The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics [Hardcover]

Dr. Randell L. Mills (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 1, 2001

Physics Theory with Experimental Confirmation. Unification of Maxwell's Equations, Special, and General Relativity.

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Editorial Reviews

Review

I grew up and was educated (1960s) in a time when Einstein's lifelong (but unattained) quest for a unified field theory was celebrated rather anecdotally, as a sort of historical curiosity. One spoke of theories as 'tools', or 'models'. The prevailing mentality was 'one model does not fit all.' A model would work and be useful in one set of circumstances but not another; use a model to get practical results, but a pursuit of absolute unifying truth was regarded largely as a waste of candle wax.

Other characteristics of this time in science were intolerance, arrogance, and rigidity. Scientists preened and postured, became intensely political, and delegated the 'doing' of science to students. Science was becoming big science - a big governmental and corporate enterprise - demanding more resources and becoming less accountable." We now have an expensive standing army in American science, marching in place, with little creative, definable mission. Most of what passes for science is merely chauvinism - who has the largest accelerator, etc.

Now along comes Randell Mills. Without expending billions or even millions or even hundreds of thousands of US taxpayers' dollars, Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein's quest for a unified field theory. Dr. Mills' theory is presented in his book, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (November 1995).

This is a huge achievement for three reasons. First, the Mills Theory tidies up theoretical physics by stitching together quantum mechanics and relativity. That in itself is a major triumph. Second, and more important, the Mills Theory explains several major empirical anomalies that have vexed physicists for decades: the sun's energy balance deficit; the dark matter in space phenomena; and mountains of atomic-electron spectral data that is inconsistent with prevailing theory. Third, the Mills Theory gives rise to the possibility of an inexhaustible energy source based on phenomenology not yet recognized and accepted by the scientific community."

Remarkably, Dr. Mills has developed his theory and its energy generation application as an entrepreneur -- without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood. Because his enterprise does not suffer these two impediments, it just might succeed. If so, Mills will be the next Thomas Edison. -- Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy, top nuclear official in the Reagan Administration --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

About the Author

Dr. Mills, the founder and principal stockholder of the Company, has served as President, Director and Chairman of the Board since 1991. Dr. Mills received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in chemistry, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Franklin & Marshall College in 1982 and a Doctor of Medicine degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986. Following a year of graduate work in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mills began his research in the field of energy technology. He has authored or co-authored three articles in the field of energy technology that have been published in scientific journals, and a fourth publication is in progress. Dr. Mills has received or filed patents in the following areas: (1) magnetic resonance imaging; (2) Mossbauer cancer therapy; (3) Luminide class of drug delivery molecules; (4) genomic sequencing method, and (5) artificial intelligence. A thorough description of the company's technology and Dr. Mills' underlying atomic theory is published in a book entitled Unification of Spacetime, the Forces, Matter, and Energy (Science Press, 1992) and in his recent book entitled, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, Science Press, November 1995 Edition and September 1996 Edition. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 870 pages
• Publisher: BlackLight Power, Inc (September 1, 2001)
• ISBN-10: 0963517155
• ISBN-13: 978-0963517159
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,991,769 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

38 of 41 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, January 6, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (Hardcover)

There are four aspects to the theoretical underpinning of this book, (i) philosophical, (ii) theoretically physical, (iii) experimentally physical and (iv) mathematical. The theoretical underpinning for this book are the six theory sections, which are also posted by the author on several of his web pages. My review is directed at these theoretical underpinnings. For the purpose of orientation, one may note that these six sections come as pdf files. Consequently, it is natural to label their pages in consecutive order. For example, the references would be on page 33. The ensuing seven remarks are labelled according to which of the above four aspects I am talking about.

1.(iv) The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq.(I.5), as well as those given by Eqs.(I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation, Eq.(I.6).

2.(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. (This is a consequence of the familiar "addition theorem" for spherical harmonics.) According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates.

3.(iii) The radial amplitude profiles given by Eqs.(I.25) and (I.26) are those of a hollow resonating sphere or those of empty spherically symmetric space. These profiles are not those that pertain to a system having a central charged nucleus, whose electrostatic potential U(r) is proportional to 1/r. As a consequence, vibrational frequencies (or energy levels) based on these (non-electrostatic) profiles are in conflict with the known levels of the hydrogen atom, the book's "alternative interpretation" on pages 11-13 notwithstanding.

4.(ii) The sweeping negative assessments (after Eq.(I.46) down to the middle of the next page) of (1) quantum mechanics (q.m.), of (2) the relation between Schrodinger's equation and spin and the Pauli principle, and of (3) the impuned "assumption" of q.m. visavis macroscopic objects are very strange by any standard. I am sure that had this book been cognizant of, for example, Feynman's (LECTURES ON PHYSICS, Volume III) exposition of quantum mechanics (but not necessarily ALL his philosophical comments), augmented by Wheeler's (Box 25.3 in "GRAVITATION" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler) exposition of the role of Hamilton-Jacobi theory in relating q.m. to Newtonian mechanics, then the book would have reached a diametrically opposite assessment.

5.(iii) The book claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. It is claimed (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any "hydrino" states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states.

6.(i) Above Eq.(I.22) the book makes the physically and philosphically incorrect claim that Schrodinger's boundary condition leads to a "purely" mathematical model of the electron [emphasis via quotes are mine]. The correct statement should have been something like: "Schrodinger's boundary condition expresses (or captures) the dynamical behaviour of a bound electron". Thus, first of all, Schrodinger's boundary condition makes no statement about the structure of the electron. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no breach (as introduced by Plato and formalized by Kant) between reason and reality as is implied by the dismissive and subjective descriptor `purely mathematical model'. The phrase `purely mathematical model' or its philosophic equivalent, `purely mental construct', is an attempt to drive a wedge between theoretical physics and that which is observed or perceived in experimental physics. Such attempts should, for obvious reasons, be guarded against with vigilance. A very informative discussion of this issue can be found in L. Peikoff's article "The analytic synthetic dichotomy" in A. Rand's "Introduction to objectivist epistemology".

7.(i) In several places the book refers to the "interpretation" of the wave function, or the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. This is bad physics and bad epistemology. Here again some philosophic detection is necessary. The underlying premise is the erroneous assumption that these concepts, or constellation of concepts, are a matter of revelation, and that our job is merely to "interpret" what they mean. The underlying premise consists of the assumption that (a) the concept `wave function' or (b) the constellation of concepts `quantum mechanics', both products of man's consciousness, are

metaphysically prior or independent of existence. In fact, the opposite is the case. All products of our consciousness, including the above, are constructed by a mental process in which our consciousness digests the data and observations obtained through our senses. The fundamental aspects of this digestive process are in fact described in the above book by A. Rand

Let me summarize this review by putting it into a wider perspective. As one can see from the issues I have pointed out, the work presented in this book is grossly deficient from (i) the philosophical, (ii) the theoretically physical, (iii) the experimentally physical and (iv) the mathematical point of view. The book presents a terribly misleading and confused picture about all these issues. I could cite additional instances, but I merely would be beating a dead horse.

Based on the observations listed above, a more accurate assessment of the book is that it is an example of what, for good reasons, would give mathematicians, engineers, physicists, and philosophers a bad reputation in the eyes of prospective scientists or the public in general.

25 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Deserves an Open, Careful, Qualified Peer Review, April 12, 2000

By 

Wide SCOPE (Space Coast, Florida) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (Hardcover)

The profound philosophical challenges offered by Mills against the duality model of the electron should not be taken lightly. The "one-star" rating by a reader from the Dept of Mathematics, Ohio State University (OSU), Columbus, OH reflects a typical response of scientists to Mills' radical views. Here are some answers to the points made by the OSU reader:

OSU: "(iv) The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq. (I.5), as well as those given by Eqs. (I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation, Eq. (I.6)."

RESPONSE: They are solutions as proven on pages 61-64 of the book.

OSU: "(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates."

RESPONSE: The system does not vibrate. Perhaps he is referring to the angular velocity which is independent of l; thus, all m sub l states are degenerate except with the presence of a magnetic field.

OSU: "(iii) The radial amplitude profiles given by Eqs. (I.25) and (I.26) are those of a hollow resonating sphere or those of empty spherically symmetric space. These profiles are not those that pertain to a system having a central charged nucleus, whose electrostatic potential U(r) is proportional to 1/r. As a consequence, vibrational frequencies (or energy levels) based on these (non-electrostatic) profiles are in conflict with the known levels of the hydrogen atom--the author's 'alternative interpretation' on pages 11-13 notwithstanding."

RESPONSE: This is a dynamic not static spherical resonator. The closed form solutions of Maxwell's equations are given on pages 81-107 of the book.

OSU: "(ii) The sweeping negative assessments (after Eq. (I.46) down to the middle of the next page) of (1) quantum mechanics (q.m.), of (2) the relation between Schrodinger's equation and spin and the Pauli principle, and of (3) the impuned "assumption" of q.m. vis a vis macroscopic objects are very strange by any standard. I am sure that if the author had read and followed, for example, Feynman's (Volume III) exposition of quantum mechanics (but not necessarily ALL his philosophical comments), augmented by Wheeler's (Box 25.3 in 'GRAVITATION' by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler) exposition of the role of Hamilton-Jacobi theory in relating q.m. to Newtonian mechanics, then the author would have been led to a diametrically opposite assessment. (iii) The author claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. He claims (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any 'hydrino' states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states."

RESPONSE: This may have been observed but not explained. From Chapter 38: "The detection of the transition of atomic hydrogen from the traditional 'ground' state (n=1) to the fractional quantum energy level (n=1/2) below the traditional 'ground' state (hydrinos) is further reported by the assignment of the anomalous 31 eV backward peak observed by Rudd, et al. [4] in the electron spectrum from collisions of 70 keV protons with hydrogen atoms. The transition occurs by a 'resonant collision' mechanism predicted by Mills [3, 5]. Protons effect this transition of hydrogen by a resonant inelastic collision reaction. In this case, a backward 40.8 eV electron is produced which undergoes Franck-Hertz scattering [6] to give rise predominantly to a 30.6 eV backward peak, a 27.2 eV backward peak, and a 20.4 eV backward peak. Discontinuities in the back scattering spectrum at these energies were observed by Rudd, et al. [4] in the electron spectrum from collisions of 70 keV protons with hydrogen atoms. The maximum intensity of back scattering is predicted to be 165° falling to zero at 90° which is in agreement with the observed maximum at 160° which decreases with smaller angles to the absence of the backward scattering at 90°."

CONCLUSION: As the reader can see, these issues are not so simple as even well-educated scientists might suggest. What is needed is a blue-ribbon panel of scientists with a *serious* interest in understanding and *testing* Mills' theories. As it is, sadly, most scientists continue to assume they know everything there is to know about the hydrogen atom, even though Mills has produced evidence suggesting otherwise.

31 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Mistakes Were Made, May 11, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (Hardcover)

Mills makes some elementary algebraic and computational mistakes in the first chapter, chooses an unphysical "boundary condition," and it's all downhill from there.

He also manages to derive anti-gravity from his theory. Since an anti-gravity shield is identically the same as a perpetual motion machine, it's clear he has made some errors.

The book is tough reading, dense, and frequently damnably obtuse. The last chapters read as if they were extracted from patent applications.