Cold Fusion, Q-Thrusters, Neutrinos, and Scientific Bias

[Mazon Del]

Greetings everybody!

This is likely to be one of my more contentious posts so do read this part carefully to keep us from getting thread-locked for having the wrong arguments.

Upon reading some recent literature about recent "advancements" in cold fusion and the issues the various teams have working on it I've come to realize that we seem to have some subtle, and not so subtle, biases in science that are possibly causing us some issues. The effect seems to stem from our proper decision that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that this evidence be then backed up by another source. This is good and should not change. However, I think we have a problem where due to what can somewhat amount to politics within the scientific fields (and of course media sensationalism) this process is being negatively circumvented towards a direction of preventing possible good science rather than actually acting as the proper check it was designed to be.

A good example of this system being properly implemented was when CERN released their findings on the possibility that neutrinos moved at FTL speeds (ever so slightly faster than light). When they released the documents their stance for the most part was "This doesn't quite make sense to us, but we cannot yet explain it, can someone please verify or disprove it?". There were many of course that were skeptical, many that hoped that this discovery could be something important. Other locations were unable to repeat the results and in the end it was found that a loose fiber optic connection was at fault for the incorrect result. No harm done, on a machine as big as CERN it’s frankly amazing that they've had as few problems of this nature as they have had.

Cold fusion on the other hand is having a much more difficult time of it. Now we are all aware that the first initial instance of cold fusion (where the term was in fact coined) turned out to be false. We are also aware of several individuals over the years that have implemented scams based around this idea. Additionally we have yet to really get "hot" fusion under control. Considering all of this it is understandable that the scientific community is a little wary of new information on the topic. However it has become something more than just wary experience, it seems to have taken on an edge of dogmatic denial. There are quite a few legitimate research efforts going on into cold fusion across the world (more than one would assume given its reputation anyway). They all run into a problem upon releasing whatever results they have, which is that they cannot match the second half of the aforementioned process. Repeated results by another source. And this is in general not because the other source was unable to reproduce the results, but because other sources refuse to even try! From my observations it so far seems as though the only groups interested in attempting to reproduce the results of any given CF team are other CF teams, meaning that whatever they find is still ignored because of course a CF team wants to find CF. But worse than that, nobody external to the CF teams will peer review CF papers through a combination of "It's just going to be false." and/or "I don't want to be dragged down in the mud with it when it is found to be false.".

Right now Q-Thruster/Cannae/EMDrive technology is a good example of a technology sitting on the precipice of this divide between correct science and denied science. This is not me declaring that the technology is true and working. What I am meaning is that the camps on this technology are very polarized. There are scientists and respected labs that have already ordered production test articles from NASA for their thruster once they are completed later this year, so we are getting external sources of verification for positive/negative results. This is good. Meanwhile though, we do also have examples of scientists and labs that are against this technology almost to the point of outright violence. If I had to guess, I would actually say the only reason this technology has not already descended into CF-level depths of denial is simply because NASA seems to think it works. Regardless of arguments about the tests that were performed, NASA IS proceeding as though they believe the technology to be valid. NASA in general is not one to back technologies without good reason, so it has provided Q-Thruster technology with enough of a legitimate face that other teams are willing to look at it too. After all, if it turns out they wasted money they can always say "Well NASA was fooled too!". Near as I have been able to tell, the pre-NASA situation of the QT technology ends up being rooted in the realm of the dogmatic denial I mentioned earlier. The QT drive cannot possibly work because no current science theory agrees with what it can supposedly do, and therefore it is not even attempted.

One can understand facilities not wanting to waste the millions required to try out CF technologies given that they do require fairly specialized devices and technology as well as a lot of lead time and man hours. However the QT drive does not really fit this description. Given the simplicity of the design (in short a correctly shaped metal container with a radio at one end) and the simplicity of the test setup (precision measurement pendulum in a vacuum chamber) this experiment is quite easily replicated without too much cost. Quite likely all of the equipment as well as rental time in a vacuum chamber might well reach as much as 40-50 thousand dollars. A nice amount to be sure, but frankly a number that most major universities can throw away in an attempt to gain the prestige of being part of the QT drive verification group.

