headers
kleml29 | 3 Jul 2004 20:48

Re: Chronological order of Mill's work

>
> 
> Actually, that's not quite true. The SE describes a probability 
space, 
> but that probability space corresponds to a _real_ space.
> 
> Thus for example, the simplest solution of a bound system is for 
the 1s 
> orbital of hydrogen, where the probability of finding an electron 
> corresponds to a spherical real space. Fuzzy of course because P=0 
> doesn't occur anywhere except at a singular point in the very centre 
of 
> the proton and where the orbital competes with the next possible 
> orbital or sub-orbital and that one takes over. (But it takes two 
> electrons to do that on a permanent basis).
> 
> The 1s orbital is a space that is most concentrated about where Bohr 
put 
> his original classical orbit. And basically, the SE is describing a 
> mathematical waveform that in real life would be and is, a standing 
> wave. The probability space (and the real orbital) is sort of 
hollow 
> with decreasing probability as one approaches the proton, and as one 
> moves outward. But it IS a real space, and the electron simply 
quantum 
> fluctuates (it doesn't"t "orbit" - never did ) in that space.
> 
> Now let's not deal with the complications of a standing wave for a 
> moment, but think of something like an electron winging along in 
free
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Evans, Bob R | 6 Jul 2004 17:50

RE: Chronological order of Mill's work

>>To have a formalism with real world predictive value without knowing why it
>>works is not new, especially for chemists.

The same can be said for the epicycles of pre-Copernican astronomy. It wasonce explained to me that one of
the Church's big objections to the Copernican-Galileo model is that it lacked predictive value because
it was based on circular orbits. The classical model, enhanced with its cumbersome epicycles, actually
had greater 'predictive value' than its Galilean alternative. Only when Kepler discovered the
elliptical nature of planetary orbits did the new model gain authoritative status because it squared
with observation. Ironically Einstein's relativity theory also depended on planetary orbits for its
validation when he explained Mercury's minor deviation from its Newtonian-predicted path around the
sun. 

So "knowing why it works" is essential to establishing the validity of the theory that makes the
prediction. In fact, it's precisely at the point where a theory starts to make predictions without
explanation that the theory begins to reveal its limitations. And this is where things get the most
interesting. That point in the Standard Model is probably uncertainty. The standard model does a great
job of predicting without explaining - Richard Feynman famously held to the view that one should resist
the impulse to understand why things are so and simply be content with the Model's predictiveauthority.
Which is fine until, inevitably, contradictions arise. The largest of these is, currently, the
discrepancy between the theorized amount of dark matter/energy and the values implied by galactic
rotational patterns, a discrepancy in the range of 120 orders or magnitude. 

At some point the Standard Model begins to accumulate its own epicycles, which is why physicists must
remain open to paradigm-shifting thinking like that behind the hydrino.

Bob Evans
Writer/Producer
Radio Disney

972-776-4633
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
John Barchak | 6 Jul 2004 18:24

Re: Chronological order of Mill's work

Hi Bob
There are now many experiments that contradict the Heisenberg 
Uncertainty Principle (HUP). It is becoming increasingly clear that 
SQM is seriously defective ==>
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html
Regards
John B.

--- In hydrino@..., "Evans, Bob R"
<Bob.R.Evans <at> a.yahoo.invalid> 
wrote:
> >>To have a formalism with real world predictive value without 
knowing why it
> >>works is not new, especially for chemists.
> 
> The same can be said for the epicycles of pre-Copernican 
astronomy. It was once explained to me that one of the Church's big 
objections to the Copernican-Galileo model is that it lacked 
predictive value because it was based on circular orbits. The 
classical model, enhanced with its cumbersome epicycles, actually had 
greater 'predictive value' than its Galilean alternative. Only when 
Kepler discovered the elliptical nature of planetary orbits did the 
new model gain authoritative status because it squared with 
observation. Ironically Einstein's relativity theory also depended 
on planetary orbits for its validation when he explained Mercury's 
minor deviation from its Newtonian-predicted path around the sun. 
> 
> So "knowing why it works" is essential to establishing the validity 
of the theory that makes the prediction. In fact, it's precisely at 
the point where a theory starts to make predictions without
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Evans, Bob R | 6 Jul 2004 19:16

(unknown)

Thanks, John. Great links. More and more epicycles... 

