Critics are off the mark

+Time to consider replacing Quantum Physics with Millsian physics?

This question arises naturally as it has both much better predictive power and satisfies other major criteria of greater validity in comparison with Quantum Mechanics (QM), see Hydrino power – superior to nuclear energy?

The logical standard procedure in science is to abandon a theory with an inferior predictive power in favor of a superior one. Therefore there exists no rational reason to hold on to Quantum Mechanics. Still most physicists have not yet abandoned QM.

Critics have been far off the mark

A scientist who assesses the issue objectively, will consider Mill’s theory seriously because of its highly exact predictive power. A scientist who disregards this fact or considers it unimportant or irrelevant, is not qualified to judge the issue because this reveals an important lack of knowledge or understanding of Theory of Science, the discipline that defines the criteria for evaluating scientific theories. According to the Theory of Science, predictive power is the most important criterion for judging the validity of a scientific theory.

To justify a rejection of the theory of Randal Mills as a contender to Quantum Mechanics the critic must, first of all, motivate convincingly why superior predictive power is irrelevant as an indicator of greater validity and realism of a theory.

He needs to realize that in such a case he:

  1. casts doubts over all major established theories of physics, including Quantum Theory and Classical Physics as well as the theoretical fundaments of all other disciplines of modern science and
  2. negates the value of Theory of Science,  a 100 years old science discipline that is widely recognized and profoundly contemplated  for establishing principles for deciding which  is the most realistic scientific model among alternatives and for assessing scientific strategies and methods.

In addition, the Theory of Science explains that it is impossible to evaluate a new paradigm on the basis of the tenets of another paradigm, because they represent different frameworks.

Thus, considerations based on Quantum Mechanics are completely irrelevant for judging a non-Quantum-Mechanical theory. For this reason, the objections against Millsian physics by quantum physicists who judge it on the basis of the QM paradigm, are not valid, rather being expressions of dogmatic belief than scientific thinking. This includes their objection that Hydrogen cannot have lower energy states than the common ground state. This objection is not valid because it is  only the consequence of a fundamental postulate of QM, an unproven arbitrary assumption, that Hydrogen cannot occupy lower states of energy.

There are good reasons to consider a revision of the fundamental postulates of QM, because Millsian theory has shown that using different fundamental postulates it is not only possible to create a mathematical model that predicts key molecular parameters very precisely, but also that it is also possible to structure a coherent and mathematically consistent model of reality covering all orders of magnitude.

Irrational resistance to new discoveries

This has always been the case in the history of science. Max Planck, the “father” of quantum physics, said:

A new scientific truth not does triumph by convincing opponents and making Them See the Light, But Rather because “ITS opponents eventually die, and a New Generation Grows Up That is familiar with it.

Max Planck, Nobel laureate in physics. Source: Wikiquote .

Time to replace Quantum Theory says independent expert

The author and science historian Jim Baggot, who is widely appreciated for his profound understanding of Quantum Physics, finds that because of its weaknesses,  the replacement of Quantum Theory with a more realistic theory is long overdue.

“The unquestioning acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory had, in the last 40 years or so, held back progress on the development of alternative theories. … Blind acceptance of the orthodox position, Can not produce The Challenges Needed to push the theory eventually to ITS breaking point. And Break It Will Probably In A Way No One Can Predict to produce a theory no one Can imagine. “

Jim Baggot. The Meaning of Quantum Theory, Oxford University Press, 1992. Baggot has also written a book, “Quantum Story“, about the history of QT.

The reasons for resistance are mostly unscientific and irrational

When faced with new findings that destroy the basis of their status and fame, most scientists have been unable to be objective. They may look for the flimsiest reasons to reject the new theory in order to defend their status. For example I saw a Princeton physicist reject it because Hydrinos have not been observed (by mainstream science) – ignoring that you need to know what to look for in order to find them.

As said above, the objection that the Millsian physics violates fundamental principles of Quantum Physics is not valid, because this is exactly what can be expected from a theory that claims to be able to replace Quantum Theory.

This kind of irrational behavior is understandable, but yet unacceptable, and has for example, in another case (in Austria), resulted in thousands of unnecessary tragic deaths of young mothers in puerperal fever (see Semmelweiss). Several valuable discoveries were delayed considerably because of the suppression by “mainstream science”.

Thomas S Kuhn has written about this problem in his classic “The structure of scientific revolutions“. He makes it very clear that, because of psychological and sociological mechanisms preventing objective and open consideration of a new theory, science of today is dysfunctional when it comes to enable progress of knowledge.

Any truth pass through three Stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident-being. 
Arthur Schopenhauer

We are still in the stage where mainstream science persistently ignores Millsian physics, if it does not ridiculize it. One “hopeful” sign is that it has already been heavily and unfairly attacked, indicating that it is entering Shopenhauer’s second stage.

In reality, the second phase should already have been bypassed due to the very exact predictions of Total Molecular Bond Energy, the experimental demonstration of Hydrinos and the successful application of the theory into prototypes producing exceptionally high amounts of energy as predicted.

The present attitude of doubting Quantum Physicists is similar to that of the famous American physicist who declared confidently that flying is possible while the Lilienthal brothers already were taking off with their glider.

See also footnote “Ignorance of Theory of Science”.


The resistance of mainstream science to the Millsian theory has delayed the implementation of its application in the energy sector, which is irresponsible, because this new form of energy generation has the potential, if it works, to be able to provide a valuable and clean source of energy of great global importance.

We can only hope that the scientific community begins to behave more objectively and responsibly  in view of the world’s great need for safe and environment-friendly energy.



Ignorance of Theory of Science has been damaging to science

It is a great pity that Theory and Philosophy of Science (that is an interest of mine) is mostly rudimentary or absent in the training of scientists. Formerly it was considered necessary that scientists have a philosophic insight and distance to their research, but this tradition was lost long ago.

Theory of Science, I think, has to be reintroduced as an important and well covered topic in the training of scientists, so that they become humbly aware of the limitations of scientific method and the criteria for deciding which of competing theories paradigms is likely to be superior so that they don’t block their emergence out of ignorance.

Otherwise, science cannot live up to the ideal of a method for objective pursuit of the Truth, and is degraded to technical procedures of investigation within the framework of the selected paradigm, geared at uncritically requiring that the results conform with it, rather than assessing its soundness with an openness to the possibility that it may need to be changed in a fundamental way. This deplorable situation has been the case for Quantum Theory as pointed out by Jim Baggot above.

The critics of Millsian Theory, that I have read appear, from their statements and attitudes, to be unaware of elementary rules of Theory of Science including the decisive importance of prediction power in assessing a theory.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: