Blacklight Power, hydrino theory, paper published in the European Physics Journal D

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/

Editorial by the Editors-in-Chief regarding the highlighted paper
“Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs
at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” by R.L. Mills and Y. Lu
The Editors-in-Chief of the EPJ D wish to clarify that the publication of the highlighted paper “Time-
resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” by R.L. Mills and Y. Lu
is in no way an endorsement of the authors’ “hydrino” hypothesis
by the Editors of this journal.

We, the Editors-in-Chief of the EPJ D, wish to publish an editorial statement preceding the highlighted paper “Time-
resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” by R.L. Mills and Y. Lu. These authors
describe the results of emission spectroscopic studies of a low-energy, high-current pinch discharge in pure hydrogen
as well as in other gases. They observe continuous emission bands from respectively 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm towards
longer wavelengths only when hydrogen is used as the operating gas. The authors interpret these observations as a
manifestation of the “hydrino” hypothesis, which they have been promoting for some time. The “hydrino” hypothesis
refers to a theory of atomic hydrogen that postulates the existence of energy levels below the known n = 1 ground
level of atomic hydrogen with fractional quantum numbers.

Because of the profound consequences of the existence
of such levels in conjunction with statistical mechanics for various areas of physics and chemistry, this hypothesis is
controversial and has opponents as well as proponents in the scientific community. Despite the reservations about
the “hydrino” hypothesis expressed by some members of the scientific community, we decided that, after ensuring
that the paper passed all necessary refereeing procedures (review by two independent senior members of the academic
community), we should publish this paper rather than silence the discussion by rejecting it. We view this as the most
effective way to stimulate scientific discourse, encourage debate, and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what is
admittedly a controversial postulate.
We would therefore like to invite the scientific community, opponents and proponents of the “hydrino” hypothesis
alike, to send us their comments and views. All comments received that are suitable for publication will undergo the
standard review process for comments prior to publication.

Kurt H. Becker, Nigel. J. Mason, and Claude Fabre

[thereismore]

1. Science has nothing to fear. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. The significance of this paper cannot be overstated. Just incredible.

[thereismore]

4. I am pretty sure it's bunk. Fractional quantum states do exist, but they are

always a collective quantum phenomenon involving many particles, not a single electron as in the case of the H atom. But like I said, science has nothing to fear.

[DetlefK]

3. I think I found a weak spot in their argument:

1. The majority of interstellar gas is hydrogen. (And even to a much larger extent, when the CMB was created.)
2. Planck's formula for the black-body-spectrum works from qm-harmonic oscillators, a valid approximation to the ground state of hydrogen atoms.

If there were additional states below n=1, then the Bose-statistic would not be applicable. That means, the CMB would not show a black-body-spectrum, but a totally different shape.

GUESS WHAT? Some years ago scientists took a look at the CMB with respect to that and they found an almost perfect match with the black-body-spectrum. (If our universe were looped within our event horizon, e.g. leaving it at the right side means simultaneously entering it at the left side, that would have shown a mismatch as well. Maybe that's what the astronomists were looking for.)

Conclusion: The universe disproved the hydrino-theory.

[thereismore]

5. That's not it. The Planck formula only applies to Bosons, such as photons.

Electrons are Fermions, so I can't agree that the ground state of the H atom resembles a harmonic oscillator in any way.

[DetlefK]

6. No, its basic premise is a system with equidistant energy levels.

The only difference between Bosons and Fermions are Spin and whether Pauli-exclusion applies. AFAIR the Bose-statistic is only used, because the number of particles per energy level doesn't matter.

Nucleus + electron: You get an attractive potential 1/r and a repulsive potential (torque) 1/r^2. Together they define a radius with a minimum of potential energy. And any minimum can be approximated as x^2, which in turn is a harmonic oscillator.

Hydrogen + extra electron from outside: Again an attractive potential 1/r^6 (van-der-Waals) and a repulsive one 1/r^12 (Pauli-exclusion). Added up there is again a radius with a minimum of potential energy. Minimum -> x^2 -> HO




The implications of fractional quantum numbers are very grave: The radius-part of the wave-function could no longer be described by LaGuerre-functions, because such things as fractional derivatives simply do not exist. The derivative- and integral-ladder (that's how I call it) only works in full steps, from one function on to the next.
And what about the spherical harmonics? l has a maximum of n-1. Spherical harmonics with fractional exponents would wreak havoc on such things as spin-torque-interaction or Zeeman-effect.

EDIT: If we combine the Wigner-Eckhart-theorem with fractional quantum numbers, that would mean, there also MUST be fractional quantum numbers ABOVE n=1.

[bananas]

7. fractional derivatives do exist

"A Child’s Garden of Fractional Derivatives" (pdf) http://www.maa.org/pubs/Calc_articles/ma021.pdf
wolfram: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FractionalDerivative.html
wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_calculus
google search specifically related to LaGuerre functions: http://www.google.com/search?q=LaGuerre+functions+fractional+derivatives

[arian558]

8. the consequence existence of hydrino

If existence of hydrino proved you must throw quantum mechanics in trash.if
you want know why, read Dr. Mills book The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics. in this book Dr. Mills explain his theory about universe.he introduced his theory in 1991 and since then he was trying
to prove his theory with experiment.
Few prediction of his theory was.
prediction of The acceleration of the expansion of the universe before observation.
prediction of existence hydrogen atom under ground state so called hydrino.

Dr. Mills book.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10.03/Djvu%20Files/EntireBook.djvu

you must install a djvu reader program for book.

[DetlefK]

9. I was finally able to actually take a look at the paper.

The experiment is not simply about single hydrogen atoms: It's about a hydrogen plasma. Additionally his theory incorporates the photon that bonds proton and electron.

Knowing this, I am no longer surprised that the simple hydrogen-Schrödinger-equation is not applicable.

And thanks for the links.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. Spectroscopic lines for a H plasma below the conventional ground state of H is astounding...

What's more astounding is that Mills' theory, with stunning accuracy, predicted those spectroscopic lines would be there. Anyone have their own possible explanation for this amazing result?

If the continuum spectrum is to be believed, I'm completely floored by it. Everything I thought I knew about quantum just collapsed like a probability wave. Maybe Einstein was right after all, God does NOT play "dice" with the universe. He had deep reservations over the direction of quantum theory and its interpretation of reality, perhaps, for good reason.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. I checked into it and Mills' prediction of an accelerated expanding universe . . .

was verified by reputable scientists well after Mills' hydrino theory predicted it. What does that say about the Big Bang theory? At the instant of the so-called "Big Bang", wouldn't maximum acceleration of the newly created universe be at that initial instant and then begin to slow down? A cycling universe seems to make a lot more intuitive sense.

Mills seems to be way ahead of his time. Perhaps other aspects of his theory, including the prediction of lower energy states of the hydrogen electron, are also correct. If so, the implications for mankind is immeasurable.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Mills is either the greatest genius since Einstein or the biggest huckster of our time.