Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011

3,048

Published on

Readers may enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant LENR-related experimental discovery back in 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and forgotten by mainstream …

Readers may enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant LENR-related experimental discovery back in 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and forgotten by mainstream physics. In the history of science, it seems that experimental results that don't somehow fit within some sort of contemporary conceptual paradigm often tend to get ignored. Sadly, in many cases such results are never reported anywhere in peer-reviewed journals for posterity. In that regard, this cover note is combined with scanned page images from Chapter 6 in Dr. Ernest Sternglass' little 1997 book, “Before the Big Bang - the Origin of the Universe.”

Published in: Technology
4 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Dear J_McKisson:

    Thank you for your interest in our work. Yes, it is amazing --- it seems likely that the information that this person communicated to me about the U of Florida's experiments some years ago was probably accurate. They occurred in the mid-1960s, more than 20 years before the advent of Pons & Fleischmann. Regrettably, the person who related this story has not authorized me to release his name publicly or to third parties privately. That said, there are some details that can be revealed publicly as follows:

    (1) These experiments did NOT involve aqueous electrolytic cells a la Pons & Fleischmann. Rather, they were gas-phase experiments that used an extremely powerful military RF-source (microwave) to excite and create a hydrogen plasma (D - Deuterium) in a stainless-steel vessel.

    (2) Their objective in the experiments was to trigger D-D fusion reactions; they thought (not illogically) that if they could pump enough energy into the D+ plasma, they might be able to trigger TINY amounts of fusion reactions. Not fools about potential radiation hazards, my source told me that their experimental instrumentation was set-up to measure energetic neutrons, gammas, with some crude associated calorimetry to measure heat production.

    (3) Perhaps not unexpectedly, their results were very sporadic, hit-or-miss affairs. However, a number of experimental runs were spectacular, accompanies by substantial neutron fluxes (energies were not well-measured) and and significant amounts of heat. What was puzzling (and troubling) was the absence of large fluxes of MeV+ energy gamma radiation during such events.

    (4) What freaked them out the most, and ultimately caused them to terminate and 'bury' the existence of the experiments, was that in several of the most spectacular experiments, neutron production and evolution of heat continued WELL-AFTER electrical power to the RF energy source had been cut. This phenomenon is what they today call 'heat-after-death.' Not only was it inexplicable from a theoretical perspective (at that time, anyway), but it suggested that they might be unable to control a given experiment under some circumstances and thus limit the risk of unwanted exposure to neutron radiation. Nobody wanted to deal with the distinct possibility of an uncontrollable neutron source in a university laboratory.

    (5) Looking back at this saga in hindsight and with the assistance of the Widom-Larsen theory, it looks to me that they were probably dealing with an (RF-excited) 'dusty' deuterium plasma in a resonant electromagnetic (RF) cavity formed by the stainless steel reactor vessel. Note that neutrons produced in high energy RF-pumped dusty plasmas will NOT all be nearly all ultra-low momentum as a P&F aqueous electrolytic cell. However, observable gamma production would be subdued, which was observed. This, I don't think they were really seeing D + D fusion neutrons; rather,they were observing neutrons produced via the D+ + e- ---> 2 neutrons + neutrino a la the Widom-Larsen theory

    (6) 'Heat-after-death' is well-explained by the idea of a resonant electromagnetic cavity and cascades of very short-lived beta-decaying isotopes. To see how this would work with LENRs and W-L theory, please see my pubic SlideShare presentations dated March 24, 2011, and April 20, 2011. I think you may find them helpful.

    Sorry I can't release the person's name and divulge more details.

    Lew
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I was astounded to see the mention of the University of Florida experiment in your preface to the excerpt here. At the time of P&F I was among a group at UF that reviewed the sketchy word of mouth information about the anomalous experiment results and considered a replication attempt - but we were warned away (politics).

    You indicated that the experiment was well-documented but not published, and that you spoke to one of the original experimenters.