Bob Evans
Writer/Producer
Radio Disney

972-776-4633

-----Original Message-----
From: John Barchak [mailto:johnbarchak <at> y.yahoo.invalid]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:25 AM
To: hydrino@...
Subject: Re: HSG: Chronological order of Mill's work

Hi Bob
There are now many experiments that contradict the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle (HUP). It is becoming increasingly clear that
SQM is seriously defective ====>
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html
Regards
John B.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
smenton | 7 Jul 2004 00:55

Update to Ch 2

There is an updated version of Ch 2 of CQM now posted on the BLP 
website:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/GUT/TOE%2002.10.03/Chapters/Chapter%20002.pdf

This is the chapter that contains Mills explanation of quantization. 
He also sets forth his method for calculating H ionization levels 
and spectroscopic line width among other things.

As noted on pg. 164

"The predicted energies, Lamb shift, hyperfine structure, resonant 
line shape, line width, selection rules, etc.are in agreement with 
observation..." 

After calculating the Lamb shift to a very high level of accuracy, 
Mills demonstrates on pg. 188 and 190 that: 

"There is remarkable agreement between the
calculated and experimental values of the hyperfine structure that is
only limited by the accuracy of the fundamental constants.."

While a good bit of this stuff (like the Lamb shift) was in the 
earlier versions of CQM, it seems that Mills is continuing to extend 
the application of his theory with calculations that remarkablely 
match known experimental values. 

Steve Menton

.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Barchak | 7 Jul 2004 17:01

GE's new itsy-bitsy device

I find this press release very interesting. Usually, every other 
word is "quantum". "quantum" does not even appear once in this 
release. Anyone think this is significant? Is itsy-bitsy a new 
technical term?
==>
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/07/technology/ge_nano.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Regards
John B.
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Peter Zimmerman | 7 Jul 2004 22:06

Re: GE's new itsy-bitsy device

The word "device" appears many times, device has become synonymous with "quantum
device", and such things (e.g. the transistor) all work on SQM principles, so,
no, nobody is hinting that CQM or any theory other than orthodox QM was used to
develop the nanotube goodie.

I believe that "itsy bitsy" is more in the nature of a flack's vocabulary, or
some silly-ass headline writer's than it is technical jargon. But who knows. 
It could be defined as 1/137 of the radius of the ground state orbit of the
H-atom, or something.

pz

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:01:53 -0000
>From: "John Barchak" <johnbarchak <at> y.yahoo.invalid> 
>Subject: HSG: GE's new itsy-bitsy device 
>To: hydrino@...
>
> I find this press release very interesting. Usually, every other
> word is "quantum". "quantum" does not even appear once in this
> release. Anyone think this is significant? Is itsy-bitsy a new
> technical term?
> ==>
> http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/07/technology/ge_nano.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
>
> Regards
> John B.
>
> Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
> A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Evans, Bob R | 7 Jul 2004 22:23

RE: GE's new itsy-bitsy device

>> But who knows.
It could be defined as 1/137 of the radius of the ground state orbit of the
H-atom, or something.

Actually that would make it 'eensy weensy'.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ron Howard | 7 Jul 2004 22:58

RE: GE's new itsy-bitsy device

I believe in the GE labs, the internal quantum nomenclature from large nano
structures to small are: itsy bitsy, Teenie weenie and DAMN !

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Evans, Bob R [SMTP:Bob.R.Evans <at> a.yahoo.invalid]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:23 PM
> To:	hydrino@...
> Subject:	RE: HSG: GE's new itsy-bitsy device
> 
> >> But who knows.
> It could be defined as 1/137 of the radius of the ground state orbit of
> the
> H-atom, or something.
> 
> Actually that would make it 'eensy weensy'.
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
> A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
> Web Site <http://www.hydrino.org>
> Post message: hydrino@... 
> Subscribe: hydrino-subscribe@... 
> Unsubscribe: hydrino-unsubscribe@... 
> List owner: hydrino-owner@...
> Complaints: hydrino-unsubscribe@... 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
elirabett2003 | 8 Jul 2004 05:42

Re: Excited States of Helium

--- In hydrino@..., r mj <my0junk0mail <at> y.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> --- Mike <willmac <at> a.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > This looks like important stuff. Where can I see a
> > brief but lucid 
> > description of the underlying theory? Anything this
> > predictive has got 
> > to be good.....
> 
> Better yet would be a link to the actual spread sheet
> exposing the calculations!

Before everyone gets their pajamas in a bunch, go look at the accuracy
of modern quantum calculations for Helium. This stuff is no better
than the old Sommerfeld stuff.

Eli Rabett.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane