*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.*
Richard Feynman said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > 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. > > >
