What's wrong with this hypothesis on cold fusion?

[cadbrowser]

The only reason why there is a reason think cold fusion is possible at all is that idea that those positive experiments have some validity.

Pardon me, but I am having trouble with this statement you've made a few times now. I think it was pointed out to you earlier that none of these results have been reproduced. Insomuch, a similar observation was made with regular water. So the consensus is not cold fusion as far as I can tell.

So I fail to see how there can be any claims for "positive experiments".

[Simon_Jester]

Any 'positive evidence' for cold fusion experiments is probably going to result from something like this:

https://xkcd.com/882/

Basically, if you have enough enthusiasts "experiment" enough times with iffy experimental controls, and/or are looking for effects at the very edge of your detectors' ability to resolve signal from noise... sooner or later, someone is bound to find something that they fondly imagine supports their conclusions.

[cadbrowser]

Any 'positive evidence' for cold fusion experiments is probably going to result from something like this:

https://xkcd.com/882/

Basically, if you have enough enthusiasts "experiment" enough times with iffy experimental controls, and/or are looking for effects at the very edge of your detectors' ability to resolve signal from noise... sooner or later, someone is bound to find something that they fondly imagine supports their conclusions.

HA! Thanks for that Simon...that was great.

That's what I was thinking. I've been a long time fan of the possibility for cold fusion when it started out; and I too fell into the thinking that it was a real thing just on the brink of discovery and confirmation. But, like was mentioned before; it seems we know enough about how atoms work to have a high confidence that it isn't just possible.

[Simon_Jester]

If it IS possible, it requires physics outside the standard model, which means we're going to have to do something profoundly exotic to matter to make it happen. Something that just plain cannot happen normally, and which you'll basically never see happen serendipitously as a side effect of doing something else.

Alternatively, it's going to involve extremely concentrated, confined, and unusual conditions, something that could occur in nature at least in principle but which is highly unlikely to do so. For this reason, I think that claims that you can induce cold fusion in the collapse of bubbles or whatever are at least superficially plausible, but unlikely to ever turn into an economical power source.

[cadbrowser]

I think what you just typed is what jwl is missing. Or at least that is what it seems to me.

I mean, scientist know how much energy is required to fuse 4 atoms of Helium into 1 atom of Hydrogen, and subsequently all of the interesting things that happen as a result of that nuclear reaction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I admit it has been a while since I've read anything on nuclear fusion reactions, fusion happens in stars. The mass of the star creates a large gravitational field wherein lighter elements collide (?) resulting in fusion, wherein heat is a byproduct, right?

I was actually reading about sonoluminescence on Wikipedia as it referenced it from their Cold Fusion page. The bubble collapse is a super neat effect where it gives off light; but yeah, the claims for it being a nuclear reaction I think are on par with the claims for Cold Fusion.

My mind then wandered into how big a bubble might need to be within a highly viscous liquid where the pressure would cause a substantial and measurable release of energy. Then my boss came over and I had to get back to work. :/

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah.

Basically, there's this tendency to think "heavy water" or "plasma" or whatever is some kind of magic with all sorts of exotic unknown properties, as opposed to being a fairly well understood substance where we can make at least realistic, credible order-of-magnitude estimates of what can and cannot happen.

[Lord Revan]

yeah "heavy water" is just water that has different hydrogen isotype and "plasma" is essentially gas so hot that electrons have been stripped from the atoms, nothing all that exotic there. As Simon said (excuse the pun) we have enough knowledge to say what is likely possible or not possible. I now Cold Fusion would make my job (read:my student assignments) a lot easier as it seems to have all the benefits of "hot" Fusion without the major drawback that stops fusion being viable atm (basically atm controlling the reactions takes almost as much energy as it produces).

[jwl]

The only reason why there is a reason think cold fusion is possible at all is that idea that those positive experiments have some validity.

Pardon me, but I am having trouble with this statement you've made a few times now. I think it was pointed out to you earlier that none of these results have been reproduced. Insomuch, a similar observation was made with regular water. So the consensus is not cold fusion as far as I can tell.

So I fail to see how there can be any claims for "positive experiments".

The results have been reproduced, just not in a reliable consistent matter. And regardless, positive experiments with no reproduction are better than no positive experiments at all.

Any 'positive evidence' for cold fusion experiments is probably going to result from something like this:

https://xkcd.com/882/

Basically, if you have enough enthusiasts "experiment" enough times with iffy experimental controls, and/or are looking for effects at the very edge of your detectors' ability to resolve signal from noise... sooner or later, someone is bound to find something that they fondly imagine supports their conclusions.

I doubt that's where most of the positive results are coming from. Most likely they are due to problems in experimental procedure rather than p-hacking.

