Quantum Theory Disproven? (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Was Einstein was correct when he made the remark "God does not play with dice"? Although quantum theory has held up through decades of scientific observation and experimentation, a new device that has been patented could drive a stake through the heart of the theory.

Randall Mills of Harvard University has claimed to have built a device which generates power from nothing more than water (NOT cold fusion), and which could completely put an end to our dependence on foreign oil. At the heart of Mills' new device is a new kind of hydrogen, a hydrino, which is one proton with one electron. The electron sits just a little closer to the center than normal, and the difference in the orbit of the electron, compared to that of hydrogen itself, is what provides the power.

This, of course, flies in the face of quantum theory, in which the electron can only be certain distances, from the center of the atom, according to its quantum properties. Mills is now in the process of producing a cheap home heater from this discovery, which should be ready, he says, in about 4 years. After that, the applications for power generation and heat transfer seem to be endless.

At this point, I am remaining skeptical, but the following possibility must be considered:

Goodbye quantum mechanics - Hello string theory!

Article is here.

 

[Kandahar]

Sounds to me like another crank scientist, with a typical media overhyping. His idea may not be cold fusion, but it sounds eerily reminiscent of that fiasco. He also reminds me of the thousands of people every year who claim to have invented perpetual motion machines. These scientists that are supporting him had better be damn sure they're right, or their careers will be over.

I have little doubt that quantum theory has some mistakes; however I'm much MORE skeptical that the first disproof will come in the form of a revolutionary new technology to give us cheap energy. Applications don't generally come until years AFTER the theories have been ironed out.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kandahar]

At this point, I am remaining skeptical, but the following possibility must be considered:

Goodbye quantum mechanics - Hello string theory!

Even if this did turn out to be true (and I'd give 100:1 odds that it's not), it wouldn't usher in string theory. It would just show that some of quantum theory is wrong.

 

[128shot]

Sounds to me like another crank scientist, with a typical media overhyping. His idea may not be cold fusion, but it sounds eerily reminiscent of that fiasco. He also reminds me of the thousands of people every year who claim to have invented perpetual motion machines. These scientists that are supporting him had better be damn sure they're right, or their careers will be over.

I have little doubt that quantum theory has some mistakes; however I'm much MORE skeptical that the first disproof will come in the form of a revolutionary new technology to give us cheap energy. Applications don't generally come until years AFTER the theories have been ironed out.

I'll believe it when I see it.

the guridan isn't what I call a stable news source to begin with either, I guess. I hear reports they give super misleading storys and even totally flat out false information.



Anyway.



This stuff has been worked on since the 70s, you know. so its possible, remotely....

 

[danarhea]

the guridan isn't what I call a stable news source to begin with either, I guess. I hear reports they give super misleading storys and even totally flat out false information.



Anyway.



This stuff has been worked on since the 70s, you know. so its possible, remotely....

Like I said, I am a skeptic on this, but with 50 validation reports and 65 peer-reviewed journal articles, I must admit that this is a possibility. He claims that he will introduce his discovery to the world in just a few months. If this pans out, these are about to become very interesting times.

 

[danarhea]

Turns out that this discovery is actually part of a battle that has already been waged for years, that of Classical Quantum Mechanics v. Standard Quantum Mechanics. This would not necessarily be disproving all facets of the quantum theory, but a unification of several theories by DeBroglie, Maxwell, Einstein, and Newton. Now here is the rub, and the irony of hydrino theory. While papers supporting this "discovery" do so under the classical model of quantum mechanics, the hydrino state is an impossibility under the classical model. While some are calling this theory "crackpot", the editor of the Journal of Applied Physics says:

His paper underwent formal review and was accepted for publication based on review. The findings are quite interesting and the reviewers found them relevant to the field, ... I'm actually kind of interested to see what happens now, when the news hits.

For astronomers, this theory might also explain the presence of dark matter in the universe. Of course, if it works, the end of the oil age is almost here.

For those who are interested:

Commercial website that is now up and running.

Website of the Hydrino Study Group.

An article from space.com.

 

[robin]

"Goodbye quantum mechanics - Hello string theory!"
I don't think so. The fact you can post such a statement on the internet from your PC which is based on semi conductor theory which is based on QE proves your statement is incorrect !

 

[danarhea]

"Goodbye quantum mechanics - Hello string theory!"
I don't think so. The fact you can post such a statement on the internet from your PC which is based on semi conductor theory which is based on QE proves your statement is incorrect !

Any theory is only viable as long as observation and experimentation support that theory. When an experiment shows a result that contradicts the theory, then the theory must be either revised or discarded. If these results do hold up, then there is a major flaw in quantum theory. If the hydrino experiments turn out to be valid, and evidence suggests that might be a possibility, then a main pillar has been kicked out from under quantum theory, and another theory must take its place, or the theory revised, and any attempt to revise quantum theory instead of throwing it out, in this case (assuming hydrino theory is proven), would be very messy indeed. After all, finding an energy state of an electron that does not correspond to the quantum theory invalidates the quantum theory. In that event, another explanation becomes necessary.

While string theory is an attempt to reconcile relativity and quantum theory, concepts which actually contradict each other, some very interesting results and predictions are supporting it now. String theory is a possible "Theory of Everything", the holy grail of physics, which makes it very exciting. If you have access to a public library, or if you are willing to spend a little money, The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, is an excellent book on string theory which can be understood by most who are unfamiliar with the concept.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

While string theory is an attempt to reconcile relativity and quantum theory, concepts which actually contradict each other, some very interesting results and predictions are supporting it now. String theory is a possible "Theory of Everything", the holy grail of physics, which makes it very exciting. If you have access to a public library, or if you are willing to spend a little money, The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, is an excellent book on string theory which can be understood by most who are unfamiliar with the concept.

The String Theory no longer holds any credibility amoung scientists because it requires the fabric of the universe to be curved and recent tests have prooven the fabric of the universe is flat. Dark matter is still just a theory and the discovery of suppermassive black holes does away with any need for the existence of dark matter.

 

[Kandahar]

The String Theory no longer holds any credibility amoung scientists because it requires the fabric of the universe to be curved and recent tests have prooven the fabric of the universe is flat.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

String theory has never truly been a "theory," because there's no evidence supporting it. It's still a hypothesis. With that said, we're decades away from being able to test it. As for the "curved vs. flat," you're talking about two different things. Yes, the current wisdom is that the shape of the universe as a whole is flat. However, that does not mean that the universe on the sub-sub-sub-subatomic level of a string is flat; in fact, the whole concept of "flatness" is meaningless at this level, because string theory hypothesizes that there are 10, 11, or 26 dimensions at this scale.

Dark matter is still just a theory and the discovery of suppermassive black holes does away with any need for the existence of dark matter.

Supermassive black holes are generally assumed to be made of "normal" matter. Dark matter is very different from this. While no one knows what dark matter is, there seems to be little doubt that there's about ten times more dark matter than normal matter. Black holes don't disprove it, because dark matter seems to be permeating the universe rather than concentrated in certain areas where black holes are suspected to lurk.

 

[danarhea]

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

String theory has never truly been a "theory," because there's no evidence supporting it. It's still a hypothesis. With that said, we're decades away from being able to test it. As for the "curved vs. flat," you're talking about two different things. Yes, the current wisdom is that the shape of the universe as a whole is flat. However, that does not mean that the universe on the sub-sub-sub-subatomic level of a string is flat; in fact, the whole concept of "flatness" is meaningless at this level, because string theory hypothesizes that there are 10, 11, or 26 dimensions at this scale.



Supermassive black holes are generally assumed to be made of "normal" matter. Dark matter is very different from this. While no one knows what dark matter is, there seems to be little doubt that there's about ten times more dark matter than normal matter. Black holes don't disprove it, because dark matter seems to be permeating the universe rather than concentrated in certain areas where black holes are suspected to lurk.

Let me add that string theory allows for "branes" which are not curved, and according to this theory, universes are created by the interesection of 2 branes.

In addition, you are correct. String theory is still a hypothesis. As for being disproven, there is no data to support that, although there is not enough data to prove it exists. That is why it is still a hypothesis.

If the hydrino experiments are proven to be true, one thing is certain. Quantum theory will lose the tenet that is vital to its continued existence, that of quanta, which will have been proven not to exist. That is why string theory is the next step, since there is a pretty large consensus of mainstream scientists investigating it. Will this be the theory of everything? Nobody knows. It may also be faulty, but is definitely worth a look. However, once again, if hydrinos exist, as the publications are suggesting they might, then quantum theory, for the most part, is toast, and we need to come up with another theory to explain our universe. Until now, the biggest fault with quantum theory is that it could not explain relativity, so we have had to live with 2 different theories - Quantum theory for the small scale, and relativity for the large scale. That in itself has been the achilles' heel for quantum theory, and if the hydrino experiments end up proving anything, it would only be to drive the final nail in the coffin of quantum theory, which has always had its problems.

Finally, at this time, string theory allows for 11 dimensions or 10, depending on which string theory you subscribe to.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

String theory has never truly been a "theory," because there's no evidence supporting it. It's still a hypothesis. With that said, we're decades away from being able to test it. As for the "curved vs. flat," you're talking about two different things. Yes, the current wisdom is that the shape of the universe as a whole is flat. However, that does not mean that the universe on the sub-sub-sub-subatomic level of a string is flat; in fact, the whole concept of "flatness" is meaningless at this level, because string theory hypothesizes that there are 10, 11, or 26 dimensions at this scale.

Except for the fact that as you said theres no evidence. The theory requires there to be an x number of dimensions even though there is only evidence of 4 dimensions.

Supermassive black holes are generally assumed to be made of "normal" matter. Dark matter is very different from this. While no one knows what dark matter is, there seems to be little doubt that there's about ten times more dark matter than normal matter. Black holes don't disprove it, because dark matter seems to be permeating the universe rather than concentrated in certain areas where black holes are suspected to lurk.

Ok..how to address this. The assumption of dark energy/matter was introduced because scientists needed to provide an explaination for how the universe is accelerating. Supper massive black holes have an enormous mass..quite enough to account for the acceleration. When supper massive black holes draw energy and matter into it, the energy is hyper accellerated, electrically charged, and released in the form of Unruh radiation. Given that fact and the sheer number of supper massive black holes in the universe, there is no need for the theory of dark energy to be considered because there is no evidence for it other than the fact that the universe is accelerating. There is substantial evidence that supper massive black holes are the cause of universal acceleration.

 

[Tashah]

The estimated constituent mix of the universe to date:

• Baryonic - 7%

• Non-Baryonic
1) Dark Matter - 23%
2) Dark Energy - 70%

 

[George_Washington]

The estimated constituent mix of the universe to date:

• Baryonic - 7%

• Non-Baryonic
1) Dark Matter - 23%
2) Dark Energy - 70%

And 10% unemployment, inflation, and sucky 401k plans. hahahha just kidding.

 

[Kandahar]

Except for the fact that as you said theres no evidence. The theory requires there to be an x number of dimensions even though there is only evidence of 4 dimensions.

Correct. Which is why I remain an agnostic on string theory until experimentation is possible.

Ok..how to address this. The assumption of dark energy/matter was introduced because scientists needed to provide an explaination for how the universe is accelerating.

That was why dark energy was introduced, yes. But dark matter is a completely different concept.

Supper massive black holes have an enormous mass..quite enough to account for the acceleration.

That doesn't make sense; an enormous mass (gravity) is a DRAG on acceleration.

When supper massive black holes draw energy and matter into it, the energy is hyper accellerated, electrically charged, and released in the form of Unruh radiation.

Current scientific wisdom is that this is correct (although the verdict is still out). But what does this have to do with the acceleration of the universe or with dark matter?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Correct. Which is why I remain an agnostic on string theory until experimentation is possible.

Well the fabric of the universe is flat so that should be your first clue. We'll see what happens with the data gathered by Gravity Probe B.

But dark matter is a completely different concept.

If by dark matter you mean anti-matter.

That doesn't make sense; an enormous mass (gravity) is a DRAG on acceleration.

No..it's not a drag on acceleration because of the hyper acceleration of the particles when they're ejected from the black hole.

 

[Kandahar]

Well the fabric of the universe is flat so that should be your first clue. We'll see what happens with the data gathered by Gravity Probe B.

But like I said, the universe itself being flat doesn't necessarily mean that it's flat at the string scale, if string theory is correct.

If by dark matter you mean anti-matter.

No, antimatter isn't a theoretical concept; it definitely exists and has been produced in laboratories. It's not that different from regular matter, other than the charge of the subatomic particles.

Dark matter is very different from regular matter or from dark energy. It has little in common with either of these ideas.

No..it's not a drag on acceleration because of the hyper acceleration of the particles when they're ejected from the black hole.

Fast-moving particles do not accelerate the universe as a whole, as far as astronomers can tell.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Going back to the OP, how does this device negate the theory of quantum mechanincs? (be gentle in explaining this (in other words minimal flaming), I'm just getting into this stuff and its a topic I'm interested in). With my understanding of QM, wouldn't having a hydrogen with an electron closer to the nucleus still be valid under QM using the electron cloud model? Since the e- position wouldn't be exceding the probability range for the s1 shell it would still be a valid configuration wouldnt it? Confused I am.

 

[shuamort]

Going back to the OP, how does this device negate the theory of quantum mechanincs? (be gentle in explaining this (in other words minimal flaming), I'm just getting into this stuff and its a topic I'm interested in). With my understanding of QM, wouldn't having a hydrogen with an electron closer to the nucleus still be valid under QM using the electron cloud model? Since the e- position wouldn't be exceding the probability range for the s1 shell it would still be a valid configuration wouldnt it? Confused I am.

