Certainty

[Lynn Kurtz]

Here's word for word the latest post from Mills on the other group, responding to someones mention of the "alleged" errors in mathematics in GUT-CP. Quoted in its entirety:

"The math is correct and the physics is as well."

I guess that settles it then, eh?

[jeconnett]

Lynn Kurtz said:

Here's word for word the latest post from Mills on the other group, responding to someones mention of the "alleged" errors in mathematics in GUT-CP. Quoted in its entirety:

"The math is correct and the physics is as well."

I guess that settles it then, eh?

Well yeah.

I admit I had my doubts.

Some time ago I pointed out that GUT-CP has two different expressions for the
moment of intertia of the orbitsphere. One of them has a factor of 2/3 in front,
while the other has a factor of 1/2.

Of course that was just an alleged error. I alleged that the 1/2 factor appeared in GUT-CP
in Table 1.2, and I alleged that the 2/3 factor appeared in Box 1.1, Eqn (3). People can check
for themselves whether all that alleging was accurate. Further, I alleged that this, uh,
alleged error, has persisted through several years and many versions of GUT-CP. But that
was just alleged.

Now the Greatest Mind of All Time (GMOAT) has set us straight. No more alleging. And the solution
is obvious:

2/3 really is equal to 1/2. The GMOAT has spoken. The Faithful may now confidently bow down in wonder
and worship, as they are wont to do. "The math is correct." QED.

John C.

[kmarinas86]

Lynn Kurtz said:

Here's word for word the latest post from Mills on the other group, responding to someones mention of the "alleged" errors in mathematics in GUT-CP. Quoted in its entirety:

"The math is correct and the physics is as well."

I guess that settles it then, eh?

Well yeah.

I admit I had my doubts.

Some time ago I pointed out that GUT-CP has two different expressions for the
moment of intertia of the orbitsphere. One of them has a factor of 2/3 in front,
while the other has a factor of 1/2.

Of course that was just an alleged error. I alleged that the 1/2 factor appeared in GUT-CP
in Table 1.2, and I alleged that the 2/3 factor appeared in Box 1.1, Eqn (3). People can check
for themselves whether all that alleging was accurate. Further, I alleged that this, uh,
alleged error, has persisted through several years and many versions of GUT-CP. But that
was just alleged.

Now the Greatest Mind of All Time (GMOAT) has set us straight. No more alleging. And the solution
is obvious:

2/3 really is equal to 1/2. The GMOAT has spoken. The Faithful may now confidently bow down in wonder
and worship, as they are wont to do. "The math is correct." QED.

John C.

Of course, who else here but me could understand that an object's moment of inertia is dependent on the type of interaction without be reminded? For interactions in the electric field, there is no torque, so the net-non-rotating orbitsphere in a static reference frame results in a factor of 1/2. For a rotating reference frame, it is (2/3), relating to the magnetic field. This is concept that you are simply unable to understand. IQ+ for me.

What is more, Mills' theory does not explain the whole universe (big surprise). It defines the hydrino states. I cannot prove that it "predicts" them.

At least the "rock cakes" exist.

[dobermanmacleod]

Here's word for word the latest post from Mills on the other group, responding to someones mention of the "alleged" errors in mathematics in GUT-CP. Quoted in its entirety:

"The math is correct and the physics is as well."

I guess that settles it then, eh?

Wow. I have been wondering for a few months if Dr Mills and BLP are working on a new catalyst that doesn't degrade, so a continuous burn is possible - I guess this settles the matter. No wonder whenever any experimental results seem to validate the GUT-CP, then Dr Mills issues a press release. What arrogance. I pray that it is warranted, and my doubts are groundless.

Frankly, it is bizarre that Dr Mills' team would not analyze the catalyst after the burn for any oxidized aluminum. It ought not be hard to measure the quantity of oxidized aluminum to tell how much energy came from the burned catalyst, and therefore how much came from the BlackLight Process. While the Rowan demonstrations may be opaque, the math is much more transparent - and Dr Mills' reaction to the "alleged" errors bodes ill for the validity of the Rowan demonstrations.

By the way, on the off chance that Dr Mills is correct, and virtually the rest of the world is wrong, I would like to recommend the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FEyV_-NGyk

The Promise of New Energy

http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index.html

The Orion Project

Summary: If Dr Mills succeeds, he won't be the first. Predictably, he will be slapped with a National Security Order and all equipment seized. The Orion Project is dedicated to overcoming this hurtle. I am very well aware that I risk ending up in the Penalty Box, but this non-consensus reality information can be easily proven (there was a National Press Club luncheon in 2001 that should convince any open minded person). Anyone that wants more information, or to just cuss me out as a fool, I can be reached at dobermanmacleod@gmail.com

[jeconnett]

kmarinas86 said:

Of course, who else here but me could understand that an object's moment of inertia is dependent on the type of interaction without be reminded?

Yes, you may be alone in that. Moment of inertia of an object is a function of exactly two
things: (1) the mass distribution; and (2) the axis. You don't believe me, look at the definition.
Moment of inertia is NOT dependent on magnetic effects, current flow, etc. The key word
is MASS. You may be thinking of magnetic moment or some such.

kmarinas86 said:

For interactions in the electric field, there is no torque, so the net-non-rotating orbitsphere in a static reference frame results in a factor of 1/2. For a rotating reference frame, it is (2/3), relating to the magnetic field. This is concept that you are simply unable to understand.

Here is what you need to do. Take a basic course in physics. Pay particular attention to the
DEFINITIONS. The definition of moment of inertia does NOT involve any electric field or
a magnetic field. An irrelevant fact here is that you have persistently not understood that there is no 'rotating
reference frame': Mills' orbitsphere in its basic configuration has a STATIC charge-mass
distribution. A further irrelevant fact is that, contrary to what you say, the standard expression
for moment of inertia of a uniform spherical shell has the 2/3 factor, and obviously that
expression is derived without regard to any 'rotating frame of reference', magnetic field, or electric
field. It is Mills' version with the 1/2 factor which makes no sense and for which you have provided
absolutely no justification.

kmarinas86 said:

IQ+ for me.

I have zero regard for people who want to invoke IQ as an indicator of their credentials. However
if you want to get into an IQ pissing contest with me you are definitely skating on thin ice.
You would do better to go back to your asinine amateur 'experiments' with the Newman motor-generator
and your various other hare-brained New Age fascinations. Got that?

John C.

[kmarinas86]

kmarinas86 said:

Of course, who else here but me could understand that an object's moment of inertia is dependent on the type of interaction without be reminded?

Yes, you may be alone in that. Moment of inertia of an object is a function of exactly two
things: (1) the mass distribution; and (2) the axis. You don't believe me, look at the definition.
Moment of inertia is NOT dependent on magnetic effects, current flow, etc. The key word
is MASS. You may be thinking of magnetic moment or some such.

kmarinas86 said:

For interactions in the electric field, there is no torque, so the net-non-rotating orbitsphere in a static reference frame results in a factor of 1/2. For a rotating reference frame, it is (2/3), relating to the magnetic field. This is concept that you are simply unable to understand.

Here is what you need to do. Take a basic course in physics. Pay particular attention to the
DEFINITIONS. The definition of moment of inertia does NOT involve any electric field or
a magnetic field.

The axis is given by the problem. That there is an axis of magnetic precession at all is due to there being a magnetic force. No magnetic force means no magnetic precession.

An irrelevant fact here is that you have persistently not understood that there is no 'rotating
reference frame':

You overestimate your knowledge:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 ... as_sdtp=on

Google +1.

As for the following, refer to the link.

Mills' orbitsphere in its basic configuration has a STATIC charge-mass
distribution.

A further irrelevant fact is that, contrary to what you say, the standard expression
for moment of inertia of a uniform spherical shell has the 2/3 factor, and obviously that
expression is derived without regard to any 'rotating frame of reference', magnetic field, or electric
field.

The 2/3 is derived from physical conservation laws. Physical conservation laws are more fundamental then Maxwell's equations in vector-form. It is Maxwell's equations that must obey the 2/3.

The factor 2/3 does not defy conventional physics. I have not stated otherwise.

It is Mills' version with the 1/2 factor which makes no sense and for which you have provided absolutely no justification.

One of Mills paper's (link) assumes that the moment of inertia is based the individual charge loops each of which exists in a geometric plane displaced at some angle between 0 to 90 degrees and 90 to 180 degrees from the corresponding planes perpendicular to the z-axis.

Visually:

Code: Select all

\|/
-|-
/|\


We know that Mills claims the charglets rotate in loops in all directions within the orbitsphere. Therefore, some charglets will rotate in a plane parallel to the z-axis, others will rotate in a plane perpendicular to the z-axis, and others yet in a plane in between the two extremes.

Therefore, according to this problem, the moment of inertia of some mass density rotated around the z-axis is determined by it distance from the z-axis. By definition, this means that the result is less than mr^2. It is actually m(r_z)^2. I don't see how that adds to 1/2 however . Wikipedia says it is 2/3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_moments_of_inertia).

Therefore, if one is to patch Mills' claim, they must back up their assertion with something else, such as "What is the phenomenology of the electron mass exactly?" Another question may be: "How could one derive an anisotropic residual magnetic field from a particle consisting of a charge density distribution that is uniform?"

So you got me. Sort of.

[jeconnett]

kmarinas86 said:

(1) The mass distribution is not dependent on the magnetic field.

Correct. So now look, if you can bring yourself to do it, at the actual definition of moment of inertia.

kmarinas86 said:

(2) That there is an axis of magnetic precession at all is due to there being a magnetic force. No magnetic force means no magnetic precession.

As you note below, Mills cannot prove (though he thinks he has done so) that his scheme of great circle
current loops provides a uniform covering of the sphere. Similary he cannot prove that there is a net magnetic
force, hence neither you nor he can conclude that there is magnetic precession in his model.

kmarinas86 said:

jeconnett wrote:An irrelevant fact here is that you have persistently not understood that there is no 'rotating
reference frame':

You overestimate your knowledge:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 ... as_sdtp=on

Google +1.

First, those Google references have nothing whatsoever to say about Mills' model, to which I as
clearly referring when I said there is no 'rotating reference frame'.

Second, those Google references as far as I can tell make no reference to 'moment of inertia',
which is the topic of discussion here. But thanks for shedding all that light on the discussion.

kmarinas86 said:

The reality of his "orbitsphere" is that there is no way that the actual charge distribution is a perfect sphere, even in the simplest cases.

You know that and I know that but Mills has deluded himself into believing he has proved it. I was
assuming it here for the sake of discussion of Mills' physics.

kmarinas86 said:

The factor 2/3 does not defy conventional physics. I have not stated otherwise.

Here is a direct quote from your post:

"... the net-non-rotating orbitsphere in a static reference frame results in a factor of 1/2. "

So unless you subscribe to the Millsian implication that 2/3 is actually equal to 1/2, you
have EXACTLY "stated otherwise".

kmarinas86 said:

The 2/3 is derived from physical conservation laws. Physical conservation laws are more fundamental then Maxwell's equations in vector-form. It is Maxwell's equations that must obey the 2/3.

And here is what you actually said about the 2/3:

kmarinas86 said:

For a rotating reference frame, it is (2/3), relating to the magnetic field.

See that? You implied that it was related to the magnetic field. Now you say (more correctly) that
it is derived from "physical conservation laws", which, you say, are "more fundamental than Maxwell's
equations."

This time you are right. Moment of inertia has NOTHING TO DO with Maxwell's equations, electricity or magnetism.
It is defined strictly on the basis of MASS and the axis of rotation. Nor in fact, to compute moment of inertia, do you
need to invoke any conservation laws. It follows very simply straight from the definition.

Your inconsistency on this is more evidence, if more is needed, that you actually have no idea what you
are talking about. I still see no evidence that you are actually even aware of the definition of moment of inertia.

kmarinas86 said:

I cannot derive the 1/2 at this point in time.

Don't feel bad. Neither can Mills.

kmarinas86 said:

The 1/2 has nothing to do with torque by the way, as the intrinsic angular momentum of the electron is a physical constant of nature.

Did I mention torque? Did I mention angular momentum here? I have pointed out previously that the reason Mills
desperately WANTS moment of inertia to have the 1/2 factor is that he wants the equation

[1] ... angular momentum = angular velocity * moment of inertia

to be true. Note that Table 1.2 has the angular momentum around the z- axis. This
is

L_z = hbar / 2.

The angular velocity, also given in Table 1.2, is

w = hbar/(m * r^2).

Thus

L_z = (hbar/(m * r^2)) * (1/2) * m * r^2 = hbar / 2,

as desired (and as is known to be true, as you point out).

See that 1/2 in the equation just above in the angular momentum part? Mills desperately wants it to be in
there, so that equation [1] above will be satisfied. Two points. One, wanting it to be there and proving that it
must be there as a consequence of Mills' byzantine model are two different things. Perhaps he is trying to
back his way into it. But he, like you, definitely has no proof that it follows from his model. Two, Mills has
no reason to assume that the "angular velocity" of his orbitsphere is equal to w = hbar/(m * r^2). This is his
postulated angular velocity on each of his current loops. Since the current loops are oriented in all sorts
of directions relative to each other (and angular velocity is actually a vector) there is absolutely
no reason to think that the "angular velocity" of the whole thing has that same "angular velocity" as
the current loops. It is naive, superficial and unjustified to make this assumption. Mills' reasoning here is a
confused mess of formalism and amateurish high-school level physics, like much of the rest of GUT-CP.

But these are all just "alleged" math and physics errors. The True Believers don't have to read or understand any of
this, no matter how simple and obvious it may be, because Randell L. Mills MD hath texted thus from his cell phone:
The math is correct and the physics is correct. The GMOAT has spoken; we must humbly accept. And 2/3 = 1/2 is a mere
alleged corollary.

John C.

[kmarinas86]

When I was editing the post, I retracted part of my argument.

Therefore, according to this problem, the moment of inertia of some mass density rotated around the z-axis is determined by it distance from the z-axis. By definition, this means that the result is less than mr^2. It is actually m(r_z)^2. I don't see how that adds to 1/2 however . Wikipedia says it is 2/3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_moments_of_inertia).

Therefore, if one is to patch Mills' claim, they must back up their assertion with something else, such as "What is the phenomenology of the electron mass exactly?" Another question may be: "How could one derive an anisotropic residual magnetic field from a particle consisting of a charge density distribution that is uniform?"

So you got me. Sort of.

I have started another thread to focus on making an open-source document for the purpose of asking and answering questions related to the orbitsphere CVF.

(viewtopic.php?f=5&t=250) "Let's create an open-source outline of Mills' CVF."

[mystic606]

This time you are right. Moment of inertia has NOTHING TO DO with Maxwell's equations, electricity or magnetism.
It is defined strictly on the basis of MASS and the axis of rotation. Nor in fact, to compute moment of inertia, do you
need to invoke any conservation laws. It follows very simply straight from the definition.

Actually on that point I'm willing to give Mills and Kmarinas86 the benefit of the doubt if they're brave enough to venture an explanation. A number of the great classical physicists believed and put forth reasonable propositions that all of mass is electro-magnetic in nature is has to do with the movement of the energy/charge. Even Maxwell's original equations express an interpretation of the value of momentum. That got cast aside and forgotten when Heavyside, Hertz, and others redefined how EM was to be described based on Maxwell's ideas though one can still get there in a more roundabout way.

[jeconnett]

mystic606 said:

Actually on that point I'm willing to give Mills and Kmarinas86 the benefit of the doubt if they're brave enough to venture an explanation. A number of the great classical physicists believed and put forth reasonable propositions that all of mass is electro-magnetic in nature is has to do with the movement of the energy/charge.

Various authors have shown that the mass of the electron is attributable to its electromagnetic nature.
This has not been established for other particles (except presumably the positron) - there is no proof that as
you put it, all of mass is electro-magnetic in nature, and I am not sure who believes this might be
true. If it were proven, we would have automatically unified the theories of EM and gravity, and I am pretty sure
that has not happened. However this is irrelevant. Moment of inertia of an object is defined by (1) the mass
distribution and (2) an axis of rotation. (That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know. ) It does
not depend on how the mass got there. For a given mass distribution, MOI does not depend on e.g. current
flow within that object, interaction with internal or external fields, etc., as implied by kmarinas86.

John C.

[peterz]

there is no proof that as
you put it, all of mass is electro-magnetic in nature, and I am not sure who believes this might be
true.

It is certainly not true of strongly interacting particles made of quarks, because some of the mass necessarily has to do with the strong force. It might be true of the electron, up to the tiny contribution from the field of the weak force (note that the fact that neutrinos have mass is now pretty firmly established).

[JohnEB]

pz said:

It is certainly not true of strongly interacting particles made of quarks, because some of the mass necessarily has to do with the strong force.

Both the strong force and weak force may have an electromagnetic basis just as gravity does. Barut firmly believed that both the strong force and weak force are not needed.

[peterz]

Both the strong force and weak force may have an electromagnetic basis just as gravity does. Barut firmly believed that both the strong force and weak force are not needed.

Barut was wrong. As is Barchak.

[JohnEB]

pz said:

Barut was wrong. As is Barchak.

How did Lynn Kurtz put that? Oh, yes:

I guess that settles it then, eh?

Just as I figured - looks like it is time for a series on Barut!

[kmarinas86]

mystic606 said:

Actually on that point I'm willing to give Mills and Kmarinas86 the benefit of the doubt if they're brave enough to venture an explanation. A number of the great classical physicists believed and put forth reasonable propositions that all of mass is electro-magnetic in nature is has to do with the movement of the energy/charge.

Various authors have shown that the mass of the electron is attributable to its electromagnetic nature.
This has not been established for other particles (except presumably the positron) - there is no proof that as
you put it, all of mass is electro-magnetic in nature, and I am not sure who believes this might be
true. If it were proven, we would have automatically unified the theories of EM and gravity, and I am pretty sure
that has not happened. However this is irrelevant. Moment of inertia of an object is defined by (1) the mass
distribution and (2) an axis of rotation. (That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know. ) It does
not depend on how the mass got there. For a given mass distribution, MOI does not depend on e.g. current
flow within that object, interaction with internal or external fields, etc., as implied by kmarinas86.

John C.

An object actually has multiple MOI. While the mass distribution is absolute in any "instant" of time, the axis of rotation (angular velocity) is not necessarily the same as the axis of angular acceleration. An object as basic as a fundamental particle may have a tendency due to its quantum nature to reorient its field in a particular manner corresponding to a certain degree of resistance to rotation. For a spherically symmetric particle, there should not be multiple MOI. But spherical symmetry is not a reality for most if not all particles. Therefore, effectively every particle in the universe has multiple MOI. Which one is effectively "selected" is determined by the act of rotation (i.e. Schrödinger's cat is there to "change" the results for you).

[jeconnett]

kmarinas86 said:

An object actually has multiple MOI.

Did you read what I said? I said MOI is a function of (1) mass distribution and (2) axis of rotation.

kmarinas86 said:

While the mass distribution is absolute in any "instant" of time, the axis of rotation (angular velocity) is not necessarily the same as the axis of angular acceleration. An object as basic as a fundamental particle may have a tendency due to its quantum nature to reorient its field in a particular manner corresponding to a certain degree of resistance to rotation.

I don't care a damn if it "re-orients its field". MOI is still a function only of (1) its mass distribution and (2) whatever
axis of rotation you choose. Period.

kmarinas86 said:

For a spherically symmetric particle, there should not be multiple MOI.

Presumably you mean spherically symmetric with regard to the mass distribution,
not just with regard to shape. Which is also exactly something that I mentioned previously. Thanks for trying
educate me regarding what I already said.

kmarinas86 said:
But spherical symmetry is not a reality for most if not all particles.

But - and AGAIN I said this before - it is exactly that for the basic configuration of
Mills' orbitsphere.

kmarinas86 said:

Therefore, effectively every particle in the universe has multiple MOI.

Every particle except Mills' orbitsphere, which happens to be the topic of discussion.

kmarinas86 said:

Which one is effectively "selected" is determined by the act of rotation (i.e. Schrödinger's cat is there to "change" the results for you).

At least you are catching up on some of what you should have known before.

John C.

[mystic606]

kmarinas86 said:

An object actually has multiple MOI.

Did you read what I said? I said MOI is a function of (1) mass distribution and (2) axis of rotation.

I suppose it's debatable whether Dirac's Equation can be invoked here and whether it applies to classical EM or SR or QM. I don't recall Mills having mentioned it but I'm not familiar with a large bulk of his material.

In the 20's it was found, of course, that a single-valued "spin" or angular momentum for an electron couldn't account for Thomas precession. It required an angular momentum with multiple values or components. The Dirac Equation and a subsequent development of spinors or spin vectors successfully solved the problem and created a basis to model a solution.

[peterz]

Just as I figured - looks like it is time for a series on Barut!

Dear G-d, please spare us.

[jeconnett]

mystic606 said:

I suppose it's debatable whether Dirac's Equation can be invoked here and whether it applies to classical EM or SR or QM. I don't recall Mills having mentioned it but I'm not familiar with a large bulk of his material.

In the 20's it was found, of course, that a single-valued "spin" or angular momentum for an electron couldn't account for Thomas precession. It required an angular momentum with multiple values or components. The Dirac Equation and a subsequent development of spinors or spin vectors successfully solved the problem and created a basis to model a solution.

Oh. So you want to invoke the most sophisticated version of quantum theory to
justify why Mills' Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, posited on the
concept that the Classical laws of physics apply on all scales across 85 orders
of magnitude, says that the moment of inertia of Mills' orbitsphere has two different
values, one with a factor of 2/3 in front (the 'classical' value) and the other with a
factor of 1/2 in front. Would you care to explain that in more detail, and exactly
how Dirac's Equation plays into it ?

John C.

[mystic606]

That's up to Mills and Kmarinas86 of course. But it's clear from the results of the investigations regarding electron motion that a simple angular momentum model just doesn't work out. Pauli and Dirac solved the puzzle in their particular ways with first a non-relativistic solution and then a relativistic one. It's not to say that there doesn't exist other solutions. If they present something valid or even near valid, I think that would be a pretty major accomplishment.

[WillJ]

In the 20's it was found, of course, that a single-valued "spin" or angular momentum for an electron couldn't account for Thomas precession. It required an angular momentum with multiple values or components. The Dirac Equation and a subsequent development of spinors or spin vectors successfully solved the problem and created a basis to model a solution.

This is confused. Thomas Precession can be understood entirely non-quantum-mechanically, and it applies to classical gyroscopes in accelerating frames. Spin has always been considered an angular momentum, and so this is not the conundrum that leads to the Dirac equation.

The problem is that electrons are so small, that if we think of its angular momentum in the traditional "rotating object" sort of way, then its moving substantially faster than the speed of light. Dirac's equation was a response to relativistic concerns, and the fact that it lead to spin was surprising.

[JohnEB]

It is interesting to note that electron spin could have been discovered at the beginning of the 20th century by the
CLASSICAL ELECTRON THEORY (which is directly related to the GUT-CP).

Let's talk classical predictive power!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=141&p=4737&hilit=spin&sid=af97b0bfca57a7c30efb72292825f07d#p4737

[jeconnett]

mystic606 said:

That's up to Mills and Kmarinas86 of course.

Why is that? Why "of course" ?

Why not you yourself ?

You know the definition of moment of inertia, or you can readily look it up.

For a uniform spherical shell it's easy to calculate. It's a first-year calculus
problem, completely straightforward.

Why can't you do it yourself?

Why do you want to, choose to, rely on someone else whose argument may not
make sense and that you may not be able to follow? Why not rely instead on what you
can verify for yourself? Do you, mystic606, for some reason prefer the mystical,
incomprehensible answer, over what you could prove for yourself? Is that how you behave
in real life, asking for or preferring the mysterious hard-to-understand answers to life's
puzzles, rather than straightforward easily understood answers? If so, why?

mystic606 said:

But it's clear from the results of the investigations regarding electron motion that a simple angular momentum model just doesn't work out.

First of all, I don't agree that that's clear. Feel free to explain further.

Second, unless I am mistaken, QM gives the right answer for angular momentum.

Third, this is not about angular momentum. This is about moment of inertia. To compute
it you need two things:

1. The mass distribution.

2. An axis of rotation.


Go back and look at my previous post on this. The problem is that in one place,
Mills specifies the moment of inertia of the orbitsphere as

I = (1/2) * m_e * r^2.

The "1/2" factor is the issue. The standard, straightforward, freshman-calculus value
for moment of inertia of a uniform spherical shell is

I = (2/3) * m_e * r^2.

Mills wants the following equation to be true:

angular momentum = moment of inertia * angular velocity = hbar/2.

Mills assumes an "angular velocity" for the orbitsphere of w = hbar/(m * r^2).

Actually, Mills calls this his 'de Broglie relation'. What he actually assumes (postulates)
is that this is the angular "velocity' (speed, actually) for every point on the orbitsphere.

It would be reasonable to jump from this angular speed for each point to the angular
speed for the whole thing, if the whole thing were rotating around, say, the z-axis.

But that's not what's happening! The individual points are traveling in great-circle
orbits, and they are not moving in any coherent direction. They are not traveling in
'latitude' orbits. Their orbits have infinitely many directions. The orbits cross each other
all over the place. There are as many as four different directions for the velocity at various
points on the sphere. Therefore the equation that Mills wants,

angular momentum = moment of inertia * angular velocity.

doesn't make any sense. The whole thing is not rotating around any axis. Or if there is
a net rotation in some sense, it is completely unclear what the net angular velocity must
be.

But if Mills somehow convinces himself (and you) that it does, you end up with
the equation above being satisfied only if your version of the moment of inertia
has the famous (1/2) factor in front.

That's why he wants it. But by no means does this constitute a proof that this is
what follows from his model. Neither Mills nor anyone here has yet put forward an
argument for the (1/2) factor based on his model. You cannot just backsolve for it
and then claim it follows from, or is consistent with, the orbitsphere model.

Of course, if the equation above were consistent with the (2/3) factor, this whole issue
would not have come up. But it isn't. The problem is not about electric or magnetic fields,
precession, current flow, rotating frames, blah blah blah. The problem is, Mills' model
and his reasoning about it are drivel.

mystic606 said:

If they present something valid or even near valid, I think that would be a pretty major accomplishment.

Even if they resort to the use of Dirac's Equation (Mills won't do that of course) ?? Even if you cannot
understand it? Isn't that the present situation? Isn't that what you are asking for?

Again, I am not asking that you accept what I say just because I say it. That is the
opposite of what I want. Nor do I think you should accept what Randell L. Mills MD says,
or what kmarinas86 says, just because they say it. I think you should reason it out for
yourself. I think you are fully capable of doing this. No mysticism is needed.

John C.

[mystic606]

In the 20's it was found, of course, that a single-valued "spin" or angular momentum for an electron couldn't account for Thomas precession. It required an angular momentum with multiple values or components. The Dirac Equation and a subsequent development of spinors or spin vectors successfully solved the problem and created a basis to model a solution.

This is confused. Thomas Precession can be understood entirely non-quantum-mechanically, and it applies to classical gyroscopes in accelerating frames. Spin has always been considered an angular momentum, and so this is not the conundrum that leads to the Dirac equation.

The problem is that electrons are so small, that if we think of its angular momentum in the traditional "rotating object" sort of way, then its moving substantially faster than the speed of light. Dirac's equation was a response to relativistic concerns, and the fact that it lead to spin was surprising.

My understanding of the history (and admittedly it's hard to get the complete story because not a lot has been published on the subject - even from Dirac) is that Pauli originally would not allow a paper produced by Ralph Kronig, then a student or apprentice, to be published which proposed that spin was the degree of freedom that corresponded with Pauli's model. Pauli objected because he thought that it would require faster than light speed. But he later realized or was convinced that that was not true.

Shortly afterwards, Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit published a related paper in which their figures differed from experimental results by a factor of 2. Thomas then determined the cause of the difference which was indeed due to the precession effects he discovered. Einstein even analyzed Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit's use of spinors and commented in a paper that temporal and spatial reflectivity was not included in the covariance (though it is in Einstein's GR which is based on tensors rather than spinors)

Dirac may not have been directly concerned with all of that, as you imply. But his equation perfected the model. And yes, there is a strange blending of classical and relativistic models in the supposed context of quantum mechanics here.

[mystic606]

mystic606 said:

That's up to Mills and Kmarinas86 of course.

Why is that? Why "of course" ?

Why not you yourself ?

You know the definition of moment of inertia, or you can readily look it up.

For a uniform spherical shell it's easy to calculate. It's a first-year calculus
problem, completely straightforward.

Why can't you do it yourself?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm really not interested myself in trying to figure out what Mills or Kmarinas86 are attempting to describe without further details. I have plenty of other things to deal with that really are productive in my opinion. If they do believe they have something interesting further to say then they should speak. Nor am I especially interested in the approach you suggest for reasons I've already mentioned. "Classical" physics doesn't necessarily mean overly simple, inadequate physics as you seem to be lobbying for.

[mystic606]

Here's a pretty nice description of the electron spin situation told by Goudsmit:

http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/histor ... dsmit.html

PS. The reason "spin" must consist of multiple components (at least for the electron) is that a revolution of 2PI radians doesn't return the object to its original orientation. That requires a 4PI revolution. If this seems mystical then I agree. In that aspect maybe its warranted to call it QM until a proper physical model is found which can produce that behavior.

[underante]

Here's a pretty nice description of the electron spin situation told by Goudsmit:

http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/histor ... dsmit.html

PS. The reason "spin" must consist of multiple components (at least for the electron) is that a revolution of 2PI radians doesn't return the object to its original orientation. That requires a 4PI revolution. If this seems mystical then I agree. In that aspect maybe its warranted to call it QM until a proper physical model is found which can produce that behavior.

yes, that is a very nice story goudsmit told. i liked that very much indeed.

i am a little curious though as to what you mean by "multiple components" ?
please explain?

thankyou,
f.c.

[jeconnett]

mystic606 said:

"Classical" physics doesn't necessarily mean overly simple, inadequate physics as you seem to be lobbying for.

Mills claims that his physics is based only on classical laws, which, he says, hold on all
scales, across 85 orders of magnitude. You must think those laws are 'inadequate'. In
fact I agree. In spite of this you seem to think it is possible that Mills is right. Are you seeing
the logic here? Classical laws are inadequate. Mills assumes only classical laws. Therefore
you should be concluding that Mills' theory is inadequate. Instead you conclude that maybe,
just maybe, somehow, Mills is onto something. Presumably that is why you are a 'Fence-Sitter'
rather than a Detractor.

I think Mills is wrong - not because QM is right and classical laws are inadequate, but because
his physics is inconsistent. It contradicts itself and classical physics and known observations. I use
the simplest arguments I can think of. If in spite of their simplicity they are incorrect feel free to point
out where. In general, simplicity is a virtue. Simplicity is good but correct is better, and simple AND correct
is best of all. Simplicity is not inherently 'inadequate'. John Barchak has said I employ smoke and mirrors.
It seems likely to me in his case that he either doesn't like my arguments exactly because they are simple
and logical and he cannot disprove them, or because in spite of their simplicity he doesn't understand
them. Or both.

You are more of a puzzle. I am not sure what you want. Here you seem to want both some of the good stuff
from QM but also Mills' so-called 'classical' theory. But you cannot have both. Mills' theory is not consistent
with QM. It is not even consistent with the observations that are the foundation for QM. Mills, e.g., claims that
his theory is deterministic and local, but he illogically denies the predictions of Bell's inequality and
instead claims that his theory predicts the same correlations that QM predicts. Bell's argument, as noted
by A. Barut in a recent citation by John Barchak, is simple, logical, and correct. You cannot have locality
and determinism and still end up with the QM predictions (of observed phenomena) regarding entanglement,
as Mills claims to do. It reduces to pretty much the same thing as saying 2/3 = 1/2. To me, over a long period
of time, you have seemed to be an armchair spectator who likes to muse and speculate and dream about
wondrous things that you sort of understand on some kind of intuitive level, but who does not want to get down
and get your hands dirty and do the work of thinking rigorously about things. Which is fine I suppose, but
which I think is not likely to move us forward in understanding what is true and what is not.

John C.

[meulenberg]

You know the definition of moment of inertia, or you can readily look it up.

For a uniform spherical shell it's easy to calculate. It's a first-year calculus
problem, completely straightforward.

Why can't you do it yourself?

Why do you want to, choose to, rely on someone else whose argument may not
make sense and that you may not be able to follow? Why not rely instead on what you
can verify for yourself? Do you, mystic606, for some reason prefer the mystical,
incomprehensible answer, over what you could prove for yourself? ...

mystic606 said:
But it's clear from the results of the investigations regarding electron motion that a simple angular momentum model just doesn't work out.

First of all, I don't agree that that's clear. Feel free to explain further.
Second, unless I am mistaken, QM gives the right answer for angular momentum.
Third, this is not about angular momentum. This is about moment of inertia. To compute
it you need two things:
1. The mass distribution.
2. An axis of rotation.

John, are you beating up on mystic606 because he has instincts that you will never have? Just as he will never have your mathematical skills (and perhaps others), you seem to be blocked in his area. You guys have been arguing about the electron for years in this forum and have never seen what Mills has "seen" (but may not be able to describe properly).

1st off, why do you assume that this is about moment of inertia rather than angular momentum?

From the wikipedia:
Moment of inertia... is a measure of an object's resistance to changes in its rotation rate. It is the rotational analog of mass, the inertia of a rigid rotating body with respect to its rotation. The moment of inertia plays much the same role in rotational dynamics as mass does in linear dynamics, determining the relationship between angular momentum and angular velocity, torque and angular acceleration, and several other quantities.

You have started off thinking about the electron as a rigid body. It is not. However, if you were to calculate the angular momentum of a non-rigid body, it might be logical to try and put it into terms that people are familiar with. (QM, unable to accept a hidden variable - or a new non-QM concept, says that the electron is only a probability distribution - with charge.)

If you understood Mills' orbisphere model as a picture of a stationary electron, what would be its axis of rotation? It may have 1e7 of them (give or take a few orders of magnitude). On the other hand, if stationary in a frame of reference, it has no net rotation, or angular momentum, or magnetic field. However, if you try to move or measure it, you have given it an axis. How else can you get an angular momentum of 1/2 no matter what axis you chose? This axis "creation" is a relativistic effect, which QM has not yet come to terms with.

All of a sudden, it is not so easy to "calculate" the angular momentum of an electron, much less to try and represent it as a rigid body with some moment of inertia. QM doesn't try, it just uses the Dirac formulation (without understanding it either?) and makes mystical hand signals to ward off evils (e.g., original thought).

AndrewM

BTW if you understand about the effect that motion has on an electron, you'll also understand what the deBroglie wavelength is. And, it all leads to understanding physics rather than just to predicting probabilities.

[jeconnett]

Drew Meulenberg said:

John, are you beating up on mystic606 because he has instincts that you will never have?

Why should I accept your implied premise? How do you know what instincts
I have or never will have?

No. I'm beating up on mystic606 because I view his approach as that of a
dilettante who doesn't want to work hard, or at all, to determine what is true vs. what is trash. He
prefers dreamy passive speculation. Which, as I said, is fine. But it appears that at some
point he will be willing to make a judgmental decision. I don't think he should do that. He
doesn't play the game, he shouldn't get to make the rules. Plus, I think his faith in Mills, and
worse yet, Newman-motor advocate kmarinas86, is badly misplaced.

Drew Meulenberg went on:

Just as he will never have your mathematical skills (and perhaps others), you seem to be blocked in his area.

No, I don't accept that premise either. I don't know what his math skills are. Even if they are quite modest,
they are sufficient to understand simple arguments which show that Mills cannot be right. But only if
you choose to exercise them. So this is really about choice. I cannot blame anyone for lacking skills or
instincts. I can and do blame them for deliberately turning a blind eye.

Drew Meulenberg went on:

1st off, why do you assume that this is about moment of inertia rather than angular momentum?

That goes back to the origin of this discussion. Lynn Kurtz noted that Peter Wolstenholme in SCP asked
Mills about "alleged" mathematical errors in GUT-CP. Mills asserted there were no mathematical or physical errors.
I noted that GUT-CP has two different values for moment of inertia of the orbitsphere, and that this has
been true across many versions and several years of the existence of Mills' theory. The two expressions
differ in that one has a factor of 2/3 in front and other has a factor of 1/2. Both cannot be right, I don't care
what kind of New Age-y alternative world you live in. I thought this was the simplest possible way to dramatize
the fact that GUT-CP does contain mathematical errors.

