Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 125168 times)

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #320 on: 06/30/2017 01:45 pm »


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



Yeah, thats not what non-local means. Non-local means some causal influence is traveling faster than light. Is Mills claiming faster than light communication?


Offline particlezoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #321 on: 06/30/2017 02:46 pm »
None 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 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.

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.
« Last Edit: 06/30/2017 02:49 pm by particlezoo »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Liked: 1978
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #322 on: 06/30/2017 03:55 pm »
None 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.


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.
Again, does this have anything to do with hydrinos or Mills' theory?

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #323 on: 06/30/2017 07:55 pm »
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=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:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks 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 :D

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?
« Last Edit: 06/30/2017 08:05 pm by Bob012345 »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Liked: 1978
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #324 on: 06/30/2017 08:33 pm »
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=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:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks 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 :D

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.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #325 on: 07/01/2017 07:06 pm »
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.

#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745    #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=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:
206.768279756
206.768282609

Looks 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 :D

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.

The standard model doesn't  predict masses is the answer. Mills does have a general equation, that is equations 32.38a and 32.48b that he applies to each particle, it's not just fiddling around. If you wish to call a prediction of mass ratios accurate to 8 significant figures "wrong", feel free. Relating the Planck, electric and magnetic energies to lepton masses seems interesting to me. What are the odds the three energies would just work out to the masses of the three classes of leptons?

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #326 on: 07/01/2017 07:20 pm »
None 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.

I agree with you regarding being able to explain at least as much as standard physics. Of course even if Mills model is essentially correct, it would take decades and thousands of scientists working with the theory to fill out everything standard physics has already accomplished so if it were to compete it would be a very long process. Nobody would just throw out standard physics. Certain things like hydrino physics, chemistry and engineering would be immediately studied.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 07:35 pm by Bob012345 »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Liked: 1978
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #327 on: 07/01/2017 09:14 pm »
None 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.)

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.
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.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #328 on: 07/02/2017 06:56 pm »
None 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.)

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.
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.

I believe Mills primarily means classical laws such as Maxwell's equations and Special and General Relativity and deBroglie waves. I'll try and dig up a more formal statement on Mill's radiation boundary condition.

Offline MrHollifield

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Charleston, SC USA
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #329 on: 07/04/2017 10:39 pm »

This being a space-related forum, as space-related analogy:


Suppose I were able to put a 1U cubesat on the Formosat launch next month from Vandenberg. And I claim my cubesat will be subject to the same constraint on its orbital radius as an electron is: p-->0 as r-->infinity.


So F9 puts my cubesat in polar orbit 600km or so above Earth. Citing my radius constraint, I claim this cubesat could fly by your bedroom window (ignoring atmospheric drag, etc.), and that it is also a threat to the ISS because it actually has a greater probability of being closer to the center of Earth than being at altitude it was released at. It has decreasing chances of hitting a GPS satellite, hitting a GSO commsat, hitting LRO, showing up on the EPIC camera of DSCOVR, or being seen by the HiRISE camera on MRO, but these chances are all non-zero. And, I also claim, in these journeys through space, it is just as likely to be observed moving east-west as north-south.


But if I made such a claim on this site, there would be dozens to correct me and point out why my cubesat couldn't possibly behave as I've described. And they'd be right. There are quadrillions of observations of trillions of objects that all show objects moving in a gravitational field always obey Newton's laws of motion and always conserve energy. My cubesat does neither so is not physically possible.


So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986: if we have quadrillions of observations of trillions of trillions of free electrons, moving through conductors and through space, that all show the electrons always follow Maxwell's laws and always conserve energy, why wouldn't a bound electron do the same?


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?

Offline MrHollifield

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Charleston, SC USA
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #330 on: 07/04/2017 11:19 pm »

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.


Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #331 on: 07/04/2017 11:28 pm »
So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986

I have a better question to ask. If someone writes a formula where left side represents some physical parameters of Earth, and right side is.... inverse fine structure constant, and someone claims that this makes any sort of sense, where this person should be sent? A Physics 101 refresher course? Or Astrophysics 101? Assuming that rate of Earth's rotation is special and somehow linked to fundamental constants of the Universe is a pretty grave error, akin to Geocentrism.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3878
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2596
  • Likes Given: 3357
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #332 on: 07/05/2017 01:28 am »
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.

Quantum Theory says that Maxwell's equations are only part of the truth.  They say there is a more complex truth and the Maxwell's equations are a special case of the more complex truth, a special case that covers the things we see at everyday scales.  So Quantum Theory provides the same answers as Maxwell's equations for the situations where Maxwell's equations are seen to work while providing better answers for other situations.

So, this objection to Shrodinger's Equation is bogus.  There's no need for a theory to match Maxwell's equations in circumstances where experimentation has shown the alternative matches experimental results better.

There may be good reasons to reject all or parts of Quantum Theory, but the reasons you have given are not good reasons.

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Liked: 1978
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #333 on: 07/05/2017 02:42 am »
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?
You apparently don't even know what you just wrote. p->0 as r-> infinity for a cube sat means that the cubesat will not end up in the andromeda galaxy randomly. Rejecting this constraint guarantees that the satellite immediately ends up on the far side of the observable universe.

Your analogies are utterly flawed since you apparently don't understand anything that you are saying. The deBroglie wavelength of an electron is meaningful on the scale of an atom, the deBroglie wavelength of a satellite is almost immeasurably small, so it makes for a terrible analogy.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #334 on: 07/05/2017 02:47 am »
the 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.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 02:48 am by gospacex »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #335 on: 07/05/2017 10:25 am »


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. 

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 832
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 186
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #336 on: 07/05/2017 11:04 am »
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.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #337 on: 07/05/2017 04:16 pm »
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.

 It may interest you to know that his mentor, Hermann Haus at MIT derived that condition and used that language and Mills was his student and gave Mills his paper that started Mills on his quest for a better atomic model. Haus certainly understood it and Mills certainly had very close access to its meaning. Your claim Mills "doesn't seem to have any idea about what it actually means" is simply untenable.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #338 on: 07/05/2017 04:28 pm »


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.

Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?

 


« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 04:30 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #339 on: 07/05/2017 04:32 pm »
the 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.

Don't equate could not be explained at the time with impossible to be explained within the classical physics paradigm.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 04:35 pm by Bob012345 »

Tags: