A colleague once wrote that in science "theories guide while experiments decide," referring to the methodology used by scientists to make discoveries and to validate them. Yes, discoveries are sometimes predicted on the basis of existing theoretical considerations. But sometimes they are made in the absence of theories. Let me describe a situation in which a premature theoretical consideration actually interfered with the acceptance of an experimental claim.
Twenty years ago, on March 23 1989, two chemists announced an interesting discovery. They said that their electrolytic cells generated more thermal energy than the amount of electric energy received. The excess of energy, they claimed, was too large to be due to any chemical process. At the same time they offered a tentative theoretical interpretation. Excess heat, they said, might be due to fusion of atomic nuclei of hydrogen atoms. The weak points of this interpretation were at once recognized, creating a very unfavorable situation (discrimination by the scientific establishment) for those who wanted to study the effect.
Let me speculate about a scenario in which a published paper, describing discovery of excess heat, is ended with the following sentence. "The origin of excess heat remains a mystery." Instead of arguing against premature theoretical speculations, other scientists would focus on replication of experimental results. This would either confirm or refute the reality of excess heat, probably in less than one year. The reality of excess heat would naturally lead to theoretical considerations and, possibly, to practical applications of the new discovery. But this did not happen. The field, inappropriately named cold fusion (now called CMNS--Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), continues to be controversial, despite many subsequent confirmations of the reality of excess heat.
In a recent message, posted on the Internet discussion list for CMNS researchers, I was discussing another experiment for which an interesting interpretation was proposed by J. F. I wrote: "What is the best strategy to convince mainstream scientists that our claims are valid? I think that the issue is worth discussing. My advice would be to ask all theoreticians -- including J. F., whose theory inspired the protocol based on starters -- not to inject theoretical interpretations until facts are recognized as real. Remember what happened in 1989. Instead of focusing on real experimental facts (generation of excess heat) discussion quickly shifted to theoretical considerations, such as coulomb barrier, expectations based on wrong models, etc. It would be much better if the new phenomenon were called UEH (unexplained excess heat) rather than CF (cold fusion), until the reality of UEH were recognized by all scientists.
If it were up to me I would recommend focusing on our new experimental facts. Let us agree that clusters of tracks are not due to artifacts, such as radioactivity or cosmic rays. Let us agree that clusters are likely to be due to unexplained nuclear projectiles (UNP). Then let us try to convince others that UNP are real. Trying to mix experimental facts with theories might backfire again. We want people to look at our experimental data; we want them to perform experiments; we do not want the debate to shift toward not-yet-accepted ideas, such as polyneutrons, etc.
I know it is a touchy issue. Theoreticians do not want to be told what to do, what to publish and how long to wait. And we all believe that pure empiricism is not science. Theoretical debates are essential. But, like other powerful tools, theories can have both positive and negative effects. I am afraid that premature theoretical considerations can produce more harm than good at this delicate stage. . . . " Responding to my suggestion, J. F. wrote:
" The idea that neutral particles of a novel type play a role in CMNS has proved fruitful. It encouraged R. O. to look for and find charged particles generated in the vapor over the electrolyte in an electrolysis cell (ICCF11). It encouraged him to look for and find charged particles generated in the air beyond the cell wall (ICCF11). It prompted the suggestion that a bit of material exposed to the reaction in one laboratory might serve as a starter for igniting a reaction in another laboratory. Whether or not polyneutron theory is correct, it has proven to be useful by suggesting these procedures. Progress is faster when theory and experiment go hand in hand. They [theoretical and experimental scientists] learn from each other and they teach each other. It would be a mistake for theoreticians to remain silent."
Responding to the above, I wrote: "I agree, the long-term goal is to know what happens, and to understand it in terms of what is already known. My suggestion had to do with strategy. It is better to first offer what is easier to defend. Experimental data are easier to defend than J. F's polyneutrons. But I am only an observer. Let us hope that the 1989 situation does not repeat itself. I am afraid that people will start discussing polyneutrons instead of performing and discussing experiments. It will be easier to defend polyneutrons after existence of clusters, predicted by John, is accepted by mainstream scientists."
