Cold fusion has been a topic of scientific interest for the better part of a century. The theory behind cold fusion is rather simple: the absorption of hydrogen gas by a palladium cathode, leading to a net creation of energy. This creation of energy, however, leads to problems.
Regular fusion, the kind that happens inside of stars, requires vast amounts of heat and pressure to sustain a reaction. This kind of fusion is very well understood. The two requirements for fusion are high temperatures and high pressures. These two requirements alone put a damper on the plausibility of cold fusion. In order to replicate these environments "We must use energy from microwaves, lasers and ion particles to achieve these temperatures" ... and "squeeze hydrogen atoms together by using intense magnetic fields, powerful lasers or ion beams" (HowStuffWorks- How Nuclear Fusion Reactors Work). These known requirements for fusion put a significant damper on the ability for the scientific community to accept Fleischmann and Pons' experimental results. The discrepancy between theoretical and experimental results leads to a 2-culture model in the scientific community. Experimentalists saw the potential benefit of cold fusion while theorists knew the theory behind fusion, taking the findings with a grain of salt. The overall inability to simply accept the results by the scientific community fueled an (overall) beneficial discourse. If everyone had taken the findings of Fleischmann and Pons at face value, without questioning the results, who knows what results would have developed. This illustrates one of the Necessities for Science, skepticism. Without skepticism, we are destined to be bound by questionable results and poor experimental techniques. The scientific community benefits from the questioning and refinement of results. The 2-culture model, however, is not limited to the scientific community.
The public has been disillusioned by the history of cold fusion. When Fleischmann and Pons announced positive results of their cold fusion experiment, the public was immediately interested. The possibility of a cheap, reliable power source was a godsend. The oil crisis of the early 70s was still a fresh wound, the world was clamoring for a power source capable of replacing a dependence on foreign oil. This may have lead to the public placing too much merit in the results. When these results inevitably ended up being false, the scientific community lost a considerable amount of merit with the public. This lead to a general caution regarding new scientific discoveries, even if they were thoroughly backed up. Following this case, the public developed a mindset, one of caution. Overt optimism lead to disappointment and distrust. If the scientific community would back faulty science, why should the public trust any of their discoveries? This mindset lead fed into a preexisting cycle of mistrust. The public didn't want to trust the results scientists published and scientists didn't trust the public with a continued involvement in the scientific process.
Something else I found interesting about this topic was the inconsistency in the scientific community itself. Many scientific journals and individuals were quick to disregard years of theoretical data on the basis of one (rather unreliable) experiment. The discrepancies between the acceptance of a theory and an experimental result continue to baffle me, especially after reading up on this case. Theories are only accepted after years, if not decades, of meticulous calculations and experimental results backing up the original claim. The fact that the scientific community chose to override years of theoretical knowledge stating that fusion wasn't possible at room temperature (except in generally cold, locally hot fusion or Muon catalyzed fusion-- and it's important to note that both of these designs do not provide a net energy production) seems to run counterintuitive to my understanding of the scientific process. The scientific process was built to make sure scientific discovery positively benefited mankind, not override years of theory. Yes, theories can be proved incorrect, but the process by which theories are disproved is even more tedious than getting it approved. Finally, the fact that years of theoretical physics work was overturned by chemists seems... improbable. Its like a computer scientist overturning the theory of evolution; yes, its possible but it would be scrutinized heavily before anyone accepted it as fact. If anything, this case fed a cycle of mistrust in the scientific community--one that helps regulate the influx of faulty scientific information into the public sector (the scientific community will regulate the "groundbreaking scientific discoveries" that the public hears about).
On a complete tangent, this is how I imagine the process occurred:
Scientific Community at Discovery:
Theoretical Physicists:
Scientific Community After Investigation:
No comments:
Post a Comment