Yes, I know about this, but this is only for the deep state, and also this state seam to be attributed to the use of essentially the wave operator that in part is included in klein gordon and mills theory. I have also seen papers that have looked at what happens when the proton is model as a non point source term. It then looks like these solutions dissapear. So I'm still a bit unsure that normal QED and klein gordon eqation really are able to model the hydrinos (if they exists)
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Should have added this. > > In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one > can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which > we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard > theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen > as > superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is > concerned - as is his rejection of QM. > > IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square > integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s > equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep > hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe > it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion. > > BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of > the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, > with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between > the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. > > The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV > photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of > Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior > understanding is the metastate permitting both. > > From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe > entangelment ... > > Just to note, I have a few issues with > Mills > CQM. > 1. Transients seam to not be covered by the > theory, only the eigen states > 2. I don't know how you do combinations of > eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if > Mills > can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect > that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something > about entanglement. No? what do you think? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The details are made intentionally vague. I think that the > ironic thing about Mills rejection of QM, in place of what he wants us to > believe is “classical” – but looks a lot like paraphrasing, is that > eigenstates and eigenvectors and eigenvalues and QM matrix math seem to be > capable of explaining the hydrino state and orbitsphere as well as what he > proposes. As a non-expert but curious observer, I can see how something > like > shear mapping of a 2D OS is at least as intuitive as the Mills version. My > impression is that RM picked up a little QM in the nineties, and was > possibly competent in the field 20 years ago - but thereafter became too > busy to keep up with progress, as he was chasing investment dollars. This > emphasis on Aspect is the perfect example of this lack of competence. QED. > > Of course, that same lack of QM expertise could be said > about most of the regular posters on this forum (myself for sure – but > there > could be a lurker or two who is highly qualified, perhaps yourself) but the > difference is that we did not take in $120 million over the years, based on > a series of failed promises for a working device – which device was firmly > based on a theory which essentially wants to reject QM, but ends up looking > like a poor imitation. > > >