If it IS possible, it requires physics outside the standard model, which means we're going to have to do something profoundly exotic to matter to make it happen. Something that just plain cannot happen normally, and which you'll basically never see happen serendipitously as a side effect of doing something else.

Alternatively, it's going to involve extremely concentrated, confined, and unusual conditions, something that could occur in nature at least in principle but which is highly unlikely to do so. For this reason, I think that claims that you can induce cold fusion in the collapse of bubbles or whatever are at least superficially plausible, but unlikely to ever turn into an economical power source.

If by outside the standard model, you mean the standard model of particle physics, then no, not necessarily. You can't derive fusion from quantum chromodynamics. If by that you mean outside the standard understanding of physics, then of course it does, no-one was saying otherwise.

yeah "heavy water" is just water that has different hydrogen isotype and "plasma" is essentially gas so hot that electrons have been stripped from the atoms, nothing all that exotic there. As Simon said (excuse the pun) we have enough knowledge to say what is likely possible or not possible. I now Cold Fusion would make my job (read:my student assignments) a lot easier as it seems to have all the benefits of "hot" Fusion without the major drawback that stops fusion being viable atm (basically atm controlling the reactions takes almost as much energy as it produces).

It doesn't matter whether deuterium is terribly exotic or not, what matters is that it hadn't existed for terribly long prior to the original experiment, so the combination didn't have to opportunity to be extensively investigated beforehand.

[cadbrowser]

The results have been reproduced, just not in a reliable consistent matter. And regardless, positive experiments with no reproduction are better than no positive experiments at all.

...

It doesn't matter whether deuterium is terribly exotic or not, what matters is that it hadn't existed for terribly long prior to the original experiment, so the combination didn't have to opportunity to be extensively investigated beforehand.

I think you mean there have been CLAIMS the the results have been reproduced (I also think you meant manner, not matter). From what I've been reading the last few days the only consistent thing about the reproducibility is the inconsistency itself. There is nothing I've seen published so far that gives me any hope that there is any kind of nuclear reaction going on to give any credence to labeling the phenomenon Cold Fusion. On top of that, upon peer review, the positive results claimed have been shown to be background noise or equipment contamination/malfunction. And then you have sites like THIS, that scream pseudoscience with their outlandish claims without any evidence whatsoever.

I disagree with your statement regarding positive experiments with no reproduction...that just sounds like wishful thinking and biased delusional hope instead of actual science. These guys are missing a few steps in the Scientific Method, IMO.

...

I am pretty sure deuterium has been around for quite a LONG time (like since the Big Bang). It was discovered in 1931 and prepared in pure form in 1933.

[Simon_Jester]

The results have been reproduced, just not in a reliable consistent matter.

If the result cannot be reproduced by outside observers who weren't already expecting it to work, the obvious explanation is that it doesn't work. There is no reason to expect cold fusion to be 'hiding' from those who try to find it by replicating the claimed successes of others.

And regardless, positive experiments with no reproduction are better than no positive experiments at all.

How? Isolated 'positive experiments' are exactly the sort of thing enthusiastic quacks would dream up with no basis in reality... which is a way to waste time, and therefore actively worse than "no positive results."

Any 'positive evidence' for cold fusion experiments is probably going to result from something like this:
https://xkcd.com/882/
Basically, if you have enough enthusiasts "experiment" enough times with iffy experimental controls, and/or are looking for effects at the very edge of your detectors' ability to resolve signal from noise... sooner or later, someone is bound to find something that they fondly imagine supports their conclusions.

I doubt that's where most of the positive results are coming from. Most likely they are due to problems in experimental procedure rather than p-hacking.

Which is where the entire second paragraph of my post comes into play, Jwl.

Basically, if people who really really want to discover cold fusion screw around long enough and no one stops them to impose a reality check, sooner or later, someone's going to "discover cold fusion." That doesn't mean they've actually accomplished anything, it just means that people are good at wishful thinking and arranging the data to fit their wishes.

If by outside the standard model, you mean the standard model of particle physics, then no, not necessarily. You can't derive fusion from quantum chromodynamics...

Uh yes, you totally can. If fusion were incompatible with the basic four-force model of physics known as the Standard Model, then the Standard Model would never have become standard in the first place.

See, that's the problem here, fusion is well understood in principle. Witchcraft isn't going to magically make it easy to overcome the potential energy barrier between atomic nuclei.

[jwl]

The results have been reproduced, just not in a reliable consistent matter. And regardless, positive experiments with no reproduction are better than no positive experiments at all.

...

It doesn't matter whether deuterium is terribly exotic or not, what matters is that it hadn't existed for terribly long prior to the original experiment, so the combination didn't have to opportunity to be extensively investigated beforehand.