One part of what is happening seems to come from us ignoring one of our other scientific precepts, that data should not be ignored even when in conflict with what you know to be true. Now of course you occams razor the "bad" data as much as you can to narrow down the source if possible. But one option that should always be on the table brings in the fact that right now we fully admit that we just don't know for sure how the whole universe works just yet. There are some who say we may never, but that is a different discussion for another time. We are already aware that there are conditions under which understood aspects of the universe are no longer true. Time near black holes, Newtonian physics at near light speeds, assorted effects on the quantum scale, etc. It isn't so much that these items are 'wrong' per se, but that our understanding of them is incomplete. And we should be mindful of this and take our own advice. Don't throw out data because it does not fit what we know. Use it to find out what we don't know (we didn't know we had a loose cable, we didn't know about relativity, etc). Somewhere along the way you find out what you didn't know, it could be a problem with your test setup, or a problem with your lack of understanding of physics.

The point I am attempting to make is that we very clearly have a level of bias going on in science. This is not to say science itself is flawed or anything of that nature. So much as this is a problem that exists with our current implementation of our scientific infrastructure.

So the question I raise here is thusly: Assuming that the proper methods are being observed towards verification and validation, how would you propose to correct this issue?

If you want an analogy of sorts to go with, let’s assume you have a pair of devices the size of a small truck and weigh 12 tons that each cost $5 Million to produce. These devices can instantly send information between themselves; to make it have added impossibility let’s say you have reason to believe that the receiver is actually receiving the information a tiny fraction of a second before the transmission occurred. A very crazy and nonrealistic situation to have. Given the way our system works now, how would you go about proving it to others?

Reminder: This is NOT a thread on the validity of the technologies I have mentioned here; it is a discussion on the state of our scientific process.

[KerikBalm]

Please do not attribute the actions of 1 small subgroup of NASA, as representative of NASA's collective view on the subject.

Just as we shouldn't hold that terrible arsenic life paper against the whole of NASA.

[Mazon Del]

Not exactly the discussion intended KerikBalm. It was listed because regardless of the scientific outcome, the situation surrounding it is fact. The main body of NASA itself has not gone against it and is providing it with funding for expanding testing, in the acedemic world that is as good as if all of NASA was behind it considering how miserly NASA needs to be with its funds these days.

[rtxoff]

That's quite a wall of text

Regarding to your question, i do not see a light at the end of the tunnel. It seems that scientists are made out of the wrong reasons nowadays. Science is not done anymore because someone likes do to it. Science is done because someone is paying you to do it. I think this is a big problem with science and the society in general nowadays. I can't say more then that without turning this into a political discussion but basically science is beeing slowed artificially. It's not desired to make fast progress in some areas cause it would be bad for business and people with money know exactly what they want from scientists when they pay for them, it's basically all things that bring them money back. Nobody cares about progress of humanity, the only thing they care of is their stupid money.

[Red Iron Crown]

That's quite a wall of text

Regarding to your question, i do not see a light at the end of the tunnel. It seems that scientists are made out of the wrong reasons nowadays. Science is not done anymore because someone likes do to it. Science is done because someone is paying you to do it. I think this is a big problem with science and the society in general nowadays. I can't say more then that without turning this into a political discussion but basically science is beeing slowed artificially. It's not desired to make fast progress in some areas cause it would be bad for business and people with money know exactly what they want from scientists when they pay for them, it's basically all things that bring them money back. Nobody cares about progress of humanity, the only thing they care of is their stupid money.

It isn't the Renaissance anymore, when one person could be up to date on the latest in every field and make significant discoveries with rudimentary hobbyist apparatus. Science today takes big money and high education to be at the forefront of just one field.

The idea that science is being slowed for monetary gain is frankly nonsense. There is tremendous money to be made from new technologies, that's why companies fund science so heavily.

[Mazon Del]

Indeed, it does seem to be the case in a lot of ways that money is one of the sources of the problem. Either because of the market forces you mentioned, or simply because there is never enough to go around for science. Even if one were to attempt to establish some sort of impartial science directorate group, they would still lack the funds to truly operate on the various experiments needed.

Something to bring up for Red Iron Crown is that while science does get funding, what gets funding can be an interesting question. Another example would be the difference between Takomak style reactors and Fusors. Both of them are believed to hold the promise of commercial nuclear fusion, but very very little funding goes into fusors.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Mazon Del

[Rakaydos]

While it's arguable that Canne Drive may be a form of Quantum Thruster, Quantum thrusters themselves are not scientific parias the way the Canne drive is.

