Back when I wrote about the whole negative energy rubbish, a reader wrote to me, and asked me to write something about hydrinos.
For those who are lucky enough not to know about them, hydrinos are part of another free energy scam. In this case, a medical doctor named Randell Mills claims to have discovered that hydrogen atoms can have multiple states beyond the typical, familiar ground state of hydrogen. Under the right conditions, so claims Dr. Mills, the electron shell around a hydrogen atom will compact into a tighter orbit, releasing a burst of energy in the process. And, in fact, it’s (supposedly) really, really easy to make hydrogen turn into hydrinos – if you let a bunch of hydrogen atoms bump in to a bunch of Argon atoms, then presto! some of the hydrogen will shrink into hydrino form, and give you a bunch of energy.
Wonderful, right? Just let a bunch of gas bounce around in a balloon, and out comes energy!
Oh, but it’s better than that. There are multiple hydrino forms: you can just keep compressing and compressing the hydrogen atom, pushing out more and more energy each time. The more you compress it, the more energy you get – and you don’t really need to compress it. You just bump it up against another atom, and poof! energy.
To explain all of this, Dr. Mills further claims to have invented a new
form of quantum mechanics, called “grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics” (CQM for short) which provides the unification between relativity and quantum mechanics that people have been looking for. And, even better, CQM is fully deterministic – all of that ugly probabilistic stuff from quantum mechanics goes away!
The problem is, it doesn’t work. None of it.
What makes hydrinos interesting as a piece of crankery is that there’s a lot more depth to it than to most crap. Dr. Mills hasn’t just handwaved that these hydrino things exist – he’s got a very elaborate detailed theory – with a lot of non-trivial math – to back it up. Alas, the math is garbage, but it’s garbage-ness isn’t obvious. To see the problems, we’ll need to get deeper into math than we usually do.
Let’s start with a couple of examples of the claims about hydrinos, and the kind of favorable clueless press they’ve received.
Here is an example of how hydrino supporters explain them:
In 1986 Randell Mills MD developed a theory that hydrogen atoms could shrink, and release lots of energy in the process. He called the resultant entity a “Hydrino” (little Hydrogen), and started a company called Blacklight Power, Inc. to commercialize his process. He published his theory in a book he wrote, which is available in PDF format on his website. Unfortunately, the book contains so much mathematics that many people won’t bother with it. On this page I will try to present the energy related aspect of his theory in language that I hope will be accessible to many.
According to Dr. Mills, when a hydrogen atom collides with certain other atoms or ions, it can sometimes transfer a quantity of energy to the other atom, and shrink at the same time, becoming a Hydrino in the process. The atom that it collided with is called the “catalyst”, because it helps the Hydrino shrink. Once a Hydrino has formed, it can shrink even further through collisions with other catalyst atoms. Each collision potentially resulting in another shrinkage.
Each successive level of shrinkage releases even more energy than the previous level. In other words, the smaller the Hydrino gets, the more energy it releases each time it shrinks another level.
To get an idea of the amounts of energy involved, I now need to introduce the concept of the “electron volt” (eV). An eV is the amount of energy that a single electron gains when it passes through a voltage drop of one volt. Since a volt isn’t much (a “dry cell” is about 1.5 volts), and the electric charge on an electron is utterly minuscule, an eV is a very tiny amount of energy. Nevertheless, it is a very representative measure of the energy involved in chemical reactions. e.g. when Hydrogen and Oxygen combine to form a water molecule, about 2.5 eV of energy is released per water molecule formed.
When Hydrogen shrinks to form a second level Hydrino (Hydrogen itself is considered to be the first level Hydrino), about 41 eV of energy is released. This is already about 16 times more than when Hydrogen and Oxygen combine to form water. And it gets better from there. If that newly formed Hydrino collides with another catalyst atom, and shrinks again, to the third level, then an additional 68 eV is released. This can go on for quite a way, and the amount gets bigger each time. Here is a table of some level numbers, and the energy released in dropping to that level from the previous level, IOW when you go from e.g. level 4 to level 5, 122 eV is released. (BTW larger level numbers represent smaller Hydrinos).
And some of the press:
- IEEE Spectrum, 1/2009.
- Press release from 2009, claiming commercialization within 1 year to 18 months.
- Slashdot story from 2005, claiming to be months away from commercialization
- Village Voice, 1999, complete with a claim to commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year.
Notice a pattern?
The short version of the problem with hydrinos is really, really simple.
The most fundamental fact of nature that we’ve observed is that everything tends to move towards its lowest energy state. The whole theory of hydrinos basically says that that’s not true: everything except hydrogen tends to move towards its lowest energy state, but hydrogen doesn’t. It’s got a dozen or so lower energy states, but none of the abundant quantities of hydrogen on earth are ever observed in any of those states unless they’re manipulated by Mills magical machine.
The whole basis of hydrino theory is Mills CQM. CQM is rubbish – but it’s impressive looking rubbish. I’m not going to go deep into detail; you can see a detailed explanation of the problems here; I’ll run through a short version.
To start, how is Mills claiming that hydrinos work? In CQM, he posits the existence of electron shell levels closer to the nucleus than the ground state of hydrogen. Based on his calculations, he comes up with an energy figure for the difference between the ground state and the hydrino state. Then he finds other substances that have the property that boosting one electron into a higher energy state would cost the same amount of energy. When a hydrogen atom collides with an atom that has a matching electron transition, the hydrogen can get bumped into the hydrino state, while kicking an electron into a higher orbital. That electron will supposedly, in due time, fall back to its original level, releasing the energy differential as a photon.
On this level, it sort-of looks correct. It doesn’t violate conservation of energy: the collision between the two atoms doesn’t produce anything magical. It’s just a simple transfer of energy. That much is fine.
It’s when you get into the details that it gets seriously fudgy.
Right from the start, if you know what you’re doing, CQM goes off the rails. For example, CQM claims that you can describe the dynamics of an electron in terms of a classical wave charge-density function equation. Mills actually gives that function, and asserts that it respects Lorentz invariance. That’s crucial – Lorentz invariance is critical for relativity: it’s the fundamental mathematical symmetry that’s the basis of relativity. But his equation doesn’t actually respect Lorentz invariance. Or, rather, it does – but only if the electron is moving at the speed of light. Which it can’t do.
Mills goes on to describe the supposed physics of hydrinos. If you work through his model, the only state that is consistent with both his equations, and his claim that the electrons orbit in a spherical shell above the atom – well, if you do that, you’ll find that according to his own equations, there is only one possible state for a hydrogen atom – the conventional ground state.
It goes on in that vein for quite a while. He’s got an elaborate system, with an elaborate mathematical framework… but none of the math actually says what he says it says. The Lorentz invariance example that I cited above – that’s typical. Print an equation, say that it says X, even though the equation doesn’t say anything like X.
But we can go a bit further. The fundamental state of atoms is something that we understand pretty well, because we’ve got so many observations, and so much math describing it. And the thing is, that math is pretty damned convincing. That doesn’t mean that it’s correct, but it does mean that any theory that wants to replace it must be able to describe everything that we’ve observed at least as well as the current theory.
Why do atoms have the shape that they do? Why are the size that they are? It’s not a super easy thing to understand, because electrons aren’t really particles. They’re something strange. We don’t often think about that, but it’s true. They’re deeply bizarre things. They’re not really particles. Under many conditions, they behave more like waves than like particles. And that’s true of the atom.
The reason that atoms are the size that they are is because the electron “orbitals” have sizes and shapes that are determined by resonant frequencies of the wave-like aspects of electrons. What Mills is suggesting is that there are a range of never-before observed resonant frequencies of electrons. But the math that he uses to support that claim just doesn’t work.
Now, I’ll be honest here. I’m not nearly enough of a physics whiz to be competent to judge the accuracy of his purported quantum mechanical system. But I’m still pretty darn confident that he’s full of crap. Why?
I’m from New Jersey – pretty much right up the road from where his lab is. Going to college right up the road from him, I’ve been hearing about his for a long time. He’s been running this company for quite a while – going on two decades. And all that time, the company has been constantly issuing press releases promising that it’s just a year away from being commercialized! It’s always one step away. But never, never, has he released enough information to let someone truly independent verify or reproduce his results. And he’s been very deceptive about that: he’s made various claims about independent verification on several occasions.
For example, he once cited that his work had been verified by a researcher at Harvard. In fact, he’d had one of his associates rent a piece of equipment at Harvard, and use it for a test. So yes, it was tested by a researcher – if you count his associate as a legitimate researcher. And it was tested at Harvard. But the claim that it was tested by a researcher at Harvard is clearly meant to imply that it was tested by a Harvard professor, when it wasn’t.
For something around 20 years, he’s been making promises, giving very tightly controlled demos, refusing to give any real details, refusing to actually explain how to reproduce his “results”, and promising that it’s just one year away from being commercialized!
And yet… hydrogen is the most common substance in the universe. If it really had a lower energy state that what we call it’s ground state, and that lower energy state was really as miraculous as he claims – why wouldn’t we see it? Why hasn’t it ever been observed? Substances like Argon are rare – but they’re not that rare. Argon has been exposed to hydrogen under laboratory conditions plenty of times – and yet, nothing anamalous has even been observed. All of the supposed hydrino catalysts have been observed so often under so many conditions – and yet, no anamolous energy has even been noticed before. But according to Mills, we should be seeing tons of it.
And that’s not all. Mills also claims that you can create all sorts of compounds with hydrinos – and naturally, every single one of those compounds is positively miraculous! Bonded with silicon, you get better semiconductors! Substitute hydrinos for regular hydrogen in a battery electrolyte, and you get a miracle battery! Use it in rocket fuel instead of common hydrogen, and you get a ten-fold improvement in the performance of a rocket! Make a laser from it, and you can create higher-density data storage and communication systems. Everything that hydrinos touch is amazing
But… not one of these miraculous substances has ever been observed before. We work with silicon all the time – but we’ve never seen the magic silicon hydrino compound. And he’s never been willing to actually show anyone any of these miracle substances.
He claims that he doesn’t show it because he’s protecting his intellectual property. But that’s silly. If hydrinos existed, then just telling us that these compounds exist and have interesting properties should be enough for other labs to go ahead and experiment with producing them. But no one has. Whether he shows the supposed miracle compounds or not doesn’t change anyone else’s ability to produce those. Even if he’s keeping his magic hydrino factory secret, so that no one else has access to hydrinos, by telling us that these compounds exist, he’s given away the secret. He’s not protecting anything anymore: by publically talking about these things, he’s given up his right to patent the substances. It’s true that he still hasn’t given up the rights to the process of producing them – but publicly demonstrating these alleged miracle substances wouldn’t take away any legal rights that he hasn’t already given up. So, why doesn’t he show them to you?
Because they don’t exist.
The real reason these things succeed in the popular imagination – and those of investors… we want SO badly for it to all be true. There are mathematical oddities within chromodynamics that effectively state that every point in the universe contains infinite mass and infinite energy. I just wish someone would, for real, actually figure out a way to tap into it! But it’s extremely important that folks – like you – pay attention to the reality of the details that others may overlook due to wanting, or simple lack of knowledge on the subject. Thanks for a good explanation of the crankery. Even I was on board initially when they announced – and I know a bit about QM…
Geniuses are always doubted….remember Einstein?
They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein. And they laughed at Bozo the clown.
Note that the U.S. government keeps spending billions in energy research and subsidies that produce things like Solyndra and crony capitalist rip offs. If Dr. Mills is is using private funding I have no problem. It is also usual for companies to research many solutions that fail before finding one that works.
Maybe, but what should be unusual is to lie about the failure.
You make a political statement, and yes some of the D efforts to move solar forward were disasters, and yes, private research and development is faster without government meddling – but in this case – Hydrinos have had no compelling evidence in 35 years
And that’s not all. Mills also claims that you can create all sorts of compounds with hydrinos –
If they can undergo chemical reactions and still remain hydrinos, wouldn’t that imply that it’s a permanent state? That is, that they never return to the ordinary ground state by absorbing energy?
He claims that he doesn’t show it because he’s protecting his intellectual property.
First, since it technically isn’t a perpetual motion machine, he could patent it. Second, if hydrino compounds are that useful, he wouldn’t need to keep waiting “just one more year” to develop a practical energy production system: he could just sell the waste products of his experiments to make money.
Wait, come to think of it, he could just give the hydrino waste products to other scientists to have them confirm that he’s produced a form of hydrogen that no-one else has ever seen.
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. One percent of Earth’s atmosphere is argon. And we’re supposed to accept that this interaction never happens in the wild?
Mills does claim they exist in nature. In space, the spectroscopic signature for hydrinos is clearly visible (at wavelengths that spectroscopes are not usually designed to image.) In fact, he lists the rather recent independent verification of this wavelength as a very strong proof of his claim. cf. his web site http://www.blacklightpower.com in the recent news section.
*If*, in fact, there’s a real “independent” verification of this observation, why hasn’t it been published anywhere except for one of Mills’ press releases?
it has been published. don’t say it hasn’t. just accept that you are biased against this…probably work for an oil company. Scientists are humans and are just as likely to be prejudicial in their judgments as the next guy, particularly when they have their careers to protect. Most spectroscopes are not calibrated to observe hydrino reactions. So they don’t see them. right now Mills has 6 independent verifications that were published elsewhere up on his website. http://www.blacklightpower.com The thing is: believing is through seeing it work…a working demo is what he has to build, and is building, and hopefully will show soon. Einstein didn’t have to build a bomb to prove E=mc2; but everyone demands Mills build an energy generator. So, he is, although it is tough going, I think it is finally coming together, pretty soon (12/12_ so let’s see how long it takes, if it in fact happens. If it does happen YOU WILL KNOW ABOUT IT.
No, it *hasn’t* been published, not in the sense that scientists mean “published”.
When you say it’s published, you mean that Mills posted yet another press release on his website. When a scientist says published, they mean that the paper was peer reviewed and published in an independent refereed journal. There’s a big difference.
Mills has been making these ridiculous claims for two decades. For two decades, he’s been claiming to be just about ready to reveal his amazing stuff. And for two decades, he’s consistently failed to deliver anything. None of his magic alloys, none of his magic powerplants, none of his data. Just ever more empty claims.
(And, incidentally, I’m a software engineer at foursquare. No connection to an oil company, or in fact to anything energy related.)
Einstein wasn’t required to prove his theory, because it’s rational. What other physicists are saying is that Mills is irrational. His equations don’t make sense to anyone but himself. So he is required to build a prototype. He would not have arrived at such conclusions anyway if it weren’t for his drive to invent free energy. What would BLP’s agenda for scamming be? I suppose to keep themselves gainfully employed with investors money. Yes that’s a good enough reason. So how rich are these guys then?
Yes it happens naturally in the universe as dark matter. That is what he’s saying.
I’ve seen this set of Hydrino claims before and to be honest I just couldn’t quite understand how the thing worked. I looked briefly at the papers on the Blacklight site and couldn’t make heads or tails of them because they seemed to continually evade the key questions and key points of how the ‘Hydrinos” are used to make energy. If it’s as simple as Dr. Mills states that it is, there wouldn’t seem to be much of a hurdle to giving a simple demonstration of the effect. If you assume that the explanations are confusing because they are meant to be, that clarifies the situation substantially. Here are a couple of questions. If in some number of collisions between Argon atoms and Hydrogen atoms this energy transfer takes place, and if the Argon atom then radiates it’s newly acquired energy away and then returns to its ground state, then over time, every hydrogen atom in the Earth’s atmosphere would have been converted to a form of Hydrino and even with replenishment by the sun by some unspecified mechanism, there should be an abundance of both Hydrinos and Hydrino byproducts all around us. Hydrino water, Hydrino DNA, Hydrino HCL. If Hydrino exists then there should be all sorts of reactions which would be both interesting and obvious. Combine Argon with Hydrogen gas and we should see light emitted. Take the resultant gases and separate them and then combine the hydrogen with some other gas which has the proper energy levels and we should see immediate cooling of the combined gases as the Hydrino absorbs energy to return to it’s elevated ground state, the one which has been investigated for a hundred years. And if Dr. Mills argues that the reverse transfer does not happen that way and that therefore we will not see such a cooling event, then the Hydrino’s are even more stable than he had assumed and we should therefore see lots of Hydrino byproducts all around us. But we don’t see them, don’t detect them and can’t find them even when we look. They are simply not there and don’t exist. Dr. Mills is a fake, a scam artist. He may be fooling both the people who he approaches for funding and also himself with his delusions, but clearly he is running a scam.
You’ve nailed it exactly. It makes no sense that these hydrinos and hydrino compounds are never actually observed in nature. If the ground state of hydrogen isn’t really the ground state, and the interactions tat bump the atom into the hydrino state are so simple, there’s no reason why all of the hydrogen around us wouldn’t be hydrinos.
Mills also never bothers to mention why you never see anything like a hydrino helium, or a hydrino sodium atom.
yes he does. (I am not on a crusade to defend Mills. I am looking closely at what BOTH this critique has to say, AND Mills’ claims too.) He says that he cannot catalyze atoms with neutrons in them. His catalysization process is what he is trying to protect. If he loses that, then he has nothing. Mills is seriously trying to turn into the Bill Gates of hydrino power, and is not selling hair tonic. He must be PROVED wrong, or right.
It’s impossible to prove him wrong, given that he has consistently refused to publish the data that independent researchers would need to confirm or disprove his theory.
His excuse has always been that he needs to protect his intellectual property. But he’s been making that claim for a ridiculously long time. 10 years? 20 years? Always with the claim that “later this year”, his company will have a world-changing product. And yet… never has anything come out.
The only thing that he’s really made available to researchers is his CQM text – which has been absolutely torn apart by independents.
I’d love for their to be some kind of almost free energy from something like hydrinos. But there’s absolutely *no* evidence that’s been released to support the hydrino hypothesis; what little has been published about the theoretical basis has been soundly refuted; and Mills and company have been acting like a classic bunch of snake-oil-salesman, with their regularly scheduled press releases announcing the imminent release of products, every time the company needs another round of cash to keep going.
I like to compare hydrinos to fusion power. Fusion has, like hydrinos, been perpetually on the verge of being commercializable. According to fusion researchers, fusion power generation is *always* 20 years away from being commercializable. But there’s a big difference with fusion: the people working on fusion power have released extensive detailed data. We know pretty much exactly what the various tokomak teams are working on, and where their progress stands. We know how much power they’re putting in to the system, and how much they’re getting out. We know what the mechanisms that they’re using are, and how they work. Anyone with the huge quantity of money required can set up a rival tokomak, and repeat the experiments.
In contrast, Mills has been constantly announcing the wonders of hydrino power, the miracle hydrino compounds, the various generators – but *always* witholding the supposed data supporting his machines. We know next to nothing about how his devices are built. We haven’t seen any data to support the hydrino hypothesis. No independent researcher has ever replicated anything that Mills is doing. No independent observer has ever seen any of the effects that Mills has claimed.
Why would he be scamming? Why bother? Oh well I suppose it’s an income.
What about hydrino deuterium ? Does it provide extra-cheap nuclear power ?
We don’t find hydrinos because they don’t participate in the usual chemical reactions (like oxidation) that we play around with. They are quite happy (re stable) the way they are, thank you very much. They are hard to contain because they are so small – they pass through the walls of containers like ghosts. They fall up in our atmosphere. We can’t see them because they let everything pass except for high energy uv and soft x-rays…a relative “blind spot” for physics.
Arguments over Mill’s mathmatical arguments are pointless – there are very few phD’s who can explain the physical “significance” of an equation and even if Mills tries to tell me that 2+2 = 5, I don’t think I can draw ANY conclusion regarding the existance of hydrinos from the rigor of his algebra.
