-
#180
by
Monomorphic
on 06 Jun, 2017 13:10
-
Mono... What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate? What is its shape?
Curve depth for big end is 1.8553cm. Spherical radius is 61.161cm. Inner spherical diameter is 29.9cm.
-
#181
by
VAXHeadroom
on 06 Jun, 2017 16:07
-
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon.
The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter. 12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.
*facepalm* Sorry I knew that...that's what I get for trying to do imperial to metric in my head...
-
#182
by
Bob012345
on 06 Jun, 2017 17:33
-
If the EM Drive is not an experimental artifact and its acceleration is somehow due to general relativity, these entropy (2nd law) constraints must also operate: thus they pertain to the "overunity problem" frequently discussed, and the acceleration that would be possible and under what range of motions (along a geodesic vs. circular motion as in what is frequently hypothesized would be used to generate electricity).
It seems you are suggesting an unknown mechanism based on a hypothetical 'entropy' to limit accelerations of an EmDrive or Mach Effect Thruster. Such a limitation would make any device effectively useless as the acceleration would asymptotically go to zero and the speed achieved for the total energy expended would be unimpressive and always linked to the square root of the total energy input. No going to the stars. But I'm skeptical such a limitation exists. Different inertial frames woud require different acceleration limits depending on their relative velocities yet the acceleration profile would also be absolute leading to paradoxes. I prefer Dr. Woodward's explanation that there is no energy problem, only a misunderstanding of basic physics.
-
#183
by
Augmentor
on 06 Jun, 2017 17:35
-
Shell,
I agree.
Buried in the readings above, there are three notable items: Dirac and Weyl versions of Maxwells equations, Conservation of Angular Momentum at both atomic and elementary particle level, and the magnetic monopole which is required for quantization of charge which is a requirement for quantum mechanics
In the paper Electromagnetic Duality Anomaly in Curved Spacetimes, the Weyl version of Maxwell's equations is important to understand.
ref:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.08879.pdfConservation of Angular Momentum (AM) at the atomic level, and at the elementary particle level are from a form of the Total Angular Momentum Quantum Number.
Atomic: j = s + l where j is the total AM, s is atomic spin, and l is the atomic orbital (sic) AM.
Elementary: J = S + L where J is the total AM, S is elementary spin, and L is the elementary orbit (sic) AM.
Quanta? The conjecture is that elementary particles are made of even smaller building blocks call quanta, an energy only particle or perhaps particle family. At the sub-elementary level, the quanta are expected to have both spin and orbit-like parameters. Current data is scarce and inconclusive.
Your Mass May Vary,
David
Magnetic Monopole
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-mysterious-magnetic-monopole.html"In 1894, Nobel Laureate Pierre Curie discussed the possibility of such an undiscovered particle and could find no reason to discount its existence. Later, in 1931, Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac showed that
when Maxwell's equations are extended to include a magnetic monopole, electric charge can exist only in discrete values.This "quantisation" of electric charge is one of the requirements of quantum mechanics. So Dirac's work went towards showing that classical electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics were compatible theories in this sense."
See also
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-physicists-quantum-mechanical-monopoles.htmlPhysicists discover quantum-mechanical monopoles
Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-mysterious-magnetic-monopole.html#jCp
-
#184
by
Bob012345
on 06 Jun, 2017 17:45
-
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.
In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.
That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.
EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.
Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. To show it doesn't work, you need to get down to an experiment sensitive enough to measure the force due to thermal radiation coming off the device. You also then have to repeat it for enough different configurations of mode shapes, dielectrics, etc. There has been a significant lack of criteria defined for just how much of this needs to be done before it is accepted as not working. As error sources and noise have been removed from experiments, the anomalous thrust has also decreased, which means that even more minor of errors need to be accounted for.
I'd have to go back and check the original numbers, but I think there have been quite a few experiments at this point that have constrained thrust levels to significantly less than Shawyer's original claims. The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. At this point, even if the emDrive works, I think it could be shown that Shawyer never measured a real signal as his results would have been swamped by errors.
Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
-
#185
by
Bob012345
on 06 Jun, 2017 18:02
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads. While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history! I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
-
#186
by
meberbs
on 06 Jun, 2017 18:50
-
Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Experiments with the emDrive so far have not shown a signal above potential noise or error sources and therefore have only served to limit the magnitude of effect that may have been generated. The many possible variables of frequency, mode shape, etc. are part of why fully disproving the emDrive experimentally is nearly impossible. Enough experiments have been done in similar enough of ranges where the most sensitive of them can limit what real signal may have been present in less sensitive setups.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads. While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history! I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics?
https://xkcd.com/1132/A claim that contradicts something that has been verified by countless experiments is going to need some very good evidence to explain why those other experiments were wrong, or how there is not actually a contradiction. The statement is clearly not about human subjectivity of ordinary vs. extraordinary, but a scientific ordinary meaning "consistent with what we already have observed." Quantum mechanics would be considered extraordinary by most people, but there is tons of evidence supporting this, so now the extraordinary claim would be saying that quantum is untrue, and this would take extraordinary evidence to overcome all of the evidence currently in favor of quantum.
And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected.
This is what I am afraid of happening with the emDrive, and while most people here have been good about it, some have clearly been biased with interpretation of results. To help avoid this it would be great if people defined criteria as sufficient to conclude that their is no anomalous force.
-
#187
by
ThereIWas3
on 06 Jun, 2017 19:23
-
It may be that current duplicated experiments, constrained to equipment sizes, radio frequencies, power levels, and materials that are "convenient", are just brushing up against the effect, whatever it is, rather than hitting its sweet spot. Given that nobody is sure how this effect works (if it does) this is not surprising. But once a confirmed theory is developed, it might be possible to greatly increase efficiency.
-
#188
by
wicoe
on 06 Jun, 2017 19:45
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads. While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history! I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model). Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".
-
#189
by
Bob012345
on 06 Jun, 2017 19:51
-
Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Experiments with the emDrive so far have not shown a signal above potential noise or error sources and therefore have only served to limit the magnitude of effect that may have been generated. The many possible variables of frequency, mode shape, etc. are part of why fully disproving the emDrive experimentally is nearly impossible. Enough experiments have been done in similar enough of ranges where the most sensitive of them can limit what real signal may have been present in less sensitive setups.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads. While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history! I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics? https://xkcd.com/1132/
A claim that contradicts something that has been verified by countless experiments is going to need some very good evidence to explain why those other experiments were wrong, or how there is not actually a contradiction. The statement is clearly not about human subjectivity of ordinary vs. extraordinary, but a scientific ordinary meaning "consistent with what we already have observed." Quantum mechanics would be considered extraordinary by most people, but there is tons of evidence supporting this, so now the extraordinary claim would be saying that quantum is untrue, and this would take extraordinary evidence to overcome all of the evidence currently in favor of quantum.
And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected.
This is what I am afraid of happening with the emDrive, and while most people here have been good about it, some have clearly been biased with interpretation of results. To help avoid this it would be great if people defined criteria as sufficient to conclude that their is no anomalous force.
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
-
#190
by
Bob012345
on 06 Jun, 2017 20:01
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads. While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history! I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model). Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".
What is 'extraordinary' is subjective. If someone builds a Mach Effect Thruster or EMDrive that works, I mean undeniably works, that's enough. For example, if you set out a probe to just go out of the solar system and you follow the speed and trajectory at some point, it's obvious it works as planned or it doesn't. You don't need a century of experiments to decide.
-
#191
by
wicoe
on 06 Jun, 2017 20:12
-
Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model). Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".
What is 'extraordinary' is subjective. If someone builds a Mach Effect Thruster or EMDrive that works, I mean undeniably works, that's enough. For example, if you set out a probe to just go out of the solar system and you follow the speed and trajectory at some point, it's obvious it works as planned or it doesn't. You don't need a century of experiments to decide.
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work. Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show. If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".
-
#192
by
Augmentor
on 06 Jun, 2017 20:20
-
How does one capture the Universe in a few words and inspire generations?
Sagan's infamous quote and mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can be parsed into three other possibilities. Sagan's abilities to overstate the obvious and often the obvious is stated in such a way as to provide an out of the box view to drive home a point even to the dullest dullard glued to the TV or video. Here are three other possibilities of that famous phrase.
Simple claims required extraordinary evidence.
Simple claims require simple evidence.
Extraordinary claims require simple evidence.
All of these are simply variations on the theme of "claims require evidence" which has two corollaries: Show me the data, and provide a rigorous proof.
Whether the emDrive uses mainstream physics such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or emerging science such as Quantum Field theory, in the end, the hidden message that Sagan captured with his Extraordinary Quote is that the 5% of the galaxy we understand needs something more. The data tells confirms our beliefs and at the same time says there is more, perhaps even extraordinary and well beyond what we already know, conjectured, surmised, guessed, tripped over, had an epiphany, or otherwise finally recognized and grasped.
Clearly, Nature knows more than we know. So data needs a rigorous proof so we can add the useful discovery so the next time we encounter it, the claims are no longer extraordinary nor is the evidence in data and theory extraordinary. Instead, we simply will step up our game to the next level and reach higher, faster and farther in our olympic level quest to understand this universe, and perhaps others.
Three Sagan videos online...
100 Billion galaxies each with a hundred billion of stars.
Man in his arrogance
Humility
-
#193
by
meberbs
on 06 Jun, 2017 20:42
-
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.
-
#194
by
ThinkerX
on 07 Jun, 2017 07:30
-
Not very bright late night thought:
The EM Drive has been occasionally described as a 'kinetic energy thief.'
Gravitational flyby's are sometimes used as an analogy. Fair enough: gravity is used to alter spacecraft's course and velocity. Likewise, planetary gravitational fields influence each other: Neptune was discovered because of its gravitational effects on planets closer to the sun. Each planet in our solar system has at least a minute gravitational effect on every other planet. Similar calculations are used to identify planets orbiting other stars.
The EM Drive tests are all over the place. But, if this device works by stealing kinetic energy, then perhaps one of the major local astronomical sources of such should be taken into account - the moon. The area I live in has tides well in excess of twenty feet, operating on a predictable cycle. Possibly this lunar/tidal cycle has an effect on the device - assuming it does steal kinetic energy? The more impressive results stem from the devices orientation with respect to the moon?
Or, what would the tide level have been for say, Shell's more impressive tests at her location?
Better quit while I'm behind.
-
#195
by
Augmentor
on 07 Jun, 2017 08:39
-
Not very bright late night thought:
The EM Drive has been occasionally described as a 'kinetic energy thief.'
Gravitational flyby's are sometimes used as an analogy. Fair enough: gravity is used to alter spacecraft's course and velocity. Likewise, planetary gravitational fields influence each other: Neptune was discovered because of its gravitational effects on planets closer to the sun. Each planet in our solar system has at least a minute gravitational effect on every other planet. Similar calculations are used to identify planets orbiting other stars.
The EM Drive tests are all over the place. But, if this device works by stealing kinetic energy, then perhaps one of the major local astronomical sources of such should be taken into account - the moon. The area I live in has tides well in excess of twenty feet, operating on a predictable cycle. Possibly this lunar/tidal cycle has an effect on the device - assuming it does steal kinetic energy? The more impressive results stem from the devices orientation with respect to the moon?
Or, what would the tide level have been for say, Shell's more impressive tests at her location?
Better quit while I'm behind.
More beer and pizza ordered.
If we are going to start down the long road of Mach theory where everything in the universe contributes to the local condition and performance of mass especially under accelerations, then we need to add a number of items to the laundry list of possible contributions to the causes and effects of the emDrive including field reconnection of both electric and magnetic fields especially after frame dragging is induced, and any correlation with the hydrogen line.
A conjecture worth investigating is that ...
In the emDrive the hydrogen line may actually be contributing to the eigenvalues and frequencies as a parametric amplifier which in turn may produce nonlinear effects including thrust. After all, externally the copper may be attracting electrons as the electrons internally are absorbed into the plasma. A more general approach would be to examine any potential contributions to amplification especially parametric amplification and in particular the hydrogen line.
If the emDrive does not perform in space tests as it performs on the ground in the labs or field testing, especially outside the earth's influence of atmosphere and fields, then we at least have to advance emDrive theory to determine how to build a proper space drive for space operations.
-
#196
by
Tcarey
on 07 Jun, 2017 17:46
-
Mono... What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate? What is its shape?
Curve depth for big end is 1.8553cm. Spherical radius is 61.161cm. Inner spherical diameter is 29.9cm.
Thanks for the reply. Two additional questions. How thick do you want the end plate to be? On your drawing I see a flange that appears to be flat. Is that part of the end plate or is that just a reference to the drawing? If it is part of the end plate what are its dimensions?
-
#197
by
Bob012345
on 07 Jun, 2017 18:41
-
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.
Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state (but wait, QM says that's impossible!..oh well, too bad) and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
-
#198
by
meberbs
on 07 Jun, 2017 19:04
-
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.
Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.
"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.
-
#199
by
as58
on 07 Jun, 2017 21:12
-