Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

Eric: energy to mass conservation ...
@Wyttenbach

I'm struggeling to understand what Mills is doing. The last bit of a coin that fell down is to realize that he model the electric field of the photon as a delta electrical field in a spherical shell - In my previous discussion I started
with a field in the volume that is a superposition of plane waves that mirrors at a certain radi and is therfore contained by a corresponding charge field. Move it to the speed of light and if you want your solutions to be complete in the sense that
you can take mathematical limits you get source terms that is flat disk like fields of derivative of delta measures. Now this means that we get a flat disk delta measure of the electrical field so take the flat disk of the moving photon and
put it on a spherical shell in the pressence of matter and you could argue that they should be present in the theory as well. So yes Mills is clearly extending the classical theory here in a way that has not been considered a reality e.g.
generalized source terms in maxwells equations. The photon field - that is just a field in a thin spherical shell - which shell can vary in radi has such a form so that it essentially behaves as locally increase the field as if there has been an
addition of the central field and this is what enables a hydrino according to Mills. So is this a true theory? Why not , mathematically you can make sense of it so if the experiments work and are proper then he may be right.

Quote from optiongeek

To my knowledge, GUTCP is silent on the issue of conservation of lepton number. It only discusses the conservation of angular momentum.

Ok, let's not worry about the suspicious reworking of angular momentum or the question of conservation of lepton number. How is charge conserved in Stefan's reaction? Before the reaction, we have two photons (charge 0e), and after the reaction we have an electron (charge -1e). Experimentally it's observed that in atomic and nuclear experiments, charge is neither created nor destroyed; rather it's conserved. Stefan: did you mean to include a positron in your suggestion?

yes there is a a pair produced as I understand - my fault, was a bit too quick

Quote from Eric Walker

Ok, let's not worry about the suspicious reworking of angular momentum

You may call it suspicious. However, Mills uses this distribution of angular momentum and first principles (such as Poynting Theorom) to derive a three-term closed-form equation for the electron's anomalous magnetic dipole moment with the same level of precision as the 16-page expanded equation from QED. I present Mills' equation (1.228) here, you can see the derivation for yourself starting with equation 1.163 in GUTCP Vol 1. (http://brilliantlightpower.com…2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf):

Anomalous electron dipole moment w/11-digit accuracy: g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2 (GUTCP equation 1.228)

For comparison, the QED version in all 16-pages of its glory is found here (I've seen 50-page expansions as well): https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9602417v1.pdf

Quote from stefan

yes there is a a pair produced as I understand - my fault, was a bit too quick

In that case, the energy required to produce the electron-positron pair from the photons is not 511 keV, but 1.02 MeV, above and beyond whatever kinetic energy that start out with. Where does this energy come from?

The energy is in the two colliding photons.

Quote from stefan

The energy is in the two colliding photons.

Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion. Is it simply a thought experiment for a process that might occur on occasion, or is it proposed to be a regular process?

I'm trying to give a vivid expression for Mills pair production from photons, and indicate how I think Mills photons behave as I try to dechiffer the book.

The rules given by Mills is that in the photon intrinsic reference system the photon is an orbitsphere.

If you boost with speed v, Mills confined to a sphere photon you will get a moving ellipsoid with contraction in the direction of the movement and in the limit the peculiar charge source term of the derivative of the dirac function.
if I got the Lorenz transformation correct and from that transformation one see that there exists a reference frame that is a spherical shell for all v so why not c as well. That is how I manage to make sense of what Mills is writing.

So two approaching photons, the energy as always relative the frequency and then a direct hit near a third body - needed for conservation and you could according to Mills produce an electron and a positron. This is standrad Mills
and I can give you a reference if you are interested. I just wanted to underline that to me the moving photons acording to Mills are very particle like and not that wave like image that we all got from school. Is he right. I believe so
because I don't think he could have made the suncell without guidance from a correct theory and there are strong spectroscopic evidences of the hydrino. I don't think it is a scam though.

Connecting the dots in previous post I would like to rehash the information as a small blog post e.g. like:

've started to spend some more time to digest Randell Mills GUTCP. He claim, and I tend to agree more and more as I study his work, that he has an alternative framework, that is superior to Quantum Mechanics. If you look at commentaries like from internet you will quickly see that there his theory is assumend to be bunk. But I'am quite able to understand the math and his reasoning although I struggle as I go. It is obvious to me that Mills does do things that can make mathematical sense - but you need to have studied generalized functions called distribution to see this else you can be quite easilly fooled thinking that Mills is working with objects that are unphysical and in a incorrect way.This is the story.

Let's start off with taking plane waves of em waves and add them together if you have an equal amount of them in all directions but at a certain frequency you would get the following electrical field

j_0(|r| w / c)exp( i w t)

If you kill off the electric field at the first zero for a positive radi you get sources e.g. charges at a spherical shell indicating the matching field for some of mills charge terms for the electron in e.g. hydrogen.Now you can play a game and start moving the system and employ the lorenz transformation meaning that as we approach the speed of light and do this carefully we would see that another mathematical object comes up, namely that you will have a solution to maxwells equations with a source term being the derivative of a dirac disc like distribution, the derivative in the direction of movement.

In mathematics we often strive for completeness e.g. that all formal limits will be well defined in the space we are using - in our case physical reality. And hence these kinds of extended mathematical objects steams from assuming that space can support a standing wave together with a completeness assumption.If we now have them moving why not assuming that they can go around in a circle and be still, e.g. captured in a resonant cavity. We now have an object that can for example due to it's fundamental simplicity form a derivative of a dirac source term in a spherical shell. The interpretation of this means that the electric field with positive energy is only living in a spherical shell.This is what Mills called a captured photon

If you would now take this solution and throw it to the speed of light you would just reproduce the old disk like source term of a derivative of a dirac disk so the creation of new objects stops and it is this disk like object that Mills is assuming to be the same as the free photons we see with our eyes.Note how this notion of a photon is fundamentally diffrent then from e.g. radio waves, and that this is not classical physics. In classical physics you do consider dirac measures but not the derivative of it.Mills does not know the theory of distributions and work in stead with restrictions of equation to surfaces and sort of decouples the difficulties by looking only at the electrical fields for the photon and never write down the EM equations that they follow.

Anyhow with this interpretation for a mathematician you would be able to understand where the hydrino seam to come from mathematically speaking. E.g. we get a electrical field in a delta spherical shell that mimics in strength an effective higher central positive charge which forces the electron closer just as he writes down in his book. Understanding this is ok got me understanding why you can have a proton with no central particle holding it together the photon field simply mimmicks the central field quite well.

Now, for a normal scholar, if you look at this derivation of the hydrino you would be alarmed of why the heck you have an electrical field just in a shell - which look so arbritary and unphysical. But as I have tried to show with this argument enabling space to form resonant cavities containing an EM wave in a spherical container with the appropriate charge sources - assuming Lorenz invariance and completeness of limits together with a little hand waving - you actually end up with these strange mathematical objects or interface math.

So Mills theory of the hydrino is less strange than meets the eye but still calls for physical proofs in order to be accepted and that our preassumptions of space needs to be adjusted. I think that Mills have shown that to the world. And even better proofs will come the next coming year and months.

Exiting times.

Regards
Stefan

Quote from stefan

So Mills theory of the hydrino is less strange than meets the eye but still calls for physical proofs in order to be accepted and that our preassumptions of space needs to be adjusted. I think that Mills have shown that to the world. And even better proofs will come the next coming year and months.

stefan: Thanks for your reasoning. Up to the part where you mention the photon can mimic an additional charge I can agree. But contrary to Mills I see no stable object. The hydrino orbits look more like resonances - meta stable states - which (only low level ones) were experimentally confirmed.
Just one thought experiment: If you walk down the “hydrino ionization” line down to H1/137 you will encounter many fundamental problems. There is no way to exchange a H(1/41) photon with a H(1/61) or what ever you take. You will end up with a fully occupied orbit of many standing “charge like” waves, which per definition will mutually influence themselves. Further on the energy stored in these orbits can only be of magnetic nature.

A pseudo charge sphere is a mathematical phantasy, as all known waves are constructed by orthogonal oscillating B/E-fields. Thus the sphere would correspond to an in place frozen wave...

The other error of Mills is to say that the central charge gets enhanced. One more Thought: A pseudo charge sphere can only exist close to the nucleus. But then this sphere will feel the same charge (as the electron is assumed to feel..) an will be pulled off, with the same force as two protons will pull themselves off.

