Saturday, November 05, 2005

Hydrinos and TGD

The work of Randell Mills related to hydrinos has created discussion in blobs. This morning Czech Lubos Motl applied his genuinely American shoot-first approach to problem solving routinely applied also by his intellectual hero George W. Bush;-).

One comment came from "Andre", who realized the importance of distinguishing between experimental work and theoretical work. The theoretical side in the work of Mills indeed looks as horrible as the work of M-theorists from experimental viewpoint. The tragedy is that people having the maths do not usually have physics and vice versa.

Mills claims of having observed inverted hydrogen spectrum with the principal quantum number n replaced with its inverse 1/n. This is something totally different from what one obtains from Dirac equation as a non-square integrable solution (rest energy becomes about αme for non-square integrable solutions which are integrable if interpreted as solutions of Klein-Gordon!). I do not understand why these solutions are associated with Mills claimed experimental findings.

For a couple of years ago I played with the idea that many-sheeted space-time, 4-surface in M4×CP2, might allow to have a rational valued principal quantum number n as a generalization of fractional spin and ended up with a proposal that transition to chaos might have analog at level of Bohr orbits.

The first idea was that for bound states the orbit of particle is kind of higher level particle, tubular space-time sheet, inside which particle moves. Stepwise transition to chaos could mean classically that in single step closed orbit is replaced by one which closes only after N turns. N=2 corresponds to period doubling.

Fractional spin m/N could mean that orbit closes only after N turns. At space-time level the orbit of particle is replaced with flux tube like structure and fractionization would mean that flux tube like space-time sheet transforms to one closing only after N turns when looked from M4 view point. The tube would look like N-fold covering of M4 locally, analogous to Riemann surface associated with z1/N.

For principal quantum number this would mean that the period in radial direction becomes N-fold in single step to chaos. Not so easy to imagine. Principal quantum number would become a rational of form n/N in this process: you would have "radial anyon". Mills would have observed few lowest values of N with n=1 (ground state of the fractal hydrogen).

For details look here.

Matti Pitkanen

2 Comments:

At 12:37 PM, Blogger Lumo said...

Dear Matti,

I actually use the shoot-zeroth approach and this hydrino stupidity - or monstrous fraud, depending on the details - certainly does not deserve more. But you seem to be doing better: shoot-minus-first approach.

Why did not you simply click at the links leading to Mills' companies and other pages? You would have seen that Mills first got the "theory", and then he collected the money to make the corresponding "experimental findings" which of course do not exist.

More importantly, you seem to misunderstand that the "theory behind physics" is real. It is no fiction. If you know how physics works, you can actually show that the "experimental findings" can't occur.

The man can mix Hydrogen with Potassium or do any alchemy he wants, but at the very end, virtually each Hydrogen atom in his lab will be in the usual ground state whose energy is around -13.6 eV.

Best
Lubos

 
At 6:04 PM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Lubos,

thank you for comment, I think it is fifth comment during the existence of my blog and I feel highly flattered;-).

As I emphasized in my comments, I agree with you about the quality of theories of Randell Mills. But this does not mean that there might not be something behind his experimental findings. If a typical theoretician would be judged on basis of this experimental skills, most of us would be regarded as crackpots.

Instead of shooting, why not take the role of innocent child and play with thoughts assuming for a moment that the effects are real? Perhaps one might end up with some new idea as I indeed did: radial anyons and many-sheeted view about approach to chaos. After this game with thoughts at least I am probably ready to realize that the notion of atom as such is a strong idealization, and it is legitimate to ask what happens whether the classical approach to chaos could have some quantal counterpart at the level of atomic physics.

Best,
Matti Pitkanen

 

Post a Comment

<< Home