You have oftentimes citied imagination as unproductive in the formulation of theory.
I might rightfully apply the method that Mills uses to interpret the experimental basis of the hydrino theory as imagination. QM says it’s impossible to know what those electrons are actually doing to produce the experimental results Mills sites because of inherent uncertainty in the behavior of electrons. Any sort of resonance phenomena might be producing those experimental hydrino results acting under any sort of chemical topology. How does Mills KNOW that hydrinos are the root cause of those spectral results and not Fano interference at work in the gap of a nanoparticle dimer. On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Axil, QM is only a tool. It is not a law. It is a tool used to describe > behavior. Yes, many aspects of chemistry can be described using QM. On the > other hand, the concept that energy states have a characteristic energy, > i.e. quanta, is a law of nature. > > The hydrino is a concept put forth by Mills. The idea has experimental > support although the mathematical description Milsl uses leaves a lot of > questions. He does not claim to use QM. Therefore, your conclusion makes > no sense. > > Ed > > On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > The rules of the game > > *No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter > how much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.* > > Is QM considered a chemical rule? > > I found a reference that purports to prove hydrinos are incompatible with > quantum mechanics. > > Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum > mechanics > > http://128.84.158.119/pdf/0704.0631 > > If we accept one, we have to reject the other? > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Let's start from a different viewpoint. I would like to find out from >> Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to my approach. >> I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches, which might be >> combined, and where they are different and might need to be modified. >> >> I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form in >> PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion because no >> conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the proposed theories >> identifies some kind of change, but each one is different. The proposed >> structure is given different names and different properties, but the goal >> is the same. We are all trying to solve the same problem by proposing >> different mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations >> within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can live with. >> >> No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST follow >> known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a normal >> chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical structure. No idea >> can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how much QM >> is applied or how complex the mathematical justification. No idea will be >> accepted if it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. Can we >> agree on this basic requirement?? >> >> I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because >> creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice itself >> without violating these rules, which I have explained previously. This >> conclusion is important and BASIC to understanding LENR. People have to >> stop trying to fit their structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as >> the location is the major flaw in the theories. This requirement MUST be >> resolved because no agreement exists at the present time. >> >> Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to this >> requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits this >> requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons, which other >> people have called a cluster. I simply add more details about how this >> structure can be created based on conventional concepts. Most other models >> ignore the formation process. >> >> Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can be >> promoted to the p level. This promotion cannot occur in the normal lattice >> because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On the other >> hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state electron to the p >> state as a result of the intense negative charge on the walls of the crack. >> This should be easy to justify using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom >> explore. >> >> This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string. At >> this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described. The only >> novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of the crack to >> promote the election to the next quantum level. Nevertheless, the >> structure contains all the features required to start the mass-energy >> conversion, i.e. many hydrons coupled together by electrons and a physical >> form that can resonate. The only question remaining, Is this structure >> sufficient to initiate mass-energy conversion? >> >> The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the mechanism >> for the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of the structures >> has flaws and limitations we each can identify in the other models, but not >> perhaps not in our own. Can we agree that the structure most likely to be >> correct and certainly the most useful one will explain the greatest number >> of observations? Also, no proposed structure can be tested unless the >> conditions causing its formation can be created in real materials. Purely >> mathematical models applied to ideal materials, I suggest, can be rejected >> immediately. >> >> Can we discuss and agree about any of these conclusions? >> >> Ed >> >> >> > >
