Greetings!

The last series of posts in the "BLP update" thread raised some questions again, that I carry around for quiet some time. I would like to hear your opinion about the results Mills optained

for the structure of 300-800 molecules - some of them highly complex. The results I talk about are in a paper I added to this post and in more detailed form in volume 2 of GUTCP.

I find Mills results really exciting and breathtaking and I would like to hear from you, what you think about it in general or if you don´t have an opinion. I know this is not the area of expertise for most

of you but that never stopped anyone from posting something on this forum

After this general question I would like to know your opinion about eric walkers objections against BLP. He says that it is known that the math in GUTCP is wrong - and so say many physicists on the internet.

My question is: If the math is wrong how could Mills get the correct bond energies for more than 300 molecules within 0,1% relative error to the experimental values? And not only bond energies. Also bond angles,

internuclear distances and so on. Everything that is necessary to fully describe the structure of a molecule. To put these results into relation to quantum mechanics: the way quantum mechanics calculates these

values is with the hartree fock algorithm. This algorithm is known for more than fifty years and thousands of physicists worked on improving the calculation of these values for decades. After putting huge amounts

of work into these calculations they now have tools that need a set of tuning parameters for each class of molecules. If you take just one single parameter set for all molecules without hand tuning it for the problem at hand you get

the accuracy reported in the Mills paper. Hartree Fock is just an approximation and if you achieve 0,1% relative error with these highly complex calculation tools you would be completely satisfied because normally

the accuracy is way of.

So Mills analytic equations run in seconds on a pc and achieve better results in terms of accuracy than the QM methods that take hours/days on supercomputers. How is this possible if Mills has major errors in

his equations that challenge his GUTCP as claimed by eric walker? During my studies I sometimes had the situation that I made two errors in a calculation and the result was correct because the errors cancled

each other out. But with these huge amounts of parameters that are calculated for the molecules and many of them build upon each other I think it is impossible for this to be true for Mills work.

What do you think about it? This is not a rethorical question - I really want to understand what I have not considered to date because I do not understand why nobody is getting crazy all about it. The reaction of

the people hearing it is more like "phhh Mills...I am hungry. Where is food?"