Science is the process of observing a phenomenon, dreaming up a theory that explains it, then trying repeatedly to murder the theory through experments designed test the predictions of the theory (i.e. prove the null hypothesis). Mills is doing that – and taking, I will admit, his own sweet time about it. If you want to prove him wrong, go to the lab and get to work. Otherwise hang back and wait. As for me, I have performed one experiment designed prove that BLP is a scam – I offered them investment money. I am a fully qualified investor and they turned me down flat. As a scientist I admit that that, by itself, proves nothing. It is meerly another interesting result and another failure to prove the null hypothesis.
According to Mills, when hydrogen decays into hydrino there is a jump of about 41eV, this is, approximately 6.5689E-18 joules. This corresponds to a photon of a wavelength of about 302 angströms. If you’re suggesting somehow that 302A is a blind point for physics, you’re naively and deeply wrong.
If you believe that the capacity to detect a (compound) particle has something to do with its size, you’re very wrong here, too. It’s related to the ability to interact, and being able to absorb a radiation of 302A, they’re should be very easy to detect.
If you believe that only “very few phD’s” can check the Lorentz invariance of a simple equation, you’re very very deeply wrong. Go ask any student of the university nearest to your place. He can tell you how. He can also explain you anything you can’t understand from this refutation: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/. The good thing is that it’s written and it can be checked!
If you don’t understand the mathematical refutation of Mill’s mathematical theory, then you can ask someone who can understand it. But, in this case, I would be curious about your affirmations about the possibility to detect a state of an atom and the influence of its size, since you clearly would know no physics.
If, on the contrary, you believe that a mathematical refutation of Mill’s mathematical theory means nothing, then you’re deeply deeply deeply wrong.
If you understand the refutation of Mill’s math or simply accept that it’s wrong because someone who understand it tells you, but you still believe that Mill’s discovery is legitime, I would ask you why? You accept you can see no hydrinos (despite we telling you it should be very easy to see them emitting, 302A!), and know Mill’s have never show them, and accept that his math is wrong, what the hell makes you believe he is right?
John Fringe:
1. The hydrino is only created when hydrogen interacts with a catalyst containing atoms or molecules with exactly the correct ionization energy to induce the hydrogen atom to transition into a hydrino state. There are 136 Hydrino energy levels below 1/1 (1/2 – 1/137), and the ionization energy required must be a an integer multiple of 27.2 eV, where the integer is 2…137. In short, Hydrinos aren’t created on earth all that frequently other than by random chance when a hydrogen atom ‘happens’ to interact with an atom of precisly the correct properties.
2. Probably more importantly, the hydrino does not radiate energy, it is stable, and therefore would not be easily detectable.
3. FYI, the ‘cold fusion’ mess in the 1980’s occurred because Pons & Fleishman applied the incorrect theory to their hypothesis. Therefore, since they did not know they needed to use a catalyst with the specific properties described above, they would only ‘see’ the cold fusion when they got ‘lucky’ and the hydrogen atoms in their setup interacted with the properly configured atom or molecule.
– Eric
I find your explanations very unsatisfactory, Eric. Just saying hydrino does not radiate and it is stable without justifying why is not saying much.
I mean, you say hydrino does not radiate. Ok. But when hydrogen decays into hydrino, it should radiate. At least, any excited electron of any atom I know until now (and I know a lot of atoms XD) radiates. An electron loosing energy radiates. You simply say that neutrino requires an atom to absord this energy, so it is not emitted. But that’s pretty much handwaving. Let me explain.
Imagine we have hydrogen, and some atoms of cesium, for example, which Mills seem to thing have the correct ionization energy to absord the energy released when hydrogen decays into hydrino. If we have this two atoms, hydrogen decays, and we have excited cesium, with the exedent of energy from the transition. But obviously, excited cesium will decay to unexcited cesium, emiting that energy. But we can explain with notable precision the spectra we see from space. I don’t know of any lines we don’t expect. So, where are those lines? Does cesium excited from hydrino have some magical properties that make it not radiate?
So we have two problems here. First, if hydrogen is an excited form of hydrino, there should be some nonzero probability of it decaying into hydrino, by tunnel effect, form example. When an electron decays, it can emit a photon without violating any quantum mechanical rule or invariant. That is so for every atom we know. Why can’t hydrogen decay into hydrino emiting an photon? No known invariant is violated. Is there any new invariant we don’t know about? Does hydrino not follow quantum mechanics, when it even explains quarks? I demand an explanation. Feel free to use equations, and remember, just saying “because it does not radiate” or “because it requires an atom to absorb the energy” is not an explanation, is just repeating the question.
And second, why don’t we see spectral lines for these transitions? Even if hydrogen-to-hydrino does not radiate, cesium should. We don’t see it. Why? You say not much hydrino is produced on Earth, but I didn’t mentioned Earth. I’m sure you’re familiar with the innovating idea of pointing a spectrograph to the sky. And you probably know that cesium is the 36th more abundant metal. There is an obscene amount of cesium out there. And even a bit of hydrogen. Where are those lines?
If fact, there are a lot of problems with this hydrino of yours. You say it’s stable. But you also say hydrino1 can loose some energy and decay into a lower energy form, hydrino2. Then, again, why is hydrino1 stable? The probability of the transition should be nonzero, so it should happen a lot in the universe. We don’t see it. Why? Again, consider the monumental quantity of hydrogen we trace in the universe. I imagine you’ll say hydrino1 can’t decay into hydrino2 without another one of those extra atoms, but then again those atoms should radiate, we should see them, and you still have to justify a new mechanical invariant that makes this transition impossible without the extra atom. We’re waiting.
If we go more to the basis, we can just take a proton, this is, ionized hydrogen. We can also get a free electron. We put them together. They form hydrogen, the less energy form we know. Thermodynamics works. It doesn’t form hydrino. Why? Is hydrino beyond thermodynamics? Your new invariant should explain a lot of things by now.
Can you justify your comments on cold fusion?
“You simply say that neutrino requires an atom” obviously means “You simply say that hydrino requires an atom”. There may be more of there erratas.
Ummm, I should have make my point on cold fusion more clear.
I ask you for a justification because I see very naive (and, to be frank, a bit laughable) your assertion that cold fusion was just an hydrino related process. Are you really saying that two professional physicist mistook a process on the order of ten of thousands to millions of eV per atom (fusion) with a process on the order of tens of eV per atom (the presumed order of energy between hydrino transitions). Didn’t they measure the temperature? I’m not speaking about the obvious things: the signature of the photons emitted, or the concordance with known physics. No. I understand the reason Mills want to associate his hydrinos with nuclear fusion and the promised (almost) free energy, in terms of collecting money. But really, your saying they believed something was a fusion process (incredible energy) when it was actually (according to you) a chemical process, a process of electrons gaining and losing energy on the order of tens of eV. Enough to heat a glass of water and all that, but I doubt anyone can mistake this for nuclear fusion.
How do you justify this?
I haven’t seen Mills claim ‘cold fusion’ was actually the Hydrino process at work. That is my speculation. Pons & Fleischmann did not detect neutrons in their experiments, which says to me it was not a nuclear reaction. The blacklight process is not nuclear, and could explain the excess energy Pons & Fleischmann observed, but they could rarely reproduce their experiment because they did not understand that the catalyst needed to provide an energy ‘sink’ equivalent to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV (the potential energy of ground state hydrogen) to induce the electron to fall into one of 136 fractional energy states below the ground state.
Hydrogen remains stable in its ground state (n=1). It cannot ‘decay’ into a lower fractional energy Hydrino state (n=1/2…1/137) because in order to do that it needs to transfer an exact amount of energy to another process in order to induce the transition. If you wish to transition hydrogen into the 1/23 Hydrino state, for example, the electron in the atom must interact with a catalyst that will accept exactly (23 – 1)*27.2 eV. The state is defined as n=1/p. p has a max value of 137, and the energy released as p–>137 increases in a non-linear fashion (i.e. much more than linearly). So if you find the proper catalyst you can extract significantly more energy.
“[cesium] have the correct ionization energy to absord the energy released when hydrogen decays into hydrino” — No, this is not correct. You don’t need a catalyst to absorb *all* of the energy the hydrino transition releases. You need a catalyst that will absorb an integer multiple of the potential energy of the hydrogen atom (i.e. (p-1)*27.2 eV). Once that resonant energy transfer is achieved, the hydrogen atom enters into a lower, fractional energy state equal to n=1/p, and the energy released is significantly higher than (p-1)*27.2 eV.
“why don’t we see spectral lines for these transitions” — because the Hydrino transition releases energy in the low x-ray region and the detectors required to detect that energy level are complicated, and not normally employed.
new detectors HAVE FOUND the hydrino spectral signature. cf. Mills page which lists the independent verification of spectral lines in space at http://www.blacklightpower.com
next?
In any case, I does not claim that Mills is wrong without independent verification. I found an independent proof showing how wrong he is in pretending that QM fails at the chemical level (a few electronvolts) when it’s verified and valid in much more extreme situations. The independent proof is published in a web page I found called “John Fringe’s independent proofs”, completely independent XD
I also have a proof showing irrefutably that Mills is wrong, but I can’t make it it due to intellectual property related questions. But I keep repeating I have it, so it must be true. XD XD
What does exactly “independent” mean in your country?
I independently agree with the previous comment!
John F,
If this was a high school debate competition….you just lost. You have to refute Eric’s last point…not point to some yet to be name “indpendent proof” that shows Mills is wrong. Every phjysics professor in the Northeasyt who teaches physics for liberal arts students is in complete agreement with you!!! You have a lot of company. What Eric just put up there needs to be refuted. If you can’t refute it then you best move along or provide us some links that show that analysis is hogwash too. Mills has been working on solving problems in way that no one else has for a long time. It takes years to make breakthroughs and when you want to monetize the breakthrough…why give it away to all you physics punks and the world for free.
Blacklight is not a scam…it might not work but it is not a scam… There are hundreds of bio tech companies trying to cure cancer, lupus and other diseases with different strategies. The raise money to operate and try to execute the strategy to see if works through FDA trials and required end pointes. Many, Many Many fail ALL the time and they are not scams ….their stratgies fail and investors lose…and many try again. The pay off is worth the effort. Blacklight is no differnt but trying to solve energy problems not cancer.
What are you working on John F? Anything good?
Another guy who can’t read XD
>> By the way: “FYI, the ‘cold fusion’ mess in the 1980’s occurred because Pons & Fleishman applied the incorrect theory to their hypothesis. Therefore
That does not seems like an speculation to me. Anyone else? You are probably one of those guys who just claim absurd things without thinking, things that are proven inmediately wrong, naive and ridiculous. Then the things become “just speculation”. But good thing for Mills you freed him of that speculation. You can sink his business!
I don’t have anything new to say. Two process (one of them ficticious, but lets ignore that), whose energies differ in about four or five orders of magnitude, producing different subproducts, some of them trivially measurable, producing different radiations easily recognizable (yes, 27.2eV is the energy of the first ionization of cesium, and despite you “speculating” that it’s very difficult to see, it’s routinely observed), and a lot of other differences. I just can’t stop laughing visualizing the scene between the two physicist:
-Look at our hydrogen sample. It’s getting hot.
– Do I measure it with the thermometer?
– No, no, I don’t remember where I put the thermometer
[Physicist introduces the finger in the sample]
– It should be at millions of degrees. Nuclear fusion for sure!
– And the sample began cold. Cold nuclear fusion!
[In our story, hydrogen is decaying into hydrino, so getting two degrees warm]
– Cold fusion! Do I switch on the spectrometer
– Nah, it’s too boring. Sure the photons are there!
– Yeah, you’re right. Do we identify the subproducts?
– Nah, by eye I can tell you that’s helium.
– Should I weight the sample, to see how much energy it radiated?
– Nah, too much work. I’m tired.
– Ok, throw away the sample. I’ll write the paper.
The situation you describe should be something like that XD. And you wonder why they didn’t find neutrinos.
And for the rest, as you just repeated yourself (you’re just parroting Mills nonsense) and I don’t want to repeat myself again, just go to my previous comments and reread them. My objections are still there, waiting.
By the way, I actually read Pons and Fleischmann’s paper (“Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium”). I don’t like reading reports that are probably an hoax, but I was sure I will find something funny. I did.
They explicitly say in several places they find neutrons
“gave a neutron count 3 times above that of the cosmic ray background.”
“this spectrum confirms that 2.45 MeV neutrons are indeed generated”
“The observation of the generation of neutrons and of tritium from electrochemically”
Of course, you say the opposite:
“Pons & Fleischmann did not detect neutrons in their experiments, which says to me it
was not a nuclear reaction.” (yes, this was you)
So, may ask you, have you any idea what you’re talking about? Was that another of your speculations? Or are you claiming that despite them reporting to have found neutrons, they didn’t, and despite them claiming to have produced several MeV, they just produced a few eV, and you know this because some personification of the hydrino god talk to you?
Unlike math theories, which are based on a (human) defined system, science theories cannot be proved, only disproved. Nature exists. It is not ‘defined’. We are only able to attempt an explanation in the form of a theory. Hence, it is possible, ‘in theory’, to disprove either/both standard quantum and CQM (Mills). (After all, standard quantum is a THEORY, although many treat it like a religion that one must accept on faith.) In an article, reviewed per A IP guidelines, and then published in an AIP journal, it was demonstrated that standard quantum theory fails to explain the helium atom, whereas CQM provides results, to the surprise of this reader, completely consistent with observation. At this point in time only standard quantum is disproved. CQM remains a valid theory.
Beyond the article cited below, the non-physics religionist should find other reasons to question standard quantum including these bizzare claims of standard physics: the existence of the Higgs boson, Dark matter, Dark Energy, ninety seven percent of the universe is ‘non-baryonic’, string theory, parallel universes, etc. In CQM theory there is no Higgs boson, no dark matter or dark energy, all matter is baryonic, there are only three physical dimensions and there are only five physical constants, obtained from NIST used in all calculations. All equations are from either Newton or Maxwell. There are no fudge factors. Surprised? It is probably best to understand a theory before launching an attack. It is unlikely that any of the critics of CQM including the owner of this blog, the current secretary of energy and the infamous Prof. Parks have a clue regarding the essence of CQM. For a simple and coherent explanation of the application of CQM to atomic species, please read:
Phillips, J. ‘Increasing Exclusion: The Pauli Exclusion Principle and Energy Conservation for Bound Fermions Are Mutually Exclusive’, Physics Essay 20, 564-592 (2007).
> In CQM theory there is no Higgs boson
You’re doing it wrong. If you can take a hint from me, remember that a crackpot should never mention any concrete detail that can be checked against reality. Yes, you did something good, like mentioning cool buzzwords that can impress laymen, like Higgs boson and, of course, Dark matter. A couple of Einsteins would have been perfect. But you committed the same error than Eric: naming concrete consequences. You should be new to this. Mills is a lot vaguer than you both. You should be more careful, because you can sink Mills for not been careful enough.
Like anyone can check (the internet if full of it), Higgs boson is practically discovered. Data clearly indicates a Higgs compatible with standard model, and the only reason it has not been announce is because there are not enough data to obtain a statistical significance high enough to meet science standard. But really everybody (sensible) expects that this year data will confirm the Higgs. It’s just a matter of time.
So what have you done wrong? You put an expiration date on Mills nonsense.
Of course, anybody with enough knowledge can take a look at Mills papers and immediately recognize why it’s wrong, but if you’re vague enough you may fool laymen. But now when the LHC staff announce the Higgs, it will appear in every media. On TV!. By associating Mills nonsense to the nonexistence of Higgs, everyone reading this will see its failure without even looking for evidence. The proof will be on every news for any layman reading you.
Hint: That’s bad for Mills.
So remember. Always vague. Next time, never mention any concrete detail. A twenty year scam is at stake! Mills will not be happy. Just stick to mentioning Mills’ articles as proofs of Mills’ success.
Explicit predictions? I think Mills has given absolute values to EUV photons that should be observed during the creation of hydrinos, and others have found quantitative agreement with the predictions.
In general, the best means to test two scientific theories is to devise an experiment that provides proof positive that only one of the two models can be correct. That is, one theory predicts one outcome from the experiment and the other theory predicts a different outcome. It is even better that the two outcomes are explicit and quantitative. Phillips selected ionization energies of helium for comparison of standard quantum and CQM, as there is LOTS of data already available and none of it was compiled by Mills. CQM predicts that in the ground state one electron of helium is at -24.7 eV and the other is at -54.4 eV. Amazingly, these are the actual measured ionization energies! In contrast, standard quantum predicts both electrons are at -24.7 eV and that after ionization the remaining electron is suddenly at -54.4 eV…Among other questions raised by the standard model: During electron capture by He+, from where does the energy come to raise the un-ionized electron back to -24.7 eV? Experimentally, to the discomfort of theorists, +24.7 eV of energy are RELEASED as a photon during electron capture….Another question: What are the energy levels of the ‘unexcited’ electron during the excitation process?
And regarding the Higgs boson: There is no evidence it exists. You are mis-reading the deliberately misleading comments put out by the high energy physics community. Let me translate: What is being said is, ‘the Higgs boson wasn’t found in the part of energy spectrum anticipated by the community, so it must be in the final remaining part of the energy spectrum, which we intend to examine…or our theory is wrong, which is clearly impossible…. ‘
Jur jur, you are not very informed, are you? Well, I could tell you that Higgs is not in an unobserved part of the spectrum, that it’s not “in the final remaining part of the energy spectrum”, and that it is actually localized, and that its mass is ~125GeV/c2. It’s not a question of localizing it anymore. It’s a question of obtaining enough data to discard any other possible origin of the observed data beyond any insane question. But I will not, as every person interested in those questions (except you XD, of course) know this by now.
So I insist. Yes, you can just freely claim that Higgs boson has not been discovered and that data that LHC is observing is a form of hydrino, and cross your fingers hoping that nobody googles “Higgs 125GeV”, but I think it’s better to forget about that and start saying that Mills predicted Higgs or any other hoax so you can sell reflected fame to the gullible. It would be more useful to Mills, believe me.
John Fringe said, “Like anyone can check (the internet if full of it), Higgs boson is practically discovered. Data clearly indicates a Higgs compatible with standard model, and the only reason it has not been announce is because there are not enough data to obtain a statistical significance high enough to meet science standard.”
John — now you are flat out making stuff up. I see that in many of your posts you try very hard to infer that you have some type of physics ‘degree’ beyond what you learn in high school. I find that to be laughable. I doubt you know anything about physics other than what you read on Wikipedia.
Here’s my advice. Sign up for 2 years of physics instruction at your local community college. Use that associates degree to apply your way into a larger university. Enter the physics track and try to earn your degree in 4 years, but if it takes 5 don’t beat yourself up. And then assemble the best references you can, coupled with a stellar graduate entry exam score, and enter a PhD program at the best university you can get into. Spend a good 4 (but more likely 6) years learning physics and mathematics at a very high level, and find an advisor who will take you on as a student. Conduct research on a topic that nobody else has ever discovered, compose a thesis, defend it, and then walk away proud with your new PhD in physics.
At that point, maybe you, and I, and people like Mills and all those who have apparently “found” the Higgs boson (already, but they are just too shy to announce it), maybe then we can all get together and chat.
OK, Eric XD. But all that much time I will spend learning physics, make us a favor and spend it yourself learning to read. It’s a very interesting skill, you will not
To evaluate when you can read a simple text, here you’ve got a very simple divulgative text of the Atlas experiment from CERN (you may not know what it is) directly from its home page. There you may read the humble and politically correct version of “we discarded the null hypothesis of no Higgs with small statistical significance, but it’s just a question of gathering a little more data (a few months of data) to make it statistically significant beyond the expected 5 sigmas that will win us a Nobel prize”. As I don’t expect you can read it, you can take a look at the colorful drawing adjacent to the text. Despite the bright colours designed for people like you, I don’t expect you to be able to interpret the graph, so, in simple words, do you see that solid black line that protudes from the yellow line at 125GeV? Yes, you guessed it! That’s our Higgs!
Now, try to read that. When you’re ready (take it easy yourself too), I’ll give you a paper from arXiv HEP. You’re going to freak out in color! Then I’ll start giving you text on what testing an hypothesis is, and what does null hypothesis means, and what is the meaning of “statistically significance”, and what does it mean to have found something with certain level of confidence.
It seems we both have work to do. Can we stop this when this year Nobel prize (or next, maybe) is given for Higgs?
Maybe if you insult me enough, the Nobel will go to Mills, and some scientist will take him and you seriously, so your stupid arguments of authority will have some sense. If I were you, I’ll try it XD
Have a nice day.
John, why don’t you just paste a link to that paper here? It’s a good reference for the discussion.
Ups, of course you’re right. I always forget the links XD
The information Atlas published, which as far as I know is the last official comm (for the general public), which as far as I know is the last official statement about Higgs from Atlas for a general audience, is on
http://www.atlas.ch/news/2011/status-report-dec-2011.html
This one from the official Atlas web. In any case, for general information you can just google “Higgs 125GeV” or something similar, or read a blog of an actual reseacher, like Tomasso Dorigo’s
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/tevatron_higgs_results_confirm_lhc_signal-87751
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/firm_evidence_higgs_boson_last-85478
If you’re actually looking for actual information instead of blogs, official statements, rumours and opinions XD, I’ll look for a good paper. You know, actual scientists collaborations, contrary to cranks, are usually very careful to officially claim discovers, and these experiments are big and slow, so I’ll look for an updated paper as soon as I can.
This is going to be a very boring post, but it should be here, because some people are just too obtuse 😉
Well, as promised, here are the papers, at least the most recent papers I’m aware of. But be warned, they’re not pretty XD
First we’ve got the ATLAS group, which resumes its data in
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1408
To sum up their findings, they discard a Higgs bosson in almost all the available spectra except for an excess of events compatible with a 126GeV Higgs, for which they give a local significance of 3.5 sigmas, and still counting. This one is from March 21st (this year, of course).
CMS, an independent experiment also part of CERN, published its findings here
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1488
They observed an excess of data compatible with a 124GeV Higgs, with a significance of about 3.1 sigmas.
Now, if we leave Europe and go to America, the D0 collaboration at Tevatron, despite managing a less powerful machine ;), were able to find the Higgs
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3774
with a mass between 115 and 125GeV with a significance of 2.7 sigmas, which is good taking into account the age of this detector.
So, what does all this mean? One has to know how to interpret this data. For the laymen, about 3.5 sigmas is a very good significance: a probability less than 1 in 1000 of being wrong. This is acceptable in lots of fields (hello, ethologists? :p), but not enough for HEP. The de facto rule for a discovery is 5 sigmas, or about less than 1 chance in a million of being wrong (less probable than you being struck by lighting). So Higgs discovery has not been announced yet.
But every piece of data collected is compatible with the particle, and we’re employing three different independent detectors (based on different technology), all measuring a mass of about 125GeV.
The way to increase the significance to discard the null hypothesis (that there is no Higgs) is to collect more data. If data is collected that is incompatible with Higgs, the significance will drop to zero in a blink. If new data is compatible with Higgs, statistical significance will slowly rise. This year we will probably see the confirmation of Higgs with 5 sigmas, and you can hear about the coming prizes 🙂
So I can not claim Higgs has being officially discovered, but when you have three independent detectors, all measuring the same mass, a probability of less than 1 in 1000 of being wrong, and every data collected compatible, and then you almost have the entire HEP community thinking the same, you can be confident.
And when your opponent is claiming to have a stupid mathematically inconsistent and meaningless theory with lots of evident mathematical errors people already pointed, which makes silly false predictions (spectral lines from the sky we don’t observe), confuses processes separated by three orders of magnitude in energy, and claim there can be no Higgs when everybody has already seen it the year it will be announced and he does not know about the state of the art in this field, even on a divulgative level you can read in an almost any random page on the web, well, and even with papers you deny it, well, you really don’t have any arguments, you don’t even know how to be fallacious, and you’re just a bad crank.
And when your opponent uses stupid arguments from false authority (“I’m a physicist, you don’t, nya nya”), which sound pretty silly, and when he has to speak without knowing about if you’re a physicist or not, in what field, or about who are you or who you aren’t, or about if he is a phycisist or not (which we don’t know and, frankly, dear, I don’t give a damn), or in what field, or about who he is or who he is not, as if any of these could make him right or matter at all, you can see he has no experience as a crank, and you’re just wasting your time.
Well, Eric, I were just giving you some advice about how to be a crank. Take it or don’t, but you know, not everybody can graduate as a successful crank XD
OK, Mark. One last try. Shorter and lighter version, to the point. I believe it’s important to at least give some technical references here.
Two independent detectors from CERN (from the LHC) detected the Higgs. ATLAS (~126GeV, local significance of 3.5 sigmas)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1408
and CMS (~124GeV, local significance of about 3.1 sigmas)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1488
D0 group from Tevatron also detected it
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3774
this time between 115-135GeV with a local significance of about 2.7 sigmas, as expected from the older equipment at Tevatron.
To claim a discovery in HEP you need about 5 sigmas, or a chance in a million of being wrong, for laymen (yes, I know, this is not very rigorous). So nobody claimed the discovery, but we’ve got three detectors which independently detected a particle of the same mass (~125GeV), every of them with a significance of about 3 or 3.5 sigmas.
With this significance, we can discard the null hypothesis (i.e. that there is no Higgs) with a probability of being wrong of about 1 in 1000. There is just not enough collected data for 5 sigmas, but every piece of data seems to support the boson. To rise the significance up to 5 sigmas they have to collect more data compatible with the hypothesis of a Higgs. With almost full certainty they will collect this data this very same year.
So we’ve got here three independent detectors, all of them measuring a 125GeV particle compatible with Higgs with a significance of about 3-3.5 sigmas, in agreement with the theory. Until now every data collected is compatible with this hypothesis. This is no opinion, everybody can check. Do you really want to bet against the community with a chance of winning of about 1 in 1000, Eric? Even when all these are news to you, Eric “the physicist”*?
*The only “physicist” I know who can not tell between a chemical process and a nuclear process separated by at least three orders of magnitude in energy XD (1000, if you don’t know)
Now people implied claim 4 sigmas (Dorigo is no unknown)
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/enough_luminosity_higgs_discovery-90714
“Since the two collaborations together found in 2011 a tentative Higgs boson signal at 124-126 GeV with a local significance of roughly four standard deviations”
Nature confirms it:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/higgs-signal-gains-strength.html
That’s a certainty of about 99.994% of Higgs, or one chance in 15000 of being wrong, with last year’s data. (I’m not saying they should claim discovery yet or relax their rigour, but to shut up a crank, 99.994% and three detectors seem pretty good to me).
Eric: “now you are flat out making stuff up”.
XD Yes, I put a lot of papers signed by hundred of scientists on arXiv and published on Nature and contacted people at CERN and Fermilab and drugged experimentalists to publish things in their blogs for the last year just to make me look right and you wrong. I’m that kind of evil person. In fact, all this CERN is a conspiracy of mine just to make Mills and you look bad. It cost me a few bucks a year XD
Maybe I overworked it, because debunking a guy who can’t tell 30eV from 1MeV should be easier. But that’s me.
Is it enough?
John,
You have no idea how to interpret the scientific papers you posted, and this is evidenced by the fact that you are making statements that are diametrically opposed to what the papers actually state.
The papers state that the particle has been EXCLUDED from certain ranges. They do NOT state that the particle is PRESENT in any particular range, let alone a specified mass.
This symposium on Higgs two months ago was the most recent:
http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2012/higgs/program.html
None of the presenters made claims that were anywhere near ‘found’. But I’ll assume you’ll be able to find a wikipedia entry that you’d prefer to believe instead.
I know someone who was there, and I know someone who wasn’t there. I’ll let you guess who’s who.
– Eric
Honestly, who do you think is more credible? The guy who posts carefully cited papers, with explanations of what they mean, showing that the data gathered so far clearly appears to support the Higgs; or the guy who just posts content-free snarks asserting “I know more than you”.
You’re just playing with words to try to shore up a weak argument. High energy physics people, working up to something like the higgs, use the term “exclusion” to mean a narrowing of the space where something could be. If you exclude *everything*, you’ve disproven the existence. But the goal for discovering a particle is based on building up *stronger exclusions*.
If the higgs hunters can exclude everything *but* a very narrow space, to a very high degree of certainty, and that sole non-excluded space matches the theoretical predictions, then you can be pretty certain that they’ve found it.
In the higgs work, they’ve got it nailed down to a very narrow non-excluded space – which is exactly what they’d have if it exists. The data clearly points in the direction of it being there. It still hasn’t reached the probability threshold where we’d say that they definitely found it. But they’re damned close – and your trying to throw sand in the air around the word “exclusion” is transparent garbage.
Oh, let me guess! I guess you were not the one there in Michigan, because they didn’t speak about the unknown chemical properties of hydrogen which are hiding because 27eV are very difficult or impossible to observe, and instead they were speaking about how they scanned the energy range between a few eV to 600GeV and discarded a Higgs except on the interval between 115 to 135GeV, where they get a clear signal compatible with SM Higgs. Did I guess it right? Is there some kind of prize? 🙂
By the way, what meetings touch this cutting edge state of the art physics? Someone was not in any of them, and another man wasn’t neither. Guess why? XD
> “They do NOT state that the particle is PRESENT in any particular range, let alone a specified mass.”
XD Yes, from that meeting, I specially like the lecture from Nausheen Shah, “A 125 GeV SM-like Higgs in the MSSM and the γγ rate”. Of course, you may prefer the posterior seminar “Higgs @ 125 in the MSSM and GMSB” or “Higgs at 125 and sussy”, who knows. 125GeV Higgs is clearly not the main topic of the conference.
Of course, nothing can make anyone think that scientists are considering a 125GeV XD That’s me making up things. No, no, let alone mass. Badger and you were right, no Higgs anywhere in the spectrum, scientists have no idea where it can be XDXDXD
Are you actually supporting me? O_o
I must admit that you’re getting better in your crankery. Still, you can not rely exclusively on not being able to read. You know, some people may actually read the papers and see what intervals they discarded, and in what intervals they actually found events compatible with Higgs, and how they analized the data and are building up data which discard the null hypothesis (the not existence of a 125GeV Higgs) with an statistical significance of 4 sigmas and counting. And there is still the problem of time. You’ll still face it, but you can manage when it comes. You can always deny it all and assert Mills always supported Higgs.
And, of course, you still have to deal with all that stuff you make up when you were a novice crank. The amazing mystery of the hiding spectral lines, your very depth and profound analysis of the chemical low energy process (30eV) producing hydrino that two physicists took for a nuclear process (~1MeV) producing tritium, or the cool nomenclature of changing the name of an atom depending on its energy level XDXDXD Maybe someone wants reciprocity and ask you about papers and meetings with statistical analyses of “hydrinos” XD You better leave actual meetings alone.
Well, at least you made some very good moves. Associating me with wikipedia is a good fallacy by false association, and repeating it until you bore us all to death is a good fallacy to prove something by repetition to people with bad memory. You did something right!
By the way, Eric. Are you really posting here the programme of the “Second MCTP Spring Symposium on Higgs Boson Physics”, which only speak about Higgs here, Higgs there, to prove me wrong about the existence of Higgs and supporting Mills stupid theory and the latter claims that there is no Higgs?
Seriously?
From the web Eric sent us, 9:30, “Combination of Higgs boson searches at ATLAS”, Wooden. Conclusions:
“Excess most compatible with a Higgs boson with a mass of 126GeV”
“However, more data is needed to arrive at a definite conclusion. Already looking forward to analysing new 8TeV 2012 data, which is coming fast”
I took this one as an example, but I could have taken any paper of this page Eric sent us, all say explicitly the same, what I have been saying here. So you’re really posting papers supporting my position. Are you kidding us? Are you trying to convince us that you can sleep a whole conference and not even catch the idea of the whole conference? Are you just… this “special” way?
1. To John “sigma” Fringe — My statement is correct. I know someone who was at the symposium, and I know someone who wasn’t at the symposium. And to help you narrow it down, you are the person I know who wasn’t at the symposium.
2. Eric said, “Pons & Fleischmann” did not detect neutrons.
In response to that, in order to “prove” Eric wrong, “Sigma” John then exclaimed, “They [Pons & Fleischmann] explicitly “say” in several places they find neutrons”.
But “Sigma” John failed to “prove” anything. To make matters worse for Siggie, he shows his ignorance of physics (and corresponding lack of authority on topics thereof, topics like high energy physics and the backlight process, to name a few). John “Sigma” Fringe doesn’t know that Pons & Fleischmann couldn’t prove they detected neutrons, and worse yet (for them and Siggie), the gamma ray spectrum they highlighted in their landmark paper was missing features that are required by physics (see below) to prove neutrons had been detected.
If you really want to understand this topic, I have more advice for you Johnny. Again, it requires reading, and studying, and many hundreds of hours of time to come to proper understanding. It’s the same advice I’ll give you regarding Hydrinos too, because Mills’ 1,800 page book is indeed published in full and ready for your furthered education, available for download right on the BLP website. But first you’ll need to understand classical, electromagnetic, and quantum physics. For that, see below.
1. Follow my previous advice and invest ~8 years to earn a PhD in physics.
2. Pay special attention in your second year, so that you fully grasp how photons interact with matter, especially when they undergo Compton scattering.
3. Pay extra special attention in your nuclear radiation and detection course when they teach you how neutrons are detected by using scintillation to measure the gamma radiation produced when the neutrons are absorbed.
4. Come to the understanding that the gamma spectrum offered by P&F was missing key required features, among them was the absence of an artifact that appears as a result of the aforementioned Compton effect.
If you enroll in classes this fall, you’ll learn enough physics by the end of 2014 to understand what I’m talking about here. Give yourself another 4-6 years to understand everything else I’m trying to explain to you (but without much luck I’m afraid to say).
To MarkCC — The only thing the LHC experiments will do is “allow” people to say that there’s a “possibility” that a particle “could” exist with a mass that is “about” equal but not even “close” to equal to a mass that is predicted by means of _approximation_ by a model that at best allows approximation, and at worst has been revised numerous times over the years “as more data becomes available”.
My statement referred to the “particle”, the hypothetical “particle” called the Higgs boson. I said they have not come close, not by a long shot, of proving this physical “particle” exists, and furthermore, they are a long way away from proving that a _process_ even exists that can produce energy in a range that they “guess” will match their model. When I say “process” I mean that there is a non-zero, and relatively high probability that this “particle” is a combination of many interactions that could be explained by hypothesizing multiple “new” particles, or energy released from interactions resulting in other known particles, and the list goes on.
Let’s take what Siggy provided us. One experiment says mass is 124 GeV at 3.1 standard deviation, and another says mass is 126 at 3.5 standard deviation. Well guess that! The tolerance of the detectors is better than 2 GeV (much better if I understand them correctly). I interpret this to mean that if one detector provides a probability peaked at 124, the other at 126, and the probability drops off dramatically on either side of those peaks, then it means that the probability will be the lowest in between the peaks, which happens to be the 125 GeV that everyone including Siggy likes to throw out. It is more possible there are two peaks, and two particles. There could even be _three_ peaks and three particles if more data shows that. OR, there could be _zero_ particles because the 125 measurement could smooth out the other two peaks and you’d have one big peak between 124-126 (plus the energy on either immediate side). That would indicate error, fluctuation, or other processes at work, to name a few alternatives.
Furthermore, the Higgs boson is defined to be a spin-0 particle that breaks symmetry of a specific form. That symmetry is assumed to be the electroweak symmetry, but that assumption is exactly that — an assumption. So not only is there the bad assumption I mentioned in the first paragraph, but if they “exclude” enough to satisfy their “error tolerance” and assume there is a single particle responsible for the interactions in the detector, they then make an even weaker (and I believe completely incorrect) assumption that the particle they “found” is indeed the particle that breaks electroweak symmetry. I don’t even know if there’s an experiment you can run to prove the second half of the requirement.
I hope you guys enjoy the summer. I’d rather enjoy it too, so I’ll leave you with this to ruminate on.
XD XD XD Wonderful
So, to sum up, all your arguments are actually reduced to Mills book having 1800 pages. Wonderful XD XD XD
I finish with Eric, but first, some chronology. Just to be sure. About “Hydrino”s:
1) You state, for my information, that some old experiment twenty years old which nobody could reproduce and their authors could not defend about cold fusion was just an “hydrino” related process. You justify that by telling me that they found no neutrons
2) I cite the actual article and the sentences where they say they found neutrons. I also note a discrepancy of 5 orders of magnitude between the process they claimed and the process you claimed. And, obviously, there is the question of samples and products: they are different in both processes. And that hydrino mass that should have been lost.
3) You say they never prove the neutrons, which is true: they proved nothing. You ignore the energy discrepancy and the other problems. So you assume they are wrong. Instead of discarding the article, you tell us that, if you assume everything they measure is wrong, from energies, neutrons, products and initial samples, and mass, then they’re clearly seeing an hydrino process. Yes, nothing fit even Mills’ fantasy, but if you ignore everything, you can dream it fits. Clear logic here.
About Higgs:
1) Some guy says there can be no Higgs because Mills theory is incompatible with it. He claims scientists always claim the Higgs to be on unexplored energy levels.
2) I say the opposite. Data actually suggest that we’ve got a 125GeV Higgs
3) You say the wikipedia is the only source of information for a 125GeV. No other source says that. So you conclude that I know no word of physics. The only place where I could have known about Higgs is wikipedia.
4) I show you and cite several articles from CERN and Fermilab, speaking explicitly about the 125GeV. This, by itself, refutes completely your rantings about wikipedia. But it gets even better.
5) You say the no scientists have ever propose a range of masses for Higgs, “let alone a specified mass”. Then you sent us the program if a Higgs Symposium covering the 125GeV Higgs, with some talks stating a 125GeV Higgs directly in their titles, and most on their conclusions. This is you embarrassingly contradicting you even more.
6) Feeling bad for your illiteracy, I helped you reading the very papers you sent, explicitly contradicting you.
7) You then rant about the very same physicists whose papers you sent in support (those which contradict you). Then you continue with your wikipedia problem (which was based on your claim that no source except wikipedia cites a 125GeV, even after sending you yourself several of them. You advice me to go back to the university, one of those which train the physicists you’re ranting about, in the belief this way I will agree with you, despite you don’t agreeing with the physicists that went there.
Pure genius. Did I miss something?
But Mills’ book is quite thick XD
What I find interesting is that the people commenting are acting as if Mills’ CQM would be invalidated if the Higgs boson existed. Nothing of the sort is implied by the mathematics of CQM itself. Yes, Mills does claim that there is no “God particle” in CQM, but this is likely due to the fact that in the SM, the “Higgs mechanism” is used to explain *the values* of the masses of particles, which is often *misunderstood* in popular science (which Mills himself was probably influenced by) as being an explanation as to why *all* fundamental particles have mass at all. In SM, the Higgs mechanism is used to explain the mass of certain gauge bosons, and therefore, it is certainly *not* the same as a mechanism of gravity itself, which is what Mills, in my opinion, most likely assumed that SM was trying to claim. Given Mills’ stance on the issue of quantum gravity, where he connects it with General Relativity, the idea that the “Higgs mechanism” would serve a basis for gravity itself probably led him to reject the existence of the Higgs boson.