    I wonder if there is a direction you might point me to obtain more information about the experiment and documentation of the results. My interest is personal and sentimental in part, but because my interest in LENR has been rekindled in the last year.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Special note on C. G. Darwin's seminal work on collective effects with electrons back in 1920:

    'Motions of charged particles'
    C. G. Darwin
    Philosophical Magazine Series 6 (1901-1925)
    pp. 537 - 551 (1920)

    Can be purchased online from Taylor & Francis
    DOI: 10.1080/14786440508636066
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Dear Readers:

    In the highlighted sections of this document, Sternglass is really talking about looking for the presence of neutrons he thought could potentially be produced in his hydrogen-filled X-ray tube experiments via the weak interaction, that is e + p --> n + neutrino. This type of nuclear process is, of course, exactly what the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs explains in condensed matter systems such as, for example, aqueous electrolytic chemical cells and various types of gas-phase resonant electromagnetic cavities.

    After actually observing the neutrons he had correctly hypothesized might be created, the remaining theoretical puzzle became explaining how such neutrons could possibly be created under conditions present in his experiments. In Sternglass’ words, “... there was no chance that such an experiment could possibly succeed. The neutron was believed to have a mass so large that it would take an electron accelerated to about 780,000 volts to produce it. But the power supply of Parratt’s X-ray tube would only provide about 35,000 volts, some twenty-two times less ... C. G. Darwin’s calculations indicated that neutrons might be formed by capturing an electron even at low energies.”

    Einstein was clearly aware of Darwin’s work when he suggested to Sternglass that, “... perhaps more than the energy produced by the applied potential might become available if more than one electron were to give up its energy to a proton at the same time, something that is conceivable according to quantum theory.”

    Unfortunately, Sternglass did not pursue Einstein’s astoundingly prescient suggestion and dropped the line of inquiry.

    What Einstein was referring to is today called many-body collective quantum effects and is a crucial component of the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs in condensed matter. Unlike Sternglass, we followed Einstein’s advice and built upon C. G. Darwin’s seminal work in 1920. In our “Primer” paper published in Pramana – Journal of Physics (2010) we have a whole Section 4.1 pp. 629 – 631 titled, “Darwin electrodynamics.”

    Sixty years later, we have implemented Einstein’s bold vision in our work.

    Enjoy!

