Opinions on BLPs molecule results

  • There are far more outstanding (than hydrinos) blunders in the standard model. In 50 years people will laugh about some nobels given for bare bullshit theories, without any physical background.


    Perhaps you could elucidate (without FUD) these non-hydrino blunders. Stating in detail how you know some alternate theory corresponds better to physical reality with references? There are enough physicists doing this properly and publishing decent papers on it: I don't think words on this blog get us very far!

  • THH

    "I would (if they were explicit) be more interested in Mills's derivations than his results."

    " Perhaps we could look at a specific system (in detail) chase up the known QED calculations and all corrections thereto."

    Maybe the specific system is Lithium


    Mills's derivations on Pg 305-310

    http://brilliantlightpower.com…P-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf


    I can't find any known QED calculations for Lithium unfortunately...

    do they exist?





  • Hi Wyttenbach — was your thought that impolitely suggesting taking a ratio of two formulas would be adequate to make Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio explicit and show that it is not hand waving? (Hopefully I will find the time to take your suggested ratio; looking at the units, I am doubtful your suggestion will accomplish what you want.)


    Eric Walker : If don't understand the base formulas just tell us... They are used everywhere to derive the mass from gravity, alpha and c.

    Regarding Mills Helium calculations: I own the original (Mills-) spreadsheet and checked most levels. There is one unintentional tiny cheat Mills did unconsciously, with the reduced mass. I wont tell you the details, but the precision for the base value (that was to good) goes down one digit.

    But this cheat has guided me to a important conclusion, that will finally completely annihilate all result from the standard model.

    But as long as THH, the other FUD'er, are telling us, that QUED has any value, I certainly will not talk about serious research. My new model had one big hit: I got an 11 digits exact match between two independently measured physical masses using the 4(6)D model. If this is mere look, then I should win all lotteries in the world at least once.

    For this, you certainly you must do more than Mills explains. Mills is just the first step in a new staircase to a correct nuclear & particle physics building model, that is able to predict values & energies.



  • http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi…e=1078&context=physicspub


    Now nearly 20 years old - computational QM has got an awful lot better! At that time, the above ref says:


    In summary, the results of this paper show that the ionization
    energy of lithium is now understood at the 0.2
    micro a. u. level of accuracy. A much improved variational
    bound for the nonrelativistic energy has been obtained,
    and a long-standing discrepancy with experiment has been
    resolved. However, discrepancies remain for the ionization
    potentials of the Li-like ions which require further
    study.


    We have 2.7eV / a.u. So this is an accuracy of 0.5ueV. Mills gets an error of 20meV


    QED beats Mills by 40,000X. Though it should be noted that the authors still highlight outstanding discrepancies so I somehow doubt this is as good as it gets.


    If you wanted further exploration we could do a citation forward search on the above ref for more recent work?

  • Wyttenbach, perhaps it's pointless to mention this, but you didn't answer my question:


    Quote

    was your thought that impolitely suggesting taking a ratio of two formulas would be adequate to make Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio explicit and show that it is not hand waving?

  • THH: QED beats Mills by 40,000X

    THH "chase up the known QED calculations and all corrections"

    Too premature to say.....


    Have you looked at both sets of calculations to check how many adjustment ' constants' there are?


    I checked Mills..couldn't find any


    maybe you could check QED?


    as Von Neumann said ..with five 'constants' I can make the elephant wiggle its trunk

  • https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.52.3711


    Same author, 1995. Gives ionisation energy comparison with experiment for 6Li and 7Li (they are different).


    Results are correct to within 5 parts in a million. Mills's calculation is in error by 5 in a thousand.


    Drake seems to be doing well with Li ionisation.


    10 years later (2005)


    https://journals.aps.org/prl/p…03/PhysRevLett.100.243002



    Table III compares theory and experiment for the calculated
    transition frequencies for the stable isotopes 7Li and
    9Be. It is particularly noteworthy that the ionization
    potential for Li is now in good agreement with the recent
    high-precision measurement of Bushaw et al. [28], but
    there is a substantial disagreement with the NIST tabulation
    for the ionization potential of 9Be. In view of the
    good agreement for the other transitions, it seems likely
    that the theoretical ionization energy of 146 882.923(5)
    cm1 is more accurate than the experimental value by an
    order of magnitude.


    Basically, he is saying theory disagrees slightly with current experimental data for Be, but is validated by high precision experiment

    for Li. He reckons therefore that his results for Be are more accurate than the (2005) best experimental data.


    His calculations for Li were then (12 years ago) accurate to around 60 parts per billion for Li.


    That was 2005, so maybe we have more accurate experimental results now...


  • What adjustment constants?


