Hydrino Theory, Which Overturns Quantum Theory, Is In Turn Overturned By Doofusino Theory

http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/doofusino.html ^ | Scott Aaronson

[delacoert]

Feeling frustrated after a fruitless argument with a couple devotees of hydrino theory madness in a vanity thread entitled, "MY IDEA TO SOLVE ENERGY PROBLEM ," I thought I'd start a thread about a new energy theory that I can really get behind. /sarc

This thread probably deserves to derailed into the chat abyss, but so does the vanity thread I cited above. (At least this thread is intended to be humorous.)

[LibWhacker]

You know what they say about something if it's too good to be true.

[LibWhacker]

BlackLight Power boosters scoff that they've seen no practical application of quantum theory since the atomic bomb and nuclear power...

WHAAA?!?....I'm no expert, but even I know that's downright nutty. How about transistors, lasers, etc.? Pretty hard to engineer modern solid state gizmos and lasers without an understanding of quantum mechanics. Chemists have to know the subject, too. Many modern medical breakthroughs depended on an understanding of QM.

[ahayes]

"Once you've developed your Earth-shatteringly brilliant scientific idea," Dr. Pickleston responded, "step one is to patent the idea, to prevent others from stealing it. Step two is to call a press conference, to tout the revolutionary nature of the idea and its virtually-unimaginable range of commercial applications. Step three is to found a company around the idea, to which you should attract as many high-profile investors as possible. Only after you've completed these preliminary steps should you even consider submitting the idea to a journal for peer review."

Bravo!

[ahayes]

You mean you read the paragraph two before that one and you still thought it was serious? :-D

[Diogenesis]

This is from the year 2000 and is posted by a flake
who purports to have "creditials [sic]" from a "US uninverisity [sic]".

It presence (hiding that it is from a blog from 7 years ago, ie. 2000)
is probably not consistent with the requirement of NEWS expected for FReeRepublic.

[M203M4]

The Black-light conspiracy theorists, bemoaning how their great innovations are being suppressed by "big oil", with Texaco-trained assassins moving in to take out dissenters.

Catalytic shrinking of the hydrogen atom to create "hydrinos" - come on. A second year physics or physical chemistry major has taken enough quantum mechanics, and performed enough experiments, to completely invalidate everything that this fraudulent group claims.

They have no publications in referred journals, offer no products based on this amazing technology they claim to have, no devices, no conference participation, no anything. Zilch. Just promises, conspiracy theories, and some decent lawyers. They present claims but offer no evidence and no answer to the elementary contentions (other than "conspiracy!!").

They are just another set of flat earthers who are claiming that their "new ideas" are being suppressed, while, in reality, they are pushing the same old wrong ideas disproved by the current top dog - in this case, they are simply remnants of the groups philosophically opposed to quantum mechanics (some for theological reasons) at its inception.

Their bedfellows were shamed in the "hidden variables" debacle, with quantum mechanics ripping them a new one (which makes them more aerodynamic, if you are an optimist). Reality is what it is, even if you don't like it because of your preconceptions. Tough ****. If they can SHOW ME THE MONEY, walk the walk, demonstrate their great power, if they can convince me, I will congratulate them, abandon the current theories, and accept theirs. Until then, everything they claim is 100% bullshit. Conspiracy nuttery is no substitute.

[LibWhacker]

Zee problem is, Mill and his followers are quite serious!

[spintreebob]

re: "e's found the Holy Grail of physics: a unified theory of everything."

It's called "GOD".

He is right in that too many (alleged) scientists postulate a theory that (based on certain presuppositions) works up to a point. Then it doesn't work. So these "scientists" then pesume a "missling link" or a "worm hole" or some other "virtual" explanation that is not an explanation.

This is a great spoof to prove the arrogant conceit of the (alleged) scientific community. The more we know, the more we realize that we don't know. The true scientist is humbled and admits that he is clueless to explain the ultimate.

The fraud escalates an ever increasingly complex Rube-Goldberg explanation as to why man is so important and his impact so significant on the universe.

[randog]

The Black-light conspiracy theorists...

You mean there are more than just this "Dr. Mills" that actually believe this crap?!

[js1138]

Hats off to Mr. Doofus.

[true_blue_texican]

Texaco-trained assassins moving in to take out dissenters...

Hell, I can't even get one of 'em to fill up my car!

[12th_Monkey]

everyone knows hydrio's power Farrakhan's "mother wheel" in the sky...Geeze

[12th_Monkey]

everyone knows hydrio's power Farrakhan's "mother wheel" in the sky...Geeze

[delacoert]

They have no publications in referred journals, offer no products based on this amazing technology they claim to have, no devices, no conference participation, no anything. Zilch. Just promises, conspiracy theories, and some decent lawyers. They present claims but offer no evidence and no answer to the elementary contentions (other than "conspiracy!!").

The sickening truth is that this science fiction has survived pretty well for more than a decade. The company behind this stuff is doing VERY WELL financially speaking (see this recent article). And the "techno-babble" HAS been published in some quasi-respectible peer reviewed journals.

The good news is that the initial patent that was granted to this nonsense <rolleyes)> has apparently been rescinded (see Blacklight Power: Some Ideas Are Simply Too Dumb to Die! and Patent Nonsense: Court Denies Blacklight Power Appeal.

[M203M4]

They have publications, but no peer reviewed publications directly addressing hydrino theory.

I can start a semiconductor company and say that I have a way to produce magnetic monopoles. My employees and I can then publish respectable work - work that has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles - in respectable journals. Then I write up a website mixing in my pseudoscience non-peer-reviewed "essays" with the real science to give the impression that my monopole theory is well supported. If I am lucky, I may even be able to sneak in some monopole tidbits into peer-reviewed journals so prestigious that all you have to do is have a pulse and pass over the $1500 publishing fee. Maybe three or four stealth papers, over a decade.

Sad as it looks, these guys are the heavyweights of pseudoscience because they at least, in part, perform real science. And they are at odds with quantum mechanics, a subject rife with avenues for playing semantics games, taking advantage of the history of the subject (ie "interpretations"), and, most importantly, it is a subject that is in many ways counterintuitive to everyday experience.

If they are sincere, I wish them all luck. And if they are correct, while I am wrong, I'll eat humble pie (a lot of it). I'd expect the same from them (if pigs flew).

Sigh. At least they aren't thermodynamics kooks. A few times in the past, after very minor media exposure, I received correspondence from people who had learned "just a little bit" about thermal physics and thought they had invented an infinite energy source. Or designed 100% efficient solar cells that they cooked in their oven at 450. No mention of black helicopters, fluoride poisoning, or tinfoil beanies, but still somewhat entertaining.

[delacoert]

It was a pleasure to read your recent post. I don't want to be presumptuous about your willingness to talk about Mills' CQM (and other things), but I don't know anyone who knows anything about Mills or CQM, and there are a couple things I'm really curious about.

First, what the heck is up with fractional values for the principle quantum number? My curiosity is because of how stupid it appears to suggest a number that has to be an integer (because it denotes a term in series regardless of the form of the wave equation or the boundary conditions) be an integer fraction. I have to admit that I haven't spent much time trying to read Mills' book. Is he just saying that his new solution of his new wave equation has terms containing 1/n? I mean the radial portion of the solution to the time independent Schrödinger equation has 1/n in it, and the principle quantum number, n, is an integer. Is he being that stupid or is there some justifiable logic behind posing a fractional quantum number? (I know I should just slog through his "solution" on my own. The math just isn't that easy to work through and I'm being lazy and asking someone else.)

Second, the NASA engineer, Luke Setzer, that has supported him to the hilt – has he suffered professionally for going so far out on a limb? Is he getting something from Mills for his support?

There's no reason you should know or be willing to answer, but considering what you posted I just thought I'd ask.

[delacoert]

Is he being that stupid or is there some justifiable logic behind posing a fractional quantum number?

I have read enough of Mills' book on CQM to have found the answer to my own questions.

1. As to whether or not he is being stupid, it strikes me that someone clever enough to have raised $50M is anything but stupid.
2. I can definitely state that there is no justifiable reason behind posing a fractional quantum number, i.e., n = 1/integer.