    Lew Larsen
    November 26, 2011
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,048
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
57
Comments
4
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. November 25, 2011 Subject: were LENRs observed in the early 1950s? Einstein and Bethe got involved in this sagaDear Readers:You may really enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant LENR-related experimental discovery back in1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and forgotten by mainstream physics.In the history of science, it seems that experimental results that dont somehow fit within some sort ofcontemporary conceptual paradigm often tend to get ignored. Sadly, in many cases such results arenever reported anywhere in peer-reviewed journals for posterity. In that regard, this cover note iscombined with scanned page images from Chapter 6 in Dr. Ernest Sternglass little 1997 book, “Beforethe Big Bang - the Origin of the Universe.”The excerpted page scans from the above book chapter are those in which Dr. Sternglass describessome enigmatic experiments that he conducted in the Cornell University physics department back in theearly 1950s.It recounts his work with an old hydrogen-filled X-ray tube, as well as a subsequent dialoguewith Albert Einstein in attempting to understand the (then) utterly inexplicable experimental results.Seven years ago, Sternglass, then in his late 80s, told me over the telephone that (before he hadcommunicated with Einstein about his strange results) the legendary Hans Bethe had looked over hisexperimental data and was totally baffled too. Nobody at Cornell understood what was happening in theexperimental setup that could possibly produce the observed fluxes of neutrons (obviously, ultra lowmomentum neutrons were not produced in his experiments --- they were more akin to what happens inhigh-current exploding wires as opposed to what happens in typical P&F aqueous electrolytic cells). So, abaffled Bethe called Einstein on the telephone and asked him to help PhD candidate Sternglass evaluatehis unexpected experimental results. The attached chapter taken from Sternglass book relates that story.What is truly mind boggling about this tale is that Einstein simply looked at Sternglass data and thenimmediately realized that the observed neutron production must involve some sort of many-bodycollective effects with electrons (which we utilize with great explanatory power in our theory of LENRs).Can you believe it --- what a mind Einstein had ---- even at that late stage in his life! At that point (1951),very few physicists really had any idea of what collective effects were about. Well, Einstein surely did.Unfortunately, Ernests bizarre experimental discovery was simply not pursued any further. In the end,Sternglass didnt heed Einsteins (and Bethes) strong advice to "be stubborn" and publish the deeplyanomalous results. Sternglass experiments were subsequently lost and largely forgotten by otherphysicists in the ensuing years, just like the work of chemists Wendt and Irion at the University of Chicagoback in 1922 and other related transmutation work published in refereed journals circa 1900 - 1927.Einstein, the only contemporary scientist who had any real inkling of what might be happening inSternglass puzzling experiments, died just four years after his interaction with Sternglass on theunexplained neutron fluxes.The only surviving document wherein these intriguing experimental results were ever mentioned wasSternglass little book published many years later in 1997. In 2006, I stumbled across a copy of it in the$2.99 discount section at Borders bookstore and, curious, just for kicks picked it up to read over theweekend. After reading an amazing chapter (see scanned pages), I immediately called my theoreticalcollaborators and said, "You guys wont believe what I just found." They were equally amazed.We plan to specifically discuss and explain the 1951 Sternglass/Bethe/Einstein saga in an upcomingpaper; it appears that this experimental anomaly is just another aspect of LENRs. Perhaps now, afterremaining in obscurity for 60 years, there can finally be some conceptual closure on Sternglass’ long-lost,unpublished experimental results.Copyright 2011 Lattice Energy LLC All rights reserved Page 1
