproducts have been found, and theoretical explanations abound. The problem now is more psychological than scientific. In spite of this new and improved information, general skepticism about the effect continues within the scientific community and general rejection by the U.S. and many other governments remains unchanged. Nine international conferences have been held and several professional societies have included sessions about cold fusion, the most recent being the American Chemical Society. The literature on the subject has grown to over 1300 publications, many peer reviewed by major scientific journals . . . The field has expanded from claims of d-d fusion being produced in palladium using electrolysis to at least ten different method-environment combinations. These environments include normal hydrogen as well as deuterium . . . Sufficient energy has been observed to encourage commercial development. The present status of the field will be summarized with respect to what has been discovered; where work is being done; and how this new field is expected to affect conventional thinking." - E. Storms, "Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions, IEEE/NPSS SOFE '95 The events at SOFE '95 will be covered in the next issue of Infinite Energy magazine. - Jed Rothwell Cold Fusion Research Advocates 2050 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 113-A Chamblee, Georgia 30341 Tel: 770-451-9890 Fax: 770-458-2404 Home: 770-458-8107 E-Mail: JedRothwell@delphi.com, CompuServe 72240,1256 (Please note new area code and new office suite number.) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Martin Gelfand / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 3 Oct 1995 14:57:30 -0600 Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Let me begin with an apology to MJ for including intemperate remarks in the note to which he is responding. I hope he will consider that characterizing all modern physics as a "con job" despite the overwhelming evidence of its efficacy hardly encourages reasoned discussions. In article <21cenlogic-0310951051560001@199.172.8.129> 21cenlogic@i-link net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >In article <44p8te$2dr2@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU >(Martin Gelfand) wrote: > >> Into the breach, again... >> If nobody else expresses an interest in this >> thread I am going to end it here. > >***{Threads tend to have a life of their own, Martin. We have the option >of ending our participation in them, of course, but we have no power to >control others. --Mitchell Jones}*** Quite true, and I did intend to state that my participation, if not the thread, would end. But I would like to continue just a little longer... > >As for your statement that the Bohr model has implications that cannot be >understood within the framework of classical mechanics, that is baloney. >The entire Bohr theory, including why the "preferred" orbits are more >stable than the transitional ones, can be explained by strictly classical >arguments. Because of that, all implications of the Bohr theory, >explicitly including those you mentioned, can be derived classically. What >you lack here, Martin, is a satisfactory visual model of the atomic >system. Why do you lack it? Probably because you are simply in the habit >of memorizing mathematical formulae and rules for their manipulation, and >not "wasting time" worrying about the causation. --Mitchell Jones}*** Fine, Mitchell, would you please explain why atoms are stable, by strictly classical arguments? Within classical electromagnetic theory an accelerated charge emits radiation. Do you deny that as well? > >> The LeSage model may not have been "refuted" but it has certainly >> lost any substantial following. The reason should be clear. >> If its predictions were _exactly_ the same as Newton's laws then >> all that it would do would be to introduce constructs ("ultra mundane >> corpuscles") into a theory which did perfectly well without them! > >***{An amazing statement, and one that absolutely confirms what, in my >last post to you, I stated only as a conjecture: you really place no value >on knowing the underlying meaning of a mathematical formulation, do you, >Martin? You really don't care what the actual causation is! Wow! >--Mitchell Jones}*** No Mitchell, I simply have no illusion that a "visual model" provides any such underlying meaning. You have simply shifted the question "what is the cause of gravity" to a whole series of actually much more complicated questions, such as "how to the corpuscles interact with matter?" "what dynamics governs their motion?" etc etc etc. > >> On the other hand, if LeSage's model is to be considered "superior" >> to Newton's it should yield predictions which are (1) correct, in >> the sense of being experimentally testable and validated >> (2) _different_ from Newton's. > >***{To repeat: understanding of causation has value, Martin. Why? Because >it opens minds to possibilities that, without it, could not have been even >considered. For example, if the LeSage theory is correct, then antigravity >is possible. (General relativity holds that antigravity is impossible.) So >one of the immediate effects, if the LeSage theory were accepted, would be >physicists who were open to the possibility of antigravity devices, and >thus likely to recognize evidence of antigravity processes if it were >encountered. The point is that a population open to a possibility is more >likely to recognize an opportunity to realize it. (This is is the same >sort of effect that the protoneutron theory would have, if accepted, >relative to "excess energy" phenomena.) This is not--repeat: not--an >implication to be taken lightly. Understanding has enormous value. Far >more value, I might add, than does a mathematical construct which >expresses experimental data points in a compact form and permits some >interpolations and, with luck, extrapolations. --Mitchell Jones}*** Again, Mitchell, there is no theory (in the modern sense) until you (or somebody else) describes the properties of the corpuscles in sufficient detail that two independent individuals, if asked the same questions, could give the same answers about what the LeSage theory would imply. So far what we have is a rather vague LeSage conjecture about the existence of "corpuscles" which interact with ordinary matter in such a way that Newton's law of gravitation is reproduced. > >> A big problem with actually testing the LeSage model is that it >> does not specify in any detail what the hell those corpuscles are, >> so there's in fact no way to make a specific, testable prediction! > >***{OK, Martin, you have claimed to accept various theories (e.g., that of >Schrodinger) that make testable predictions about photons. I therefore >challenge you to explain to me in detail exactly what photons are. No, Mitchell, I'd like you to ask a _physical question_. "What photons are" is not such a question. It is certainly not a testable prediction of any quantum theory of light. >> If I were to come up with a detailed model for the interactions >> between corpuscles and ordinary matter, and could show that it >> led to predictions which were