Quote from: MrHollifield on 07/04/2017 11:19 pmBut 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.

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.

Quote from: gospacex on 07/04/2017 11:28 pmQuote from: MrHollifield on 07/04/2017 10:39 pmSo let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986I 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.So your saying there isn't a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism? Why then are physicists looking for a unified theory at all?

Quote from: MrHollifield on 07/04/2017 10:39 pmSo let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986I 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.

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

Quote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 amYeah, 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?

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.

Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).Maybe this rewording of gospacex's post will help you understand it.

This close identity may have played a role in choosing the number 86,400 in the definition of the second.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 05:10 pmQuote from: gospacex on 07/04/2017 11:28 pmQuote from: MrHollifield on 07/04/2017 10:39 pmSo let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986I 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.So your saying there isn't a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism? Why then are physicists looking for a unified theory at all? Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).Maybe this rewording of gospacex's post will help you understand it.

I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.

New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 pmI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.

Quote from: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 pmNew mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean

Quote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 pmI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.Please read this then. Thanks.

Quote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 pmI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.I hope you both are aware that 'sec' is a new unit Mills defines, not seconds.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:37 pmQuote from: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 pmNew mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanYes. I know."What spacelike, timelike and lightlike spacetime interval really mean""Interval" is not "event". It's the (spacetime, IOW: four-dimensional) distance between two events.

Quote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 05:35 pmOf all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).Maybe this rewording of gospacex's post will help you understand it.Mills doesn't seem to say explicitly that L is the angular momentum of the Earth, though... Or what exactly m means, for that matter. So by choosing L/m suitably, the equation holds!edit: Oh, he does indeed define L/m on the next line. I should have read the whole text. However, then Mills seems to go into something that can be best described as numerological speculation. After combining (generously rounded) radius and mass of the Earth with pi and G, he arrives at an expression which equals 136 s, or "approximately" \alpha^{-1} s (is that 136 a subtle nod to Eddington's theory?). The next sentence, however, is the real gem:QuoteThis close identity may have played a role in choosing the number 86,400 in the definition of the second.

Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:37 pmQuote from: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 pmNew mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanAgain, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:45 pmQuote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 pmI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.Please read this then. Thanks.How does that make any of the following true?2 = 32 = 3*i2 = 2*ia = b*i, where a and b are both pure real

Quote from: particlezoo on 07/06/2017 04:19 amFortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:39 pmQuote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 pmI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.I hope you both are aware that 'sec' is a new unit Mills defines, not seconds.The 'sec' Mills defines as a unit of time "defined by Eq. (36.2) in terms of fundamental constants and the electron mass" (page 1479).There are _two_ hilariously stupid things linked to it.(1) Later, on page 1548, Mills derives.... (drumroll)... _electron mass_ from fundamental constants and his 'sec'. What an amazing feat (2) Physics already has one, and only one natural way to define natural unit of time: after you choose unit of length, the corresponding natural unit of time is time light needs to traverse your chosen unit of length. (If you use meter to measure distances, "meter of time" is about 3 nanoseconds). With such choice of units, speed of light is equal to 1 and all velocities are dimensionless values (they are no longer "m/s", but just numbers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units). Any other "improved units of time" are nonsense.