Drew Meulenberg went on:

You have started off thinking about the electron as a rigid body. It is not.

This is what Mills says, not my idea. I have invariably dealt with Mills' theory on its own terms,
not on terms dictated by QM or my own preferences - or yours. He says his orbitsphere
is zero-thickness, fixed radius. Nonrigid deviations away from that will result in disruption
of his great-circle orbits and the force-balance equation. His hydrogen atom is in fact
unstable - any outside electrostatic force will pull the proton off-center and there is nothing to
stop it colliding with the electron-sphere - but that is his problem to deny, not mine.

Drew Meulenberg went on:

If you understood Mills' orbisphere model as a picture of a stationary electron, what would be its axis of rotation? It may have 1e7 of them (give or take a few orders of magnitude).

Of course the hypothetical orbitsphere can have any of an infinity of axes of rotation.

Drew Meulenberg continued:

On the other hand, if stationary in a frame of reference, it has no net rotation, or angular momentum, or magnetic field.

Have you actually read the relevant sections of GUT-CP? Mills asserts that it does have angular momentum, and even
(incorrectly) computes the component of angular momentum around the "z-axis". It is nonzero. This will also imply it has a
a magnetic field.

Drew Meulenberg continued:
However, if you try to move or measure it, you have given it an axis. How else can you get an angular momentum of 1/2 no matter what axis you chose?

Your question is about QM and observed phenomena, not about Mills' electron. QM provides a coherent explanation of
how this can happen. In my view, it is similar to a polarized lens or (better) a birefracting crystal. In a
birefracting crystal, half the light emerges polarized in one direction (determined by the axis of
the crystal) and other half is polarized at a 90 degree angle to that. Does that mean that the entering
light existed only with those two polarizations? Of course not. But that is what is detected when
the split light beam emerges. You can turn the crystal at arbitrary angles to the entering light
beam and you still get this result. In fact Mills chooses an arbitrary axis and calls it "the z axis",
and then "computes" the angular momentum to it. And finds exactly the same thing that QM predicts [/b]
and that is observed. The problem being, he had to fudge the calculations to get the known
answer - in fact he had to redefine angular momentum, thus flaunting one of the most fundamental
classical conservation laws in all of physics.

Drew Meulenberg continued:

QM doesn't try, it just uses the Dirac formulation (without understanding it either?) and makes mystical hand signals to ward off evils (e.g., original thought).

QM does try, and correctly predicts what is observed without resorting to fudging and bogus mathematics.

What QM doesn't do is explain in terms of something more basic or a little visualizable model.

Which is, I think, the real basis for your objection. You want a deterministic model. QM doesn't provide
it, so you are unhappy with QM. But think back. Newton's gravitational law is

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2.

Does that in any sense explain gravity? Does it do anything, really, other than predict
gravitational force? Was there something behind Newton's law - motions of little force-carrying particles
or some such, which actually "explained" it in terms of something else? When you first encountered
Newton's law, were you unhappy with it because it only predicted, it did not provide an "explanation" ?
And isn't this possibly a fool's errand anyway, wanting an explanation for everything in terms of
something else? Don't you invariably get into an infinite regression of explanations?

As for the mysticism, hand signals, etc.: you are ignoring what leading theorists like 't Hooft actually say.
They are not the simple mindless automatons, slogging along in lockstep behind Barchak's Great Satan (Bohr)
that you might like them to be. If someone comes up with a satisfactory revision or extension of Dirac's QM,
it is not going to be Randell L. Mills MD (let alone kmarinas86!). It is much more likely to be genuinely deep
rigorous imaginative thinkers like 't Hooft. I suggest you drop the gratuitous conspiracy theory.

Drew Meulenberg continued:

BTW if you understand about the effect that motion has on an electron, you'll also understand what the deBroglie wavelength is. And, it all leads to understanding physics rather than just to predicting probabilities.

I assume here that you believe you have successfully developed a deterministic alternative to QM. Based
on what I have seen previously I am quite skeptical that you have a consistent mathematically rigorous theory. A
test of such a theory is the double-slit experiment. Can you provide a complete explanation of that in terms
of your theory, starting with basic assumptions?

John C.

[meulenberg]

John C,

Let me start out by stating that I believe you have the best and most disciplined mind in the forum. I do get frustrated that with those capabilities you have not progressed to going beyond Mills. It may be that you can see no wrong (or limitations) in the SQM that Mills and others in this group do. However, it seems to me that you would not be here if you did not see "something" of value. You certainly don't do it for the ego boost.

If you were to take some of Mills ideas and assume them to have some value, I think that you could come up with some very important contributions (to BLP and to modern physics). I'm sure that Mills would not appreciate any such "improvements" to his theory; however, I think that you have one of the most receptive audiences (and perhaps some of the most useful critics) in this forum. I hope that this group has a common goal of seeing a successful outcome from Mills' work. There is no reason to be limited by his ego. Even if the supporters would be skeptical of (or hostile to) your contributions of mathematically correct versions for some of Mills concepts, I'm sure that the fence sitters would be appreciative. I don't know how the detractors would react.

I have based my view of members capabilities and limitations on their contributions and responses to this forum. I appreciate your teacher's instincts to get a student off his ass to at least try to solve the problems that you have posed. You have put them into a simple enough form and into a context that should not be alien. However, few student "like" homework. To make matters worse, even if the attempt to solve the problem is successful, it will undermine the very thing that they hold dear. The instincts that a lot of people in the group have do not come from Mills mathematics. I believe that there is a deeper resonance; but, it is not expressible. This seems "mystical" and probably is. The fear of being mystical blocks most openness to that source of information.

Drew Meulenberg went on: If you understood Mills' orbisphere model as a picture of a stationary electron, what would be its axis of rotation? It may have 1e7 of them (give or take a few orders of magnitude).

Of course the hypothetical orbitsphere can have any of an infinity of axes of rotation.

Are you trying to answer from Mills here or from your own knowledge base? My statement was that the electron has no single axis of rotation - it has millions. However, it has a net (dominant) axis when in motion or in a field. kmarinas86, whom you clearly don't respect, is working in this context, and yet you missed it. Do you see why I question your instincts?

Drew Meulenberg continued:
On the other hand, if stationary in a frame of reference, it has no net rotation, or angular momentum, or magnetic field.

Have you actually read the relevant sections of GUT-CP? Mills asserts that it does have angular momentum, and even
(incorrectly) computes the component of angular momentum around the "z-axis". It is nonzero. This will also imply it has a
a magnetic field.

Mills has not defined an electron in a stationary, field-free region as I just did. Such an electron is not an observable (it is a concept seeking to aid in understanding the nature of an electron).

Drew Meulenberg continued:
However, if you try to move or measure it, you have given it an axis. How else can you get an angular momentum of 1/2 no matter what axis you chose?

Your question is about QM and observed phenomena, not about Mills' electron. QM provides a coherent explanation of
how this can happen. In my view, ...

I do not feel bound by Mills views. Thank you for expressing your own here.

QM does try, and correctly predicts what is observed without resorting to fudging and bogus mathematics.

What QM doesn't do is explain in terms of something more basic or a little visualizable model.

Which is, I think, the real basis for your objection. You want a deterministic model. QM doesn't provide
it, so you are unhappy with QM. But think back. Newton's gravitational law is

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2.

Does that in any sense explain gravity? Does it do anything, really, other than predict
gravitational force? Was there something behind Newton's law - motions of little force-carrying particles
or some such, which actually "explained" it in terms of something else? When you first encountered
Newton's law, were you unhappy with it because it only predicted, it did not provide an "explanation" ?
And isn't this possibly a fool's errand anyway, wanting an explanation for everything in terms of
something else? Don't you invariably get into an infinite regression of explanations?

When I first encountered the law of gravitation, I was too pleased (and too young) to seek a detailed understanding of it. More recently (last year), I realized that I had not gone beyond accepting and using conservation of energy and momentum. I now think I understand them (and gravitation). I'm still growing and learning.

As for the mysticism, hand signals, etc.: you are ignoring what leading theorists like 't Hooft actually say.
They are not the simple mindless automatons, slogging along in lockstep behind Barchak's Great Satan (Bohr)
that you might like them to be. If someone comes up with a satisfactory revision or extension of Dirac's QM,
it is not going to be Randell L. Mills MD (let alone kmarinas86!). It is much more likely to be genuinely deep
rigorous imaginative thinkers like 't Hooft. I suggest you drop the gratuitous conspiracy theory.

I do not belittle or ignore the great minds past or present. but neither do I accept their views w/o reservation. I recognize that they will be the ones to make a change. If for no other reason than because they are the ones that will be listened to. Without a university affiliation, I can't even get papers included in the arXiv (even in sections that I am an endorser for. It does not require a conspiracy theory to screw up the advancement of science. Ego and financial interest are more than sufficient. This is not new - it is as old as mankind. The old boy network is just larger than it used to be. And, a lot more is at stake.

I assume here that you believe you have successfully developed a deterministic alternative to QM. Based
on what I have seen previously I am quite skeptical that you have a consistent mathematically rigorous theory. A
test of such a theory is the double-slit experiment. Can you provide a complete explanation of that in terms
of your theory, starting with basic assumptions?

