We're in an energy price crunch period so we can expect several fringe-science new-energy type of people to resurface looking for funding (money). They might have suspicious claims, they might depend on fanciful interpretations of science, and they might be right.
One thing we see in the history of science is the entrenched current establishment often defends its turf by denouncing all newcomers and their ideas. It's often seen that real change in science happens generationally. That is, when the old scientists die the younger scientists are free to discuss new models of reality die, which they weren't able to do when the old scientists were alive because the old scientists were in charge.
This just appeared on Slashdot: New Discovery Disproves Quantum Theory? (Posted by ScuttleMonkey on slashdot, Sunday November 06, 2005) An anonymous reader writes to tell us the Guardian is running a story that has quite a few physicists up in arms. From the article: "Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation." The only problem is Mills' theory is supposed to be impossible when using current rules of quantum mechanics.
It refers to this Guardian article: Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head Scientist says device disproves quantum theory; Opponents claim idea is result of wrong maths (Alok Jha, science correspondent, Friday November 4, 2005, The Guardian)
The company in question is Blacklight Power, whom I've heard of before. They have an overview of the science on their web site.
The technique in question involves creating Hydrino's, which are a hydrogen atom whose electron is orbiting closer to the proton than conventional quantum mechanics would allow. When the electron moves to the tighter orbit energy is released. They don't discuss what happens to the Hydrino's afterward, presumably at some other time one would give the Hydrino's some energy so they can return their electron back to the usual orbit. The Wikipedia has an article on hydrino's (note: it currently carries a warning that the article has been linked from slashdot and may have been spammed with innacuracies).
What astonishes me in the slashdot thread is the reaction of the scientists. Several scientists have weighed in with analyses generally to claim it's all poppycock, but others claim to have come to study the device and are putting their credibility and careers on the line. In some cases the debunkers are of the professional skeptic clan.
What matters is this: Have they built a functioning gadget which embodies their claims? If so, then I don't care what theories have been held in the past, the existance of the machine is its own truth. But of course its the inventors duty to make gadgets available for study so they can demonstrate their claims.
The inventor may or may not be able to describe a sound theory of how the gadget works. If someone were to stumble upon a process, do they need full understanding of how it works? What if it does work and one doesn't understand how it works, does that matter? For example how many of us drive cars or operate computers without knowing how they work? If there's a functioning gadget isn't it the job of the scientists to study the gadget and determine how it works?
At the same time it's very possible this is a hoax. It's very possible the guy has put together enough science to make enough of a smokescreen to fool the gullible. The role of the skeptic, in holding the existing model of reality promoted by Science, is valuable to help the regular folk by examining scientific claims and denouncing those that are provably false. But I think the Skeptics, especially the professional ones, often take this beyond the pale to where they're being as dogmatic as anybody. When one is holding onto an idea fervently without considering it may be false, that's dogma.
0 comments:
Post a Comment