Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

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.

Mills could be seeing metalized hydrides that have a compressed electron shell due to hole superconductivity. Most elements can form metalized states such as noble gases.

/* 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.

It would be interesting to find, how the angle of water molecule changes with change of binding energy from zero to infinity..
Could you draw this function?

Quote from Epimetheus

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.

/* 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). 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.

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."

Quote from B Yoshikazu

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.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

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...

Quote from Eric Walker

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:

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?

Quote from Wyttenbach

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.