N by M Body Fusion

In article , Douglas
Eagleson wrote:

James Logajan wrote in message
5...
(Douglas Eagleson) wrote:
An interaction of the fusion type is often considered a quite
by the book thing. Meaning the crossection for the interaction
is looked up and the proper reaction is selected.

Are you trying to say that reaction cross sections are established by
experimental measurements or by computation from first principles? Where,
after all, do you suppose those alleged "book" values come from?

In quantum theory the book is irrelvant and the scientist must
use theory to calculate the allowed interaction. Meaning the
ability to fuse is in theory, and is always calculatable.

Sorry, the above doesn't make any sense.

So if the interaction is allowed energetically and it is not
in the books a discovery is possible in nuclear fusion science.
Many odd reactions will appear. Odd, odd reactions where a small
endothermic threshold exists.

So is there a computer program that spits out the answer for
postulated reactions? Or is hand calculation still necessary?

The assertions you've written make very little sense, yet are presented as
if they were widely agreed upon. So it is not surprising you've gotten some
hostile responses from some knowledgeable people. Also, why would you think
that something could be "hand calculated" and yet could not be done on a
computer?

So were you really trying to ask:

"My understanding is that fusion reaction cross-sections are experimentally
measured and generally not computed from first principles. If one did
compute from first principles isn't it possible that many odd reactions
would appear in the results? Are there any programs available that can do
these computations, and do them in reasonable amount of time?"


Well, you finally got the point of my question. Does anybody have
a quantum field theory to calculate the energetics of fusion and not
its crossection type probability. That is a fundamental type question
requiring a knowledgable person.

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg.MD USA

Well, James Logajan, got a bit into what you've been trying to ask; and
let me see if I can get a bit further.

I have quantum model based upon the axiomatic principle: 1) quantum
particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum particles
and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate system;
this axiom coupled with Maxwell's equations demonstrate that quantum
particles which are overlapping in momentum space (approximately at
rest with respect to each other) must behave opposite to the
expectations of Coulomb's law. When you write the word 'energetics'
then you must be specific because such a term, while it may sound
impressive to a layman, really can be a null content word unless you
define it precisely.

As near as I can tell, you're wondering if the actual details of how
nuclear fusion works is disclosed in fusion cross section data. The
answer is no. It is all statistical even though there is a popular
mental model which is subscribed to by nearly all nuclear fusion
scientists and engineers. That mental model is, in fact, the basis for
engineering efforts and design even for fusion weapons. They assume
the mental model is correct when, in fact, the basic axiom of quantum
motion specified above coupled with Maxwell's equations demonstrate
unequivocably that it is not correct.

According to Glasstone and Lovberg
in Chapter 2 of the report "Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions"
prepared under the auspices of the AEC in 1960 "...experiments made
with accelerated nuclei have shown that nuclear reactions can take
place at detectable rates even when the energies are considerably below
those corresponding to the top of the Coulomb barrier. In other words,
there is no threshold energy, determined by the maximum electrostatic
repulsion of the interacting nuclei, below which the fusion reaction
will not occur. Such behavior, which cannot be explained in terms of
classical mechanics, can be interpreted by means of wave mechanics. It
can be shown that there is a certain probability that two nuclei will
combine even though they do not have sufficient energy to surmount the
Coulomb barrier. This effect is commonly referred to as 'barrier
penetration'. "

So, on this basis they have experimental data that confirms that
particles undergo nuclear fusion without following the mental model of
energetic collisions which purportedly allow such near approaches
between nuclei that they are in range of the so-called 'nuclear strong
force'. So, here's this 1950's data which absolutely demonstrates that
fusion fuel nuclei can achieve fusion without first having to crash
into each other with the terrific velocities afforded by high
temperatures. But instead of dealing with this in a rational manner
the ostriches stuck their heads in a mathematical sand and were content
to give the process a name. They called it barrier penetration,
quantum tunneling, wave mechanical tunneling, etc. But these were all
just labels or names given to a process that they didn't have the least
idea about how it actually occurred. They substituted a statistical
prediction for knowledge and a name for a process they didn't
understand hoping, somehow, that if you give it a name that this means
that you understand it. This only confirms that most physicists are
either taxonimists or mathematicians. Now everyone knows that
statistics by nature does not deal with knowledge of discrete processes
but rather with calculating numbers of events. By observation and data
collection on a street corner we can get statistical predictions
related to the color of the average cat which will come around the
corner next but one cannot predict with certainty anything at all about
the color of the next cat to come around the corner or even if there
will ever be another cat to come around the corner. But statistics is
a like a heavily perfumed attractive woman. She can lure you into
almost anything if your brain isn't working. But for the true
researcher...well, he has his eyes on a different prize. He really
wants to know about the mechanics of it all...not about the
mathematical manipulations or statistics but the actual physical
processes.

That one little paragraph by Glasstone and Lovberg shows that there's a
huge gap in understanding the interactive behavior of charged
particles. But this goes beyond nuclear fusion but really overlaps
into other subdisciplines of physics like superconduction. Philip
Anderson, the Nobel prize winning physicist from Princeton University
explains, "What is clear is that the two decades or more of efforts to
fit all these phenomena into a Fermi liquid description are a catalogue
of failure, and it is time we opened our minds to new ways of
thinking." " But physicists have learned to be comfortable because
physicists these days are generally no longer physicists but
mathematicians and they've transmorgified the notion that physicists
ought to have exact ideas about physical events and processes into the
idea that mathematical ideas and results are the physics. How it got
to be this way is well documented in the history of early twentieth
century physics.

But now we're paying the price for this level of intellectual fraud.
We could have clean working nuclear fusion but the mainstream society
of gov't supported fusioneers have become an army of welfare queens in
white coats continue to spend the taxpayer's monies on attempting to
engineer processes for which they lack a proper physical model.

Charles Cagle