Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • Hello everybody,


    I became interested in Dr. Randell Mills and his theory (GUTCP) about a year ago and after a while I got annoyed by the lack of independent verification and the (lack of) quality of the independent theoretical assessments. On Wikipedia there are some critics with good reputation but after taking a closer look on their arguments I was quite shocked. How can these guys with a reputation to lose make very harsh and absolute statements (“Mills is fraud” etc.) just on the basis of a rejection of hydrinos because QM does not predict them?


    So I decided to conduct my own little research effort. But I failed to do the math and I failed to find someone who could do it for me (see here). I than tried to shift my evaluation effort from doing the math to a more accessible problem. And this “accessible problem” is the calculation of the structure of atoms and molecules with GUTCP equations that everyone with a bit of scientific education is able to understand. So all we have to do for getting a strong indication of the correctness of GUTCP is calculate the values for molecule parameters from his equations and prove or disprove that his claims of being able to derive these values with great precision and only with physical constants are valid. If we can do that for many molecules with sufficient complexity there will be no doubt left, that his theory gives a better atomic model than quantum theory. If the other claims of Mills also hold is not covered by this evaluation method, but the chances would rise significantly.


    So I looked for a calculation environment that is as simple as a calculator but can do powerful calculations if needed. It should also be possible to follow the calculations line by line and add comments, so that everyone can see where an equation comes from. With octave I found the best fitting solution for this task that is free of charge. I used octave to calculate different values of the hydroxyl and the water molecule and the ionization energies of ~60 atoms and ions. The calculation scripts and a document where I give much more details and the results is attached to this post.


    I invite everyone to take a closer look, get as excited as I am ( :thumbup: ) and feel the urge to contribute your own calculations and evaluations. Just upload your files in a reply to this post and I am going to integrate it here on page 1 (I hope there will be a page 2 - hope dies last ;) ).

  • OK, I'll analyze it. Which experimental data are actually required for ab inicio calculation of water H-O-H angle?


    mu_0 = 4*pi*10^-7; % Vacuum permeability in [N/A^2]
    c_0 = 299792458; % speed of light in vacuum [m/s]
    ec = 1.6021766208*10^-19; % elementary charge [C]
    h = 6.626070040*10^-34; % plank constant [J*s]
    h_bar = 1.0545718 *10^-34; % reduced plank constant [J*s]
    eps_0 = 1/(mu_0*c_0^2); % Vacuum permittivity in [F/m]
    m_e = 9.10938356*10^-31; % mass of the electron [kg]
    m_p = 1.672621898*10^-27; % mass of the proton [kg]
    alpha = (mu_0*ec^2*c_0)/(2*h); % fine structure constant []
    a_0 = 5.2917721067*10^-11; % Bohr radius [m]
    mu_b = 9.274009994*10^-24; % Bohr magneton [J/T]


    Which other experimental constants are required for it? What the E_osc_eV = 2*(E_dop_eV+(1/2)*(3756/8065.5)); % EXPERIMENTAL VALUE for example is?


    BTW are you aware of the fact, that even if the theory provides results compliant with observations (epicycle model of Ptolemy), it can still be based on solely unphysical grounds? Even the pile of formal math is not warranty of any validity, as the string theorists already learned in hard way.

  • OK, I'll analyze it. Which experimental data are actually required for ab inicio calculation of water H-O-H angle?


    Which experimental data are actually required for ab inicio calculation of water H-O-H angle?


    You found the only experimental value I used (it´s the vibrational energy of oxygen with the value 3756 cm^-1 converted to eV with factor 1/8065. But even that value is (probably) not needed. He gave the detailed equation for the vibrational energy of hydroxyl and I gave a reference to the generic formular to calculate it for water.
    All other values in the scripts are just integers, integer fractions like (1/8 or 2/3) or factors to convert from one unit to another.


    Quote

    BTW are you aware of the fact, that even if the theory provides results compliant with observations (epicycle model of Ptolemy), it can still be based on solely unphysical grounds? Even the pile of formal math is not warranty of any validity, as the string theorists already learned in hard way.


