5 ms·

> "becoming a bit of a laughing stock when it turned out to be rubbish" The important thing here is to separate the idea from the implementation. Is cold fusio

> "becoming a bit of a laughing stock when it turned out to be rubbish" The important thing here is to separate the idea from the implementation. Is cold fusion theoretically impossible? I'm no expert, but there seems to be at least some scientists indicating it's not impossible. If that's the case, why does the failure of the first experiment matter? It's sad that the scientific community is partly based on reputation. I'd rather see all scientific work published anonymously, the work should speak for itself.

XorNot 11y ago
Cold fusion IS theoretically impossible, that's the point. Nuclear theory very much says that cold fusion doesn't work. Which means the experiments have to work because no one has a workable theory which predicts cold fusion.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > Cold fusion IS theoretically impossible I think that's a bit strong. Nuclear theory does not say the energy isn't there (as the subject article of this comment thread points out). It also does not say it is impossible for the potential barrier between the nuclei (which is what makes it necessary to have high temperatures for conventional fusion to work) to be lowered somehow; someone upthread posted a reference to a conversation with Edward Teller where he basically said that's how he would explain cold fusion if it turned out to be true--the nuclear analogue of a chemical catalyst, lowering the activation energy required. It only says we don't currently know of any mechanism for lowering the potential barrier.
  - igravious 11y ago
    It's not a bit strong. You refute your own refutation. You use the words 'somehow', 'if', and 'currently'. That's kind of the whole point. _Currently_ there is no theory that explains how to do fusion without massive amounts of heat, ergo cold fusion IS (currently) theoretically impossible.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "_Currently_ there is no theory that explains how to do fusion without massive amounts of heat, ergo cold fusion IS (currently) theoretically impossible." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusion-is-it-possible-is/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusi... "Unfortunately, their results were hugely flawed, and their experiments were not reproducible, and cold fusion is now synonymous with ideas like perpetual motion machines: very appealing promises of virtually limitless energy, but that are unfortunately physically impossible." "Now, that’s not necessarily fair. While perpetual motion machines would violate known physical phenomena — like the conservation of energy — cold fusion is, in principle possible. If we go back to the Sun, where nuclear fusion definitely occurs, it isn’t like the temperatures there are sufficient to cause the individual nuclei to overcome their mutual electric repulsion and fuse together. Instead, something else remarkable happens to the two nuclei that are about to fuse." "Remember that instead of being solid particles, these nuclei are quantum mechanical objects, meaning they act both as particles and waves. The quantum mechanical wavefunctions of these nuclei — in the Sun, at any rate — wind up overlapping, so that there’s a small but finite (and important) probability that two of them will find themselves in a more energetically favorable state! When that happens, they can tunnel into that energetically favorable state, and fusion can occur!" "Now, this has never been observed at cold temperatures, but from a theoretical physics standpoint, it may be possible."
      - lmm 11y ago
        This is misleadingly phrased. We have precise, verified models for quantum tunneling and at what rates under what circumstances it does and doesn't occur.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Based on those models, what circumstances are required for quantum tunnelling to occur?
        lmm 11y ago
- qubex 11y ago
  I don't think “nuclear theory” explicitly “rules it out”. There's certainly no result that leaps off the page and states that it most certainly is or is not possible. But there's a very clear threshold of Coulomb repulsion that would need to be overcome in order for this to work, and absolutely no trace of any phenomenon so-far calculated or measured that might allow it to be overcome at room temperature. So it is... shall we say “inherently incompatible with theory and what we know impinges upon those theories”?
astazangasta 11y ago
I don't think the work can ever speak for itself; it is simply too hard to verify the data. Falsified data appears in science all the time even without anonymity and can take years to discover. With anonymity the world of science would quickly fill up with fake data generated by fossil fuel and pharma companies. Having your reputation at stake is an important control in behavior. Finally, anonymity precludes collaboration, the very basis of science. If I don't know who did something I can't call them up to extend their work, get their raw data, get help optimizing their method, etc.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "I don't think the work can ever speak for itself; it is simply too hard to verify the data." It wouldn't work in every case, however it is possible to have a reproducible experiment as part of a scientific paper. If the experiment can be reproduced (by publicly known scientists), then the identity of the author is not that important. The only time this wouldn't work is when experiments were too costly and/or time-consuming to reproduce. > "Finally, anonymity precludes collaboration, the very basis of science. If I don't know who did something I can't call them up to extend their work, get their raw data, get help optimizing their method, etc." Could go down the pseudo-anonymous route instead (similar to sites like HN and GitHub). That way the contact information could be specific to a single project, or could span multiple projects.

