Bill wrote:Thanks Q for your reply. I apologize for the delay, but I have been having some serious conversations with some trout!
Well I trust you won the 'conversations' there.
You said, “Not happy initially that a number of equation entities were never defined.” The pdf was generated because the entire GUTCP is kilo-pages long and extraordinarily challenging to understand.
A lot of his equations are not even numbered, and symbols are introduced at times without any explanation, or not until much later.
Re your p 107/108 comments, you said, “See if you can guess…”
I am extraordinarily poor at guessing what someone that I do not know *might* be considering to be erroneous. If you would like to provide a clear, concise explanation of the perceived error, I’ll be happy to tackle it – alone or in concert with associates on the “Society For Classical Physics” group.
It's quite simple. The lhs figure on p107 purports to show the field configuration of a photon 'in it's own rest frame'. Long known to be an impossibility given the zero rest energy status of a photon. Unless you dispute E = hf, one has E & f = 0, hence infinite 'wavelength' and zero field energy densities, thus nonexistent. The paradox is resolved by dropping any meaningful notion of a photon 'rest frame', something Randall is evidently ignorant of. After 20 yrs 'perfecting' his theory, such a basic fact should have been picked up along the way - like at the very start.
One can get a feel for it by considering the ultra-relativistic limit for Lorentz transformation of length into the rest frame of a massive (i.e. non-zero rest mass) object that is both ultra relativistic and nominally 'round' in the lab frame.
You said, “Also, explanation for double slit pattern - pp123-124, is hardly unique to him…” I am not aware of any such “uniqueness” claim, in fact, I some years ago on th the old EM forum, I noted the striking resemblance between the “un-explainable” double slit patterns and those patterns that one encounters in antenna design (my passion) when an antenna is excited by RF and another, similar-but-unexcited antenna is present.
Sure, sympathetic excitation in Yagi-Yuda etc. parasitic element designs work along those lines. But double-slit interference pattern is a universal feature applying not just to electrons but photons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, as many experiments have confirmed. All based on the one de Broglie wavelength relation λ = h/p :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... brog2.htmlNot possible to understand in a classical context.
You *have* read Chapter 8, right? This explains the concept in (almost) excruciating detail. Mills also addresses some aspects on “un-charged” double slit performance.
Re neutrons, it is not obvious (to me) how one goes about accelerating a neutron without imparting *some kind* of non-kinetic energy to it.
Such as? Neutrons carry an intrinsic spin of 1/2 along with all other Fermions, which will precess if immersed in a B field, but that's it.
Also, unless the “neutron gun” is incredibly accurate, some of the neutrons *will* smash into the slit edges. And that action will transform some of the neutrons into charged particles with similar mass. Also, the energy of impact of neutrons will set up slit fields that will interact with the now-charged neutron “residue” resulting in patterns associated with the Fourier transform of the slit pattern.
Put another way, in a double-slit experiment involving neutrons, how do we *know* that the items hitting the target on the far side of the slit are *still* neutrons and not charged heavy particles?
This article provides a nice reference and summary of how:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... f-neutronsOne last note: You suggest that Mills “stumbled” across a whole new concept. The initial concept was begun when Randy became disgusted with the imprecise nature of QM. He (IMO correctly) perceived that the nonsense of QM came about because of an inaccurate model of the electron. Basically, he noted that *all* previous electron models either had basic flaws causing them to “blow up” (as discussed by Jackson in Ch 17.4) or “radiate away.”
He developed a model that is stable as both a free and an orbiting item. Perfecting this took 20+ years.
Mill's basic idea may be original, but he has been criticized for plagiarism; see Reference 51 here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_PowerI was initially open minded about Mill's hydrino model, especially given the experimental claims, but dropped interest once certain glaring errors in his theory became apparent. Ask yourself what kind of stupendous energy densities and pressures are implied in e.g. his hydrogen atom electron shell, which he claims has a thickness of 1 Planck length! Maybe ask him to explain what magical forces of a necessarily non-EM nature hold such together against the huge tendency to explode.
Further, I doubt very much such orbitsphere models are stable against the slightest perturbation, even on a vastly weaker magnetic energy interaction basis.
Also dimly recall being aghast at his 'stability analysis' for free electron - as I recall the 'balance' between electrostatic, magnetic, and centrifugal forces was impossible as proposed there.
Sorry to rain on your parade Bill, but much as QM certainly has it's weird aspects, RM is not the long-sought light-bearing saviour here.
[quote="Bill"]Thanks Q for your reply. I apologize for the delay, but I have been having some serious conversations with some trout![/quote]
Well I trust you won the 'conversations' there. :D
[quote]You said, “Not happy initially that a number of equation entities were never defined.” The pdf was generated because the entire GUTCP is kilo-pages long and extraordinarily challenging to understand.[/quote]
A lot of his equations are not even numbered, and symbols are introduced at times without any explanation, or not until much later.
[quote]Re your p 107/108 comments, you said, “See if you can guess…”
I am extraordinarily poor at guessing what someone that I do not know *might* be considering to be erroneous. If you would like to provide a clear, concise explanation of the perceived error, I’ll be happy to tackle it – alone or in concert with associates on the “Society For Classical Physics” group.[/quote]
It's quite simple. The lhs figure on p107 purports to show the field configuration of a photon 'in it's own rest frame'. Long known to be an impossibility given the zero rest energy status of a photon. Unless you dispute E = hf, one has E & f = 0, hence infinite 'wavelength' and zero field energy densities, thus nonexistent. The paradox is resolved by dropping any meaningful notion of a photon 'rest frame', something Randall is evidently ignorant of. After 20 yrs 'perfecting' his theory, such a basic fact should have been picked up along the way - like at the very start.
One can get a feel for it by considering the ultra-relativistic limit for Lorentz transformation of length into the rest frame of a massive (i.e. non-zero rest mass) object that is both ultra relativistic and nominally 'round' in the lab frame.
[quote]You said, “Also, explanation for double slit pattern - pp123-124, is hardly unique to him…” I am not aware of any such “uniqueness” claim, in fact, I some years ago on th the old EM forum, I noted the striking resemblance between the “un-explainable” double slit patterns and those patterns that one encounters in antenna design (my passion) when an antenna is excited by RF and another, similar-but-unexcited antenna is present.[/quote]
Sure, sympathetic excitation in Yagi-Yuda etc. parasitic element designs work along those lines. But double-slit interference pattern is a universal feature applying not just to electrons but photons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, as many experiments have confirmed. All based on the one de Broglie wavelength relation λ = h/p :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html
Not possible to understand in a classical context.
[quote]You *have* read Chapter 8, right? This explains the concept in (almost) excruciating detail. Mills also addresses some aspects on “un-charged” double slit performance.
Re neutrons, it is not obvious (to me) how one goes about accelerating a neutron without imparting *some kind* of non-kinetic energy to it.[/quote]
Such as? Neutrons carry an intrinsic spin of 1/2 along with all other Fermions, which will precess if immersed in a B field, but that's it.
[quote]Also, unless the “neutron gun” is incredibly accurate, some of the neutrons *will* smash into the slit edges. And that action will transform some of the neutrons into charged particles with similar mass. Also, the energy of impact of neutrons will set up slit fields that will interact with the now-charged neutron “residue” resulting in patterns associated with the Fourier transform of the slit pattern.
Put another way, in a double-slit experiment involving neutrons, how do we *know* that the items hitting the target on the far side of the slit are *still* neutrons and not charged heavy particles?[/quote]
This article provides a nice reference and summary of how: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131714/experiment-demonstrating-interference-patterns-of-neutrons
[quote]One last note: You suggest that Mills “stumbled” across a whole new concept. The initial concept was begun when Randy became disgusted with the imprecise nature of QM. He (IMO correctly) perceived that the nonsense of QM came about because of an inaccurate model of the electron. Basically, he noted that *all* previous electron models either had basic flaws causing them to “blow up” (as discussed by Jackson in Ch 17.4) or “radiate away.”
He developed a model that is stable as both a free and an orbiting item. Perfecting this took 20+ years.[/quote]
Mill's basic idea may be original, but he has been criticized for plagiarism; see Reference 51 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power
I was initially open minded about Mill's hydrino model, especially given the experimental claims, but dropped interest once certain glaring errors in his theory became apparent. Ask yourself what kind of stupendous energy densities and pressures are implied in e.g. his hydrogen atom electron shell, which he claims has a thickness of 1 Planck length! Maybe ask him to explain what magical forces of a necessarily non-EM nature hold such together against the huge tendency to explode.
Further, I doubt very much such orbitsphere models are stable against the slightest perturbation, even on a vastly weaker magnetic energy interaction basis.
Also dimly recall being aghast at his 'stability analysis' for free electron - as I recall the 'balance' between electrostatic, magnetic, and centrifugal forces was impossible as proposed there.
Sorry to rain on your parade Bill, but much as QM certainly has it's weird aspects, RM is not the long-sought light-bearing saviour here.
