Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

Quote from Eric Walker

Does it account for the all of the main problems that quantum mechanics seeks to model?

Quote from Eric Walker

You have suggested that QM's treatment of phenomena at the nuclear level is only valid out to the Bohr radius.

Mills formalism does not replace QM for all problems we like to solve. In all cases where we model dynamic fine structure behavior QM seems to be more adequate.

I said: QM absolutely can't be used below de Broglie radius, what is everything regarding nuclei. QM can also not be use to calculate deep orbits, without including the correct mutual relativistic source terms for the magnet fields.

The error you will see in QM for calculations with higher chemical 2+, 3+ ionization states is huge, because the proper magnetic terms are missing, but in a grid you can work around this.

It is as always: You have to select the proper theory for the work you would like to complete. Or even better: Do it like Tesla and just invent!

Quote from Wyttenbach

I said: QM absolutely can't be used below de Broglie radius, what is everything regarding nuclei.

QM is used for calculations at the nuclear and subnuclear levels. Nuclear phonons, s-wave and p-wave nuclear state, Feynman diagrams, quantum chromodynamics, etc. This is quantum mechanics. Have I misunderstood your assertion?

Quote from Wyttenbach

QM can also not be use to calculate deep orbits, without including the correct mutual relativistic source terms for the magnet fields.

"Deep orbits" are a hypothesis (one I'm doubtful of).

Quote from Wyttenbach

It is as always: You have to select the proper theory for the work you would like to complete. Or even better: Do it like Tesla and just invent!

Ok, then. You seem to agree with me that Mills's attempt at replacing (existing) quantum mechanics with a "classical" version is at best an incomplete project. What, then, is the proper domain for using Mills's theory for which existing approaches are less useful or desirable?

Quote from Eric Walker

QM is used for calculations at the nuclear and subnuclear levels. Nuclear phonons, s-wave and p-wave nuclear state, Feynman diagrams, quantum chromodynamics, etc. This is quantum mechanics. Have I misunderstood your assertion?

QM calculations for sub-nuclear level is fringe science with no concrete results. Feynman diagrams/calcs make sense to estimate all forces/fields that are involved. But the main drawback of the standard model is it's backing by measurements and not by base constants, what makes it only a second degree theory, what means: It is engineering level not basic science.

Quote from Eric Walker

What, then, is the proper domain for using Mills's theory for which existing approaches are less useful or desirable?

The main advantage of Mills calculus is the (more) exact derivation of the involved energies. What is missing is the perturbation of the statistics (temperature!). You get the exact configuration (bond angles) of molecules much faster than with any other method. But there are cases that can not be solved, because they are not stable. There is still "hand work" involved. I guess the QM guys should take some things from Mills to simplify/improve their algorithms.

Quote from Wyttenbach

QM calculations for sub-nuclear level is fringe science with no concrete results.

Do you agree, then, that QM at the nuclear level is not fringe science? Or shall we conclude that these books are fringe science?

https://www.amazon.com/Introdu…nneth-Krane/dp/047180553X

https://goo.gl/qTZjzC

I doubt most physicists would agree with you that quantum chromodynamics is fringe. I guess it depends upon how one defines "fringe."

Quote from Wyttenbach

The main advantage of Mills calculus is the (more) exact derivation of the involved energies. What is missing is the perturbation of the statistics (temperature!). You get the exact configuration (bond angles) of molecules much faster than with any other method.

Newtonian physics has the huge advantage of making it much easier to calculate a ballistic trajectory over a small patch of earth than can be done with general relativity. But that does not make Newtonian physics more correct or accurate than general relativity. General relativity provides insights into physics that the Newtonian system does not. Perhaps at most we could say that Newtonian physics is applicable to a different or smaller domain than general relativity. But that obscures the relationship. So ease of use of an approach (e.g., that of Mills over QM) tells us little.

As I have said, there have no doubt been analytically derived semi-empirical equations for a long time that cover everything Mills touches upon that are as fast and easy to use. The only putative improvement upon this situation that I have heard claimed is that Mills does the same thing with basic constants. I have not seen this borne out in the case of the neutron-electron mass ratio, however, and I wonder whether the equations that are accurate have been fiddled with to make work. And, of course, the orbitsphere has the disadvantage of seeming to be unphysical.

Quote from Eric Walker

General relativity provides insights into physics that the Newtonian system does not.

Sorry Eric: Please read Mills! "General relativity" (Einstein, Minkovski)cannot be used at nuclear levels since the correlation between time dilatation and mass increase breaks down. There is no single simple Lorenz factor for the radial and the azimutal treatment of waves! This is not a consequentc of Newton mechanics. It a direct consequnce of Maxwell equations.

General relativity is only valid for empty space! Further it is based on a residual force only. That's why I call most parts of the standard modell fringe science.

If you want to prove that there are valid subparts, then please show us a formula just based on first principles (constants, particle masses, math) that calculate a usefull quanty with more than 4 digits precision.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Sorry Eric: Please read Mills! "General relativity" (Einstein, Minkovski)cannot be used at nuclear levels since the correlation between time dilatation and mass increase breaks down.

You missed my point, Wyttenbach. General relativity was used in analogy to Newtonian physics to make a point about a more complex system not necessarily being inferior to a simpler, easier to calculate system. There was no suggestion that general relativity be applied to nuclear levels. I think this is actually pretty obvious, and you were just replying too quickly.

Newtonian physics : general relativity => something simpler (Newtonian physics) is not necessarily better than something more complex and harder to calculate (general relativity).

With our handy analogy, the following nice and obvious conclusion is suggested as a consequence:

Mills's theoretical apparatus : quantum mechanics => something simpler (Mills's theoretical apparatus) is not necessarily better than something more complex and harder to calculate (quantum mechanics).

The analogy falls apart if you push it too hard: Newtonian physics presents genuine insights into physics, whereas I am doubtful that Mills's theoretical apparatus does from what I've learned of it.

Isn't the argument that's Mills' work provides a higher level of accuracy too? And without a bunch of constants/ post-hoc tweaks.

Quote from Zeus46

Isn't the argument that's Mills' work provides a higher level of accuracy too? And without a bunch of constants/ post-hoc tweaks.

That is the argument but it is untrue, based on a time long ago when we did not have the computational power, and numerical analysis sophistication, to do the (real) calculations properly. They are deliciously accurate, no tweaks. And Mills' results are not so accurate.

Quote from Zeus46

Isn't the argument that's Mills' work provides a higher level of accuracy too? And without a bunch of constants/ post-hoc tweaks.

Yes, that's a main arguing point. I am skeptical that this is true (e.g., in comparison to other relatively straightforward non-QM approaches to calculating these quantities). But if true it would be an interesting detail. With Mills supporters, an important thing I've learned is that it is necessary to ask them to go beyond claims made by Mills to actually verify that that those claims are accurate. What I've seen so far is that the claims are usually taken at face value without further verification or comparison to other existing approaches.

And then there's the orbitsphere, which gives the impression of being unphysical.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is the argument but it is untrue, based on a time long ago when we did not have the computational power, and numerical analysis sophistication, to do the (real) calculations properly. They are deliciously accurate, no tweaks. And Mills' results are not so accurate.

I'm the first to admit I don't have a clue about QM, beyond the very basics, but my limited understanding is that many empirically determined constants have been added, which if true, could be considered as 'post-hoc tweaks'? (ie. propping up an increasingly abstract construction)

Yes, that's my impression as well about QM. I am not a defender of QM beyond saying something like, "real physicists use QM to solve real problems, and you (Mills supporters) need a compelling argument to make a convincing case that they're living in error and sin in believing what they believe, and the argument you've provided is easy to pick apart."

I would not be surprised to learn that QM is refactored at some point into something more intuitive. It's possible that Mills's theoretical apparatus contains some insights here, but the orbitsphere and the apparent misdirection of GUT-CP make me pessimistic that it does.

And at risk of derailing the thread, it seems to me that if QMers are having to posit things like multiverses and their ilk, my intuition says it's time for them to find a better rabbit-hole to go down ....Although I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong.

And I get that the universe doesn't necessarily have to work in an easily understandable way - But a separate universe spawned by each quantum event? Really?! How big do the underlying issues have to be, to end up with that as your potential solution?

QM is a big topic that spans a number of areas of physics. I think of it mostly in terms of the spherical harmonics (e.g., s-shell, p-shell and d-shell electron orbitals), superposition of states, the transferring of energy in quanta and the weird phenomena underlying entanglement and the two-slit experiment. My impression is that the multiverses thing is a side show spurred on by philosophical preoccupations, although perhaps we will eventually learn that QM is in fact a cult.

I think multiverses are a solution to well-known(?) problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation, a fundamental part of QM?

But you beg the question as to why there are even philosophical preoccupations in the first place? ...No philosopher seems to stuggle over General Relativity, for example.

Copenhagen is one of several understandings of QM (one I'm not particularly sympathetic to), and I never got the impression that multiverses is a necessary consequence of QM. There is, for example, the transactional interpretation of QM (different from Copenhagen) as well as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. I think there are others as well. (I'm not clear on the relationship between multiverses and Copenhagen.)

Re the philosophical preoccupations, I'm not sure. I gather that it is a combination of the counterintuitive nature of the results combined with the dogmatic assertions of early pioneers that it is fundamentally incomprehensible and/or that the act of measurement assumes supreme significance. But it definitely points to QM being only a partial description.

...Much like every model of the universe in history, and probably hence!

Quote from Eric Walker

Copenhagen is one of several understandings of QM (one I'm not particularly sympathetic to), and I never got the impression that multiverses is a necessary consequence of QM. There is, for example, the transactional interpretation of QM (different from Copenhagen) as well as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. I think there are others as well. (I'm not clear on the relationship between multiverses and Copenhagen.)

Maybe? Pretty much my only source of information is this (highly recommended) documentary...

And I watched it a long time ago...

The quick version: https://www.scientificamerican…e/hugh-everett-biography/

Quote from Zeus46

I'm the first to admit I don't have a clue about QM, beyond the very basics, but my limited understanding is that many empirically determined constants have been added, which if true, could be considered as 'post-hoc tweaks'? (ie. propping up an increasingly abstract construction)

When I looked, this was not the case. In fact we discussed this on another thread. The numerical work that established these constants - and gets more accurate all the time, is very impressive and (for what I was challenged about then) did not invoke any ad hoc parameters: all terms were provable from first principles. If someone could find the old discussion we could go over it.

Are you talking about this?... Opinions on BLPs molecule results

Seems that the conclusion is: 'there are basically no fudge factors in the QED predictions of nuclear masses'? But whether that's really the same thing is beyond my ken.

Well I can't find a good external source of any arguments about there being too many fudge factors. In fact most articles seem to refer to the so-called 'measurement problem', which is pretty much what that video above is all about.

Quote from Eric Walker

And then there's the orbitsphere, which gives the impression of being unphysical.

I guess the smiley face is due to the other side containing even bigger apparent oddities?... Like Shroedingers Cat for starters.

Edit: ...Which 'your' Transactional Interpretation seems to take care of, amongst other things: http://faculty.washington.edu/…int/Westport_20110420.ppt