Discussion:
If not Hydrinos, then where's the power coming from?
(too old to reply)
sig5534
2002-01-30 15:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gentlemen:

I hope I'm not asking a question that has already been answered.

After just reading Mills IEEE paper on the MHD convertor, and
previously many other, it surely seems that they are indeed seeing
excess power being produced from somewhere.

Do the critics still believe that they are not seeing excess power?

If we assume that they are, then the obvious question is what is the
source? Mills has given his working theory - Hydrinos. The critics
have a hard time swallowing this theory. Fine.

However the excess power still remains to be explained. BLP is
repeatedly reporting power gains that do seem to be in the middle
between chemical and nuclear reactions. That is a large quantity of
power that cannot be ignored.

If the Hydrino theory is not the source, then what do the critics
give as THEIR explanation for the high generated power?

[I think the critics maintain that there is no excess power, that the data is not telling a story of excess power. --LS]

Thanks,

Chris (BSEE)
Jim
2002-01-30 15:47:02 UTC
Permalink
AFAIK, no lab acceptable to the critics has reproduced this. This is
critical to how science works. Without replication, it's just a unverified
claim.

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: "sig5534" <***@h.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: HSG: If not Hydrinos, then where's the power coming from?
Post by sig5534
I hope I'm not asking a question that has already been answered.
After just reading Mills IEEE paper on the MHD convertor, and
previously many other, it surely seems that they are indeed seeing
excess power being produced from somewhere.
Do the critics still believe that they are not seeing excess power?
If we assume that they are, then the obvious question is what is the
source? Mills has given his working theory - Hydrinos. The critics
have a hard time swallowing this theory. Fine.
However the excess power still remains to be explained. BLP is
repeatedly reporting power gains that do seem to be in the middle
between chemical and nuclear reactions. That is a large quantity of
power that cannot be ignored.
If the Hydrino theory is not the source, then what do the critics
give as THEIR explanation for the high generated power?
[I think the critics maintain that there is no excess power, that the data
is not telling a story of excess power. --LS]
Post by sig5534
Thanks,
Chris (BSEE)
Unknown
2004-10-16 00:55:41 UTC
Permalink
There is another, IMO better, method to "silence" the critics. Ship some working product. If they don't, they will be arguing minutae and math for the century. Seems to me that BLP has been 9 months to a year away from doing that ever since I heard of them. At this point, they richly deserve a "put up or shut up" attitude.

Mike

Jim <***@p.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

AFAIK, no lab acceptable to the critics has reproduced this. This is
critical to how science works. Without replication, it's just a unverified
claim.

jd
sig5534
2002-01-31 08:43:23 UTC
Permalink
--- In ***@y.yahoo.invalid, Mike Kopriva <***@y.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

<< There is another, IMO better, method to "silence" the critics. Ship
some working product. If they don't, they will be arguing minutae and
math for the century. Seems to me that BLP has been 9 months to a
year away from doing that ever since I heard of them. At this point,
they richly deserve a "put up or shut up" attitude. >>

I agree that producing a real product would be the end-game. But
that's a lot harder than it looks -- even if all of Mills' ideas and
results are correct. Reading Dr. Mills' early writings, I think he
way under estimated the magnitude of the work involved.

I would not at all be crititcal of his progress so far. I expected
that a development of this kind could easily take 20 years.

Actually I think he has been working extremely hard, fast, and
produced a tremendous amount of results. The critics seem to be
upset that he IS moving this fast. They would prefer a much more
long, slow, meticulous process. That may be too idealistic.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) we live in a capitalist soceity, and
business interests are always involved. It's hard to imagine work of
this kind with so much money at stake not having or being pushed by
economic pressures.

But that's the way most of these radical inventions come about. The
Wright Bros. didn't wait 25 years for all of the aerodynamic theory
to be fully developed -- they flew their plane. Bill Shockley didn't
wait for 50 years of semiconductor physics to be understood -- they
made their transistor. They barely knew how it worked. Complete
theoretical understanding is often unimportant to produce
revolutionary inventions.

[I think the critics maintain ... that the data is not telling a
story of excess power. --LS]

On page 8 of the Mills MHD paper it states:

"... the addition of 10% Hydrogen to a Helium microwave plasma
maintained with a constant microwave input power of 40W, the thermal
output power was measured to be at least 400W corresponding to a
reactor temperature rise from room temperature to 1200C within 150
seconds, a power density of 40MW/cuM, and an energy balance of at
least -5E5 kJ/mole compared to the enthalpy of combustion of Hydrogen
of -242 kJ/mole."

If BLP were reporting power ratios of 101% or something of that kind,
we could nit pick about errors in measurements all day long. But the
kind of power ratios (>1000%) described above are simply enormous. It
seems very hard to make a credible argument that these results are
simply due to measurement or methodology errors.

A temperature rise of this magnitude is visible to the naked eye.
Something is producing a Hell of a lot of heat. BLP further states
that when they take the catalyst out, or change the gas, there is no
significant temp rise with the same equipment and setup.

I can't imagine a more clear story of excess power. They are
reporting energy 2000 times greater than chemical combustion of
Hydrogen. If true, then it's the most important development since
atomic power.

I see few possible conclusions:

(1) The power and/or temperature measurements are off by 10:1.
(2) Mills and all his colleages are outright liars and con men.
(3) The results are real.

Since they have done control runs, these are trained scientific
people, and the numeric differences are so enormous -- I think that
conclusion (1) is not likely.

If so then it comes down to this: either Mills and all his staff are
outright fabricating these papers and results, or the excess power
they are reporting is real.

Regards, Chris. (BSEE)
Dr. Randell L. Mills
2002-01-31 21:28:39 UTC
Permalink
We have posted the revised version of R. L. Mills, P. Ray, "
High Resolution Spectroscopic Observation of the Bound-Free Hyperfine
Levels of a Novel Hydride Ion Corresponding to a Fractional Rydberg
State of Atomic Hydrogen", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, in press at our
web page www.blacklightpower.com which incorporates suggestions by
the referees. We have also included air and nitrogen spectra run
under the same pressure and flow rate conditions as our rt-plasmas
that were recorded identically. It should be apparent to any
competent spectroscopist acting in a professional manner that the
inverse Rydberg series of lines is not nitrogen or air species. This
point is also evident in the spectra by Zare [C. O. Laux, R. J.
Gessman, C. H. Kruger, "Measurements and modeling of the absolute
spectral emission of air plasmas between 185 and 800 nm", Journal of
Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer", (2001),
submitted.; C. O. Laux, C. H. Kruger, R. N. Zare, "Diagnostics of
atmospheric pressure air plasmas", www-krg.stanford.edu/kruger.html].

Furthermore, the inverse Rydberg series of peaks are SPLIT
and the splitting matches the spin and orbital-nuclear splitting
predicted by CQM and given previously in Table 2.3 of Mills [R.
Mills, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics,
November 1995 Edition, p. 98]. This is the smoking gun for the
assignment to lower-energy hydride ion since MOLECULAR ROTATIONAL
PEAKS AT NATURAL ABUNDANCE CAN NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE OBSERVED SERIES OF
SPLIT PEAKS, NOR CAN ANY KNOWN MOLECULE BASED ON LINEWIDTH
CONSIDERATIONS AND THEIR KNOWN SPECTRA.
From the standard spectra, it is also easily discerned that
the H-(1/2) hydride ion peak reported previously (R. Mills,
"Spectroscopic Identification of a Novel Catalytic Reaction of Atomic
Hydrogen and the Hydride Ion Product", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol.
26, No. 10, (2001), pp. 1041-1058) at 407 nm is not due to nitrogen.

We have shown solid evidence of:

1.) Lower energy atomic hydrogen:

12. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, J. He, "Spectroscopic
Identification of Fractional Rydberg States of Atomic Hydrogen",
submitted.
13. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, X. Chen, J. He,
"New Power Source from Fractional Rydberg States of Atomic Hydrogen",
submitted.
14. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, X. Chen, J. He,
"Spectroscopic Identification of Transitions of Fractional Rydberg
States of Atomic Hydrogen",
15. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, X. Chen, J. He,
"New Power Source from Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Atomic
Hydrogen that Surpasses Internal Combustion", submitted.
20. R. Mills, P. Ray, "Spectral Emission of Fractional Quantum Energy
Levels of Atomic Hydrogen from a Helium-Hydrogen Plasma and the
Implications for Dark Matter", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 27, No.
3, pp. 301-322.
31. R. Mills, "The Nature of Free Electrons in Superfluid Helium--a
Test of Quantum Mechanics and a Basis to Review its Foundations and
Make a Comparison to Classical Theory", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol.
26, No. 10, (2001), pp. 1059-1096.
44. R. Mills, "The Hydrogen Atom Revisited", Int. J. of Hydrogen
Energy, Vol. 25, Issue 12, December, (2000), pp. 1171-1183.

2.) Lower-energy hydride ion:

2. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, "Stationary Inverted Lyman Population Formed
from Incandescently Heated Hydrogen Gas with Certain Catalysts",
submitted.
3. R. L. Mills, B. Dhandapani, J. He, "Synthesis and Characterization
of a Highly Stable Amorphous Silicon Hydride", Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy, submitted.
4. R. L. Mills, A. Voigt, B. Dhandapani, J. He, "Synthesis and
Characterization of Lithium Chloro Hydride", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,
submitted.
6. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, " High Resolution Spectroscopic Observation
of the Bound-Free Hyperfine Levels of a Novel Hydride Ion
Corresponding to a Fractional Rydberg State of Atomic Hydrogen", Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy, in press.
7. R. L. Mills, E. Dayalan, "Novel Alkali and Alkaline Earth Hydrides
for High Voltage and High Energy Density Batteries", Proceedings of
the 17th Annual Battery Conference on Applications and Advances,
California State University, Long Beach, CA, (January 15-18, 2002),
pp. 1-6.
9. R. Mills, P. Ray, J. Dong, M. Nansteel, W. Good, P. Jansson, B.
Dhandapani, J. He, "Excessive Balmer Line Broadening, Power
Balance, and Novel Hydride Ion Product of Plasma Formed from
Incandescently Heated Hydrogen Gas with Certain Catalysts", Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy, submitted.
10. R. Mills, E. Dayalan, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, J. He, "Highly
Stable Novel Inorganic Hydrides from Aqueous Electrolysis and Plasma
Electrolysis", Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, submitted.
16. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, "Spectroscopic Identification of a Novel
Catalytic Reaction of Rubidium Ion with Atomic Hydrogen and the
Hydride Ion Product", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, in press.
21. R. Mills, P. Ray, "Spectroscopic Identification of a Novel
Catalytic Reaction of Potassium and Atomic Hydrogen and the Hydride
Ion Product", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 27, No. 2, (2002), pp.
183-192.
23. R. Mills, W. Good, A. Voigt, Jinquan Dong, "Minimum Heat of
Formation of Potassium Iodo Hydride", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol.
26, No. 11, (2001), pp. 1199-1208.
24. R. Mills, "Spectroscopic Identification of a Novel Catalytic
Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen and the Hydride Ion Product", Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 26, No. 10, (2001), pp. 1041-1058.
29. R. Mills, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, J. He, A. "Voigt,
Identification of Compounds Containing Novel Hydride Ions by Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 26,
No. 9, (2001), pp. 965-979.
39. R. Mills, B. Dhandapani, N. Greenig, J. He, "Synthesis and
Characterization of Potassium Iodo Hydride", Int. J. of Hydrogen
Energy, Vol. 25, Issue 12, December, (2000), pp. 1185-1203.
40. R. Mills, "Novel Inorganic Hydride", Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy,
Vol. 25, (2000), pp. 669-683.
41. R. Mills, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, J. He, T. Shannon, A.
Echezuria, "Synthesis and Characterization of Novel Hydride
Compounds", Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 26, No. 4, (2001), pp.
339-367.
42. R. Mills, "Highly Stable Novel Inorganic Hydrides", Journal of
New Materials for Electrochemical Systems, in press.
43. R. Mills, "Novel Hydrogen Compounds from a Potassium Carbonate
Electrolytic Cell", Fusion Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2, March, (2000),
pp. 157-182.

3.) Lower-energy hydrogen molecular ion

1. "Emission in the Deep Vacuum Ultraviolet from an Incandescently
Driven Plasma in a

19. R. Mills, P. Ray, "Vibrational Spectral Emission of
Fractional-Principal-Quantum-Energy-Level Hydrogen Molecular Ion",
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, in press.

4.) We will shortly post 50 spectral lines identifying the
lower-energy molecular hydrogen.

We have some significant experiments in progress, but even
now WITH 120 SPECTRAL LINES "SOUTH OF THE SOUTH POLE", THE CASE FOR
HYDRINO IS JUST ABOUT PROVEN.

Randy Mills

--
tlollerpe
2002-01-30 16:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by sig5534
I hope I'm not asking a question that has already been answered.
After just reading Mills IEEE paper on the MHD convertor, and
previously many other, it surely seems that they are indeed seeing
excess power being produced from somewhere.
Do the critics still believe that they are not seeing excess power?
If we assume that they are, then the obvious question is what is the
source? Mills has given his working theory - Hydrinos. The critics
have a hard time swallowing this theory. Fine.
However the excess power still remains to be explained. BLP is
repeatedly reporting power gains that do seem to be in the middle
between chemical and nuclear reactions. That is a large quantity of
power that cannot be ignored.
If the Hydrino theory is not the source, then what do the critics
give as THEIR explanation for the high generated power?
[I think the critics maintain that there is no excess power, that the data is not telling a story of excess power. --LS]
Thanks,
Chris (BSEE)
See message 1800 for one member's criteria.

Terry
peter zimmerman
2002-01-30 20:54:26 UTC
Permalink
First, Luke, a real word of thanks for the effort that went into your
analysis & for the support.

In thinking about this problem myself I see that I could and should have
referenced some additional papers, tho' I don't have the exact citations
here. The first would be the series of papers late in the 1960s by H.
Kendall, J. Friedman, R. Taylor and their coworkers describing work at SLAC
doing inelastic e-p scattering at high energies. This work provided the
first demonstration that quarks might be a reality and relied explicitly on
the point nature of the electron.

Following that, there are papers by S. Drell and his student ? Yan, roughly
1969-70 or 71, also from Stanford/SLAC analyzing the Kendall/Friedman/Taylor
paper. Those lacking an index to the Physical Review and Letters -- the
K/F/T experiments are well described in their Nobel lectures somewhere in
the mid 90s.

Luke Mo and Y.S. Tsai produced a series of papers on radiative corrections
to elastic and inelastic electron scattering. The earliest one is probably
about 1965. This work explicitly invokes the point nature of the electron.

While experimenters used the Mo and Tsai formalism from 1965 onwards, the
first experimental confirmation that it works precisely and even when the
target nucleus is lead was provided to great accuracy by my LSU group and a
group at Mainz in 1983-4 with publication in Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in 1984-85. Probably listed as Lerose, Blatchley, Zimmerman, Friedrich and
one or 2 more German students. Sorry I don't have my pub list here at the
office.

Finally, a lot of work was done at Stanford using the world's first storage
ring -- electron on electron -- to find out if QED broke down at the 500MeV
on 500 MeV energy level. It did not. The principal author on this was G.K.
O'Neill of Princeton and the L5 Society fame.
Subject: HSG: Extended Free Electron as CQM Achilles' Heel
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:07:25 -0000
That's not true. When electrons scatter from something with
a structure, the structure shows up as a decrease below the
point-particle cross section value. If two distributed
particles (2 Millsons) scatter from each other, then the
decrease is even greater, and in fact the shape of the
function relating point-scattering to scattering from
distributions (the so-called form factor) can be used to
perform an inversion of the experiment to determine with
fair precision the distribution itself. Since e-e
scattering and e-p scattering have been going on for almost
50 years, it seems to me we would have seen the
distributions. (see, for example, R. Hofstadter, Le Prix
Nobel, 1961; many papers by I. Sick at the beginning of the
1970s; and a seminal paper by Marshall Rosenbluth somewhere
in the early fifties) Indeed, much of my own career was
spent carrying out precisely these kinds of experiments.
Another example: the production of X-rays by atomic
excitation and by Bremsstrahlung would have observably
different cross sections and angular dependencies if the
electron were an orbitsphere or a disk than have been
measured.
After cogitating over this for a few months, I've concluded that
Chapter 3 of GUTCQM needs to address this convincingly and without
evasion.
Dr. Zimmerman has identified references with hard data he claims
contradict the concept of the electron as an extended disk particle.
+++Let me rephrase that just a bit. The data don't contradict CQM and the
extended disk particle so much as show that the data are accounted for only
by point electrons -- the authors never needed to test the data against the
Mills model of the electron.

[In this case, Occam's Razor tells us to use points as models, right? --LS]
I am asking Dr. Mills to account for this data in the next revision
of his book. For example, can two free electrons pass through each
other at least partially because of their low densities? If so, why
should we believe that?
Leaving these questions unanswered could prove to be a real Achilles'
heel for the whole theoretical structure of CQM. Anyone could refute the
extended particle model simply by pointing to the data PZ described. Sane
people must always use reality as the final standard, regardless of how
much we wish for a particular theory to be true.
Luke Setzer
D***@a.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:55:46 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 2/2/2002 7:03:34 AM Mountain Standard Time,
If that is one
day shown to be false, then the infinitely small free electron idea
would be QM's Achilles' heel.
Not so. String theory is a model with fundamental particles that are extended
objects. But string theory is a fully quantum theory. Also, standard quantum
theory would still be valid, because it would still describe behavior
accurately on scales that can be currently probed by particle accelerators.
Dr. Randell L. Mills
2002-02-06 19:47:21 UTC
Permalink
John,

You are correct. The corresponding energy is given by the
replacement of n=integer by n=1/integer in the Rydberg formula.

Randy Mills
I would like to address this question directly to Dr. Mills.
In your book and letters, you specifically talk about 'fractional
quantum states'
or 'below ground states' of the hydrino. I think that when you do
this, you are
descibing *only* the electron orbital radius in the hydrino, right?
But, you are
*not* implying that the wavelength of the electron is wrapped (for
example) 1/2-way
around the orbital *because* you invoke increased 'effective nuclear
charge' in your
model of the reduced orbital states. That is, an n=1/2 state
hydrino is really an
n=1 (ground state) orbital with an effective central charge of +2,
right? If so, then
we could dispense with the arguments against 'fractional quantum
states' since you
are not predicting them. Instead, you are really predicting
shrunken orbital radii
for redundant ground states in the hydrinos by theorizing upon the
existance and a
mechanism for increased 'effective nuclear charge'.
Would you be so kind as to comment briefly on this?
Many thanks!
-John
John A. Kassebaum
2002-02-06 21:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Dr. Mills,

Thanks very much for your reply!

To all now in this discusion group, I must now point out that the
the 'fractional quantum level' argument is a red herring. Dr. Mills
is not predicting 'fractional quantum levels'. Dr. Zimmerman's
challenge, which was an appropriate attack, is not germain if there are
no fractional quantum states being predicted. Dr. Mills is instead predicting
closer orbits or redundant ground states for the electron in the hydrogen
atom. I would especially like to hear discussion of this from the
physicists and chemists in the group who may be able to draw distinctions
for us in this case. I suspect that there is little difference between
our earlier erroneous concept of 'fractional quantum levels' and merely
closer orbits for redundant ground states of the hydrogen orbital electron.

-John
Post by Dr. Randell L. Mills
John,
You are correct. The corresponding energy is given by the
replacement of n=integer by n=1/integer in the Rydberg formula.
Randy Mills
I would like to address this question directly to Dr. Mills.
In your book and letters, you specifically talk about 'fractional
quantum states'
or 'below ground states' of the hydrino. I think that when you do
this, you are
descibing *only* the electron orbital radius in the hydrino, right?
But, you are
*not* implying that the wavelength of the electron is wrapped (for
example) 1/2-way
around the orbital *because* you invoke increased 'effective nuclear
charge' in your
model of the reduced orbital states. That is, an n=1/2 state
hydrino is really an
n=1 (ground state) orbital with an effective central charge of +2,
right? If so, then
we could dispense with the arguments against 'fractional quantum
states' since you
are not predicting them. Instead, you are really predicting
shrunken orbital radii
for redundant ground states in the hydrinos by theorizing upon the
existance and a
mechanism for increased 'effective nuclear charge'.
Would you be so kind as to comment briefly on this?
Many thanks!
-John
--
John A. Kassebaum
Project Engineer, DVD/Video Group
OpenGlobe, Inc. (An Escient Technologies Affiliate)
6325 Digital Way
Indianapolis, IN 46278
USA
(317) 616-6519 Direct Phone & Fax
(317) 616-6789 Main
mailto:***@O...
Jim
2002-02-07 19:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Let's assume for a moment there is a mathematical description for the energy
of an electron in Mills' theory. If so, Mills' theory should be able to, at
a bare minimum, describe the already known n=1, etc. energy levels for an
electron in a one-dimensional potential well.

