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

[Reality Check]

And thankfully becoming less obscure with each passing day. ...

You really need to understand your sources and do basic reraserch try to find out how reliable they are UncertainH.

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

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

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

An irrelevant history/philosophy of physics "" preprint from Werner A Hofer.
An irrelevant review paper from a conference starts with the history of QM and has a bit of idiocy ("...it can be inferred that standard quantum mechanics, with its inherent uncertainties, is a model at the end of its natural lifetime.") by Werner A Hofer

 

[Reality Check]

Thinks Werner A Hofer is as insanely ignorant as Mills

...he, like Mills, thinks that the interference-like pattern has to do with interactions with atoms at the slit.

11 January 2019 markie: Thinks Werner A Hofer is as insanely ignorant as Mills and markie.

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

Double slit interference by "interactions with atoms at the slit" is insanely ignorant because single particle at a time double slit experiments exist. Mills and markie are insanely ignorant about the fact that a single particle going thru the slits at a time produces an interference pattern. I hope Werner A Hofer is not that ignorant.

 

[Reality Check]

Here's another by Hofer:

Thanks UncertainH. We now have evidence that Hofer has crank "proposed model of extended electrons" and lies by cherry picking experiments. He must know that a single particle going thru the slits at a time produces an interference pattern.

You still do not know whet a reliable scientific source is. You linked to the PDF of a single author, not peer-reviewed conference presentation.

 

[Reality Check]

He literally wrote the book on Scanning Probe Microscopy:

Being an author of books or papers does not stop Hofer from being a fringe scientist or pseudoscientist. People can write valid scientific literature on some topics and go off the deep end for other topics.

It is what you have cited from Hofer that makes him look like a fringe scientist or pseudoscientist.

1. Electrons cannot be extended objects because their measures magnetic moment gives a surface moving faster than the speed of light.
2. The measured value of the upper limits to electron extension is 10-22 meters.
   The first point was calculated by Pauli using the enormously larger classical electron radius. The surface speed is enormously greater than the speed of light for an extended electron.
3. The double slit experiment produces interference pattern when there is only 1 particle in the apparatus at a time.

 

[Reality Check]

A blatant "uncanny similarity to Mills" lie

In addition he deals with the EPR experiment, the Bell inequality, double slit experiment and Stern Gerlach experiment with an uncanny similarity to Mills.

11 January 2019 markie: A blatant "uncanny similarity to Mills" lie.

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

Hofer does make idiotic statements about quantum mechanics and electrons: "no extension, no intrinsic properties, are radially symmetric, and their rotation does not have a moment of inertia" and that this is a problem because of "complexity".
What quantum mechanics actually states is

• The overwhelming evidence is that electrons have no extent so treat them as point particles unless otherwise needed.
• Point particles have intrinsic properties.
• Point particles are radially symmetric.
• Point particles have no moment of inertia.

This is not a problem because QM works !

A statement of "new experiments, undertaken in the last twenty years, suggest that this statement is actually incorrect." (i.e. electrons have extent) is a lie. The next section is not experiments that show that electrons have extent. It is 1 paper about momentum uncertainty in surface electrons of noble metal silver surfaces, "measured" using scanning electron microscopes

A scanning electron microscope (SEM) is a type of electron microscope that produces images of a sample by scanning the surface with a focused beam of electrons. The electrons interact with atoms in the sample, producing various signals that contain information about the surface topography and composition of the sample.
...
The signals used by a scanning electron microscope to produce an image result from interactions of the electron beam with atoms at various depths within the sample.

Quotes around "measured" because he talks about the measurements as if the silver atoms were unaffected by SEM.

 

[markie]

11 January 2019 markie: Thinks Werner A Hofer is as insanely ignorant as Mills and markie.

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

Double slit interference by "interactions with atoms at the slit" is insanely ignorant because single particle at a time double slit experiments exist. Mills and markie are insanely ignorant about the fact that a single particle going thru the slits at a time produces an interference pattern. I hope Werner A Hofer is not that ignorant.

Both Mills and Hofer describe the interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits. Thus, it matters not if the electrons come singly or in multiples. Yet RC seems to think Mills and Hofer require the electrons to come in multiples? Very odd.

 

[Reality Check]

Makes "Both Mills and Hofer" insane

Both Mills and Hofer describe the interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits.

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

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

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

 

[Myriad]

Both Mills and Hofer describe the interaction of a single electron with the atoms surrounding the slits.

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

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

What is the interaction? How does it work? What forces effect this interaction? What equation describes the effect of the atoms surrounding the slits upon the electron (or photon, proton, atom, etc.; remember the double slit experiment works with those too) passing through them? Especially, how does the material surrounding the slit the electron doesn't pass through act upon the electron?

 

[markie]

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

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

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

Wherever do you get the impression that Mills says an electron goes through both slits, or that it splits into two parts and diffracts with itself. He says nothing of the sort. Similarly for photons.

 

[Frozen Flame]

Have I made 15 posts yet?

 

[markie]

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

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

What is the interaction? How does it work? What forces effect this interaction? What equation describes the effect of the atoms surrounding the slits upon the electron (or photon, proton, atom, etc.; remember the double slit experiment works with those too) passing through them? Especially, how does the material surrounding the slit the electron doesn't pass through act upon the electron?

I can only suppose you haven't read chapter 8 of Mills's GUTCP.
The deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern and long story short photons are exchanged which alters the electron's lateral momentum and trajectory.

 

[Reality Check]

Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269"

Wherever do you get the impression that Mills says an electron goes through both slits, or that it splits into two parts and diffracts with itself. He says nothing of the sort. Similarly for photons.

11 January 2019 markie: Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269" which is the location of Mills' double slit insanity.
There is plenty of Mills' incoherent gibberish there. Mills' "plane-lamina disc" electron insanity. A paragraph of irrelevant and not used "electron-slit interaction is mediated by photons" stupidity. Then equations that ignore the physical nature of the silts and any interactions with them .

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

 

[Myriad]

The deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern

How? Does the slit pattern wave a magic wand, or what?

 

[Reality Check]

Unthinking parroting of gibberish from Mills deluded book as usual

I can only suppose you haven't read chapter 8 of Mills's GUTCP.

11 January 2019 markie: Unthinking parroting of gibberish from Mills deluded book as usual.

Anyone who knows physics and read Mills' book understands that it is very deluded.
"8. Classical Photon and Electron Scattering" contains Mills insanity and lies about classic physics explaining things that it cannot explain.

 

[Reality Check]

How? Does the slit pattern wave a magic wand, or what?

It is Mills that first waves his magic wand with this stupid gibberish: "During electron diffraction, the initially unpolarized electron becomes polarized to minimize the energy of interaction with the slit such that the angular momentum of the polarized free electron is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of propagation".
Then it is the slit's turn: "To minimize the energy of interaction, the slit polarizes the electron..."

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

This is actually Mill's delusion used to turn a classical random orientation of the angular momentum into what is actually measured (the intrinsic 1/2 spin of the electron). But that is not the double slit experiment!

 

[Reality Check]

IThe deBroglie sized electron becomes polarized according to the slit pattern and long story short photons are exchanged which alters the electron's lateral momentum and trajectory.

11 January 2019 markie: Unthinking parroting of gibberish from Mills deluded book as usual.

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

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

 

[markie]

11 January 2019 markie: Rather insane questions and lies since I wrote "Page 269" which is the location of Mills' double slit insanity.
There is plenty of Mills' incoherent gibberish there. Mills' "plane-lamina disc" electron insanity. A paragraph of irrelevant and not used "electron-slit interaction is mediated by photons" stupidity. Then equations that ignore the physical nature of the silts and any interactions with them .

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

The pattern is not due to 'interference'. And, the electron only goes through one slit. The equations do not ignore the physical nature of the slits. Look at the equations ; they accommodate different numbers of slits.

 

[markie]

How? Does the slit pattern wave a magic wand, or what?

That's like saying, since you can see two slits, does the slit pattern wave a magic wand so that you can actually see both of them? Of course not ; no magic is involved; it's the way photons are reflected from the slits that lets you see them as they are. Similarly an electron can 'see' either one slit of two slits, and that is because the approaching electron's field will stimulate photon emission from one slit only (if there is one slit open) or both slits. The emitted photon(s) will interact with the electron and alter its momentum. See https://brilliantlightpower.com/double-slit/ and look at the two 4 second animations to see what is going on.

 

[markie]

It is Mills that first waves his magic wand with this stupid gibberish: "During electron diffraction, the initially unpolarized electron becomes polarized to minimize the energy of interaction with the slit such that the angular momentum of the polarized free electron is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of propagation".
Then it is the slit's turn: "To minimize the energy of interaction, the slit polarizes the electron..."

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

This is actually Mill's delusion used to turn a classical random orientation of the angular momentum into what is actually measured (the intrinsic 1/2 spin of the electron). But that is not the double slit experiment!

It is no delusion. It is quite reasonable to think that the environment to which an electron is subject - whether it is a magnetic field in the Stern Gerlach experiment or slits in the double slit experiment - actually has a physical effect on the electron. Imagine that!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

An irrelevant review paper from a conference starts with the history of QM and has a bit of idiocy ("...it can be inferred that standard quantum mechanics, with its inherent uncertainties, is a model at the end of its natural lifetime.") by Werner A Hofer

That likely comes from this.