    Yes I am. All my talk about occam´s razor is about that. My point is that GUTCP does not use a single not widely accepted postulate. It just uses Newtons laws, Maxwells equations and special relativity and one can say that these are widely accepted. QM uses much more postulates and assumptions. The next thing is that it is straight forward (for a physicist) to derive the basic equations of GUTCP about the electron. One guy did this within < 2 years. No need for an army of physicists and 25 years to find a slimy work around to get rid of the infinitys in QM equations. And if his claims also hold for the calculation of all organic molecules (and beyond) than it is also way ahead in terms of accuraccy regarding the structure of matter. So we would have a major plus on the side of GUTCP: it is physically meaningful and "local", it uses only well accepted postulates, it is much simpler than QM, it uses just fundamental constants, spin+pauli exclusion principle+Hund's rules are derived in GUTCP and not postulated as in QM, the electron is a real physical particle and no singularity,...just read the whole list from p. 5ff. You don´t have to think twice with which underlying theory you would go and proceed.


    But then there are of course the details as Wyttenbuch and Stefan point out here. I personaly don´t think that it is possible for one single guy to describe all of physics correct and without any flaws. There will be of course topics where Mills is wrong or partially wrong etc. and parts of his derivations must be revised. Perhaps even with concepts of QM. I don´t know what future will bring. My point is about showing the correctnes of the foundation of Mills theory and that is the nonradiation condition and the 2D wave equation. I guess that if Mills suceeds with his suncell there even will be attempts to incorporate hydrinos into QM. I think what definitly would show the correctnes of more than 90% of Mills theory are experiments regarding the prediction of the fifth force. But this lies so far in the future that I stop speculating now.

  • /* You found the only experimental value I used (it´s the vibrational energy of oxygen with the value 3756 cm^-1 converted to eV with factor 1/8065 */


    But if you know binding energy, you could calculate the angle of water molecule from kinetic energy of gases, because mass of protons and electrons you have also available. In another words, the Mills theory works well from the same reason, like the epicycle model of Ptolemy: it's fitted to particular data, in the range of which it works well (the epicycle model has been also used for predictions of eclipses and conjunctions successfully) - yet its physical basis is nonsensical.


    The Mills model considers orbitals as a thin spheres, which is essentially what Bohr and Sommerfield anticipated before one century. The better understanding of quantum mechanics enabled us to realize, that the geometry of molecules is driven with spatial resonance of DeBroglie waves of electrons around atoms. Because Randell Mills ignores this geometric power of quantum mechanics, he is forced to calculate this geometry from thermodynamic experimental data in similar way, like the kinetic theory of gases does.


    The Randell Mills model is not even fully wrong, it may be substantiated for calculations of shape of so-called Rydberg orbitals of both extreme high, both extreme fractional quantum numbers (if they could exist). The Rydberg orbitals really look like the hollow spheres at such extreme quantum numbers.


    Mills here does the same thing, which the promoters of some particular idea did many times in the past: he just extrapolates his idea outside the scope of its original validity just because he perceives everything through the prism of his pet theory. For example, the proponents of aether or plasma universe see the aether or plasma Universe everywhere - even at the places, where these concepts have nothing to say about reality (AxilAxill does it routinely with every insight, which he read last month).


    Well, and Randall Mills sees the Rydberg orbitals everywhere. IMO he is gifted and very diligent individual - but he isn't as smart, as he got into trap of his own theory and perspective of vision. And I think, what he does are the cold fusion experiments, not hydrino experiments. His experiments can be still extremely useful - just from different reasons, than Randell Mills believes.


    This is all just my qualified guess in this moment and I can be also wrong. If Mills will confirm the hydrino existence, it would be a big thing not just for energetics, but for example for cosmology and material science too. But I think, it will not happen, as he failed to do it already.

  • Quote

    For example, the proponents of aether or plasma universe see the aether or plasma Universe everywhere - even at the places, where these concepts have nothing to say about reality (AxilAxill does it routinely with every insight, which he read last month).


    The vacuum is a spin net liquid and is the fundamental basis for reality. The nature of the vacuum is where the fundamental properties of nature are derived.

  • Quote

    But if you know binding energy, you could calculate the angle of water molecule from kinetic energy of gases, because mass of protons and electrons you have also available. In another words, the Mills theory works well from the same reason, like the epicycle model of Ptolemy: it's fitted to particular data, in the range of which it works well (the epicycle model has been also used for predictions of eclipses and conjunctions successfully) - yet its physical basis is nonsensical.


    Sorry but I don´t understand what you are talking about. The vibrational energy is only one of I think 5 different energies needed for the binding energy. How is this fitting?
    E_osc_eV = 2*(E_dop_eV+(1/2)*(3756/8065.5));
    E_T_OSC_eV = E_T_H20_eV + E_osc_eV;
    E_bond_diss_eV = -e_h_ion_eV+E_T_OH_eV-E_mag_eV-E_T_OSC_eV;


    E_bond_diss_eV is the binding energy - so it is not given but calculated from physical constants + a small part from experiment.