I would not be surprised if CQM could be modded to include the Higgs particle, just as it has worked also in explaining (if not predicting) the masses of quarks and leptons.
XD XD XD That’s much better. I was expecting something like this (as I adviced Eric). Never ever associate a cranky theory with any fact. You’re doing it right.
> “just as it has worked also in explaining (if not predicting) the masses of quarks and leptons”
Well, I can’t argue every supporter, but this is surprising. Predicting the mass of leptons, good. I thought it was Millikan who, by measuring its charge and knowing the charge-mass ratio (which Thompson measured before), calculated the electron mass, in 1909. For Mills to have predicted this mass before he was born should have been an awesome feature.
Or are you referring to neutrino’s mass? That would be very interesting. And, tell me, who is Mills’ predicted neutrino’s mass?
I’m already tired of this crank by now, but let’s make one last try. We maybe see another pearl. Last one was funny.
When you say Mills predicts leptons’ masses, I take it for sure that you are not speaking about the easy ones. Electron was discovered in 1897 and weighted in 1911. Muon was discovered in 1937 and weighted then with 3% of relative error. And tau in 1975. Three years later its mass was known (W.J.Bacino) with a relative error of about 0.3%. Mills was 18 then. I hope you’re not saying his theory allows him to travel in time. In any case, nothing would surprise me by now. So no prediction here.
And what about their associated neutrinos? That would be a lot more interesting, because their masses are not known (to the rest of people not having Mills superpowers). So, I’m excited, don’t make us wait. What are those masses?
Be careful with the numbers you give us. You’ll be putting another of those expiration dates in Mills theory. Don’t worry, there will be some time before they are measured, but I’m already preparing the papers to refute you if you give us already refuted values 🙂
So, you made a claim: that Mills predicted/explained lepton masses. Now support it. What are the references? Where are those numbers? I want to see that derivation and check against current data.
Of course, you may be just mean that Mills theory explains/predicts the known masses for known particles, having noting to say about unknown masses. Such a powerful “theory” that only tell us what we already know and the naivete of that claim will make me laugh quite a bit.
In any case, don’t worry. Even when you say some masses and they don’t fit, we “would not be surprised if CQM could be modded to include the” real measured masses.
(It seems those millions Mills has grossed are not enough to pay decent supporters who stay away from falsifiable claims)
“So, you made a claim: that Mills predicted/explained lepton masses. Now support it. What are the references? Where are those numbers? I want to see that derivation and check against current data.”
Let’s begin at the primary source, since reliable third party sources considering this specific area within Mills’ treatise on CQM are probably hard to find.
The means of derivation of these numbers is more important attempting the derivation itself as it provides the basis for attempting the derivation in the first place. It will take already much space to talk about the derivation to a substantial extent, even when omitting the specific numbers themselves. The numbers taken in isolation are scientifically baseless, because that comes without understanding where they come from. That “understanding where they come from”-part will take more than one cycle of feedback before one should even begin entertaining the comparison and contrast between “calculated” values of CQM and “experimental” values such those from CODATA. Explaining “where they come from” will also involve understanding where equations themselves come from, which ultimately is an extrapolation of “Chapter 1: The One-Electron Atom” of Mills’ treatise. So instead, we should focus first on simply how CQM differentiates members of the families of fundamental particles, including leptons and quarks.
From Chapter 36: Leptons (August 2011 Edition, Updated 2-27-2012)
________
Using an atom to define the unit of time is a means to set a more universal standard. Presently the second is defined as the time required for 9,192,631,770 vibrations within the cesium-133 atom. The “second” as defined in Eq. (36.2) is a fundamental constant, namely, the metric of spacetime. This definition gives the relationship of energy to matter conversion to spacetime contraction, and it set the clock (rule of time) to the conversion rate of matter into energy and the corresponding rate of spacetime expansion of the Universe. A theory that unifies all physics must ultimately be able to describe all observations in terms of the definition of time only. All other measurable parameters of matter, energy, charge spacetime, etc. are ultimately expressed in terms of the units of time. If coordinate time is defined by Eq. (36.2), then (32.43) gives the masses of “allowed particles”[Emphasis] in terms of that definition. Eq. (32.29) gives another method of experimentally determining the metric of time (sec) which does not require the measurement of the electron mass. The electron Compton wavelength lambda_C is equal to the wavelength of the photon which gives rise to the electron, and the velocity of each mass-density element of the extended particle is equivalent to the gravitation escape velocity, v_g, of the mass of the antiparticle (Eq. (32.45)), Eq. (33.21) gives the circular relationships between matter, energy, and spacetime based on this definition of time. A unified theory can only provide the relationships between all measurable observables in terms of a clock defined according to those observables and used to measure them.
The mass of each member of a lepton pair corresponds to an energy of Eq. (32.32). The electron and antielectron correspond to the Planck equation energy[Emphasis]. The muon and antimuon correspond to the electric energy[Emphasis]. And, the tau and antitau correspond to the magnetic energy[Emphasis]. It is shown that the masses are given by Eq. (32.43) and the relative masses differ in their specific function of the fine structure constant alpha only. These functions are determined by relativistic coefficients given by Eq. (32.32) according to the kind of energy that is responsible for the respective level ( electron, muon, tau ) of the particular particles within its family. A neutrino/antineutrino pair is formed in each of the three cases of lepton/anti-lepton production to conserve linear and angular momentum during the separation of the world lines of each particle and its antiparticle. The neutrino and antineutrino are photons that travel at velocity c and have energy, but are mass-less. Equations of such photons are given in the Neutrinos section.
________
The sections titled:
e: “THE ELECTRON-ANTIELECTRON LEPTON PAIR”
mu: “THE MUON-ANTIMUON PAIR”
tau: “THE TAU-ANTITAU PAIR”
….have content which cannot fully be explained in the relatively short space which I devote to my comment here, so I will select the key sentences which I believe provides the best distinction between the approaches to predicting their different masses.
e:
“Thus, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the same[Emphasis] as those for the transition state radius which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b).”
“In the lab frame, the relativistic correction of the [transition state] radius in the derivation of the Planck’s equation for the transition state orbitsphere (Eq. (29.12)) is alpha^(-2).”
mu:
“In this case, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the inverse[Emphasis] of those of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere, which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b).”
“For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the potential energy equations (Eq. (29.10) and (29.11)) is alpha^(-2).”
“For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], alpha^2”
“Furthermore, the potential energy equation gives an electrostatic energy; thus, the electron inertial time must be corrected by the relativistic factor of 2*pi relative to the proper time.”
tau:
“For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the magnetic energy equations (Eq. (29.14) and (29.15)) is 1/((2*pi)^2*alpha^4).”
“For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], (2*pi)^2*alpha^4.”
“Furthermore, the transition state comprises two magnetic moments. For v=c, the magnetic energy equals, the potential energy, equals the Planck equation energy, equals mc^2.”
“Thus, the electron [inertial] time is corrected by a factor of two relative to the proper time.”
From Chapter 38: Quarks (August 2011 Edition, Updated 2-27-2012)
________
Only three quark families can be formed from photons corresponding to the Planck equation energy[Emphasis], the [electric] potential energy[Emphasis], and the magnetic energy[Emphasis], where each is equal to the mass energy (Eq. (32.27)). As opposed to a continuum of energies, fundamental quark families arise from photons of only three energies. The considerations for the production of baryons are described in the Neutron and Proton Production section. Consider the relativistic corrections of the variables of the relationship between the proper and coordinate times, Eq. (32.43), for the production of three types of neutral baryon/antibaryon pairs, each comprised of three quarks and three gluons. The charges of each set of three quarks must sum to zero and the lowest energy nonuniform spherical harmonics are those corresponding to l=1; thus the charges are -1/3, -1/3 and +2/3 for the baryon quarks and +1/3, +1/3, and -2/2 for the antibaryon quarks. The radius of the quark orbitsphere at baryon production and thereafter follows from by Eq. (37.15). The baryon possesses three quarks of total mass m_B/(2*pi) (Eq. (37.16)); thus, the mass of each quark is
[Eq. 38.1]
m_lq = m_B/(3*2*pi)
[Where mass-energy one may deduce therefrom is not to be confused with the Planck equation energy, the electric potential energy, and the magnetic potential energy.]
The quarks/gluons possess magnetic stored energy. Concomitant with the “capture” of the gluons by the quark resonator cavity, the magnetic flux of the gluons is “captured.” To conserve the total quark angular momentum, h-bar, the flux is trapped in quanta of the magnetic quantum of flux (See Electron g Factor section.). The quark/gluon velocity is v=c; thus, the magnetic stored energy is m_B*c^2 (Eq. (29.14) and (29.15) with m_e replaced by m_B). The mass (energy) released due to magnetic flux “capture” (gluon “capture”) follows from Eq. (1.181).
[Eq. 38.2]
mass deficit = m_B * alpha/(2*pi)
The force corresponding to this mass deficit is the strong nuclear force (which is calculated for the deuterium nucleus in the Strong Nuclear Force section). Combining Eqs. (38.1) and (38.2) gives the bound individual quark mass
[Eq. 38.3]
m_lq = (m_B/3) * [ 1/(2*pi) – alpha/(2*pi) ]
[…Skipped 1 Paragraph of Deep Technicals…]
Eq. (38.4) gives the general equation for principal baryon production as the relationship between the particular neutron proper time and the coordinate time
[…I spared the relatively complex equation whose creative use of “sec”, which refers to a relativistically corrected (sec)ond, could be confused with the use of secant (a trigonometric function)…]
The mass of each member of a quark pair corresponds to an energy of Eq. (32.32) where the production state goes through the corresponding neutron comprising quarks and gluons. The down-down-up neutron (ddu) and the anti-duu correspond to the Planck equation energy. The strange-strange-charm (ssc) and anti-ssc correspond to the electric energy. And, the bottom-bottom-top neutron (bbt) and anti-bbt correspond to the magnetic energy. It is shown that the masses are given by Eq. (32.43) and the relative masses differ in their specific function of the fine structure constant alpha only. These functions are determined by relativistic coefficients in Eq. (38.4) given by Eq. (32.32) according to the kind of energy that is responsible for their respective level ( ddu, ssc, bbt ) of the particular particle within its family.
________
The sections titled:
“DOWN-DOWN-UP NEUTRON (DDU)”
“STRANGE-STRANGE-CHARM NEUTRON (SSC)”
“BOTTOM-BOTTOM-TOP NEUTRON (BBT)”
….have content which cannot fully be explained in the relatively short space which I devote to my comment here, so I will select the key sentences which I believe provides the best distinction between the approaches to predicting their different masses.
DDU:
“Substitution of Eq. (38.3) for M into Eq. (38.4) gives the relationship between the down-down-up neutron proper time and the coordinate time.”
SSC:
“For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the [electric] potential energy equations (Eq. (29.10) and (29.11)) is alpha^(-2).”
“As shown in the Muon-Antimuon Lepton Pair section, for the down-down-up neutron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius r_g (Eq. (32.36)) relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], alpha^2.”
“Furthermore, the potential energy equation gives an electrostatic energy; thus, the down-down-up neutron inertial time must be corrected by the relativistic factor 2*pi relative to the proper time.”
BBT:
“As in the case of the tau-mass calculation in the Leptons sections, the magnetic energy corresponding to particle production is given by Eq. (32.32).”
“Thus, the down-down-up neutron time is corrected by a factor of two relative to the proper time.”
“Both the bottom-bottom top neutron and the antibottom-bottom-top neutron undergo and exit the production event with a radius given by Eq. (38.17). Whereas, in the case of tau-antitau production given in the Leptons section, the radius of the lepton and antilepton increased symmetrically to produce lepton plane waves at infinity relative to each other. Thus, in the lab frame, the gravitational radius r_g (Eq. (32.36)) is not corrected by (2*pi)^2.”
“Furthermore, for the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the magnetic energy equations (Eq. (29.14) and (29.15)) is 1/alpha^4.”
“As shown in the Tau-Antitau Lepton Pair section, for the down-down-up neutron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius r_g relative to the proper frame is the inverse, alpha^4.”
From Chapter 37: Proton and Neutron (August 2011 Edition, Updated 2-27-2012)
________
“Proton production is given in the Weak Nuclear Force: Beta Decay of the Neutron section via beta decay of the neutron. The energy of the neutron can be lowered by neutron decay to a proton and a beta [particle].”
________
One of my mantras on this blog is “the worst math is no math”.
Your comment here is an absolutely classic example of what I mean – compounded with a huge amount of obfuscation.
You made a specific claim: that Mills and his CQM had predicted the mass of particles. But in all of that verbosity and cut-and-paste, you managed to never actually demonstrate any prediction, much less a correct one.
The method of deriving a prediction is, of course, incredibly important. But the actual *prediction* derived from that method is crucial. Anyone can write reams of verbose bullshit which looks really impressive, but always remains vague enough to say absolutely nothing – and many crackpots do. If Mills made a prediction, then show us the prediction. You don’t need to cut-and-paste the whole thing, but give us a citation. If he did make a correction prediction before anyone else, then that would provide me with grounds for reconsidering my assessment of Mills and his claims. But if he didn’t actually make a prediction, but just weaseled around and claimed that he could make a prediction, then drop the bullshit claim.
The dillemma works both ways. “Anyone” (as in most people we would consider capable of debating) can make “good” (as in accurate) predictions without bothering to have rational justification for predicting them or explaining them. Conversely, one can have rational justification for a claim which they do not elaborate upon, for the sake of not presenting everything at once, which would overwhelm the reader while at least still trying to be technical. I took the latter approach.
Of course, if I presented BOTH at the same time, they would be mixed together in the same post, or I would have to show one after the other. I did that below, over some period of hours, but of course my objection was that showing the predictions doesn’t prove anything. In fact it does not. Recent comments by John Fring “prove” that.
Now that I have done BOTH in seperate posts, the information does not “prove anything” any more than showing your “birth certificate” would prove to me anything about when you born.
Anything that is “proof”, whatever it is trying to prove, ultimately dependent on some kind of information taken at face value (e.g. axiom, premise, belief, “fact”, etc.). No exception at all!
“Proof”, belief, “facts”, hypothesis, theories, etc. – they are all contentious at one level or another. Paradoxically, the previous statement is subject to that rule. Paradoxically, the previous statement doesn’t imply that the one before that is wrong, and unfortunately, most won’t understand why such an implication would be invalid (Hint: Notice how some people will label another person as hypocritical in order to to discredit or ignore what the other person is saying, even if that person is right? Well, folks, that’s an example of *illogical* thinking, and it illustrates a point similar to the one I just made here.). Let’s also not forget that a logically flawed argument doesn’t invalidate it’s own premises (i.e. a B.S., nonsensical, totally incorrect argument about why hydrinos exist doesn’t disprove the existence of hydrinos, so any deduction therefrom that “hydrinos don’t exist” is an invalid one.).
Let’s not forget that “absence of evidence” is really “absence of corroboration through deemed evidence”, because what makes something “evidence” depends on how it (the observation) is interepreted and subsequently associated with some claim (implying corroboration). Corroboration itself is a contentious matter, and in practice, an “irrational” element is involved with that judgment. The illusions of rationality of equating experience with existential claims is profound and abundant, even in science, especially in areas where science and “cranks” collide. Of course, it is also illogical to consider “absence of corroboration through evidence” as a proof of the non-existence of something.
In the end, comment is the talk, and real science is the walk. The problem is that it takes a lot of time and money to “walk science” (i.e. acquire equipment, lab time, take measurement, consult science staff etc.).
So here we are debating about this or that, and in the end, none of what we do by posting and commenting on online blogs is science, but rather the witness of something that may or may not be science, done by those with resources to do so.
(Typo above:)
The means of derivation of these numbers is more important *than* attempting the derivation itself as it provides the basis for attempting the derivation in the first place.
Brrr, kmarinas86, so many words to say so little.
I asked you for concrete values and references. The book is downloadable, you can cite it and I can read it. Of course, you can copy the relevant sections so that everybody can see your arguments, but believe me, copy&paste didn’t make the world a better place. On one hand, almost everything you copied is completely irrelevant. Thank you for informing us that a second is a lot of vibrations of some atom. Very interesting, commonly unknown, and relevant to actually check if Mills predicted masses measured 50 years ago are compatible with experiments. On the other hand, putting the values I asked you to is not “scientifically baseless”. If the values do not coincide, people can waste their times in other things. If they coincide, they can check the computations you didn’t give us. The rest is literature.
Contrary to popular belief, massive copy&paste doesn’t make people look intelligent.
Well, now to the point. While you almost made a good job, noboby is perfect, and you slipped this:
“The neutrino and antineutrino are photons that travel at velocity c and have energy, but are mass-less. Equations of such photons are given in the Neutrinos section.”
I will restraint me from commenting of the neutrino being a photon (should … bite… my… tongue…). But I’m surprised Mills is so innocent. He may have stopped reading popular science in the sixties, when it was though that neutrino’s rest mass is zero. He probably have seen that he can collect money from investors without much effort, but at least he should buy a popular book from time to time to update his “theory” with new buzzword.
Look, I don’t want to begin another Higgs-type discussion. Last one was funny and significative, but Higgs data is recent and, although a bit surprising for someone supporting a science crank, I understand that the guy knows nothing about the last experiments.
But neutrinos’ mass? Come on, this is old news. A lot of experiments proved that their mass is nonzero. Of course, you can check the sources, like publications from the SuperKamiokande collaboration, I don’t know, “Evidence for oscillations of atmospheric neutrinos”, for example.
But we’re not talking about cutting edge science. It’s already on textbooks! Read anything, please!
– Robinson, Matthew. Symmetry and the Standard Model. Springer, 2011. Chapter four:
“Because neutrinos have mass, we should add several Yukawa terms to give the neutrino generations mass.”
– Cahn, Robert. The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Chapter 16.
“The most enigmatic of elementary particles, neutrinos were postulated in 1930, but were not observed until a quarter of a century later. It took another forty years to determine that they are not massless.”
Cottingham, W. An introduction to the standard model of particle physics. Cambridge University Press. 2006. Chapter 19.
“We will show that they occur because the e, μ and τ neutrinos are not massless”
Just read any book before continuing with your nonsense. We know they’re massive not for theory, so don’t effort arguing that theory is wrong. We know they’re massive because of experiments!
(By the way, look, I didn’t copy&paste hundreds of pages from the books, like the copyright notice on them, very relevant to the discussion. I should have posted the arguments proving massive neutrinos, but it’s standard textbook material and I’m not going to argue about Pi being 3.14… or anything well established).
By the way, I love how, after much wording explaining us how “scientifically baseless” would be to give us some actual numbers for the masses of leptons so we can check them, as the actual “understanding about where they come from” would be lost, then you just refer to neutrinos to freely assert that they “are mass-less”*, without any justification.
Is this what you call “worked in explaining (if not predicting)” the mass of the neutrino? A free assertion? That’s just mirror and smoke, you give us nothing.
*(and remember, a free assertion which is known to be wrong, as the references I gave explain in detail, so Mills is wrong on this, again. But don’t worry, we know you would “not be surprised if CQM could be modded”)
To be clear, I actually said, “The numbers taken in isolation are scientifically baseless[.]”
