|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2005 : 16:23:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sts60
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.
...like cool stuff. LASER for one thing.
And energy levels of electrons in atoms are not calculated from a lowest orbit, they are measured relative from the minimum energy needed to ionize the atom. Not that it matters that much to us laymen. An undisturbed electron will aways eventually drop down to the lowest energy level available, emitting a photon in the process. |
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 - 10/08/2005 : 20:47:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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?
No contradiction; he is merely saying that for the environment of the atomic nucleus, some constraints apply. In contrast to the great number of ad-hoc proclamations of Quantum Mechanics (QM) as it relates to the simple hydrogren atom, Mill's introduces just one contraining assumption: the n=1 state electron cannot radiate energy. From that fact (as well one other, namely his model of the electron as a 2-D disk of distributed charge), combined with pre QM classical physics, he successfully derives the properties of the hydrogen atom and electron spin, etc. This successful matheamtical model also happens to allow for non radiating states below the n=1 level.
quote:
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.
What I've read is that a potassium ion meets a free hydrogren atom, then the hydrogen's (disklike) electron gives off some of its energy to the potassium ion and drops to the n=1/2 state. The potassium ion then releases that energy, and continues the same kind of catalytic process again. Hey that's how chemistry works, things go bump in the night.
quote:
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.
Mills I presume has no problem with the idea that mass is 'congealed' energy, and the form of that congealed energy, in the case of an electron, is apparently a 2D disk of distributed charge. But as we know, such congealed energy is not "the same" as energy quanta travelling at light speed.
quote:
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.
Temporary confusion almost always preceeds a conceptual breakthrough, in my experience anyways :)
quote:
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).
Another idea has come to mind. Since it appears that some outside pressure was brought to bear upon the Patent office to prevent Mill's patenting his concepts, (see http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0017,baard,14377,1.html), he may be opting for secrecy (on behalf of protecting his investors) until he produces such a clearly functioning product that no one could deny him patents.
quote:
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.
Heaven forbid that Maxwell's equations should apply around the nucleus of an atom! Mills simply takes existing classical equations and works them into the coloumbic field around a nucleus. That's the genius of it all, to me. Admittedly he *does* utilize a "Schrodingerish" equation in a way that has no(?) relation to Schrodinger's probability wave, but as we have seen, similar mathematics can be used to describe very different things. The math is just a tool, and Mills is using the tools he can find, just as Einstein and his mathematician man Minkowski (sp?) radically decided to use Riemannian (sp?) geometry to apply to space time.
quote:
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.
I think that he has already done much of what needs to be done. He has demonstrated enough to be taken very seriously in my estimation. For instance, watch him do what QM can't, by 'simply' solving the ionizing energies and atomic radii of the first 20 elements:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/Exact_Solutions_1-20_Electron_Atoms_102804.pdf
The above makes great reading because it also takes QM to task on certain things. We hardly hear of this kind of stuff. Yet, as briefly related in the above article, Feynman himself attempted to derive a quantum mechanical theory (also using Maxwell's equations) because, presumably, he also saw the existing problems with QT. The problems with QT? In a nutshell, it ignores previous physics. It observes the atom and make mathematical models which correlate with those observations. Those models are sufficiently general, with p |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 20:56:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
I see your point of course, but I think, bottom line, that Mills is just too conscientious and smart for that. Besides, in his rebuff of QT I see the hallmarks of an objective and *truly* (not trifling) skeptical mind.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 21:30:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
Ah, that's a good point. Yet we do see hydrogen in lower energy states than free hydrogen, such as H2 and H20. Each of these reactions, from a free hydrogen atom, *require another atom* for the lower lower energy state to be achieved. Similarly, for H to drop to a fractional state (hyrdrino form) of hydrogen, it needs an appropriate encounter with another atom. Because Potassium has just the right energy deficit, it happens to work.
