Can QM explain these results?

[Bill]

In his later years, Einstein was asked his thoughts about the huge numbers of short-lived heavy particles, kaons, pions, quarks, mesons, etc. found using high-energy accelerators and enormous amounts of time and money. These physicists thought they were finding important basic matter. The interviewers wanted to know what Einstein thought of their work.

Einstein was a careful thinker and not given to theatrics so he was very serious when he replied, “I would just like to know what an electron is.”

During the early investigations of Atomic and Sub-Atomic physics, it initially appeared that these miniature worlds might mimic the celestial one. A molecule’s core might be ringed with miniature satellite-like elements – electrons.

Unfortunately, all the planetary models fell apart for numerous reasons. And physics ground to a semi-standstill, since no one had a complete understanding of the single most important component: the electron.

The only model that seemed to “fit” -- for the Hydrogen Atom, and, less-so for anything else -- was a model based on Schroedinger’s Wave Equation.

But even though Schroedinger - himself ridiculed the idea through his famous Schroedinger’s Cat anomaly, this model seemed to be the “only game in town.”

And Quantum Mechanics (QM) was born.

However, with QM -- just like with Ptolemaic models of the universe -- it was impossible to obtain correct calculations unless empirically derived (and hence non-physical) “parameters” were added to the equations. In my last Physical Research position, at EiMac, we called those: “fudge factors,”

At last count, there are some 20+ non-physical parameters that must be applied in order for calculations to match measured data.

And this severely limits the predictive capabilities of QM

Clearly, QM is not a complete model of the Atomic/Sub-Atomic world.

That unhappy situation has changed. And that is because of the well-established principle that
Experimental Data Trumps Theory.

In simple terms, this means that, if measured (and verified) Experimental results are in conflict, and especially dramatic conflict, with results explained by the current theory, then the current theory must be either discarded or modified.

So… please examine the information found at this address:

http://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/

and this one :

http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-videol/

At these locations, you will find videos showing dramatic amounts of power being produced by a catalytic process that transforms H2O – plain water – into huge amounts of radiant energy. The only other by-product is hydrinos.

You will also find links here: http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/ to numerous peer-reviewed experiments that also (in less dramatic fashion) yield energy outputs that are not consistent with *any* conventional chemical reactions.

None of these results are even remotely consistent with QM. All of these are predicted as consequences Of Dr. Randell Mills’ model of the electron.

So… for those that have accepted QM as a valid theory, please comment on any or all of the following:

1. Identify the experimental data that you believe to be in error and refute it using whatever empirical evidence you choose to present.

2. Identify any QM explanations for the excess power output of *any* (but especially the "Bright Light" plasma results) of the power generation experiments contained at this site.

3. Identify any QM explanations for the "blips" of spectra that are consistent with hydrino transitions, but not consistent with any other known entities.

Extra Credit: Please present reasons (creativity is rewarded) for why QM should not be completely discarded.

All the best,

Bill

[RArvay]

http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-videol/
PAGE NOT FOUND
On the other links I found no video.

[Bill]

Try this... http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/

Looks like a typo.

BTW I have no affiliation with BLP and am not an investor. (Wish I was.)

Bill

[RArvay]

Please correct me if I am wrong.
The nut of this seems to be that energy is somehow being released
from a previously unknown source, which can be tapped into by
the video-taped device, by a means not explained by any known
science.
If that is correct, I expect to see investors and the government
swarming to exploit this mechanism.
Am I right?
.

[Bill]

Yes, you are right.

Still waiting for the first person to tackle the questions I asked.

All the best,

Bill

[Mikko]

1. Identify the experimental data that you believe to be in error and refute it using whatever empirical evidence you choose to present.

There so much little known erroneous experiment data that it is not possible to identify that all. Not useful, either, because nobody is using them anyway and would not even if it were catalogued.
The important question is how to identify good data. Basically the answer is that if other research teams get the same results it can be trusted. Even then it is important to understand the expreiment in order to avoid wrong inferences from those results. You don't need all good data for it is largely redundant. More important is to avoid bad data. Only when somebody claims that bad data is better than the data you have used or are going to use you need to check what really is bad or good.

This problem is not specific to quantum mechanics. Similar problems occur more often in other sciences, e.g. biochemistry.

Your other questions are not in the domain of quantum mechanics nor of quantum field theory. These basic theories cover the common behaviour of all particles and fields but don't tell which particles or fields exist. If you know the properties (masses, laws of interaction) of some particles or fields you may use the general theories to predict their behaviours. If an experiment gives a different results that may mean that your descriptions are wrong or there is some other particle or field in the experiments that you haven't considered in your calculations.

The identification of all particles and the determination of their properties is in the domain of another science: particle physcis. There are still open problems there and future experiments are expected to yield unexpected results. No known theory covers all known particles and fields. Therefore there is still both experimental and theoretical work to be done. In addition, development of practical applications has barely started.

Quantum mechanics predicts all kinds of counter-intuitive results that experimenters try to test. The results so far confirm quantum mechanics and put tight bounds on any alternative theory.

[Q-reeus]

Yes, you are right.

Still waiting for the first person to tackle the questions I asked.

All the best,

Bill

Hello again Bill. A simple suggestion. As an antenna guy you are surely competent enough to at least qualitatively evaluate the situation applying to RM's pancake model of a classical free electron. Whose structural integrity is ostensibly entirely determined by classical EM and Newtonian dynamics. Leaving aside the difficulty of that model predicting an infinitely variable transverse size (KE dependency), let's just pick a typical case of say an electron photo ejected from say a hydrogen atom. Having X eV of KE. Then free electron outer radius r ~ 1/X. We, or rather you, could then proceed to do a numerical evaluation of the summed in-plane electrostatic, magnetic, and centrifugal forces applying at any intermediate radius of said electron. Taking into account SR may or may not be important, but anyway if so the recipe is provided in RM's model.

Thing is this pancake electron, with infinitesimal thickness of unit Planck length, is supposed to be stable at all radii against the sum of mentioned contributions.
Think you can manage tackling that? Personally, I wouldn't trust RM's calculations. That's because, without doing any specific sums, a lazy qualitative analysis imo reveals a gaping flaw at the outset. Hint - consider the purely in-plane 'force balance' applying close to the center of pancake free electron. Seems clear to me all force components there point radially outwards.

In which case, 'stability' is highly dynamic - inertia of radial expansion (i.e. explosion) being the sole 'balance' possible. AS I see it. This of course is ignoring the further obvious issue of what non-EM glue prevents the ultra thin pancake from rapidly expanding transverse to the plane. So many questions.
Best if you sit down Bill and attempt to work out a resolution yourself. Please do report back your honest findings. Good luck!

[Ben6993]

Hi Q-reeus.

You wrote
... This of course is ignoring the further obvious issue of what non-EM glue prevents the ultra thin pancake from rapidly expanding transverse to the plane. ...

In my preon model the electron is net neutral wrt colour but is made up of hexarks (string theory type strings) each of which has a specific colour or anticolour. So I have speculated that some form of colour attraction (between strings of unlike colours) is holding the electron together and some form of colour repulsion (between strings of like colours) is stopping the electron from collapsing to a point. Gluons do the gluing between coloured quarks but it may not be gluons which glue the strings together/apart. That would imply another force boson, but it would not be surprising if such a boson exists as yet undetected. However, it could be the gluon somehow doubling up in function.

I further speculated that the structure of the electron is a spinning triple helix, something like is shown in
https://youtu.be/VyI_AUZPvck [ignore bubbles].
(thanks to michel_vdg for that reference and the one below).

There is another, but static snapshot, image below of a triple helix with one blue strand and two red strands.
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=240#p6204
In my model, that would be replaced by one red, one blue and one green strand. These are not strings but are the colour branes of string theory. The string theory strings (hexarks in my model) would be connecting across the strands/or/branes. It is well known in string theory that the electron has open ended strings. A red hexark has one end attached to the red brane and the other end is free. So the red and green branes are attracted to each other due to the free red ends of hexarks being colour attracted to the free green ends of the green hexarks. Within the (say) red brane, the hexarks ends are all red and so colour repel one another.

Not sure about pancake shape. In my model, hexarks being strings imply speeds at or near c. But because of the spinor nature of the components, it is not a linear c in the direction of motion of the electron. My model electron should move in circles, like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrCXyMgQBZQ perhaps giving rise to zitter or ZBW. This is because an electron is either left-handed or right-handed and a (say) left-handed rotor will not produce linear motion. That needs either a rudder adding or counter-rotating screws.

All speculation at present though.

[Q-reeus]

Hi Q-reeus.
In my preon model the electron is net neutral wrt colour but is made up of hexarks (string theory type strings) each of which has a specific colour or anticolour....

Hi Ben6993,
Not being a particle physics person, at a glance I'd certainly rate your torus model as far and away more of a chance at being self-consistent than Randy Mill's notion.
My aim here is simply to help Bill see past the slick PR of Black Light -> Brilliant Light razzle dazzle. His electron model (not to mention photon model) has so many issues it's not funny. Being in violent disagreement with Galilean relativity let alone SR is just one. It was discussed in general terms in an earlier thread but Bill evidently forgot or thought light of such points raised.
So getting him to prove for himself the basic model cannot be stable as claimed will hopefully act as circuit-breaker.