    I could spend some additional time to get rid of this last value and calculate it with Mills equations, but I think you would just answer in the same unreflected way as in the past. So believe whatever you want. Time will tell.

  • I could spend some additional time to get rid of this last value and calculate it with Mills equations, but I think you would just answer in the same unreflected way as in the past. So believe whatever you want. Time will tell.



    Everything that gets down to <1 % "error" is excelent. The problem is the experiment. How can you measure an unperturbed molecul? How exact can you match a temperature? All vibrations are T-dependent. As a starting point for alle calculations you must typically refer to an accepted base temperature of e.g. 25C.


    For an ab initio calculation you would start with all vibration states frozen and then try to add temperature...


    Here a dissertation that describes the QM-hell (problems)of calculations: https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwjVzfT0yoDQAhWDiRoKHcJnAvYQFghcMAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fora.ox.ac.uk%2Fobjects%2Fuuid%3A5bf68dc6-0d39-464e-b145-16e255b043c4%2Fdatastreams%2FTHESIS01&usg=AFQjCNF91W2GYC3c5E1Z1RypQE2BK3uLvg

  • Some of you guys are so behind the times it's either so laughable or sad that I cannot quite decide. I applaud Epimetheus's effort to verify the accuracy of the GUT-CP. Even simpler would be to read one of these validation reports.


    http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/


    One of the latest includes a black and white validation from a Ph.D physicist from UNC.


    When I read these QM apologists like Zephir calling out the GUT-CP for being "unphysical" I simply laugh. How many adjustable parameters does The Standard Model use now is it 19 or 27? The GUT-CP does not even use a single parameter, not even one, fundamental constants only.


    Talk about the dumb and blind leading the dumb and blind.

  • There is no temperature in Mills equations so I think he is calculating the "frozen state". And as you say, there will be problems with the experimental validation because the molecules typically will have a temperature above 0K.


    Btw. Mills omits the vibrational energy for calculating the bond angles because the term is small compared to the rest. Therefore the bond angle of water in my calculation scripts is completly based on physical constants and no experimental value was used to calculate it. The vibrational energy gives about 8% of the bond energy so it is not valid to omit it there.

  • /* When I read these QM apologists like Zephir calling out the GUT-CP for being "unphysical" I simply laugh. */


    I will laugh the simpler, once it will turn out, that the whole hydrino stuff is bogus and that Mills runs "normal" cold fusion (...if only because the clear water calorimetry is still somehow missing in his SunCell reports). 8) In which study we can find the results of "commercial water bath calorimeter using 80 mg, 2mm diameter silver shots with a small amount of partially hydrated oxide doping run under an 95% argon and 5% hydrogen atmosphere"? Why the water calorimetry of normal SunCell reactor is missing? Such a results are, what the normal energy production research usually starts with...


    BTW Why all replications of BLP technology start with sentence "Report of Visit to BlackLight Power". Why every attempt for really independent replication gets immediately attacked with BLP? Something is smelling in the Kingdom of Denmark..


    Anyway, the orbitals cannot form nonradiating spheres simply because they're known to radiate and with different speed, as its apparent from variable intensity of lines at spectra. Mills simplistic theory cannot account to these subtleties at all in the same way, like to another subtleties of chemistry, following from variable shape of orbitals (coordination bond, pi-orbitals etc..). BTW How Mills theory wants to account to ferromagnetism with its "all is sphere" approach? In standard quantum mechanics the ferromagnetism is tightly connected with f- d- orbitals of certain angular types - i.e. these ones, which hosts unpaired electrons outside the axis of atoms. Only such an orbitals could lead to orbital precession of atoms.


  • Some of you guys are so behind the times it's either so laughable or sad that I cannot quite decide. I applaud Epimetheus's effort to verify the accuracy of the GUT-CP. Even simpler would be to read one of these validation reports.


    The problem with this is, that it is on BLPs website and so it is, by definition of the sceptics, not independent. So there is only the hard way left :-)


    Quote

    Anyway, the orbitals cannot form nonradiating spheres simply because they're known to radiate and with different speed, as its apparent from variable intensity of lines at spectra. Mills theory cannot account these subtleties at all.


