The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.

Quote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:05 amNone of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.

None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".

Quote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:42 amThe electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.Not clear that means a non-local theory, it would be local as long as the shape is allowed to distort when under acceleration. Some experiments have used distances measured in miles anyway, subatomic non-locality isn't good enough. Also, entire classes of "realist" non-local theories have been ruled out as well. See here.Not sure what the relevance or point of the rest of your post is.

Quote from: meberbs on 06/30/2017 01:09 pmQuote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:05 amNone of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.

The divergence of the electric field is tied in with the definition of charge via Gauss' law. Conventionally it is thought that a divergent electic field cannot exist in a "vacuum" in classical theory, though this would be possible in Quantum theory due to the uncertainty principle. However, those four things I mentioned you did not quote suggest that speaking of divergent electric fields in "vacuum" is not out of the question for a neo-classical theory. This would imply a "non-local" wavefunction composed of variations of the "charge density", particularly with the last example I gave with the oscillating electric quadrupole.

Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.#!/usr/bin/pythonfrom math import pi# Data from PDG 2017:a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17mm=105.6583745 #+-0.0000024 MeVme=0.5109989461 #+-0.0000000031 MeV# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)# Experimental value:print mm/me"a" is the fine structure constant.The above prints:206.768279756206.768282609Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data

Quote from: gospacex on 06/30/2017 05:52 amLet's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.#!/usr/bin/pythonfrom math import pi# Data from PDG 2017:a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17mm=105.6583745 #+-0.0000024 MeVme=0.5109989461 #+-0.0000000031 MeV# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)# Experimental value:print mm/me"a" is the fine structure constant.The above prints:206.768279756206.768282609Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data Show me the standard model calculation in simple closed analytic form accurate to 9-10 places. 8 significant digits is good for a closed form analytical expression. The experiment may be 9-10 significant figures but you have to compute the error bars in all the constants in the expression to compare Mills formula. Mills claims his number is within the propagated error bars using the known constants. I have no reason to believe Mills just fiddled with the formula as you suggest to make it close. How many adjustable 'free' parameters are in the Standard Model? Isn't it 19 or 20 which are tuned by experiments?

Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/30/2017 07:55 pmQuote from: gospacex on 06/30/2017 05:52 amLet's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.#!/usr/bin/pythonfrom math import pi# Data from PDG 2017:a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17mm=105.6583745 #+-0.0000024 MeVme=0.5109989461 #+-0.0000000031 MeV# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)# Experimental value:print mm/me"a" is the fine structure constant.The above prints:206.768279756206.768282609Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data Show me the standard model calculation in simple closed analytic form accurate to 9-10 places. 8 significant digits is good for a closed form analytical expression. The experiment may be 9-10 significant figures but you have to compute the error bars in all the constants in the expression to compare Mills formula. Mills claims his number is within the propagated error bars using the known constants. I have no reason to believe Mills just fiddled with the formula as you suggest to make it close. How many adjustable 'free' parameters are in the Standard Model? Isn't it 19 or 20 which are tuned by experiments?That is easy: mm/me. Good to infinity decimal places (though our knowledge of the parameters limits this). Most of the free parameters in the standard model are masses of the fundamental particles. This ratio is just 2 parameters.How many free parameters went into Mills' equation? If it was a predictive formula, there would be a more general equation that it is derived from. Unless such an equation is provided, fiddling with the formula seems to be a likely explanation of how it was created. If asked, I am sure Mills could provide some justification along the lines of "raise it to the 2/3 power to account for the area to volume ratio, then multiply by 0.5 because only the near half contributes..." But this is gibberish, not a derivation, and each arbitrary step is basically a free parameter.Also wrong is wrong. His equation does not match reality, and changing it to make it match would just be more free parameters.

Quote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 02:46 pmQuote from: meberbs on 06/30/2017 01:09 pmQuote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:05 amNone of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.

Quote from: meberbs on 06/30/2017 03:55 pmQuote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 02:46 pmQuote from: meberbs on 06/30/2017 01:09 pmQuote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:05 amNone of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.I don't think it's that hard. The central proposition is that physical laws apply on all scales from quarks to the cosmos.

Specific to the atomic part, Mills derives the electron model from the non-radiation condition set out by one of his mentors, H. Haus at MIT.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/01/2017 07:20 pmQuote from: meberbs on 06/30/2017 03:55 pmQuote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 02:46 pmQuote from: meberbs on 06/30/2017 01:09 pmQuote from: particlezoo on 06/30/2017 07:05 amNone of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.I don't think it's that hard. The central proposition is that physical laws apply on all scales from quarks to the cosmos. That statement is already central to the rest of physics as well. It doesn't differentiate his theory in any way. (Mills claims that quantum violates this and that there is some experiment that proves it. This is particularly strange because what kind of experiment could prove that quantum theory doesn't reduce to classical physics results in the limit of large numbers? This is a question of whether the theories are mathematically consistent within certain limits.)Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/01/2017 07:20 pmSpecific to the atomic part, Mills derives the electron model from the non-radiation condition set out by one of his mentors, H. Haus at MIT. This is closer to being a central proposition, but I haven't seen a sufficiently formal statement of what this means, and how it would lead to some of his results.

So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986

But Maxwell's laws say a point source accelerating in an electric field must radiate energy. If the electron is a point orbiting the nucleus, like my 1U cubesat orbiting the earth, it must radiate its kinetic energy away and crash into the nucleus.George Goedecke (1964) and Hermann Haus (1986) each determined that an extended distribution of charge can move in a field without radiating, if they meet certain conditions. Haus was one of Mills' professors at MIT and Mills had access to the paper showing these conditions.So, what would an electron that obeyed Maxwell and conserved energy look like? Conservation of energy implies a constant orbital radius that changes only when energy is taken from or added to the system. Obeying Maxwell, in the context of Goedecke and Haus, implies an extended form, a ring not a moon, in the planetary analogy. And, to match experiment, it must be symmetrical about the nucleus. An extended, symmetric form at a constant radius around a point in space is a good definition of "sphere." Mills calls the bound electron an "orbitsphere."For those getting lost in the forest of math and running into walls of text, the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations. The radius constraint on the Schrodinger equation doesn't have that result, but modeling the bound electron as a spherical membrane does.

If p-->0 as r-->infinity isn't a valid physical constraint on a gravitationally bound cubesat, is it any better for a electrically bound electron?

the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations.

It's comical how Mills repeats the mantra of non-radiation condition: "...that its spacetime Fourier transform does not possess components that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light...", but he doesn't seem to have any idea about what it actually means.

Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: MrHollifield on 07/04/2017 11:19 pmthe general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations.Yes, this is a simple and elegant hypothesis. This hypothesis was generally seen as likely by most of late 19th century scientists.And then it ran into a brick wall: a bunch of new experiments probing properties of atoms and subatomic particles gave experimental results which could not be explained by this simple and elegant hypothesis.Simple and elegant hypothesis which contradicts experiments is still a wrong hypothesis.