A DC current loop doesn't radiate!
blackhead
radiation, even though the charges are accelerating because the
contributions to the radiation field from the individual charges all
cancel.
So It seems that we have a classical explanation for why electrons in
atoms don't radiate if they are seen as loops of continuous charge
rotating around a nucleus.
Is there a history of scientists trying to use this idea?
Cheers,
Larry.
Timo Nieminen
Pretty much the standard post-Bohr model atom. Take the Schroedinger atom,
find the allowed solutions for the electron wavefunctions in the Coulomb
potential of the nucleus, and you have your loops.
Even better, the dynamics of energy level transitions shows you why these
radiate: http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
This (i.e., continuous loops) works better for atomic electrons than for a
macroscopic DC current loop. If, as per the classical model, charge was a
continuous fluid, you would have no radiation from a current loop.
However, with the current being composed of discrete electrons, you never
get to the "no radiation" state. With classical EM radiation that is.
Consider the spectrum of synchrotron radiation, and what happens to it as
you increase the number of charges around the ring (consider
equally-spaced charges for simplicity). Throw in quantisation of EM
radiation (i.e., E=hf) and you have an answer!
--
Timo
Salmon Egg
<552c482c-d0ae-4073...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
blackhead <larry...@softhome.net> wrote:
I do not think the assumptions justify the conclusions. A current loop
at finite temperature will have current fluctuation due to random
thermal motion that will radiate,
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
Jos Bergervoet
Fluctuation superimposed on the DC, so also when DC=0. Even a completely
passive loop without DC currentg will radiate, following your argument.
It will, however, radiate just as much as it absorbs if it is in thermal
equilibrium with the environment. Also, one might argue that since
Jackson does not mention a surrounding radiation heat-bath, He simply
does intend this not to exist.
After all, you also don't assume other natural or man-made sources to be
present, even though their absence was not explicitely stated..
--
Jos
Vladimir Kalitvianski
> On 11/8/2010 3:39 AM, Salmon Egg wrote:
> > A current loop
> > at finite temperature will have current fluctuation due to random
> > thermal motion that will radiate,
>
> Fluctuation superimposed on the DC, so also when DC=0. Even a completely
>
> It will, however, radiate just as much as it absorbs if it is in thermal
> equilibrium with the environment. Also, one might argue that since
> Jackson does not mention a surrounding radiation heat-bath, He simply
> does intend this not to exist.
>
> After all, you also don't assume other natural or man-made sources to be
I agree with Salmon Egg. A current heats the wire and in absence of
convective heat exchange it is the radiation that maintains a steady
state.
Timo Nieminen
Then consider a current loop with no wire. Just a loop of current (i.e.,
moving charges) in free space, with a magnetic field to maintain the
circular path. Assume that the beam of electrons is cold - that there
isn't any significant random motion, just the motion that gives the
current.
(Btw, I haven't forgotten your earlier question. It takes some time and
thought.)
--
Timo
Edward Green
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, blackhead wrote:
> > Problem 14.24 in Jackson shows that in a dc current loop, there is no
> > radiation, even though the charges are accelerating because the
> > contributions to the radiation field from the individual charges all
> > cancel.
>
> > So It seems that we have a classical explanation for why electrons in
> > atoms don't radiate if they are seen as loops of continuous charge
> > rotating around a nucleus.
>
> > Is there a history of scientists trying to use this idea?
>
> Pretty much the standard post-Bohr model atom. Take the Schroedinger atom,
> find the allowed solutions for the electron wavefunctions in the Coulomb
> potential of the nucleus, and you have your loops.
What happened to the argument that atoms don't radiate because of the
Pauli exclusion principle? If all the lower shells are filled, there
is simply no place for the electrons to go.
Timo Nieminen
> On Nov 7, 6:38 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, blackhead wrote:
> > > Problem 14.24 in Jackson shows that in a dc current loop, there is no
> > > radiation, even though the charges are accelerating because the
> > > contributions to the radiation field from the individual charges all
> > > cancel.
> >
> > > So It seems that we have a classical explanation for why electrons in
> > > atoms don't radiate if they are seen as loops of continuous charge
> > > rotating around a nucleus.
> >
> > > Is there a history of scientists trying to use this idea?
> >
> > Pretty much the standard post-Bohr model atom. Take the Schroedinger atom,
> > find the allowed solutions for the electron wavefunctions in the Coulomb
> > potential of the nucleus, and you have your loops.
>
> What happened to the argument that atoms don't radiate because of the
> Pauli exclusion principle? If all the lower shells are filled, there
> is simply no place for the electrons to go.
It's insufficient as an explanation. For example, it doesn't say why a
hydrogen atom in the ground state doesn't radiate, or why 1s electrons in
other atoms don't radiate.
Given that ground-state hydrogen doesn't radiate, then it's enough to add
to that that any ground-state atom doesn't radiate.
--
Timo
Edward Green
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Edward Green wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 6:38 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, blackhead wrote:
> > > > Problem 14.24 in Jackson shows that in a dc current loop, there is no
> > > > radiation, even though the charges are accelerating because the
> > > > contributions to the radiation field from the individual charges all
> > > > cancel.
>
> > > > So It seems that we have a classical explanation for why electrons in
> > > > atoms don't radiate if they are seen as loops of continuous charge
> > > > rotating around a nucleus.
>
> > > > Is there a history of scientists trying to use this idea?
>
> > > Pretty much the standard post-Bohr model atom. Take the Schroedinger atom,
> > > find the allowed solutions for the electron wavefunctions in the Coulomb
> > > potential of the nucleus, and you have your loops.
>
> > What happened to the argument that atoms don't radiate because of the
> > Pauli exclusion principle? If all the lower shells are filled, there
> > is simply no place for the electrons to go.
>
> It's insufficient as an explanation. For example, it doesn't say why a
> hydrogen atom in the ground state doesn't radiate, or why 1s electrons in
> other atoms don't radiate.
Well, the explanation for _that_, from the same hand-waving session,
is that to lower its potential energy, the 1s electron would have to
increase its kinetic energy, by the uncertainty principle. So quantum
mechanically, the 1s electron really doesn't have any lower energy
state to fall into either. For what that's worth.
Salmon Egg
Jos Bergervoet <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote:
> Fluctuation superimposed on the DC, so also when DC=0. Even a completely
> passive loop without DC currentg will radiate, following your argument.
>
> It will, however, radiate just as much as it absorbs if it is in thermal
> equilibrium with the environment. Also, one might argue that since
> Jackson does not mention a surrounding radiation heat-bath, He simply
> does intend this not to exist.
>
> After all, you also don't assume other natural or man-made sources to be
> present, even though their absence was not explicitely stated..
I agree with this reasoning. Exercise problems usually involve
simplifications that are not explicit.
Salmon Egg
Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > I agree with Salmon Egg. A current heats the wire and in absence of
> > convective heat exchange it is the radiation that maintains a steady
> > state.
>
> Then consider a current loop with no wire. Just a loop of current (i.e.,
> moving charges) in free space, with a magnetic field to maintain the
> circular path. Assume that the beam of electrons is cold - that there
> isn't any significant random motion, just the motion that gives the
> current.
>
>
> (Btw, I haven't forgotten your earlier question. It takes some time and
> thought.)
Nature does not work that way. You cannot get a monochromatic beam of
electrons. In electron tubes, thermal noise from space charge limited
hot cathodes were lower than from cooler emission limited cathodes. Shot
noise arises from random electron emissions. Space charge virtual
cathodes smooth noise.
You might be interested in an attempt to lower the noise in an electron
beam. Run the beam next to a resistive wall. Motion of the charge images
in the wall will suck out energy from the fluctuations.
To the surprise of the inventors, they had discovered the resistive wall
amplifier.
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Then consider a current loop with no wire. Just a loop of current (i.e.,
> > moving charges) in free space, with a magnetic field to maintain the
> > circular path. Assume that the beam of electrons is cold - that there
> > isn't any significant random motion, just the motion that gives the
> > current.
>
> Nature does not work that way. You cannot get a monochromatic beam of
> electrons.
Sure. This lives in the idealised thought experiment world of frictionless
surfaces and light inextensible strings.
The point is to consider the Galileian idealisation, not the Aristotlean
real world. It doesn't matter that you can't get the monochromatic beam;
what matters is that you can think about (or calculate) what would happen
if you could get the monochromatic beam.
