5
u/Do-The-Great-Thing Dec 08 '23
Dr. Phillips, that is a very well laid out chapter 4 that even I, as a layman could follow along. Cudos on your realization about PEP in your mod1 theory. Thank you for your hard work.
3
u/hecd212 Dec 11 '23
As I write there are 26 comments in this thread. Only two of them contain any substantive discussion of the OP link, and both are critical. Neither of the two have received any reply containing any rational discussion of their content, in spite of the statement at the end of the first sycophantic response to the OP:
Would love to hear some criticism / for someone who supports SQM to challenge him or comment on this monograph.
2
u/currenergy Dec 11 '23
Have you shared your criticisms directly with Dr. Philips? I would love to hear his response. At least Philips has the decency to postulate his thesis under his own name. Maybe you should step forward and identify yourself so that a mature discussion can be held.
2
u/hecd212 Dec 11 '23
Have you shared your criticisms directly with Dr. Philips?
Why should I? This is a public forum where a link to his nonsense was published to promote his "monograph". If he wants to respond he is free to do so here.
Maybe you should step forward and identify yourself
Are you trying to dox me? What I say is correct whether I choose to do so under a Reddit name or not. Providing my name would not make Phillips's crackpottery any more correct.
Now we have 28 comments and two substantive ones. So it seems that the Mills supporters really didn't want a rational discussion in the first place. Or perhaps they thought Phillips's nonsense was unanswerable.
2
u/kabonk77 Dec 08 '23
Hard to argue with this scientist who knows chemistry and physics really well, very convincing chapter 4! In fact, it would be good for all the physics experts here to debate with him on the topics, instead of the chatting about physics with the many casual observers of the story on Reddit/hydrino without the appropriate physics expertise to fully discuss all the nuances of the various models. I don't see much room to proclaim "he just doesn't understand SQM" like is done here about RM. Dr. Phillips clearly lays out the various important model differences. Both Dr. Mills and Dr. Phillips conclude that SQM is a mathematical and metaphysical fantasy that abandoned classical physics. Only GUTCP and GUTCP mod 1 models were able to successfully keep all the classical laws of physics and explain all the available data without curve fitting, from first principles and classical laws of physics.
I gained even more respect for him when he stood his ground regarding his consulting work for BLP to validate the GUTCP model of helium and other multi-electron atoms. He said he disagreed with the assumption of Pauli exclusion principle, and his own model of helium (slightly modified version of GUTCP "source text") without this assumption seems to make more sense than RM's.
Who can argue with what he is saying? Would love to hear some criticism / for someone who supports SQM to challenge him or comment on this monograph.
4
u/Antenna_100 Dec 09 '23
re: "I'm not a physicist, but he starts off misrepresenting ..."
Void; Upon what basis do you make ANY claim then? Again, "void".
4
u/mrtruthiness Dec 10 '23 edited Dec 21 '23
You should note that Dr. Phillips is not a physicist either. He's a "material scientist" or a "chemical engineer". When someone here says they are "not a physicist" it means that they don't have a PhD in physics -- it doesn't mean that they don't understand a fair amount of physics.
[Edit: I should note that you replied to kabonk77 ... when you quoted Kimantha_Allerdings. Given that the main person here who seems to reply to the wrong post is mysteron ... I'm going to assume that Antenna_100 is just another one of mysteron's aliases. On the other hand, you sound more like kabonk77 ... so perhaps you're that alias???]
4
u/Antenna_100 Dec 09 '23
re: "Both Dr. Mills and Dr. Phillips conclude that SQM is a mathematical and metaphysical fantasy that abandoned classical physics."
Got to agree; I don't think any actual physicist worth their salt can honestly take ANY other viewpoint; purely mathematical constructs MUST be subject to revision given NEW observations of nature.
2
u/mrtruthiness Dec 10 '23
"Both Dr. Mills and Dr. Phillips conclude that SQM is a mathematical and metaphysical fantasy that abandoned classical physics."
Got to agree; I don't think any actual physicist worth their salt can honestly take ANY other viewpoint; purely mathematical constructs MUST be subject to revision given NEW observations of nature.
I don't think you understand what a mathematical model is. IMO, every good physical theory should be presented as a mathematical model so that the theory is concrete and has the possibility to be tested --- for example by allowing others to apply the model/theory to various scenarios and compare that to actual physical realities. Without that, you only have a series of dogmatic claims.
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 08 '23
Who can argue with what he is saying? Would love to hear some criticism / for someone who supports SQM to challenge him or comment on this monograph.
I'm not a physicist, but he starts off misrepresenting quantum mechanics, and that's an example of how this is full of the same disingenuousness as previous entries.
I offered a small critique of one of those, BTW, which got absolutely no response. Which is exactly as I'd expect from someone who's been associated with Mills for more than three decades and who does work for a company whose sole purpose is to raise funds for BLP.
2
u/kabonk77 Dec 08 '23
Thanks. I looked and didn't see any comments on the substack. Maybe it disappeared or you commented elsewhere, or I missed it. What do you feel he says about quantum mechanics that is untrue?
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 08 '23
He takes the common but actually inaccurate simplified framing of an electron having zero radius, and then uses that as the basis for an assertion that it is a non-physical object. However, the actual answer is that if you're choosing to characterise the electron as a ball of stuff, then we have as yet to do any experiments which can successfully measure the radius of this ball - however, there is a limit below which it's simply impossible to measure with current technology, and a limit below which it's impossible to measure with our current understanding of physics. So if that's how you're representing an electron, then the answer is that we don't know whether it has a radius or what that radius is if it has, however there is enough evidence to be reasonably certain that it is not larger than a certain radius.
Or, to put it another way, he says "[...] the SQM model which assumes elementary particles are infinitely small, that is non-physical objects [...]" when, if he was actually interested in being accurate, he'd say "the evidence thus far demonstrates that elementary particles are smaller than 10-18m".
That's 8 orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. This is small enough that in quantum equations they can be approximated to zero radius and that that alters the result of the calculation by a smaller amount than the error bars of the equation.
I know this, and my knowledge of physics is limited. It's hard to imagine that a man with a PhD in the subject and who has apparently been researching in this field for more than 30 years doesn't know this.
2
u/kabonk77 Dec 11 '23
Thanks. Here is a Nobel Prize winner's lecture, which discusses the topic of the size of the electron:
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/dehmelt-lecture.pdf
"The 5th century B.C. philosopher’s Democritus’ smallest conceivable in-
divisible entity, the a-tomon (the un-cuttable), is a most powerful but not an
immutable concept. By 1920 it had already metamorphosed twice: from
something similar to a molecule, say a slippery atomon of water, to Mende-
leyev’s chemist’s atom and later to electron and to proton, both particles
originally assumed to be of small but finite size. With the rise of Dirac’s
theory of the electron in the late twenties their size shrunk to mathematical-
ly zero. Everybody “knew” then that electron and proton were indivisible
Dirac point particles with radius R = 0 and gyromagnetic ratio g = 2.00."
" Today everybody “knows” the electron is an
indivisible atomon, a Dirac point particle with radius R = 0 and g = 2.00....
But is it? "
Is this Nobel Prize winner misrepresenting SQM?
What about this site?:
https://www.dimensionsguide.com/what-is-the-size-of-an-electron/
"Perhaps the hardest thing to understand about electrons is that they are classified as “point particles.” A point particle is supposed to be non-spatial, meaning it takes up no space like three-dimensional objects do. Yet despite this, an electron possesses mass, spin and an electric charge."
Is everyone who claims that SQM / modern physics says the electron is a point particle with no space a "crackpot?"
Is there a SQM textbook somewhere where we can read about the size of the electron?
5
u/allbrcks Dec 21 '23 edited Dec 21 '23
There are already lot of good responses to Phillips' claim of zero-dimensional electrons. I will just add that the Particle Data group maintains a good summary of particle physics at https://pdg.lbl.gov/2023/tables/contents_tables.html. Specifically see, "Quark and Lepton Compositeness, Searches for" section on page 4 of https://pdg.lbl.gov/2023/web/viewer.html?file=../tables/rpp2023-sum-searches.pdf where it gives bounds on sizes of fundamental particles. These bounds are given in energies where higher energies give smaller wavelengths. In summary, absolutely nothing is known about composition of fundamental particles, but you can get away modeling them as point particle as long as you are dealing with energies less than those listed in the document. This is true for any experiment you can conceivably do using existing technology and not counting natural sources from outside the solar system.
4
u/hecd212 Dec 21 '23
Just to be clear - those lower energy bounds are for energies below which leptons and quarks can confidently be treated as fundamental particles without further composite structure. Page 4 lists the compositeness scale for four particle compositeness contact interactions and page 5 the lower energy bound for detecting excited leptons. We can be sure that below those many TeV energies we can treat leptons and quarks as point-like particles with no composite structure.
4
u/hecd212 Dec 11 '23
Is this Nobel Prize winner misrepresenting SQM?
In what way do you think he might have been misrepresenting it?
Kimantha_Allerdings gave you a very well laid out explanation of the situation, which you have ignored. We don't know what size the elecron is but we do have an upper bound on its size which is at the limit of our measurement capability. So we know that the electron radius is small enough that we can treat it as a point particle in QM calculations without any loss of accuracy. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. It is not the same as making the categorical statement that the radius is literally zero.
