Posted on 04/25/2006 12:30:43 PM PDT by delacoert
In a graduate level treatment, with enough mathematics under the belt, one studies quantum mechanics not only independently of these early results, but also using a non-Hamiltonian approach. Quantum field theories (some via a Lagrangian formulation) can be derived independent of theoretical descriptions obtained during the historical development of quantum mechanics. We need not assume anything that Mills mistakenly thinks we need to assume.
Bettering an already obsolete incarnation of quantum mechanics while falling far short of current state-of-the-art descriptions is not a significant scientific achievement. It is an activity undertaken by all sorts, like Stephen Wolfram, who, like Mills, is brilliant, but went astray when his paranoid messiah complex took over (what is it with people developing "groundbreaking" theories that violate locality? They go for Einstein and QM in one go - is it the idea that if you can cannibalize the strongest warrior, you will gain his strength?).
P). In other words, time is delta kinetic energy is mass is (W
P). Can you think of a time event that is NOT a kinetic energy event? "time" is the temporary imbalance in the wave-particle principle of complementarity(another "dusty/musty" idea from a century ago)(t=dKE=m=(Ws not=to Pv); a quantum movie of discrete frames, and the black/blank bars between frames are not-time = Potential Energy = Momentum = (Ws=Pv). But this all is probably too primitive for you and yours, yes?
That's really not what's going on -- both in general and specifically in my case.
Having been provoked by an accusation directed at me similar to the big oil conpiracy accusation you cited above, I looked more closely at the details of Mills' hydrino theory in which he claimed that states of the hydrogen atom below the ground state exist. When reading Randy Mills' book on Classical Quantum Mechanics, I found that a central postulate deals with the principle quantum number being less than one, i.e., integer fractions 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,... 1/137.
In particular, as I pointed out in a previous post, when discussing the principle quantum, n, for the solution to the Schrödinger equation, Mills states:
In the face of such a statement, I found that I had to contemplate what I thought I knew about the mathematics intrinsic to the solution of the Schrödinger equation in 3-D spherical coordinates for a hydrogen atom. I decided I knew that the solution arises out of the separation of variables technique. This technique poses a solution in a form containing the product of several independent functions, one of those being a function solely in terms of the independent variable for radial postion. The solution for this 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 the simplest of reasons, n has to be an integer. The number, n, is subsequently interpreted to have a physical meaning, and is named the principle quantum number. This is an underlying "weakness" of all mathematical models; i.e., purely mathematical terms have to be interpreted to have a physical meaning.
When I examined the details of Mills' work, I found that just like the QM theory solution to the Schrödinger equation: 1) Mills' CQM theory solution to the classical wave equation is based on the mathematical technique known as separation of variables, 2) one of those functions depends solely of the independent variable for radial location and 3) the solution for this radial function is an infinite series forcing, n, the number of each term in the series, to be an integral.
This means that Mill's MATHEMATICAL MODEL for one-electron atoms suffers the same sort of underlying weaknesses of all mathematical models; i.e., purely mathematical terms (n in this case) have to be interpreted to have a physical meaning (interpretted to be the principle quantum number in this case). For the simplest of mathemaical reasons, n has to be an integer in Mills' CQM theory solution to the classical wave equation. Thus, it is impossible for Mills' principle quantum number, n, to take on fractional values. Therefore the hydrino states below the ground state are impossible (since they arise for fractional values of n).
the number of each term in the series, to be an integral integer.
I guess by saying that I'm stuck on the Bohr Radius, you are trying to ridicule the conclusion that it's impossible to achieve electron energy levels below the ground state. To me that appears to mean that you haven't grasped the math.
Do you understand separation of variables solutions to PDE's? Do you understand orthogonal functions, fourier series, and eigenvalues? If so, have you really thought about the mathematical meaning of the series index, n, and how that relates to the principle quatum number?
There are two parts to Mills' derivation for quantum states of hydrogen: 1) the part where the principle quantum number has integer values, i.e. n = 1, 2, 3,... 2) the part where the principle quantum number takes on fractional values, i.e. n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,..., 1/137.
The first part (i.e. n = 1, 2, 3,...) matches modern quantum theory. Thus part of what you say is true, Mills' results match the Rydberg states. So what? Mills' variation on the mathematics really isn't that cleaver, and if it didn't even match up with observed spectra we wouldn't be talking about it.
The second part is where the problem is. Fractional values for the principle quantum number are provably incorrect from a mathematical (theoretical) basis, and have never been observed in spectra from the sun or anywhere else.
You don't mention Wolfgang Pauli's Exclusion Principle : In a given atom no 2 electrons can have the same n(principle), l(line), m(magnetic) and s(spin) numbers. You defend the n # as only an interger, what about l(line)? Why couldn't the 24 sub-orbitals below the Bohr Radius be LINES, keeping n = 1? You haven't read Dr Mills' work in enough detail, his theory predicts(within a .5% accuracy)the previously unexplained UV lines in the solar spectrum. In a wider view though, what if he's proven right(with working products on the shelf)and you were fighting him tooth and nail all along, what does that do to your reputation as a learned professor?
You know it's not right to publicly discuss things that are disclosed in private.
That being said, as a matter of course I constantly have to review things... and the most important things that I do are subject to review. So of course I consider the possibility that I am wrong. You misunderstand and/or incorrectly characteize my objection to Mills' CQM theories.
I simply , honestly, and learnedly disagree.
