New journal article from Brilliant Light Power

  • In case of Mills this is pretty simple: he already passed the test about molecular structure which he can calculate way way better than QM (this is of course no prediction).


    Have you verified this claim, or are you basing your conclusion upon BLP's promotional literature?

  • Small part verified - the rest extrapolated.

    Somewhere here in this forum is an excel sheet with the calculation of all ionization energies of 1-20 electron atoms/ions. I myself recalculated the ionization energies of (I think) 5 and 8 electron atoms (~ 60 values).

    They were all well within measurement accuracy. I also picked two molecules from his book and recalculated a lot of parameters (inter nuclear distance etc.). Gives the values he has in his book.


    I find it highly unlikely that I coincidently picked the values that are correct and all the rest is faked. For me this was enough to trust Dr. Mills not to fake values in his book. If you assume he is not faking values in his book you have a vast amount of functional groups that are calculated correctly with analytic equations. There is NO WAY to get all these molecules right WITHOUT a working theory, just with ad hoc equations falling from the sky.


    This is pretty simple: if Mills is not faking --> his model is better than QM (in terms of accuracy, simplicity and common sense - at least for atoms and molecules). I for myself looked enough into these equations to trust Dr. Mills to not fake any values. For others this "bar of trust" lies higher - I invite these people to continue where I stopped.


    PS: With common sense I mean: We have positivly charged particles and negativly charged particles that are interacting --> using maxwells equations to describe their interaction is common sense in my eyes

  • There is NO WAY to get all these molecules right WITHOUT a working theory, just with ad hoc equations falling from the sky.


    I don't think this follows. You can have a very good semi-empirical equation, or one that serves as a template for a whole family of semi-empirical equations, but not obviously based on some deeper theory that gives insight. I do not see the confirmation of a semi-empirical calculation as a refutation of QM. (Although I am open to certain interpretations of QM being incorrect.) The question is whether Mills's proposed theory can tackle the weird stuff that QM was conjured into being to tackle: the double-slit experiment and so on. Presumably we've had good semi-empirical calculations for a long time. Curve fitting (if that's what Mills has done) does not provide insight into what QM was seeking to address.


    This is pretty simple: if Mills is not faking --> his model is better than QM


    This might be right, but it doesn't follow from your discussion. (1) We'd need to show that QM doesn't provide as accurate of answers as the equations you looked at and the related ones that you passed over. (2) We'd need to show that Mills also handles all of the cases that QM was derived to address.

  • Stefan here:


    Those files are just implementation of Mills formulas to show that they estimates what they say. I think there is a document in that repository that gives an alternative derivation of the charge distribution as well.

    But this does not include the formulas for all the exitation enerergies, those are from GUTCP.


    Btw I work in Sweden and with Key and stacking cranes, so this is not related to my work, it is a personal project to try interpret Mills work.


  • The size of an atom is on the order of Ångström. 100 times that is 10nm, today technologies discuss 5nm techniques for chip making and also there is plenty of "photos" of atoms that tell the story that the size is indeed on the order of Ångström. So I think that Miles is wrong here.


    Also note that the derivation of the radius for the hydrogen allows a calculation of the excitation energy to be 13,606eV the experimental value is 13,59eV This is a result that is derived just from the model and it is not using anything difficult like the Magnetic contribution to the radius. Is this really a coincidence - no of cause not. Note that this is something I followed thoroughly and is a very strong indication that Mills model has something in it. The results basically uses the following facts: 1) a sphere consisting of loops of spherical geodesics (large circles), all at the same velocity of constant resulting density. The loops added together yield the correct spin of the electron. To calculate the kinetic energy, use the velocities in the loop, not the resultants!! Assume the usual electrostatics. The mass is evenly distributed on the loops and results in the electronic mass. That's it and then almost 4 significant digits of the ionization energy can be calculated with high school maths. Note however that the nonlinearity of the kinetic energy in velocity means that it is correct to consider flows that crosses without interaction. Quite a mystery if you ask me.

  • Researchers at Arizona State University recently published in Nature the first true images of atomic orbitals in Cu2O, a crystal called cuprite. Said lead author J.M. Zuo: "It's direct, experimental proof of the quantum model." S-Dz2, an orbital hybridization predicted to look like a dumbbell, surrounded by a doughnut and petals, shows up as exactly that in the first-ever images of orbitals.


    000D0A0C-36CC-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21_arch1.gif 000D0A0C-36CC-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21_arch2.jpg

    This observation doesn't necessarily imply that Mills calculations are wrong, because even the geocentric model provided correct predictions in some cases - despite it was based on physically irrelevant model.