--
Timo
Salmon Egg
Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> The point is to consider the Galileian idealisation, not the Aristotlean
> real world. It doesn't matter that you can't get the monochromatic beam;
> what matters is that you can think about (or calculate) what would happen
> if you could get the monochromatic beam.
Even if you could get a monochromatic electron beam with uniformly
spaced electrons, you would not have pure dc. All the radiation would be
at harmonics of the rate uniformly spaced electrons go past a reference
point. You will basically have your many electron atom with a magnetic
nucleus attracting them.
Timo Nieminen
Just so! To get to this point is the point! And classically this will
always radiate.
Non-classically, it behaves better. As the number of electrons in the ring
increases, the fundamental frequency increases (and thus all the
harmonics), and E=hf bites.
--
Timo
Jos Bergervoet
Still, the self heating can spoil it tremendously in this case.. (the
little tungsten loops in a light bulb certainly do radiate!)
--
Jos
Vladimir Kalitvianski
>
> Then consider a current loop with no wire. Just a loop of current (i.e.,
> moving charges) in free space, with a magnetic field to maintain the
> circular path. Assume that the beam of electrons is cold - that there
> isn't any significant random motion, just the motion that gives the
> current.
>
> (Btw, I haven't forgotten your earlier question. It takes some time and
> thought.)
Yes, I agree: the Maxwell equations in static case do not have time-
dependent solutions, it is clear.
But even in case of a superconducting ring with a current, such a
state is not stationary - it has a certain decay time. Due to a high
barrier for tunneling into a lower energy state, the decay time is
large. Yet, if we disturb such a quasi-stable system, it may start to
undergo a transient with time-dependent fields of many frequencies.
Bill Miller
"blackhead" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:552c482c-d0ae-4073...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
There is a highly controversial theory out there that (kinda) uses a version
of this concept. In it, an orbital electron is viewed as a sheet of flowing
charge "wrapped" around a nucleus. The charge flow is such that it
replicates electron spin, but has a Fourier transform that has no components
synchronous with lightspeed.
IOW it doesn't radiate. Unless of course it "jumps" inward from one
allowable radius to another.
If that isn't outrageous enough, the hypothetical model supports not only
the recognized "Ground" states and above (Ryberg States) but also 1/R
"locations." The hydrogen atom in a sub-Ryberg state has been dubbed a
"hydrino."
The "inventor," Randell Mills claims that a Hydrogen Atom can be induced to
assume a sub-Ryberg state while giving off 27.2 eV of energy. Since the
energy is concentrated in the UV, the process has been named "Black Light
Power."
This theory would be much more suspect if it were not for the fact that
their model(s) are often orders of magnitude better at predicting basic
characteristics of elements and molecules (ionization energies, bond
distances, dipole moments etc.) than anything produced by either classical
or QED efforts.
The company website is : http://www.blacklightpower.com/ A
not-very-easy-to-read e-book is downloadable for your reading pleasure.
All The Best,
Bill Miller
Timo Nieminen
> This theory would be much more suspect if it were not for the fact that
> their model(s) are often orders of magnitude better at predicting basic
> characteristics of elements and molecules (ionization energies, bond
> distances, dipole moments etc.) than anything produced by either classical
> or QED efforts.
Hmm. See tables 2.17 and 2.18. Disagreement with experiment is about
10% in 2.18, and can be an order of magnitude in 2.17. The QED
efforts, OTOH, agree with experiment. I wouldn't characterise by "In
contrast, standard quantum mechanics has many shortcomings in this
result" when it gives better agreement.
A table comparing Mills' GUTCP results with QED and experiment would
be good. A good source for QED results is W. L. Wiese and J. R. Fuhr,
Accurate Atomic Transition Probabilities for Hydrogen, Helium, and
Lithium, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2009.
Vladimir Kalitvianski
> Problem 14.24 in Jackson shows that in a dc current loop, there is no
> radiation, even though the charges are accelerating because the
> contributions to the radiation field from the individual charges all
> cancel.
I do not think that "the radiation field from the individual charges
all cancel" is a correct statement. If something radiates, it cannot
be canceled with another radiation field in the whole space. The
correct statement is "there is no radiated field from such a source".
Yes, the total potential can be calculated with help of individual
potentials but here we consider the limit dq -> 0. So an infinitesimal
charge radiates infinitesimally.
In the Roentgen tube we also have a constant current but with X-ray
radiation due to finiteness of elementary charge.
Vladimir Kalitvianski
(due to wire cross section change) radiates? I think it suffices to
consider a straight wire with a variable cross section to get the
answer à la Jackson.
Bill Miller
"Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7d74b020-2a7c-44aa...@w38g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 5:25 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This theory would be much more suspect if it were not for the fact that
> their model(s) are often orders of magnitude better at predicting basic
> characteristics of elements and molecules (ionization energies, bond
> distances, dipole moments etc.) than anything produced by either classical
> or QED efforts.
Hmm. See tables 2.17 and 2.18. Disagreement with experiment is about
10% in 2.18, and can be an order of magnitude in 2.17. The QED
efforts, OTOH, agree with experiment. I wouldn't characterise by "In
contrast, standard quantum mechanics has many shortcomings in this
result" when it gives better agreement.
>>>
I suspect we may be looking at different data. Where are tables 2.17 and
2.18?
On page 106 of his GUTCP Chapter 1 Table 1.3 here is a short selection for
Ionization Energy:
H calc = 13.59 eV; H exp. = 13.61 eV
He calc = 54.42 eV; He exp. = 54.42 eV
Li calc = 122.45 eV; Li exp. = 122.45 eV
there is more.
>>>>>
A table comparing Mills' GUTCP results with QED and experiment would
be good.
>>>
I agree. I THINK there is something similar but searching the GUTCP is like
searching the Bible for "begats." :-)
>>>
A good source for QED results is W. L. Wiese and J. R. Fuhr,
Accurate Atomic Transition Probabilities for Hydrogen, Helium, and
Lithium, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2009.
>>>
Is this available online (without having to pay?)
all the best,
Bill Miller
blackhead
> "blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message
I was expecting to seen another crank on clicking the link and yes:
"based on a new chemical process of releasing the latent energy of the
hydrogen atom, the BlackLight Process, with the formation of a prior
undiscovered form of hydrogen called "hydrino."
On the other hand, I like the look of the book from the first chapter
I've read and this guy really does seem to understand EM theory much
more than me, which isn't too hard ;)
As you say, he proposes that the electron is a 2 dimensional spherical
surface that encloses the proton in a hydrogen atom. He also notes
that a distributed charge does not necessarily radiate when it's
accelerated.
Maybe Timo could have a read of the first chapter and give us his
opinion of it.
He's also written a paper in Physics Essays titled:
Physical Solutions of the Nature of the Atom, the Photon, and Their
Interactions to Form Excited and Predicted Hydrino States
In the abstract, again he notes that an accelerated charge
distribution doesn't necessarily radiate.
I think at the very least, this guy should be given some attention
since he seems to have shown, at the very least, that classical em
theory is capable of explaining more that its given credit, and the
idea of an electron as a distributed shell of charge is more powerful
than Bohr's original model with its list of assumptions.
Larry
blackhead
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's a review of his theory in New Journal of Physics which is open
assess:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext
A critical analysis of the hydrino model
A Rathke
Abstract. Recently, spectroscopic and calorimetric observations of
hydrogen plasmas and chemical reactions with them have been
interpreted as evidence for the existence of electronic states of the
hydrogen atom with a binding energy of more than 13.6 eV. The
theoretical basis for such states, which have been dubbed hydrinos, is
investigated. We discuss both the novel deterministic model of the
hydrogen atom, in which the existence of hydrinos was predicted, and
standard quantum mechanics. Severe inconsistencies in the
deterministic model are pointed out and the incompatibility of hydrino
states with quantum mechanics is reviewed.
Timo Nieminen
> "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:25 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This theory would be much more suspect if it were not for the fact that
> > their model(s) are often orders of magnitude better at predicting basic
> > characteristics of elements and molecules (ionization energies, bond
> > distances, dipole moments etc.) than anything produced by either classical
> > or QED efforts.
