Talk:Hydrino theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hydrino theory article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 2005
Archive 2 2006 - Nov 2007


Contents

[edit] Rathke quote

Pcarbonn just added a large quote from Rathke's debunking of Mills' work, which I have removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrino_theory&diff=175585448&oldid=175585243). Now, don't include primary sources likely applies, but I also take issue with the quote as being mis-leading. It is a flat-out de-bunking of Mills' work, worded in the appropriate hedging-of-bets tone of a physics paper. However, a casual reader might take it as something other than what it is. It is also long and confusing. So, Pcarbonn, what is your rationale for including the quote, and third-parties please express your opinions. Michaelbusch 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this is the central hypothesis of the theory, it is critical to say that QM does not exclude the possibility of lower ground state, according to Rathke. Please make a proposal on where to put it if the current statement is not OK for you. Pcarbonn 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above that is not what Rathke said. You seem to be falling into a false dichotomy of dis-proof - thinking that if Rathke hedges his bets, it negates the debunking. Mills' work is falsifiable, and Rathke did so. He could not exclude the remote possibility of a lower energy bound state under exotic conditions, nothing more. That in no way weakens the debunking - and actually makes it stronger, because Mills' claims happen in laboratory conditions. If you may make this error, the casual reader is at least as likely. Thus my statement above. Michaelbusch 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Pls clarify the link to WP:Primary source: it doest not work, so I'm not sure what you mean. Also, I'm just reporting what Rathke says: if he said it, it has notability, and it must be relevant. I don't understand why we could not quote him here. Pcarbonn 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been fixed. Now, Rathke's critique is indeed notable and relevant. However, we should not provide a large and confusing quote when the summary is sufficient (see WP:QUOTE, under 'when not to use quotes', which is what I'm referencing). I have explained why the quote is confusing. Michaelbusch 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It is notable, relevant, and critical to the understanding of the subject. I do insist that it be included one way or another, possibly even in the first paragraph of the article. Pcarbonn 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not dispute that it is notable and relevant, but a verbatim quote of Rathke isn't 'critical to the understanding of the subject' - the summation does that just fine. As I have explained, the quote you have proposed leads to certain mis-understandings, which are to be avoided. And putting it in the first paragraph is definitely undue weight. To be honest, I don't understand your motivation for including this - it is confusing and adds zero meaning. Michaelbusch 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a new version of the statement. Let me know. Pcarbonn 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you consider placing it in the first paragraph "undue weight", when it is about the main feature of the theory. Pcarbonn 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded your version some, if you really want it in the lead. My reading of undue weight is that the lead paragraph should be general discussion of the idea - but that is approximately true of the current version. Michaelbusch 01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cold fusion statement

There are 2 versions of the statement:

  1. Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported in 1989 by cold fusion experimentalists[[1]] (the excess heat claimed in that particular experiment was later attributed to systematic errors[[2]]).
  2. Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported in 1989 by cold fusion experimentalists[[3]].

I favor the second version because the quote of the first statement is a link to another WP article (which is not a reliable source), and because the section quoted cannot be summarized as you propose: the 2004 DOE panel was evenly split on the issue of excess heat, so you cannot summarize by quoting only (part of) one side. Please explain your justification before I ask for a Third opinion.Pcarbonn 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, Pcarbonn, the Mills' work in 1991 was based on the 1989 cold fusion claims, which were discredited. The 2004 panel isn't relevant here, because it referred to later work. The reference given is to the cold fusion page to avoid a long explanation here - we've had this discussion before. The Wikipedia article is not the primary source - the sources in it are. Michaelbusch 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find the source in it. Please be more specific. Pcarbonn 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from cold fusion, which is citing one part of the 2004 report - not the panel's conclusions, just the literature review:
'..in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% ...'
This is the admission of systematic errors. Michaelbusch 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
All experiment have a margin of error. The way you present it in this article misrepresents the situation.
Furthermore, unless this is quoted in relation to hydrino theory, you are giving notability to a statement that doesnot have it. I have now requested a 3d opinion. Pcarbonn 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally, you are confusing "error" and "systematic error". The sentence you quote only mentions error, not systematic error (ie. bias). Pcarbonn 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the excess heat observed by F&P was well above the 1% of error, so this is not invalidating their report of excess heat as you imply.Pcarbonn 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't - it was around 3-sigma if I recall. I am quite aware of the difference between random and systematic errors, but an open cell has to suffer from systematics. Re. Rathke - don't try to game the system - he was debunking Mills. Don't try and pick select a quote that might lead to the readers thinking otherwise. Michaelbusch 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Both versions are problematic. Wikipedia may not be cited as a source (WP:SPS). Self-published sources are not usually permitted (WP:SELFPUB). Providing one's own analysis of scientific data is not permitted (WP:NOR). (The version of the article that was linked [it has since changed] makes no claim of "systematic errors".) I would encourage both sides to avoid unreliable sources and stick to what reliable references have reported. Vassyana (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, are you proposing that the sentence should be removed, until it has a reliable source ? I could go with that. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge per Wikipedia precedent

In the past, when ONE PERSON advocates a singular theory and that person gains notoriety and notability from that theory, it is traditional for Wikipedia to merge the theory and person's articles into one. I have done so.

Please see as precedent

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

-- all very well, but by attempting to re-direct hydrino theory to Randell Mills you have managed to delete several years of contributions by many different authors, both pro and against hydrino theory! if however you were to re-direct the Randell Mills entry to hydrino theory instead, i at least would have no great objection.

Waif (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think there are things that are worthy of inclusion at Randell Mills here, please look through the history and include them. However, it is clear that the thing that is notable is the person, not the "theory" which has received no recognition in the places where theories need to receive recognition. See fringe theory guidelines for more on how such subjects should be handled at Wikipedia. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the cruft present at the previous incarnation of this article and found some bits that are properly referenced by reliable sources and other bits which can be verified for inclusion at the Randell Mills article. Please direct all other discussion to Talk:Randell Mills. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics.

See:

Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics. Antonio S. de Castro (Coimbra U. & Sao Paulo U., Guaratingueta) . Apr 2007. 6pp. Published in Phys.Lett.A369:380-383,2007. e-Print: arXiv:0704.0631 [hep-th] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.201.12 (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "SQM" and "CQM" are not commonly used jargon

I have removed the use of "SQM" and "CQM" from the page. These terms are not in common use by anyone except Millsian supporters; their use gives the appearance of legitimacy that isn't representative of consensus opinion. If you wish to use these terms, please provide examples of mainstream usage. JohnAspinall (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polite discussion of perceived article bias

