Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

ACS symposium series

Overcoming the Coulomb Barrier and Related Effects Through Resonant Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanics in the Fleischmann-Pons Excess Heat Effect

Scott R. Chubb

Published Dec 20, 2009• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Science requires measurements. Interpreting measurements involves recognizing patterns. How this happens is intimately related to the instruments that are used and how the measurements are performed. Abstractly, this can be viewed in a somewhat radical way: Nature is telling us something, but how we interpret it involves how we understand what Nature is telling us. An important point is that, for communication to take place, involving real-life experiences, electromagnetism is required. In higher-energy environments, how this takes place can be inferred in an approximate manner, in which changes in electromagnetism, as a function of time, can be treated as being independent of time. In solids, when many particles are allowed to interact, this assumption is not required, and this can lead to important consequences. This alternative perspective can explain how the Fleischmann-Pons effect can take place.

DOI
10.1021/bk-2009-1029.ch010

Related papers

Mermin habitually answers opinions, real and abstract

Michael Nauenberg

In his Reference Frame “What’s Bad About This Habit” (Physics Today, May 2009, page 8), N. David Mermin discusses what is real and what is abstract in physics—but without first defining what he means by those terms. The lack of definition is another bad habit that diminishes his otherwise interesting comments. In physics, we can give a concrete definition of “real”: phenomena or events that can be recorded by a device. The process of recording involves an irreversible transition that generally requires an interaction with a macroscopic device. The device can be our brains, but with some reservations, because sometimes we see or remember imaginary events that never happened. But “acquisition of knowledge or information,” pace Werner Heisenberg, although it occurs, is not relevant. Or as Richard Feynman remarked, “Nature … behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” 1 1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 By the above definition of reality, Mermin is correct to point out that operators in Hilbert space and quantum wavefunctions are abstractions. I also believe that one should not lose any more sleep over the collapse of a wavefunction than over the change of any probability function after one of the possible outcomes has been recorded. But it does not follow, for example, that because electromagnetic fields are operators in Hilbert space, the manifestations of those fields are also abstractions or that the spacetime continuum where those fields are located is devoid of reality. Ironically, Mermin’s article appears in an issue of Physics Today whose cover and associated article show photographs of the spectacular magnetic field lines located in space (the Sun’s corona) and recorded in time in a UV image taken by a NASA spacecraft. The fields are made visible by the radiation of charged particles, in a similar way that planets and their orbits are observed by the reflection of solar radiation or that subatomic particles are seen by tracks left in a cloud or a spark chamber. Likewise, in the two-slit experiment, the effect of quantum interference with single photons can be recorded; consequently, the manifestations of the associated quantum wavefunction that predicts the interference are also real.Mermin claims that “spacetime is an abstract four-dimensional mathematical continuum of points that approximately represent phenomena,” and that it “is nothing more than an extremely effective way to represent relations between distinct events.” But spacetime points do not represent phenomena; instead, they represent the locations of phenomena, which are determined by measurements of the relative distances and the time intervals between events. Mermin remarks that his point of view “may also be easiest to see in quantum physics, where time and space refer ultimately to the time and place at which information is acquired or, if you prefer, at which a measurement is made.” But in both quantum and classical mechanics, the location in spacetime is also obtained by measurements, as are other characteristics of the event. Hence, in accordance with our concrete definition of reality, spacetime is real, although special relativity tells us that our measurements of position and time are frame dependent.Mermin is also concerned with the habit of attaching reality to “spooky actions at a distance” associated with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect. But what is measured in the associated experiments are correlations that are predicted by quantum theory to occur at any distance of separation for the entangled particle states. That includes the case in which the distance becomes vanishingly small, and then such concerns as “nonlocality” and “faster-than-light influences” are not relevant. What would be really spooky is if those correlations depended on distance, because it would show that quantum mechanics is flawed. However, measurements demonstrate that the correlations do not depend on distance; thus they confirm again that the manifestations of quantum entanglement are not abstractions.Bad habits in the interpretation of such quantum phenomena usually originate from attempts to impose on the microscopic world views of reality learned from classical physics.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 , Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Sep 1, 2009•0 citations

Quantum-Mechanical Description of the Electromagnetic Interaction of Relativistic Particles with Electric and Magnetic Dipole Moments