[Red Iron Crown]

Something to bring up for Red Iron Crown is that while science does get funding, what gets funding can be an interesting question. Another example would be the difference between Takomak style reactors and Fusors. Both of them are believed to hold the promise of commercial nuclear fusion, but very very little funding goes into fusors.

Funding is finite. It must be spent where it is most likely to deliver a return. I don't really know enough physics to comment on tokomak vs fusor, but the people making the funding decisions do, or are advised by those that do.

In a perfect world we would be able to chase down every scientific alley, but sadly that isn't the case.

[NFUN]

I agree. It is a shame that all mentions of 'outlandish' tech is immediately rejected as infeasible, if sometimes not by the scientific community but somewhat scientifically literate 'civilians'*. For example, on another forum I frequent, after SkunkWorks announced they were developing a fusion reactor, about half of the 100 posts were something along the lines of "fusion has been a decade/20/50 years away for x years". The view that some technology is impossible, and many people's tendency to ignore potential discoveries, is an unfortunate development**.

It should at least be expected that those dissing such claims at lease look into the research before drawing conclusions.

*I couldn't think of a better term. Non-scientist.

**Wow. I sound so self-righteous for a 'civilian'

[SeaDog]

Science has always been like this and always will be. I don't think its a big deal. It is a big problem in cultures where you burn people at the stake if the are proponents of some different paradigm, but we don't.

You need paradigms in order for the scientific community to stay focused. Otherwise everyone would be busy studying crackpot articles in order to decide if they were onto something or not. The fact is also that due to the natural selection of paradigms, the current ones are usually pretty darn good paradigms. They effectively sort out the good ideas that can lead to useful science from the bad ideas that won't lead anywhere. Once they stop being good at that, they will soon be replaced.

[Jouni]

It's mistake to think science as a big monolithic institution that comes complete with parades and five-year plans. Science is actually more like art: it's mostly done because scientists find it interesting and fun. But because scientists also have to pay their bills, they have to take into account what other people find interesting or important, at least to some degree.

There are a lot of controversies in science, where the data seemingly contradicts the established theory. Most scientists just choose to ignore them, because they don't find them particularly interesting, or because they already have other interesting stuff to do.

The single biggest problem in science today is that far too many people find it interesting. There are too many talented and motivated people trying to make a career in science. When the supply greatly exceeds the demand, the market doesn't exactly favor the seller.

Funding biases are a fact of life, at least as long as the society is still run by humans. The best way to fight them is to have many independent funding agencies with different biases. If one agency is biased against the things that interest you, you can always try another one. If the bias is against your interests in one country, you can always move to another.

[K^2]

Right now Q-Thruster/Cannae/EMDrive technology is a good example of a technology sitting on the precipice of this divide between correct science and denied science.

Science is a constructive discipline. We are entirely ok with looking for things that are wrong within it, but there must be a goal.

For example, there are teams at accelerator facilities looking for heavy photons. They almost certainly won't find them, because they almost certainly do not exist. Our theory says so. But it says so based on certain assumptions that don't absolutely have to be correct. And if heavy photons are found, we need to fix these assumptions and readjust our theory. It would be of great benefit, and we wouldn't have to scrap things we've learned. So all in all, it's worth wasting this effort just on the off chance. Because, occasionally, you do find that you're wrong. CP violations are a good example.

On the other hand, if Q-Thrusters or EMDrive are shown to work at thrust/power levels advertised, then physics is wrong. All of it. From very bottom to very top. There is not a shred of modern theory we can preserve against it. All of Quantum Mechanics and all of General Relativity ride on the concept of local symmetry groups, and these two devices violate these local symmetries. It is absolutely beyond salvage. And with these go all of classical mechanics, all of classical gravity, all of classical electrodynamics, all of classical thermodynamics... You get the point. There is absolutely nothing left that doesn't rest on these fundamental symmetries.

So we have a situation where two things are evident. First of all, if these devices work, we've made correct computations of everything from gyromagnetic ratios of elementary particles to signals we receive from distant neutron stars based on wrong physics. Lasers, semiconductors, superconductors, and even your GPS, all hinging on the assumption that symmetries hold, we got them by total chance in a world where these symmetries do not hold. Unlikely does not begin to describe it. I do not like to use the word "impossible", but I can think of nothing that's more appropriate.

