Could Mills Be Wrong?

Everyone is wrong sometimes, so what precisely is the title asking?  Is Mills wrong about his theory, the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Mechanics (GUTCP)?  Or, is the theory generally correct, but wrong in some aspect?  Or, is the theory totally wrong, yet the data predicted by the theory proved to be correct by empirical testing?  Or, is the theory essentially wrong and the empirical data that is said to be supporting it falsified or mistaken?  

I began to approach Mills by reading his 1991 paper as far as I could.  It was 1997.  I got the gist of it.  He was saying that the atomic physics that followed from the Schrodinger Equation (SQM) was not correct, particularly that the ground state predicted by only positive integer values of n in the Rydberg equation did not give the full picture.  In this theory, Mills states that the ground state postulated in SQM is incorrect, that there are energy states of the atom below the "ground state", states he termed hydrino.  This implies that energy is available from the hydrogen atom in ground state.  Mills contended that this available energy was what was producing the excess heat observed in "cold fusion" experiments.  Mills stated that the experiments he had performed were based on predictions of his theory.  It did not seem unreasonable to go back to classical physics, even though I had been led to place much faith in the Schrodinger Equation.  Mills proposed an intriguing idea, but how could it be tested? It inspired me to build my first attempt at a calorimeter, which was a miserable failure.  

The energy transferred from the ground state hydrogen in GUTCP can occur only in specific amounts corresponding to energy transitions that have been well established in various atoms and molecules (hydrino catalysts).  Consequently, he hypothesized that having these specific catalysts available under the right conditions, along with monatomic hydrogen would result in the development of excess heat.  His paper provided data that indicated the correctness of this hypothesis in the form of high amounts of excess heat on a more repeatable basis than exhibited in cold fusion experiments (focus was on electrolytic calorimetry).

It would make sense that he would have a more reliable result than cold fusion experimenters if he was working from a better theory than them.  There really was not a substantial theory to support cold fusion experiments, other than the notion that packing deuterons into a metal lattice would decrease the distance between the deuteron nuclei sufficiently to increase the chances of fusion, a notion that Fleischmann and Pons did not publicly support until well after they believed they had developed enough empirical data.  Even then, they proposed fusion as a working hypothesis and invited investigation, but failed to publish anything useful for a long time, which created an intolerable situation.  Correlation was published between excess heat measured and loading ratio (density of deuterons packed in the lattice).  But, theoretically, it would be a "miracle" (quoting Hagelstein) if fusion was indeed happening. This seeming theoretical impossibility and the lack of publication was enough to cause instant rejection of the claimed cold fusion excess heat by most scientists, except for the good reputations of Pons, and especially Fleischmann.  It had to be investigated.  The claims were not initially rejected, but when the consensus was reached that the excess heat was not real, the claims were generally rejected.  However, as some notable people, such as Julian Schwinger, emphasized, a rush to judgement must be avoided.  The evidence was not totally invalidated.

Into this maelstrom, Mills introduced the idea that the reaction that produced the excess heat was not nuclear, but chemical.  However, much focus was placed on nuclear products, such as 4He, tritium and neutrons, coming from the cold fusion experiments.  I will not get into the possible explanations for any of this supported by GUTCP other than to mention that Mills did address this.  Mills was seen as a distraction in the cold fusion community.  They needed to arrive at some agreement among themselves if they hoped to achieve any degree of broader acceptance in the scientific community.  

The difference between Mills' electrolytic cells and those of most cold fusioneers was that he was using light water electrolyte and nickel electrodes and they were using heavy water (deuterium) electrolyte and palladium.  They looked very similar and most just assumed they were the same.  The whole idea of cold fusion had to do with the probability of fusion in a confined lattice and deuterium had a much higher probability of fusion (although still very low) than ordinary hydrogen.  So, on the face of it, Mills' cells would be expected to be less reliable and produce less heat (if any) than the deuterium-palladium cells, but the opposite was claimed by Mills. 

Cold fusion experimenters, Professor Robert Bush and his partner, Dr. Robert Eagleton, at Cal Poly, tested a cell based on Mills' design and found highly repeatable excess heat.  But, rather than consider that the cause might be related to Mills' theory, they stuck with the nuclear fusion hypothesis.  This was supported by the idea that one of the catalysts used by B & E was predicted by Mills to have a null result, but was reported by B & E to produce excess heat.  Confirmation from an adversarial, independent and professional researcher is not to be shrugged off easily, but it apparently was.  Here was a cold fusion lab that was saying that Mills was at least partially right.  His production of reliable excess heat was welcome news.  Mills became a celebrated cold fusioneer, much to his chagrin.  His whole point in appealing to the cold fusion people was to get them to question their assumptions because he strongly disagreed with the nuclear explanation, and that message was totally ignored.

OK, we don't want to get lost in the weeds.  My basic idea of investigating here was to establish if the excess heat was real or not.  If we say it is not real, because many experimenters (including myself and others working with Eugene Mallove) did not see excess heat, then we reject those who claim they see it (assuming they were mistaken or lying).  If we say it is real, then we are believing those who claim it is real and assume that those who do not see it simply do not have good experiments.  The approach that the excess heat is real was what I took, particularly after conversations with people like Dr. Melvin Miles, who published a journal article describing his failed efforts to find excess heat.  He then returned to his lab and modified his technique and began to produce repeatable excess heat.  He submitted another paper to the same journal and they ignored him.  He approached them, requesting to at least publish a letter to the editor, and that was refused.  Miles was a very well established scientist, a professor of physical chemistry with much experience in calorimetry.  Clearly, a strong bias against confirmations of cold fusion excess heat had developed.  I found it hard to reject their claims when I realized the degree of competence involved.  

So, all I had to do was to perform such an experiment myself.  This was much, much easier to imagine than perform successfully.  Yet, after much failure, I am still convinced that the excess heat is likely to be real.  Ignoring it because of apparent lack of theoretical support, particularly given the ease with which such knowledge could be confirmed (it seemed), was not an option. 

The confirmations of excess heat and other important anomalies in Mills type experiments are very many and confirmed by many scientists.  Skeptics totally reject based on the idea that Mills is a fraud and has seduced countless others to participate in his fraud.  This is what I cannot imagine.  Physics Professor Bob Park wrote Voodoo Science, which explains that well meaning scientists can start down a path, seeking to prove some anomalous result and then deceive themselves, because they are so biased in favor of believing something wonderful.  This then continues by gradually sinking into fraud, a believing that deceit is justified to gain the support necessary to eventually prove their "discovery", or they simply become deluded.  Park is right.  This is part of the history of science.  He documents several cases of "pathological science" and he included cold fusion among them.  But, misunderstanding and delusion can cut both ways.  As Dr. Bockris emphasized in response to accusations of pathological science, pathological skepticism is also a serious hazard.

Fortunately, Park made it his business to actually investigate and not just criticize such claims of the anomalous.  He attended cold fusion conferences and reported on them in his usual sarcastic style as an unofficial voice of the American Physical Society.  He was eventually invited to come to labs and see for himself.  His metamorphosis to healthy skeptic is noteworthy.  He found some of the reports of excess heat to be credible.  Unfortunately, he did little (that I know of) to mitigate the extreme views he had inculcated into the scientific community.

Beaudette's book, Excess Heat, is a heavily documented collection of reasons for accepting the excess heat evidence as real.  Beaudette is an MIT EE with an impressive background.  I had linked his Wikipedia page in some reddit discussions and now that page is gone, although he is mentioned in this page about Dr. Michael McKubre (of much cold fusion research fame) of Stanford Research International.

Simply put, the explanation of Mills' claims of excess heat being simply mistaken are absurd for several reasons.  There is much confirmation from independent (much quibbling about this adjective, but these are reputable scientists making the confirmations) people, and Mills has employed a great many people over the years.  A good example of an early supporter was physicist Shelby Brewer, who served on the board of directors for Mills.  Like others involved, these people were not chumps, easily tricked into a hare-brained scheme.  Although I have no direct evidence of the due diligence I presume was performed prior to committing themselves, it is not hard to imagine Brewer spending some time examining electrolytic cells and monitoring experiments.  Mills is well known to use non-disclosure agreements and has made legal threats against people to protect the intellectual property for which he is responsible as CEO.  But, if people realize that he is making false claims, he cannot stop them from leaking this information.  I know of no leaks.  If there were such leaks, the skeptics would have made much celebration over them and the leakers would be proclaimed to be champions of science.  Certainly, if they were telling truth, they would be well justified.  Over a period of decades, surely Mills has fired many people and there must have been sour grapes, so where is the tell-all scandal story that the skeptics are convinced must be the reality?