>
> Hmm. See tables 2.17 and 2.18. Disagreement with experiment is about
> 10% in 2.18, and can be an order of magnitude in 2.17. The QED
> efforts, OTOH, agree with experiment. I wouldn't characterise by "In
> contrast, standard quantum mechanics has many shortcomings in this
> result" when it gives better agreement.
>
> >>>
> I suspect we may be looking at different data. Where are tables 2.17 and
> 2.18?
>
> On page 106 of his GUTCP Chapter 1 Table 1.3 here is a short selection for
> Ionization Energy:
>
> H calc = 13.59 eV; H exp. = 13.61 eV
> He calc = 54.42 eV; He exp. = 54.42 eV
> Li calc = 122.45 eV; Li exp. = 122.45 eV
>
> there is more.
2.17 and 2.18 are line strengths. I looked at those because that's
something that QED performs relatively poorly on (in complex atoms; works
well in hydrogen). The difference between Mills and experiment is big,
much bigger than the experimental error! Where QED performs poorly (i.e.,
complex atoms), it's a computational issue, largely depending on the
approximations used to make the problem computable. The disagreement
between theory and experiment in Mills is more fundamental - he gets a
nice simple formula that just doesn't work.
The results above are identical with the Bohr model prediction, which is
clear from the numbers. A quick look at Mills' book shows he has exactly
the Bohr formula for the ionisation energy. Doesn't look like an
improvement to me.
> >>>>>
> A table comparing Mills' GUTCP results with QED and experiment would
> be good.
> >>>
>
> I agree. I THINK there is something similar but searching the GUTCP is like
> searching the Bible for "begats." :-)
He gives some rather general criticism of QED, but I didn't see any useful
comparison of actual results.
Really a job for Mills, but it isn't good propaganda if the QM/QED results
are better than his.
--
Timo
Bill Miller
On Nov 11, 2:56 am, blackhead <snip>
There's a review of his theory in New Journal of Physics which is open
assess:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext
A critical analysis of the hydrino model
A Rathke
Abstract. Recently, spectroscopic and calorimetric observations of
hydrogen plasmas and chemical reactions with them have been
interpreted as evidence for the existence of electronic states of the
hydrogen atom with a binding energy of more than 13.6 eV. The
theoretical basis for such states, which have been dubbed hydrinos, is
investigated. We discuss both the novel deterministic model of the
hydrogen atom, in which the existence of hydrinos was predicted, and
standard quantum mechanics. Severe inconsistencies in the
deterministic model are pointed out and the incompatibility of hydrino
states with quantum mechanics is reviewed.
>>>>
Thanks for the link. I had not seen this and will give it a look.
All the best,
Bill Miller
Timo Nieminen
>
> I think at the very least, this guy should be given some attention
> since he seems to have shown, at the very least, that classical em
> theory is capable of explaining more that its given credit, and the
> idea of an electron as a distributed shell of charge is more powerful
> than Bohr's original model with its list of assumptions.
What's the difference between a "smeared out" distributed electron and
the wavefunction of an electron? At any rate, it isn't classical. The
classical result is that a charge distribution like a smeared-out
electron repels itself. The classical fix is to postulate an
additional force that holds it together. This makes more sense for a
rigid electron than a floppy spread out electron, but still doesn't
work classically (see "Poincare stresses" etc in electron models c.
1900). To just ignore the self-repulsion is to just dump a key part of
classical EM theory.
So, what is classical about it? Sure, it's based on classical EM
theory, but so is QED, and QM too. QED dumps less of the classical
theory than Mills, so how can Mills' theory be "classical" and QED
not? The simple answer is that neither is classical theory. Mills has
an unintentional good list of some of his non-classical assumptions in
his point-by-point comparison of QM and his own theory. (A lot of the
statements about QM are wrong - some are bad pop-science
misinterpretations, some are statements about speculative physics
quite removed from QM, and some are about interpretations of QM, the
philosophy of QM rather than QM itself. However, I don't see any
reason to assume that his statements about his own theory in the list
are wrong.)
Nothing wrong with Mill's theory being non-classical, but its non-
classicalness shouldn't be hidden under a "classical" label.
The Bohr model is really the wrong thing to compare with. Also the
Schroedinger model. I don't see the point of listing the known
theoretical shortcomings of the Schroedinger model and the Bohr model.
Mills should compare directly with QED results. (Maybe he does, but I
find Bohr/Schroedinger comparisons instead which make it hard to find
any QED comparison if there is any present.) Mills isn't working in a
a vacuum; there is existing accepted theory to compare with, and he
should. Quantitatively. His results, QED results (and Bohr and
Schroedinger in addition to - not instead of - the QED results if he
wants), and experiment, side-by-side. I don't find this in the book
easily - if it's there, it's un-necessarily hard to find. There is
some comparison of his own theory with experimental results, but it
doesn't look very good.
Vladimir Kalitvianski
I think I was wrong in explanation of radiated power being zero due to
infinitesimal charges dq. Although the elementary radiated power from
dq is proportional to (dq)^2 and the integral one vanishes as dq -> 0,
it is not the right way of power calculation. The total power is not
always sum of "elementary" ones. In any case we have to calculate the
total filed and then the radiated power. As a continuous current j(x)
does not depend on time, the corresponding solution is not time-
dependent. It is not the case if the current is variable j(x,t).
Factually, for radiation we have to have acceleration in time.
Bill Miller
"Bill Miller" <kt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8k2dns...@mid.individual.net...
paper was quite damning, to say the least. To summarize, Rathke says that
Mills's equations are wrong and hydrinos cannot exist!
As they used to say on Television, But Wait! There's More!
I did a search on the Hydrino Study Group website and found numerous
refernces during the '05 and '06 period. Of greatest interest was Mills's
rebuttal. It may be viewed here:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/Rathke'sresp012108Web.pdf
The interesting part of this rebuttal is that -- AFAIK -- Rathke has not
responded to Mills. And that was 4 years ago.
So...
Bill Miller
Thanks again for the QED data link.
What's the difference between a "smeared out" distributed electron and
the wavefunction of an electron?
The big difference that I see is that a smeared out distributed electron is
a physical model There is nothing physical about a wavefunction. Kinda like
an epicyclic solution to Ptolemaic astronomy!
At any rate, it isn't classical. The
classical result is that a charge distribution like a smeared-out
electron repels itself. The classical fix is to postulate an
additional force that holds it together. This makes more sense for a
rigid electron than a floppy spread out electron, but still doesn't
work classically (see "Poincare stresses" etc in electron models c.
1900). To just ignore the self-repulsion is to just dump a key part of
classical EM theory.
Mills discusses this in his (poorly organized) book. Unfortunately, it is
"hidden" in another section that otherwise has little to do with
self-repulsion. (There are several other similar non-proven statements whose
proof is found elsewhere but neither linked nor referenced. And the limit of
128 sub-Rydberg states comes from a paper that isn't even in the book. I
found it in an obscure reference to a paper written by a sub-doc working at
a Junior College (!) in North Carolina. The math looks solid, though.)
No. I can't provide a link. Sorry!
So, what is classical about it? Sure, it's based on classical EM
theory, but so is QED, and QM too. QED dumps less of the classical
theory than Mills, so how can Mills' theory be "classical" and QED
not? The simple answer is that neither is classical theory. Mills has
an unintentional good list of some of his non-classical assumptions in
his point-by-point comparison of QM and his own theory. (A lot of the
statements about QM are wrong - some are bad pop-science
misinterpretations, some are statements about speculative physics
quite removed from QM, and some are about interpretations of QM, the
philosophy of QM rather than QM itself. However, I don't see any
reason to assume that his statements about his own theory in the list
are wrong.)
There are numerous changes and corrections in the latest edition. But trying
to figure out what was changed is not easy.
Nothing wrong with Mill's theory being non-classical, but its non-
classicalness shouldn't be hidden under a "classical" label.
The Bohr model is really the wrong thing to compare with. Also the
Schroedinger model. I don't see the point of listing the known
theoretical shortcomings of the Schroedinger model and the Bohr model.
Mills should compare directly with QED results. (Maybe he does, but I
find Bohr/Schroedinger comparisons instead which make it hard to find
any QED comparison if there is any present.) Mills isn't working in a
a vacuum; there is existing accepted theory to compare with, and he
should. Quantitatively. His results, QED results (and Bohr and
Schroedinger in addition to - not instead of - the QED results if he
wants), and experiment, side-by-side. I don't find this in the book
easily - if it's there, it's un-necessarily hard to find.
