Posted on 03/09/2006 12:18:34 PM PST by saganite
Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance: the mental torment that comes from being confronted by two fundamentally opposed propositions. Deciding between them often provokes powerful emotions – just ask Dr Randell Mills, whose claims have a habit of triggering severe bouts of cognitive dissonance among otherwise perfectly rational people.
And no wonder: this medical student turned physicist claims to have debunked the textbook account of how atoms are put together – and in the process discovered a new source of clean, cheap energy.
By itself, that would provoke little more than eye-rolling boredom from scientists all too familiar with the grand pronouncements of cranks. The trouble is that not many cranks have had their radical new theories about atoms published in dozens of peer-reviewed papers in serious research journals, and the implications replicated in independent laboratories. And fewer still have won the support of big hitters from A-list corporations and hefty financial backing to match.
So which is it: is Dr Mills a crank or a genius? Faced with making up their minds, many scientists have shown the classic symptom of cognitive dissonance: spluttering rage (it is a safe bet that some are even now tapping out letters of complaint to this newspaper). They simply refuse point-blank to believe that Dr Mills could have found a form of atomic energy missed by the likes of Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford.
But – again in line with psychological theory – those with rather less investment in the current scientific paradigm tend to have fewer problems countenancing the other possibility: that Dr Mills really is a genius. Some have even gone as far as investing a total of $50m in his New Jersey-based company, Blacklight Power, whose board members include Neil Moskowitz, the chief financial officer of Credit Suisse, and Michael Jordan, chairman of Electronic Data Systems.
Not that Dr Mills cares about what mainstream scientists think about his theory: he is too busy extracting ever more insights from it – most recently, formulas describing the properties of molecules, something that has proved beyond the powers of quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory ever devised.
But then Dr Mills regards quantum mechanics as fundamentally flawed. Devised around a century ago in response to some baffling discoveries about heat, light and atoms, quantum mechanics is notorious for its counter-intuitive implications, such as the inherent fuzziness of atoms and the ability of energy to appear out of nowhere.
Dr Mills first came across quantum mechanics after graduating in medicine from Harvard and taking up post-graduate studies in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Struck by the weirdness of the theory, he set about devising a radically different account of the sub-atomic world, based on ideas from Victorian physics.
In a series of papers published in academic journals, he argues for a new picture of the hydrogen atom, with the lone electron whizzing around a central proton replaced with a spherical shell of electric charge.
According to Dr Mills, this simple modification utterly transforms the physics of the atom. While all the successes of conventional quantum mechanics are kept, a whole raft of solutions to previously insoluble problems emerge – such as the predictions of the properties of molecules.
But most excitement – and controversy – surrounds Dr Mills’ prediction of a whole new source of atomic energy lurking within hydrogen. According to his theory, if atoms of hydrogen are heated and mixed with other elements, they can be persuaded to release over 100 times more energy than would be generated by combustion alone.
The implications are astonishing. For if Dr Mills is right, the water covering 70 per cent of the world could become a virtually limitless source of cheap, clean energy. Not surprisingly, many scientists are deeply sceptical, pointing to all-too-similar claims made for so-called “cold fusion”, another supposedly miraculous energy source whose existence was revealed by this newspaper in 1989, but which has failed to deliver on its promise.
Yet most of Dr Mills’ critics have probably never bothered to read any of his research papers. Some have, however, and have gone on to attempt the acid test of any scientific claim: replication by independent researchers. Among those to test Dr Mills’ ideas is a team led by Professor Gerrit Kroesen at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. So far their results have confirmed that hydrogen atoms do indeed behave strangely in the presence of certain elements, in line with Dr Mills’ theory, and they plan to test the key claim of net energy output later this year.
While many scientists express doubts off the record, the fact remains that no one has published a knock-out argument against Dr Mills’ basic theory (though some claim it is so silly it is not worth a rebuttal).
Whether his theory is right is ultimately irrelevant, however. What really matters is whether hot hydrogen can be persuaded to give out more energy than it takes in, making it a viable power source.
The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion By Robert Matthews Published: March 9 2006 18:41 | Last updated: March 9 2006 18:41
Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance: the mental torment that comes from being confronted by two fundamentally opposed propositions. Deciding between them often provokes powerful emotions – just ask Dr Randell Mills, whose claims have a habit of triggering severe bouts of cognitive dissonance among otherwise perfectly rational people.
And no wonder: this medical student turned physicist claims to have debunked the textbook account of how atoms are put together – and in the process discovered a new source of clean, cheap energy.
By itself, that would provoke little more than eye-rolling boredom from scientists all too familiar with the grand pronouncements of cranks. The trouble is that not many cranks have had their radical new theories about atoms published in dozens of peer-reviewed papers in serious research journals, and the implications replicated in independent laboratories. And fewer still have won the support of big hitters from A-list corporations and hefty financial backing to match.
