I have done so already. Sinha's so-called theories violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle amongst a lot of other problems. Clean, neat, simple. Done.
That is all it takes, which you would understand if you had any physics understanding.
And since, as you admit, you lack the education to understand that point, you blather on, and on, and on, and on, and on, full of sound a fury, saying nothing on point.
The only thing that would be on point would be a series of experiments demonstrating the the HUP can be violated by 100 orders of magnitude. Equivalently you can provide experimental data showing the measured properties of one of these so-called fictitious "locons." You do that by scattering electrons, or phonons or neutrons or radio waves off of the locon generating elementary excitations whose properties you then measure. Physicists have been doing that for a century. There are a 100,000 folks who could do those measurements, could that is, if locons existed, which they don't, since you cannot measure anything about them or someone would have by now.
But you, as you admit, are untrained and inexperienced and have no clue what anyone is talking about, yourself included, so you will blather on and on, and on, and on and on and on and say nothing on point.
***He mentions [the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle] in his paper. He claims it is modified by the fact that the atom is stuck inside a lattice, and you claim that it is not modified by anything. Based upon my interactions with you, I’m inclined to think that he knows what he’s talking about and you do not.
Yeah well, the HUP is not modified by anything. It is an underlying principle that applies to all quantum mechanical systems, and an electron in a lattice is as good an example of a quantum mechanical system as we have.
Do you even know what the HUP states: it is simple really? It states that the more you try to localize a quantum in space the higher its momentum must be: mathematically, δxδp>h/4π
When you try to confine an electron to a volume approximately the size of a nucleus, you get momenta that require energies of 100's of MeV, but there is nothing that can bind an electron with that kind of energy. For instance the bound state energy of an electron in a deuterium atom (hydrogen atom) is about 13.6eV. The bound state of an electron intermediating between two such atoms in a molecule is much lower than that (a couple of eV, which is the typical molecular binding energy).
But any simpleton who took a sophomore general physics course could run these numbers - and as you admit you cannot.
So stop blathering aboout that which is way way way over your poor little head.
And by the way, since you bring up Hagelstein, his papers start with the explicit assumption that the electron in a lattice is governed by the normal quantum mechanical equations that govern these things. He plunged off the cliff when he tried to demonstrate that phase correlations on the lattice scale would persist to nuclear dimensions (the aforementioned factor of 100,000,000 in frequency scaling. It is the argument that enough people rowing enough prams syncronously can generate enough wake to capsize a battleship foregetting that you cannot get a million of anything to do anything in such perfect syncronicity). Peter simple forgot, through his special pleading that he was also violating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Kevmo:
it should be a simple matter to counter the scientific arguments in those papers
AJ:
I have done so already.
***NO, you have NOT. There are multiple theories. There’s the Bose-Einstein condensate theory, the deflation fusion theory, the ultralow momentum Widom Larson theory, the KP Sinha theory, the Mills Hydrino theory, plus probably others. All you have done is focus on ONE theory, and that is on THIS forum where the only challenge to your knowledge level comes from someone like me who does not have the background. You do a disservice to Free Republic, to the public, to the physics community, to the world at large when you cower in fear and scoldingly abuse a fellow freeper but don’t bother to get onto the scientific journals to knock out the scientific issues brought up by these theories. Why do you send invective my way? It’s because you are a wuss. You do not have the courage to put it out to the scientific community what you think. You obviously have the time, or you wouldn’t be logging on here. So that means you do not have the courage to put out your theories just like all these other guys did.
With that in mind, why should we listen to a coward like you?
Sinha’s so-called theories violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle amongst a lot of other problems. Clean, neat, simple. Done
*** Science has been here before. There was a time when scientists loudly and angrily proclaimed that rocks do not fall from the sky. Eventually, some scientist accepted the observation and looked into this obviously impossibility.
Another time that a scientist did not accept an observation was when Doppler hired some musicians to play a C note on train approaching him. What he heard was not a C note, and he fired all the musicians. Only after he accepted the observations was he able to move forward with the beautiful science tha was developed.
Today, science is confronted with the observation, repeated 14,700 times or more, of excess heat in LENR experiments. The only scientists who will make progress will be the guys like Doppler who accepted the observations.
So, again I ask you: do you accept the observations?
There would be no point in discussing meteors with someone who does not accept that rocks fall from the sky, nor discussing redshift with someone who does not accept that musicians can play a good C note. You keep dancing around this simple point, mainly by ignoring it, but that does not make your position superior to anyone’s. It just makes you one of the loudly screaming scientists who uselessly proclaim that rocks do not fall from the sky.
That is all it takes, which you would understand if you had any physics understanding.
***”Rocks do not fall from the sky. “
And since, as you admit, you lack the education to understand that point,
***straw argument, as demonstrated by the “rocks do not fall from the sky” analogy. If you are a PhD nuke physicist then you should have managed to get through freshman level critical thinking, and that means you should not be using straw argumentation. That suggests that perhaps you are not the PhD physicist you claim to be, or that maybe you’re intellectually lazy, or you just suffer from whatever that syndrome is that caused scientists to say “rocks don’t fall from the sky” rather than investigate the observations.
you blather on, and on, and on, and on, and on, full of sound a fury, saying nothing on point.
