I, like you would greatly appreciate a theory that is more classical and deterministic. But, there is a great deal of human intellect and energy involved in quantum theory and we must be careful before it can be abandoned. It is our task to remain skeptical of a new theory and subject it to proper scrutiny. For this reason I am asking questions that I assume will have direct answers. I am confident that there are many other vorts that share my concerns.
If the theory is valid, it will stand up to any test that we can subject it to. Mills should appreciate the opportunity that is before him to prove his assertions. One question comes up immediately from what you have just written about the fine structure constant. Why does the electron in that particular orbitsphere travel at the speed of light without any apparent increase of mass? I would anticipate that the momentum or energy calculations would be seriously impacted once that speed is approached. Special Relativity appears to work well in every case that I have analyzed and I wonder how it comes into play with Mills theory? I guess I would like to understand how the 1/137 orbitsphere is affected by special relativity considerations? I suspect that the number would be modified to something like 1/135 for example. Any comment? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Driscoll <jef...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 11:00 pm Subject: [Vo]:Mills's theory I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of the atom. ============================================== For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man” In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). The energy equations are: 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite number of "great circles" (as described by Mills) on the surface of a sphere having radius R. 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a sphere having radius R. 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found in physics textbooks. The energy equations are related to Mills's "Pair Production" (where a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the electron would be impossible in my view. Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different postulates. 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not a function of principal quantum number). 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable orbits. You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: http://zhydrogen.com Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton. You can see more detail in Mills's book, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) which is streamed here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/
