-
#300 by Bob012345 on 29 Jun, 2017 15:03
-
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
Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!" is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.
-
#301 by Bob012345 on 29 Jun, 2017 15:09
-
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.
It was an extended quote and Mills should have been clearer in that but it's been fixed. Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.
Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information. -
#302 by Bob012345 on 29 Jun, 2017 15:19
-
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.
I think you misunderstand Mills ideas which is easy for casual critics to do when they parse the book just looking for errors. I'm not claiming even I agree with every idea Mills has but even the great scientists are not 100% right all the time. But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.
The fact that you would even say hydrino's are the "least interesting" is telling. There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.
-
#303 by Bob012345 on 29 Jun, 2017 15:24
-
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.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all. -
#304 by Bob012345 on 29 Jun, 2017 15:35
-
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
Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames. -
#305 by meberbs on 29 Jun, 2017 15:39
-
That was one of the ones linked , and go read # 8 again, it doesn't say "Einstein."There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)
The lists I've seen are tongue in cheek. For instance, one said if Einstein is even mentioned, that means the person is a crackpot.
The major complaint is that it violates experiments that confirm quantum effects. None of what you said indicates comprehension of my post, let alone quantum, and if you think Mill's complaints about quantum are in any way valid, you don't understand quantum. It is notable that you didn't bother answering my simple takedown of one of his complaints.It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.
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
Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!" is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.
Outright false statements. It has been well established in this thread that there are no confirming data or papers for them to delete, or you would have shared them already.Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information.
Which is why you look at the sources.But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.
You have claimed he has done so, but provided no evidence. Is it buried somewhere in that book?There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.
No, they detest the idea, because as evidenced by the ridiculous number of blatantly wrong statements in Mills' book, it might be one of the most anti-science things ever written.
Read the last part of gospacex's post again. The problem is that despite the wall of text, he never actually offers an alternative explanation.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.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all.
That is the point. Mills tries to use that fact as an argument against relativity, which is silly, especially considering it isn't conserved classically either.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
Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames.
Edit: ironic typo in Einstein. -
#306 by Bob012345 on 29 Jun, 2017 16:18
-
"Which is why you look at the sources."
That was one of the ones linked , and go read # 8 again, it doesn't say "Einstein."There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)
The lists I've seen are tongue in cheek. For instance, one said if Einstein is even mentioned, that means the person is a crackpot.
The major complaint is that it violates experiments that confirm quantum effects. None of what you said indicates comprehension of my post, let alone quantum, and if you think Mill's complaints about quantum are in any way valid, you don't understand quantum. It is notable that you didn't bother answering my simple takedown of one of his complaints.It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.
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
Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!" is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.
Outright false statements. It has been well established in this thread that there are no confirming data or papers for them to delete, or you would have shared them already.Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information.
Which is why you look at the sources.But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.
You have claimed he has done so, but provided no evidence. Is it buried somewhere in that book?There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.
No, they detest the idea, because as evidenced by the ridiculous number of blatantly wrong statements in Mills' book, it might be one of the most anti-science things ever written.
Read the last part of gospacex's post again. The problem is that despite the wall of text, he never actually offers an alternative explanation.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.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all.
That is the point. Mills tries to use that fact as an argument against relativity, which is silly, especially considering it isn't conserved classically either.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
Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames.
Edit: ironic typo in Einstein.
Mills published a peer reviewed article in a major European journal in around 2011. The wiki site will not allow that reference to be listed. People put it up yet it disappears quickly. Why? Is it normal for a wiki page on a major topic to only allow references by critics and not references to the actual work? -
#307 by kenny008 on 29 Jun, 2017 16:23
-
Can you PLEASE just post the source? A list of per-reviewed sources would make the last 3 pages unnecessary, as all of the questions would have already been answered. Doesn't that make more sense than just saying, "There are papers that nobody is allowed to see?"
-
#308 by meberbs on 29 Jun, 2017 16:33
-
"Which is why you look at the sources."
Good job finding the least relevant statement in my entire post to respond to.
Mills published a peer reviewed article in a major European journal in around 2011. The wiki site will not allow that reference to be listed. People put it up yet it disappears quickly. Why? Is it normal for a wiki page on a major topic to only allow references by critics and not references to the actual work?
Wikipedia has a no original research policy so people can't post their own work. They point to some primary sources, like Mills' book, but these aren't preferred. A list of 20 sources from Mills' and 20 sources against Mills from different scientists and news media wouldn't be exactly balanced. If there were the mythical independent confirmations you keep referring to, but can't point to, that would be another story. -
#309 by gospacex on 29 Jun, 2017 17:10
-
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.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based.
Double slit experiment is one of the experiments which lead to creation of QM. Contemporary theories couldn't explain it. QM wasn't born on a whim - it was created because this experiment (and a few others) was not explainable by what we had before.
If someone wants to propose an alternative theory (which by itself is not a wrong thing to do), then this person must give a satisfactory explanation of observed results of double slit experiment.
Specifically, the version of the experiment where electrons with fixed energy and momentum are shot at double slit, _one at a time_. The observed behavior is that diffraction pattern appears, and it is not reduced by increasingly stringent efforts to maintain the same energy and momentum of the electrons.
Same should be done of several other early 20 century experiments which also lead to QM, such as triple Stern-Gerlach (which demonstrates that spin components along different axes do not have simultaneously definite values) - they all should be explained. If this is not done, then this "new theory" is demonstrably worse than QM. -
#310 by Bob012345 on 30 Jun, 2017 00:27
-
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.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based.
Double slit experiment is one of the experiments which lead to creation of QM. Contemporary theories couldn't explain it. QM wasn't born on a whim - it was created because this experiment (and a few others) was not explainable by what we had before.
If someone wants to propose an alternative theory (which by itself is not a wrong thing to do), then this person must give a satisfactory explanation of observed results of double slit experiment.
Specifically, the version of the experiment where electrons with fixed energy and momentum are shot at double slit, _one at a time_. The observed behavior is that diffraction pattern appears, and it is not reduced by increasingly stringent efforts to maintain the same energy and momentum of the electrons.
Same should be done of several other early 20 century experiments which also lead to QM, such as triple Stern-Gerlach (which demonstrates that spin components along different axes do not have simultaneously definite values) - they all should be explained. If this is not done, then this "new theory" is demonstrably worse than QM.
Mills does that in chapter 8 volume 1 of his tome. -
#311 by meberbs on 30 Jun, 2017 01:26
-
Mills does that in chapter 8 volume 1 of his tome.
gospacex read that section, and found no explanation.QuoteOver time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment. -
#312 by gospacex on 30 Jun, 2017 05:52
-
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
-
#313 by particlezoo on 30 Jun, 2017 06:09
-
Quote
Over time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.
If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling. We can see randomness of the former-kind with Plinko chips falling through an array of pegs on the Price is Right.
It is the most obvious source of randomness that one can hardly be blamed for not mentioning.
Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....
....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
Mills rejects some aspects of relativity on experimental grounds. How? He speaks of a "particle production frame" for each particle. Furthermore, He claims that this can explain the quasar anomaly where newly-furnished particles near quasars are anomalously less time-dilated. Since the particles are newly-furnished when they are already inside the gravitational well, then they would not exhibit major overall time-dilation when compared to a particle that entered in the well from the outside. The reason? The latter would have accelerated greatly relative to its "particle production frame" and therefore subject to greater time dilation - not so much the former.
Personally, I think the electromagnetic Schott term is responsible for time-dilation in the Lorentzian Ether and that its accumulation is also responsible for the light-speed barrier, and that (just maybe) deformation of Mills' "orbitspheres" towards a somewhat (frustrum-ish) egg-shaped geometry is responsible for Schott terms underpinning what we call "gravitational work". But hey, what do I know? But let's say that was right and Mills and Einstein were wrong about relativity. Then perhaps under the framework of the Relativity of Hendrik Lorentz (b. 1853 - d. 1928) we could construct an alternative and more valid derivation of the rest of Mills' theoretical predictions unaltered, including the non-radiation condition, energy levels, fine-structure, hyper-fine structure, Lamb shift, g-factor, functional groups, ionization energies, etc. all of which just so happen to be accurately predicted by Mills regardless of the issues I may have with his "relativity".