    How do you know? Your arguments are of the same quality as the ones of the guy who said that a ship made of steel can not swim and who threw a steel rod into the river to proof it. If you want to talk about GUTCP than read it! Lamb shift is covered aswell as that states above ground states are not stable. Mills is not stupid and he did his homework (for 25 years). If you want to find flaws you have to dig much deeper.

  • I am not sure validation would mean much at this point either. If an investor needs to hire a validator to determine whether or not to invest in BLP, then that is a justifiable reason. But we are heading into November and BLP is talking about field trials in the first half of next year. What are they waiting for? The PV manufacturer to cut the cells to match the specs of the SunCell dome. Then it will be complete.


    Between now and then BLP will tweak the prototype in their lab to make sure the reaction is running smoothly and the heat is being dissipated properly etc. Then it will be time to put in the cells and ship the SunCell out into the field. Everyone will essentially know almost immediately whether it works or not, and how well it works. If it works to the level that Mills has proposed, it would be world changing. It's hard to say how quickly people would grasp the level of change. Would Mills be Time's Person of the Year next year or in 10 years? Even if the SunCell works like gangbusters it's hard to know.


    Or as Mary Yugo might predict, we won't see any field trials, and if we do, they probably won't work and the SunCell will have to head back into the lab. Who is right? Only time will tell.

  • /* Lamb shift is covered aswell as that states above ground states are not stable. */


    I didn't mention the subtleties like the Lamb shift - but quite fundamental problems following from assumption, that all orbitals have the very same shape in Mills model. This is quite substantial geometric reductionism of reality - not just formal one (i.e. at the level of formal math). What Mills probably didn't realize is, due to steady improvement of technology and resolution of microscopes, his theory may be directly testable by observation soon. This is the surface of Tunstgen under AFM - according to Mills theory such a surface should be composed of pure spheres only. Does it?


    Well, I don't think so... How the Mills theory wants to explain the properties of graphite without pi-orbitals? In Mills theory all orbitals are of s-type...


     


    Albert Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

  • When I read these QM apologists like Zephir calling out the GUT-CP for being "unphysical" I simply laugh. How many adjustable parameters does The Standard Model use now is it 19 or 27? The GUT-CP does not even use a single parameter, not even one, fundamental constants only.


    Talk about the dumb and blind leading the dumb and blind.


    I take it you are one of the intelligent ones, smiling benignly over our confusion. Will you help us dumb and blind ones to understand how Mills's theory does not simply ignore electron capture? Given your confidence, I get the sense that this will be extremely easy for you.

  • This is the surface of Tunstgen under AFM - according to Mills theory such a surface should be composed of pure spheres only. Does it?



    As you might know this microscope has no time resolution. Even the slightest brown- movement will introduce a cloud. Ask the people to do the same scan twice and look at the differences. - They will be huge.


    Some guys did measurements at 0C that delivered much more compelling pictures, which would remind you of Mill's "Niki de Saint Phalle" mulecules...



    Will you help us dumb and blind ones to understand how Mills's theory does not simply ignore electron capture?



    Do you really believe that Mill's theory is complete, that one guy can do the work of millions of physicians? Your reasoning is naive. Mills present an approach to better understand certain aspects of physics. It's up to you to extend it for your purposes.



    Just added:: @EricW: Of course Mill's is using the sperical harmonics! What else should he use?



  • Thank you, Epimetheus, for reporting on this effort. I am impressed by your enthusiasm and persistence in the face of challenges. I look forward to hearing more of what you learn. What I personally am most interested in is a table with five or so columns:


    Calculation Reported experimental value (e.g., NIST) Error in replicated Mills calculation Unexplained parameters? (yes/no) Link to writeup for calculation
    Bond dissociation energy of H2O 5.1116 eV +-0.0002 eV no (link)


    If you had 40 or so different examples of very different kinds (e.g., not all a bunch of bond dissociation energy calculations), that might motivate people with relevant backgrounds to look into the calculations and address such questions as, is Mills in fact using some semiclassical approach in this or that case which is already known and regularly used by chemists, or is this calculation a new one and a bona fide consequence of previous axioms that he's adopted? How much easier/simpler/more straightforward is the Mills calculation, if it is different? Etc.


    In your report you wrote:


    Quote

    The ionization energy is a very important parameter for the generic equations Mills gives in his GUTCP. So a first step on the way to a generic calculation framework is a function that calculates these energies. I found that you just need 3 major and a few minor equations to accomplish this. It is three major equations because from 1-20 electrons you have three settings of outer shell electrons: atoms with outer S-orbital, 2p-orbital or 3p-orbital.