Alexander J. Silenko

Russian Physics Journal•Aug 1, 2005•64 citations

A Geometric Model Based on Frequency That Reveals the Nature of Time

Theodore J. St. John

The purpose of this paper is to present a hypothesis: that frequency is the key to understanding the fundamental nature of time. Time and space are mirror images of each other and they are two different ways of expressing inverse frequency. The reason this is important is because, by starting with frequency the relationships of physics can be expressed by linear equations. It is known that frequency is directly proportional to and thus equivalent to quantum energy. By expressing the relationship of spatial frequency vs. temporal frequency as a simple geometric model, several well-known relationships fall into place without having to stretch the model into warped expressions of spacetime that require complicated hyperbolic functions or field equations. The result is a sensible interpretation of the meaning of time, spacetime, quantum particles and quantum wave functions. The model also lends itself directly to an understanding of how space and time become dissociated and transform into quantum bits of information, which automatically models reality as a quantum computer. The implications of these interpretations provide a bridge between physics, as a physical science, and life sciences that take in information from their surroundings, convolve it with itself as particles and thereby shape and reshape matter, allowing living organisms to change with time and adapt to their environment.

•Oct 1, 2020•0 citations

INTERPRETATION OF ELECTRODYNAMICS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF QUANTUM THEORY.

Ya. B. Zel’dovich

•Jan 1, 1967•62 citations

A Conceptual Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Based on Environmental Interaction, Wave-Particle Duality, and Measurement Constraints

Mokhdum Azam Mashrafi

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

A geometric framework for quantum tunneling in biomolecular systems

Phuong-Nam Nguyen

Abstract This study introduces a geometric framework to explain how quantum particles, specifically protons, move through energy barriers in biological molecules like DNA. Rather than viewing this tunneling as a purely random event, we propose that it is governed by the structural complexity of the surrounding molecular environment. By treating the energy landscape as a geometric shape, we demonstrate that the environment acts as a regulator that either facilitates or hinders the movement of protons between genetic base pairs. We applied this model to compare the two primary building blocks of the DNA ladder: the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) and Adenine-Thymine (A-T) pairs. Our findings reveal that the G-C pair possesses a structural configuration that makes proton movement significantly more likely compared to the A-T pair. This difference provides a clear physical explanation for why certain parts of our genetic code are more prone to spontaneous changes, or tautomeric shifts, which can lead to mutations. Furthermore, the research explores how the DNA molecule interacts with its surrounding cellular noise (e.g. water molecules and proteins). We find that the proton behaves in a hybrid manner (at times acting like a coherent wave that exists in multiple places at once), and at other times like a solid particle trapped by its environment. This dual behavior suggests that life operates at a delicate balance between quantum mechanical effects and classical stability.

