This paper is pretty harsh. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/pdf/njp5_1_127.pdf It's difficult to imagine how the CQM advocates could have adequately addressed these questions.
Sent from my iPhone. On May 21, 2011, at 3:23, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 20 May 2011 > 07:24:55 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> From Robin: >> >>> [snip] >>>> Is there anyone who believes Mills' hydrino theory who also understands >>>> quantum mechanics? >>> >>> Yes, Mills. :) >>> >>> (Actually he's not the only one, there are probably quite a few, but far >> less >>> that would go out on a limb and admit it.) >>> Personally I think QM is the norm, and Mills is an allowed exception, >> which >>> means that it happens some of the time. >> >> Some of the time??? X'plain yourself Sir Robin! ;-) > > Mills' ground state orbitals are spherical. In QM the electron travels > radially > frequently passing through the nucleus. I think the latter is the norm, but I > think "Bohr like" orbitals are possible, and occasionally happen (see Rydberg > orbitals). IOW I don't think Millsian spherical orbitals are ruled out, I just > don't think they are common. However under the right circumstances, I think > an H > atom can be convinced to occupy such an orbital. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >
