"near limitless power" "turns physics on its head"

Yea, I do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More specific would have been to say, "...provides a counter perspective of select portions of this paper." But, I simply wasn't in the mood to type when I posted the link.

That being said, the author of the paper was not addressing the issues of "non-radiative" electronic transitions which were left unaddressed by the original paper. But rather was addressing the issue of why the Klein-Gordon solution was not square integrable in the Dirac solution. Unless of course I missed the point in all the hand waving.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not asking you to be wordy, I simply don't think the paper has much substance. The author produces a solution that has been known for some time and then demonstrates how the solution is not a valid one for the Dirac equation, a fact which has also been known for some time. The only counter perspective provided is a few words dismissing the usual arguments against the unphysical hydrino state, a few more words about how we shouldn't be concerned with the non-normalizability of the Dirac equation solution, and then a few more words about how a host of other physical effects probably don't do much. I guess I'm just unimpressed by the author's arguments for the plausibility of the hydrino state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That point probably better illustrates that this guy is a con artist/crackpot than any other. If there's a lower-energy state available to atoms, why aren't any of them ever in it? Why don’t we ever observe radiation from a n=1 to n=1/2 transition, even at very low temperatures?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you can find more substance in the 99 page response to Rathke's paper: Physical Solutions of the Nature of the Atom, Photon, and Their Interactions to Form Excited and Predicted Hydrino States by R. L. Mills.

Such as:

From the conclusion:
Rathke has copied the two-dimensional wave equation incorrectly and reversed the sign of the time differential. His other comments about incurable failures are made moot by this careless error.


Just to note:
99 pages exceeded my 'reading threshold for cursory interest', so I haven't read the paper for any amount of comprehension. I am just tossing out the link and the reference.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't personally care to read all that garbage at the moment, but I can see that you have been offended for some reason. I'm terribly sorry. I'll tell you what, I'll keep my belief in the non-existence of the hydrino state for what I regard as sound physical reasons. You can keep believing whatever you want and I won't bother you anymore. If Mills is right, let him show it to the world, then he can have lots of money, nice apologies from all the physicists, a few Nobel Prizes, and whatever else he wants.

 

So if Rathke copied the wave equation incorrectly and no one cares, did he screw up? I felt like his paper was a carefully worded deception and a run-around. In one part he says "Of course, there is no theoretical indication that the binding energy of a putative new state of the hydrogen atom should be a multiple of that of the ground state of the free hydrogen atom." In another he says that the quantization requirement of quantum mechanics requires it. The conclusion is both puzzling and enlightening if you read it carefully:

It sort of adds up to the author saying that his paper says nothing at all. He is saying that CQM, Classical Quantum Mechanics, predicts neither the excited states of the hydrogen atom or the alleged hydronium state. He also says that CQM has serious flaws. So when you just skim over the paper and reach the "no theoretical support" part, you miss the substance of what the author actually said. It's really easy to use this paper to say that there is no theoretical support for hydronium, but to do so is wrong. What the author actually said is that his interpretation of CQM shows no theoretical support for hydronium. It was his responsibility to make that clear, and had he been a graduate student turning in a paper to his professor, he should have been told to correct it. There is no excuse for not using precise language. It's his job.

This particular omission is even more awful because he acknowledges that his basis for that statement comes from theory that does not predict observed reality. A person should not have to read that last paragraph over and over again to clarify its meaning. The author obviously knows the correct use of English.

There is a manner of speaking that should be used in scientific papers that they try to pound into people's heads starting with first year classes. Rathke has abandoned that. It does matter. I am not using some sort of strange translation matrix to decide what Rathke really said. It's there in plain English. If there is anything else that he actually said, he should have written it down.

Looking around, I see the statement, attributed to Dr. Mills, that Rathke made some embarassing mistakes in his anti-hydronium papers. This wouldn't be the first instance I have seen in which supporters of a popular scientific theory can do no wrong even when or especially when they get sloppy.

 

Heh, I didn't care to read all the garbage either.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can't see where I could have possibly been offended. I am more interested in the experimental results of the "blacklight process" than I am with the theory Mills uses to describe it. With that in mind I certainly agree with Rathke when he said the results need to be examined from a conventional perspective. If there is a conventional solution, there is no need for alternative theories. (and just think how much easier it would be to get a patent with a conventional explanation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)