If reading Mills' huge tome or even his recent paper isn't your thing, a quick image search for line-drawn images for hydrino+electron+volts+molecular can reveal quite quickly the kinds of information tables, charts, equations, and diagrams that a likely supporter would be drawn to and spend quite a few minutes if not hours on feeling buzzed about. At least you would understand the mindset of the supporters a bit better. Regardless of who is right, there remains plenty left that has gone unchewed here. At the very least, we can look at the equations involved and see if the derivations can be expressed, or made better, in a prosaic way, perhaps leading to a new interpretation altogether.
Mills' model is like a ship with multiple water-tight compartments. The question isn't if the hull is breached or not. The question is whether enough compartments are breached to sink the ship. To me, the ship still floats, albeit a bit rocky on some decks. It's good enough to stand on, but it might need to be anchored so that too much water isn't spilled over it.
Sincerely,
Kevin M.
P.S. I recommend reading the paper "Radiation reaction and energy-momentum conservation" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.2846.pdf to learn more about the Schott terms (especially if you are researching the EM Drive).Quote"Radiation reaction and energy-momentum conservation"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.2846.pdf
The purpose of this lecture was to discuss some subtle points associated with interpretation of the radiation reaction force. We have shown that the Lorentz-Dirac equation in classical electrodynamics describes the balance of three and not just two momenta: the mechanical momentum of the particle, the momentum of emitted radiation, and the momentum carried by the electromagnetic field bound to the charge. The total momentum is conserved, but this does not imply an instantaneous balance of the emitted momentum and that of the particle. -
#314 by meberbs on 30 Jun, 2017 06:45
-
But why does it NEED to be there? Why can't there just be a better focused electron beam? Also, he talks about a "uniform distribution", when something like a gaussian would make sense.QuoteOver time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.
If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling. We can see randomness of the former-kind with Plinko chips falling through an array of pegs on the Price is Right.
It is the most obvious source of randomness that one can hardly be blamed for not mentioning.Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....
So basically, he shoves all of the quantum weirdness onto the photon, pretends that makes it less weird, and then hand waves that the electron follows the photon wave path.
....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
But this just sounds like another interpretation of quantum, when he supposedly rejects quantum. If it was formally written out, it would basically be a local hidden variable theory, which has been solidly disproven by tests of Bells' inequality.Mills rejects some aspects of relativity on experimental grounds. How? He speaks of a "particle production frame" for each particle. Furthermore, He claims that this can explain the quasar anomaly where newly-furnished particles near quasars are anomalously less time-dilated. Since the particles are newly-furnished when they are already inside the gravitational well, then they would not exhibit major overall time-dilation when compared to a particle that entered in the well from the outside. The reason? The latter would have accelerated greatly relative to its "particle production frame" and therefore subject to greater time dilation - not so much the former.
That sounds great until you realize that the quasars are red shifted as expected, it is the periodicity of their brightness variations that is inconsistent. Even if there were no other issues with Mills' proposal, it is if anything worse at explaining the observed quasar behavior.Mills' model is like a ship with multiple water-tight compartments. The question isn't if the hull is breached or not. The question is whether enough compartments are breached to sink the ship. To me, the ship still floats, albeit a bit rocky on some decks. It's good enough to stand on, but it might need to be anchored so that too much water isn't spilled over it.
As far as model and theory goes, it seems proper at this point to compare Mills' work to the current state of the Titanic. There is nothing left to be worth salvaging, Although going through the details of why it is wrong in some parts may be instructive.
-
#315 by ChrisWilson68 on 30 Jun, 2017 07:03
-
meberbs and gospacex, I'm really impressed that you took so much time and effort to go through Mills' book and explain some of the problems with it.