I have created this section to encourage polite discussion of WP:WEIGHT issues which are apparently perceived in this article. Please seek consensus before making major edits to the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I am fairly neutral as far as this article is concerned (no interest in the subject whatsoever, and I had never heard about the theory). The most recent edit by TStolper added 3 passages that have since been reverted.
  1. Based on looking at the Rathke reference, I would say the first new paragraph is factually correct. I will try to put it in a form that I hope will be closer to consensus. If anyone doesn't like it, please don't revert it wholesale but work towards consensus if at all possible.
  2. The second passage is a sentence about Mills' attempt to refute the plagiarism accusation. To me this looks more like an unconvincing excuse than a refutation. However, it seems that the source we are citing here for the accusation is already the best source known to Google. That's bad, because 1) the author avoids using the word "plagarism", and 2) this is not an adequate source. I have asked at the BLP noticeboard for advice, but with no success yet. In the meantime I have found WP:SPS and WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which are both absolutely clear: A blog is never a reliable source for information on anyone but the blog author themselves. The way I interpret WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, this claim must be removed immediately, even if it should be true.
  3. I am not sure that the existence of the "pseudoscience" and "pseudophysics" categories is a good thing. Referring to the categorisation of an article breaks the rule that articles should not speak about Wikipedia or themselves (I can look where it is written down, if necessary). E.g. in a printed version of Wikipedia the categories may not even be present. I also see no need to draw attention to this categorisation, or to make unconvincing attempts at refuting it. Since the categorisation seems to imply that Mills is a pseudoscientist, and since we seem to have exactly zero sources for this negative claim (reliable or otherwise), I see no alternative to removing this article from these categories until a reliable source has been found.
Please, do not reinsert the plagiarism claim without citing a reliable source.
Please, do not add this article to these two categories again without citing a reliable source.
I am not an expert in interpreting WP:BLP. Any BLP expert is of course free to ignore this if my interpretation should be too strict. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
While trying to rephrase the first passage that TStolper1W wanted to include, I realised that when read in context the statement about experimental evidence probably means the following: "It is unfortunate that some people tried to support the hydrino model experimentally, and that peer reviewed journals published the result, before anybody even checked whether the hydrino model is internally consistent. (Which it is not.)" I don't think that such a remark should be included in the article. Neither should TStolper1W's first passage, because it is misleading. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding pseudoscience:
A very nice review amongst others of this particular page: [4] from Cosmos (magazine). There is of course also this (full text can be read [5] (scroll down)).
Btw. Since Robert L. Park is an authority on the subject of physics (and also on pseudoscience/voodooscience)- his blog comes under the exceptions specifically stated in WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This case, however, seems to be covered by the exception to the exception - Park's newsletter, as he is a recognized relevant expert, may be used to say that hydrinos are inconsistent with modern physics but not whether or not Mills (a living person) committed plagiarism. At least, that is my reading of WP:SPS. I do not remember if in Voodoo Science he treats Mills' book at all or just his ideas. If Mills' alleged academic improprieties are really relevant to the article, we may need to dig up Skeptic (magazine) 8(4) - "Bigger than Fire? A scientific examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino”" Theory by Aaron J. Barth. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers! Okay, the following sentence from Nature would certainly be enough if this article wasn't so much tied to a single person: "This vagueness, together with the ridicule heaped on hydrino research by figures such as Robert Park, the American Physical Society's director of public information and a keen observer of pseudo-science, makes some NIAC officials nervous about having funded Marchese's work." But as it is, it only convinces me (even more) that it is pseudoscience, but not that we are allowed to say so in this particular article. The statement is a bit too indirect for my taste. Oh, and I agree with Eldereft that the exception to the exception applies. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sosovic paper refuted

Mills has soundly refuted the paper referenced in footnote 15 here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/TestsFeaturesFieldAccerlationModels062405.pdf It should be removed as it is no longer a viable refutation of Mills' theories.Peteryo (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is a peer reviewed publication or that it otherwise has the support of physicists. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so. However, wouldn't it be more fair to include a reference and link to Mills' paper since it specifically addresses this paper which is presented as a refutation of Mill's theories? Otherwise, we leave this hanging as the last word on the subject. Those trained in physics could then judge for themselves from the data presented. This is the best way to address a controversial subject. Also, the following sentence referencing the electron distribution function does not have a footnote. A specific piece of information presented as a direct refutation on a very basic level should at least be referenced.Peteryo (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"The last word on the subject", for our purposes, must be the paper most recently published in a reliable source. That's our policy. It means we do not attempt to get involved in reviewing papers ourselves, much less let our readers "judge for themselves". We report what reliable sources (i.e. sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) have said on the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur with SheffieldSteel. Peteryo - which sentence is unreferenced? The one following the Šišović sentence is cited (currently note 16) to a paper in Reports on Progress in Physics, an IoP journal. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dark matter

The following comment was moved from the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

– —By definition, ordinary matter does not interact with dark matter, except though gravity. Hence hydrinos cannot be dark matter, since they are created in a chemical ion-plasma. Also, since hydrinos are atomic, they are not dark matter. Dark matter is not made up of atoms. Mr, Mills does not understand that dark matter is invisible. If it reflects light or refracts light, it is not dark matter.Minofd (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mills' rebuttal is a Reliable Source.