In another message, under the same thread, I wrote; "Explaining facts in terms of unexplained ideas seems to be counterproductive. But this is not something unheard of. I am thinking about the famous paradox of missing energy in beta decay. Calorimetric measurements of mean energies per beta particle, conducted in 1930s, were not consistent with the law of conservation of energy. To explain these experimental results, Pauli invented neutrino, a particle of negligible mass that carries the missing energy. I suppose that many people had reservations about this, just like many of us resist explanations based on polyneutrons, erzions and magnetic monopoles. But Pauli's hypothesis was eventually shown to be correct by Cowan and Reins (1950's). "
Ludwik Kowalski is a retired physics teacher (Professor emeritus, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA). He and his wife, Linda, live in Fort Lee, close to New York City. Born in 1931, Ludwik is still able to enjoy downhill skiing, walking (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
It occurred to me, after reading my own article above, that there might be an important connection between that article and comments posted by readers of the article at:
w w w . opednews.com/ articles/ Regulating-the-Economy-by-Ludwik-Kowalski-081224-382.html
Please eliminate all blanks spaces from the above long link (after pasting it). Otherwise the link will not work. Paragraphs are numbered to faciltate possible discussion. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1) Scientific methodology was said to be used by economists and sociologists in the Soviet Union. Practical decisions in that country, during Stalin’s times, for example, collectivization of agriculture, were said to be based on solid theoretical considerations. But, as described by a Polish philosopher, Leszek Kolakowski (in “Main Currents of Marxism,” v3, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1978) this was not true. According to him “... In the Stalin era, however ... we have ... the absolute institutionalization of Marxism as an instrument of power. This process, it is true, began earlier on: it goes back to Lenin's view that Marxism must be ‘the party's world-outlook’, i.e. that its content must be governed by the needs of the struggle for power at a particular moment. None the less, Lenin's political opportunism was to some extent restrained by doctrinal considerations; whereas in Stalin's day, from the early thirties onwards, doctrine was absolutely subordinated to the purpose of legitimizing and glorifying the Soviet government and everything it did. . . .”
3) In other words, the principle “theories guide while experiments decide,” was not used; the theory (Marxism), instead of being an instrument for making valid predictions, as officially claimed, became an instrument of justification of decisions made by the state. Conflicts between expectations and reality, as in the case of Lysienkoism, were not used to correct theoretical mistakes. Kolakowski also wrote: “Marxism under Stalin ... meant nothing more or less than the current pronouncement of the authority in question, i.e. Stalin himself. For instance, up to June 1950 to be a Marxist meant, among other things, accepting the philological theories of N.Y. Marr, while after that date it meant rejecting them utterly. You were a Marxist not because you regarded any particular ideas--Marx's, Lenin's, or even Stalin's--as true, but because you were prepared to accept whatever the supreme authority might proclaim today, tomorrow, or in a year's time.” Accepting ideas on the basis of obedience has nothing to do with science. Officially, the scientific method was glorified (we are better than capitalists because our economic decisions are based on science, rather than on profits) but in practice social scientists and economists were not allowed to use that method. Only physical scientists and engineers were prompted to independently validate their theories on the basis of real experimental results.
4) Nowhere in the world, as far as I know, is macro economy now planned and managed by professionals. I have a lot of unanswered questions on that topic. Here are some of them. “What is wrong with regulating macro economies? I wish I knew how to minimize damage inflicted on all of us by incompetent or dishonest leaders of large corporations. Their mistakes are burden to society. Is it not true that macro economy is too complex to depend on “the invisible hand of the market?” What worked reasonably well in the past might no longer be appropriate. What is wrong with the idea of protecting society from costly mistakes made by leaders of large corporations? How can such idea be implemented in a democratic society? How to make sure that planners do not take away too much freedom from individual business owners? How to coordinate brain power of highly qualified economists? What is wrong with counting on them in the same way in which we, as individuals, count on medical professionals and on experts in other fields?
5) Planned economy was tried and failed in many countries. But a lot was probably learned by those who were involved. Were successes and failures of planned economies studied (on the basis of archival materials) by our economists? Can such studies help us make social engineering useful? Should social engineering ideas (innovations) be tested on small scale before wide-scale implications? That is common practice in other kinds of engineering.
by
Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 3, 2009 at 11:09:57 PM
As early as 1906 French scientist Gustav Le Bon and English scientist Alan Trouton made speculations on where excess energy may be derived from and how to produce it.
The planet is in motion at 18.5 miles per second, yet, where is the 'Torque' point?
A windmill is attached to the ground and the air moves at a different rate of speed.
With the planet, everything is in motion, so where do you attach the 'windmill?'
The answer is at the 'Plane of the dimension.'
Between the 4th and 5th dimension.
For a 10 minute introduction to Static field technology: Planetary inertial field generators for heat and electricity:
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
