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

[Reality Check]

Paranoia and stupidity about Rathke's funding

Speaking of Europe ; Rathke was paid by an agency - perhaps the ESA - to investigate Mills' claims. ....

16 January 2019 markie: Paranoia and stupidity about Rathke's funding.

A critical analysis of the hydrino model by A Rathke (2005)
Rathke was a physicist working at the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. There is no specific funding for the paper.
This is paranoia that the ESA knows about Mills delusions and wants to address them plus the stupidity that scientists only work on agency approved topics.

Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al. by Phelps and Clementson (2012)

The work of A.V.P. was supported in part by JILA. The work of J.C. was preformed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA-27344.

markie: is the US Department of Energy paying authors to debunk Mills work?

Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm by J.E. Lawler, C.J. Goebel (2012)

To further study these continuum bands assigned to hydrinos, time resolved spectra were performed that showed a unique delay of the continuum radiation of about 0.1 μs and a duration of < 2 μs following the high-voltage pulse consistent with the mechanism of recombination to form the optimal high-density atomic hydrogen in the pinch that permits the H–H interactions to cause the hydrino transitions and corresponding emission.

markie: more authors paid to debunk Mills work?

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting, here is what Lee Smolin has to say on the subject:

Lee Smolin's opinion is stated in the interview Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics–and Its Laws–Must Evolve*..
What makes good "trouble maker" is presenting a coherent, valid argument against the stats quo. That is not Mills' obviously incoherent, invalid, obscure delusions, UncertainH.

You do not understand what you replied to or quoted, UncertainH. You replied to
Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method. Smolin is talking about sociological issues, e.g. how to "craft incentives for academics" and encourage "high risk/high payoff, transformational science". Smolin is saying that there need to be more incentives to produce new theories. halleyscomet is saying that scientists do not suppress or ignore the new scientific theories that are being produced.

Once again, UncertainH, this is not Mills' obviously incoherent, invalid, obscure delusions. Mills delusions are being ignored because Mils papers are obscure. The rare occasions when Mills papers are found by scientists they see that they are obviously invalid. Obviously invalid papers are either ignored or debunked. Valid papers are cited. Mills papers are debunked or ignored.
Mills actually insane delusions are being ignored because they are in his PDF, not in his papers.

 

[abaddon]

A magnetic dipole 'wants' to be in alignment (parallel or antiparallel) with the magnetic flux. There is an energy difference between the parallel and antiparallel, so yes he can tell the north pole from the south pole.

Um, no. Dipoles don't "want" anything. That is childish anthropomorphism. And tha fact that your claim is baloney. In fact, science uses unaligned dipoles to track the movement of Earths magnetic poles over millions of years.

Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases. This is common is chemistry. But it will be disappointing to you because Mills doesn't have a vial of liquid dihydrino gas stored at ultra cold temperatures. No, rather he and his coworkers use cryodistillation to purify gases and then test the gases for certain properties, and then the sample is ... disposed. But if you want to see some written records of such experiments here are a handful.

Please describe the disposal method paying particular attention to hydrino products resulting from such disposal. Please provide the EPA certification for any such process. Please provide the evidence that the hydrino products of such disposal are inert and harmless.

Please further explain whether Mills is releasing hydrino products illegally, or is legally releasing them because he is certified to do so.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

15 January 2019 markie: Cannot understand basic math so replies with irrelevant gibberish.

That "The One-Electron Atom" sction in the document goes from "E=m.B (22)" to "The electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field rather than at a continuum of angles including perpendicular according to Eq. (22). No continuum of energies predicted by Eq. (22) for a pure magnetic dipole are possible." via a calculation of the energy required to change QM[ quantized/B] electron spin (not equation 22).

Equation 22 states that there is a continuum of angles and thus a continuum of energies. Mills deluded book does not have any theory for the "electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field". That is Mills stupidity of including some of QM while asserting that QM is wrong.

There are a few problems with Mill's calculation of the anomalous electron magnetic moment.

1) Mills' electron theory is not based on any known formula. Mills throws out any wave equation, and simply assumes a series of superconducting loops, at the right radius.

2) He mixes and matches known formulas, including the actual results of QM, in an ad-hoc manner, not all of which is sound.

3) The g/2 = 1 + (alpha/(2 * pi)) is indeed correct, and is while it contains the first-order loop corrections in QED, it also has a classical analog. This is well known. Mills knows that, and it is no big issue that he can write it down.

4) I don't believe the next term has any type of valid derivation. I know others have pointed out that it is not the magnetic energy. I see some questionable things myself involving relativity, and no attempt to deal with Lorentz invariance.

5) Mills does not get the right answer. Sure, it is close-ish, but it is not right. In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation. I bet I could hand-wave around a few changes in constants, and get an even closer result.

The truth is, Mills does not have a coherent theory. Yes, close analytical formulas are interesting, but when they don't have a rigorous basis, and aren't actually correct, you suspect that they are a result of working backwards from the solution, not working forward from a real theory.

 

[Reality Check]

A magnetic dipole 'wants' to be in alignment (parallel or antiparallel) with the magnetic flux. There is an energy difference between the parallel and antiparallel, so yes he can tell the north pole from the south pole.

Pretty much the usual ignorant gibberish from markie.

As already stated Mills starts with an equation (number 22) about a magnetic field which allows any orientation. Mills then adds his insanity of including the QM quantized electron spin which has no north or south poles .

 

[UncertainH]

Pretty much the usual ignorant gibberish from markie.

As already stated Mills starts with an equation (number 22) about a magnetic field which allows any orientation. Mills then adds his insanity of including the QM quantized electron spin which has no north or south poles .

Equation 22 is in the section describing how the Stern-Gerlach experiment is used as a boundary condition in the equations. Of course the magnetic dipole does not 'want' to make an alignment, in this section Mills is saying that in order to satisfy the boundary condition the alignment must happen. This is the boundary condition along with the condition that angular momentum is conserved. Mills agrees of course that equation 22 allows any orientation, a little later on page 98 he states

Eq. 22 implies a continuum of energies; whereas Eq. 29 show that the static-kinetic and dynamic vector potential components of the angular momentum are quantized at h/2

This is also in chapter 1 of the book and to pull the derivations fully you need to delve deeper into other sections. A lot of this comes back to the main assumptions, that many understandably have a problem with, which are that the current at any point on the orbitsphere is multi-vectored and has a static and dynamic component and that the orbitsphere can act as a resonant cavity for photons. During the absorption or emission of a resonant photon which changes the dynamic component of the angular momentum, the static component must flip and the total must be conserved.

 

[Reality Check]

Equation 22 ....

Read what I wrote, UncertainH.
Equation 22 is not a "boundary condition". Equation 22 is the energy of a body with a magnetic moment m in a magnetic field B. It states that that energy is continuous.

Mills has the deluded lie that he is using classical physics when he includes QM quantized electron spin. That is an intrinsic property of an electron as shown by the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

It is that application of his delusion that Mills uses as a "boundary condition".

Parroting Mills delusions and lies is not good, UncertainH. The physical reasons that his bound elections as an atomic sized spherical mass and charge singularity have been listed many times.
Equation 29 at best says there is a magnetic moment in a specific direction (z) not his gibberish of "static-kinetic and dynamic vector potential components of the angular momentum are quantized at h/2". Mills has the basic error of setting a vector cross product equal to a scalar (but ends up with a vector).
Page 97 is full of Mills obviously deluded gibberish.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Read what I wrote, UncertainH.
Equation 22 is not a "boundary condition". Equation 22 is the energy of a body with a magnetic moment m in a magnetic field B. It states that that energy is continuous.

Mills has the deluded lie that he is using classical physics when he includes QM quantized electron spin. That is an intrinsic property of an electron as shown by the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

It is that application of his delusion that Mills uses as a "boundary condition".

Parroting Mills delusions and lies is not good, UncertainH. The physical reasons that his bound elections as an atomic sized spherical mass and charge singularity have been listed many times.
Equation 29 at best says there is a magnetic moment in a specific direction (z) not his gibberish of "static-kinetic and dynamic vector potential components of the angular momentum are quantized at h/2". Mills has the basic error of setting a vector cross product equal to a scalar (but ends up with a vector).
Page 97 is full of Mills obviously deluded gibberish.

I agree that Mills use of the quantized spin in a classical way make no sense. The measurement of spin quantization is not just about the quantization of the magnitude of the magnetic moment, but that the observable value must be along the z-direction of an external field. That last one is a purely QM result, and does not follow for a classical electron with a spin in any direction.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There are a few problems with Mill's calculation of the anomalous electron magnetic moment.

1) Mills' electron theory is not based on any known formula. Mills throws out any wave equation, and simply assumes a series of superconducting loops, at the right radius.

2) He mixes and matches known formulas, including the actual results of QM, in an ad-hoc manner, not all of which is sound.

3) The g/2 = 1 + (alpha/(2 * pi)) is indeed correct, and is while it contains the first-order loop corrections in QED, it also has a classical analog. This is well known. Mills knows that, and it is no big issue that he can write it down.

4) I don't believe the next term has any type of valid derivation. I know others have pointed out that it is not the magnetic energy. I see some questionable things myself involving relativity, and no attempt to deal with Lorentz invariance.

5) Mills does not get the right answer. Sure, it is close-ish, but it is not right. In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation. I bet I could hand-wave around a few changes in constants, and get an even closer result.

The truth is, Mills does not have a coherent theory. Yes, close analytical formulas are interesting, but when they don't have a rigorous basis, and aren't actually correct, you suspect that they are a result of working backwards from the solution, not working forward from a real theory.

Thank you, HappySkeptic99. Let me expand on your point 5 by stating the numbers. In the December 2018 edition of Mills's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (aka the Big Book of Boo-boos), Mills is still citing experimental values published in 1987 and 1988. Those are the experimental values given here by optiongeek:

As a reminder, GUTCP produces the following equation (Eq 1.228):

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2

Taking alpha^1 = 137.03604 (per CRC), then by my Excel spreadsheet, I get g/2 = 1.001 159 652 121 vs. an experimental value of 1.001 159 652 188.

According to NIST's CODATA Internationally recommended 2014 values of the fundamental physical constants, as quoted by Wikipedia, the currently accepted value for α^-1 is 137.035999139(31), while the best experimental measurements give an experimental value in the vicinity of α^-1=137.035999173(35).

Using those values for the fine structure constant, standard QED predicts the anomalous magnetic dipole moment should be about 0.001159652182. The currently accepted experimental value is about 0.001159652181. The value of g/2 is obtained by adding 1 to those values.

Let's compare the values computed by Mills's formula, quoted by optiongeek, to the values computed using quantum mechanics:

 1.001159652188	        ; experimental value given by Mills (from 1988)
 1.0011596521214885   	; calculated by Mills
 1.0011596524667585   	; calculated by applying Mills's formula
                        ;     to the currently accepted value of α
 1.00115965218073     	; current experimental value of g/2
 1.001159652181643    	; g/2 calculated using QED

From those numbers, it is evident that

• The value predicted by quantum mechanics is two decimal orders of magnitude closer to the current experimental value than is the value predicted by Mills's equation (1.228).
• As the experimental estimate of the fine structure constant has improved over the past 30 years, the prediction made by Mills's equation (1.228) has gotten worse.

Mills continues to use experimental values from 30 years ago in a book whose date of copyright and publication is 2018.

If I were a skeptical reader of his book, I'd suspect he is using 30-year-old estimates because they make his equation (1.228) look better. I might even suspect he came up with his equation (1.228) by trying to find a formula that would fit the experimental estimates available when he published the first edition of his book, and is hoping people like optiongeek won't notice that his equation (1.228) is now two decimal orders of magnitude worse than the prediction made by standard quantum mechanics.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

[*]The value predicted by quantum mechanics is two decimal orders of magnitude closer to the current experimental value than is the value predicted by Mills's equation (1.228).
[*]As the experimental estimate of the fine structure constant has improved over the past 30 years, the prediction made by Mills's equation (1.228) has gotten worse.
[/list]
Mills continues to use experimental values from 30 years ago in a book whose date of copyright and publication is 2018.

If I were a skeptical reader of his book, I'd suspect he is using 30-year-old estimates because they make his equation (1.228) look better. I might even suspect he came up with his equation (1.228) by trying to find a formula that would fit the experimental estimates available when he published the first edition of his book, and is hoping people like optiongeek won't notice that his equation (1.228) is now two decimal orders of magnitude worse than the prediction made by standard quantum mechanics.

True. If he worked backward from the result, he can't fix it now.

I would like to fix one comment I made.

"In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation."

I missed that one should actually rearrange Mills' formula:

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2

The formula should be refactored to make a power series in (alpha/2pi).

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2 + (8/3)*pi^2*(alpha/2pi)^3

Then, the signs are the same as in the QM calculation (but not the values). People should realize how easy it is to tweak a value, when the final term (quite small) can be made almost any value via fractions and an irrational pi.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

If I were a skeptical reader of his book, I'd suspect he is using 30-year-old estimates because they make his equation (1.228) look better. I might even suspect he came up with his equation (1.228) by trying to find a formula that would fit the experimental estimates available when he published the first edition of his book, and is hoping people like optiongeek won't notice that his equation (1.228) is now two decimal orders of magnitude worse than the prediction made by standard quantum mechanics.

If I were a skeptical reader of the book, I'd point out that this approach ("trying to find a formula") has been done, and done better, while making it clear that the result should not be taken seriously.

This paper establishes that $$G = \frac{10390 e^{2} R^{73} w^{73}}{23 A^2 c^{68} N^{73} h^{74}}$$ determines G to about 1 part per trillion. As the paper states,

Summary: If the units are correct and the values are correct, what other criteria is needed?

 

[optiongeek]

There are a few problems with Mill's calculation of the anomalous electron magnetic moment.

1) Mills' electron theory is not based on any known formula. Mills throws out any wave equation, and simply assumes a series of superconducting loops, at the right radius.

2) He mixes and matches known formulas, including the actual results of QM, in an ad-hoc manner, not all of which is sound.

3) The g/2 = 1 + (alpha/(2 * pi)) is indeed correct, and is while it contains the first-order loop corrections in QED, it also has a classical analog. This is well known. Mills knows that, and it is no big issue that he can write it down.

4) I don't believe the next term has any type of valid derivation. I know others have pointed out that it is not the magnetic energy. I see some questionable things myself involving relativity, and no attempt to deal with Lorentz invariance.

5) Mills does not get the right answer. Sure, it is close-ish, but it is not right. In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation. I bet I could hand-wave around a few changes in constants, and get an even closer result.

The truth is, Mills does not have a coherent theory. Yes, close analytical formulas are interesting, but when they don't have a rigorous basis, and aren't actually correct, you suspect that they are a result of working backwards from the solution, not working forward from a real theory.

I appreciate you and W.D. Clinger taking a serious look at the derivation leading up to 1.228 and you raise some valid, but IMHO not entirely consequential concerns. In particular, the second term is in fact the energy stored in the electric field. The important factor here, 2/3, comes from the integral solved in equation 1.156/1.157. This result comes from the electrodynamics of the orbitsphere, which was designed to match the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Mills didn't start out trying to calculate the correct value for the spin flip, he started out trying to match the Stern Gerlach. It just so happened that when he did, the Poynting theorem provided a value for the spin flip that matched experiment. That's the fundamental obstacle you need to overcome to disprove Mills' derivation.

Now, let's take a look at the similar derivation for the QFT version. Can anyone even explain what's going on here? Take any of the criticisms you have leveled at Mills and apply it fairly to the QFT derivation and see how it does. By my reckoning, the QFT is a hopeless jumble of arbitrary decisions far removed from understandable physics. To take just one example, it requires thousands of numerical integrations, but the convergence criteria for these seem to be designed to suit the desired results. I don't find that particularly convincing. Rather, I find it more likely that starving doctoral students needed a particular result in order to get funding to attend a conference. You (and W.D. Clinger) imply that Mills can get any result he wants by jiggering the math. However, I find that explanation far more descriptive of the QFT approach.

In terms of the accuracy of the equations, I have no basis to judge the relative claims of experimentalists on how accurate their measurements are. All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I appreciate you and W.D. Clinger taking a serious look at the derivation leading up to 1.228 and you raise some valid, but IMHO not entirely consequential concerns. In particular, the second term is in fact the energy stored in the electric field.

As HappySkeptic99 said, the first two terms are classical correct and have a classical analogue.

I am also aware that equations (1) through (12) of Box 1.1 on page 95 were cribbed from Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, first edition, chapter 10. That was the textbook used in the freshman-level course I took, so I am aware that Mills has taken Purcell's calculations for magnetic fields in bulk matter with only one orientation, ignoring Purcell's comments and calculations that go on to integrate over all orientations permitted by classical physics:

We have considered only orbits perpendicular to B. Our conclusion should apply, roughly speaking, to a third of the electron orbits in a substance, there being three mutually perpendicular directions. What happens to orbits lying parallel to the xz planes and yz planes is interesting, and you can find out by working Prob. 10.22.

I am also aware that Mills ignored what Purcells had to say about the one-electron case:

Electron spin is a quantum phenomenon....There is no point in trying to devise a classical model of this object; its properties are essentially quantum mechanical.

Mills is cherry-picking classical equations from freshman-level textbooks and pretending they apply to the one-electron case even when those same textbooks explain what goes wrong with those classical equations in the one-electron case.

By my reckoning, the QFT is a hopeless jumble of arbitrary decisions far removed from understandable physics.

You should show your reckoning. As things stand, it's your word against not only the professional physicists, but your word against rudimentary spot-checking by non-physicists such as myself who find errors in your claims every time we bother to check.

For example:

To take just one example, it requires thousands of numerical integrations, but the convergence criteria for these seem to be designed to suit the desired results.

False.

The first four terms of the QED formula are known analytically, so no numerical integrations are needed to obtain results that are considerably more accurate than the four-term formula given by Mills.

All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.

We can do that too, optiongeek.

What am I to make of your credibility, when I find errors in almost everything you say?

To be fair, you are mostly repeating errors made by your hero.

 

[jadebox]

In terms of the accuracy of the equations, I have no basis to judge the relative claims of experimentalists on how accurate their measurements are. All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.

Well, with that statement you totally lost any hint of credibility that you may have been hanging on to.

BTW, there is a way to address motives, credibility, and estimates of levels of confidence to help ensure that we get closer to the truth. It is a process called "science."

Real science is a process which includes things like peer review and replication. It isn't just making up crap and producing flashy videos.

 

[Hellbound]

Well, with that statement you totally lost any hint of credibility that you may have been hanging on to.

BTW, there is a way to address motives, credibility, and estimates of levels of confidence to help ensure that we get closer to the truth. It is a process called "science."

Real science is a process which includes things like peer review and replication. It isn't just making up crap and producing flashy videos.

But it's so shiny!

 

[abaddon]

But it's so shiny!

Remember. that is always the most important consideration.

 

[Reality Check]

...This result comes from the electrodynamics of the orbitsphere, which was designed to match the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

This incorrect, optiongeek.

One of Mills delusions as stated several times is that he can cherry pick parts of QM and include them with classical physics. The classical physics Mills abuses is the electrodynamics of his deluded orbitsphere. Mills takes quantized QM spin and announces that his orbitsphere has quantized QM spin. Mills then has the fantasy that this explains the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Mills "STERN-GERLACH-EXPERIMENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS" section (page 66, 2016 edition) is his fantasies that are irrelevant to the experiment + the experiment result that electrons have intrinsic, quantized spin.

FYI, optiongeek.
Mills' orbitsphere is deluded because this is an electron.
Mills' orbitsphere is an atom sized mass and change spherical singularity.
An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light (one reason that electrons are treated as point particles with intrinsic spin).
The Geiger–Marsden experiments between 1908 and 1913 did not have alpha particles scattering off 79 charged gold atom sized spheres !

Mils' abuse of classical physics is taking the non-radiation condition for a collection of point particles and applying it to his fantasy of currents on a sphere.

 

[optiongeek]

An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light (one reason that electrons are treated as point particles with intrinsic spin).

According to equation 1.35, the charge velocity in the bound electron is

v = h_bar/(m x r_e) = alpha * c

No violation of speed of light.

 

[Reality Check]

According to equation 1.35, ...

"An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light" is not Mils "charge velocity" insanity, optiongeek.

This is actual spin in physics.

The physical interpretation of Pauli's "degree of freedom" was initially unknown. Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli's criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.

Mills says that the electron has that same angular momentum by assigning his delusion the QM spin. The charge on his delusion has to have the speed given by that angular momentum because his surface is that charge !

This is an electron. optiongeek. Pauli probably used the classical electron radius in the above calculation. We know today that the electron is much smaller (a suggested upper limit of 10-22 meters).

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, optiongeek.
Mills' orbitsphere is deluded because this is an electron.
Mills' orbitsphere is an atom sized mass and change spherical singularity.
An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light (one reason that electrons are treated as point particles with intrinsic spin).
The Geiger–Marsden experiments between 1908 and 1913 did not have alpha particles scattering off 79 charged gold atom sized spheres !

If you read the rest of this unfortunately long thread you will also see that Mills is deluded because he ignores some basic classical physics, optiongeek.

This is the shell theorem

2.If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.

The same applies to any inverse square law, e.g. between a charged shell and an interior charge. Mills delusion in this electrostatic treatment has an atomic nucleus that cannot stay inside his "electrons". Any perturbation and the nucleus blasts through his shells. A rational, knowledgeable person would address this fatal flaw.

Try to find "shell theorem" in Mills' deluded and lying book!

FYI, optiongeek.
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.
17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.
17 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that his predicted value agrees with the experimental value of the hydrogen Lamb shift
17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).
18 July 2018: Page 1411: Mills writes a fairy story about two of his electron delusions giving the Pauli exclusion principle.
18 July 2018: Page 1411: Insane Bose-Einstein gibberish, e.g. ignores most bosons, "electron resonator cavities" insanity.
25 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that Mohr et. al. have 1057.845 MHz as the hydrogen Lamb shift.
26 July 2018: Page 155: "1057.09 MHz" ignorance about basic scientific scholarship.
30 November 2018: Page 1623: Alpha decay lies and delusions
3 December 2018: Page 1617: Mills' actual insanity of the strong nuclear interaction being electromagnetic in origin.
6 December 2018: Page 1700 onward: Irrelevancy about the self-energy of 2D charged layers.
6 December 2018: Page 1701: A blatant "Quantum mechanics is internally inconsistent" lie.
6 December 2018: Page 1702 to 1704: Derives the shell theorem (and does not state its name) and then a lie.
6 December 2018: Page 1705: An obvious "self energy" lie and usual delusions.

Mills' deluded book has tables where he gets every ionization energy he calculates wrong !