    I thought Mills only talks about orbitspheres. When you mention "s-orbital" or "2p-orbital", I think of the spherical harmonics, which are not all spherical and are not two-dimensional surfaces. Can you expand on what you had in mind here?

  • Do you really believe that Mill's theory is complete, that one guy can do the work of millions of physicians? Your reasoning is naive. Mills present an approach to better understand certain aspects of physics. It's up to you to extend it for your purposes.


    Honestly, it seems to me that Mills's theory is blissfully ignorant of basic science that has been known for decades in an attempt to derive a classical approach to QM. But I take from your comment above a tacit admission on your part that the theory does in fact ignore electron capture. How would you recommend extending it to remedy this deficiency? I do not see how it can be done without setting aside orbitspheres.

  • I thought Mills only talks about orbitspheres. When you mention "s-orbital" or "2p-orbital", I think of the spherical harmonics, which are not all spherical and are not two-dimensional surfaces. Can you expand on what you had in mind here?


    Of course there is something similar to the QM orbital model in Mills theory. At least in its effect. It´s the distribution of the charge densities on the orbitospheres that are caused by the complex electron movement. This picture is for one orbitosphere. In a molecule the orbitospheres combine and give a more complex surface.

    (from presentation of Prof. Huub Bakker)


    @ Zephir: No the orbitals are of course not just of s-type as the picture above shows. I don´t know the analogon of a pi-orbital in GUTCP and you will find tons of experiments that are not described in GUTCP yet. But that does not mean that GUTCP cannot explain them, but instead nobody worked on the specific topic. Perhaps it can, perhaps not.

  • I do not see how it can be done without setting aside orbitspheres.


    May be you once dig into the classical explanation for electron capture based on e+e- pair production in the nuclear field?!


    For electron capture there is absolutely no need for an electron-cloud going through a nucleus! It's a classical misinterpretation of QM!


    In fact QM only works for the finestructure of the orbits and not for nuclear processes!

  • May be you once dig into the classical explanation for electron capture based on e+e- pair production in the nuclear field?!


    For electron capture there is absolutely no need for an electron-cloud going through a nucleus! It's a classical misinterpretation of QM!


    I'm genuinely interested in the contents of the description that you're asserting here with characteristic confidence. Can you elaborate, possibly providing a reference or two?

  • I'm genuinely interested in the contents of the description that you're asserting here with characteristic confidence. Can you elaborate, possibly providing a reference or two?


    Eric : It was me that asked you to give me a QM formula which generically delivers the Beta+- capture ratio for a big range of nuclei with an error of less than 1%! To my knowledge there exists none (not using fitted paramters..) which is based on basic laws.


    Thus I'm waiting for it!


    What I said is: In heavy nuclei Z > 100 the "strong force" field may induce pair production. Why should this not account for the same process in smaller nuclei? This as my argument why QM will never explain it!

  • Eric : It was me that asked you to give me a QM formula which generically delivers the Beta+- capture ratio for a big range of nuclei with an error of less than 1%! To my knowledge there exists none (not using fitted paramters..) which is based on basic laws.


    Thus I'm waiting for it!


    What I said is: In heavy nuclei Z > 100 the "strong force" field may induce pair production. Why should this not account for the same process in smaller nuclei? This as my argument why QM will never explain it!


    In answer to your question for the QM formula for electron capture—this is surely something you can look up yourself, or do you dispute that there are such calculations? I have no knowledge of one that does or does not fall within an accuracy of 1%, nor is the existence or lack thereof of a formula with that kind of error bounds even slightly relevant to my point.


    I'll make my point again, which is qualitative rather than quantitative. QM, with its three dimensional orbitals, makes it straightforward to imagine how electron capture can occur, which requires the operation of the weak interaction, an interaction that is believed to happen at distances several orders of magnitude smaller than the nuclear interaction. By contrast, orbitspheres provide no insight into how electron capture might occur and even obscure the fact that it would be possible. This is the hallmark of a theory that is unphysical. Basic geometric considerations are important in physics.


    Am I to understand that your point about pair production is unrelated to getting Mills's theory out of its difficulty with electron capture? The strong force does not produce pair production. Pair production is a process that usually involves a photon with energy ~ 1 MeV or greater, sufficient to produce the electron-positron (or other lepton) pair in the presence of a strong Coulomb field (i.e., no strong interaction involved). How exactly is QM deficient here?