    The past few years have seen remarkable advances in
    our ability to achieve spectroscopic accuracy for the energies
    and transition frequencies of lithium and the lithiumlike
    ions (or more generally four-body systems). The
    dominant sources of uncertainty are the higher-order quantum
    electrodynamic (QED) corrections, rather than the
    accuracy of calculations for the basic nonrelativistic energy
    and leading relativistic corrections. This work builds
    on the much longer history of high-precision calculations
    for helium and other three-body systems [1–3]. Here we
    present results suitable for the interpretation of QED shifts
    and isotope shifts in Li and Be
    The key to obtaining high-precision results that are
    essentially exact for all practical purposes (in the sense
    that hydrogenic wave functions and energies are ‘‘exact’’)
    is the use of explicitly correlated variational wave functions
    in Hylleraas coordinates. This is a specialized method
    that has been fully implemented only for the two- and
    three-electron cases [4–6]. The results are more accurate
    by many orders of magnitude than the well-known and
    generally applicable methods of atomic physics, such as
    configuration interaction. The high accuracy opens the
    possibility of using the results in combination with high precision
    experiments to create unique measurement tools.
    A prime example is the use of the calculated isotope shift in
    combination with isotope shift measurements to determine
    the nuclear charge radius of short-lived halo nuclei such as
    6He, 8He, and 11Li [7,8]. New experiments are in progress
    at GSI [9] and at RIKEN [10] for 11Be, where the isotope
    shift in the 2 2S1=2 2 2PJ transitions will be used.

  • THH "Perhaps we could look at a specific system (in detail) chase up the known QED calculations and all corrections thereto. Look at the reasons for the corrections "



    Good suggestion THH... I'll await your reply re: QED corrections ..2018 is OK;)

  • 2014


    https://journals.aps.org/prl/p…03/PhysRevLett.113.263007


    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].


    accurate to 10^-15 versus 10^-2 for Mills, and you say it is "to premature to say"?



  • I can't see any fudge factors except for higher-order QED corrections epsilonHO. These are multiplied by alpha^4.


    The numerical values for all the epsilons are << 1 a.u. , so this is an adjustment that is of order 10^-8.


    Good enough? I can't see how you can cavil about alpha^4 uncertainties when Mills's ERROR is of order alpha!

  • Good enough ?

    Not at all


    ... rel, QED, and ho corrections?

    What kind of theory uses four or more 'corrections'.


    How many of these QM corrections are there .what are the reasons?


    THH "Perhaps we could look at a specific system (in detail) chase up the known QED calculations and all corrections thereto. Look at the reasons for the corrections

  • In summary, the results of this paper show that the ionization
    energy of lithium is now understood at the 0.2
    micro a. u. level of accuracy.


    There is one good point in the paper THH referenced. The method used is 6-dimensional, what is needed for nuclear energies.



    The remainder only proves that QM has absolutely no clue about the underlying physics. The authors do a six times six (+ spin dimensions) polynomial fit with high precision measured values, with the goal to extrapolate the missed non measured values.

    If they apply the same unchanged fit to other Isotopes the error is the usual QED error of 0.5-2% or as we say they do just educated guessing.



    To sum it up: The authors calculated a polynomial matrix for just one Isotope. They at no point, nowhere in the paper calculated anything from given base data. Mills calculation is from base data.



    Thus THH still lacks to give us a paper where somebody calculates something useful without using measured values...



    Thus Mills to QED is still 100:1 and not the THH fudge factor.


    PS: (The authors only say it correct, we understand and not derive...)

  • THH "accurate to 10^-15 versus 10^-2 for Mills, and you say it is "to premature to say"?"


    Wyttenbach "The authors do a six times six (+ spin dimensions) polynomial fit with high precision measured values"

    " The remainder only proves that QM has absolutely no clue about the underlying physics'


    von Neumann " With five parameters I can make the elephant wiggle his trunk"

    http://perfdynamics.blogspot.c…inking-pink-elephant.html


  • Bocjin,


    You are perhaps not reading the paper. I quoted some relevant parts. There are no such free parameters in the Hylleraas coordinates method. Each coefficient in the expansion is precisely calculated except for one (the high order corrections) which is many OOM below Mills' errors.


    Wyttenbach says this is a polynomial fit with 6 arbitrary values. It is not. Each of the coefficients is calculated from first principles. And the same theory is used to calculate many observables to high precision, not just ionisation energies, but ionisation lifetimes, etc, and for many different atoms. I'd suggest that you read source material first before accepting what posters here summarise. (That goes for me too, of course).


    You should instead ask how Mills' theory can be correct when it is so badly different from experiment but has, it seems, an exact analytical solution.


  • You may have missed the fudge factors, GUTCP could be a good first approximation, easy to calculate, for a refinement of the thery you may find that QED and GUTCP+X coincide. Any classical theory that fit's the atomic data as GUTCP

    does should be taken seriously independent if there exists hyper-complex magic math that get a gazillion figures correct in a few cases. The problem is that GUTCP is not accepted as a deduction because we cannot follow all the steps,

    but that's another reason from what's in your statement.