Low energy (hydrino) forms of H2, like normal H2, quickly escape out of our planet's atomosphere into outer space. But hydrino H2 is formed in the sun, and Mill's predicted values of its spectral lines are exactly observed there. (Those lines are anomalous to current QT.) Also, it would explain the puzzle as to why the sun only appears to generate 60 percent of it's energy by fusion. (judging by neurtrino detection.) The other 40 percent, according to Mills, is coming from hydrino reactions.
quote:
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?
The amazing thing is, the temperature of the gas-plasma is largely self generated. I imagine that there is an optimum temperature of the plasma to generate lower H. When the hydrino form of H2 is created, it is *so stable* as to resist ionization, even in plasma which is many thousands of degrees (as it also is on the sun).
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 21:58:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sts60 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.
Of course, the "discrete" aspect of quantum theory is still intact to Mills. It's just that he can actually *explain* such using previous physics, whereas QT merely *declares* such as a result of observation. QT is successful simply because it can be made to correlate with almost all phenomona when it's parameters are suitably modified. I wouldn't even want to guess how many such parameters are introduced ad hoc to accomodate observation. I suspect many dozens.
quote:
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 haven't even hear of the hafnium thing. But I predict the opposite, namely that QT as we know it will be seen in the future to be a foray into foolishness, while Mill's idea will be vindicated, at least partially.
quote:
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?
Hey, I don't sneer. :) If I come across as contrary, it is just my attempt to provoke skeptics to be skeptical of things they are not usually skeptical of. :)
Yes I will change my mind if there is no real world progress in Mill's pronouncements. But already I see such progress. It is just not given the credibility I think it deserves. Hey, if lagging behind is a bad thing, so is running crazily on ahead. Really, I see both as performing useful roles.
Mark |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 22:02:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
No contradiction; he is merely saying that for the environment of the atomic nucleus, some constraints apply. In contrast to the great number of ad-hoc proclamations of Quantum Mechanics (QM) as it relates to the simple hydrogren atom, Mill's introduces just one contraining assumption: the n=1 state electron cannot radiate energy. From that fact (as well one other, namely his model of the electron as a 2-D disk of distributed charge), combined with pre QM classical physics, he successfully derives the properties of the hydrogen atom and electron spin, etc. This successful matheamtical model also happens to allow for non radiating states below the n=1 level.
You're just parroting Mills here. I know that because you've already said the math is beyond you, so you can't have validated Mills' equations for yourself.
Beyond which, QM states that an electron in the ground state can't radiate energy, too. The idea that this is a novel constraint is simply silly.quote:
What I've read is that a potassium ion meets a free hydrogren atom, then the hydrogen's (disklike) electron gives off some of its energy to the potassium ion and drops to the n=1/2 state. The potassium ion then releases that energy, and continues the same kind of catalytic process again. Hey that's how chemistry works, things go bump in the night.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what is it that constrains the energy drop from n=1 to n=1/2? If the transfer is kinetic, there's no obvious, intuitive reason why the electron shouldn't be able to drop to n=7/8 or n=999/1000 if the hydrogen atom and potassium ion just graze each other. That's how macro (classical) objects work, and Mills' theory is classical. Except he wants us to believe that energy transfer below the ground state is quantized, just like it is above the ground state under QED.quote:
Mills I presume has no problem with the idea that mass is 'congealed' energy, and the form of that congealed energy, in the case of an electron, is apparently a 2D disk of distributed charge. But as we know, such congealed energy is not "the same" as energy quanta travelling at light speed.
Einstein showed us it is. That's the meaning of the equation.quote:
Temporary confusion almost always preceeds a conceptual breakthrough, in my experience anyways :)
Next you'll be quoting Schopenhauer at me.quote:
Another idea has come to mind. Since it appears that some outside pressure was brought to bear upon the Patent office to prevent Mill's patenting his concepts, (see http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0017,baard,14377,1.html), he may be opting for secrecy (on behalf of protecting his investors) until he produces such a clearly functioning product that no one could deny him patents.
