Chapter 3 Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon

   “I have always. considered science to be a dialogue with nature. As in a real dialogue, the answers are often unexpected and sometimes astonishing.” Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty – Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature, p. 57, The Free Press, New York, 1997.

 As is explained in the previous Chapter and summarized in Section 2.15, a huge pile of experimental data of the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) obtained in these 16 years from 1989 is puzzling from the common sense of modern physics established in the last century if we interpret them only from knowledge and concepts obtained in nuclear physics and solid-state physics by the end of the century.

The science of CFP has not been accomplished and is in a process progressing at present. The description given in this Chapter, therefore, is at most by models with premises based on experimental facts or is at best a first step of quantum mechanical investigations on oversimplified conditions.

There are two sources of confusion in the theoretical approach to CFP. The first is in the enthusiastic researchers and proponents of CFP; they accept some of the experimental data sets according to their tastes and are apt to swallow up explanations of the data sets sometimes without scrutiny. The second is in the critics having prejudice against experimental data of CFP implanted by scandalous events in a few years from 1989; they have deep disbelief in the experimental data and dislike thoughtless acceptance of ridiculous explanations often used by proponents to explain events in CFP neglecting principles of modern physics established in the 20^th century.

Therefore, it is desirable to perform scientific investigations of CFP with the same terminology as that used in other branches of modern physics if we hope that the science of CFP is developed as a part of 21^st century physics succeeding modern physics of the 20^th century.

The cold fusion phenomenon occurs in complex systems composed of solids including hydrogen isotopes and thermal neutrons and therefore is fundamentally different from two-body nuclear reaction in the free space. (Cf. Appendix D, Topics 10, Chaos, Fractals and Complexity) They belong to different levels of physics from those of nuclear physics and should be treated on different basic laws. This point seems to be forgotten by some people in and outside the cold fusion researchers who are giving unreasonably negative effect on the progress of this science. Especially, nuclear scientists considered that nuclear reactions if any in CFP should be the same as those in traditional nuclear physics and denied CFP without careful investigation of characteristic events in it.

In this Chapter, we attempt to take a first step to establish the science of the cold fusion phenomenon using experimental data introduced in Chapter 2 as guiding materials together with relevant data obtained in solid-state physics and nuclear physics. The process should be inevitably done with trial-and-error method that is a common mean to explore a new field. (Cf. Appendix D, Topics 4, Quantum born as a Result of a Trial and Error)

To start with a model to give a unified, consistent explanation of CFP, it is useful to make sure conceptual discrimination among theory, model, and hypothesis (or assumption) customarily used in modern physics to avoid confusion sometimes occurring in proponents of CFP in the usage of these terms that amplifies misunderstanding between proponents and critics.

We recommend usage of concepts of theory, model, and hypothesis (or assumption) according to the examples taken from the history of modern physics given in Appendix B even if everyone has freedom in usage of words as one’s taste.

A theory is a system of logic based on fundamental principles commonly accepted in modern physics. The logic of a theory is inevitably restricted by approximations to simplify the situation of a problem and to make it tractable. Thus, the conclusion of a theory is not necessarily perfect.

A model containing sometimes adjustable parameters is a system of premises (or assumptions) based on some experimental facts. The value of a model is solely in its ability to explain other data than those composing the basis of the model.

A hypothesis or an assumption is a statement devised to explain an experimental data, which is not directly (or plainly) explained by fundamental principles.

There are too many hypotheses pretending to be theories in the field of CFP making the situation perplexing and unbelievable to scientists in established branches of science. To avoid confusion in facts and in their explanations in CFP, we recommend using terminology illustrated by historical usage of theory, model and hypothesis given above (cf. Appendix B).

With this preliminary note on terminology, we begin an investigation of the science of CFP using experimental data as building blocks.