Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow

Can you explain more? let's look at the numbers
2006: 1/alpha = 137.035 999 710 (96) from the measured g factor and the QED deduction
2010: 1/alpha = 137.035 999 037(91) almost direct measurement
2014: 1/alpha = 137.035 999 139(31).

Mills is using in his book
1/alpha = 137.03604 -> g/2 = 1.001159652(12)

using the 2014 value in the same formula gives g/2 = 1.001159652(46)

The experimental value today of the g factor is g/2 = 1.00115965218091

This doesn't show that the prediction 2006 was right about the measurement 2010. Did you mean that we had another theoretical correction of it 2007 and that one matches the 2010 result, do you have a reference? Or do you mean that e.g. Mills value of alpha
was used 2006.

Also Mills deduces mass ratios where only alpha is used in the formulas, so if the mass ratios include only alpha then the formula for the g factor may still contain only alphas. But Mills is not using any lepton mass ratio corrections in his derivation and the value you get in QM is more exact (some years ago, but not much more at that time). I want to have a proof like what you are suggesting - e.g. that 2006 a prediction was made and 2010 a measurement verified. I don't want to see that the QM saw this discrepancy and started to re
evaluate the formula to match the measurements. It can of cause be done correctly but it is also a risk of over fitting and this is the basic critique. If you can guide me to such evidences I will propose them to Mills in his discussion mail list and see what we get.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Eric Walker : I posted the magnetic energy sample some months ago. It's the most compelling proof that Mills does something correct. The anomalous magnetic moment can be calculated (first order - maxwell) in GUT-CP where as QM has to relay on experimental data. This is the most obvious deficit (failure ..) of QM.

From my old post: Just one example; For the calculation of the electron g-factor You can sum the results up 20'000 Feynman diagrams (recently completed with a perfect match) or you can use the "simple" Maxwell'ian derived formula of Mill's, which he got out of the spin-flip transition of the hydrogen electron: (p.105 GUTCP 2016 R. Mills)

Hi Wyttenbach, you directed me to the section in GUT-CP where Mills sets out the problems with QM, which I duly reviewed. I thought it sounded like a combination of word salad and straw-man argument, and was hoping for a better understanding of what you liked about it. The pages I read, which I understood you to refer me to, were pages 3-16. Here you are referring me to p. 105, concerning the g-factor. Page 105 is far further along than pp. 3-16. And it's talking about the calculation of the g-factor, which is different than the section that you referred me to, which talks about the shortcomings of QM. Is there something in pages 3-16 that you think is insightful and that prompted you to refer this section to me?

How about this. Here is a statement from p. 15, where Mills writes, "The Schrödinger equation permits the electron to exist in the nucleus, a state that is physically nonsensical with infinite potential energy and infinite negative kinetic energy." Is this a statement you agree with? Is it theoretically desirable to have a system in which the electron is not permitted to exist in the nucleus?

THH, thank you for the interesting exploration of the g-2 factor and its calculation in Mills.

Quote from THHuxley

PS - have you checked how accurately this number tracks the experimental values of alpha and g-2? I'm willing to bet that unless Mills updates it with new ad hoc terms it will not track the latest experimental data. Of course, that experimental data comes from other QED calculations...

Not g-2, but I re-did Mills's calculations of the lepton mass ratios and of the neutron-electron mass ratio using recent values and error bounds from a 2012 CODATA paper. The lepton mass ratios hold up within measurement uncertainty, but I believe the neutron-electron mass ratio departs from the 2012 experimental value and error.

The formulas for the mass ratios look extremely sketchy. There is only vaguely a pattern to them that I could discern, the most obvious being the use of ratios, integers, alpha, pi and rational powers. I spent ten minutes fiddling around trying to get pi from alpha and got far enough along to see that it might be possible to get pretty close.

Quote from Eric Walker

How about this. Here is a statement from p. 15, where Mills writes, "The Schrödinger equation permits the electron to exist in the nucleus, a state that is physically nonsensical with infinite potential energy and infinite negative kinetic energy." Is this a statement you agree with? Is it theoretically desirable to have a system in which the electron is not permitted to exist in the nucleus?

@Eric Walker : In 3D (+t) space an (valence) electron probability inside the nucleus (center) is physical nonsense. This would violate even the underlaying laws of QM... But from the mathematical point of view, it's a logical consequence how we are able to formulate certain relations e.g. forces/probability for e(k) capture.

Thus it's a discussion about which side of the medal represents the truth. As I like the experiment, I would ask you to show me an experiment where sombody could show a valence (e.g. sp2) electron inside a proton...

If we start to talk about 4D (without time) space, then all models see the electron right through the "center" of the proton! But physics is not there yet! But don't draw any wrong conclusion. Even if in 4D space the "electron" can be found in the "center" of the proton, you will, in 3D space, never see it there, because we have (currently?) no means to access a 4D center!

Please note that I only believe that some parts of Mills theory are the best we can get in a 3D+t world and that physics needs >= 4D space for a correct description of nuclear forces. Thus, as a corrolary, I agree with Mills, that most of current physical (nuclear) theories will, sooner or later, disappear.

By the way: Did you read the mass/space equivalence part of Mills work? After that you are able to understand why CERN never ever will find any new particles with rest energies above the current known ones...

You got a lot of nerve [removed] criticizing me because you disagree where I put a forward slash when you use a fake name to post in forums. Unlike you I do not disguise who I am. No Im not a scientist or physicist, but I have worked on energy projects specifically wind farm developments. I work for engineering firms overseeing construction of enormous water and wastewater systems of amazing complexity. I have 30 years experience building systems and have a strong understanding of all system components and how they integrate. I really don't care about the physics of Mills et al Rossi's cold fusion systems. I care about how they will operate and how they may integrate into my industry. I'm not here to criticize when someone makes a spelling error unlike you who finds great pleasure in belittling anyone with whom you may disagree. In other words offer helpful criticism or just sit in your cubicle and STFU.

Please: no attempts at doxxing. Respect people's wishes for anonymity. Eric.

Quote from Jon Soderberg

In other words offer helpful criticism or just sit in your cubicle and STFU.

Admittedly I've only been posting on this board for a couple of months. But I've yet to see anything from Mary Yugo that could be considered constructive.

Quote

Did you mean that we had another theoretical correction of it 2007 and that one matches the 2010 result, do you have a reference

No time today for considered post. To answer this, in my post I referenced the correction. For precise ref see the first page of the later linked reference which covers the 2007 work. Basically, after publishing a well-written comprehensive theoretical treatment in 2006, not surprisingly it gets crawled over by others (who, unlike Mill's work, understand the derivations) and any errors get found. There was one - not a "manual adjustment" but a real error in the math. This is not "maunal tuning" but definitive calculation with free parameters just the lepton mass ratios + some small corrections based on hadron interactions. Those interactions, and the mass ratios, are otherwise experimentally determined.

Mills would claim that gS does not depend on any of this stuff, which basically means there are not allowed the type of Standard Model Feynman diagram interactions that are used with vast success to explain PB worth of LHC and other accelerator data. How can that suddenly switch off? It makes no sense!

You don't have to see the Standard model as the only thing - but over a wide range of observations it has predictive power and so you can't just arbitrarily switch it off when calculation gS because your name is Mills and you'd like everything to be a classically-derived number...

Quote from THHuxley

You don't have to see the Standard model as the only thing - but over a wide range of observations it has predictive power and so you can't just arbitrarily switch it off when calculation gS because your name is Mills and you'd like everything to be a classically-derived number...

What does "predictive power" mean when a model has 23? 27? (who knows?) non-physical adjustable parameters that are determined by physical observation. What is the methodological barrier to use when deciding whether yet another adjustable parameter can be added to the theory because a new observation has been made?

@THuxley

I find the following reference /books.google.com/books?id=3SVpDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA324&lpg=PA324&dq=Aoyama+g+factor&source=bl&ots=2DP3odtK-O&sig=2zOVoerCUV3A8rvX3Gz9ZaZIwlQ&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir3MvKpqbRAhVCVSwKHRsEDvcQ6AEIXDAH#v=onepage&q=Aoyama g factor&f=false

which yielded

2008: 1/alpha = 137.035 999 084(51)

Also note:
2006 (CODATA) 1/alpha = 137.035 999 679(94) (this is close to the result of the 2006 paper and they thought they improved uppon it but did a math misstake)
2008 state of the art result 1/alpha = 137.035 999 45 (62) so they probably knew that the calculation was wrong and did an attempt to correct it and found a misstake.

It looks like the least significan digit in all these number are the digit after the last 9 in 999

so the corrected version said that the significan figure was 1, the current significant value is 2 at the time they meassured with a least significant digit of 5 at 2006 it was 7 as well as the faulty value in 2006. This is a bit of waving, error intervalls need to be used in a more careful analysis but you get the gist of it by studying these variations.

this is not a strong proof, if you do a correction of a few digits randomly in the right direction you may very well get the result by chance way to probable to constituent a proof. In order to prove your point you will neet to gather some more facts like this in order to build a strong case.