Simply putting out predictions without first establishing the reason or method of those predictions makes those predictions scientifically baseless. This is such a simple obsevation. Any fool with some decent amount of statistical education can make up a plain vanilla “curve fit” to known observations. What separates a “curve fit” and a “mechanism” is what seperates psuedoscience from science. Scientific causality deals with mechanics. Correlations, however accurate, are nothing more than superstitions when isolated from some expression of cause and effect that can, in principle, become manifest to observers by responsive feedback (i.e. yes, that means historical claims are not scientific, even if they are accomplished by disciplines that are regarded as science (such as paleontology)).
Unfortunately, no discipline of human thought can or ever achieve a pure state of relying soley on scientific causality because what can be observed in principle is not something that the scientific method itself can generate a consensus on – it takes value judgements to make a consensus – no exceptions.
That may explain why people we would regard as rational (e.g. those who are contracted by BLP to do some research) can actually entertain ideas that others dismiss as “disproven by observations”. What is the demarcation line between observation, data, information, theory, fact, proof, observable, unobservable, verified, proven, disproven, etc.? This juncture is at the heart of competing philosophies of science. Perhaps it is this disorder itself, together with its many internal inconsistencies, that motivates scientific progress into fruition. Who knows? If that’s true, perhaps it is asking too much, and perhaps, against progress itself, to argue with the sole aim to convince others of “one rational or correct way” – as if that was the point or reason for our involvement to begin with.
We must have some other reason for saying anything at all about this, otherwise what is the point?
At least, I do have my own reasons for participating here.
</end philosophical rant>
“I asked you for concrete values and references. The book is downloadable, you can cite it and I can read it.”
Have you even seen the calculation tables in the book? The “concrete values and references” are right there in the book. If you want me to prove it here, do you want me copy and paste that over here too? I could simply copy and paste my birthday from another document, but how would that be better than actually seeing the birth certificate?
Let’s try this anyway, and we will see what it proves without explaining how the values were calculated (which I did in my previous long post). It’s the theory presentation of the same book:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/TheoryPresentationPt3.pdf
(“Masses” start at page 17 of 73)
The Electron-Antielectron Lepton Pair: m_(e [calculated]) = 9.1097E-31 kg , m_(e experimental) = 9.1095E-31 kg
The Muon-Antimuon Lepton Pair: m_(mu [calculated]) = 1.8902E-28 kg , m_(mu experimental) = 1.8836E-28 kg
The Tau-Antitau Lepton Pair: m_(tau [calculated]) = 3.17E-27 kg , m_(tau experimental) 3.17E-27 kg
Down-Down-Up Neutron (DDU): m_(N [calculated]) = 1.6744E-27 kg , m_(N experimental) = 1.6749E-27
Strange-Strange-Charmed Neutron (SSC) : m_(scc calculated) = 4.89E-27 kg , m_(scc experimental) = 2.70 GeV / c^2 [= 4.81E-27 kg]
Bottom-Bottom-Top Neutron (BBT)) : m_(bbt calculated) = 3.48E-25 kg , [m_(bbt experimental)] = 186+-13 GeV / c^2 [= 3.32E-25 +- 2.31E-26 kg]
Mills’ book references 1998 CODATA:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/all_1998.pdf
Let’s compare that to the CODATA of 2006:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/all_2006.pdf
particle name: [ 1998 CODATA ][ 2006 CODATA ]
electron: [ 9.10938188(72)E-31 ][ 9.10938215(45)E-31 ]
muon: [ 1.88353109(16)E-28 ][ 1.88353130(11)E-28 ]
tau: [ 3.16788(52)E-27 ][ 3.16777(52)E-27 ]
ddu: [ 1.67492716(13)E-27 ][ 1.674927211(84)E-27 ]
Going to work is my obligation right now, and the values for ssc and bbt are not written in black and white in the CODATA pdfs, so those will have to wait until later.
“*(and remember, a free assertion which is known to be wrong, as the references I gave explain in detail, so Mills is wrong on this, again. But don’t worry, we know you would “not be surprised if CQM could be modded”)”
That free assertion was in the quoted section between the bars. That’s Mills’ conclusion, not mine.
I actually think that neutrons and photons have mass, opposite of what Mills’ thinks (and of course, contrary to SR), but that’s for another day.
“I actually think that neutrons and photons have mass, opposite of what Mills’ thinks (and of course, contrary to SR), but that’s for another day.”
*WHOOPS* I meant:
“I actually think that neutrINOS and photons have mass, opposite of what Mills’ thinks (and of course, contrary to SR), but that’s for another day.”
I explicitly asked about mass of neutrinos, remember? You just had to put that masses here. I’m not interested in the rest because I already assume that any crank can look at CODATA and “predict” the masses he reads there. Predicting known things is not that difficult, you know. But neutrinos’ masses are different, because they’re unknown. That’s all I were asking. Is it that much difficult?
You already slipped them, between all the filling. Zero.
But from experiment it has been known for decades that it’s nonzero. Neutrinos have a small positive mass. Mills is wrong on this, too. End of question. You could have saved all the wording.
Your final comment just surprise me even more. So you said that Mills theory worked in explaining the mass of leptons even when he gives the wrong values for some leptons incompatible with experiments, and when I say this to you, you just make it clear that that’s just Mills’ opinion, not yours. Then you say you believe the mass of leptons to be different of those Mills’ predicts/explains, while affirming that Mills’ theory works in explaining leptons’ masses.
XD XD XD Wow. Mind-bending!
That’s too much. Let save your own theories about massive photons and elemental logic for another day.
“I explicitly asked about mass of neutrinos, remember? You just had to put that masses here.”
Its seem you changed the subject on me.
Remember, you said:
“When you say Mills predicts leptons’ masses, I take it for sure that you are not speaking about the easy ones.”
The exact opposite was true. Indeed, I was talking about the easy ones.
Let’s look at four paragraphs you wrote:
“When you say Mills predicts leptons’ masses, I take it for sure that you are not speaking about the easy ones. Electron was discovered in 1897 and weighted in 1911. Muon was discovered in 1937 and weighted then with 3% of relative error. And tau in 1975. Three years later its mass was known (W.J.Bacino) with a relative error of about 0.3%. Mills was 18 then. I hope you’re not saying his theory allows him to travel in time. In any case, nothing would surprise me by now. So no prediction here.”
You definition of “prediction” is rather narrow. What you mean by the word “prediction” is clearly not the same as what I mean by the word “prediction”. It does not have to be “foreseen”, simply “arrived at”. Unfortunately, there are more and better words for the former than the latter, in my language (English) anyway.
“And what about their associated neutrinos? That would be a lot more interesting, because their masses are not known (to the rest of people not having Mills superpowers). So, I’m excited, don’t make us wait. What are those masses?”
“Be careful with the numbers you give us. You’ll be putting another of those expiration dates in Mills theory. Don’t worry, there will be some time before they are measured, but I’m already preparing the papers to refute you if you give us already refuted values :)”
“So, you made a claim: that Mills predicted/explained lepton masses. Now support it. What are the references? Where are those numbers? I want to see that derivation and check against current data.”
The four paragraphs taken together didn’t scream out me, “Neutrinos’ masses please!” All I heard was, “Give me something. I want some lepton masses”. If you wanted to be explicit (to me), then you should have mentioned neutrinos specifically in the fourth paragraph.
Remember, this paragraph is when you really asserted what you wanted, especially by beginning it with the challenge “So you made a claim[….]Now support it.” That to me screams “emphasize me” more than does the statement, “So, I’m excited, don’t make us wait.”
Here’s a hint: I am more responsive to challenges and less responsive to beggings. So when I see a challenge, it is as if I saw it in large, bold, black print, while if I saw begging, it is as if I saw it in small, muted, pastel-colored print.
In short, “explicitness” is in the eye of the beholder.
Errr, sorry, but, didn’t we already finished? You said Mills can predict leptons’ masses and I showed why this is wrong to readers, so they are not fooled into thinking that Mills’ theory have any substance just because some people freely assert false virtues. That’s all. I’m not specially interested in providing you with challenges, justifying my selection of words after we all understood each other, or ruminating your philosophical questions, which don’t bother me the least. Don’t take it personally.
Seriously, guys. What’s happening to cranks lately?
First the guy informing me that a presumed nuclear process is just evidence for Mills’ theory, despite nothing fitting (ther products, the energy, the initial samples, the neutrons, etc), because they measured it all wrong. He could just claim that they’re making an apple pie . Then the guy sending tens of papers analyzing in depth a 125GeV/c2 Higgs to prove me he is a physicist and no physicist ever suggested a 125GeV/c2 Higgs. Then the guy redirecting us to Mills’ web so we can see “independent” evidence. And now this guy asserting that Mills’ theory worked in explaining/predicting neutrinos’ masses successfully while claiming that he believes that the masses Mills gives are wrong. I’m not sure. Does he believe that the masses he thinks neutrinos’ have are wrong? Arrrgh
What the hell is happening here?!
Dear John Fringe,
Well let’s see, Mills is able to explain the mass of the three generations of leptons sans the neutrino part (neutrinos are leptons, of course).
So when it comes to that, my comment was about his CQM being able to explain the masses of leptons sans the masses of neutrinos. Maybe I should have said that first.
No, Mills theory doesn’t predict everything physicists might be interested in (e.g. neutrino masses). That doesn’t mean it can’t predict anything new (e.g. hydrinos, hydrino catalysts, fifth-force). Failure to provide predictions for neutrino masses doesn’t automatically rule out the latter, it just makes the latter harder to believe for those who don’t seem to compartmentalize fringe claims into separate areas of debate.
In line what I said before, and what the your recent comment before me proves, posting the data itself proves J.S. (maybe you can figure out what J.S. means).
My previous long post only demonstrated that CQM can explain the masses of the electron, muon, and tau leptons, in addition to the quark masses. The gaps in Mills’ theory, in my opinion, will ultimately be the following:
* Masses of electron, muon, and tau neutrinos
* Masses of photons (yes, I consider that photons indeed may have mass)
* The nature of the atom beyond 20 electrons per atom (Mills has not covered this in his book)
* The mechanical basis of electrical resistivity, magnetic permeability, electric permittivity, refractive index, heat capacity, material elasticity, surface tension, emissivity, and their dependence on wavelength, angle of incidence, resonant frequencies, off-resonant behavior, non-linearities and much more
* Violation of the “cosmological principle” by the actual cosmos itself
* Variations in the fine-structure constant over cosmological distances (John K. Webb et al., October 2011)
* Subtle forms of transmutation, as they relate to LENR experiments (i.e. “cold” fission/fusion experiments).
* Nuclear structure
The gaps are likely to remain in Mills’ CQM as a result of the desire of Mills to be self-consistent, or otherwise maintain a certain level consistency thereof. I suspect many of the leaps listed above will ultimately require the rejection of some of Mills’ posulates, even the ones he uses as “first prinicples”-basis to underpin his treatise which are right now useful to him to construct his ideas in a consistent manner. However, for him to reject any number of these would make him a flip-flopper and lose some credibility from his supporters. So that work is better left to someone else after him.
I can’t say I agree with CQM fully (in fact, I don’t), but at least (IMO) it is better to have CQM than to not have it. Let me be clear about another point, I agree with Mills on the existence of hydrinos.
The last physicist genius this century will NOT be Randell Mills. The truth will be found in the future.
My break is over, now. Gtg back to work.
Sincerely,
kmarinas86
Well, posting the data allowed me to show everybody that Mills’ theory can not predict nor explain lepton’ masses, and that you were wrong when you said so. It allowed me to settle the question. Mills’ masses are wrong. Of course, I’m refering to the data I ASKED FOR. That’s something.
Of course, that means nothing to you. Because when you said that Mills’ theory works for explaining the masses of leptons, you actually meant it works when it works, and not when it doesn’t not work, like in the case of neutrinos. Sorry, that looks like a tautology to me XD. But hey, some masses are right. And, by some great cosmical coincidence of the destiny, those masses which Mills can predict without being wrong are those which have been known for decades, appearing in any popular science book. And, unfortunately, the mechanism doesn’t work for those masses which we don’t know, giving instead values incompatible with experiment. Curiously, the values experiment allow for those values are a bit more difficult to find. But this is just coincidence. But that’s just a coincidence.
Those wrong values for masses you call “gaps”. Curious nomenclature. Most people call “gap” to a lack of information, not to erroneous information. But gap sounds better than wrong.
Of course, for you, this does not invalidate Mills’ theory, because you’re flexible and can “compartmentalize” and “mod” the theory. It doesn’t matter that Mills is wrong about particles’ masses, about the existence of Higgs, about unseen spectral lines, about his postulates, about the relative abundancy of elements (measurements fit theory, leaving no place for hydrino), or about anything. Because, of course, he can still predict those unknown unseen low energy common day chemical properties of the best known, tested and most abundant element in the universe. Yes, he is wrong about anything else, there is no evidence of hydrino in twenty year of propaganda, and the actual evidence is incompatible with his predictions (like spectral lines).
So, to sum up, there is no need to keep repeating yourself. We understood.
“yes, I consider that photons indeed may have mass”
Congratulations.
Ah, I almost forgot. Thank for make it clear that, when Mills’ theory is wrong (i.e., when you say there is a “gap”), like in the case of the wrong neutrinos’ masses, it’s just “a result of the desire of Mills to be self-consistent”. That makes a lot of sense.
You said: “Well, posting the data allowed me to show everybody that Mills’ theory can not predict nor explain lepton’ masses, and that you were wrong when you said so.”
Translation: You think the glass is empty.
I said: “So when it comes to that, my comment was about his CQM being able to explain the masses of leptons sans the masses of neutrinos.”
Translation: I think the glass is neither full nor empty.
Do I really need to remember you that your “sans neutrinos” was quite after the fact?
Do you really expect that I spend an hour showing how the inference… derivation… prediction (that’s it, no better word in your language) of, for example, electron’s mass is either nonexistent or depends on the introduction in disguise of the mass of electrons? Even when I know that you would then say “sans neutrinos sans electrons”?
Say it clearer. Come on, say it: you believe that Mills’ theory can predict everything where it has not yet proven to be wrong. If you say it this way, you’ll not have to keep moving the goalpost. God of the Gaps. See?
Is not there a “Manual of the Lil’ Crank and Spammer” with this kind of advices?
Well, as expected, all this “can predict the mass of leptons” is beyond stupid, it’s just the classic shell game mixing definitions with computations. But I couldn’t resist wasting my time and, as it was naiver than I thought, I decided to spend ten minutes laughing at it.
Mills starts with Eq. 36.2 on his book, which, according to him, is the definition of “second” (his seconds are not common seconds):
hbar 2 G m_e^2
2 pi —————- = sec sqrt(————————) Eq.36.2
m_e c^2 c alpha^2 hbar
where
hbar = barred Planck constant,
m_e = electron mass
c = speed of light
G = Newton constant of gravitation
alpha = fine structure constant
Anyone would think that “sec” here is the secant function, but not, it’s Mills’ “second”. Remember, this is the very definition of this “second” according to Mills. As you see, it depends on electron’s mass. If we solve for sec,
alpha pi sqrt(2 hbar^3)
sec = ————————————
m_e^2 sqrt(G c^3)
So, to know the value of sec, we need the value of m_e. But Mills (and our friend kmarinas here) seem to have the memory of a fish, because in equation 36.3 (exactly three lines after this definition), they compute the mass of the electron “based on the definition of the coordinate time in terms of sec”:
h alpha c hbar
m_e = sqrt(——————–)(——————)^(1/4) = 9.0998 10^(-31)kg Eq.36.3
sec c^2 2 G
Yes, your eyes are not fooling you. He just took the definition of “sec”, which depends on the mass of the electron, and solves for the mass of the electron. But, then, to compute m_e in this way, he need the value of sec. But he can compute it by the definition of sec. Of course, for that he requires the value of the mass of the electron.
What still surprises me is that even in this circular way he doesn’t obtain an exact value. It’s ridiculous. Because, as it’s perfectly obvious, if you substitute in Eq.36.3 the definition of sec and then simplify, all you have is
m_e = m_e
as it’s obvious because your using the same equation to compute two variables.
To sum up, Mills procedure for computing the mass of the electron is:
1) Compute sec using the mass of the electron
2) Use the value computed in 1) to compute the mass of the electron
Of course, to compute 1) you need to introduce the known mass of the electron. But the benefits are great, because you then “predict” the mass of the electron in 2). Don’t ask me how he manages to obtain it with greater error than the experimental value he uses as input of 1). That’s the true mystery XD XD XD XD
So no, he can’t “predict” the mass of the electron, neither 🙁
He then continues manipulating the same equation over and over, inserting the mass of the rest of leptons and, surprise, and oh surprise! obtaining the mass of the rest of leptons. Anyone interested has all the details in page 1586 of his book. Yes, you need one page, only.
What kills me is the fact that this childish play has been around for so long.
But remember: the book is quite thick!
Great, the software erases all the blank spaces, so now the equations are illegible. Well, you get the idea.
Mark, I’m not used to blog software. Can you write latex’s math in a comment or something? Thank you in advance.
Must I point out that the electron mass is a “given” (i.e. fundamental constant) in Mills’ theory? Should I no longer refrain from pointing out that what is of actually interest here is the ratio between different leptons with respect to the electron? (Chapter 36)
Come to think of it, I can make a similar point about how the different masses of quarks (Chapter 38) relate to the mass of the proton (also a fundamental constant in Mills’ theory). (Chapter 37)
“He then continues manipulating the same equation over and over, inserting the mass of the rest of leptons and, surprise, and oh surprise! obtaining the mass of the rest of leptons.”
Here you do not understand. Mills does not merely substitute the mass of the electron for some other mass.
To illustrate, suppose that he did: If you substituted a for b without altering any other part of the equation, then a and b would have to be solutions for the same function. But alas, we see that this “function” is combination of terms made completely of the “fundamental constants” of CQM. Therefore, if a simple (lepton mass for another lepton mass) substitution were made, then it would imply that a=b, for having two real, and opposite, roots are not applicable when we speak of values for mass.
Since such equivalency is clearly not demonstrated across the three generations of lepton particles, and indeed, this is not even what Mills predicts, you should consider what he is doing in the numerator inside the radical of the RHS of each of the three+three equations (Chapter 36, Eqs. 2, 5, and 7) (Chapter 38, Eq. 5, 9, and 19) in which “the relationship between the [__<particle>__] proper time and [electron] coordinate time” is defined for leptons and quark triplets, respectively. Mills solves for an energy balance, based on mass(energy)-equivalence with Planck, electric, and magnetic energy with respect to Generation I, II, and III particles, respectively. The Planck, electric, and magnetic energies have a correspondence in Mills’ CQM defined by his model for extended-charge(current) distributions, the orbitsphere.
By distinguishing attributes between the three generations of particles rooted in a discrete set of correspondences between different, co-dependent forms of energy of a classically-stable model of current distribution (inspired by the work of Herman Haus 1986), Mills has developed a mathematical model of “allowed masses” for fundamental particles despite the model being in the domain of “classical physics”. This is what my long post alluded to.
Below is a copy of not-as-long post regarding the classically-stable model of current distribution of Mills’ CQM:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.hydrino/7797
________
Tstolper | 14 Apr 06:31
[2004-04-14 04:31:21 GMT ]
Nonradiation Condition, Haus,Mills,Goedecke
Regarding the recent posts about the nonradiation condition and the late
Hermann Haus, Institute Professor at MIT:
I spoke twice with Haus, first in 1992 and then again in 2000. Haus had
read Mills’ early work (either the original 1990 book, which contained the
foundations of Mills’ theory, or the 1992 book) and had also asked a colleague’s
opinion of it. Haus said that he found Mills’ math to be competent, and Haus
didn’t make any criticism of it; but Haus wanted to see more experimental
results before he would endorse Mills’ theory.
