Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion (new atomic theory)
Financial Times ^ | March 9 2006 | Robert Matthews

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: blacklightfraud; coldfusion; fusion; nucleartheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-244 next last
To: VadeRetro

""With today's lightweight composites, it should be a snap!"


So I can count on your investment? I know this goes against the laws of physics, but I took a physics course once, and I have discovered a flaw in the theories. My ornithopter runs on pure, distilled water, using a process unknown to science.

Mum's the word!


81 posted on 03/09/2006 12:55:41 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes
the same was said for the theory that the earth wasn't flat

When was that?

82 posted on 03/09/2006 12:55:43 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Can I buy in with some Enron stock?


83 posted on 03/09/2006 12:58:00 PM PST by HEY4QDEMS (No animals were harmed during the creation of this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: VadeRetro
"Hold on a sec. Should be even better with an earnest-looking fellow in a lab coat." We're working on our new brochures. We even have a working model. Of course, it's just a prototype:


85 posted on 03/09/2006 12:59:07 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
My funds are a bit tied up in investments right now, but I can offer something worth its weight in gold: my personal I.O.U...

</WC_Fields_mode>

86 posted on 03/09/2006 12:59:56 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: adamsjas
" ... no one needs to disprove Mills' theory ... He has the burden to prove it."


END OF STORY






87 posted on 03/09/2006 1:00:00 PM PST by G.Mason (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: adorno
But you'd end up sucking the lakes, streams, and the oceans dry. It would be disastrous!
88 posted on 03/09/2006 1:01:11 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Please add me to your 'Second Scofflaw of Thermodynamics' ping list.


89 posted on 03/09/2006 1:01:13 PM PST by Lazamataz (We beat the Soviet Union, then we became them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Yes! Do the same thing with graphite/polymer/abracadabra and off you go.
90 posted on 03/09/2006 1:01:25 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: airborne

LOLOLOLOL! Yeah, you're the fifth or sixth person to tell me.


91 posted on 03/09/2006 1:01:55 PM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

OK, then. Your IOU is just fine. By the way, we're expecting US$4.56 Million from our Nigerian investor any day now. Once that's here, we'll be ready to begin final engineering and testing work.

Don't miss your chance. Just send me your Checking account number and Bank Routing number, along with your signature, and we'll process your IOU.

You'll be in at the beginning of a new wave in personal transportation!


92 posted on 03/09/2006 1:02:21 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs
"(he claims to be able to do this at will.)"

telekinesis?
93 posted on 03/09/2006 1:02:59 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

snicker. You're late. I've already been chastised.


94 posted on 03/09/2006 1:03:15 PM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Good article but runs a bit long.
95 posted on 03/09/2006 1:03:16 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
The Nigerians are in? That's where my investments are!

As soon as General Obomanutu Sese Bunghole completes his coup d'etat, we're all rich.

96 posted on 03/09/2006 1:05:17 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: saganite

It shows the level of interest though when so many have actually read enough to get to where it starts over.


97 posted on 03/09/2006 1:06:10 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

To: VadeRetro
We need to get together with your lightweight composites and my microcomputer controlled servos to make the wing action more "birdlike" I know it will work. A powerpoint presentation and home in a country with no U.S. extradition and we are good to go.
99 posted on 03/09/2006 1:07:41 PM PST by nomorelurker (wetraginhell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Mills hasn't demonstrated production of energy. Nobody has been able to replicate the claim, and it's as radical as claims get.

You cannot disprove his kind of physics theory with an argument, because your proof would have to start from a premise his physics doesn't accept: that the basic laws of physics as we know them are basically correct. You can only disprove his claims with an experiment---the exact same experiment he claims to have performed, but with a different result. And then the arguments spin off into did so did not, when the rebel claims you must have not done it quite right.


100 posted on 03/09/2006 1:08:26 PM PST by lostlakehiker (Not So Fast There)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-244 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson