stefan Verified User
  • Member since Aug 31st 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by stefan

  • Einstein was right? QM is ??

    THH, Thanks for interesting thoughts!


    The derivation of the g factor is something I looked into and as far as I can tell Mills uses an ok approach in the beginning that one can follow and apply it through the integrals of the fields. I can only see a possible fudge of a factor of 2 in those fields. But as you say, the 2 pi are a weird factor and I think that most of us will fail to understand those. What I can tell is that he views the fields in different frames of references, one in the lab, one at c speed which are really strange and I have not seen any references of this view elsewhere. But if you look into it, it has a structure that is reused many times to yield correct results all over the place. You can do this fudge one time or not and you get a few bits of extra presition of this fudge which is way too small to explain the correctness of the formula. Anyhow I have an idea of what these frames of references are. In the c reference you could consider the solution as a standing wave that basically has a radial component (moves in and out radially) that has a period of r. But when you spin off a photon and move it it will in the lab frame (not in the c-frame) circulate the orbit and hence the period is 2pi r. That is at least my hand waving to try explain this strange fact (there doesn't seam to be room enough to fudge so it looks to have some kind of unknown validity)


    I agree that QED is exact in it's results, but here I miss the correct statistical approach to fix more digits. It looks like the theory always follows the new experimental accuracy. Also as far as I understand the expansions need to decide which terms to add and not to add at least that is the critique that Mills claim e.g. fudging.


    Anyhow I think you did a little mistake in the claim that Mills once was over exact in his value. You had alpha-1 = 137.03604(11) that's +/- 2 (2 sd) on the eights figure and it is quite likely

    to get the eight's figure correctly by chance. which is what he basically has.


    The accuracy is pretty high in Mills derivation and I am open for both QED and Mills as valid approaches to derive the result and this indicates that perhaps QED is based on a more exact formulation in certain setups but uses a way more complicated model compared to Mills theory. Perhaps W will one day see how his further work can shed light over what this correspondence really are because he has ideas of how to enrich Mills theory to improve accuracy. I certainly view QED as a non fudge formula.

  • Einstein was right? QM is ??

    Forget Mills for the moment, fitting his idea to all possible cases is not something one easilly and quickly performs without spending considerable amount of time. But let's focus on this. Isn't quantum entanglement

    just initiating the wave function and then later calulating correlations by using the wavefunctions at the different sites. Can you in a few words explain what's more in entanglement? Is there experiments where one need

    more than Schrödinger or Dirac to explain the results of the experiments?

  • Einstein was right? QM is ??


    It is actually quite tough calculations that is needed and you need books and references to follow all steps. If you feel steps are missing

    you might see more details if you download the latest version of GUTCP.

  • Einstein was right? QM is ??

    The initial state of the QM wave funciton is settled at the start of the entanglement. And the correlation seen at the measurments

    is a consequence of how the initial state was setuped. The measurements uses the wave function squared. Mills shows simillarly

    how the fields are setuped at an initial states and then progresses normaly and the measurements is in the fields squared. This

    is also how the entanglement is setuped in all experiments and quantum computers. No mystery at all it all boils down to the fact

    that the initial state introduce a dependency that is maintained in the progression of the fields. So in this interpretation there is no

    mystery at all. The mystery becomes accute when one uses other interpretatoins of the meaning of the wavefunction than just this

    which shows that those interpretations are most likely wrong. Most likely you could make those entanglement in quantum computers

    with Mills device as well. So yes entanglement is a proven phenomena, just that it's a bad naming and a very simple and

    straightforward an nonmysterious if you see it from the correct direction.

  • How do you convince a skeptic?

    Quantum computers recently got 10 billion of European taxmoney for 10 years of research. This is really high risk money and If a skeptic

    says this well spent money I can't find it unreasonable to ask for the same spending for cold fusion. If they complain that theory predicts

    a positive result ask them to present the theory for the error bounds of the result of the quantum algorithm and what's needed to get the

    errors so low that the Quantum Computer is practical. There is actually theoretical work done to attack this problem, currently all results indicate

    that the difficulty increases exponentially with the size of the quantum computer for what I know. So EU is asking for the imposible. I would think

    that the impossible Cold Fusion is way more important for the humanity though.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    Reading Mills claim the derivation of aspect results where no probability of hidden variables is employed. The hidden variable method in Bell inequality is using

    probability theory regarding hidden variables of a point. Mills does not use that, but in stead uses a direct deterministic calculation from the photon electric

    field of a photon that extends in space, a derivation that lead to very exact results of the Aspects Experiment using his measurements of transmittanses.

    Anyway his recent version of the book has a detailed derivation of the identity. Note that the photon is not a point in Mills theory.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    When it comes to Mills derivation of the ionisation energies for atoms, something not stressed is the following important fact.

    Let's compare the ionisation energy for O7+ (heaviest one calculated nonrelativistic e.g. the fastes one) we have:


    for experimental values see table


    Experimental E: 871.4101 eV

    Mills Theoritecal Nonrelativistic E: 870.77eV, Absolute Error = 0.64eV

    Mills Theoretical relativistic E: 871.47768eV, Absolute Error = 0.067eV


    This indicates that the formula Mills derives is indeed physical. Because one can verify that he applies special relativity correctly to the

    quantities in his formula and indeed it improves accuracy. This does not look like a fudge formalization and funk science but indeed

    a theoretical derivation.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    Another example of non locality is a rigid body and their movements. With such an object you create a dependancy that transport information faster than the speed of light.

    GUTCP has boundaries that moves like rigid boddies that is Lorenz invariant e.g. all possible non accelerating rigid boddies is generated from the Lorenz transform and

    a translation and orthogonal transformation (and phase shift) of the stationary particle. Mills models photons as a particle, it is extended in his model and the electric fields

    on it is constraind to quanta and phase. This combinations means that description of the photon is not local but non local and a should be seen as a surface with a few variations.

    and has not the full variation needed to satisfy locallity. Hence it is not strange that Mills derives Aspects results with good accuracy.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    If the time evolution of a solution to normal partial equations satisfy a bounday condition then typically they are not local.

    QM is not local because all solutions are constrained to be zero at infinity (actually have a finite square norm integral). In Mills

    GUTCP the EM solutions are constrained to not radiate which in Haus condition means that the fourier transform of the

    charge is zero for light like wave vectors. The boundary condition exchanges information in the solutions over

    long distances and it would be crazy to call such laws local. Note :


    In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings


    Partial equations with only initial values is local in that the progression is determined by a local exchange of information, not so if you introduce boundary condition.


    basically the partial equation that is local is

    X_0 = x0 (0)

    X_{i+1} = A X_i (1)


    with A only exchanging information at infitiesemal distances


    But with a boundary condition you have

    X_0 = x0

    X_{i+1} = A X_i

    BX_{i+1}=C (2)


    The linear constaint (2) added to (0) (1) typically means that you loose locality of the system (0) (1) in navier sokes equatoins for uncomperssible fluids

    the linear conditions is a partial equatyion put on space. For QM it is a boundary how it behaves at infinity, for GUTCP its how the fourier transform

    of the charge behaves at the light cone. All lead to an addition very much like (2)

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    A local theory means that you from conditions in a very local area e.g. arbritrary small region you get the behavior. If you have a parametrized (rigid body movement)

    or even a discrete set if boundary conditions that you move between or a finite combination of such you just cannot setup the rules via patching the effect of

    small regions. The reach for a meta stable state create a dependancy on distance that cannot be resolved with infinitesmal small regions. Now I think that the maxwells equations

    are also reaching some meta stable state so it's not just the boundary conditions (you cannot patch parametrized solutions and get Maxwells equations back)

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    Then QM is also local because the solution fields are deterministic given all boundary conditions and initial condition. There is an interpretation of a randomness

    but that's just a function from the fields to a value, you can do the same trick with a EM fields so I don't get the difference.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    THHuxleynew.


    As I now read the forum you state that the value is 1.51, robert links to 1.293 33 and it looks like you claim 6 digits precision in the flow of discussion.

    Something doesn't add up is robert linking the wrong value or do you refer to another result? of less precision?

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    These models are fitted to a ton of data so getting that accuracy is what to be expected by a datafit. Datafits is okej

    science if what you get can reach this precision with some ease of calculation and you are not moving too far from the allowed

    region. Producing a theory that almost no one can understand and calculate, then the science is of less use. The ultimate task for

    science is to help humanity and the art of engineering. I think that QM fails this in a lot of fields and therefore Wyttenbach approach

    is so interesting.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Maxwell's equations are local, and provably cannot model QM non-locality.

    No the boundary conditions are not. For practical purposes it's following non local law, so the total results are a non local behavior. I missed it though, Maxwell + unknown local 2D theory that is approximated well as a Maxwell + non local 2D theory due to the fast time constants in the original local theory. Here we assume that the time constant to reach

    a steady state or cyclic states are so fast that the result is essentially non local. Note I have not seen stuff calculated for noncyclic and nonstationary solutions of the charge distribution.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    To note I find the QM theory something of a fake for understanding nature, it is and the derivation of QM from QED shows that. But QED is fantastically simple and elegant and probably is important for understanding. The STDM looks like a mess if you write out the equations and is probably far from the final solution, really looks like a complex datafit.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    I said that QM is not mysterious and brought forward one facet the Aspect theorem, that typically interpreted as mysterious action at distance. Which if

    you accept non locality it's not. It's just a field theory. I think there is a connection with GUTCP and QM, just that how is not evident. I note that Mills theory is

    also typically Non local because of the use of the non radiation condition. The atoms non locality behavior is a result of maxwells equations which are a local

    theory. And I hypothesize that the time constants reaching meta stable properties in particles and atoms are so fast that what we see in Aspect like experimets.

    GUTCP is a function of essentially a non local theory, e.g. parametrized boundary value solutions of maxwells equations. I would like to add that the local properties

    of the singularites is not well defined in GUTCP e.g. the full physical description of the intrinsic surface behavior, which can perhaps experience a faster that light

    properties in it's true description. Perhaps it's just electrical charge elements constrained to live in 2D and not 3D, perhaps there is more to it. Mills himself is assuming

    2D charge infinetismals, but i'm not certain that that's the whole picture. Anyway whatever is the truth, QM is not mysterious and what's called quantum properties

    may very well be modellable by a local theory like Maxwells equations, that's my main point.

  • Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

    GUTCP is constraining the solution to a non local boundary condition. Hence it produces non local results. My view is that there exists local theories behind the scene that sort of maintains

    a more slowly varying meta stable state. The models of GUTCP and QM targets these intermediate state. If you view these theories in this light you will be less likely to say it is mysterious. For example the aspect theorem states that you cannot fix an initiate state in a local theory to explain the seen interaction as non spooky action at distance. But if you say that quantum fields or the mills fields are physical and hence non local, it's pretty fine to state that those fix the state at the beginning and there is nothing that transport information a gazillion miles in a blick. By linking in that those non local theories is just a local fast theory at some kind of steady state you end up with no mystery at all except the need to nail what that underlying local theory can look like.