So it seems I won't get an response to my answer to your "cut to the chase " post, and I won't even get a response to my answers to the questions that you posed in lieu of the above. Ah well, I see you've passed the baton to another member of the relay team.Thank you JeanTate for being one of the people to ask such well formed and thought invoking questions. I'll be mulling over them in the background. Thank you hecd2 for the good debate that I hoped would lead to being able to confirm the derivation of some of Mills' equations and evaluate them for effectivity and numerological origins. Too bad we couldn't get there. Thank you Reality Check for identifying such a wealth of questionable aspects. I'll be looking over those too to further understand your complaints. Also thank you to The Man, who asked a lot of good questions that I somehow never got round to before I was bombarded by another round.
- TwoThumbs
Vector components always add as vector sums. You don't get to change something as basic as that.
In the experiment you describe, the momentum of the system is the vector sum of the momenta of all the photons and is therefore zero. As can be seen if you measure the total radiation force of two counterpropagating but otherwise identical light beams incident on opposite sides of a plane.
It is a reasonable assumption because that is what happens in the world described by classical physics
!Turning what looked like a Mills lie into your own lie when I have given you a link to the science, markie, needs to be documented:
Schrödinger knew about the Bohr model, de Broglie's hypothesis, etc. when trying to derive a wave equation for the electron: the Schrödinger equation Historical background and development. However the Schrödinger equation does not include the Bohr model or the Rydberg formula or any non-radiation conditions. There is nothing in the Schrödinger equation that declares that electrons in atoms will not emit radiation. What solutions of the Schrödinger equation say is that any particle in a potential will (e.g. an electron around a proton) will have quantized energy levels so the only way to change energy levels is to emit or absorb energy in discreet packages.
15 March 2017 markie: Ignorance about the Schrödinger equation and energy levels.
!I keep telling you basic classical physics taught in high schools and undergraduate physic courses.
15 March 2017 markie: Ignorant idea that a magnetic field turns randomly oriented electrons into 2 orientations.
! The answer could be that Mills is too ignorant or too incompetent to explain spin so he has to take it for granted.
If you're still reading posts here, I have a suggestion: It's pretty easy to come up with a short, polite thing you can say, to almost every question you get asked. If you don't want to answer (or can't answer), say so (politely, of course); if you do, but can't right now, say so (and give an estimate of when you intend to); etc.
Well, I hope one thing which came of that was some clarification: the importance of distinguishing vectors from scalars; being aware that "postulate" (noun) has a narrow, specific meaning in physics; etc.
Um, no.
I can't speak for anyone else, but quite early I concluded that "the Mills' theory" was fundamentally inconsistent (both internally and with relevant, well-established experimental and observational results). As you (and markie, but he turned out to be a very unreliable guide) seemed to feel otherwise, it was only natural for me to give you the floor, to make the case (that Mills' ideas are not fundamentally inconsistent).
Not sure how long you've "been around the (physics) block" TT, but it would be remarkably easy to replace "Mills" (etc) with a large number of physics crackpots (let's not be shy about calling them what they are). AFAIK, the only person who comes close - on their own - to ushering in that kind of revolution would be Einstein, and before him perhaps Newton.
I did read something by him, on his website, besides the page which markie linked to; something about being a crackpot ... it was hilarious!
Well, they are more for your own education than mine; I have no further interest in any of Mills' (physics, chemistry) ideas ... unless and until someone is willing to try to defend them.
Quite a few others have pointed out that Mills is quite inconsistent in his treatment of "classical" vs "QM".I'll get right on that!
But more seriously, one thing I forgot about is the additional constraints on the stable equilibrium, like the quantization of angular momentum, and possibly the conservation laws too, mass-energy, linear momentum and [quantized] angular momentum (and perhaps other things I've still missed). If so, these things would mean that movement away from the equilibrium point is only possible along paths having the same mass-energy, same linear momentum, same quantized angular momentum ...
While your statement is, sadly, yet another example of a rather profound misunderstanding of QM (from a person with a university degree in science, no less), there's a very interesting, and deep, aspect of physics which you may find enlightening.
Peter Woit said:
).Having read a bit of what Schott did (thanks RC), and what Mills has done (thanks TT, and RC), I very much doubt that Schott would have countenanced the sort of nonsense Mills has proposed. He (Schott) seems to have been a smart cookie, who really did understand his classical electrodynamics (etc), pace Mills.
Why should we want spend any money to read a book by an ex intern of Mills when the book is basically an advertisement for Mills and his company, TwoThumbs? There is an excerpt on Holverstott's web site. Some lowlights:
!OMG!
I keep telling you basic classical physics taught in high schools and undergraduate physic courses.
You are right. Classical physics allows angular momentum to have any direction and any magnitude. If we heat up silver atoms they will have angular momentum with a random distribution of directions and one magnitude.
You are very wrong.
15 March 2017 markie: Ignorant idea that a magnetic field turns randomly oriented electrons into 2 orientations.
You might think about a little thing called conservation of angular momentum.
