Opinions on BLPs molecule results

  • 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?"


  • Mills does not detail simple (or with understandable derivations) equations that allow this accurate prediction. It is easy to get post hoc matches by fudging parameters. The standard methods are justified from first principles theory and have such parameters, but they are a relatively small number, and clearly stated, therefore the theory has significant skill. You can actually formalise quantitatively how arbitrary parameters reduce the skill of a prediction using Bayesian probability theory: one of the things it works easily for.


    For Mills' claims we have no idea how many arbitrary parameters there are since he does not disclose his methods. Where he does disclose result, this comes from from equations whose derivation does not make sense to anyone except Mills. In this case an equation with not understood derivation works as well as an arbitrary parameter. There is therefore no evidence that Mills' theory has any skill.


    One addition. It is Mills who decides which molecules he solves. He can have some approximation to the real formula - maybe some type of linear approximation - that will perform fairly well in many cases. If he gives only those cases he appears to have great skill when in reality he is just matching heuristically those that can so match.

  • zorud

    I did not want to spam the BLP update thread that is supposed to pop up when BLP releases something new.


    THHuxley

    I am sorry but everything you say about Mills theory is wrong and makes it obvious that you have not looked into GUTCP.


    Quote

    For Mills' claims we have no idea how many arbitrary parameters there are since he does not disclose his methods.

    His method is fully disclosed with detailed calculation steps and intermediate results. Volume 2 is full of it. I did a Validation of two of his molecules and can confirm that there is not a single tuning parameter used. It is all calculated from physical constants except for one energy contribution that is taken from the literature. Everything is open for everyone to check - and it is pretty simple: fill values in equation -> result -> result into next equation -> result...


    Quote

    ...from equations whose derivation does not make sense to anyone except Mills

    This is not true. There are many PhDs and profs. understanding big parts of GUTCP - just look on the BLP webpage and you will find some. stefan did some basic proofs and linked it in this forum.

    So once again: do some basic research before you post something or make it clear that you just think it is true and are not sure because you have not investigated it yourself. I asked for opinions in this thread but you did not formulate you response as an opinion.

    Quote

    There is therefore no evidence that Mills' theory has any skill.

    The word "therefore" implies that what follows relies on what was said earlier. Everything you said earlier is factually wrong, so this statement has no justification.

    Quote

    It is Mills who decides which molecules he solves.

    Look at the list of the molecules he solved. It contains all major basic molecules and he chooses them because they are understood well and have huge amounts of literature to look experimental values up (what molecules are chosen is explained in the linked paper).

    Quote

    He can have some approximation to the real formula - maybe some type of linear approximation - that will perform fairly well in many cases.

    As I said, there are no fitting parameters in his equations so a linear approximation could only be valid in a single "working point" (? - dont know correct word). And as I said: all calculated values in Mills framework rely on each other. Staying within 0,1% accuracy would be pretty good for a linear approximation working for 300+ molecules. If there would be a linear approximation working for bond energies, atomic distances, bond angles to stay within 0,1% error it would be a sensation in itself - because you dont get this accuracy with highly complex hartree fock methods that are optimized for 50 years by hordes of physicists.


    Taking everything you said into consideration: please forumulate clearer so that it is obvious what is your opinion and what is fact.

    I want to understand why nobody is digging deeper into this. I extract from your post that one reason is a lack of knowledge and some heavy bias.



    PS:

    Quote

    You can actually formalise quantitatively how arbitrary parameters reduce the skill of a prediction using Bayesian probability theory: one of the things it works easily for.

    That is correct. But in this case it is pretty easy to judge:

    We have a theory that has a bunch of parameters where you can estimate how they lower the predictive capability of you model - QM.

    And we have a theory without any parameters, just with physical constants - GUTCP.

    We have one theory that typically gives predictions with an error in the lower % range when hand tuning the parameters.

    And we have a therory that typically gives predictions below 0,1% error without any parameters.

  • I am glad for TTHuxkleynew (why new?). I am pretty sure Mills mostly has verbal gas from his demonstrations and supposed independent replications but I do not understand enough theory to speak to that aspect. I am glad TTH new or old does.

  • After reading Holverstotts book it is clear that there exists practical formulas used before

    Mills theory that is much more exact albeit emperical that what QM produces. So in a sense

    there should be possible to deduce these formulas. I have no idea if Mills over fit in order to

    reproduce these formulas or if the formulas Mills have is new,. It's clear that the QM folks

    have much more to do to explain those formulas though cause they do exists and are by

    no means fringe. When it comes to exitation energies of the atoms the answer is a bit difficult.

    The path one should take is to calculate the energy for all kinds of setups and choose the

    lowest energy solution. It's not clear that Mills does this, in stead the pattern is hard to see

    and all formulas is a bit a construction of it's own. Still the accuracy is high so it's still amazing

    but a careful analysis needs to be done in order to decide about overfitting or a true correspondance.

    That's why showing that the suggested solution is a minimal energy one would be a very very

    heavy argument in the quest to evaluate GUTCP. Dito for Mills molecule formulas, I have no

    clue about the validity of those if it's truly based on GUTCP or just a good ad hoc formula. My

    bet from analyzing the ionization energies formulas in GUTCP is that the selection done is not

    amongst a rich enough class to explain the good fit. Something is really lurking in GUTCP.

  • Why doesn't one of the properly trained members here use Mills's published formulas on some molecules not included in his paper? Shouldn't be that difficult. If the accuracy continues to be in the same range as his published result, do some more. If his formulas continue to outperform QM, then track backward from the formulas and see if any other predictions can be made from his paradigm. If such predictions can be made, can they be checked? Nature does not give a HOOT about theories, but if one theory outperforms another in a significant way in predicting empirical results it surely is worth serious consideration.

  • 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.


    I explain it once more:


    The QM formalism works pretty good as long as there are no – non linear - interaction energies. Unluckily for QM, in deeper orbits, below Bohr level, these interaction energies grow with 1/r3. Thus QM terribly fails already with the ionization energy of Helium.

    Mills formalism takes into account all interaction energies, what works fine, as long as they are not nested and need a kind of balancing we find in QM.


    Because general QM calculations are rarely better than 0.5% accurate, the physicists using it, never detected some other flaws, that also survive in Mills reasoning.


    For me, current standard physics is nothing more than a crude first choice engineering approach. For our field of interest, CNMNS, the standard model has nothing available we can use to explain the phenomena we see.


    In the post Mills model I currently work on, I disregard all solutions with less than 5 digits (99.999%) agreement. Thus there is only one evolution path.


    Mills → post Mills physics


    And please don't listen to our FUD'rs and noisy kitchen wo"mens". Mills physics is far better than anything else!

  • THHuxley 

    I am sorry but everything you say about Mills theory is wrong and makes it obvious that you have not looked into GUTCP.


    I doubt if dear THHuxley has looked into GUTCP for more than 5 minutes of cursory reading..

    judging from his in depth contributions on this forum.


    On the other hand Epimetheus appears to have looked into GUTCP in detail.

  • In JCMNS25 both Accomazzi and Celani et al give Mills and GUTCP credence but

    postulate alternative novel models to explain his evidence.


    Accomazzi (P70)

    .. novel emission lines are at energy higher than 27.1 eV. Mills explains new emission lines with a new theory [9], the Hydrino, which should be the new fundamental state of atomic hydrogen. Yet we can refute this interpretation if we assume a binuclear hydrogen metastable state was formed.

    Celani (P95)

    "

    According to Randell L. Mills the free electron is “is a spinning two-dimensional disk of charge. The mass and current density increase towards the center, but the angular velocity is constant. It produces an angular momentum vector perpendicular to the plane of the disk” [29].

    As in our proposed model the intrinsic angular momentum of free electron is h/2pi but there is an important difference in charge distribution shape and speed.

  • Epimetheus

    "We have a theory that has a bunch of parameters where you can estimate how they lower the predictive capability of you model - QM."


    von Neumann "With four parameters I can fit an elephant ....with five I can make him wiggle his trunk"

  • Quote

    THH: ...from equations whose derivation does not make sense to anyone except Mills


    Epimetheus: This is not true. There are many PhDs and profs. understanding big parts of GUTCP - just look on the BLP webpage and you will find some. stefan did some basic proofs and linked it in this forum.


    Hi Epimetheus — since you have a strong opinion here, perhaps you will be willing to give some support to it by making explicit and elucidating the steps in Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio in GUT-CP. Two people have offered to help out with this, but in both cases the effort has petered out. I am optimistic that if Mills's derivation of this ratio is more than hand-waving, someone, somewhere, will be able and willing to walk us through it (and maybe even do so politely). Given the large number of formulas already provided by Mills as steps in the derivation, I am doubtful that a knowledge of advanced physics will be required to see how the pieces can be linked together; a simple mathematical derivation, of the kind encountered in undergraduate mathematical analysis courses, albeit more involved, may be adequate.


    Where a knowledge of physics is in fact required, we will no doubt have the people on hand to comment on and review these particular steps.

  • This is not true. There are many PhDs and profs. understanding big parts of GUTCP - just look on the BLP webpage and you will find some. stefan did some basic proofs and linked it in this forum.

    So once again: do some basic research before you post something or make it clear that you just think it is true and are not sure because you have not investigated it yourself. I asked for opinions in this thread but you did not formulate you response as an opinion.


    I doubt if dear THHuxley has looked into GUTCP for more than 5 minutes of cursory reading..

    judging from his in depth contributions on this forum.


    On the other hand Epimetheus appears to have looked into GUTCP in detail.


    I am glad for TTHuxkleynew (why new?). I am pretty sure Mills mostly has verbal gas from his demonstrations and supposed independent replications but I do not understand enough theory to speak to that aspect. I am glad TTH new or old does.



    Bocjin here is correct, I have not looked in detail at Mills GUTCP. And MY is wrong, in the sense that I cannot prove it rubbish directly.


    However, it is in my judgement rubbish indirectly. And the BLP PR about scientists validating it is fluff. And stefan here has not shown it skilful.


    Mills has been working for many years to get equations that seem to make sense and correspond to known physics and large parts, but diverge in others. It is not so difficult to do that, and hand-waving talk about orbits, with equations drawn from the air, to not make a physical theory. As Eric has pointed out although you can follow Mills's equations to get known results, you cannot explain his equations. It is not necessary to have explicit adjustable parameters if you have adjustable equations - and an equation that cannot be explained is just that.


    I have no patience with that.


    • Partly because Mills' chain of experimental evidence is clearly insufficient to prove anything, when if he had what he claims theoretically, or even what he claimed experimentally for each of his various different setups, he would by now have much better evidence.
    • Partly because Hydrinos don't make sense: they could not be generated by Mills' devices but leave no fingerprints in the rest of physics. A new and radically different form of hydrogen is not easy to hide.
    • Partly because physical theory coheres. The beauty and comprehensive nature of quantum models of electronic eigenstates so far surpasses anything in Mills hand-waving there is just no comparison.
  • Mills has been working for many years to get equations that seem to make sense and correspond to known physics and large parts, but diverge in others.


    @THH: This is perfect FUD: No sample but a decisive opinion...


    Eric : Confusing about the neutron-electron mass ratio...


    For the kindergarden people:


    The neutron/electron mass ratio can be derived by building the quotient of the formulas


    -36.3 and 38.29 (38.29 is the 3D--> 2D/3D converted formula 38.6)


    And please stop the Mills = hydrino-FUD.


    This is just the least important and speculative only part of his work. I do also not say Einstein = cosmological constant...


    There are far more outstanding (than hydrinos) blunders in the standard model. In 50 years people will laugh about some nobels given for bare bullshit theories, without any physical background.