  • 2. November 25, 2011Besides the 1950s-era Sternglass affair, we heard the following story from one of the former graduatestudents who was directly involved in some amazing experiments: specifically, in the mid-1960s,unexpected neutron production was observed in comparatively low temperature, RF-excited (dusty)deuterium plasma experiments jointly conducted at the University of Florida by the EE and nuclearengineering departments. The well-documented experimental results were so bizarre (significantunexplained neutron fluxes, "heat-after-death" after the electrical power was completely turned-off, etc.)that in the end, the graduate students and faculty involved in the work decided not to even try to publishtheir work in a refereed journal. It was deemed too controversial and potentially risky for all of theircareers. Yes, this could potentially be yet another aspect of LENRs.Incredibly, from ~1905 - 1927 some of the most famous people in British science (Thomson, Ramsay,etc.) episodically reported experimental results that are, in hindsight, obviously the result of LENR nucleartransmutations. The anomalous effects (e.g., appearance of new elements) were observedspectroscopically in various electrical discharge experiments and published in premier refereed journalsof that era (e.g., Nature, Proceedings of the Royal Society, etc.). Interestingly, Thomson published apaper in Nature in which he complained about having major problems with experimental reproducibility ofsuch effects. Does this problem sound familiar --- a la the Pons & Fleischmann brouhaha in 1989?Back in the 1920s, nobody had a sensible explanation for anomalous transmutation effects that werebeing discovered experimentally; so by 1932 (when Chadwick experimentally confirmed the existence ofthe neutron predicted by Rutherford) the whole area of inquiry had been quietly dropped with little fanfare,many people apparently preferring to pursue hotter contemporary topics such as quantum mechanics.Over the past 100+ years, who knows how many scientists have actually observed different aspects ofLENR-related phenomena, could not explain or understand what they saw experimentally, and were theneither unable or unwilling to publish such controversial results in well-recognized, peer-reviewed journals.One can only wonder at what may have been lost to science.Lewis LarsenPresident and CEOLattice Energy LLCChicago, IL USA1-312-861-0115Scanned note: in theSternglass’ 1997 bookSternglass is really talking about looking for theSpecial pages from highlighted sections, followpresence of neutrons he thought could potentially be produced in his hydrogen-filled X-ray tubeexperiments via the weak interaction, that is e + p --> n + neutrino. After actually observing theneutrons he had hypothesized might be created, the remaining theoretical puzzle becameexplaining how such neutrons could possibly be created under conditions present in hisexperiments. In Sternglass words, “... there was no chance that such an experiment couldpossibly succeed. The neutron was believed to have a mass so large that it would take anelectron accelerated to about 780,000 volts to produce it. But the power supply of Parratts X-raytube would only provide about 35,000 volts, some twenty-two times less ... C. G. Darwinscalculations indicated that neutrons might be formed by capturing an electron even at lowenergies.” Einstein was clearly aware of Darwins work when he suggested to Sternglass that, “...perhaps more than the energy produced by the applied potential might become available if morethan one electron were to give up its energy to a proton at the same time, something that isconceivable according to quantum theory.” Unfortunately, Sternglass did not pursue Einsteinsastoundingly prescient suggestion and dropped the line of inquiry. What Einstein was referring tois today called many-body collective quantum effects and is a crucial component of the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs in condensed matter. Unlike Sternglass, we followed Einsteins adviceand built upon C. G. Darwins seminal work in 1920. In our “Primer” paper published in Pramana -Journal of Physics (2010) we have a whole Section 4.1 pp. 629 - 631 titled, “Darwinelectrodynamics.” Sixty years later, we have implemented Einsteins bold vision in our work.Copyright 2011 Lattice Energy LLC All rights reserved Page 2
  • 3. BEFORE THE BIG BANGTHE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE By Ernest]. Sternglass To see the world in a grain of sand, And heaven in a wild flower; Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour. -Auguries ofInnocence, William Blake (1789) The following 16 pages are scanned and excerpted from this bookFOUR WALLS EIGHT WI DOWS EW YORK/LONDON
