I have Dirac on my bookshelf.
De Broglie, Einstein, Menzel, J. S. Bell, Maxwell.
Yur not talking to some clam-digger.
The changes in physics have been some of the most violent in the intellectual world.
That was a metaphor of sorts, but true nonetheless.
The Earth used to be the center of the universe. Then it wasn’t the center of the universe.
Newton figured out gravity and invented calculus.
Then, some odd things were found about Mercurys orbit, and Newton was shown to be wrong.
Then Einstein figured that one out.
Then the quantum world was discovered and much of what Einstein said (at least about space and time and locality) were thrown out.
The next change to physics will probably shake it to it’s very foundations.
That’s why things like this interest me. As possible pointers to whatever will come to be accepted (after a whole lot of grumbling and sneering and denigrating) as the new model of our understanding of the universe(s).
So you can deny it all you want, that by itself doesn’t make it true or untrue.
God does not play Dice!!
And here I thought they were dead and buried.
Then, some odd things were found about Mercurys orbit, and Newton was shown to be wrong.
Newton wasn't wrong. He just didn't account for some stuff under some conditions. He was right as far as he went. Likewise the current physical requirement of overcoming the proton-proton repulsion to get them close enough to fuse is not wrong. If some magical method that does this in bulk matter exists that doesn't require enormous heat and pressure, then it has yet to be seen. You can get fusion in a particle accelerator, but you'll never be able to use one to produce net energy. I suppose a particle accelerator would qualify as cold fusion, but we're talking about net energy production. So I will remain intensely sceptical, but please feel free to invest in one of these schemes. I'll look forward to hearing how it turns out.