Interesting. Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory? If so, I have something to contribute:
There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy. A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction of cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is therein defined): http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two is the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial hierarchy's electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my intuition that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by complex numbers. An introduction to Noyes's bitstring physics: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9707020.pdf wherein he associates the four levels of the combinatorial hierarchy with the four scale constants for the superstrong, strong, electroweak and gravitational interactions respectively On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll <jef...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of > the atom. > > ============================================== > For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine > structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 > Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery > ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good > theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” > Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: > A magic number with no understanding by man” > > In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by > Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. > In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional > values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following > energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a > stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the > fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's > theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy > calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or > the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). > The energy equations are: > 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. > 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. > 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite > number of "great circles" (as described by Mills) on the surface of a > sphere having radius R. > 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a > sphere having radius R. > 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity > relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. > > The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, > meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and > Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found > in physics textbooks. > The energy equations are related to Mills's "Pair Production" (where a > photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical > theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the > electron would be impossible in my view. > > Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived > using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different > postulates. > > 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the > principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all > stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal > to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not > a function of principal quantum number). > 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron > due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable > orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the > electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the > elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable > orbits. > > You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: > > http://zhydrogen.com > > Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I > think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small > magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton. You can see more > detail in Mills's book, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) > which is streamed here: > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/ > > >
