Niels Bohr and Randell Mills

The history of efforts to conceptualize the extremely small is ancient.  The two opposing schools were particle and aetheric.  At different times, it was generally believed that extremely small pieces (Greek: 'a tomos', literally not cuttable, or irreducible to smaller parts) comprised everything, as opposed to everything was made of some materia prima.  This historical sequence is a fine way to tour the way people came to understand what could never be examined directly with the senses on the smallest scale of size.  The fact that the conceptualizations became empirically testable is of paramount importance, a testament to human persistence and ingenuity.

In 1913, Bohr introduced his model of the atom, which gave us the well known image that everyone has when picturing an atom.  However impossible it was, it was so useful.  It was a big step toward making sense of line spectral data that had been empirically fit with the Rydberg formula that matched at least for hydrogen.  Rydberg's formula was not developed from first principles.  It was a curve fit to the data.  That made it theoretically unfounded, and so vast efforts went into finding some way to attach a physical model to it, and Bohr mostly succeeded.  

Bohr's model is not possibly real because an orbiting electron, even at constant speed, has a continually changing velocity vector, so therefore, it is an accelerating charged particle.  From Maxwell's equations, we see that a changing current distribution generates electromagnetic waves, so the electron must radiate energy as it accelerates.  The electron cannot be orbiting the nucleus like a planet orbits its star.  It cannot be losing energy in its orbit or it would collapse into the nucleus.  This has not been a point of contention.

An imperative need was to explain Rydberg in first principles (Newton, primarily).  Another imperative need was to find out why the Bohr model worked so well, but was impossible.  These problems were attacked by the greatest minds of the era.  When the smoke cleared in 1926, the Schrodinger/Heisenberg theory (beginnings of the Standard Theory of Quantum Mechanics -- SQM) emerged.  But, it was and is well understood to not be based on first principles.  It was not widely greeted with acceptance by the majority of the physics community, but they really needed a theory of some kind.  Two very useful aspects of physics, causality and a physically conceivable model, were lost when SQM emerged.  What resulted was a reduction of the place afforded to human intelligence in the Universe.  As Nobelist Feynman famously said it, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”  The corollary in college classrooms became, "Shut up and calculate."  At least it was good for something, sort of.

Engineer Jeff Driscoll studied Randell Mills' GUTCP theory.  His outline of the development of Bohr and similarity to Mills' use of much of the same thinking is a good primer, and a lot more.

As an engineer myself, while physical theory is of paramount importance, what makes my clock tick is what can a theory do to inform design of physical systems?  Without causality, Schrodinger's equation seems useless.  It cannot evoke a physical model, particularly when applied to atoms more complicated than hydrogen.

It is really easy to bash the quantum mechanics that followed from Schrodinger's equation.  When I actually began to grasp what a kludge it really is, I could not believe it.  I was sure that my sources were somehow biased.  Surely, the foundation of modern physics could not be mere interpretations of a probability distribution function.  Well, that is the case.

I do not claim this from the perspective of a trained physicist.  It appears that modern physics has lost the plot, so to speak, of actual physics, and become a belief system into which all kinds of bizarre and contradictory interpretations can be read (tea leaves, anyone?).  It may be closer to myth than fact.  

It seems fair to say that Bohr was on the right track, but was derailed by Maxwell.  However, even back then, theorists sought a way for some kind of electron to be able to exist in the Newtonian physics of the Bohr model, an electron that could account for the many observed properties and yet not lose energy in the "ground state".  Such theorists continued their pursuit until the present day.  This was the origin of Mills' theory, which drew inspiration from a paper by MIT Professor Herman Haus, a truly outstanding scientist-engineer.

Dr. Phillips points out in Chapter 4 of his series:

Interestingly, other scientists such as George Goedecke also used classical physics to show extended distributions of charge, in particular loops of charge like the “great circles” of the orbitsphere (Figure 4-1), can turn at constant angular velocity without radiating.12  However, Dr. Mills is the only scientist to incorporate this finding into a model of the bound electron.

There are also experimental demonstrations that superconductor loops do not radiate, hence do not lose energy and maintain constant angular momentum indefinitely, a requirement of the GUTCP model (more on this later).

So, it appears that the main point of rejection of the Bohr model can be overcome, provided the circulating current maintains a constant speed and has the right geometry.  This requires a very different physical model than Bohr's, and this is where Mills departs with his orbitsphere, made up of many 'great circles' of current with the nucleus as their origin.

Dr. Phillips has invested a good deal of effort into testing empirically (with the well honed skills of a Los Alamos National Laboratory senior scientist) and exploring theoretically, the claims of Dr. Mills and he finds them quite satisfactory.  Phillips is far from alone.  To explore further, read Holverstott or Stolper.