Re: PHYSICS: The discovery of the Grand Unified Theory? hydrinos?
Murphy (gmurphy@imperium.net)
Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:39:06 -0400Sweitzer, Dennis wrote:
>
> Physicist Phriends,
>
> Could/would any of you fill me in on the particulars of a theory by Randell
> Mills concerning:
>
> (1) his discovery of "The Grand Unified theory of Classical Quantum
> Mechanics"--"a theory that explains the workings of everything in the
> universe, from the quark to the cosmos".
>
> (2) as a corrollary, a lower form of hydrogen (called a hydrino) which can
> be exploited as an energy source by converting ordinary hydrogen
> (conveniently found in water) into hydrinos using a potasium catalyst, thus
> releasing heat. Hence, a fantastic new source of energy. No attempt is
> made to explain why these haven't been observed before, nor what one would
> do with all these hydrinos if used in an application. (Maybe they
> continually are formed & decay--sort of like virtual sub-atomic particles.
> Then the catalyst, like Maxwell's demon, preferentially forms hydrino plus
> heat. An engine would use the heat, and the hydrinos would eventually
> decay--soaking up ambiant heat.)
>
> There was a major article in a local paper concerning him (in a positive
> light), since he's from here (in fact, my wife went to school with him). He
> got his chemistry degree from Franklin & Marshal college (Lancaster, PA),
> and later graduated from Harvard Medical School.
>
> The article was relatively positive, with some skeptical input from academic
> physicists who express optimistic skeptism. Also, he claims that to have
> "30 research reports from national laboratories validating the production of
> energy using his process", and is "confident that within a year, he will
> have a contract with a major power company to license his technology."
>
> It does of course sound like cold fusion, which the article distinguishes as
> "being nuclear", while this is chemical in nature. The explaination for not
> getting a wider reception for the concept is that researcher's are afraid to
> tarnish their reputation after the cold fusion fiasco, don't want to
> jeapordize thier careers, their funding, etc.
>
> Now, I have an edjekated opinion about the topic, but since my wife went to
> school with him, I wouldn't want to jeapordize any future career
> opprotunities by expressing them ;-^)
>
> Suffice it to say, (1) it sounds like a violation of the free lunch
> principle (i.e., there is no free lunch), (2) crank theories of similar
> description are common (so why not one more), and (3) does Harvard Medical
> School teach more than medicine?.
>
> On the other hand, weirder things have turned out to be true, though rarely
> with such potential.
>
> So, I'd welcome any info on this subject, and the more specific to this
> theory the better.
>
> Grace & peace,
>
> Dennis Sweitzer
I don't know Mills or his claims other than through this post but, since nobody
else has responded, let me take a shot. I'm guessing (N.B.) from the slim evidence of
the suffix "ino" and the claim of a "unified" theory that this is supposed to have
something to do with approaches to unification based on supersymmetry. In these
theories, which combine bosons & fermions, there are half-integral spin counterparts of
known bosons, called "photinos", "gluinos" &c and integral spin counterparts of known
fermions, called "selectrons", "squarks" etc. NONE OF THESE NEW PARTICLES HAVE YET BEEN
DETECTED. In principle, there could be counterparts of ordinary atom in which
selectrons orbit "snuclei". (I think I just made up this last word.)
The possible existence of "atoms" and "molecules" composed of these hypothetical
particles is a topic of legitimate, though very remote, speculation. But any claims of
observational evidence for them or, _a fortiori_, their use as an energy source, would,
I'm quite sure, be quite spurious, and would lead me to think that the whole thing is a
fake.
George Murphy