Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • 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.


    Thankyou. In that thread I bothered to go look at the literature. And found the new numerical techniques that allow no-fudge-factor accurate calcs. All you have to do is look at the papers, which explain methodology.


    So there was this: Opinions on BLPs molecule results


    Li ionisation levels calculated by QM 40,000X better than by Mills


    and this:


    Opinions on BLPs molecule results


    There is then this FUD about fudge factors. The QED calculations are given and Drake & Yan at least, who were doing this accurate stuff, calculate everything to amazing accuracy:


    During the past two decades, high precision methods to
    calculate the properties of few-electron atoms in Hylleraas
    coordinates have been developed by Drake and Yan [8,9]
    and by Pachucki and Puchalski [10–12]. As a result, the
    nonrelativistic energy of the ground state of lithium has
    been calculated to a relative accuracy of 10−15 [11,13] and
    its ionization energy to an accuracy of 0.001 cm−1 or better
    [11,14]. The agreement of theory with experiment demonstrates
    the power and utility of the methods developed
    by these authors.
    The purpose of this Letter is to report a dramatic advance
    in the accuracy that can be achieved for the nonrelativistic
    energy, fine structure splittings, and ionization energy of
    the 1s2s2p 4P state of He−. The calculations are performed
    in Hylleraas coordinates by the method developed by Drake
    and Yan [8,9].


    From: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.263007


    And:


    The leading relativistic corrections of order α2 Ry and
    the relativistic recoil corrections of order ðμ=MÞα2 Ry are
    calculated by first-order perturbation theory [for convenience
    the anomalous magnetic moment terms of order α3
    Ry and ðμ=MÞα3 Ry are included]


    Maybe some people have the idea that perturbation theory = fudge factors? Far from it.


    I think perhaps people confuse QED relativistic corrections with fudge factors? Far from it!


    Following the formulation of Drake and Yan [18], the
    QED corrections to the energy levels of light atomic
    systems can be written in the form
    ΔEQED ¼ ΔEL;1 þ ΔEL;2 þ ΔEM þ ΔEDK; ð14Þ
    where ΔEL;1 denotes the QED correction to the electronnucleus
    interaction, ΔEL;2 the correction to the electronelectron
    interaction, ΔEM the finite nuclear mass
    correction, and ΔEDK the Douglas and Kroll terms (including
    second-order Breit corrections)


    I have to say that slurs on the integrity of scientists who publish results, methodology, etc transparently and work over decades to refine numerical calculations made here on no stated basis are regrettable.


    Unlike Mills unphysical equations, every step in the QED calculations is based on understood coherent physics, and can be reproduced by anyone from first principles. OK, to get accurate results you need the idea of using the right basis to expand the calculation from (Hylleraas Coordinates). Those are not fudge factors but a maths device that allows the perturbation expansion to converge quickly.


    Would those who doubt this please explain why?


  • Mills wrote: Recently a new measuring technique that exploits superposition (i.e. interference) of two short pulses of light with different wavelengths circumvented the limitation formulated by the father of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, in 1927. According to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP), it is not possible to determine the position and the speed of an electron at the same instant. However, Isinger et al. [M. Isinger, R.J. Squibb, D. Busto, S. Zhong, A. Harth, D. Kroon, S. Nandi, C. L. Arnold, M. Miranda, J. M. Dahlström, E. Lindroth, R. Feifel, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier. Photoionization in the time and frequency domain. Science, 2017; eaao7043 DOI: 10.1126/science.aao7043MLA] have shown that it can, in fact, be done and thereby experimentally disproving the HUP. Since the HUP is an inherent consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics (QM), QM is proven wrong as well.


    Mills appears to misunderstand QM. Not surprising. He quotes these results:


    Ultrafast processes in matter, such as the electron emission following light absorption, can now be studied using ultrashort light pulses of attosecond duration (10−18s) in the extreme ultraviolet spectral range. The lack of spectral resolution due to the use of short light pulses may raise serious issues in the interpretation of the experimental results and the comparison with detailed theoretical calculations. Here, we determine photoionization time delays in neon atoms over a 40 eV energy range with an interferometric technique combining high temporal and spectral resolution. We spectrally disentangle direct ionization from ionization with shake up, where a second electron is left in an excited state, thus obtaining excellent agreement with theoretical calculations and thereby solving a puzzle raised by seven-year-old measurements. Our experimental approach does not have conceptual limits, allowing us to foresee, with the help of upcoming laser technology, ultra-high resolution time-frequency studies from the visible to the x-ray range.


