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.
There are two copies of the article inside the post (on my screen)
I'm so disappointed in you! Keep an open mind! LOL!
I have 2 questions.
1. What is stopping him from unleashing this energy?
2. If there are no electrons, but just a "charged shell", then what is going on with electricity? What is flowing down the wire from the power company and into my computer?
I do.
"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. "
Maybe the Financial Times should hire an actual science writer. The orbital model of the atom has not been around for a long, long time.
There is nothing particularly new about that. The standard view of a chemical bond is of overlapping electronic shells.
Heisenberg may have been here.
Reading this article is just painfull. It starts out like so many new-age pseudo-scientist blurbs and degrades from there.
There is nothing new about this model of atomic structure, it is one of about 4 alternate co-existing models used routinely by everything from highschool physics teachers to nuclear physicists, its BEEN AROUND FOR 60 YEARS.
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).
Thats because no one needs to disprove Mills' theory. (However poorly this story explains it). He has the burden to prove it.
Science runs the opposite of our court system. You are a quack untill proven otherwise. And rightly so.
'round and 'round and 'round she goes, it doesn't smell bad if you hold your nose. Whoo whoo, whoo whoo, whoo whoo.........
BTW - You posted it twice.
BTW - You posted it twice.
:-)
Atomic Ping!
Damn! You're right. My posting skills deteriorate after a few glasses of wine. My apologies.
The idea that the earth was flat was, as far as I can tell, never an actual scientific theory.
Basically all educated classes were well aware the earth was round for thousands of years (this includes basically everyone in Europe that wasn't some irrelevant peasant in 1492, mythology notwithstanding.
Yeah, I know. Just damn.
Maybe you didn't drink enough, yet...........or your mouse button is dirty.......
Has to follow conservation of energy/matter.
You don't get anything for free.
Fusion energy has always been such a blast. I hope this guy doesn't take the fun out of it.
The story appears twice in the same initial post.
I wondered why I seemed to experience deja vu half way through. ;^)
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.