More apology. But what's really interesting about that article is this:Threats to the hydrino patents could jeopardize Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's plans to underwrite BlackLight's estimated billion dollar initial public offering. The word "plans" is linked back to the BLP website, to a page which no longer exists. So, had the IPO gone through, we'd be able to see tons of information in annual reports and SEC filings. Pity it didn't happen, and BLP seems to have no plans to go public anymore.quote:
Heaven forbid that Maxwell's equations should apply around the nucleus of an atom! Mills simply takes existing classical equations and works them into the coloumbic field around a nucleus. That's the genius of it all, to me. Admittedly he *does* utilize a "Schrodingerish" equation in a way that has no(?) relation to Schrodinger's probability wave, but as we have seen, similar mathematics can be used to describe very different things. The math is just a tool, and Mills is using the tools he can find, just as Einstein and his mathematician man Minkowski (sp?) radically decided to use Riemannian (sp?) geometry to apply to space time.
And Mills appears to be trying to drive a screw with a hammer, without offering much in the way of positive justification for doing so. Again: why are the scientists who say that Mills' math is invalid wrong?quote:
I think that he has already done much of what needs to be done. He has demonstrated enough to be taken very seriously in my estimation.
You're obviously unaware that the vast majority of physicists aren't following along with Mills, then. If he had done what needs to be done, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and I'd be fueling my car with water and salt substitute.quote:
For instance, watch him do what QM can't, by 'simply' solving the ionizing energies and atomic radii of the first 20 elements:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/Exact_Solutions_1-20_Electron_Atoms_102804.pdf
The above makes great reading because it also takes QM to task on certain things. We hardly hear of this kind of stuff. Yet, as briefly related in the above article, Feynman himself attempted to derive a quantum mechanical theory (also using Maxwell's equations) because, presumably, he also saw the existing problems with QT. The problems with QT? In a nutshell, it ignores previous physics. It observes the atom and make mathematical models which correlate with those observations. Those models are sufficiently general, with parameters which can be artibrarily altered to conform to almost any experimental finding. In other words, it is made so that it cannot fail. The electron can be regarded, for convenience, to be anything from a zero dimensional point particle to an artibrarily large distrubuted probability wave in 3D space. Almost anything you want! It doesn't predict antying, it merely is made to conform with experiment by adjusting the parameters accordingly, so that others who come later can use the quantum cookbook recipes, previously compiled by trial and error, successfully.
And again, you're just parroting Mills here. Neither you nor he seem to understand that how electrons are treated within the math depends on the problem one wants to solve and the realities of the scenario. It makes intuitive sense that with things that small, if you measure their momentum precisely, their position does become a probability wave of very large size. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 22:10:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. MabuseWhen 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.
OK. Well properly, relativity is a *generalization* of Newtonian physics, and reduces to Newtonian at low speeds. The same cannot be said of QM. It is a near complete break from proceeding physics. It makes up it's own rules as it goes along, and such is self validating.
quote:
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.
Right, I see what you mean. A standing wave around a nucleus can only have integer number of wavy thingies. *But* imagine a single standing wave which is wrapped exactly twice around the nucleus before coming back to it starting point. That would make for a 1/2 orbital. Similarly for a 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 orbital, etc.
quote:
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.
Ah there's the rub. Mills claims that QT predicts nothing about the electron, the theory is merely made to conform to observation.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 22:25:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Ah, that's a good point. Yet we do see hydrogen in lower energy states than free hydrogen, such as H2 and H20.
No. In neither case is atomic hydrogen in a state below its ground state. Hydrogen that's bonded to another atom is not atomic hydrogen, it's molecular.quote:
Each of these reactions, from a free hydrogen atom, *require another atom* for the lower lower energy state to be achieved. Similarly, for H to drop to a fractional state (hyrdrino form) of hydrogen, it needs an appropriate encounter with another atom. Because Potassium has just the right energy deficit, it happens to work.