Haus published a nonradiation condition in 1986 and applied it to the
restricted case of a point charge with constant velocity. Mills saw Haus’
nonradiation condition before it was published, because Mills studied electromagnetic
theory under Haus during the academic year 1985-1986. Mills realized that a
generalized nonradiation condition could handle nonradiation by charge in
acceleration, and Mills later applied that to his model of the electron as an
extended particle.
Goedecke published the general nonradiation condition in 1964, unknown to
either Haus or Mills. It is sufficient for nonradiation, as Goedecke showed,
and also necessary, as Goedecke conjectured, and as Philip Pearle later proved
(Pearle, “Absence of Radiationless Motions of Relativistically Rigid Classical
Electron,” FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, Vol. 7, Nos. 11/12 (1977), pp. 931-945, at
pp. 933-936). Mills now cites both Haus and Goedecke as prior work for the
nonradiation condition and has for some time.
The nonradiation condition that Mills uses is equivalent to Goedecke’s
condition. Goedecke’s condition is rock-solid. It is, as Abbott and Griffiths
wrote, “stunningly simple.” It isn’t at all controversial. What is
controversial is the extensive use that Mills has made of the general nonradiation
condition.
The email from Haus that Luke posted to this group in 2002 didn’t criticize
Mills. The email was carefully and cautiously phrased, in a way that implied
that Haus didn’t want to become embroiled in the controversy then swirling
around Mills’ work.
Tom Stolper
BA math, MA polisci
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________
Mills defines “1 sec” as:
“1 sec” = ( 4 pi ε_0 λ-bar_C^2 α^2 2 pi c / e^2 ) ( h-bar c / ( 2 G ) )^(1/2) * ( 1 + 2 pi α^2 / 2 )^(-2) = 0.9975 MKS second
Notice:
* 1 MKS second (i.e. the standard second used in common everyday time keeping) does not appear in this equation.
* The value of “1 sec” is not derived from taking the value of 1 second and multiplying it by some ratio.
* None of the factors in this equation share the same dimensionality as time. These factors include: dimensionless, q^2 kg^(-2) m^(-3) s^2, m, m s^(-1), kg * m^2 * s^(-1), and m^3 * kg^(-1) * s^(-2).
* None of factors in this equation were themselves derived by multiplying with or dividing by the value of 1 MKS (standard) second.
This can only mean one thing. The value that Mills uses in his model coincidentally has a value very close to the second. Therefore, if we used a system using minutes instead of seconds as the basic measuring stick of time, then this coincidence would not exist. Unlike what I stated prior, it is not correct to call “1 sec” a “relativistically corrected second”. Here, as it is defined, is a completely new physical parameter, made up of fundamental “constants” only.
Furthermore, I still maintain the self-correction that that Mills did not “predict” the mass of the electron. What he said was the following:
“The electron mass is not a fundamental constant since it can be derived in terms of the actual fundamental constants given in the Relationship of Spacetime, Matter, and Charge section. The electron mass is given by Eq. (36.3) wherein the time unit sec may be determined independently of any parameter measured directly on the electron.”
This is not exactly true. The electron Compton wavelength bar λ-bar_C does participate in the equation for “1 sec”, and it is calculable on the basis of knowing the rest mass of the electron, in addition to Planck’s constant and the speed of light. So as far as predicting the mass of the electron itself, Mills did not do this.
However, it still remains the case that the similarity between Mills’ parameter “1 sec” and the standard MKS second is a coincidence. This is true given the four bulleted points above. It can therefore be concluded that multiplying by the parameter “1 sec” is not arbitrary in the same sense as multiplying by the standard second. As much as it does not allow for prediction of the electron mass, it also does not represent an arbitrary factor which one may use to change the dimensions of the answer whenever convenient to support Mills’ theory, so as long as the logic behind when to apply this factor and when not to apply this factor is based on a consistent claim – conversion between proper and coordinate time in this case – that requires a certain multiplicative factor.
You will notice that all the values Mills calculates (expressed on the LHS or RHS as a lone factor) using the “sec” do not contain time in its dimensionality. Rather, the “sec” appears to be used to remove the time dimension on the complementary side of the equation. The equations for the electron mass, neutron mass, and other fundamental particle masses in terms of the “sec” fit this pattern – the “lone” factor here being defined simply as the mass term isolated in the LHS of each equation respectively (e.g. m_e_calculated, m_N_calculated, etc.).
While the numeric value of “1 sec” will depend on the choice of units, such a change will remain consistent with the relative value of between units (e.g. 60 seconds = 1 minute implying a change in numeric value of “1 sec” by factor of 1/60 when switching to minutes as the unit of time). If it did not, then it would prove the inconsistency of the parameter “1 sec” and invalidate its use.
Regarding the time unit of second, Mills states:
“The Mean Solar Day (1956) definition of the time unit second was based on the day night cycle of the Earth defined as the time for 1/86,400 th of a rotation of the Earth. This definition was the predecessor to the MKS definition of time which is also based on the second. The exact number, 86,400, permits the day night cycle to be expressed in terms of 24 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour, and 60 second per minute. One method of advancing the definition of second is to develop a relationship between the fundamental constants and Newton’s Law of Gravitation regarding the Earth.”
However, in the following statement, Randell Mills seems to be implying the definition of the MKS second is not all that coincidental:
“Substitution of Eq. (32.25) into Eq. (32.2.11) gives”
“((2*pi*R)^2 / 86400 s) / (1.1 * 10^4 m/s)^2 = ((2 pi* (6*10^5 m))^2 / 86400 s) / (1.1 * 10^4 m/s)^2 = 136 s ≈ α^(-1) s”
“This close identity may have played a role in choosing the number 86,400 in the definition of the second.”
This statement appears to make a peculiar “esoteric” insinuation. Not that I am automatically against anything of the sort, but I am sure that it indicates that Mills believes, or at least suspects, that some message was encoded into our human tradition of time keeping. The geometry of the logo on the old BLP book cover appears to indicate a similar leaning into “esoteric” knowledge (i.e. a triangle with corners labeled with the letters G, E, M):
http://web.archive.org/web/19980110201626/http://blacklightpower.com/book.html
I can’t believe my eyes. I rationally knew you would do, but I just can’t believe it.
So it’s now sans neutrinos (half of leptons) sans electrons (and that around 70%). And when you say “Mills’ theory predicts leptons’ masses” you meant “Mills’ theory predicts the mass of just two leptons, at least until someone looks”.
Ok, kmarinas, you’re a funny troll. XD
While we wait for Higgs confirmation (a few days), I don’t one anyone out there doubts all this is a scam. Let’s see some lies in his book. I’ll explain why they are lies and why they are wrong wrong (of course, this will not prevent people to claiming I should refute it again XD). The book is full of false claims of great accomplishments, and it’s just quackery.
Remember. kmarinas said it doesn’t matter if Mills’ theory wrongly implies no Higgs, because a theory contradicting reality may be right, who knows. At least, according to him, it predicts the masses of leptons. I showed it just asserts the three neutrinos’ masses giving wrong values, and kmarinas moved the goalpost. Now it predicts half of leptons’ masses. I showed Mills uses electron’ mass to compute electron’s mass. So kmarinas moved the goalpost again. Now it predicts tau and muon’s masses. I decided to stop following kmarinas. It’s boring, and everyone wanting to see can see.
But while looking at that, I saw plenty of ridiculous claims in Mills book. For example, he says
“CP successfully predicted the mass of the top quark before it was reported […][30]” (p.3)
“In the 1995 Edition of the GUTCP, the prediction [30] that the expansion of the universe was accelerating was made from the same equations that correctly predicted the mass of the top quark before it was measured” (p.48)
“providing for […] the predictions of […] the mass of the top quark” (p.1541)
The reference [30] is his own book, november 1995 version:
[30] R. L. Mills, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, November 1995 Edition…
After so much infomercial advertising (that I skip), we found the “prediction” on p.1602. After some numerology:
“m_t = 187 GeV/c2
Considering all jets, the CDF collaboration determined the mass of the top quark to be 186+10GeV/c3 [3]”
You see: he claims his November 1995 book predicted top quark mass before measurement.
There are two things wrong with this. First one, it’s a lie. Second, his computed mass is wrong, like in the case of neutrinos. It shows how his computations are just numerology to adjust the values to known data.
Top quark mass was measured by Fermilab in 1995, on February, and the discovery was announced in March. You can check it here:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/discoveries/top_quark.html
Explicitly, “we measure the top quark mass to be 176+-8(stat)+-10(sys) GeV/c2”. This is a cite from
Observation of Top Quark Production in p anti-p Collisions with the Collider Detector at Fermilab F. Abe et al., The CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626 (1995). (April 3rd, 1995)
That’s 7 whole month before Mills’ book. But, of course, the mass was known way before that. In
http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/top_status/first_ev.html
you can see
Evidence for Top Production in p anti-p Collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.8 TeV F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 225 (1994).
which says
“yield a top quark mass of 174+-10 GeV/c2.”
This one is from April 1994, some 19 months before Mills.
You can get as much papers before Mills as you want:
Pokorski, Stefan. Top Quark Mass and Supersymmetry. Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 37B (1994) 50-55 hep-ph/9407276
12 Jul 1994
“Evidence for the top quark has been recently reported by the CDF group at Fermilab, with the mass
Mt)=(174+-17)GeV.”
I’ll stop here, but you can get as many as you want. In fact, 1994 sensation was not Higgs, but top quark, and some of you may even remember those years.
So Mills claim is just false. It’s a lie.
Now, about the value. As you can see, most measurements give a value of about 174 GeV, while Mills computes 187 GeV. That’s a big error. Who is right?
All previous ones (except Mills’) are 1994 or 1995 measurements. The best value we’ve got now is
173.2+-0.9GeV/c2, from
http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/public_mass.html
This means that top mass is in the range [172.3-174.1]. Everything outside this range is forbidden by experiment. You can see Mills’ “predicted value”, 187GeV/c2, is wrong. It’s wrong by 8%, a great error.
Why is he wrong? Well, the value he gives comes from CDF run I, an experiment being performed in those years. It was not a precise measurement, giving a wide range, 186+-15.7. The measurement was right, you can see how the real value was in the range of uncertainty of the experiment. What is not right is saying that the mass is 186GeV.
For me, it’s obvious that the problem is that Mills took this value as good, and made up his formulas so they fit it. Why the hell would his 1995 computations give this wrong value measured in 1995? Coincidence? Chance? Come on. If Mills update this section today, his computation would magically “predict” 173GeV.
The funny thing is that the rest of measurements available then were better. Mills took the wrong possible value, and made his numerology compute this wrong value. This is a case of very bad luck XD.
But that’s all. Mills lies about his prediction, he had the data available for almost two years, and his value is wrong, not allowed by experiment.
If someone is surprised by my assertions that you can made up a formula so it yields the value you want, don’t be. It’s pretty easy. See, Mills’ computation of electron’s mass uses electron mass, but you don’t need. Look, I just made up this formula (he can copy it in the next version of his book):
me = (4 hbar / 9 alpha^2) * (1+(1/9pi))
It’s simpler than Mills’, three times more exact, does not uses electron’s mass, and it doesn’t make any sense. If you’re tempted to think that I discover some important truth, here is another incompatible one:
me = (2h/ 3^3 alpha^2)*(1-1/3^3 pi)
This one is a whole ten times more exact than Mills. I could mass produce them. Of course, the units are not compatible, but neither are Mills’, and that’s why he has to multiply by “1 second”. I could multiply by 1 “the units I need”, too.
And that’s all.
You said:
_____________
If someone is surprised by my assertions that you can made up a formula so it yields the value you want, don’t be. It’s pretty easy. See, Mills’ computation of electron’s mass uses electron mass, but you don’t need. Look, I just made up this formula (he can copy it in the next version of his book):
me = (4 hbar / 9 alpha^2) * (1+(1/9pi))
It’s simpler than Mills’, three times more exact, does not uses electron’s mass, and it doesn’t make any sense. If you’re tempted to think that I discover some important truth, here is another incompatible one:
me = (2h/ 3^3 alpha^2)*(1-1/3^3 pi)
_____________
Silly. Your LHS side has units of mass, while your RHS has units of angular momentum. Try again.
Also understand that the mass of the top quark isn’t actually a universal constant. Given that the top quark has never been observed in isolation, depending on what is happening to the nucleus, the amount of mass associated with the top quark can vary.
If you read carefully in the latest version of Mills’ book, you see that he cites the following paper:
K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002); http://pdg.lbl.gov; http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/topquark_q007.pdf
There is a line of data, where it says:
[ m_t (GeV/c^2) ][ Source ][ Ref. ][ Method ]
[ 186.0±10.0± 5.7 ][ CDF ][ [15,22] ][ all jets ]
It also says:
________
Typical final states for the leading pair-production process therefore belong to three classes:
A. [….]
B. [….]
C. [….]
where A, B, and C are referred to as the all jets, lepton + jets, and dilepton channels, respectively. The final state quarks can emit radiation and will eventually evolve into jets of hadrons. The precise number of jets reconstructed by the detectors varies event by event, as it depends on the decay kinematics, as well as on the precise definition of jet used in the analysis. (Additional gluon radiation can also be emitted from the initial states.)
________
The paper also states that:
________
The top mass has been measured in the lepton + jets and dilepton channels by both DØ and CDF, and in the all-jets channel by CDF. At present, the most precise measurements come from the lepton+jets channel, with four or more jets and large missing E_T. In this channel, each event is subjected to a two-constraint kinematic fit to the hypothesis “[….]”, assuming that the four hightest E_T jets are the quarks from the t t-bar decay. The shape of the distribution of the fitted top masses from the events is compared to templates expected from a mixture background and signal distributions for a series of assumed top masses. This comparison yields values of the likelihood as a function of top mass, from which a best value of the top mass and its uncertainty can be obtained.
________
As you can see, in order to determine the “most likely” top mass (i.e. the mode of the top mass “likelihood function”), a “comparison” must be made between experiment and a theories’ predictions. In other words, they take predictions according to theory and measurements according to experiments obtained using various approaches in order to decide which approach yields the more accurate measurement. They then use the value of the top mass measured by this approach as the “most accurate value”. Read that line several times. If you understand what it means, you will realize a claim that they predicted the mass of the top quark is just as plausible as a claim that they measure “the” mass of “the” top quark or a claim that Mills predicted the mass of the electron. Notice that they choose the leptons + jets method as the “most accurate” method. This is not a coincidence. They use the predictions of their theory as a basis for choosing which experimental result is deemed to be a more accurate measurement of the experimental top mass, while the mass predictions of other methods, although they result in valid measurements of something, are not regarded equally as measurements of the top mass.
Typo in the last sentence: “….while the mass observations of other methods, although they result in valid measurements of something, are not regarded equally as measurements of the top mass.”
You said:
_____________
If someone is surprised by my assertions that you can made up a formula so it yields the value you want, don’t be. It’s pretty easy. See, Mills’ computation of electron’s mass uses electron mass, but you don’t need. Look, I just made up this formula (he can copy it in the next version of his book):
me = (4 hbar / 9 alpha^2) * (1+(1/9pi))
It’s simpler than Mills’, three times more exact, does not uses electron’s mass, and it doesn’t make any sense. If you’re tempted to think that I discover some important truth, here is another incompatible one:
me = (2h/ 3^3 alpha^2)*(1-1/3^3 pi)
_____________
Silly. Your LHS side has units of mass, while your RHS has units of angular momentum. Try again.
Also understand that the mass of the top quark isn’t actually a universal constant. Given that the top quark has never been observed in isolation, depending on what is happening to the nucleus, the amount of mass associated with the top quark can vary.
If you read carefully in the latest version of Mills’ book, you see that he cites the following paper:
K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002); http://pdg.lbl.gov; http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/topquark_q007.pdf
There is a line of data, where it says:
[ m_t (GeV/c^2) ][ Source ][ Ref. ][ Method ]
[ 186.0±10.0± 5.7 ][ CDF ][ [15,22] ][ all jets ]
It also says:
________
Typical final states for the leading pair-production process therefore belong to three classes:
A. [….]
B. [….]
C. [….]
where A, B, and C are referred to as the all jets, lepton + jets, and dilepton channels, respectively. The final state quarks can emit radiation and will eventually evolve into jets of hadrons. The precise number of jets reconstructed by the detectors varies event by event, as it depends on the decay kinematics, as well as on the precise definition of jet used in the analysis. (Additional gluon radiation can also be emitted from the initial states.)
________
The paper also states that:
________
The top mass has been measured in the lepton + jets and dilepton channels by both DØ and CDF, and in the all-jets channel by CDF. At present, the most precise measurements come from the lepton+jets channel, with four or more jets and large missing E_T. In this channel, each event is subjected to a two-constraint kinematic fit to the hypothesis “[….]”, assuming that the four hightest E_T jets are the quarks from the t t-bar decay. The shape of the distribution of the fitted top masses from the events is compared to templates expected from a mixture background and signal distributions for a series of assumed top masses. This comparison yields values of the likelihood as a function of top mass, from which a best value of the top mass and its uncertainty can be obtained.
________
As you can see, in order to determine the “most likely” top mass (i.e. the mode of the top mass “likelihood function”), a “comparison” must be made between experiment and a theories’ predictions. In other words, they take predictions according to theory and measurements according to experiments obtained using various approaches in order to decide which approach yields the more accurate measurement. They then use the value of the top mass measured by this approach as the “most accurate value”. Read that line several times. If you understand what it means, you will realize a claim that they predicted the mass of the top quark is just as plausible as a claim that they measure “the” mass of “the” top quark or a claim that Mills predicted the mass of the electron. Notice that they choose the leptons + jets method as the “most accurate” method. This is not a coincidence. They use the predictions of their theory as a basis for choosing which experimental result is deemed to be a more accurate measurement of the experimental top mass, while the mass observations of other methods, although they result in valid measurements of something, are not regarded equally as measurements of the top mass.
When I explicitly wrote this sentence…
“Of course, the units are not compatible, but neither are Mills’, and that’s why he has to multiply by “1 second”. I could multiply by 1 “the units I need”, too.”
… what’s Kevin’ problem? Reading or understanding?
About the mass, I would not repeat myself again. The value Mills gave is linked in the paper he cites to a paper from 1992, coming from early CDF Run-I days. He knows that value from measurement years before “predicting it”, and it has been rejected by more recent experiments using the same methods and channels, like in the improved CDF Run-II.
The rest of the post is really stupid. CDF measures between 1992 and 1994 a mass for top quark assuming QM. Of course, they have to assume a theory to interpret what they are measuring. But you can’t claim any theory. They assumed a particular one: QM (QFT, standard model, etc). The measurement is not very precise.
Mills, years later, “predicts” that known value and claims it has been confirmed later by experiment.
Now our friend Marinas says that experiment has to be interpreted by theory, so it doesn’t matter which one precedes which one. It’s a prediction, in any case. Of course, he doesn’t mention that experiment results are not linked to any theory, but to a concrete theory. The value 186+-15GeV is not obtained assuming any theory, but QM. Nowhere does Mills develop the value that experiment would obtain assuming his theory. He just claims that the value he “predicted” years after an experiment by using his theory is proved because it coincides with the value already known but somehow posterior measured by assuming another theory. Great.