Thus there are only two approaches that could work: The charge of the electron increases or his mass increases – as seen in the muon case.

Why does nobody try to model the hydrino phenomena with known exiton physics?

May be tomorrow Mills' will present us a di-hydrino molecule, which he now should have plenty of.. and we will have to reiterate our discussion.

Quote from stefan

So two approaching photons, the energy as always relative the frequency and then a direct hit near a third body - needed for conservation and you could according to Mills produce an electron and a positron. This is standrad Mills and I can give you a reference if you are interested.

Pair production from an energetic photon is a phenomenon well known to physics. The photon must be energetic (1.02 MeV or more), and the third body must be charged and preferably heavy. There is also photon-photon pair production. I do not consider it a selling-point that Mills accounts for pair-production in his theory; it seems rather to be a simple necessity. If his theory said that pair production couldn't happen, it would be a strong count against it.

Quote from stefan

Is he [Mills] right. I believe so because I don't think he could have made the suncell without guidance from a correct theory and there are strong spectroscopic evidences of the hydrino. I don't think it is a scam though.

Mills's theory can be correct, and BrLP's experimental output mistaken. Mills's theory can be mistaken, and BrLP's experimental output good. You trust that BrLP's success with the SunCell (here we must assume that there has been genuine success for the SunCell) was only possible with Mills's theory, but I think this is a non-sequitor, i.e., one conclusion does not follow from the other.

@Wyttenbach
"
A pseudo charge sphere is a mathematical phantasy, as all known waves are constructed by orthogonal oscillating B/E-fields. Thus the sphere would correspond to an in place frozen wave.nullnullWe are talking about interface math or physics at a boundary.
"

I agree that this creature is hard to melt but as I tried to explain that interface math seam to become a reality if you allow resonant cavieties and the limits to be real physical quantities, Also note that if you put a charge at the boundary of this pseudo sphere you would feel an infinite force (the dirac measure has infinite height and zero width) but if the charge have a distribution - e.g. is spread out in space then the force would be finite and E charge(r). This is disturbing and Mills must perform a much more careful analysis in order to explain how all this hangs together mathematically. If you look what he does it looks like he forgets about the dirac measures and just do the math on the interface and just say in words that everything is constructed such it all fits together. In a sense it is hand waving but I can agree that the photon and an electric filed just in an interface could explain a force balance intrinsic to the interface that keeps a proton charged and still stable. But more math and analysis is needed to be academically convincing.

@Wyttenbach
Note that the pseudo sphere charge photon part is not real charge it is the derivative of the dirac measure, essentially the limit of C(delta(r+h)-delta(r))/h which is charge neutral for all h > 0 in the limit. So the photon part does not self interact externally outside the shell. But still the photon part creates a stabilizing intrinsic to the shell force through the fact that the area of the inner shell and outer shell is slightly different intrinsically (scales as h) and hence intrinsicly will create a drag of the charge towards the center doing the limits correctly and you'l get a balanced shell. The question is if this is all stable equilibrioum. That needs more careful analysis.

Quote from stefan

Note that the pseudo sphere charge photon part is not real charge it is the derivative of the dirac measure, essentially the limit of C(delta(r+h)-delta(r))/h which is charge neutral for all h > 0 in the limit. So the photon part does not self interact externally outside the shell. But still the photon part creates a stabilizing intrinsic to the shell force through the fact that the area of the inner shell and outer shell is slightly different intrinsically (scales as h) and hence intrinsicly will create a drag of the charge towards the center doing the limits correctly and you'l get a balanced shell. The question is if this is all stable equilibrioum. That needs more careful analysis.

stefan: These arguments are quite compelling. But.., as I mentioned down to H(137) you need to calculate in many photons, which themselves must obey some basic rules about their relative frequencies. But what happens to the photon, if the radius of the electron shrinks? Normally the frequency must increase too!, what is quit fantastic, in the case where more than one photon comes into the play!

Which part (electron, captured wave?) of the hydrino shell is interacting - releasing energy - e.g., on the way down from H(11) --> H(31) , just to mention a case with two primes, which never fits?
I said this already month ago: There is no hydrino-statistics after H(1/13)! May be this is a stopping point, because to go further you need a many-body reaction.

