|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2005 : 19:51:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
OK. Well properly, relativity is a *generalization* of Newtonian physics, and reduces to Newtonian at low speeds.
I'm sure you meant to say that Newtonian physics is a generalization of relativity, as in most of the times, Newtonian physics is sufficient.
quote:
The same cannot be said of QM. It is a near complete break from proceeding physics.
...because it relates to subatomic particles. Once you're on molecular levels and above, Newtonian physics rule.
quote:
Right, I see what you mean. A standing wave around a nucleus can only have integer number of wavy thingies. *But* imagine a single standing wave which is wrapped exactly twice around the nucleus before coming back to it starting point. That would make for a 1/2 orbital.
Think a little more careful about what you just said. Give it a minute or two considering a wave.
A sine wave starts with a positive half (after the first half orbit it would have reached a maximum). After this positive half the N-½ electron wave, it would have completed its first orbit. When it starts its second lap the values goes negative, reaching a nevative maximum after half orbit, thus cancelling out the first orbit. There will be no resonance with fractions of a wavelength.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 20:04:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
They would have the same bouyancy, because the weight of hyrdino H2 is the same as as normal H2, and the same number of molecules occupy a given volume of course.
Why "of course?" The electric replusion of H2 molecules from each other is based upon nothing but the electrons. If the electrons are physically closer to the protons, given the same pressure and temperature, more molecules will be in a given volume.
Not with a gas, Dave. That goes for liquids and solids. In gas, with the the same temp, pressure, and volume, all gasses will have the same amount of molecules (or atoms, if noble gas). Markie is right about that one. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/10/2005 20:05:28 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 07:44:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.I'd like to see where QM says such a thing. It says that the ground state is the one with the lowest possible energy. Such a state cannot radiate energy.
Well, first it was observed that hydrogen has a lowest non-ratiating state, and an integer based formula was generated to account for it. Based on *that* premise, sure, it "cannot" have a lower energy. But that "cannot" is entirely mathematically dogmatized from an original observational "does not".
quote:
Particles aren't waves in Mills' theory. And a 7/8ths waveform would "come back to its starting point" every 56 orbits.
Good figuring. Yes according to the crude analogy I gave it would I suppose. But I have greatly oversimplified Mill's representation, and with his level of detail apparently the 7/8 is not allowed.
quote:
quote:
That just goes to demonstrate a point of mine, that different people have different ideas about what even the simple e=mc2 means. While you say that mass *is* energy, I would take it to mean that the two are not the same, but rather interconvertable.
Which means you haven't studied. A 16-lb bowling ball (7.27 kg) with enough kinetic energy to zip through space at .99c would appear to us here on Earth to have a mass of over 51 kg. Energy is mass, and mass is energy.
Nice try but I'm not convinced. By that logic, such a ball having a velocity of .99c would be flattened in the direction of it's motion. But can I therefore say that such length contraction *is* energy?
quote:
How do you know his equations do correlate well with physical observation? You don't. You're taking it on faith.
At this stage of the game, yes, but there is some sight involved as well.
quote:
No, you've missed the point. The act of measurement necessarily changes the system. Yes, an electron is somewhere after we measure its momentum, but we don't know where, and the more precisely we've measured its momentum, the larger the realm of possibility for its position becomes. That's always been seen as inherent to the nature of these tiny particles which cannot not be affected by measurement.
Whoa! So you *are* an old schooler! Please take note, SubjectMatter. Dave believes that the electron *actually does* has a a position somewhere, and that position is merely uncertain. But Dave, you should be aware that the newer version of affairs states that, until the "collapse of the wave function", the electron actually *doesn't* have any discrete position.
For instance, with the double slit experiment, it is concluded that the electron somehow goes through both slits at once in order for it to generate the interferance pattern.
quote:
You've missed the point. Whether Mills is right or wrong, considering him to be a crackpot frees us for more important issues while we wait for his next big announcement. Even if I'm wrong about him, I lose precisely nothing for being wrong (unless he's adding me to his "enemies list" right now  ).
Mills is too busy, and I suppose too nice, to compose an enemies list. And personally, I *would* feel lessened if I ridiculed someone, whether he was right or not.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 08:03:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
?? It does give off energy, but even that emmission of a photon is not direct; a third party atom is involved in the conjoining of two atomic hydrogen atoms, and that third party then emits the photon.
This is news to me. Is this requirement somewhere in some QM tome I've missed reading?
I can only suppose it is. Here's an extract from Harvard: quote:
Although molecular hydrogen is the most abundant species in space, no satisfactory explanation for its formation in the interstellar medium has yet been proposed. It is usually assumed that H_2 is formed by recombination of H atoms adsorbed on grains which migrate from one site to another and react to form H_2. The energy released in the reaction is dissipated in the grain and used in the desorbtion process.
quote:
Ah but did you notice that Standard Theory had to be altered to accomodate this? As usual, it morphs itself to conform to experiment.quote:
Um, only religion, pyschoses and crackpot science fail to change in the face of new observations. The "morphing" of scientific theories is one of the great advantages of science. That you think it's a fault speaks volumes about why we have these discussions, markie.
Yes it is nice that QM is flexible. But that comes at a price of so many ad hoc and piece meal additions to the theory that is somewhat disconcerting. And so it is very weak in actual predictive value. For instance, it has nothing to say about the mass of an electron (which it takes simple as a point particle or a probability wave), and many other very basic features.
quote:
... If the transition from n-1 to n-1/2 releases 40.8 eV also, where does the extra 13.6 eV come from, and why aren't the proton and electron completely converted into energy, instead remaining as a "hydrino?"
According to Mills, the n to n/2 transition is 13.6 eV, which happens to match the net energy released when the proton and electron come together.
quote:
quote:
However, many other spectra in the sun *which are currently unknown and unassigned* conform very well to the various hydrino transitions possible in Mill's theory.
Like which ones? We'll go double-check his work.
OK, the spectral line corresponding to energy of 228 eV has no assignment, but Mills assigns it to the transition energy from H(1) to H(1/3) which has a theoretical value of 227.95 eV. This and many other matches can be found in table form at http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10.03/Chapters/Chapter%2040.pdf
Mark
|
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 08:17:40 [Permalink]
|
I predict the opposite, namely that QT as we know it will be seen in the future to be a foray into foolishness
That's one hell of a foray into foolishness. This "foolishness" is responsible trillions of dollars' worth of products. All solid-state circuitry is a result of applied quantum science. As are lasers and masers. And don't let's forget emerging fields like quantum cryptography, or nanotechnology.
If only we could always be so foolish! |
| Edited by - sts60 on 10/11/2005 08:18:12 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 08:24:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by markie
OK. Well properly, relativity is a *generalization* of Newtonian physics, and reduces to Newtonian at low speeds.
I'm sure you meant to say that Newtonian physics is a generalization of relativity, as in most of the times, Newtonian physics is sufficient.
No mismeaning. Newtonian physics is a reduced, specific low speed case of the relativity equations, which apply generally to both high speed and low speed contexts.
quote:
quote:
The same cannot be said of QM. It is a near complete break from proceeding physics.
...because it relates to subatomic particles. Once you're on molecular levels and above, Newtonian physics rule.
Sure that's what we're taught, but many such as myself have problems with a 'physics' which assumes diffirent rules on different scales.
quote:
Think a little more careful about what you just said. Give it a minute or two considering a wave.
A sine wave starts with a positive half (after the first half orbit it would have reached a maximum). After this positive half the N-½ electron wave, it would have completed its first orbit. When it starts its second lap the values goes negative, reaching a nevative maximum after half orbit, thus cancelling out the first orbit. There will be no resonance with fractions of a wavelength.
I think I see your point. I'm afraid my oversimplication is not doing Mill's presentation much justice. Since I have only the first edition of Windows 98 I'm not able to view the avi videos which are on the BLP site which go into details which I'm not even touching on.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 09:13:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Not with a gas, Dave. That goes for liquids and solids. In gas, with the the same temp, pressure, and volume, all gasses will have the same amount of molecules (or atoms, if noble gas). Markie is right about that one.