What likely get's enthusiasts in is primarily the apparently authentic demos of anomalous physics. Trouble is, I gave a link to a one Kiril Chukanov who claims very similar anomalous phenomena but based on a radically different theory: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... Energy_LLC

Each will ridicule their rival, so I say let em shoot it out - may the best genius win! One ace up RM's sleeve is the eerily accurate molecular modelling that seems purely based on his classical QM model. Something is very much amiss overall. Super accurate modelling based on an impossible basic physics?! Anyway best imo to steer back to issues with his basic free electron & photon models.

[optiongeek]

His electron model (not to mention photon model) has so many issues it's not funny. Being in violent disagreement with Galilean relativity let alone SR is just one. It was discussed in general terms in an earlier thread but Bill evidently forgot or thought light of such points raised.

Perhaps your reservations have not been addressed because they don't appear to be credible. RM's theory is massive and his postulates are devilishly tricky to sort out. In part, because RM has spent the better part of a quarter century responding to critics such as yourself to find the set of rules that result in his remarkable agreement with observed values (as you yourself acknowledge w.r.t. to ionization levels).

While I'm not an expert, it does seem that you may have neglected to account for RM's bedrock assumption of the conservation of angular momentum in your analysis. Perhaps that has been accounted for, I can't tell from your description. If you really have found something that doesn't check out, you should really direct your question to RM himself. He's been more than happy to respond to constructive criticism.

[Bill]

Hello Q et al...

Thanks for the comments. I apologize for the delayed reply. My current business is highly seasonal and I have been doing the 15 hour day thing for the last two weeks.

It was not my intention in this thread to set out to *prove* that RM's model was correct. He has written many thousands of pages of theory and an equivalent amount in experimental information. Many experiments have been independently replicated. I assume anyone that looked at the links I provided understands that his is not an ad hoc, back of an envelope theory, but one that has solid laboratory experiments whose results are consistent with the theory.

For those that are doubting the experimental evidence, please watch this video taken late last month at an invitation-only meeting. The output power of the demonstration device is astounding.

http://brilliantlightpower.com/demonstration-days/ The clickable video is almost two hours. On this page, there are shorter sections.

Again, using QM or any other currently accepted theory, please explain the results.

All the best, Bill

[Q-reeus]

Dear Bill & optiongeek, clearly neither of you are impressed by mere arguments requiring logical consistency in RM's grand classical theory. What impresses you both is evidently his experimental demonstrations and the sheer volume of his mathematical derivations. It does take a certain level of physical insight to judge such properly.

Let's try it from another angle. Going back to my last post here, there was a passage:

What likely get's enthusiasts in is primarily the apparently authentic demos of anomalous physics. Trouble is, I gave a link to a one Kiril Chukanov who claims very similar anomalous phenomena but based on a radically different theory: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... Energy_LLC

That researcher has been furnishing impressive experimental demonstrations for longer than RM, yet what seems clearly the same type of phenomena is explained via radically different yet an also mathematically dense theory.
So, how about either of you explain to me exactly and clearly why I should prefer RM's claims over that of Kiril Chukanov?

[PS: Any response this thread will be a test case to see if a mysterious failure of subscribed thread email notifications is back and working for me!]

[FrediFizzx]

[PS: Any response this thread will be a test case to see if a mysterious failure of subscribed thread email notifications is back and working for me!]

Did you get a notification from this message?

[Q-reeus]

[PS: Any response this thread will be a test case to see if a mysterious failure of subscribed thread email notifications is back and working for me!]

Did you get a notification from this message?

Yes Fred - thankfully everything back to normal.

[Admin]

Dear Bill & optiongeek, clearly neither of you are impressed by mere arguments requiring logical consistency in RM's grand classical theory. What impresses you both is evidently his experimental demonstrations and the sheer volume of his mathematical derivations. It does take a certain level of physical insight to judge such properly."

There were just three "ingredients" in the experiment: Water, molten silver/copper alloy and Argon Gas that filled the chamber. Each plasma burst occurred immediately after an impulse of very low voltage and very high current was applied between tungsten electrodes in contact with the molten metal.

See here: http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/

Mills' mathematical derivations are irrelevant to this demonstration and this thread. (BTW not sure what you meant by "mere arguments requiring logical consistency in RM's grand classical theory." But If you wish to start a different thread in which you wish to make point-by-point refutations of Mills' theories, by all means do so. I'll be happy to engage in such a point-by-point analysis.)

Meanwhile, and once again, *what explanation is there for the plasma?*

(Still waiting for *just one* responsive reply.)

All the best, Bill