|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
 Posted - 10/07/2005 : 08:00:17 [Permalink]
|
My purpose for the quote is not important and so what if I was trying to offend North Americans.
Well, it would have been pointless if your purpose was solely to offend. But as an American, I think there was a certain amount of truth to the quote. And I'm a firm believer in (a) maintaining a sense of humor about oneself (or one's affiliations) and (b) listening to criticism.
They offend me every day.
It's not clear that I've managed to offend you yet today; if not, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 08:33:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
At any rate, I went to Mills' Technical Paper Archive, and discovered that all but one of the links there is broken. The one working link takes one to another web site, not a technical paper. So, it's a little difficult to "check it out."
Never been to the archives. Lots of other places to check out though, and I've never encountered a broken link.
quote:
These things have been around for years, markie. When is someone going to convert the "excess heat" into useful work (more than could be supplied by the input current)? That's all it would take to demonstrate the feasibility of this method of power generation.
I agree, the stickler is how to actually harness the energy.
quote:
As far as I can tell, the entirety of Mills' press since 1999 was that Village Voice article. Complaints of getting "too much flak" are just whining, and uncharacteristic of a scientist with a good idea, or even a businessman with a good idea.
Why do you always belittle the guy? "Whining"? He's too busy doing actual work to whine. It is closer to the truth that *I'm* whining about *your* whining. But Mills, he ain't whining.
quote:
And it appears that having a board of directors isn't limited to publicly-traded companies, 'cause the only SEC filings I could find for Blacklight Power had to do with the company itself trading securities. I can find no annual reports or anything else which a company that is making progress on its core mission would publish with zeal. None of this makes sense.
It does appear somewhat secretive, I agree.
quote:
Given his claims, he should be filing two or more patents every year as the methods are refined and improved. It just doesn't make sense.
Maybe there just hasn't been significant deviation from the main method to warrant such, I don't know.
quote:
No, that's yet another paper in which there's "excess heat" found, from which the detection of hydrinos is inferred. That's it. Power generation would depend on the excess heat being harnessed to do work. Energy and power are not the same thing (another point Mills' critics have made).
Yeah that is the big hurdle, actually putting energy to work. At the very least, I expect a BLP water heater installed within 30 years. :)
quote:
Mr Mallove has been promising fusion 'real soon now' for 15 years with no shipping product to show. There may be something at work, however most people are getting rather bored. His arguments are contradictory. On the one hand he says it is suppressed, on the other hand he is always claiming long lists of 'replications.' So which is it? Suppressed or validated? The answer seems to depend on what point he wants to make, on that particular day.
Of course, both can be true. For instance, the recent nobel laureates had *some* validation of their their theories about the bacterial cause of ulcers, but skeptics 'suppressed' the *credibility* which might be afforded such evidence by *emphasising* the more blatant problems with the theory, such as how could bacteria survive in such an acidic environment, and the lack of success in culturing the bacteria in petrie dishes. And besides, scientists had done so many studies on ulcers, and to not have come across this sooner would be nearly inconceivable!
quote:
In the end, Mr Mallove seems to be on some kind of personal pseudo religious quest, which is fine, so long as everyone else keeps this in mind, and takes everything he says and does with a large pinch of salt.
- The Later Day Quaker Preacher Eugene Mallove[/bq]Also note that this "wonderful human being" seems to have reneged on the Merriman-Mallove Pact.
And here I assumed he was Jewish, based on some videos at his memorial site! Maybe he was both, if that was possible. Anyways, the Mallove Pact would certainly serve as a humbling reminder that optimism should be well tempered by pragmatism.
quote:
Oh, so you've read Park's book, and are sure that Mallove spoke the truth in that review?
Hey, Mallove *quoted* from the book, which clearly said that Mills had no evidence for his claims. Parks, in his zeal to defend orthodoxy, was simply lying.
quote:
When it comes to math, if you don't play by the rules, you can "prove" anything you want.
Hehe, number theory is (or was)my hobby. Mills is not breaking the rules of mathematics but is applying classical equations in a new way, logically.
quote:
I also ran across someone complaining that Mills' "solution" of the free electron actually had a value inserted for the electron's orbital radius, which makes no sense whatsoever if it's a free electon.
Yeah, and our earth is 'free' to orbit anywhere? As I recall, the orbital radius is 'inserted' for the ground state, and the radius of various excited states are predicted (successfully) from that.
quote:
Prove it, markie. If you're sure that his solutions are better, you should be able to share them with us, along with Mills' rationale for working the math as he does.
