Posted on 11/04/2005 5:06:51 PM PST by Anthem
Got better things to do than follow flim-flam artists around.
Science is highly competitive. Scientists go out of their way to look at such issues simply because if the issue is hot it will open up vast new funding opportunities. If someone wants his new claim to be peer reviewed he has to do certain things such as back it up with actual math, because it is HIS idea and another scientist just doesn't look at the model that way. It is up to the crackpot, and waving arms and b&*^&ing about the reception makes the title official.
On that, we totally agree.
But does the technology work, or doesn't it?
Has it ever been demonstrated to work?
I do remember reading about what you are saying, how the hydrogen atom is simple enough to completely calculate but it quickly becomes impossible. Can't they even do helium?
Second question first, because it is easy. We cannot do helium exactly because it is a 3 body problem. We can do it approximately using perturbation theory.
Now, your first question brings up some of the most fascinating physics of quantum mechanics. The lowest energy state of the outermost electron (the only electron in hydrogen), actually, the lowest orbital state (S state) of any radial state has zero angular momentum. That means it does not go in a circle. It has no centripital force or magnetic moment.
Part of understanding this has to do with the difference between Quantum Mechanics and classical mechanics. If you were to consider the classical model, then only the centripital force would hold the electron up against the electrostatic attraction of the nucleus. No centripial force, then nothing to hold the electron up, and it would spiral into the nucleus and anihilate. So, the classical model requires the electron to circle the atom.
However, there is a big problem with the classical model. If the electron is circling the atom, then it must be accelerating (F=ma, where F is the centripital force). The problem is any accelerating charge gives off radiation from classical electromagnetism. Typically, the radiation emission rate would be h-bar * omega squared, where h-bar is Planck's constant divided by 2pi and omega is the frequency of the electron revolving around the atom. Therefor, the electron loses energy at this rate. Because it loses energy, it must go slower and its orbit decays. Indeed, the standard graduate general exam question is to calculate how quickly the electron orbit decays into the nucleus. It is about 10^-31 seconds.
Quantum mechanics does not postulate any electron acceleration. It is based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which states that delta-X * delta-P is >= h-bar. That means that the product of the uncertainty in position times momentum must be greater than Planck's constant. They way this can be envisioned is that if the electron starts to move close to the nucleus, its position becomes well-known, therefore the momentum must increase. Therefore, it shoots away from the nucleus. So, the electron does not have to move in a circular orbit. It just has to move. If it gets close to the nucleus, it moves away again to preserve the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
"They way this can be envisioned is that if the electron starts to move close to the nucleus, its position becomes well-known, therefore the momentum must increase. Therefore, it shoots away from the nucleus."
thanks. You have a real (and rare) talent for talking to the non- physicist.
Your analysis seems to indicate that the basic statement of the post---that he found a way for the electron to have a lower orbit, is prima facie nonsense.
Everyone here who was forced to memorize Schrodinger's Equation, raise your hands. :)
:') Seems like there was an earlier FR topic about this, but I'm tired and undermotivated to look for it.
The flux capacitor...it's what makes time travel possible...
IF you have a ping list on such, please put me on it.
I think the key question is whether the puppet masters will allow it out.
Then, if so, why and to what ends.
If now, how will they swat this one down.
Interesting times. Supposedly this is but one of 3 or 4 different essentially free energy technologies available.
Sorry, I don't have a ping list. I'll try and remember you when I post items on this topic. It's one I try to watch.
He "studied at MIT". I wonder if he passed.
---
Nope just checked. There is no Randell Mills in the MIT alum directory.
THANKS THANKS. AS YOU SEE FIT IS FINE.
FWIW,
I keep my ping lists on my flash drive in a WORD file, alphabetized for easy addition and removal.
Amateur mathematician's time theories published at last
New Zealand Herald | 31.07.2003 11.04 am | NZPA
Posted on 07/31/2003 4:01:59 AM EDT by JerseyHighlander
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/955624/posts
New model 'permits time travel'
BBC | 6/17/05 | Julianna Kettlewell
Posted on 06/17/2005 3:06:22 PM EDT by LibWhacker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1425167/posts
No paradox for time travellers
New Scientist | 6/18/05 | Mark Buchanan
Posted on 06/20/2005 12:35:37 PM EDT by LibWhacker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426709/posts
It will end up happening these kinds of wild stories while usually b.s., can't be ignored because one will definately come true. It is the nature of science. Energy is all around us, it is actually suprising we havent found better ways of generating it cleanly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.