You do realize that the stability of the atom (the fact that it does not collapse due to radiative damping) was one of the great successes of quantum mechanics, don't you?
There had to be some non-Newtonian model to avoid the electron death-spiral. Ironically, Mills argues (along with E.H. Lieb) that Schrodingers Equation does not address the stability of matter and Feynman's argument for the hydrogen ground state using the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle is flawed. pg. 11 (+/- 4 pages) of http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypape rs/Fallacy_Feynmans_Argument_030705.pdf
Your statement about the hydrogen atom is completely incorrect, as far as I can make sense of it. Schroedinger's equation itself does not predict radiative damping directly.
I read another post that argued Mills was incorrectly applying his supervisor's work - which was valid on "classical" scales but invalid at QED scales. My inference is that Mills tries to poke holes in quantum theory so that his GUT might be given some consideration. http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
A blurb from there: "This modifies General Relativity to include conservation of spacetime and gives the origin of gravity, the masses of fundamental particles, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (predicted by Dr. Mills in 1995 and since confirmed experimentally), and overturns the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe."
However bogus that may or may not be, the interesting thing is the thing that doesn't fit theory - which, as the independent testing mentioned elsewhere in this forum indicates, seems to describe his fuel cell. If the cell behaves as advertised, I wonder if the functionality was derived from his theories, or if his theories were conjured up to explain the functionality. Maybe they're completely separate.
Futhermore, one must ask why, when the vast majority of the baryonic mass of the universe is Hydrogen, this effect has never before been noticed in the emission and absorption lines of materials either in the lab by physics or anywhere else in the Universe by astronomers.
He posits that the Hydrino is Dark Matter - or at least, that's the inference I get from what little I've read so far. I agree that attacking QED puts him on pretty shaky ground (to say the least) but his arguments regarding what the ground state of might have some validity. Perhaps you could peruse the Feynman.pdf quoted earlier and give your take on it?
You think this is ridiculous? Imagine being a hard-core scientist when the crazy equivocations of quantum mechanics were first unleashed upon the public in the 1900s.
Science? Bullshit! Just a bunch of fuzzy, mystical mathematics. Nothing to do with physical reality.
If you take the time (and have sufficient background) to read some of Dr. Mills papers, you'll find he (and others) have exposed some inconsistencies in quantum mechanics - such as the n=1 state of hydrogen being non-radiative, contrary to the predictions of Schrodingers Equation (which also violates Maxwells equations in this case). Einsteins' theories required a refinement of Newtons' laws... some tweaking of quantum mechanics should not be entirely unexpected. Annoying bugs in the gravy, like gravity...
This type of microscope requires a target which will conduct electricity. That's why images are typically of gold, semiconductors or items which have been electro-plated.
Slashdot Mirror
More like they'll buy the OSTG and close the site down.
You do realize that the stability of the atom (the fact that it does not collapse due to radiative damping) was one of the great successes of quantum mechanics, don't you?
e rs/Fallacy_Feynmans_Argument_030705.pdf
l
There had to be some non-Newtonian model to avoid the electron death-spiral. Ironically, Mills argues (along with E.H. Lieb) that Schrodingers Equation does not address the stability of matter and Feynman's argument for the hydrogen ground state using the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle is flawed. pg. 11 (+/- 4 pages) of
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypap
Your statement about the hydrogen atom is completely incorrect, as far as I can make sense of it. Schroedinger's equation itself does not predict radiative damping directly.
I read another post that argued Mills was incorrectly applying his supervisor's work - which was valid on "classical" scales but invalid at QED scales. My inference is that Mills tries to poke holes in quantum theory so that his GUT might be given some consideration.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtm
A blurb from there: "This modifies General Relativity to include conservation of spacetime and gives the origin of gravity, the masses of fundamental particles, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (predicted by Dr. Mills in 1995 and since confirmed experimentally), and overturns the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe."
However bogus that may or may not be, the interesting thing is the thing that doesn't fit theory - which, as the independent testing mentioned elsewhere in this forum indicates, seems to describe his fuel cell. If the cell behaves as advertised, I wonder if the functionality was derived from his theories, or if his theories were conjured up to explain the functionality. Maybe they're completely separate.
Futhermore, one must ask why, when the vast majority of the baryonic mass of the universe is Hydrogen, this effect has never before been noticed in the emission and absorption lines of materials either in the lab by physics or anywhere else in the Universe by astronomers.
He posits that the Hydrino is Dark Matter - or at least, that's the inference I get from what little I've read so far. I agree that attacking QED puts him on pretty shaky ground (to say the least) but his arguments regarding what the ground state of might have some validity. Perhaps you could peruse the Feynman.pdf quoted earlier and give your take on it?
You think this is ridiculous? Imagine being a hard-core scientist when the crazy equivocations of quantum mechanics were first unleashed upon the public in the 1900s.
... some tweaking of quantum mechanics should not be entirely unexpected. Annoying bugs in the gravy, like gravity...
Science? Bullshit! Just a bunch of fuzzy, mystical mathematics. Nothing to do with physical reality.
If you take the time (and have sufficient background) to read some of Dr. Mills papers, you'll find he (and others) have exposed some inconsistencies in quantum mechanics - such as the n=1 state of hydrogen being non-radiative, contrary to the predictions of Schrodingers Equation (which also violates Maxwells equations in this case). Einsteins' theories required a refinement of Newtons' laws
This type of microscope requires a target which will conduct electricity. That's why images are typically of gold, semiconductors or items which have been electro-plated.