eminently incorrect, a LeSagian >> would undoubtably state huffily that _my_ version of the LeSage >> model was wrong, but nonetheless LeSage's is still a true theory. >> He would fail to understand that the burden is on _him_ to define >> a specific model. The fact that LeSage failed to do so explains >> why LeSages model is "pre-refuted". IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL THEORY! > >***{Actually, Martin, your comments on this topic are so far from the mark >that I suspect that you had never heard of LeSage's theory until I >mentioned it to you. Since you like to give me advice about what to read, >you can't very well be offended if I suggest something for you to read. I >therefore suggest that you take a look at *Maxwell on Molecules and >Gasses*, MIT Press, 1986. Check the index, and you will discover that >there are lots of references to the LeSage theory. After reading them, you >will become aware of two things: (1) James Clerk Maxwell took the theory >very, very seriously, and most assuredly did *not* regard it as >"pre-refuted." (2) He did *not* deny that it was a physical theory. (Of >course, in his time "theoretical physics" had not yet been redefined out >of existence!) > >Another source would be Feynmann's lectures on physics. He took the theory >seriously also. Like Maxwell, he argued against it at length, thereby >indicating quite clearly that he considered it to be a physical theory and >that he did not consider it to be "pre-refuted." (If he thought it was >"pre-refuted," there would have been no need for him to refute it, now >would there?) After reading some of this background material, I think you >will be in a better position to talk intelligently about this subject. >--Mitchell Jones}*** I am by no means offended by suggested readings. I don't have the Maxwell reference on hand, but I do have vol I of the Feynman lectures, so I took a look. LeSage is not mentioned by name (and in fact you are correct, I had not heard of this "theory" as being attributed to LeSage, though I did have a vague sense of deja vu upon your describing it -- probably because I had read the Feynman lectures a decade ago). I wonder if we are reading the same Feynman lectures. (Specifically section 7-7.) Feynman hardly takes the LeSage theory seriously. In one paragraph, Feynman says all he is going to say about it (and all that deserves to be said, really): <> Many mechanisms for gravity have been suggested. It is interesting to consider one of these, which many people have thought of from time to time. At first, one is quite excited an happy when he "discovers" it, but he soon finds that it is not correct. It was first discovered about 1750. Suppose there were many particles moving in space at a very high speed in all directions and being only slightly absorbed in going through matter. When they _are_ absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However, since there are as many going one way as another, the impulses all balance. But when the sun is nearby, the particles coming towards the earth through the sun are partially absorbed, so fewer of them are coming from the sun than are coming toward the sun. Therefore, the earth feels a net impulse towards the sun and it does not take one long to see that it is inversely as the square of the distance --- because of the variation of the solid angle tha the sun subtends as we vary with distance. What is wrong with that machinery? It involves some new consequences which are _not true_. The particular idea has the following trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is stronger than that on the back of your head!). Therefore thre would be more impulse give the earth from the front, and the earth would feel a _resistance to motion_ and would be slowing up in its orbit. One can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would not take long enough for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. No machinery has every been invented that "explains" gravity without also predicting some other phenomena that does _not_ exist. <<...end excerpt>> > >> (A play on Phil Anderson's notion of "pre-falsified" theories, ie, >> theories which fail to account for even existing data.) >> If you think LeSage's model is so great, please describe >> the corpuscles in sufficient detail so that I can do a calculation >> which leads to a testable prediction. > >***{Read Feynmann's comments. He will give you enough insight so that you >can do calculations, and also make, and test, a prediction. Then, having >done that, I expect you will rush forth, imbued with certainty that, using >Feynmann's argument, you can refute the LeSage theory. At that point, I >will happily prove that you, and Feynmann, are dead wrong! --Mitchell >Jones}*** Feynman's lectures not specify a precise theory (presumably for pedagogical reasons: why should he spend to much time on something which is ultimately of no interest), though they do give me some idea as to how to proceed. I will assume that the corpuscles have no mass (or else the mass of ordinary matter in the universe would increase, as it absorbed corpuscles; and note that matter is not allowed to _emit_ corpuscles to compensate within my version of the LeSage theory...if you think that's a bad assumption, we can discuss it later) but do have momenta; when a corpuscle is absorbed by ordinary matter the matter acquires that momentum. I have no idea what momentum distribution to ascribe to the corpuscles in the absence of matter (ie the free-space distribution); let us just suppose it is isotropic in some particular reference frame, with magnitude distrubution function P(p). I have no idea what the density of corpuscles in "free space" is. Call that quantity D. I have no idea how fast the corpuscles are supposed to be moving. If we want to reproduce Newton's law (ie prerelativistic gravitation theory) then they have to be travelling infinitely fast! (The gravitational force on a body at a given time depends on the positions of all other bodies at that same time.) Infinitely fast-moving corpuscles causes problems of its own, however. So let's just assume they're moving _very_ fast, and see if we can avoid making any reference to their speed in the discussion that follows. The absorption cross-section for corpuscles clearly has to depend on the mass of the ordinarly matter with which it interacts (or else Newton's law doesn't have a chance of being reproduced). Call that absorption probability per unit mass A. Assume it is independent of the corpuscle momentum. Now we can do a nice classical calculation of the corpuscle momentum imbalance in space in the vicinity of ordinary matter. It will be proportional to A, D, the integral of P(p)p^2, the mass of the ordinary matter, and inversely proportional to the distance from the matter, and directed towards the matter. (I _think_ this follows just from dimensional analysis; I can't spend too much time on this right now, unfortunately!) The product of A, D, and the integral over P obvious must equal the constant G appearing in Newton's law; we know nothing else about the various parameters in LeSage's theory. Note that we have assumed that the body is