John Kassebaum | 1 Jan 20:34 2003

(unknown)

Luke Q wrote:

> On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 15:05, John Barchak wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> > Key to almost all engineering are the assumptions that our world is
> > local, causal, and rational.
>
> QM, as far as I know, has never challenged the ideas of causality or
> rationality. Locality, however, is something we may have no choice to
> part with. As an engineer, it is unlikely you will ever need to take
> into account any nonlocal interactions. As a physicist, it is likely
> that I will.
>
> The basic gist of Bell's inequalities is that he showed that it is
> impossible to formulate a local theory which accounts for some of the
> behaviors described by QM. Because the experimental evidence strongly
> favors QM, we are forced to conclude that either a) Bell made a mistake,
> or b) nonlocality is a fact of reality.
> I tend to lean toward b.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Luke
>
>
Luke,

My understanding of QM is that it does have problems with causality and 
rationality. Making QM explain causality is one of the philosophical 
(Continue reading)

John Barchak | 1 Jan 21:03 2003

Re: Clarification of First Principles

--- In hydrino@..., Luke Q <lcampagn <at> m.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> 
> The basic gist of Bell's inequalities is that he showed that it is
> impossible to formulate a local theory which accounts for some of the
> behaviors described by QM. Because the experimental evidence strongly
> favors QM, we are forced to conclude that either a) Bell made a mistake,
> or b) nonlocality is a fact of reality. 
> I tend to lean toward b. 

I tend towards c. QM does not reflect reality.

> > In my entire career, I have never witnessed a violation and I know
> > of no one who has witnessed a violation. More importantly,
> > engineering cannot be done without those assumptions - especially
> > today with all of the micro-engineering being done where quantum
> > effects, if they exist, would start to dominate.
> 
> Again, we are not generally interested in violations of causality or
> rationality, but locality is a problem. You have never witnessed a
> violation of locality because it takes a very specific kind of
> experiment to draw on QM's nonlocal features. 

Entanglements only occur in "experiments"???
Three points on quantum entanglements: 
1. A quantum entanglement has never been directly observed. Quantum 
entanglements have only appeared through statistics. 
2. In the Bell Test experiments, the statistical models and the 
emission & detection models for the photon are not adequate. A major 
area of inadequacy is the treatment of "polarization". Also, there 
are many statistical loopholes that have not been addressed. A valid 
(Continue reading)

John Barchak | 1 Jan 21:32 2003

Re: Aspect Experiment

--- In hydrino@..., "Mike Carrell" <mikec <at> s.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> Much discussion here has been devoted to hydrinos and Mills' experiments.
> 
> Mills' theoretical work is far-reaching. In particular, he denies 'spooky
> action at a distance' including the Aspect experiment, which has led to much
> discussion about quantum entanglement and apparent transluminal transfer of
> information. There is also experimental work, apparently nearly reduced to
> commercial practice, of using the quantum entanglement phenomenon as a basis
> for unbreakable secure communications. This appears to be an experimental
> verification of the phenomenon.
> 
> I can't follow Mills' mathematical analysis. Can anyone here comment on
> whether these applications invalidate Mills' interpretation of the Aspect
> experiment?
> 
> Mike Carrell

This commercial practice will occur in about 100 years (per the 
quantum computing community) since it is more difficult than they had 
originally thought. Projecting from the current trend, quantum 
computing will become real and commercial with an infinite amount of 
money and an infinite amount of time - for researchers, this is the 
holy grail.

I don't think quantum computing will impact Mills work at all, since 
Mills probably won't live that long. 

Regards
John B.
(Continue reading)

John Barchak | 1 Jan 21:52 2003

Re: Dr. Mills Responds to Eric Krieg

--- In hydrino@..., "mcmahon8888
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid>" 
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> Mills claims in this document that:
> 
> In fact, the electron must
> exist in the nucleus since the wave function is a maximum there.
> 
> To check this claim, I looked in "Fundamentals of Physics, Extended 
> Third Edition" by Halliday & Resnick. On page 1008 they have a plot 
> of the electrons wave function for the ground state. In fact, the 
> plot looks sort of like a Maxwellian distribution. It quickly goes to 
> zero as you approach the nucleus. The peak of the distribution is 
> actually about at the Bohr radius, around 50 pm. I don't see any 
> maximum of the wave function inside the nucleus. This wavefunction is 
> the solution of the schrodinger equation with the coulomb potential. 
> 
> I invite HSG members to check this out for themselves.

I concur. I have never seen one that did not approach zero through 
the nucleus. Hey Luke S. - can you have Mills check on this?

Regards
John B.

orionworks | 1 Jan 22:39 2003

Re: Any Timelines To See Something Practical?

--- In hydrino@..., Tim Perdue <tim_perdue <at> y.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

...

> If they have achieved any sort of self-running system,
> they've been keeping it to themselves.
> Looking at the scattershot approach they are taking to
> developing their technology, you can either conclude
> they haven't achieved success in any particular area,
> so they keep moving trying new ideas, or you can
> conclude it's so outrageously successful, they keep
> coming up with new ideas to try out.
> 
> Either one could be true at this point.
> 
> Tim
> 

Thank you, Tim,

Common sense suggests to me that it's probably somewhere slightly 
past the former opinion and nowhere near the latter one...yet. 
Still, no one would be greater pleased than me to be proven 
inaccurate on this assumption.

