Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics published the paper ''Cold nuclear fusion'', by E.N. Tsyganov.
In August 23rd I posted a comment , and in the next day somebody with the fantasy name ''insight'' posted a reply to my comment. We both posted some replies, and our comments are ahead.
Dear Dr. E.N. Tsyganov
spite of atomic electrons may screen the repulsion effect of nuclear
charge, it’s hard to believe that such phenomenon can be able to explain
the Coulombic penetration, because:
1- When the proton is on the
verge of entering the nucleus, it has a big Coulombic repulsion with the
protons of that nucleus, and such repulsion increases with the square
of the distance decrease.
2- The electrons that cause the screen effect are very far from the nucleus: about 10^-11m (Bohr’s radius).
So, it’s hard to believe that one proton very near to the nucleus (about 10^-15m) can be helped by the screen effect.
if a proton (with positive charge) is able to enter into a nucleus,
then an electron (with negative) charge would have chance to do it
There is not in Theoretical Physics a satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.
hard to believe that any cold fusion theory, based on the prevailing
principles of current Theoretical Physics, can be able to explain cold
A satisfactory theory capable to explain cold fusion must be able to explain why the electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
do not agree with you that “There is not in Theoretical Physics a
satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down
into the nuclei.”.
Maybe you believe that electrons and protons are
like “balls”. No, they are not: they have to be considered “quantum
states”, that is, probability distribution of matter, considered
according position or speed, not both at the same time because there is
also the “uncertainty principle”. Also consider the wave-particle
dualism, the same puzzle Schrödinger had to address before writing his
So the reason why electrons do not fall down
onto the nucleus is that a similar physical condition isn’t a solution
for the Schrödinger equation, or its derivatives. You can imagine that,
the more the electron gets close to the nucleus, the less it behaves and
appears like a “ball”.
In the nucleus protons are subjected to
further forces, still they do not collapse but stay together (someone
says the nucleus is like a “sea of quarks” instead).
Note: I am not saying that the above mentioned principles cannot be corrected or changed. I am just answering your statement.
the reason why electrons do not fall down onto the nucleus is that a
similar physical condition isn’t a solution for the Schrödinger
equation, or its derivatives”
Dear Mr. insight,
only a force can avoid the electron do not fall down into the nuclei.
It must be the force capable to oppose the force of attraction between the nucleus and the electron.
An equation cannot produce a force.
suggestion remembers me the isospin proposed by Heisenberg. As two
neutrons have not repulsion, but they have attraction by the strong
force, then two neutrons would have to form a dineutron.
So that to explain why there is no dineutrons in nature, Heisenberg proposed the isospin postulate.
However, a postulate cannot prevent two neutrons to form a dineutron by the action of the strong force.
Only another force can do it.
Only a force can oppose to another force.
a REPULSION force can oppose to an ATTRACTION force, and to separate
two neutrons, so that to avoid them to form a dineutron.
Several solutions in Modern Physics actually are not fundamental solutions. They are only bandages.
We cannot explain cold fusion occurrence with a theory developed by the use of bandages.
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
am not necessarily a fan of the nowadays accepted physics theories, but
I can say you are wrong because particles are not like balls and forces
we are talking about are not mechanical forces. They are called forces
but at atomic level they just are terms of Hamiltonians, operators in
the quantum vector space.
I can understand your wonder at the
mysteries of matter. Believe me, it was the same the 20th century
scientists felt when addressing the amazing physics phenomena occurring
with atoms and nuclei, and Physics students still today feel marvel at
them. It’s why Physics is so a beautiful subject.
At present time you
have to accept that there are many amazing (and challenging) mysteries
in nature and that the found explanations are often counterintuitive or
unsatisfactory. So talk about interactions, not forces: those
interactions are not like you imagine them, they act just as described
by quantum mechanics.
Mr. insight wrote:
you believe that electrons and protons are like “balls”. No, they are
not: they have to be considered “quantum states”, that is, probability
distribution of matter”.
Dear Mr. insight,
you are wrong.
Electrons are like a ball, yes.
Because electrons collide like billiard balls, as Compton experiments proved to us.
Only balls can collide like billiard balls.
“Quantum states”, or “probability distribution of matter”, cannot collide like billiard balls.
Compton experiments (which proved that electrons are like balls) are not a theory. They are experiments.
“Probability distribution of matter” is only a theory. It’s NOT an experimental result.
Probability distribution of matter has been proposed as a theory because the quantum theorists did not succeed to explain why an electron like a ball does not fall within the nucleus.
another words, the quantum theorists rejected the experiments made by
Compton, so that to save their theory, according to which the electron
is not like a ball.
But the scientific method prescribes
that any experiment must prevail over any theory. If the theory does not
fit to an experimental result, the theory must be rejected. To keep the
theory, by rejecting the experiment is not according to the scientific
However, instead of to realize that
“probability distribution of matter” is an unsatisfactory concept,
refuted by Compton experiment, the quantum theorists decided to do just
what scientific method prescribes do not to do: they neglected the
In short: as the Compton experiment
shows that electrons are like a ball, a theory of the atom must consider
the electrons in its electrosphere just as they are: like balls.
from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics is impossible to explain why
electrons like a ball do not fall into the nucleus, there is need to
change the foundations of QM. It’s not acceptable to change the shape of
the electron detected experimentally (by proposing that electron is a
probability distribution of matter, instead of to consider it like a
ball) only because Quantum Mechanics cannot explain why they do fall
into the nuclei (this behavior is a betrayal to the scientific method).
false fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics are responsible for
the appearance of several unacceptable paradoxes in Modern Physics.
why Bohr proposed some strange postulates. That was a desperate attempt
he proposed with the aim to explain the paradoxes, so that to find an
interpretation philosophically reasonable for the strange quantum
One of the Bohr’s strange postulates is the Principle of
Complementarity, according to which sometimes a quantum particle can
behave as a wave, and sometimes it can behave as a corpuscle.
The physicists enjoy to cheat themselves.
to realize that some principles of Quantum Mechanics are wrong, they
cheat themselves looking for absurd solutions, so that to save the
I thought the reality of cold fusion would change
the behavior of the physicists, and they would finally realize that
Physics needs new foundations.
Unfortunately, I see that
physicists will continue to deceive themselves, because they will try to
explain cold fusion with these current theories full of false
So, what is the future of Physics ?
the quantum theorists succeed in their attempt to keep all
the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, despite we realize that
such theory is unable to explain satisfactorily cold fusion occurrence ?
they continue to propose a cold fusion theory based on the false
principle of Quantum Mechanics, by adding bandages on bandages, so that
to save the theory ?
After all, the mathematics accepts everything we wish, if we addopt suitable ad hoc hypothesis.
I think the answer is no. Quantum Mechanics will not survive.
present generation of physicists tries to save the theory because they
grew up with the theory, having touch with its successes.
new generation of physicists will grow up having touch with the failures
of the theory, as for instance its inability to explain cold fusion.
And I suppose this new generation will realize that some fundamental
principles of Quantum Mechanics must be changed, otherwise the Physics
will never leave the crisis in which the quantum theorists have put it.