And if, on this impossible chance, it does turn out to be true, what do we get? Complete collapse of all of physics with absolutely nothing to replace it. We'd have to go all the way back to Archimedes. It probably wouldn't require quite 2,000 years to catch up, but it'd be centuries for sure. And until then, what? We keep using these devices that produce thrust out of nothing? Who knows what else they produce out of nothing? If momentum isn't conserved, then why should energy be. And if you don't conserve energy, where is the guarantee that when you try to bring these up to full power they wouldn't start spewing black holes, or something.

It's absolutely destructive. If these things work, everything we know is wrong, and we should not continue using these things, because we cannot predict outcomes. At all. So not only are the odds of these devices working essentially zero, but so is their benefit. Why invest into something that is guaranteed to be a net loss no matter what?

[KerikBalm]

Not exactly the discussion intended KerikBalm. It was listed because regardless of the scientific outcome, the situation surrounding it is fact. The main body of NASA itself has not gone against it and is providing it with funding for expanding testing, in the acedemic world that is as good as if all of NASA was behind it considering how miserly NASA needs to be with its funds these days.

#1) Just because a body doesn't deign to weigh in on a subject does not mean it supports it.

#2) The funding goes to a small group, which then spends it at its own discretion among many projects, NASA has not allocated any funds specifically for this.

Meanwhile though, we do also have examples of scientists and labs that are against this technology almost to the point of outright violence. If I had to guess, I would actually say the only reason this technology has not already descended into CF-level depths of denial is simply because NASA seems to think it works.

Your bias is showing. Legitimate criticism is not violence. Or was the opposition to the Aresnic paper violence? Initially, they said it sounds like BS and lacked proper controls. Then they got samples from the NASA funded lab, and proved it was BS. This thruster paper lacked proper controls. They're waiting until it is proven that its the BS that it sounrds, thats why its not CF-level depths. They'll try to verify it first.

NASA IS proceeding as though they believe the technology to be valid

More appealing to authority, and misrepresenting a consensus at NASA.

One part of what is happening seems to come from us ignoring one of our other scientific precepts, that data should not be ignored even when in conflict with what you know to be true.

That is not what is happening. Your bias continues to show. A force was measured. The origin of the force is unexplained. They lacked the proper controls to determine the origin of the force. Depending on the mechanism, it may or may not work in space. There is currently no evidence that this will work in space. They did test one explanation for how the force could be generated, and that explanation was disproven (the slotted vs unslotted design). There is no relevant data to ignore.

They had no proper negative control, they had no proper test.

They have no proper data.

The point I am attempting to make is that we very clearly have a level of bias going on in science.

We have a bias going on in layman's science, your post is very clear evidence of this.

Given the way our system works now, how would you go about proving it to others?

By demonstrating it, and using proper controls.

Tests which observers are free to look at anything and criticize.

Not like a stage magician concealing some things, and avoiding doing other things that could reveal the deception if there is one.

It's absolutely destructive. If these things work, everything we know is wrong, and we should not continue using these things, because we cannot predict outcomes. At all. So not only are the odds of these devices working essentially zero, but so is their benefit. Why invest into something that is guaranteed to be a net loss no matter what?

What you say is mostly right... but there is not a gauranteed loss - that is a myopic view IMO.

What it would mean is that we're stuck in a "local maximum" of our understanding. If they do work, and we have to tear down what we know and start over, that would put us on the path to an even better understanding.

The reduction in our explanatory power would be temporary, and would be the price to pay for big dividends down the road.

BTW, if conservation of momentum is violated, so is conservation of energy.

That would open the prospect of "free energy", creating something out of nothing, etc.

That would set us on the path to becoming veritable Gods if we start to understand it.

That said... they've shown no evidence even close to sufficient to conclude conservation of momentum is being violated.

So I'm not very hopefull about becoming a god

Edited October 30, 2014 by KerikBalm

[magnemoe]

Funding is finite. It must be spent where it is most likely to deliver a return. I don't really know enough physics to comment on tokomak vs fusor, but the people making the funding decisions do, or are advised by those that do.

