Jones, Do you have a reference for Naudts' paper? It would be interesting to get Yeong Kim's take on this. Some time ago, he published a paper refuting the existence of any stable f/H state.
Eigenvectors, in a linear system, are a complete basis for expansion/description of any driven solution (the general solution) - even a transient one. However, I thought one of the precepts of these f/H states was that we are now entering into a relativistic framework - the smaller orbital has increasing electron velocity, making the electron effectively more massive. This is where Dirac's equation comes in, handling the special relativistic aspects of the solution. However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be used in linear combination to form the general solution. General solutions to nonlinear systems are hard. As I understand it, this is where solitons emerge in the solution set. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Should have added this. > > In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one > can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which > we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard > theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen > as > superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is > concerned - as is his rejection of QM. > > IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square > integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s > equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep > hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe > it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion. > > BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of > the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, > with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between > the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. > > The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV > photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of > Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior > understanding is the metastate permitting both. > > From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe > entangelment ... > > Just to note, I have a few issues with > Mills > CQM. > 1. Transients seam to not be covered by the > theory, only the eigen states > 2. I don't know how you do combinations of > eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if > Mills > can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect > that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something > about entanglement. No? what do you think? >
