Mills theory rejects quantum electrodynamics(QED), but with QED, the questions that QED was formulated to answer go unresolved. I need to have an answer to those questions. QED must be there in my universe.
Axil, please describe the phenomena that are solved by QED and not by GUTCP. In my experience, GUTCP not only provides answers that are just as accurate if not more so, but do so with more elegance.
Axil, please describe the phenomena that are solved by QED and not by GUTCP. In my experience, GUTCP not only provides answers that are just as accurate if not more so, but do so with more elegance.
I need superposition and quantum entanglement. These concepts give be a warm feeling.
Thanks for succinctly outlining your concerns regarding the GUTCP model. I think having a thoughtful critique of the model is always a good thing.
I agree in part. I certainly would like to see a more definitive proof for the double-slit one way or…
Early papers by Mills show resonances that were integer multiples of 13.6eV, but not necessarily in accordance with inverse Rydberg multiples. A subtle difference, but it may well be quite significant. My thinking on a different electron model are described on the atomics page of subtleatomics.com
The Mills model is also not fully consistent with fission observations.
I've worked through and replicated the equations myself and it's absolutely the case the GUTCP is an exact match to physical reality.
Can you elaborate on this? Do you have a link to your calculations?
I also find it persuasive that Mills and others have seen EUV continuum radiation with cutoffs predicted by the equation 91.2nm / (n - 1)^2. I don't know how you could obtain that type of spectrum with hydrino states that weren't exactly as Mills describes - i.e. with fractional orbit radii.
Fast electrons, e.g., from beta decay, will result in EUV continuum radiation with an endpoint (cutoff).
Quote from optiongeek: “I've worked through and replicated the equations myself and it's absolutely the case the GUTCP is an exact match to physical reality.”
Can you elaborate on this? Do you have a link to your calculations?
Thanks for your interest. I've attached an Excel spreadsheet of my own creation that replicates the GUTCP calculations of ionization energies for 1 through 20-electron atoms. The derivation spans hundreds of pages in Mills GUTCP, but I've called out each equation by reference in the Excel cell so it should be easy to verify how I get the same values as Mills. Mills' book is available as a free download. http://brilliantlightpower.com…P-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf
(edit) I should add that this is just one example of calculations using GUTCP that I have performed but have no counterpart in QED. Other examples include:
And I've only scratched the surface here. GUTCP calculates nearly every physical value. These are just the ones I've replicated on my own to date.
Fast electrons, e.g., from beta decay, will result in EUV continuum radiation with an endpoint (cutoff).
Regarding beta decay - how do you get beta decay from approximately 1v? Mills is getting EUV continuum radiation from extremely low voltage, and only when predicted catalysts are present i.e. Hydrogen and *not* Helium.
And I've only scratched the surface here. GUTCP calculates nearly every physical value. These are just the ones I've replicated on my own to date.
Thank you for the detailed reply. I will take a look.
You should consider collating these calculations and publishing them as a paper. Such a paper might get the attention of people who would be able to provide a critical assessment of your findings. Since you're interested in the truth, you will no doubt welcome such a critical assessment in order put your findings on a more solid footing. At a high level, what I'm interested in knowing is: (1) what do the GUTCP calcluations cover and not cover? (2) Are they simply variants of existing semiclassical calculations, or are they derived from basic axioms adopted by Mills? (3) Are the errors within smaller or larger bounds than the mainstream calculations? Answers to these questions will help me to better assess the strength of the claim that is often made here and elsewhere that Mills does a better job of calculating a number of quantities in physics with fewer assumptions. At the moment, this claim feels very hand-wavy. It would be nice to pin it down somehow. You can surely help, here.
I took a brief look at the section in GUTCP on electron capture and was most underwhelmed.
Regarding beta decay - how do you get beta decay from approximately 1v? Mills is getting EUV continuum radiation from extremely low voltage, and only when predicted catalysts are present i.e. Hydrogen and *not* Helium.
I often hear of very high voltage arc discharges in connection with Mills. But let's go with your assertion of 1 V. Personally, I think it could potentially be the hydrogen that induces beta decay in already beta-unstable isotopes, such as 40K, by bringing a bound electron in close proximity to the nuclear volume, with the applied voltage possibly playing a secondary role. But this is just one idea; there could be other explanations. Do you agree that, if beta radiation could somehow be induced in Mills's setup, it would quite sufficiently explain the continuum spectrum?