In a perfect world we would be able to chase down every scientific alley, but sadly that isn't the case.

Remember that other scientists select projects to fund on low level and politician on high level. All of them has their option and most rational use of money is not the priority.

Also none want an failed project, failed projects cost reputation in real world too.

Here is private companies better in that they are more concerned about the bottom line than the reputation.

However private companies are not very good in doing base sicence as they have little reason to do it.

[rtxoff]

Cern LHC: Project cost without detectors: 3 Billions €

Whole lifetime costs: many Billons € more

Benefit for humanity: almost none ,it really does not matter if we will find heavy photons or not and as already someone pointed out most of the results are only a confirmation of already available knowledge

Focus Fusion: Fundraiser campaign to gather 200.000 USD failed: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion-empowertheworld--3

Benefit for humanity: enormous

So anybody tell me why does Cern get all the funds while only a fraction of it's funds would be sufficient to find out about the feasibility of Focus Fusion?

Who does decide where the funds go? Which are the organizations that give away funds and for what reasons they do it?

Answer all the questions and then look me in the eyes and tell me the world is a good one.

I am not saying project like CERN LHC should be completely abandoned but i am saying the top prioritys for funding right now should be reconsidered by analyzing the most benefit for humanity. Right now it is obviously not the case.

[magnemoe]

On the other hand we might question why commercial actors who already do lots of science, also long shot projects like Google or IBM don't look into fusion.

And yes its if it work they would make insanely amount of money, 10 million dollar and a 1/1000 chance for working would be an good investment.

Q-trusters is another matter, space propulsion does not have the get extremely rich appeal of fusion so here its important that NASA or other check if they work.

[Sky_walker]

Here's a good start on what are a benefits coming from CERN: http://www.asp.torino.it/cern/Le%20Goff_ASP050609_CERN.pdf

These are practical things, many of which are already being used in both: other disciplines of science and commercial market. And these are just direct effects - there are many more indirect benefits of CERN, such as the fact that we can discuss this topic right now - CERN was a birthplace of world wide web.

IndieGoGo Fusion Reactor meanwhile won't spin off any new technologies, processes, or... well... anything at all for that matter. Mentioned 1/1000 chance of success is a very optimistic statement.

[K^2]

BTW, if conservation of momentum is violated, so is conservation of energy.

That would open the prospect of "free energy", creating something out of nothing, etc.

That would set us on the path to becoming veritable Gods if we start to understand it.

Let me tell you a story. NASA runs many AI projects for Mars rover. A little over a decade ago, they had a test run with very interesting results. They loaded their mock rover with a map of the terrain, they set it down on the ground, and they told it to move. It didn't. It stayed in place. They checked for mechanical obstructions, power to the motors, and found no problems. They reset, and still couldn't get it to move. They then began looking for problems in navigational systems, localization, mapping, and so on. And there was nothing wrong with any of it.

Eventually, they discovered the problem. They programmed the map in with the wrong elevation offset. It's a flat offset, so it shouldn't have caused a problem, except, according to rover's localization system, ground was 10 feet bellow. The only place where it new for sure that the ground wasn't 10 feet bellow was right underneath its wheels. So according to its navigation system, move in any direction would result in a dangerous drop, which is something it was explicitly programmed to avoid. And so it did not move.

That's what discovering failure in energy/momentum conservation would be like. We'd know precisely one set of safe technology. Stuff we are using right now. Everything else would be a huge chasm. For all we would know, the nukes we've built haven't caused a chain reaction that would destroy the planet only by chance. Primitive tech would probably be pretty safe to experiment with, but anything remotely modern would be absolutely unsafe, because we simply wouldn't have reliable machinery to tell what we should be messing with and what we shouldn't. Energy conservation, and in fact, just general properties of the symmetries in question, guarantee us that we can only screw up so much. That's what we've been relying on to say that it's probably ok to keep pushing the boundaries. Anything we do screw up will have local consequences. Not so if these principles don't hold. The moment we discover a failure like that, we'd have to stop. It will not be just a stall of our science advancing, but all of our tech advancing as well.

