Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[JeanTate]

An orbitsphere is not composed of smaller subcomponents. It is a whole, indivisible unit. As I understand it, the reason continuous loops of mass-charge are depicted at all is to to help visualize and mathematically quantify the coordinated motions of the unified 2D orbitsphere membrane.

Electron orbitals are not points, they are distributed surface areas of of mass and charge as per Mills' theory. In QM they are 3D probability clouds of finding a point charge, never a single point charge itself.

Now *free* electrons are found to be point - like. Mills' theory has it approximating a point, but it is a spinning disk of charge with the charge concentrated in the centre and falling off quickly to the edge which is the deBroglie radius. See Chapter 3 (The Electron in Free Space) of Mills' GUTCP for more details if you want.

Yeah, we’ve been over all this before. Including how something “indivisible” can allow particles pass through it with no consequences (e.g. beta decay). And how a point-like disc can morph into an infinitely thin sphere with no observable effects. Etc.

Magic, in other words.

 

[markie]

Yeah, we’ve been over all this before. Including how something “indivisible” can allow particles pass through it with no consequences (e.g. beta decay). And how a point-like disc can morph into an infinitely thin sphere with no observable effects. Etc.

Magic, in other words.

Not magic, and not without consequences. The electron is indivisible, but hitting or even approaching an orbitsphere will produce various effects on the orbitsphere. This is the nature of chemical reactions after all - electron effects. If an orbitsphere is hit hard enough it will ionize off the nucleus, sometimes to be recaptured, other times not. And of course if it encounters a positron they will annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions.

 

[Reality Check]

Blindly parrots an obvious delusion from Mills book

From Mills 2016 GUTCP page 1514

12 July 2018 markie: Blindly parrots an obvious delusion from Mills book.
"In 1995, Mills published the GUTCP prediction [101] that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating from the same equations that correctly predicted the mass of the top quark before it was measured."
Cosmology is not particle physics. Particle physics cannot predict an accelerating expansion of the universe. If we look for 'dark energy' in his book we see typical Mills rants. A quick scan suggests that this "GUTCP prediction" existed in the 1995 edition, not the current edition.

[101] is a reference to an inaccessible edition of his book not a published paper. A track record of lies suggests that this is another lie.

Looking for 'accelerat' to find his prediction for accelerating expansion reveals more ignorance and stupidity.
12 July 2018: Page xxvi: At least "absence of time dilation in redshifted quasars" ignorance (observed for a decade or more)
12 July 2018: Page xxvi: Stupidity of expecting E=mc2 to predict "fundamental particle masses, inertial or gravitational or why they are equivalent"
12 July 2018: Page 1475: A lie that an accelerating expansion invalidates GR.
12 July 2018: Page 1495: Looks like his prediction from his delusions about an oscillating universe.

12 July 2018: Page 1603: "magnetic energy" + GR + Compton wavelength gibberish starting on page 1603.

12 July 2018: Page 1605: Mills lies about the mass of a neutron which is 1.674927471(21)×10−27 kg (known since at least 2014).
He writes 1.6749 × 10−27 kg as if the other digits and experimental error did not exist. The experimental error rules out his calculated value. Fantasies about seconds and charge do not magically make the values equal.

12 July 2018: Page 1605: An imaginary strange-strange-charm neutron.

12 July 2018: Page 1605: An imaginary bottom-bottom-top neutron.

12 July 2018: Page 1606: Mills uses his imaginary neutrons to calculate a value for the top quark mass and lies by cherry picking a value from a 2002 paper.

His reference [3]: K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002); http://pdg.lbl.gov; http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/topquark_q007.pdf.
"Table 2: Top mass measurements from D0 and CDF" lists 8 masses. The best value from the results of both experiments is 174.3 GeV/c2. The current value is 172.44 ± 0.13 GeV/c2. Mills selects the single value from that table (186 +/-10) that includes his value.

Part III: 18 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book has:
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Fantasies about the central black hole of the MW and dark matter.
21 March 2017: Page 1514: A double lie that dark matter matches the "characteristic spectral signatures and properties of hydrinos".
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Mills cannot understand a Bournaud et al paper or a Nature paper that cites it.
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Repeats Page 48: Mills is ignorant about the "best evidence yet" for the existence of dark matter
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Delusions about astrophysical results supporting the existence of hydrinos.

Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book and a paper
Part VII (June 2018): Mills' delusions of a "fifth force", "trapped photons", proton radius lie, etc.
28 June 2018: Page 57: Footnote 1 explicitly states "The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but...", i.e. a spherical mass and change singularity.
28 June 2018: Page 57: The "but..." in footnote 1 is the inane application of the Schwarzschild radius equation for the gravitational field outside of a massive body.
29 June 2018: Page 276: The insanity of scattering of electrons as plane waves hitting a spherical He atom.
2 July 2018: Page 1557: Mills blatant insanity of pseudoelectrons
3 July 2018: Page 393 onward: Equation 11.5 and 11.6 are the differential equations of motion for a particle of mass m in the case of a central field when he has spheres around 2 nuclei.

 

[UncertainH]

Cosmology is not particle physics. Particle physics cannot predict the expansion of the universe

The connections between particle physics and cosmology are huge and is an ongoing field of study and probably key to the development of any unified theory. Indeed one of the problems with QM is the lack of consideration of gravity and hence the struggle and perhaps impossible task of unifying QM with GR. Certainly, within an atom, gravitational forces are negligible but particles themselves are obviously the source of gravity.

Here is a decent overview and history: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1769

Mills attempts to bring general relativity into the mix when describing pair production and then extrapolates that to the larger cosmos. I don't think his treatment of it is necessarily correct or complete but may represent a small step forward for those willing to to at least think about. There are also a lot of other interesting theories about emergent spacetime and the electromagnetic origin of mass worthy of consideration.

Imho understanding the connection between particle physics and cosmology is probably one of the most important consideration in the pursuit of a unified theory

 

[Reality Check]

The connections between particle physics and cosmology are huge and is an ongoing field of study and probably key to the development of any unified theory....

This is not what Mills ignorant, deluded and lying book does. Mills mixes GR into some particle physics phenomena (you mention pair production) which is one reason his book is deluded.

A real unified theory reduces to QM or GR in the appropriate limits.
A real unified theory explains all that GR and QM explain.
Mills does not have any unified theory. According his delusions, that would reduce to GR or "classical" physics in the appropriate limits. P.S. he has a little lie about using classical physics. He includes concepts that only exist in QM, e.g. quantized spin and energy.

ETA:
1 March 2017: Pages 1449-1452 are orbitsphere fantasies about pair production including that this involves General Relativity!
2 March 2017: Page 1471 - A delusion of "Newtonian gravitational velocity" for the velocity of particles in pair production.
2 March 2017: Page 1471 - Fantasy of a gravitational field appearing in pair production.

 

[UncertainH]

He includes concepts that only exist in QM, e.g. quantized spin and energy.

That's funny. Slight correction - quantized spin and energy are observed phenomenon in nature. They do not "exist" in QM, QM attempts to describe them

 

[Reality Check]

That's funny. Slight correction - quantized spin and energy are observed phenomenon in nature. They do not "exist" in QM, QM attempts to describe them

That is a good correction. Even better: QM successfully describes quantized spin and energy. They are mathematical results of the Dirac and Schrodinger equations.

I am rather fond of the Dirac equation because a 3rd year pure math project was to write a paper on a subject of my choice. I selected the derivation of the Dirac equation because it has the interesting math of spinors.

ETA: A bit more on how Mills includes QM concepts in his book.
Start with a spherical singularity with the mass and change of an electron (an "orbitsphere"). There is experimental evidence that electrons have quantized spin, e.g. the Stern–Gerlach experiment. Assign this spherical singularity a classical spin equal to the electrons. Assert that this spin is quantized.

