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 12th May 2017, 11:06 AM   #361
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
In the real world that statement leads to your "spinning electron mass" spinning faster than the speed of light ! But then the whole idea of an electron being a shell of "spinning electron mass" is insanely ignorant about physics, e.g. the fact that electrons and other particles pass through that shell.

12 April 2017 markie: How do beta decay electrons get thru multiple "orbitspheres"? (and other questions and items of ignorance).
12 April 2017 markie: A 2012 paper showing a Mills lie about spectra and conventional explanations for them (no hydrinos need apply!)
At least the second time you have repeated that error. Nothing is going faster than light speed. For example the reason that hydrino below the 137th state is forbidden is because the orbitsphere current would surpass light speed. Also, only three generations of leptons are allowed because a fourth would entail faster than light speeds.
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 12th May 2017, 11:15 AM   #362
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Do you have any idea how spherical the electric field of an electron is? It's been measured to be one of the most perfectly spherical things to exist. It's not a disk.
Really. Given the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't it amazing that anything that can be measured with precision.

More to the point, in the far-field the electrical field coming from the disk is calculated to be spherical. Illustrated on Fig 3.3 on page 173 and 174 of GUTCP.
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 12th May 2017, 11:32 AM   #363
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The more distant orbitsphere has more potential energy than the smaller orbitsphere, so energy must be released.
That's not how charged shells work though. They are self-repulsive. Shrinking them increases the potential energy.
phunk 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 12th May 2017, 03:16 PM   #364
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,921
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
That's not how charged shells work though. They are self-repulsive. Shrinking them increases the potential energy.


There you go trying to put actual experiments ahead of what a Mills fanboy says should be true.
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 12th May 2017, 04:53 PM   #365
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
That's not how charged shells work though. They are self-repulsive. Shrinking them increases the potential energy.

It's not a simple charged shell. There is a positive proton in the centre. Also, as I mentioned long ago, the vanishingly thin electron membrane has no self interaction. Its field is outward and orthogonal to the sphere's surface.
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 12th May 2017, 05:13 PM   #366
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Originally Posted by hecd2
Not treated as a point? I'm reasonably confident that the symmetrical collapse of a thin spherical shell of charge (the orbitsphere) would not radiate because the electrical field lines outside the shell are the same before, during and after the collapse. The world sees the orbitsphere as a point charge at its centre, and symmetric changes of radius do not cause any changes in electrical field and therefore do not emit photons via a bremsstrahlung-like process.
In the far field the fields before and after might look about the same, but they aren't.
First of all, let me remind you that it's your claim that the energy released during hydrino formation results from a bremsstrahlung-like process - the acceleration of charges (unlike photons emitted by transition between 'normal' energy states, which, you claim, are the result of the emission of trapped photons, an equally ridiculous idea).

But let's look at your suggestion that before and after the collapse of a charged spherical shell the electrical far field is different. That's just not so. The electrical field outside a spherical charged shell of charge Q is exactly the same as the field arising from a point charge Q at the centre of the shell. It is independent of the radius of the shell and can be derived easily from Gauss's law. Come on, man, this is high school electrostatics.

Quote:
The smaller orbitsphere would have denser field lines originating out of the orbitsphere.
You mean the field is larger immediately outside the shell if the shell is smaller? Of course it is - the charge density on the shell is higher. For a bare shell, you have to do work to compress the shell, as the potential energy increases with smaller radius (see below). But if the shell is symmetrically compressed, the electric far-field is undisturbed, meaning there is no electromagnetic wave, no photons and no bremsstrahlung.

If there is an equal and opposite charge at the centre of the shell, the field outside the shell is zero everywhere, so there are no field lines anyway.
Quote:
Also, you are neglecting the proton in the centre of the orbitsphere. The more distant orbitsphere has more potential energy than the smaller orbitsphere, so energy must be released.
As phunk has pointed out the self-interaction of a charged spherical shell on its own is such that the potential energy increases with smaller radius.