stationary in the reference frame with respect to which the corpuscle momentum distribution is isotropic. Now, a body moving through this corpuscular gas will feel a resistance, which is because in any other than the preferred frame the momentum distribution is _not_ isotropic. What is the new momentum distribution? Well, that depends what physical laws the corpuscles obey! If we treat them classically, we have p'=p-mv, so that if they really are massless then there is no shift in the distribution. So maybe that is the way to escape Feynman's conclusion about a corpuscular drag: If the corpuscles are massless (and thence must have infinite velocity, in order to carry finite momentum, classically) then there is no corpuscular drag. So now I must ask, Mitchell, are you willing to accept corpuscles with zero mass and infinite velocity? This doesn't finish the discussion of possible problems with the LeSagian model by any means, but it's a good time for me to pause. Martin Gelfand Dept of Physics, Colorado State cudkeys: cuddy3 cudengelfand cudfnMartin cudlnGelfand cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Robert Heeter / Re: Kasagi paper Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi paper Date: 3 Oct 1995 02:53:55 GMT Organization: Princeton University In article <1995Oct2.103741.2420@plasma.byu.edu> , jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes: >I received e-mail from Bob Heeter in which he states: >"I posted an article on this [Kasagi paper, high-energy protons and alphas; >anomalous nuclear reactions of d+ on TiDx] which seems to have been lost in >the noise on the group. I brought the Kasagi paper to a weekly grad-student >discussion group here and we went through the data and decided that Kasagi et. >al. seemed to have missed a possibility. While they they consider a sequential >reaction involving stopped 3He products fusion with D beam ions, it was >definitely not clear that they had considered reactions where the fast 3He >products fuse with cold deuterons in the target as the 3He's slow down." > >Actually, Kasagi et. al. do clearly consider this possibility; here's what >they say in their paper: >"In order to check the possibility that the alpha particles are emitted in the >secondary reactions induced by any materials in the target [including D] with >the products of the primary D+D reactions, >we have irradiated the target directly with neutrons, protons and *3He* >and measured the charged particles. ... >The TiDx target were [sic] directly bombarded with 3.3 MeV proton and 1.5 MeV >3He beam obtained from a Van de Graaff accelerator at Tokyo Institute of >Technology. The irradiated dose was more than 100 times of that of the >products of the D+D reaction. Again, *no* alpha particles were observed." >[My emphasis.] Oops! I forgot about that part of the experiment. We discussed that part too, and the question that came up was whether they really presented enough information on this part of the experiment for us to believe the result. It seems more than a little odd that they would not have seen *any* alphas upon bombarding their sample with high-energy 3He. This second experiment was done at a different accelerator, presumably under different conditions (which I don't think were described in the paper), and it's not clear what they did here. Were the loading conditions the same in the second set of experiments? While these are obvious concerns and one would normally assume they covered these bases, their final claim *is* a bit off the wall, so I'm inclined to be more skeptical than usual. If they were looking in the backwards direction, there may have been a reason why they did not see any high energy alphas - a 3.6 MeV alpha born when a 1.5 MeV 3He hits a stationary D will only have 200 keV worth of energy if it travels back up the beamline. (Why didn't they use 1.0 MeV 3He???) Alphas born in the forward direction were probably absorbed in the Ti target. Alphas born at 90 degrees in the lab frame would only have an energy of 1.6 MeV. Alphas born from slower 3He inside the Ti target would be slowed substantially trying to exit the target in any direction, especially due to the center-of-mass energy shift. The 14 MeV protons are not so susceptible to these sorts of center-of-mass-velocity-induced energy shifts. I wonder if they saw any fusion products at all? (I don't have the paper here just now, or I'd check.) Bombardment of the target with a very fast, unidirectional beam doesn't seem to be entirely equivalent to the 3He-D secondary reactions that should have occurred in their main experiment. I'm not sure the differences would account for the null result, though. >It is not easy to dismiss their results. We want to check their claims >therefore. I guess I'm still skeptical that the situation is as cut-and-dried as their paper makes it seem. Perhaps it does warrant an experimental investigation, though. It would be nice to have more information on their experimental procedure, too. ----------------------------------------------------- Bob Heeter Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Barry Merriman / Re: Kasagi paper Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi paper Date: 2 Oct 1995 20:56:36 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <44kpj4$35f@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter writes: > > I posted an article on this earlier which seems to have been lost in the > noise on the group. I brought the Kasagi paper to a weekly grad-student > discussion group here and we went through the data and decided > that Kasagi et. al. seemed to have missed a possiblity. While they > consider a sequential reaction involving stopped 3He products fusing > with D beam ions, it was definitely not clear that they had considered > reactions where the fast 3He products fuse with cold deuterons in > the target as they 3He's slow down. > Yes, I agree. The bottom line is, due to the initial D beam nuclear reactions, there are high energy--`pre-energized'---particles present in the target, and its not at all clear from Kasagi's paper that they computed the proper spectrum of energetic particles that can be produced from fusions or elastic collisons between these _pre-energized_ particles and other particles present in the target. One gets the impression that he may only have considered reaction chains without including properly the kineticv energy of the input reactants appearing in the outputs. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Barry Merriman / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: 2 Oct 1995 21:18:06 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <21cenlogic-0110951059300001@austin-1-1.