ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Reply
Old 9th January 2019, 07:45 PM   #3801
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Thumbs down Misleads by cherry picking from his irrelevant source and irrelevant highlighting

Originally Posted by markie View Post
9 January 2019 markie: Misleads by cherry picking from his irrelevant source and irrelevant highlighting.
Just below what he quotes is
Quote:
Quantum mechanics gives the best representation known of the atomic and subatomic world.
The de Broglie wavelength is small! What is the de Broglie wavelength of an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom? = 332.5 pm.

The paper is about ropes (bodies with length) that allow "tunneling" over a potential barrier. This does not work with Mill's spherical delusions.

Classical Tunneling is about a classical analogy to quantum tunneling.
The affiliation is "Electric Power Research Institure, Palo Alto, CA 94062". The contact is "Mario Rabinowitz Armor Research, 715 Lakemead Way, Redwood City, CA 94062". The only preprint from Cohn. Rabinowitz has 29 preprints. Mario Rabinowitz is no longer on Wikipedia but is here. The paper was published in 1990 and had 11 citations.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th January 2019 at 07:56 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2019, 07:47 PM   #3802
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,138
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2019, 11:40 PM   #3803
Winterfrost
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 124
Originally Posted by TwoThumbs View Post
I am confident that a fully operational closed Suncell prototype exhibiting unambiguous excess energy for at least 24 hours continuously will be demonstrated to everyone here's satisfaction no later than February 29 2019.
I am confident you don’t understand what is required to achieve “everyone here’s satisfaction.”

As has been stated (a few hundred times), published results of multiple tests by fully independent labs would be required to change the minds of most of us. I’m not sure it’s possible to accomplish that in 7 weeks, even if testing started tomorrow.

Overpromising and underdelivering undermines one’s credibility. In this tale, that doesn’t only apply to you.

Last edited by Winterfrost; 9th January 2019 at 11:41 PM.
Winterfrost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 12:00 AM   #3804
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,338
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Well, hydrinos leaking from the BLP site in southern NJ have turned up in many Princeton University labs, though no scientist in any such lab has noticed yet.

Hydrinos are dark matter, and no scientist has found any here on Earth yet.
Ah. Well, not exactly.

Y'see, since hydrinos are dark matter, and do not interact with mundane matter except gravitationally, they are not buoyant (Markie to the contrary). (Unless, that is, hydrinos are not dark matter, and Mills was wrong when he said that they are. But we can safely dismiss this possibility, since Mills is never wrong, at least about theory. Engineering and product delivery issues are mere distractions.) Instead, they take up orbit around the center of the earth which is determined mainly by the latitude of the originating apparatus and the tangential velocity which was imparted by the earth's rotation. The orbit, obviously, is not a classic Newtonian ellipse, since the same Shell Theorem which Markie never accepted means that the effective attractive force on the hydrino does not increase as the inverse square of the distance to the center, but rather will do so inversely linearly with distance. Since the hydrinos will spend most of their time below the surface of the earth, there is little reason for the Princeton labs to have noticed them.

The issue of orbital behavior without an inverse-square gravitational force is clearly so minor as not to merit discussion, but I'm sure there is a description somewhere in the GUTCP of this effect. Surely Mills would not have missed so basic an issue.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 12:10 AM   #3805
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,282
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
Ah. Well, not exactly.

Y'see, since hydrinos are dark matter, and do not interact with mundane matter except gravitationally, they are not buoyant (Markie to the contrary). (Unless, that is, hydrinos are not dark matter, and Mills was wrong when he said that they are. But we can safely dismiss this possibility, since Mills is never wrong, at least about theory. Engineering and product delivery issues are mere distractions.) Instead, they take up orbit around the center of the earth which is determined mainly by the latitude of the originating apparatus and the tangential velocity which was imparted by the earth's rotation. The orbit, obviously, is not a classic Newtonian ellipse, since the same Shell Theorem which Markie never accepted means that the effective attractive force on the hydrino does not increase as the inverse square of the distance to the center, but rather will do so inversely linearly with distance. Since the hydrinos will spend most of their time below the surface of the earth, there is little reason for the Princeton labs to have noticed them.

The issue of orbital behavior without an inverse-square gravitational force is clearly so minor as not to merit discussion, but I'm sure there is a description somewhere in the GUTCP of this effect. Surely Mills would not have missed so basic an issue.
The sarcasm is strong with this one obiwan.

