Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same the same thing. It's a mystery, Mills did research a lot of how QM has been used and claim to found serious iissues. But I'm not too sure that they are incomplete either, there are a bunch of math theorems that states that some propoerties is invariaint even if you have a vast different set of geometries, we maybe see something similar here that can cook the two together, maybe not. On the other hand I tend to be less worried about the thin orbit sphere there might be physical processes that can create those.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!! >> > > I have no reason to doubt that the rebuttal came from Blacklight Power. > My guess is that an employee or fan wrote it up, and Mills signed off on > it, or allowed his name to be placed on it. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. > Perhaps Mills talks about himself in the third person. > > If you does not trust the rebutal, let me than explain what the problem >> with rathkes paper is. >> > > I admit upfront that I do not have the domain knowledge to form more than > an impressionistic opinion of Mills's work. My objections are purely > aesthetic. He wants to turn QM inside out, but he does not seem to want to > take on the burden of relating his work to existing practice (let's set > aside the question of theory for the moment). Existing practice in solid > state physics proceeds from the assumption that electron orbitals are > three-dimensional and are often not not spherical shells. Non-spherical > electron orbits overlap, and the electron density can be modeled as a > function of time and location within the solid, and the DFTs tell you > something about things like band gaps in semiconductors. Mills postulates > an infinitely thin, spherical orbitsphere for the hydrogen atom [1]. Now > put that in your pipe and smoke it. > > Do we assume an orbitsphere for hydrogen atoms, and in some cases > three-dimensional, non-spherical orbits in more complex atoms? This > pedagogical aid suggests that we should assume only orbitspheres [2]. But > in the following diagram of a benzene molecule, six p-orbitals are shown > and are presumed to affect the chemical behavior of the molecule [3]. > Someone should go tell the man or woman who made this diagram that they're > living in error. > > You have proposed that what Mills is saying is dual with what the solid > state physicists are saying. The two descriptions do not sound dual; they > sound mutually incompatible. This is one problem I have identified, and > for which I am proud, given that I do not have the domain knowledge to > comment on the specifics of the mathematics that are used. Simple, common > sense can go pretty far, it turns out. > > Eric > > > [1] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Orbitsphere-Poster-medium.png > [2] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Periodic-Table-Poster-medium.png > [3] > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Benzene_Orbitals.svg/2000px-Benzene_Orbitals.svg.png > >
