-
#280 by meberbs on 27 Jun, 2017 17:46
-
Mills told me that he did not use the wave equation to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations.
Maxwells equations do not predict discrete energy states., you need a quantum-like thory to do that and apparently Mills has none and is basically just making things up.I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent, But I'm working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free.
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.Also, of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being 'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong.
It is okay for a theory to be inconsistent with quantum if it produces results consistent with what is experimentally known about quantum. It is apparent from this discussion and looking at Mills' work that he doesn't even have a theory, and his claims are not consistent with known experimental results.Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It works ok for very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.
This is just willful ignorance on your part at this point. Quantum is hard to solve for complex systems, but there isn't any system that quantum is known to be inaccurate for (within its range of applicability, we have extensions of quantum to account for special relativity, which Mills just ignores while claiming his is better.) There is no support for claiming that Mills' theory is better, especially when it doesn't even describe simple systems right. For example, images have been made of the hydrogen atom wavefunction (source) While that appears to be a new technique, there have been other experiments in the past that also provide agreement with quantum descriptions of orbitals.Also, there is an over reliance on theory and it's so-called consistency which misleads some to reject good data over bad theory. That's really a shame.
When the theory is bad, it can't explain the data, and other explanations for the data need to be looked at. If Mills discovered anything, it isn't a hydrino. -
#281 by Bob012345 on 27 Jun, 2017 17:59
-
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
If there is anything to this power source, then it certainly has space based applications. Compact heat and electrical power sources are critical to cheaper deep space utilization. I don't know if there's anything to this or not. So many times with too many miracle power sources it has been bait and switch. I remain open to seeing what will happen.
More realistic sources like Helion or LPP don't make claims as fantastic as BLP or Rossi, and there really is not much to say about them. Other fusion attempts like Wendelstein, ITER, or General are just too large to have much applicable use near-term, even if they were suddenly working tomorrow.
It would be useful especially where water was available. It could provide high power to lift off the earth if devices were to be primarily powered by electrical means and not chemical thrust such as the EMDrive or MEGA thrusters. -
#282 by as58 on 27 Jun, 2017 18:39
-
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.
It doesn't help that his mathematics is so terribly flawed that sometimes I don't even understand what he is claiming. A big part of the problem seems to be that his terminology is often at odds with what is commonly used in mathematics. -
#283 by Bob012345 on 27 Jun, 2017 18:54
-
Mills told me that he did not use the wave equation to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations.
Maxwells equations do not predict discrete energy states., you need a quantum-like thory to do that and apparently Mills has none and is basically just making things up.I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent, But I'm working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free.
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.Also, of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being 'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong.
It is okay for a theory to be inconsistent with quantum if it produces results consistent with what is experimentally known about quantum. It is apparent from this discussion and looking at Mills' work that he doesn't even have a theory, and his claims are not consistent with known experimental results.Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It works ok for very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.
This is just willful ignorance on your part at this point. Quantum is hard to solve for complex systems, but there isn't any system that quantum is known to be inaccurate for (within its range of applicability, we have extensions of quantum to account for special relativity, which Mills just ignores while claiming his is better.) There is no support for claiming that Mills' theory is better, especially when it doesn't even describe simple systems right. For example, images have been made of the hydrogen atom wavefunction (source) While that appears to be a new technique, there have been other experiments in the past that also provide agreement with quantum descriptions of orbitals.Also, there is an over reliance on theory and it's so-called consistency which misleads some to reject good data over bad theory. That's really a shame.
When the theory is bad, it can't explain the data, and other explanations for the data need to be looked at. If Mills discovered anything, it isn't a hydrino.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium. HF methods give close numbers but amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions. Mills model does describe simple systems correctly and more complex systems within reasonable errors much easier. I included some pages showing Mills' model excited states of Helium calculations.
The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. There is nothing particularly 'quantum' about these functions, they show up many places in classical physics too. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be highly useful.
Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing. If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.
P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.
-
#284 by Bob012345 on 27 Jun, 2017 19:00
-
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.
It doesn't help that his mathematics is so terribly flawed that sometimes I don't even understand what he is claiming. A big part of the problem seems to be that his terminology is often at odds with what is commonly used in mathematics.
Mills is very hard to understand and he uses his own way to describe things. It's different, difficult but not necessarily wrong or flawed. -
#285 by meberbs on 27 Jun, 2017 19:55
-
Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium.
Simply false, please stop making things up.HF methods amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions.
The solutions to the Schrodinger equation generally can't be written in elementary functions, so scientists use approximate methods to do some analysis, but this has no bearing on the actual solution.Mills model does describe simple systems correct.