If you put an equal and opposite charge at the centre of the shell (the proton) then the field outside the shell is zero everywhere, independent of the radius of the shell, so there are no field lines to be "denser" either before or after the collapse of the shell. And in fact, the potential energy of the system is independent of the radius of the shell (and zero if you define potential energy as being equal to zero at infinity).

Your claims are really screwed up.
hecd2 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 12th May 2017, 05:23 PM   #367
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by markie View Post
It's not a simple charged shell. There is a positive proton in the centre. Also, as I mentioned long ago, the vanishingly thin electron membrane has no self interaction. Its field is outward and orthogonal to the sphere's surface.
The field outside any spherical charged shell is identical to the field of an equal point charge at its centre, perpendicular to the shell surface (in your words outward and orthogonal). The potential energy of spherical shells of charge increase inversely with radius. The addition of an equal and opposite charge at the centre results in zero field everywhere outside the shell.

You have a spherical shell of charge and you claim there is no self interaction. Why not? Oh I know the answer to that one - because it's inconvenient for the scam.

Last edited by hecd2; 12th May 2017 at 05:49 PM. Reason: Added spherical (in italics) for completeness
hecd2 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 12th May 2017, 09:03 PM   #368
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
The field outside any spherical charged shell is identical to the field of an equal point charge at its centre, perpendicular to the shell surface (in your words outward and orthogonal). The potential energy of spherical shells of charge increase inversely with radius. The addition of an equal and opposite charge at the centre results in zero field everywhere outside the shell.

Dare I say it, but yes you are correct. I had the field of the free electron on the brain, and then you went orbitsphere. With a proton in the centre, then it is as you say, it will zero the field outside the orbitsphere. But you led me down the garden path into the red herring sea. It's not about the field outside the orbitsphere, but the field inside, generated by the proton.

Quote:
You have a spherical shell of charge and you claim there is no self interaction. Why not? Oh I know the answer to that one - because it's inconvenient for the scam.

Yet QM presents the electron as a point of charge, with essentially infinite energy and charge density and no self interaction, and you're just fine with it, go figure.
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 13th May 2017, 12:10 AM   #369
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,691
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Dare I say it, but yes you are correct. I had the field of the free electron on the brain, and then you went orbitsphere. With a proton in the centre, then it is as you say, it will zero the field outside the orbitsphere. But you led me down the garden path into the red herring sea. It's not about the field outside the orbitsphere, but the field inside, generated by the proton.




Yet QM presents the electron as a point of charge, with essentially infinite energy and charge density and no self interaction, and you're just fine with it, go figure.
Because those theories of QM actually work..
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 13th May 2017, 02:17 AM   #370
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Dare I say it, but yes you are correct. I had the field of the free electron on the brain, and then you went orbitsphere. With a proton in the centre, then it is as you say, it will zero the field outside the orbitsphere. But you led me down the garden path into the red herring sea. It's not about the field outside the orbitsphere, but the field inside, generated by the proton.
Nonsense. How can it be a red herring to point out that the field outside is zero if your claim is that the collapsing electron radiates via bremsstrahlung? The point is that, in order to do so, there has be a change in the EM field arising at the atom that radiates outward at the speed of light (in other words it has to radiate a photon). But since the field is unconditionally unchanged before, during and after the collapse, no such radiation occurs.

I also pointed out the potential energy of the neutral atom, arising from electrical interactions, is unconditionally zero in your model. However you cut it, the collapsing electron in your model will not radiate.

Quote:
Yet QM presents the electron as a point of charge, with essentially infinite energy and charge density and no self interaction, and you're just fine with it, go figure.
So let's see. You have finite mass and charge in the orbitsphere, localised onto an infinitely thin shell. What is the charge and mass density at the shell? (Hint: the volume of the shell - not the volume enclosed by the shell - but the volume of the shell iself is zero.)
hecd2 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 13th May 2017, 02:34 AM   #371
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,691
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Because those theories of QM actually work..
Just to expand on this, on the one hand we have things like this computer I am typing on which uses predictions arising from our current understanding of how the world works i.e. QM to actually work.

On the other hand we have someone who says that our current understanding of how the world works i.e. QM is wrong and using his understanding of how the world actually works has produced nothing that actually works.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 13th May 2017, 05:08 AM   #372
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Nonsense. How can it be a red herring to point out that the field outside is zero if your claim is that the collapsing electron radiates via bremsstrahlung? The point is that, in order to do so, there has be a change in the EM field arising at the atom that radiates outward at the speed of light (in other words it has to radiate a photon). But since the field is unconditionally unchanged before, during and after the collapse, no such radiation occurs.

I also pointed out the potential energy of the neutral atom, arising from electrical interactions, is unconditionally zero in your model. However you cut it, the collapsing electron in your model will not radiate.
The negative electron shell accelerates into the proton's positively charged field. It thus radiates, not matter if it is surrounded in the far field by field or no field.

Quote:
So let's see. You have finite mass and charge in the orbitsphere, localised onto an infinitely thin shell. What is the charge and mass density at the shell? (Hint: the volume of the shell - not the volume enclosed by the shell - but the volume of the shell iself is zero.)
It really isn't zero. The membrane has a very small thickness, namely what would be the Schwarzchild radius for the electron's mass.
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 13th May 2017, 05:25 AM   #373
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Just to expand on this, on the one hand we have things like this computer I am typing on which uses predictions arising from our current understanding of how the world works i.e. QM to actually work.

On the other hand we have someone who says that our current understanding of how the world works i.e. QM is wrong and using his understanding of how the world actually works has produced nothing that actually works.
The computer would have been invented quite apart from the magical underpinnings of QM.

Until the SunCell is released, you will have to be content with Mills' theory predicting things that QM cannot. For instance: ionization energies for each electron in an atom, for atoms all the way up to Z=20. QM gets it right for hydrogen. Not sure about helium. You call that a theory that works, hmmm.
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 13th May 2017, 06:30 AM   #374
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The negative electron shell accelerates into the proton's positively charged field. It thus radiates, not matter if it is surrounded in the far field by field or no field.
Nope, your knowledge of electrostatics is no better than your knowledge of vector algebra. In the described scenario, there is no force on the orbit sphere or any element of it. It has zero potential energy arising from electrical forces, at all radii, so a change of radius does not release any energy.
Quote:
It really isn't zero. The membrane has a very small thickness, namely what would be the Schwarzchild radius for the electron's mass.
And your evidence for this assertion is...?
hecd2 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 13th May 2017, 06:39 AM   #375
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Until the SunCell is released, you will have to be content with Mills' theory predicting things that QM cannot. For instance: ionization energies for each electron in an atom, for atoms all the way up to Z=20. QM gets it right for hydrogen. Not sure about helium. You call that a theory that works, hmmm.
Can you post the specific equation for this, please?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   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 13th May 2017, 09:26 AM   #376
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,092
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The computer would have been invented quite apart from the magical underpinnings of QM.
Not in anything like its present size and convenience of use, it wouldn't. Without QM you can't have electron energy band structure in crystalline materials, and without that you can't have solid state electronics. Without solid state electronics computers would still be the size of a house and the power of an early Sinclair calculator.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 13th May 2017, 12:47 PM   #377
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,921
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The computer would have been invented quite apart from the magical underpinnings of QM.

Go build a computer without semiconductors. Go ahead. Let's see what you can build.
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 13th May 2017, 03:32 PM   #378
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,358
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Go build a computer without semiconductors. Go ahead. Let's see what you can build.
I found that question intriguing:

http://gizmodo.com/nasa-has-finally-...-ve-1792149284

https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/08/...emiconductors/

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange....semiconductors

Quote:
It’s awesome that these chips worked, but they’re definitely not ready for primetime yet. As of now, the chips only have 24 transistors on them—comparable to much older microchips rather than those found in modern computers. “We’re back to the very early 1970s on Moore’s law in terms of the complexity of the chip,” said Neudeck. But he already has a 100-transistor chip in the wings, and scientists have already explored the solar system with less-complex chips. Plus, aside rom the computer, scientists still need to design the remaining pieces of the Venus-faring rover.

Last edited by Hans; 13th May 2017 at 03:33 PM.
Hans 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 13th May 2017, 05:03 PM   #379
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,812
Another interesting thought I had: this shade-tree mechanic has published everything in his one book; which means that actual real-life physicists could easily take that information and build their own machines, undercutting Mills entirely. They'd have all the formal knowledge, labs, and status that it'd take to become the wealthy ones, the famous ones, the prize-winning ones. They could take the information all laid out and publish their own peer-reviewed papers, establishing themselves in the actual scientific literature.

It's almost as if they know something that Mills does not.
The Norseman 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 13th May 2017, 05:13 PM   #380
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Nope, your knowledge of electrostatics is no better than your knowledge of vector algebra. In the described scenario, there is no force on the orbit sphere or any element of it. It has zero potential energy arising from electrical forces, at all radii, so a change of radius does not release any energy.
Sorry, but to be fair, this has nothing to do with electrostatics. Kinetic energy increases, potential energy decreases as the electron moves closer to the proton that's just basic EM.
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 13th May 2017, 05:22 PM   #381
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,188
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The computer would have been invented quite apart from the magical underpinnings of QM.

Until the SunCell is released, you will have to be content with Mills' theory predicting things that QM cannot. For instance: ionization energies for each electron in an atom, for atoms all the way up to Z=20. QM gets it right for hydrogen. Not sure about helium. You call that a theory that works, hmmm.
Any moron can predict something. Retconning does not, however, count. The trick is:
1. predicting something before it happens,
2. being right in the prediction

For example: I predict you have an undisclosed (to this forum) pecuniary interest in BLP.

Now, about Mills' tome on why everybody else is wrong and his hypothesis is the real answer. It's a scam from start to finish. Why? The giveaway is the sheer length of the explanation. If you need to write 1000+ pages to explain something, you either don't understand it, or are concealing subterfuge under verbiage.

Meanwhile, it's fun to continue to learn stuff as I watch forumites play whack-a-mole on the internal inconsistencies and contradictions being put forward in this thread.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 13th May 2017 at 05:23 PM.
Kid Eager 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 13th May 2017, 05:29 PM   #382
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Without QM you can't have electron energy band structure in crystalline materials, and without that you can't have solid state electronics. Without solid state electronics computers would still be the size of a house and the power of an early Sinclair calculator.
His view of QM is that it's similar to the old theory of planetary epicycles: giving superficially accurate results, but the model being completely wrong. He's saying that the equations used give answers close enough to reality to be able to make transistors/lasers/etc, but the equations don't actually match reality.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 13th May 2017, 05:34 PM   #383
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,691
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
His view of QM is that it's similar to the old theory of planetary epicycles: giving superficially accurate results, but the model being completely wrong. He's saying that the equations used give answers close enough to reality to be able to make transistors/lasers/etc, but the equations don't actually match reality.
But that still leaves him with the embarrassing problem that he can't get anything to actually do what he claims his better theory "predicts".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 14th May 2017, 05:04 AM   #384
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Sorry, but to be fair, this has nothing to do with electrostatics. Kinetic energy increases, potential energy decreases as the electron moves closer to the proton that's just basic EM.
Welcome to the forum. With all due respect, I suggest you read up on Mills's claims before you make pronouncements like that.
hecd2 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 14th May 2017, 06:14 AM   #385
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Welcome to the forum. With all due respect, I suggest you read up on Mills's claims before you make pronouncements like that.
Thanks for the welcome. Let me just say that I have read up on Mills' claims and am neither a supporter or denier - just skeptical. But again, the interaction between a proton and electron in the hydrogen atom is far from being static. Whether you are talking about Mills, QED or classical electrodynamics when the electron is closer to the nucleus it is moving faster and it's potential energy is decreased.
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 14th May 2017, 06:32 AM   #386
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Thanks for the welcome. Let me just say that I have read up on Mills' claims and am neither a supporter or denier - just skeptical. But again, the interaction between a proton and electron in the hydrogen atom is far from being static. Whether you are talking about Mills, QED or classical electrodynamics when the electron is closer to the nucleus it is moving faster and it's potential energy is decreased.
Well perhaps you could tell us exactly how the spherical shell of charge in Mills's model "moves"? Perhaps you could us give us the expression for the potential energy for a spherical shell of charge centred on a point of equal and opposite charge as a function of radius.

And since you mention QED, before we even go to a relativistic theory, would you like to point to the solution of Schrodinger's equation which explicitly defines the speed of the electron in the hydrogen atom as a function of radius?
hecd2 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 14th May 2017, 06:57 AM   #387
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,644
Mod WarningA few posts have been carted off to Abandon All Hope. They were more about posters in this thread than the topic of this thread. Both rules 12 and 8 of the Membership Agreement were in play.

It is best if you focus on the topic, and that seems to be the science and non-science of Mills' energy generator and related theories and whether it is all real or scam. The motivations, possible identities and posting histories elsewhere of people here aren't that.

Please post responsibly.
Posted By:jsfisher
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher 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 14th May 2017, 08:02 AM   #388
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Well perhaps you could tell us exactly how the spherical shell of charge in Mills's model "moves"? Perhaps you could us give us the expression for the potential energy for a spherical shell of charge centred on a point of equal and opposite charge as a function of radius.

And since you mention QED, before we even go to a relativistic theory, would you like to point to the solution of Schrodinger's equation which explicitly defines the speed of the electron in the hydrogen atom as a function of radius?
Mills describes the electron as a moving ensemble of charge. These charge currents are what gives rise to radiation during transitions. The current function can be found on p55 equation 1.12 in gutcp.

I tried to post a link to a website that describes how kinetic and potential energy is treated is standard QM but for some reason the forum blocked my post when i try to put in a URL. Anyway if you search for "schrodinger kinetic energy ground state increases kinetic energy" there are lots of links to basic QM texts that describe it. Bear in mind that QM does not describe velocity per se but rather momentum.

I'm not trying to say that one is right or wrong but neither Mills nor standard QM uses electrostatics to describe whats going on in the hydrogen atom.
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 14th May 2017, 08:08 AM   #389
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,195
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
I tried to post a link to a website that describes how kinetic and potential energy is treated is standard QM but for some reason the forum blocked my post when i try to put in a URL.
There's a minimum number of posts you need to make before you can post links, I believe it's an anti-spam-bot precaution. I can't remember what that minimum is, I'm afraid, but in the meantime if you give the link with, say, spaces instead of dots someone will usually convert it into a working link for you.
__________________
"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 14th May 2017, 08:20 AM   #390
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Sorry, but to be fair, this has nothing to do with electrostatics. Kinetic energy increases, potential energy decreases as the electron moves closer to the proton that's just basic EM.

Yes kinetic energy increases and potential energy decreases as the orbitsphere gets smaller and closer to the proton nucleus. However, the binding energy (which is electrostatic) also increases.

For normal hydrogen (n=1): PE = -27.2 eV, KE = 13.6 eV, BE = 13.6 eV
Hydrino (n=1/2) PE = -108.8 eV, KE = 54.4 eV, BE = 54.4 eV
Hydrino (n=1/3) PE = - -244.9 eV, KE = 122.4 eV, BE = 122.4 eV
etc.

(Extracted from page 211 of Mills' GUTCP)
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 14th May 2017, 08:41 AM   #391
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
There's a minimum number of posts you need to make before you can post links, I believe it's an anti-spam-bot precaution. I can't remember what that minimum is, I'm afraid, but in the meantime if you give the link with, say, spaces instead of dots someone will usually convert it into a working link for you.
Ok here it goes:

phys ufl edu/~avery/course/4390/f2015/lectures/QM_basics.pdf

and yes there is an electrostatic contribution to the binding energy
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 14th May 2017, 08:42 AM   #392
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Can you post the specific equation for this, please?
For starters, you could start with formulae for 2 electron atoms, starting with simple Helium. See equations 7.44, 7.45 and 7.46 for helium on page 254 of Mills' 2016 GUTCP. See page 257 for a chart comparing experimental and derived values for 2 electron atoms up to Copper 27+.
Note that Z is the only variable.
But we've been through this before haven't we.
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 14th May 2017, 08:50 AM   #393
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,195
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Ok here it goes:

phys ufl edu/~avery/course/4390/f2015/lectures/QM_basics.pdf

and yes there is an electrostatic contribution to the binding energy
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/cours.../QM_basics.pdf
__________________
"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 14th May 2017, 08:53 AM   #394
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Not in anything like its present size and convenience of use, it wouldn't. Without QM you can't have electron energy band structure in crystalline materials, and without that you can't have solid state electronics. Without solid state electronics computers would still be the size of a house and the power of an early Sinclair calculator.