I think you mean there have been CLAIMS the the results have been reproduced (I also think you meant manner, not matter). From what I've been reading the last few days the only consistent thing about the reproducibility is the inconsistency itself. There is nothing I've seen published so far that gives me any hope that there is any kind of nuclear reaction going on to give any credence to labeling the phenomenon Cold Fusion. On top of that, upon peer review, the positive results claimed have been shown to be background noise or equipment contamination/malfunction. And then you have sites like THIS, that scream pseudoscience with their outlandish claims without any evidence whatsoever.

I disagree with your statement regarding positive experiments with no reproduction...that just sounds like wishful thinking and biased delusional hope instead of actual science. These guys are missing a few steps in the Scientific Method, IMO.

Yes that's what I said, they weren't reproduced in a consistent manner. But some results are better than no results at all. Without these results, you have no reason to think cold fusion could happen at all.

...

I am pretty sure deuterium has been around for quite a LONG time (like since the Big Bang). It was discovered in 1931 and prepared in pure form in 1933.

When I said how long it has been around, I was obviously referring to how long it has been accessible to experimenters.

The results have been reproduced, just not in a reliable consistent matter.

If the result cannot be reproduced by outside observers who weren't already expecting it to work, the obvious explanation is that it doesn't work. There is no reason to expect cold fusion to be 'hiding' from those who try to find it by replicating the claimed successes of others.

Well what the cold fusioneers say is that the failed replications are being done by people who are not doing the experiment properly (I think they say that they don't allow enough deuterium to come into the palladium during the electrolysis or something). The more likely explanation, of course, is that it is the cold fusioneers that aren't doing the experiment properly and what they are seeing is artifacts. But weak evidence is better than no evidence.

And regardless, positive experiments with no reproduction are better than no positive experiments at all.

How? Isolated 'positive experiments' are exactly the sort of thing enthusiastic quacks would dream up with no basis in reality... which is a way to waste time, and therefore actively worse than "no positive results."

In the sense that without those results being legitimate, there is no reason to think that cold fusion works. You are only going to get the idea that cold fusion works if you presume (some of) the results to be legitimate, therefore presuming cold fusion works necessarily means presuming one of these positive experiments also works.

If by outside the standard model, you mean the standard model of particle physics, then no, not necessarily. You can't derive fusion from quantum chromodynamics...

Uh yes, you totally can. If fusion were incompatible with the basic four-force model of physics known as the Standard Model, then the Standard Model would never have become standard in the first place.

See, that's the problem here, fusion is well understood in principle. Witchcraft isn't going to magically make it easy to overcome the potential energy barrier between atomic nuclei.

Fusion as we know it is not incompatible with QCD, but it also can't be derived from QCD in practice because of the difficulty in computation. Lattice QCD is hard. Fusion is reasonably well-understood, but not from the standard model of particle physics, and instead from things like the semi-empirical mass formula and the woods–saxon potential.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes that's what I said, they [the results] weren't reproduced in a consistent manner. But some results are better than no results at all. Without these results, you have no reason to think cold fusion could happen at all.

Thing is, in science, "occasional studies that can't be replicated support X" is not better than "there is no evidence for X."

If you do enough studies with people who have a strong enough confirmation bias, someone will eventually claim to have found evidence of X.

But if the claim of X cannot be replicated, and there is no theoretical basis explaining why they should be right, then those people should be dismissed as simply incorrect. Because "this one guy did his experiment wrong or over-interpreted his result or just made shit up after trying and failing over and over for twenty years" is a much more plausible explanation than "totally new phenomenon observed but it mysteriously ceases to exist except when John Q. Hergleheimer does it while holding his thumb on the balance scale!"

Otherwise we are forced to believe in ghosts, flying saucers, ESP, and all sorts of other pseudoscientific nonsense... that someone, somewhere, at some time, claimed to be able to observe.

Well what the cold fusioneers say is that the failed replications are being done by people who are not doing the experiment properly (I think they say that they don't allow enough deuterium to come into the palladium during the electrolysis or something). The more likely explanation, of course, is that it is the cold fusioneers that aren't doing the experiment properly and what they are seeing is artifacts. But weak evidence is better than no evidence.

At some point, weak evidence IS no evidence. You cannot expect people to seriously entertain a scientific claim, when the 'evidence' supporting it is overwhelmingly likely to be nothing but hoaxes and wishful thinking, after decades of experimentation by a large group of committed self-proclaimed 'experts.'

In the sense that without those results being legitimate, there is no reason to think that cold fusion works. You are only going to get the idea that cold fusion works if you presume (some of) the results to be legitimate, therefore presuming cold fusion works necessarily means presuming one of these positive experiments also works.