    As contradicting the HUP. Perhaps someone would like to go through this paper and show in detail where QM non-commutative observables - such as position and momentum or energy and time - are simultaneously determined, so contradicting QM? I'd enjoy the exercise. I'm sure we can develop an is it wave or particle type picture that shows how the electrons here cannot have exact frequency and position - the fact this is an interferometric technique pretty well tells us that, since it comes from the characteristics of wave packets.


    So - shall we go see where Mills got it wrong?


    Here is the paper Mills claims shows HUP breaking down: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01780

  • The pulsed laser technique used is best described in Ref 15 of the above paper:


    A. Marian et al., Science 306, 2063 (2004).


    Ultrashort laser pulses have given a remarkably detailed picture of photophysical dynamics. In studies of alkali atoms (1) and diatomics (2) in particular, coherent wave packet motion has been observed and even actively controlled. However, the broad bandwidth of these pulses has prevented a simultaneous high-precision measurement of state energies. At the expense of losing any direct observation or control of coherent dynamics, precision spectroscopy enabled by continuous wave (cw) lasers has been one of the most important fields of modern scientific research, providing the experimental underpinning of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

    This trade-off between the time and frequency domains might seem fundamental, but in fact it results from pulse-to-pulse phase fluctuations in laser operation. The recent introduction of phase-stabilized, wide-bandwidth frequency combs based on mode-locked femtosecond lasers has provided a direct connection between these two domains (3, 4). Many laboratories have constructed frequency combs that establish optical frequency markers directly linked to a microwave or optical standard, covering a variety of spectral intervals. Atomic and molecular structural information can now be probed over a broad spectral range, with vastly improved measurement precision and accuracy enabled by this absolute frequency-based approach (5). One of the direct applications is the development of optical atomic clocks (68). To date, however, traditional cw laser-based spectroscopic approaches have been essential to all of these experiments, with frequency combs serving only as reference rulers (9).


    Hmmm... pulse-to-pulse phase-coherent lasers. I hope Mills' mistake here is clear enough to everyone?


    This trade-off between the time and frequency domains might seem fundamental, but in fact it results from pulse-to-pulse phase fluctuations in laser operation. The recent introduction of phase-stabilized, wide-bandwidth frequency combs based on mode-locked femtosecond lasers has provided a direct connection between these two domains (3, 4)


    If anyone has the slightest doubt that what is done here does not contradict HUP, and in fact is a very neat exemplification of how it works, and how quantum wave packets can be used, we could look further?


    This comment from Mills, ill-educated and arrogant, does not advance his arguments. If I, with merely undergraduate (+ 1 year postgraduate, but I don't remember much) QM, can spend 10 minutes on this paper and understand what they are doing, then Mills surely shows here criticism of a central theory on little research?

  • THHuxleynew that is above my head. I posted the link since it was on topic and recent

    but I came across quite a few QM nonsense papers.

    Once you state that reality is way more complicated and never what you think it is, you can then pull that theory onto virtually everything especially with the help of supercomputers.

  • THHuxleynew that is above my head. I posted the link since it was on topic and recent

    but I came across quite a few QM nonsense papers.

    Once you state that reality is way more complicated and never what you think it is, you can then pull that theory onto virtually everything especially with the help of supercomputers.


    Max, I'm not willing to accept that statement when you at the same time say that QM basics (wave packet interference) are way over your head? How can you know this?


    I also think this idea that QM says reality is never what you think it is is wrong. It is counterintuitive till you get it, then it makes a lot of sense, and unifies so much. It is the height of arrogance to reject what one does not understand. You can say: well, I can't validate it myself so i'm not going to believe it. But we cannot be experts on everything and if we did this we would not be able to function.


    As for QM nonsense papers: there are quite a few, but not often in reputable journals. There are QM speculative papers of course, especially in hot areas like quantum spacetime. Anyway, how can you judge whether they are nonsense?

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


    No, the smiley face about the orbitsphere being unphysical was because (1) I mention this a lot, and (2) it seems to me to be clearly unphysical, and yet this doesn't bother Mills proponents as far as I can tell.


    I gather that the Schrodinger cat thing is not a necessary consequence of QM, as you allude, even if one goes full Copenhagen; my understanding is that it's just a thought experiment that draws an analogy from an impossible situation. I would guess that this was an early, counterintuitive outcome of the philosophical preoccupation I was mentioning. Weird things happen when people turn a measurement problem into an ontological problem.

  • Thankyou. In that thread I bothered to go look at the literature. And found the new numerical techniques that allow no-fudge-factor accurate calcs. All you have to do is look at the papers, which explain methodology.

    So there was this: Opinions on BLPs molecule results


    Li ionisation levels calculated by QM 40,000X better than by Mills


    Just one more "THH try" to make people believe that some exact physics exists:


    Here the fudge factor used according THH's favorit paper:

    The contributions from relativistic, mass polarization, and QED effects to the ionization energy are subtracted, and then the accurately knownIs 1s1 2S energy of Li+ [10] is added to obtain —7.47806034(20) a. u. , in agreement with our calculation.


    This is just an engineering interpolation of higher Li excitation levels and nothing more. They calculate nothing basic!

  • THHuxleynew how can I judge? Maybe you can point me to the ways to directly observe quantum objects without any sort of meddling with them? Do you also believe that double slit chapter is closed?


    Maybe you can point me to the ways to directly observe quantum objects without any sort of meddling with them?


    Well the basis of QM is that you cannot much do this: it makes things more complex than a classical system, and more true to reality


    Do you also believe that double slit chapter is closed?


    Double-slit experiments have been providing beautiful validations of QM for a long time: I'm sure they will go on doing this. There remain open philosophical questions about how we interpret QM. Those are not however physical questions, because they don't lead to different observations. I find philosophy fascinating: but I don't confuse it with physics.


    Not to say that matters overall are closed: we do not yet have an adequate theory for quantum gravity and/or quantum spacetime. And it is posisble that when this happens what are now philosophical questions will have some real physical answers.


    All this is a sign of the success and vitality of QM as a basis for predicting physical experiments. Not one for saying it can't be true because it seems counter-intuitive. And certainly not one for preferring crackpot ideas that do a bad job of modelling experiment and have never made new predictions (and anyway that modelling is not based on any coherent physical theory, but Mills hand-waving specific equations).

  • No, the smiley face about the orbitsphere being unphysical was because (1) I mention this a lot, and (2) it seems to me to be clearly unphysical, and yet this doesn't bother Mills proponents as far as I can tell.


    I gather that the Schrodinger cat thing is not a necessary consequence of QM, as you allude, even if one goes full Copenhagen; my understanding is that it's just a thought experiment that draws an analogy from an impossible situation. I would guess that this was an early, counterintuitive outcome of the philosophical preoccupation I was mentioning. Weird things happen when people turn a measurement problem into an ontological problem.


    The Schroedinger cat thought-experiment challenges our feelings, but not our physical observations. If Copenhagen there is no issue, other than philosophical. If many world there is also no issue, just two worlds with cat alive and dead and two copies of us. Both are 100% compatible with all physical observations.

    I've never thought that mental discomfort at envisaging a theory should be treated as a disproof...

  • Is your understanding, THH, that the Schrodinger cat thought experiment is more than simply an analogy, and is understood by some to be a real possibility? Or am I missing your point?


    Folks! Can we switch back to Mills outstanding contributions, like the closed formula for the electron g-factor ==




    The above is based solely on Maxwell and the correct non-Einstein relativity.


    May be you also might have an idea how the fifth alpha therm looks like? There is one!


    For Cats (Schrödingers included) I can recommend Youtube. There you will find countless interesting examples...

  • Is your understanding, THH, that the Schrodinger cat thought experiment is more than simply an analogy, and is understood by some to be a real possibility? Or am I missing your point?


    Well, it exposes a real issue, inherent in the physical world, which is that states in quantum superposition exist, and can even be measured and recreated, providing the entire measurement apparatus stays phase coherent. The exact conditions of the Cat are not physically realistic because quantum coherence could not be maintained over a macroscopic object.