I often hear of very high voltage arc discharges in connection with Mills. But let's go with your assertion of 1 V. Personally, I think it could potentially be the hydrogen that induces beta decay in already beta-unstable isotopes, such as 40K, by bringing a bound electron in close proximity to the nuclear volume, with the applied voltage possibly playing a secondary role. But this is just one idea; there could be other explanations. Do you agree that, if beta radiation could somehow be induced in Mills's setup, it would quite sufficiently explain the continuum spectrum?
Eric, very much appreciate your response. Please be assured that Mills has been very consistent over time in describing his experimental setup as low voltage with high current. A typical setup is 1v @ 10kA.
I must admit that I don't know that much about how various isotopes of H could react so I have no reason to doubt your conjecture. However I should point out that Mills has quite recently asserted that his experimental results are indifferent to the mix of H isotopes in his fuel source. I don't know that he's spent much time looking at this but he has been pretty clear that he's not loading his apparatus with a specific isotope. So for beta-unstable H to be the cause I guess we would have to assume that either he is somehow inadvertently using such an isotope. I would also point out that four other validators (research physicists from Bucknell, UNC-Ashville, and elsewhere) would also have to make the same mistake.
Can I suggest that you ask Dr. Mills about beta decay? Perhaps he has already considered it?
I often hear of very high voltage arc discharges in connection with Mills.
Eric, very much appreciate your response. Please be assured that Mills has been very consistent over time in describing his experimental setup as low voltage with high current. A typical setup is 1v @ 10kA.
Both are not correct: A typical setup of Mills is 10V peak power, with average to 5V because also Mill's needs the 5V to split the H-H bonds...
To explain what the high B-field does with the H is an other story, but we certainly see no beta decay.. in his experiments! (may be some LENR induced ones...)
Both are not correct: A typical setup of Mills is 10V peak power, with average to 5V because also Mill's needs the 5V to split the H-H bonds...
I went back and re-read the most recent independent validation reports from May 2016 and it seems I stand corrected. They describe voltages in the 5 to 10V range. I do remember Mills discussing lower voltage values on the Society for Classical Physics board but they were from at least a year ago and I'm unable to locate those discussions now. Thanks for the correction!
I wanted to understand the photon acording to Mills. A trapped photon could be written as
j_0(sqrt(x*x + y*y + z*z)w/c)*exp(i w t), radious less then the first zero of the spherical bessel function
Lets take this trapped photon and and move it v in the x direction. Then the Lorenz transformation gives
x' = gamma (x - v t)
t' = gamma(t - v x / c^2)
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Plug it in and consider the equation around x = x0/gamma + vt e.g. look how it behaves around the moving center
j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w gamma (t - v (x0 + v t) / c^2)
<=> j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w gamma t ( 1 - v^2/c^2) - v x0 / c^2))
<=> j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w t - i w v x0 / c^2))
v -> c
j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w t - i w x0 / c))
Maybe this is what Mills mean is a photon. What actually have is a flat disk like distribution, I wondering if this is a generalized solution
of the EM equations note that the interior for each v solves the EM equations. So one would expect that the generalized solution to also
solves the EM equation as a mathematical distribution.
A similar idea yields the free electron flat disk like structure.
What do you think?
I wanted to understand the photon acording to Mills. A trapped photon could be written as
j_0(sqrt(x*x + y*y + z*z)w/c)*exp(i w t), radious less then the first zero of the spherical bessel function
You should engage with Prof. Huub Bakker of Massey University. He's done the most work on understanding Mills' photon equation and is, I believe, writing a textbook on the topic.
Thanks for succinctly outlining your concerns regarding the GUTCP model. I think having a thoughtful critique of the model is always a good thing.
I agree in part. I certainly would like to see a more definitive proof for the double-slit one way or…
Yes, agreed. The Mills calculations appear pretty compelling for the ionisation energies for elements 1-20. You've also done very well, and a lot better than me, if you can replicate them.
I generally think most of it is likely to be correct, but there will still be a few things to be more fully developed including: are de-excited electrons bigger or smaller? why are bonding orbitals configured as they are? what are force relationship between the nucleus and bonding orbitals? energy basis for inverse Rydberg, etc.
GUToCP is clearly a hugely important document, but I encourage all to see it as a basis for continuing innovation, rather than as a complete all encompassing theory as the title suggests.
subtleatomics.com
? energy basis for inverse Rydberg, etc.