But didn't you know? Both Mills and Markie abandoned their claim that dihydrino gas is dark matter and the new claim is that it actually can be cryodistilled with liquid helium!

Except no one has ever seen that either. :P
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 12:20 AM   #3806
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,670
Originally Posted by Winterfrost View Post
I am confident you donít understand what is required to achieve ďeveryone hereís satisfaction.Ē

As has been stated (a few hundred times), published results of multiple tests by fully independent labs would be required to change the minds of most of us. Iím not sure itís possible to accomplish that in 7 weeks, even if testing started tomorrow.

Overpromising and underdelivering undermines oneís credibility. In this tale, that doesnít only apply to you.
I think you have missed a joke. Look at the quoted date again, and remember that 2019 is not a leap year.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 05:30 AM   #3807
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,241
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
As of today, we have to wait a mere 24 (54) (-8) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. So sayeth markie ("26 February, 2019") and tlp/Holvestott.

That said, I do not know of anyone - posters here in this ISF thread, those in the subreddit, BLP itself (per public pronouncements) - who genuinely thinks the world will have such evidence. By early March, 2019.

Suppose, pace history, a working prototype is produced and independently tested. Suppose it works, in the sense of appearing to generate more output energy than input energy; what then?

My guess: nothing but known physics/chemistry/engineering, ho hum, nothing to see here.

But if there is something strange, then expect it to be intensively researched, by competent scientists and engineers. Who may work with inventors and entrepreneurs to make a useful generator. In the space of mere months, not decades. Expect, too, if this happens, that the underlying science is very different from what's in Mills' BBoBB.
As of today, we have to wait a mere 23 (53) (-9) days before the world has concrete, independent, evidence of the existence of a hydrino-powered generator. So sayeth markie ("26 February, 2019") and tlp/Holvestott.

Some interesting responses to my "daily countdown" post yesterday; I'll follow up later.

Originally my plan for today was to write something about the "theory" counterpart to yesterday's "practice" one. But it didn't pan out.

For starters, there's no counterpart claim to something like "BLP will produce a dozen working prototype hydrino-based generators by next Thursday". For example while markie thinks Mills deserves at least three Nobel Prizes, he's said nothing on when he thinks even the first might be awarded (of course, Mills will win exactly the same number of Nobel Prizes as I will win, zero).

What, then, will be the legacy of Mills' ideas, hydrinos, orbitspheres, the whole nine yards? Will it be anything more than a minor footnote in some tally of crackpot physics ideas of the late 20th and early 21st centuries? If so, what? Myself, I think that's about it: his mathematics is well-known (and anyway he applies it inconsistently); his physics is classical (with no real new insights); his techniques and approaches, while perhaps somewhat unorthodox, are not in any way exceptional (other than bad); and so on.

What do you think?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 05:43 AM   #3808
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,241
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
The BLP possibility permutations
1. Hydrinos exist, A BLP device works
2. Hydrinos exist, No BLP device works enough for practical use
3. Hydrinos don't exist, A BLP device works but because of a non-hydrino mechanism
4. Hydrinos don't exist, No BLP devices ever work
Cool.

You added "hydrino" as an additional parameter; my post was about whether a BLP generator would work, in the sense of generating more energy output than energy input. And, as I said, I think if that were to happen (to be clear, my crows will die of old age; I'll never have to eat them), most likely something rather boring would be found.

Hydrino - as in "below the ground state hydrogen" - is a cute idea, but other than muonic hydrogen (which is well-known), will never be found.
Quote:

And a bonus possibility
Item 4 is true but BLP still finds something of scientific or engineering interest.
That's what I covered in today's daily countdown post, well the "scientific" part anyway.

Quote:
I think I might be more pessimistic than Jean Tate about BLP's chances. (Is that possible?) I've moved from number 4 is very likely to Number 4 is almost certain. I hold out a little hope for the bonus possibility. Has BLP produced anything of scientific or practical value in its 30 years? They tout some kind of modeling software. Does it have any value in any field?
What was called "the Millsian" I think, right?

I don't think so. As a purely empirical heuristic - sorta like the Titus-Bode Law for the orbital radii of solar system planets - it might enter some compendium of curiosa, but otherwise no.

Quote:
A request: Somebody posted a nice list of BLP's commercial-product-release-is-imminent claims. I can't find the post. Could somebody link to it? Thanks


As an aside my spell checker doesn't think hydrino is a real word. Maybe it's on to something.
Strange.

