> Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation. I cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a fraction, and > > you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many waves, possibly infinite. This violates the exclusion principle, since each orbital can only have one spin of each electron.
Mills theory in general is very interesting and a big part of it is correct math because no one is able to pinpoint any detailed errors like on eq. X there is a strange factor etc (and I checked the g-factor calculation and have asked Mills to publish that in a journal to underline arguments like this in a better way). In stead of high quality critique we get blatherings about crackpot theory an such. Be a good boy and please pinpoint the error in e.g. the derivation of the g-factor else I would take Mills theory to be a very interesting theory. Of cause the hydrinos are a solution that seams strange and could be an artefact of the theory without it being crackpot or wrong. Math is like that, it is not reality but a model of it. I agree that we are men/women enough to discuss the issue here on vortex but I don't follow your argument above 1) standing waves as in mills theory are not the same as time independent, they are recurrent e.g. the same pattern repeat itself. Consider separating the time in the schrödinger equation, aprox, dphi/dT = H phi, and the acompanion eigenvalue proble e.g. dphi/dt = i k phi in quantum mechanics, that has A(r) exp(i k t) as a solution this is the normal ground state and the wave equation is recurrent and not time independent. The probability density however is time independent. So also on QM the standing waves are recurrent and not time independent. 2) I can be wrong but I look on the hydrino has a photon moving in a wave so that if you look at it at a plane it does a half wavelength at one turn and complete the wavelength (for H(1/2)) in the second. As you say in two dimensions this would cause havoc, but in 3D the photon may also turn in the third dimensions on the sphere to avoid havoc. Therefore I would not turn down hydrinos based on your argument. If you can detail yourself I could change my opinion though. Also note that the bending in 3d makes these solutions very different from the normal solutions typically found and therefore I am a bit unsure that QED and QM can handle hydrinos correctly. Also to me that explains that you cannot easily change the states just by exchanging photons, something different is needed and that could be the reason that we have water on earth and that it hasen't burned into dark matter. For the octupole moment I would ask Mills though, it is too difficult for me to analyze. Cheers