Utter garbage. When hydrogen bonds to another hydrogen, or to oxygen, the energy is lost immediately (in the form of a free electron), and the "catalyst" (either another atom of hydrogen or an atom of oxygen in your examples) is used up - it cannot "catalyze" further reactions until it's broken apart from the hydrogen again (which consumes energy). Mills claims that the K+ is simply energized when it sucks energy away from an H, and then it radiates the energy away, all the while remaining a K+ and not getting "used up" in any way.
Your analogy fails miserably in that regard.quote:
Low energy (hydrino) forms of H2, like normal H2, quickly escape out of our planet's atomosphere into outer space.
Why? They should be vastly more dense than normal H2.quote:
But hydrino H2 is formed in the sun, and Mill's predicted values of its spectral lines are exactly observed there. (Those lines are anomalous to current QT.) Also, it would explain the puzzle as to why the sun only appears to generate 60 percent of it's energy by fusion. (judging by neurtrino detection.) The other 40 percent, according to Mills, is coming from hydrino reactions.
So what does Mills think of the solution to the solar neutrino "problem" which has come out of QT and been verified? The "missing" neutrinos have been found.quote:
The amazing thing is, the temperature of the gas-plasma is largely self generated. I imagine that there is an optimum temperature of the plasma to generate lower H.
The amazing thing is that hydrogen within a heat source will often not be at n=1 state, due to its absorbtion of energy. How does one make a hydrino when starting with n=2, or 3, or more?quote:
When the hydrino form of H2 is created, it is *so stable* as to resist ionization, even in plasma which is many thousands of degrees (as it also is on the sun).
I'm guessing that Mills has claimed to have found H-1/2 spectral lines in the Sun's emissions? |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 22:29:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Mills claims that QT predicts nothing about the electron, the theory is merely made to conform to observation.
Theories which fail to conform to observations aren't theories, they're trash. Thousands of scientists use QT to predict experimental results every day. Mills' claim is rubbish on its face. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 00:14:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. Beyond which, QM states that an electron in the ground state can't radiate energy, too. The idea that this is a novel constraint is simply silly.
Rather, QM states that the ground state "doesn't" (not "can't") radiate energy. It's not as if QM *derived* that it can't radiate energy, it merely observed it and made it into a rule. That rule, plus many other new ad hoc additions gives rise to QM for the hydrogen atom. Mills on the other hand uses only the assumption that n=1 is non radiating to derive correct predictions about the hydrogen atom. (This is in addition of course to previously known laws of physics like Maxwell's equations.) So if one is going to use Ockham's razor, then in this case Mill's theory is favoured.
quote:
But what is it that constrains the energy drop from n=1 to n=1/2? If the transfer is kinetic, there's no obvious, intuitive reason why the electron shouldn't be able to drop to n=7/8 or n=999/1000...
The transfer of energy is termed 'resonant' I believe. The n=7/8 state doesn't exist because it woudln't form a resonant standing wave, that is it wouldn't come back to it's starting point.
quote:
Einstein showed us it is. That's the meaning of the equation.
That just goes to demonstrate a point of mine, that different people have different ideas about what even the simple e=mc2 means. While you say that mass *is* energy, I would take it to mean that the two are not the same, but rather interconvertable.
quote:
Again: why are the scientists who say that Mills' math is invalid wrong?
Or why are they right? Because there are more of them? It is hard to fathom how Mill's math is simply *wrong* if his equations correlate so closely with physical observation.
quote:
It makes intuitive sense that with things that small, if you measure their momentum precisely, their position does become a probability wave of very large size.
Hey, I'm the one who is supposed to be intuitive around here. ;o Perhaps it is because you have heard it so many times that it becomes second nature in your thinking. That is, that things like 'position' or 'momentum' don't have actual value until measured; until then they are just a hazy probability clouds of *something*, God knows what.
quote:
Heisenburg's principle works. How does Mills' treat that particular portion of quantum theory?
I'm not entirely sure, I'll have to investigate. The newer understanding of HUP states that, say, position and momentum are *inherently* somehow linked together, and if one is defined the other is necessarily undefined, *in reality*. The older interpretation of HUP was that this was merely an artifact of the limitations of measurement and did not reflect the nature of reality itself.
quote:
How many minutes (or hours) have you spent on this thread? If Mills is incorrect, your participation here will mean nothing (in the grand scheme of things). If Mills is correct, your participation here will mean... nothing. After all, an "I told you so" post years from now won't be satisfying, since we'll reply with "yup, you told us so," and go pay our single-digit power bills just like you. It's not like our agreement with you now will change our lives in any way - we cannot invest in BLP at this moment.
So, how much of your life have you wasted trying to defend Mills? That is, after all, one of Kil's points: you're making an investment now of time (and time is money). Regardless of whether Mills is correct or not, your investment is now gone, never to return, never to be paid back.
Hmmm. Of course I could ask exactly the same of you or anybody else particating on this board or most other boards, which have little bearing on what actually gets done in the world. Although I would agree that online communication such as this is limited in its worldly value, it can have degrees of more personal benefits, like learning from other people's insights and somewhat experiencing the personality of other people.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 00:57:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Ah, that's a good point. Yet we do see hydrogen in lower energy states than free hydrogen, such as H2 and H20.
No. In neither case is atomic hydrogen in a state below its ground state. Hydrogen that's bonded to another atom is not atomic hydrogen, it's molecular.
OK, I was addressing the general idea of a lower energy state. Mills claims evidence of atomic H below the ground state in certain specific conditions which are not normally attained, and that's why it hasn't been noticed before.
quote:
Utter garbage. When hydrogen bonds to another hydrogen, or to oxygen, the energy is lost immediately (in the form of a free electron)...
?? No electrons are lost when two atomic hydrogens come together to form H2. It does give off energy, but even that emmission of a photon is not direct; a third party atom is involved in the conjoining of two atomic hydrogen atoms, and that third party then emits the photon.
quote:
quote:
Low energy (hydrino) forms of H2, like normal H2, quickly escape out of our planet's atomosphere into outer space.
Why? They should be vastly more dense than normal H2.
They would have the same bouyancy, because the weight of hyrdino H2 is the same as as normal H2, and the same number of molecules occupy a given volume of course.
quote:
So what does Mills think of the solution to the solar neutrino "problem" which has come out of QT and been verified? The "missing" neutrinos have been found.
Ah but did you notice that Standard Theory had to be altered to accomodate this? As usual, it morphs itself to conform to experiment.
quote:
The amazing thing is that hydrogen within a heat source will often not be at n=1 state, due to its absorbtion of energy. How does one make a hydrino when starting with n=2, or 3, or more?
Apparently hyrdrinos can drop from, say, a n=1/3 to n=1/5 state, but I'm not sure about whether theory allows it to go from say n=2 to n=1/2.
quote:
I'm guessing that Mills has claimed to have found H-1/2 spectral lines in the Sun's emissions?
The emission line for the H(1) to H(1/2) transition would be the same energy as that for the joining together of a proton and electron, so that emission line is not a valuable indication of the H(1) to H(1/2) transistion. However, many other spectra in the sun *which are currently unknown and unassigned* conform very well to the various hydrino transitions possible in Mill's theory.
Mark |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 05:28:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Heisenburg's principle works. How does Mills' treat that particular portion of quantum theory?
I'm not entirely sure, I'll have to investigate. The newer understanding of HUP states that, say, position and momentum are *inherently* somehow linked together, and if one is defined the other is necessarily undefined, *in reality*. The older interpretation of HUP was that this was merely an artifact of the limitations of measurement and did not reflect the nature of reality itself.
