Hydrino Study Group

Table of Contents

Purpose of the Hydrino Study Group (HSG)
Thoughts on the Academic Peer Reviews of Scientific Papers
Dr. Randell Mills’ Private Peer Reviews of His Theory
Claims to Evaluate
Standards by Which to Evaluate Mills’ Theory
FiLCHeRS: An Essential Tool for Critical Thinking
Closing Thoughts: Critical Thinking vs. Skepticism

Purpose of the Hydrino Study Group (HSG)

Life is too precious to waste on endlessly circling, pointless arguments. The HSG moderator respects human life enough to strive constantly for a productive forum. All HSG members can experience such productiveness by always hewing to the HSG Mission Statement.

This is the fundamental issue of Mills’ theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM), and it is a noble purpose with scientific precedents. Many great physicists rejected quantum mechanics (QM).

Currently, there are thousands of forums for quantum mechanics (QM), quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum chromodynamics (QCD), 11+ dimensional superstring theory, etc. There is a tremendous vested interest in these theories by their advocates, and they defend them violently against any challenge including within their own field. They see a classical theory as a tremendous threat.

The HSG will not be a propaganda forum, and it will not be disrupted from its mission of reviewing Mills’ classicaltheory against all available data.

If in fact it can be shown that first principles do describe everything from quarks to cosmos–if CQM is indeed aGrand Unified Theory (GUT) that does describe physical reality–it will be a major breakthrough and a triumph of science.

back to top

Thoughts on the Academic Peer Reviews of Scientific Papers

The purpose of an academic peer review is to judge the merits of a given paper. Ideally, scientific peer reviews should evaluate a new theory on the basis of how elegantly it explains a wide range of data. Sadly, the truth is that peer review often turns into emotional, unprofessional propaganda when the issue becomes theory A versus theory B. The focus of HSG will remain on classical quantum mechanics versus data, not classical quantum mechanics versus standard quantum mechanics.

back to top

Dr. Randell Mills’ Private Peer Reviews of His Theory

Dr. Mills has spent years privately engaging experts in various fields of physics to review his theory and derivations. Those reviews were not in real time, and the derivations and literature research took years of interaction to perfect. Typically, Mills would get several pages of comments on derivations or data from peers. As time permitted, Mills would take a week to a month or more to derives pages of equations and look up and analyze many articles, prepare a response, review it, and then send it back to those peers.

At this point, the HSG moderator is unsure how this will work in real time on an e-mail list. Since a tremendous amount of review and revision has already been accomplished, we hope that Dr. Mills can guide participants, and the web review will reassure individuals and provide a forum which may ultimately develop into a standard discipline. Perhaps academic centers will pick this up, and some graduate students will work on CQM problems. Papers may be presented at meetings or may be published in existing journals or new meetings and journals may develop.

If the HSG group grows in quality and membership, Dr. Mills will ask some of the individuals who have reviewed his theory in the past to join.

The HSG members should stay patient. The reality is that progress with theory takes a long time because it has to be learned, and no one is fully confident when learning something new. Data is easier to discuss since it can be reduced to simple standard questions such as:

back to top

Claims to Evaluate

In alignment with its mission, the HSG will strive to confirm or refute the following types of claims that Mills’ CQM theory makes by comparing the theory against all available data:

1. The Aspect experiment [Aspect, A., Grangier, P., Gerard, R., Physical Review Letters, Vol. 47, No. 7, (1981), pp. 460-463] involves measurement of coincident photons at spatially separated detectors.
   1. Mills derives the predicted coincidence rate based on his theory.
   2. Mills’ predicted rate identically matches the observed rate.
   3. The parameter derived from Mills’ theory corresponding to the test by Bell’s inequality is consistent with a violation of the inequality which shows that theories with additional intrinsic statistics are invalid [Clauser, J., F., et al., Physical Review Letters, Vol. 23, No. 15, (1969), pp. 880-884; Horne, M., A., "Experimental Consequences of Local Hidden Variable Theories", thesis, Boston University, (1969)].
   4. No mention of standard QM and its statistics is required to explain the results.
2. Mills can calculate electron scattering in closed form.
   1. The predicted results match the experimental results identically [Bromberg, P. J., "Absolute differential cross sections of elastically scattered electrons. I. He, N2, and CO at 500 eV", The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 50, No. 9, (1969), pp. 3906-3921; Geiger, J., "Elastische und unelastische streuung von elektronen an gasen", Zeitschrift fur Physik, Vol. 175, (1963), pp. 530-542; Peixoto,E. M., Bunge, C. F., Bonham, R. A., "Elastic and inelastic scattering by He and Ne atoms in their ground states", Physical Review, Vol. 181, (1969), pp. 322-328].
   2. No mention need be made that QM “fails utterly at small scattering angles” [Bromberg, P. J., "Absolute differential cross sections of elastically scattered electrons. I. He, N2, and CO at 500 eV", The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 50, No. 9, (1969), pp. 3906-3921].
3. Mills calculates the results of Durr et al. [S. Durr, T. Nonn, G. Rempe, Nature, September 3, (1998), Vol. 395, pp. 33-37] from first principles as the superposition of two single slit patterns rather than a double slit pattern. No discussion of the failure of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to explain the data is required.
4. Mills can derive the acceleration of the expansion of the cosmos without requiring a cosmological constant.
5. Mills can derive the Lamb shift from Maxwell’s equations without invoking zero point field (ZPF) or energy of the vacuum.
6. Mills can derive all of the parameters measured on the hydrogen atom from first principles without using the Schrödinger equation, thus avoiding encountering the roughly 20 failures of the Schrödinger equation solution.
7. Mills predicts new technologies such as plasma, power, and new chemistry which has been confirmed at 25 independent labs by over 25 analytical tests of new compositions of
   1. matter
   2. novel spectroscopic lines
   3. plasma created under unprecedented conditions
   4. hydrogen plasma present without the presence of an electric field
   5. independently confirmed energy balances 100 times that of combustion
   6. etc.
8. Mills presents an enormous amount of experimental data with precise calculations covering atomic, to molecular, to nuclear physics such as spectroscopic energy levels, scattering, bond energies, nuclear magnetic moments, beta decay energy, etc.
9. Mills shows in the 2000 edition of his book that CQM gives closed form solutions based on General relativity and Maxwell’s equations for particle masses. It gives gravitation from the atom to the cosmos. In closed form equations with fundamental constants only, it predicts the
   1. deflection of light by stars
   2. precession of the perihelion of Mercury
   3. uniformity of the microwave background radiation
   4. microwave background temperature
   5. micro-Kelvin spatial variation of the microwave background radiation
   6. power of the universe
   7. power spectrum of the universe
   8. age of the universe
   9. observed violation of the GZK cutoff
   10. observed acceleration of the expansion
   11. Hubble constant
   12. mass density
   13. large scale structure of the universe
   14. identify of dark matter which matches the criteria for the structure of galaxies
10. Mills presents an enormous amount of astrophysical spectroscopic data.
    1. The detection of atomic hydrogen in fractional quantum energy levels below the traditional “ground” state (hydrinos) is reported by the assignment of soft X-ray emissions from the interstellar medium, the Sun, and stellar flares, and by assignment of certain lines obtained by the far-infrared absolute spectrometer (FIRAS) on the Cosmic Background Explorer.
    2. The detection of a new molecular species (the diatomic hydrino molecule) is reported by the assignment of certain infrared line emissions from the Sun.
    3. The detection of a new hydride species (hydrino hydride ion) is reported by the assignment of certain soft X-ray, ultraviolet (UV), and visible emissions from the Sun.

back to top

Standards by Which to Evaluate Mills’ Theory

Dr. Mills asserts that his theory satisfies all of the following criteria. He also argues that any good theory must also satisfy these criteria. Critical posts should demonstrate in what way the Mills theory fails to satisfy one or more of these criteria.

1. Theory must be internally consistent even between widely different phenomena
2. Maxwell’s equations
3. Conservation of matter and energy
4. Conservation of linear and angular momentum
5. Conservation of charge
6. First law of thermodynamics
7. Second law of thermodynamics
8. Newton’s laws in low speed range
9. Special Relativity in high speed range
10. General Relativity
    1. Schwarzschild metric
    2. No cosmological constant
    3. Newtonian gravitation in the low field limit
11. A vacuum is a vacuum, i.e. no zero point energy (ZPE)
12. Constant maximum of the speed of light in a vacuum
13. Four-dimensional spacetime
14. Only parameters are the measured fundamental constants

back to top

FiLCHeRS: An Essential Tool for Critical Thinking

To evaluate the theory, critical thinkers are encouraged to use the standard FiLCHeRS formula. Is the theory:

1. Falsifiable? Can experimental or obervational evidence refute Mills’ theory?
2. Logical? Do Mills’ equations agree with each other and with objective reality?
3. Comprehensive? Has all evidence been considered that would corroborate or refute Mills’ theory?
4. Honest? Is there evidence that the advocates of the theory are deceiving themselves or others? (Be careful with this one. We don’t want any slandering here.)
5. Replicable? Can the supporting experiments be duplicated and the results explained by no other theory besides that of Mills?
6. Sufficient? Are the extraordinary claims of Mills supported by extraordinary evidence?

back to top

Closing Thoughts: Critical Thinking vs. Skepticism

At this point, the HSG moderator needs to make a most useful distinction between critics and skeptics:

If the purpose of the list is to study the possible truth of Mills’ theory, the relevant distinction is between those whoaccept the possibility (critics) and those who reject the possibility (skeptics). Those who reject the possibility can be no help with the HSG mission. Furthermore, by their own judgment, they have nothing to learn from the list, so they cannot properly complain about their “exclusion”. What can be the pure skeptic’s motive for participation? It can only be one of obstruction. The worst types of obstructive skeptics will gleefully sneak through any loophole offered, and are not candid about their motives.

This distinction does not require participants to accept Mills’ theory, but only to entertain the possibility.

It is a debating trick to insist that the new boy on the block show comprehensively how his theory explains all pastdata, as well as the new phenomena, before anyone looks at the new phenomena.

Of what value are skeptics? Less than total skeptics can still assist the HSG mission. What the skeptic must do is to explain the new experimental evidence in terms of received opinion. This requires actual work, and will quickly sort out who are “peers” of Mills and who are not.

When properly used, skepticism is a wonderful strategy, but it should be applied equally to new ideas and received opinion. It is also more than possible that the “skeptics” do not fully understand the received opinion they are defending.

back to top