I assume it is either impossible or almost impossible to measure the size
of an excited hydrogen atom (i.e. n = 2, 3, 4 ...) - otherwise Mills would
use that as proof,
Though he shows through math why his size is correct - google
"correspondence principle Randell Mills"
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> That is right Harry. Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-)
>
> Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values
> which is like the quantum theory as I understand. Practical values are
> limited by how easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that
> is far less than infinity.
>
> This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way. Mills
> predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while
> quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square. This is a huge
> difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly
> established. How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one
> calculation than the next without being obvious?
>
> Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware. Does anyone
> know of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that
> supports one of these theories?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
>
>
> While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be
> no debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote:
>
>> I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have
>> the series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e.
>> (1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the
>> other integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is
>> found to be valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the
>> 1/137 term.
>>
>> But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what
>> we prefer. :(
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states
>>> that retain locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped
>>> photon representing the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c)
>>> becomes a classical angular momentum quanta in phase space with quantum
>>> number 137 attached.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron "becoming a photon" as
>> it approaches the lowest level.
>>
>> Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3,
>> 1/4, ..., 1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.)
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>
--
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998