  • Hi Wyttenbach — was your thought that impolitely suggesting taking a ratio of two formulas would be adequate to make Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio explicit and show that it is not hand waving? (Hopefully I will find the time to take your suggested ratio; looking at the units, I am doubtful your suggestion will accomplish what you want.)

  • @Bocjin


    Are you referring to He atom electron orbital energies? This is a remarkably well characterised problem where the only issue is multi-body solution of the equations.


    I would (if they were explicit) be more interested in Mills's derivations than his results. That is because, as you know, results can easily be fudged post-hoc. It is only looking at the derivations that fudges can be identified. and since these derivations don't make sense this does not help.


    Conventional research papers in this area are at least honest. They identify clearly all contributions, say which are empirical, say what other evidence supports the empirical ones. (Such a supported correction, while not as good as ab initio calculation, is a good deal better than a fudge). and every lack of correspondence with experiment is seen as an interesting puzzle to chew over. The overall results get more convincing with time, not surprisingly.


    And how could a simple method correctly identify these energy levels? There is heaps of experimental evidence for the many contributions that correct the base Schroedinger equation solution:

    • Electron-electron interaction (spin and charge)
    • Higher-order QED corrections
    • Nucleus electron spin interaction (you did not say what isotope of He you were considering?

    There are also often quoted cross-checks with evidence from muonic atoms.


    Mills can't wave energy levels out of the air unless he explains why experimentally validated electronic interactions don't affect energy levels. He can't wave QED corrections away without explaining how the exquisitely precise experimental validation of QED is otherwise explained.


    Perhaps we could look at a specific system (in detail) chase up the known QED calculations and all corrections thereto. Look at the reasons for the corrections (which will have additional experimental evidence) and compare that with Mill's derivation? Which systems do we even have Mills's derivation for?




    I think many people confuse inevitable calculation complexity (making it a big effort to get accurate solutions) with theoretical inadequacy. On the contrary the theory here is incredibly well validated by multiple experiments.

  • There are far more outstanding (than hydrinos) blunders in the standard model. In 50 years people will laugh about some nobels given for bare bullshit theories, without any physical background.


    Perhaps you could elucidate (without FUD) these non-hydrino blunders. Stating in detail how you know some alternate theory corresponds better to physical reality with references? There are enough physicists doing this properly and publishing decent papers on it: I don't think words on this blog get us very far!

  • THH

    "I would (if they were explicit) be more interested in Mills's derivations than his results."

    " Perhaps we could look at a specific system (in detail) chase up the known QED calculations and all corrections thereto."

    Maybe the specific system is Lithium


    Mills's derivations on Pg 305-310

    http://brilliantlightpower.com…P-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf


    I can't find any known QED calculations for Lithium unfortunately...

    do they exist?





  • Hi Wyttenbach — was your thought that impolitely suggesting taking a ratio of two formulas would be adequate to make Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio explicit and show that it is not hand waving? (Hopefully I will find the time to take your suggested ratio; looking at the units, I am doubtful your suggestion will accomplish what you want.)


    Eric Walker : If don't understand the base formulas just tell us... They are used everywhere to derive the mass from gravity, alpha and c.

    Regarding Mills Helium calculations: I own the original (Mills-) spreadsheet and checked most levels. There is one unintentional tiny cheat Mills did unconsciously, with the reduced mass. I wont tell you the details, but the precision for the base value (that was to good) goes down one digit.

    But this cheat has guided me to a important conclusion, that will finally completely annihilate all result from the standard model.

    But as long as THH, the other FUD'er, are telling us, that QUED has any value, I certainly will not talk about serious research. My new model had one big hit: I got an 11 digits exact match between two independently measured physical masses using the 4(6)D model. If this is mere look, then I should win all lotteries in the world at least once.

    For this, you certainly you must do more than Mills explains. Mills is just the first step in a new staircase to a correct nuclear & particle physics building model, that is able to predict values & energies.



