The thing is, if you look at Mills theory it tries to model not QED but all different particles and forces just by setting up photons and charge distributions. Id do look like QED and hydrinos does not match, the hydrinos start to get good exposure as a valid theory, QED have been verified a lot and does produce many very very accurate prediction. And the hydrino captured photon field are very different from the old known ones, so different that you can't get from the normal ground state to a hydrino state by an exchange of photons You need a catalysts and whatnot to be able to produce them and trigger the energy release. One solution could be that there exists another QM theory for hydrinos only, they could simply be a new particle in QM speak or perhaps utilzing some new force or whatnot. Thats it and especially when we don't have a good understanding of the link between them, we just cannot know for sure. Knowing how this link works explicitly could help augment Mills theory to incorporate transient behavior as well, his theory seams to be a theory of standing waves.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > there is critiques stemming from not believing in hydrinos >> because the feel they must give up on QM, which perhaps is not true. >> > > Perhaps hydrinos and QM are not incompatible; for example, maybe they're > dual, as you have suggested previously. If so, could you help me to > understand where the "prediction" of a broadband spectrum comes from? This > is the explanation as I have seen in promotional literature: as the > electron goes to deeper redundant levels, first it yields a kick to the > Mills catalyst via Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET), and then it > "spirals down," giving off broadband emission. QED says that electrons > radiate emissions in sharp peaks as they relax (or excite) from one > quantized energy level to another. In effect, they tunnel from one level > to another, and the *single* photon that is given off has an energy that > is the delta of the two levels. In QED, there is an explicit understanding > that there is no classical spiraling down. The spectra bear this out, as > there are lines for the hydrogen atom at the non-redundant levels rather > than broadband emissions. Broadband emissions suggest multiple photons, or > another particle that is involved, or something else I haven't been > acquainted with. > > My questions: > > - Is QED's claim about sharp lines and instantaneous transitions wrong > for the non-redundant electron levels? > - If it is not wrong, why are there sharp lines for the non-redundant > levels and then broadband emissions for the redundant levels? Where does > the discontinuity arise from? > > This kind of detail may seem like a trifling point to worry about; but > it's actually very important. People have spent their whole lives looking > at this type of question. One should not just wave it away. > > Eric > >