The article cited a rebuttal written by Mills himself. KimDabelsteinPetersen removed this information from the article, claiming it is not a reliable source.

The Wikipedia content guideline says that the author of a reliable source "is generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Well, when the subject at hand is Mills' rebuttal, there is no one more authoritative than Mills himself!

Futhermore -- if you want to call hydrino theory a "fringe theory" -- the Wikipedia content guideline explicitly says individuals that promote fringe theories may be used as sources "to detail the views of the proponents of that subject." That is exactly why Mills' rebuttal was cited in the article. Case closed: Mills' rebuttal is a reliable source. 71.221.125.66 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this post is actually by Mills? WP:Biographies of living persons is very clear on the matter of citing to someone opinions that they do not hold. Iff blacklightpower or similar indicates that Mills posts under this ID and we can be reasonably certain that it is as it appears may we cite this source. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt the cited rebuttal is a genuine post by Dr. Randell Mills. At the Society for Classical Quantum Mechanics messageboard, he has been interacting with members of the public for nearly the past three years under his Yahoo ID, "drrandellmills".[6] 71.221.125.66 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That does not address my concern - why do we have any reason to expect that that Yahoo! ID belongs to Mills? Incidentally, the IP removing your most recent additions was not me, though I agree with their rationale. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Now you're getting preposterous. At the Society for Classical Quantum Mechanics (SCQM) messageboard, people have posed questions to Dr. Mills for the past three years, and "drrandellmills" has answered them. SCQM is moderated by a colleague of Mills. Do you actually believe the moderator would allow some impostor to post in Mills' name? There are a great many portions of this article that could be deleted on the same grounds ("how do we really know that the author of the cited source is who they claim to be?") but you are selectively applying this reasoning in order to suppress the fact that Mills and Phillips wrote cogent rebuttals to Rathke. A neutral POV would not be interested in suppressing this fact. 71.221.125.66 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no general vetting of identities for such forum postings ("PLEASE NOTE: The list owner cannot possibly verify the identities of all list members and posters ..."). I could register User:DrRandellmills here and start answering questions, but that would rightly be completely unciteable. Is this rebuttal reproduced on Blacklight's website or do we have any other reason to expect beyond any reasonable doubt that this ID is in fact registered to Mills? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have supplied more evidence for the authenticity of this source, than anyone else has for any other source in the article. But fine, have it your way. Attention all article contributors: Eldereft says that if you can't verify the identity of the author of the cited source, the information must be expunged from the article! 199.46.245.232 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "We cannot possibly verify the identity of the authors of the cited source"

What does that mean ? Which wikipedia policy are you applying when deleting these statements [7] [8]? They come from reliable sources according to WP:RS (except for the arxiv search, which I agree should be deleted). Pcarbonn (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask Eldereft what it means. The source that I cited was also reliable according to WP:RS, but Eldereft kept insisting that because he couldn't verify the identity of the author, it had to go. Finally I got sick and tired of arguing with him, and I am now enforcing his policy consistently throughout the article. 199.46.245.232 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
New Journal of Physics (which is a reliable source) verifies the identity for us. Yahoo doesn't verify it for us, in fact it specifically states that it cannot do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To be more specific: If its in a reliable source (NJoP), then the reliable source is considered to be the vetting agent. If its not in a reliable source (Yahoo), then we need some other agent to provide the vetting of identity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I can agree with that. The NJoP quotes can stay, the yahoo ones should be deleted (for selfpub). Pcarbonn (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds in accord with my reading of policy, thank you. If anyone wants to link to the actual rebuttal instead of just an unverified borderline-crankish statement that Mills disagrees with Rathke, here is a link to the pdf (2 MB, 165 p.). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)