The entire book which includes his derivations and correct predictions are available for free download if you want to check it out yourself. Some of the reviews of the book offer good summaries of what the book accomplishes in this regard.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 08:37:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
markie has stated on these forums that he believes anything that hasn't been directly disproven, by mutually exclusive evidence to the contrary, should be considered true until such evidence is forthcoming.
Possibly true Dude, possibly true. Even skeptics admit to keeping the door slightly ajar. I merely keep my doors more widely open.
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 08:55:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course if solid verification of Mills' stuff turns up in the future, we'll all likely change our minds quite rapidly. You, markie, seem to be under the impression that once a skeptic's mind is made up, that's the end of the story, but that's simply bull. "All conclusions are tentative" is another basic skeptical guideline.
Well of *course* skeptics change their mind, usually after a critical mass of consensus opinion is reached. They certainly lag behind the innovators, representing the inetia of ideas deemed acceptable from the past. Not an entirely bad thing I may add, as we need some stability and continuity.
About 'all conclusions are tentative', well from what I observe so many skeptics *act* like they are not tentative at all. But I suppose it is all a matter of degree.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 09:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. False dichotomy. Another possibility is actually the most likely: that the only conman is Mills, and he keeps the scientists blind to the mistakes they're making by blowing smoke up their asses about how fantastic all those forthcoming Nobel Prizes are going to be, and also by actively ignoring criticism.
Scientists are human, after all. They're not immune to flattery and self-deceit in the face of something they want to be true.
Alternatively, for all we know Dr. Mills might be drugging all the PhDs (he has a degree in medicine), and has them doing little more than sweeping the floors in that complex. If such a complex *really* exists.
quote:
Or, it could very well be that the only conman is Mills, and his claims of having 25 scientists on staff are simply lies. It certainly wouldn't take much of a cover-up to conceal that. There wouldn't be any real people involved.
Yes, board of dicectors included. How clever of Mills. He would then be the ultimate rumour Mill.
Mark |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 11:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Never been to the archives. Lots of other places to check out though, and I've never encountered a broken link.
Well, I just checked again, and the links on the Technical Paper Archive still come back "page not found." Why don't you suggest another place I should check?quote:
I agree, the stickler is how to actually harness the energy.
If all they can do is get heat, there are plenty of heat-to-power converters around. Everything from steam engines to IR photoelectric cells. They should have picked one, ages ago, and put the system to the test.quote:
Why do you always belittle the guy? "Whining"? He's too busy doing actual work to whine. It is closer to the truth that *I'm* whining about *your* whining. But Mills, he ain't whining.
Complaining about getting "flak" when he should expect to be greatly criticized is, indeed, whining.quote:
It does appear somewhat secretive, I agree.
And patents exist in part so that this sort of research doesn't need to be secretive. In fact, patents force it to be public.quote:
Maybe there just hasn't been significant deviation from the main method to warrant such, I don't know.
After nearly six years?!?quote:
Yeah that is the big hurdle, actually putting energy to work.
No, it isn't. It's been done for hundreds - if not thousands - of years.quote:
At the very least, I expect a BLP water heater installed within 30 years. :)
Don't hold your breath.quote:
Of course, both can be true. For instance, the recent nobel laureates had *some* validation of their their theories about the bacterial cause of ulcers, but skeptics 'suppressed' the *credibility* which might be afforded such evidence by *emphasising* the more blatant problems with the theory, such as how could bacteria survive in such an acidic environment, and the lack of success in culturing the bacteria in petrie dishes. And besides, scientists had done so many studies on ulcers, and to not have come across this sooner would be nearly inconceivable!
As I said, if you're going to use the word "suppression" in such a manner, then scientists "suppress" each other every damn day. "Suppression" is not a synonym for "criticism," though. I know that. Dr. Mallove knew that. Only you don't seem to know that. The above is nothing more than apologetics.
(But note that Warren and Marshall never hesitated to talk to the press about their findings, however much "flak" they were getting. They also never tried to get people to invest in yet-to-be-created antibiotics prior to publishing the evidence which was, finally, too much for any sane scientist to reject.)quote:
Hey, Mallove *quoted* from the book, which clearly said that Mills had no evidence for his claims. Parks, in his zeal to defend orthodoxy, was simply lying.
Actually, Mallove quoted only three words of Park's with regard to Mills: "any experimental evidence." Mallove claims that Park 'says that Mills did not offer "any experimental evidence" for his claims of excess energy caused by catalytic hydrino formation,' but did he really? It's been so long since I've read Park's book, I don't remember.quote:
Hehe, number theory is (or was)my hobby. Mills is not breaking the rules of mathematics but is applying classical equations in a new way, logically.
How is it "logical" to throw out the rules which relate to the meaning of an equation?quote:
Yeah, and our earth is 'free' to orbit anywhere? As I recall, the orbital radius is 'inserted' for the ground state, and the radius of various excited states are predicted (successfully) from that.
"Ground state" does not equal "free electron." The Earth is not a "free" planet.quote:
The entire book which includes his derivations and correct predictions are available for free download if you want to check it out yourself. Some of the reviews of the book offer good summaries of what the book accomplishes in this regard.
And just why should I invest my time and effort to defend your statements of fact? You should either do it yourself, or just say you won't. Don't lay the work at my feet and expect me to validate it for you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 11:11:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by me
And many where no "excess heat" is discovered. What of them? Are all of Mills' critics incompetent?
And markie answered:quote:
[nothing at all]
What's the problem, markie? You're willing to answer a few facetious sentences about fake scientists, but you're not willing to answer the important questions? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 15:46:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot
And what truth would that be?
That people outside USA percieves USA like that. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 21:32:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Never been to the archives. Lots of other places to check out though, and I've never encountered a broken link.
Well, I just checked again, and the links on the Technical Paper Archive still come back "page not found." Why don't you suggest another place I should check?
Well I finally found out how to get to the tech archives (pre 1997), through the 'site map' link. You're right the links are broken for some reason. If you want links that work (for technical papers since 1997) go to http://www.blacklightpower.com/techpapers.shtml
quote:
After nearly six years?!?
From what I've seen, it appears that they are trying to create useable power from a *very* low density, high temperature gas-plasma cell. If I find out any specifics on what they are doing to accomplish that, I'll let you know. It seems problematic to me, and I have yet to read any specifics about this at the site. I find that part quite secretive.
quote:
How is it "logical" to throw out the rules which relate to the meaning of an equation?
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but the real meaning of the mathematical descriptors of physical reality have often proved controversial. Even the simple e=mc^2 means different things to different people. And quantum theorists come away with no less than 8 different world view interpreations of the same quantum equations. (I read Nick Herbert's Quantum Reality about 10 years ago, which gives an excellent account of this.) And not even talking about physics, and only mathematics, I could ask what x^2 + y^2 = c^2 means. It could refer to the lengths of the sides of a right angled triangle, or it could refer to the equation of a circle.
I checked out the 'math' from the first (downloaded) chapter of the Mill's book, and I have to say it is well over my head to make sense of it. I have to take the word of Mills himself and some reviewers of the book, who claim that therein Mills successfully predicts some things about the atomic components which ordinary quantum mechanics does not. For instance, extracted from a review of Mill's book:
quote:
Thus, as Dr. Mills shows, classical physics leads to a simple force balance, which reduces to a cubic equation. This equation yields a single real solution for the radius. This radius is then used in the most elementary mechanics equations to yield the energy of each of the excited states. All excited states energies (more than 100), are readily predicted using as input to the final closed form equations only the “quantum numbers” of the states in question. For over 100 measured excited states of atomic helium the r2 value is 0.999994, and the typical relative difference (measured-predicted/measured) is about 5 significant figures, which is within the error of the experimental data. There are no “fudge factors” such as “zero point energy” in the equations, and the values for the constants are all taken from the NIST web pages. Moreover, the known scattering behavior of helium is in precise agreement with a sphere of the radius predicted by CQM.
Here's another quote from a reviewer of the book, which seems to me to be too good to be true, but I don't know: quote:
After solving for the energy, the angular velocity and the radius of the electron (great circles), Mills derives the correct value for the angular momentum of the electron, h/2?. This is astonishing because theoreticians gave up on associating any systematic motion of the electron with its known angular momentum decades ago—hence, the term intrinsic spin angular momentum. Amazingly, Mills goes on to derive, using the same motion of the electron— but now considering its charge, the correct magnetic field and value of the magnetic moment of the electron. The chances of deriving the correct values for both the angular momentum and the magnetic moment of the electron without the correct motion of the electron is, quite frankly, zero. Mills must have the correct motion of the electron in the hydrogen atom. Armed with this knowledge, he then derives the values of all of the known physical parameters of the hydrogen atom.