Simply put, the process that the the quack Mills is proposing would mean you'd get more power out than you're putting in. This violates Einstein's 2nd. By the way, Mills? He's an M.D. and not a PhD. Meaning, medical doc and not one in physics. Keep your wallet in a secure place.

here's more info:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/blacklight_power_000522.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/blacklight_hydrinos_000523.html
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/blacklight_plasma_000523.html

 

[danarhea]

Simply put, the process that the the quack Mills is proposing would mean you'd get more power out than you're putting in. This violates Einstein's 2nd. By the way, Mills? He's an M.D. and not a PhD. Meaning, medical doc and not one in physics. Keep your wallet in a secure place.

here's more info:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/blacklight_power_000522.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/blacklight_hydrinos_000523.html
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/blacklight_plasma_000523.html

First, you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is not from Einstein. But apart from that, your statement is not correct. If it were, there would be no nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that, although the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies here, you are forgetting that the orbit of the electron of any atom contains a great amount of potential energy. If a new form of hydrogen is created, in which the orbit of the electron is closer to the nucleus (the proton), then that energy is unleashed. As you can see, nothing is violated. Matter and energy are not created, but merely transformed. That is the theory that is behind hydrino physics.

Also, I would not call Mills a quack, since he also studied physics, while studying to be a doctor. And dont forget that Albert Einstein was nothing more than a lowly patent clerk when he wrote his paper on special relativity. Mills' papers on the hydrino have been accepted for publication by mainstream scientists, and there have been 60 peer reviews on it. Although I remain a skeptic, the fact that mainstream scientists are interested in what he has published counts for something. I will be following this development until we know for sure, one way or the other.

 

[shuamort]

Go get this book.
Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

Good ol' Mr. Mills sued the author so it wouldn't get published. It did. LOL. Apparently "peer reviewed" is OK as long as it agrees with Mills.

Mills "process" creates a hydrogen atom with a lowered energy state and one of the by-products of this process is the hydrino. And he thinks this is be done by lowering the "ground state" of the hydrogen atom - essentially shrinking its electron orbit. Unfortunately for Mills, the hydrogen atom is the atom that most of the basis for modern particle physics is built upon owing to its inherent simplicity. For hydrinos to exist, we'd have to toss out about 75 years worth of very successful and very well proven particle physics and quantum theory; in addition we'd have to forget everything we know about the ground state. And as a kicker, Mills theory precludes existence of the Big Bang.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

First, you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is not from Einstein. But apart from that, your statement is not correct. If it were, there would be no nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that, although the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies here, you are forgetting that the orbit of the electron of any atom contains a great amount of potential energy. If a new form of hydrogen is created, in which the orbit of the electron is closer to the nucleus (the proton), then that energy is unleashed. As you can see, nothing is violated. Matter and energy are not created, but merely transformed. That is the theory that is behind hydrino physics.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a muon?

 

[danarhea]

Go get this book.
Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

Good ol' Mr. Mills sued the author so it wouldn't get published. It did. LOL. Apparently "peer reviewed" is OK as long as it agrees with Mills.

Mills "process" creates a hydrogen atom with a lowered energy state and one of the by-products of this process is the hydrino. And he thinks this is be done by lowering the "ground state" of the hydrogen atom - essentially shrinking its electron orbit. Unfortunately for Mills, the hydrogen atom is the atom that most of the basis for modern particle physics is built upon owing to its inherent simplicity. For hydrinos to exist, we'd have to toss out about 75 years worth of very successful and very well proven particle physics and quantum theory; in addition we'd have to forget everything we know about the ground state. And as a kicker, Mills theory precludes existence of the Big Bang.

I am not saying that I subscribe to the theory, but that I am open to a good look-see on this. I will also read the book you recommended, so I can get another perspective. It could be a perspective in which another group of scientists are going after Mills out of spite, or there could be something to their accusations, and Mills is a certifiable quack. However, I am not going to get involved in the politics of it all. One fact I do know, and that there is going to be a major announcement within a few months. At that time, we will know for sure one way or the other. However, at this time, the 65 peer reviews articles, one of whom is the editor of the Journal of Physics, and 50 validation reports tell me that there is a large enough number of mainstream scientists who believe there is something to it. That is enough to pique my interest.

As for the 75 years of quantum theory, how many centuries were Newton's laws considered gospel before being invalidated by Einstein? Just because something has been around a long time is no reason to be upset if it falls. All that means is that we are a little closer to the truth. What form that might ultimately be I havent the foggiest, but am inquisitive enough to be pretty exited about any new controversy.