but note that these are observational papers -- mills may well be observing something interesting in plasma physics.
They do *not* include any references to his hydrino theory, which is what everyone is so scornful of. Here's a nice broadside I found against Mills' book:
Hello all,
I have examined Mills's work, as posted on the BLP web site, in some
detail. Since I haven't been to BLP I can't claim any knowledge of
what's going on in his labs. However, I can say with total confidence
that the theoretical aspects of Mills's work are utter rubbish. The
"theory" of hydrinos is completely full of mathematical mistakes, from
start to finish. As a work of theoretical physics, it's totally
meaningless, and it's so badly flawed that there really is no way to
"repair" it.
For those of you who complain that the theory is often dismissed out
of hand by professional scientists who do not give it due
consideration, here's a bit of explanation for why the theory is so
totally incorrect.
1. Mills starts with a standard scalar wave equation. This can't
possibly be a valid equation for the electron in a hydrogen atom.
For starters, the wave equation doesn't incorporate the
electromagnetic force. So it's inconceivable that the solutions to
this equation could represent bound states of an atom which is held
together by the electromagnetic force. (By contrast, the
Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom does include the
electromagnetic force.)
2. Also, the wave equation doesn't contain Planck's constant. Since
we know that the electron's energy levels depend on this physical
constant, it has to appear somewhere in the basic equation. (It
does appear in the Schrodinger equation, of course.) I noticed
that somewhere on the BLP web site Mills refers to his wave
equation as a "Schrodinger-type" equation. This is completely
misleading. He's starting with an equation which can't possibly
have bound-state solutions.
3. How, then, does Mills get his "orbitspheres" to appear to follow
the known energy levels of the hydrogen atom? Simple. He solves
the equation incorrectly. His use of a delta function to solve the
radial component of the wave equation is a bad joke. It's horribly
wrong. The correct solutions are given by spherical Bessel
functions. There is NO way to solve the wave equation with a delta
function in radius, period. This is really basic, textbook stuff
on differential equations. The so-called "solutions" that Mills
gives do not actually solve the wave equation that he uses.
4. The point of all this is: If you start with the wave equation that
Mills uses, and you solve it correctly (no matter what boundary
condition you use), you will NEVER get solutions which look like
bound states in a hydrogen atom. The claim that Mills's theory can
correctly reproduce the known energy levels of hydrogen is
completely without merit. There is no way to get the energy levels
of hydrogen as solutions to an equation that does not include the
electronic charge or Planck's constant. And it is TOTALLY
incorrect to say that delta functions are a solution to the radial
component of the wave equation. It's impossible for a delta
function to be a solution to a differential equation like this,
because the derivative of a delta function is not a meaningful
quantity.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the gross mathematical
and logical errors in Mills's work. I won't go on to list more of
these, but I hope I've made the point that the starting point of the
theory is so horribly flawed that nothing that follows from it could
possibly be correct.
Thus, after careful consideration of the evidence, it's easy to
conclude that there simply is no hydrino theory. The so-called
"theory", as Mills proposes it, is just meaningless. Nobody with any
understanding of quantum mechanics or differential equations could
conceivably make such errors.
This isn't a theory that is even worthy of being tested by experiment.
The "conclusions" and "predictions" of the theory are mathematically
invalid, and they are not even mathematically consistent with the wave
equation that is the starting point of Mills's theory. To say that
the hydrino theory "predicts" anything at all would be completely
untrue. I'd also like to point out that there's no truth to the
statement that Mills's theory "challenges" the big bang, unless you
consider a bunch of math mistakes to be a credible scientific
challenge.
On the subject of peer review: Any referee for a reputable physics
journal would catch these mistakes in a matter of minutes. It's not
just a matter of scientists disagreeing with Mills's predictions or
conclusions. It's that the math leading up to those predictions makes
no sense, so the predictions are meaningless. If you are
wondering why the "scientific establishment" doesn't take Mills
seriously, it's because his work demonstrates a very dismal grasp of
basic concepts of physics and math.
Bottom line: there is no mathematically consistent theory which
predicts the existence of the hydrino. Mills's theory does not
correctly predict anything whatsoever. There is no theoretical reason
to believe that there is any such thing as a hydrino.
http://www.phact.org/e/blp.htmThat, and it violates the uncertainty principle.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(72 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
