Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

Quote from mgspan

Or perhaps Mills never really understood quantum mechanics? Now, no disrespect intended.

What many people don't know: Newton mechanics of coupled rotating bodies is undergoing quantization too. Thus quanta are based on mechanics. The term QM has been wrongly chosen because its key feature is not quantization. Key is the association of a "mechanical" quantity with a probability for its "not so exact - HUR" location.

The drawback of such a concept is the complete loss of determinism. With QM you can calculate the absolute value of a photon's energy but not the angle of ejection or the vector for the recoil. Thus there is no surprise that Mills Newton like treatment, for the major part of the problems, leads to the same solutions as QM.

The "hidden" details are what really count. QM math adds unneeded freedom, that leads to some inaccurate distribution of quantizations. But worst: The QM overhead introduces the overall need for square integrability. This prevents QM from using the correct representation for internal magnetic fields.

Classical QM, as an engineering method, is OK for higher level orbits in the low sub - eV regions, but the computing overhead is gigantic.

To calculate the ionization energy of H₂⁺or 4-He⁺, with Mills method, I just need a spread-sheet. and I get 2-3 digits better precision than QM with a super computer...

Final conclusion: What Mills added, is the correct treatment of the internal magnetic energy, that was missing in "classical physics QM" ..!

Quote from Wyttenbach

Final conclusion: What Mills added, is the correct treatment of the internal magnetic energy, that was missing in "classical physics QM" ..!

See #420. Mills has shown himself to have no understanding of how classical QM works. First understand, before you criticise...

Second quarter report from BrLP:

report

I suspect you are skeptical that hydrinos are driving this particular MHD generator (as you should be).

Thats a very exciting video.... Man walks in, turns something off and walks out again. All without a word. I feel I wasted 30 seconds of my life.

Quote from Eric Walker

thank you for giving attention to this topic. I look forward to hearing more of your conclusions. Please take a look at the large GUT-CP volumes if you have not already. My tentative conclusion is that they are filler material, works of intentional obfuscation, possibly for the purpose of impressing potential investors and scaring away people with relevant expertise. But I do not have more than a basic familiarity with quantum mechanics and so am limited to reasoning from circumstantial evidence.

The volumes can be found at URLs such as these:

Well, I am still doing more reading, but my impression is basically the same as yours. I will try to look into it a little further, but the more I look, the more it seems nonsensical, at least so far.

One more example is that Mills objects that the solutions of the Schrodinger equation for a free electron in the Coulomb field cannot be normalized. Now, it is true enough that these solutions cannot be normalized, but there is no real problem with this. The Schrodinger equation is linear, and by using a superposition of these infinite solutions, one can build a wave packet which is a very nice picture of the nearly classical electron motion, and which has no problem with infinities. It is really quite analogous to the use of Fourier transforms in signal analysis. This is something that I believe 1000's of students work through every year in their first quantum mechanics courses.

Mills objects that there is something arbitrary in the choice of the eigenvalues used to solve the Schrodinger equation for the bound states. But this is not true. Admittedly, it is a bit complicated to work this though, but it is in every way analogous to the way a guitar string can vibrate at only certain values which involve integral multiples of a fundamental frequency. This happens in any wave equation where energy is confined to a limited distance, whether in plasma or a guitar string, or an electron wave in a coulomb potential. It is a little confusing because with the coulomb potential, one boundary is at infinity...more like a trumpet resonance than a guitar string...but that is not a major difference...again, anyone that learned quantum mechanics probably had to work through these details in at least one homework assignment.

Because of the large volume of Mills' treatise, I am still hoping to find something that might be interesting there. But in any case, I cannot pretend to be a real authority in these matters. One question would be whether there is any theoretical physicist working in actively working in quantum mechanics who has found this stuff useful and written about it. As I mentioned previously, I only had a few courses in quantum mechanics, since most of my work was with hot plasma physics.

Quote from mgspan

One more example is that Mills objects that the solutions of the Schrodinger equation for a free electron in the Coulomb field cannot be normalized. Now, it is true enough that these solutions cannot be normalized, but there is no real problem with this. The Schrodinger equation is linear, and by using a superposition of these infinite solutions, one can build a wave packet which is a very nice picture of the nearly classical electron motion, and which has no problem with infinities. It is really quite analogous to the use of Fourier transforms in signal analysis. This is something that I believe 1000's of students work through every year in their first quantum mechanics courses.

mgspan : You are quite right with your objections. Mills discussion is sometimes just a question about hen or egg. I recommend to ignore critics and urge you to understand the calculation of the electron g-factor. Other useful things to learn are the Helium/Lithium/Hydrogen ion etc. ionization energies.

Mills method is way more precise than QM because he counts in the magnetic energy, that is completely ignored in the QM formalism. Further there is one big advantage: To verify his calculations you can use a spread sheet...

I second Wyttenbach here, he is the authority on this site regarding Mills theory and spend the most time with it.