Of course, that theory and experiment are linked does not invert the order of prediction. If I measure the distance of the Earth to the Moon and years later I use a theory (that should be compatible with experiment) to compute it, I did not predicted it. And if my computation just gives the value already known, it’s not a prediction. And if refined experiments discard that value, it’s still not a prediction.
But it’s even better. More recent experiment using the same methods and channels and measuring basically the same with more sensibility and data discards the value Mills copied as good. He does not rewrite his paragraphs, so he still claims that he predicted that known value now discarded, and still maintains that experiment confirmed it, citing old CDF results.
And Marinas justify it by saying that the values obtained now (some of them with the same procedures) depend on another theory, not Mills. Of course!
The problem is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that some experiments performed assuming other theories prove your posterior predictions because they’re linked to some theory, while simultaneously claim that posterior experiments don’t refute your predictions for the same reason.
Of course, all this is just beyond stupid. Mills predicts wrong masses for top quark, predicted no Higgs, predicted wrong neutrinos masses. All using a lot of numerology, introducing known values, free assertions, non sequiturs. He make fantastic claims, like predictions, that are false. He contradicts known and trivial experimental facts, like the low energy chemistry of hydrogen. As his theory is wrong and his claims false (no theory no reputation), all left is his experimental evidence, which nobody saw.
So, why are we still talking about hydrino? What makes you thing it exists? Rael appeared to you and talk about its existence?
How do you suppose scientists measure the mass of the top quark, when in fact a free quark has in fact never been observed? It obviously is dependent on theory, much more so than particles which can be isolated, such as the electron, muon, and tau. It’s like trying to measure the mass of the fudge in a 1/2 gallon of ice cream fudge swirled with vanilla, without ever opening the container.
http://www-d0.fnal.gov/public/pubs/topmass_prl_sum.html
____________
One of the reasons it took so long to find the top quark, and why we’re interested in it, is its large mass M(t). The top quark is about as heavy as a gold nucleus. While the nucleus is a bag of >800 lighter quarks, the top quark is just one elementary particle, with fractional charge (+2/3) and zero size like the lighter quarks.
Here’s how we measured the top quark mass. We started with a few trillion collisions of 900 GeV protons with 900 GeV antiprotons during 1992-1996 in the DØ detector (1 GeV is the kinetic energy that a 1 billion volt battery could give to 1 proton). We selected 90 events that are similar to what the Standard Model would predict if a top and an antitop quark are produced in the collision. Before we can detect it, each (anti)top quark decays to a b quark and a W boson. (In the Table, the b quark is the lightweight partner of the top quark, and the W boson is a heavy cousin of the photon). About 30% of the time one W decays to an electron or muon and a neutrino, while the other decays to a pair of quarks. In the D0 detector we carefully selected events with a signature for four quarks, one electron or muon, and one neutrino. Despite our care, this rare sample was still about 70% background, mostly production of a W boson together with other light particles. We needed to suppress the background further.
We accomplished this by using a figure of merit D that distinguishes top signal from background based on “soft” pattern recognition calculations of the type performed by neural systems. We designed these calculations so that events with higher D are more likely to be top, but they are not biased toward unusually large or small apparent top mass. For each of the 90 candidates, we calculated D and also the most likely top mass based on the directions and energies of the quarks and leptons (remember E = Mc2 from Einstein’s special theory of relativity). The Figure below shows histograms of the calculated mass for (a) high D and (b) low D events, compared to the Standard Model predictions (red dots). Based on these histograms, part (c) of the Figure shows the relative likelihood of various top quark masses (for two different definitions of D).
____________
It’s of course possible that the actual top quark is heavier, closer to 186 GeV, if we suppose that a lot of other unknown particles get emitted as a result of the collision which simply don’t get picked up by the detectors. Maybe the fact that the measurements of the alleged “top quark mass” vary widely depending kind of collision involved (e.g. leptons + jets vs. all jets), which is not case for observations with some other particles, such as electrons, says something about how much more that is still left unknown in all of them. And when comes to such areas, I see neither the mainstream nor Mills taking account for such what ifs.
“all left is his experimental evidence, which nobody saw”
From Microsoft Academic Search:
http://65.54.113.26/Author/1219709/randell-l-mills
Randell L. Mills
Publications: 52 | Citations: 647 | G-Index: 24 | H-Index: 17
Interests: Energy, Chemistry, Artificial Intelligence
Collaborated with 27 co-authors from 2000 to 2010; Cited by 85 authors
http://65.54.113.26/VisualExplorer#1219709&citation
I looked at this for some time, but I have yet to find someone in this list whose name is “nobody”.
“So, why are we still talking about hydrino?”
Why are you still talking about the Higgs Boson? Oh right. That’s all Badger’s fault from way back in early June. WhatEVer.
“You can’t claim that some experiments performed assuming other theories prove your posterior predictions because they’re linked to some theory, while simultaneously claim that posterior experiments don’t refute your predictions for the same reason.”
Where did I say that they prove Mill’s predictions about the top quark? I’m saying that they didn’t refute them. Haven’t I said enough all ready to make it clear to you that I don’t even agree that the mass of the top quark has been precisely measured yet, or do I have to spell that out for you?
^ that ^
= My reply to John Fringe
“It’s of course possible that the actual top quark is heavier, closer to 186 GeV, if we suppose that a lot of other unknown particles get emitted as a result of the collision which simply don’t get picked up by the detectors.”
Yes, it’s perfectly possible that scientists are losing 186-173=13GeV per collision in undetected particles. That is, they could be losing almost 10% of the energy involved. If only they measured this kind of things, like energy or momentum… so they could infer the unseen particles like neutrinos… and the spent energy so they could know how much energy they’re not seen… (rolling eyes)
OK, Kevin Marinas, I had enough of you. It should be clear for everybody by now. Good trolling!
“There result demonstrate that a hypothetical particle dubbed the Higgs boson […] is not the basis of inertial mass, and such a particle will not be observed in experiments performed at Fermilab, LHC, or any future collider”.
Randell Mills, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, Blacklight Power, page 1541.
Mills is wrong again. The particle has been confirmed this morning (at more than 5 sigmas XD, remember the expiration date I was talking about?):
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html
I know, I know, using Higgs existence which Mills denies to prove his theory wrong is like using general relativity to refute some guy who asserts apples fall upward. Mills’ “theory” is not wrong due to an obscure advanced detail. It’s obvious crackpottery to anyone looking at it. It’s nonsense.
But these things are good for laymen, who can see this way without effort that Mills is a crackpot.
Dedicated with love to our friend Eric the hydrino evangelist above, who claims to have slept a whole conference about Higgs two month before its definitive confirmation without even grasping that they were talking about Higgs XD XD XD
Einstein was also a crackpot that didn’t believe in much of what was preached in QM in his time. He also thought for time that E=mc^2 wouldn’t be tappable, or at least he acted like he doubted. Not all crackpots are created equal.
Notice how the discovery of the Higgs boson doesn’t disprove hydrinos, but it helps to discredit them in the eyes of those you just called “laymen”. Yes, it is possible to discredit without disproving. It is also possible to discredit something and still be wrong about more important implications of a crackpot’s activities, such as discovering something that is new to science and has vast implications for our planet from areas as diverse as chemistry, poverty, and geopolitics. This is despite being right about less salient points, such as knowing beforehand that the crackpot is wrong about the existence of a particle such as the Higgs boson.
The word crackpot is like the word nigger and slut. It’s best reclaimed by those who are likely to be called the same. Yes, I too, am a crackpot. That doesn’t mean that I am unable of making valid objections, any more than a person calling themselves by another term would as a result have any utter, immutable restriction on what they are capable of, save what the prejuice of a society would still wish to impose on them because of such a negative and culturally contrived association/insinuation.
Typos:
“He also thought for a time that E=mc^2 wouldn’t be tappable, or at least he acted like he doubted.”
“The word crackpot is like the words nigger and slut.”
Maybe there are more typos above, but I think I already made my point clear enough.
CERN did not announce on July 4 that they “discovered” the “Higgs Boson”. They announced that they had discovered a peak in the photon channel of the detector of the accelerator that had an energy of ~125 GeV.
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/observation-new-particle-mass-125-gev
“The new *particle* observed at about 125 GeV is *compatible*, within the limited statistical accuracy, with being the SM Higgs boson. *However*, *more data* are required to measure its properties such as *decay rates* in the various channels (γγ, ZZ, WW, bb and ττ) and *ultimately its spin and parity*, and* hence ascertain whether it is indeed the SM Higgs boson * or the result of *new physics *beyond the standard model.”
Furthermore of the 5 elements of the decay chain, the 2-photon element was the only one of two that had relatively significant peaks in the associated channel (and the significance of the photon peak far outweighed the significance of the double-Z channel). So John, why don’t you not talk out of your ass, as usual? It’s unbecoming.
“ZZ channel:…yields an excess of **3.2 sigma**”
“WW channel: a *broad* excess in the mass distribution **of 1.5 sigma** is observed.”
“bb and ττ channels: **no excess** is observed.” — not ‘minor excess’, or ‘some excess’, but *NO* excess.
And what is the peak at ~1323GeV that they conveniently ignored, by choosing not to draw the fit line through it like they did for the ~125 GeV peak?
http://cms.web.cern.ch/sites/cms.web.cern.ch/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Fig3-MassFactSoBWeightedMass.png
And I like this admission:
“Each W is identified through its decay to an electron and a neutrino or a muon and a neutrino. The **neutrinos pass through the CMS detectors undetected**…”
I wonder why? It couldn’t _possibly_ be because they are massless. And since when are neutrinos “directly detectable”? They are inferred through PHOTON hits on a detector.
Aw, what’s the matter, upset that your little scam is falling apart?
As I described in my post about the Higgs – the CERN folks have been admirably clear about exactly what they’ve observed. What they’ve seen is a particle at the correct energy level. Follow through their announcements and their data, and they’re honest and up-front about exactly what they’ve seen, and what they haven’t. There’s a reason why they’ve been saying “a higgs-like particle” or “a particle compatible with the expected value of the higgs”.
It’s a pretty strong case. Is it a perfect case? No, of course not. Nothing people do is ever perfect. But it’s about as strong as you could reasonably hope for with anything this complex.
And I’ll note in passing one of the big differences between Mills’ crew and the folks at the LHC:
The LHC folks are making their data available. You can look at the higgs data. You can note the bumps that you don’t like. You can critique their conclusion based on the data that they’ve made available to anyone who wants it. Mills and his crew have been ranting for over a decade about how they’re just months away from releasing world-changing power generators, world-changing alloys, world-changing compounds, all based on the wonderful glory that is the hydrino. But there’s *no* data. There’s no way for anyone to definitively prove that Mills and friends are full of shit, because they’ve refused to provide any information.
The only thing that Mills has released that could be critiqued is his CQM rubbish – which has been well and thoroughly debunked as a bunch of total garbage.
And why, exactly, are you surprised by the fact that neutrinos aren’t detected? Neutrinos are notoriously difficult to detect. They don’t interact electromagnetically, so the only way to see them is when they actually collide with a nucleus – which is a damned rare event. Of *course* the detectors at the LHC aren’t detecting them.
1. ‘My’ “little scam”? Not quite sure what you mean by that. A more valid question would be, are you upset that you have no solid rebuttal to anything I said?
2. CERN did not announce that they discovered the ‘Higgs Boson’.
3. Nobody has debunked Mills’ theory. It has been ridiculed, true enough, but never debunked.
4. The reason neutrinos are hard to detect is because they are electromagnetic fields with an optical spatial configuration that causes them to interact weakly.
Eric said: “Nobody has debunked Mills’ theory. It has been
ridiculed, true enough, but never debunked.”
You don’t have to look very hard or very far. Mills claims
that the classical laws of physics, including Maxwell’s
laws, apply on all scales, across 85 degrees of magnitude.
Classical laws include Coulomb’s law and the law of
superposition of charges. Mills’ electron in the hydrogen
atom is a sphere with uniform electrical charge (the
‘orbitsphere’. In Chapter 1 of his mighty tome, Mills derives
the radius of the electron from the balance of the electrical
force on an orbiting point with the centripetal force on the point.
In doing so he ignores the fact that according to Coulomb’s
law and the law of superposition, each point of the sphere
must experience a self-interaction force. For his sphere-electron, he arrives at exactly the same radius as Bohr
did in 1913.
Not a coincidence! Bohr’s model of the electron in
the hydrogen atom was a single orbiting point, for which in
fact there can be no self-interaction force. If you correctly
take electrostatic self-interaction into account, you get the
wrong radius for the orbitsphere electron, the wrong
energy level, and everything falls apart. Conclusion: Mills’
theory is debunked at a very low level.
There is in addition the fact that Mills’ orbitsphere-
electron is not a solution of the wave equation that
he posits at the very beginning: not a solution in terms
of ordinary functions, and not a solution in terms of
generalized functions or distributions. This is shown
in Rathke’s paper (which otherwise has a number of
errors). For that matter, Mills says it himself! He
rationalizes that a ‘boundary condition’ dictates the form
of the solution. His wave equation does not include
a term for the potential field of the proton. For Mills’
“free” electron – a rotating disk – self-interaction is
denied again, there is no force that keeps it
from flying apart, and all pretense of satisfying his wave
equation is dropped.
How much debunking of the theory do you need?
“Nobody has debunked Mills’ theory”
Well, coming from the guy who asserted that no scientist has ever considered a 125GeV Higgs in the same post he sent us a lot of papers from scientists analyzing carefully a 125GeV Higgs, I would take this sentence as a confirmation of the debunking XD
Job finished here.
John, I appreciate your acumen in absorbing large amounts of data (from posts, scientific papers, or otherwise). It shows you certainly have a level of intelligence that is far higher than is typical for the human race. I respect that, I honestly do, despite our differences. I am the same way, I like being in a mental situation where I feel that I am fully informed, and more importantly, that I fully understand and comprehend what it is I am thinking about.
You’ll note I used the word ‘comprehend’. There is a big difference between understanding and comprehension. I ‘comprehend’ the physical and mathematical aspect of Mills theory far more than you know. As a result, you may give me the benefit of the doubt when it comes to my knowledge and opinion, or you may not. Either way is fine with me. But I don’t necessarily wish to argue with you unless it is clear to me you are making blatant errors or false statements.
So I will say again that the announcement on July 4 in no way, in not even a minor way, was meant to communicate that the ‘Higgs Boson’, which operates as it is currently theorized to operate, was ‘found’ (as we all comprehend what the term ‘found’ means). The experiment detected energy in two channels of the available five that indicated something was going on at 125 GeV. Furthermore, there was a second, smaller peak ~133 GeV that has so far remained unaccounted for.
I hope you had a good 4th.
Allow me to translate that into simple, unobfuscated english, all right?
“I can’t actually make a concrete case for my argument; you’ve shot down all of my usual bullshit. But you should take my word for it: I’m smarter than you, and I’m right. So nyah. Oh, and all of those physicists who did the experiments, analyzed them, and released all the data? They’re all wrong. I’m not going to waste my time telling you why they’re wrong. Once again, you’ll just have to take my word for it, because like I said, I’m smarter than you.”
‘acumen ‘for”. Thanks.
and, I apologie for patronizing you in a couple of my above posts. Calling you things like ‘siggie’ was unacceptable. I let my strong feelings get the best of me. I will try not to do it again, because I know that you are simply trying to establish your point of view using facts and logical reasoning. Just like I am.
OK, while I’m at it (it’s a Sunday, what the hell). I actually want to thank you for bringing to our (my) attention papers and other factual (usually, but sometimes not) items that lend credibility to the argument that the Mills’ theory is insufficient, or completely wrong at worst. I don’t think I can state, let alone prove, this is true. I actually appreciate that you are taking the time to research this. It saves me time. I should not have become upset when you posted these things. They are useful to read and consider. Maybe you can prove that I’m wrong, and hence the theory is partially or totally wrong. I just haven’t seen you come close to doing that yet.
I am of the character that while it would disappoint me due to the amount of time I’ve invested understanding it and comprehend it, it would not devastate me or otherwise ruin my life. I look forward to the applications of the physics that the theory has discovered. That’s mainly the extent of it. So I look forward to coming across more of your posts containing refuting information.
Damnit. One more thing. Since you are such an adept researcher, if you could find papers that may serve to explain the quark directional asymmetry going on as described in the following paper, that would help me tremendously. If you could decipher and paraphrase the result(s) of those papers, that would help even more. There is a very interesting implication of this experiment that will either help the Standard Model and hurt Mills’ theory, or vice versa, if the explanation can be found.
http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/2011/DilAfb/cdfpubnote.pdf
Ok, now THAT’s it. I’m done for now. I actually have to take a relatively large crap at the moment. My advice: don’t ever eat chili before noon. Nothing good will ever come of it. Wish me luck.
MarkCC —
First, I apologize for phrasing my latest posts in a way that has clearly offended you. That wasn’t my intention. I’m neither a diplomat nor a poet. I don’t always phrase things in the best way, and that is further complicated by the fact that it’s difficult to know what a person is intending to convey on a personal level by reading a post.
I didn’t say I was smarter than you, or anyone else (in my latest set of posts — I did demean John in an earlier post and I apologize for that. What I said previously was neither correct nor acceptable (because John quite clearly has a very good grasp on things, and so do you). What I meant was that I have a level of knowledge and comprehension of the Mills theory that is relatively deep and I can only assume that neither you nor John possess that level of comprehension of it, because to do so requires a substantial amount of time and effort. Therefore, what I suggested was that it’s clearly your choice, and your choice alone, whether or not you wish to give me the benefit of the doubt on that and not immediately dismiss what I have to say.
Second, neither did I say that ‘all the physicists involved in the Higgs search are ‘wrong”. They’ve quite clearly found something ~125 GeV, but they also state very clearly that what they have found merely ‘resembles’ the theorized Higgs boson (at best, at least for now). 99.9% of them believe it may be the real thing (but there’s also a tiny fraction of them that do not). So what I’m saying is that, from my understanding of the diametrically opposed theories of Mills and SM, that I am quite certain (myself, personally, individually) that what they’ve found does not represent the Higgs gauge field particle that is currently theorized as the mechanism by which fundamental particles are endowed with mass.
I look forward to your educated thoughts on the matter.
To give further commentary on my previous comment:
——————————-
And what is the peak at ~133GeV that they conveniently ignored, by choosing not to draw the fit line through it like they did for the ~125 GeV peak?
http://cms.web.cern.ch/sites/cms.web.cern.ch/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Fig3-MassFactSoBWeightedMass.png
——————————-
See the April 2011 Fermilab experiment where they identified a range of energies (~130 – 150 GeV) where an anomaly occurred that is not explained by SM:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/06/have-we-discovered-new-physics/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/06/anomalies-at-fermilab/
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0699v1.pdf
– Eric
All high level theories aside, the real clincher is that Mills has had so much time to put something real out there and hasn’t. I started following this guy 4 or 5 years ago and was initially excited, but it went downhill after 6 months of following him. Just one unfulfilled promise after another. He claimed to have made a 50W hydrino stack back in 2009/2010. Where is it? Put it someplace where it lights up a light bulb continuously for six months, for all of us to see. Let an independent third party weigh it before and after. If it lights a light for 6 months and weighs rougly the same after that six months as it did when the test began, he’s got a winner.
“He claimed to have made a 50W hydrino stack back in 2009/2010. Where is it? Put it someplace where it lights up a light bulb continuously for six months, for all of us to see.”
Would that really be convincing? Tesla was able to power an incandescent light-bulb through his body. Real proof of Hydrinos will happen when they sell the technology in the marketplace.
“Put it someplace where it lights up a light bulb continuously for six months, for all of us to see. Let an independent third party weigh it before and after. If it lights a light for 6 months and weighs rougly the same after that six months as it did when the test began, he’s got a winner.”