(Emphasis mine)
I wasn't going to partake in the details of this discussion - it is not really my field - but the above statement by Markie is simply false. The whole point of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that this is an inherent quality. This was definately part of what Heisenberg said from the beginning; otherwise it would have meant absolutely nothing, as the limitations of laboratory apparatus is a part of the daily life of the scientist.
[Edited to correct grammar] |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
| Edited by - Subjectmatter on 10/10/2005 05:30:31 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 07:17:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Heisenburg's principle works. How does Mills' treat that particular portion of quantum theory?
I'm not entirely sure, I'll have to investigate. The newer understanding of HUP states that, say, position and momentum are *inherently* somehow linked together, and if one is defined the other is necessarily undefined, *in reality*. The older interpretation of HUP was that this was merely an artifact of the limitations of measurement and did not reflect the nature of reality itself.
(Emphasis mine)
I wasn't going to partake in the details of this discussion - it is not really my field - but the above statement by Markie is simply false. The whole point of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that this is an inherent quality. This was definately part of what Heisenberg said from the beginning; otherwise it would have meant absolutely nothing, as the limitations of laboratory apparatus is a part of the daily life of the scientist.
[Edited to correct grammar]
SubjectMatter, it may be true the Heisenberg believed that HUP described inherent uncertainty in reality itself. I'd have to look that up. Nevertheless, it *is* true that many popularizers of science described HUP as if it pertained to limitations of the measurement process, rather than reality itself. For instance I'm sure you've heard something like the following:
To "see" a small particle, photons must be reflected from it. For very small objects, smaller wavelengths are required to more accurately pinpoint the position. However, smaller wavelengths mean more powerful photons. But such photons bouncing off the particle alter the particle's direction (momentum), leaving that aspect uncertain, to the very degree that the position was made certain.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 17:18:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Rather, QM states that the ground state "doesn't" (not "can't") radiate energy.
I'd like to see where QM says such a thing. It says that the ground state is the one with the lowest possible energy. Such a state cannot radiate energy.quote:
It's not as if QM *derived* that it can't radiate energy, it merely observed it and made it into a rule.
What do you expect? Rules based on things not observed?quote:
That rule, plus many other new ad hoc additions gives rise to QM for the hydrogen atom. Mills on the other hand uses only the assumption that n=1 is non radiating to derive correct predictions about the hydrogen atom.
Complete nonsense. Mills assumes quite a lot of things. Go through his work as to a text search on "assume."quote:
(This is in addition of course to previously known laws of physics like Maxwell's equations.) So if one is going to use Ockham's razor, then in this case Mill's theory is favoured.
When it appears that many scientists attempting to recreate Mills' work fail to do so, it is clear that the two theories do not equally explain reality. Occam's razor does not apply in such situations.quote:
The transfer of energy is termed 'resonant' I believe. The n=7/8 state doesn't exist because it woudln't form a resonant standing wave, that is it wouldn't come back to it's starting point.
Particles aren't waves in Mills' theory. And a 7/8ths waveform would "come back to its starting point" every 56 orbits.quote:
That just goes to demonstrate a point of mine, that different people have different ideas about what even the simple e=mc2 means. While you say that mass *is* energy, I would take it to mean that the two are not the same, but rather interconvertable.
Which means you haven't studied. A 16-lb bowling ball (7.27 kg) with enough kinetic energy to zip through space at .99c would appear to us here on Earth to have a mass of over 51 kg. Energy is mass, and mass is energy.
quote:
Or why are they right? Because there are more of them? It is hard to fathom how Mill's math is simply *wrong* if his equations correlate so closely with physical observation.
How do you know his equations do correlate well with physical observation? You don't. You're taking it on faith.
quote:
Hey, I'm the one who is supposed to be intuitive around here. ;o Perhaps it is because you have heard it so many times that it becomes second nature in your thinking. That is, that things like 'position' or 'momentum' don't have actual value until measured; until then they are just a hazy probability clouds of *something*, God knows what.