Classically the external magnetic field will perturb the atoms with random amounts of magnetic moment due to random angular moment by random amounts. The classical physics prediction is a single band in the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
If you had bothered to read the article then you would have read the section on sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments. This shows that the magnetic field is not causing the splitting of the bands (N.B. not the ignorant idea above) and that the electrons are behaving according to QM, not classical physics.
10 March 2017: Pages 180-187 are lies about the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
15 March 2017 markie: A lie about unfamiliarity withy Mills book - I have analyzed a lot of it.
For example: 10 March 2017: Pages 180-187 are lies about the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Which is one of 62 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book.
Part I: 37 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
Part II: A growing list of 24 more items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book
I have concentrated in the ignorance and delusions later in the book but I have pointed out Mills abysmal about QM.
According to markie, Mills just takes quantization of spin as a physical fact and abandons any attempt to describe it in a scientific theory (e.g. where is his equivalent of the Dirac equation?). That is not really science - that is more like religion. Then why does he not take every measurement as a physical fact. For example his hundreds? of pages of ionization energies
Why should we want spend any money to read a book by an ex intern of Mills when the book is basically an advertisement for Mills and his company, TwoThumbs? There is an excerpt on Holverstott's web site. Some lowlights:
- A version of the Galileo gambit using Ignaz Semmelweis.
- Lots of blind hero worship of Mills.
- The crank assertion of "...gods of physics. To question them is heresy".
- The bad ignorance that QM struggles "to apply to systems more complex than hydrogen".
There is an entire field of quantum chemistry.
Condensed matter physic is largely QM.
- An unsupported assertion that "electron bubbles trapped in liquid helium" is a simple system that QM cannot explain.
The 2016 publishing date of his book implies that this is a lie since by 2008 the experimental and theoretical studies were well established.
Electrons in Liquid Helium - PDF
- A lie of "The theory has waned, its technological potential gone sterile"
For example quantum computing is a growing area of research.
- Ignorance about an electrical engineer being a physicist.
The opinion of an electrical engineer des not means that "some physicists took Mills seriously".
As an undergraduate, Holverstott showed a 1990 edition of Mills book to Nick Wheeler, "a professor of physics at Reed College". The response was that Wheeler could not make any sense of it, i.e. that edition was too incoherent for a professor of physics to understand
As a graduate Holverstott "again tried to bring Mills's ideas to professors" who all rejected them - that should have told him that the ideas were wrong!
Mills takes quantized spin and quantized energy as givens. There is no explanation of their causes unlike QM.
So in your apparently poorly educated quest to defend the indefensible, you insist on disputing completely unremarkable and uncontroversial aspects of physics, such as the fact that the total momentum of the system you described is zero. You do seem to have remarkable difficulty in understanding the difference between scalars and vectors. And you even go so far as to claim that this uncontroversial and unremarkable result is artificial and unphysical, when I even suggested an experiment which illustrates how it's physical. Your approach is not going to butter many parsnips.
While your statement is, sadly, yet another example of a rather profound misunderstanding of QM (from a person with a university degree in science, no less), there's a very interesting, and deep, aspect of physics which you may find enlightening.
Leave aside the Mills/Phillips misuse of the word, "postulates" are key in physics.
For example, for special relativity, there are just twoWP, one of which is "the speed of light is c (for everyone, everywhere, everywhen)" (as often expressed in popular form; see WP for the more complete version).
A large number of people - theoretical physicists, mathematicians - have spent a great deal of time working on minimal sets of postulates (or axioms) that describe the foundations of (classical) physics, and QM (or, better said, QFT, Quantum Field Theory). For example, Peter Woit has put the final draft of a book he's been working on for quite a while online (you can find a link to it in his 10 March blogpost). And one of Hilbert's problemsWP is "Mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics".
Not surprisingly, it turns out that there are many ways to write a set of axioms for the major classes of physics, and I think it's true that most undergrad students of physics encounter at least one set (or set of sets), though few remember them well.
For example, in the Woit book, he says this, as the intro para to the section "Fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics":
He gives three axioms for QM, the first of which is "Axiom (States). The state of a quantum mechanical system is given by a nonzero
vector in a complex vector space H with Hermitian inner product h·, ·i." (sorry, some special characters do not copy over
If you'd really like to know, markie, what QM "just declares", may I recommend Woit's book? It's not as long as Mills', but it contains more consistent physics in just one chapter than Mills' does, in all x thousand pages.
Having read a bit of what Schott did (thanks RC), and what Mills has done (thanks TT, and RC), I very much doubt that Schott would have countenanced the sort of nonsense Mills has proposed. He (Schott) seems to have been a smart cookie, who really did understand his classical electrodynamics (etc), pace Mills.
I meant: 15 March 2017: Page 7: a lie of "In the double-slit experiment, single electrons break into pieces ..."
!
Nevertheless the momentum of the system is zero. You asked us to add the momentum of the individual particles, not to add the magnitudes of the momenta.
So is your "main point" that the electron is a single indivisible entity or system consisting of a large or infinite number of independent particles that have mass and charge, but behave like photons? And that somehow are confined to the surface of a sphere?
