Talk:Hydrino theory/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Accuracy dispute?

I noticed this article has an accuracy note at the top of it. Looking through the comments here, I can see lots of discussion on NPOV issues (understandably), but I'm not seeing anything that really amounts to an accuracy dispute. Are there particular statements in this article which somebody believes to be fundamentally untrue (as opposed to just being stated poorly)? -- Foogod 02:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the only current dispute is whether to categorize this article as pseudoscience, pseudophysics, or protoscience. Perhaps there's a more appropriate tag for that. - mako 09:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think categorization dispute is probably not serious enough so as to tag the entire article. The topic is controversial, but not necessarily the content of the article. I vote to replace with the {{controversial}} tag. Ronnotel 19:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree that the categorization of this article as it stands is problematic, however it sounds like nobody here believes this constitues a factual dispute per se, so the current banner presumably should be removed (which I will do now). As for what to replace it with, to be honest I think it's tangential enough to the actual content of the article that it probably doesn't warrant an advisory banner of any sort (in my opinion banners should only be necessary if there are issues with actual content of the article text which readers need to be aware of while reading it).

On the subject of what categories this page belongs in, I'm currently trying to work out some of the criteria for some of these things on Category-talk:Pseudophysics and elsewhere. As a result, this page may appear to be miscategorized for a little bit while the definitions and criteria are in flux, but I hope that once we nail some of this down it'll be easier to more conclusively say how things should be done (bear with me on this :) ). -- Foogod 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach Ronnotel 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Molecular Solutions

Mills has now published exact, closed-form solutions to 19 molecules that rely only on physical constants. This is a huge advance in the state of the art and beggars the claims that CQM is 'irreproducible' or has no practical benefits. I propose that the article be redesigned to acknowledge this breakthrough. Rather than just describe the 'controversy', a new section should be added that describes, fairly and accurately, the results. The spreadsheets are available for anyone to review and critique, and it's quite easy to verify that they are indeed what they claim. Ronnotel 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this represents a huge advance. Existing methods have gotten us pretty far already, and besides Mills, scientists seem to be quite comfortable with quantum methods. Note also that reproducibility refers particularly to experiments, not theories; that Mills solves molecules according to his own theory is not particularly surprising.
If you want to expand on the claims, feel free. Expect some criticism of those claims, though. - mako 08:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you check the solutions? Did anyone else check these solutions and confirm that it's not just fraud? Mills *claims* that he got solutions, and as claim it may be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.194.61 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
An independent solution for 1-3 electron ions is available at HSG. Source code is included. Download the file named Molecules.zip. Membership to the group is required, but free. Ronnotel 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it just shows that

few dedicated individuals can spam wikipedia and keep their spam page afloat as long as they want whenever there is monetary gain from doing so (such as investments into this "theory") The science has always been attacked by frauds as much as mailboxes now by 419 scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.194.61 (talk • contribs) 11:17-13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The anon raises a troubling point: Mills is apparently living on venture capital, which gives him a huge incentive to promote his "theory" anywhere he can, including the WP. I tend to think that Wikipedia culture traditionally underestimates the potential for this kind of abuse by manipulating Wikipedia to raise venture capital for a scientifically dubious technology sector startup company. ---CH 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs neutralization

For reasons which should be obvious.... --CH 06:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to add sigs to all the unsigned or mis-signed comments above, to help keep track of who said what. Some users broke up comments of other users, so while I tried hard to avoid misattributions, I might have made a goof or two.

Some useful information for Wikipedians evaluating the reliability of the current version of this article:

  1. Randell Mills' "grand unified theory" is listed as cranky by Erik Max Francis at crank dot net.
  2. As of 1999, Randell Mills ran a company called Blacklight Power, Inc. in Cranbury, NJ (near Princeton, NJ).
  3. Mills has allegedly attracted large sums of venture capital, but is evidently actively seeking more money by promoting his work, possibly here at WP, and apparently despite a notable lack of replicable achievements.
  4. The article links to the Hydrino Study Group, which promotes hydrino theory. This website may be registered to an individual in Los Alamitos, CA.
  5. A recent contributors to this talk page seems to have also promoted hydrino theory elsewhere on the web (I have inquired about this on his talk page).

I added a link to an article from the Princeton Packet. Someone should incorporate these cute quotes into a new neutralized version of the article:

It's the most important discovery of all time

– Randell Mills (BlackLight Power, Inc.)

It is the overwhelming view of the scientific community that Dr. Mills' claims are without scientific merit. [The fact that he has attracted funding reflects] a problem in a democracy that is undereducated in science.

– Paul Grant (Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA)

[Mills] said he could lower hydrogen atoms below ground state...To any physicist, the idea of putting hydrogen below ground (the lowest energy a molecule can have) is preposterous. In all of the physical world there are only a handful of solvable problems. But of the handful, hydrogen is one. There is no system in the universe physicists understand better than hydrogen.

– Robert Park (Physics, University of Maryland)

I see that recent anon edits of the article include:

  • 128.32.48.131 (talk · contribs) (the University of California at Berkeley EECS anon) wrote According to Mills, the universe expands and contracts sinusoidally over billions of years and attributed this claim to the Hydrino Study Group website the claim. This alleged claim by Mills is obviously wrong, as the UCB EECS anon may or may not have realized.
  • 24.22.58.9 (talk · contribs) (the denver.comcast.net anon; apparently geolocated somewhere near Portland, OR) has recently added various vaguely pro-Mills edits.