  • Eric Walker

    Your objection is totally correct. I should have been more precise:

    It is pretty simple if you put some weeks effort into research: if Mills is not faking --> his model is better than QM

    To come to this conclusion I pretty much followed the steps you propose:


    "You can have a very good semi-empirical equation, or one that serves as a template for a whole family of semi-empirical equations, but not obviously based on some deeper theory that gives insight."

    This is correct. And if Mills model was just about the ionization energies of atoms I could say nothing against it, because it is well known that these energies more or less follow a quadratic expression and some semi empirical models use some fitting constants and get pretty good results. There are many of these models out there for all kinds of systems but what they all have in common is that they describe rather simple problems. You can draw it in a 1D or 2D plot and you get the basic idea of whats happening. But his model does not stop there. To calculate bond energies, bond angles, interatomic distances etc. correctly you have all kinds of dependencies between these values. If you change one atom in a molecule many values change and there is NO WAY you can do this with semi empirical equations. It is way too complex. If you calculate these molecules on your own you will get a feeling for what is happening there. Most things are force and energy balances based on the electric- and magnetic forces that act on one another.

    I have no formal proof that it is impossible to do with ad hoc semi empirical equations but as a simple test you could go to your local university and ask the physics- and chemistry professors about their opinion. My guess is that you would get a 100% of the professors agree with me (of course dont tell that it is about proving Mills correct^^) :-). Do it yourself to see what I mean - methan is still free.


    "We'd need to show that QM doesn't provide as accurate of answers as the equations you looked at and the related ones that you passed over."

    It is hard to do that if you are not a skilled analytical chemist. Mills also followed this question in this paper. This gives a good overview of the accuracy he is achieving. Reading the conclusion and the state of the art QM results at the end is quite interesting. Mills used just two basis sets and he also says that they can just give acceptable results in the range of molecules they are designed for. So a skilled analytical chemist could definitly raise the QM accuracy but if you look a few days into hartree fock literature you know what result you would get. The bottom line is: Mills model performs way better than QM in terms of accuracy and computational complexity. Mills results stay in the error range of 1% and most times in 0.1% over 800 molecules. There is not much room for improvements there. I even doubt that you could get the accuracy if you hand tune hartree fock for every single molecule. What also underlines my point: this is what they get after 60 (!!!) years of improving their algorithms even with all the available money of the pharma/material science industry which has HUGE interest in getting better and more predictive results. Mills did this more or less on his own within 15 years. There is NO DOUBT that is model is far superior to QM regarding atomic and molecular structur - if he has not faked his results.


    "We'd need to show that Mills also handles all of the cases that QM was derived to address."

    That is also true but it is also a pretty hard task. Mills tried it for many important experiments but there is much work to be done. My point is this: the results for his molecules are so remarcable that it is time for some serious scientist to take a closer look - check if he is cheating and if not try to figure out why his model is so sucessful and where to go with this new knowledge. Even if Mills cannot proof that his theory tackles all experiments of the last 70 years.


    The great thing with this improvement for mankind is that we do not need MFMP and no correct heating cycles, no magic ingrediences, no me356 to get forward. We just have to sit down, do some calculations and see if Mills is faking his results. If he is not faking results the consequence will change mankind forever. And this is independant of wether MIlls giant light bulb ever works or not. This is a testable and tremendous result he delivered 10 years ago and we just have to look into it. I know I sound desperate :-) - I am just hoping that his bulb lights up within the next two years so that someone will pay attention. I can write whatever I want.


    Edit: Mills mentions this NIST page. There you can get the state of the art calculated result for 1700 molecules.

  • The basic assumption of Mills is that there is a set of great circles or geodesics with mass flow that covers the sphere such that 1) the charge is constant and sum to the electron charge. With an even mass density

    so that the total mass equals the electron mass and also each great circle or loop have the same velocity, even charge, radius and even mass. Not only the set of loops have each a angular momentum that sum up

    to the spin of the electron.


    Take the units so that r = 1. This means that there is a sum of loop contribution for the spin such that


    a_0 m v cos(th_0) + ... = spin


    now we take m v = spin we get that


    a_0 spin cos(th_0) + ... = spin


    e,g, we must have


    m a_0 cos(th_0) + ... = m


    Now if we move the momentum axis for circles from th to th + dth we get that we will a spherical spanning region of


    rsin(th) to sin(th + dth) ~ cos(th)dth. In essens this means that indeed


    m a_0 cos(th_0) will be the total mass because what this does is essentially to count the total mass


    At lest this is the idea of why you should be able to simplify the calculation as Mills is doing. Anyhow this whole argument needs more detail but I have at least hinted on an idea of an argument.