I really seems odd that Mills himself describes the states mathematically as
1/n. That would be a fractional quantum number.

jd


----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Kassebaum" <***@E...>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Question about 'Fractional Quantum States'
Post by John A. Kassebaum
Dr. Mills,
Thanks very much for your reply!
To all now in this discusion group, I must now point out that the
the 'fractional quantum level' argument is a red herring. Dr. Mills
is not predicting 'fractional quantum levels'. Dr. Zimmerman's
challenge, which was an appropriate attack, is not germain if there are
no fractional quantum states being predicted. Dr. Mills is instead
predicting
Post by John A. Kassebaum
closer orbits or redundant ground states for the electron in the hydrogen
atom. I would especially like to hear discussion of this from the
physicists and chemists in the group who may be able to draw distinctions
for us in this case. I suspect that there is little difference between
our earlier erroneous concept of 'fractional quantum levels' and merely
closer orbits for redundant ground states of the hydrogen orbital
electron.
Post by John A. Kassebaum
-John
Post by Dr. Randell L. Mills
John,
You are correct. The corresponding energy is given by the
replacement of n=integer by n=1/integer in the Rydberg formula.
Randy Mills
I would like to address this question directly to Dr. Mills.
In your book and letters, you specifically talk about 'fractional
quantum states'
or 'below ground states' of the hydrino. I think that when you do
this, you are
descibing *only* the electron orbital radius in the hydrino, right?
But, you are
*not* implying that the wavelength of the electron is wrapped (for
example) 1/2-way
around the orbital *because* you invoke increased 'effective nuclear
charge' in your
model of the reduced orbital states. That is, an n=1/2 state
hydrino is really an
n=1 (ground state) orbital with an effective central charge of +2,
right? If so, then
we could dispense with the arguments against 'fractional quantum
states' since you
are not predicting them. Instead, you are really predicting
shrunken orbital radii
for redundant ground states in the hydrinos by theorizing upon the
existance and a
mechanism for increased 'effective nuclear charge'.
Would you be so kind as to comment briefly on this?
Many thanks!
-John
--
John A. Kassebaum
Project Engineer, DVD/Video Group
OpenGlobe, Inc. (An Escient Technologies Affiliate)
6325 Digital Way
Indianapolis, IN 46278
USA
(317) 616-6519 Direct Phone & Fax
(317) 616-6789 Main
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
Web Site http://www.hydrino.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John A. Kassebaum
2002-02-07 20:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Let's assume for a moment there is a mathematical description for the energy
of an electron in Mills' theory. If so, Mills' theory should be able to, at
a bare minimum, describe the already known n=1, etc. energy levels for an
electron in a one-dimensional potential well.
I really seems odd that Mills himself describes the states mathematically as
1/n. That would be a fractional quantum number.
Yes, this is the exact source of confusion I'm talking about. The n=1/2 is in
the Rydberg formula which describes the orbital radii. The quantum level is not
fractional though - the electron matter wave still progresses once around the
circumference of the hydrogen nucleus just as it does in the regular (n=1) ground state.

Thus 'redundant ground states' is perhaps a better description.

-John
--
John A. Kassebaum
Project Engineer, DVD/Video Group
OpenGlobe, Inc. (An Escient Technologies Affiliate)
6325 Digital Way
Indianapolis, IN 46278
USA
(317) 616-6519 Direct Phone & Fax
(317) 616-6789 Main
mailto:***@O...
novel_compound
2002-02-07 21:54:41 UTC
Permalink
John asked,
you invoke increased 'effective nuclear charge' in your model of
the reduced orbital states. That is, an n=1/2 state hydrino is
really an n=1 (ground state) orbital with an effective central
charge of +2, right?
Dr. Mills replied,
You are correct.
This leads me to wonder if the theory extends in the other
direction. If states of 0 < n < 1 are really n = 1 states with
increased effective nuclear charge, are states of n > 1 really n = 1
states with decreased effective nuclear charge?

[Yes, they are. See Figure 5.2 of GUTCQM. --LS]
Paul A. Scott
2004-10-16 00:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by novel_compound
This leads me to wonder if the theory extends in the other
direction. If states of 0 < n < 1 are really n = 1 states with
increased effective nuclear charge, are states of n > 1 really n = 1
states with decreased effective nuclear charge?
[Yes, they are. See Figure 5.2 of GUTCQM. --LS]
Which would mean that Mills is as justified in using "fractional quantum
states" as the rest of the community uses "quantum states". This is a
problem of semantics.

Paul A. Scott
Jim
2002-02-08 15:45:34 UTC
Permalink
This is not quite correct. In SQM, there exists a ground state for, say,
the hydrogen atom. If I understand correctly, there is no lower limit to
the 1/n states. To me, this implies we should see the hydrogen atom
disappear under certain conditions. I presume it might produce a neutron,
but I am not sure. SQM provides for a stable hydrogen atom under
'chemical-scale' energies.

[Sub-Chapter 5.7, "New 'Ground' State", addresses this situation: "Hydrogen atoms can undergo transitions to energy states below the n = 1 state until the potential energy of the proton is converted to relativistically corrected kinetic energy and total energy (the negative of the binding energy) and a state is formed which is stable to both radiation and nonradiative energy transfer." --LS]

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul A. Scott" <***@t.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: HSG: Re: What does CQM say about n > 1 states?
Post by Paul A. Scott
Post by novel_compound
This leads me to wonder if the theory extends in the other
direction. If states of 0 < n < 1 are really n = 1 states with
increased effective nuclear charge, are states of n > 1 really n = 1
states with decreased effective nuclear charge?
[Yes, they are. See Figure 5.2 of GUTCQM. --LS]
Which would mean that Mills is as justified in using "fractional quantum
states" as the rest of the community uses "quantum states". This is a
problem of semantics.
Paul A. Scott
Jim
2002-02-08 16:10:36 UTC
Permalink
With respect to what is the potential energy of the proton measured?

[Its own center, I think. --LS]

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim" <***@p.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: HSG: Re: What does CQM say about n > 1 states?
Post by Jim
This is not quite correct. In SQM, there exists a ground state for, say,
the hydrogen atom. If I understand correctly, there is no lower limit to
the 1/n states. To me, this implies we should see the hydrogen atom
disappear under certain conditions. I presume it might produce a neutron,
but I am not sure. SQM provides for a stable hydrogen atom under
'chemical-scale' energies.
"Hydrogen atoms can undergo transitions to energy states below the n = 1
state until the potential energy of the proton is converted to
relativistically corrected kinetic energy and total energy (the negative of
the binding energy) and a state is formed which is stable to both radiation
and nonradiative energy transfer." --LS]
Jim
2002-02-08 18:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Potential energy always requires some reference point in order to be
meaningful. If one holds a cannon ball 10 ft over the surface of the earth,
it will have a certain potential energy based on the acceleration due to
gravity as it falls the 10 ft. If allowed to fall, the potential energy
would then be converted into an equivalent amount of kinetic energy.

Note that the cannon ball is also one earth-orbit-radius from the sun. If
the cannon ball were held 'over' the sun at that distance, it would have a
huge potential energy due to 1) the much larger distance and 2) the much
greater acceleration due to the suns gravity vis-a-vis the earth.

So, based on these observations, the proton would always have 0 potential
energy with respect to itself.

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim" <***@p.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: HSG: Re: What does CQM say about n > 1 states?
Post by Jim
With respect to what is the potential energy of the proton measured?
[Its own center, I think. --LS]
Robin van Spaandonk
2002-02-12 01:19:03 UTC
Permalink
In reply to Jim's message of Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:37:31 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Post by Jim
Potential energy always requires some reference point in order to be
meaningful. If one holds a cannon ball 10 ft over the surface of the earth,
it will have a certain potential energy based on the acceleration due to
gravity as it falls the 10 ft. If allowed to fall, the potential energy
would then be converted into an equivalent amount of kinetic energy.
[snip]
As in SQM, the potential is measured relative to infinite distance.
(Same formula is used).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

....Put the "bottom line" at the top!
Jim
2002-02-12 02:32:09 UTC
Permalink
So for a gravitational potential, what value and shape does one assign to
infinity for the acceleration and direction, respectively?

And for an electric potential, what value and shape does one assign to the
electric field?

Is infinity present in all directions, or only one ... some?

When dealing with the hydrogen atom, for example, we can calculate the force
on a test charge exerted by the proton. We know the shape and strength of
the electric field. We can calculate the potential energy of an electron at
x distance from the proton.

I am really having difficulty seeing how to do any of this with infinity.

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <***@b.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: HSG: Re: What does CQM say about n > 1 states?
Post by Robin van Spaandonk
Hi,
[snip]
Post by Jim
Potential energy always requires some reference point in order to be
meaningful. If one holds a cannon ball 10 ft over the surface of the earth,
it will have a certain potential energy based on the acceleration due to
gravity as it falls the 10 ft. If allowed to fall, the potential energy
would then be converted into an equivalent amount of kinetic energy.
[snip]
As in SQM, the potential is measured relative to infinite distance.
(Same formula is used).
novel_compound
2002-02-12 18:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
I am really having difficulty seeing how to do any of this with infinity.
In orbital mechanics (of satellites, not electrons), a body is
assigned zero potential energy when an infinite distance from the
gravitational attractor; at all finite distances, the potential
energy is negative.
Jim
2002-02-12 19:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Makes sense to me, as long as the potential energy is 0. : +)

Similar should hold true for an isolated proton, as a hypothetical.

[For an unbound electron where n = infinity, the potential energy is also zero per my Modern Physics textbook. --LS]

jd

----- Original Message -----
From: "novel_compound" <***@y.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:38 PM
Subject: HSG: Potential energy at infinite distance
Post by novel_compound
Post by Jim
I am really having difficulty seeing how to do any of this with infinity.
In orbital mechanics (of satellites, not electrons), a body is
assigned zero potential energy when an infinite distance from the
gravitational attractor; at all finite distances, the potential
energy is negative.
Peter Zimmerman
2002-02-14 01:30:21 UTC
Permalink
You don't have to set the potential energy at infinity to zero. You can set it to any **constant** value (say, three),
because the potential is not directly observable, only the gradient (the electric field). And the gradient of a constant
is zero. The chosen constant is called the "gauge" of the theory and Maxwell's Equations are gauge invariant.

/pz
Post by Jim
Makes sense to me, as long as the potential energy is 0. : +)
Similar should hold true for an isolated proton, as a hypothetical.
[For an unbound electron where n = infinity,
the potential energy is also zero per my Modern Physics textbook. --LS]
jd
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:38 PM
Subject: HSG: Potential energy at infinite distance
Post by novel_compound
Post by Jim
I am really having difficulty seeing how to do any of this with infinity.
In orbital mechanics (of satellites, not electrons), a body is
assigned zero potential energy when an infinite distance from the
gravitational attractor; at all finite distances, the potential
energy is negative.
shanewilsonearth
2002-02-15 11:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Peter Zimmerman wrote: And classically the inverse square law at
all distances is required in order to have certain well-known
phenomena occur. e.g. Gauss's law; the fact that there is no
electric field (or equivalently a constant potential) within a
continuous closed conducting shell. And that is well established.

My comment: Good, so there is no need to waste taxpayers' money
looking for evidence of finite electron size.

DMc74965 wrote: String theory is a model with fundamental particles
that are extended objects. But string theory is a fully quantum
theory.

My comment: I hope that the `string-theorists' aren't being funded
by taxpayers, because due to Gauss's law electrons can't be extended
objects.

Edwin Cartlidge (News Editor of Physics World) wrote: Physicists
are closer to finding out if the electron is a point charge or
whether it has an internal distribution of charge known as an
electric dipole moment. See http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/2/13

My comment: Proof that the damned scientists are wasting taxpayers'
money looking for a finite size for the electron.

Shane
Peter Zimmerman
2002-02-16 01:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Shane is missing two essential points:

First, I discussed the classical, not the quantum situation, which certainly
leads to the conclusion that the electron is a mathematical point.

Second, even though most physicists believe that the electron is a true
mathematical point, it is useful to perform experiments which place upper
limits on the possible size of the electron in order to test our knowledge.
Thus it is perfectly reasonable to look for an extended electron; if QED were
to fail at any distances, it would most likely show up as an apparent (or
actual) radius or dipole moment of the electron.

Finally, the issue of American Scientist, the Sigma Xi magazine, which showed
up in my mailbox (physical, not electronic) yesterday has a wonderful article
entitled "Is string theory even *wrong*". The author concludes that it may
well be, and in any event isn't a very useful theory since it cannot be
falsified by any currently conceivable experiment. Therefore, Dr. Mills need
not worry about the philosophical problems of string theory, at least at the
moment. As the article makes clear, most of us take string theory with a
grain of salt. But it is mathematically pretty.

pz
Post by shanewilsonearth
Peter Zimmerman wrote: And classically the inverse square law at
all distances is required in order to have certain well-known
phenomena occur. e.g. Gauss's law; the fact that there is no
electric field (or equivalently a constant potential) within a
continuous closed conducting shell. And that is well established.
My comment: Good, so there is no need to waste taxpayers' money
looking for evidence of finite electron size.
DMc74965 wrote: String theory is a model with fundamental particles
that are extended objects. But string theory is a fully quantum
theory.
My comment: I hope that the `string-theorists' aren't being funded
by taxpayers, because due to Gauss's law electrons can't be extended
objects.
Edwin Cartlidge (News Editor of Physics World) wrote: Physicists
are closer to finding out if the electron is a point charge or
whether it has an internal distribution of charge known as an
electric dipole moment. See http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/2/13
My comment: Proof that the damned scientists are wasting taxpayers'
money looking for a finite size for the electron.
Shane
Dave Hirschman
2002-02-08 17:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
This is not quite correct. In SQM, there exists a ground state for, say,
the hydrogen atom. If I understand correctly, there is no lower limit to
the 1/n states. To me, this implies we should see the hydrogen atom
disappear under certain conditions. I presume it might produce a neutron,
but I am not sure. SQM provides for a stable hydrogen atom under
'chemical-scale' energies.
It can't produce a neutron because a free neutron would split back into a
proton/electon pair with a half-life of about 9 minutes, if I remember
correctly, and you would then have a perpetual motion machine.

I believe I recall reading (I can't remember if in GUTCQM or in a posting)
that there *was* a lower limit to the 1/n states and that beyond that point
a "neutral particle" would be produced. This has always seemed rather vague
to me - what exactly is this "neutral particle?" Certainly not an as yet
undiscovered particle.

[See Sub-Chapter 5.7, "New 'Ground' State". --LS]

Dave Hirschman
http://www.hirschman.org/dave
Robin van Spaandonk
2002-02-12 01:18:03 UTC
Permalink
In reply to Jim's message of Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:45:34 -0600:

Hi,

<< [Sub-Chapter 5.7, "New 'Ground' State", addresses this situation: "Hydrogen atoms can undergo transitions to energy states below the n == 1 state until the potential energy of the proton is converted to relativistically corrected kinetic energy and total energy (the negative of the binding energy) and a state is formed which is stable to both radiation and nonradiative energy transfer." --LS] >>

You forgot to mention Dr. Mills' later correction where the minimum size
is determined to be n==1/alpha.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

....Put the "bottom line" at the top!
Robin van Spaandonk
2002-02-12 01:16:49 UTC
Permalink
In reply to novel_compound's message of Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:54:41
-0000:
Hi,
[snip]
Post by novel_compound
This leads me to wonder if the theory extends in the other
direction. If states of 0 < n < 1 are really n == 1 states with
increased effective nuclear charge, are states of n > 1 really n == 1
states with decreased effective nuclear charge?
[Yes, they are. See Figure 5.2 of GUTCQM. --LS]
[snip]
Which begs the question, why can the one radiate, while the other can't?
I.e what is the essential physical difference between these states,
other than size?

[This has something to do with the Haus condition and the mathematical stability of hydrinos vs excited states. --LS]


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

....Put the "bottom line" at the top!
peter zimmerman
2002-02-07 17:57:02 UTC
Permalink
My comment is to be found, although more eloquently stated than I could, in
the doggerel poem "The Theory that Jack Built" in the book "A Space Child's
Mother Goose." Dr. Mills has suddenly revised everything he has been saying
about the structure of 'hydrinos'.

[Or, at the very least, Mills has clarified for us exactly what he means by "fractional quantum states", which is different from what many of us originally thought he meant. Communication of new concepts has been an ongoing problem for CQM. --LS]

/pz
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Question about 'Fractional Quantum States'
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:02:31 -0500
Dr. Mills,
Thanks very much for your reply!
To all now in this discusion group, I must now point out that the
the 'fractional quantum level' argument is a red herring. Dr. Mills
is not predicting 'fractional quantum levels'. Dr. Zimmerman's
challenge, which was an appropriate attack, is not germain if there are
no fractional quantum states being predicted. Dr. Mills is instead
predicting
closer orbits or redundant ground states for the electron in the hydrogen
atom. I would especially like to hear discussion of this from the
physicists and chemists in the group who may be able to draw distinctions
for us in this case. I suspect that there is little difference between
our earlier erroneous concept of 'fractional quantum levels' and merely
closer orbits for redundant ground states of the hydrogen orbital electron.
-John
Post by Dr. Randell L. Mills
John,
You are correct. The corresponding energy is given by the
replacement of n=integer by n=1/integer in the Rydberg formula.
Randy Mills
I would like to address this question directly to Dr. Mills.
In your book and letters, you specifically talk about 'fractional
quantum states'
or 'below ground states' of the hydrino. I think that when you do
this, you are
descibing *only* the electron orbital radius in the hydrino, right?
But, you are
*not* implying that the wavelength of the electron is wrapped (for
example) 1/2-way
around the orbital *because* you invoke increased 'effective nuclear
charge' in your
model of the reduced orbital states. That is, an n=1/2 state
hydrino is really an
n=1 (ground state) orbital with an effective central charge of +2,
right? If so, then
we could dispense with the arguments against 'fractional quantum
states' since you
are not predicting them. Instead, you are really predicting
shrunken orbital radii
for redundant ground states in the hydrinos by theorizing upon the
existance and a
mechanism for increased 'effective nuclear charge'.
Would you be so kind as to comment briefly on this?
Many thanks!
-John
John A. Kassebaum
2002-02-07 19:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by peter zimmerman
My comment is to be found, although more eloquently stated than I could, in
the doggerel poem "The Theory that Jack Built" in the book "A Space Child's
Mother Goose." Dr. Mills has suddenly revised everything he has been saying
about the structure of 'hydrinos'.
[Or, at the very least, Mills has clarified for us exactly what he means by
"fractional quantum states", which is different from what many of us originally
thought he meant. Communication of new concepts has been an ongoing problem
for CQM. --LS]
/pz
For the record, although this material hasn't changed in any substantial way in Dr. Mills
books through all the versions I've seen, it has always been a confusing distinction.
When 'effective nuclear charge' was originally brought to my attention I didn't understand
how it changed this particular argument. Unfortunately, Dr. Mills has contributed to
our confusion in two ways: First by descriptions such as 'below ground state' and 'fractional
quantum state' when referring to the fractional Rhydberg levels. Second, by not clearly
making this distinction when challenged originally by Dr. Zimmerman. I hope that this
new understanding can help us and Dr. Mills to improve the description of the phenomenon
so that it will no loger cause unecessary stumbling block to acceptance and or analysis
within the physics community. To restate, the electron is not predicted by Mills to have
fractional quantum states when bound or free. He predicts redundant ground states for the
hydrogen electron characterized by increased positive 'effective nuclear charge' which causes
them to inhabit lower (closer) orbitals described by fractional numbers 'n' in the Rhydberg
equation. Of course, the next attack should be on the energy balance of the 'trapped photon'
which causes this increased 'effective nuclear charge'.

-John
--
John A. Kassebaum
Project Engineer, DVD/Video Group
OpenGlobe, Inc. (An Escient Technologies Affiliate)
6325 Digital Way
Indianapolis, IN 46278
USA
(317) 616-6519 Direct Phone & Fax
(317) 616-6789 Main
mailto:***@O...
Lynn Kurtz
2002-02-07 20:19:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, February 07, 2002 you wrote

pz> My comment is to be found, although more eloquently stated than I could, in
pz> the doggerel poem "The Theory that Jack Built" in the book "A Space Child's
pz> Mother Goose." Dr. Mills has suddenly revised everything he has been saying
pz> about the structure of 'hydrinos'.

I had to look that one up. Google turned up a number of references
including http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/jack.txt

Very cute poem.