The current tone of the article is so credulous that I am concerned that Mills himself, or an admiring associate (the Dr. Mills phrase does tend to suggest this possibility), may be editing the article to remove any information tending not to suggest that "hydrino theory" represents a major scientific advance. --CH 09:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The choice of sources is telling:
After Rathke got critical paper published in a peer reviewed journal, everything should have been settled. Instead the "timeline" buries this information under refutations seen on groups.yahoo.com (never an acceptable source, according to our policies) or inerviews in the Guardian (not a terrible good source for science articles).
Pjacobi 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The UCB EECS anon was me. My intention was to show how Mills' acceleration "prediction" is based on a amusingly flawed model, but I suppose that most readers aren't so savvy.
There are some fairly damning criticisms of Mills' theory on the Yahoo group. The problem with the Yahoo commentary is verifiability, though I would argue that the "theory"'s flaws are quite factual and therefore cannot be POV. - mako 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying Mako; your new intro is a good start on the needed revision! And of course I agree with Pjacobi about dubious sources. It seems that Randell Mills has a huge financial incentive to use shills and viral marketing to remove any information from websites like the Wikipedia which might tend to discourage investors in Blacklight Power, Inc., so it behooves us all to closely monitor suspicious edits to this article. --CH 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ronnotel (talk · contribs) has not answered my query on his talk page, but this handle has been used by Ron Baakkonen, who has made similar pro-Mills edits to a Yahoo newsgroup. Given the concerns expressed above about possible shilling, I want to know whether he is associated in any way with the Hydrino Study Group, or has any financial stake in any Randell Mills ventures. --CH 09:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think some investor is going to hand over millions to Randy Mills based on what appears on a site like Wikipedia?!? I don't, and if they are that gulliable, then perhaps they deserve to lose their money, so why feel sorry for them. I don't know if Randy Mills has a real new energy technology?!? Certainly there has been a lot of smoke coming from him over the years and little if anything in the way of solid evidence or protypes. It smells fishy to me. A typical new energy scheme that promsises the moon, but never delivers. However, he does attract a lot of money and it's hard not to consider that these investors like what they see, so I remain neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.177.164 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I, Ron Baakkonen, have zero financial interest in Blacklight Power, and have never communicated with Dr. Mills or his associates in any way other than what is publicly documented in said Yahoo groups. By profession I develop trading systems for a small boutique hedge fund based in Chicago. However, I have studied his model in some depth, including replicating many the analytical results demonstrated in his spreadsheets (have you tried? I'll send you my code if interested). --Ron Baakkonen 7:33pm, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Of course I agree that no reputable granting agency would hand out a grant based upon a Wikipedia article, but we are really talking about private investors here, and I am not sure about them. ...
Please note that the issue is not whether WP has a responsibility to protect fools (if I may so put it) from deciding to part with their money. The issue is this: might someone like Mills or Haisch feel they have a financial incentive to slant WP in their favor? The answer is apparently "yes". That poses a serious problem for WP's goal of presenting accurate and unbiased information, because the rest of us must waste time trying (unsuccessfully, in this article, in my view) to restrain POV-pushing edits. --CH 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice from Hillman's talk page that he is temporarily relinquishing his self-appointed role as Wikipedia's chief minder of truth, justice and scientific purity. He's taking his ball and going home as it were. The Wikipedia science pages can be a pretty nasty place to hang around in what with all the shills muddying up their purity. Poor dear. Full disclosure - I've implemented many of the algorithms described in Mills' book and get results that match his tables. Knowing what I do about how SQM goes about the same process, i.e. horribly complicated, iterative routines full of approximations requiring arrays of super-computers to solve - it's clear to me which method is closer to the truth. --Ron Baakkonen 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So, how about the bond angle of an (isolated) water molecule? - mako 06:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying your entire criticism of Mills' model boils down whether the bond angle of H20 is within experimental error? There's nothing of any use whatsoever to the thousands of accurate values he's produced? As per his latest claims, he's nearly replicated the entire body of work at the NIST, built over decades by countless researchers. I find it unlikely that this fact can continue to be ignored. ronnotel 11:09, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
It's just an example, albeit a rather glaring one (106 (PDF) vs 104.5). Consider the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury, and what came of it. - mako 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather glaring? Unlikely. The bond angle of H20 is notorious for being difficult to measure accurately. Numerous sources are at odds with what the reference value should be. In contrast, Mills has been able to calculate values for 350 molecules in under six months. SQM has had over 60 years to do the same. In the case of Mercury, the deeper one delved the more problems were found with the standard model. In Mills' case, the deeper one delves, the better things look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnotel (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're missing my point here. As the page I linked makes clear, the bond angle of H2O depends on the situation. For an isolated molecule, the bond angle is 104.5. For liquid water, the bond angle is 106, due to hydrogen bonding effects. Mills's calculation appears to be for an isolated molecule, yet (if I recall correctly) he "backs up" his calculation with a NMR study of liquid water. - mako 00:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. If this is such a glaring problem, then why does the model apparently perform well enough to scale up to provide solutions for 350 molecules in the space of six months? In my mind, that's pretty good evidence that the process works. ronnotel 7:19am, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

I mentioned the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury earlier; it was enough to show that Newtonian gravitation was an incomplete picture. Yet Newtonian gravity works well enough for explaining orbital motion, etc. You are saying, in analogy, that Newtonian gravitation is good enough despite its shortcomings (plus, nobody has done anything useful with Mills's models yet). That's hardly in the spirit of scientific inquiry; it is the discrepancies that disprove old models and lead the way to new ones. An error like the bond angle of water is simply too large to ignore. - mako 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that there will be an opportunity for the scientific community to evaluate whether or not the H20 bond angle is 'simply too large to ignore' or not. Question, if a life-saving drug is discovered using Molegos, Inc. software, would you refuse to use it? ronnotel 2:12pm, 30 June 2006 (CDT).
Surely the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We'll just have to wait and see. - mako 07:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, Mills' provides justification for why he feels 106 is the correct experimental value to use for the H20 bond here. He also discusses the success he has had in modelling many hundreds of organic molecules in a very small amount of time. Ronnotel 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Mills is certainly entitled to his views, but even the cited paper notes that other diffraction experiments have determined the bond lengths/angle of water to be unique in the solid, liquid, and vapor phases (p83, bottom). Following cites leads to Whalley, Mol Phys 28:1105, which cites 1972's Water: A Comprehensive Treatise, and the values for vapor are 0.9584 Å (O-H) and 104.45 degrees. Though Mills seems to discount them, I think it's significant that (even older) spectra studies come up with the same values: 0.9576 Å, 104.29 (Benedict, et al, 1956, J Chem Phys 24:1139). Also of interest is Table I in Császár et al. (2005), J Chem Phys 122:214305, which shows the increasing precision of measurements (and simulations more recently, it seems) from 1932 to 2003. So considering the amount of information in the literature, it's hard for me to buy Mills's argument. - mako 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cranky Website?

Why is it a cranky website? Surely it should be contraversial or something different Dracion 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Come again? ---CH 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Reversion" of edits by 24.9.125.99

Looks like some, possibly an anon using IP 24.9.125.99 (talk · contribs) deleted a link to a paper critical of "hydrino theory". --CH 01:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind, my goof. The link was not deleted, just moved to the references and reformated, which is indeed better.

But everyone, please try to help me make sure that links are given some context and are kept organized. This adds a great deal of value for our readers. --CH 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Double-slit experiment? Classical vs quantum

Since the observed behavior of quantum-mechanical systems is so bizarre, I was eager to see how this theory attempts to explain it using only classical mechanics. But, either it doesn't, or this article just doesn't go into much detail on the subject.

