The following article was submitted by Doug Marker
Is a theory needed before we exploit a new phenomenon?:
The issue of needing a sound theory before LENR can be called real or deserves investment really does not mean LENR doesn’t exist. It also doesn’t mean that LENR can’t deliver a scale-able non-chemical abundant anomalous heat, through a new not understood nuclear process.
What LENR suffers from is that it is a significant threat to some industries and existing fusion projects where investment and effort run into the billions of dollars. It is fair to argue that it is for this reason that LENR polarizes opinion in the extreme way that it has.
Quantum Information Processing (QIP):
If we compare LENR to Quantum Computing we have the remarkable situation where quantum computing devices are being built and sold (DWave Quantum Computers) that work, and in ways that no scientist can adequately explain, to the satisfaction of science in general. A big difference is that QIP (Quantum Information Processing) is not a threat to anyone, on the contrary it is embraced and encouraged and regarded by many in the IT field as the next big leap forward in computing power. You won’t destroy your career playing with qubits held in place in Bose Einstein condensate and super conducting material.
QM – The Copenhagen Interpretation:
The principles that QIP work on are based on exploiting ‘Quantum Entanglement’, the effect first outlined by Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen in their famous EPR Paradox paper. Einstein used EPR to try to prove that entanglement as it could be explained by Nils Bohr and Werner Heisenburg (famous for his ‘Heisenburg uncertainty principle’) was wrong and that the outlined entanglement effect could only be explained by locality or that there were ‘hidden variables’.
Non-locality violated Einstein’s utter conviction in the need for locality, which in turn fitted in with his existing theories. Point here is that Einstein and friends first described quantum entanglement but only to try to use it to prove that Bohr, Heisenburg and their followers were wrong. The subsequent history of experiments (Bell’s inequality tests) have shown Einstein was the one who had it wrong. The need for ‘locality’ (with ‘hidden variables’) has been proven to not be involved in the entanglement effect. This discovery baffles science to this day. The famous scientist Richard Feynman once said with deep wisdom, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” (Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)). Entanglement embodies this view to perfection.
So now we have computers being built, and used, based on that allegedly ‘wrong’ entanglement and yet still, today, no scientist can explain it with any widely accepted or cohesive theory. It just works. The smart ones just move on and exploit the principle. The pedants argue it shouldn’t be invested in or time wasted on it because there is no accepted theory or known science. In the LENR reality debate the pedants tend to be both vociferous and shrill.
So the situation we have is that QIP is accepted and in use despite science lacking a good or clear understanding of how and why it works, but LENR is widely attacked and blasted when there is plenty of research evidence for those who look, to show it is real. The difference with QIP is that LENR poses multiple threats, QIP poses none.
Explore and encourage rather than supress or destroy: Tom Darden really summed up his involvement very well and in a strikingly mature way. What he has had to say and is doing (supporting Andrea Rossi when few others would) is what is needed.
The hope is he now triggers an avalanche of interest and support and the shrill nature of the anti-LENR folk gets seen for what it is, that is, to suppress and destroy rather than explore and encourage. Hot fusionists do not have a monopoly on understanding the forces at play at the sub-atomic level. This field is opening up to new notions and realities.
Quantum Entanglement, what it is and isn’t, and how it can be exploited, is the living proof.
Doug Marker
Is a Theory Needed Before We Exploit a New Phenomenon? (Doug Marker)
The following article was submitted by Doug Marker
Is a theory needed before we exploit a new phenomenon?:
The issue of needing a sound theory before LENR can be called real or deserves investment really does not mean LENR doesn’t exist. It also doesn’t mean that LENR can’t deliver a scale-able non-chemical abundant anomalous heat, through a new not understood nuclear process.
What LENR suffers from is that it is a significant threat to some industries and existing fusion projects where investment and effort run into the billions of dollars. It is fair to argue that it is for this reason that LENR polarizes opinion in the extreme way that it has.
Quantum Information Processing (QIP):
If we compare LENR to Quantum Computing we have the remarkable situation where quantum computing devices are being built and sold (DWave Quantum Computers) that work, and in ways that no scientist can adequately explain, to the satisfaction of science in general. A big difference is that QIP (Quantum Information Processing) is not a threat to anyone, on the contrary it is embraced and encouraged and regarded by many in the IT field as the next big leap forward in computing power. You won’t destroy your career playing with qubits held in place in Bose Einstein condensate and super conducting material.
QM – The Copenhagen Interpretation:
The principles that QIP work on are based on exploiting ‘Quantum Entanglement’, the effect first outlined by Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen in their famous EPR Paradox paper. Einstein used EPR to try to prove that entanglement as it could be explained by Nils Bohr and Werner Heisenburg (famous for his ‘Heisenburg uncertainty principle’) was wrong and that the outlined entanglement effect could only be explained by locality or that there were ‘hidden variables’.
Non-locality violated Einstein’s utter conviction in the need for locality, which in turn fitted in with his existing theories. Point here is that Einstein and friends first described quantum entanglement but only to try to use it to prove that Bohr, Heisenburg and their followers were wrong. The subsequent history of experiments (Bell’s inequality tests) have shown Einstein was the one who had it wrong. The need for ‘locality’ (with ‘hidden variables’) has been proven to not be involved in the entanglement effect. This discovery baffles science to this day. The famous scientist Richard Feynman once said with deep wisdom, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” (Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)). Entanglement embodies this view to perfection.
So now we have computers being built, and used, based on that allegedly ‘wrong’ entanglement and yet still, today, no scientist can explain it with any widely accepted or cohesive theory. It just works. The smart ones just move on and exploit the principle. The pedants argue it shouldn’t be invested in or time wasted on it because there is no accepted theory or known science. In the LENR reality debate the pedants tend to be both vociferous and shrill.
So the situation we have is that QIP is accepted and in use despite science lacking a good or clear understanding of how and why it works, but LENR is widely attacked and blasted when there is plenty of research evidence for those who look, to show it is real. The difference with QIP is that LENR poses multiple threats, QIP poses none.
Explore and encourage rather than supress or destroy: Tom Darden really summed up his involvement very well and in a strikingly mature way. What he has had to say and is doing (supporting Andrea Rossi when few others would) is what is needed.
The hope is he now triggers an avalanche of interest and support and the shrill nature of the anti-LENR folk gets seen for what it is, that is, to suppress and destroy rather than explore and encourage. Hot fusionists do not have a monopoly on understanding the forces at play at the sub-atomic level. This field is opening up to new notions and realities.
Quantum Entanglement, what it is and isn’t, and how it can be exploited, is the living proof.
Doug Marker