  • 4. To Marilyn, who made everything possible© 1997 Ernest J. SternglassPublished in the United States by:Four Walls Eight Windows39 WeSI14th Street, room 503New York, N.Y.,1001lU.K. offices:FourWalls Eight Windows/TurnaroundUnilJ. Olympia Trading EstateCoburg Road, Wood GreenLondon N22 6TZ, EnglandFirst priming OclObcr 1997.All rights reserved. No part of this book may bereproduced. stored in a data base or other retrievalsystem, or transmilted in any form, by any means,including lllcchanical, electronic, photocopying,recording, or otherwise, without he prior writtenpermission of the publisher.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:Sccrnglass. Ernest J.Before the big bang: the urigins urthe universel byErnest J. Sternglass.p. em.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISDN 1-56858-087-8t. Matter-History. 2. Matter-Mathematical models.:.. Cosmology. 4. Panicles {Nuclear physicsl-History.5. Physicists-Correspondencc. I. Tille.QC171.2.sB4 1997523.1·2-DC21 9726395CIf>1098765432Printed in the United StatesIllustrations by Brian J. LoprcstiText design and composition by Ink, Inc., New York
  • 5. 7fi BEfORf THE BIG BoIIlG This historical vlcwofthc cydical changes ofscientific ideas gave mehope thai overthe courseoflhe years, a newcra ofunification ofour theo_ries on the nature of mailer and the evolution of the universe would COmeabout, and that it was mostlikcly to involve electromagnetic concepts, asLorentz had belicved to the end of his life. But this dcvclopmenl wouldtake a long time, during which I would have to be able to earn a living in a·cobblers job~ while working on the theoretical and conceptual problemsof physical theory on the sid~, as Einstein had urged me to do. I realizedthat I would need an advanced degree. I had 1000 living in scenic Imacawith its deep gorges and waterfalls whilc pursuing my undergraduatestudies at Cornell, and so Idecided to return there while keeping my posi-tion at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. coming back to Washinhton dur-ing the summers and using my work on secondary electron emission formy thesis subject.
  • 6. Special note on C. G. Darwins seminal work on collective effects with electrons back in 1920:"Motions of charged particles," C. G. Darwin, Philosophical Magazine Series 6 (1901-1925)pp. 537 - 551 (1920) Can be purchased online from Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14786440508636066 CHAPTER 6 "BE STUBBORN" N EARLY 1949, J returned to Cornell for graduate studies in the newly I fonned program of Engineering Physics. The university had attracted some of the worlds most outstanding scientists to its faculty, many of whom bad been involved in the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. Among these was Richard Feynman, the brilliant, brash young theoretical physicist who had been instrumental in developing new methods of computing in Hans Hethes theoretical division at Los Alamos. Bethe had been instrumental in bringing Feynman to Cornell shortly after the end of the war in 1945. Feynman shared an office with Philip Morrison, who had also worked on the atomic bomb at Los Alamos, and who agreed to serve as my principal adviser in theoretical physics on my thesis committee. Feynman sometimes joined my discussions with Morrison about the nature of the neutron and the mesons newly discovered in cosmic rays. This brief acquaitancc led me, a decade later, to work out the mathematical details of an electromagnetic model for the mesons that turned out to be the basis for the Lemaitre atom. I had originally hoped to do my thesis work on the theory of secondary electron emission under Hethe. Hethe was most widely known for his work on the nuclear reactions in stars that produced the heavier elements from hydrogen, accounting for the source of their energy along lines similar to those studied by Garnow. Bethe had also vvritten some definitive papers on energy loss offast particles passing through atoms, elaborating on the work ofe. G. Darwin and the pioneering studies of Niels Bohr. Secondary emis- sion works like a cue ball striking the racked balls on a pool table; fast "pri- mary electrons" strike the surface ofa solid and eject other secondary elec- trons from the atoms they hi!. Gradually, the primary or incident electrons n
  • 7. . h WhE~n I taJlla~Cl sec~onQaly . . . ."".. . I.I~U~ emissiio.nn~L",II."" n emllSS10n
  • 8. ~BeStllbborn~ 79nomenon that I was able to work out in the foUowing two years formedthe subject of my doctoral thesis. My work on secondary emission in thecase of insulators such as potassium chloride, which I had begun tostudy at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, later led to a job at theWestinghouse Research Laboratories. A new family of detectors in high energyaccelerators, used to study panicles similar to the mesons, eventuallyresulted from the phenomena involving this simple salt. Years later, thinfoils carrying a layer of potassium chloride in powdered fonn were usedto store electrical charges, making possible a new type of television tubeto transmit ultraviolet images and spectra of Stars from the first orbitingobservatories in space. The