My spell checker behaves the same way. Obviously it's a conspiracy.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 05:46 AM   #3809
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,241
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
Ah. Well, not exactly.

Y'see, since hydrinos are dark matter, and do not interact with mundane matter except gravitationally, they are not buoyant (Markie to the contrary). (Unless, that is, hydrinos are not dark matter, and Mills was wrong when he said that they are. But we can safely dismiss this possibility, since Mills is never wrong, at least about theory. Engineering and product delivery issues are mere distractions.) Instead, they take up orbit around the center of the earth which is determined mainly by the latitude of the originating apparatus and the tangential velocity which was imparted by the earth's rotation. The orbit, obviously, is not a classic Newtonian ellipse, since the same Shell Theorem which Markie never accepted means that the effective attractive force on the hydrino does not increase as the inverse square of the distance to the center, but rather will do so inversely linearly with distance. Since the hydrinos will spend most of their time below the surface of the earth, there is little reason for the Princeton labs to have noticed them.

The issue of orbital behavior without an inverse-square gravitational force is clearly so minor as not to merit discussion, but I'm sure there is a description somewhere in the GUTCP of this effect. Surely Mills would not have missed so basic an issue.
Sorry.

My post (the one you quoted from) was meant as a joke, a sarcastic one. Yeah, no matter how many times I'm told that my jokes are poor to terrible, for some reason I can't seem to stop making them.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:27 AM   #3810
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,824
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
And a bonus possibility
Item 4 is true but BLP still finds something of scientific or engineering interest.


I've actually seen that happen. There was a company that started out as a classic "electrolysis -> burn hydrogen = free energy" mistake, but in the process of trying to make their device work, they stumbled upon the phenomena of electrocoagulation/electrofloccuation. Now, of course, others had done that before them, but it did put them on a path to maybe find some improvements in that real technology, rather than waste their time on a fantasy.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 08:57 AM   #3811
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The partial excuse is that QM with extended particles is a rather obscure topic.
And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. I have recently been reading some interesting papers by Werner A Hofer and his collaborative work on an extended electron model in which the density of electron charge is a real physical property (sound familiar?). A starting point is here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3914

"Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" in which he describes the current precision of scanning tunneling microscopy experiments are violating the uncertainty principle by close to 2 orders of magnitude

And here is a decent overview of some of the aspects of the theory as of 2014:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...4/1/012014/pdf

And more recently this is an excellent non-math historical overview:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00227

"Is quantum mechanics creationism, and not science?"
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 09:10 AM   #3812
TwoThumbs
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by TwoThumbs View Post
Originally Posted by markie View Post
February 26 2019 is still on my calendar as the date by which Mills will have demonstrated a closed Suncell prototype showing excess energy generation for a reasonable amount of time. Given the substantive direction changes in the design I'm not as confident as before that my timeline will be met. But in the end it will be worth it.

Mills has achieved excess energy - sometimes for months - with earlier cells over the last 20 years, but bluntly put they were not good enough for the marketplace.
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
This is the best comedy thread ever!
I am confident that a fully operational closed Suncell prototype exhibiting unambiguous excess energy for at least 24 hours continuously will be demonstrated to everyone here's satisfaction no later than February 29 2019.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Originally Posted by TwoThumbs View Post
I am confident that a fully operational closed Suncell prototype exhibiting unambiguous excess energy for at least 24 hours continuously will be demonstrated to everyone here's satisfaction no later than February 29 2019.
Now there's a leap of faith.
Touchť

Take heart in the fact that at least one reader appreciated the wit in your response.


Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Originally Posted by Winterfrost View Post
I am confident you donít understand what is required to achieve ďeveryone hereís satisfaction.Ē

As has been stated (a few hundred times), published results of multiple tests by fully independent labs would be required to change the minds of most of us. Iím not sure itís possible to accomplish that in 7 weeks, even if testing started tomorrow.

Overpromising and underdelivering undermines oneís credibility. In this tale, that doesnít only apply to you.
I think you have missed a joke. Look at the quoted date again, and remember that 2019 is not a leap year.

Thank you Pixel42 for scraping Winterfrost down off the ceiling. I had thought that inclusion of Kid Eager's comedy reference in my original post would be sufficient to twig those who weren't sure if it was a joke. Perhaps next time I should be a little heavier handed - enclose it in [HUMOR][/HUMOR] tags and add a few smiley emoticons.
TwoThumbs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 09:25 AM   #3813
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,692
Wait, I thought this whole thread is in 'humor' section, so no tags are needed ?
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 09:41 AM   #3814
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 136
What!!!! Damn..