I simply find it impossible to believe that so many people over so many years, with such favorable incentives to let the world know about fraud (if it existed), with resulting righteous career enhancement, can all be restrained with what Mills can induce.  A non-disclosure agreement cannot be used to hide fraud.  He can offer some money.  He can let them author papers which will damage their reputations.  That's about it.  This proves nothing, but leaves the question open.

I am hardly optimistic about human nature, but such easy corruptibility would also be implied for the skeptics, who would become heroes among their peers in their quest to protect grant money from an "interloper" like Mills who would decimate entire departments at countless universities.  People who were seen as saviors of mankind (scientists at fusion labs) would suddenly find themselves in the unemployment line, the butt of jokes.  One can only expect a deeply visceral, vicious and unthinking reaction to such a threat (like what Eugene Mallove documented against Fleischmann and Pons by MIT hot fusion researchers).  Such a reaction is what Bob Park exhibited for so many years, but he actually investigated.

The reasonable skeptic now asks, so where is the proof?  Unfortunately, the exceptional nature of the claims and the controversies have raised the bar to the point where the only acceptable proof is commercial success.  I see this as an indictment of academic institutions, generally.  After all, proof has been offered by Mills countless times and confirmed by many, yet it remains rejected among the "intelligentsia".  Mills still argues his case, as with the recent Hagen paper he coauthored, but the focus is clearly on making the SunCell work.

I find it remarkable (to say the least) that with all the focus on the desperate energy shortage and claims about climate change that the hunt for alternatives in the media is limited to the usual suspects.  Even an open mind like Sabine Hossenfelder, does not venture to take Mills seriously.  She probably knows of the reputational cost.  It's one thing to acknowledge the considerable base of support for cold fusion claims, quite another to seriously question the foundations of quantum theory as Dr. Jonathan Phillips explains.  The cold fusioneers limit themselves to theoretical explanations that are within the realm of SQM, and despite heroic efforts, have no acceptable theory.

Addendum:

The comparison of Mills with big tobacco and their ability to control the research into the dire effects of tobacco was made on reddit in response to my observation of support Mills has received from credible scientists.  This is a completely flawed comparison.  We realize that scientists are people who can be influence by all manner of social manipulations, including bribery, but this requires coordination and activities that leave evidence.  Scientists who support Mills do not enhance their reputations by supporting the status quo, which was the case with tobacco harm denying scientists.  In fact, providing support for Mills, even with caveats, they put themselves into great peril.

When I was faced with this criticism on /hydrino, I did not respond because I realized I was dealing with someone who was not thinking much, but who was a zealot who was convinced he was going to easily destroy Mills with such impotent argument.  I used to try to tutor such people, but in that environment, my altruism leaves me open to more ridiculous attack.

Mills does not own congressmen like big tobacco did.  The money Mills has garnered from investors is probably scrutinized closely, because there is a board of directors that has changed quite a bit over the years.  The people on the board have impressive backgrounds, and people with valuable reputations generally perform some due diligence prior to involvement with a venture that, on the face of it, could be a scam.  Thus, it is reasonable to expect that not only have the scientific claims been examined by incoming employees, but the finances as well, probably much closer than for ordinary corporations.  This hardly proves that Mills never used money to influence opinions.  However, if that was his game (as is the case for so many in the "free energy" field), he would be spending time making his case to the public.  Yes, he has made such appeals, but they're rare and reasonable.  He has become much more reserved in making claims, but has made a strong promise of commercialization in 2023.  If this fails, as it might, it proves no fraud.  The nature of what he is attempting includes a lot of difficulty, which he seems to be overcoming.  

There is nothing remotely resembling the constellation of business interests involved in producing hydrino technology analogous to the centuries-long entrenched industries involved with tobacco.  Nobody knowingly uses hydrino technology.  A very large portion of the world population was addicted to tobacco products.  There is no reason to suspect that Mills can extend much influence, let alone that he has any intention of exercising influence much beyond press releases, and he has almost stopped doing that.  Every public appearance I have seen of him presents a very dignified and intelligent man who is facing a chasm of misperception and indifference from the general public.  

Yet, the critics on reddit/hydrino concluded that because scientists can be corrupted that this means that no scientist presenting hydrino evidence can be trusted.  Everyone has bias, but this is extreme bias.  It starts with the assumption that Mills is a fraud and works backward to seek evidence to support the assumption.  In a field loaded with fraud, this is not very challenging.  My time working for Eugene Mallove gave us a rude awakening to the proliferation of con artists in the area of "free energy", so much so that of the people who have gotten curious, most are convinced it is all scam, a fair portion are trying to cash in on the scam and relatively few maintain a scientific curiosity because any interest is immediately seen as evidence of lunacy or corruption by most peers.  One guy in particular was a remarkable example.  He was presenting a physical theory and experiment to Mallove, claiming various anomalies.  I went ahead and began constructing a replication experiment, under his direct supervision.  Right away, I began to sense something was off.  His focus was not on the science and questions about the theory were met with no demonstration of clear thought or understanding.  My coworker, physicist Jeff Kooistra, did some digging and found the exact aether theory that Arie DeGeus had plagiarized.  Such theories were Jeff's specialty.  Sometimes, reputations are not at all deserved.  Although the fraud was so blatant, Mallove would not publicly criticize him (to my knowledge), and this may be because he knew the firepower that DeGeus might summon.

A more recent example comes to mind.  Trevor Milton, founder of the company Nikola, is facing a possible prison sentence of 20 years after conviction for the fraud he perpetrated in trying to convince investors to give him more money.  But, the company shrugs off the crimes as if they are normal business practice.  In comparing to the namesake that inspired their company name, Tesla, such fraud is normal.  Musk nurtures his personality cult and it is is main reason for his success.  Mills has no such cult, or if he does, he shuns it.

Mills' behavior gives no hint of scam, except for his tendency (criticized by Stolper) of "gilding the lily", such as predicting commercialization far too soon, or claiming to have a perfect theory.  I have been around enough inventors and others making astounding claims that I see this Mills behavior as insignificant, mostly just bluster (and not unreasonable, just not born out), but it is the obsession of his critics, when not focused on his theory.  

The theory of Mills is not something about which I am able to offer very useful comment.  I am not a theorist, although I have studied physics theory quite a bit.  I believe that very few people are qualified, and that most people who believe that they are, are not.  Mills did offer his ideas up for debate over a span of many years, including ten years on Luther Setzer's Hydrino Study Group.  I have spent time studying the theory and the parts I understand are very appealing.  The trouble that most people have who believe that they are are qualified is mostly because modern physics is mostly built on quantum theory after Schrodinger.  It takes a lot of introspection for a theorist to separate out what, among the many accepted notions of his thinking, are affected by rejecting Schrodinger.  It is a rigorous mental task that offers little appeal to someone already convinced of the validity of Schrodinger's Equation.  Some have said things like, there is no quantum physics before Schrodinger, which is absurd, but it reveals the totality of the influence of the Schrodinger Equation upon modern theory.

I asked myself, long ago, if the basic concepts involved with GUTCP, the electron model, the sub-ground state, the tangible extended physical nature of subatomic particles (as opposed to the point particles imagined by Dirac), all stemming from his expansion of the Rydberg Formula for fractional states of n, was introduced to the early quantum theorists, how might they react?  Of course, I do not know.  However, they very much wanted to believe that a classical theory was possible, with the exceptions of Bohr and Heisenberg.  If GUTCP does produce formulas for simple closed form algebraic equations that produce the accurate values for all of the parameters for so many atomic and molecular systems that Mills has claimed, this would be such an improvement over SQM.  The things that GUTCP appears to explain would have all killed SQM long ago, but when SQM was accepted, there was no alternative.  They were in crisis and could not continue without something resembling a theory.  The founders of modern physics would have carefully scrutinized the theory of Mills.

So, here is the question:  if GUTCP predicts accurately so many parameters for so many atoms and molecules, in a simple fashion, how can it be rejected?  After all, the main value of a theory is in its ability to correctly "predict" physical phenomena without resorting to adjusting itself to fit every measurement, a postiori.  Critics reject this claim of predictive ability by claiming that the derivation of the formulas generating the accurate values is fraudulent, that Mills somehow found formulas that work by some means other than derivation from his model of the electron.  They say his math is nonsense.  That charge has been made against other scientists in history whose ideas were eventually accepted.  It is not at all unusual for math to be opaque to most minds, particularly if those minds are convinced of the supremacy of certain approaches to theory.

The recent Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy paper authored with Hagen is explained away as fraud in a similar fashion, a fraud that Dr. Hagen somehow missed.  Again, somehow Mills is implied to have developed math that was used in the model that quite accurately predicts the EPR spectrum.  No such evidence was offered to support the accusation, other than to say that it would be a "trivial" exercise.  I thought about this.  Sure, it is fairly easy to develop formulas that express a specific waveform.  This is what Fourier Analysis does, producing an infinite series of sinusoidal terms.  That may be trivial.  What is not trivial is that the formulas must somehow be rooted in the body of GUTCP theory, of a closed algebraic type.  Judging the correct derivation of the formulas is not trivial as they claim (which conveniently elevates their perceived abilities), so the critics just call it fraud.  How convenient.

The task of developing formulas that produce correct empirical results from theory is a monumental success for a theory.  The critics cannot simply shrug it off as fraud without a well developed explanation, which I have not seen, although I have not thoroughly investigated either.  Due diligence concerning the evidence presented for or against Mills is hardly the trivial matter that some wish it to be.

Another focus of criticism is rooted in the divide that has existed in science philosophy for thousands of years.  QM after Schrodinger is conjectural.  How can I claim that?  Apart from the fact that Schrodinger did not derive the equation from first principles, such as Newton's Laws, etc., what Schrodinger originally published was an equation describing the position of the electron, but it failed immediately.  Max Born changed the meaning of the equation to that of describing the probability of the electron occupying a position in space.  It was not derived.  It was an educated guess.  The reader may find this impossible to believe, as I did initially.  SQM has reified conjectural mathematics, which of course, hides the history of conjecture.  Maybe the physical world is an expression, a manifestation of consciousness or mathematics that just pops into the minds of certain people.  Who am I to say not so?  That is like the god's eye view that Einstein liked to pursue, and it is obviously a fruitful philosophical path.  However, we live in a physical world and all of the things we have done to adjust our environment to suit us, i.e. technology, have really had their origins in the development of methods, based on experience (root idea of empiricism).  The ancients liked to consider that pure thought of the philosopher was the origin of all such ideas, but this was mostly conceit, as Schrodinger liked to explain in his chapter, Are There Quantum Jumps?.  He relies on the book by Benjamin Ferguson, Greek Science, to explore the idea that this conceit developed into a mentality of the ruling class that has been its prime feature since the dawn of civilization.  These comments are not to devalue theory, but to offer a proper perspective that Schrodinger himself found most valuable in making sense of the failures issuing from an idea of his, an idea that people refused to see as failure.

Schrodinger, Einstein, Born, Dirac, Feynmann and other lesser known theorists did not consider the matter closed.  Each of these expressed a desire to further explore the classical approach.  In a recent reprint of the book, which is a collection of writings of Schrodinger, in which that chapter was originally found, that chapter was omitted.  It was one of two original chapters that addressed quantum mechanics, and obviously, the subject about which the author was most famous.  I complained about this editing decision that removed this most significant chapter from the recent edition in discussion on /hydrino.  The response I received expressed indignation that I refused to respect the rights of the editor to include whatever material he chose to include.  But, who is the editor to decide that his preferences should exceed those of Schrodinger, Einstein, Born, Dirac, Feynman, etc.?  The question is still open.  The desirability to develop a coherent classical theory is still very much alive.  One response indicated that SQM theorists have determined that the only possible way in which progress can be made is with the Schrodinger Equation, and this was proved mathematically.  I would need to take that on faith, and I don't accept that religion.

The relevant question that the /hydrino critic had sidestepped was why remove this (most important of all, in my opinion) chapter?  It is an important part of the history of the subject, that the man credited with originating the equation upon which a century of physics is largely based, should not have his opinion censored.

As with the comparison of scientists supporting Mills with scientists supporting big tobacco, the question must be asked about these critics, are they evil or just stupid?

"Stupidity is more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.  One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force.  Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.  Against stupidity we are defenseless.  Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one's prejudgement simply need not be believed - in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical - and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.  In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.  For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one.  Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 

Mills contends that the Universe is not "all math", but that math is a tool for understanding the Universe.  That is a very different philosophy than what forms the mushy bedrock of modern physics.  He may not be entirely correct, but he is as correct as any innovator from history I know.  I am hardly the one to judge.