An advocate argues his point of view, a judge(higher pay grade)argues both sides of the case(on the one hand...and yet on the other hand...). You may be right on n being only an interger, but on the other hand there is l, m, s numbers still to be considered in the Pauli Exclusion Principle. LINE, to me, means the first half of newton's first : "an object will continue to moving in a straight LINE...". Momentum balance of matter wavelength = particle velocity is a LINE statement - mv, whereas mass imbalance of matter wavelength not = to particle velocity is an AREA statement - mv^2/2. >In other words, the "hidden" v/2 of momentum-LINE is the equalized matter wavelength. (Things seen come from things UNSEEN). Thus acceleration is Pv greater than Ws(in throwing a baseball)and the Ws has to be increased to match the higher Pv but you don't feel THAT increase in Ws, what YOU feel/sense/touch, as a resistance force, is your hand being decelerated against the baseball which is Ws greater than Pv. Thus over running matter wave FORCE(in newtons)is what you think of as TIME(and gravity). Why gravity? How much do you know about fermions vs bosons and cooper pair electrons in superconductivity? >As to Dr Mills, he can do all the academic studies/papers he wants to, awaiting his Nobel Prize; or he can get his ACT together and get something out there on the shelf...the world SCREAMS for new energy sources, not excuses...
I suspect that the meaning you intend when you make this statement is quite the opposite of my interpretation of your statement -- a double-edged sword so to speak.
I don't disagree in the slightest with this (your) statement. However, I suspect that you mean that Mills doesn't care about the opinion of the scientific community, but rather, he is working feverishly at the development side of R & D.
From my perspective, Mills has made promises, dating back at least as far as 2001, which would tend to indicate that if he were ever going to develop anything useful it would already exist (five years, in retrospective comparison to Mills' "promise" of eminent appearance). Furthermore, the recent episode involving Mills' 99-page response to Rathke's New Journal of Physics article about CQM would tend to indicate that Mills cares (he has to!) about opinion of the scientific community.
If it's too good to be true, it will be incontrovertibly proven by the year 2000.
ROTFLOL
...and no one will notice that it's already 2006!
The hype is to attract funding. I'm not impressed by hype.
Invest in this and you'll wish you had bought coal.
A tree is known by its FRUIT. The founder of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, said : if you find something useful, USE IT; and let the theologians mumble on and on about : Are good and evil equidistant from eternity? Or : What is the meaning of life? Dr Mills has had long enough to prove wheather hydrino energy is real or not. Enough already with theoretical arguments from you, Dr Mills, whoever; if you can't get something USEFUL out there on the new energy shelf, then of what USE is all this discussion? Again, a tree is known by its fruit...
Well put.
Regards,
David
Thanks. Yes, we(the whole world)is between a rock and a hard place as to energy development. China with its 300 MILLION car owners, India with its additional BILLION people, the US with our CxHx-rich life style...it all adds up to the 200 million "kings of the east" invading the middle east to lap up the last dregs of oil, as referred to in the Book of Revelation. Sure, there's a lot of people working on solar, wind, ethanol, nuclear, controlled thermonuclear, coal, nano-this and that...whatnot; but with a million inventors going off in all directions, it's more like CHAOS than any kind of orderly development. >My friend in SLC, Hal Fox, has been waiting for 4 YEARS to get funding from european billionaires(we know there's no hope in the big oil-dominated US)to develop nuc-rad waste remediation with LENR/CF(instead of this yucca mountain nonsense), plus get Ken shoulders' EV concept going. Hal has edited his new energy newsletter and Journal for some 15 years now, I even wrote an article(Bohring Einstein)for it(author Wayne Powell : Journal of New Energy - you can google it). Poor guy, instead of $5M/qtr he's been kicked out of his office for non-payment of rent(he's 82 now)and becoming a spider web-covered skeleton sitting by the phone... >And so it goes, there are about 3000 of us world wide working out there on the frontiers of science(Infinite Energy Magazine has been our center of gravity but editor Eugene Mallove was murdered in may 2004). >So we struggle on, often maligned like Dr Mills, maybe some of our ideas are crazy but hey, all new ideas sound crazy at first; like "sandy's"(pseudonym)sandpaper AG (27 psi of unidirectional thrust). I've met the guy, even gave him a ride in my RV. He was a'building a vehicle in TX as of 2 years ago(mutual contact guy told me). Why haven't you heard about it? Analogy : invading mexicans : give everyone in the world their own magic(AG)flying carpet = 20:1 third world LOCUSTS(7 BILLION)landing on america's lawn...see now why we can't give too much technology to people that are not ready for it? >Energy : damned if you do(too much), damned if you don't(too little). >Examples of my recent ideas that went nowhere : Buoyant Flood Road, Plasma Film-Belt, SATUJT logging helicopter. Hurricane storm surge/river flood/tsunami : 20'x20' buoyant road panels, piano-hinged onto buried concrete wall on landside, dead man anchored on seaside. Along comes your storm surge and they NATURALLY swing up into a vertical seawall. When flood goes away they float back down into a roadway again. Built table top model, took photos in swimming pool, sent to 21 coastal states governors for christmas(incl your own Jeb Bush), only response was from Bob Riley of AL, who sent it on to his FEMA guy, which went nowhere(and you know what the senate just said about FEMA). Plasma film-belt concept : went nowhere. SATUJT helicopter(based on DraganFlyer II RC model-concept)was evaluated, w/my senator Burns' referral-help, by a navy aircraft carrier guy : refused : he couldn't fold it up on his carrier deck...and so it goes....
BlackLight Power boosters scoff that they've seen no practical application of quantum theory since the atomic bomb and nuclear power [how true!]
LOL. Somone's been visiting Mr. Wackyweed. :)
"Since the so-called "evidence" for quantum mechanics rests entirely upon gargantuan wormholes that are postulated to lie in the Earth's vicinity, this is truly an incisive argument."
What?! What world did he take physics in?
ROFL
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.