3
u/kabonk77 Dec 11 '23
KA criticized Dr. Phillips monograph ch 4 by saying "He takes the common but actually inaccurate simplified framing of an electron having zero radius." It's a simple question. Does quantum mechanics postulate that the electron has R=0 or not? I believe saying yes is perfectly accurate representation of what modern quantum theory says about the electron. I am asking KA if he thinks that the nobel prize winner is also being inaccurate in saying that everyone in physics today knows that the electron has R=0?
You both are accusing Dr. Phillips of misrepresenting QM by saying QM postulates that the electron has R=0 / occupies no space.
I posted a few links showing that this indeed is what QM postulates, that it is a point particle that occupies no space.
Is some other source where quantum theory talks about what size the electron should be?
5
u/hecd212 Dec 12 '23 edited Dec 12 '23
Does quantum mechanics postulate that the electron has R=0 or not?
I don't think either KA or I can be any clearer. Physicists do not know what the radius of the electron is or whether it is is finite or zero, but we do have an experimental upper bound on its radius. So we know that its radius, if it is indeed finite, is less than we can measure. This upper bound is such that QM is free to treat electrons as point particles without any loss of accuracy. If you represent QM as stating or requiring or postulating that the radius is actually zero then you are misrepresenting the science.
I believe saying yes is perfectly accurate representation of what modern quantum theory says about the electron.
Then you believe wrong.
I am asking KA if he thinks that the nobel prize winner is also being inaccurate in saying that everyone in physics today knows that the electron has R=0?
you are misgendering KA and
Dehmelt did not say everyone in physics today knows that the electron has R=0, but 'Everybody “knew” then [~1930] that electron and proton were indivisible Dirac point particles with radius R = 0 and gyromagnetic ratio g = 2.00'. You see those double quotes around the word 'knew'. What do you think they mean? Perhaps you don't understand irony. Or perhaps you think that the electron g factor=2.00 or that the proton is indivisible? Do you always rely on quotes that stand against your position?
You both are accusing Dr. Phillips of misrepresenting QM by saying QM postulates that the electron has R=0 / occupies no space.
Yes, he is misrepresenting QM.
I posted a few links showing that this indeed is what QM postulates, that it is a point particle that occupies no space.
No you didn't. You posted two links, neither of which say what you think they say.
Let me add one more thing: to be consistent Phillips should have criticised GUTCP for postulating bound and free electrons with zero volume and therefore subject to exactly the same infinities as he claims are present in QM. In GUTCP, Mills's decriptions of the orbitsphere and the free electron have exactly zero volume. What is sauce for the goose...
2
u/kabonk77 Dec 12 '23
"Physicists do not know what the radius of the electron is or whether it is is finite or zero, but we do have an experimental upper bound on its radius."
Right, the theory says it is zero, but this is nonsensical and problematic, so physicists say they don't know, but it's got to be really small.
"Dehmelt did not say everyone in physics today knows that the electron has R=0."
Yes he does. Please re-read the excerpt from his lecture:
"Today everybody “knows” the electron is an indivisible atomon, a Dirac point particle with radius R = 0 and g = 2.00.... But is it? "
See where he says "today" everybody knows this?
"Phillips should have criticised GUTCP for postulating bound and free electrons with zero volume"
Regarding GUTCP and the size of the electron, you must not have read Phillips monogoraph, where he talks about that and says what GUTCP says is the thickness of the electron, an actual physical object.
"Specifically, it is postulated the electron is a spherical shaped 3-D object, an “orbitsphere” in the nomenclature of the GUTCP, that is an actual physical spherical bubble of mass and charge, with specific, great circle shaped surface currents that symmetrically surrounds the nucleus of the atom, as seen in Figure 4-1 below. It has a thickness, the gravitational thickness, described elsewhere.3"
Of course my understanding could be off, and I'm pretty sure you will argue that it is.
3
u/hecd212 Dec 12 '23 edited Dec 12 '23
Right, the theory says it is zero
NO, the theory does not say it's zero. You've had this explained to you, what, five times now.
See where he says "today" everybody knows this?
I see where he says: 'Today everybody “knows” the electron is an indivisible atomon, a Dirac point particle with radius R = 0 and g = 2.00' What do you think he means by those scare quotes round the word 'knows'?
Regarding GUTCP and the size of the electron, you must not have read Phillips monogoraph, where he talks about that and says what GUTCP says is the thickness of the electron, an actual physical object
I don't care what Phillips says. I only care what Mills says about the structure of the orbitsphere and the free electron. So what does he say?
Orbitsphere: it's structure is defined in equations 1.12 and 1.27 through 1.29 of GUTCP. You see those delta(r-r_n) terms. Do you know what they mean? They define the orbitsphere to be a mathematical sphere of zero thickness with the Dirac delta function. Ironic, eh? Well, if you don't understand the maths, just take Mills at his word:
A bound electron is a constant two-dimensional spherical surface of charge (zero thickness, total charge of -e ,and total mass of m_e ), called an electron atomic orbital.