Guess I've forgotten some of the basic chemistry I learned 26 years ago. Ack. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 09:30:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well, first it was observed that hydrogen has a lowest non-ratiating state, and an integer based formula was generated to account for it. Based on *that* premise, sure, it "cannot" have a lower energy. But that "cannot" is entirely mathematically dogmatized from an original observational "does not".
Where are you getting this stuff? The first question a reasonable scientist would have asked after observing the ground state is, "is this an absolute minimum or just an observational effect?" In other words, "is there a reason to believe that there could be states below the ground state?" The integral formula came later.quote:
Good figuring. Yes according to the crude analogy I gave it would I suppose. But I have greatly oversimplified Mill's representation, and with his level of detail apparently the 7/8 is not allowed.
Well, if electrons are no longer represented as waves, there's no good reason to think that an electron cannot exist in a 7/8ths state. The "resonance" Mills speaks of is a resosnance with the catalyst molecule's energy.quote:
Nice try but I'm not convinced. By that logic, such a ball having a velocity of .99c would be flattened in the direction of it's motion. But can I therefore say that such length contraction *is* energy?
There is no formula E=c2/l (nor E=c2/t) which would correlate the Lorenz contraction (for length or time) with energy. And if there were, we'd already know that to increase warhead yield, we should use flat disks of plutonium placed crosswise to the direction of warhead travel instead of spheres. That's an absurdity, of course.quote:
Whoa! So you *are* an old schooler! Please take note, SubjectMatter. Dave believes that the electron *actually does* has a a position somewhere, and that position is merely uncertain. But Dave, you should be aware that the newer version of affairs states that, until the "collapse of the wave function", the electron actually *doesn't* have any discrete position.
For instance, with the double slit experiment, it is concluded that the electron somehow goes through both slits at once in order for it to generate the interferance pattern.
Well, if you want to go that route (despite Mills saying that electrons aren't waves)... It's actually beside the point, and a nice diversion from what Mills is claiming. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 09:35:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sts60
I predict the opposite, namely that QT as we know it will be seen in the future to be a foray into foolishness
That's one hell of a foray into foolishness. This "foolishness" is responsible trillions of dollars' worth of products. All solid-state circuitry is a result of applied quantum science. As are lasers and masers. And don't let's forget emerging fields like quantum cryptography, or nanotechnology.
If only we could always be so foolish!
Hehe, OK mabe I was pressing the aliteration too far. Nevertheless, although there will always be a quantum theory, it will be revised at its most fundamental levels I think within the next 100 years. Specifically, the QT's current forsaking of causality and determinism may be seen to be a big mistake. Science gone mystical.
Some applications of quantum theory like lasers do not require the more esoteric concepts associated with current QT. Admittedly, other technologies which take advantage of the more strange aspects like quantum tunnelling and entanglement are more difficult to explain classically. However Dr. Mills makes such an attempt.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 10:22:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I can only suppose it is. Here's an extract from Harvard:
Which says nothing about the necessity of a catalyst atom for H to become H2 in an elecrolysis cell. It's talking about the cold reaches of interstellar space.quote:
Yes it is nice that QM is flexible. But that comes at a price of so many ad hoc and piece meal additions to the theory that is somewhat disconcerting.
No, markie, every scientific theory displays the same amount of flexibility. You must find the scientific enterprise itself to be "somewhat disconcerting."quote:
And so it is very weak in actual predictive value. For instance, it has nothing to say about the mass of an electron (which it takes simple as a point particle or a probability wave), and many other very basic features.
The rest mass of the electron was measured years before QM was even dreamt of. Is it worthwhile to have theories which predict things already known? No, the utility of theories is in the prediction of things we haven't yet observed.quote:
According to Mills, the n to n/2 transition is 13.6 eV, which happens to match the net energy released when the proton and electron come together.
Then here, why does he say,...each (n = 1) ordinary hydrogen atom undergoing a catalysis step to n = 1/2 releases a net of 40.8 eV. To further demonstrate Mills' violations of the laws of conservation of energy, over here he says,For example, all transitions to the n = 1/100 state of hydrogen taken together release 136 keV. Yes, he said 136 thousand eV. Where does all that energy come from?quote:
OK, the spectral line corresponding to energy of 228 eV has no assignment, but Mills assigns it to the transition energy from H(1) to H(1/3) which has a theoretical value of 227.95 eV. This and many other matches can be found in table form at http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10.03/Chapters/Chapter%2040.pdf
I'll go looking into this more, later. Is the line truly unassigned? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 14:51:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. No, markie, every scientific theory displays the same amount of flexibility. You must find the scientific enterprise itself to be "somewhat disconcerting."
Well I don't think that the relativity theories and such are "flexible". Because of this, they are nicely falisiable. But quantum theory is so adjustable that it is more 'modifiable' than falsifiable. Perhaps then it shall so modify itself that it will eventually bear little resemblance to current theory.
quote:
The rest mass of the electron was measured years before QM was even dreamt of. Is it worthwhile to have theories which predict things already known? No, the utility of theories is in the prediction of things we haven't yet observed.
Sure, go ahead and pretend that you're not a little perplexed as to why quantum physics can't come to such elementary conclusions as the size and mass of the electron and other atomic properties. :)
quote:
According to Mills, the n to n/2 transition is 13.6 eV, which happens to match the net energy released when the proton and electron come together. Then here, why does he say,...each (n = 1) ordinary hydrogen atom undergoing a catalysis step to n = 1/2 releases a net of 40.8 eV.
That's a tough one, I'm not entirely sure why he says 48.8 eV(=13.6 eV x 3) instead of just 13.6. It seems from the below quote from the same article that 13.6 x 2 is taken away non radiatively by the catalyst, and the remaining 13.6 is radiated away. If so, I wasn't clear on that at all: quote:
The n =1 state of hydrogen and the n =1 integer states of hydrogen are nonradiative, but
a transition between two nonradiative states, say n =1 to n =1 / 2 , is possible via a nonradiative energy transfer. Thus, a catalyst provides a net positive enthalpy of reaction of m .27.2 eV (i.e. it resonantly accepts the nonradiative energy transfer from hydrogen atoms and releases the energy to the surroundings to affect electronic transitions to fractional quantum energy levels). As a consequence of the nonradiative energy transfer, the hydrogen atom becomes unstable and emits further energy until it achieves a lower-energy nonradiative state having a principal energy levels.
quote:
To further demonstrate Mills' violations of the laws of conservation of energy, over here he says,For example, all transitions to the n = 1/100 state of hydrogen taken together release 136 keV. Yes, he said 136 thousand eV. Where does all that energy come from?
If one can *imagine* that there exists a very, very stable form of atomic hydrogen which is 100 times smaller than normal atomic hydrogen, then that atomic hydrogen would be very low energy indeed (compared to normal H)because the negative electron is that much closer to the positive nucleus. To get from a relatively high energy H to a very low energy H, much energy would have to be radiated away, somehow.
quote:
I'll go looking into this more, later. Is the line truly unassigned?
We'll I'm taking Mills word for it, but I suspect that such is confirmed in the literature. If not, if won't look good for Mills.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 19:18:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well I don't think that the relativity theories and such are "flexible". Because of this, they are nicely falisiable. But quantum theory is so adjustable that it is more 'modifiable' than falsifiable. Perhaps then it shall so modify itself that it will eventually bear little resemblance to current theory.
Relativity is indeed flexible, if we find observations that don't fit. From what I understand, MOND represents a modification of general relativity at galactic scales.quote:
Sure, go ahead and pretend that you're not a little perplexed as to why quantum physics can't come to such elementary conclusions as the size and mass of the electron and other atomic properties. :)
And modern evolutionary theory "fails" the predict the structure of DNA and the three base-pair coding. General relativity "fails" to predict the curvature of space-time. Newtonian physics "fails" to predict the relative strengths of the forces it works with. All theories fail to predict that which they don't claim to be able to predict, markie. All theories also fail to predict those things they use as axioms.
By the way, I think that if M-Theory comes to fruition, it will correctly predict the size and mass of all the elementary particles. Its domain is "below" that of quantum theory, and so has the potential to predict those things which are built from it.quote:
That's a tough one, I'm not entirely sure why he says 48.8 eV(=13.6 eV x 3) instead of just 13.6. It seems from the below quote from the same article that 13.6 x 2 is taken away non radiatively by the catalyst, and the remaining 13.6 is radiated away. If so, I wasn't clear on that at all:
13.6x2 = 27.2, which is the energy in the ground state of hydrogen. If that much is removed from n=1 hydrogen, no energy is left, period (radiating energy or "resonantly" taking energy away becomes moot at zero eV). In fact, adding 13.6 eV to n=1 hydrogen will completely dissociate the proton and electron, so 40.8 eV represents the n=infitity state of hydrogen.quote:
If one can *imagine* that there exists a very, very stable form of atomic hydrogen which is 100 times smaller than normal atomic hydrogen, then that atomic hydrogen would be very low energy indeed (compared to normal H)because the negative electron is that much closer to the positive nucleus. To get from a relatively high energy H to a very low energy H, much energy would have to be radiated away, somehow.
No, markie. If one can read, one knows that there's only 27.2 eV available in n=1 hydrogen to begin with. There simply isn't 136 keV of kinetic energy in an n=1 hydrogen atom. There isn't even 40.8 eV available in an n=1 hydrogen atom.quote:
We'll I'm taking Mills word for it, but I suspect that such is confirmed in the literature. If not, if won't look good for Mills.
I'm having a heck of a time even finding a solar spectrum which includes 228 eV in it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 19:48:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
quote:
The same cannot be said of QM. It is a near complete break from proceeding physics.
...because it relates to subatomic particles. Once you're on molecular levels and above, Newtonian physics rule.
Sure that's what we're taught, but many such as myself have problems with a 'physics' which assumes diffirent rules on different scales.
How do you feel about meteorology? Do you have problems with the Coriolis effect because it only applies on weather-systems and ballistic (more than a few miles) calculations, and not the bathtub or at the local skeet-shooting range? Contrary to folklore water does not rotate clockwise counter-clockwise in all toilets in Australia.
At some point or another one set of rules becomes increasingly insufficient for calculating, and new rules need to be applied. That the distiction between "regular" physics and quantum mechanics is so pronounced is a blessing in my opinion. It makes it easier to decide what set of rules to apply.
(Edited, evidenced by strikeout.) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/11/2005 20:09:44 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 08:16:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. Relativity is indeed flexible, if we find observations that don't fit. From what I understand, MOND represents a modification of general relativity at galactic scales.
OK, I'll compromise. I suppose 'falsifiability' should pertain more to particular claims of fact. Theories are bigger and more flexible, and rather than being 'falsified' we can say that they are 'incomplete'.
quote:
All theories fail to predict that which they don't claim to be able to predict, markie. All theories also fail to predict those things they use as axioms. By the way, I think that if M-Theory comes to fruition, it will correctly predict the size and mass of all the elementary particles. Its domain is "below" that of quantum theory, and so has the potential to predict those things which are built from it.
Hmmm, I see your point. It's just 'strange' that QT can say *some* things about things as supposedly fundamental as (say) quarks, (pun intended) but miss so many other things. Anyways, I'll just be polite and call QT 'incomplete, in profound ways.' Is M-Theory up to the task? From what I've seen I predict no.
quote:
No, markie. If one can read, one knows that there's only 27.2 eV available in n=1 hydrogen to begin with. There simply isn't 136 keV of kinetic energy in an n=1 hydrogen atom. There isn't even 40.8 eV available in an n=1 hydrogen atom.
Ah but *if* there was a principle that made a stable electron orbit possible well below the n=1 ground state, there *would* be much more energy in the n=1 hydrogen atom. It's all relative.
quote:
I'm having a heck of a time even finding a solar spectrum which includes 228 eV in it.
I'm looking as well and I can't yet find a comprehesive list of solar emission lines.
Mark
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
