Talk:Cold fusion

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Please use original content instead of copying and inadequately citing Creative Commons licensed content from a dubious source. Conservative 20:57, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, I'm puzzled. I removed plagiarized content, leaving older original content and added new original content. I did not source everything, but I could on request. I did cite a source, a recent Review of cold fusion in the journal Naturwissenschaften, and linked to a legal preprint of it.
But you reverted my changes, taking the article back to exactly what you have requested not be done. A simple mistake, I'm sure. Given that assumption, I'll revert, but, of course, I'm a newcomer here. --Abd 20:21, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

repeated restoration of plagiarized text

Another editor restored the plagiarized text from another wiki. He wrote on my talk page that cold fusion should still have the "pseudoscience" label, though the field of low energy nuclear reactions is definitely not pseudoscience, it doesn't match the characteristics of pseudoscience at all. That is simply pseudoskeptical woo, a belief without basis. I have, for now, left the Fringe science category, but it's not really fringe either any more, except that many physicists haven't been reading the journals on the topic. The review linked is the most comprehensive review of the field ever published in a journal, and the basic questions from twenty years ago have long since been answered, except for "explanatory theory". We don't know what's happening! That makes some physicists uncomfortable!

It's still a difficult experiment, and might remain a laboratory curiosity. On the other hand, many phenomena later turned out to be useful, once sufficiently understood. That could take many years. The theoretical problem is an extraordinarily difficult one in quantum field theory, the idea that the experimental results contradicted theory was based on poor assumptions, not actual conflict with theory. It's likely that whatever is ultimately found to explain the reaction, it will not revise basic nuclear physics, it will turn out to be something that simply wasn't considered. For example, not necessarily the real explanation, Akito Takahashi, a Japanese nuclear physicist, has calculated using quantum field theory, that if two deuterium molecules are placed cross-wise, so that the deuterons are in a tetrahedral configuration, with very low relative momentum, they will collapse into a Bose-Einstein Condensate and fuse within a femtosecond. The product would be Beryllium-8, which is very unstable and would, if free, quickly fission into two helium-4 atoms. The net result is deuterium -> helium, which is what is observed experimentally. However, that's not a complete explanation, because it's known that there is no high-energy radiation from the reaction, which would include those hot alpha particles (helium nuclei). Somehow the energy is being released in many quanta, not in one two big chunks. And that's a mystery.

Because the edit did not respect the request to avoid plagiarized material, made on this page by Conservative, I reverted that change. If there is something wrong with individual statements, please edit them individually, hopefully seeking consensus based on what is in sources. I have not sourced what I wrote, specifically. I'm a subject matter expert, and I can back up any of what I wrote with sources. --Abd 02:58, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools