Only a fraction (appropriately) of vorticians will find this of interest... but hey, here's to fractional insight!
As a reference, here is a provocative piece from holoscience: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6bcdajsb You can make up your own mind about its "hollowness." For now, I am merely trying to pin down the originator of the concept of the "fractional ground state". Some of the problem relates to semantics. For quite some time "inverse" ground states have been suggested. But with anything quantum, we are never sure precisely what this means - that is, if it does not intrinsically deny "quantumness" by its nature. The "inverse" of anything is generally the "opposite," or the "flip-side". It can be factional or not. In math - "inverse" is used in several distinct ways. There is an additive inverse of a value x, which is –x; the multiplicative inverse of x is 1/x (x^-1) and there is an inverse function which "reverses" the action of a given function: f–1(f(x)) = x. Then there is the gray area of fractions which are >1 but never integers. The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is a physical phenomenon in which charge is found which is not a complete integer of the elementary charge. Catch-22: it is often assumed by the Grand Poobahs of fizzix to be greater than one, and never less than one. Go figure. Of course, "electron charge" and "electron orbital" are different entities, and a fractional orbital is not necessarily fractionally charged (at least this is not the claim of the anti-poobah: R. Mills). Not too long ago, the same "experts" who today want you to accept that a fractional, or inverse, of the Bohr orbital is not possible as a stable entity, wanted you to believe that all charge came in whole integers. They had to eat crow on that one, to some extent, but they could possibly be closer to correct if fractional electron charge is always >1, or so they think. (there is a strained rationale in there somewhere).... “Why is it that experts can sometimes be so entirely wrong, and yet so emphatic in their convictions? My own belief is that some of the reason lies in the success of "principles of impotence," particularly in modern physics. Somehow it seems part of the scientific approach to postulate impotence.” —R V Jones, The Scientific Intelligencer Did Bohr and those who followed him simply adopt the “principle of impotence” in defining the “ground state” of the hydrogen atom? If so, it is no basis for emphatic denial of Randell Mills’ work. This is the point of the aforementioned holoscience piece. Nowadays the mainstream gives lip-service to FQHE, having awarded a Nobel for the discovery a few years back... but only after the evidence was overwhelming - and was essentially thrust "into their collective faces." Fractional charge has been a dividing line in physics between the mainstream and the fringe since Millikan's shenanigans. Millikan was the former incarnation of Bob Park, yet with a functioning brain. Now the same revolution (new paradigm) in quantum fractional quantum ground states - is poised to happen with "fractional" or "shrunken" hydrogen. In fact, it could even be the inverse of hydrogen in an extra-dimensional context. But how long before the proof be as obvious and forthcoming as with FQHE? Is there a possible relationship between fractional charge and fractional orbital, and if so - could even RM the boy-genius have missed some of it? Fractionally yours, Jones Master of the Buckhounds, Lord Low Auditor, Groom of the Back Stairs, and Fractional Chief of Nothing Else ;-)
