Slashdot Mirror


New Discovery Disproves Quantum Theory?

An anonymous reader writes to tell us the Guardian is running a story that has quite a few physicists up in arms. From the article: "Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation." The only problem is Mills' theory is supposed to be impossible when using current rules of quantum mechanics.

9 of 933 comments (clear)

  1. As Einstein once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

  2. Re:Theories are meant to be disproven. by servognome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True, but part of disproving a theory includes a better theory which explains all observed phenomenon

    No it doesn't. All it takes is a verified observation to disprove a theory. There are disproven theories in science that can remain for years without something better taking its place.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  3. THIS IS FUCKING EMBARRASSING. by Pendersempai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can we PLEASE have the editors do at least a cursory background check on these "scientists" before posting their pyramid scheme crackpot press releases? We've had five or more stories in the past TWO DAYS about how the rules of science were about to be rewritten by someone who can pull heat out of nothing for free, or extend wifi coverage for TEN MILLION MILES on a watch battery, or fly to the moon with a tablespoon of vinegar, or extend a battery's shelf life by nine million percent by putting a sticker on it.

    Seriously, WTF? It's embarrassing. This place reads like the fucking National Enquirer when it comes to science. There are legitimate breakthroughs happening all the time in science; why do we have to cover these retard con men? Is it that pseudoscience is more FLASHY AND EXCITING than real science, or is it that our editors are too fucking brain dead to tell the difference?

  4. Re:Like They Say... by Buran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which they've reportedly had "just around the corner" (it's in one of the other comments in this story) for a while, hence the skepticism I showed. Sure, if they have something that works it will have to be explained by new theories, but always being "a few months away" or whatever doesn't really add to their credibility.

  5. Occam's Razor by Chris+Snook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, we have two choices:

    a) An MIT EE dropout who advertises his irrelevant association with Harvard turns physics on his head and has a working prototype that generates incredibly cheap energy.

    b) Yet another cheap energy fraud/error/delusion.

    I'd be thrilled if Occam's razor was wrong this time around, but this whole thing reads exactly like every other cheap energy scam/hoax/error in history.

    --
    There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
  6. But he neve said. . . by munpfazy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Knowledge isn't important."

    There's a big difference.

    And, it's one that will bite the ass of anyone dumb enough to invest in hydrinos. (As it has everyone who has done so since Mills first floated ths idea way back in 1991, at which time he announced that commercial applications of his theory were, oddly enough, just a couple years off.)

    1. Re:But he neve said. . . by Flawless+Void · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the structure of quantum mechanics is quite simple--objects (states) that are defined on a linear vector space are about as simple as you could possibly get. The axioms of the theory have analogues in optics and wave mechanics--are those any less beautiful or elegant? Some of the quantum numbers are in fact not arbitrary--they are constrained by the solutions to the partial differential equations from which they are derived (example: the spherical harmonics in the solution to the hydrogen atom--not Mills' version...). Quantum mechanics, and its relativistic extension into quantum electrodynamics has provided us with the most accurate measurement of any physical quantity (the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron). I'd say the theory deserves a little more than only being correct "mathematically speaking". Feynman's (and Dirac's) "sum-over-histories" path integral approach to quantum mechanics is actually quite beautiful, and even has applications in "nonquantum" physics. It might be the genesis of the theory that will eventually subsume quantum physics. It took Euler, Lagrange and Hamilton a century or so to bring classical mechanics to a new level. Don't be too hard on the quantum. It's still quite young.

  7. When were you born? by chazR · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Still, it would be nice to have some major shakeup in physics... there really haven't been any in my lifetime.


    How old are you?
    Inflation as a solution to cosmic microwave anisotropy

    Problems with General Relativity: Dark Matter?

    Dark Energy. 90% of everything.

    Pioneer anomaly.

    Every year, in every field, we answer more and more questions. However, every answer raises many more questions. We are still exploring our ignorance, but we know more about it every day. What are you doing to help?
  8. I'd say thermodynamics is more an issue than QM by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this guy has focussed on the big and sexy issue of QM and whether it's the Last Word because it's a dazzling distraction. The real hard-to-swallow issue here is thermodynamic. Namely, how is that almost every atom in the Universe has, from the Big Bang right up until 2005 and Dr. Mills' clever insight, remained conveniently "stuck" in a high-energy state?

    Frankly, I would more easily believe QM is rubbish than believe that. He's asking us to believe nearly every atom in the universe is not in its lowest energy state. Well, why not? What pushed all of them up there? Why have they stayed up there for umpty billion years, and, for that matter, continue to stay up there everywhere in the Cosmos except for the environs of 493 Old Trenton Road, Cranbury, NJ, 08512?

    It's not that it would be hard to know if atoms occasionally fell down into states lower than the "lowest" predicted by QM. When they did, if they did, then as Doc Mills says they would emit visible photons. That is, they'd broadcast their activity far and wide: "Yoo hoo! Here I am! Falling to a lower orbit than you thought existed! Whee.....!" The light from this process could hardly be missed by all those folks with giant telescopes peering into the heavens.

    I'm perfectly willing to believe that Doc Mills has stolen a march on Wolfgang Pauli and assorted quantum mechanics. They're only human. But...believe he's discovered a natural process that just happens to not occur anywhere else in the Universe, and just happens to have not happened here on Earth any time from 4,500,000 BC right up until Mills filed his patent? Erg, that's a bit much to swallow.

    My recommendation on Blacklight stock would be Hold, at best.