Milles states in his book as follows:
*In addition to many predictions that simply do not agree with observations even regarding the one electron atom [2 17], the Schrödinger equation predicts noncausality, nonlocality, spooky actions at a distance or quantum telepathy, perpetual motion, and many internal inconsistencies where contradicting statements have to be taken true simultaneously. The behavior of free electrons in superfluid helium is but one example of a phenomenon that forces the issue of the meaning of the wavefunction. Electrons form bubbles in superfluid helium, which reveal that the electron is real and that a physical interpretation of the wavefunction is necessary. Furthermore, when irradiated with light of energy of about a 0.5 to several eV [18], the electrons carry current at different rates as if they exist with different sizes. It has been proposed that the behavior of free electrons in superfluid helium can be explained in terms of the electron breaking into pieces at superfluid helium temperatures [18]. Yet, the electron has proven to be indivisible even under particle accelerator collisions at 90 GeV (LEPII). The nature of the wavefunction must now be addressed. It is time for the physical rather than the mathematical nature of the wavefunction to be determined. * I have read an initial page or two into his book and Mills already states that he does not believe in the possibility of the non-locality of electron quantum mechanical properties. In my opinion, this quantum behavior is what causes the fractional nature of the spin and charge of the electron in a sub quantum orbit in a hydrogen atom. This intrinsic nature of the electron has been shown experimentally. Mills cannot pick and choose what experimental results that he likes or dislikes. All reality as defined by experiment must be accepted by the theorist for his theory to be valid, the reason for the experimental inconsistencies defined and demonstrated as applicable experimentally. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> wrote: > mills has books online that describe what you are looking for, > > click on free book access: > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/ > > the book streams to your computer very fast and easy to read (not > necessarily understand, you have to put some work into it) > > standalone atoms are fully described all the way down to quarks and gluons > > there is a huge section on molecules in his books, > > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Mills >> theory. This theory is purported to be a universally applied theory of the >> atom, but it requires the mediation of a catalyst to appear. >> The requirement for a catalyst adds consideration of the chemically based >> mediation of other electrons associated with the catalyst to affect the >> quantum mechanical behavior of the atom in question. >> >> The mills hydrino theory is purported to be an atomic theory, but it is >> really a condensed matter theory. In other words, the Mills theory cannot >> rightfully describe the behavior of a standalone atom in terms of orbits of >> its electrons. >> >> Furthermore, the mathematical description of hydrino atom's behavior >> never includes the interactions of neighboring electrons and their >> influence on the hydrino atom. >> >> In the explanation of his theory to the best of my understanding, Mills >> never mentions how the actions and influences of the electrons that are in >> the environment of the hydrino atom effect or cause the hydrino atom >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, JeffD <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> I have a website that goes into the details of BLP's theory: >>> >>> http://zhydrogen.com >>> >>> I have one PDF (near the top of the home page and shown below) that I >>> made that shows interesting calculations dealing with the hydrogen atom - >>> and is one of the reasons that I believe Mills's theory is correct. >>> >>> http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy.pdf >>> >>> I still believe in BLP even though I tried to replicate their CIHT >>> device last year without success (this is the non-plasma, non-MHD >>> version). >>> >>> http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, [email protected]: >>>> >>>> This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- >>>> if true: >>>> >>>> http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+ >>>> Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+ >>>> Millions/9384649/story.html >>>> >>>> Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. >>>> Not LENR, but energy >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>> Cluj, Romania >>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Jeff Driscoll > 617-290-1998 >