Dave
Without QM? There are electron energy band structures in materials, with or without QM. The question is, what theoretical framework best deals with them. Just like Mills solves the atom, he can solve lattices as well. See for instance chapter 21 where he deals with Silicon as a semiconductor.

Last edited by markie; 14th May 2017 at 08:55 AM.
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 14th May 2017, 09:11 AM   #395
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,382
Originally Posted by markie View Post
For starters, you could start with formulae for 2 electron atoms, starting with simple Helium. See equations 7.44, 7.45 and 7.46 for helium on page 254 of Mills' 2016 GUTCP. See page 257 for a chart comparing experimental and derived values for 2 electron atoms up to Copper 27+.
Note that Z is the only variable.
But we've been through this before haven't we.
Yes, we have been here before.

Are you able to copy/paste the relevant formulae, markie?

Can you explain them?

If I am not mistaken, all values were reported, from experiments, long before Mills even began his work, right? For a prediction, as opposed to a postdiction, we should ask for values which have not yet been observed, right? Got any of those?
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 14th May 2017, 09:15 AM   #396
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,382
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Without QM? There are electron energy band structures in materials, with or without QM. The question is, what theoretical framework best deals with them. Just like Mills solves the atom, he can solve lattices as well. See for instance chapter 21 where he deals with Silicon as a semiconductor.
(my bold)

Maybe another ISF member could correct me here ... "band structures" make little to no sense without QM, right?
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 14th May 2017, 09:18 AM   #397
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by markie View Post
For starters, you could start with formulae for 2 electron atoms, starting with simple Helium. See equations 7.44, 7.45 and 7.46 for helium on page 254 of Mills' 2016 GUTCP. See page 257 for a chart comparing experimental and derived values for 2 electron atoms up to Copper 27+.
Note that Z is the only variable.
I'm not seeing anything in anything. I'm asking you, personally, to post on this forum the specific equation that will calculate the ionization energies for each electron in an atom, the equation which can accurately calculate things that quantum mechanics cannot.

Quote:
But we've been through this before haven't we.
Not me.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   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 14th May 2017, 09:21 AM   #398
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,382
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Yes kinetic energy increases and potential energy decreases as the orbitsphere gets smaller and closer to the proton nucleus. However, the binding energy (which is electrostatic) also increases.

For normal hydrogen (n=1): PE = -27.2 eV, KE = 13.6 eV, BE = 13.6 eV
Hydrino (n=1/2) PE = -108.8 eV, KE = 54.4 eV, BE = 54.4 eV
Hydrino (n=1/3) PE = - -244.9 eV, KE = 122.4 eV, BE = 122.4 eV
etc.

(Extracted from page 211 of Mills' GUTCP)
(my bold)

Wait a minute ... just two posts earlier, UncertainH said that the electron is a moving ensemble of charge, per Mills, right? So why is there no component of the binding energy due to the electron's motion?
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 14th May 2017, 09:50 AM   #399
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,092
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
(my bold)

Maybe another ISF member could correct me here ... "band structures" make little to no sense without QM, right?
None whatsoever; band structure arises from the interaction of the electron's de Broglie wavelength with the periodicity of the crystal structure. They're fundamentally wave mechanical in nature.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 14th May 2017, 12:27 PM   #400
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Mills describes the electron as a moving ensemble of charge. These charge currents are what gives rise to radiation during transitions. The current function can be found on p55 equation 1.12 in gutcp.
We have already established in this thread that the concept of the orbitsphere is inconsistent as it requires a continuous tangential vector field on the sphere without singularities. Both the current and the mass flow are such disallowed vector fields.
hecd2 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 12:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.