-
#316 by particlezoo on 30 Jun, 2017 07:05
-
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
Here are the claimed justification for the corrections, as well as their amounts. There are more at the link.Quote from: kmarinas86 June 20, 2012 at 4:56 amThe sections titled:
e: "THE ELECTRON-ANTIELECTRON LEPTON PAIR"
mu: "THE MUON-ANTIMUON PAIR"
tau: "THE TAU-ANTITAU PAIR"
....have content which cannot fully be explained in the relatively short space which I devote to my comment here, so I will select the key sentences which I believe provides the best distinction between the approaches to predicting their different masses.
e:
"Thus, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the same[Emphasis] as those for the transition state radius which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b)."
"In the lab frame, the relativistic correction of the [transition state] radius in the derivation of the Planck's equation for the transition state orbitsphere (Eq. (29.12)) is alpha^(-2)."
mu:
"In this case, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the inverse[Emphasis] of those of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere, which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b)."
"For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the potential energy equations (Eq. (29.10) and (29.11)) is alpha^(-2)."
"For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], alpha^2"
"Furthermore, the potential energy equation gives an electrostatic energy; thus, the electron inertial time must be corrected by the relativistic factor of 2*pi relative to the proper time."
tau:
"For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the magnetic energy equations (Eq. (29.14) and (29.15)) is 1/((2*pi)^2*alpha^4)."
"For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], (2*pi)^2*alpha^4."
"Furthermore, the transition state comprises two magnetic moments. For v=c, the magnetic energy equals, the potential energy, equals the Planck equation energy, equals mc^2."
"Thus, the electron [inertial] time is corrected by a factor of two relative to the proper time."
As you might be able to see, the predictions are derived from boundary conditions applied to his energy equations as well as his "relativistic corrections". So tweak his model, either he would have to change his energy equations, "relativistic corrections", or the boundary conditions. Changing the "energy equation" would affect other parts of his theory in a significant way, as they would affect for example his predictions for the hyperfine structure of muonium. Changing his relativistic corrections would require him to change the very logic of his corrections. Since there is more than one mass ratio (i.e. tau vs. electron, not just muon vs. electron), changing one ratio would affect others, as they are based on magnetic and electric energies, respectively.
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos". -
#317 by particlezoo on 30 Jun, 2017 07:42
-
Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....
So basically, he shoves all of the quantum weirdness onto the photon, pretends that makes it less weird, and then hand waves that the electron follows the photon wave path.
....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
But this just sounds like another interpretation of quantum, when he supposedly rejects quantum. If it was formally written out, it would basically be a local hidden variable theory, which has been solidly disproven by tests of Bells' inequality.
The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.
Another thing that has me wondering is that his concept of a cavity resonant photon "trapped" inside the atom is somehow able to produce an effective charge at the nucleus of an atom, permitting the force balance to change in a way permitting discrete excited states. The only way this could preserve charge if there was an equal-but-opposite charge formed outside the atom. The most natural way to assume such charges exist is to claim that magnetic fields rotate with their source, which results in a Goldreich-Julian charge density with a total charge of zero. All of this stays well outside of standard QM as well as Mills' theory.
Another thing that has me question is the electric field in Jefimenko's equations. For time-vary charge densities and constant current densities, we can get a rather disturbing result where we have *radial* electric field components whose intensity diminishes with the inverse of the distance close to the source of changing charge densities, which suggests once again a time varying charge density in the near field, not just at the source itself.
In the case that we are far away from the source of a time-varying electric quadrupole, we have an oscillating (time-dependent) radial term:
The left most term is the radial term. See http://www.physicspages.com/2015/01/25/electric-quadrupole-radiation/ for the full equation and details. It essentially implies that waves of charge of alternating value can be emitted from converging/diverging currents, and these could possibly allow particles to engage in strange sorts of couplings. I've found no one talking about this term. All this weirdness can be found without touching the uncertainty principle. Is not another formulation possible? -
#318 by gospacex on 30 Jun, 2017 11:05
-
Quote
Over time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)
There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.
If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling.
If this would be true, then making a ten times more stable source of electrons, and cooling the material of the wall with slits to ten times lower absolute temperature should make interference pattern about ten times weaker: central spots should become much stronger, and other maxima much weaker.
In real-world two slit experiments, *this does not happen*. Interference pattern does not change. -
#319 by meberbs on 30 Jun, 2017 13:09
-
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.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.
