- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
danarhea said:At this point, I am remaining skeptical, but the following possibility must be considered:
Goodbye quantum mechanics - Hello string theory!
Kandahar said: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.
128shot said: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....
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.
robin said:"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 said: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 said: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.
Napoleon's Nightingale said: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 said: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.
Kandahar said: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.
Kandahar said: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.
Tashah said:The estimated constituent mix of the universe to date:
• Baryonic - 7%
• Non-Baryonic
1) Dark Matter - 23%
2) Dark Energy - 70%
Napoleon's Nightingale said: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.
Napoleon's Nightingale said: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.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:Supper massive black holes have an enormous mass..quite enough to account for the acceleration.
Napoleon's Nightingale said: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.
Kandahar said:Correct. Which is why I remain an agnostic on string theory until experimentation is possible.
Kandahar said:But dark matter is a completely different concept.
Kandahar said:That doesn't make sense; an enormous mass (gravity) is a DRAG on acceleration.
Napoleon's Nightingale said: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.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:If by dark matter you mean anti-matter.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:No..it's not a drag on acceleration because of the hyper acceleration of the particles when they're ejected from the black hole.
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.OdgenTugbyGlub said: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 said: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 said: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.
shuamort said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?