We are told that the results of the double-slit experiment with electrons has something to do with photon interactions (but what?) but we are not told why the experiment also works with photons (and other particles). Classically, light is a wave, and a diffraction pattern is an expected result. But classically, light is not quantized and photons should not exist. In fact, the double-slit experiment can be performed with single photons and the tiny dots caused by individual photon hits gradually build up to form a diffraction pattern. [1] Classically, we shouldn't even expect to see individual dots, let alone a gradually-formed pattern. Does the theory explain this somehow, or does it just assume that photons still behave according to non-classical rules?

Furthermore, how can you explain away quantum entanglement? Experiments with lasers, beam splitters, and downconverters show that it is possible to split light into two entangled beams, such that, despite the beams having entirely different destinations, "measuring" one of them dramatically changes the quantum behavior of the other, instantly. You can make a diffraction pattern disappear by interrupting a seemingly unrelated beam in another room which never reconnects with the original experiment. This is the "spooky" experiment that scares most prospective theorists away from proposing classical explanations for quantum behavior, but it isn't mentioned in this article as far as I can see. Can someone who knows about this stuff please post such an explanation, if it exists? If this theory explains entanglement, I would be excited to learn how it does so. 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (edit: logged in to make my name show up here :P) Xezlec 01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And I just thought of this, so let me add it: what about electron tunneling? It is well known to semiconductor manufacturers that electrons can tunnel through thin insulators even though, classically, the insulator in question should be sufficiently resistive to prevent electrons from getting through at all. In modern semiconductors, the insulators are so thin that, despite their very high classical resistance, they stop very little current from travelling "magically" through them. This effect was predicted by quantum mechanics to a high degree of precision, but I can't guess how the Hydrino Theory might be getting around it. Again, let me know. Xezlec 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a complete crank

This guy either does not understand quantum mechanics, or pretends that he does not. He basically uses semi-classical aproach, I have browsed his book, and he uses trickery all way.

For instance, he uses the same calculation for "electron as a wave" that is essentialy Schroedinger equation, yet, he seems not even to be aware of that. He uses vague explanation for double-slit experiment which makes no sense, he uses calculation where essential point is not explained for the Aspect experiment (and is indeed the same as for quantum mechanics - as in most cases yet obscures that somehow), there is nonsense all over his book. For instance, he computes energy of beta decay essentially from the conservation laws (which is of course nothing special and does not depend on QM), then for this term - a single difference in energies of states, i.e. particles - he goes to state "we get the weak field by taking a gradient" - a complete nonsense, since he does not have a potential field defined at all. And this is all over the book.

However, his classical theory with no-radiation condition is not nonsense (yet it was not him who analysed this condition first) - indeed, it is interesting question can one get such a model of atom. I have not checked his computations, but this part is at least plausible - but so what? It seems he never carries computations in detail, yet, buries essential missing points in some well established facts, waves hands as one would say.

Very interesting are his cooked-up formulas for masses of particles in terms of fine structure constant. It is quite obvious he has cooked them up (by refering to some "transition" state which is never computed, yet, has just the right parameters to fit into a formula), but still, it is interesting and should be mentioned.

It seems that cooking-up is quite a speciality of his, and he is quite skilled in that. No wonder he managed to raise funds. Whether he persuaded himself in this "theory" or not is not clear. But it is at least clear that if he has, he has no idea what some basic facets of QM are about (for instance, his critique of Schroedinger equation as "not satisfying non-radiation condition" reveals that) - he basically writes his own naive understanding of explanations of some phenomena semi-clasically (like photo-electric effect) - nothing new there really, he is just not aware what he is really using there. Either that, or he is a deliberately misleading in his claims that this is a "theory". Quite possibly both - that he is both dishonest and does not understand what he is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarako (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you get your M.D. from Harvard? Have you studied at MIT? What makes you so specially qualified to comment on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.21.62 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no special qualifications, beyond having stayed awake in undergraduate level physics classes at any university, are necessary to make these comments. If you take the point of view that modern QM is arcane magic, only accessible with rare deep knowledge, then you are more likely believe an alternate explanation on the strength of emotional factors. But the basics of QM are taught to tens of thousands of students these days. You can find many accessible articles here on WP. Learn to do your own truth filtering. JohnAspinall 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The 3 stages of truth: During the first stage, the issue goes unnoticed and is ignored. The second stage is characterised by a period of vehement denial. The third stage witnesses the the truth about the issue being recognised as self evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.21.62 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Square brackets as punctuation

Re: Mako098765, edit of 16:36 30 Oct 2006: "brackets are for clarification".

Square brackets are not a part of conventional English punctuation. I don't understand their usage here. Sci1 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See Bracket#Box brackets or square brackets [ ]. - mako 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Matters of Principle

Without taking sides, I suspect that more heat than light is being generated here because of a tendency to absolute statements. A few principles might be borne in mind in understanding the import of the above and the design of the article itself.

1 Novelty does not condemn

Clearly, we would not make any progress if new ideas were automatically criticized because they were not consonant with 'accepted' theory.

2 Immaculate conception is unlikely

It is a rare event for a theory in any context to have been developed to perfection on first being announced. It is easy to find many cases where development, tweaking, correction, refinement, and extension are continuous processes. We have yet to see the book closed on any topic - such claims have been made from time to time and promptly shown to be premature by events.

3 A detected flaw is not necessarily fatal

Looking for flaws in a theory is part of the process. Finding one is not necessarily the end of the story. Commonly, efforts are made to fix it. See 2. Condemning a whole theory because a flaw in the presentation is detected is inappropriate. It is expected that efforts be made to show that either it can be fixed or that the ramifications are demonstrably such as to undermine the premises. In the absence of the latter - verified by peer review - any remark is devoid of merit. Fairness also allows a proponent a chance at rebuttal, and so on - the normal process of science.

4 Preparedness to see the unexpected is an open mind

There seems to be inordinate glee at the failure of an attempted experimental replication to reproduce the magnitude of a claimed effect. This was true at several points in the cold fusion story, and we see it here again. The data rule, OK? If a result is anomalous (= not fitting current understanding) it does not make it go away simply because. Events not otherwise explicable are still events, and deserve rational consideration irrespective of whether they are "only" 19 or 90 or 99% of that previously reported.

5 Enthusiasm may overreach

It is not unusual for an enthusiast to see possibilities rather faster than the ideas can be thought through. There are commonly limits to the applicability of ideas - Newtonian mechanics is an apposite example. Whether or not an author is silly for being too much a promoter of a panacea, it is a human failing and does not, of itself, discredit the original idea - ad hominem arguments are properly criticized, but not often enough recognized.

