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.
Posted on 04/25/2006 12:30:43 PM PDT by delacoert
Hydrino Theory, Which Overturns Quantum Theory, Is In Turn Overturned By Doofusino Theory
by Scott Aaronson
|
On December 28, 1999, The Village Voice, long respected for its hard-hitting journalism and unimpeachable scientific integrity, ran a cover article entitled "QUANTUM LEAP" by Erik Baard. The article relates the epochal breakthroughs of Dr. Randell Mills of Princeton, NJ, a "Harvard-trained medical doctor who ... says he's found the Holy Grail of physics: a unified theory of everything." The article continues: Mills says that with this new understanding he's produced clean and limitless energy and an entirely new class of materials and plasma that will reshape every industry in the coming decade. Mills also claims breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, cosmology, medicine, and perhaps even a form of gravitational jujitsu. "I've made the electron real," the 42-year-old Mills says. "It's a revolution very fitting to the 21st century, in a chain of revolutions man has had with fire, steel, fossil fuels, and Maxwell's description of electromagnetism" ... [Mills'] company, BlackLight Power Inc., formed in 1991, expects to receive in January patents on the energy and chemicals, which Mills says derive from the "shrinking" of the hydrogen atom's orbitsphere. BlackLight Power, with a research staff of 25, will submit its findings to premier scholarly journals by that time, he adds. The key to Mills' groundbreaking theory is the hydrino, or miniature hydrogen atom with the electron pushed closer than usual to the nucleus. Converting an ordinary hydrogen atom into a hydrino releases ultraviolet light, a process that "can build pressure to turn a turbine for a generator or an engine, BlackLight Power notes in a marketing plan." Hydrinos can also react with other elements to form a cornucopia of amazing compounds, leading to "conductive, magnetic plastics that would revolutionize circuitry and aerospace engineering ... batteries the size of a briefcase to drive your car 1000 miles at highway speeds on a single charge, without gasoline ... incredibly powerful explosives or rocket propellants," and -- remember, this is science, not science fiction -- "super-strong coatings, some of which could make ships rustproof, dramatically reducing crew complements." According to the prevailing orthodox establishment dogma of quantum mechanics, hydrinos can't exist, since a free-floating hydrogen atom is in a "ground state," with the electron as close as it can get to the nucleus. (In The Village Voice's apt analogy, "[t]elling physicists that they've got that wrong is like telling mothers across America that they've misunderstood apple pie.") But, as Dr. Mills has excitingly revealed, quantum mechanics is false. According to The Village Voice, BlackLight Power boosters scoff that they've seen no practical application of quantum theory since the atomic bomb and nuclear power [how true!], and say they have little time for theorists who call Mills a charlatan while teaching that the fundamental laws of cause and effect are subverted at the subatomic level. Mills's camp responds: Fraud? Let's talk about fraud. Quantumists have us living in myriad dimensions filled with "probability waves" and unobservable "virtual particles" that flit in and out of existence, and they say we may one day slip through wormholes in space to visit other universes or go back in time. In response to criticism from theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, Mills says: "I'll have demonstrated an entirely new form of energy production by the end of 2000. If Dr. Kaku has escaped our universe through a wormhole by then, I'll send my first $1000 in profits to his new address." 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. But we must ask: now that hydrino theory has been incontrovertibly proven, what comes next? My purpose here is to announce that hydrino theory, as revolutionary as it was only a few months ago, must itself be superseded by the even more paradigm-smashing doofusino theory. The recipe for creating a doofusino is simple. First pour two cups of chilled hydrinos into a greased pan, then add 3-4 tablespoons of polywater, a teaspoonful of magnetic monopoles, and a pinch of tachyons, dilute homeopathically until nothing remains, and finally stir thoroughly while chanting "Kumbaya" and wishing very hard. Assuming that it's an alternate Tuesday with Sagittarius rising and that you've been a good boy or girl this year, a doofusino will materialize and crawl out of the pan; you can recognize it by its fishy smell and its characteristic "duh-duh-duh" sound. Doofusinos can react with many other elements, such as helium and californium, to produce a host of marketable products -- including even-cheesier macaroni, condoms only a single atom thick, and a spray to rust enemy ships, even if those ships are rust-proofed with hydrino compounds. After I'd conceived of the doofusino, I wrote to Dr. Hubert K. Pickleston, a senior scientist at one of the nation's top research labs, to ask what I should do next. "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." After reading Dr. Pickleston's letter, I knew that the test of doofusino theory would be in the marketplace, not the laboratory. "Applied scientists," The Village Voice notes, "have a rigorous standard in their work that is sometimes referred to as the Kmart Test. In other words, can the research at hand lead to an off-the-shelf product?" Doofusino theory, I am pleased to report, passes not only the Kmart Test, but also the "Blockbuster Test" (a major motion picture could conceivably be made about doofusinos), the "Psychic Friends Test" (phone psychics could claim to derive their powers from doof energy), and the "Britney Spears Test" (Britney Spears could sing a song entitled "Doof Me Baby One More Time"). On the other hand, what makes hydrino theory so impressive is not only its commercial applications, but also the number of deep scientific enigmas that it resolves. For example, besides leading to a Grand Unified Theory of particle physics, hydrino theory has disproved the Big Bang: "Mills argues that the universe is forever oscillating between matter and energy over thousand-billion-year cycles, expanding and contracting between finite set points. In fact, he says, the universe doesn't get much smaller than it is now." Doofusino theory augments this bold vision by postulating that the universe is forever oscillating between crunchy and creamy states, although it always remains peanut-buttery delicious. But Mills' insights aren't limited to overthrowing our conceptions of the origin of the universe. Indeed, building computers with consciousness is a dream no longer: Mills has stacks of proprietary research on artificial intelligence. In what he calls Brain Child Systems, Mills has done the math for a reasoning machine with consciousness. To advance the project, Mills may soon enter into a collaboration with the Institute for Simulation and Training at the University of Central Florida, which does the bulk of its work for the military. But Mills wasn't thinking of the military when he began his work in artificial intelligence. Mills has a lifelong dream of making spaceships to travel at near light speed, and he says that only a mind with the switching rates of a computer could pilot them. A human brain, which Mills disdains as "wet processing," would fly into a rock before its owner could blink. Designing computers that can pilot spaceships around rocks at near-light speed has, indeed, been a central goal of artificial intelligence since the field's inception in the 1950's. But once again, the achievements of doofusino theory trump those of hydrino theory. I've done the math (mainly multiplication and subtraction) for a reasoning rock with consciousness -- a rock clever enough to crash itself, kamikaze-style, into an artificially-intelligent near-light-speed spaceship before the spaceship's robo-owner could print "BLINK" to the console. That one man -- Randell Mills -- has initiated scientific revolutions in at least four separate fields is not surprising. According to Dr. Pickleston, "After you've found an unlimited source of free energy, working out a Grand Unified Theory of physics only takes fifteen minutes. Likewise, after you've solved the mysteries of consciousness, intuiting the origin of the universe is mere child's play. You see, once you've solved any one of the great problems of modern science, you've pretty much solved them all." From this perspective, however, Mills' credibility is weakened by the number of scientific Holy Grails he doesn't claim to have captured. Hydrino theory evidently has little to say, for example, about the origin of life, the 'P versus NP' problem of computer science, or the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Doofusino theory, on the other hand, can solve all of these problems and more, as will be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction before the end of 2000. But can doofusino theory achieve all this on a budget? After all, one of the chief advantages of hydrino theory is its lack of reliance on modern equipment. Shelby T. Brewer, a "former Assistant Secretary of Energy [and] top nuclear official in the Reagan Administration," praised Mills' self-published 1995 tome, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, in these words: We now have an expensive standing army in American science, marching in place, with little creative, definable mission. Most of what passes for science is merely chauvinism -- who has the largest accelerator, etc. Now along comes Randell Mills. Without expending billions or even millions or even hundreds of thousands of US taxpayers' dollars, Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein's quest for a unified field theory ... Remarkably, Dr. Mills has developed his theory and its energy generation application as an entrepreneur -- without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood. Because his enterprise does not suffer these two impediments, it just might succeed. If so, Mills will be the next Thomas Edison. That US taxpayer dollars have not been spent on Mills' theory is a powerful argument for its validity. Yet much stronger still is the case for doofusino theory, on which no dollars have been spent, taxpayer or otherwise. In addition, doofusino theory lacks not only the benediction of the scientific priesthood, but even its very awareness. In light of these facts, I submit that if Mills will be the next Thomas Edison, then I will be the next Randell Mills. To those who laugh at doofusino theory, to those who dismiss it as silly, I would like to remind you about an obscure clerk working at the Swiss patent office in 1905, whose ideas were also dismissed as silly. That clerk's name was Earl Johnson, and he worked across the hall from Albert Einstein. "Hey Earl," Albert would yell, "any new progress on your theory that sausages control the weather?" In conclusion, because the new doofusino theory has rendered hydrino theory obsolete, I find myself agreeing with a gushing reviewer of Mills' book on Amazon.com: "The significance of this scientific landmark cannot be understated." |
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.)
You know what they say about something if it's too good to be true.
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.
Bravo!
You mean you read the paragraph two before that one and you still thought it was serious? :-D
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.
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.
Zee problem is, Mill and his followers are quite serious!
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.
You mean there are more than just this "Dr. Mills" that actually believe this crap?!
Hats off to Mr. Doofus.
everyone knows hydrio's power Farrakhan's "mother wheel" in the sky...Geeze
everyone knows hydrio's power Farrakhan's "mother wheel" in the sky...Geeze
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.
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.
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.
I have read enough of Mills' book on CQM to have found the answer to my own questions.
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:
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.
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:
where rn 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, ωn, and a radial delta function, the relationship between an allowed radius and the electron wavelength is given by
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 rn = nr1 wherein n is an integer in an excited state.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.