Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

  • I don't think that it is impossible for Mills theory to explain low orbit electron capturing. He does indicate how to treat this case in his latest versíon of the book and it does so by using the traped photon(s) that is indeed in contact with the nucleus and will when it colappses into the nucleus drag the charges with it. This is basically what you shohuld have in the QM representation as well, the atom sized wavefunction of the electron needs to collapse into the nucleus as well.


    At face value, this description of inner shell electron capture is "not even wrong," as they say in physics. Perhaps you're not summarizing Mills's position adequately. Can you point us to the section that you're summarizing so that we can take a closer look at it?


    In QM the matter is rather straightforward: the electron (especially s-orbital electrons) occupies a three-dimensional orbital that overlaps with the nuclear volume.

  • The SunCell involves transition reactions only, which are previously unknown to mainstream science, chemical reactions that release electric potential existing between the hydrogen electron orbitsphere and proton.
    There are no observed nuclear reaction products and experimental results are fully consistent with and predicted by the GUT-CP.


    Moreover if it was a nuclear reaction the Brilliant Light Power team would be dead from radiation poisoning or cancers after their many years of exposure to the reactions. It's basic logic not rocket science.


    Regarding electron capture Eric why not just go on The Society For Classical Physics Forum yourself and ask Dr. Mills? He will probably even respond to you today.

  • Moreover if it was a nuclear reaction the Brilliant Light Power team would be dead from radiation poisoning or cancers after their many years of exposure to the reactions. It's basic logic not rocket science.


    I think you are speaking at a high level, from your impressions of common knowledge about nuclear reactions, and not from specific, concrete knowledge. You are repeating what you have heard people say in similar situations. That might explain why you may not have been aware that beta activity, even at a high level, would present no danger to the Brilliant Light Power team so long as the activity was occurring within the apparatus. This is basic logic, not rocket science.

  • None of the validations or quantifications of the products or reaction have shown nuclear reaction signatures or products. This is the third time I've written that.


    Moreover the team has conducted many hundreds of thousands of open air blasts involving transition reactions. There goes your beta hypothesis unless the team members are currently suffering from radiation effects. They looked to be doing OK at the latest demo.




    I'll even ask Dr. Mills for an explanation of K-capture and see what he says.

  • None of the validations or quantifications of the products or reaction have shown nuclear reaction signatures or products. This is the third time I've written that.


    I'll even ask Dr. Mills for an explanation of K-capture and see what he says.


    I've blocked you, so I don't normally see your posts. My apologies if you've been repeating yourself. It would be necessary to dig into the details of the validations, how independent they are, what steps they took to rule out nuclear reaction signatures or products, etc.


    Please do ask Dr. Mills. It would be interesting to know what his reply is.

  • So the inner captured photon in Mills theory communicates as well with the nucleus there is a proximity of the electromagnetics just outside the nucleus that allows a transition, the transition rates can be calculated. I don't see how this is not even wrong as long as you have a proximity transitions via electromagnetism that can be taken? can you explain?

  • So the inner captured photon in Mills theory communicates as well with the nucleus there is a proximity of the electromagnetics just outside the nucleus that allows a transition, the transition rates can be calculated. I don't see how this is not even wrong as long as you have a proximity transitions via electromagnetism that can be taken? can you explain?


    Inner shell electron capture is a process mediated by the weak interaction requiring an electron to be present in the nucleus. It is not known to directly involve the electromagnetic interaction. So an explanation that uses the terms "electromagnetism" or "photons," etc., does not shed light on the matter, unless we postulate that electron capture happens via a completely different pathway than known up to now. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your description. It is not clear how a photon would drag a charge (i.e., electron) with it, or why there would be a photon being dragged in at all.

  • The electron current does not orbit at the speed of light, it is the photons that do until they transition into matter at which point the currents are confined to the electron's surface at a speed much slower than c.


    I think what you, who appear to be a proponent of Mills, are saying is that the reference from Jeff Driscoll cited by Epimetheus above in support of Mills's derivation of the fine structure constant is misconstruing Mills on this detail. Do you agree?

  • The GUTCP sets all known classical laws as well as the speed of light as boundry conditions within which the entire body of work is derived. This is contrast to QM which makes up arbitrary parameters and math (renormalization) to curve fit equations that don't even work to solve for molecules except for hydrogen.

  • The GUTCP sets all known classical laws as well as the speed of light as boundry conditions within which the entire body of work is derived. This is contrast to QM which makes up arbitrary parameters and math (renormalization) to curve fit equations that don't even work to solve for molecules except for hydrogen.


    My question was not about QM, but about Jeff Driscoll's presentation of the fine structure constant in Mills's theory, which Epimetheus cited approvingly above when the topic of the fine structure constant came up. I was wondering whether you agreed that Driscoll may have gotten Mills's position wrong, as what he said about the electron orbiting at the speed of light in the transition state orbitsphere was different than what you said, namely that it does not orbit at the speed of light. (This is all discussed on p. 8 of Jeff Driscoll's slides; I incorrectly referred to p. 12 above.) Do you agree or disagree with what Jeff Driscoll says on p. 8?

  • None of the validations or quantifications of the products or reaction have shown nuclear reaction signatures or products. This is the third time I've written that.