  • Pair production is a process that usually involves a photon with energy ~ 1 MeV or greater, sufficient to produce the electron-positron (or other lepton) pair in the presence of a strong Coulomb field (i.e., no strong interaction involved).


    Finally you got it, what Mill's theory is about!


    It's not essentially about nuclear physics. What I went through is the orbit part, that is important for Chemistry and that seems to work. The hydrino stuff has some limitations as a posted many times before. Nevertheless deep orbits are a fact, but there is no theoretical consense, but the silly answer unphysical...


    But key is: If some part of a theory works much better, than the world wide gold theory consensus, then everybody has to first read it and then raise questions. Answers like unphysical are just damn silly and children stuff.


    Did you ever ask Bor why his theory (Bor model) works to calculate the Bor radius, even though in your view it's completely unphysical?


    May be, at the end, QM can be improved!

  • But key is: If some part of a theory works much better, than the world wide gold theory consensus, then everybody has to first read it and then raise questions. Answers like unphysical are just damn silly and children stuff.


    Nonsense. If a theory is unphysical it is the duty of the person or people proposing it to make it physical. There could hardly be a better complaint. This is why people strove to move beyond the Bohr model in the early part of the 1900's, and no doubt why Bohr himself went along with them.

  • Nonsense. If a theory is unphysical it is the duty of the person or people proposing it to make it physical. There could hardly be a better complaint. This is why people strove to move beyond the Bohr model in the early part of the 1900's, and no doubt why Bohr himself went along with them.


    Eric : With this childish ("unphysical") attitude you will never help us to find out why Mill's theory, in some aspects, works better than QM ...


    But, may be, we have to live with the fact, that for a big part of the physics establishment and their followers, physics is a substitute for religion. I propose thereof to use the term heretic instead of unphysical.


    BDW: There are thousands of physicians, who believe, that QM is unphysical, but that is no reason "for not to use it" for what it fits.

  • Eric : With this childish ("unphysical") attitude you will never help us to find out why Mill's theory, in some aspects, works better than QM ...


    But, may be, we have to live with the fact, that for a big part of the physics establishment and their followers, physics is a substitute for religion. I propose thereof to use the term heretic instead of unphysical.


    That's incorrect. I'm open to the possibility that some of the calculations are as good or even better. I consider it an empirical question, hopefully to be sorted out.


    "Unphysical" means not physical, i.e., giving funny results or not accounting for important experimental evidence that lies within the scope of a theory's applicability. You are trolling now by suggesting that it is being used synonymously with "heretical". I have given a concrete reason for thinking Mills's theory is unphysical.

  • That's incorrect. I'm open to the possibility that some of the calculations are as good or even better. I consider it an empirical question, hopefully to be sorted out.


    See this. Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?


    It could be sorted out.


    When a company involves millions of dollars, as Mills' company does, we must consider the possibility of deception. This is not normal in science, but arises when it intersects with business and especially when secret products and unverifiable claims are being made. The claim of high performance of "Millsian," the program, is verifiable. But what does it mean?


    Deception hypothesis: the program is a look-up table, with data from experimental values that has been dithered so there is some common but small error. As a more sophisticated version, if it is fed something that cannot be found in the table, it will use analogous data. This would likely show up as greater error when something new is calculated than something that is already one of the reported molecules. It could be tricky to study.


    The first level of verification would ignore this. Is the basic claim true, aside from how it might be accomplished? Is how the program works, using Mills' theory, to calculate bond energies, visible? If so, the calculations themselves could be verified aside from the program, bypassing any possible lookup table.


    (It is not difficult to hide lookup tables in programs if they are large enough. There is a whole technology of concealing how programs work, to protect IP.)


    An evaluation version of the program is available at http://www.millsian.com/


    it is impossible to verify the SunCell claims, for most people. However, it should be quite possible, if someone is willing to do the work, to verify the program, and even to do so conclusively. If Millsian really does work, that's of major interest, it gives a reason to investigate his ideas more closely.


    I caution it would not be a proof. It is entirely possible for an "unphysical" theory to nevertheless produce predictions of high precision, at least to a substantial degree. However, it becomes more difficult to simply discard the theory out of hand. I have seen contrary papers about Mills' theory, but none of it was convincing to me. Either way.


    I developed my own opinion out of the history of his company and the claims made. It doesn't look good, let me put it that way. But appearances can be deceiving.