Mills claims the electrons live on fixed radius spheres. The data shows this is untrue. The pictures that you attached do not seem consistent with his claims, but do seem consistent with standard quantum. This is where it seems like he is making things up so badly that it is hard to see how he could do so without realizing that his statements are straight up false. This is why people start thinking about words like "fraud."
The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be useful.Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing.
See what as58 said. Mills' theory is basically a bunch of non-sequiters, it isn't worth more than a glance.If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.
And that something would still almost certainly not be the hydrino.P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.
You seem to entirely misunderstand everything you just referred to. Analogous classical systems help make the quantum seem less weird to human intuition, but don't make quantum be equivalent to classical. Whether quantum is deterministic or probabilistic is undetermined, but phenomena like entanglement, which is clearly demonstrated in tests of Bell's inequality, show that quantum effects are very real in a way no classical theory could describe. -
#286 by Bob012345 on 28 Jun, 2017 19:11
-
Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium.
Simply false, please stop making things up.HF methods amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions.
The solutions to the Schrodinger equation generally can't be written in elementary functions, so scientists use approximate methods to do some analysis, but this has no bearing on the actual solution.Mills model does describe simple systems correct.
Mills claims the electrons live on fixed radius spheres. The data shows this is untrue. The pictures that you attached do not seem consistent with his claims, but do seem consistent with standard quantum. This is where it seems like he is making things up so badly that it is hard to see how he could do so without realizing that his statements are straight up false. This is why people start thinking about words like "fraud."
The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be useful.Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing.
See what as58 said. Mills' theory is basically a bunch of non-sequiters, it isn't worth more than a glance.If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.
And that something would still almost certainly not be the hydrino.P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.
You seem to entirely misunderstand everything you just referred to. Analogous classical systems help make the quantum seem less weird to human intuition, but don't make quantum be equivalent to classical. Whether quantum is deterministic or probabilistic is undetermined, but phenomena like entanglement, which is clearly demonstrated in tests of Bell's inequality, show that quantum effects are very real in a way no classical theory could describe.
Quantum and Classical are invented distinctions while Nature just is. Since once purely quantum phenomenon are now known to have classical analogues, I wouldn't be surprised if even entanglement has macroscopic analogues too. Mills' claims his model can explain all quantum effects including so-called entanglement. So no, I didn't misunderstand what I read. Mills isn't the only neo-Classicist. But of quantum theories, at least the deBroglie- Bohm version of is based in reality.
Regarding the issue of computing, one can make errors small with wavefunctions made of dozens of parameters that you make up but it's a mathematically absurd wavefunction that takes enormous work to compute. Mills can get close on one page with exact functions which indicates he may have a better model. They are all models.
Regarding the previous discussion on the classical wave equation and the demand that Mills solutions pop out of it, it occurred to me that in thinking of the physics of bubbles, soap bubbles exist, surface waves can exist on the bubbles which are the solution to the classical wave equation yet we don't demand the bubble pop out of the classical wave equation, we construct the bubble by other means, a balance between pressure and tension exactly as Mills has done.
No one has seen an electron. Even if it's confined to a 2D surface, the field is not and interacts with the measuring device. You would see the field intensity in space not the physical electron surface. As recently as twenty years ago I've heard a known chemist adamantly claim big atoms are mushy undefined things that have to be measured to be defined and can never be moved around by a probe because of their insistence on quantum fuzziness. Of course no one says that now because evidence has debunked that.
Would your world explode if major scientists confirmed it was hydrino's? -
#287 by as58 on 28 Jun, 2017 19:35
-
It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.
Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none. -
#288 by Bob012345 on 28 Jun, 2017 19:48
-
It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.
Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.
He doesn't like it because he figured out that he could solve the atom classically. There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit. I think Mills understands QM and everything else far far more that you think. It's not a Bohr model. -
#289 by meberbs on 28 Jun, 2017 19:51
-
Mills' claims his model can explain all quantum effects including so-called entanglement.
As we already covered, he doesn't actually have a model. This claim has no basis.So no, I didn't misunderstand what I read. Mills isn't the only neo-Classicist. But of quantum theories, at least the deBroglie- Bohm version of is based in reality.
Not relevant, and deBroglie-Bohm is quantum, not classical, it has particles as waves, discrete states and follows the Schrodinger equation. In fact as far as I know, there is no known experimentally determinable difference from probabilistic interpretations.Regarding the issue of computing, one can make errors small with wavefunctions made of dozens of parameters that you make up but it's a mathematically absurd wavefunction that takes enormous work to compute. Mills can get close on one page with exact functions which indicates he may have a better model. They are all models.