What follows are my observations and an analysis leading to conclusion #2. It won't be easy to follow, but if you've studied quantum mechanics even just a little bit, and if you go and look in Mills' book (following the links I provide), the conclusion in #2 above is inescapable.

On page 24 of the current online version of the Introduction to Mills' book, when discussing the principle quantum, n, for the solution to the Schrödinger equation, Mills states:

Furthermore, it is a mistake to take the position that solutions of the POSTULATED Schrödinger equation which correspond to n = integer prohibit the existence of hydrogen atoms having a binding energy corresponding to n = 1/integer. Specifically, it is wrong to take the position that n = 1/integer values cannot exist according to conventional scientific theories since the Schrödinger equation may be solved for either case with equal validity.

Contrary to Mills' statement, the mathematics intrinsic to the solution of the Schrödinger equation in 3-D spherical coordinates for a hydrogen atom requires that n be an integer. This arises because the separation of variables technique used in arriving at the solution employs a product of independent functions, one of those being a radial function. The solution for the radial function is an infinite series involving Laguerre functions. Mathematically speaking, n is just the number of each term in the series. When terms are numbered, integers are used to number them. That's the way we count. Thus, for strictly mathematical reasons, n has to be an integer.

The number, n, is subsequently interpreted to have a physical meaning. This is an underlying "weakness" of all mathematical models; i.e., mathematical terms are interpreted to have a physical meaning. In fact, Mill's spends quite a bit of time articulating the weaknesses of the QM mathematical model (i.e., the Schrödinger equation). Apparently, Mills has a blind spot here, i.e., the heart of Mills' CQM model for a hydrogen atom (or any one-elctron atom) is a mathematical model with its own underlying weaknesses.

On page 26 of the current online version of the Introduction, when discussing the principle quantum, n, for his CQM solution to the classic wave equation, Mills states:

The nonradiative state of atomic hydrogen, which is historically called the "ground state" forms the basis of the boundary condition of CQM to solve the wave equation. The solutions for electron states having principal energy levels corresponding to integers and corresponding to n = 1 reveal the mechanism of the corresponding transitions.

Here lies the heart of the problem! If he is correct that his theory allows for quantum numbers to be integer fractions, then his mathematical solution should not show otherwise. But guess what? His theory hinges on a MATHEMATICAL solution to the classical wave equation. His solution to this equation employs the separation of variables technique! He has a radial function that has a solution involving an infinite series! The terms in this series are numberedÂ… oops they're integers, not fractions!

Let me explain.

Mills' solution to the classic wave equation is found on pages 41-50 of Chapter 1 - The One Electron Atom On p. 43 he states:

The solutions of the classical wave equation are separable.
ρ(r,θ,φ,t)=ƒ(r)g(θ)h(φ)k(t) (1.9)

On page 42, regarding the radial function, ƒ(r), Mills states:
Then, the solution for the radial electron function, which satisfies the boundary condition is a delta function in spherical coordinates—a spherical shell [2]
ƒ(r)= 1/r²δ(r − r_n )                 (1.3)

where r_n is an allowed radius. This function defines the charge density on a spherical shell of a fixed radius, not yet determined, and Eq. (1.1) becomes the two-dimensional wave equation plus time with separable time and angular functions. Given time harmonic motion with angular velocity, ω_n, and a radial delta function, the relationship between an allowed radius and the electron wavelength is given by

2πr_n= λ_n                          (1.4)

where the integer subscript n here and in Eq. (1.3) is determined during photon absorption as given in the Excited States of the One-Electron Atom (Quantization) section. It is shown in this section that the force balance between the electric fields of the electron and proton plus any resonantly absorbed photons gives the result that r_n = nr₁ wherein n is an integer in an excited state.

Emphasis has been added to the phrases showing the stipulation that n must be an integer. This stipulation is mathematical and inescapable. Mills' own CQM model for one-electron atoms is a MATHEMATICAL MODEL that requires the principle quantum number, n, to be an integer! It can not be a fraction no matter how much that is wished!