  • All this discussion about Mills orbitsphere being unphysical reminds me of the Bohr atom model. Didn't that lead to major improvements of physics at the time? Maybe I am naive but I think QM is unphysical in many ways, but maybe because after understanding bras and kets, I soon felt like it was too complicated. I think we need to keep searching for simpler models.

  • Electron orbitals described by the spherical harmonics (the odd-shaped electron orbitals you see in some drawings) do a good job of helping to understand important phenomena relating to occupation of shells, molecular bonds, solid state physics and electron capture. The orbitsphere is a step backwards for no benefit.

  • The orbitsphere is a step backwards for no benefit.


    This half knowledge as we say in German. The Orbitsphere is just the layer behind the spherical harmonics explaining the surface excitation of the nucleus/electron etc...


    Mills uses the same spherical harmonics - green function - as QM. There is no difference in the orbit structure.


    Thus Mills is more like stable base + a non QM interpretation of the result. As a mathematician I would say: 1 x 2 = ? ;) ? = 2 x 1? .....

  • It is the geometry of the spherical shell I am complaining about. Even if you overlay the spherical harmonics on top of an actual sphere and get some of the same results mathematically, the geometry of the shell can't account for things like electron capture, which requires that electrons spend some time in the nuclear volume (unless we discard our understanding of the weak interaction). A spherical shell (i.e., the orbitsphere) does not intersect with the nucleus.


    There are other similar geometric problems that arise.

  • Even if you overlay the spherical harmonics on top of an actual sphere and get some of the same results mathematically, the geometry of the shell can't account for things like electron capture, which requires that electrons spend some time in the nuclear volume (unless we discard our understanding of the weak interaction). A spherical shell (i.e., the orbitsphere) does not intersect with the nucleus.


    This -electron capture - is a different aspect, that certainly is not covered by Mills model. I would even state, that Mills has no model for the nucleus - just for the proton, that is, by no way a nucleus, it is a basic particle.

    One of the crucial points of Mills model is the correct treatment of relativistic flux. His model also holds for the nuclear level(s), but needs one additional step to be successful.


    I would discard all (-most all) standard model nuclear theories anyway...

  • You miss my point, Wyttenbach. Mills proposes that his model is a replacement for QM. In proposing this, he assumes an electron orbital that cannot account for electron capture, among several other things. That means that the model that Mills is proposing as a replacement for QM has an electron orbital that is unphysical. This is in contrast to QM, which proposes an electron orbital that helps to make sense of electron capture.


    Mills would not be allowed to say both of these things at the same time: (1) his model is a replacement for QM and a better, simpler understanding of the underlying experimental data; and (2) the scope of his model does not touch on nuclear phenomena such as electron capture.

  • Nobody can say his model is a replacement of an old, partly successful model. This is bare marketing. The buildup of theories is most of the time evolutionary. There will be extensions to Mills model too, as there will be further extensions to QM.

    But QM cannot quantitatively explain electron capture. To explain an effect you must be able to make predictions of the kind .. such is the capture rate of Isotope XY; Under this aspect QM too is just a proposal and not a theory.

  • Nobody can say his model is a replacement of an old, partly successful model. This is bare marketing. The buildup of theories is most of the time evolutionary. There will be extensions to Mills model too, as there will be further extensions to QM.

    But QM cannot quantitatively explain electron capture. To explain an effect you must be able to make predictions of the kind .. such is the capture rate of Isotope XY; Under this aspect QM too is just a proposal and not a theory.


    Wyttenbach:


    (1) What is your basis for saying that QM cannot quantitatively predict electron capture rates?


    (2) Also, why do you think that a theory that cannot quantitatively predict a given (complex) phenomenon for purely computational reasons is only a proposal?


    A good example here would be the theory of evolution, and the work in genetics showing how sexual reproduction leads to much faster evolutionary optimisation. A very powerful theory, yet computationally getting specific quantitative answers is almost impossible.


    In this case I believe you are doubly wrong.

  • Mills is sticking to his guns over there on Yahoo. Of course, his best defense would be to produce something....which he is long overdue on. The bold is his response:



    2) You are wrong about the problems in QM. You are probably referring to Mills bizarre attack on QM being non-lorentz invariant. Only the Schrodinger equation, which is a simplification only, is non-lorentz invariant. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows why it's non-lorentz invariant. Everyone understands that it's just because it's a simplification of the full theory.

    Ah, then there's the assertion that QM can't calculate ionization energies. Since when? It simply can.

    Interpretations of QM are, by definition, not "problems" --- they're defined as things that lead to the same experimental outcomes. For them to be "problems", they need to contradict some experiment. And if they seem to contradict each other philosophically ... so what. You could, simplistically, assume that one is right and the others are wrong. Then the fact that the "correct" interpretation contradicts the "incorrect" interpretation isn't a surprise.


    Quote
    >>There is not a single experimental observable that QM has solved physically/correctly.


    3) Thirdly, none of the experimental verifications are taken seriously. This is because:

    (a) The verifiers don't generally guard against outright fraud --- they often check that a certain part of the experiment does a certain thing, but aren't paid to check that the whole thing is a gross lie --- I'm not saying it is a fraud, but that's part of why the establishment doesn't believe it when Mills himself checks mills himself, or someone mills has paid to check mills checks mills.



    Quote
    >>There is massive validation. To say otherwise is fraud.





    (b) The amount of heat released has been pitiful, in the external tests I'm aware of, and easily explainable in one or two "verifications" - easily explainable through recombination or such things.


    Quote
    >>Millions of watts per liter have been verified by five independently experts.




    (c) Some obvious problems with some of the experimental work, for instance reporting spectral lines that were outside the range that the spectrometers can actually measure. Not sure why, but an obvious red flag.


    Quote
    >>We are using state of the art instruments and protocols. The hydrino analytical spectra are all from top testing labs and universities.


    (d) Almost 30 years of broken promises --- each year saying next will be better.


    Quote
    >>The theory has advanced to solve quarks to cosmos, the hydrino analytical has advanced to hydrinos in a bottle with unequivocal results, the power has advanced to megawatts, and the engineering has advanced to a commercial design superior to that of

    any known power source.




    (e) Some verifiers backtracking, for instance NASA.


    Quote
    >>Not true


    (f) Here's the real killer: If it was true, it would be piss-simple to check. His view of reality is radically totally different to QM and disagrees in almost every way. He claims anti gravity. He claims amazing amounts of energy. He claims stunning new spectra. All of these are piss-simple to check. And yet neither he nor others has managed a single convincing demonstration, other than a few stage managed flashes of light that we can't verify.


    Quote
    >>Sticking to hydrinos: You forgot a shock wave 10X greater than that of an equivalent weight of TNT. All true and verified.


    (g) Mills has well over 100-million dollars of investment, and yet he's managed to make pretty much nothing yet.


    Quote
    >>We are getting very close, only a matter of time. Incidentally, we had to achieve the greatest theory, chemistry, astrophysical, and power innovation in history solo.
  • I don't trust Randell Mills, and I've never, ever been impressed by him. Especially, due to the fact he has locked himself into a closet with the hydrino theory and completely dismisses LENR. My guess is that even if hydrino-like substances exist, most of his excess energy is in the form of LENR reactions.

  • I don't trust Randell Mills, and I've never, ever been impressed by him. Especially, due to the fact he has locked himself into a closet with the hydrino theory and completely dismisses LENR. My guess is that even if hydrino-like substances exist, most of his excess energy is in the form of LENR reactions.


    Interesting Director. You trust a man whom you admit has done many deceitful, and dishonest things, over another man who's only sin has been to make promises for 26 years he has yet to keep. It may come to past when Mills proves to be untrustworthy, but so far he has checked most of the blocks needed to be deemed honest.


    He has validations coming out of his yin yang, a team of scientists he works with, a solid BOD, an actual brick and mortar building you can drive up to and touch if you want, a high caliber science background, other non-LENR related accomplishments.


    And here is Rossi with his one man operation, "Rossi Effect" theory, no validations (will give partial credit for Ferrara HT), no BODs, carried out a classic sting operation against his partner IH at Doral, his Leonardo is headquartered out of his Miami Beach condo, weak science background...and you trust him over Mills.


    Hmmm...like I said, interesting.