 

[UncertainH]

ETA: A bit more on how Mills includes QM concepts in his book.
Start with a spherical singularity with the mass and change of an electron (an "orbitsphere"). There is experimental evidence that electrons have quantized spin, e.g. the Stern–Gerlach experiment. Assign this spherical singularity a classical spin equal to the electrons. Assert that this spin is quantized.

Almost. Start with the premise that fundamental particles are 2 dimensional objects, yes! flatlanders living amongst us! (as opposed to a 0 dimensional idealized point - would that be a singularity?). Postulate that this object is composed of 2 spherical harmonic functions and add a constant function modulated by the harmonic functions to keep the mass and charge positive definite. There are an infinite number of possible solutions to this - so, as is usual practice when dealing with differential equations, apply boundary conditions and attempt to solve. One of the boundary conditions, yes, is based on the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Other assumptions are that energy is constant and conserved, angular momentum is conserved and there are no spacetime fourier components synchronous with the speed of light.

This is my basic understanding, I'm not saying it is right or wrong but I think it a little closer to what Mills is proposing than that which is quoted above.

 

[Hellbound]

So it's string theory +1d?

ETA: And minus math. Or logical restraint.

 

[JeanTate]

Almost. Start with the premise that fundamental particles are 2 dimensional objects, yes! flatlanders living amongst us! (as opposed to a 0 dimensional idealized point - would that be a singularity?). Postulate that this object is composed of 2 spherical harmonic functions and add a constant function modulated by the harmonic functions to keep the mass and charge positive definite. There are an infinite number of possible solutions to this - so, as is usual practice when dealing with differential equations, apply boundary conditions and attempt to solve. One of the boundary conditions, yes, is based on the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Other assumptions are that energy is constant and conserved, angular momentum is conserved and there are no spacetime fourier components synchronous with the speed of light.

This is my basic understanding, I'm not saying it is right or wrong but I think it a little closer to what Mills is proposing than that which is quoted above.

Hmm ... other than a somewhat more technical description, I don’t see any real difference with what RC wrote. Can you clarify please UH?

 

[Reality Check]

Almost. Start with the premise that fundamental particles are 2 dimensional objects, yes!..

I did not want to waste my time listing the full insanity of Mills delusions so thanks for your post, UncertainH.

An even fuller version:
Start with electrons only.

Deny all of the evidence that electrons are point particles.

• Physical evidence dating from 1909 that bound electrons are particles.
• Pass free electrons through a slit and get a band as expected for particles (not his disks).
• The fact that treating electrons as point particles works in arguably the best scientific theory that exists (QFT).

Now postulate that electrons are 2 dimensional objects.

Imagine that bound electrons are spheres with infinite charge density and infinite mass density, i.e. a spherical singularity. Complain a lot about singularities in QM and GR. Ignore the singularities in classical physics (consider Coulomb's law as r goes to 0). Totally ignore his own spherical singularity.

Postulate that an electron "is composed of 2 spherical harmonic functions and add a constant function modulated by the harmonic functions to keep the mass and charge positive definite".

Lie about the non-radiative condition ("no spacetime fourier components synchronous with the speed of light") which applies to collections of charged point particles.

Just add a h bar/2 spin and declare that it is quantum spin in a classical theory. Later have a "Orbitsphere Equation of Motion For l = 0 Based on the Current Vector Field" section with a set of boundary conditions.
One of these is "and the current density distribution must be uniform" which is one of many reasons to call this a delusion - there are no electric forces from a uniformly charged sphere inside it, i.e. no electric forces holding a proton inside the sphere.

Electron spin is not just quantized to be with or against the direction of a measurement. Electron spins also obey non-classical Fermi–Dirac statistics. Bosons obey non-classical Bose–Einstein statistics. So Mills add these quantum statistics to his "classical" theory.

Now ignore that this is for electrons and apply it all fundamental particles.

 

[JeanTate]

Not magic, and not without consequences. The electron is indivisible, but hitting or even approaching an orbitsphere will produce various effects on the orbitsphere. This is the nature of chemical reactions after all - electron effects. If an orbitsphere is hit hard enough it will ionize off the nucleus, sometimes to be recaptured, other times not. And of course if it encounters a positron they will annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions.