Physica Scripta•Mar 4, 2026•0 citations
Science requires measurements. Interpreting measurements involves recognizing patterns. How this happens is intimately related to the instruments that are used and how the measurements are performed. Abstractly, this can be viewed in a somewhat radical way: Nature is telling us something, but how we interpret it involves how we understand what Nature is telling us. An important point is that, for communication to take place, involving real-life experiences, electromagnetism is required. In higher-energy environments, how this takes place can be inferred in an approximate manner, in which changes in electromagnetism, as a function of time, can be treated as being independent of time. In solids, when many particles are allowed to interact, this assumption is not required, and this can lead to important consequences. This alternative perspective can explain how the Fleischmann-Pons effect can take place.
In his Reference Frame “What’s Bad About This Habit” (Physics Today, May 2009, page 8), N. David Mermin discusses what is real and what is abstract in physics—but without first defining what he means by those terms. The lack of definition is another bad habit that diminishes his otherwise interesting comments. In physics, we can give a concrete definition of “real”: phenomena or events that can be recorded by a device. The process of recording involves an irreversible transition that generally requires an interaction with a macroscopic device. The device can be our brains, but with some reservations, because sometimes we see or remember imaginary events that never happened. But “acquisition of knowledge or information,” pace Werner Heisenberg, although it occurs, is not relevant. Or as Richard Feynman remarked, “Nature … behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” 1 1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 By the above definition of reality, Mermin is correct to point out that operators in Hilbert space and quantum wavefunctions are abstractions. I also believe that one should not lose any more sleep over the collapse of a wavefunction than over the change of any probability function after one of the possible outcomes has been recorded. But it does not follow, for example, that because electromagnetic fields are operators in Hilbert space, the manifestations of those fields are also abstractions or that the spacetime continuum where those fields are located is devoid of reality. Ironically, Mermin’s article appears in an issue of Physics Today whose cover and associated article show photographs of the spectacular magnetic field lines located in space (the Sun’s corona) and recorded in time in a UV image taken by a NASA spacecraft. The fields are made visible by the radiation of charged particles, in a similar way that planets and their orbits are observed by the reflection of solar radiation or that subatomic particles are seen by tracks left in a cloud or a spark chamber. Likewise, in the two-slit experiment, the effect of quantum interference with single photons can be recorded; consequently, the manifestations of the associated quantum wavefunction that predicts the interference are also real.Mermin claims that “spacetime is an abstract four-dimensional mathematical continuum of points that approximately represent phenomena,” and that it “is nothing more than an extremely effective way to represent relations between distinct events.” But spacetime points do not represent phenomena; instead, they represent the locations of phenomena, which are determined by measurements of the relative distances and the time intervals between events. Mermin remarks that his point of view “may also be easiest to see in quantum physics, where time and space refer ultimately to the time and place at which information is acquired or, if you prefer, at which a measurement is made.” But in both quantum and classical mechanics, the location in spacetime is also obtained by measurements, as are other characteristics of the event. Hence, in accordance with our concrete definition of reality, spacetime is real, although special relativity tells us that our measurements of position and time are frame dependent.Mermin is also concerned with the habit of attaching reality to “spooky actions at a distance” associated with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect. But what is measured in the associated experiments are correlations that are predicted by quantum theory to occur at any distance of separation for the entangled particle states. That includes the case in which the distance becomes vanishingly small, and then such concerns as “nonlocality” and “faster-than-light influences” are not relevant. What would be really spooky is if those correlations depended on distance, because it would show that quantum mechanics is flawed. However, measurements demonstrate that the correlations do not depend on distance; thus they confirm again that the manifestations of quantum entanglement are not abstractions.Bad habits in the interpretation of such quantum phenomena usually originate from attempts to impose on the microscopic world views of reality learned from classical physics.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 , Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.
The purpose of this paper is to present a hypothesis: that frequency is the key to understanding the fundamental nature of time. Time and space are mirror images of each other and they are two different ways of expressing inverse frequency. The reason this is important is because, by starting with frequency the relationships of physics can be expressed by linear equations. It is known that frequency is directly proportional to and thus equivalent to quantum energy. By expressing the relationship of spatial frequency vs. temporal frequency as a simple geometric model, several well-known relationships fall into place without having to stretch the model into warped expressions of spacetime that require complicated hyperbolic functions or field equations. The result is a sensible interpretation of the meaning of time, spacetime, quantum particles and quantum wave functions. The model also lends itself directly to an understanding of how space and time become dissociated and transform into quantum bits of information, which automatically models reality as a quantum computer. The implications of these interpretations provide a bridge between physics, as a physical science, and life sciences that take in information from their surroundings, convolve it with itself as particles and thereby shape and reshape matter, allowing living organisms to change with time and adapt to their environment.
Abstract This study introduces a geometric framework to explain how quantum particles, specifically protons, move through energy barriers in biological molecules like DNA. Rather than viewing this tunneling as a purely random event, we propose that it is governed by the structural complexity of the surrounding molecular environment. By treating the energy landscape as a geometric shape, we demonstrate that the environment acts as a regulator that either facilitates or hinders the movement of protons between genetic base pairs. We applied this model to compare the two primary building blocks of the DNA ladder: the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) and Adenine-Thymine (A-T) pairs. Our findings reveal that the G-C pair possesses a structural configuration that makes proton movement significantly more likely compared to the A-T pair. This difference provides a clear physical explanation for why certain parts of our genetic code are more prone to spontaneous changes, or tautomeric shifts, which can lead to mutations. Furthermore, the research explores how the DNA molecule interacts with its surrounding cellular noise (e.g. water molecules and proteins). We find that the proton behaves in a hybrid manner (at times acting like a coherent wave that exists in multiple places at once), and at other times like a solid particle trapped by its environment. This dual behavior suggests that life operates at a delicate balance between quantum mechanical effects and classical stability.