I figured as much. The guy who wrote this believes that the electron is two-dimensional and has deifnite location and that it is not a point-particle that has a probability wave or multiple simultaneous locations.




It's been replicated by Rowan university, but I think that they used the same equipment that the blacklight company that makes the hydrinos used.

It doesn't spiral into the nucleus, it simply moves closer to it, and it shows unique spectral lines for hydrogen.

Read the abstract:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/21cm-1paper080210S.pdf

This post was edited by AEtheric on Nov 23 2010 06:52pm

You can discuss it, but you'll never arrive at any sort of conclusion because
1) you're not doing experiments and
2) you don't know any mathematics.


Well
1) that's why PaRD went to shit: because people with no education started discussing politics. It got flooded with shitheads.
2) While an education helps, I would say that no one individual person can have an authoritative political "position"--that's why there's a discussion. Science isn't like that. You either know the facts or you don't. It's true that the higher up you get in physics, the more you become involved with interpretation and philosophy, but I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion on that matter. Do you know who decides how we interpret quantum mechanics? 30, 40, 50 year old men who have their doctorates in the subject and have studied it for at least a decade. You're like a fucking toddler who thinks he can be in charge of some housing construction because he knows how to stack blocks. Discussion isn't going eliminate any ambiguity about black holes (this is relevant because you once argued they don't exist), observation and math might, but those two topics are completely out of your reach seeing as you probably no idea what the fuck a derivative is.
3) Just because something is done by many people doesn't make it right.

This post was edited by Djsenn on Nov 23 2010 09:04pm

I really could care less if I am under-qualified for knowledge of a subject. You don't tell people to not talk about a subject just because they don't know everything about it. That's how people learn and sharpen their points.

I have a grasp on some of what quantum mechanics is, for instance I understand that a wavefunction must be collapsed in order for it to have a definite positon. This is conducive to my understanding of the fact and observation by other scientists that there are electron bubbles in superfluid helium.

You're just mad because I don't accept some mainstream scientific ideas with the knowledge I have of them. Maybe later my stance will be refuted and I will accept that. I have to change my mind if my stance is refuted, that's part of science.

I never claimed that I had the superior opinion on science or anything of the sort. I'm here to learn and discuss, not dictate to the scientific community what is correct or false in their understanding.

I don't feel like we're arguing in this thread. I've shared my opinion based on my past experiences with physics, and I was just wondering where he had heard these things.



That link didn't work, but I did find it using that UR: http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/ 2nd one down if anyone else wants to read it.

I'll be honest. The abstract doesn't make too much sense in its own context. I did recognize the 1/137 as the Fine Structure Constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant) but that's about it. I'd have to read through the theory section to even try to get a grasp of it. I did notice it's unpublished work, though, but that might be partially because some of its references are text books and URLs, and I'm pretty sure most journals require you to only cite academic papers.

I'd try to read through the theory section tonight, but let's face it. It's close to thanksgiving, and I don't feel like it right now

Yes, that's the paper. I see. Very well. Read it whenever you feel like it, as long as you read it and reply. I think the abstract will be sufficient for a synopsis of the identification of the new hydrogen states. I imagine that he didn't refer to any other peer-reviewed papers because there are none on hydrogen being below ground state. I say that you should reply as you seem to be the only scientifically minded person on here that can actually give a legitimate reply.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Nov 23 2010 10:09pm

Wavefunctions can be demonstrated with an impressive amount chemical and physical empirical models learned in introductory physics or chemistry classes. Namely models in periodic motion, the wave/particle duality behavior of subatomic particles/photons, quantum chemistry/physics etc.

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

inb4Schrödinger equation

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on Nov 23 2010 10:24pm

Yeah, from the sounds of it, they witnessed things on the emission spectra that they can't explain with the 13.6 eV ground state of Hydrogen, and Hydrinos are a hypothesized variation on Hydrogen that has a different bonding strength in its nucleus, and that different bonding strength allows it to have a lower energy level than the traditional ground state. They finish it by saying they think Hydrinos might be a type of dark matter or something, which is why I said I'd have to read the theory to really try to understand it.

I'll definitely get around to reading it some time though and let you know what I think about it.

Electron bubbles in superfliuid helium show that electrons have a definite position. If this is due to collapse of the wavefunction I do not know. I just posted this thread for discussion, not necessarily debate.

If you're interested you should read the rest of the thread. We are talking about hydrogen in fractional states below ground level.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Nov 23 2010 10:52pm

Aetheric, how much mathematical background do you have? I have several books on quantum mechanics and relativity in my library because I was once a physics major. If you are genuinely interested in learning about physics, I can make some recommendations.

I'm going to college to get a physics AA at the moment. No need for recommending any books because I don't have the mathematical background to understand them yet. In due time I will understand quantum physics well enough through college classes.