Brick by Brick

 In my latest paper, Spin Quantization in a Classical Model, I show another instance where quantum properties, in this case the two values of spin in a magnetic field, can arise from an underlying classical universe.  This contrasts with the popular view that classical physics has been thoroughly tried and found wanting experimentally, so we shouldn't waste our time on Newton's Laws and Maxwell's Equations which give us our whole modern technological society.  Instead we should consider only the rigorously verified theory that Schrodinger's cat is alive and dead at the same time, that electrons are spin-up and spin-down at the same time (as if a basketball could rotate clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time), and similar rubbish.

The rhetorical supports for Quantum Mechanics are going to have to be debunked one by one so sensible people do not have to begin the debate by explaining "Why are you against science?"  Randell Mills has struck a great blow by giving an electron model in which the electron does not have to (and in fact can't) spiral into the nucleus.  All he had to do was give it a shape like every other thing in nature.  In comparison, the quantum assumption of a point particle with no extent (yet also having a chance to be anywhere) looks simplistic - even foolish.  Of course your point particle had to spread its probability everywhere.  That's the math and the universe trying to tell you it has a size and shape like every other natural object!

The basis for the point particle assumption seems to be akin to the "infinite distance to the fixed stars", a flat earth, or a plane wave.  They are plausible simplifications that may make math or concepts easier to deal with: is something big? Say it is infinite and you don't have to worry about how big.  Is it nearly flat near you? Say it is perfectly flat everywhere and it's easier to describe.  Is it way smaller than you can see or measure?  Say it is a mathematical point.  This kind of estimation is not always and everywhere a mistake, but there are clearly boundaries where it breaks down.  The flat earth model breaks down when you go into orbit.  Photons from a truly infinitely far away star would never reach you.  And point electrons can't stably orbit a nucleus.  But, wonder of wonders, this pathology of their oversimplified model became evidence for the falsehood of classical physics.  

Classical physics plus a point electron produces unstable atoms.  So what do we reject, an unfounded assumption that the electron is a point, or the classical physics that powers the continuing technological revolution?  The physics has to go!  Long live the point!  Meanwhile when their own theory produces contradictions, it is a sign of sophistication, entering into nature's inmost secrets.  Nice trick: Your theory plus point electrons produces contradictions, so your theory is false.  My theory plus point electrons produces contradictions, so Nature actually has these contradictions in it!  Hand over the Nobel!

Does your fruit hang low?

Another great thing about GUTCP is that it opens up many new areas of research.  Although Dr. Mills and his team have worked this ground for over twenty years, there is still much to do.  One project came up when there was a question on the old Yahoo group of why the non-s orbitals don't radiate.  Although the s orbital has an unchanging charge and current distribution, nonradiation is harder to see for the p, d, etc. orbitals.  The GUTCP orbitals are visualized on this page about halfway down (or follow this link straight to an animation).

I suggested that the charge and current functions, if discretized, would act like a phased array with a

Confession of a point charge nonbeliever

A joke I heard in college:  "An engineer is a person who assumes that a horse is a sphere in order to make the math easier."  Well, I'm afraid not just engineers practice this vice.  Think about anything from your experience:  A lamppost, a baseball, a table - they all have a shape.  Anything we can experience that is made of matter has some extent in space.  So why does anyone think the electron is a point of zero dimension?

In the paper Against Point Charges, I argue that the electron cannot be a point particle.  I don't mean that it is a probability wave either.  The "chance of finding the electron in a volume element" of the

The evidence is there until you open the box

How can quantum mechanics be wrong?  Isn't all our technology based on it?  Well first, Mills' Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) doesn't banish all quantum phenomena.  Rather, it requires that they arise from an underlying classical reality.  But some of the most weird results may actually be lost: shown to be misinterpretations or otherwise just wrong.

In this paper, I show that just because Shor's Algorithm, a quantum factoring algorithm, works in hardware does not mean that the superposition of states is real.  I give a classical realization that is

The best part of Brilliant Light

Newton's mechanics explained the orbits of the planets and launched Scientific Revolution 1.0.  There is every reason to expect Mills' explanation of the orbits of electrons to launch Scientific Revolution 2.0.  From energy production by hydrino formation, to chemical modeling software, to new materials incorporating hydrino, the future is bright for many areas of technology.  But liberating energy is as nothing compared to liberating the mind.  For a century it has been thought that the conformation of nature to logic is an illusion.

Classical logic only seems natural to us, they say, because we are too large to encounter quantum

Hydrino experiment independently replicated

High signal to noise, independent replication of a physical chemistry experiment with radical scientific and practical impact, is now within the discretionary resources of any laboratory equipped with a DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimeter).  I hired the commercial chemistry lab ATS to do a blind replication of one of Dr. Mills' experiments.  I and the lab are both independent of Dr. Mills and Brilliant Light Power.  The original work is here, and I replicate only a small part of it (one chemical reaction). 

***UPDATE 26 Feb 20*** I misread an endothermic peak as an exothermic peak.  The observed

A time of new beginnings

Have you heard?  The next scientific revolution is underway.  Led by Dr. Randell Mills and his company Brilliant Light Power, a small team of scientists is turning the page - back.  Back to Newton's Laws, back to Maxwell's Equations, back to determinism, precision, and logic after a century of cloudy probabilities and paradoxes.

At the root of Mills' accomplishments is a new model of the electron of Hydrogen.  Maybe you were taught, as I was, that classical physics could not explain the orbiting electron - how it could orbit