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > here's the deal: if you will first explain to me why > you believe that the principle of continuity is invalid, and defend that > view, then I will tell you exactly what a photon is, so you can visualize > its acceleration. Fair enough? > I don't know if _your_ principle of continuity is invalid or not, partly because its stated to vaguely to make any decision. Historically in physics, we have tried to find ways to preserve continuity, or conservation, of **certain fundamental quantities** like energy. However, not _all_ quantities have to vary continuosly, especially quantites that _don't vary_, like the speed of light in a vacuum. Similar quatities that don;t vary are, e.g, the charge and mass of an electron---why don't you ask how these vary as function of time when an electron is created by beta decay? The other issue is that because of qunatum uncertainty, it seems that indeed a reasonable philosophical interpretation is that things can (do?) spring into existence from nowhere, as long as they don't last too long, and that of there is some extra energy around, they can come into real existence. So, I see two propblems with you priciple: (1) you insist it apply to everything, even thing that don't vary, like the properties of fundamental particles (photons, electrons, etc). Why don't you ask as well how the charge of an electron produced by beta decay varies in time? You must not believe in fundamental particles, as they clearly violate your principle of continuity---all particle properties should be infinitely divisible by your principle, since any particle created by a reaction must go through a continuous ``construction process''. (2) you principle seems to conflict some of the philosphy surrounding QM, and that system is a hell of a lot more sound than your single vague priciple. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Barry Merriman / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 2 Oct 1995 20:40:24 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <44p8te$2dr2@lamar.ColoState.EDU> gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) writes: > Into the breach, again... > If nobody else expresses an interest in this > thread I am going to end it here. Its not worth expressing too much, because regardless of what philosophical gyrations Mitch Jones may go through, the fact remains that he apparently believes classical mechanics is a more useful model at the atmoic level than QM. But this is one point that has certainly been refuted, ever since it was realized that electrons don't radiate away energy and spiral into the nucleus, or that atoms radiate at discrete spectral or...(a myriad of other non classical phenomena). Regardless of his criticisms of QM, perhaps MJ could tell us on what grounds he has confidence that classical mechanics is a good predictor of atomic physics, even at the qualitative level. The whole point of QM was to overcome the serious limitations of classsical physics when applied naively to atomic systems (as MJ seems want to do). MJ: why don't you hold off cold fusion, and just give us a classical explanation of an already verified phenomena: that a hydrogen atom is stable. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Barry Merriman / Re: Kasagi paper Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi paper Date: 2 Oct 1995 20:48:04 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) writes: > In article <44cj46$1pp@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry > Merriman) wrote: > > > So, all we would need is a metastable state > > that lasts an additional 10,000 x longer to make this feasible.... > > possible? > > > > > > Or the pair must be 10,000 times closer. Sounds like you have may have > returned to the porpoising deuterons of Marshall Dudley. > I don't think so...Kasgai et al consider the possibility of ``porpoising deuterons'' in their paper, and the probability of that reduces the reaction rate by 17 orders of magnitude. That deuterons will simply bob and weave 10,000 x closer is about as likely as your car going over a bump and staying airborn for 1000 miles. Please, if you speculate, try and at least stay within 6 orders of magnitude of what is remotely possible? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 10:51:56 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <44p8te$2dr2@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) wrote: > Into the breach, again... > If nobody else expresses an interest in this > thread I am going to end it here. ***{Threads tend to have a life of their own, Martin. We have the option of ending our participation in them, of course, but we have no power to control others. --Mitchell Jones}*** > In article <21cenlogic-0110951813190001@austin-1-3.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > >In article <44es53$4nle@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU > >(Martin Gelfand) wrote: > > > >> Mitchell Jones has some serious misconceptions about science; > >> I'd like to address one that came up in our public conversation. > >> The attribution header is getting too long to be useful, so I've > >> axed it. Mitchell's words are always surrounded by braces > >> (preceeded by some asterisks) so its easy to tell who's who. > >> [...] > >> >> >(even though in practice > >> >> >> quantum mechanics makes clear predictions for nearly every > >> >> >> experiment one can construct) > >> >> > > >> >> >***{Rubbish. "Quantum mechanics" doesn't predict anything whatsoever. > >> >> >"Quantum mechanics" is an inept attempt to "interpret" the curve-fitted > >> >> >mathematics of physics in accordance with the precepts of a bankrupt > >> >> >philosophy. The mathematics itself is what "predicts." And, to the extent > >> >> >that experiments stay within the interpolated regions of the curves, the > >> >> >results tend to be extremely accurate. But where is the surprise? Once > >> >> >mathematical constructs have been curve fitted to experimentally measured > >> >> >data points, would we not expect them to "predict" the interpolated > >> >> >regions of the curves to which they have been deliberately fitted? What > >> >> >does this outcome have to do with how the math is "interpreted?" > >> >> >--Mitchell Jones}*** > >> > > >> >> Rubbish yourself. You have no idea what consitutes curve fitting. > >> >> Surely there is quite a bit of curve fitting done in physics, for the > >> >> purposes of summarizing the results of experiments (or calculations), > >> >> but quantum mechanics and relativity per se don't involve any > >> >> fitting whatsoever. If you do a calculation of the "twin paradox > >> >> effect" (for want of a better name; I trust every knows what > >> >> the twin "paradox" is) _what is being fit_? Likewise, if one > >> >> calculates the spectrum of a hydrogen atom using the Schrodinger > >> >> equation, where is any fitting being done? > >> > > >> >***{You really must be kidding! The implication of your statement is that > >> >mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, sans data, and make > >> >up equations! Read a little of the history of physics, for Christ's sake! > >> >Bohr wrestled with the data for months before he came up with his theory > >> >to explain the circular orbits of hydrogen. And Sommerfeld likewise > >> >studied and thought about data for months before he could find the > >> >mathematical constructs that would explain the other orbits. These guys > >> >spent every waking hour immersed in data. Einstein did likewise. To > >> >repeat, there are two basic processes at work in mathematical physics: > >> >curve fitting, and tweaking. Some mathematical physicists study the data > >> >and find the constructs that fit it; others study new data and the old > >> >constructs, and find "transformations" (tweaks) that take the new data > >> >into account. Period. That's the essence of the process. Your implied > >> >claim that mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, totally > >> >unaware of the experimental data, and pull equations out of their behinds, > >> >is beyond absurdity. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> > >> This "wresting with data" is what distinguishes theoretical > >> physicists from mathematicians. It is _not_ the same as curve fitting. > > > >***{Actually, theoretical physicists use mathematical constructs as input, > >and produce visual models as their output. It is the mathematical > >physicists who "wrestle with data." To them, data is input, and curve > >fitted mathematical constructs are the output. The difference between a > >mathematical physicist and a mathematician is one of purpose: the > >mathematician is interested in the math for its own sake; the mathematical > >physicist uses the math as a tool in the curve fitting process. > WRONG WRONG WRONG. Where do you get these notions, Mitchell? > As far as I can tell you just make them up, because they have > no basis in reality. ***{Unlax, Doc. A simple "I disagree" will do. Indicating your emotional state will cut you no slack with me, so why not simply cut to the chase? --Mitchell Jones}*** > Let me give you some advice. Go to a library and take a look > at (what I believe to be) the most presitigious forum for mathematical > physics, namely, Communications in Mathematical Physics. > It looks a heck of a lot like a mathematics journal, and that's no > accident: most mathematical physicists in fact do mathematical > proofs! The dividing line between mathematical physicists (in the > present-day usage of the term) and mathematicians is, essentially, > the nature of the problems they're interested in. ***{Is that it? After the emotional statement of massive disagreement, I expected something that was clearly different from what I said. Oh, well, in with a bang, out with a whimper, as they say! --Mitchell Jones}*** > On the other hand, if you look at a journal like Physical Review B > (the condensed matter physics section of Physical Review) you'll find > some experimental papers, and some theory papers, some that include > both significant theoretical and experimental work, and (very few, > in comparison) papers in which the proof of a theorem is the > central result. "Theoretical physics" is distinguished from > "mathematical physics" largely in that the former does not consist > largely of axioms and theorems, but rather (more or less > controlled) approximation methods. It is the theoretical physicists > who try to figure out what approximation methods are best suited > to treating a given problem (and then go on to apply the method), > in order to understand some feature seen in experimental data. > The simplest example is the use of quantum mechanical perturbation > theory, to understand features in atomic or molecular spectroscopy. > A mathematical physicist would tend to be interested in the > question "Is this perturbation expansion convergent?" whereas > the theoretical physicist would be interested in the question > "Can we understand the spectrum on the basis of the following > Hamiltonian ... using low-order perturbation theory?" ***{If you will re-read my comments on this topic--calmly, please--you will note that I stated repeatedly my belief that, in the "modern" world, the distinction between mathematical physicis and theoretical physics had narrowed virtually to the point of indistinguishibility. Nothing in what you are saying conflicts with that in the slightest. As you also will notice, I went back 200 years to select out a good, clear-cut example to illustrate what I consider to be the proper distinction between these two terms. Moreover, I also stated why I believe the distinction, in recent times, has been blurred to the point of nonexistence: because the types of superficial rote memorizers who have taken over the faculties of state universities feel threatened by the kinds of students who want to know what the mathematical constructs *mean.* To defend themselves against students who embarass them by asking questions which they cannot answer, they bury their classes in a flood tide of material. Such a practice, from their perspective, has two advantages: (1) It gives them a built-in excuse by means of which they can fend off students who insist on fathoming the meaning of it all: "We have to move on," they say. "We can't spend all day on this one narrow point." (2) It ensures that students who "waste time" trying to visualize what it all means have great difficulty earning "top marks." Naturally, with classes structured so that visual thinkers do poorly and faculty positions being given to applicants who earn "top marks," the result is that pretty soon the chairs in theoretical physics are filled by superficial rote memorizers who can't do "theoretical physics"--i.e., can't do the old style of theoretical physics, as it existed before the rise of state controlled universities. And, once the chairs in "theoretical physics" are occupied by people who can't think visually, the inevitable happens: they attack visual thinking and the building of visual models, and they redefine, by an incremental process, theoretical physics so that it becomes virtually indistinguishable from mathematical physics--precisely as you are doing. Bottom line: you may think you are arguing with me, but the fact is that every sentence you utter provides more evidence in support of what I have been saying. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >As for whether what mathematical physicists do can be appropriately > >described as "curve fitting," your view harkens back to our earlier > >disagreement about whether a "structured vacuum" is an "ether." In both > >cases, you want to emphasize differences and I want to emphasize > >similarities. In my view the reason is that you buy into the ongoing con > >game which passes for physics nowadays, while I do not. In the specific > >case of curve fitted mathematical constructs, the goal of the con game is > >to pretend that mathematical physics and theoretical physics are the same > >thing, despite the fact that they are radically different. (You implicitly > >treated them as the same when you said, incorrectly, that "wresting with > >data" is what distinguishes theoretical physicists from mathematicians.") > > > >In order to comprehend the nature and goals of this particular con game, > >it is first necessary to realize that, basically, there are four types of > >physicists: (1) Experimental physicists collect data and test hypotheses. > >(2) Mathematical physicists express the data in a compact mathematical > >form by means of a process that I have described as "curve fitting and > >tweaking." (3) Theoretical physicists reflect upon the resulting > >mathematical constructs and create visual models of the underlying > >phenomena, thereby explaining the math and the data, and enabling others > >to understand and think