User talk:Rabbiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rabbiz

[edit] Regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion

Regarding comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion, can you e-mail me privately as your e-mail link is disabled? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The philosophical basis of the cold-fusion controversy

There are two parallel routes through which new scientific knowledge is acquired. The most common route is through experimental observations. The second route is through theoretical predictions. In order to understand the merit of a new experimental observation, it needs to be matched with a corresponding theoretical understanding of the new discovery. Similarly, a new theoretical prediction needs to be validated by experiments. A theoretical prediction which cannot be validated or invalidated by experiments has no scientific merit.

The quest to understand the theoretical basis for experimental observations is subject to many potential pitfalls. One of them, is the attempt to draw theoretical conclusions from insufficient experimental data.

The name, or theory, of "cold fusion" was developed as follows:

  • Nuclear fusion reactions produce heat.
  • Anomalous heat (also called excess heat) was observed in electrolytic cells.
  • The temperature in the electrolytic cells was "cold" relative to the millions of degrees required for initiating nuclear fusion in "hot" fusion experiments.
  • A simple explanation for the source of the excess heat was not immediately available.
  • Therefore, it was concluded that the source of the excess heat is cold nuclear fusion.

This conclusion rests on three assumptions:

  • There is no conventional source for the observed excess heat.
  • The experiment is free from experimental errors.
  • Cold nuclear fusion is the only possible non-conventional source for the observed excess heat.

If all three assumptions are true, then, the conclusion is justified. However, if any one of the assumptions is wrong, then, the conclusion is a logical fallacy.

If the conclusion is justified, it opens the gate to a new field of research. On the experimental side, this research would need to establish the exact experimental conditions under which cold nuclear fusion can repeatedly occur. On the theoretical side, this research would need to develop a new understanding of the science of nuclear physics. Such a new theory would also need to be able to make new theoretical predictions which can be subjected to experimental testing.

The current status of the field of cold-fusion research is that scientists are divided into three camps:

  • Those who believe that all three assumptions are true and, therefore, the conclusion is justified.
  • Those who believe that one or more of the assumptions is wrong and, therefore, the conclusion is a logical fallacy.
  • Those who believe that the conclusion is wrong based on its theoretical impossibility, being in contradiction with the current understanding of the science of nuclear physics.