  • http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi…e=1078&context=physicspub


    Now nearly 20 years old - computational QM has got an awful lot better! At that time, the above ref says:


    In summary, the results of this paper show that the ionization
    energy of lithium is now understood at the 0.2
    micro a. u. level of accuracy. A much improved variational
    bound for the nonrelativistic energy has been obtained,
    and a long-standing discrepancy with experiment has been
    resolved. However, discrepancies remain for the ionization
    potentials of the Li-like ions which require further
    study.


    We have 2.7eV / a.u. So this is an accuracy of 0.5ueV. Mills gets an error of 20meV


    QED beats Mills by 40,000X. Though it should be noted that the authors still highlight outstanding discrepancies so I somehow doubt this is as good as it gets.


    If you wanted further exploration we could do a citation forward search on the above ref for more recent work?

  • Wyttenbach, perhaps it's pointless to mention this, but you didn't answer my question:


    Quote

    was your thought that impolitely suggesting taking a ratio of two formulas would be adequate to make Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio explicit and show that it is not hand waving?

  • THH: QED beats Mills by 40,000X

    THH "chase up the known QED calculations and all corrections"

    Too premature to say.....


    Have you looked at both sets of calculations to check how many adjustment ' constants' there are?


    I checked Mills..couldn't find any


    maybe you could check QED?


    as Von Neumann said ..with five 'constants' I can make the elephant wiggle its trunk

  • https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.52.3711


    Same author, 1995. Gives ionisation energy comparison with experiment for 6Li and 7Li (they are different).


    Results are correct to within 5 parts in a million. Mills's calculation is in error by 5 in a thousand.


    Drake seems to be doing well with Li ionisation.


    10 years later (2005)


    https://journals.aps.org/prl/p…03/PhysRevLett.100.243002



    Table III compares theory and experiment for the calculated
    transition frequencies for the stable isotopes 7Li and
    9Be. It is particularly noteworthy that the ionization
    potential for Li is now in good agreement with the recent
    high-precision measurement of Bushaw et al. [28], but
    there is a substantial disagreement with the NIST tabulation
    for the ionization potential of 9Be. In view of the
    good agreement for the other transitions, it seems likely
    that the theoretical ionization energy of 146 882.923(5)
    cm1 is more accurate than the experimental value by an
    order of magnitude.


    Basically, he is saying theory disagrees slightly with current experimental data for Be, but is validated by high precision experiment

    for Li. He reckons therefore that his results for Be are more accurate than the (2005) best experimental data.


    His calculations for Li were then (12 years ago) accurate to around 60 parts per billion for Li.


    That was 2005, so maybe we have more accurate experimental results now...





  • What adjustment constants?


    The past few years have seen remarkable advances in
    our ability to achieve spectroscopic accuracy for the energies
    and transition frequencies of lithium and the lithiumlike
    ions (or more generally four-body systems). The
    dominant sources of uncertainty are the higher-order quantum
    electrodynamic (QED) corrections, rather than the
    accuracy of calculations for the basic nonrelativistic energy
    and leading relativistic corrections. This work builds
    on the much longer history of high-precision calculations
    for helium and other three-body systems [1–3]. Here we
    present results suitable for the interpretation of QED shifts
    and isotope shifts in Li and Be
    The key to obtaining high-precision results that are
    essentially exact for all practical purposes (in the sense
    that hydrogenic wave functions and energies are ‘‘exact’’)
    is the use of explicitly correlated variational wave functions
    in Hylleraas coordinates. This is a specialized method
    that has been fully implemented only for the two- and
    three-electron cases [4–6]. The results are more accurate
    by many orders of magnitude than the well-known and
    generally applicable methods of atomic physics, such as
    configuration interaction. The high accuracy opens the
    possibility of using the results in combination with high precision
    experiments to create unique measurement tools.
    A prime example is the use of the calculated isotope shift in
    combination with isotope shift measurements to determine
    the nuclear charge radius of short-lived halo nuclei such as
    6He, 8He, and 11Li [7,8]. New experiments are in progress
    at GSI [9] and at RIKEN [10] for 11Be, where the isotope
    shift in the 2 2S1=2 2 2PJ transitions will be used.