That's typical for the book!
There is
some comparison of his own theory with experimental results, but it
doesn't look very good.
Yes. I would love to see a comparison table of his vs "the otherts." As you
said, it *may* be there, bu not easy to find!
Jos Bergervoet
O, so the whole discussion here was useless? It was just one of the
usual crackpot theories again? That was to be expected of course..
--
Jos
Timo Nieminen
> "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> What's the difference between a "smeared out" distributed electron and
>> the wavefunction of an electron?
>
> The big difference that I see is that a smeared out distributed electron is
> a physical model There is nothing physical about a wavefunction. Kinda like
> an epicyclic solution to Ptolemaic astronomy!
In QM, using it to predict observable quantities gives the right numbers
for the probability distribution. Notably, doesn't give values for actual
individual observations.
That's the science of it.
There is nothing *known* to be physical about a wavefunction, which is not
a definitive statement that there is nothing physical about a
wavefunction.
Some interpretations of QM affirm that the wavefunction is physical,
others explicitly deny it. That's the non-science part of it. Epicycles
are an excellent analogy. There were interpretations of the Ptolemaic
system that had as central principles that epicycles were physics, that
the celestial spheres were real, solid shells. Others just used them as
abstract mathematical models that generated sufficiently accurate results.
There was significant debate about this (and there is some discussion of
this debate in the "Middle Ages" section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres ).
And there is a lesson here: "physical" doesn't mean "correct".
--
Timo
Salmon Egg
"Bill Miller" <kt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This one of those things I would be willing to bet on with a substantial
amount of money--albeit an amount I could afford to lose. The chances of
the interpretation, whatever it is, is so slim that there probably is an
error lurking somewhere. It is remotely possible that a true discovery
has been made. Nevertheless, it has hall the earmarks of someone
desperately wanting to become famous.
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
news:4cdc8b14$0$41117<snip>>
> O, so the whole discussion here was useless? It was just one of the usual
> crackpot theories again? That was to be expected of course..
>
Apparently you did not read my entire message.
If you had done so, you would have seen the point where Mills had rebutted
all of Rathke's criticisms. And that Rathke had not responded to the
rebuttal.
If Rathke's points had not been rebutted, or if Mills had not relied to
Rathke's critiques, then you *might* have been justified in aqsking/stating
that "It was just one of the usual crackpot theories again?"
Based on the reports of laboratory experiments that I have seen, Mills has
developed a concept that merits attention. He is finding "stuff" like
spectra and excessive heat that seem unexplainable by either QED or
Classical EM concepts.
I *am* troubled by his electron model. That's primarily because of the delta
function solution that requires a *non physical* zero thickness current
surface. But this seems little different from QED's wavefunction concept
that is at least as abstract!
Bill Miller
>
And the limit of
> 128 sub-Rydberg states comes from a paper that isn't even in the book. I
> found it in an obscure reference to a paper written by a sub-doc working
> at a Junior College (!) in North Carolina. The math looks solid, though.)
>
Bill
Jos Bergervoet
> "Jos Bergervoet"<Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
> news:4cdc8b14$0$41117<snip>>
>> O, so the whole discussion here was useless? It was just one of the usual
>> crackpot theories again? That was to be expected of course..
>>
>> Jos
>
> Apparently you did not read my entire message.
>
> If you had done so, you would have seen the point where Mills had rebutted
> all of Rathke's criticisms. And that Rathke had not responded to the
> rebuttal.
Yes I did read that part of your post, but I don't see how it changes
things. It still seems Mills was wrong, but he doesn't want to admit it,
that's the usual reaction of crackpots if you show them their errors.
--
Jos
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
>> Apparently you did not read my entire message.
>>
>> If you had done so, you would have seen the point where Mills had
>> rebutted
>> all of Rathke's criticisms. And that Rathke had not responded to the
>> rebuttal.
>
> Yes I did read that part of your post, but I don't see how it changes
> things. It still seems Mills was wrong, but he doesn't want to admit it,
> that's the usual reaction of crackpots if you show them their errors.
>
> --
> Jos
Let me see if I understand your thinking as it might apply, for example, to
you, and your work.
Let's assume you come up with a new theory. You publish equations supporting
your theory. Someone reviews your work, finds what she believes to be
errors, and publishes that work. This work is the *only* peer reviewed
criticism of your work, although you have been working on your theory,
writing about it extensively, and publishing (in other peer reviewed
journals) dozens of papers detailing your work for over a decade.
You review the criticism, identify at least one absolutely incorrect (and
critical) equation error in the criticism. You also find numerous areas
where -- in your interpretation of your theory -- the critic has
mis-interpreted your theory. You write this up and provide the critic with a
copy. You also publish your write-up online.
The critic does not acknowledge your criticism nor does she attempt to rebut
your statements.
A third party comes along, reads only the original critique (but not your
rebuttal) and states that it *seems* you are a crackpot but you don't want
to admit it, since that's the usual reaction of crackpots (but not,
presumably, legitimate scientists) if a third party shows them their errors
(that you know are not errors but are mis-interpretations by the critic.)
Nevertheless, this interpretation by a third party should, of and by itself,
label you as a crackpot?
Have I correctly stated your position?
Jos Bergervoet
> "Jos Bergervoet"<Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
> news:4cde99ff$0$41110$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Apparently you did not read my entire message.
>>>
>>> If you had done so, you would have seen the point where Mills had
>>> rebutted
>>> all of Rathke's criticisms. And that Rathke had not responded to the
>>> rebuttal.
>>
>> Yes I did read that part of your post, but I don't see how it changes
>> things. It still seems Mills was wrong, but he doesn't want to admit it,
>> that's the usual reaction of crackpots if you show them their errors.
>>
>> --
>> Jos
>
> Let me see if I understand your thinking as it might apply,
I will help you, Bill! You will fail otherwise.
Just assume this crackpot has invented a "new theory" in which two times
two is five! Hardly any sane person pays attention, but finally a kind
reviewer shows the crackpot his error and points out his result was in
contradiction with the tables of multiplication. Then instead of being
happy to have learned something, the crackpot calls it "criticism" and
writes a "rebuttal". Of course hardly any sane person pays attention,
and the kind reviewer now also lacks the patience to correct the
mistakes again. That's where it ends.
--
Jos
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
without you.
Your answer is accurate for multiplication tables.
How is it applicable here?
Oh... Yes... I forgot... You don't know 'cuz you haven't read Mills's
theory, Rathke's critique, or Mills's rebuttal.
So you won't know how it is applicable here.
I suspect that some centuries ago there were folks like you "helping"
Galileo and Copernicus understand how their heliocentric theories were so
very wrong. After all, everyone knew that the universe revolved around the
Earth!
Jos Bergervoet
O, there's the misunderstanding! I did read the link to Rathke, which
exposes with absolute clarity the blatent errors in the "new theory". I
didn't see a link to the rebuttal, but that would be useless anyway.
After reading Rathke it is clear that the case is lost. Even if Rathke
would have misrepresented one or two things, the list of exposed
hilarious errors by Mills c.s. is so convincing that the case is settled
beyound all reasonable doubt.
> I suspect that some centuries ago there were folks like you "helping"
> Galileo and Copernicus understand how their heliocentric theories were so
> very wrong.
Heliocentric theories really are wrong, Bill! The sun is not the centre
of the universe in any reasonable sense.
--
Jos
Jos Bergervoet
The math isn't quite so solid then, it seems.. (Something with the
tables of multiplication, perhaps? :-)
--
Jos
blackhead
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looking into this further, it turns out that Mills's theory is based
upon a paper by Haus:
Haus, H. A. (1986). "On the radiation from point charges". American
Journal of Physics 54: 1126
He showed that there is no radiation from a charge distribution when
all the Fourier compononents are light like which is exactly the
postulate of Mills.
The Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition
is a fascinating account of the history of the nonradiation condition
dating from to Paul Ehrenfest(1910) to Haus, H. A. (1986).
People need to be careful in arrogantly dismissing what Mills has
done.
Jos Bergervoet
..
...
> Looking into this further, it turns out that Mills's theory is based
> upon a paper by Haus:
>
> Haus, H. A. (1986). "On the radiation from point charges". American
> Journal of Physics 54: 1126
>
> He showed that there is no radiation from a charge distribution when
> all the Fourier compononents are light like which is exactly the
> postulate of Mills.
