The Hydrogen atom consists of a single Proton at its nucleus, and an Electron orbiting it. The closer the electron is to the nucleus, lesser the energy it has. The lowest energy state (according to Quantum Mechanics) that the electron can have, is called its ground state, when the electron is supposed to be closest to the nucleus.
However, according to Randy Mills and co-workers at BlackLight Power, a company based in Cranbury, New Jersey, there might be a still lower energy-state, which they have termed the hydrino state:-?.
Left: Shrunken Hydrino State, Right: Normal Ground State (Courtesy: Blacklight Power)
Earlier this year, Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency published a paper in which he argued that the theory for the hydrino state put forward by Mills was the result of a mathematical mistake. Now another theorist has joined the debate: Jan Naudts of the University of Antwerp in Belgium argues that the Klein-Gordon equation of relativistic quantum mechanics does indeed permit the existence of a low-energy hydrino state!
A video explaining the Blacklight process is described here. Only time will tell. I, for one, am quite skeptical. Another skeptical look is provided here.
However, according to Randy Mills and co-workers at BlackLight Power, a company based in Cranbury, New Jersey, there might be a still lower energy-state, which they have termed the hydrino state:-?.
Left: Shrunken Hydrino State, Right: Normal Ground State (Courtesy: Blacklight Power)
Earlier this year, Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency published a paper in which he argued that the theory for the hydrino state put forward by Mills was the result of a mathematical mistake. Now another theorist has joined the debate: Jan Naudts of the University of Antwerp in Belgium argues that the Klein-Gordon equation of relativistic quantum mechanics does indeed permit the existence of a low-energy hydrino state!
A video explaining the Blacklight process is described here. Only time will tell. I, for one, am quite skeptical. Another skeptical look is provided here.
Hydrino State?
(Hide)
(Show)
7 Comments:
I for one am grateful that such individuals seek their own vision, while I am equally unhappy to see others so eager to nay say and loath what they cannot own.
I myself am somewhat jealous that I wasn't able to convey such a vision. If this works, it is not the end of anything; it is simply another technology that we will undoubtedly adapt to our own life……and move on to the next problem.
I am happy to see that this technology is homegrown (American). If it were not and does work, the US will be at a severe disadvantage. We should embrace this discovery and hope that it remains a US found technology.
As far as the "rules of quantum physics" are concerned, the rules are not known and I seriously do not believe we are breaking any "pre-defined" rules, as anyone who truly understands quantum physics knows "the rules are based on the observer".
Dig it or leave it.
If hydrinos fail to become a useful energy source because a means of translating between known physics and Mills's physics is not available, it will be more than just a disadvantage for America. It will show the world a great American inventor who is more concerned with his pet theory than with giving his own free country the tools to speak freely about it.
Like Mike Tocher said, quantum theory is very flexible. However, it is Mills himself, not his detractors, who is denouncing the entire flexible structure of quantum theory and putting forth his own rigid structure in its place.
That being said, using sloppy physics to refute sloppy physics does nothing but further reduce the clarity of a physical issue. The article at www.phact.org does not make proper use of the uncertainty principle. All observables are functional averages over a waveform. Since the uncertainty principle is a tautological property of waveforms, which applies to every waveform whether or not it can exist, it cannot be used to show that some waveforms are more sensible than others.
The significance of the uncertainty principle is that it limits the information that a waveform can retain when it is constrained by the forces necessary to measure it. As such, it can be used to argue whether the data collected from an experiment indicates the purported properties of the waveform it measured. However, it cannot be used to determine whether the waveform is theoretically possible.
I would challenge both Mills and his detractors to put the data from his experiments through the same statistical analysis that has been used to interpret particle observations for many years.
All the great physical discoveries have gained fame through repeated independent collection of statistical evidence. And people like me who truly aspire to think objectively are not swayed by Mike Tocher's emotional appeals.
Post a Comment