Bye Bye Quantum Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VT
  • 41 comments
  • 1,547 views
Electrons can be modeled as either waves or particles (a little of both at the same time!). So, at the nucleus, the wave has an amplitude of 0, basically. It's the same thing at nodes (where the electron has 0 probability of being). The wave has an amplitude of 0, with it being positive and negative on either side.

And, as for how legit it is, Blacklight Power does seem to have a large internet presence, as google shows. There's lots more stuff on the web about this, too.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blacklight+power&btnG=Google+Search
 
Famine
Your dad is right - electrons exist in probability clouds. The probability of an electron being anywhere is never 0, but as you approach the "orbit" it increases to ~1.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. A probability of electron location CAN be zero; anywhere its corresponding wave function is zero (probability is the square of the normalized wave function times some operator; zero squared = zero). Hence the reason electron clouds have nodes, and why some of these orbitals have nodes in very odd, counterintuitive places. The "orbit" is the distance at which the probability function is at a maximum. This maximum probability does not approach 1, as the integral of the probability function over all space has to sum to 1. I'm not sure of specific numbers, but I seem to remember that the probability of an electron being within 20% or so of it's equilibrium distance (distance from the nucleus) is about 0.5...

Famine
This guy is saying he has moved that "orbit" closer to the proton than it ought to be allowed.

But you're right - it's written in "layman".
Click to expand...
Piece of cake! :) Always be suspicious of someone who says that they have the solution to the world's energy problem, and that solution violates many experimentally tested laws of physics.
Purple Platypus
Electrons can be modeled as either waves or particles (a little of both at the same time!). So, at the nucleus, the wave has an amplitude of 0, basically. It's the same thing at nodes (where the electron has 0 probability of being). The wave has an amplitude of 0, with it being positive and negative on either side.
Click to expand...
Actually, the wavefunctions for all s-orbitals have their maximum values at the nucleus. But the probabilty function says that the probability of the electron actually being there is almost zero (like 10^-16). The max value of the probability function is some distance away from the nucleus, as is expected.

The man throws around his Harvard and MIT degrees, yet he cannot convince the simpletons at GTP; I think he's screwed and will be called on his BS :)
 
The journo writing about it doesn't know his stuff either. If he's a science correspondent he should be aware of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Electrons have distinct energies, but their orbits do not, they don't have to be what we consider an orbit, they needn't be circular. Technically that electron could be on the other side of the universe. But it probably isn't.

This is just what I understand from reading, I'm not a physicist, apologies if it's wrong, and if anyone can elaborate, that would be appreciated.

Kurtis.
 
KurtisGSXR
The journo writing about it doesn't know his stuff either. If he's a science correspondent he should be aware of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Electrons have distinct energies, but their orbits do not, they don't have to be what we consider an orbit, they needn't be circular. Technically that electron could be on the other side of the universe. But it probably isn't.

This is just what I understand from reading, I'm not a physicist, apologies if it's wrong, and if anyone can elaborate, that would be appreciated.

Kurtis.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it 👍 The electron could be on the other side of the universe (the probability of it being there is not zero), but it most likely isn't. Electrons tend to stay around their equilibrium distance most of the time, except in chemical reactions, ionization processes, and electrochemical reactions. This man is claiming that he has changed that equilibrium distance so that the electron has a higher probability of being closer to the nucleus than before. Everyone is outraged (queue the angry mob with torches) that he has claimed this, as the equilibrium distance of an electron is fixed by the rules of quantum physics.

And speaking of Heisenberg, does anyone really understand all of the implications of this? According to the uncertainty principle, our knowledge of the position of an electron has a degree of uncertainty attached to it. Now consider the experiment where a single electron is shot at a double-slit apparatus. The single electron will produce a diffraction pattern as if it travelled through both slits simultaneously. Using Heisenberg, we calculate that our uncertainty in the position of the electron is greater than the spacing between the slits, which means that we do not know position well enough to determine which slit it went through. Because of OUR uncertainty, we have to say it went through both slits at once. But this is exactly what appears to happen in the actual physical experiment! Does this mean that the electron itself is ALSO uncertain of its position? Think about that one! :dunce:
 
It messes my brain up when I think about it too much.

If you measure a particle's momentum perfectly, then you can't tell where it is...

Conversely if you measure it's position, you can not determine it's momentum.


I read a few months back (I forget where) that there had been major strides in the measurements of the quantum world. Effectively seeing schrodinger's cat inside the box, before you open it. I don't remember much detail other than the measurements were made using a sort of scientific sneaky peeking.


Kurtis.
 
OMFG!!! :lol: I just looked at their site animation. They're using a catalyst to change electron orbits?!? If this process actually works, I wonder why we're not all dead from heat buildup in the atmosphere... remember folks, if you can do it in a lab without a particle accelerator, it probably occurs in nature as well.

This so reminds me of "cold fusion".
 
Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency analyzed this crap:

"A critical analysis of the hydrino model"

His conclusion:

In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance.

Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics.

This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al , it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.


Nobody has reproduced Mills' so-called "results". All anybody is getting are results like this, done by Earth Tech International eight years ago. Scoll down to the conclusion at the bottom:

Results: Squat

Its a scam. Mills has been running it since 1991. File this with cold fusion and the "Skycar".
 
Another thing in the article, a sentence about people being confounded over the fact that metals in water produce heat.

I thought rusting was exothermic? Surely if it was endothermic, the water would freeze on the iron.


Kurtis.
 
KurtisGSXR
Another thing in the article, a sentence about people being confounded over the fact that metals in water produce heat.

I thought rusting was exothermic? Surely if it was endothermic, the water would freeze on the iron.


Kurtis.
Click to expand...

Rusting (oxidation) is exothermic, however "exothermic" is not equivalent to "creating energy."

"Dr" Mills' electrolysis experiments made me laugh, as the results aren't even remotely reasonable. If he wanted to fool people, perhaps he should have stayed away from electrolysis, which is one of the most energy-expensive reactions around.
 

Latest Posts

Back