same type of camera tubes-whlch I alsoworked on, decades later--allowed us to witness the first steps ofa humanon the moon as this historic event was actually taking place. At Cornell. I worked under the guidance of Philip Morrison, a far-sighted and open-minded Individual. Ten years or so younger thanGamow, Morrison shared with him an enormous enthusiasm and abilityto make complex ideas vividly clear, both to his students and to the gen-eral public. Morrison had a wide interest in science, te<:hnology and thehistory of ideas reaching far beyond the field of theoretical physics, inwhich he had received his doctorate under Roben Oppenheimer, whodirected the development of the atomic bomb. Morrison was willing tolisten patiently to the unconventional ideas of some of his students,never discouraging them but always coming up with probing questionsthat touched the heart of the problem. Morrison had been involved firsthand with the difficult and danger-ous task of designing and assembling the plutonium cores of the firsttwo implosion·type nuclear bombs at LDs Alamos, and had also beenamong the first Amcrican scientists to visit Hiroshima just aftcr theJapanese surrender. He was deeply committed to warning the publicand politicians of the need to prevent another world war. As a result, hebecame one of the foundcrs afthe federation ofAmerican SCientists, anorgani7..8tion dedicated to peace. MOrTison wrote numerous articles todescribe the horrors he had seen in Japan, not just those produced by
  • 9. G . mic bsb._a ndr d an B-29-aids. ; o -- p ·i on" _a e ,o,v-r,,, "dingin on roy a . h ,..Ht·n,...,.1 omical co...............·.,.,., -donedthi eov d 0 h rh b tIl ppli d , bYJo am ard -5) n ed· trObuLion 0 uggesi[e v ar r truet re of mny up
  • 10. lrotated. I realized ha this model wa uppored by de Vaucouleursviews. The univers appears to be a - ghly 0 dered hierarchical sys e -composed of fO ati ,g systems of increa ing size,. as first envisioned byImmanue Kant 0 hundred years ago, rat er than a random collectionofgal axie . Ruhin eventually b came a wide y respected astronomer~ wo king ath Carnegie In ti utian in Washington, .C. Using electronic imageintensifiers. rOed au by - er colleague Ken Ford as a way 0 improveupon e limi· ed s ~ nsitivity of photographic film, Rubin pioneered thestudy of he rotation of galaxies. A decade after leaving Cornell,. I ad anopportunity to try out a ew type of electronic image intensifier wi hFord at the Lowell Observatory in lagstaff Arizona, based on the workon seeD clary electron emission fro insulating cry als that I hadbegun a the avaJ Ordnance Laboratory; By e early 19705" the work ofR bin and Ford on the rotation of galaxies had provided the most con-vincing observational evidencetha these gi,gan ic systems of stars were. urrounded by an enormous halo of invisible dark matter" of anunknown nature for which the electromagnetic theory of mass hadmscu sed with Einstein in Pr· ceton and later with Morrison and Feyn-man at Cor. e offered a po sible ,explanation. As controversial as, the idea of rotating s perduse s or even a rotat-. g universe were when Rubin and I at in Morrisons class on moder_physics at Cornell, I learned of an even more controversial theory aboutthe nature of he universe through a lecture by the vi iting Britishastronome homa Gold. Gold, who a. few years ater joined the ! ver-s"tys Astronomy Department, to,gether with· ermann Bondi and Fred oyle at Cambridge University in Englan did not like the idea of a BigBang a a singular occurre ce, as advanced by Lemar re and Gamow; nstead, in a series of pap s published a few years after World War II,Go d, Bondi and Hoyle proposed the radical idea that the universe wasin a eady s ate of constant xpansion that had been go~ng on oreverand would continu expanding indefinitely. They based this concept onwhat th y called the uPerfect Co· ological Principle" aceD ding 0 I
  • 11. ,8 BEFOR I EIU; . NIG hi h the Wl"V rse i no onl the smne inour poc I bu, also th e la-nation ~or ,a pro e LO..... . . . orenp d .1 nou ig nom r eory ofth,e t thi 0 d tha, p . -t-.ouetb.atdidno viomat, th_la so conserva ~ollof and energy-o th ida ofn rna, ter continuousl appearing au, 0j n .. h , . d out t b imporra. tome,. h s eady-tat· eorytsid a th· go on fOIi ver " as ba do , L ~ . itt jan arnows d , in ,omb" a ., n " ubinJs " d ule r· c n- I