I do not seek to replace QM. I seek to understand the physics that it represents. Feynman said that was a futile effort. I don't believe that he had all the answers. I can provide a conceptually complete picture of the double-slit experiment for photons. I am presently working on a "zero-slit" experiment. I have not yet completed the modeling work for particles. I am sure that it is in the proper understanding of evanescent waves (which being a classical concept has had to be replaced with the QM concept of "virtual" particles - and thereby "gutted" of physical meaning).

AndrewM

[WillJ]

PS. The reason "spin" must consist of multiple components (at least for the electron) is that a revolution of 2PI radians doesn't return the object to its original orientation. That requires a 4PI revolution. If this seems mystical then I agree.

What? This interpretation is a bit odd. Do you mean 4 component dirac spinors instead of two component Pauli spinors? Both have the same feature of needing a 720 degree rotation to get back to their starting point.

But anyway, the reason spin has multiple components is that it is an angular momentum, which always has three components (an x,y and z)

The reason pauli spinors need two components is you need an amplitude for spin up, and one for spin down (because the spin is quantized, you don't need a continuous variable). Dirac spinors have 4 for slightly more esoteric reasons, involving representations of the Lorentz group. You can explain the spin-orbit coupling, etc with the two component pauli spinors.

In that aspect maybe its warranted to call it QM until a proper physical model is found which can produce that behavior.

Take your hand, palm up and rotate it 360 degrees(maintaining palm up). Your arm will now be a bit contorted. Take it around 360 more. Everything is back to where you started. This geometry (for lack of a better word) is what happens in candle dances.

[jeconnett]

Drew Meulenberg said:

Let me start out by stating that I believe you have the best and most disciplined mind in the forum. I do get frustrated that with those capabilities you have not progressed to going beyond Mills.

Nice words, but I am unworthy.

In my view Mills' theory is just a total nonstarter. It's not just that the math is wrong. In my
view he has no physical intuition. Nothing illustrates this better than his meshwork of
great-circle current loops. Look at how much of it is arbitrary: a starting frame of two
orthogonal great circles - what is the justification, what is the physical evidence, for assuming
such a weird construct within an 'elementary' particle ? Then he smears it out by rotating
it around two different arbitrarily chosen axes - again with no hint of physical evidence. And this
construct still does not provide a uniform covering of the sphere, which he wants. And then on top
of this, to get the correct answer for angular momentum, he must change the very classical
definition of angular momentum!

This is a childish artificial construction, not based on any fundamental principles or
observations. Even Supporters here have expressed their doubts about it. But, and I
cannot stress this enough, it is the basis, far more than his 'wave equation' is,
for most of his "derivations" of properties of the hydrogen atom: its radius, angular
momentum, density, energy level, on and on. Current loops also are the basis for
properties of his free 'disk' electron and of his 'hyperbolic' electron. And again, there
is no evidence for them, and compelling evidence against them. How can a supposedly
elementary particle have infinitely many independently moving parts???

Occam's Razor, or parsimony, is a rule of thumb, not an axiom in physics or any other field.
Nevertheless it is an extremely useful regulator of intuition. Here's why. If you make
too many arbitrary assumptions you will almost certainly end up with contradictions. And
that is exactly what happens repeatedly in GUT-CP. Mills seems to have no instincts, as a
trained physicist would, to avoid an excess of postulates. Try to step back and compare Mills'
theory with various flavors of QM. Schroedinger's theory comes down to one equation.
The same is true for Dirac's theory. Feynman in his PhD thesis managed to derive QM from one
basic principle: the principle of least action. This is elegance and parsimony in the extreme,
and none of the kind of fudging that Mills has to invoke repeatedly is needed.

The fields in which I do creative work are mathematics and statistics. If I were to work in
physics, the first thing I would do is learn more physics, both classical and modern. The
last thing I would do is to try to 'fix' Mills' theory. It is absolutely beyond hope.

Drew Meulenberg said:
It may be that you can see no wrong (or limitations) in the SQM that Mills and others in this group do.

No, Drew, as I have said here several times, I recognize a number of problems with QM and
its extensions. Mills himself has some valid criticisms of it. Even some things that dishonest John
Barchak says about it are correct. But there is so much that it succeeds with that it cannot be completely
wrong. I have the view that QM will someday be subsumed in a larger theory that fixes some
or all of its problems. However I think that its probabilistic, nondeterministic underpinnings may be
unavoidable.

Drew Meulenberg said:

However, it seems to me that you would not be here if you did not see "something" of value. You certainly don't do it for the ego boost.

I have to say that reducing the arguments against Mills to their simplest, most easily
understood core is what interests me most. This kind of discussion is a good example.

Drew Meulenberg said:

The instincts that a lot of people in the group have do not come from Mills mathematics. I believe that there is a deeper resonance; but, it is not expressible. This seems "mystical" and probably is. The fear of being mystical blocks most openness to that source of information.

Not sure entirely what all the motives of the Supporters here may be. For some, there is Mills'
promise of cheap energy. Basically he says you can burn water. A lot of people look at our current energy
sources and say: Oil and gas, will be depleted. Coal, dirty. Nuclear, dangerous. Solar, too expensive.
Wind, tides, etc., not enough. They look at gas prices. They think, "there must be some good, even
miraculous alternative." Burn water? Terrific idea! They like the idea that Mills has licensing agreements
with power companies. There are others who are offended by QM. It is abstract and defies physical intuition.
How can a particle be in two places at once? How can entangled particles 'communicate' with each other at faster
than light speed? Virtual particles and quantum foam sound like fairy tales. Reading Mills at one level
is fun - it is like far-out science fiction, and it makes everything seem possible, without invoking ideas
that make your head hurt. Some Supporters don't like academic elitists like me and Authorities that seem
to dictate to them what to think without always bothering to explain in simple common-sense terms. Mills
for these folks is a non-Establishment iconoclast. This seems rather silly to me, replacing one set of
Authorities Who Cannot Be Questioned with another Authority, the Greatest Mind of All Time, Who
Is Invariably Somehow Right, Even When He Is Wrong. But that is what I see. Maybe it's the desire
to follow a different drummer. But you're still following a drummer.

Drew Meulenberg said:

Are you trying to answer from Mills here or from your own knowledge base? My statement was that the electron has no single axis of rotation - it has millions. However, it has a net (dominant) axis when in motion or in a field. kmarinas86, whom you clearly don't respect, is working in this context, and yet you missed it. Do you see why I question your instincts?

I think we are talking about different things. The definition of moment of inertia requires that you
specify an axis of rotation. That axis is arbitrary, not derived from any properties of the object
in question. A sphere-electron, on the other hand, may in fact be rotating around some axis. That is
basically what Mills postulates for certain forms of the orbitsphere (with higher quantum numbers).
The fact that an object is or is not rotating does not affect its moment of inertia. It affects its angular
momentum, but moment of inertia is like mass: it is a property of the stationary object.

As for instincts: Mills claims to prove that his sphere-electron does not radiate. He considers two
cases: One, where the mass-charge density of the orbitsphere, rho(r, theta, phi, t), is expressible as a product,

rho(r, theta, phi, t) = f(r) * A(theta, phi) * h(t),

i.e., this is the 'separable model' assumption. Two, he assumes a non-separable model of the form

rho(r, theta, phi, t) = f(r) * A(theta, phi, t),

where the time component cannot be split off.

Mills' much-vaunted "Haus condition" proof that the electron does not radiate is applied in Chapter 1
of GUT-CP to the separable form of the density. In fact it is easy to prove that in the
form with separable density, the charge of the electron is static. That is, you can show
that the time component, h(t) must be constant. A static charge will not radiate.
Mills invokes Fourier transforms and Haus's somewhat abstruse condition, but it is all totally
unnecessary. It is trivial in this case to see that it will not radiate.

If you read GUT-CP carefully, you will see that Mills does not treat the non-separable case in
Chapter 1. Instead he puts it in an Appendix with "Poynting Power Vector" in the title. The Haus
Condition does not suffice for the non-separable case - Mills is somewhat coy about this - so he tries
to deal with it using the Poynting Power Vector. Basically in this case, there is a nonuniform charge
distribution on the orbitsphere and it is rotating around an axis, in the same way that the Earth rotates
around the North Pole - South Pole axis. At the end of his utterly bogus argument in that
Appendix, Mills triumphantly crows:

It does not radiate!

And he is completely wrong. Basically the same EM argument that Larmor produced, which
shows that Bohr's orbiting-point model of the electron must radiate, proves that this configuration
of the electron also must radiate. My claim is that if you have any genuine physical intuition
for EM, any "instincts" for physics, you will come to this conclusion without need for any proof.
This should be obvious to, e.g., a trained electrical engineer.

Drew Meulenberg quoted John C as follows:

John C:
Have you actually read the relevant sections of GUT-CP? Mills asserts that it does have angular momentum, and even
(incorrectly) computes the component of angular momentum around the "z-axis". It is nonzero. This will also imply it has a
a magnetic field.
Drew M:
I do not feel bound by Mills views. Thank you for expressing your own here.

Right. Clearly you are trying to go beyond Mills. A few other Supporters and Fence-Sitters do
that also.