    The self-sustain mode of the recent Suncell is completely new. There I expect He4 to occur. As long as Mills & Co are not measuring the outgas, we can conclude nothing.


    Inner shell electron capture is a process mediated by the weak interaction requiring an electron to be present in the nucleus.


    Eric: We can reasonably measure W/Z Boson resonances, but this does not imply that the theory is complete. Physics still has no clue how to integrate all 4 forces we know...

  • Okey.


    First i don't believe that the electron is a point particle even in QM and that it is the fields that are the physics e.g. the wave equation is not a probability equation for a point particle. I base this on the observations


    1. The total lagrangian that describes how EM is connected to QM does not use a particle but only the fields (wavefunctions) hence the fields are the physics.
    2. a charged trapped particle where the fields are not the physics means that it will radiate and the atom would not be stable
    3. the physics e.g. the fields need to collapse in a QM world as well cause they are real.
    4. QM wave functions representing actual physical fields means that entanglement becomes unmystified and not strange at all.


    So there is a good argument that actually the QM soup of charge field collapses into the nucleus and is not due to some random possitioning of the electron at the nucleus and is not due to a mysterious point particle that has a positive probability to be close to the nucleus.


    Now mills model the nucleus as photons and charge that are a little different than the atom physics of electron charge and photons. The two systems are very similar but slightly different in how they are assembled. So setting up a photon and a charge you can reach atom sizes and bending the fields you get a compression of the charge and photon system to the small size of the nucleus if there is enough "force" to twist the the system available. So the basic ingriediences is already there, mills does not explain how all this works in detail but just the oppertunity to be able to do just this -which is obvious from this modelling - means that you can't dismiss Mills theory as unlikely just due to your assumptions on how QM is working which I have very good reason to challange.


    There are quite a possibility that there is an error or over fudging in the logic you refer to. But I can't judge that with my experience - just that I question the reality of it because of the reasons above.

  • First i don't believe that the electron is a point particle even in QM and that it is the fields that are the physics e.g. the wave equation is not a probability equation for a point particle.


    I'm agnostic on the question on whether an electron is a particle or a wave or both. But Jarek has an opinion, if you want to talk to him. Regardless, from what I have seen presented of Mills's theory, the matter seems fairly straightforward there: in the context of an atom, the electron occupies an infinitesimally thin orbitsphere consisting of great circles of circulating current. This is a two dimensional surface rather than a three dimensional volume that intersects with the nucleus. What you are describing is closer to QM than Mills's orbitsphere.


    So the basic ingriediences is already there, mills does not explain how all this works in detail but just the oppertunity to be able to do just this -which is obvious from this modelling - means that you can't dismiss Mills theory as unlikely just due to your assumptions on how QM is working which I have very good reason to challange.


    The basic ingredients are there only if you import QM on top of Mills. I think it is important that we represent Mills's theory correctly. It is not necessary to dismiss a specific account (about electron capture) if it is all hand-waving. But perhaps Mills's account of electron capture goes beyond hand-waving and says something concrete. Can you present what Mills says, without importing QM?

  • Do you agree or disagree with what Jeff Driscoll says on p. 8?


    Eric: This citation about "r" concerns the "particle generation volume area" and "r" is not related to something else. Because the fine-structure constant is something like a "physical tripple point" (E-Kin = Epot, no radiation) and based on the hydrogen atom, it occurs naturally in this frame constant.
    You have to read it as : Alpha defines "r".

  • @Eric
    read the book there is a 3 dimensional structure there is photons and charge spheres and I agree that it is an over simplification of Mills theory to just concentrate on the charge sphere shell. Really this charged sphere is just a boundary condition added to maxwells equations.


    No you don't need to overlay QM, it can very well work as I said using elctrodynamics only. But I agree that both QM and Mills theory represents 3 dimensional fields in that way they overlay as a concept for electron capture. As I said before QM has a very difficult force interaction and Mills have just plain o'l classical physic forces. That's the main reason to take Mills seriously and for him to claim superiority.

  • The electron currents do not orbit at c; Dr. Mills gives the exact velocities for the currents at various fractional states, including for the "ground" state and for the free electron. C is recognized as a boundry condition, among others, in the GUT-CP.


    I conclude from this that you disagree with Jeff Driscoll's discussion of the fine structure constant on p. 8 of his slides. Epimetheus, do you have any comment on this?


    Thank you for the link and the page number for Mills's discussion of pair production and k-electron capture. I'll take a look.


  • The Measurement Problem


    Mills will see what he wants to see.


    Quote

    Space and time are not conditions in which we live; they are simply modes in which we think… it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought, it is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]. Space as conceived by Newton proved to be an illusion, although for practical purposes a very fruitful illusion. .. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. ~Albert Einstein

  • See page 1451 for a description of pair production, and further down for K-Capture.


    Here is the relevant section on k-shell electron capture in its entirety:



    Here is Eq. (39.52):



    Anyone willing to walk us through what this is saying? What does it mean concretely when we learn that "Eq. (39.52) can also be applied to the case of K capture"? In what way is it applied? How is the electron captured? Note that an inner shell electron in a heavy atom is much further away from the nucleus than one of Mills's electrons that have transitioned to a level below the ground state (i.e., have a fractional principal quantum number).