    Also this means that Mills example might not be unique. E.g. it is not proven that there are more distributions of great circles that satisfy the conditions.


    Maybe I'm just talking out of my beard, but this is at least a try.

  • Epimethesius, to some of your points:


    We cannot say that Mills's system is better than QM overall if it is only shown to better than QM in a specific area (molecular bonds, bond angles, etc.). (Note that we haven't shown that yet; we just have your word on some spot checks that you did.) There's a lot to QM. In order to supplant it with something more compelling, Mills must accomplish what Einstein accomplished in supplanting Newtonian physics with a new paradigm: the insights gleaned from his system must be so profound that one is more or less forced by dint of its explanatory power to allow one's understanding of physics to be turned inside out. Has Mills accomplished that? If orbitspheres are anything to go by, he has accomplished the opposite, by providing compelling evidence that his theory is unphysical. (See Zephyr_AWT's post above for one example of why this is the case.)


    But to some more specific details: you mention bond energies, bond angles, and interatomic distances. I also understand that you spot checked the ionization levels. Did you spot check the bond energies, bond angles and interatomic distances?


    One more point for thought: when one model is supplanted by another, it can become harder to do some things. It is harder to calculate simple trajectories of objects at non-relativistic speeds under earth's gravitational field using the relativistic equations instead of the Newtonian equations, for example. This increased difficulty is not an argument against relativity, however. Conversely, we cannot conclude much about the proposed ease with which it is possible to calculate molecular bond angles using Mills's equations over some parallel approach used in QM.

  • stefan wrote "The basic assumption of Mills is that there is a set of great circles or geodesics with mass flow that covers the sphere such that 1) the charge is constant and sum to the electron charge. With an even mass density.."


    Thanks for the hint

    I think I can follow it

    But your beard is very thick for me


    the last m a_0 cos(th_0) = "m a_0 cos(th_0)+"?


    Hints take a lot of work .. Here is another example of 'hint' https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0406276


    I am sure there are maths competent people somewhere out there who can do this

    but we all have things to do ..like cranes.


    as for Randell Mills ... stumm.. at this time..

    the last request about progress on the BrLP lightbulb

    was answered with his green plasma video .


    "This is the current state that we are willing to make public at this time:

    http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video" Thu 8/06/2017 9:19 AM

  • To understand the basic properties of a molecule, you dont need a fuzzy random picture of the orbits.


    All QM formulas completely neglet the internal magnetic energies/forces.


    Both these statements are incorrect. Probability density is necessary to calculate (for example) energy level transition probabilities. QM formulae exactly incorporate electron spin and also nuclear spin interactions. What do you think a spinor is if not that? The Dirac equation fully incorporates electron magnetic moment etc. Making an artificial distinction between QM and RQM is silly.


    Better first understand existing physics before you claim new physics is needed.


  • I think that I was wrong. You have to calculate the field So basically when you sum or integrate the sub masses you should get the total mass it should have a homogeneous density and then the weightening with cos(theta) should

    yield the spinn. I think that Mills put r m v = hbar and the sum with cos(theta) gives a half resulting in the total spin of hbar / 2. Now if there are infinite number of fields with various constants 1/2 1/3 2 etc one could argue that Mills

    could have picked the field leading to the right value of the constant e.g. 1/2 and hence tune to the right precition. The thing is that it is not easy to produce different versions of these fields and I bet threr is a deep mathematical theory

    behind Mills calculations. If it where that simple like to produce a divergence free field, then Mills should have plenty of constants to choose from, but the thing is that so far I've only seen one fields of loops that produce an even density

    as they are added together.

  • I have though about this question some more, It is nicely summarized in a math stack exchange question, please upvote it if you find it interesting so that it have a better chance of getting answered. Or if you are a wizard answer it yourself.


    https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2316201/453800?sgp=2


    or perhaps this:

    https://math.stackexchange.com…re-with-uniform-geodesics

  • I dont see the slightest chance that Mathis model is ever going to be deeply studied unless he invents a new technology with it. Reading Mathis invokes the urge to punch him hard in the face in every physicist looking into it just because of his arrogant writing style

    Sadly, I agree with you about his chances, even though his theory can tackle "the weird stuff that QM was conjured into being to tackle" like the double-slit experiment, etc. I have encouraged him to try to get involved in LENR, but so far without success. I realize that mainstream physicists like to think they have a monopoly on arrogance. I actually enjoy his tone and find his acerbic barbs against the illogic and absurdity of mainstream theories hilarious and entertaining. But to each his own.