Drew Meulenberg concluded:

I do not belittle or ignore the great minds past or present. but neither do I accept their views w/o reservation.

I am sure you realize that I don't advocate that either.

Drew Meulenberg concluded further:

I recognize that they will be the ones to make a change. If for no other reason than because they are the ones that will be listened to. Without a university affiliation, I can't even get papers included in the arXiv (even in sections that I am an endorser for. It does not require a conspiracy theory to screw up the advancement of science. Ego and financial interest are more than sufficient. This is not new - it is as old as mankind. The old boy network is just larger than it used to be. And, a lot more is at stake.

Interesting. I had assumed arXiv was pretty open, and that with your former appointment at MIT or your
connections you would have no trouble getting things into it.

John C.

[JohnEB]

JEC said:

Not sure entirely what all the motives of the Supporters here may be. For some, there is Mills'
promise of cheap energy. Basically he says you can burn water.

JEC does not seem to realize that he doesn't have a clue.

[jeconnett]

John EB said:

JEC said:

Not sure entirely what all the motives of the Supporters here may be. For some, there is Mills'
promise of cheap energy. Basically he says you can burn water.

JEC does not seem to realize that he doesn't have a clue.

John EB is taking what I said literally, and that's fair game; I should have been more precise.
A basic objective of Mills' research since 1991 has been to show that it is possible to
extract energy from elemental hydrogen which far exceeds the energy produced by ordinary
combustion. If he is right, fuel for reactors etc. can be created by electrolytically dissociating
hydrogen and oxygen from ordinary water and then subjecting the hydrogen to catalytic reactions
which result in below-ground "hydrino" states and the release of large amounts of energy. The
net effect would be to extract large amounts of energy from water at a fraction of the cost
of other fuels.

John EB knows all this and he knows what I meant; he is taking a snide little cheap shot on the
off chance that some lurker will assume I am an idiot.

John C.

[JohnEB]

JEC said:

John EB knows all this and he knows what I meant; he is taking a snide little cheap shot on the off chance that some lurker will assume I am an idiot.

What if some lurker really thought that Mills is trying to burn water??

[jeconnett]

John EB said:

What if some lurker really thought that Mills is trying to burn water??

Do you think lurkers here are that gullible and literal-minded ? I don't.

John C.

[JohnEB]

JEC said:

Do you think lurkers here are that gullible and literal-minded ? I don't.

So JEC can put out BS since the lurkers won't believe it anyway? ? ? This sounds like Quantum Logic.

[mystic606]

Mills claims that his physics is based only on classical laws, which, he says, hold on all
scales, across 85 orders of magnitude. You must think those laws are 'inadequate'. In
fact I agree. In spite of this you seem to think it is possible that Mills is right. Are you seeing
the logic here? Classical laws are inadequate. Mills assumes only classical laws. Therefore
you should be concluding that Mills' theory is inadequate. Instead you conclude that maybe,
just maybe, somehow, Mills is onto something. Presumably that is why you are a 'Fence-Sitter'
rather than a Detractor.

How can I express it: I don't think classical laws are inherently inadequate, only the application of them in non-constructive, ill-fitting ways. In my opinion the reason that there are not "classical" explanations behind QM (and relativitistic) behaviors is that the people originally studying the phenomena had neither the time or imagination to develop proper models. And that is quite a reasonable approach because physics ought to be useful first and then become true eventually IMO.

So I see Mills, even if his theory is incoherent, as a type of hero who fights for that ideal. I won't comment so much on the failings thereof and certainly won't damn the theory and its author, though I do see the value of someone like yourself exposing each particular problem. What I want is progress. And I think both Mills and yourself have helped provide that through slogging through these issues and maybe more importantly and inadvertently exposing where new possibilities lie (Such as the Haus interpretation of the radiation condition). I'm more or less a spectator in regard to the validity of Mills' theory because I'm still investigating a large amount of things and want to fully understand a topic before passing judgement. I feel the need to get the math of the essentials on a solid footing before venturing into behavioral characteristics. My immediate project is to be able to derive both SR and extended de Broglie relations from the essentials of EM. That should go a long way to establishing a new kind of baseline for understanding or approaching these issues, at least for my own purposes. I believe everything is in place to do that now and I understand how to do it, but one obviously needs to be very careful and complete.

It may be true, as you say, that statistics will be required to solve certain practical problems. But that will be because it will be impossible to measure certain "hidden variables", not because the underlying continuity doesn't exist. This has actually been a very interesting and worthwhile thread and I've appreciated your will and ability to drive the arguments both for the physics and human aspects. But there's more to be said and understood IMO and I don't know how to effectively drive that until I've done more research.

[JohnEB]

JEC said:

Mills assumes only classical laws. Therefore you should be concluding that Mills' theory is inadequate.

JEC assumes his own set of classical laws and, of course, they are inadequate. But classical physics has come a long way in the past 60 years; which JEC fails to recognize. The idea that electrons can only be described by probabilities is dying and, I hope, will soon be dead.

[mystic606]

Take your hand, palm up and rotate it 360 degrees(maintaining palm up). Your arm will now be a bit contorted. Take it around 360 more. Everything is back to where you started. This geometry (for lack of a better word) is what happens in candle dances.

That's a nice Dirac-type analogy that I hadn't heard before. It shows clearly, if I understand it correctly, that 2 axes of rotation are involved.

[WillJ]

That's a nice Dirac-type analogy that I hadn't heard before. It shows clearly, if I understand it correctly, that 2 axes of rotation are involved.

Its not necessarily that two axes are involved, though in this case your arm most likely moves round a separate axis from your hand. There are lots of examples of this behavior.

Consider Weyl's fixed cones- the only simple reference I can find is http://www.weylmann.com/ its halfway down the page, posted on February 10th.

[jeconnett]

mystic606 said:

How can I express it: I don't think classical laws are inherently inadequate, only the application of them in non-constructive, ill-fitting ways. In my opinion the reason that there are not "classical" explanations behind QM (and relativitistic) behaviors is that the people originally studying the phenomena had neither the time or imagination to develop proper models. And that is quite a reasonable approach because physics ought to be useful first and then become true eventually IMO.

You don't think Einstein, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, Feynman, Wheeler,
Pauli, Weyl, Bohr, Bohm, Bell, and several dozen others had the "imagination to develop
proper models" ??? Man, that seems a little extreme. You must have impossibly high
standards. These were brilliant people at the top of their game, highly creative, imaginative people,
a number of whom would have loved to find a classical, deterministic explanation. So would e.g.
some more recent people like, say, Penrose and 't Hooft. It is not for want of trying that there is
no such theory.

mystic606 said:

So I see Mills, even if his theory is incoherent, as a type of hero who fights for that ideal.

OK, here is why I absolutely cannot agree with you on this. Mills has seen some of the
objections to his "theory". In the Old Days, he actually was replying to critics in the HSG. He
stopped doing that long ago. His replies in my view were completely inadequate. He was not
facing squarely and honestly up to the criticism. He evaded and blustered and trotted out
quotations from GUT-CQM with no further elaboration or attempt to explain. At various times
he did make changes to GUT-CQM which appeared to be responses to things that were said in
the HSG, but he never acknowledged error in the previous version. Not once. Mills is basically
a brilliant guy, and GUT-CP has some obvious howlers that he must be aware of. But he
never admits he might be wrong.

Or, take the controversy about the helium-hydrogen plasma paper of Mills and Ray (2003) which gave
extremely specific evidence for hydrinos. This paper was discredited because they used the wrong
spectrometer. They never acknowledged this. In fact, they used TWO spectrometers. One, the
more sensitive in the range of spectra of interest, they used only on the CONTROL plasma. The
other, insensitive in most of that same range, they used only on the EXPERIMENTAL plasma. This
was a controlled experiment. It would be standard experimental practice to use the same measuring
instrument in both. Agreed? But they did not. They even superimposed the graphs from the two spectrometers
on the same set of axes with no explanation. Then later, in the Mills-Lu-Akhtar paper published last
year, they again looked at helium-hydrogen plasmas. This time they used only the more sensitive
spectrometer. This time they did NOT see the same spectral lines as they did in 2003, which at that
time they claimed were PREDICTED by hydrino theory. And they did not acknowledge the discrepancy
between the two papers in any way or that their claimed predictions must have been wrong.

So what? you say. Here's what. This in my view goes well beyond experimental incompetence. This
is just plain being dishonest and deceptive. They concealed important, relevant information from
their readers. I cannot regard someone who does this as any kind of hero who is fighting for an ideal,
as you put it. This and other aspects of Mills' behavior suggest intellectual dishonesty. I cannot
admire that. Something like this (milder, actually) came to light recently with the global warming people,
and they were nailed for it. I have never seen ANY of the Supporters or Fence-Sitters face up to this evidence.
Can you explain why in spite of this you regard Mills as a hero fighting for an ideal??

John C.

[mystic606]

You don't think Einstein, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, Feynman, Wheeler,
Pauli, Weyl, Bohr, Bohm, Bell, and several dozen others had the "imagination to develop
proper models" ??? Man, that seems a little extreme. You must have impossibly high
standards. These were brilliant people at the top of their game, highly creative, imaginative people,
a number of whom would have loved to find a classical, deterministic explanation. So would e.g.
some more recent people like, say, Penrose and 't Hooft. It is not for want of trying that there is
no such theory.