The fun does not stop there. Mills goes on to derive hundreds of physical parameters, such as the masses of leptons, quarks, and gluons.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 21:42:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by me
And many where no "excess heat" is discovered. What of them? Are all of Mills' critics incompetent?
And markie answered:quote:
[nothing at all]
What's the problem, markie? You're willing to answer a few facetious sentences about fake scientists, but you're not willing to answer the important questions?
I'm not one for avoiding important questions. I just don't know why some labs are not able to reproduce Mill's results, and others are. The BLT website as far as I can see is not forthcoming about this, and why different results are obtained. Perhaps the 'successful' labs are using equipment Mills sent them, and the unsuccessful ones not. I wish this kind of thing was more clear.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 23:50:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well I finally found out how to get to the tech archives (pre 1997), through the 'site map' link.
Well, you could have gotten there through the link I provided with just one click.quote:
You're right the links are broken for some reason. If you want links that work (for technical papers since 1997) go to http://www.blacklightpower.com/techpapers.shtml
And many of those just point to abstracts, and I don't have the cash to pay for the full papers.
But, the first link to an experimental report repeats "Thus, in the present approach, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that a bound n = 1-state electron cannot radiate energy" many times. But if I'm reading it correctly, Mills is saying that his CQM theory is based upon the assumption that hydrinos cannot exist. Is that not the utmost self-contradiction?
Oh... that's right: Mills' theory says that hydrinos are the result of a non-radiative release of energy. It's a classical theory in which electrons are modeled as little billiard balls which happen to strike each other at just the right angles to suck away integer divisors of each others' kinetic energies. Duh.
Just how the heck does Mills account for E=mc2? He seems to give Einstein high marks for being a classical guy, staying away from that "spooky action at a distance," but the equation says that mass and energy are the same thing, so no particle is actually a little billiard ball.
The more I read of Mills' work, the less sense it makes. And yet, he claims it makes more sense than QED, which I actually have a tiny handle on.quote:
From what I've seen, it appears that they are trying to create useable power from a *very* low density, high temperature gas-plasma cell. If I find out any specifics on what they are doing to accomplish that, I'll let you know. It seems problematic to me, and I have yet to read any specifics about this at the site. I find that part quite secretive.
Which, again, doesn't make sense. Unless his major backer is the government, and it's all classified (in which case he's said too much, and should be tried for treason).
quote:
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but the real meaning of the mathematical descriptors of physical reality have often proved controversial. Even the simple e=mc^2 means different things to different people. And quantum theorists come away with no less than 8 different world view interpreations of the same quantum equations. (I read Nick Herbert's Quantum Reality about 10 years ago, which gives an excellent account of this.) And not even talking about physics, and only mathematics, I could ask what x^2 + y^2 = c^2 means. It could refer to the lengths of the sides of a right angled triangle, or it could refer to the equation of a circle.
That's precisely my point, markie. Because mathematics is a definitional process, the context of an equation is of the utmost importance. Mills appears to be taking equations from the context in which they were created, and applying them in a completely different context, which is invalid on general principles.
This is the same old story in crank science. Creationists would have us believe that the word "entropy" means the exact same thing no matter whether you're discussing thermodynamics, information or population genetics, but the simple fact of the matter is that "entropy" means vastly different things in each of those fields. Mills, to use your example, is taking the Pythagorian Theorem and telling us that all right triangles are circles, and vice versa.quote:
I checked out the 'math' from the first (downloaded) chapter of the Mill's book, and I have to say it is well over my head to make sense of it. I have to take the word of Mills himself and some reviewers of the book, who claim that therein Mills successfully predicts some things about the atomic components which ordinary quantum mechanics does not.
And why do you reject the reviewers of Mills' book who do not agree? The above sentences demonstrate your bias very well. You'd much rather have faith in Mills than wait for him to do what needs to be done to convince the rest of the scientific community.quote:
Here's another quote from a reviewer of the book, which seems to me to be too good to be true, but I don't know:
You don't know, but you want to think he's right.
Guess what, markie: I want Mills to be correct, also. A hydrogen economy could actually work if we could get 60+ times the power we get from burning it. Electricity would be super-cheap and plentiful, and the damned oil companies (I drive more than 80 miles a day) would declare bankruptcy overnight. It's a wonderful vision, but that's precisely why Mills needs to prove his ideas to me before I'll allow myself to get sucked in. There's anticipation, and then there's gullibility. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 00:11:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I'm not one for avoiding important questions. I just don't know why some labs are not able to reproduce Mill's results, and others are. The BLT website as far as I can see is not forthcoming about this, and why different results are obtained. Perhaps the 'successful' labs are using equipment Mills sent them, and the unsuccessful ones not. I wish this kind of thing was more clear.
The classical (hahaha!) explanation for this sort of thing is that the people getting results aren't measuring what they think they're measuring, and instead are "measuring" their own desire for results more than they're measuring reality.
This would explain why Mills' numbers are very high, people who are only somewhat skeptical of his claims get lower (but still positive) numbers, and the most-critical folks (who quadruple-check everything) get nothing at all. This pattern holds true not only for Mills, but also for homeopathy, ghost hunters and magnet therapists. That this happens regularly has been established by decades of history. It has never been the basis for a scientific paradigm shift.
And the only good reason why using equipment Mills supplies works, (while using other equipment doesn't work) is that Mills doesn't describe his equipment properly in his reports. But that would just increase his level of incompetence, in my mind, and also call into question the honesty of those 25 scientists on his staff (none of whom seem willing to say, "wait, that's not what we did!"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 08:05:24 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, and our earth is 'free' to orbit anywhere? As I recall, the orbital radius is 'inserted' for the ground state, and the radius of various excited states are predicted (successfully) from that.
The Earth is "free" to orbit anywhere if you add or subtract energy to its orbit - but please don't do that! :-) The electron of an isolated hydrogen atom is not free to orbit anywhere because the energy states of the hyrdrogen atom are quantized - they can take on only certain discrete values.
If you want to say that's all wrong, and that the ground state isn't the ground state, all you have to do is disprove about a century of highly successful science, with an enormous range of "real-world" applications to its credit.
Understand, markie, I freely acknowledge that I really haven't looked at Mills' work. My opinion is based on what I know of physics, and what I know of several very similar "revolutionary" claims which are at odds with established physics. It has all the hallmarks of "pathological science", and I predict that the claimed experimental validation - like that for cold fusion and the hafnium isomer super-power source, not to mention a host of "free-energy" machines - will turn out to not really amount to anything.
I don't speak for the others - mine is purely a judgment call, based partly on education and partly on experience. Such skepticism isn't reflexive naysaying; it's applying judgment to avoid running down a blind alley. Sneer at me for lagging behind or whatnot, but in n years, will you change your mind if there's no real-world progress? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 15:38:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
From what I've seen, it appears that they are trying to create useable power from a *very* low density, high temperature gas-plasma cell.
This I find very curious. I haven't read anything from that site, merely what has been posted here. As I understand it, Mills have found an electron orbit closer to the hydrogen core (lower energy-level) than what is currently accepted as the lowest orbit.
If there is such a state, then why haven't we seen it in nature? The electron would enter that state at any given chance, as a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.
And while we are at it, for an electron to jump from an orbital state to a lower one would require the electron to have low enough energy to keep an orbit in the first place. So why keep hydrogen as a high temperature gas-plasma?
I trust you know what protons and electrons do while in plasma state?
(edit: spelling) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/08/2005 15:39:39 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 16:04:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How is it "logical" to throw out the rules which relate to the meaning of an equation?
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but the real meaning of the mathematical descriptors of physical reality have often proved controversial. Even the simple e=mc^2 means different things to different people. And quantum theorists come away with no less than 8 different world view interpreations of the same quantum equations. (I read Nick Herbert's Quantum Reality about 10 years ago, which gives an excellent account of this.) And not even talking about physics, and only mathematics, I could ask what x^2 + y^2 = c^2 means. It could refer to the lengths of the sides of a right angled triangle, or it could refer to the equation of a circle.
When you are playing pool, you play by the rules identified by Newton. Using Newtonian physics, calculations are accurate. If the mass or the speed of the pool balls gets near to relativistic, then simple Newtonian calculations aren't accurate anymore, and you have to use Einsteins relativistic calculations.
With Newtonian laws, you can go as fast as you like, in reality you don't.
It's no different with subatomic particles: when you get small enough, ordinary physics does not apply. But quantum mechanics does apply. It has been validated again and again, and is probably (pun intended) one of the most validated theories in physics.
The wavelength of the electron decides its orbital radius by means of avoiding interference with itself (the electron needs to be in phase with its previous trace as is completes an orbit) This makes the number of orbitals limited.
There are different interpretations of what quantum mechanics in general mean, but that's a completely different thing from what QT predicts about the behaviour of electrons. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
