I really do not have any idea about how difficult it would be to prove the
atomic size issue, but that might actually become the main deciding measurement
once completed. Either the size goes up directly with the excitation energy
level or much faster as the square of that number. I bet this will be done
soon if not for some complex issue.
Actually, I read that the excited hydrogen electron has several significantly
different than spherical shapes according to Wiki and DGT referred to as
Rydberg orbitals. It is not evident why they are not spherical, but that is
what the authors claim.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Driscoll <jef...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
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
