On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < [email protected]> wrote:
Now really what you have in Mills is Re(Ylm(e)exp(iwt) but that means that > this photon field inside > the orbitsphere is a standing wave. > If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential charge density across the surface of the sphere. I have seen a few diagrams in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect. It appears to be an ad hoc modification to account for something that was lost when Mills set aside the geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a sphere. The nucleus is a more complex setup of EM + boundary conditions. Not sure > that you could rule out > a spherical wave. > Yes. Nuclei can have spherical waves (s-waves), and many other kinds of waves (p, d, etc.). Also forget Mills, use QM if you don't like it. > I don't take issue QM. I take issue with orbitspheres. You are a proponent of Mills's theory, and you are using spherical harmonics. I'm trying to better understand this situation. Smell it and tell me what you don't like or like about it - the mills > versus QM, is really of less importance here > In addition to the idea that you are seeking feedback on (which I don't weigh in on here), an important question is whether Mills's theory is self-consistent and consistent with the experimental evidence. I'm trying to probe this somewhat unrelated question. Discussion threads on Vortex are allowed to go all over the place. Eric
