/* But that does not mean that GUTCP cannot explain them,*/
It cannot explain them, until the GUTCP orbitals are spherical, because graphite requires to have electrons above and bellow of atom planes - not inside them
Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action
-
-
I do not see how it can be done without setting aside orbitspheres.
May be you once dig into the classical explanation for electron capture based on e+e- pair production in the nuclear field?!
For electron capture there is absolutely no need for an electron-cloud going through a nucleus! It's a classical misinterpretation of QM!
In fact QM only works for the finestructure of the orbits and not for nuclear processes!
-
May be you once dig into the classical explanation for electron capture based on e+e- pair production in the nuclear field?!
For electron capture there is absolutely no need for an electron-cloud going through a nucleus! It's a classical misinterpretation of QM!
I'm genuinely interested in the contents of the description that you're asserting here with characteristic confidence. Can you elaborate, possibly providing a reference or two? -
I'm genuinely interested in the contents of the description that you're asserting here with characteristic confidence. Can you elaborate, possibly providing a reference or two?
Eric: It was me that asked you to give me a QM formula which generically delivers the Beta+- capture ratio for a big range of nuclei with an error of less than 1%! To my knowledge there exists none (not using fitted paramters..) which is based on basic laws.
Thus I'm waiting for it!
What I said is: In heavy nuclei Z > 100 the "strong force" field may induce pair production. Why should this not account for the same process in smaller nuclei? This as my argument why QM will never explain it!
-
Eric: It was me that asked you to give me a QM formula which generically delivers the Beta+- capture ratio for a big range of nuclei with an error of less than 1%! To my knowledge there exists none (not using fitted paramters..) which is based on basic laws.
Thus I'm waiting for it!
What I said is: In heavy nuclei Z > 100 the "strong force" field may induce pair production. Why should this not account for the same process in smaller nuclei? This as my argument why QM will never explain it!
In answer to your question for the QM formula for electron capture—this is surely something you can look up yourself, or do you dispute that there are such calculations? I have no knowledge of one that does or does not fall within an accuracy of 1%, nor is the existence or lack thereof of a formula with that kind of error bounds even slightly relevant to my point.I'll make my point again, which is qualitative rather than quantitative. QM, with its three dimensional orbitals, makes it straightforward to imagine how electron capture can occur, which requires the operation of the weak interaction, an interaction that is believed to happen at distances several orders of magnitude smaller than the nuclear interaction. By contrast, orbitspheres provide no insight into how electron capture might occur and even obscure the fact that it would be possible. This is the hallmark of a theory that is unphysical. Basic geometric considerations are important in physics.
Am I to understand that your point about pair production is unrelated to getting Mills's theory out of its difficulty with electron capture? The strong force does not produce pair production. Pair production is a process that usually involves a photon with energy ~ 1 MeV or greater, sufficient to produce the electron-positron (or other lepton) pair in the presence of a strong Coulomb field (i.e., no strong interaction involved). How exactly is QM deficient here?
-
Pair production is a process that usually involves a photon with energy ~ 1 MeV or greater, sufficient to produce the electron-positron (or other lepton) pair in the presence of a strong Coulomb field (i.e., no strong interaction involved).
Finally you got it, what Mill's theory is about!
It's not essentially about nuclear physics. What I went through is the orbit part, that is important for Chemistry and that seems to work. The hydrino stuff has some limitations as a posted many times before. Nevertheless deep orbits are a fact, but there is no theoretical consense, but the silly answer unphysical...
But key is: If some part of a theory works much better, than the world wide gold theory consensus, then everybody has to first read it and then raise questions. Answers like unphysical are just damn silly and children stuff.
Did you ever ask Bor why his theory (Bor model) works to calculate the Bor radius, even though in your view it's completely unphysical?
May be, at the end, QM can be improved!
-
But key is: If some part of a theory works much better, than the world wide gold theory consensus, then everybody has to first read it and then raise questions. Answers like unphysical are just damn silly and children stuff.
Nonsense. If a theory is unphysical it is the duty of the person or people proposing it to make it physical. There could hardly be a better complaint. This is why people strove to move beyond the Bohr model in the early part of the 1900's, and no doubt why Bohr himself went along with them. -
Nonsense. If a theory is unphysical it is the duty of the person or people proposing it to make it physical. There could hardly be a better complaint. This is why people strove to move beyond the Bohr model in the early part of the 1900's, and no doubt why Bohr himself went along with them.
Eric: With this childish ("unphysical") attitude you will never help us to find out why Mill's theory, in some aspects, works better than QM ...
But, may be, we have to live with the fact, that for a big part of the physics establishment and their followers, physics is a substitute for religion. I propose thereof to use the term heretic instead of unphysical.
BDW: There are thousands of physicians, who believe, that QM is unphysical, but that is no reason "for not to use it" for what it fits.
-
Eric: With this childish ("unphysical") attitude you will never help us to find out why Mill's theory, in some aspects, works better than QM ...
But, may be, we have to live with the fact, that for a big part of the physics establishment and their followers, physics is a substitute for religion. I propose thereof to use the term heretic instead of unphysical.
That's incorrect. I'm open to the possibility that some of the calculations are as good or even better. I consider it an empirical question, hopefully to be sorted out."Unphysical" means not physical, i.e., giving funny results or not accounting for important experimental evidence that lies within the scope of a theory's applicability. You are trolling now by suggesting that it is being used synonymously with "heretical". I have given a concrete reason for thinking Mills's theory is unphysical.
-
That's incorrect. I'm open to the possibility that some of the calculations are as good or even better. I consider it an empirical question, hopefully to be sorted out.
See this. Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?It could be sorted out.
When a company involves millions of dollars, as Mills' company does, we must consider the possibility of deception. This is not normal in science, but arises when it intersects with business and especially when secret products and unverifiable claims are being made. The claim of high performance of "Millsian," the program, is verifiable. But what does it mean?
Deception hypothesis: the program is a look-up table, with data from experimental values that has been dithered so there is some common but small error. As a more sophisticated version, if it is fed something that cannot be found in the table, it will use analogous data. This would likely show up as greater error when something new is calculated than something that is already one of the reported molecules. It could be tricky to study.
The first level of verification would ignore this. Is the basic claim true, aside from how it might be accomplished? Is how the program works, using Mills' theory, to calculate bond energies, visible? If so, the calculations themselves could be verified aside from the program, bypassing any possible lookup table.
(It is not difficult to hide lookup tables in programs if they are large enough. There is a whole technology of concealing how programs work, to protect IP.)
An evaluation version of the program is available at http://www.millsian.com/
it is impossible to verify the SunCell claims, for most people. However, it should be quite possible, if someone is willing to do the work, to verify the program, and even to do so conclusively. If Millsian really does work, that's of major interest, it gives a reason to investigate his ideas more closely.
I caution it would not be a proof. It is entirely possible for an "unphysical" theory to nevertheless produce predictions of high precision, at least to a substantial degree. However, it becomes more difficult to simply discard the theory out of hand. I have seen contrary papers about Mills' theory, but none of it was convincing to me. Either way.
I developed my own opinion out of the history of his company and the claims made. It doesn't look good, let me put it that way. But appearances can be deceiving.
-
I developed my own opinion out of the history of his company and the claims made. It doesn't look good, let me put it that way. But appearances can be deceiving.
I agree with this sentiment. When I first heard about Mills/BLP/BrLP, maybe five years ago now?, I thought it was all a lot of fun, in the same category as Papp, NanoSpire, Manelas, magnet motors and RAR Energia—one of those topics that makes one smirk a little but still wonder if there's something to it. Then I learned more about the details of Mills's explanation and about the amount of funding BrLP has received over the years. My assumption at this point is that BrLP's investors know they're making a risky investment, and I don't have a strong sense that there's intentional deceit. But only in the last few years have I really started to read up on physics, and I was taken aback to have found two or three amateur oversights such as the electron capture omission on my own, two decades after Mills got started. That raises a yellow or even a red flag for me.It is despite such reservations that I look forward to any headway that is made to validate the claims that are often made about the superior fit to experiment of calculations from Mills's theory and software. A big distraction is that hobbyists that take an interest in Mills are often less than objective about the whole thing and don't seem to do due diligence. Perhaps there is some self-selection going on here. Nonetheless I remain curious. Even in a predictable negative outcome, such an effort would help to clear up the airwaves for other discussions.
-
When I state that the formulas produces the right answer then it simply means that when yo use the formula and calculate the value you usually get close to the experimental value. To find out if this is true is trivial. By combining the basic physical quantities you end up with the possibility to calculate any real number to arbritary precistion via some finite combination. This without any fudge factors and it must be through such a method Mills could fake. So you need to decide if the formulas are deduced from a few basic principles. I can only say that most of Mills results seam s to be through a method orginating from the basic assumptions. The easiest thing to verify is the ionisation energy of the hydrogen atom to about three digits accuracy which you do by skipping the contribution from the magnetic spinn of the nucleus. Usually in Mills derivations, which seam to be mostly correct up to a point where there is a change of reference system - here I lose Mills and dont understand why he get the new expressions. All I can say is that this same tric is used over and over again and could not lead to the many degrees of freedom to produce the accuracy through some arbritary combination.
Electron capture means that an electron from the inner shell of a neutral atom get combined with a proton and produces a neutron. And it is a good critique on Mills why the electron, located outside in a shell, can travel in to the core. But there is an electric field communicating between the nucleus and the inner electrons. The whole event is due to an instability of the nucleus. So assume that the photon get soaked up by the nucleus temporally and during a very short time frame. I envision the photon as keeping a pressure on the walls which would mean that a sudden condensation of the photon would mean that the electorn shell follows with it.
So the idea is that there is an instability which can be fixed if we could soak in a new photon.
A photon outside the nuclei get soaked into the nucleus
The electron get soaked into the nuclei as well.regards
Stefan -
Display More
So does QM.
Epimetheus wrote:
QM uses much more postulates and assumptions.You have to be more precise here because the Schrödinger equation, and even its relativistic relative Klein-Gordon, can be derived from Maxwell and Einstein equations.
Thank you for pointing that out. Most articles and textbooks I read don´t point that out. But QM still uses way more postulates:
there are six fundamental postulates as seen here. Normally there are only five given, but in my link the sixth postulate refers to pauli exclusion principle and Hundts rule. The last point basicly says, that QM does not know why the electron orbits are filled the observed way and so QM has a postulate for that.
The other major postulates come with spin. Spin is not a part of the schroedinger equation but later added in QED to match the observations. It is also postulated that the spin is "inert". So no real spin but something similar. More or less an undefined mathematical construct. And with QED there comes the next postulates. To derive the electron g factor it was necessary to postulate a power series with the fine structure constant. Then virtual particles are postulated and after that a set of Feynman diagrams were postulated and to solve all this an algorithm was postulated that could normalize all the infinities in the equations.Mills by the way got the electron g factor correct with simple analytical and classical equations. This part of his theory is pretty impressive. Regarding the needed postulates Mills is way ahead of QM. If he can explain everything QM is able to explain needs to be seen.
-
Regarding the needed postulates Mills is way ahead of QM. If he can explain everything QM is able to explain needs to be seen.
How does Mills theory explain Bose condinsation?
-
Quote from Epimetheus: “
Regarding the needed postulates Mills is way ahead of QM. If he can explain everything QM is able to explain needs to be seen.”
How does Mills theory explain Bose condensation?
Mills theory is also quantisized and it too will predict the global quantizations effects you see in Bose Einstein Condensates.
-
[quote='axil','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/4510-Validation-of-Randell-Mills-GUTCP-a-call-for-action/?postID=40637#post40637']
Mills theory is also quantisized and it too will predict the global quantizations effects you see in Bose Einstein Condensates.
I was specifically thinking about entanglement not quantization. Is entanglement allowed in Mills theory, and if so can electrons and photons become entangled as in polaritons?
Does Mills allow for Polaritons?
Can I also add the Uncertainty principle to the question?
-
Sure entanglement experiments can be reproduced like the aspect test, but the mainstream conclusion of entanglement is about mysterious action at distance, it's not. It's all a version of hidden variables where systems are non local to a good approximation e.g. the world can still be local but the system that these experiments probes probes from a metastable state which law is nonlocal.
-
The uncertainty principle is bogus. It just reflects the error of the QM model e.g. when approximating the GUTCP fields using a soup of waves you make an error I think that the uncertainty principle is basically a measure where this modelling breaks and the QM prediction becomes fuzzy. This is kind of interesting because whenever you find that QM is not predicting measurements one look at the model error or Heisenbergs inequality and sees that QM is fuzzy about this and miss-takingly over interpret this error as a mysterious physical property and not an error in the model. This means that QM is an endpoint in mathematical modelling because we stop trying to refine the QM model when we get below Heisenbergs uncertainty.
-
Sure entanglement experiments can be reproduced like the aspect test, but the mainstream conclusion of entanglement is about mysterious action at distance, it's not. It's all a version of hidden variables where systems are non local to a good approximation e.g. the world can still be local but the system that these experiments probes probes from a metastable state which law is nonlocal.
I ask again as follows:
Does Mills allow for Polaritons?
Can I also add the Uncertainty principle to the question?
I add the following remark about action at a distance that disproves your statement from experimental evidence as follows:
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-…tance-record-has-been-set
QuoteResearchers in the US have successfully teleported information encoded into particles of light over 100 kilometres of optical fibre, smashing the previous distance record of 25 km.
-
If polaritons existance depends on a mysterious action at distance then they are only a theoretical construct. I'm pretty sure that action at distance is not proven to be a probable factual reality else physists would not bother to continue do verisons of the Aspect experiemnent to rule out other interpretations than action at distance via evaluating Bells inequality. That they still use this method means that nowhere in physics that is acceptable as close to truth there have been a proof that action at distance exists. As I said before what we know is that the action must involve non localness. When we consider point particles breaking this is severe, but if the quantities are fields than this side condition is not as devastating and GUTCP is about fields of various kinds and no point particles. Qm itself can be seen as the fields beeing the pphysical quantities but with weired forces acting on these quantities that human minds don't have a sensible chance to understand. That's why I think that MIlls theory is so attractive, we can setup a force balance using newton, einstein and Maxwell etc and our understanding from the global world can at advantage be applied to the atomic and subatomic world.
If polaritons is just a consequence of the aspect test and not action at distance then Mills theory have them as well.