6 Authority is not an excuse

Any utterance that has as its only claim to merit the authority, reputation or status of the speaker is valueless. The chain of reasoning must be present, and presented. Typically, this is through citations of works that have been themselves subject to review in the same way. It has to be a demonstrable argument, not a mere assertion. Of course, even then, it could turn out to be wrong, but that itself has to be open to demonstration (see 4). Browbeating is not a scientific approach, it is bullying; it bespeaks bias, dogma, vested interest, irrationality, ignorance ... The motto is "take nobody's word for it - not even mine".

I see more than a few violations of these principles in the present context. Editing them out would leave a much tidier page. If the theory is wrong, or faked, it should be relatively easy to show it, but not by shouting. If the guy is a fraud, it will emerge naturally, not by throwing scurrilous remarks - in either direction.

147.8.34.175 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC) BWD

Nonradiation stuff

Cut from the article:

This condition has a history of study throughout the 20th century, and was first formulated by G. H. Godeke in 1964, who noted its possible implications for quantum theory. He noted:

Naturally, it is very tempting to hypothesize from this that the existence of Planck's constant is implied by classical electromagnetic theory augmented by the conditions of no radiation. Such a hypothesis would be essentially equivalent to suggesting a 'theory of nature' in which all stable particles (or aggregates) are merely nonradiating charge-current distributions whose mechanical properties are electromagnetic in origin.

Godeke goes on to conclude:

We certainly do not believe that this paper gives a sufficient foundation for hypothesizing a theory with such profound implications. Rather, we hope this paper will serve as a foundation and as a stimulus for much further investigation of nonradiating distributions.

Another paper, published in 1984, was the result of a Reed College undergraduate thesis by Tyler Abbott and his advisor David J. Griffiths. This paper explored various charge/current configurations, such as infinite cylinders with longitudinal flow, infinite cylinders with solenoidal flow, and infinite planes. The thesis concludes that the physical consequences of the nonradiation condition are far from obvious. Other work on nonradiation has been done by Philip Pearle.

I'm not sure what to do with this material. It's clearly an appeal to authority. Perhaps this stuff could serve as the basis for an article on non-radiation. -mako 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, we need a reference for the Godeke quote. The quote here is much too brief to see what he is talking about. In particular, there is a huge unanswered question right up front: how does this 'theory of nature' account for the fact that electrons (for example) come in one size only. The whole point about classical electromagnetic theory is you can apply it at any distance scale, from nanometers to light years. There is no preferred (or distinguished) distance, and therefore no preferred mass, or charge, or whatever. Yet electrons come with only one charge, and only one mass.
It's quite possible that Godeke does say something about this obvious issue and whoever extracted the quote above threw away the contents and just showed us the shiny wrapping paper (to be metaphorical for a moment). It's also possible that Godeke's quote is being oversold — that the 'theory of nature' part is someone else putting their own interpretation on top. Let's have the reference.
JohnAspinall 15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Entanglement?

How can this be reconciled with quantum entanglement and such? Bell's theorem. Shouldn't this problem be mentioned in the article? Blacklight's website's explanation is total BS. Luke --208.120.106.136 00:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Blacklight is founded on BS. This is not science, but Mills likes to use techobabble. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What about nuclear forces and the rest of modern physics?

As I understand it, hydrino theory is based on an alternative to quantum mechanics in describing the electromagnetic interactions between electrons and nucleus. However, mainstream (quantum based) physics makes successful predictions of phenomena mediated by other forces, specifically the strong and weak nuclear forces, using the same kind of calculations. It would be interesting to see an explanation of the Mills' theory of what holds the nucleus together, for example. I don't mean for this to sound like a demand for a complete explanation of everything; but it would be helpful to see how Mills' theories cross from

  • things that had fifty years of classical approximations before QM came along, i.e. electromagnetic force;

to

  • things that had no classical description before QM came along, i.e. the strong and weak nuclear forces.

QM prescribes exactly the same method of calculation (i.e. find the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian) for both. What does Mills' theory say?

JohnAspinall 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Mills' theory and mainstream classical electromagnetics

I have started adding material describing the differences between Mills' theory and mainstream classical electromagnetics, i.e. Maxwell's equations, beginning with the free electron model.

I would be happy to provide a plot of the electric potential (as calculated from Maxwell's equations) around the charge distribution in the Mills electron, showing that in mainstream physics the electric field is not normal to its surface. (Mills claims it is normal.) However without a corresponding plot calculated from the equivalent Mills' equations, this would probably be a violation of NPOV. If someone knowledgeable in Mills' theory would provide the formula for the field from a point charge, I will do the calculation both ways. (Similar comments apply to the force from a current.)

JohnAspinall 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC) and edits JohnAspinall 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Force

Mills has published a new chapter that purportedly describes experimental confirmation of his theory regarding the anti-gravitational effect of so-called hyperbolic electrons. The experimental setup seems fairly straight forward - create hyperbolic electrons by shooting a beam of free electrons of the correct energy through a perpendicular beam of neutral atoms (e.g. He, Ne, Ar, etc.). He then measures the upward (anti-gravitational) deflection of the electrons by the ratio of current densities at two grounded electrode plates, one above and one below the electron beam, both positioned about 100mm behind the atomic beam. He varies the electron energy and sees deflectional peaks that correspond, roughly, to quantum modes predicted by his theory. This seems like a pretty interesting phenomena - particularly because it should be easy to replicate. Anyone else think this is worth mentioning on the page? GenMan2000 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is excess heat in cold fusion an artifact ?