--Lynn
smenton
2002-02-07 23:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn Kurtz
I had to look that one up. Google turned up a number of references
including http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/jack.txt
Very cute poem.
The probability waves, renormalization, curve fitting, etc. of SQM
would appear particularly well described in this poem.
Peter Zimmerman
2002-02-08 01:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Jim Blair's transcription of "The Theory that Jack Built" (the version Lynn K
references) changed the first line of the last major stanza. The correct version
is:

"This is the Space Child with Brow Serene"

/pz
Post by Lynn Kurtz
including http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/jack.txt
Very cute poem.
--Lynn
smenton
2002-02-07 22:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by peter zimmerman
My comment is to be found, although more eloquently stated than I could, in
the doggerel poem "The Theory that Jack Built" in the book "A Space Child's
Mother Goose." Dr. Mills has suddenly revised everything he has been saying
about the structure of 'hydrinos'.
[Or, at the very least, Mills has clarified for us exactly what he
means by "fractional quantum states", which is different from what
many of us originally thought he meant. Communication of new
concepts has been an ongoing problem for CQM. --LS]
I am pretty sure that if you asked Randy, he would say that his
comment to John was in no way a revision of what his theory has been
for several years. I think maybe our understanding of it is just
getting better. I have often thought that Randy's habit of responding
to questions by quoting at length from his prior writings was simply
an attempt to give the rest of us a chance to catch up.

Steve Menton
Dave Fafarman
2002-02-07 20:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Jim wrote:
# Let's assume for a moment there is a mathematical description for the energy
# of an electron in Mills' theory. If so, Mills' theory should be able to, at
# a bare minimum, describe the already known n=1, etc. energy levels for an
# electron in a one-dimensional potential well.
#
# I really seems odd that Mills himself describes the states mathematically as
# 1/n. That would be a fractional quantum number.

The only significance of the "n=1" level is that it's the lowest one that
couples to electromagnetic radiation. That's why it is called "n=1" ...

-- DF
Dr. Randell L. Mills
2002-02-08 21:37:04 UTC
Permalink
One Dimension Gravity Well‹Another Flawed Interpretation

according to Nesvizhevsky et al., a step in the transmission
of falling neutrons through a variable-height channel comprising a
mirror on the bottom and an absorber at the top occurs at a height of
13 um because neutrons fall in quantized jumps


In reality,

for widths greater than 13 um which is equal to 1/2(h/m sub
n)^(-2/3)(g)^(-1/3), the height is greater that the de Broglie
wavelength corresponding to the scattering of the falling neutron
from the mirror to the absorber; thus, a step in the transmission of
failing neutrons occurs at 13 um (See below.)


PZ is wrong again. But, this time it is particularly
embarrassing given all the "huffing and puffing" that this experiment
proves that the one dimensional well of QM is correct over CQM
wherein such abstractions are merely that‹nonexistent mathematical
abstractions. How could anyone believe that something falls in jumps
anyway? Physical principles are to be followed, not pure mathematics.

Given that a medical doctor could immediately see the obvious
error in the Nesvizhevsky experiment, perhaps PZ should ask one of
his students to look over his comments before he posts.

Regarding the H-(1/2) Hyperfine Lines paper and related
papers, it is also advised that when commenting on this experimental
data, PZ should actually read the papers and research the field
before he denigrates scientists, referees, and journals when they are
in fact correct and he is in the wrong. It may be understandable
since he has been "out to pasture" for a while and not actively
involved in research. However, his misses are time consuming, and it
is advised that he seek outside advise.

He also should not misrepresent the abilities of QM. For
example, the "stunning success" of QM theory regarding high energy
scattering is merely an empirical curve fit of the data to fudge
factor corrections due the influences of hypothetical (never
observed) virtual particles.

Unprofessional behavior without considering or regard to
evidence and facts and misrepresentations of evidence and facts to
advance vested interests is also potentially very destructive. It is
particularly true when a negative campaign comes from someone that
the public has vested with trust and authority and recognizes as an
expert. PZ made his intentions clear in his farewell diatribe last
August 14th. As part of a regurgitation of the by then stale,
previously-dealt-with issues, he stated he would drive a stake in the
heart of CQM. PZ should be reminded that the public actually expects
publicly paid scientists and officials to engage in professional
scientific discourse in the interest of advancing science and
technology, not kill off a competing theory or technology for their
own benefit.

We still do not know the repercussions of the overt actions
of PZ. Dr. Zimmerman represented in an abstract on the APS (American
Physical Society) website that he was speaking on behalf of the U.S.
State Department, and that the U.S. State Department and the U.S.
Patent Office had fought back with success against BlackLight Power.

As is public record, the same USPTO withdrew BlackLight's
Chemical Patents without regard to the evidence or facts of the case
since it was missing from the Patent Office at that time.

PZ's abstract is of public record in documents that
BlackLight filed in its law suit against the Patent Office to right
the Patent Office's withdrawing BlackLight's chemical patents from
issuance.



Nesvizhevsky et al. [1] claim that they created a potential
well for falling neutrons formed by the Earth's gravitational field
and a horizontal mirror. According to Nesvizhevsky et al., "we now
consider how to demonstrate that bound states exist for neutrons
trapped in the Earth's gravitational field. The gravitational field
alone does not create a potential well, it can only confine particles
by forcing them to fall along field lines. We need a second 'wall'
to create the well." Supposedly, a neutron falling in the Earth's
gravitational field hits the bottom mirror, is reflected, and the
neutron wavefunction interferes with itself. The self-interference
creates a standing wave in the neutron density: the probability of
finding a neutron at a given height exhibits maxima and minima along
the vertical direction which is a function of the quantum number of
the bound states. The quantum mechanical probability wave problem is
solved as a particle on a box or one-dimensional well problem [2].
Nesvizhevsky et al. [1] give the standing waves as asymmetric
sinusoidal waves‹the claimed distortion due to the argument that "the
gravitational field is much softer than a infinite sharp wall; as a
result, the gravitational well extends in the opposite direction to
the gravity with increasing quantum number."[Footnote 1.]
Consequently, the neutron wavefunctions are deformed upwards, and the
energy differences between states become very slightly smaller as the
quantum numbers increase. For example, the energy of the n=1 state
is 1.4 peV, and that of the n=4 state is 4.1 peV, rather than 5.6 peV
for a linear relationship. For comparison, the classical potential
energy V of a neutron lifted a height of z=15 um against the Earth's
gravitational field is given by
V=mgz=(1.67X10^-27 kg)(9.8 m/s^2)(15X10^-6 m)=1.5X10^-12
eV=1.5 peV (1)
where m is the mass of the neutron and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
Nesvizhevsky et al. [1] directed ultracold neutrons with a
horizontal velocity of about 10 m/s through a parallel plate channel
wherein the top plate was a neutron absorber and the bottom plate was
a neutron mirror. The neutrons were selected by a collimator that
projected the neutrons at a slightly upward angle such that they
followed a parabolic trajectory in the Earth's gravitational field.
The neutron vertical velocity at the peak height of the parabola
corresponded to classical result of zero, and increased as the
neutron fell to the bottom mirror. The vertical velocity component
was limited by the variable height of the vertical neutron absorber.
For example, a vertical velocity of 1.7X10-^2 m/s corresponded to a
parabolic height of z=15 um wherein the kinetic energy K given by
K=1/2mv^2=(1.67X10^-27 kg)(1.7X10^-2 m/s)^2=1.5 peV
(2)
was converted to gravitational potential energy given by Eq. (1).
The neutron as well as the proton and electron are
fundamental particles with a de Broglie wavelength. They demonstrate
interference patterns during diffraction as given in the Electron
Scattering by Helium section. The observed far-field position
distribution is a picture of the particle's transverse momentum
distribution after the interaction. The momentum transfer is given
by (hbar)(k) where k is the wavenumber (2Pi/lambda). The relevant
wavelength lambda is the de Broglie wavelength associated with the
momenta of the particles which is transferred through interactions.
An example is the interference pattern for rubidium atoms given in
the Wave-Particle Duality is Not Due to the Uncertainty Principle
section. Also see the Electron in Free Space section.
The de Broglie wavelength lambda is given by
lambda=h/p=h/(mv) (3)
where h is Planck's constant, m is the mass of the neutron, and v is
the neutron velocity in the direction of the wavelength. In the
Nesvizhevsky experiment, a neutron with an initial vertical velocity
of 1.7X10-^2 m/s has zero velocity at the top of the parabolic
trajectory. The corresponding velocity of the falling neutron at the
mirror before reflection is negative 1.7X10-^2 m/s, and after
reflection, it is positive 1.7X10-^2 m/s. The de Broglie wavelength
of the neutron in the vertical direction corresponding to the
momentum acquired by falling from the top of the trajectory and
undergoing momentum reversal at the mirror is given by
lambda=h/deltap=h/(2mv)=6.63X10^-34 Js/(1.67X10^-27
kg)(2)(1.7X10^-2 m/s)=11.7 X10^-5 m=12 um (4)
which is less than z=15 um corresponding to the initial vertical
velocity of about 1.7X10-^2 m/s.
The time scale for the collision of a neutron with the bottom
mirror was much less than the transit time t(t) of the neutron
through the slits which is given by the ratio of the channel length
(0.1 m) and the horizontal speed (10 m/s).
t(t)=0.1 m/10 m/s=0.01 s (5)
The time scale t(d) for the fall of a neutron with a parabolic height
of z=15 um was also much less than the transit time of a neutron
through the slits.
t(d)=SQRT(2z/g)=SQRT((2)(15X10^-6)/9.8 m/s^2)=1.7X10^-3 s (6)
The interaction scale in the vertical direction is the de Broglie
wavelength for the neutron-mirror collision; thus, neutron
transmission through the slits is limited by the height of the
absorber relative to the de Broglie wavelength. The de Broglie
wavelength is inversely proportional to the initial velocity (Eq.
(4)). And, from Eqs. (1) and (2), the parabolic height increases as
v^2. Then, the slit-width for transmission threshold z1 is the de
Broglie wavelength that equals the parabolic height corresponding to
the initial kinetic energy. The de Broglie wavelength is larger than
the slit width for widths less than z1, and the opposite relationship
occurs for slits wider than z1. The velocity given by equating the
initial kinetic energy (Eq. (2)) and the corresponding gravitational
potential energy (Eq. (1)) is
v=SQRT(2gz1) (7)
The corresponding de Broglie wavelength given by Eqs. (4) and (7) is
lambda=z1=1/2(h/m)^2/3(g)^-1/3=12.6 um (8)
Nesvizhevsky et al. [1] flowed neutrons between the mirror
below and the absorber above and recorded the transmission N
(counts/s) as a function of the width delta z if the slit formed by
the mirror and the absorber. Thus, the width delta z acted as a
vertical velocity selector. The expected classical prediction is
that there is some transmission at a slit width greater that of the
neutron cross section for neutrons propagating with no vertical
velocity component. This was in fact observed. For neutrons with a
vertical velocity component, no transmission of neutrons is expected
until the slit width is greater than the vertical de Broglie
wavelength corresponding to momentum reversal at the mirror. This is
due to the interaction of the reflected neutrons with the absorber
with a separation less than this length. From Eq. (8), the slit
height at which neutrons are predicted to be transmitted is about 13
um. This was exactly what was observed. At this point, the
detection rate N should increase as a linear function of the slit
width corrected for any changes in the vertical component of the
neutron velocity due to changes in the acceptance angle for neutrons.
Nesvizhevsky et al. [1] give a correction factor of z^.5 to N due to
the increase in the accepted spread of velocities. Thus, the
classically predicted transmission as a function of slit width delta
z is
N=c(z-z1)^1.5 (9)
where c is a constant dependent on the neutron flux and z1 is the
vertical de Broglie wavelength given by Eq. (8). There was
remarkable agreement between the experimental data of Nesvizhevsky et
al. and the classical quantum mechanical prediction given by Eq. (9).
In contrast, the experimental data did not match critical
predictions of quantum mechanics. According to Nesvizhevsky et al.
[1], "we expect a stepwise dependence of N as a function of delta z.
If delta z is smaller than the spatial width of the lowest quantum
state, then N should be zero. When delta z is equal to the spatial;
width of the lowest quantum state, then N should increase sharply.
Further increase in delta z should not increase N as long as delta z
is smaller than the spatial width of the second quantum state. Then
N should again increase stepwise." In contrast to these predictions,
some transmission was observed at a slit width of an order of
magnitude less than that of the predicted transmission threshold.
Also, no stepwise transmission between quantum states was observed.
Nesvizhevsky et al. [1] erred by not considering the vertical de
Broglie wavelength in the cutoff for transmission.
Moreover, at sufficiently large slit width delta z,
Nesvizhevsky et al. [1] predict that the classical dependence N
proportional to delta z should be approached. Their data shows that
their erred classical prediction actually coincides with the data at
the n=3 state‹a far cry from the point at which the quantum and
classical results are expected to coincide based on the
one-dimensional-well problem of quantum mechanics. (The two are not
to converge until the quantum number n becomes very large and
approaches infinity [4].) Their results further point to the
tendency to misinterpret data in order to support quantum theory when
in fact the data disproves it.

Footnote 1. How, the particle "knows" that the field extends beyond
the reflecting barrier" is not addressed. Nor is the internal
inconsistency that the Standard Model attributes the force of gravity
to exchange of gravitons and not to a classical field. Ironically,
even though gravity is a ubiquitous force, gravitons have never been
observed after 70 years of searching. In addition, quantum
electrodynamics requires that the vacuum is filled with an infinite
number of virtual particles which occupy quantum states. The
consequences such as the prediction of an infinite cosmological
constant and the failure of quantum mechanics to provide a successful
quantum gravitational theory are also not addressed. See Mills
article [3].


1. V. V. Nesvizhevsky, H. G. Borner, A. K. Petukhov, H. Abele, S.
Baebler, F. J. Rueb, T. Stoferele, A. Westphal, A. M. Gagarski, G. A.
Petrov, A. V. Strelkov, "Quantum states of neutron's in the Earth's
gravitational field", Nature, Vol. 415, (2002), pp. 297-299.
2. McQuarrie, D. A., Quantum Chemistry, University Science Books,
Mill Valley, CA, (1983), pp 77-101.
3. R. Mills, "The Nature of Free Electrons in Superfluid Helium--a
Test of Quantum Mechanics and a Basis to Review its Foundations and
Make a Comparison to Classical Theory", Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol.
26, No. 10, (2001), pp. 1059-1096.
4. Beiser, A., Concepts of Modern Physics, Fourth Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, (1987),. pp. 147-149.




Randy Mills

--
Jim
2002-02-11 16:59:54 UTC
Permalink
I've given it a try. Can anyone make the dimensions come out to length for
the expression below? If so, could you post it broken down to small, simple
steps so it will be very obvious how this works out to a length dimension?


jd


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Randell L. Mills" <***@p.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: HSG: One Dimension Gravity Well<Another Flawed Interpretation


for widths greater than 13 um which is equal to 1/2(h/m sub
n)^(-2/3)(g)^(-1/3), the height is greater that the de Broglie
wavelength corresponding to the scattering of the falling neutron
from the mirror to the absorber; thus, a step in the transmission of
failing neutrons occurs at 13 um (See below.)
Dr. Randell L. Mills
2002-02-12 23:26:31 UTC
Permalink
-2/3 is a typo; it should be 2/3. see Eq. 8 of my post of 2/8

Randy Mills
Post by Jim
I've given it a try. Can anyone make the dimensions come out to length for
the expression below? If so, could you post it broken down to small, simple
steps so it will be very obvious how this works out to a length dimension?
jd
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: HSG: One Dimension Gravity Well<Another Flawed Interpretation
for widths greater than 13 um which is equal to 1/2(h/m sub
n)^(-2/3)(g)^(-1/3), the height is greater that the de Broglie
wavelength corresponding to the scattering of the falling neutron
from the mirror to the absorber; thus, a step in the transmission of
failing neutrons occurs at 13 um (See below.)
peter zimmerman
2002-02-07 21:57:47 UTC
Permalink
It's even cuter with the original art work, not reproduced at the site you
found. I was sure that somebody could find a copy somewhere on the Web...

/pz
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Question about 'Fractional Quantum States'
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:19:17 -0700
pz> My comment is to be found, although more eloquently stated than I could, in
pz> the doggerel poem "The Theory that Jack Built" in the book "A Space Child's
pz> Mother Goose." Dr. Mills has suddenly revised everything he has been saying
pz> about the structure of 'hydrinos'.
I had to look that one up. Google turned up a number of references
including http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/jack.txt
Very cute poem.
--Lynn
woogie_the_cat
2002-02-08 00:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Dr. Mills had previously posted:

[Begin Quote]

We have posted the revised version of R. L. Mills, P. Ray, "
High Resolution Spectroscopic Observation of the Bound-Free
Hyperfine Levels of a Novel Hydride Ion Corresponding to a
Fractional Rydberg State of Atomic Hydrogen", Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy, in press at our web page www.blacklightpower.com which
incorporates suggestions by the referees. We have also included
air and nitrogen spectra run under the same pressure and flow
rate conditions as our rt-plasmas that were recorded identically.
It should be apparent to any competent spectroscopist acting in a
professional manner that the inverse Rydberg series of lines is
not nitrogen or air species.

This point is also evident in the spectra by Zare [C. O. Laux,
R. J. Gessman, C. H. Kruger, "Measurements and modeling of the
absolute spectral emission of air plasmas between 185 and 800 nm",
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer",
(2001), submitted.; C. O. Laux, C. H. Kruger, R. N. Zare,
"Diagnostics of atmospheric pressure air plasmas",
www-krg.stanford.edu/kruger.html].

Furthermore, the inverse Rydberg series of peaks are SPLIT
and the splitting matches the spin and orbital-nuclear
splitting predicted by CQM and given previously in Table 2.3
of Mills [R. Mills, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum
Mechanics, November 1995 Edition, p. 98]. This is the smoking
gun for the assignment to lower-energy hydride ion since MOLECULAR
ROTATIONAL PEAKS AT NATURAL ABUNDANCE CAN NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE
OBSERVED SERIES OF SPLIT PEAKS, NOR CAN ANY KNOWN MOLECULE BASED ON
LINEWIDTH CONSIDERATIONS AND THEIR KNOWN SPECTRA.
From the standard spectra, it is also easily discerned that the
H-(1/2) hydride ion peak reported previously (R. Mills,
"Spectroscopic Identification of a Novel Catalytic Reaction of
Atomic Hydrogen and the Hydride Ion Product", Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy, Vol. 26, No. 10, (2001), pp. 1041-1058) at 407 nm is
not due to nitrogen.

[End Quote]

Hello again everyone.

I vowed that I would stay away from HSG, but I still disagree with
Dr. Mills and Dr. Ray, and I still do not feel that they have proved
that the hyperfine spectrum could not be due to molecular nitrogen.

In their latest paper, they show spectra that they attribute to the
bound-free hydrino hydride hyperfine spectra. They now include C->B
spectra of N2 in the same wavelength region. My point from the
beginning was that the hyperfine spectrum was uncomfortably close in
position and shape to the v'=0 -> v"=3 band of the C->B system of
molecular nitrogen. The point is now more obvious, with both spectra
available in the same format (we are no longer comparing one of Mills
and Ray's spectra with a photographic plate.) Paul Scott has kindly
manipulated two of the Figures from the paper above to have the same
wavelength scale. He has shifted the wavelength scale of the N2
spectrum slightly, to bring the two band-head type features into
register. There is no discussion of any calibration of the N2
spectra, so I believe that this is fair. The agreement of the
frequencies in the two spectra is obvious. What is different in the
two spectra is the apparent resolution and the intensities of the
features.

In the pure N2 spectrum, in the short-wavelength region, you see
groups of lines, three lines per group. These are the three R-branch
transitions from the three sublevels of the triplet-pi states of
N2 (C and B). Note that each clump of lines is SPLIT. In the
RbNO3/H2 spectrum, these clumps appear to be blended together. This
is simply because the resolution in the RbNO3/H2 spectrum is not as
good as in the N2 spectrum.

Why might the resolution be poorer? Assuming that the slit widths on
the spectrometer were the same in both experiments then there may be
some additional broadening in the RbNO3/H2 experiment, compared with
the N2 experiment. [btw is the resolution for the high resolution
0.06 Angstrom with slit widths of 20 microns? I am left with the
impression from the JY website that this spectrometer is quoted as
having 0.06 Angstrom with 6 micron slits.]

A likely candidate for increased broadening is Stark Broadening. In
their paper, Mills and Ray say that Stark Broadening would come from
the presence of an electric field due to the filament. This is not
what is meant by Stark Broadening in plasma spectroscopy - admittedly
not my expertise. From what I have read, Stark broadening is the
inhomogeneous broadening of spectral lines in a plasma from the
presence of free electrons and ions. It is the electric field due to
these species that is producing the Stark Broadening. What evidence
is there for this? Most of the other lines in the RbNO3/H2
experiment are also broadened considerably, compared with the
identical spectra obtained in a microwave discharge. Indeed, the
broadening of the Balmer lines is significantly larger in the
RbNO3/H2 experiment, compared with the identical lines in a microwave
discharge of hydrogen. cf. Fig. 6. Here the FWHM appears to be
something like a bit over 1 Angstrom. The widths of the lines in the
short-wavelength region of the "hyperfine" spectrum are about 2
Angstrom. The breadth of the triplet of lines in the N2 features are
about 1.4 Angstrom, or so. A width of 2 Angstrom is not unreasonable
for doing a convolution of a clump with width 1.4 Angstrom with a >1
Angstrom inhomogeneous linewidth.

I am pretty sure that the "hyperfine" spectrum is due to N2. The
interesting thing with this spectrum is the difference in intensities
between the N2 microwave discharge and the RbNO3/H2 experiment. The
RbNO3/H2 spectrum is weaker (relatively) in the bandhead region,
close to 406 nm, and stronger at shorter wavelength. The features
close to 406 nm are from rotational states of the N2 with small
rotational quantum numbers. (In the classical picture, spinning
slower) while the features at shorter wavelength are from N2 with
high rotational quantum numbers (spinning faster). This is what is
referred to as an inverted distribution. You see this frequently in
chemical physics experiments. One example that was studied
extensively in my research group at U. C. Berkeley was in the
photodissociation of formaldehyde. When formaldehyde (H2CO) breaks
up into H2 + CO, the CO gets a kick as the two molecules are
separating. The result is that the CO comes off highly rotationally
excited. Another possibility is that the N2 (C) is being formed
through some resonant process, and only a few rotational quantum
states of the C state are produced. These may partially relax
through collision giving a broader distribution of excited rotational
states. This has been seen in collisions of metastable N2 molecules
with other gas atoms:
Ch. Ottinger and G. Shen, "Molecular beam study of gateway-coupling
N2 (C/a') and chemical quenching of the metastable N2(a') state"
J. Chem. Phys. v. 108, p. 1997 (1998).
In this paper, they produced N2 (C, v'=0, J=14) selectively in
collisions with other gases.

Here again is a summary of what I am saying:

(1) The N2 spectrum has very good agreement with the spectrum from
the RbNO3/H2 experiment.

(2) The RbNO3/H2 spectrum is considerably broadened, relative to the
N2 microwave discharge spectrum. This broadening is seen in
other transitions in the RbNO3/H2 experiment, and the observed
broadening of the N2 spectrum is consistent with this.

(3) The broadening mechanism may be Stark Broadening
[ I read about this in: H. R. Griem, "Plasma Spectroscopy"
(McGraw-Hill, New York) 1964. ]

(4) The N2 features at short wavelength ARE SPLIT, and this has
nothing to do with isotopic splitting. It is observable in the
spectrum of the microwave discharge. It arises from the three
pi components of the triplet-pi states of N2 C and B.
[btw. Any isotopic bands of N2 would also have an additional
shift due to the change in the vibrational reduced mass, as
well. These shifts go something like:

sqrt(mu1/mu2) * vib. freq.

For N2 C->B, this shift would be on the order of 100 cm-1 to
the blue for the band origins - much larger than any rotational
splitting.]

(5) The rotational state distribution looks to be different in the
two experiments, which would account for the differences in
intensities of the individual features in the N2 microwave
spectrum, compared with the RbNO3/H2 experiment.


***To get a complete rotational state distribution, it would be
nice to see the continuation of the spectrum to shorter
wavelength - below 400 nm.***

Lastly, I don't remember claiming that the 407 nm peak was
from N2. Rather, I believe that I asked whether it could be a H2
transition. There is a known, strong transition of H2 here.
I still do not know what reference was used to make the assignments
of the H2-m transitions in the visible, and I would still like to
know what ref. was used, as I am interested in the spectroscopy of
H2.


Sincerely,


Charles D. Pibel
Jim
2002-02-09 04:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Can HSG members get a copy of the superimposed charts?

Thanks,

jd

[ Go to: Loading Image...
- P.Scott]

----- Original Message -----
From: "woogie_the_cat" <***@a.yahoo.invalid>
To: <hydrino-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: HSG: Re: Smoking Gun

[original post deleted -- redundant information -- P.Scott]
georgecorwin
2002-02-08 02:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Found this post which I find interesting:

"Needless to say the minimum distance between the two electrons in a
500MeV on 500MeV collision was a lot closer than a Bohr radius, so if
the electrons had been extended bodies at that distance, the fact
would have been seen by 1965. As a result of that experiment, I have to believe that the Mills assertion that a free electron is a disk with a fairly large radius is simply experimentally wrong."

Has anyone considered the possibility that electrons might act as
solitons, essentially standing electron waves with a finite boundary,
but the capability of interpenetrating each other without destructive
collision?
G***@c.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:55:59 UTC
Permalink
"Has anyone considered the possibility that electrons might act as
solitons, essentially standing electron waves with a finite boundary,
but the capability of interpenetrating each other without destructive
collision?"<< From: ***@w.yahoo.invalid (georgecorwin)

This is part of an intriguing possiblility. It would seem that within
Maxwell's equations up to three electrons could interpenetrate, if in phase,
were of equal energy, and with directions orthogonal to one another.
Comments?

Greg Grieco
Renewable Resources SG
Ann Arbor, MI
John A. Kassebaum
2002-02-08 17:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@c.yahoo.invalid
"Has anyone considered the possibility that electrons might act as
solitons, essentially standing electron waves with a finite boundary,
but the capability of interpenetrating each other without destructive
This is part of an intriguing possiblility. It would seem that within
Maxwell's equations up to three electrons could interpenetrate, if in phase,
were of equal energy, and with directions orthogonal to one another.
Comments?
I'm not sure I have anything to say about solitons, but I have two connections
you might find interesting: 1) Check out the sections on nucleasr particles
(baryons) in Mills' book - especially the part of quark/gluon pairs. The three
orthogonal charged 'quarks' are similar to your description above. 2) Check
out Carver Mead's "Collective Electrodynamics" which describes the coherent
behavior of collections of charges from atomic to macroscopic scales.

-John
--
John A. Kassebaum
Project Engineer, DVD/Video Group
OpenGlobe, Inc. (An Escient Technologies Affiliate)
6325 Digital Way
Indianapolis, IN 46278
USA
(317) 616-6519 Direct Phone & Fax
(317) 616-6789 Main
mailto:***@O...
G***@c.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:56:00 UTC
Permalink
<< I'm not sure I have anything to say about solitons, but I have two connections you might find interesting: 1) Check out the sections on nucleasr particles (baryons) in Mills' book - especially the part of quark/gluon pairs. The three orthogonal charged 'quarks' are similar to your description above. 2) Check out Carver Mead's "Collective Electrodynamics" which describes the coherent behavior of collections of charges from atomic to macroscopic scales. >>

Thanks, John, will do. ----Greg
TERRY OLLER
2002-02-11 15:33:35 UTC
Permalink
news.telegraph.co.uk - Mysterious force holds back NASA probe in deep space

OK so what is it, if anything ? Terry

Mysterious force holds back Nasa probe in deep space
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 10/02/2002)


A SPACE probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of physics.

Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature.


Click to enlarge
Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: "We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.

"If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation," said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California.

Pioneer 10 was launched by Nasa on March 2 1972, and with Pioneer 11, its twin, revolutionised astronomy with detailed images of Jupiter and Saturn. In June 1983, Pioneer 10 passed Pluto, the most distant planet in our solar system.

Both probes are now travelling at 27,000mph towards stars that they will encounter several million years from now. Scientists are continuing to monitor signals from Pioneer 10, which is more than seven billion miles from Earth.

Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being changed by about 6 mph per century - a barely-perceptible effect about 10 billion times weaker than gravity.

Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket motors aboard the probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power plants might be responsible. Both have now been ruled out. The team says no current theories explain why the force stays constant: all the most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation, decrease rapidly withdistance.

The bizarre behaviour has also eliminated the possibility that the two probes are being affected by the gravitational pull of unknown planets beyond the solar system.

Assertions by some scientists that the force is due to a quirk in the Pioneer probes have also been discounted by the discovery that the effect seems to be affecting Galileo and Ulysses, two other space probes still in the solar system. Data from these two probes suggests the force is ofthe same strength as that found for the Pioneers.

Dr Duncan Steel, a space scientist at Salford University, says even such a weak force could have huge effects on a cosmic scale. "It mightalter the number of comets that come towards us over millions of years, which would have consequences for life on Earth. It also raises the question of whether we know enough about the law of gravity."

Until 1988, Pioneer 10 was the most remote object made by man -a distinction now held by Voyager 1. Should Pioneer 10 make contact with alien life, it carries a gold-plated aluminium plaque on which the figures of a man and woman are shown to scale, along with a map showing its origin that Nasa calls "the cosmic equivalent of a message in a bottle".

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002
Robin van Spaandonk
2002-02-12 01:13:03 UTC
Permalink
In reply to TERRY OLLER's message of Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:33:35 -0500:
Hi,
Post by TERRY OLLER
news.telegraph.co.uk - Mysterious force holds back NASA probe in deep space
OK so what is it, if anything ? Terry
[snip]
How about friction with dust left over from the formation of the solar
system? If the density were fairly constant, then so would the slowing
force be.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

....Put the "bottom line" at the top!
peter zimmerman
2002-02-11 22:18:50 UTC
Permalink
The NIST website gives a definition of Stark Broadening at the following
URL:

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/AtSpec/node38.html

NIST makes clear that Stark broadening arises from the electric fields of
charged perturbers within the plasma, not from an imposed electric field
between, for example, the axis of a cylindrical plasma and the cylindrical
boundary of the plasma.

References to the literature are given at the NIST site.

A radial electric field imposed on a plasma might (if the plasma were not so
conductive as to cancel the field) cause Stark Effect splitting of
appropriate levels.

/pz
Subject: HSG: Re: N2 and "Hydrino Hyperfine" Spectra
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:07:24 -0400
Stark Broadening
Dr. Pibel is completely wrong on the Stark broadening issue. Dr.
Ray will answer this issue in a week or so. We are quite busy at the
moment.
Randy Mills
D***@a.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:56:13 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 2/15/2002 9:06:52 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Post by shanewilsonearth
My comment: I hope that the `string-theorists' aren't being funded
by taxpayers, because due to Gauss's law electrons can't be extended
objects.
So you're saying Mills' "theory" violates Gauss' Law?
D***@a.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:56:13 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 2/15/2002 9:06:52 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Post by shanewilsonearth
My comment: I hope that the `string-theorists' aren't being funded
by taxpayers, because due to Gauss's law electrons can't be extended
objects.
Actually, I suppose that the taxpayers will be doing quite a bit of funding
of strings over the next decade. There will be several experimental and
observational tests of some predictions of string theory over the next decade
at particle accelerators, a cosmic ray/particle observatory in Argentina, and
at gravity wave detectors such as LIGO. This has come as a surprise since
over the years people have mistakenly thought that particle accelerators the
size of the solar system would be needed to test string theory. It turned out
this isn't so, so there will be tests of certain aspects of the theory soon.
Paul A. Scott
2004-10-16 00:56:13 UTC
Permalink
This has come as a surprise since over the years people
have mistakenly thought that particle accelerators the
size of the solar system would be needed to test string
theory. It turned out this isn't so, so there will be
tests of certain aspects of the theory soon.
This has not been shown; it is theory based on theory. The tests
themselves will demonstrate just how big an accelerator is required
to run experiments that support string theory. If the tests turn up nothing,
then they'll ask for yet a bigger accelerator, and then a bigger one, and ...

Paul A. Scott
D***@a.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:56:14 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 2/15/2002 7:35:47 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Post by Paul A. Scott
This has not been shown; it is theory based on theory
Something else I would point out is that in the early investigations of
non-point like possibilities, models similar to Mills idea of extended
objects were thought about. I say models because Mills has no theory,
although I would concede he has a "model" of what fundamental particles are.
Interested parties can see pages 59-60 of Green, Schwarz, and Witten for a
discussion of the possibilities of elementary particles like an electron
being a membrane or other higher dimensional object, all such objects
violate Weyl invariance except the case of 1 dimension, the string.

[Could you please briefly explain Weyl invariance to the list? --LS]
smenton
2002-02-18 02:40:03 UTC
Permalink
DMc74965 wrote:

... in the early investigations of
non-point like possibilities, models similar to Mills idea of extended
objects were thought about. I say models because Mills has no theory,
although I would concede he has a "model" of what fundamental
particles are...

The semantics here are just silly. So what are the prerequisites to a
'theory'? Taxpayer funded research grants and/or mathematical
gymnastics that lead to nowhere (i.e., speculative new dimensions that
exist only to support the math)?

[Mills' critics have long taken him to task for what appear to be gaping holes in his math. The primary one is the lack of a nuclear potential term in Equation 1.1 (Laplace Equation). Since all subsequent calculations rely on this equation, critics call the entire structure of CQM into question. Granted, the value of rn is later computed using the nuclear charge Z. But the sequence of argument does not make the deduction obvious. --LS]

This attitude epitomizes Mills'
often repeated observation that current 'theory' has it backwards.
Math is a tool: it does not determine reality. If 'elegant' math
constitutes a theory even though it depends on unobserved,
undetectable physical manifestations, while a 'model' that makes
measurable predictions about the real world doesn't qualify, we are
better off with a 'model'. Mills' 'model' is confirmed by spectral
emissions, novel chemical compounds and significant energy releases,
all of which were PREDICTED by the 'model'. String 'theory' should be
so successful.

The extensive mathematical proofs presented by Mills to support his
'model' include some innovative and possibly brilliant applications.
If the experimental results hold up, the mathematics of the 'model'
will suddenly seem much more 'elegant' and 'beautiful' and those
who previously 'thought about extended non-point like possibilities',
but abandoned the "model" will have ample reason to revisit their
prior efforts.

I think all of HSG is willing to consider thoughful and honest
criticism of CQM. However, obtaining clarification and elucidation
from Mills and those with a firm grasp of CQM is the most important
thing that can be accomplished here. It is obvious that Randy is
losing patience with those who refuse to take his 'model' seriously.
I think the comment quoted above hinders meaningful debate and I would
hope the moderators could spare us from the petty comments of those
who are not here to learn, but, for whatever reason, feel compelled
to take potshots.

[A new theory must stand up to harsh scrutiny. Getting all critiques out into the open requires tolerating an occasional "potshot". The end result is to empower Mills to revise CQM in an inexpensive manner. --LS]

Steve Menton

D***@a.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:56:15 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 2/15/2002 7:37:34 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Post by Peter Zimmerman
As the article makes clear, most of us take string theory with a
grain of salt. But it is mathematically pretty.
I just have a few comments on this issue. I certainly agree that string
theory should be taken with a grain of salt, there is no experimental
evidence for it yet. Its prediction that there are higher dimensions is also
a radical one, and as Carl Sagan used to say "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence". However the fact remains that it is mathematically
consistent and is the only game in town that can incorporate all the known
forces. And it is turning out that it does make predictions that can be
tested at much lower energies than previously thought. I mention a few of
these below.

I haven't read the article you mention, so cannot comment on it directly but
if the author believes it cannot be falsified by any conceivable experiment
the author isn't truly up to speed on the issue.

The Auger experiment in Argentina: If higher dimensions exist, the strength
of gravity on small scales will vary from inverse square, this will allow the
production of mini-black holes at lower energies than ever thought before.
The Auger experiment will be searching for these black holes in the
atmosphere which would be produced by cosmic rays arriving at the earth. The
black holes would evaporate quickly so the detection would be indirect by
searching for the decay particles that would result. (of course that is not
all the Auger experiment will be doing). I'm not studying these areas, so I
just have to go by what I've read in various magazines and websites. But
apparently this effect would be a definitive test for string theory vs. the
standard model.

Along the same lines, string theory predicts that these mini-black holes
could be produced in particle accelerators at energies that will soon be
accessible. I've read that plans to perform such a test are underway at CERN.

Gravity waves: As shown by Csaba Csaki, Joshua Erlich, and Christophe
Grojean, if non-compactified higher dimensions exist, gravity waves from
supernova events will arrive at earth before the corresponding light rays
will, providing an experimental test of this aspect of string theory. Of
course this test is not completely definitive, if the proposed effect is not
detected, you could still say that although non-compactified higher
dimensions (so-called p-branes) don't exist, old fashioned string theory
wouldn't be disproved. But it at least narrows the field, and it provides a
conceivable experiment that can be done in the near future.

I attended a seminar about a month ago about Fermilab. I have to admit I was
drifting off so wasn't paying attention too much, but my interest was peaked
when the speaker started discussing experimental tests that can be done soon
(unrelated to the black hole thing) that will allow another test of
predictions resulting from higher dimensions.

Supersymmetry: No supersymmetry, no string theory. Supersymmetry does not
"prove" string theory, but it does provide a means of falsifying it because
all string theories with fermions require supersymmetry. I am not involved
with experimental particle physics so my knowledge of whats going on there is
at the level of interested observer, but it is my understanding that in the
next decade the existence of supersymmetry can be demonstrated, if it is
real. In fact I read a recent article in the NY Times where the search for
supersymmetry is already underway, with negative results so far. As I said,
supersymmetry is crucial for string theory, so if no evidence of
supersymmetry is found string theory cannot be correct.

Once again, you could of course have supersymmetry without strings. So like
some of the other ideas, by itself its not a definitive test. I would say,
however, that if all of these experimental/observational tests turn out to
agree with string theory, then the position of string theory will be greatly
strengthened over the next decade. I would also say that if string theory
fails all of these tests, most reaonable people will agree it needs to be
abandoned as a "final theory", although my suspicion is it would continue to
live on in mathematical circles.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
D***@a.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:56:15 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 2/15/2002 9:19:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Post by D***@a.yahoo.invalid
[Could you please briefly explain Weyl invariance to the list? --LS]
Those who know about special relativity know a particle sweeps out a
"world-line" in space time. If you plot space versus time, this is just a
graph of the particles movements in space and time.

If you are going to have elementary particles, such as electrons, described
by higher dimensional objects such as strings, membranes, disks, or balls
with a volume etc., you can no longer have simply a world line. The object
will sweep out a higher dimensional path in spacetime. In the case considered
above, a point particle is of dimension 0. It sweeps out a line, which is
dimension 1.

An n-dimensional object will sweep out an n+1 dimensional spacetime volume.
For string theory, a string is n=1 so a string sweeps out a two dimensional
so-called "world sheet". Any higher dimensional object would sweep out a
corresponding path in spacetime. I'll call that a world volume. The
dimensions of the world path set the minimum dimensions of spacetime, since
obviously it must fit inside a space with greater dimensions than that which
it sweeps out. If D is the dimensions of spacetime, we must have D >= n + 1.

As a metric describes the geometry of spacetime, a metric is used to describe
the geometry of the world sheet (or world volume for a higher dimensional
object).

Metrics can be rescaled. Such a rescaling is called a "Weyl scaling".

In physics, we are most interested in quantities that don't change when you
change coordinates etc. etc. One quantity of major interest in particle
physics and string theory is the "action". Weyl invariance basically means
that a Weyl rescaling of the metric leaves the action invariant. The only
dimension that allows this for anything other than a point particle is n=1,
which is a string.

The "action", labeled S, is the time integral of the lagrangian. The
lagrangian is a quantity that involves energy.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
D***@a.yahoo.invalid
2004-10-16 00:56:16 UTC
Permalink
I have posted a PDF file about the possibility of creating "mini-black holes"
in particle accelerators. That article is highly technical, here is a
"layman's" version printed in Discover magazine:

In five years physicists will switch on the Large Hadron Collider in
Switzerland and begin smashing protons with an energy not seen since a
trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. The goal is to study the menagerie
of particles that spew from the wreckage. But two physicists think black
holes might also be produced.

Steven Giddings, from the University of California at Santa Barbara, and
Scott Thomas, from Stanford, base their prediction on a speculative notion
that space contains dimensions beyond the familiar three. These extra
dimensions could extend a few thousandths of an inch-huge by subatomic
standards-but would remain imperceptible under normal conditions. In a
powerful particle accelerator, the additional dimensions could make
themselves known by increasing the gravitational attraction between two
colliding particles. Gravity grows stronger as two masses move closer
together. In three dimensions, halving the distance quadruples the
attraction. But for a particle existing in nine dimensions, halving the
distance increases the gravitational force by a factor of 256. "If you bring
two particles close enough together, the gravity could form a black hole,"
Giddings says.

He isn't worried: Cosmic rays should do the same thing naturally. "Also,
black holes evaporate, and the ones we might make should disappear rapidly,"
in 10-27 seconds, he says. In fact, they could be detected only by the
subatomic particles they'd release as they vanished. Finding such showers
would be a double breakthrough. It would support the unified physics theories
that predict extra dimensions, and it would allow scientists to study
micro-black holes. A little blackness might shine a lot of light on the way
our universe operates.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Loading...