Quantum mechanics applies to fundamental particles. A special case of QM applies to hydrinos in the same why that a special case of QM applies to cooper pairs of electrons, CQM is analogous to super conductor theory. Care in thinking must be applied to applying this sort of theory. Mis-application of theory when such a hierarchy of theory exists is easy to do.
Mills would do better is he says that CQM is a special case of QM in the same why that Newtonian physics is a special case of general relativity. Mills is wrong to reject QM whole cloth as invalid to be replaced by CQM. In this he has a problem in the way he thinks. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < [email protected]> wrote: > The hydrino is a variant of the hydrogen atom. It is never claimed by > Mills to be a fundamental particle. Hence it needs so low energy so that > you can maintain the bound > You can't find it using collisions of high energy, which is where most > bucks these days is targeted at. If you knock the hydrino you will get a > proton and an electron. So to find > a antihydrino you need to cool down a produced anti proton and an anti > electron and reach a hydrino state, which you need some chemical reaction > to achieve because the > cool down system would go to the normal anti hydrogen su you need to > create a bunch of anti compounds and do chemistry with them. Good luck with > that. > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The lack of proof that anti-hydrinos exist tells me that the hydrino is >> not a fundamental particle but a quasi-particle produced under the >> interactions of other multiple electrons. This is also true for cooper >> pairs of electrons. A fundamental particle always has an anti-particle. >> This hydrino quasi-particle is produced under special multiple electron >> interactions and is also not a fundamental particle. Hydrinos are a special >> case produced in condensed matter. They are not produced as virtual >> particles because they have no associated anti-particle. >> >> LENR exists in a special state of condensed matter and energy where >> multiple interactions among electrons acting in a special way exists. The >> same is true for hydrinos, they are quasi-particles, a special state of >> matter like the SPPs, not fundimental. >> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:19 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello Stefan >>> >>> I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost >>> nobody >>> is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I presented Mills theory a few >>> years ago to >>> a Nobel price winner in the Netherlands. He got angry. >>> >>> Somehow Quantum Physics took the wrong way. It was really at the start >>> of the first formula >>> to describe the atom with the Quantum theory where they went wrong. >>> They couldnt explain the stability of the atom in a classic way and >>> Bohr postulated >>> the stability of the atom. Mills found the solution to that problem. He >>> proposed that the electron is a shell of current which >>> is flowing in such a way that there are solutions to the Maxwell >>> equations who correspond to the stable >>> quantum levels of the electron in the hydrogen atom. What is more he >>> found that with his model fractional quantum levels >>> where also possible. He found these stable fractional quantum levels in >>> his experiments, when he followed his theory >>> that predicted that the groundstate of a hydrogen atom can be >>> destablized by using catalyst which can take away n x 27.2 eV >>> from atom through collision. >>> >>> Peter van Noorden >>> >>> *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 7:20 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:QM rant >>> >>> I would like to see a grants and target institution targeted to answer >>> your questions. Also it is good to remember that the standard model was >>> fitted to high energy >>> particle data, typically advanced theories degenerates at limits to a >>> limited set of possible solutions, the standard model QED etc could very >>> well be spot on at those >>> high limits. Also you don't get to see hydrinos at thise limits so it >>> is unclear if it is wise to try what your suggest, jMills does take care to >>> try explain quarks, electorns >>> etc as well in his book to hint on the nature of these particles. I >>> can't judge those efforts, but for sure it is not certain that everything >>> that needs to be developed have been done so >>> using his ideas as a base. But if he does not have developed something >>> there are possible a permutation of ideas to try ranging from simple >>> modifications to what >>> Mills is doing to actually add further terms and additions to maxwells >>> equations. Again we need to put manwork and grants into this to get >>> anywhere. >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I would like to see Mills rewrite the dirac equations for the >>>> electron to reflect his hydrino theory. This includes the experimental >>>> verification of a fractionally charged positron. There should be gamma rays >>>> produced to account for hydrino anti-hydrino annihilation. How does the >>>> anti-hydrino interact with the electron? What neutrino is produced when a >>>> hydrino is emitted in beta decay? There are 101 other permutations and >>>> combinations of interactions that could be experimentally demonstrated >>>> involving the hydrino as a fundamental elementary particle. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Orionworks, >>>>> >>>>> Yes experiments is all good, i'm more concerned why we don't get any >>>>> replication / debunks and from more independent sources. Is'n there >>>>> enough to verify the evidences? Also what if it's too difficult to >>>>> create hydrinos, and Mills theory would be better suited to explain for >>>>> example >>>>> cold fusion or high temperature super conductors. Mills theory can >>>>> with great certainty help humanity even if the hydrino effort fails. Why >>>>> can't I >>>>> hire engineers who know how to model atoms like Mills is doing, are we >>>>> servicing our society as well as we should via our institutions or are the >>>>> folks there cooked into their theory that is wrong. I think that >>>>> there is huge base of prediction of experiments that Mills does so already >>>>> experiments have triumphed via the well fit between what we know about >>>>> atoms and what his theory does with almost no assumptions at all. >>>>> Our current knowledge may very be faulty and a retake on the whole >>>>> fundamentals of nature might be needed, not seeing this and not feeling >>>>> excited about this opportunity, is amazing. >>>>> >>>>> Have Fun >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Stefan, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please correct me if I am mistaken but I assume you are the same >>>>>> "stefan" who has posted similar complaints out at the SCP discussion >>>>>> group. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As has frequently been stated out in the Vort Collective... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Experimental evidence always trumps theory. * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I must confess the fact that I personally find Mills' CQM >>>>>> interesting, perhaps even tantalizing, see: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ...where I wrote a personal report on Dr. Mills' audacious CQM >>>>>> theory. I need to stress the fact that this is a NON-SCIENTIIC report & >>>>>> analysis. It is my personal take on an upstart brave new theory which >>>>>> seems >>>>>> to have a lot going for it. I tried to remain as objective as I could >>>>>> concerning a highly controversial theory for which I have insufficient >>>>>> mathematical expertise to either confirm or disprove. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me change gears here. To be honest I am getting tired listening >>>>>> to yet another argument that Mills' CQM theory is better than QM. Such >>>>>> arguments will resolve nothing. The solution is both paradoxically simple >>>>>> while admittedly being technologically challenging. BLP needs to cobble >>>>>> together an experimental prototype which definitively verifies the fact >>>>>> that the technology is capable of self-running while generating lots of >>>>>> excess electricity. I have repeatedly suggested BLP demonstrate an >>>>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype as a precursor to creating a commercial >>>>>> prototype. I >>>>>> have done so because I am under the opinion that assembling the first >>>>>> commercial system may still be many years off into the future. BLP >>>>>> bravely >>>>>> implies that a commercial system is just around the corner... but I don't >>>>>> believe it. Nevertheless, I would love to be proven wrong on this point. >>>>>> But until I'm proven wrong, I have to continue to rely on my own gut >>>>>> instincts based on my own 36 years of personal experience in the software >>>>>> industry. In my experience developing brand new software (and hardware), >>>>>> particularly a new product that has never developed before tends to >>>>>> take a >>>>>> lot longer than originally anticipated. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> See my personal posts: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4330 >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4345 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So far, Dr. Mills as repeatedly ignored the primary concerns >>>>>> expressed in my above posts. He has said nothing about the possibility of >>>>>> assembling a more definitive experimental prototype within BLPs' lab >>>>>> walls. >>>>>> IMO, he seems to be evading the question. Mills has instead deflected >>>>>> conversation towards the fact that BLP continues to accumulate >>>>>> independent >>>>>> scientific reports that appear to verify various aspects of his CQM >>>>>> theory. >>>>>> All the peanut gallery knows at the moment is the fact that BLP has >>>>>> contracted with outside engineering firms to assemble the first >>>>>> commercial >>>>>> system. The first delivery was supposed to have occurred in December of >>>>>> last year. That, of course, never happened. We have yet to hear when a >>>>>> new >>>>>> revised delivery date is to be expected. We have, in fact, no idea. That >>>>>> is >>>>>> another reason why I tend to think the actual delivery date for a real >>>>>> commercial system is likely to be years, not months off into the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me end by saying I don't fault BLPs' efforts. I have no reason to >>>>>> think BLP or Mills are acting in less honorable ways. My primary concern >>>>>> is >>>>>> that, IMHO, if BLP wants to be taken more seriously, sooner rather than >>>>>> later, then I suggest the company cobble together an experimental >>>>>> prototype >>>>>> that self-runs and produces excess electricity ASAP. The prototype does >>>>>> not >>>>>> have to run long. Just long enough to prove their point. I say this >>>>>> because >>>>>> I am under the impression that the anticipated commercial system is >>>>>> probably going to take a lot longer than BLP had originally >>>>>> anticipated... >>>>>> perhaps as long as several more years. I say this because I suspect that >>>>>> if >>>>>> BLP attempted to cobble together nothing more deceptively simple as just >>>>>> an >>>>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype (a prototype not meant for commercial >>>>>> applications) >>>>>> such attempts will also likely to turn out to be an equally formidable >>>>>> challenge. In fact I suspect the challenge is precisely why Mills has not >>>>>> directly replied to my suggestion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would nevertheless be thrilled to be proven wrong on these last >>>>>> points. ...and perhaps Mills doesn't care to be taken more seriously >>>>>> sooner >>>>>> rather than later. Focus on developing the commercial system, and be >>>>>> damned >>>>>> with assembling another intermediate experimental demo. If BLP's >>>>>> financial >>>>>> backers remain in the loop... if they remain satisfied with the progress >>>>>> they are seeing, running a more stealthy operation is a perfectly >>>>>> legitimate strategy. Granted it's a bummer for the rest of us who reside >>>>>> in >>>>>> the peanut gallery, but it's not my call. ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Steven Vincent Johnson >>>>>> >>>>>> svjart.orionworks.com >>>>>> >>>>>> zazzle.com/orionworks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