The intro has the following sentence: "Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported by cold fusion experimentalists (which has since been demonstrated to be an experimental artifact)." This sentence implies that "excess heat reported by cold fusion experimentalists is an experimental artifact". As far as I can see, the cold fusion article does not support this view. Also, the 2006 DOE panel does not support this statement. Could you clarify how you justify it ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The link to Bob Park's blog does not say that excess heat is an artifact either. The 1989 DOE panel had not demonstrated that it was an artifact either. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinction here: there have been many generations of cold fusion claims. The one that Mills was dealing with was from 1989, where the experimental setup suffered from a large number of problems, which rendered the purported excess heat at the level of the systematic errors - and hence an experimental artifact. In the mid-1990's, the cold fusion crowd built more carefully and the precise systematics that were implicated in 1989 are much less of a concern (cold fusion does discuss this somewhat). Their results are still likely bollocks, but that doesn't affect Mills' claims - because he was working with data that even the cold fusion experimenters admit was not accurate. I forget the precise systematic that dominated - I think it was the heat produced by the presence of a uranium salt in the experiment. I will restore the sentence, worded more carefully, and linking cold fusion rather than the blog. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and correction. This remove so much substance to the argument that I wonder why you would like to keep it in the intro. Also, you seem to infer that hydrino has been created, and has been developed over many years, to explain only one CF experiment. That seems odd to me, knowing that they are many more experiments. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The substance of the argument has not been changed. It is a very important point that Mills purports to explain something that has since been discredited. Irrespective of later cold fusion experiments, the data he claimed to explain by hydrinos was not valid. As noted in the review of his work by Rathke, Mills continually claims to explain puzzling results with hydrinos and said results are usually inconsistent with Mills' claims - in the case of the 1989 cold fusion work, the data he claimed to explain was flawed. In the case of his claims about electron orbitals, he ignored that orbitals have been imaged directly and agree with quantum mechanics. For his claims about dark matter, he can explain the mass of dark matter but not its spatial distribution. It is important to give the first example of Mills making claims at odds with the data, and that is the cold fusion business. Michaelbusch (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Rathke's review does not talk about cold fusion experiment. So, what are the sources for your argument linking 1989 cold fusion expermiment and Mills ? If unsourced, the sentence will have to be removed. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Rathke's review deals with all of Mills' errors, but the cold fusion stuff is not emphasized, true enough. However, if you dig up an old version of Mills' book, it deals with the 1989 cold fusion claims - note that since he keeps changing the book the current version is not the same as the claims he made in 1991. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from J. Wales that I found on WP:PROVEIT:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons
Pcarbonn (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I gave the citation, so I venture that the above is not applicable. Since you seem to feel strongly about this, I will leave the sentence out for the moment - the bollocks of cold fusion is already explained elsewhere. However, many of your last set of changes are not acceptable under WP:NPOV and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and I have reverted those. Example: at one point, you replaced 'Mills claims to explain' with 'Mills explains'. Mills explains nothing - he claims to explain. This is a subtly of NPOV that would not be a problem if Mills' work were not so obviously pseudoscience. As it is, it is very much necessary. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Concerning the use of 'claim', I don't see any justification to use it in WP:NPOV and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. However, this generally accepted standard says that claim should be avoided in many cases: words to avoid. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I intend to remove the other loaded statements again unless you provide a citation. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
They aren't loaded. NPOV and PSEUDOSCIENCE dictate that we make the distinction I describe above - if we don't, we give false appearance of legitimacy. If you really must avoid the word 'claim', then we could use the word 'say' - as noted in the words-to-avoid. But the qualifier that Mills says he can do something, as opposed to Mills actually doing something, is most necessary under NPOV - we can't simply take Mills at his word. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Let me try to update my edits accordingly. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You had not done so in your last edits, which also removed various legitimate statements, so I have reverted them. Looking over the page, I really don't see any word other than 'claim' that conveys the right meaning for Mills' statements. Regarding a few of your other deletions: you removed the statement 'Mills' work is not accepted by the scientific community and has been largely ignored by it'. That is true, as explained in the rest of the paragraph, and is very pertinent. You also removed the citation of imaging of atomic orbitals. I can explain that some more, although I suggest you read over the relevant articles. New section:
How to image atomic orbitals

One of the main dis-proofs of Mills' work is that atomic orbitals can be imaged. Pcarbonn asked how that is done. This is discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia, at least in part, but here is an attempt to explain it.

There are at least two ways to image atomic orbitals. One is to localize the position of an electron to much better than the size of the atom, using a pulse of light and very careful measurements. That has the dis-advantage of unbinding the atom after you make one measurement - because of the uncertainty principle the electron now has enough momentum to escape the atom. However, if we have a bunch of atoms in the same energy state, they are identical and we can repeat the experiment and map out the electron's probability distribution function - the shape and size of the atomic orbital. This is an old technique, and as I said, is rather crude and indirect. It does have the advantage of working on any atom, and the resulting plots are in agreement with QM. The second way to image an atomic orbital is to use a probe that is sensitive to electric and magnetic fields with atom-scale resolution - an atomic force microscope. Here you can map out the orbitals without destroying them - the distribution of the electrons determines the field the probe measures. This has the disadvantage that your electronic structure has to be pretty much immobile, limiting you to solid materials, but again the distribution is as would be expected from QM predictions. If I may be blunt: if Mills were correct, the Sun should not shine, the Earth should not form, and the computer I am using should not work. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Michael, thanks for your explanation. Certainly, adding a reference that succinctly demonstrates the observation of an electron's probably distribution function would go a long way towards refuting Mills' work. However, for me the sticking point has always been the fact that he can derive atomic parameters (atomic bond length, binding energy, bond angle, etc.) from a small number of physical constants. I know this because I've replicated his work up in my own code for up to three-electron atoms. In his Millsian software, he appears to extend this framework to arbitrarily large molecules. Assuming that Millsian isn't spun from whole cloth, it seems incredible that he could generate solutions for the hundreds of molecules that he has in the past year. I don't believe there is any analogous package based on non-CQM techniques that can do the same thing. Assuming for the time being that CQM is hopelessly flawed, would you agree that at the very least Mills has developed a convenient and successful algebra for deriving molecular parameters and structures? Ronnotel (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The reference is the atomic orbital article - it covers the necessary material. I do not have Mills' software to play with, but I do know that CQM is complete bollocks. So his software is presumably also such. If you want a simple test, try putting in benzene - or even better, derive the energy levels of hydrogen. Mills' work is complete nonsense, and there are molecular dynamics codes that do far more than what he claims to do with his code - and do it right. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, I have derived the energy levels of Hydrogen using Mills' approach and the numbers seem to check out. I'd be happy to send you my code. Ronnotel (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Not just the -1/n^2 - that's trivial to get with any number of nonsensical models. Try fine structure - which comes out of QM most elegantly and is one of the best non-imaging validations of the orbitals' shapes. Try hyperfine structure if you want something even harder. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Mills' has published a spreadsheet that computes the atomic energy for all atoms between 1 and 20 electrons and between 1 and 20 protons starting from a small number of physical constants only. In my own code and using my own sources for the physical constants, I have validated the formulas up through 3 electrons and have no reason to doubt the numbers beyond that. The Millsian software solves molecular problems orders of magnitude more quickly than other packages. That's why I have a hard time writing this off - there seems to be something of use even if the math makes no sense. Ronnotel (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Either that or he just has a lookup table in there. But 'atomic energy' is a mis-nomer. I very much doubt that he can predict fine structure splittings - that actually needs quantum. Rydberg's constant is enough for a good answer to the binding energy of hydrogen, and that is semi-classical. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty good at programming and I could see no hidden lookup tables in Mills' spreadsheets. And I'm certain I didn't use any myself in my validation code. Ronnotel (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ronnotel, I think you are missing Michaelbusch's point. Remember that the Rydberg constant (and 1/n^2 scaling) pre-dates quantum mechanics, proving that there are empirical fits for the basic energy levels (the spherically symmetric s-orbitals) without QM. Re-computing those results is no big deal for any number of models, and therefore no big deal for Mills' spreadsheets. Michaelbusch is saying that a far more rigorous test is whether Mills' model can reproduce, without additional arbitrary constants, a.k.a. the "hidden lookup tables", the fine structure splittings. In mainstream QM, the fine structure comes directly from the spherical harmonic functions which are the solution to the angular part of the wave equation. Mills doesn't even believe in non-spherical electron distributions, it seems, and so it's hard to believe that his theory gets this part right. JohnAspinall (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
John is correct. Also, we have pictures of the orbitals. That should be sufficient dis-proof, if everything else wasn't. But this thread has been derailed from discussion of the article - I started it merely to answer a question by Pcarbonn. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, John, I'm not sure how the theory gets past that point either. All I can tell you is that I believe Mills' algorithm produces accurate atomic parameters (atomic energy, bond length, bond angle, etc.) for an ever increasing catalog of atoms and molecules. I have independently reproduced the values in his spreadsheet for 1, 2, and 3-electron atoms for an arbitrary number of protons (which would incorporate the fine structure, I believe). I am not aware of any QM techniques that can do what Mills' software can do. I would encourage you to take a look at his spreadsheet and my partial validation of it and tell me where I'm going wrong. Michael, can you provide a reference for these pictures - all I saw at the page you cited images generated from formulas, I believe. Ronnotel (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding an arbitrary number of protons does nothing for fine structure. That just scales the energy levels linearly. Fine structure predicts that the (e.g.) 2s orbital will fill before the 2p orbital, and thus provides a basis for the periodic table. JohnAspinall (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, my code covers 3 electron + 3 proton (lithium), would that qualify? Mills' spreadsheet, on which my code was based, goes all the way up to 20 electrons + 20 protons and the derivations seem to be substantially similar to what is covered in my code. Ronnotel (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Please read fine structure. Mills' orbital theory contains a single quantum number, roughly corresponding to QM's n quantum number. But QM contains 3 quantum numbers, usually denoted n, l, and m, for the "hydrogen-like" atom. Fine splitting is about the small (hence "fine") energy difference between different values of l. Without that energy difference, the periodic table does not fill in the observed order. JohnAspinall (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess we're at a disconnect. Mills' spreadsheet calculates accurate values for atomic energies for all elements up to (at least) 20 electrons. How can he do this if it doesn't handle the fine structure issue you mention? Ronnotel (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What does Mills predict as the energy difference between the 2s and the 2p orbital of carbon? JohnAspinall (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, John states the physics correctly - it is trivial to scale the Rydberg constant to explain all single-electron molecules and even to get multi-electron molecules accurate to within a few tenths of an eV. Fine structure is on the level of 1/1000th an eV - and hyperfine structure is at the level of 1/109 eV. Ab initio quantum mechanics computations are accurate down to that level - Mills is not. In answer to your request: Atomic force microscopy gives a few example images of orbitals, and citations to more.
Here is one of the ones available on Commons. This is an image of the electron density along the surface of a sodium chloride crystal, courtesy of Ernst Meyer at the University of Basil. You can see the lattice structure, and the enlarged shells of the Cl atoms with respect to the Na. There are also two crystal defects. I admit that this is not the most stunning image. There are better ones available - a quick Google search suggests [this Science paper], which has some good images of carbon nanotubes - nested one inside the other. F.J. Giessibl at the University of Regensburg has a page with a number of very cool images here. In particular, the last site has direct images of the electron co-orbitals in graphite and the orbital structure of metallic tungsten. The latter isn't pretty, but is most definitely non-spherical. I might ask Giessibl if we could upload some of his pictures to Commons - the graphite one is particularly fun. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those are some cool shots. Thanks. I'm not sure I can pick out the 'orbitals' from the images but they look pretty cool nonetheless. However, I still think there is something interesting going on with Mills' stuff - mostly because he doesn't need any non-physical constants such as Rydberg's, scaled or otherwise. And he also does it with closed form solutions. I'm not saying he is correct, but I think the accuracy and compactness of his forms at the very least deserves some attention. Ronnotel (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Rydberg's constant is composed entirely of fundamentals - which were known from other work when Rydberg set up the model - which he admitted was only a crude approximation. And as has been stated, Mills' numerology isn't at all accurate - it matches the data to first order, as do any number of similarly non-physical models. As both Jon and I have said: Mills' work matches the principal quantum number n, which is trivial to do. It does not match the spin quantum numbers l and m, and therefore cannot match fine structure. It does not include the magnetic dipole interaction of the electrons and the nucleus, and therefore cannot match hyperfine structure. Quantum mechanics is constructed the way it is because it is the easiest way to match the observed properties of matter - and that it does exceptionally well. As I said above: if Mills were correct, then none of the subtle structure of matter would exist - the Sun could not shine, the Earth would not have formed, and the lasers and semi-conductors in modern computers could not exist. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added the POV tag for the following reasons:

  • invalid use of the word 'claim' (see WP:AVOID)
  • many dubious statements are offered without citations.