[KerikBalm]

Yes, we'd have to come down from our local maximum, before ascending to a new maximum (the "global maximum"?), but there would be a benefit to that, but it would not be a short term benefit

[K^2]

We already are casting a wide net and looking for alternative models from the ground up. What you are suggesting would result in a total stall, and people being hesitant to invest in future technologies, with good reason. All it would do is stall our economy and tech.

We aren't talking just about a few centuries of stagnation. Our civilization can't handle that. We are talking about collapse of modern science with nothing to replace it, which will result in collapse across the board. Sure, we'll probably do alright in the long run. But there isn't an improvement. If we are capable of finding better solutions, we are much better positioned to do so now, with the technology and R&D investments helping along. Finding a flaw in conservation laws would not help us along. So looking for these would, quite certainly, be a net loss.

P.S. I don't know if I should mention quasimomentum. It's relevant, but I'm worried that crackpots are going to jump on that. They like to incorporate things they don't understand into explanations for why their "theories" work.

Edited October 31, 2014 by K^2

[Alchemist]

Detecting a flaw in the current understanding shouldn't destroy any facts already known, the updated theory would still have to explain old data with the given degree of precision. Relativity didn't fully nullify classical mechanics, it just limited its range of application and gave corrected formulas for going outside that range. Finding where some conservation stops working won't break any already working tech (since it's proven to still be in that range), but will give new opportunities.

As for fear of going too far: IMHO it's better to be cautious knowing the risk than actually stumbling onto something devastating we didn't expect at all.

[K^2]

Relativity didn't fully nullify classical mechanics, it just limited its range of application and gave corrected formulas for going outside that range.

Relativity did not come about from total failure of the principle of extreme action. In fact, entirety of Classical Mechanics is preserved in General Relativity. The only change is that coordinate system transformations are local in General Relativity, rather than global. That has all kinds of interesting consequences, and it introduces small corrections to some approximations.

If you take away conservation of momentum/energy, everything in physics is wrong. This is not an exaggeration. This isn't a matter of "our choice of coordinate system wasn't general enough." It's "every single conclusion we've made has been based on wrong assumptions."

Yes, new theory would have to explain old data. But more importantly, it would need to explain how a theory that was completely wrong explained the data we had. Again, we aren't talking about small algebraic corrections due to higher order terms. We are talking about completely wrong logic leading to seemingly correct results.

[Laie]

Yes, new theory would have to explain old data. But more importantly, it would need to explain how a theory that was completely wrong explained the data we had. Again, we aren't talking about small algebraic corrections due to higher order terms. We are talking about completely wrong logic leading to seemingly correct results.

Can't help but think of epicycles -- the notion that planets are moving around the earth in circles within circles. Spectacularly wrong, yet it explained the data at hand.

[Frozen_Heart]

I do kind of agree with what OP the OP says. Things are simply dismissed out of hand without even trying to check or replicate the results.

Scientific process should always be followed even if you think that its not going to work.

If you assume something is impossible and never try then it always will be. If you do try then it still may be impossible but at least there is a chance its not.

K^2: You are completely overreacting. Yes theoretical physics would require a rewrite but all our current technologies wouldn't suddenly stop working. Current science has worked for a long time and even if things are wrong things we've built still work and will continue to do so. Further more anything we make in the future could still be based on these principles. We'd just have more potential things to study as a new set of rules has been discovered.

Life and society would go on the same, you'd just have a few scientists trying to figure out what is wrong and how it could be fixed.

Saying that we'd have to abandon everything and stop making any technology is just treating science like witchcraft.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Frozen_Heart

[K^2]

Can't help but think of epicycles -- the notion that planets are moving around the earth in circles within circles. Spectacularly wrong, yet it explained the data at hand.

That isn't strictly wrong, though. An ellipse can be drawn with epicycles, so an epicycles model, with sufficiently complex settings, is perfectly consistent with a non-interacting Solar system. You can even add corrections for perturbations and GR. You simply might need to go to an infinite order in epicycles. But this is just really messy, and perhaps, philosophically unpleasant, but it isn't strictly wrong. There is no contradiction.

Energy/momentum not being conserved is a hard contradiction. No matter how small violation, it breaks the foundation.

By the way, I should probably clarify, since we've been talking about it long enough. What's actually conserved is the stress energy tensor. It is the conserved charge of the Poincare symmetry group. Energy and momentum conservation for a particular coordinate system follow from that via Killing field.