  • 12. elusion that the system of galaxies to which the Milky Way belongsseemed to be rotating. Th controversy at Cornell about Rubins results was allowed by one Icaused in the physics department the next year. eriment at beganin 1951 in pursuit ofan electromagn tic model for e neutro . s· owed thatneu ons could apparently b form d from proton an el ctro s at vlowe ergie ,far below the energy prediete - by . e cxi ·ng thee . T ·e idea for thi xperiment 0 curred to me· (leading about _search or the n utron by Ru -erford and Cha .ck d . g th decadafter: utherford had first premed its existence in·, . early 920S. Ifound that Chadwick had a one time looked fOJ!these e sive neutralmassive co stituents of the nuclei of all atoms in a drogen- ed - _c-trical discharge tube. . ube was imilar 0 old ga -discharg typo -- ray tub syst m I had s n in a baseme laboratory of Lyman Par- ,0 e of th senior memb of th p ysics de artm -nt a Cornell,who ad also work d on the a ornie bomb project. Such a gas-discharge ,b op rate lik a modern fluore ce tamp, b ing nothing mu hmor than a tube fill ~ d -wi . a gas t a low ressur to whkh vol age Iapplied at the ends where et w· es fus into the glass, conduc: ingelectric charges that aJ a a curent 0 pass through the gas. Bll . - s eadofapplying one or two hundred Volt or 0 as do pI sen -day fiuore c ntlamp in the ady years of X-ray· dies such tubes were operated atmany ousand of vo 1S. Electron em ~ .-ed from the negatie e d,called the ca hode, would be accelerated and strike th electrode at thepositive end or anode, thereby generating X-rays. It was exactly so thaX-rays were accidentally discovered by Wilhel Conrad Rontgen t whoused this type of gas-discharge tube in his labora ory at the U versity ofWilrzburg ._·Bavaria in 1895. Based on the theoretical work of C. G. Darwin, the mathema-·c·anwho worked with Rutherford when he discoveredthemassjvepro on inthe nucleu 0 atoms, I p culat d a· 0 rar oe a .0 s an lemoncom.ing sufficie tly close to a p oton might be captured to for a ne - ·0·. vidently; thi idea had occurid to uterfo d an Chadwi -k in
  • 13. 84 BE r H utth no r t1et:ectn discclvelv u ron-in....."w,",,,",,u C ,ie, __ I, daugh ,er e uri ar iall- radioac,: ould be m to c eutron . neu1:rOI1S extlect:ation h h da dfa to a ete~rre<1 tomi vear-sla er ........ ,1".... "" , lin, o rand indi : , ac rod""";",,",In ["r">... n ....,.. Ia I . 00. ,Uo e on Q~ieci fth o ga ee. to f th n-utr nd
  • 14. proton. an electron and a neutrino as worked out by Fermi, there, ~ no ance that such all. ,experim, nt could po s 1y suec ed. The neutronwas believed to ave a ass so lar~e that it would t·e an ,electrol ace -era d to abou 780, 0000 ts to produc i. But the power u pi of Par-rate X-ray tub wouidonIyprovid about3S, 000 vo " som ,twenty-two Iti e less., .everthe1ess. the neutrino had ot yet be,en direc yobservedto ens , and i , was possible. eutrons did no au. a e exactly the same,m,ass under all conditions. C. G. Darwins calculations indicated ilia n "trons might be form,ed by capturing an electron even at low energies. The likelihood that I would be able to produce neutrons was verysmall, and in retrospect it was amazing that I was allowed to carry oUthe experim,ent at all. It was only the open-mindedness of Morrison andParratt that made it passb e. And so,wben after the very first few .xper ~men s with p blocks piled a ou d silver and indi m oils close- tothe- old bras X-ray tub howe . i, S of radioa.ctivity thirty to fif y per-c llt abov th normal background of the detecto many of my co -leag .-es could not believe this was du to neutrons being fonned fromlow energy ele ro· .and p ·oton . As I excitedly explained in a Ie- .ter that I wrote to Eins ein .at the endofAugust 1951; the results could no be explained by the acfon of casmicrays forming: ne tro ; because none were detected when no voltagewas applied to the tube.. It co d al 0 not be e plaind by contami . anonof the metal electrodes in the tube. . had replaced m,atedals a couldgive rise 0 n uno "wid.wly machin d parts. The po s" ility tha •. a. mall normal admixt re of deuted m, a. orm 0 heavy hydroge_ ~ was e source of neutrons was eliminated both theoretically and subse-q uently Y deliberately adding known, amounts 0 till gas andm asur-ing th . eutron produc ion rate. To ev,eryo . I con cr a i .n,. no one i ~ he phy· d partme was ab _ to sugg t a. known nuclear reactionthat might xplain tb ob rved ac ivity~ ] Inentioned in my lie er to Einstein that in ord . r to improve the abilityto detect neutrons,. two of the facul, Giuseppe Cocconi and Kenneth reisen, had offered 0 take the indi.um foils with their onger lived activity
