Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.electromag > #18454 > unrolled thread

Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.electromag

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-23 19:21 -0700
    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:31 -0400
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:30 -0700
    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:50 -0400
    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:12 -0400
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 21:02 +0200
    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:26 -0400
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:25 -0700
    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 20:58 +0200
    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-27 17:52 -0700
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-29 16:59 -0400
        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:08 +0200
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:15 +0200
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-30 15:37 -0400
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 01:53 -0400
        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 11:38 +0200
          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 13:26 -0400
            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:14 -0400
        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 13:39 +0200
          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:23 -0700
            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 02:33 -0400
            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-03 09:04 +0200
              Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:02 -0400
                Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 20:39 +0200
                Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-05 08:40 +0200
                  Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 08:59 +0200
            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-04 08:55 +0200
        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 23:27 -0700
        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:20 -0700
          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:39 -0400
            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:30 -0700
              Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:02 -0400
                Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-07 18:50 -0700
                  Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 15:55 -0400
                  Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-11 12:11 -0400
                    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-11 21:22 +0200
                    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-11 15:02 -0700
                      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-12 11:29 -0400
                        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com - 2015-08-12 16:20 -0700
                          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-13 10:09 -0400
                            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
                              Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 03:29 -0400
                                Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 10:48 +0200
                                  Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 04:12 -0400
                                    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-17 19:49 +0200
                                      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:01 -0400
                                        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:33 +0200
                                          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 02:02 -0400
                                            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-22 09:41 +0200
                                              Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:17 -0400
                                                Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 10:51 -0400
                                                  Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 15:12 -0400
                                                    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 16:35 -0400
                                                      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-24 14:16 -0700
                                                        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
                                                          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-25 08:15 +0200
                                Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-15 10:47 -0400
                                  Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 19:52 +0200
                                    Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:51 -0400
                                      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-17 11:10 -0400
                                        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:31 -0400
                                      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 15:49 -0700
                                        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 20:24 -0400
                                          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:30 +0200
                                        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:13 -0400
                                          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 23:27 -0700
                                            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:43 -0400
                                          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-18 10:20 -0400
                                      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:18 +0200
                                        Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 01:46 -0400
                          Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:31 -0700
              Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:05 -0400
            Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-08 13:21 +0200
      Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#18454 — Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 2:00:56 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
> 
> An American Baseball star, "Dizzy" Dean has been quoted as saying, with 
> more sense than syntax: "It ain't braggin' if you can do it."
> 
> That's why Mills wrote a *huge* book that starts with the correct 
> structure of the electron

He claims to start with conservation laws, Newtonian mechanics, and Maxwell equations. So, what's the simplest case? Electron in free space, so look at chapter 3.

The pancake model is handwave-derived from HUP. Ref 4 cited in support of the pancake model doesn't support the pancake model (it's irrelevant to the pancake model). But anyway, take this pancake model, and apply Maxwell + Newton. What happens? The pancake expands.

One can add another force to hold the model electron together. But then one is no longer working from a small base of fundamental principles, but adding ad hoc stuff to make it work. (Holding the model electron together is a common problem in classical electron models, not at all unique to Mills' model.)

Mills' solution is to say that the electric field due to the pancake is as shown in fig 3.3. But this is wrong, i.e., contrary to Maxwell. It's "explained" in the footnote a few pages later (pg 176), but that "explanation" is wrong.

If the simplest case of the electron is wrong (or at least based on error), it doesn't inspire confidence in the rest.

> and then moves forward to *precisely* define 
> all aspects of physics. All with closed form equations.

How "precisely", and how "all"? Looking at the atomic ionisation energies, "precisely" is a few %. Looking at the helium energy levels, a few 0.1%. IIRC, conventional QM gives similar errors (because these are computationally difficult multi-body systems). A reasonable start. I'd be more impressed by calculation of energy levels in more complex atoms, and transition probabilities (in more complex atoms). E.g., calculation of the spectrum of iron.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18488

On 7/25/2015 2:25 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 7:15:01 AM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 7/24/2015 7:02 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> Jos: Please see
>>> http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol3/206?e=2444798/2874734
>>> for a discussion of Lamb shift.
>>
>> I see there a 2 page long chapter (Chap. 40) which does
>> not mention the Lamb shift (nor does it discuss any other
>> results about the hydrogen spectrum).
>
> The first paragraph is wrong. Take the Schroedinger solution for the ground state. Take Schroedinger's charge density = psi*.psi. That's time-independent. One expects no more radiation than from any other static (i.e., rho(r) is independent of time) distribution of charge.
>
> True, one can have much fun by assuming that the electron is located somewhere, rather than spread out, but exactly the same applies to Mills' spherical shells.
>
Timo... You *do* know that the Schrodinger Wave Equation has another 
serious flaw... (other than the fact that it is a non-physical 
description of a physical entity.) Mills shows that it has what is truly 
a *fatal flaw:* It Radiates.

See the "retrospect" section Ch 40: The Schrodinger Wavefunction in 
Violation of Maxwell's Equations

All the best, Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18495

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 1:31:42 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 7/25/2015 2:25 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 7:15:01 AM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> >> On 7/24/2015 7:02 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jos: Please see
> >>> http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol3/206?e=2444798/2874734
> >>> for a discussion of Lamb shift.
> >>
> >> I see there a 2 page long chapter (Chap. 40) which does
> >> not mention the Lamb shift (nor does it discuss any other
> >> results about the hydrogen spectrum).
> >
> > The first paragraph is wrong. Take the Schroedinger solution for the ground state. Take Schroedinger's charge density = psi*.psi. That's time-independent. One expects no more radiation than from any other static (i.e., rho(r) is independent of time) distribution of charge.
> >
> > True, one can have much fun by assuming that the electron is located somewhere, rather than spread out, but exactly the same applies to Mills' spherical shells.
> >
> Timo... You *do* know that the Schrodinger Wave Equation has another 
> serious flaw... (other than the fact that it is a non-physical 
> description of a physical entity.) Mills shows that it has what is truly 
> a *fatal flaw:* It Radiates.
> 
> See the "retrospect" section Ch 40: The Schrodinger Wavefunction in 
> Violation of Maxwell's Equations

As above, that's plain wrong. A static charge/current distribution doesn't radiate.

As Jos wrote, where there is a superposition of two states with coupling between them, then there will be radiation, because the charge/current distribution will not be static, but will oscillate between the two (at the transition frequency, even). A nice paper on this: http://www3.uji.es/~planelle/APUNTS/ESPECTROS/jce/JCEphoto.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18489

On 7/25/2015 4:42 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 7/25/2015 8:25 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:

>
><snip>
>
> Of course Mills' original claim (that Hydrinos exist) has
> not been backed up by him. He hasn't shown any of them. His
> claim that he could generate black light power was also
> not backed up. His claim that he has a useful theory now
> also is shown to be based on lies.
>
This is not factually accurate. Numerous 3rd party experiments have 
replicated Mills' claims of "excess power." The excess power has not 
been explained by any know process -- except hydrino transitions.

The technical problem has been that all previous experiments had heat as 
the by-product. And because of the inherent inefficiencies in heat 
engines, it was never
possible to generate anything other than very complicated water heaters!

This does not negate the fact that hydrinos exist. It only shows how 
difficult it is to re-do about 80 years of mis-orientation by thousands 
of physicists and researchers.

Within the last year, I have seen some demonstrations that indicate that 
this situation may be changing, with electrical energy as the output 
with COP's >>1.

When this situation changes from the subjunctive, I'll let you all know.

All the best,

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18490

On 7/24/2015 6:19 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 7/24/2015 6:52 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>     ...
>> Regarding Mills' calculated parameters, please bear in mind that *all*
>> his calculations are based on fundamental constants. In contrast, *all*
>> QM calculations at this level involve the use of "parameters" that are
>> empirically derived and have no physical basis.
>
> Now you are lying again, Bill Miller.
>
>   ...
>> http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol1/336?e=2444798/2669360
>
> This text uses the same quantities as QM calculation: mass
> and charge of the electron and Planck's constant. The
> shortcoming of Mills' theory is that it *also* needs a
> fudge factor for the magnetic moment (in Quantum Field
> Theory that one follows from the theory) but let's waive
> that: he simply uses the same facts as input that QM
> uses.
>
> So why are you deliberately writing this lie about QM
> requiring more parameters?! You are making this discussion
> completely pointless by your dishonest behavior.
>

Jos: Up until now, this has been a polite discussion. Calling me a liar 
steps over the bounds.

 From this time forward, I will no longer read nor respond to any of 
your comments in any discussion.

All the best, Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18493

On 7/25/2015 6:12 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 7/24/2015 6:19 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 7/24/2015 6:52 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>     ...
>>> Regarding Mills' calculated parameters, please bear in mind that *all*
>>> his calculations are based on fundamental constants. In contrast, *all*
>>> QM calculations at this level involve the use of "parameters" that are
>>> empirically derived and have no physical basis.
>>
>> Now you are lying again, Bill Miller.
>>
>>   ...
>>> http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol1/336?e=2444798/2669360
>>
>> This text uses the same quantities as QM calculation: mass
>> and charge of the electron and Planck's constant. The
>> shortcoming of Mills' theory is that it *also* needs a
>> fudge factor for the magnetic moment (in Quantum Field
>> Theory that one follows from the theory) but let's waive
>> that: he simply uses the same facts as input that QM
>> uses.
>>
>> So why are you deliberately writing this lie about QM
>> requiring more parameters?! You are making this discussion
>> completely pointless by your dishonest behavior.
>>
>
> Jos: Up until now, this has been a polite discussion.

No need for that. In science it is honesty that counts,
not politeness.

> Calling me a liar  steps over the bounds.

Certainly not. I strongly disagree with the politeness
argument! The evolutionists and the scientology church
also want politeness towards their lies. You (and Mills)
are constantly and deliberately lying. That's a fact.

-- 
Jos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18491

On 7/23/2015 10:21 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:

>
> He claims to start with conservation laws, Newtonian mechanics, and Maxwell equations. So, what's the simplest case? Electron in free space, so look at chapter 3.
>
> The pancake model is handwave-derived from HUP. Ref 4 cited in support of the pancake model doesn't support the pancake model (it's irrelevant to the pancake model). But anyway, take this pancake model, and apply Maxwell + Newton. What happens? The pancake expands.
>
> One can add another force to hold the model electron together. But then one is no longer working from a small base of fundamental principles, but adding ad hoc stuff to make it work. (Holding the model electron together is a common problem in classical electron models, not at all unique to Mills' model.)
>
> Mills' solution is to say that the electric field due to the pancake is as shown in fig 3.3. But this is wrong, i.e., contrary to Maxwell. It's "explained" in the footnote a few pages later (pg 176), but that "explanation" is wrong.
>
> If the simplest case of the electron is wrong (or at least based on error), it doesn't inspire confidence in the rest.

Hello Timo...

Thanks for the critique. I'm not seeing/understanding the same issues in 
this section as you are. If possible, can you please expand on your 
findings, either in this list or PM?

I have been reading Dr. Mills' published works for quite some time. I 
have found him to be almost maddeningly meticulous in the detail area. 
So far as I know, nobody has yet satisfactorily found flaws in his 
derivations.

(Most of the objections seem to be of the "My mind is made up -- don't 
confuse me with facts," type or objections regarding the 
*interpretation* of experimental results. But nobody is perfect.)

What version of Mills' work are you using? Or, perhaps the URL?

Once I have a bit more detail as to your findings & concerns, I will 
pass them on to Dr. Mills for comments.

Thanks again, Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18494

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 2:26:37 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 7/23/2015 10:21 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> 
> > He claims to start with conservation laws, Newtonian mechanics, and Maxwell equations. So, what's the simplest case? Electron in free space, so look at chapter 3.
> >
> > The pancake model is handwave-derived from HUP. Ref 4 cited in support of the pancake model doesn't support the pancake model (it's irrelevant to the pancake model). But anyway, take this pancake model, and apply Maxwell + Newton. What happens? The pancake expands.
> >
> > One can add another force to hold the model electron together. But then one is no longer working from a small base of fundamental principles, but adding ad hoc stuff to make it work. (Holding the model electron together is a common problem in classical electron models, not at all unique to Mills' model.)
> >
> > Mills' solution is to say that the electric field due to the pancake is as shown in fig 3.3. But this is wrong, i.e., contrary to Maxwell. It's "explained" in the footnote a few pages later (pg 176), but that "explanation" is wrong.
> >
> > If the simplest case of the electron is wrong (or at least based on error), it doesn't inspire confidence in the rest.
> 
> Hello Timo...
> 
> Thanks for the critique. I'm not seeing/understanding the same issues in 
> this section as you are. If possible, can you please expand on your 
> findings, either in this list or PM?

Step 1: Calculate the field of a pancake of charge using Maxwell (div.D=rho is sufficient). Compare with fig 3.3.

Step 2: Read the explanation in the footnote of why the pancake doesn't spread. Note that it depends on the field being as in fig 3.3.

The above point is about spreading through self-force within the pancake. Newton + Maxwell say the pancake should spread, unless there is some added ad hoc force to hold it together. There's a further issue related to diffraction, which can also be considered.

Step 3: Compare the constant-width pancake model with the classical limit (i.e., continuous charge, rather than discrete electrons). The classical limit of an electron moving at v in some direction, with some "width" w is an electron beam at v of width w. The constant-width pancake model results in a beam that stays at width w forever. Is this correct? (I.e., does this agree with reality?)

For this last point, the photon beam case is simpler, since you don't have mutual repulsion between photons. For the electron case, you need to consider the single-electron case, so that you can ignore mutual repulsion (or deal with mutual repulsion).

The QM vs CP on diffraction of light on pg 7 is funny. The "QM" part is pretty much standard interference - the superposition of two waves gives you more intensity where the two waves are in phase, and less where they are in anti-phase. (Really, a perfectly good classical explanation.)

OTOH, the "CP" part says it's currents in the slits. (How would the EM field produced by the current in the slits modify the incident field other than by interference as in the "QM" part?)

The conventional classical explanation is, in essence, Huygens' Principle. If we have a screen, interference by currents induced in the screen are responsible for cancelling the incident field on the far side of the screen; it's why the incident field that falls on the screen is absorbed/reflected by the screen. Given the total field on the far side of the screen (i.e., the part of the incident field that falls on the aperture), the diffraction pattern results from that field.

So, in conventional theory, we have the same result if we consider a circular hole in a screen, or a circular beam in free space. Or two holes or two circular beams in free space. (And the same applies for classical electron beams.) Meaning, we can't have a perfectly collimated beam - it will spread through diffraction.

If Mills is rejecting the "QM" explanation of diffraction (which is just the conventional classical wave theory explanation of diffraction), then is he saying that we get diffraction when a plane wave is incident on a hole in a slit, but not when we have a beam in free space?

If yes, then he's wrong. We get spreading of beams in free space. (Since you say he rejects HUP, then he should be saying "yes", since spreading of beams in free space is just HUP in action.)

If no, then his pancake should spread, and his assumption of non-spreading is contrary to this.

> I have been reading Dr. Mills' published works for quite some time. I 
> have found him to be almost maddeningly meticulous in the detail area. 
> So far as I know, nobody has yet satisfactorily found flaws in his 
> derivations.
> 
> (Most of the objections seem to be of the "My mind is made up -- don't 
> confuse me with facts," type or objections regarding the 
> *interpretation* of experimental results. But nobody is perfect.)
> 
> What version of Mills' work are you using? Or, perhaps the URL?

The split-in-3 current version on his website.

> Once I have a bit more detail as to your findings & concerns, I will 
> pass them on to Dr. Mills for comments.

Straight-from-his-theory spectra of complex atoms would be nice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18492

On 7/25/2015 5:23 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 7/24/2015 5:14 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 7/24/2015 7:02 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>> On 7/24/2015 1:38 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>> On 7/24/2015 4:21 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> But we should look at hydrogen (since this all started with
>>>> the hydrino!) and existing quantum field theory describes
>>>> the hydrogen atom to *extreme precision*. (The fine structure
>>>> and the hyperfine splitting of the levels is exactly what
>>>> led the development of QFT). So If Mills fails to reproduce
>>>> the Lamb shift (without again using ad hoc postulates!) then
>>>> it's basically over for him.
>>>
>>> Jos: Please see
>>>
>>> http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol3/206?e=2444798/2874734
>>>
>>> for a discussion of Lamb shift.
>>
>> I see there a 2 page long chapter (Chap. 40) which does
>> not mention the Lamb shift (nor does it discuss any other
>> results about the hydrogen spectrum).
>>
>> Perhaps you can give the equation number where the result
>> is obtained? I mean of course the 1.057 GHz transition
>> between S and P levels, as first explained by Hans Bethe:
>
> Jos... I'm sorry you chose to only read two pages out of a 1000 page
> document.  I do not propose to do your work for you.

It isn't my work, so you do not have to worry!

-- 
Jos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18502

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:35:30 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 7/25/2015 2:07 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 2:52:12 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
> >> On 7/23/2015 10:21 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 2:00:56 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
> >>>>
> 
>   Hello Timo... as I promised, I took your issues to the "Society For 
> Classical Physics" - Yahoo! Group. As I suggested earlier, you started 
> your analysis in the wrong place. To use an analogy, imagine a brilliant 
> student that decides to forego *your* lectures 1 and 2, shows up for #3 
> and complains that the content of # 3 is nonsense.
> 
> >>> He claims to start with conservation laws, Newtonian mechanics, and Maxwell equations.
> 
> You missed one: SR. But this is covered in the lecture/chapter that you 
> missed.
> 
> So, what's the simplest case? Electron in free space, so look at chapter 3.
> 
> Wrong assumption! The electron in free space is *not* the simplest case.

Why not?
 
> It is based on the earlier findings. Chapter 3 is derived from Chapter 
> 1. The orbitsphere is a continuous distribution of charge. The free 
> electron is a special case of the orbitsphere.

Irrelevant as to whether or not the electron in free space is a simpler case than the bound electron.

> BTW, the equations defining both the orbistspere and the pancake are 
> also solutions of the Haus Nonradiation condition
> 
> >>> The pancake model is handwave-derived from HUP.
> 
> Not sure where this came from, since Mills denies the HUP and uses it 
> *nowhere* in his derivations.

Mills says the width comes from the de Broglie wavelength. (Not correctly, either. Using de Broglie, we'd have p=hbar*k, with the wavelength in the direction of the momentum, while Mills uses this as the width of the pancake, normal to the direction of motion.)

But de Broglie and HUP are equivalent. HUP is just the wave behaviour of the wavefunction, as is de Broglie. HUP follows directly from de Broglie. How can one consistently deny HUP while using de Broglie?

Either you have wave behaviour (de Broglie) and HUP follows, or you don't have wave behaviour, in which case you don't have de Broglie.

> The free electron is a two-dimensional disc with a charge distribution 
> given by Eq. (3.8) having a radius p0 given by Eq. (3.29). This 
> distribution is a minimum energy, *two-dimensional* surface. An 
> attractive magnetic force exists between current circles in the 
> xy-plane. The force balance equation is given by equating the 
> centrifugal and the centripetal forces.
> 
> So it is the magnetic force between the superconducting current loops 
> that hold the disc together, not some ad hoc force.

Consider two concentric rings of current, circulating in the same direction. The inner ring is pulled outwards, and the outer ring is pulled inwards. Where is the centripetal force on the innermost part of the pancake?

The electrostatic repulsion provides an outward force. If the charge is circulating - a current - then there must be a net centripetal force to provide the acceleration that keeps the charge moving on its circular path.

> >>> Mills' solution is to say that the electric field due to the pancake is as shown in fig 3.3. But this is wrong, i.e., contrary to Maxwell.
> 
>   It's "explained" in the footnote a few pages later (pg 176), but that 
> "explanation" is wrong.
> 
> Mills: "The field is derived correctly from the pancake" charge density. 

No it isn't. Sit down yourself and integrate over a pancake-shaped distribution of charge.

Textbooks usually only have the on-axis case for the ring or finite disc, so you might have to DIY.

But if you're happy with just seeing that fig 3.3 must be wrong, without calculating the correct solution, consider the field of a charged rod, at the end of the rod. This will be in the direction directly away from the rod. If you move past the end of the rod, it will still be directly away from the rod. Move a little off-axis as well, and you'll get a component normal to the rod, but you'll still have a non-zero component along the line of the rod. Now consider what happens if you move along the rod - for the uniformly charged case, or for a symmetric charge distribution that is non-zero along the rod, the field has a non-zero component along the rod except at the centre.

Now take the pancake, and divide it into a (flat) bundle of rods (of varying lengths).

> The footnote regards Maxwell's equations in two-dimensions and can be 
> found in any standard textbook on electricity and magnetism. More 
> details and references are given in Appendix II.

It isn't a 2D case. The pancake has edges. The usual 2D solution for the charged sheet follows from the translational symmetry of the sheet. The finite pancake lacks that.

The two sheet case - charged parallel plates - works because the components of the E field along the plates from the positive and negative plates cancel. In this case, the infinite sheet field provides a good approximation for the finite case. Not so for the single pancake.

> Mills: Subsequent thoughts: "Quantum mechanics theoreticians seem 
> unaware of the implications of Maxwell¹s equations in two dimensions. 

I'm not a QM theoretician. I do classical electromagnetism.

> >>> If the simplest case of the electron is wrong (or at least based on error), it doesn't inspire confidence in the rest.
> 
> Mills: The free electron model based on first principles is correct and 
> the results *match experimental observations.* (My emphasis.)

A real electron beam, at the single electron level, spreads. Mills' pancake electron doesn't. Doesn't look like a match with reality.

But the match with reality wasn't my main problem with it. My problem with it was that it used assumptions contrary with the stated assumptions (i.e., the field as shown in fig 3.3 is not a solution of the Maxwell equations). It's possible to hack together a bunch of errors and force something to agree with observations. What's the value in that? Having a correct derivation, without errors such as fig 3.3, is important.

> However, one of my colleagues on the other list asked me to pose this 
> challenge for *anyone* that would like to take it up:
> 
> "Take a much more complex case of electron interaction- such as the 
> formation of electron shells around nuclei and the calculation of 
> ionisation energies of all atoms and ions up to, say, 3 through 20 
> electron atoms.

It's been done, for ionisation energies, using a Bohr model.

> Demand that both Dr. Mills theory and any other competing theory such as 
> QM calculate the ionisation energies using only integer values and 
> fundamental constants in a simple spreadsheet to derive these values 
> within -- let's say -- 5% of NIST values."

I'm sure there were non-integer values in the calculation. Results were within a few % of NIST. That's why I'm not overly impressed by Mills getting ionisation energies within a few % of NIST. As already said, calculating the spectrum - position and strengths of spectral lines, and ideally widths of the lines - for a complex atom would be much more convincing. (Bohr models fail rather badly.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18519

  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2013/157412/

Timo provided a link to this paper to support the contention that QM is 
capable of providing excellent results WRT ionisation and other atomic 
phenomena.

Here is a quote from the first page of the paper:

"We have previously proposed a simple *empirical* (emphasis mine) 
equation to reproduce the literature values of the ionization energies 
of one-electron [1] and two-electron [2] atomic ions with very good 
agreement."

The paper then builds on this "success."

I use 22/7 when I can't remember or don't want to write out 
3.14159265358... The error between 22/7 and pi is about .04%.

Using QM logic, should I infer that the ratio of 22 to 7 in some way 
reflects the actual relationship between the diameter and the 
circumference of a circle?

The same (flawed) reasoning is true for this paper and for QM as a whole.

All the best

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18521

On 7/29/2015 10:59 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>
>   http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2013/157412/
>
> Timo provided a link to this paper
   ...
  ...
> I use 22/7 when I can't remember or don't want to write out
> 3.14159265358...

The second form simply means 314159265358 / 100000000000 + ...
and the "..." explicitly say that it's an approximation!

> Using QM logic, should I infer that the ratio of 22 to 7 in some way
> reflects the actual relationship between the diameter and the
> circumference of a circle?

It is an approximation, like your 314159265358/100000000000
is an approximation. The two choices are not fundamentally
different.

> The same (flawed) reasoning is true for this paper and for QM as a whole.

No, if you compute the results of the Sommerfeld formula
or the energies from the Dirac equation you get closed form
expressions for the hydrogen atom. All this talk about more
complex atoms is a digression. Mills' hydrogen model is wrong.

Hydrinos do not exist so Mills is wrong! Regardless of
any approximations some people may make to compute Pi.
Regardless of how difficult the more complex atoms are.
That's only a digression to conceal Mills' failure. He's
wrong about hydrogen. He did not produce hydrinos (his
power plant does not work either). He simply was wrong!

-- 
Jos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18522

On 7/30/2015 3:03 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
  ...
>>>  .. we have a difference
>>> between reality and classical results for point particles.
>>
>> Please define a "point particle?"

  ...
> ... a charged point particle.  Classically, infinite energy.
>
> You can calculate what minimum radius an electron must have in order
> to not have more energy (without renormalisation) than is observed.
> That radius is orders of magnitude larger than the upper bound for  the
> radius of the charge distribution. That's the conflict with reality.

Incidentally, QM solves this! The QM self energy contribution
only grows with the log(1/r) instead of the classical blow-up
with 1/r. So in QM you can safely take a very small radius and
still have to renormalize by some 20 or 30% instead of cancelling
ridiculously large positive and negative contributions as in
classical point particle renormalization.

Look at Eq. 11.4.15 in Weinberg, page 496. Take the cut-off, mu,
to be 10^20GeV (corresponding to an extremely small radius of
something like 10^(-36) meter). The delta-m you get is then
still only about one fourth of the mass. Try that classically!
<http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/453/Weinberg__The_Quantum_Theory_of_Fields_Volume_I__Foundations.pdf>

And there definitely may very well be unknown structure at these
very small scales, so the renormalization simply may be a real
effect, now that it is no longer an impossibly large effect, as
it was in classical treatment.

-- 
Jos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18526

<snip>
Timo said earlier...

>>
>> What's not obvious about "disc of radius rho_0" (pg 170) and "rho_0 =
>> hbar/(m_e.v_z) " (pg 171)?

We seem to be looking at separate pages of 2 similar editions. Page 170 
does indeed define a "disc of radius rho_0"

*My* page 171 makes no mention of 'rho_0 = hbar/(m_e.v_z)

But the footnote on 170 contains the same information restated as: rho_0 
= hbar/P_z where P of course is the electron momentum in the z axis.

The Z axis is the line of "flight" of the electron with the 
zero-thickness plane of the electron perpendicular to the axis of "flight."

Now that we are looking at essentially the same information, can you 
please expand on why you feel Mills' derivation is incorrect & what it 
should be,  based on his assumptions re the electron's geometry?

I am certain I don't understand your point at all.

Thanks!

Bill


<snip>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18538

On 08/01/2015 07:08 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:21:25 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
>> On 7/29/2015 9:03 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: <SNIP>
>>>
>>> That's the simplicity of QM:
>>
>> QM is simple? It is by far and a way the most complex and
>> confusing theory since phlogiston.
>
> All of the wave stuff is the same as with classical waves/fields.
> Diffraction, HUP, spin, tunnelling, etc. just come over straight from
> the classical theory.
>
> What's added is quantisation, E=hbar.omega. "Energy/things come in
> discrete bits" matches observation (where classical field/wave theory
> fails).
>
> Straightforward limits give the classical theories. The high number
> of quanta limit gives classical field theory, and the short
> wavelength limit gives classical mechanics (just as the short
> wavelength limit of classical EM gives geometric optics).
>
> Without QM, classical mechanics and classical field theory are
> disjoint. With QM, they are limits of the same covering theory.
>
> And all you need to do QM is classical field theory + quantisation.
> (How is this different from what Mills uses?)
>
>> It also provides erroneous results unless "practitioners" add *ad
>> hoc* bits and pieces with *no theoretical justification* (as they
>> did in the paper you cited)
>
> No. The n-body problem is computationally intractable without
> approximations. The computationally tractable problems provide
> excellent results. Hydrogen atom, 1-electron ions, free electrons,
> and more. Notable successes where classical theory fails: photon
> counting statistics (including interesting cases like the Hanbury
> Brown-Twiss intensity interferometer) and "non-classical
> interference", which don't need anything extra added, but just work
> straight from the basic theory.)
>
>> the wave stuff works the same way both classically and quantumly.
>> We know how classical waves work, and we don't need anything
>> special for quantum waves to work the same way: they work the same
>> way because they're waves and that's the way that waves work.
>>>
>>> For example, if we combine two classical waves, the fields add:
>>> A_total=A1+A2. Where the individual waves 1 and 2 are in phase,
>>> we get constructive interference. Where they are in anti-phase,
>>> we get destructive interference. As for classical waves, then
>>> also for quantum waves. No special tricks at slits required. For
>>> example, we get the same effect if we have a plane wave incident
>>> on two slits, or just have two beams that overlap.
>>>
>>> Given that constructive/destructive interference is directly
>>> measurable, e.g., at microwave frequencies where we can measures
>>> the fields including phase rather than just intensities, and we
>>> have a whole bunch of consequences of such
>>> constructive/destructive interference that agree with
>>> experiment/observation, the simplest solution is to assume that
>>> we actually have constructive and destructive interference. While
>>> we can't directly measure the field (including phase) for optical
>>> frequencies of EM, or for electrons, we can measure intensities,
>>> and measure the effect of changing the phase of one of the beams.
>>> We find that it agrees with what we expect if we have
>>> constructive and destructive interference for optical frequencies
>>> and electrons.
>>>
>>> Denying constructive and destructive interference for optical
>>> frequencies and electrons means that a whole bunch of results
>>> with a unified classical/QM explanation suddenly become much
>>> harder to explain.
>>>
>>> If we accept constructive and destructive interference for
>>> optical frequencies and electrons, then we get the full range of
>>> wave behaviour, including HUP, diffraction (which is just HUP),
>>> spreading of beams (which is just diffraction), all working the
>>> same way in QM as in classical field theory.
>>>
>>> A nice overview of electron interference/wave behaviour stuff:
>>> https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Os-9dY43cY8C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7
>>
>> Chapter 8 explains the Wave/Particle duality in detail. It is
>> simple... & 100% Classical.
>
> In regular QM, interference and diffraction of electrons (and
> photons) is explained using classical field/wave theory. That looks
> like a simple and 100% classical explanation to me. (OK, we have
> quantisation on top of that to explain the counting statistics at the
> detector(s), but Mills assumes quantisation as well.)
>
> Why is anything else needed? Isn't the classical explanation used by
> conventional QM adequate? To make a big deal about the observed
> interference/diffraction not resulting from HUP is strange. HUP comes
> straight from the classical theory. If one denies HUP, then one is
> saying that some of the classical theory doesn't work. Which makes
> the explanation not 100% classical.
>
> In particular, Mills states (in the last paragraph of the chapter):
> "The old view of constructive and destructive interference of waves
> is disproved." This isn't 100% classical; it's anti-classical. Mills
> is saying that classical field/wave theory is wrong.
>
> How does Mills explain interference patterns that we see when there
> aren't any slits? Take one beam, see some intensity distribution on
> the screen. Take another beam, see some intensity distribution on the
> screen. Turn on both at once, and we see an interference pattern.
> With classical wave theory and conventional QM, this is just a result
> of constructive and destructive interference. How does Mills explain
> this?
>
>>> div(E)=rho/epsilon and curl(E)=0 says you can. See Jackson eq
>>> (1.5).
>>
>> The computationally-friendly discrete version (an approximation of
>> the integral (1.5)) is eq (1.4).
>>
>> This is only correct if you have a charge distribution.
>
> Mills: "The charge-density distribution of the free electron given by
> Eq. (3.8) and shown in Figure 3.2". If it isn't a charge
> distribution, why does Mills call it a charge distribution, and write
> the usual type of equation one would write for a charge
> distribution.
>
>> The orbitsphere and it's "daughter" the pancake are not "coated"
>> with a multitude of itty bitty charges as I noted previously. You
>> are making an assumption that is erroneous and then using that
>> assumption to attempt to prove your point.
>
> If eq (3.8) doesn't mean that there is a charge density over a volume
> (or, if you prefer, a charge density over an infinitesimally thin
> sheet), what does it mean?
>
>>>> The charge flow does *not* consist of itty bitty
>>>> "electron-ettes>" If you assume it does, then you get a
>>>> nonsense answers. I quoted Mills on this a bit ago, but I guess
>>>> you did not see it.
>>>
>>> Mills can reject Maxwell if he wants. But it would then be wrong
>>> to claim to use Maxwell as a basis for his theory.
>>
>> Mills embraces Maxwell entirely. In contrast, QM seems to say,
>> "Now don't get me wrong, Maxwell is just fine -- in its place. But
>> Once "stuff" gets too small, then we just can't use it any more.
>> (Except, of course, in those areas where we can't even come up with
>> a "spooky" solution.)"
>
> No. QM uses Maxwell all the way.

  Unfortunately, I have not downloaded Mills and read it yet, so I 
really can't comment on this discussion (Hey, this IS the INTERNET where 
nobody shuts up whether they know what they are talking about or not) 
except with regards to Timo's Pollyanna view that QM is all Maxwell and 
classical EM except for "quantization".

Yes, people have tried to force "quantization' by wrapping waves around 
atoms in integer steps. Basically it is an exercise in eigenfutility.

Maxwell is based upon continuous differentiable functions. Quantization 
simply is not part of it. It is the polar opposite to it.

So how can QM be Maxwellian?  It can't. And it's FAR worse than that. 
Take the case of interference and diffraction. In EM theory things are 
pretty straightforward, you send waves at a spatial modulation and that 
modulation becomes a new source (Huygens' principle) which distributes 
energy and forms the "interference pattern" away from the modulator. The 
new pattern of the exit waves is a result of a transform (HUP) of the 
modulation and the incident wave.

But what happens when we start lowering intensity? Well we discover that 
light isn't a wave at all! It's particle. An electron is a particle. Yet 
if you send these particles through the same modulation a very strange 
effect occurs. As the particles hit the modulation they are deflected. 
And moreover they are deflected in a very special way. Note well that 
they DO NOT turn into WAVES! They can be measured as particles at any 
stage of the path. But oddly if you send enough particles though the 
modulation the statistical sum of all the particles vs position exiting 
the modulation is similar to the diffraction pattern you get with 
Maxwellian theory and waves!

Note I said SIMILAR not the SAME! Because your QM result is NEITHER 
continuous NOR differentiable! It is made up of a distribution of 
singularities!

The wave solution is both continuous and differentiable! And now the 
plot thickens. So to "explain" this oddity, we solve a wave equation 
that gives a continuous and differentiable solution and that solution 
approximates (for large numbers of particles) our singularity 
distribution. I term these waves "probability waves in nothing at all" 
which is meant to show that they are pure mathematical fantasy.

So Timo's soothing tones have drawn a similarity between Maxwellian 
waves and probability waves by noting that the mathematics of both is 
quite similar.  This is true. However, the conclusion that therefore QM 
is somehow "using" Maxwell, is , um rather a stretch.

Einstein was aware of this problem:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf 


  Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics 
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous 
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, 
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of 
contemporary physics."

(Einstein pouts over the "quantization" problem and it's implications)

That's all.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18539

On 8/2/2015 7:53 AM, benj wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 07:08 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:21:25 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2015 9:03 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> That's the simplicity of QM:
>>>
>>> QM is simple? It is by far and a way the most complex and
>>> confusing theory since phlogiston.
     ...
>> Without QM, classical mechanics and classical field theory are
>> disjoint. With QM, they are limits of the same covering theory.
   ...
>> No. QM uses Maxwell all the way.
>
>   Unfortunately, I have not downloaded Mills and read it yet, so I
> really can't comment on this discussion (Hey, this IS the INTERNET where
> nobody shuts up whether they know what they are talking about or not)

Watch out, benj! Or Mills will send his lawyers after you:
"In 2000, a law firm engaged by BLP sent letters to four
prominent physicists asking them to stop making what it
called "defamatory comments"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power>
He also filed suit against the patent office (which did a
good job rejecting his bogus patent claims!)

> except with regards to Timo's Pollyanna view that QM is all Maxwell and
> classical EM except for "quantization".
>
> Yes, people have tried to force "quantization' by wrapping waves around
> atoms in integer steps.

That was step 2 in the list that looks more or less like this:
1 Classical physics (1700).
2 Adding mysterious quantization rules (1900).
3 Wave mechanics explains quantization (1925).
4 Quantum Field Theory unifies fields/particles (1950)
5 Accepting non-renormalizable QFTs like gravity (1990)

  ...
> Maxwell is based upon continuous differentiable functions. Quantization
> simply is not part of it. It is the polar opposite to it.

But there are resonances at distinct frequencies in EM, Isn't
that similar to the hydrogen atom's quantized spectrum?

..
> But what happens when we start lowering intensity? Well we discover that
> light isn't a wave at all! It's particle. An electron is a particle. Yet
> if you send these particles through the same modulation a very strange
> effect occurs. As the particles hit the modulation they are deflected.
> And moreover they are deflected in a very special way. Note well that
> they DO NOT turn into WAVES! They can be measured as particles at any
> stage of the path. But oddly if you send enough particles though the
> modulation the statistical sum of all the particles vs position exiting
> the modulation is similar to the diffraction pattern you get with
> Maxwellian theory and waves!

You are at step 4 then, a quantum field! It is not a wave and not
a collection of point particles (it is a functional from waves
to complex numbers, mathematically). And it has the two limiting
behaviors you describe.

>  .. I term these waves "probability waves in nothing at all"
> which is meant to show that they are pure mathematical fantasy.

The waves were step 3. You'll doubtlessly say the same about step 4.

> So Timo's soothing tones have drawn a similarity between Maxwellian
> waves and probability waves by noting that the mathematics of both is
> quite similar.  This is true. However, the conclusion that therefore QM
> is somehow "using" Maxwell, is , um rather a stretch.

The wave mechanics of step 3 actually *was* a lot like the
field of classical mechanics. To see the difference between
a large number of quanta and a very diluted case you really
need step 4, the quantum field, instead of a wave function.
A wave function (like a Maxwell field) cannot describe the
difference between the diluted and crowded case.

  ...
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
>
>   Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
>
> (Einstein pouts over the "quantization" problem and it's implications)

It is 60 years later now, benj. In Einstein's time people were
still digesting step 4 (the final acceptance came only in the
1970s, after ′t Hooft and Veltman showed that it can really do
all you need in particle physics.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft#cite_note-3> )

> That's all.

Actually, step 5 should be added to it, giving rise to what
Matthew Schwartz's Harvard course (2008) expresses as:
   "Gravity and quantum mechanics are completely compatible"
So that would probably remove Einstein's worries. See page 9
of the lecture notes:
<http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic473482.files/22-nonrenormalizable.pdf>

-- 
Jos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18541

On 08/02/2015 05:38 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/2/2015 7:53 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 08/01/2015 07:08 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:21:25 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/2015 9:03 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the simplicity of QM:
>>>>
>>>> QM is simple? It is by far and a way the most complex and
>>>> confusing theory since phlogiston.
>      ...
>>> Without QM, classical mechanics and classical field theory are
>>> disjoint. With QM, they are limits of the same covering theory.
>    ...
>>> No. QM uses Maxwell all the way.
>>
>>   Unfortunately, I have not downloaded Mills and read it yet, so I
>> really can't comment on this discussion (Hey, this IS the INTERNET where
>> nobody shuts up whether they know what they are talking about or not)
>
> Watch out, benj! Or Mills will send his lawyers after you:
> "In 2000, a law firm engaged by BLP sent letters to four
> prominent physicists asking them to stop making what it
> called "defamatory comments"
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power>
> He also filed suit against the patent office (which did a
> good job rejecting his bogus patent claims!)
>
>> except with regards to Timo's Pollyanna view that QM is all Maxwell and
>> classical EM except for "quantization".
>>
>> Yes, people have tried to force "quantization' by wrapping waves around
>> atoms in integer steps.
>
> That was step 2 in the list that looks more or less like this:
> 1 Classical physics (1700).
> 2 Adding mysterious quantization rules (1900).
> 3 Wave mechanics explains quantization (1925).
> 4 Quantum Field Theory unifies fields/particles (1950)
> 5 Accepting non-renormalizable QFTs like gravity (1990)
>
>   ...
>> Maxwell is based upon continuous differentiable functions. Quantization
>> simply is not part of it. It is the polar opposite to it.
>
> But there are resonances at distinct frequencies in EM, Isn't
> that similar to the hydrogen atom's quantized spectrum?

Yes. it is. In fact my feeling in spite of getting on Timo's case, is 
that somehow QM can fall out of EM if someone finally figures out how. 
And that makes light basically waves (again) rather than particles with 
strange interactions.

>> But what happens when we start lowering intensity? Well we discover that
>> light isn't a wave at all! It's particle. An electron is a particle. Yet
>> if you send these particles through the same modulation a very strange
>> effect occurs. As the particles hit the modulation they are deflected.
>> And moreover they are deflected in a very special way. Note well that
>> they DO NOT turn into WAVES! They can be measured as particles at any
>> stage of the path. But oddly if you send enough particles though the
>> modulation the statistical sum of all the particles vs position exiting
>> the modulation is similar to the diffraction pattern you get with
>> Maxwellian theory and waves!
>
> You are at step 4 then, a quantum field! It is not a wave and not
> a collection of point particles (it is a functional from waves
> to complex numbers, mathematically). And it has the two limiting
> behaviors you describe.
>
>>  .. I term these waves "probability waves in nothing at all"
>> which is meant to show that they are pure mathematical fantasy.
>
> The waves were step 3. You'll doubtlessly say the same about step 4.

Same argument, natch.

>> So Timo's soothing tones have drawn a similarity between Maxwellian
>> waves and probability waves by noting that the mathematics of both is
>> quite similar.  This is true. However, the conclusion that therefore QM
>> is somehow "using" Maxwell, is , um rather a stretch.
>
> The wave mechanics of step 3 actually *was* a lot like the
> field of classical mechanics. To see the difference between
> a large number of quanta and a very diluted case you really
> need step 4, the quantum field, instead of a wave function.
> A wave function (like a Maxwell field) cannot describe the
> difference between the diluted and crowded case.
>
>   ...
>> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Basically what I was saying.

>>   Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
>> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
>> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
>> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
>> contemporary physics."
>>
>> (Einstein pouts over the "quantization" problem and it's implications)
>
> It is 60 years later now, benj. In Einstein's time people were
> still digesting step 4 (the final acceptance came only in the
> 1970s, after ′t Hooft and Veltman showed that it can really do
> all you need in particle physics.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft#cite_note-3> )
>
>> That's all.
>
> Actually, step 5 should be added to it, giving rise to what
> Matthew Schwartz's Harvard course (2008) expresses as:
>    "Gravity and quantum mechanics are completely compatible"
> So that would probably remove Einstein's worries. See page 9
> of the lecture notes:
> <http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic473482.files/22-nonrenormalizable.pdf>
>

I pretty much agree with everything you said, except, of course. #3 
where you think wave mechanics "explains" quantization. This is no more 
true that Newton's law of gravitation "explains" gravity, though 
everyone likes to say so.

And that is my main point. What are "probability waves"? Anyone ever 
seen them anywhere else? How do they work? What is the propagation 
medium? In short "what is the "explanation?".

So yeah, it's 60 years later and still nobody has really "explained" 
what light is any more that Einstein could. The oddity is that everyone 
always seems to agree that, yeah, back in the old days people didn't 
understand much about these things and were pretty dumb, but of course 
today we know everything about it. Sure.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18555

>>>
>>>   Unfortunately, I have not downloaded Mills and read it yet, so I
>>> really can't comment on this discussion (Hey, this IS the INTERNET where
>>> nobody shuts up whether they know what they are talking about or not)

Benj... Try this link: No download required.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12mW9CLXL7A38ap6HVxMCf8TuNUvJkizhWGUOjFg1Jpw/pub?amp;output=html

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18540

On 8/2/2015 8:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
  ...
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf

This author (Hrvoje Nikoli´c) seems to have some axe to grind.
Nowhere in the lengthy discussion do we find many-worlds (MWI)
or Everett being mentioned! For many decades MWI or related
explanations have now been high-ranking among physicists:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Polls

I don't call it an "interpretation" because MWI takes the
quantum state as the literal truth, no "selection mechanism"
added, no "collapse" and no hidden variables added.

So not mentioning this popular explanation (with entanglement
and decoherence as its detailed mechanism) makes the whole
paper very fishy. (Not that I claim there is *proof* for the
literal truth of the quantum state, but it *is* an option!)

-- 
Jos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18545

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:39:57 PM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/2/2015 8:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>   ...
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf
> 
> This author (Hrvoje Nikoli´c) seems to have some axe to grind.

Axe or no axe, I think his point about wave-particle duality is sound.

We don't have a "thing" that sometimes behaves like a wave, and sometimes behaves like a particle, depending on how you look at it. We have wavefunctions, which always behave like wavefunctions, and quanta, which always behave like quanta. Where is the duality?

One might as well talk about the car-road duality in driving.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.electromag

csiph-web