"Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion"

http://www.physorg.com:80/news131101595.html

We will see if this is reproducible by others. Here is what Julian
Schwinger thought about cold fusion,

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html

With his result being p + d --> He-3 + lattice energy.

I was wondering if there could be something for protons analogous to
superconducting for electrons? And if this might have something to do
with a cold fusion type of process? Italian reseachers have recently
claimed to see paired up protons for the first time.

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/865-2.html
http://www.aip.org/png/ "New Form of Helium"

Of course a superconducting-like type of process for protons is likely
to be very difficult to achieve, but can it be ruled out 100 percent?

Best,

Fred Diether

Gentlemen.
I noticed on my calendar, that Herman Minkowski
did his famous Space and Time lecture on Sept.21
2008, coming on up on 100 years ago.
If that wasn't foundational, what is??
(See Dover's Principle of Relativity pg.75)

Just as the year 2005 was a 100th anniversary
of AE's, input, I think we should give similiar
accolades to our passed friend Minkowski.

Briefly, his work was vital to establishing the
spacetime frame work for the General Theory
of Relativity.

He and AE's foundational work was important to
define the definition of the "meter" in 1983.

Based on that decision, I've (we) tried to advance
the understanding of Modern SpaceTime in a
simplified form,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
that is still controversial.

Those who are not aware of both the importance of the issue for present
physics and the need to get rid of a putative alternatives between
eternalism and presentism might read
http://www.cefitzgerald.com/papers/historyA-B.html
Frege, Russell, Minkowski, Einstein, Hamel, and many others trusted in
eternally true propositions rather than in truth-values that vary over time.
Nonetheless, Frege correctly pointed to the need to add the time an
uttereance was made to the utterance itself.

I have further expanded my discussion of regularisation and
renormalisation onto a new webpage. I now include discussion of the
renormalisation group and the Landau Pole. I have pretty well kept the
maths out of this one. The focus is on explaining that regularisation is
both a necessary and valid procedure and legitimately removes the
ultraviolet divergence in qed, and that it is NOT directly related to
renormalisation as is the impression given in most accounts.

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/Regularisation

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/MainIndex

Hello to all:

I have been working on a different approach to the magnetic moment
anomaly, pieces of which I have asked about in some recent posts.

I have now put enough together to give everyone an idea of where I am
headed with this, in the file linked below. (Download and open if left
click does not work.)

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/second-order-anomaly-1.pdf

I would appreciate any comments as to whether this is possibly on a
fruitful track in general, and of course, any specific comments or
corrections as well.

The main demonstration of the paper as of this rough draft, is to show
that by employing a wavefunction *different than* a plane-wave
wavefunction, the gyromagnetic g-factor will necessarily differ from
g=2.

|
| The study of tractability, and of universal systems, received its
| impetus from an investigation of biological fractionation
| procedures. It would not have arisen from physics, which expects
| its theories to be couched in forms of tractable systems rather
| than statements of general interaction (the heart of intractability).
| Indeed, it might not be amiss to consider biology as the physics of
| intractable systems. If this is so, then far from physics swallowing
| up biology, the situation may well be the other way around.
| Our analysis of the reductionist hypothesis has thus shown the
| fertility of biology in generating important new insights in
| mathematics and the sciences --though doubtless in a way different
| from what was orignially intended.
|

I have no original ideas myself, all I seem to do is take ideas other
people have come up with
and put them together with other peoples ideas. The following is an
example. I also put
forward this idea because I have never heard it as a possible
explanation for the data. Maybe
somebody already used this as a possible explanation and it got shot
down for very good
reasons that I have never heard or figured out myself. In the
"classic expansion model" of
the universe; depending on how much matter is in the universe, the
universe is either going to
1) Expand then stop then fall back in, 2) Expand then stop, or 3)
Expand forever. For me the
above idea seems too simple. The above idea was born at a time when
our understanding of the
universe was far simpler. There were Cosmologists at the time that
still believed in the
Steady-State theory of the universe. Along come the late nineties and
a study arrives that ...

Friends,
I have been taking part in various sci.physics discussion forums on
usenet for almost a decade now. Even though I found these discussions
quite useful, still I failed to communicate my viewpoint to most of
the readers. Perhaps, communication of a certain viewpoint in bits and
pieces cannot be expected to 'stick', to have any permanent
impression. Therefore, I have now compiled all the bits and pieces of
my un-orthodox viewpoint into a new book titled, "Fundamental Nature
of Matter and Fields". Keeping in view the nature of contents, I want
to get it reviewed by the competent readership of the usenet forums,
before getting this book formally printed. I also want to get
suitable feedback for improving the presentation and readability of
this book.

You may kindly download 1.7 M pdf file of the book from,
http://www.fundamentalphysics.info/matter_and_fields.pdf
or
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/matter_and_fields.pdf

X-No-archive: yes

======== Welcome! to the Physics Newsgroups ==========

The sci.physics.* and alt.sci.physics.* newsgroups are
forums devoted to the discussion of physics and
physics-related topics.

The contributors to these newsgroups constitute a
diverse group of laypeople, students, engineers, and
other professionals in addition to professional
physicists. All are united by an interest in physics,
and all are welcome to contribute postings here.

The Physics Newsgroup FAQ is available from a number of
Web sites listed later in this welcome message. Some
of the more narrowly focused physics newsgroups have
their own FAQs, which are regularly posted in the
appropriate newsgroups. The Physics Newsgroup FAQ is
available only as a web document since it is too big
and uses images and equations that cannot be
transformed into text.

I am trying to decide between two views of a problem, and would like
input.

Consider the canonical commutation relationship

x^v p^u = p^u x^v + i hbar kronecker^vu (1)

consider also an on-shell mass:

m^2 = p^u p_u (2)

Now, let us suppose we have a term

x^v m^2 = x^v p^u p_u . (3)

Can m^2, since it is a scalar, be commuted to the left of x^v. That is,
does

x^v m^2 = m^2 x^v ? (4)

Or, as I suspect, starting from (3), does one have to use:

x^v m^2 = x^v p^u p_u
= [p^u x^v + i hbar kronecker^vu] p_u
= p^u x^v p_u + i hbar kronecker^vu p_u
= p^u [p_u x^v + i hbar kronecker^v_u] + i hbar kronecker^vu p_u
= p^u p_u x^v + i hbar p^u kronecker^v_u + i hbar kronecker^vu p_u
= m^2 x^v + 2i hbar p^v ? (5)

Thanks,