Quote from Wyttenbach

stefan: These arguments are quite compelling. But.., as I mentioned down to H(137) you need to calculate in many photons, which themselves must obey some basic rules about their relative frequencies. But what happens to the photon, if the radius of the electron shrinks? Normally the frequency must increase too!, what is quit fantastic, in the case where more than one photon comes into the play!

Which part (electron, captured wave?) of the hydrino shell is interacting - releasing energy - e.g., on the way down from H(11) --> H(31) , just to mention a case with two primes, which never fits?
I said this already month ago: There is no hydrino-statistics after H(1/13)! May be this is a stopping point, because to go further you need a many-body reaction.

According to GUTCP, photons superpose absolutely. As I understand GUTCP, the energy hole corresponding to the release of m * 27.2eV is modelled as a single photon, regardless of the value of m. And a subsequent release of another m * 27.2eV just adds to the existing energy hole. I'm going to ask Prof. Huub Bakker (Massey University) about this. I know he is working on a text book describing this exact issue.

I have more to add to the discussion.

One simple thing to do with Maxwell's equation with the Lorenz gauge is to plug in a plane wave and see what it does with it. From this you can deduce elements and geometrical understanding of what it describes. The interpretation is e.g. that the electrical potential is, for plane waves, transported in such a way so that along a variation in the field it is a moving stream at the speed of light and at directions of constant potential there are no limit. So if you take at each point in space a bucket of electrical potential. the velocities out of it transport away it like a flow of a river. A generalization of this where a subspace would be the solution of the EM field is a model where you at each point of space have flows in and out of the point in all directions and potential conservation is valid (assuming no source or sink terms). And that the arrows pointing to two equally filled buckets transport with arbitrary speed and for buckets with different amount of values the transport is the speed of light.

Now, the photon I argue with has space filed with potential say 1 to the right of the photon moving right ways and say 0 at the left and because of the propertied described above the step would be transported as is e.g. it does seam to follow the generalized model.

Now for a spherical shell of charge we could argue that the space is curved in the presence of mass and that the direction around a circle is a pointing at a direction where there is no variation and which allows arbitrary speed transport and that we have a velocity inwards as well which is at the speed of light like the free fall of a satellite orbiting earth matching in a sense the model above as well. Now the orbitsphere is covered by great circles to get a uniform distribution and the generalization of this argument would be the orbitsphere Mills have with all the spherical harmonics.

Quote from optiongeek

According to GUTCP, photons superpose absolutely. As I understand GUTCP, the energy hole corresponding to the release of m * 27.2eV is modelled as a single photon, regardless of the value of m. And a subsequent release of another m * 27.2eV just adds to the existing energy hole. I'm going to ask Prof. Huub Bakker (Massey University) about this. I know he is working on a text book describing this exact issue.

Prof. Bakker has responded to my email which I copy here:

"This is absolutely right. Photons can be superimposed absolutely if they have the same wavelength (size) and the energy absorbed/emitted by an electron is added/removed from the, one, photon trapped in the orbitsphere.
For instance, this is how an excited electron behaves. The photon absorbed has the energy difference between two states and therefore is much larger than any already-trapped photon. Yet there is only one photon after the change of state, one that is a harmonic of the new orbitsphere size. (Damn, a number of questions have raised themselves in my head that show that I don’t really (still!) know what’s going on.)
regards
Huub"

Hi,

Was that discussed somewhere that how quantum computers work according to GUTCP? Specifically can qbits exist in GUTCP?

Thanks

Lajos

I asked a question here related to the duble slit experiment, wating for the answer:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…versations/messages/13171

My question was:

--------------------------------------

Hi Randy,

On this page
http://brilliantlightpower.com/double-slit

it is said
"The interaction of the electron with the slits is mediated by mirror currents that form on the slits"

Can you explain what is the interaction medium? Is it an electromagnetic wave? If yes is it coming from the electron? If not from the elctron then from where?

If the medium is not an EM wave then what is it?

-------------------------------------

The question is the same for the pilot wave. If it is not a physical thing then it doesn't fit in GUTCP. If it is a physical thing (some kind of field?) then where does it get its energy from? One electron's pilot wave is said to take input from the whole universe i.e. it the wave must occupy a huge volune. How much energy is needed to generate a wave of this size?