I have worked with data analysis and learned the hard way to be critical to mathematical constructs with high numbers of fitted parameters. Also as far as I know the standard model works well in the limit of high energy. Now when taking limits of mathematical formulation you have a phenomena that the laws becomes universal, in this case this means that en enormous amount of different formulations of a GUT will result with the same structure at the high energy end. Science has characterized this structure in general ways and also left quite a lot of parameters to fit. That this model then has good predictabillity is then not strange if the fitting is done with enough experimental data, Mills GUTCP is a low energy formulation and may very well share the structure in the high energy limit with the standard model.

No consider one of the basic premisses behind a multivers idea e.g. that we know that just altering the fitted parameters just slightly will lead to un unhabbitable universe. One may think that because we live we must have a univers as we live in and all others are scraped. there is another idea though that is indicated. And that is that a theory like GUTCP is working in lower dimensions but with a different mathematical foundation leading to constraining of all the freee parameters that the standard model have. In a sense it fit with what we note in the discussions that Mills expressins are terse in parameters and basically constrain them to the fine structure constant.

I would say that QED can still be a generalisation if GUTCP in one direction, but currently there is a mystery to me why to so diffrent approaches lead basically to the same value of the fine structure constant. I can follow the derivation of Mills, that is not to demanding time wise. To follow the QED approach one need strong evidences of the kind that I've searched for in the discussion here. The data is indeed is weak argument for QED and is an okey effort. But, because I'm critically minded and want stronger proof just wouldn't bet much monney on it.

Quote from stefan

I can follow the derivation of Mills, that is not to demanding time wise.

Stefan, can you walk us through the analytical derivation of Mills's neutron-lepton mass ratio from first principles, step by step? The following is quoted from p. 3 of GUT-CP:

When I see this I wonder whether it was gradually worked out by hand, in an ad hoc manner, until an equation was found that fit the experimental value. But perhaps you will have reviewed its analytical derivation, or will be willing to do so, to help us to understand how Mills arrived at it.

Quote from optiongeek

Admittedly I've only been posting on this board for a couple of months. But I've yet to see anything from Mary Yugo that could be considered constructive.

Mary can be abrasive. But she's been following Rossi since 2011 and has not infrequently had insightful comments concerning the methodology that has been used in various tests carried out in connection with Rossi's devices.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Eric Walker : In 3D (+t) space an (valence) electron probability inside the nucleus (center) is physical nonsense. This would violate even the underlaying laws of QM... But from the mathematical point of view, it's a logical consequence how we are able to formulate certain relations e.g. forces/probability for e(k) capture.

How would an electron spending time in the nucleus violate the underlying laws of QM? I know of nothing that would prevent several (s-wave) electrons from simultaneously spending some of their time in the nucleus. Mills claims there would be infinite energy that would be a consequence of the Schrodinger equation; if true, that sounds like an unphysical mathematical artifact that arises from an imperfect modeling of the system at small scales.

The phenomenon you point to, k-shell electron capture, tells us this surely must be occurring. Electron capture is mediated by the weak interaction, and the weak interaction operates at incredibly short distances (several orders of magnitude less than the strong force, which operates on the ~ 1 fm scale). This is because the W+- bosons are very heavy. If the electron did not transit through the nucleus, the weak interaction would have nothing to act on, as it cannot operate on the atomic scale. We must conclude that the electron spends time in the nucleus, or that the weak interaction is not involved in electron capture (a big deal), or that the weak interaction works on the atomic scale (another big deal). Which of these implications is more acceptable to you?

Quote

Thus it's a discussion about which side of the medal represents the truth. As I like the experiment, I would ask you to show me an experiment where sombody could show a valence (e.g. sp2) electron inside a proton...

In order to contradict Mills's conclusion quoted above, we only need a single experiment (any experiment) that implies that an electron spends time in a nucleus. The electron need not be a valence electron, and the nucleus need not be a proton. Thus we choose any nuclide unstable against electron capture: 40K, say.

Quote

Mills claims there would be infinite energy that would be a consequence of the Schrodinger equation; if true, that sounds like an unphysical mathematical artifact that arises from an imperfect modeling of the system at small scales.