The remaining details to Mills' solution can also be found in Chapter 1. It is more than a little interesting to note that on p. 44 Mills inserts a bolded section that is obviously part of an attempt to mislead the reader regarding possible values of n. That statement reads:

The subscript n is used hereafter; however, the quantization condition appears in the Excited States of the One-Electron Atom (Quantization) section. Quantization arises as "allowed" solutions of the wave equation corresponding to a resonance between the electron and a photon.

Following the trail on the mysterious fractional values for the principle quantum number, n, on page 136 in Chapter 2 - Excited States of the One-Electron Atom (Quantization), without any explanation, Mills' states:

Consider the hydrogen atom. The atom and the "trapped photon" caused by a transition to a resonant state other than the n = 1 state have neutral charge. As shown infra., the photon's electric field superposes that of the proton such that the radial electric field has a magnitude proportional to Z / n at the electron where n = 1,2,3,... for excited states and n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, …1/137 for lower energy states given in the Hydrino Theory—BlackLight Process section.

Chasing down the last lead on the possibility of a fractional value for the principle quantum number, n, we again follow Mills' direction and go to Chapter 5 - Hydrino Theory—BlackLight Process. On page 246, Mills states:

The n = 1 state is the "ground" state for "pure" photon transitions (the n = 1 state can absorb a photon and go to an excited electronic state, but it cannot release a photon and go to a lower energy electronic state). However, an electron transition from the ground state to a lower-energy state is possible by a nonradiative energy transfer such as multipole coupling or a resonant collision mechanism. These lower-energy states have fractional quantum numbers, n = 1/integer.

That is it! Just a couple statements out of nowhere to the effect that the principle quantum number, n, can take on the fraction values n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, Â…1/137. These statements are just plain untrue! These statements in no way overcome the requirement that n is an integer arising from the series solution to the radial function.

[delacoert]

I don't know what happened to the html display of Schrödinger in the above post, but it sure came out lame.

The only thing I can think of is I pulled the html coded post in an out of MS Word to spell/grammar check etc. Maybe MS Word scambled some of the html code.

Anyway, sorry about the formating problems.

[timer]

For those whose eyes glaze over in this mathematical analysis, a bit of history : physicists couldn't quite understand why the negatively charged electron didn't just spiral into the positively charged nucleus(unlike charges attract, like charges repel, as in the coulomb force of a fissioning U235 nucleus). Then came the 2 reasons : the electron travels at the c limit at the Bohr Radius(.5 angstrom)and the perimeter of the orbit is one matter wavelength. Thus it's difficult for delacoert and others to get past the Bohr Radius in their thinking. As to "infinity" : n/0=n why? Simple : division is repetitive subtraction. n/0 = n-0-0-0-...until the world wears flat and hell glaciates..-0-0-0-...=n. You see, n/0=n-0=n because infinity is NO THING, just as zero is NO THING. Only pharisees, the pied piper types...infer that infinity is some THING and their(PT Barnum's)suckers suck that nonsense right up....give them a radish and knife and ask that they carve it up into an infinite salad by slicing zero pieces off... Dr Mills is a true genius and his re-examination of the Rydberg Equation is where this all started; like all great scientists of the past, he took a critical look at accepted theory(something we all should do with "givens"). The proof of hydrinos(24 smaller orbits of the electron)is found in the solar spectrum : UV lines right where his theory predicts them(helium was discovered in much the same way). And if shrinking the hydrogen atom(80% of the universe is hydrogen)down to smaller sizes is a natural solar-burning process then the di-hydrino H2 atom explains the "dark matter" conundrum : stellar-burning "pollution", where is the EPA on that one? Dr Mills' hydrino development work has been fought tooth and nail by big oil and futurists. His hydrino compound patent(electric batteries with 500 times the energy density of your lead acid battery)was denied in federal court on these same specious Bohr Radius grounds with big oil behind the curtains of course. Futurists fight it because : if WATER(the hydrogen therein)has 37 times the heat-density of an equal weight of gasoline then : where does the WASTE HEAT go when everyone in the whole world(7 billion people)is cranking out GIGAWATTS of hydrino-heat? If you think global warming is bad now... Bottom line : the movie CHAIN REACTION.