If I ask you how much you weigh, at this very moment, you'll have a "hazy probability" in mind until you go measure your weight.quote:
I'm not entirely sure, I'll have to investigate.
Go do so.quote:
The newer understanding of HUP states that, say, position and momentum are *inherently* somehow linked together, and if one is defined the other is necessarily undefined, *in reality*. The older interpretation of HUP was that this was merely an artifact of the limitations of measurement and did not reflect the nature of reality itself.
No, you've missed the point. The act of measurement necessarily changes the system. Yes, an electron is somewhere after we measure its momentum, but we don't know where, and the more precisely we've measured its momentum, the larger the realm of possibility for its position becomes. That's always been seen as inherent to the nature of these tiny particles which cannot not be affected by measurement.quote:
Hmmm. Of course I could ask exactly the same of you or anybody else particating on this board or most other boards, which have little bearing on what actually gets done in the world. Although I would agree that online communication such as this is limited in its worldly value, it can have degrees of more personal benefits, like learning from other people's insights and somewhat experiencing the personality of other people.
You've missed the point. Whether Mills is right or wrong, considering him to be a crackpot frees us for more important issues while we wait for his next big announcement. Even if I'm wrong about him, I lose precisely nothing for being wrong (unless he's adding me to his "enemies list" right now  ). |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 18:03:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
?? No electrons are lost when two atomic hydrogens come together to form H2.
Whoops. My mistake, yes.quote:
It does give off energy, but even that emmission of a photon is not direct; a third party atom is involved in the conjoining of two atomic hydrogen atoms, and that third party then emits the photon.
This is news to me. Is this requirement somewhere in some QM tome I've missed reading?quote:
They would have the same bouyancy, because the weight of hyrdino H2 is the same as as normal H2, and the same number of molecules occupy a given volume of course.
Why "of course?" The electric replusion of H2 molecules from each other is based upon nothing but the electrons. If the electrons are physically closer to the protons, given the same pressure and temperature, more molecules will be in a given volume. The atoms take up less space at n=1/2 than at n=1.quote:
Ah but did you notice that Standard Theory had to be altered to accomodate this? As usual, it morphs itself to conform to experiment.
Um, only religion, pyschoses and crackpot science fail to change in the face of new observations. The "morphing" of scientific theories is one of the great advantages of science. That you think it's a fault speaks volumes about why we have these discussions, markie.quote:
Apparently hyrdrinos can drop from, say, a n=1/3 to n=1/5 state, but I'm not sure about whether theory allows it to go from say n=2 to n=1/2.
Why not find out?quote:
The emission line for the H(1) to H(1/2) transition would be the same energy as that for the joining together of a proton and electron, so that emission line is not a valuable indication of the H(1) to H(1/2) transistion.
Okay, Mills is now talking about violations of the law of conservation of energy. A free proton and free electron (40.8 eV combined) come together to make a hydrogen atom at ground state (27.2 eV) and release 13.6 eV in energy in the process. If the transition from n-1 to n-1/2 releases 40.8 eV also, where does the extra 13.6 eV come from, and why aren't the proton and electron completely converted into energy, instead remaining as a "hydrino?"
Oh, wait, the process occurs in a plasma, so all those protons and electrons are free, anyway. So what Mills is claiming is actually that hydrogen at n-infinity transitioning to n-1/2 releases 40.8 eV of energy, but that still doesn't explain why the proton and electron still exist afterwards, nor how it could be possible to get more energy out by further interactions (n=1/2 to n=1/3, for example), since the system should have 0 eV left.
So that's the real question: where does this surplus energy allegedly come from?quote:
However, many other spectra in the sun *which are currently unknown and unassigned* conform very well to the various hydrino transitions possible in Mill's theory.
Like which ones? We'll go double-check his work. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
