I'm Thinking Holy [censored] [censored]

[Exsubmariner]

Electron orbits below 13.6 Mev? (http://www.blacklightpower.com/)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Electron orbits below 13.6 Mev? (http://www.blacklightpower.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]
The trouble with the gas produced by the blacklight process is it smells really bad.

chez

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Electron orbits below 13.6 Mev? (http://www.blacklightpower.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]
The trouble with the gas produced by the blacklight process is it smells really bad.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that some kind of jopke? I heard a radio broadcast yesterday that said the byproducts were nonreactive, odorless, tasteless and generally dormant.

[Copernicus]

A $50 million bet that will be worth trillions if its real

[Sharkey]

Interesting, if legit.

Do you happen to have any links on the supposed acceleration of charge without radiation?

Also, one reason for the energy of the usual ground state is the mass of the electron. Another is the basic unit of charge. Neither of those are likely to be changed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Electron orbits below 13.6 Mev? (http://www.blacklightpower.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]
The trouble with the gas produced by the blacklight process is it smells really bad.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that some kind of jopke? I heard a radio broadcast yesterday that said the byproducts were nonreactive, odorless, tasteless and generally dormant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Smells like bullshite to me.

chez

[Borodog]

I looked at their list of publications, and I have heard of a lot of those journals, and they are not jokes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked at their list of publications, and I have heard of a lot of those journals, and they are not jokes.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's something about the website that set me off.

Randi's view (http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html)

chez

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I looked at their list of publications, and I have heard of a lot of those journals, and they are not jokes.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's something about the website that set me off.

Randi's view (http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no comment on the theory, as it's outside of my field, but the journals are at least peer reviewed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I looked at their list of publications, and I have heard of a lot of those journals, and they are not jokes.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's something about the website that set me off.

Randi's view (http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no comment on the theory, as it's outside of my field, but the journals are at least peer reviewed.

[/ QUOTE ]
The science is outside my field as well. Sales/scams is near my field.

I wasn't making any great claim just that it smelled, having
done a little bit of googling I'm fairly confident that my nose is working.

chez

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, if legit.

Do you happen to have any links on the supposed acceleration of charge without radiation?

Also, one reason for the energy of the usual ground state is the mass of the electron. Another is the basic unit of charge. Neither of those are likely to be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at pages 35-45 on the atomic theory section on this page. (http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml) I think that's what you are looking for. As far as other people working on this or links other than those on the website, I have not a clue.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I looked at their list of publications, and I have heard of a lot of those journals, and they are not jokes.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's something about the website that set me off.

Randi's view (http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no comment on the theory, as it's outside of my field, but the journals are at least peer reviewed.

[/ QUOTE ]
The science is outside my field as well. Sales/scams is near my field.

I wasn't making any great claim just that it smelled, having
done a little bit of googling I'm fairly confident that my nose is working.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Earth used to be flat and at the center of the universe. Somehow, it became round and moved to the outer spiral arm of a minor galaxy.

[BCPVP]

For the scientifically challenged, what does this mean?

[Metric]

It's BS, as you might expect. He has an entire theory set up that fundamentally requires quantum mechanics to be wrong, but will give us access to nearly infinite energy, explains (in the usual hand-waving or back-of-the-envelope way) everything from dark matter, the acceleration of the universe, etc. etc. etc. All the usual elements of crackpotdom are in place, though I give him credit for being a smart crackpot.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
For the scientifically challenged, what does this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means that science grows and either verifies, improves or discards existing theories.

While I agree this one smacks of smoke and mirrors, I also think there is something fundamentally wrong with quantum theory, or incomplete with regard to how quantum effects are reconciled with classical mechanics. Its that doubt, shared by many I assume, that makes his arguments believable enough to raise $50 million from some pretty smart businessmen.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I looked at their list of publications, and I have heard of a lot of those journals, and they are not jokes.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's something about the website that set me off.

Randi's view (http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no comment on the theory, as it's outside of my field, but the journals are at least peer reviewed.

[/ QUOTE ]
The science is outside my field as well. Sales/scams is near my field.

I wasn't making any great claim just that it smelled, having
done a little bit of googling I'm fairly confident that my nose is working.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Earth used to be flat and at the center of the universe. Somehow, it became round and moved to the outer spiral arm of a minor galaxy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the point but if not I've got a program for predicting cards at party that you might be interested in.

or a nice bridge, perhaps. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[Exsubmariner]

Could I interest you in financing a voyage to the East Indies by sailing west?


Think outside the box a little. Imagine that in the double slit experiment that electrons do not pop in and out of parallel universes to interfere with the single slit elctrons and make them hit the target in a wave pattern distribution. Imagine instead that as the electrons pass through the slit that they interact with the material the slit is made of and realign their spin, resulting in a distribution of vectors which resemble wave action on the target because the law of conservation of momentum takes effect when the spin is realigned.

I know this may not sound as plausible as the parallel universe explanation, but what if newtonian principles applied all the way down to atomic particles?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Think outside the box a little. Imagine that in the double slit experiment that electrons do not pop in and out of parallel universes to interfere with the single slit elctrons and make them hit the target in a wave pattern distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can do standard quantum mechanics without worrying about "parallel universes" and such. There exist information theoretic formulations of the measurement process that naturally give probabilities while preserving unitary evolution -- they simply have not been as widely celebrated as the more exotic-sounding "many worlds" interpretation.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine instead that as the electrons pass through the slit that they interact with the material the slit is made of and realign their spin, resulting in a distribution of vectors which resemble wave action on the target because the law of conservation of momentum takes effect when the spin is realigned.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can interfere particles with effectively no spin -- for example, Helium nuclei in the ground state. This would seem to support orthodox quantum mechanics.

[ QUOTE ]
I know this may not sound as plausible as the parallel universe explanation, but what if newtonian principles applied all the way down to atomic particles?

[/ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned above, "parallel universes" are't essential to QM, but you may be interested in a paper by E. Nelson in 1966, "Derivation of the Schrodinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics" -- Physical Review 150 (1966), 1079-1085.

Of course, there is more to QM than the Schrodinger equation, which just expresses the dynamics of the theory. However, free space solutions to the Schrodinger equation are waves, of course...

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
You can do standard quantum mechanics without worrying about "parallel universes" and such. There exist information theoretic formulations of the measurement process that naturally give probabilities while preserving unitary evolution -- they simply have not been as widely celebrated as the more exotic-sounding "many worlds" interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is correct. I have heard men who are avowed atheists who sound like evangelists when they passionately speak about the double slit experiment and the "parallel universes" it proves exist. As I recall, the latest thinking on parallel universes is that they explain many phenomina that have baffled physicists for a century. For example, why magnetism is stronger than gravity, the strong nuclear force and so on can be explained by other dimensions "leaking" forces into our universe. This is all mathematically verifiable using Einstien's (and other's) equations.

[ QUOTE ]
You can interfere particles with effectively no spin -- for example, Helium nuclei in the ground state. This would seem to support orthodox quantum mechanics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come to think of it, when I saw the double slit experiment demonstrated, it was with a laser (photons). Since photons are theoretically waves and particles and do not possess a charge, I wonder how the classical quantum mechanics (CQM) of Dr. Mills would explain their behaviour in the double slit experiements. I don't recall ever reading about a photon with a spin. By the way, the "ground state helium nuclei" sounds exotic. I've never met one that didn't have a charge.

I don't want this to sound like a rationalisation or that I am going to defend Mills to the death. I'm just being devil's advocate, if you will. What if all parts of quantum mechanics don't apply to all particles in all situations? What if Mills discovered a process and then came up with a theory to try and explain it, but doesn't really understand it's workings? What if the earth isn't flat and one universe can really be used to explain everything? I know that's a lot of what if's and I understand the resistance a quantum theory fluent academic might have to the idea to explain the process, but is it possible that the jigsaw puzzle is put together wrong? I personally would like to see Dr. Mills start a power station to produce hydrogen and convert his BMW to hydrogen power and drive it to every sales meeting. I think that would be proof positive of the process working but maybe not the theory behind it.

As a side note, I find the idea behind all this enormously appealing on many levels. Maybe it is that reaction, which is quite human in origin, what sets the alarm bells off for so many critics. Perhaps they have trained themselves that that physical/psychological/emotional reaction is the red flag that proves something is too good to be true. Time will tell. At least the company isn't public. It will probably save Mills from jail if he turns out to be a fake.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can do standard quantum mechanics without worrying about "parallel universes" and such. There exist information theoretic formulations of the measurement process that naturally give probabilities while preserving unitary evolution -- they simply have not been as widely celebrated as the more exotic-sounding "many worlds" interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is correct. I have heard men who are avowed atheists who sound like evangelists when they passionately speak about the double slit experiment and the "parallel universes" it proves exist. As I recall, the latest thinking on parallel universes is that they explain many phenomina that have baffled physicists for a century. For example, why magnetism is stronger than gravity, the strong nuclear force and so on can be explained by other dimensions "leaking" forces into our universe. This is all mathematically verifiable using Einstien's (and other's) equations.

[ QUOTE ]
You can interfere particles with effectively no spin -- for example, Helium nuclei in the ground state. This would seem to support orthodox quantum mechanics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come to think of it, when I saw the double slit experiment demonstrated, it was with a laser (photons). Since photons are theoretically waves and particles and do not possess a charge, I wonder how the classical quantum mechanics (CQM) of Dr. Mills would explain their behaviour in the double slit experiements. I don't recall ever reading about a photon with a spin. By the way, the "ground state helium nuclei" sounds exotic. I've never met one that didn't have a charge.