I have also spent some time and kind of ignore the rants about QM from Mills. My best reading suggestion to realize that

there is something more than QM is the old deduction of the ionisation energy of hydrogen this dates to the days of Niels Bohr

and is revived assuming an spherical shell leading to quantisatoins due to non radiativity. In short: a simple classical model of

the hydrogene produces the ionisation energies to quit a good aproximation. see Old fascinating fact in new clothes. Also

of GUTCP is correct in that a shell will lead to the correct quantisation of energy levels via the non radiation conditions Mill's

have a version of a proof of that that I think i flawed. But it is really not hard to see it from using Hauss theorem.

One other point regarding the experimental side of Mill's theories. One of his validations regards solar and cosmic background UV radiation which he claims comes from hydrino transitions. This is detailed in Peter Janssen's masters thesis at Rowan University (citation is

Jansson, Peter Mark, "Hydrocatalysis: a new energy paradigm for the 21st century" (1997). Theses and Dissertations. 2077.
http://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/2077).

Janssen presents a table showing a very close match between Mill's predicted hydrino lines and those measured by Labov and Boyer (

'Spectral Observations of the Extreme Ulfraviolet Backgronnd, The Astrophysical Journal, 371:810-819 © 20 April 1991, The American Astronomical Society)

Now here is the table from Janssen's thesis:

Here is the raw cosmic EUV data from Labov and Boyer:

and here is the table from Labov and Boyer after processing their data, where they show the peaks that they felt sure were statistically significant:

The connection seems to me less than convincing. The strong line is a normal Helium line from scattered solar radiation, according to the Labov and Boyer paper. For the others they give tentative explanations which have nothing to do with hydrinos.

The thing is, whether in space or in a laboratory plasma, with a lot of highly ionized things with higher Z than Carbon, there is going to be all sorts of UV in that kind of range. It seems to me that you would need something pretty exact and with no other reasonable possible source before you start claiming it is from a completely unknown form of hydrogen, which for some mysterious reason cannot be formed without adding all those other high-Z materials.

I am getting the picture that Mills has been supporting this theory for over 20 years and still has very gotten very little interest among the wider physics community. My feeling is that if he really believes in what he is saying, he needs to interact more, rather than amassing a bunch of "validations" that are less than convincing when one actually reads them. He should discuss his GUT-CP with people that are really familiar with quantum mechanics, who can work together with him to see what is right and what is wrong in what he has done.

Science is really not a subject for one person who has all the answers and has "proved" that everyone else is wrong. Let me take Mr. Wyttenbach's analogy, where he speaks of the "church" of quantum mechanics. To be honest, I have nothing against churches. Often they are places for very fruitful discussion and learning. But there can be a problem with a church that has one great leader who has the answers to all the different subjects and knows that all the others are wrong. Churches like that are normally called by names like "sect" or "cult" and not a lot of good comes out of them. (Not speaking directly of Dr. Mills, of course, just suggesting a more interactive way of doing stuff).

Quote from mgspan

It seems to me that you would need something pretty exact and with no other reasonable possible source before you start claiming it is from a completely unknown form of hydrogen

Clearly.

Quote from mgspan

Janssen presents a table showing a very close match between Mill's predicted hydrino lines and those measured by Labov and Boyer (

'Spectral Observations of the Extreme Ulfraviolet Backgronnd, The Astrophysical Journal, 371:810-819 © 20 April 1991, The American Astronomical Society)

Now here is the table from Janssen's thesis:

Quote from mgspan

The connection seems to me less than convincing. The strong line is a normal Helium line from scattered solar radiation, according to the Labov and Boyer paper. For the others they give tentative explanations which have nothing to do with hydrinos.

The helium line is correctly identified in the picture above. Thus this is no problem.

The reason why QM misses the "Hydrino resonances" is the fact, that the energy cannot be exchange by radiation. The energy is mediated "mechanically". This is already known from the H-O blast reaction!

There is also no fundamental problem with the first 12 (1/x) resonance levels as the energy differences between the rest energy/dynamic energies are (relativistically corrected) within some eV. In the very diluted space such deep orbit states have no chance to get a lift again or to recombine down to Deuterium.

The story starts to become interesting after the state 1/12 or deeper where the magnetic forces start to take over (Holmlid). Even more interesting is the very likely fact, that the proton too can undergo an alpha quantization. This leads to completely new states where magnetic bonds dominate.

Thus the only thing we can ask: Please repeat the experiment!

Randell Millls claim to have gotten supporttive feedback from the labs he sent sampels of hydrino compound to. And indeed as he says

"Hydrino in a bottle - Game Over"

Expect a report before late August, he wants some patent filings before going public.

Is “dark matter” still on the table as an explanation?

Brilliant Alan! I believe that the single quotation marks are a British thing and if that is the case, may I inquire as the to

source for your statement / observation?