Should have added this. In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen as superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is concerned - as is his rejection of QM.
IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square
integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s
equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep
hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe
it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion.
BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of
the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory,
with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between
the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”.
The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV
photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of
Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior
understanding is the metastate permitting both.
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe
entangelment ...
Just to note, I have a few issues with Mills
CQM.
1. Transients seam to not be covered by the
theory, only the eigen states
2. I don't know how you do combinations of
eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if Mills
can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect
that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something
about entanglement. No? what do you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
The details are made intentionally vague. I think that the
ironic thing about Mills rejection of QM, in place of what he wants us to
believe is “classical” – but looks a lot like paraphrasing, is that
eigenstates and eigenvectors and eigenvalues and QM matrix math seem to be
capable of explaining the hydrino state and orbitsphere as well as what he
proposes. As a non-expert but curious observer, I can see how something like
shear mapping of a 2D OS is at least as intuitive as the Mills version. My
impression is that RM picked up a little QM in the nineties, and was
possibly competent in the field 20 years ago - but thereafter became too
busy to keep up with progress, as he was chasing investment dollars. This
emphasis on Aspect is the perfect example of this lack of competence. QED.
Of course, that same lack of QM expertise could be said
about most of the regular posters on this forum (myself for sure – but there
could be a lurker or two who is highly qualified, perhaps yourself) but the
difference is that we did not take in $120 million over the years, based on
a series of failed promises for a working device – which device was firmly
based on a theory which essentially wants to reject QM, but ends up looking
like a poor imitation.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