about the phenomena. (4) Applied physicists, > >commonly known as "engineers," use the visual models and the mathematical > >constructs to solve problems in the real world--e.g., by designing > >buildings, bridges, machines, etc. > > > >Within this classification, Nicholas Copernicus was a theoretical > >physicist, because he overturned the previous, earth-centered visual model > >of the solar system and replaced it with a new, sun-centered one. Isaac > >Newton, on the other hand, was primarily an experimental and mathematical > >physicist. (His law of universal gravitation, for example, was a purely > >curve-fitted mathematical construct which was offered to the world with no > >apologies for the fact that there was no accompanying visual model.) Paul > >Dirac, by contrast, was a mathematical physicist and a theoretical > >physicist: he did not merely produce curve fitted mathematical constructs > >which made it possible to calculate data points; he also created the > >visual model known as "Dirac's ocean"--to wit: his sea of "extraordinary > >electrons" that pervaded all of space. Lord Rutherford was yet another > >variant: an experimentalist who, as author of the atomic model, was a > >theoretical physicist as well. > > I've been wondering what in the world you meant earlier when > you wrote of a "visual model". Now I have an idea of what's > going on. You are simply fearful of mathematics. Never mind > the full meaning of the Dirac equation, as long as you have your > "ocean" you're happy. You believe modern physics is a con > game because you do not understand it, and are too lazy to > try to understand it. To rationalize your lack of understanding > you deny that there is anything worth understanding. ***{Martin, one of the things I have learned in my life is that people who try to divert discussions away from the topic at issue by engaging in demeaning speculations and ad hominem attacks are driven by fear: fear of loss of face, and fear that they will lose the argument, if they stick to the issue. That's how I interpret your remarks in the preceding paragraph. Simply put: you have entered a battle for which, sadly, you are unarmed, and so you have decided that diversionary tactics are required. As for your assertion that I am fearful of mathematics and that I deny that there is anything in physics that is worth understanding, you simply leave me wondering if you have read anything I have said on these topics. Therefore, to repeat: I consider theoretical physics to be the highest calling in physics, and in my view the entire purpose of theoretical physics is to create visual models that make it possible to understand the curve-fitted constructs of mathematical physics. Indeed, I have explicitly stated that theoretical physicists use mathematical constructs as their input, and produce visual models as their output, and I gave a very explicit example--to wit: the LeSage visual model which explains Newton's gravitational equation--to illustrate the process. Got it? --Mitchell Jones}*** > > The subsequent comments about the "con job" of current physics > are deleted > [...] > > > > >By the way, Martin, please note that no personal judgment is contained in > >the above. I am *not* saying that you are one of the guilty parties in all > >of this, and I am *not* saying you are a superficial rote memorizer. You > >may, for all I know, be one of the victims. It is very difficult to > >understand the internal workings of bureaucracy and the way incentives > >determine outcomes in such environments. Millions of people buy into the > >scam because they are sincerely fooled by it. And they are entitled to be > >fooled: the "profscam" is one of the slickest con games around. --Mitchell > >Jones}*** > > You (and anyone else) is free to read my work and make > whatever judgements of its validity and significant > they desire. (If you don't have access to a citation > database I can send a copy of my publication list.) ***{Sorry, Martin, but you are the one who introduced questions of background and qualifications into this discussion, not I. I don't give a hoot in hell what you have or haven't published. On the internet, ultimately, you are going to be judged by the quality of your arguments, as will I. And that's the way it should be. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >> Let me give a simple example which, I hope, explains why. > >> > >> From the Schrodinger equation one can calculate the spectrum > >> of the hydrogen atom (up to hyperfine splittings and other > >> effects which are "small"). The formula that results has > >> several parameters in it: the electron mass (more precisely > >> the _reduced mass_, which differs from the electron mass > >> by a small amount that depends on the nuclear mass), the > >> electron charge, and Planck's constant. The point is that > >> all of these parameters can be measured, using methods which > >> make no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of the hydrogen > >> atom. > > > >***{Of course they can, but there exist an infinite number of formulations > >into which they can be plugged, and Schrodinger's is only one of them. > >--Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >Planck's constant one can obtain from the photoelectric > >> effect; the electron mass to charge ratio by looking at how > >> the trajectory of an electron is bent in a magnetic field; > >> the electron charge can (nowadays) be measured directly > >> from the ratio of current to input pulse rate in an > >> "electron turnstile"; etc etc etc... all methods that make > >> no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of hydrogen. And > >> guess what: the correct answer (again, up to small corrections > >> associated with the inexactness of simple Schrodinger equation) > >> comes out. > > > >***{Yes, of course, but if the formulation had not given the "correct" > >answer--i.e., one that fits the data--it would have joined a hundred > >others in Schrodinger's unpublished discard heap, now wouldn't it? That's > >why I refer to this process as mathematical curve fitting. The curves that > >don't fit the data get tossed! > > Mitchell, _please_ drop the "curve fitting" nonsense. > Otherwise what you've said is basically correct, the > theories that don't work get tossed! (Although sometimes > they get recycled, when it is found that they are the correct > theory for something other than was originally envisioned!) ***{Martin, I'm not going to drop an accurate description merely because you don't like its implications. The fact is that "modern" physics is engaged in the denial and destruction of its most important area of specialization: theoretical physics. That denial and destruction rests on the false claim that the formulations of mathematical physics contain deep truths about the world and, thus, that visual models of the sort produced by the old style of theoretical physicist are no longer needed. I disagree totally with this trend, and I despise and condemn the motivations which underlie it. Thus you can call that description "nonsense" until you are blue in the face, to no avail. I will consider attempts to justify this trend to be rationalizations until and unless someone comes up with a sound and cogent argument to the contrary, which you have thus far failed to do. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >In summary, I would note four things: (1) you ignore the garbage heap of > >discarded formualtions that *did not* give the correct answer, (2) you > Ignore, how? ***{Ignore means ignore, for Christ's sake! --Mitchell Jones}*** > >ignore the fact that the formulations in your example were tweaked > >variants of pre-existing mathematical constructs (e.g., Maxwell's > >equations), (3) you ignore the fact that the pre-existing constructs were > Again, ignore how? > >also curve-fitted, tweaked variants of even earlier constructs (Coulomb's > >law, the Biot-Savart law, Faraday's law of induction, etc.), and, most > >importantly, (4) you ignore the fact that such constructs are valuable for > Again, please drop "curve-fitted"! > >one reason only: because they sum up, in a compact form, the implications > >of the existing experimental data--which means: they contribute to our > >ability to calculate, but not to our ability to understand. > This is where we really part paths. Any theory which has value > does more than summarize current knowledge. It also has implications > for _future_ experiments. If a theory (quantum mechanics, applied > to the model of atomic structure pioneered by Bohr) not only describes > the the spectrum of hydrogen but _also_ tells you all sorts of things > about the specific heat of metals and polyatomic gases (which cannot > be understood within the framework of _classical_ statistical > mechanics) then the theory is not just "curve-fitting" of atomic > spectra. ***{As I have repeatedly noted, the constructs of curve fitted mathematics support accurate interpolations and, to a lesser degree, extrapolations. However, as even you admit, when such a construct ceases to "fit" the experimentally determined data points, it is either "tweaked" or discarded. And yet, in spite of this, you continue to get bent out of shape when I say that the construct is "curve fitted!" Wow! (A more perfect example of a distinction without a difference could hardly be imagined!) As for your statement that the Bohr model has implications that cannot be understood within the framework of classical mechanics, that is baloney. The entire Bohr theory, including why the "preferred" orbits are more stable than the transitional ones, can be explained by strictly classical arguments. Because of that, all implications of the Bohr theory, explicitly including those you mentioned, can be derived classically. What you lack here, Martin, is a satisfactory visual model of the atomic system. Why do you lack it? Probably because you are simply in the habit of memorizing mathematical formulae and rules for their manipulation, and not "wasting time" worrying about the causation. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >Point number four, being the most important, requires elaboration. To > >convey the relative importance of a mathematical construct as compared to > >a visual model of the same phenomenon, an example is required. For that > >purpose, therefore, let us work with Newton's law of universal > >gravitation, F = GMm/r^2. When Newton made this statement, he was merely > >stating a mathematical relationship that fit the data points in the > >existing, experimentally determined data base (mostly accumulated by Tycho > >Brahe and Galileo), from which other known formulations (e.g., those of > >Kepler) could be deduced, and from which he hoped useful interpolations > >and even some extrapolations could be made. He did not claim that his > >equation *explained* the underlying causal process by which gravity > >worked, though he did explicitly debunk the "action at a distance idea" > >which was put forward by others who attempted to interpret/explain his > >idea. > > > >Why isn't the law of universal gravitation the same as an explanation of > >gravitation? This is a distinction that isn't easy to see, until one > >confronts an actual explanation. And, in the modern era, the ongoing con > >game in physics ensures that students almost never confront such > >explanations. We can, however, get around the con game by going back a > >ways in the history of physics, to a time when great theoretical > >physicists still existed in the world. To that end, therefore, let's > >consider the interpretation of Newton's law put forward by an obscure > >theoretical physicist by the name of George-Louis LeSage, more than two > >hundred years ago. According to LeSage, the universe abounded with tiny > >particles which he called "ultra mundane corpuscles." The particles moved > >at enormous velolcities and were so small as to pass through great masses > >of ordinary matter (including planets and stars) with a very low > >probability of striking anything, and yet they were present in such > >enormous numbers that they nevertheless exerted continuous forces on even > >the smallest of objects. The result: gravitation, in strict accordance > >with Newton's law. > > > >Have you ever asked yourself, for example, why gravity holds you to the > >earth as you stand on your feet looking up at the stars? Within the LeSage > >model, the answer is simple: there is a continuous downward force pressing > >your body to the earth, due to the fact that the rain of "ultra mundane > >corpsucles" coming down on you from space is unobstructed, while many of > >those rising up from beneath your feet are obstructed by the earth. Thus > >the downward force exceeds the upward force, in proportion to the mass of > >the earth and your distance from its center, exactly as Newton's law > >indicates. > > > >The difference between the LeSage model, which is theoretical physics at > >its best, and the mathematical formulation of Newton, is profound. First, > >the Newtonian formula can be derived from LeSage's visual model, but not > >the reverse; and, second, the LeSage model makes it possible to understand > >and hence think about gravitation in ways that the mathematical > >formulation does not. The difference between the two is profound and > >stunning, and falls upon the mind like a thunderbolt. No more perfect > >illustration of the difference between the products of mathematical and > >theoretical physics could possibly be devised. And, by virtue of the fact > >that most physicists today have never heard of the LeSage model (and those > >few who have believe, incorrectly, that it has been refuted), no more > >perfect proof of the ongoing fraud in physics could possibly be devised. > >--Mitchell Jones}*** > The LeSage model may not have been "refuted" but it has certainly > lost any substantial following. The reason should be clear. > If its predictions were _exactly_ the same as Newton's laws then > all that it would do would be to introduce constructs ("ultra mundane > corpuscles") into a theory which did perfectly well without them! ***{An amazing statement, and one that absolutely confirms what, in my last post to you, I stated only as a conjecture: you really place no value on knowing the underlying meaning of a mathematical formulation, do you, Martin? You really don't care what the actual causation is! Wow! --Mitchell Jones}*** > On the other hand, if LeSage's model is to be considered "superior" > to Newton's it should yield predictions which are (1) correct, in > the sense of being experimentally testable and validated > (2) _different_ from Newton's. ***{To repeat: understanding of causation has value, Martin. Why? Because it opens minds to possibilities that, without it, could not have been even considered. For example, if the LeSage theory is correct, then antigravity is possible. (General relativity holds that antigravity is impossible.) So one of the immediate effects, if the LeSage theory were accepted, would be physicists who were open to the possibility of antigravity devices, and thus likely to recognize evidence of antigravity processes if it were encountered. The point is that a population open to a possibility is more likely to recognize an opportunity to realize it. (This is is the same sort of effect that the protoneutron theory would have, if accepted, relative to "excess energy" phenomena.) This is not--repeat: not--an implication to be taken lightly. Understanding has enormous value. Far more value, I might add, than does a mathematical construct which expresses experimental data points in a compact form and permits some interpolations and, with luck, extrapolations. --Mitchell Jones}*** > A big problem with actually testing the LeSage model is that it > does not specify in any detail what the hell those corpuscles are, > so there's in fact no way to make a specific, testable prediction! ***{OK, Martin, you have claimed to accept various theories (e.g., that of Schrodinger) that make testable predictions about photons. I therefore challenge you to explain to me in detail exactly what photons are. --Mitchell Jones}*** > If I were to come up with a detailed model for the interactions > between corpuscles and ordinary matter, and could show that it > led to predictions which were eminently incorrect, a LeSagian > would undoubtably state huffily that _my_ version of the LeSage > model was wrong, but nonetheless LeSage's is still a true theory. > He would fail to understand that the burden is on _him_ to define > a specific model. The fact that LeSage failed to do so explains > why LeSages model is "pre-refuted". IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL THEORY! ***{Actually, Martin, your comments on this topic are so far from the mark that I suspect that you had never heard of LeSage's theory until I mentioned it to you. Since you like to give me advice about what to read, you can't very well be offended if I suggest something for you to read. I therefore suggest that you take a look at *Maxwell on Molecules and Gasses*, MIT Press, 1986. Check the index, and you will discover that there are lots of references to the LeSage theory. After reading them, you will become aware of two things: (1) James Clerk Maxwell took the theory very, very seriously, and most assuredly did *not* regard it as "pre-refuted." (2) He did *not* deny that it was a physical theory. (Of course, in his time "theoretical physics" had not yet been redefined out of existence!) Another source would be Feynmann's lectures on physics. He took the theory seriously also. Like Maxwell, he argued against it at length, thereby indicating quite clearly that he considered it to be a physical theory and that he did not consider it to be "pre-refuted." (If he thought it was "pre-refuted," there would have been no need for him to refute it, now would there?) After reading some of this background material, I think you will be in a better position to talk intelligently about this subject. --Mitchell Jones}*** > (A play on Phil Anderson's notion of "pre-falsified" theories, ie, > theories which fail to account for even existing data.) > If you think LeSage's model is so great, please describe > the corpuscles in sufficient detail so that I can do a calculation > which leads to a testable prediction. ***{Read Feynmann's comments. He will give you enough insight so that you can do calculations, and also make, and test, a prediction. Then, having done that, I expect you will rush forth, imbued with certainty that, using Feynmann's argument, you can refute the LeSage theory. At that point, I will happily prove that you, and Feynmann, are dead wrong! --Mitchell Jones}*** For example, should we > expect "Brownian motion" of all matter due to the interaction with > the corpuscles flying in from random directions and with random > collision times? ***{For this, check out Maxwell. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >> > >> You see, there is a huge body of knowledge about the world, > >> which _overdetermines_ many times the freedom to choose the > >> few parameters that exist in theories of the world. > > > >***{True enough. If a familiar formulation comes close to predicting a > >newly measured data point, it is likely to be "tweaked" rather than tossed > >out. The reason: people are conservative, and cling to old formulations as > >long as they can. This, however, merely confirms the fact that the > >formulations were produced by curve fitting and tweaking, exactly as I > >said. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >> No, you don't want to use theories outside of their > >> range of applicability; but that is a whole hell of a lot > >> different that saying that theories are mere "curve fitting". > > > >***{We do not use words in the same way. Thus part of our disagreement may > >be terminological and somewhat trivial. However, I also believe that you > >think mathematical formulations express deeper truths about the world than > >is, in fact, the case. And, as a corollary, I believe you impute far less > >significance to visual models and to thinking in terms of them than you > >should. I'll bet, for example, that you are not disturbed by the question > >of how, in the Newtonian scheme of gravitation, the force gets through > >space from one mass to another; and I'll also bet that, in the case of > >general relativity, you are not disturbed by the substitution of "curved > >space" for "gravitational force." If I am right about these conjectures, > >then I would say that your attitudes indicate a virtual indifference to > >visualization in physics, because neither of these schemes of gravitation > >make any visual sense at all. --Mitchell Jones}*** > You have a strikingly limited visual sense. What visual sense > evidently means to you is "something *I* can understand without > thinking too hard, and certainly without disrupting the world-view > I've developed through my life's experiences". Sorry for the insulting > tone, but that's how I read it. I have no trouble "visualizing" > quantum many-body physics, even if I can't necessarily _calculate_ > everything I'd like to! ***{It's OK, Martin. I understand the reason for the insulting tone. As I noted in an earlier post, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you! --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Martin P. Gelfand > Dept of Physics > Colorado State University =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Oct 4 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------