The flip side of that is that it is grossly unscientific to say "this exists because I think this exists." Or, equivalently, to say "there is only evidence that this works if you already believe that it works."

Evidence is supposed to come in before scientists change their minds, not afterwards.

Fusion as we know it is not incompatible with QCD, but it also can't be derived from QCD in practice because of the difficulty in computation. Lattice QCD is hard. Fusion is reasonably well-understood, but not from the standard model of particle physics, and instead from things like the semi-empirical mass formula and the woods–saxon potential.

If there is no incompatibility, why should we assume that the interlocking body of theories is anything BUT a complete description of the process?

[jwl]

Yes that's what I said, they [the results] weren't reproduced in a consistent manner. But some results are better than no results at all. Without these results, you have no reason to think cold fusion could happen at all.

Thing is, in science, "occasional studies that can't be replicated support X" is not better than "there is no evidence for X."

If you do enough studies with people who have a strong enough confirmation bias, someone will eventually claim to have found evidence of X.

But if the claim of X cannot be replicated, and there is no theoretical basis explaining why they should be right, then those people should be dismissed as simply incorrect. Because "this one guy did his experiment wrong or over-interpreted his result or just made shit up after trying and failing over and over for twenty years" is a much more plausible explanation than "totally new phenomenon observed but it mysteriously ceases to exist except when John Q. Hergleheimer does it while holding his thumb on the balance scale!"

Otherwise we are forced to believe in ghosts, flying saucers, ESP, and all sorts of other pseudoscientific nonsense... that someone, somewhere, at some time, claimed to be able to observe.

If you were to presume flying saucers existed, some of the flying saucer sightings were legitimate. Same difference.

Fusion as we know it is not incompatible with QCD, but it also can't be derived from QCD in practice because of the difficulty in computation. Lattice QCD is hard. Fusion is reasonably well-understood, but not from the standard model of particle physics, and instead from things like the semi-empirical mass formula and the woods–saxon potential.

If there is no incompatibility, why should we assume that the interlocking body of theories is anything BUT a complete description of the process?

Fusion is not incompatible with the standard model. Cold fusion is not incompatible with the standard model. Nucleons spontaneously coming together in an arrangement that looks like like a game of space invaders is not incompatible with the standard model. That's how calculations with QCD roll.

What you said was that if cold fusion is possible, it requires physics outside the standard model. I was correcting you.

Does it require physics outside the standard understanding of nuclear physics? Of course it does. But it doesn't require physics outside the standard model.

[Simon_Jester]

If you were to presume flying saucers existed, some of the flying saucer sightings were legitimate. Same difference.

Which is an excellent example of why you shouldn't assume something to be true before you examine the evidence.

If flying saucers are real, I want to know that they are real. If flying saucers are not real, I want to know that they are not real. I do NOT want to start by making up my mind and then selectively paying attention only to the alleged "facts" that support my preconceived opinion.

So if you want to be a scientist, if you want to practice the art of learning true things about reality, you never, ever start by deciding that X must be true, in the absence of a reason to think so, and then looking for evidence of X. And you never start by taking an experimental result seriously when it would never have convinced anyone who didn't already expect it to work.

[jwl]

If you were to presume flying saucers existed, some of the flying saucer sightings were legitimate. Same difference.

Which is an excellent example of why you shouldn't assume something to be true before you examine the evidence.

If flying saucers are real, I want to know that they are real. If flying saucers are not real, I want to know that they are not real. I do NOT want to start by making up my mind and then selectively paying attention only to the alleged "facts" that support my preconceived opinion.

So if you want to be a scientist, if you want to practice the art of learning true things about reality, you never, ever start by deciding that X must be true, in the absence of a reason to think so, and then looking for evidence of X. And you never start by taking an experimental result seriously when it would never have convinced anyone who didn't already expect it to work.

But the entire point of this conversation was from the starting point of me assuming that cold fusion is real. Whether it is real in reality is irrelevant to the conversation.

If cold fusion is real, the a proper scientific explanation of how it works will not occur until well after it is already accepted by the scientific community, since cold fusion is too "out there" theoretically for the theory to come first. If the idea of cold fusion has any basis, then someone must have set up an experimental apparatus to make it happen before they actually knew how it happened. If flying saucers are real, some of the flying saucer sightings were legitimate.

[cadbrowser]

If the idea of cold fusion has any basis, then someone must have set up an experimental apparatus to make it happen before they actually knew how it happened.

Except, that's not how it happened.

[Esquire]

Yeah... You can't just beg the question and then use that to assume a priori experimental support; that's at least two kinds of logical fallacy. Even if you're just trying to illustrate the nonscientific viewpoint, it just demonstrates further exactly how ridiculous that viewpoint is.