Pcarbonn (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, with respect, your reasons for a POV tag do not make sense to me. I have explained above that to avoid using the word 'claim' requires linguistic contortions that seem pointless. Please provide a list of what you consider 'dubious statements' - I think I have addressed two of them above. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. You haven't addressed the dubious statements: you have not provided references. And for the use of claim: replacing 'claim' by 'say' is not a linguistic contortion. We need to have high POV standard in this article because it is targeting a living person. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, please provide a list of what you term 'dubious statements' - here, not on the article with 'cite needed' tags. Cite needed is not the same as dubious. Also provide your rationale for declaring statements dubious. The two statements I thought I had addressed are: imaging of atomic orbitals as a disproof of Mills' work (above thread), and 'Mills' work is not accepted by the scientific community, and has been largely ignored by it'. The first part is explained and cited to death in the article - please don't deem it dubious. The second is evident from there being relatively few peer-reviewed debunkings of the work (cited in the next sentence). If the community took much interest in the debunking, there would be rather many more. I've removed several of those 'cite needed' tags you added as nonsensical - they are either linked to relevant articles or cited in adjacent sentences. Re. linguistic contortions: some occurrences of 'claim' or 'claims' can be modified, but how would you render 'Mills claimed that the universe is accelerating as it expands' without changing the meaning? Michaelbusch (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In some of the places you had put cite-needed tags, I concede that the references were not immediately obvious. I have corrected these - but please don't flag things like orbital imaging and the collisionless nature of dark matter again. Those are explained well enough in the linked articles. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why I would have to make the list here instead as with tags in the article. The only way to respond to this tag is to provide a quote. Justifying the sentence in the talk page is NOT the wikipedia way to address it. Your explanation on atomic orbital imaging clearly shows that this is an indirect method, and does not support the view that this is "direct imaging". I have not said that your statements were nonsensical. References to other wikipedia articles are not valid: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources" (see verifiability). How can you prove that there is only only peer-reviewed evaluation ? Unless quoted, this is WP:OR. Rendering your sentence is easy: "Mills says that the universe is accelerating as it expands". Anything else is an attempt to throw point of view in the sentence. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The classic reference for direct observation of orbitals is the 2 September 1999 Nature article by Zuo, Kim, O’Keeffe and Spence. JohnAspinall (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, you are mistaking the meaning of {{citation needed}}. It does not mean a statement is dubious - it means it should be cited more clearly. Many of statements you tagged are cited in adjacent sentences - you don't go around tagging every word for citation. By linking other articles, we aren't using the other articles of Wikipedia as third-party sources - they themselves are sourced. We are using them as further explanation of material so that this article is not outrageously long. Your list should be made here rather than cluttering the article with tags because here you can explain why you take issue with a statement, it can be addressed, and discussion can take place. That doesn't happen if you simply tag the article - instead you get articles cluttered with tags that really shouldn't be there and confuse the reader. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Back to your particular concerns:
  • Re. atomic orbital imaging: it is direct imaging - you measure the electron distribution function at every point in space. That is as direct as you can get. If you wanted optical imaging - that is pointless - you can't make an electromagnetic image of a single electron (as I described). Even if you could, it would contain only as much information as is in the distribution function map - that is the electron.
  • Re. the matter of peer-review - all peer-reviewed journals are indexed thoroughly, in many places. For physics, this includes arXiv - which contains the vast majority of all physics papers (including a very large number that are not peer-reviewed before being posted). At present, Rathke's critique is the only one published in the peer-reviewed literature. There is one other paper on record, by a Norman Dombey, which has been submitted to Physics Letters. I will add an appropriate reference to the article, since you seem to insist. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Re. 'Mills says that the universe is accelerating as it expands' - that is not sufficient information. Why do we care about this - that includes the surrounding text. In that context, 'say' doesn't ring right. We aren't here to defend Mills - we are here to be neutral while being in accordance with the scientific consensus. Doing that while removing words with negative connations for Mills' work is difficult at best. That is a stylistic judgement. 'words-to-avoid' is hardly an absolute. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:42, 26 November - 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We clearly disagree on the standard of quality set by wikipedia policies. I would suggest that we both read again WP:verifiability, WP:NPOV and WP:OR before we continue this discussion. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some statements from WP:Verifiability that I find relevant to our discussion:

  • "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
  • "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people."
  • "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources."

From WP:NPOV:

  • "Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion."

And from WP:Avoid:

  • "Editors sometimes create bias, intentionally or unintentionally, by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say"."
  • "When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using 'argue' or 'dispute' instead"

Pcarbonn (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVOID is not policy. It is a guideline - and contains the specifier that it should be violated in favor of Wikipedia:Common sense. This is the rationale for including 'claim' - and note that very little of what Mills claims is 'basicaly factual'. Now, re. verfiability: you flagged a great many things that were cited in acadent sentences. Common sense says that that is pointless. In a few cases, additional citations seemed called for, and those I've added. In other cases, you flagged things as needed citation that are explained in linked articles (like dark matter being collisionless). Those are well discussed and cited in their associated articles, as I explained, so a full discussion/citation isn't needed here - again, that seems like common sense to me. Bottom line: please use common sense and please don't be dense. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see that we are not progressing. Please realize that I'm not saying that your statement are wrong: I'm saying that they could be seen as wrong, and need more references. Again, article on living persons require a high level of standard. If general rules are not clear enough, let's take some examples: 1. "physical evidence such as the direct imaging of atomic orbitals": first, why don't you insert a good reference in the article ? It's easy, and it would be informative to the reader. I could not find any such reference in the atomic orbital article, which does not talk at all about imaging. Actually, that's why quoting other articles is not accepted in the guideline: you never know how that article will evolve. Second, I still challenge the "direct". When you think about it, the imaging you describe uses QM to derive the image: it looks like a circular reasoning, don't you think ? Better to say "physical evidence such as the imaging of atomic orbitals", without "direct", and with a reference: this would be NPOV to me.

[Interjected] The imaging is referenced in atomic force microscopy. If you insist on it, then some of the additional images I linked above can be referenced. AFM doesn't use QM to derive the image: you are measuring the electric field at every point in space, and making an image of it. That is direct imaging. Interpreting the image needs QM. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I still request that the word "direct" be removed until it is quoted as such. This article says that it took 6 months of number crunching on a supercomputer to produce the image from AFM: this is hardly "direct". Again, WP:Verifiability states that ""Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Clearly, your statement can be challenged, and has been (by me). Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you concede that there is no circular reasoning here, please let me explain what is meant by 'direct image': the difference is between a model image inferred from some other data and a direct image obtained by something directly sensitive to the spatial distribution of the electrons. By your argument interferometry doesn't produce direct images - this is simply a question of terminology. If you are really so insistent, the word can be removed. Note: in the article you cited, the six months of computer time were a simulation of the imaging process, not the actual data reduction. That is many orders of magnitude faster. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer to delete the "direct" word, which I accept. Please include also a reference to a source describing atomic orbital imaging and which says or shows that there are no spherical ones. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There are spherical ones - the ground state s-orbitals. But that is what is a minor point. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2. "Mills' work is not accepted by the scientific community, and has been largely ignored by it." I checked WP:Fringe#Reporting on the levels of acceptance, and I now accept this statement.

3. "The only peer-reviewed evaluation, published in 2005 by Andreas Rathke of ESA". Your argument that one just has to look to find out falls into WP:NOR. It is actually not possible to check ALL peer-reviewed journals. It is similar to Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Better to say "One peer-reviewed evaluation, ..."