To see how Mills is wrong you need only to integrate over electrostatic potential. Suppose, close to the nucleus, the electron probability density is constant (as is roughly the case for the case Eric supposes). Then the total electrostatic energy is given by an integral over volume of the 1/r^2 electric potential. The purist might wish to note that this is the absolute value of the energy, since the sign is negative:

You can see that this is clearly finite, even in the worst case where we assume the nucleus to be a point charge (not true). The Schroedinger equation determines the electron spatial probability density, but does not affect this simple result. Mills would appear to have some fundamental misconception about QM, or possibility a misunderstanding of calculus.

Perhaps those better equipped to understand Mills's writing than me could explain his comments on this? I may be missing something crucial, but otherwise this is such a glaring error that it alone would make me very cautious accepting anything similar that Mills has said.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In 3D (+t) space an (valence) electron probability inside the nucleus (center) is physical nonsense. This would violate even the underlaying laws of QM

As Eric points out, this assertion is not obvious and indeed is not true. The exclusion principle in no way prevents a lepton from overlapping a nucleus in this way, and the Schroedinger equation predicts this for the case of s orbitals (which in the case of H are in fact valence, though that does not seem relevant to me).

It is true that to obtain a non-zero overlap probability we need a physically (and experimentally) realistic model of the nucleus which has finite size. That again is predicted by QCD, observed directly in very many experiments, and not in any way problematic.

Quote from Eric Walker

How would an electron spending time in the nucleus violate the underlying laws of QM? I know of nothing that would prevent several (s-wave) electrons from simultaneously spending some of their time in the nucleus.

@Eric Walker : Your logic is typical for a (QM) believer... Give me one case where it works and then it's fine. I explicitely asked you to give me a case where the electron can stay inside the proton as given by higher hybridisation orbitals of chemical CxHy - compounds.

Please don't slip away - out of your mess...

The contradiction with basic QM laws is easy to show: The Rydberg constant is the base of all QM orbital formulas. It's entirely calculated with the complete charge outside the proton!

Quote from Wyttenbach

Eric Walker : Your logic is typical for a (QM) believer... Give me one case where it works and then it's fine. I explicitely asked you to give me a case where the electron can stay inside the proton as given by higher hybridisation orbitals of chemical CxHy - compounds.

Please don't slip away - out of your mess...

Wyttenbach, I gave you the example of electron capture in 40K, which shows that an electron must be transiting the nucleus, and I explained why this must be happening, giving the short reach of the weak interaction. There has never been a claim that an electron must stay inside a proton, and this is not what Mills says is impossible. Mills writes: "The Schrödinger equation permits the electron to exist in the nucleus, a state that is physically nonsensical with infinite potential energy and infinite negative kinetic energy." Electron capture shows that Mills is wrong.

While we're on the topic of leptons existing in the nucleus, note that in the case of a heavy nucleus such as muonic lead, the 1s muonic orbit has a mean radius inside the nucleus.

I am very close to concluding that you don't really know what you're talking about, and that your comments are largely thoughtless retorts.

Quote from damn_right _man

Yet, 20 years of resesearch sound nice... yet, "matches the spectrocharacteristics" of dark matter.... WTF ?

.... did we ever have any ? I think, DM has not even predicted spectrocharactersitics, simply because no one can imagine how it reacts with matter, besides the gravity... and gravity has , directly, nothing to do with spectral characteristics...

Hydrinos do not radiate except during the (rare) event when they transition to a different state through catalytic reactions. This radiation is characterized by high energy continuum radiation and will ionize hydrogen but is absorbed quickly and not easy to spot. Interestingly, a recent paper (from 2014) claims that there is about 4 times more ionized hydrogen in the universe than can be accounted for by known sources of ionizing radiation. A perfect fit for Mills' theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_underproduction_crisis

(edit: changed link to the Wikipedia page that summarizes the findings with links to original paper and critiques)

There is no chance in this strongly regulated industry, that a product which function (and its potential risks!!) is not understood (as we see not even by the inventors themself...) will ever make it to market! The more, if this product is "designed" (but how can a product be designed, if its function is not clear?) to be used as an energy or heat source, doesn't matter if in industries or in homes.
How the hell people can think this is possible (e.g. a suncell or any kind of an e-cat)? Only if they have no clue on standard product development and design processes with all its required and successfully passed steps....nobody would buy a device that is an unknown creature. People like Mills and Rossi can claim forever that their magic devices work and produce EXH - but mainstream will ony accept approved and certified products. As long as there is a big secret on the recipe, and Mills and AR will not allow independent tests or provide sufficient details that will allow precise replications - all this will remain what it is: a Millssays and Rossisays neverending story...