How much work it takes to compute is irrelevant. When you go to the Schrodinger equation, there aren't dozens of parameters, and it is not mathematically absurd. You might as well complain about how may terms an expansion needs to accurately represent pi. Mills can't do what you said, because he doesn't derive anything, he has no model from which to do so.Regarding the previous discussion on the classical wave equation and the demand that Mills solutions pop out of it, it occurred to me that in thinking of the physics of bubbles, soap bubbles exist, surface waves can exist on the bubbles which are the solution to the classical wave equation yet we don't demand the bubble pop out of the classical wave equation, we construct the bubble by other means, a balance between pressure and tension exactly as Mills has done.
So many things wrong with that...
-The pressure and tension equations would be equivalent to a wave equation.
-Even if there is another way to calculate it, it still has to be consistent.
-Mills' solution has to come from somewhere, or it isn't a solution, just a made up equation
-When Mills provides an equation, and a solution, and the solution doesn't fit the equation, his theory collapses.Would your world explode if major scientists confirmed it was hydrino's?
Would yours if Mills admitted that he has no theory or real evidence for hydrinos? -
#290 by meberbs on 28 Jun, 2017 20:05
-
It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.
Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.
He doesn't like it because he figured out that he could solve the atom classically. There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit. I think Mills understands QM and everything else far far more that you think. It's not a Bohr model.
He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.
Edit: typos -
#291 by whitelancer64 on 28 Jun, 2017 20:46
-
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
Oh, I don't know about that. There's some very good crackpot checklists out there.
A Measure for Crackpots, by Fred J. Gruenberger, is a classic.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P2678.html
John Baez' Crackpot Index is well known, too.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html -
#292 by gospacex on 28 Jun, 2017 22:51
-
http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf
At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.
Something important is missing in that wall of text.
He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.
Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.
(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).
That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.
He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact. -
#293 by ChrisWilson68 on 29 Jun, 2017 07:17
-
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)
-
#294 by ppnl on 29 Jun, 2017 07:21
-
Holy crap on a cracker! I had heard of blacklight power but had never really looked into it. That book is a mass of twisted crap.
Did anyone read his take on the Aspect experiments? I am stupider for having read it and my computer has lost 100mhz of speed just from showing it to me. The whole book seems to be sections of distorted science embedded in walls of text. According to Wiki some of that text is simply plagiarized from various physics books. I guess it had to be self published because no publisher would touch it.
The combination of plagiarism and the specific way the science is distorted make me think fraud rather than self deception. If so then his book is really a work of art that has earned him tens of millions. But maybe the best con men are able to become true believers. If the corruption goes deep enough there may be no useful difference between a con and self deception.
The plagiarism was pointed out some time ago. I wonder if it has been removed. If it has ok but if not... those are some pretty big brass ones. -
#295 by ChrisWilson68 on 29 Jun, 2017 07:29
-
The version of the two slit experiment that really puts the final nail in the coffin of any attempt to explain it with a non-quantum theory is the one where a laser is set up to cross both slits and measure when the electron goes through. If the wavelength of the laser is such that it's possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern disappears, but if the wavelength of the laser is such that it's not possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern reappears. It's really, really hard to explain that one without concluding that the diffraction pattern is intrinsically linked with whether or not the information about which slit it went through is being captured.
-
#296 by ppnl on 29 Jun, 2017 10:46
-
The version of the two slit experiment that really puts the final nail in the coffin of any attempt to explain it with a non-quantum theory is the one where a laser is set up to cross both slits and measure when the electron goes through. If the wavelength of the laser is such that it's possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern disappears, but if the wavelength of the laser is such that it's not possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern reappears. It's really, really hard to explain that one without concluding that the diffraction pattern is intrinsically linked with whether or not the information about which slit it went through is being captured.
If you look at page 1635 he uses this to argue that QM is wrong and his classical theory must be right. Perverse beyond all measure I know. But there it is. -
#297 by gospacex on 29 Jun, 2017 13:08
-
http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume3-Web.pdf
Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
-
#298 by gospacex on 29 Jun, 2017 13:15
-
Guys, did you know that gluons are "heavy photons"?! And these "heavy photons" manage to somehow keep proton from falling apart despite a very large electrostatic repulsion between two up-quarks with +2/3 charge. (Since Mills posits that all bound quarks are infinitely thin rotating spheres of the same diameter, and they are co-located in a proton, the repulsion must actually be infinitely strong).
No explanation is offered why three-quark bound systems are possible but, say, two-quark systems are not, and why free quarks are never seen. -
#299 by ppnl on 29 Jun, 2017 14:43
-
Did you read about the twin paradox? Apparently absolute frames do exist but each particle has its own absolute frame that depends on what frame it was created in. So two particles apparently motionless with respect to each other can have vastly different kinetic energy. And apparently this is proved by the fact that quasars have no time dilation.
Man this stuff is comedy gold. Forget hydrinos. They are the least wrong and least interesting thing in the book. And least funny.
