User talk:GUTCP

The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics

Randell L. Mills figured out in 1989 where the creators of "Quantum Mechanics" (Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, Paul Dirac, etc.) went wrong in 1925/26.

Niels Bohr (1913) tried to solve the physical nature of the hydrogen atom as a force balance between the electrostatic attraction of the Coulomb force and the centripetal force of an orbiting electron. The Rydberg formula of spectral lines is seen in Bohr's theory as describing energies of transitions between orbital energy levels. Sommerfeld expanded Bohr's model in 1916 to account for other quantum effects in spectral lines that had been discovered more recently. In both Bohr's and Sommerfeld's models, the electron is a planetary, zero-dimensional point particle orbiting the nucleus. The physics professions remained skeptical about the Bohr-Sommerfeld model since planetary point particles would have radiated and crashed into the nucleus. The Bohr model required some unspecified "magic" to be compatible with the known laws of physics. Nine years later, the Stern-Gerlach experiment of 1922 called for a fourth quantum number that could no longer be fitted into the Bohr-Sommerfeld model of planetary zero-dimensional point particles.

Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and Pascual Jordan came up with "matrix mechanics" in 1925. It interprets the physical properties of particles as mathematical matrices that evolve in time. Stimulated by Louis de Broglie's matter-wave postulate, Erwin Schrödinger came up a few months later with a partial differential equation that describes how the quantum state of a "quantum system" changes with time. Schrödinger believed, at first, that he had derived a solution to the physical nature of the hydrogen atom. But that was not the case: as he found out soon after, his formula was only valid for (high-dimensional) "configuration space" and not three-dimensional space plus time. Moreover, his famous equation can only derive spectral lines for hydrogen, not even (two-electron) helium, let alone other atoms.

The following year (1926) Max Born used the Schrödinger equation for a particle scattering problem, and concluded that it had to be interpreted in a "statistical" sense: the Schrödinger equation only gives the probability that a measurement on a "quantum system" will yield a given result. A year later, at the Fifth Solvay Conference, Niels Bohr pressured the attending thirty leading physicists to accept the Born-Bohr ("Copenhagen") interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as the "correct" interpretation of physics at the scale of elementary particles: the laws of classical physics (Newton, Maxwell, etc.) would apply only to the macro-scale of physical objects, such as planets or stars, but the microscopic particle world was governed by the statistical "magic" of Max Born.

Albert Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics, nor did Erwin Schrödinger or Louis de Broglie. All three remained firmly convinced that there was another, physical solution to the puzzle of four quantum numbers that simply had not yet been found. But by 1932 the statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechnics became established dogma with the publication of John von Neumann's book "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics" (in German, English version 1955). On Wall Street one would call this a hostile take-over of physics by mathematicians who were not really interested in physics.

In 1989, Randell Mills figured where the creators of "Quantum Mechanics" had gone wrong 64 years earlier: in his first, unpublished attempt with a classical wave equation, Schrödinger had applied a wrong, non-physical boundary condition. Once one applied physically meaningful boundary conditions, the true physical nature of the electron became evident: a two-dimensional sphere of charge, orbiting in correlated patterns at fixed distances around the nucleus. This solution also resolved the "radiation" problem of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model. An extended two-dimensional moving sphere of charge die not have to radiate as Goedecke (1964) and Haus (1986) had already demonstrated. Ehrenfest had actually considered this possibility in 1909. Once the physical nature of the hydrogen atom in the "ground" state has been derived, Mills was able to derive the physical nature of photons, excited states of atoms, one-electron ions of heavier elements, helium atoms, multi-electron atoms and ions, molecules, even large ones, such as proteins, and so on.

One particularly valuable contribution of Mills' reconstructed classical atomic theory is the possible existence of tightly bound states of hydrogen, termed "hydrino" by Mills: by resonant transfer of energy a hydrogen atom can be transformed into a stable, more tightly bound state with the release of large amounts of energy. This is a simple and elegant solution to many unsolved puzzles in physics and astronomy, for example the 95% "missing" mass of the universe (dark matter, dark energy), or the fact that the corona of the sun has an apparent temperature of millions of degrees, while its surface is at only 5800 K.

It also promises cheap and clean energy: after more than 20 years of experiments, Mills finally hit pay dirt: a cheap and reliable way to generate extremely energetic plasma, with only water as a consumable, and to transform the intense plasma radiation into a light source that can be converted with photo-voltaic cells into electricity. It is documented on the Brilliant Light Power (BrLP) website. Public demonstrations are held ever few weeks. Videos of the demonstrations and even intervening experimental milestones are posted as videos. Rather than engage in conspiracy theories, the editors of the Wikipedia Brilliant Light Power page could actually educate themselves about the biggest scientific and technological breakthrough that will be available in stores in the second half of 2017. Plenty of on-line and in-person demonstrations before.

Advertising: Brett Holverstott has just published a wonderful book "Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy". It should be accessible even to the not-so-smart editors of the Wikipedia Brilliant Light Power page.

Talk page comments

Please take a few minutes to read through this page on talk page layouts. You've added comments twice about a book to the very top of an existing section. You need to add them at the bottom of that section as you're comment is intended as a response to the section as a whole. I've reverted you comment you just added as it's not helpful at all. Your earlier comment with the link to the book was moved to the bottom and there is some discussion on the book, including some information you forgot to mention. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)