>
> The Wikipedia link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition
>
> is a fascinating account of the history of the nonradiation condition
> dating from to Paul Ehrenfest(1910) to Haus, H. A. (1986).
>
> People need to be careful in arrogantly dismissing what Mills has
> done.
O dear.. Some crackpot says: "2+2=4" before spewing out lots of
nonsense, and now people "have to be carefull" in "dismissing" whatever
he has done, just because one single true staement has been mixed in.
Blackhead, are you a crackpot too?
--
Jos
blackhead
I'm not competent enough to judge Mill's work and since i know this, I
guess that doesn't make me a crackpot.
What is the lots of nonsense that he's spewing, from what you've read?
Is everything he's derived nonsense?
I'm not denying that QED reigns supreme when predicting the behaviour
of an electron to radiation, or that Schrodinger's equation is enough
to predict with sufficient accuracy the ionisation energies of atoms
or how they combine with one another etc. Nor am I suggesting that
Mills's work is better. I'm simply interested in how well it predicts
what will be measured and whether it's at the least an improvement on
the Bohr-Sommerfield model.
Regards, Larry.
> --
> Jos- Hide quoted text -
Jos Bergervoet
From the Nonradiation_condition wikipedia page there is a direct link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills
Allmost entirely filled with delicious nonsense! Like the announcement
of generating 250MW power out of nothing in this "Blacklight Reactor".
Blackhead, could you invent a "Blackhead Reactor" for us?
The whole thing resembles the "Convectron reactor" of some time ago
generating energy out of nothing by use of ball lightning. (Why on earth
do we still buy oil? It must be a conspiracy of the scientific
establishment!)
>
> Is everything he's derived nonsense?
He clearly is not a bright physicist, but he is a clever businessman!
That is, if he has secured enough of the 25M dollar that some investers
apparently gave him.
> I'm not denying that QED reigns supreme when predicting the behaviour
> of an electron to radiation, or that Schrodinger's equation is enough
> to predict with sufficient accuracy the ionisation energies of atoms
> or how they combine with one another etc. Nor am I suggesting that
> Mills's work is better. I'm simply interested in how well it predicts
> what will be measured and whether it's at the least an improvement on
> the Bohr-Sommerfield model.
Then read Rathke's review. The theory is nonsense for several reasons
explained there, but most deliciously: the solutions they claim are not
even solutions of their own theory! It's complete random noise.
--
Jos
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
news:<4ce43695$0$41102$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> On 11/17/2010 7:24 PM, blackhead wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 5:40 pm, Jos Bergervoet<Name.Surn...@Company.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2010 6:51 AM, blackhead wrote:
> >> ..
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Looking into this further, it turns out that Mills's theory is based
> >>> upon a paper by Haus:
Basically Correct. Mills uses Haus's work as part of his proof that his
orbitsphere model does not radiate.
> >>
> >>> postulate of Mills.
> >>
> >>> The Wikipedia link:
> >>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition
> >>
> >>
> >>> done.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills
>
>
> establishment!)
>
>
> >
>
> apparently gave him.
>
> > the Bohr-Sommerfield model.
>
>
> --
> Jos
It's interesting, Larry, that Jos dismisses Mills's work without ever
reading Mills's rebuttal. It turns out that Rathke's allegation that the
delta function is not a solution to Mills's equations is valid *IFF* you are
looking at a 3D system. Mills's system is spherical 2D with the radius
constant. Naturally, if r was to vary, radiation would be possible. The
delta function forms part of a 2D non-radiative solution.
Dr. John Connett, Professor at the University of Minnesota, is/was an ardent
critic of Mills's work and especially Mills's "non-radiation" conclusion.
Dr. Connett recently issued the following statement after reading Mills's
review of Connett's critique:
"I retract here recent comments I have made indicating that Randell Mills'
orbitsphere must radiate and therefore be unstable. There are gaps in what I
erroneously regarded as mathematical proof of the flaws in the model. I
regret
having overstated my conclusions and I recognize that there is merit in Dr.
Mills' extensively developed arguments. And again I apologize for
unwarranted
and uncomplimentary statements I have made regarding Dr. Mills himself, and
wish
him the best of luck in pursuing his ambitious goals."
Kinda makes one wonder if maybe it *might* indeed make sense to look
carefully at all sides of an argument, make sure the doubted argument is
*clearly understood* and then decide whether or not there is merit in it
*before* pronouncing an idea, and the purveyor as being "crackpot."
blackhead
> ?
>
> "Jos Bergervoet" <Name.Surn...@Company.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Connet seems to have been forced into making those statements after
making a series of defamatory remarks about Mills:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/824
Here are some comments since the 21st of July 2010 sent to me by
concerned third parties that I consider defamatory:
"…it is symptomatic of Mills' feeble grasp of basic physics…"
"…not many people are going to care that the theory is drivel. We
are not yet at that stage. Given the level of this error, it is
unlikely in the extreme in my view that the guy who wrote it is
competent to carry out even the simplest experiments."
"…It is time to abandon Mills' theory and GUT-CP. Mills is
incompetent and his theory is rotten right down to its very core."
"…Mills misinterprets what Jackson says for his own purposes."
"…even the most nonmathematical of physics experimentalists must
have a better grasp of the basics than Mills has demonstrated. The
problem here should have the effect of undermining confidence in
everything else he has said."
"…This in essence is the mistake Mills is making. It's breathtaking
both in the depth of its mathematical incompetence and in its bad
physical intuition."
"…Let there be no doubt. Mills' error this time is fatal, and this
error goes straight to the heart of the entire theory. If the
orbitsphere radiates, the whole basis for all the rest falls apart.
The error is simple and irrefutable. The theory is dead. Dead as a
doornail. Supporters can still cling to the experimental results.
Personally, I think the main architect of those results how now proven
himself to be an incompetent boob as far as physics is concerned. Some
of the experiments (esp. Fifth Force) are just as fatally flawed as
the time-averaged power argument. Some are more in doubt. I would not
bet one nickel on any of them with the exception of some of the line-
broadening experiments (which have been replicated by others, which
are highly non-specific, and for which ordinary-physics explanations
have been given)."
"…Mills is perhaps deliberately trying to obscure the fact that he
is integrating the time-dependent function BEFORE he squares its
modulus, rather than later."
Regards,
Larry.
Jos Bergervoet
...
>> *clearly understood* and then decide whether or not there is merit in it
>> *before* pronouncing an idea, and the purveyor as being "crackpot."
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Bill Miller- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Connet seems to have been forced into making those statements after
> making a series of defamatory remarks about Mills:
But how would he have been forced? Isn't there freedom of speech in
these matters? I would at least hope to have freedom of speech in a
scientific debate! (O, but wait, it's Mills, the rules of science do not
apply..)
--
Jos
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
Just as in politics, it seems that if a participant cannot (or will not)
consider the issues involved, what is left is to attack the character of the
opponent.
Bill Miller
<snip>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/824
"…it is symptomatic of Mills' feeble grasp of basic physics…"
"…not many people are going to care that the theory is drivel. We
are not yet at that stage. Given the level of this error, it is
unlikely in the extreme in my view that the guy who wrote it is
competent to carry out even the simplest experiments."
"…It is time to abandon Mills' theory and GUT-CP. Mills is
incompetent and his theory is rotten right down to its very core."
"…Mills misinterprets what Jackson says for his own purposes."
"…even the most nonmathematical of physics experimentalists must
have a better grasp of the basics than Mills has demonstrated. The
problem here should have the effect of undermining confidence in
everything else he has said."
"…This in essence is the mistake Mills is making. It's breathtaking
both in the depth of its mathematical incompetence and in its bad
physical intuition."
"…Let there be no doubt. Mills' error this time is fatal, and this
error goes straight to the heart of the entire theory. If the
orbitsphere radiates, the whole basis for all the rest falls apart.
The error is simple and irrefutable. The theory is dead. Dead as a
doornail. Supporters can still cling to the experimental results.
Personally, I think the main architect of those results how now proven
himself to be an incompetent boob as far as physics is concerned. Some
of the experiments (esp. Fifth Force) are just as fatally flawed as
the time-averaged power argument. Some are more in doubt. I would not
bet one nickel on any of them with the exception of some of the line-
broadening experiments (which have been replicated by others, which
are highly non-specific, and for which ordinary-physics explanations
have been given)."
"…Mills is perhaps deliberately trying to obscure the fact that he
is integrating the time-dependent function BEFORE he squares its
modulus, rather than later."
Regards,
Larry.
I wasn't a member of that group at the time (and I am *certainly* not in any
"inner circle" that might exist, so I don't know what was going on. But
when -- in a scientific debate (or any debate) -- a participant calls the
opponent by such names he/she had d--n well better have the facts and proof
straight. In this case, Connett did not.
AFAIK Connett's non-radiation "proof" was essentially the same as that of
Rathke. So... where does that leave Rathke?
Apparently, Mills submitted the rebuttal that I referenced earlier (and that
Jos did not read) to the same venue that had published Rathke's analysis.
That venue replied to Mills that before they would publish it, they were
sending a courtesy copy to Rathke for his response. (Mills was not offered
the same courtesy when Rathke's original critique was published.) This was
several years ago, and Mills's work is still unpublished by the original
venue.
Mills's work challenges the QM/QED establishment. Adherents of this relig...
oops! branch of physics have invested their lives and professional
reputations in its absolute truth. They will do whatever is possible to
assure that any challengers will be eliminated.
If this is like all previous paradigm shifts, we will have to wait until the
existing group of adherents dies off before the full extent of Mills's
concepts can take effect.
Jos Bergervoet
...
..
> when -- in a scientific debate (or any debate) -- a participant calls the
> opponent by such names he/she had d--n well better have the facts and proof
> straight. In this case, Connett did not.
I agree with you. Making an error in such a case is embarrassing.. It is
like misspelling in when you criticize someones spelling.
> AFAIK Connett's non-radiation "proof" was essentially the same as that of
> Rathke. So... where does that leave Rathke?
>
> Apparently, Mills submitted the rebuttal that I referenced earlier (and that
> Jos did not read)
To be honest, Bill, I did quickly look at it, as it is linked from the
wikipage. But it isn't important for the discussion, as I already explained.
And as for the nonradiation condition: I already made the comparison
with "2+2=4". It is simply true that some current flow patterns don't
radiate. But Mills did not discover that.
--
Jos
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
> On 11/18/2010 3:49 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
> ...
> ..
>> when -- in a scientific debate (or any debate) -- a participant calls the
>> opponent by such names he/she had d--n well better have the facts and
>> proof
>> straight. In this case, Connett did not.
>
> I agree with you. Making an error in such a case is embarrassing.. It is
> like misspelling in when you criticize someones spelling.
Yes
>> AFAIK Connett's non-radiation "proof" was essentially the same as that of
>> Rathke. So... where does that leave Rathke?
>>
>> Apparently, Mills submitted the rebuttal that I referenced earlier (and
>> that
>> Jos did not read)
>
> To be honest, Bill, I did quickly look at it, as it is linked from the
> wikipage. But it isn't important for the discussion, as I already
> explained.
>
> And as for the nonradiation condition: I already made the comparison with
> "2+2=4". It is simply true that some current flow patterns don't radiate.
> But Mills did not discover that.
>
> --
> Jos
I'm afraid I don't follow this line of thinking. As near as I can see, Mills
set up a set of conditions that would match the real world condition that an
orbital electron does not radiate. From that stuation, he developed a
hypthetical model for an electron whose characteristics appear to
*completely* match those of a real orbiting electron.
Is it a completely correct model? I dunno. As I said before, I am troubled
by the "delta function" zero thickness character of the shell. There are
other issues that bother me, but that may be for another time and thread.
On Miss's plus side is the fact that his choice of an orbitsphere
effectively "shields" each "layer" of electrons from interacting with the
others. And that means that closed forms of descriptive equations can be
developed.
In contrast, QED assumes that any electron can be "anywhere." And that means
that Schrodinger's equation must consider the relationship of each electron
to every other electron. And *that* means there is effectively no closed
form solution available using QED.
Turning back to our current conversation, can you point out exactly where
you found the 2+2 = 4 error that makes Mills's entire hypothesis untenable?
Please don't refer me to a previous post. When it appeared that the thread
had degenerated into name-calling, I killed it completely. My thanks to
blackhead for restoring the tone.
All The Best
Bill Miller
Jos Bergervoet
...
> effectively "shields" each "layer" of electrons from interacting with the
> others.
Where is the "plus side"? Don't you believe that interactions between
electrons exist? You also want to deny that chemical bonds will be
formed due to these interactions if another atom comes near?
> In contrast, QED assumes that any electron can be "anywhere."
Mills postulates a shell, QED a 3D distribution. Why would you consider
an infinitely thin shell more likely than a 3D distribution? In my view
this is no "plus side", but this all does not matter. Because we have
the facts.
If the electrons were on a very thin spherical shell, then this would be
known, just like it is known (since Rutherford) that the nucleus is a
very small point-like object. Mills cannot change the facts, and in
physical chemistry these have long been established experimentally.
> Turning back to our current conversation, can you point out exactly where
> you found the 2+2 = 4 error that makes Mills's entire hypothesis untenable?
2+2=4 is no error, it is correct, Bill! Like the fact that the charge
flow doesn't radiate. That's of course a conditio sine qua non for a
groundstate. It does nothing to prove the proposed model. It's like
admitting that 2+2=4, which is also true but does not help. There simply
are lots of other current flow patterns that are non-radiating.
Obviously also those of ordinary quantummechanics of the atom.
So we can skip the whole issue of non-radiation.
--
Jos
Vladimir Kalitvianski
> If the electrons were on a very thin spherical shell, then this would be
> known, just like it is known (since Rutherford) that the nucleus is a
> very small point-like object.
And since recently the nucleus in atom is known to be a positive cloud
as large as (m_e/M_N)*a_0 (see my paper Atom as a "dressed" nucleus,
CEJP, V. 7, N. 1, pp. 1-11 (2009)).
Jos Bergervoet
> On 18 nov, 22:56, Jos Bergervoet<Name.Surn...@Company.com> wrote:
>
>> If the electrons were on a very thin spherical shell, then this would be
>> known, just like it is known (since Rutherford) that the nucleus is a
>> very small point-like object.
>
> And since recently the nucleus in atom is known to be
It is a very small point-like object. Not exactly a point. And how small
it is has been known since way back in the previous century. There have
not been recent changes in that knowledge at all.
--
Jos
Timo Nieminen
> On Miss's plus side is the fact that his choice of an orbitsphere
> effectively "shields" each "layer" of electrons from interacting with the
> others.
How? Why? Put a concentric spherical shell of negative charge around a
larger positive sphere (or point) of charge, and a charge outside the
shell only sees the surplus positive charge, as a point charge. But the
negative shell and the central positive charge both see the field of the
external charge. And this should have some effect.
In real life, it does have some effect. Observable consequences are the
polarisability of atoms, Stark shift, etc.
There _should_ be interaction, and in real life, there _is_ interaction.
To ignore this interaction is an approximation ...
> And that means that closed forms of descriptive equations can be
> developed.
.. which can be useful. But some care is needed, since these closed-form
descriptive equations are descriptive of an approximation, a rather crude
approximation.
> In contrast, QED assumes that any electron can be "anywhere." And that means
> that Schrodinger's equation must consider the relationship of each electron
> to every other electron. And *that* means there is effectively no closed
> form solution available using QED.
So the interactions aren't ignored. Not ignoring them makes it harder to
calculate things. Sometimes the extra effort is worthwhile, and sometimes
the crude approximation is sufficient.
But the crude approximation shouldn't be claimed as the "correct reality"
because it's simpler.
--
Timo
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
> On 11/18/2010 7:57 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
> ...
>> On Miss's plus side is the fact that his choice of an orbitsphere
>> effectively "shields" each "layer" of electrons from interacting with the
>> others.
>
> Where is the "plus side"? Don't you believe that interactions between
> electrons exist? You also want to deny that chemical bonds will be formed
> due to these interactions if another atom comes near?
Absolutely correct. But the chemical interactions occur with valence
electrons *only.* Why? After all, if all the electrons in an atom can
interact in accordance with some probabiluty-based wavefunction, wouldn't it
make sense that bonds should occur between, say, the third shell of a 5
shell atom and the first shell of a 3 shell atom? But they never do.
