Re: Rejected by sci.physics.research - so lets discuss here about

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because you don't provide enough
evidence for what you think is wrong.

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive.
If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you email a
moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive, causing an
unnecessary delay.


Sincerely,

Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator

============================================================================
===

This is probably a significant discovery. The third equation of QM is wrong,
which is simply:
The wave function is a function of the particle coordinates in a n particle
problem.
But this is wrong. Another approach is:

In an n - particle problem the wave function is a function of r only. Each
individual wave function has a center and the center (the center of charge)
for a particle has a defined coordinate r(i) i=1...n

So if it is true that Psi = Psi(r(i),i=1...n) is wrong, but

Psi = Psi(r) (just one r not many !) = function of two - body psis

then a theory must exist which has closed solutions for the energy schemes
for all molecules
and many - electron atoms. I know a little how the separation of the
Schrödinger equation works
with this approach. And i think therefore that Hattree - Fock Theory is
wrong and therfore not
able to converge to the measured results. So i am not worked in in Mills
theory but i think
such thoughts have a fundamental truth beyond. An electron can have bond and
antibond states with
other electrons for example in a many electron atom. Also it can bond to two
atoms at the same time
(chemical bond).

The second point: MILs Derives are partwise electrodynamic in origin. He
uses adjusted hydrgen like two particle solutions of the Schrödinger
equation if i read right and enough.

So it seems to me that this guy uses the stroboscopic model which might be
the exact description
of the world. Maybe the third equation of Quantum mechanics is a wrong
principle (e.g. Landau Lifschitz). Then this guy got a very good imagination
on the real thing.

One should take his ideas serious, i think. Hattree Fock is wrong historic
quantum ***.

Joe

"optionsgeek" <ronnotel@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1132968842.741204.43860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> While I'm perfectly prepared to reject Dr. Randell Mills' and his
> theory of Hydrinos and being non-sensical, I was more inclined to do so
> before reviewing the spread*** he has published. It purports to
> calculate, in a tractable, closed-form solution, multiple ionization
> levels for atoms with 1 to (at least) 20 electrons. He does this using
> physical constants and elementary algebra. As far as I'm aware, nothing
> remotely similar has ever been demonstrated.
>
> Can someone explain to my poor befuddled mind why this isn't a
> significant discovery?
>
> His spread*** is available at
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/computation.shtml
>



.