XorNot 11y ago

Cold fusion IS theoretically impossible, that's the point. Nuclear theory very much says that cold fusion doesn't work. Which means the experiments have to work because no one has a workable theory which predicts cold fusion.

pdonis 11y ago
> Cold fusion IS theoretically impossible I think that's a bit strong. Nuclear theory does not say the energy isn't there (as the subject article of this comment thread points out). It also does not say it is impossible for the potential barrier between the nuclei (which is what makes it necessary to have high temperatures for conventional fusion to work) to be lowered somehow; someone upthread posted a reference to a conversation with Edward Teller where he basically said that's how he would explain cold fusion if it turned out to be true--the nuclear analogue of a chemical catalyst, lowering the activation energy required. It only says we don't currently know of any mechanism for lowering the potential barrier.
- igravious 11y ago
  It's not a bit strong. You refute your own refutation. You use the words 'somehow', 'if', and 'currently'. That's kind of the whole point. _Currently_ there is no theory that explains how to do fusion without massive amounts of heat, ergo cold fusion IS (currently) theoretically impossible.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "_Currently_ there is no theory that explains how to do fusion without massive amounts of heat, ergo cold fusion IS (currently) theoretically impossible." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusion-is-it-possible-is/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusi... "Unfortunately, their results were hugely flawed, and their experiments were not reproducible, and cold fusion is now synonymous with ideas like perpetual motion machines: very appealing promises of virtually limitless energy, but that are unfortunately physically impossible." "Now, that’s not necessarily fair. While perpetual motion machines would violate known physical phenomena — like the conservation of energy — cold fusion is, in principle possible. If we go back to the Sun, where nuclear fusion definitely occurs, it isn’t like the temperatures there are sufficient to cause the individual nuclei to overcome their mutual electric repulsion and fuse together. Instead, something else remarkable happens to the two nuclei that are about to fuse." "Remember that instead of being solid particles, these nuclei are quantum mechanical objects, meaning they act both as particles and waves. The quantum mechanical wavefunctions of these nuclei — in the Sun, at any rate — wind up overlapping, so that there’s a small but finite (and important) probability that two of them will find themselves in a more energetically favorable state! When that happens, they can tunnel into that energetically favorable state, and fusion can occur!" "Now, this has never been observed at cold temperatures, but from a theoretical physics standpoint, it may be possible."
    - lmm 11y ago
      This is misleadingly phrased. We have precise, verified models for quantum tunneling and at what rates under what circumstances it does and doesn't occur.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Based on those models, what circumstances are required for quantum tunnelling to occur?
        lmm 11y ago
qubex 11y ago
I don't think “nuclear theory” explicitly “rules it out”. There's certainly no result that leaps off the page and states that it most certainly is or is not possible. But there's a very clear threshold of Coulomb repulsion that would need to be overcome in order for this to work, and absolutely no trace of any phenomenon so-far calculated or measured that might allow it to be overcome at room temperature. So it is... shall we say “inherently incompatible with theory and what we know impinges upon those theories”?

astazangasta 11y ago

I don't think the work can ever speak for itself; it is simply too hard to verify the data. Falsified data appears in science all the time even without anonymity and can take years to discover. With anonymity the world of science would quickly fill up with fake data generated by fossil fuel and pharma companies. Having your reputation at stake is an important control in behavior. Finally, anonymity precludes collaboration, the very basis of science. If I don't know who did something I can't call them up to extend their work, get their raw data, get help optimizing their method, etc.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "I don't think the work can ever speak for itself; it is simply too hard to verify the data." It wouldn't work in every case, however it is possible to have a reproducible experiment as part of a scientific paper. If the experiment can be reproduced (by publicly known scientists), then the identity of the author is not that important. The only time this wouldn't work is when experiments were too costly and/or time-consuming to reproduce. > "Finally, anonymity precludes collaboration, the very basis of science. If I don't know who did something I can't call them up to extend their work, get their raw data, get help optimizing their method, etc." Could go down the pseudo-anonymous route instead (similar to sites like HN and GitHub). That way the contact information could be specific to a single project, or could span multiple projects.