>
>> In contrast, QED assumes that any electron can be "anywhere."
>
> Mills postulates a shell, QED a 3D distribution.
The distribution is of charge "smeared" as Timo might say across a shell of
zero thickness. (Yeah, I don't like it either, but that's not *quite* as bad
as a probability function of where an electron *might* be.) And that shell
is 2D.
Why would you consider
> an infinitely thin shell more likely than a 3D distribution? In my view
> this is no "plus side", but this all does not matter. Because we have the
> facts.
OK. I'm waiting for them...
> If the electrons were on a very thin spherical shell, then this would be
> known, just like it is known (since Rutherford) that the nucleus is a very
> small point-like object.
And the relevence of this statement is?
>Mills cannot change the facts, and in physical chemistry these have long
>been established experimentally.
>
Well, all chemists that I know treat an atom as consisting of shells. They
tend to disregard QED since it doesn't work as well as this simple
assumption.
>> Turning back to our current conversation, can you point out exactly where
>> you found the 2+2 = 4 error that makes Mills's entire hypothesis
>> untenable?
>
> 2+2=4 is no error, it is correct, Bill! Like the fact that the charge flow
> doesn't radiate. That's of course a conditio sine qua non for a
> groundstate.
How, please, does a charged shell suddenly become at groundstate?
It does nothing to prove the proposed model. It's like
> admitting that 2+2=4, which is also true but does not help. There simply
> are lots of other current flow patterns that are non-radiating.
True. And Mills has adopted one of those as his model. Where, please,
specifically is the model flawed?
> Obviously also those of ordinary quantummechanics of the atom.
>
> So we can skip the whole issue of non-radiation.
That's interesting, since pretty much all of Rathke's argument was based on
the premise that Mills's model was flawed due to that "fact" that it would
radiate. So Rathke was wrong, but still Mills is incorrect? I'm sorry, but
I missed a couple of steps in the derivation of that conclusion.
All the best,
Bill Miller
> --
> Jos
Bill Miller
"Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1011190935150.2831-100000@localhost...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Bill Miller wrote:
>
>> On Miss's plus side is the fact that his choice of an orbitsphere
>> effectively "shields" each "layer" of electrons from interacting with the
>> others.
>
> How? Why? Put a concentric spherical shell of negative charge around a
> larger positive sphere (or point) of charge, and a charge outside the
> shell only sees the surplus positive charge, as a point charge. But the
> negative shell and the central positive charge both see the field of the
> external charge.
large negatively charged shell around a slightly smaller positively charged
ball. Move another small ball near the system and describe the influence of
that external charge on A) the external shell and B) the internal ball.
For all practical purposes, the external charge will only influence the
shell. The shell effctively shields the internal ball from any external
effects.
Now extend that thinking to multiple shells. What interaction will exist
between a valence shell and, for example, the innermost shell. Essentially
none. nevertheless, in QED, according to Schrodinger's equation, each point
charge's interaction with every other point *must* be accounted for in the
overall equation. For Au, as an example, that is in excess of 3,000
different interactions that must be resolved in order to define the
solution.
Shielding is a wonderful thing, but it is disallowed in a system wherein any
electron cn be anywhere in accordance with a dice throw. #UGH#
>And this should have some effect.
>
Some? Yes. Important? In the real world, no. In Schrodinger's equation, it
*must* be accounted for.
> In real life, it does have some effect. Observable consequences are the
> polarisability of atoms, Stark shift, etc.
>
> There _should_ be interaction, and in real life, there _is_ interaction.
>
> To ignore this interaction is an approximation ...
But if the alternative is an equation that cannot be solved without a
computer that is faster than any known computer, then what?
>> And that means that closed forms of descriptive equations can be
>> developed.
>
> .. which can be useful. But some care is needed, since these closed-form
> descriptive equations are descriptive of an approximation, a rather crude
> approximation.
"Crude" is a relative term -- especially when compared with essentially
insolvable Schrodinger's equations in 3000 parameters.
>> In contrast, QED assumes that any electron can be "anywhere." And that
>> means
>> that Schrodinger's equation must consider the relationship of each
>> electron
>> to every other electron. And *that* means there is effectively no closed
>> form solution available using QED.
>
> So the interactions aren't ignored. Not ignoring them makes it harder to
> calculate things. Sometimes the extra effort is worthwhile, and sometimes
> the crude approximation is sufficient.
>
> But the crude approximation shouldn't be claimed as the "correct reality"
> because it's simpler.
I emphatically agree. But what is simpler? A concept that requires us to
believe that an entity can be_anywhere_ based on a probability function *or*
an entity that is always where we think it should be when we think it should
be there, with the properties that we think it should have?
Unlikely that this will be solved here, but Mills gives me hope that I don't
have to accept that the world that I can see, touch and smell ceases to
exist when it gets itty bitty.
All the best
Bill Miller
> --
> Timo
Timo Nieminen
>
> "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1011190935150.2831-100000@localhost...
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Bill Miller wrote:
> >
> >> On Miss's plus side is the fact that his choice of an orbitsphere
> >> effectively "shields" each "layer" of electrons from interacting with the
> >> others.
> >
> > How? Why? Put a concentric spherical shell of negative charge around a
> > larger positive sphere (or point) of charge, and a charge outside the
> > shell only sees the surplus positive charge, as a point charge. But the
> > negative shell and the central positive charge both see the field of the
> > external charge.
>
> I understand your point, I think. Let's move the scale up to a physically
> large negatively charged shell around a slightly smaller positively charged
> ball. Move another small ball near the system and describe the influence of
> that external charge on A) the external shell and B) the internal ball.
>
> For all practical purposes, the external charge will only influence the
> shell. The shell effctively shields the internal ball from any external
> effects.
Consider the case of a uniformly charged shell. Inside the shell, you have
a superposition of the field of the shell (which is zero, inside the
shell) and the field of the external charge. So, the internal charge sees
the external charge, completely unshielded. If the charge in the shell can
be re-arranged by the external charge, such as, e.g., if it's a charge on
a conducting shell, then it can shield the internal charge.
So, either we have a strong enough interaction between the shell and the
external charge so that the charge distribution on the shell is much
changed, or we don't have shielding. Either way, there is interaction.
> Now extend that thinking to multiple shells. What interaction will exist
> between a valence shell and, for example, the innermost shell. Essentially
> none. nevertheless, in QED, according to Schrodinger's equation, each point
> charge's interaction with every other point *must* be accounted for in the
> overall equation. For Au, as an example, that is in excess of 3,000
> different interactions that must be resolved in order to define the
> solution.
*Must* only if you're after an exact solution. If you're happy enough with
an approximate solution, then approximate away.
But surely it is better to include the important interactions than to just
ignore *all* of the interactions?
> Shielding is a wonderful thing, but it is disallowed in a system wherein any
> electron cn be anywhere in accordance with a dice throw. #UGH#
>
> >And this should have some effect.
> >
> Some? Yes. Important? In the real world, no. In Schrodinger's equation, it
> *must* be accounted for.
Important in the real world if you want to get the numbers right. If you
don't care about the numbers, then approximate as useful.
> > In real life, it does have some effect. Observable consequences are the
> > polarisability of atoms, Stark shift, etc.
> >
> > There _should_ be interaction, and in real life, there _is_ interaction.
> >
> > To ignore this interaction is an approximation ...
>
> But if the alternative is an equation that cannot be solved without a
> computer that is faster than any known computer, then what?
Then you approximate, either by approximation of the equations you get
from the exact theory, or by approximate solution of the equations, or by
using some approximate theory. Or measure experimentally.
A theory isn't wrong because it's computationally intractable for all but
the simplest cases.
It becomes useful to look at how accurate the numbers are. Mills comes up
with numbers for line strengths that are out by 25%, or much worse.
> >> And that means that closed forms of descriptive equations can be
> >> developed.
> >
> > .. which can be useful. But some care is needed, since these closed-form
> > descriptive equations are descriptive of an approximation, a rather crude
> > approximation.
>
> "Crude" is a relative term -- especially when compared with essentially
> insolvable Schrodinger's equations in 3000 parameters.
Ignoring interactions that we know exist, that we know have observable
effects, is a crude approximation, the lowest-order approximation for
dealing with the interactions.
> > But the crude approximation shouldn't be claimed as the "correct reality"
> > because it's simpler.
>
> I emphatically agree. But what is simpler? A concept that requires us to
> believe that an entity can be_anywhere_ based on a probability function *or*
> an entity that is always where we think it should be when we think it should
> be there, with the properties that we think it should have?
Indeed, what is "simpler"? "Conforms better with preconceptions" and
"more comfortable" are not "simpler".
How is what Mills has _simpler_ than QED?
> Unlikely that this will be solved here, but Mills gives me hope that I don't
> have to accept that the world that I can see, touch and smell ceases to
> exist when it gets itty bitty.
--
Timo
Jos Bergervoet
> "Jos Bergervoet"<Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
> news:4ce5a0fa$0$81481$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> On 11/18/2010 7:57 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>> ...
>>> On Miss's plus side is the fact that his choice of an orbitsphere
>>> effectively "shields" each "layer" of electrons from interacting with the
>>> others.
>>
>> Where is the "plus side"? Don't you believe that interactions between
>> electrons exist? You also want to deny that chemical bonds will be formed
>> due to these interactions if another atom comes near?
>
> Absolutely correct. But the chemical interactions occur with valence
> electrons *only.* Why?
Not true. Chemical reactions with the noble gasses do occur. Inner
electrons can be involved! And other interactions like scattering of
light, electron spin resonance, nuclear magnetic resonance,
ferro-magnetism, all see the more interior parts of the atom. Ruling all
these interactions out has nothing to do with creating a better theory.
It is as childish as saying that the moon is made of cheese; the color
may be right, be you rule out the correct description of all other
properties of the moon.
> (Yeah, I don't like it either, but that's not *quite* as bad
> as a probability function of where an electron *might* be.) And that shell
> is 2D.
It's unimportant whether you *like it*. You may like cheese, but still
the moon is not made of it.
> ... pretty much all of Rathke's argument was based on
> the premise that Mills's model was flawed due to that "fact" that it would
> radiate.
No, it was lack of Lorentz-covariance, not correctly solving its own
differential equation, inability to describe the states of hydrogen, and
internal inconsistency (and maybe more!)
> So Rathke was wrong, but still Mills is incorrect?
No. *Mills claims* that Rathke was wrong. I did not say so.
> I'm sorry, but
> I missed a couple of steps in the derivation of that conclusion.
Yes, you did.. But the main point is that you don't seem to understand
why it is unimportant. We already had a shell model before Mills (or
before QM, for that matter) which is used if we want approximate
descriptions. If such an approximate theory predicts strange things
(like hydrinos, or Blackhead reactors that produce 250MW) then there is
no reason why they should be true. So why would we be interested?
--
Jos
Autymn D. C.
> *clearly understood* and then decide whether or not there is merit in it
Autymn D. C.
> Is it a completely correct model? I dunno. As I said before, I am troubled
> by the "delta function" zero thickness character of the shell. There are
> other issues that bother me, but that may be for another time and thread.
A 2D shell is infinitely thick but also shallow. A cloud is thin,
metal thick.
> In contrast, QED assumes that any electron can be "anywhere." And that means
It doesn't assum a dot in a word.
Autymn D. C.
Jos Bergervoet
> "Jos Bergervoet"<Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
> news:4ce5045c$0$41114$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> On 11/18/2010 1:13 AM, blackhead wrote:
...
>>> Connet seems to have been forced into making those statements after
>>> making a series of defamatory remarks about Mills:
>>
>> But how would he have been forced? Isn't there freedom of speech in these
>> matters? I would at least hope to have freedom of speech in a scientific
>> debate! (O, but wait, it's Mills, the rules of science do not apply..)
>>
>> --
>> Jos
>
> Just as in politics, it seems that if a participant cannot (or will not)
> consider the issues involved, what is left is to attack the character of the
> opponent.
But how would Connet have been "forced" to retract those attacks?
Could it be that (just as in politics) if debate can't be won some
highly paid lawyers come in? To "force" the opponent to give in?
Or was Connet honestly admitting that he made an error in the
non-radiation debate (which in his case, unlike Rathke's, may have been
the main point of criticism?)
But then why does blackhead believe that Connet was forced?! Does
blackhead know more than he tells us? I sure hope he doesn't
mysteriously disappear from usenet one of these days.. (Then we would
really know what kind of political game is being played here!)
--
Jos
Bill Miller
"Jos Bergervoet" <Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
I am exiting from this thread.
Despite numerous requests on my part, Jos has declined to provide any
details, except that 2+2=4, to back up his claim that Mills is a crackpot.
Timo's statements are meatier, but I do not have access to Mills's data in
order to create a side-by-side comparison -- for various parameters -- of
Measured, QED calculated, and Miss calculated. I hope Mills will be able to
do this sometime.
I will, however, provide a thought based on Timo's suggestion that an easy
approximation is not to be preferred over a difficult correct solution:
During the Renaissance, everyone knew that a correct cosmological model of
the Universe was the Ptolemaic one. All that was was required to get correct
answers was to apply an increasingly large number of epicyclic corrections
to match the calculations with the measurements. The earliest calculations
based on Galilean/Copernican cosmology yielded "easier" results that were
actually *less accurate* than those obtained from the far-more-refined
Ptolemaic techniques.
Einstein called QM, "Ptolemaic epicycles all over again." Not that it
matters, but I agree.
Jos Bergervoet
> "Jos Bergervoet"<Name.S...@Company.com> wrote in message
> news:4ce60990$0$81474$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> I am exiting from this thread.
>
> Despite numerous requests on my part, Jos has declined to provide any
> details, except that 2+2=4, to back up his claim that Mills is a crackpot.
And I also haven't even read what Mills wrote! I only know that he has
attracted investor money to generate power with a "Blacklight process"
that uses a new ground state of hydrogen below the ground state of
hydrogen and is at odds with existing theories and has never been
demonstrated to work in 10 years time.
Those details you already knew, I provided only a little extra one!
--
Jos
blackhead
> On 11/18/2010 3:23 PM, Bill Miller wrote:> "Jos Bergervoet"<Name.Surn...@Company.com> wrote in message
"Connet seems to have been forced" is what I actually said.
It looks inconsistent Connet being a heavy critic of Mills, and then
suddenly making a statement on the lines of Mills's work carrying some
merit, and wishing him good wishes in the pursuit of his ambitious
goal. Also, the posts of Connet at http://forum.hydrino.org/ appeared
to have been deleted. The forum was closed yesterday permenently
because the owner didn't have the time to maintain it.
That aside, I think Connet should have stuck to the physics rather
than attacking Mills personally as Willie Wong of Princeton universtiy
did:
http://www.math.princeton.edu/~wwong/papers/PHACT-FINAL.pdf
His conclusion?
* The theoretical foundation of CQM is shaky at best.
* The egregious “derivations” in the introductory chapters indicates
that care must be taken to confirm the calculations in later
chapters.
* Unclear whether Mills’ experiments have revealed some yet-unknown
property of our universe
Larry
> Jos
Salmon Egg
"Bill Miller" <kt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> During the Renaissance, everyone knew that a correct cosmological model of
> the Universe was the Ptolemaic one. All that was was required to get correct
> answers was to apply an increasingly large number of epicyclic corrections
> to match the calculations with the measurements. The earliest calculations
> based on Galilean/Copernican cosmology yielded "easier" results that were
> actually *less accurate* than those obtained from the far-more-refined
> Ptolemaic techniques.
The solutions given by Smythe often are in the form of infinite series.
Usually, they are the sum of simple solutions. Such solutions are both
accurate and rigorous. I guess replacing some of these infinite series
such as sine, cosine, or even Bessel functions by definition, makes fpr
a simpler solution.
>
> Einstein called QM, "Ptolemaic epicycles all over again." Not that it
> matters, but I agree.
I presume this last sentence is a dig at Heisenberg, Bohr, and other
quantum physicists. Einstein, insightful as he could be wrong. At this
point I would rather put my money on quantum physics instead of
determinism.
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
FrediFizzx
news:SalmonEgg-CDC13...@news60.forteinc.com...
Put your money on both; one can't exist without the other. It's a yin
yang thing.
Best,
Fred Diether
Autymn D. C.
> In article <8kqc4aFm3...@mid.individual.net>,
conterminism?