Except when it doesn't

Consider beta+ radioactive decay: a positron escapes from the nucleus. Later, and well away from the birthatom, it meets an electron, and gammas result. Very well understood, and very useful; the basis for PET (positron emission tomotography), for example.

Trouble is, to get "out", the positron needs to go through several orbitspheres, which are "indivisible", and made of matter; IOW, an orbitsphere "encounters a positron" (can't possibly avoid doing so), but does NOT "annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions".

Oops.

 

[markie]

That is a good correction. Even better: QM successfully describes quantized spin and energy. They are mathematical results of the Dirac and Schrodinger equations.

I am rather fond of the Dirac equation because a 3rd year pure math project was to write a paper on a subject of my choice. I selected the derivation of the Dirac equation because it has the interesting math of spinors.

It should be known that Dirac thought of his work as provisional. He didn't like the infinities involved and he was highly suspect of renormalization. Here's a quote from him, my bold:

It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form. Some further changes will be needed, just about as drastic as the changes made in passing from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. Some day a new quantum mechanics, a relativistic one, will be discovered, in which we will not have these infinities occurring at all. It might very well be that the new quantum mechanics will have determinism in the way that Einstein wanted.

He and Einstein would have rejoiced at seeing Mills' work imo.

ETA: A bit more on how Mills includes QM concepts in his book.
Start with a spherical singularity with the mass and change of an electron (an "orbitsphere"). There is experimental evidence that electrons have quantized spin, e.g. the Stern–Gerlach experiment. Assign this spherical singularity a classical spin equal to the electrons. Assert that this spin is quantized.

There is no such thing as a spherical singularity. A singularity has dimension 0; no spatial extent. A sphere has spatial extent.

Yes for sure Mills has QM concepts in his book. In fact earlier titles of his book had the word 'quantum' in it. He decided to take it out because he didn't want it confused with, well, you know.

So expect the various boundary conditions used in Mills GUTCP to include experimental results from QM and relativity. One is that units of angular momentum are transferred in units of hbar. Another is that the hydrogen atom at n=1 does not radiate. Another is that both EM and gravity have a propagation limit of c. Another are the two or three? boundary conditions arising from the Stern-Gerlach experiment. (In this way he reverse engineers how the current flow patterns of the orbitsphere must be in order to satisfy those boundary conditions.)

 

[markie]

So it's string theory +1d?

ETA: And minus math. Or logical restraint.

Lord no. String theory doesn't predict anything. It is the antithesis of Mills' theory.

Mills theory is constrained by experimental result as are his mathematics.

Consider the 2D electron orbitsphere. Why for instance is it 2D?

It cannot be an unphysical singularity of 0D.
It cannot be a 1D string; among other things it isn't capable of satisfying, say, the Haus radiation condition.
It cannot be a 3D volume ; there would be charge repulsion. (This is how, as I recall, Born convinced Schrodinger that his electron cloud distribution could not a cloud of charge but rather a cloud of probability. )
Voila, the only option is a 2D surface of moving charge, and charge moving in a very particular way.

 

[JeanTate]

It should be known that Dirac thought of his work as provisional. He didn't like the infinities involved and he was highly suspect of renormalization. Here's a quote from him, my bold:

It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form. Some further changes will be needed, just about as drastic as the changes made in passing from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. Some day a new quantum mechanics, a relativistic one, will be discovered, in which we will not have these infinities occurring at all. It might very well be that the new quantum mechanics will have determinism in the way that Einstein wanted.

He and Einstein would have rejoiced at seeing Mills' work imo.




There is no such thing as a spherical singularity. A singularity has dimension 0; no spatial extent. A sphere has spatial extent.

Yes for sure Mills has QM concepts in his book. In fact earlier titles of his book had the word 'quantum' in it. He decided to take it out because he didn't want it confused with, well, you know.

So expect the various boundary conditions used in Mills GUTCP include experimental results from QM and relativity. One is that units of angular momentum are transferred in units of hbar. Another is that the hydrogen atom at n=1 does not radiate. Another is that both EM and gravity have a propagation limit of c. Another are the two or three? boundary conditions arising from the Stern-Gerlach experiment. (In this way he reverse engineers how the current flow patterns of the orbitsphere must be in order to satisfy those boundary conditions.)

markie (and to some extent UH): if you'd like to learn what QFT (Quantum Field Theory) really is, and to some extent why your characterization of "QM" is so nonsensical, I recommend A. Zee's "Quantum Field Theory" (link) and Peter Woit's "Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations" (link); the latter is available free, with a bit of searching. Zee's book has a bazillion excellent reviews, but Woit's not so much (it's a lot more recent, for example); for a good one, see this one by Andrew Jordan.

It is likely that you will need to get some mathematics that is unknown to you under your belt(s) before you can make much headway with either; however, the effort is, I think you'll find, well worth it.

With a decent understanding of QFT in hand, it will take you very little time to see just how ridiculous Mills' idea are, in terms of being serious physics (as scifi they're not bad, though his prose leaves much to be desired). As RC and others have been saying, in posts that go back many months, even years.

If "below ground state hydrogen atoms" are ever discovered, it will quickly be shown that what's in Mills' tome is patent nonsense, in terms of describing their observed behavior. As will become obvious as soon as someone competent (and independent) performs tests on even a prototype of his "hydrino-based" energy machine.

Oh, and a clear sign of crackpot thinking is to quote from the likes of Dirac and Einstein, on what they personally felt about their work ... without putting those quotes in proper historical context and (key here) without the context of a contemporary understanding of their work (and how it's been developed). markie, you are no Dirac (and, for the record, neither is Mills).

 

[markie]

Except when it doesn't

Consider beta+ radioactive decay: a positron escapes from the nucleus. Later, and well away from the birthatom, it meets an electron, and gammas result. Very well understood, and very useful; the basis for PET (positron emission tomotography), for example.

Trouble is, to get "out", the positron needs to go through several orbitspheres, which are "indivisible", and made of matter; IOW, an orbitsphere "encounters a positron" (can't possibly avoid doing so), but does NOT "annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions".

Oops.

Let's not be hasty. Not every meeting will result in annihilation, at least not right away. Certain conditions must be met. See for instance chapter 30 which Mills devotes fully to positronium.

 

[JeanTate]

Let's not be hasty. Not every meeting will result in annihilation, at least not right away. Certain conditions must be met. See for instance chapter 30 which Mills devotes fully to positronium.

Indeed.

Is an orbitsphere indivisible?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere matter, and not anti-matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron anti-matter, and not matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere spherical?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In classical physics - the basis of Mills' ideas - is it possible for anything with non-zero mass to go through an indivisible sphere without affecting that sphere in any way?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In other words, magic.

 

[Kid Eager]

But but Mills has *patents*!!!!

 

[Humots]

Indeed.

Is an orbitsphere indivisible?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere matter, and not anti-matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron anti-matter, and not matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere spherical?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In classical physics - the basis of Mills' ideas - is it possible for anything with non-zero mass to go through an indivisible sphere without affecting that sphere in any way?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In other words, magic.

Is a positron an anti-electron?

Does a positron have an orbitsphere (or anti-orbitsphere)?

 

[halleyscomet]

But but Mills has *patents*!!!!

Well...

Sorta.

This was covered at length a while back, but the executive summary is the only really enforceable thing Mills has is the trademark on the use of the word “Hydrino” in power generation. Even that is so diluted that it’s unlikely to be enforceable.

It’s yet ANOTHER reason you’d have to be a moron to invest in BLP. If they have their science right and they get a working generator or heater to market, the core technologies will be reversed engineered and competing products on the market as fast as they can get through UL and regulatory approval.

Of course, that brings us to the fact that there’s no evidence of BLP having even started any of the regulatory work needed to get a new technology generating an exotic material as a waste product to market. Given the rank incompetence of their patent people, I doubt they’re on the ball with that either.