***Oh, cool, a Shakespeare reference. Here is one that applies to you: “Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men.”
Henry VI Part 1, 4. 1
The only thing that would be on point would be a series of experiments demonstrating the the HUP can be violated by 100 orders of magnitude.
***Then do it, mr. PhD Nuke Physicist, and make a name for yourself instead of cowardly hiding behind an anonymous login and berating those with less education than yourself. Geez, you’re an elitist boob.
Equivalently you can provide experimental data showing the measured properties of one of these so-called fictitious “locons.”
***You have the background, knock it down. While you’re at it, address all those other theories, mr. PHD nuke physicist.
You do that by scattering electrons, or phonons or neutrons or radio waves off of the locon generating elementary excitations whose properties you then measure. Physicists have been doing that for a century. There are a 100,000 folks who could do those measurements, could that is, if locons existed, which they don’t, since you cannot measure anything about them or someone would have by now.
***Feel free to publish your findings on some scientific website and I’ll be happy to post it here on Free Republic.
But you, as you admit, are untrained and inexperienced and have no clue what anyone is talking about,
***You are the one with the greater responsibility to society here, with your high & mighty education applicable to this area. But what is it that prevents you from debunking all these theories? Is it that you’re lazy?
That you don’t care enough to go to the trouble but you feel perfectly free to browbeat those of us who have lesser education than you? Is it that you are an imposter? Basically, all I see in the absence of counterarguments to these physics theories at the level that they are published is a bunch of excuses. And cowardice.
yourself included, so you will blather on and on, and on, and on and on and on and say nothing on point.
***Feel free to address those 14000 observations and the 3 or 4 thousands (give or take a few) orders of magnitude that you keep skipping over.
Yeah well, the HUP is not modified by anything.
***You’re the one blathering on, saying the same thing in repitition rather than producing evidence at the level of where these theories are published.
It is an underlying principle that applies to all quantum mechanical systems, and an electron in a lattice is as good an example of a quantum mechanical system as we have.
***Something in QM is going to have to give way in order to accommodate those 14000 observations. But you’ve never addressed those observations, so that puts you in the “rocks don’t fall from the sky” side of scientific inquiry. You can say that stuff as loud as you want, accompanied by as much bitterness as vinegar, but in the end if you do not accept the observations, there is not enough sweetness in what you write to accept what you have to say.
When you try to confine an electron to a volume approximately the size of a nucleus, you get momenta that require energies of 100’s of MeV,
***Sounds like the Bose-Einstein condensate and ultra low momentum theory combined would address this area of inquiry, not that we can expect you to use your physics background to generate the scientific data to deal with it one way or another. I expect simple sniping from you, rather than science.
but there is nothing that can bind an electron with that kind of energy. For instance the bound state energy of an electron in a deuterium atom (hydrogen atom) is about 13.6eV. The bound state of an electron intermediating between two such atoms in a molecule is much lower than that (a couple of eV, which is the typical molecular binding energy).
***good stuff. Publish it. Knock down those theories. Make a name for yourself, instead of hiding behind an anonymous internet avatar.
But any simpleton who took a sophomore general physics course could run these numbers - and as you admit you cannot.
***Bull Shiite. I took calculus-based physics, got an A in nuclear physics and that is my exposure. The reason why you choose a sophomore level of physics is because you already know my background, making your argument a raising of the bar for intellectual capability to even discuss this subject. Yet another logical fallacy you are engaging in, suggesting that you have not made it through a freshman level critical thinking class.
So stop blathering aboout that which is way way way over your poor little head.
***Your elitism is showing. And don’t forget, your cowardice. You’re full of invective when you address someone anonymously whom you know has less background than you. But you don’t do what you owe to society, Free Republic, and others by bringing your arguments to the scientific arena where they belong for everyone else to see.
Sinha’s so-called theories violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
***So do other observations. Experiments trump theory.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2756555/posts?page=11#11
To: decimon
“The original EPR [Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen] paradox challenges the prediction of quantum mechanics that it is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle. This can be extended to other pairs of physical properties.
[edit] EPR paper
The original paper describes what happens to “two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...”, and, after some time, “we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts.” In the words of Kumar (2009), it has “Two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions.”[6] According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B, say, exactly. However, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A and the exact momentum of particle B. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, with the exact momentum of particle B known, the exact momentum of particle A can be worked out. “EPR argued that they had proved that ... particle B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum.”
This is a paradox in Quantum Mechanics: The theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR experiment shows that they can. “Therefore, the quantum mechanical description of physical reality, EPR conclude, is incomplete.”[7] The paper says: “We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete.”
The EPR paper ends with:
While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
11 posted on Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:58:30 AM by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)