So which is it: is Dr Mills a crank or a genius? Faced with making up their minds, many scientists have shown the classic symptom of cognitive dissonance: spluttering rage (it is a safe bet that some are even now tapping out letters of complaint to this newspaper). They simply refuse point-blank to believe that Dr Mills could have found a form of atomic energy missed by the likes of Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford.
But – again in line with psychological theory – those with rather less investment in the current scientific paradigm tend to have fewer problems countenancing the other possibility: that Dr Mills really is a genius. Some have even gone as far as investing a total of $50m in his New Jersey-based company, Blacklight Power, whose board members include Neil Moskowitz, the chief financial officer of Credit Suisse, and Michael Jordan, chairman of Electronic Data Systems.
Not that Dr Mills cares about what mainstream scientists think about his theory: he is too busy extracting ever more insights from it – most recently, formulas describing the properties of molecules, something that has proved beyond the powers of quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory ever devised.
But then Dr Mills regards quantum mechanics as fundamentally flawed. Devised around a century ago in response to some baffling discoveries about heat, light and atoms, quantum mechanics is notorious for its counter-intuitive implications, such as the inherent fuzziness of atoms and the ability of energy to appear out of nowhere.
Dr Mills first came across quantum mechanics after graduating in medicine from Harvard and taking up post-graduate studies in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Struck by the weirdness of the theory, he set about devising a radically different account of the sub-atomic world, based on ideas from Victorian physics.
In a series of papers published in academic journals, he argues for a new picture of the hydrogen atom, with the lone electron whizzing around a central proton replaced with a spherical shell of electric charge.
According to Dr Mills, this simple modification utterly transforms the physics of the atom. While all the successes of conventional quantum mechanics are kept, a whole raft of solutions to previously insoluble problems emerge – such as the predictions of the properties of molecules.
But most excitement – and controversy – surrounds Dr Mills’ prediction of a whole new source of atomic energy lurking within hydrogen. According to his theory, if atoms of hydrogen are heated and mixed with other elements, they can be persuaded to release over 100 times more energy than would be generated by combustion alone.
The implications are astonishing. For if Dr Mills is right, the water covering 70 per cent of the world could become a virtually limitless source of cheap, clean energy. Not surprisingly, many scientists are deeply sceptical, pointing to all-too-similar claims made for so-called “cold fusion”, another supposedly miraculous energy source whose existence was revealed by this newspaper in 1989, but which has failed to deliver on its promise.
Yet most of Dr Mills’ critics have probably never bothered to read any of his research papers. Some have, however, and have gone on to attempt the acid test of any scientific claim: replication by independent researchers. Among those to test Dr Mills’ ideas is a team led by Professor Gerrit Kroesen at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. So far their results have confirmed that hydrogen atoms do indeed behave strangely in the presence of certain elements, in line with Dr Mills’ theory, and they plan to test the key claim of net energy output later this year.
While many scientists express doubts off the record, the fact remains that no one has published a knock-out argument against Dr Mills’ basic theory (though some claim it is so silly it is not worth a rebuttal).
Whether his theory is right is ultimately irrelevant, however. What really matters is whether hot hydrogen can be persuaded to give out more energy than it takes in, making it a viable power source.
Here we go again!
Hope it si true this time.
Fascinating! Thanks for posting this!
Instead of arguing about it, prove it or disprove it.
LOL! I'll get right on it.
The article said -- "What really matters is whether hot hydrogen can be persuaded to give out more energy than it takes in, making it a viable power source."
The only question I have is -- "When can we get rid of oil (and these infernal radical Muslims)?"
Regards,
Star Traveler
Recalling the same was said for the theory that the earth wasn't flat!
ping
True. Dr. Blacklight has been around for years. It's time for him to start producing.
People watched the different movements and changes of the stars and planets in the night sky, from lands as far apart as China and Mesopotamia. A lot of people believed that Earth sat at the center of the universe, and eveyrthing else such as the sun, other planets, and the stars all revolved around it.
An astronomer named Nicolaus Copernicus challenged that idea in about 1543. He soon recognized that Earth orbits around the sun. And about 1608, Italian Astronomer Galileo Galilei, made his first telescope, that scientists had firm evidence that Corpernicus was right. _________________________________________ Ah, that ol'e addage still applies, even after many centuries: The wisdom of man is foolishness unto God.
Both. He's a very good huckster.
SHOW ME THE ERGS!
The post so nice you did it twice?........
Quantum physics makes me feel so . . . uncertain.
Clinton's probably on his way to Dubai to tell the UAE folks that now's the time to corner the energy market. Can our guys please, if this pans out, make it a US project? Let's hold feet to the fire on this one...
Agree!
Interesting...
Did I? I don't see it posted twice. Enlighten me please.
Is it the principle of the thing that bothers you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.