[Interjected] Not quite. arXiv is complete for physics. It is not original research to reference arXiv, as we now do. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The axXiv article says that "In many fields of mathematics and physics, almost all scientific papers are placed on the arXiv." So what you say is not correct. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It is - 'almost all' includes all papers published in any peer-reviewed journal that accepts physics papers - arXiv uploads them as soon as it can get a copy. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm ready to believe you that arxiv is complete when you give a quote to that effect. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The article here is insufficient? Michaelbusch (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

4. "Mills goes to great mathematical length..." Why do we need to say that ? To imply that the theory is not valid ? This is an unnecessary judgement, because it does not help in understanding the issue. Are we saying that QM goes to great mathematical length to derive atomic spectrums ? No, and we shouldn't. Better to say : "Mills uses mathematics to derive..."

[Interjected] I would prefer 'great length' - because Mills' mathematics are not valid. It is important to note the length of Mills' work - he has compiled 2000 pages of it, although much was copy-and-pasted. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "a theory is not accepted", and a theory is rejected. You cannot say or imply the latter if you do not have a quote. Please provide a quote that "Mills' mathematics are not valid". I still challenge the article statement. This is also the reason why I reject the use of "claim". Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify: you can say "Rathke says Mills' theory is wrong", but you cannot say or imply "Mainstream science says that Mills' theory is wrong" until properly quoted. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is quibbling and degressive. The sentence says 'Mills goes to great length' - that is simply a statement on the length of his book. I'm fine with you removing the entire sentence - it is a very minor point anyway. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

5. section on dark matter. I don't follow the logic. If dark matter is made of stable, non-ionized hydrino, they do not emit light according to Mills: this is in line with "dark matter is collisionless". When they are ionized, they are not dark matter anymore, and can react to create hydrino molecules. So, there is no contradiction, and the current statement is wrong. Furthermore, this is another example of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It must be quoted.

[Interjected] There is a contradiction. Mills says he has made 'molecular dihydrinos' - which means he says hydrinos interact. Dark matter doesn't interact, and Mills says hydrinos are dark matter - therefore he says hydrinos don't interact. This is the contradiction, and both halves of it are cited - noting that the contradiction exists is appropriate. There are other reasons why dark matter can't be hydrinos - aside from hydrinos not existing in valid quantum mechanics or under special relativity - but this single contradiction is what is relevant for the sentence. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I still do not see a contradiction. Dark matter is NON-IONIZED hydrinos, which don't emit light. I challenge the statement until quoted otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You are mis-understanding the definition of collisionless - dark matter particles do not interact by anything other than gravity. They cannot form molecules, be ionized by light, or do any of the other things Mills claims hydrinos can do - if they did the distribution of dark matter in the universe would be very different. Thus the contradiction - dark matter cannot be Mills' hydrinos. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I do understand the definition of collisionless, and I still see the contradiction. I suspect that you do not understand the definition of ionized hydrino according to Mills. I still request a quote for the article statement. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I do understand Mills' claims. Any interaction of dark matter particles is not permitted - and yet Mills claims to have created hydrino molecules. This is the contradiction - don't bring anything crazy about ionization into it - that would require original work on both of our parts. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, because you are so insistent, I have added a reference to one of the main papers showing that dark matter is collisionless. Are you satisfied now? Michaelbusch (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pcarbonn (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the list. I apologize for interspersing my comments, but it seemed to work best. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the recent edits in the article. They go in the right direction, although I still have issues, eg. on the use of 'claim'. We could save ourselves this painful discussion if the article was wholly written based on the 4 papers available in arxiv. Could you consider doing that ? It would then be easy to provide quotes to any statements of the new article. Any statement that is not in one of these 4 papers should be removed. This would greatly enhance the quality of the article, and its NPOV. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Re-writing the article based entirely on the arXiv papers is neither possible nor desirable. Those four papers are high-level theoretical physics, with exception of Rathke's critique, and making them understandable to the general reader is most difficult. In addition, the other information about Mills' work - his statements, the unofficial evaluations, the matter of plagiarism, and anything to do with his company - are not included in the papers. I'm afraid you'll have to accept citation of stuff other than physics papers - and do note that only Rathke's paper, out of the four, has actually been published. Regarding 'claim': as I said, words-to-avoid contains the specifier that common sense should be applied, and gives examples. We are to reflect the scientific consensus, which is that Mills' claims are uniformly wrong. Words-to-avoid lists this as an example of marginal use of the word - but I don't think you'd be likely to accept 'Mills falsely says' or similar repeated eight times over. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I do accept "citation of stuff other than physics papers", in line with WP:Fringe#Parity of sources. I challenge stuffs that have no citations.
So, I made a mistake to accept your recent edits. I still challenge the statements discussed above based on Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, especially when they relate to a living person. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, please explain what exactly you think is unfair synthesis, and why WP:BLP is relevant here. In my assessment, the dark matter business falls under WP:OBVIOUS, if that is what you are complaining about. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to explain why I would find it unfair, as my opinion is irrelevant. These sentences are challenged, and must be sourced according to the key, primary, essential wikipedia policy that is NPOV. BLP is only reinforcing the need to respect the NPOV policy, which applies to all articles. WP:Obvious is only a guideline, with much less strength than NPOV. It relates to facts, not synthesis, and usually applies to the first statements of an article. Please consider the examples that are given in WP:Obvious. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are indeed objecting to the statements re. dark matter: dark matter is non-interacting - cited. Mills says hydrinos are interacting and that hydrinos are dark matter - cited. This is the contradiction, and it is necessary by NPOV and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE that it be made clear. WP:OBVIOUS merely means that it must be made explicit, rather than implied. Honestly, I don't understand why you are making such a big deal about this - Mills' work is bollocks regardless. This is just one particularly glaring example. While you do not need to explain why you think something is unfair synthesis, it would help greatly to my understanding. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It may seem obvious to you, but it is not to me. Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position cannot be more clear: words can have different meanings to different people. Also, I don't see the quotation for "Mills says hydrinos are interacting and that hydrinos are dark matter": please check WP:CITE. You say "Mills' work is bollocks": I note that you said the same on cold fusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, if I'm going through this discussion, it is to make Wikipedia a more reliable source of information. I have also requested a clarification on the editing guideline for talk page. Your input would be welcome as it also relates to this discussion. See here [(Now archived here)]. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So: what do you find unclear about the contradiction? This isn't synthesis: this is writing down two available pieces of information. Re. citation: Mills claims hydrinos are dark matter (cited). Mills claims hydrinos interact, producing 'molecular dihydrinos' (cited). Dark matter is non-interacting (cited). Contradiction. I am done. Michaelbusch 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)