The Hydrino inverse Rydberg logic only works with an increased central charge. An increased central charge has so far never been seen...
Thus we need a much better explanation than just a simple mathematical analogy. I have some proposals, which are quite obvious. If we look at Holmlids work, we can confirm that below Rydberg hydrogen states really exist.
The Hydrino inverse Rydberg logic only works with an increased central charge. An increased central charge has so far never been seen...
I think you are mis-interpreting Mills here. Mills doesn't say that the actual nuclear charge increases, only that the "effective" charge as experienced by the electron increases. The increase comes from the electric field of the "trapped photon", which arises from the absorption of an energy hole from the catalyst.
Look at the text between equation 5.26 and 5.27 in GUTCP Vol. 1 (I'm unable to copy and paste it here). It describes the "Energy Hole/Trapped Photon" concept. Think of a trapped photon/energy hole as the mirror image of a regular photon. It creates a stable standing wave in a hydrino with an electric field that increases the electric charge felt by the electron. Higher effective electric charge means that the electron orbit must shrink to maintain force balance.
I think you are mis-interpreting Mills here. Mills doesn't say that the actual nuclear charge increases, only that the "effective" charge as experienced by the electron increases. The increase comes from the electric field of the "trapped photon", which arises from the absorption of an energy hole from the catalyst.
@optiongeek: Yes indeed you can combine the electron with a charged exiton. This may work for one step. But further exitons would have to go into different orbits I guess...
To double Z, as needed by the formula, you need a awfully high e-field! may be you have an explanation for this problem too!
optiongeek: Yes indeed you can combine the electron with a charged exiton. This may work for one step. But further exitons would have to go into different orbits I guess...
No idea what an exiton is. A trapped photon is simply the standing wave that remains when m * 27.2eV is transferred to the catalyst. And being a photon, therefore it has the property of superposition with other photons. No need for a separate orbit.
(edit) Oh, and the energy from the electric field works out perfectly using nothing but classical physics and Lorentz invariance. In fact, something pretty amazing happens when you get to the 1/137 level. The energy from electron's electric field, magnetic field, and gravitational field all converge to exactly 511k eV. This is the "unified" part of GUTCP. When the radius is exactly alpha * Bohr radius, the charge is travelling at the speed of light. This is the instance of energy to mass conversion. All from classical physics.
No idea what an exiton is. A trapped photon is simply the standing wave that remains when m * 27.2eV is transferred to the catalyst. And being a photon, therefore it has the property of superposition with other photons. No need for a separate orbit.
optiongeek: To my understanding of physics, when energy is released then no photon remains.., exept there was one already there.., which is excluded by the non radiation condition...
The next step you must explain: If this photon generates a force, then tell us in which direction its E-field vector points! There is always a physical cause for a force - not just an energy equivalent!
According to Mills's logic the energy transfer is of kinetic nature = inelastic collision.
I agree, that the energy balance for H(*) works very well, but I never saw a force balance equation for the hydrino states, which must be based on a photon E-field not on an increased Z !
optiongeek: To my understanding of physics, when energy is released then no photon remains.., exept there was one already there.., which is excluded by the non radiation condition...
The "ground" state hydrogen atom has 511k eV stored as potential and kinetic energy in the orbiting electron so there is a large reservoir of energy that can be released. At the ground state, the electron is in force balance and the effective central charge is 1. If a photon is absorbed, the effective central charge felt by the electron will be fractional (1/n) and it will go to a higher orbit. Conversely, if an energy hole/trapped photon is absorbed, the effective central charge felt by the electron will be integral (n) and it will go to a lower orbit.
The next step you must explain: If this photon generates a force, then tell us in which direction its E-field vector points! There is always a physical cause for a force - not just an energy equivalent!
Sorry, don't understand this part. A photon/trapped photon is a standing wave in the electron's orbitsphere. What force is it creating? Maybe you could read Mills' equation for the photon? Chap. 4 in GUTCP.
When the radius is exactly alpha * Bohr radius, the charge is travelling at the speed of light. This is the instance of energy to mass conversion. All from classical physics.
You are describing the conversion of a massive lepton (an electron) into something, presumably not a lepton (a photon?), traveling at the speed of light. Either there is no conservation of lepton number, or a massive particle is traveling at the speed of light. In either case, we are no longer talking about classical physics.