I don't want this to sound like a rationalisation or that I am going to defend Mills to the death. I'm just being devil's advocate, if you will. What if all parts of quantum mechanics don't apply to all particles in all situations? What if Mills discovered a process and then came up with a theory to try and explain it, but doesn't really understand it's workings? What if the earth isn't flat and one universe can really be used to explain everything? I know that's a lot of what if's and I understand the resistance a quantum theory fluent academic might have to the idea to explain the process, but is it possible that the jigsaw puzzle is put together wrong? I personally would like to see Dr. Mills start a power station to produce hydrogen and convert his BMW to hydrogen power and drive it to every sales meeting. I think that would be proof positive of the process working but maybe not the theory behind it.

As a side note, I find the idea behind all this enormously appealing on many levels. Maybe it is that reaction, which is quite human in origin, what sets the alarm bells off for so many critics. Perhaps they have trained themselves that that physical/psychological/emotional reaction is the red flag that proves something is too good to be true. Time will tell. At least the company isn't public. It will probably save Mills from jail if he turns out to be a fake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would being non-public save him from jail? Fraud is fraud. If he's simply wrong it doesnt matter if the company is public or not, and if he knowingly faked data from experiments or prototypes being private is no protection.

[Exsubmariner]

It was an offhanded remark. Don't read too much into it.

Faking data in scientific journals = bad scientist.

Faking data for the purpose of ripping off investors = jail.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can do standard quantum mechanics without worrying about "parallel universes" and such. There exist information theoretic formulations of the measurement process that naturally give probabilities while preserving unitary evolution -- they simply have not been as widely celebrated as the more exotic-sounding "many worlds" interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is correct. I have heard men who are avowed atheists who sound like evangelists when they passionately speak about the double slit experiment and the "parallel universes" it proves exist. As I recall, the latest thinking on parallel universes is that they explain many phenomina that have baffled physicists for a century. For example, why magnetism is stronger than gravity, the strong nuclear force and so on can be explained by other dimensions "leaking" forces into our universe. This is all mathematically verifiable using Einstien's (and other's) equations.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're confusing "parallel universes" with the concept of extra dimensions, which is used e.g. in superstring theory. Parallel universes are just an interpretation -- extra dimensions would be a physical fact of nature, if there was any evidence for them. Neither are needed to do quantum mechanics.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can interfere particles with effectively no spin -- for example, Helium nuclei in the ground state. This would seem to support orthodox quantum mechanics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come to think of it, when I saw the double slit experiment demonstrated, it was with a laser (photons). Since photons are theoretically waves and particles and do not possess a charge, I wonder how the classical quantum mechanics (CQM) of Dr. Mills would explain their behaviour in the double slit experiements. I don't recall ever reading about a photon with a spin. By the way, the "ground state helium nuclei" sounds exotic. I've never met one that didn't have a charge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Photons have spin, but yes, they don't directly interact with one another. Helium nuclei have charge, but they can be treated as spinless particles below a certain energy, since the spins of their protons and neutrons cancel one-another out.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want this to sound like a rationalisation or that I am going to defend Mills to the death. I'm just being devil's advocate, if you will. What if all parts of quantum mechanics don't apply to all particles in all situations?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be a very odd world if different parts of it worked in the context of two completely different and incompatable mechanical languages.

[ QUOTE ]
What if Mills discovered a process and then came up with a theory to try and explain it, but doesn't really understand it's workings? What if the earth isn't flat and one universe can really be used to explain everything? I know that's a lot of what if's and I understand the resistance a quantum theory fluent academic might have to the idea to explain the process, but is it possible that the jigsaw puzzle is put together wrong? I personally would like to see Dr. Mills start a power station to produce hydrogen and convert his BMW to hydrogen power and drive it to every sales meeting. I think that would be proof positive of the process working but maybe not the theory behind it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would pay more attention, too, if he had a car that never needed to be refueled (since hydrino transitions are close to nuclear energy levels).

[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, I find the idea behind all this enormously appealing on many levels. Maybe it is that reaction, which is quite human in origin, what sets the alarm bells off for so many critics. Perhaps they have trained themselves that that physical/psychological/emotional reaction is the red flag that proves something is too good to be true. Time will tell. At least the company isn't public. It will probably save Mills from jail if he turns out to be a fake.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt that he believes it, but you've got to understand that I have literally been approached by people that wanted to pay me to develop their idea of turning lead into gold. They believe it passionately, and have a whole "alternative theory of the universe" to explain how it works (and how modern physics is fundamentally misguided), though nothing ever seems to come of it. Yes, time will tell.