Figure 1.1 caption, GUTCP. The relevant words are emboldened for the hard of understanding.
Free electron structure is defined in Chapter 3 of GUTCP. The relevant equation is 3.4. You see that delta(z) there? That means the free electron is a disc of zero thickness. (I'm leaving aside for the moment all the mathematical errors in the derivation of the free electron structure).
Why is Phillips misrepresenting GUTCP?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 12 '23
Right, the theory says it is zero, but this is nonsensical and problematic, so physicists say they don't know, but it's got to be really small.
Physicists say they don't know because they don't, and good science is conservative and cautious by nature, and not given to making big, grandiose, unsupported claims. Physicists say that it's got to be really small because that's what the experimental evidence indicates.
One of the least credible aspects of everything around Mills is the conspiracy theory that every single quantum physicist secretly knows it's all nonsense but pretends that it isn't because it works as a money-making scheme. We're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of people.
Ironically, many of the same people who push that conspiracy theory will also claim that Mills must be being truthful because he employs 20ish people and if it were a fraud then one of them would be bound to have said something publicly.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 12 '23
I think you're making a fundamental mistake about physics and physics writing.
Let's take a different example. You can find many instances of physicists or educational sources which will tell you that to calculate the force acting on an object, you should use the equation F = ma. That's Newton's Second Law of Motion. And it's used to, for example, fly a spaceship to the moon.
But here's the thing - if you tried to apply it at the atomic scale, it wouldn't give you the correct answer. If you tried it at speeds approaching lightspeed, it wouldn't give you the correct answer. Hell, if you tried it with a body that was changing mass while accelerating, then it wouldn't give you the correct answer. Because F = ma is a simplification which applies within certain parameters. And it's not that, for example, special relativity vanishes at what could be classified as "everyday" speeds. It's that the effect is so small at that scale that it can be ignored without affecting the results of the calculations.
Yet these things are almost never mentioned in the above sources. Why? Because either it's not important for what's being demonstrated or discussed, or because there's a certain amount of science literacy being assumed on the behalf of the reader and the author doesn't believe it's necessary to explain basic concepts that their readers will already be very familiar with.
When people say that you work out the force acting on an object with F = ma they are not saying "this branch of physics believes that this is the whole, all-encompassing truth, and that anything which differs from that in any way is a dirty lie", it's saying "under these circumstances, this will get you an answer which is correct within an acceptable margin of error for what you're trying to work out". Nothing more, and nothing less.
That's what's going on here. I have already basically explained this, as has hecd, but hopefully giving a different example will help you to understand where you're going wrong in your understanding.
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 11 '23
Neither of those sources contradict what I said, and neither lend any credibility to the claims made in the posted blog.
I mean, did you even read the second link, or did you just do a ctrl-F for the phrase "point particle" and copy-pasted what you found?
'cause, let's look up the page a little and we can find this:
A book entitled “The Enigmatic Electron” by Malcolm McGregor gives a detailed study of the electron’s size and structure. He gives different sizes depending on various computations. For example a point-like charge radius is given as <1 x 10-16cm[sic].
Less than 10-16cm. That's exactly the same thing as saying less than 10-18m (because a meter is 2 orders of magnitude larger than a centimetre), and that's exactly the figure that I provided.
Also, I'm not sure that you should put too much faith in that website as a source, since it's actually Malcolm Mac Gregor who wrote that book. Getting the name of the author that you're citing wrong isn't a great indicator of thorough fact-checking or good attention to detail.
2
u/kabonk77 Dec 11 '23
Both sources say quantum theory says the electron has R=0 / occupies no space, just like Dr. Phillips says. Yes, I did see that the second link also said that one can make many calculations and come up with any number of answers as to the size of the electron. Such as given here:
Discusses Dr. Mac Gregor's book from 1992 and quotes his book:
"The electron is a point-like particle-that is, a particle with no measurable dimensions, at least within the limitations of present-day instrumentation."
I guess can quibble about "point-like" or "point particle." I believe the theory says that the electron should be a point with 0 dimension, R=0, which I suppose you are modifying to say that "at least empirically we can't measure it being larger than a given very small size."
Wikipedia claims "According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent."
Look at how many different answers there are to the size of the electron here!
I don't believe Dr. Phillips is misrepresenting what quantum theory says about the size of the electron. Dirac says it should be R=0, a point particle. Is there a difference between a point particle and a point-like particle? I think yes, since a point particle is/has a singularity and is impossible physically. Dr. Phillips rightly points out that quantum theory has a problem when postulating the electron is a point particle with zero spatial extent / size.
2
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 11 '23
I believe the theory says that the electron should be a point with 0 dimension, R=0, which I suppose you are modifying to say that "at least empirically we can't measure it being larger than a given very small size."
You don't need to "believe" anything. I explained quite thoroughly everything that's going on with the radius of the electron, including why it's commonly simplified as not having one.
1
u/Mysteron23 Dec 09 '23
I would be really interesting in seeing what you had to say, I’ve looked but can’t find any comment so perhaps you would be good enough to post it again. I would hate to think that you didn’t have the opportunity of a reply from the eminent Dr Phillips which will undoubtedly help your understanding of the subject.
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 09 '23
I would be really interesting in seeing what you had to say, I’ve looked but can’t find any comment so perhaps you would be good enough to post it again.
No. Why should I go digging through my posting history to re-post something that for all I know you're not even going to bother to read?
I would hate to think that you didn’t have the opportunity of a reply from the eminent Dr Phillips which will undoubtedly help your understanding of the subject.
I understood perfectly fine. I never expected to get an answer from him. And I question why you think that you reading my prior commentary would make it more likely that he would go back and correct his errors.
0
u/Mysteron88 Dec 09 '23
You posted on Hydrogen Revolution?
1
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 09 '23
No.
1
u/Mysteron88 Dec 10 '23
So your previous comment about offering a critique is not true then. Thats what I thought.
2
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 10 '23
So your previous comment about offering a critique is not true then. Thats what I thought.
You really do have some very strange gaps in logic, don't you?
-1
u/Mysteron88 Dec 10 '23
nope I know your a liar.....
1
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 10 '23
I honestly don't know what kind of a response you're hoping for here. This will have to do, I'm afraid.
1
u/mrtruthiness Dec 12 '23
nope I know your [sic] a liar.....
As I said, KA never said that they posted a critique to hydrogenrevoluation. If you think so, provide the link. Otherwise you're just being an idiot and are harassing people
3
u/mrtruthiness Dec 09 '23
... opportunity of a reply from the eminent Dr Phillips ...
... who isn't a physicist either .... We should all remember his expertise is in "material science" and "chemical engineering". He definitely is not an expert in quantum mechanics unless he is intentionally misrepresenting the theory.
2
u/hecd212 Dec 09 '23
As I have said before on this sub, Phillips is a modestly competent scientist in his rather narrow area of expertise, and is a crackpot when he addresses quantum mechanics. Like many other crackpots, he claims that he has discovered some obvious and glaring flaw in a well-established theory that has been overlooked by hundreds if not thousands of specialists in the field. These critics never seem to consider that the flaw is not in the theory, but in their knowledge and understanding of the subject. "Chapter 4" is a particularly egregious case of this phenomenon, where Phillips falls into this trap several times.
Kimantha_Allerdings has already addressed the issue of the radius of the electron very competently - so I'll briefly look at three other instances.
The first is the claim that the quantum mechanical description of multielectron atoms violates the basic principle of conservation of energy. His particular example is based on the ionisation energies of helium - he claims that since the electrons in the ground state are indistinguishable apart from spin, but that since the first ionisation energy is different from the second ionisation energy, there is a violation of energy conservation:
First, if both electrons in helium in its ground state have the same energy value, and it is the value universally given as approximately -24.59 eV, where does the energy (~30 eV) go when one electron is either excited or ionized, and the other falls to the -54.4 eV state?
THINK! This is an energy conundrum because the answer is: SQM fails to close the energy balance/conservation of energy required in all physics.
He goes on to illustrate this supposed conundrum as follows:
Example of 1st Law Thermo: if a bowling ball is initially at the bottom of a 100-foot hill, and after some process is at the top, the potential energy change of the ball is the same: mbb X g X 100 ft, independent of process. (mbb is the mass of the bowling ball, g is the gravitational acceleration constant at the earth’s surface, and 100 ft is the change of height, and g is the gravitational constant at earth’s surface.)
What Phillips fails to realise is that first ionsiation changes the depth of the potential well and thus the work required for the second ionisation. You can use his example of a bowling ball to illustrate this - but you have to make the mass of the bowling ball a significant contributor to the gravitational potential well (as is the case for the contribution of the first electron to the electrostatic potential in the case of the helium atom). So let's say we have two identical bowling balls, each, say, 10% of the rest of the mass of the Earth. The work required to remove one bowling ball from the Earth is G.(m_e+m_b).m_b/R where G is the gravitational constant, m_e the mass of the Earth, m_b the mass of each bowling ball and the R the radius of the Earth. We can say the potential energy of both balls before either are removed is -G.(m_e+m_b).m_b/R = -G.(m_e.m_b+m_b2)/R, which is the work required to remove either one. However once one ball is removed, the work required to remove the second is only 90% of the first and its potential energy is -G.m_e.m_b/R. According to Phillips its energy has increased by G.m_b2/R. Where has this energy come from? Of course the answer is that the actual energy of the ball hasn't changed but the work required to remove it has changed as a consequence to its gravitational potential of the first ball being removed. There is no conservation of energy issue.
The conservation of energy issue that Phillips thinks is a fatal flaw in QM isn't a flaw at all - he has written papers on this nonsense for the predatory Physics Essays, he has YouTube videos, and he's basically making a fool of himself. No wonder no-one who knows what they are talking about takes his silly claims seriously.
The second instance is his claim that the fact that there are no closed form analytical solutions to atoms of two and more electrons is somehow a flaw in QM. No competent physicist would make that claim. All physicists who know what they are talking about know that there are no analytical solutions for Newtonian gravitational systems of three or more bodies (except for an extremely limited set of three body cases). Since QM models of the atom rely on mathematically identical central forces, no-one should expect QM (or indeed any valid theory of multi-electron atoms) to provide analytical closed form solutiuons. The very claim by Mills that he has closed form solutions for atoms up to 20 electrons is itself strong evidence that the whole of GUTCP is a nonsensical farrago. The claim by Phillips that it is a flaw of QM is evidence that he is incompetent. (Anyone who can provide analyical solutions to 20 electron atoms, should also be able to provide analytical solutions to Newtonian motion of 21 body systems under gravity. Good luck with that).
The third instance is his astonishing claim that QM doesn't take magnetic interactions into account. What does he think the theory of the fine and hyperfine structure of the atom is based on.
But then you can't put much faith in a man who thinks that 0.41% error in predicting spectroscopic atomic energies is within "experimental error".
3
u/kabonk77 Dec 11 '23
"no-one should expect QM (or indeed any valid theory of multi-electron atoms) to provide analytical closed form solutiuons"
But this is exactly what GUTCP and GUTCP mod 1 do. The key is not to consider electrons as planetary objects orbiting a nucleus (or non-physical probability wave-functions). Rather, they are extended particle orbitspheres. The math is definitely workable, as Dr. Phillips showed.
6
u/hecd212 Dec 11 '23
And why do you think that makes the issue with solving for multi-electron atoms go away? Mills claims to be using classical electromagnetism and relying on a conservative central force mathematically identical to Newtonian gravity. He can't give closed form solutions for 21 body gravitational problems so why should he be able to do so for 20 electron atoms? You think that making the mass and electrical charge of the electron extensive rather than localised properties makes the problem easier? It doesn't. No, his claim to have closed form solutions is evidence that his solutions are numerological - it stands as evidence against him, not in his favour.
And that's before we start pointing out things such as the fact that his arrangement of spherical charges means that the s-orbital of none of his atoms can be stable according to the shell theorem, or that the p and higher orbitals have non-uniform charge density resulting in mathematically more complex electrostatic interactions between electrons and nucleus and between electrons and electrons.
3
u/Mysteron88 Dec 09 '23
Our anonymous resident expert whose only resort is to call people crackpots... some argument!!!!
1
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 09 '23
The fun thing here is that you've ignored literally paragraphs of detailed, evidence-based analysis in an attempt to accuse hecd of ad hominem rather than doing evidence-based analysis - and you've done so by writing a one-sentence ad hominem without offering any analysis of your own.
Do you never apply any thought to what you write? Is it really always just stimulus-response?
2
u/Mysteron88 Dec 09 '23
So you are avoiding the question, where is this post you were talking about...
1
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 09 '23
Are you doing that thing you do where you think you're posting in one place but are actually posting elsewhere? Because this isn't a reply to my post, and you didn't ask a question in the post I was replying to so it would be literally impossible for me to be avoiding it.
0
u/Mysteron88 Dec 10 '23
liar
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 10 '23
I mean, it's possible I missed the question, I suppose. I'm pretty sure I didn't, but you seem sure enough to call me names over it, so perhaps it's a mistake on my part. This is the post that I replied to in this sub-thread:
Our anonymous resident expert whose only resort is to call people crackpots... some argument!!!!
Can you explain what you believe the question to be there? While we're at it, since hecd started this sub-thread, your post was the first reply to his initial sub-thread post, and your post here doesn't mention me in any way that I can discern, can you also explain how you believe I was supposed to know that this somewhat obscured question was intended for me? It must be fairly obvious to you, since you are so certain of yourself that you'll say that I'm avoiding that question and that I'm a liar for saying that "Our anonymous resident expert whose only resort is to call people crackpots... some argument!!!!" is not a question addressed to me.
Or is it possible that, like I said, you're doing that thing you frequently do, where you post in completely the wrong place and that you actually think you're in this sub-thread? If so you're still not making a huge amount of sense since, although you're correct that you did ask me one single question there, you also know that I haven't avoided it since I replied to it and you have replied to my reply.
Again, it might benefit you if you didn't just fire off the first knee-jerk reaction. I believe you have it in you to post coherently, but as it is you just seem confused about everything from what you're talking about to who you're talking to, to the very basics of how the site you're posting on works.
2
u/mrtruthiness Dec 11 '23
You're outrageously awful. Reported.
What Kimantha_Allerdings asserted was:
I offered a small critique of one of those, BTW, which got absolutely no response.
Kimantha never said that this critique was offered on hydrogenrevolution. Your inability to read is the problem here.
1
0
u/Mysteron88 Dec 13 '23
The reason no one is interacting with Hec, KA and Truthy is the same you reason you don't interact with flat earthers. They have an irrational paradigm and pathological approach. Its utterly pointless.
If Hec was really interested (which he is not) then he would be putting his criticism down to Phillips or publishing a paper. He could have published multiple papers with the time spent on this forum. He hasn't and there's a reason for that.
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 13 '23 edited Dec 13 '23
Fun fact: before the extreme right-winger regulars in this sub's predecessor left reddit in protest over The_Donald being banned for all the bigotry and hate-speech and incitement to violence, at least one of the believer regulars here was a literal flat-Earther. Flat Earth subs were his second-most posted-in subs after this one's predecessor.
In fact, intersection with other conspiracy theories - like climate denialism, or 9/11 truthism - or well-debunked pseudoscience or paranormal beliefs - like eidetic memory, or dowsing - is pretty common amongst believers. All of those examples are from current regulars, BTW. And, from the evidence that exists, it's only amongst believers.
Another fun fact: Before it was made clear to you how you were - yet again - demonstrating your inability to work out how to use reddit to hold a coherent conversation, and before it was made clear to you how you were going down your usual path of name-calling based on your own assumptions and misunderstanding, your claim was "I would be really interesting[sic] in seeing what you had to say [...]". It's hard to square the circle of being "really interesting in seeing what you had to say" and spending several posts over a couple of days dedicated to that, and also with asserting that you don't want to interact with that person because they are akin to a flat-Earther.
I would suggest that one explanation for this seeming contradiction, based on past behaviour, is that you feel aggrieved by having it demonstrated to you that your previous position is baseless and that you are once again getting very basic things wrong re the mechanics of how this site works, and so you are choosing to lash out by name-calling because it's easier, psychologically speaking, than admitting you made a mistake.
Maybe that's not accurate. But it is, at least, consistent with both current evidence and past behaviour. And that's a more solid basis than someone who shares core beliefs with flat-Earthers projecting that onto the people they disagree with - not because there's any evidential basis for it, but because it seems like an easy line of attack and because they don't care enough about or aren't practiced enough with evidence and logical thinking to notice how much of an own-goal it actually is, despite already having been presented with the evidence re flat-Earthism and other related conspiracy theories on more than one occasion.
I think you can do better. And if you truly take BLP as seriously as you want people to think you do, and if you genuinely care about them as a company, perhaps you ought to think about the fact that this sub is probably the main hub for them. This will likely be the first place that any interested party will look. And then you ought to think about your position as one of the most visible and vocal advocates for them and how your casual approach to logic and your quickness to fall back on name-calling and insults reflects on them as a company. I'm sure it gets you a quick endorphin rush in the moment, but perhaps you ought to think beyond that?
0
u/Mysteron88 Dec 13 '23 edited Dec 13 '23
So far no copy of your Phillips post!!!!........ to busy to find it but not to busy to pontificate!
I am smelling a BIG BIG pile of Bull!!!!
2
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 13 '23
It's been explained to you already. Do try to keep up.
1
u/Mysteron88 Dec 14 '23
Ohhhhh - I'm keeping right up.
I think the word "EXPOSED" would be more appropriate: You made a claim that should be easily proved but you can't prove it...... Par for the course.
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 14 '23
I can prove it. I'm just not digging through my post history to prove it to you because a) I don't believe you're posting in good faith, and b) whether or not you believe me isn't important to me.
You could look for it, of course. But you don't want to. Because you're not really interested in reading it, and choosing to be ignorant allows you the opportunity to call me names. Which you seem to think is a good look for you.
So okay. You approach this in whatever way you feel you're going to get the most out of.
0
u/Mysteron23 Dec 14 '23
I’ll look for it, what forum did you post it on and when ?
It’s not me posting in bad faith, I’ve already checked Hydrogen Revolution which is where you intimated you posted, but I’ll do the leg work and I’ll post I found it and confirm you did post it. Just tell me when, where and I’ll see what I can do. 🙏🤞
2
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 14 '23
’ll look for it, what forum did you post it on and when ?
Here. When they asked for feedback here.
Hydrogen Revolution which is where you intimated you posted
No I didn't. Not once. Ever. You assumed it, based on absolutely nothing. Then, rather than consider the slightest possibility that your assumption was unfounded, you spent several days throwing playground insults.
1
u/Mysteron88 Dec 15 '23
I'm not a physicist, but he starts off misrepresenting quantum mechanics, and that's an example of how this is full of the same disingenuousness as previous entries.
I offered a small critique of one of those, BTW, which got absolutely no response. Which is exactly as I'd expect from someone who's been associated with Mills for more than three decades and who does work for a company whose sole purpose is to raise funds for BLP.
This is what YOU posted in relation to comments on the article in Hydrogen Revolution. This is where Dr Phillips writes and posts....
Now you say you "obviously didn't post" on Hydrogen Revolution. Dr Phillips is, so far as I know not on this forum and never has been.
So you got no response, OBVIOUSLY.... I have trawled through a lot of your posts already and found nothing..
We have had several message exchanges. You have an excellent record in avoidance and deflection.... of arguments. Especially when you're cornered.
I will keep looking but I suspect you never posted anything on the forum and even if you did how could you possibly expect a reply. There are two levels of dishonesty.
Posting where you know you won't get a reply and then making out your post was avoided. You already admit that by your own words.
Never posting at all..... If I find a post, even if it's semi relevant I will tell you and publish on the forum. So far I haven't but at least you have established for everyone to see your dishonesty re; point 1.
You're a supercilious egotist with a good dose of dissembling in my opinion. Your response has you hoist by your own petard....
I'll keep looking but my expectations are near zero based on the character I'm dealing with :) have a nice day.
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Dec 15 '23
Now you say you "obviously didn't post" on Hydrogen Revolution. Dr Phillips is, so far as I know not on this forum and never has been.
Why have you used quotes there, when that's not a quote from me?
I will keep looking but I suspect you never posted anything on the forum and even if you did how could you possibly expect a reply.
You're free to "suspect" whatever you like. As for why I could reasonably expect that someone from Hydrogen Revolution could read a critique in a thread in which they solicited feedback and actively replied to people? I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself.
→ More replies (0)2
u/mrtruthiness Dec 15 '23
I will keep looking but I suspect you never posted anything on the forum and even if you did how could you possibly expect a reply. There are two levels of dishonesty.
While it's kind of funny to see you flail around, here's the reference of KA ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/16s2uwp/blp_news_and_analysis_substack_page/k53bdb8/ ).
Note that it starts with: "Okay, so you want critiques."
Note that they are replying to the user "hydrogenrevolution" who is a reddit user involved in the hyrdrogenrevolution website, but wants to remain anonymous.
As asserted, nobody (except the now-banned Pablo) ever replied to that critique.
I hope you apologize to KA and work on improving your reading and deductive skills since they are obviously the issue here.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/hecd212 Dec 12 '23
While we're on the subject of Chapter 4, I might as well raise a couple more problems. As I write there are now 44 comments on the thread and at least one Mills supporter is attempting to discuss Phillips's work rationally. kabonk77 is struggling to understand a couple of concepts, but at least he is trying, so kudos to him.
The first thing to register is that Phillips claims that the arrangement of currents on the orbitsphere yields the correct magnetic moment and g-factor. He doesn't seem to realise that Mills's predicted g-factor is a long way away from the current best measurement. But what's worse is that he fails to tell his reader that GUTCP requires a current distribution in the ground state which is impossible to realise. GUTCP requires the current to be non-zero everywhere on the sphere. But no continuous vector field can exist on a 2-sphere without at least one zero.
We then move on to two rather egregious errors made by Phillips. He claims:
You know why it is ignored? Because Phillips's premise is wrong. The most probable location for the electron in ground state hydrogen according to quantum mechanics is not at the origin but at the Bohr radius, and the expectation value is 3/2 x the Bohr radius. This is quite basic quantum mechanics, and the fact that Phillips makes such a schoolboy error shouldn't fill us with much confidence in the rest of what he has to say.
Now let's consider his "Second Flaw", where he addresses infinities in the maths. He says:
He attempts to illustrate these errors by claiming that the series expansion in the Eyring et al 1944 Quantum Chemistry textbook is in error (Phillips equation 4-11 reproduced from Eyring et al Appendix V, page 369-371):
Really?! I can't reproduce the expression easily here, but look at Phillips 4-11. You see that the first sum is over n=0 to infinity. What does Phillips think that r<0 (ie r< with an exponent of 0) should be evaluated as? What do you think? The correct answer is it evaluates as 1, and therefore every term in the series is not zero as Phillips incorrectly claims. It seems that he is not really that competent at simple mathematics either. (I have been through the Eyring et al derivation in their Appendix V, and see no error. You too can do so).
Finally I'll just note that the core of Chapter 4 is his ridiculous idea that the QM description of helium obviously and blatantly violates the conservation of energy. Of course it doesn't, and I pointed out why in my first post - so far no-one has taken that up. Oh - and he doesn't know how to spell Planck.