I know I'm not the first individual to suggest this but It seems
to me that if Dr. Mills really wishes to pursue his CQM theories, 
and with the assistance of greater peer recognition, it would likely 
be to his advantage to focus damn near all of Blacklight's finite 
resources on getting some kind of a "proof of concept"
(Continue reading)

mcmahon8888 | 2 Jan 02:14 2003

Re: Aspect Experiment

--- In hydrino@..., "John Barchak
<jbarchak3 <at> c.yahoo.invalid>" 
<jbarchak3 <at> c.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> 
> This commercial practice will occur in about 100 years (per the 
> quantum computing community) since it is more difficult than they 
had 
> originally thought. Projecting from the current trend, quantum 
> computing will become real and commercial with an infinite amount 
of 
> money and an infinite amount of time - for researchers, this is the 
> holy grail.
> 
> I don't think quantum computing will impact Mills work at all, 
since 
> Mills probably won't live that long. 
> 
> Regards
> John B.

I wouldn't take too dogminded an approach to this. Try reading this 
article:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp?
id=ns99993114

trixillion | 2 Jan 00:31 2003

Re: Dr. Mills Responds to Eric Krieg

--- In hydrino@..., "mcmahon8888
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid>" 
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> Mills claims in this document that:
> 
> In fact, the electron must
> exist in the nucleus since the wave function is a maximum there.
> 
> To check this claim, I looked in "Fundamentals of Physics, Extended 
> Third Edition" by Halliday & Resnick. On page 1008 they have a plot 
> of the electrons wave function for the ground state. In fact, the 
> plot looks sort of like a Maxwellian distribution. It quickly goes to 
> zero as you approach the nucleus. The peak of the distribution is 
> actually about at the Bohr radius, around 50 pm. I don't see any 
> maximum of the wave function inside the nucleus. This wavefunction is 
> the solution of the schrodinger equation with the coulomb potential. 
> 
> I invite HSG members to check this out for themselves.

You are both correct but in different ways. Mills is saying that the probability density for the ground
state wavefunction is maximum within the nucleus; which it is, but you did not acknowledge. The reference
you make shows (I assume, I don't have the book with me) that the most probable radius is a_0; which it is. But
these are two very different statements. Furthermore, the expectation value of the radius (average
radial position) is 1.5*a_0; a fundamental difference between QM and CQM. It is a common exercise 
in QM to calculate what percentage of the time the electron is found within the nucleus; not very much, less
than 1E-12 (see, Griffiths, Prob. 4.14).

"I invite HSG members to check this out for themselves." See:

(Continue reading)

Churl Oh | 2 Jan 00:48 2003

(unknown)

-----Original Message-----
From: mcmahon8888 <dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid> [mailto:dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:11 PM
To: hydrino@...
Subject: HSG: Re: Dr. Mills Responds to Eric Krieg

<< Mills claims in this document that:

In fact, the electron must
exist in the nucleus since the wave function is a maximum there.

To check this claim, I looked in "Fundamentals of Physics, Extended
Third Edition" by Halliday & Resnick. On page 1008 they have a plot
of the electrons wave function for the ground state. In fact, the
plot looks sort of like a Maxwellian distribution. It quickly goes to
zero as you approach the nucleus. The peak of the distribution is
actually about at the Bohr radius, around 50 pm. I don't see any
maximum of the wave function inside the nucleus. This wavefunction is
the solution of the schrodinger equation with the coulomb potential.

I invite HSG members to check this out for themselves. >>

Hi, David!

I don't know what brings you back here, but welcome back anyway.

When you refer something, please do NOT use a textbook or a book. There are many resources that are readily
available on the web. So, please give us an URL. In this way, we can synchronize our discussion.

For your question, please check this out:
(Continue reading)

mcmahon8888 | 2 Jan 02:07 2003

Re: Clarification of First Principles

--- In hydrino@..., Luke Q <lcampagn <at> m.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 15:05, John Barchak wrote:
> 
> > lines going for it. Those are good reasons to doubt QM, ones which
> > QM, as far as I know, has never challenged the ideas of causality or
> > rationality. Locality, however, is something we may have no choice to
> > part with. As an engineer, it is unlikely you will ever need to take
> > into account any nonlocal interactions. As a physicist, it is likely
> > that I will.

Hey not so fast! Check out this Swiss company, that is already moving to commercialize quantum cryptography:

http://www.idquantique.com/

I bet they will be using some engineers.

John Barchak | 2 Jan 02:08 2003

Re: Any Timelines To See Something Practical?

--- In hydrino@..., "orionworks <svj <at> o.yahoo.invalid>"
<svj <at> o.yahoo.invalid> 
wrote:
> 
> Is anyone is a position to clarify the arduous engineering issues 
> involved when compared with Blacklights' current batch of
> published experimental evidence?
> 
> svj

In cold fusion, with the aid of hindsight, the biggest stumbling 
block appeared to be the "preparation" of the rods. Right now, 
that "preparation" is something of a black art. I do not know if 
the U.S. Navy (or anyone else) has refined the black art part of cold 
fusion.

If there are any black art aspects to the heating units (Earthtech's 
difficulties point to an affirmative), this could be, by far, the 
most important issue. From Mills point of view, the black art part 
might be "closely held" given that it is controllable. Key parts 
would only be available from Blacklight Power. If the black art part 
is not yet controllable, we are looking at DC to light for an 
estimate. We will probably remain totally ignorant as far as the 
black art aspects.

Regards
John B.


Gmane