I just sent a huge check to invest in this and some Sears stocks. Buy low, sell high you know.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 09:54 AM   #3815
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,138
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 11:30 AM   #3816
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. I have recently been reading some interesting papers by Werner A Hofer and his collaborative work on an extended electron model in which the density of electron charge is a real physical property (sound familiar?). A starting point is here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3914

"Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" in which he describes the current precision of scanning tunneling microscopy experiments are violating the uncertainty principle by close to 2 orders of magnitude

And here is a decent overview of some of the aspects of the theory as of 2014:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...4/1/012014/pdf

And more recently this is an excellent non-math historical overview:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00227

"Is quantum mechanics creationism, and not science?"
Nice finds UncertainH, good reads! (I notice that Mills references Hofer once in his book.) Among other things, I like that Hofer predicts that the pattern lines for the double slit experiment for electrons will be more distinct (less fuzzy) at ultra cold temperatures since he, like Mills, thinks that the interference-like pattern has to do with interactions with atoms at the slit.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 11:58 AM   #3817
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Here's another by Hofer:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1029.pdf

I particularly like this quote from the paper:

Quote:
The message of this analysis is clear: electrons are not point particles, or if they are, then their behavior in these experiments does not comply with the uncertainty relations.
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 12:16 PM   #3818
HappySkeptic99
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. I have recently been reading some interesting papers by Werner A Hofer and his collaborative work on an extended electron model in which the density of electron charge is a real physical property (sound familiar?). A starting point is here:


"Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" in which he describes the current precision of scanning tunneling microscopy experiments are violating the uncertainty principle by close to 2 orders of magnitude
I do not find the paper compelling at all. He did some handwaving about QM (not anything rigorous), and then declared that his simulation, based on the handwaving, gave more noisy results than what STM actually gives.

Rather than suggest that his own model was insufficient, he concluded that QM is wrong. Yeah, right.

The pseudoscientists scan the literature and find these fringe papers. They then claim that the existence of fringe papers prove their own pseudoscience. It doesn't work that way.
HappySkeptic99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 12:53 PM   #3819
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
I do not find the paper compelling at all. He did some handwaving about QM (not anything rigorous), and then declared that his simulation, based on the handwaving, gave more noisy results than what STM actually gives.

Rather than suggest that his own model was insufficient, he concluded that QM is wrong. Yeah, right.

The pseudoscientists scan the literature and find these fringe papers. They then claim that the existence of fringe papers prove their own pseudoscience. It doesn't work that way.
lol You may actually want to look into that a little further before you start accusing Hofer as being a fringe or pseudoscientist. He literally wrote the book on Scanning Probe Microscopy:

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/978...07?0.html=null

and you can find a summary of his work here:

https://scholar.google.com/citations...sortby=pubdate
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 02:40 PM   #3820
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Here's another by Hofer:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1029.pdf

I particularly like this quote from the paper:
Very nice. In addition he deals with the EPR experiment, the Bell inequality, double slit experiment and Stern Gerlach experiment with an uncanny similarity to Mills.

This means that even though the two rotations are independent, they cannot be described by a product of two real variables. In our view, this was the key mistake of John Bell, which makes the Bell inequalities inapplicable to such a situation

Using the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequalities [23], and setting coincidence counts equal to the coincidence probabilities in our model:...one arrives at the standard expectation values for coincidences :

The wave properties are in this case not intrinsic to an electron or photon, they are externally imposed due to the interactions with the slit system.

However, it does not collapse into a definite state - which is usually thought to occur when spin, which is isotropic in three dimensional space, is measured - but it only reveals the direction of the spin vector with respect to the vector of motion. The crucial omission in the conventional frame- work in this case is the possibility that measurements directly affect the spin properties of a system.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 05:57 PM   #3821
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. ...
You really need to understand your sources and do basic reraserch try to find out how reliable they are UncertainH.

A "Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope" paper with no mention of a extended election model.

A viable, working model of an extended electron would be a groundbreaking model published in an appropriate, well known, high impact journal. This is not the newish, obscure, low impact Frontiers of Physics.
Single author papers are dubious.
A preprint published in the condensed (solid) matter section.
Three (3) citations of the paper all including him as an author.

Thus: The paper is obviously invalid that it has been ignored for at least 8 years.

An irrelevant history/philosophy of physics "" preprint from Werner A Hofer.
An irrelevant review paper from a conference starts with the history of QM and has a bit of idiocy ("...it can be inferred that standard quantum mechanics, with its inherent uncertainties, is a model at the end of its natural lifetime.") by Werner A Hofer
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:04 PM   #3822
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Thumbs down Thinks Werner A Hofer is as insanely ignorant as Mills

Originally Posted by markie View Post
...he, like Mills, thinks that the interference-like pattern has to do with interactions with atoms at the slit.
11 January 2019 markie: Thinks Werner A Hofer is as insanely ignorant as Mills and markie.

There is actual double slit interference because we see interference patterns!

Double slit interference by "interactions with atoms at the slit" is insanely ignorant because single particle at a time double slit experiments exist. Mills and markie are insanely ignorant about the fact that a single particle going thru the slits at a time produces an interference pattern. I hope Werner A Hofer is not that ignorant.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:12 PM   #3823
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Here's another by Hofer:
Thanks UncertainH. We now have evidence that Hofer has crank "proposed model of extended electrons" and lies by cherry picking experiments. He must know that a single particle going thru the slits at a time produces an interference pattern.

You still do not know whet a reliable scientific source is. You linked to the PDF of a single author, not peer-reviewed conference presentation.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:28 PM   #3824
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
He literally wrote the book on Scanning Probe Microscopy:
Being an author of books or papers does not stop Hofer from being a fringe scientist or pseudoscientist. People can write valid scientific literature on some topics and go off the deep end for other topics.

It is what you have cited from Hofer that makes him look like a fringe scientist or pseudoscientist.
  1. Electrons cannot be extended objects because their measures magnetic moment gives a surface moving faster than the speed of light.
  2. The measured value of the upper limits to electron extension is 10-22 meters.
    The first point was calculated by Pauli using the enormously larger classical electron radius. The surface speed is enormously greater than the speed of light for an extended electron.
  3. The double slit experiment produces interference pattern when there is only 1 particle in the apparatus at a time.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:48 PM   #3825
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Thumbs down A blatant "uncanny similarity to Mills" lie

Originally Posted by markie View Post
In addition he deals with the EPR experiment, the Bell inequality, double slit experiment and Stern Gerlach experiment with an uncanny similarity to Mills.
11 January 2019 markie: A blatant "uncanny similarity to Mills" lie.

For example:
Mills spews ignorant delusions about the Aspect experiment and does not address the actual Bell inequalities.
Hofer has an pseudoscientific argument about rotations that he thinks reveals a "key mistake of John Bell".

Hofer does make idiotic statements about quantum mechanics and electrons: "no extension, no intrinsic properties, are radially symmetric, and their rotation does not have a moment of inertia" and that this is a problem because of "complexity".
What quantum mechanics actually states is
  • The overwhelming evidence is that electrons have no extent so treat them as point particles unless otherwise needed.
  • Point particles have intrinsic properties.
  • Point particles are radially symmetric.
  • Point particles have no moment of inertia.
This is not a problem because QM works !

A statement of "new experiments, undertaken in the last twenty years, suggest that this statement is actually incorrect." (i.e. electrons have extent) is a lie. The next section is not experiments that show that electrons have extent. It is 1 paper about momentum uncertainty in surface electrons of noble metal silver surfaces, "measured" using scanning electron microscopes
Quote:
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) is a type of electron microscope that produces images of a sample by scanning the surface with a focused beam of electrons. The electrons interact with atoms in the sample, producing various signals that contain information about the surface topography and composition of the sample.
...
The signals used by a scanning electron microscope to produce an image result from interactions of the electron beam with atoms at various depths within the sample.
Quotes around "measured" because he talks about the measurements as if the silver atoms were unaffected by SEM.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th January 2019 at 07:00 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:53 PM   #3826
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 January 2019 markie: Thinks Werner A Hofer is as insanely ignorant as Mills and markie.

There is actual double slit interference because we see interference patterns!