    You might say that establishment physicists have earned the right to be arrogant, but he hasn't. I disagree. His older papers don't have that tone; they tend to be more straightforward. If you look for example at his early work on relativity I don't think you'll find that. But here's the thing: the guy spent a good 15 years digging into established, bedrock physics equations and keeps finding one mistake after another after another. Like with Einstein's special relativity paper, he found a very simply algebraic error that led to a slight change in the calculation of gamma. And then he started to put QM and other theories under inspection showing how absurd many of their postulates are and how many leaps of logic are built into the theories. He has likewise showed how case-closed experiments have been badly interpreted. So at this point, yeah, he has very little respect for mainstream science, and it shows. But he has earned his right to be contemptuous. It might not serve the goal of gaining a wider following, but he doesn't view science as a popularity contest.


    The size of an atom is on the order of Ångström. 100 times that is 10nm, today technologies discuss 5nm techniques for chip making and also there is plenty of "photos" of atoms that tell the story that the size is indeed on the order of Ångström. So I think that Miles is wrong here.

    Geez, you really should try to read and understand his argument before saying he's wrong. And also show where he's wrong. I wish more people would do that. First of all, do you even understand what the "5nm technique" is for chip making? Or what they call the 5nm node? The "5nm" doesn't actually refer to any of the dimensions of the transistor. For example, the 14nm node has 20nm gate length, 42nm height and 42nm pitch. And although the 5nm node is still in early development stage, the wikipedia page on it indicates it will have between 32-44nm gate pitch and 20-32nm interconnect pitch (compared to 70 and 52 for the 14nm process). One article I found suggested the gate length could be as short as 10nm. In short, try as I might, I could not find anything suggesting the the 5nm chip has any element that is actually 5nm. If anything, the 5nm should refer to one of the dimensions of the channel that the electrons travel through. And since the channel is an empty space, its size is less limited by the size of the atom.


    But all of this is rather beside the point. "Images" of anything at the atomic level (including the graphics you pasted) are not photographs, they are instead images constructed from data that comes from electron microscopes. The algorithms that turn that data into images and estimates of size are based, ultimately, on Rutherford's scattering equation (adjusted for Beta particles rather than Alpha particles as in Rutherford's original experiment). But because that equation doesn't take into account gravity at the quantum level, the data from alpha particles and electron scattering have been incorrectly interpreted:


    "I have discovered that the math used to analyze scattering is incomplete. I say incomplete rather than false because it is correct as far as it goes. It simply fails to take into account the presence of gravity at the atomic level. This means that although its manipulations are done correctly, its assumptions are faulty. Rutherford assumes that the force can be expressed as the Coulomb force, and that therefore it is solely an electrostatic force. I will show that this is false.


    "The intent of this paper is not to return to the Thomson model or to throw into question the usefulness of the Coulomb equation. As I admit above, the Coulomb equation allowed Rutherford to estimate the correct answer, so it must be correct as a heuristic device over some energies, at the very least. I am also not intending to question the experimental findings of the last century....


    "If the force is not only electrostatic, then the mechanics cannot be what we have assumed it is. If we mis-assign forces, we end up with wrong numbers when we start calculating down from those forces. In these scattering equations, we are not calculating energies or forces from lengths or times, we are calculating lengths or times from energies or forces. Logically, that is upside down, and it is a dangerous mathematical manipulation. It requires an assumption of complete knowledge of the field mechanics, so that we can solve down in the correct way. Since I have shown that we do not have a complete knowledge of the field mechanics, we should not be able to solve down with such complete assurance. In fact, Rutherford and those who followed him have solved down using false assumptions, and have thereby gotten the wrong numbers for their lengths."


    The results basically uses the following facts: 1) a sphere consisting of loops of spherical geodesics (large circles), all at the same velocity of constant resulting density. The loops added together yield the correct spin of the electron. To calculate the kinetic energy, use the velocities in the loop, not the resultants!! Assume the usual electrostatics. The mass is evenly distributed on the loops and results in the electronic mass....


    The basic assumption of Mills is that there is a set of great circles or geodesics with mass flow that covers the sphere such that 1) the charge is constant and sum to the electron charge. With an even mass density so that the total mass equals the electron mass and also each great circle or loop have the same velocity, even charge, radius and even mass. Not only the set of loops have each a angular momentum that sum up to the spin of the electron.


    I fail to see how this theory counts as classical. And by that I mean mechanical. If the electron is a particle, how can it exist as a sphere or geodisic or loop or whatever? How can a loop have an angular momentum or velocity? How can the properties of the electron be assigned to these geodisics and loops except by mathematical fiat? Don't properties like angular momentum and velocity belong to the electron? How can the great circle have a mass that sums to the mass of the electron?


    I'm sorry but this is all gobbledygook to me. At the end of the day I believe Mills is guilty of many of the same things he accuses mainstream science of being. Although he has moved away from QM, his theory is still far from mechanical and he is guilty of the same kind of heuristic approach as QM theorists, even if his starting postulates are "classical."



  • so you are saying that currently we have litographic techniques that create objects that are two to three atoms wide. That is really unlikely I would say. And we know this for sure because we know how many gates you have on a square inch.


    Mills does not speak about point particles but in stead discusses fields. Maxwells equatin is a classical field theory. So according to current scientific standard he does a classical analysis. But you seam to have another definition of what

    classical means. Let me say that point singularities is most likely a mathematical construct, in the deepest dungeons you will see fields in stead, classical fields if you ask Mills. So wen we take a geodesic it has an infinitesimal mass dm

    and it has a velocity v and a radius r. The angular momentum, which is for this loop or geodesic dm * r * v. The whole process can be made mathematical sound by employing the exact same mathematics that makes derivatives and

    integrals work. E.g. you add an infinite numbers on infinitely small quantities and you reach the conclusions. You may find that it is difficult but that doesn't imply that it is not true, just that you don't understand that kind of modelling

    and there is plenty of such models in practical use such as electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, etc.

  • Better first understand existing physics before you claim new physics is needed.


    @THH: The Dirac equation does not include the magnetic energy stored in the field. May be you should ask somebody competent in Maxwell physics to get a better judgement. If QM would include the magnetic energy, the equation are no longer separable, because there is no symmetry between electric forces and magnetic forces.


    The even more severe mistake of nuclear physicists is the use of Minkovski space for nuclear models. But that needs an even a more deep understanding of mathematical structures ...


    To make is clear: There are some Mathematicians out there, that simply laugh about the math physicists use. But that is unfair, because as an engineering model it often works quite well.

  • do you even understand what the "5nm technique" is for chip making?


    The simple explanation what 5nm technique means : "5 nm is the finest structure used in the process. Usually 5nm is the thickness of a conduction/signal line


    I have discovered that the math used to analyze scattering is incomplete. I say incomplete rather than false because it is correct as far as it goes. It simply fails to take into account the presence of gravity at the atomic level.


    Gravity is expressed as curvature of space. Just read R.Mills 4D metric, which replaces Minkovski space and you will understand how curvature works. But... Whether gravity is a primary or a residual force is not yet fully understood. In Mills theory it works as a constant, that relates mater and energy and spacetime! If you model relativity the correct may, then time itself expands, what is not equivalent to time dilation. The measure of time expands if mass is converted to energy (photons do not gravitate!!).



    I fail to see how this theory counts as classical. And by that I mean mechanical. If the electron is a particle, how can it exist as a sphere or geodisic or loop or whatever? How can a loop have an angular momentum or velocity?


    Any magnetic field can carry momentum and hence velocity. This is basic to Maxwell theory.


    Mills model is not very different from the QM model, because he uses the spherical harmonics and the radial Green function(s) too. This leads more or less to the same quantization rules. But Mills model does directly relate all forces & densities with the naturally occurring phenomenas like spin, spin (orbit)-coupling, splitting, electric, potential and magnetic energy chances and finally mechanical recoil of a photon emission.

    To calculate all Helium level you simply need a spreadsheet and if you do second level fittings, then the accuracy goes up again.


    My conclusion is the same as that of any experimenter: With Mills I get 3 digits more precision - simply, if I use his rules. Thus: It's not up to me to prove that he is right. The other have to (dis-) prove it.

  • joshg

    "I fail to see how this theory counts as classical"


    I think 'classical' in the sense GUTCP uses the concept of the electric and magnetic 'field'

    to explain interactions between particles.

    One of the main references that Mills uses is " Classical Electrodynamics" Jackson

    a 'classic ' publication in this 'field'.

    For weekend reading, google "UNLP Jackson"

    Much of the GUTCP theory relies on Maxwell's laws which are 'classical'


    On the other hand quantum electrodynamics

    uses virtual photons ( or other gauge bosons) to explain the interaction.

    GUTCP does not use the word 'virtual'.


    Explaining all differences between so-called classical GUTCP and QM / QED

    cannot be done in one or a few words or in one diagram

    and requires more than cursory reading.