Nonsense. Again, it doesn’t take much of a rocket scientist to realize that such a demonstration doesn’t actually prove anything.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wireless+lightbulb
Lo and behold! The Higgs boson has already been incorporated into Mills’ theory in his book.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/TOE%2002.10.03/Djvu%20Files/
______
Index of /wp-content/uploads/theory/TOE 02.10.03/Djvu Files
Icon Name Last modified Size Description[DIR] Parent Directory -
[DIR] 102910/ 18-May-2012 11:23 -
[ ] CH 42_041808.pdf 18-May-2012 11:14 2.0M
[IMG] EntireBook.djvu 13-Jul-2012 17:42 35M
[DIR] July 2010 DjVu Version/ 18-May-2012 11:40 -
[DIR] June 2008 DjVu Version/ 18-May-2012 12:26 -
[IMG] Volume1.djvu 18-May-2012 19:11 7.4M
[IMG] Volume2.djvu 18-May-2012 19:12 20M
[IMG] Volume3.djvu 13-Jul-2012 17:40 6.7M
[DIR] _notes/ 18-May-2012 11:36 -
______
Due to specific html limitations of this blog format, I decided to represent superscripts and subscripts in the following manner:
¯0 = superscript zero
_0 = subscript zero
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/
______
ABSOLUTE SPACE[TIME] CONFIRMED EXPERIMENTALLY
[….]
[A] hypothetical particle dubbed the Higgs boson whose properties are coupled to the 19 experimentally adjusted parameters of the Standard Model is not the basis of inertial mass, and such a mass conveying particle will not be observed in experiments performed at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), or any future collider [31]. Recent Higgs hunt results from CERN of a 126 GeV boson match predictions for a high-energy neutron resonance predicted in the Intermediate Vector and Higgs Bosons sections.
[….]
31. A. Cho, “Fermilab physicists don’t see Higgs, argue they should keep looking”, Science, Vol. 329, (2010), pp. 498-499.
[….]
INTERMEDIATE VECTOR AND HIGGS BOSONS
The only fundamental matter particles that can exist are the three leptons, three sets of quarks, and their antiparticles. However, linear combinations of these fundamental particles may comprise more complicated species beyond neutrons and protons. Particle energies in collisions may exceed the particle production energies and consequently exceed the corresponding spacetime resonance frequencies during particle production and decay reactions. The relationship between proper and coordinate time has higher order over-energy resonances due to the same principles regarding the relationship between proper and coordinate time that is the basis of production of the fundamental particles. Then, an increase in the intensity of particle reaction events is predicted at the over-energy resonance frequencies. However, the associated peak at the resonance energy does not represent a new fundamental particle. Nor, does this phenomenon have any association with mediating forces such as the weak nuclear force or the conveyance of inertial mass. The former is due to the electromagnetic force and the latter is due to the absolute nature of spacetime and the conservation of matter, energy, and spacetime with satisfaction of Maxwell’s equations and the conditions inherent in the Schwarzschild metric of spacetime required for particle production.
The additional resonances can be predicted by applying these principles to energy exceeding the production [i.e. originating] energy of a given [fundamental] particle [e.g. e & ddu].
[….]
Consider the muon that is a lepton arising from resonance involving the electron wherein in addition to pair production, the latter is a product of beta decay. The correction between proper and coordinate time based on the Coulombic potential as the basis of the muonic production energy is 2*pi (Eqs. (36.5) and (1.281)), and further applying Eq. (34.62), the resonance coupling factor g_C is:
[Equation 37.44]
g_C = 2*pi/alpha
[….]
Using the relationship between the proper time and the electron coordinate time for the Coulomb potential energy as the production energy, the mass of the muon/antimuon using the MKS second is (Eqs. (36.5-36.6)):
[Equation 37.45]
m_mu = (h-bar/c) * (1/(2*G*m_e(alpha * relativistically corrected “second”)^2))^(1/3) = 1.8874 * 10^(-28) kg = 0.10587 GeV[ / c^2]
Applying the resonance coupling factor g_C (Eq. (37.44)) to the muon production mass (Eq. (37.45)) having its inherent lepton member, the electron, gives an over-energy resonance E_(Z¯0) at:
[Equation 37.46]
E_(Z¯0) = g_C*m_mu[*c^2] = [….]*[….][*c^2] = (2*pi/alpha) * (0.10587 GeV) = 91.16 Gev
Experimentally, the event excess called the intermediate vector boson (Z¯0) occurs at 91.1876 GeV [8]. This signature is deemed a manifestation of the weak force regarding an ad hoc postulated Standard Model treatment of beta decay.
In contrast, based on Maxwell’s equations and the conditions inherent in the Schwarzschild metric of spacetime required for particle production, the neutron mass is given by Eq. (37.42) in terms of fundamental constants and MKS units based on the definition of the coordinate time in terms of the sec. An over-energy absolute spacetime resonance of the electrically neutral neutron E_(H¯0) due to the relationship between proper and coordinate time given by Eq. (37.43) is predicted at:
[Equation 37.47]
E_(H¯0) = (1/alpha)*m_n[*c^2] = (1/alpha)*(3)*(2*pi)*(1/(1-alpha)) * (2*pi*h/(c^2* relativistically corrected second))^(1/2) * (2*pi*(3)*c*h/(2*G))^(1/4) [* c^2] = (1/alpha)*(0.93956536 GeV) = 128.75 GeV
[Kmarinas86’s hint: (2*pi*h/(c^2* relativistically corrected second))^(1/2) has units of (kg)^(1/2)]
[Kmarinas86’s hint: (2*pi*(3)*c*h/(2*G))^(1/4) has units of (kg)^(1/2)]
High-energy proton-proton collisions that produce neutron-antineutron pairs decay to two gamma ray photons or correspondingly two pairs of electron-positron or muon-antimuon pairs. Such an excess of events at 126 GeV has recently been announced by CERN [9]. Specifically, the corresponding excess of events at the neutron over-energy spacetime resonance energy has been announced as the discovery of the Higgs boson (H¯0) that conveys mass to particles according to an ad hoc postulate of the Standard Model. However, there is no physical evidence that this slight excess of events at 126 GeV conveys mass to particles, and the energy of the excess events deemed the Higgs boson cannot and was not directly observed as a real particle due to the extraordinarily small mean lifetime of the resonance.
As given in the Weak Nuclear Force: Beta Decay of the Neutron section, a proton is formed via beta decay of the neutron. This requires the initial step of the conversion of a down quark to an up quark having charges -2/3 and +1/3, respectively, with the concomitant formation of an electron of the lepton family having a charge of -1. Considering that the transition occurs on a time scale of 10^(-25) s, the radius of the baryon is unchanged, and the energy change is that of electric energy decrease given by Eq. (1.170). Using 1/3, the magnitude of the change in the charge normalized to that of the proton, and (2 * pi)^(-2), the relativistic correction term of the neutron production condition of Eq. (37.41) is predicted at:
[Equation 37.48]
E_W = g_C*m_mu*(1-((1/3)*(1+(2*pi)^(-2)))^2) = [….] = [….] = 80.51 GeV
Then, by the symmetry of antiparticles, the positron decay of the antineutron corresponds to W+. Experimentally, the event excess called the intermediate vector boson W± occurs at 80.423 GeV [8]. These particles convey the weak nuclear force according to an ad hoc postulate of the Standad Model that seems nonsensical since each weighs 80 times the mass of the neutron. There is no physical evidence that these particles produce a nuclear force. Moreover, the intermediate vector bosons W± are not real particles in that they cannot and were not directly observed since the experimental mean lifetime of the resonance is 3.076 * 10^(-25) s [10]. Similarly the experimental mean lifetime of the (Z¯0) spacetime resonance is 2.6379 * 10^(-25) s [11].
[….]
8. K. Hagiwara, et al., (Particle Data Group), Phys Rev. D, Vol. 66, 010001, (2002) (URL:http://pdg.lbl.gov)
9. “CERN experiments observe particle consistent with the long-sought Higgs boson,” CERN press release, 4 July 2012, http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressRelease/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html.
10. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=W+boson.
11. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Z+boson.
______
The fact of the matter is that the only experiments concerning hydrinos and their existence that have supposedly “validated” Mills’ claims have all had him involved. The day that an unbiased, independent team of scientists are able to reproduce this, you’ll be able to hold it over our heads.
Until then, nobody in their right mind buys into this. And so what? He rewrote his book to make sure he has less of a chance of being called a loon. We all see it, though.
The lumping of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) aka cold fusion to the Black Light process is poorly motivated. Excess heat has been reported from some 17,000 LENR experiments. Excess heat can be produced reliably on demand in a short period of time. You can tell other researchers how to replicate the results by setting up the equipment as per your specifications and they, too, get excess heat, reliably in a short period of time. Even the diehard critic of “cold fusion” Robert Park was forced to admit, “It is science.”
There are no shortage of theories, but the least likely is fusion; more likely is that it is some form of known “soft” neutron capture. Where the neutrons come from is unclear but one suggestion is that “heavy” electrons combine with protons to make neutrons, but this is obviously speculative.
Pingback: A New Water Power | Arcanum Obscura
Indeed, yet another scam. When you need to invent a new word for describing your theory, you are doing something wrong.
When you apply well eastablished Electrical Engineering principles to the analysis of fuell cells that have been publicly shown to work, you get your answers without the need for inventing a new theory. Just Coulomb amd Maxwell are sufficient:
http://aetherforce.com/dutch-engineer-may-have-the-missing-link-to-hydrogen-cell-efficiency/#comment-11318
No need for 75 million. Anyone can make this for about 500 dollars. No strings attached, no questions asked. Open source.
Cheers!
Arend.
“When you need to invent a new word for describing your theory, you are doing something wrong.”
Nonsense.
1300 – 1350
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
1580 – 1590
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physics
1590 – 1600
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemistry
1612
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mechanics
1720
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineering
1805 – 1815
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biology
1840 – 1850
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hydride
1865
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy
1891
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electron
1900 – 1905
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catalyst
1905
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetics
1915 – 1920
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proton
1920 – 1925
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neutron
1933
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neutrino
1945 – 1950
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boson
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fermion
1962
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hadron
1970 – 1975
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gluon
theory is merely the summary of experience, not the limit of possibility – Charles Kettering
Well Mills and BLP have today just put their balls on the table, and are inviting people to smash em with a hammer!
http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html
Very big claims, will hold back judgement until we hear more on 28th January 2014!
As usual, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Remember, though: Mills and company have been making these claims, of an impending proof/commercial product for more than 20 years – since 1990! – and they have never delivered on any of them. Why should anyone believe this time will be different?
This latest ‘news’ does come across as very make or break for the whole theory. Either they are throwing the towel in and proving they are actually idiots and going out with a bang or they are trying to get more funding with a semi convincing demo which is not entirely open, or there is actually something else happening, even if the theory is impossible?
I agree, we have heard it all before from Mills and BLP and nothing has ever really become of it. I expect it will come to nothing like before.
There are reasons to be skeptical. Previously (2012 or earlier) they announced a
power source that would generate 50,000 watts. Not sustained, but in a burst. Watts
is power, not energy. In this case, evidently, a demo with 12,000 amps input and
“millions of watts” output – watts again, maybe for only a fraction of a second. It could
be an impressive demo, essentially an explosion. With 12,000 amps input you can
create a pretty impressive demo. It might wow the spectators, but what will it
prove?The ‘Financial Post’ article was clearly written by someone from BLP.
Hopefully some qualified observers show up.
Maybe someone who was at the demo can give their observations?
Okay, I’m an absolute spectator here, so what I have to run up your flagpole isn’t a theory, it’s just a hypothesis. But I remember the early years of Cold Fusion research, and the people who said that it couldn’t be chemical because there was nothing reactive involved and no components or products of reaction in evidence, and others said it couldn’t be nuclear because the energy output was way too small, and the initial condition controls were a mess. Some folk thought that they could discount most of the data because they could write off the supposed thermal gain as calibration drift in the instrumentation. Proponents were saying it’d be cheap enough for everything from vehicles to coffee makers if the reaction could only be controlled. Others pointed at the weeks or months that a cell had to be held at an elevated temperature before it looked like more heat was coming out of a cell than they were putting into it. Maybe, eventually, you could at least get enough heat out of something the size of a freezer chest to heat your house and your water? Then the Japanese found that they were getting neutrons, and the Bush/Eagleton effort got results with purified tap water instead of heavy water, and the Italians went to steam and got 4X over unity, (or maybe it was 10X), (and I think they had a steam explosion that killed someone, but can’t find the reference).
What if there’s a simple, classical or QM explanation for the data observed, that will explain everything seen so far, without giving an inch to Mills’ Hydrino Theory? They may say it’ll be cheap, put it in every vehicle, home, major appliance… re-tool the world for every appliance in your home to run on 42 VDC… but what if those cryogenic nitrogen and helium requirements are too steep for the public? Helium is becoming scarce, and we don’t have a good way to accelerate production on that one! What if the only people who can afford to buy this system are the utility companies, and all it can give is freedom from foreign fuels, not freedom from utility companies and their grid? Enough of that!
Simple explanation: There is a big difference between the behavior of H2 and monatomic hydrogen. Huge. Maybe some of the phenomena being attributed to Hydrino is Mono-H instead. And that sudden, overwhelming burst of energy? What if the materials are storing that energy up over a period of time and then releasing it all at once? In other words, what if Mills, et al, are effectively pumping up and rapidly discharging a Q-Pulse Hydrogen Laser? Hydrogen emits in the ultraviolet, burns with an ultraviolet flame, and it should lase ultraviolet as well. Sure, it looks like a devastating, overwhelming burst of power. A Q-Pulse Laser always does. What may be easy to overlook in a laboratory experiment is the amount of energy invested in a small volume and/or a small mass over an extended period of time. It’s kind of like the Hilbertz/BioRock people expecting ocean water precipitates to replace concrete until they got the power bill, at which point they realized that they could have the concrete of their choice delivered anywhere in the world for less, and only a tenth the cost of the energy they’d used in most places. If I’m right about this, there will be anomalous phenomena for some time to come, but it will never be reduced to a commercial product, and getting Mills to recognize and admit that he’s wrong will be like getting three generations of the R. J. Reynolds family to admit that smoking caused lung cancer. It is hard for a person to believe something when his livelihood depends on not believing it.
I hope I’m wrong. I’m hoping something major, over-unity and benign is happening inside that test cell, and I’m hoping it’s a scalable, affordable solution to problems we’ve had since time immemorial. But, the idea that we should be able to do something as extreme as reducing basic hydrogen to smaller and smaller hydrinos, on down to 1/137H? And to do it without any negative repercussions? It makes me feel like reaching for the Asimov shelf and pulling down “The Gods Themselves.” I find it more than a little frightening.
Sadly, no.
We know an awful lot about hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most common substance in the universe. We can observe it directly, in a laboratory, in conditions ranging from a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, to a thousand times hotter than the core of the sun; from individual atoms isolated by laser, to huge quantities under unimaginable pressure. We can see them behave in space, in stars, in gas clouds, in galaxies. And all through all of these observations, all through every kind of experiment, through derivations of models that are so precise that it’s almost unbelivable, we’ve never seen anything that suggests that there’s anything like a hydrino, or that there’s any way to extract energy from a hydrogen atom.
Damned unlikely. Not impossible – science never says impossible. But damned unlikely.
Another consideration for you:
If some of Mills’ Nickel catalyst, (Ni58 + Ni60), fissioned into Silicon, (Si28), that would free up the neutrons needed to fuse some of the Hydrogen into Helium, (He3 or He4), with more than enough energy left over to produce the energetic phenomena observed. I know that normally Nickel doesn’t act like this, as the fission is endothermic, but the Hydrogen fusion could easily provide the required energy to drive this with some left over. A small fraction of a percent of the Hydrogen available would be enough to output the energy observed, and the Silicon product might be easily overlooked.
“The problem is, it doesn’t work. None of it.”
“To see the problems, we’ll need to get deeper into math than we usually do.”
“I’m not going to go deep into detail; you can see a detailed explanation of the problems here”
“I’ll run through a short version.”
“The short version of the problem with hydrinos is really, really simple.”
“On this level, it sort-of looks correct.”
“It’s when you get into the details that it gets seriously fudgy.”
“Now, I’ll be honest here. I’m not nearly enough of a physics whiz to be competent to judge the accuracy of his purported quantum mechanical system.”
“But I’m still pretty darn confident that he’s full of crap. Why?”
“I’m from New Jersey”
I know it’s cheeky to cut and paste from the OP’s text, but it’s to show a point: this critique is not very well articulated, to say the least…
I’m sure there’s lots of reasons for challenging Mills’ theory, but they’re not very evident in this piece. Complaining that you should have *seen* hydrinos if they really existed is a bit of a moot argument when the whole point of Mills’ theory is that hydrinos = dark matter, which we have trouble “seeing” in the traditional sense because of the limited interaction with light – but we do observe dark matter through its gravitational effect. I don’t know if Hydrinos are produced naturally on earth, but if they were they’d probably float to the top of the atmosphere and leave our planet, being small, light and inert.
As for showing hydrinos: professor Conrads* in Germany produced his own, concluding “Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source.”
Citing shapes and sizes as an argument against Mills is a bit thick, considering quantum mechanics doesn’t acknowledge the electron even has a shape or a size. On the contrary, Mills gives atoms and electrons a definite size and shape as opposed to QM’s “probability clouds”.
It is true that Mills has overpromised and underdelivered on the business side, and this distorts many people’s perception of the value of his theory, but it shouldn’t. I’m not suggesting you should invest either, just evaluate the theory on its own merits. Since when do we judge scientific papers on the personality of their author?
As for the more serious criticism about Lorentz invariance : yes that was brought up in the Rathke paper cited. It’s just such a shame that no-one ever bothers to also link to Mills’ reply* to Rathke where he points out an elementary error (by the critic) in the sign of an equation as well as the invalidity of the Lorentz invariance objection. According to Mills, Rathke’s “subsequent statements regarding incurable flaws and inconsistencies in CQM are consequently also in error and misplaced.”
It’s a shame that some crackpot bloggers feel completely uninhibited to write a hit piece on another scientist’s work without taking the trouble to scratch beyond the surface. I’m afraid the conclusion here is that this particular blog entry is just badmouthing good math.
* “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate”, H Conrads et al 2003, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 12 389
** “Physical Solutions of the Nature of the Atom, the Photon, and Their Interactions to Form Excited and Predicted Hydrino States”, Randell L. Mills in Physics Essays Volume 20: Pages 403-460, 2007
Amen.
As usual, new theories that contradict old theories, are attacked. It is an educational effect. The same happens with religions, where an experiment is difficult to conceive, because you are dealing with faith.
Even having experimental proof, does not help right away:
“Look at that pencil lying in the woods”
“I do not see it”
Yes, if that person never saw a pencil and does not really know how such thing looks like, he will have no chance to identify a pencil in the woods …
I believe most of the attacks against Mills findings come from trolls or from people that hate “over unity” (in the COP sence where COP > 5) or humans that do not want progress and therefore just kill the growing flower, just because it is theier nature.
When the new theory predicts that matter is unstable, and the universe stubbornly continues to exist, the reasonable person sticks with the old theory, and lets the fantasists live in their imaginary universe, where money grows on trees, and power can flow simply by wishing _really_ hard.
Mills has been making his money off the marks for three decades – if he’s telling the truth, why isn’t he selling power at a penny a megawatthour, and saving the world; if a superpowerful conspiracy is keeping him down, why is he still alive?