Double slit interference by "interactions with atoms at the slit" is insanely ignorant because single particle at a time double slit experiments exist. Mills and markie are insanely ignorant about the fact that a single particle going thru the slits at a time produces an interference pattern. I hope Werner A Hofer is not that ignorant.
Both Mills and Hofer describe the interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits. Thus, it matters not if the electrons come singly or in multiples. Yet RC seems to think Mills and Hofer require the electrons to come in multiples? Very odd.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 07:23 PM   #3827
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Thumbs down Makes "Both Mills and Hofer" insane

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Both Mills and Hofer describe the interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits.
11 January 2019 markie: Makes "Both Mills and Hofer" insane.
The interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits cannot produce an interference pattern without the insanity of the atoms around one slit knowing that there is another slit and guiding elections. Also insane because the experiment is also done with photons which have different interactions. But maybe Mills delusions include an extended magical photon.

11 January 2019 markie: Lies about Mills double slit experiment insanity.
Page 269.
Mills insanity is that electrons are so big that they magically go through both silts, even one at a time. There are no atoms at all involved at that page, just the slits. It is just the utter stupidity of the electron splitting into 2 parts and diffracting with itself. The insanity does not stop at the slits but Mills completely ignores the actual measurements !

Mills now has the insanity of an "electron" that is a diffraction pattern. It gets to the screen and it magically condenses to mark a single point as we see in experiments. The next identical electron does Mills' insanity and ends up at the same point !

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th January 2019 at 07:29 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 07:50 PM   #3828
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,366
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Both Mills and Hofer describe the interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits.

No, they don't. They claim such an interaction, but they do not describe it, let alone demonstrate it.

It's utterly trivial to say that the arrangement of matter in the experimental apparatus determines the result of the experiment. That's true of any experiment!

What is the interaction? How does it work? What forces effect this interaction? What equation describes the effect of the atoms surrounding the slits upon the electron (or photon, proton, atom, etc.; remember the double slit experiment works with those too) passing through them? Especially, how does the material surrounding the slit the electron doesn't pass through act upon the electron?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 07:58 PM   #3829
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 January 2019 markie: Makes "Both Mills and Hofer" insane.
The interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits cannot produce an interference pattern without the insanity of the atoms around one slit knowing that there is another slit and guiding elections. Also insane because the experiment is also done with photons which have different interactions. But maybe Mills delusions include an extended magical photon.

11 January 2019 markie: Lies about Mills double slit experiment insanity.
Page 269.
Mills insanity is that electrons are so big that they magically go through both silts, even one at a time. There are no atoms at all involved at that page, just the slits. It is just the utter stupidity of the electron splitting into 2 parts and diffracting with itself. The insanity does not stop at the slits but Mills completely ignores the actual measurements !

Mills now has the insanity of an "electron" that is a diffraction pattern. It gets to the screen and it magically condenses to mark a single point as we see in experiments. The next identical electron does Mills' insanity and ends up at the same point !
Wherever do you get the impression that Mills says an electron goes through both slits, or that it splits into two parts and diffracts with itself. He says nothing of the sort. Similarly for photons.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 08:08 PM   #3830
Frozen Flame
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 15
Have I made 15 posts yet?
Frozen Flame is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 08:15 PM   #3831
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
No, they don't. They claim such an interaction, but they do not describe it, let alone demonstrate it.

It's utterly trivial to say that the arrangement of matter in the experimental apparatus determines the result of the experiment. That's true of any experiment!

What is the interaction? How does it work? What forces effect this interaction? What equation describes the effect of the atoms surrounding the slits upon the electron (or photon, proton, atom, etc.; remember the double slit experiment works with those too) passing through them? Especially, how does the material surrounding the slit the electron doesn't pass through act upon the electron?
I can only suppose you haven't read chapter 8 of Mills's GUTCP.
The deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern and long story short photons are exchanged which alters the electron's lateral momentum and trajectory.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 08:29 PM   #3832
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Thumbs down Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269"

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Wherever do you get the impression that Mills says an electron goes through both slits, or that it splits into two parts and diffracts with itself. He says nothing of the sort. Similarly for photons.
11 January 2019 markie: Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269" which is the location of Mills' double slit insanity.
There is plenty of Mills' incoherent gibberish there. Mills' "plane-lamina disc" electron insanity. A paragraph of irrelevant and not used "electron-slit interaction is mediated by photons" stupidity. Then equations that ignore the physical nature of the silts and any interactions with them .

But Mills is clear that it is his deluded electron as big as the separation between slits that via his insanity gives an interference pattern, i.e. the electron has to go thru both silts.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th January 2019 at 08:43 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 08:48 PM   #3833
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,366
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern

How? Does the slit pattern wave a magic wand, or what?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 08:52 PM   #3834
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Thumbs down Unthinking parroting of gibberish from Mills deluded book as usual

Originally Posted by markie View Post
I can only suppose you haven't read chapter 8 of Mills's GUTCP.
11 January 2019 markie: Unthinking parroting of gibberish from Mills deluded book as usual.

Anyone who knows physics and read Mills' book understands that it is very deluded.
"8. Classical Photon and Electron Scattering" contains Mills insanity and lies about classic physics explaining things that it cannot explain.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 09:03 PM   #3835
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
How? Does the slit pattern wave a magic wand, or what?
It is Mills that first waves his magic wand with this stupid gibberish: "During electron diffraction, the initially unpolarized electron becomes polarized to minimize the energy of interaction with the slit such that the angular momentum of the polarized free electron is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of propagation".
Then it is the slit's turn: "To minimize the energy of interaction, the slit polarizes the electron..."

Obviously in Mills world, slits have a "Mills demon" that cuts up the electrons o make them "polarized" !

This is actually Mill's delusion used to turn a classical random orientation of the angular momentum into what is actually measured (the intrinsic 1/2 spin of the electron). But that is not the double slit experiment!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 09:18 PM   #3836
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,512
Originally Posted by markie View Post
IThe deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern and long story short photons are exchanged which alters the electron's lateral momentum and trajectory.
11 January 2019 markie: Unthinking parroting of gibberish from Mills deluded book as usual.

11 January 2019 markie: Unthinking lying about gibberish from Mills deluded book.
Page 283
Mills' electron scattering of beam of electrons hitting a single (1) slit insanity is that the silt somehow decides to turn a classical random orientation of the angular momentum into what is actually measured (the intrinsic 1/2 spin of the electron). More insane gibberish ("slit’s electron-mirror currents"), the magical appearance of another slit and a sinc function pops up over the 2 slits.

The "polarization" is because a slit does Mills magic to an electron. No photons are exchanged. A lie of only changing "lateral momentum and trajectory" with the imaginary photons.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th January 2019 at 09:22 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 10:36 PM   #3837
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 January 2019 markie: Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269" which is the location of Mills' double slit insanity.
There is plenty of Mills' incoherent gibberish there. Mills' "plane-lamina disc" electron insanity. A paragraph of irrelevant and not used "electron-slit interaction is mediated by photons" stupidity. Then equations that ignore the physical nature of the silts and any interactions with them .

But Mills is clear that it is his deluded electron as big as the separation between slits that via his insanity gives an interference pattern, i.e. the electron has to go thru both silts.
The pattern is not due to 'interference'. And, the electron only goes through one slit. The equations do not ignore the physical nature of the slits. Look at the equations ; they accommodate different numbers of slits.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 10:45 PM   #3838
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
How? Does the slit pattern wave a magic wand, or what?
That's like saying, since you can see two slits, does the slit pattern wave a magic wand so that you can actually see both of them? Of course not ; no magic is involved; it's the way photons are reflected from the slits that lets you see them as they are. Similarly an electron can 'see' either one slit of two slits, and that is because the approaching electron's field will stimulate photon emission from one slit only (if there is one slit open) or both slits. The emitted photon(s) will interact with the electron and alter its momentum. See https://brilliantlightpower.com/double-slit/ and look at the two 4 second animations to see what is going on.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 10:49 PM   #3839
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is Mills that first waves his magic wand with this stupid gibberish: "During electron diffraction, the initially unpolarized electron becomes polarized to minimize the energy of interaction with the slit such that the angular momentum of the polarized free electron is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of propagation".
Then it is the slit's turn: "To minimize the energy of interaction, the slit polarizes the electron..."

Obviously in Mills world, slits have a "Mills demon" that cuts up the electrons o make them "polarized" !

This is actually Mill's delusion used to turn a classical random orientation of the angular momentum into what is actually measured (the intrinsic 1/2 spin of the electron). But that is not the double slit experiment!
It is no delusion. It is quite reasonable to think that the environment to which an electron is subject - whether it is a magnetic field in the Stern Gerlach experiment or slits in the double slit experiment - actually has a physical effect on the electron. Imagine that!
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 02:36 AM   #3840
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,711
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
An irrelevant review paper from a conference starts with the history of QM and has a bit of idiocy ("...it can be inferred that standard quantum mechanics, with its inherent uncertainties, is a model at the end of its natural lifetime.") by Werner A Hofer
That likely comes from this.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.