I certainly acknowledge the brilliance of all you mention: both for their practical solutions and for the beauty of their concepts. But after a more thorough investigation of the underlying phenomena, even puny little me can see how they became distracted and lured away from the most relevant considerations. As I believe P.Z. has said a number of times: it's so very easy to deceive yourself in this field. Just like with Mills, we all tend to be enamored of our own beautiful concepts. But worthy as they are, they can easily mask out even more important, more crucial facts from our minds.

OK, here is why I absolutely cannot agree with you on this. Mills has seen some of the
objections to his "theory". In the Old Days, he actually was replying to critics in the HSG. He
stopped doing that long ago. His replies in my view were completely inadequate. He was not
facing squarely and honestly up to the criticism. He evaded and blustered and trotted out
quotations from GUT-CQM with no further elaboration or attempt to explain. At various times
he did make changes to GUT-CQM which appeared to be responses to things that were said in
the HSG, but he never acknowledged error in the previous version. Not once. Mills is basically
a brilliant guy, and GUT-CP has some obvious howlers that he must be aware of. But he
never admits he might be wrong.

Entirely fair on your part. I don't think either that hiding himself away and making only tiny changes rather than proper corrections to his theory is at all heroic. But apparently he seems to think it works for him and maybe at this point that's the best way for him to progress in his own way.

So what? you say. Here's what. This in my view goes well beyond experimental incompetence. This
is just plain being dishonest and deceptive. They concealed important, relevant information from
their readers. I cannot regard someone who does this as any kind of hero who is fighting for an ideal,
as you put it. This and other aspects of Mills' behavior suggest intellectual dishonesty. I cannot
admire that. Something like this (milder, actually) came to light recently with the global warming people,
and they were nailed for it. I have never seen ANY of the Supporters or Fence-Sitters face up to this evidence.
Can you explain why in spite of this you regard Mills as a hero fighting for an ideal??

John C.

Well, as mere human beings I suppose we have to take the good and bad in a person and the things they do and work with that. Or ignore them if that's preferable. But I'd rather have people fairly judged and punished than engage in a good old fashioned Witch Hunt.

[jeconnett]

mystic606 said:

Well, as mere human beings I suppose we have to take the good and bad in a person and the things they do and work with that. Or ignore them if that's preferable. But I'd rather have people fairly judged and punished than engage in a good old fashioned Witch Hunt.

Your reaction to this seems to me to be remarkably mild and accepting.

I am not suggesting e.g. legal action. The point is, Mills' apparent motives (fame and riches) need
to be kept in mind. I am merely suggesting openness and honesty and I am seeing the opposite. If I were
an investor I would want to know this. If BLP ever goes public this kind of thing would need to be disclosed. It
should be known by his licensing partners. I would bet that now, this behavior is not known or understood
even by his Board of Directors. The global warming people were in fact subjected to a witch hunt by self-righteous
ideological/political opponents, and with some justification. Even Supporters are not going to want that to happen.
But there are already known skeletons in the closet and black marks on the record. Mills is not a hero.

John C.

[JohnEB]

JEC said:

mystic606 said:
Well, as mere human beings I suppose we have to take the good and bad in a person and the things they do and work with that. Or ignore them if that's preferable. But I'd rather have people fairly judged and punished than engage in a good old fashioned Witch Hunt.

Your reaction to this seems to me to be remarkably mild and accepting.

I have done many "one on one" comparisons of current mainline physics and GUT-CP. It is JEC who is "remarkably mild and accepting." See:

The SM & QM simply cannot explain our universe.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=241&p=6729&hilit=jec+kane&sid=897913ceca4349cb9bee30331081dcf7#p6729

[jeconnett]

John Barchak said:

It is JEC who is "remarkably mild and accepting."

Maybe to make my views a little clearer, I should remind John B. what I said quite recently in this forum:

John C. said:

No, Drew, as I have said here several times, I recognize a number of problems with QM and
its extensions. Mills himself has some valid criticisms of it. Even some things that dishonest John
Barchak says about it are correct.

John C.

[JohnEB]

JEC said:

Even some things that dishonest John Barchak says about it are correct.

This from the guy who said that Mills is trying to burn water - see
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=249&sid=559a4f71d7f054611111191569b61c96#p6835

The Standard Model is not capable of explaining our universe. The GUT-CP does a far better job. See:
Smolin's Five Great Problems in Theoretical Physics
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179

[meulenberg]

John, let me try to take your advice and "simplify." I hope to return to some of the comments here, but I'd like to get a few things straight first.

Drew Meulenberg said:
... My statement was that the electron has no single axis of rotation - it has millions. However, it has a net (dominant) axis when in motion or in a field. kmarinas86, whom you clearly don't respect, is working in this context, and yet you missed it. Do you see why I question your instincts?

I think we are talking about different things. The definition of moment of inertia requires that you
specify an axis of rotation. That axis is arbitrary, not derived from any properties of the object
in question. A sphere-electron, on the other hand, may in fact be rotating around some axis. ...

When I said that the electron has millions of axes of rotation, I did not mean that it had many "options." I meant that it is simultaneously rotating about millions of axes (even when stationary in space).

You have been very assertive about your requirements for a moment of inertia. However, you seem to miss the point that an electron is not a rigid body (a requirement for the existence of a moment of inertia). You might find the comments in http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 80140.html to be useful. I'm not sure that Mills recognizes this either, although he seems to have an image that guides him. (I like his orbitsphere for the free electron, not a bound electron.) I think that he has tried to use two orthogonal axes to represent the sum of a nearly infinite set of real axes. It doesn't work unless you recognize that the electron is composed of electromagnetic waves that can superpose readily.

You asked earlier "How can a supposedly elementary particle have infinitely many independently moving parts??? " I reply with a question. In the Fourier decomposition of a photon (or an electron), how many independent coefficients are needed to describe the wave packet? Start looking at Mills' pictures rather than the mathematics. I think that he sees a deeper reality, which he does not have the "language" to express.

Drew Meulenberg concluded further:
... Without a university affiliation, I can't even get some papers included in the arXiv (even in sections that I am an endorser for). It does not require a conspiracy theory to screw up the advancement of science. Ego and financial interest are more than sufficient. This is not new - it is as old as mankind. The old boy network is just larger than it used to be. And, a lot more is at stake.

Interesting. I had assumed arXiv was pretty open, and that with your former appointment at MIT or your
connections you would have no trouble getting things into it.

I won't accuse you of being naive, or disengenuous, just uninformed. The arXiv is highly politicized and probably financially controlled (or at least influenced) by outside sources. This is well known to the many who have encountered the "wall."

[jeconnett]

Drew Meulenberg said:

When I said that the electron has millions of axes of rotation, I did not mean that it had many "options." I meant that it is simultaneously rotating about millions of axes (even when stationary in space).

I suppose that's true in the sense that from the point of view of anything which is rotating around it,
it appears to be rotating.

If you think it is rotating simultaneously around several axes from ONE point of view - possibly!
Mills thinks of the electron in several ways. First, as a rigid sphere with, in its simplest form,
uniform mass-charge density. Second, as a sphere covered by an infinite meshwork of orbiting point
charges, where the orbits cross each other (but somehow do not interact), etc., and all orbits are
in a zero-thickness 2-dimensional surface. If you think of each orbit separately, it has its own
moment of inertia (infinitesimal), angular momentum, etc..

From this latter point of view it is a composite object. It does not have a well-defined moment
of inertia. However Mills chooses to assign values of moment of inertia to it anyway. One of
those values, with the "2/3" factor in front, corresponds exactly to a uniform-density (rigid) spherical
shell, evidently ignoring the internal orbits etc. The other value has the "1/2" factor in front,
and there appears to be no justification for it at all except that it formally (and this is important)
allows Mills to say

L_z = (moment of inertia) * (angular velocity) = hbar/2.

I.e., he has no proof of the "1/2" version based on his model. He invents it just to get this equation
to be satisfied.

But in any case, in his discussion of moment of inertia, there is no hint at all that Mills regards his
orbitsphere as anything but a rigid object. The only way the equation above makes sense is if
his sphere is a rigid object rotating around one axis (like a north-pole / south-pole axis) with angular
speed equal to that specified by the de Broglie relation. And quite simply, it is not.

Drew Meulenberg said:
You asked earlier "How can a supposedly elementary particle have infinitely many independently moving parts??? " I reply with a question. In the Fourier decomposition of a photon (or an electron), how many independent coefficients are needed to describe the wave packet? Start looking at Mills' pictures rather than the mathematics. I think that he sees a deeper reality, which he does not have the "language" to express.

I think you are stretching much too hard to draw a parallel. In general functions have infinitely many
coefficients in Fourier expansions, Taylor series, etc. And so what? Even simple functions require
infinitely many coefficients. The only thing this has in common with
an object having infinitely many moving parts is the phrase "infinitely many".

Mills vs. reality: the connection is feeble at best. My view is that he conceives certain half-baked ideas,
falls in love with them because they are HIS ideas (and he is the GMOAT), and deludes himself continually
thereafter thinking that his "instincts" are always right and cannot possibly be wrong. The mystery to me is,
how does he successfully get anyone else to buy his delusions?

John C.