  • 15. 86 BEfORf THf BIG BANGof 54 minutes to a nearby salt mine, where they were carrying out cosmicray experiments and the background count rate was much less than I wasable to produce with six. inches of lead to shield my counters in RockefellerHall. This was in fact done a few weeks later, although the first effort tospeed the process of gelling the foils to the counters two thousand feetbelow the surface by dropping them between two pieces ofplywood endedin minor disaster when the foil crumpled upon hitting the ground. Chas-tened, we used the elevator to get the foils down to the counters in the mineover the next few weeks, and the evidence for neutrons being formed in thedischarge lube continued to show up. Afew days after sent my letter to Einstein, a reply arrived that did infact conlain a possible explanation of my anomalous result with ratherdisheartening implications for my attempt to do without the neutrino.After pointing out that an electron would have to acquire an energy of780,000 volts to form a neutron, Einstein suggested that perhaps morethan the energy produced by the applied potential might become avail·able if more than one electron were to give up its energy to a prOton atthe same time, something that is conceivable according 10 quantumtheory. He ended his letter by saying that since the results of the experi-ments were dearly important, further pursuit of the method would benecessary. He also raised the question whether it might not be advanta-geous to use an electron beam of known energy, and let it fallon a solidtarget such as paraffin that contained hydrogen so that the energy of theelectrons could be brought under bener control. I answered Einstein and explained why I thought that even at rela-tively low energies neutrons might be formed if they had slightly differ-ent masses, an idea that I fell had nO[ been completely ruled out. I did infact follow Einsteins suggeslions, further experimenting with the gas-discharge tube at Cornell for a few more months. I presented my resultsat a meeting of the Journal Club of the Physics Department later that fall.The improved sensitivity by doing the measurements ofthe indium foilsin the salt mine continued to indicate the production of neutrons, butno one could find any explanation othcr than t.hat suggeslcd by EinSlcin.
  • 16. By the end of the fall semester, it became clear that I had to give up myefforts for the fme behg in order to finish my work on s:econdary emis-son so as to get my doctoral degree. 1vo y ars later th - experiment w:~ s independen y repea ed byEdwar Thou so ~ at physicist and friend of mine at the Naval Ordn _. ce abomtory; !li,th . • ar Ie u1 . But when om niney ars later at - eWestinghouse Research Labor-a orie ,Jall bad an opportunity tocarry 0 t th exp -rimen with a separate electron beam intera ting withbotb solid and gaseou targ- -, in th form suggested by Einstein. noneutrons we- e produced. Now, finally explained by W-L theory of LENRs To this day;, just exactly how neu 0 can be formed at much. owerenergie -an expected in the complex environmen .of a gas-dischargetube remains a - ystery; Neutrinos were fin.ally detected in 1956 by -ed-erick Reines and Clyde Cowan, Since then,. they have been observed inhigh energy accelerators, coming from the Sun and more distan. stars.,but there remains an unresolved puzzle a.bout their production de p inthe interior ofstars, n the coursle of thirty.. six years of experim,ents since1960, despite increasingly sophisticated exp,ernnents, only half as manyneutrinos have been observed as would be expected on the basis of the-ories for he Suns energy production. Since: the condition in th - interiorof the Sun are somewhat analogous to those in a high voltage hydrogendischarge such asl used at Cornell; there may be some surprises await-ing us relating to the so~calledfusion processes tha, produce the ,energyinst3Isinvolvingthe for,mafon ofheliwn from hydrogen, on the courseofwhich both neutrons and neutrinos are produced. Although phys~calmeehanism by which neutron were fo din m expe iment remained u e .a" e· and my findings were .asource of gr at controversy; I was not discouraged in my ffo _ to pur-u Ie tromagn tic mode ,for th n utron and th man· ne parde l e. b ing dicovr. seIes of large nuclear par-de acceleratorswent into 0 e, ation at various universities during the three years of myg,raduate work a 0 n.elL And my studies in the history and philosopbyof de ce convinced me that a period ofgreat confusion, when many new
  • 17. syIlthesis. lrnen CC:>WleC-tjon om n nsacCOlrtl ino 1r"~lIrAHn lectr1omalgne1oc ·aet_ In fa ha d- a weaknu 1in Weh neutrat till 1 0for . on or . tUn a unJllle - on ory --are er ......u. ..... th-ory a o m er to aj =- t,ical eory priva .oth o cad - mto I ear I gav- - a1k n my _ork a e e- Itro ,a - m --ing . e P. leal I e wa, ,P oa -0 ~:. are ,rebr work-
  • 18. "Be tubbor. 11 8·· tthem he . - wouldb- if ,. tensi- e .oin - fluo ..ro· opic exaLIniva uum1· . esc: anapI in , leeonh , mean ofthphot-beFcen ,ere . lC,X-res ratory wa· o U _Ua fi· j h writing . the ital e. - - b jng b .on I" -rofl 52. ID[lere:stlI:li re~sea:rch 0 pra-tical l"I.h"lr1J.... ~1 th - d r ust g Of,

×