Talk:Hydrino

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

Because this is the central hypothesis of the theory, it is critical to say that QM does not exclude the possibility of lower ground state, according to Rathke. Please make a proposal on where to put it if the current statement is not OK for you. Pcarbonn 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above that is not what Rathke said. You seem to be falling into a false dichotomy of dis-proof - thinking that if Rathke hedges his bets, it negates the debunking.  Mills' work is falsifiable, and Rathke did so.  He could not exclude the remote possibility of a lower energy bound state under exotic conditions, nothing more.  That in no way weakens the debunking - and actually makes it stronger, because Mills' claims happen in laboratory conditions.  If you may make this error, the casual reader is at least as likely.  Thus my statement above. Michaelbusch 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pls clarify the link to WP:Primary source: it doest not work, so I'm not sure what you mean. Also, I'm just reporting what Rathke says: if he said it, it has notability, and it must be relevant.  I don't understand why we could not quote him here. Pcarbonn 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been fixed. Now, Rathke's critique is indeed notable and relevant.  However, we should not provide a large and confusing quote when the summary is sufficient (see WP:QUOTE, under 'when not to use quotes', which is what I'm referencing).  I have explained why the quote is confusing. Michaelbusch 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is notable, relevant, and critical to the understanding of the subject. I do insist that it be included one way or another, possibly even in the first paragraph of the article. Pcarbonn 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not dispute that it is notable and relevant, but a verbatim quote of Rathke isn't 'critical to the understanding of the subject' - the summation does that just fine. As I have explained, the quote you have proposed leads to certain mis-understandings, which are to be avoided.  And putting it in the first paragraph is definitely undue weight. To be honest, I don't understand your motivation for including this - it is confusing and adds zero meaning. Michaelbusch 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have proposed a new version of the statement. Let me know. Pcarbonn 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you consider placing it in the first paragraph "undue weight", when it is about the main feature of the theory. Pcarbonn 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reworded your version some, if you really want it in the lead. My reading of undue weight is that the lead paragraph should be general discussion of the idea - but that is approximately true of the current version. Michaelbusch 01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I favor the second version because the quote of the first statement is a link to another WP article (which is not a reliable source), and because the section quoted cannot be summarized as you propose: the 2004 DOE panel was evenly split on the issue of excess heat, so you cannot summarize by quoting only (part of) one side. Please explain your justification before I ask for a Third opinion.Pcarbonn 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Pcarbonn, the Mills' work in 1991 was based on the 1989 cold fusion claims, which were discredited. The 2004 panel isn't relevant here, because it referred to later work.  The reference given is to the cold fusion page to avoid a long explanation here - we've had this discussion before.  The Wikipedia article is not the primary source - the sources in it are. Michaelbusch 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find the source in it. Please be more specific. Pcarbonn 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting from cold fusion, which is citing one part of the 2004 report - not the panel's conclusions, just the literature review:
 * '..in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% ...'
 * This is the admission of systematic errors. Michaelbusch 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All experiment have a margin of error. The way you present it in this article misrepresents the situation.
 * Furthermore, unless this is quoted in relation to hydrino theory, you are giving notability to a statement that doesnot have it. I have now requested a 3d opinion.  Pcarbonn 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, you are confusing "error" and "systematic error". The sentence you quote only mentions error, not systematic error (ie. bias). Pcarbonn 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the excess heat observed by F&P was well above the 1% of error, so this is not invalidating their report of excess heat as you imply.Pcarbonn 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't - it was around 3-sigma if I recall. I am quite aware of the difference between random and systematic errors, but an open cell has to suffer from systematics.  Re. Rathke - don't try to game the system - he was debunking Mills.  Don't try and pick select a quote that might lead to the readers thinking otherwise. Michaelbusch 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Both versions are problematic. Wikipedia may not be cited as a source (WP:SPS). Self-published sources are not usually permitted (WP:SELFPUB). Providing one's own analysis of scientific data is not permitted (WP:NOR). (The version of the article that was linked [it has since changed] makes no claim of "systematic errors".) I would encourage both sides to avoid unreliable sources and stick to what reliable references have reported. Vassyana (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, are you proposing that the sentence should be removed, until it has a reliable source ? I could go with that.  Pcarbonn (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Please see as precedent
 * CTMU and Christopher Michael Langan

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

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

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


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

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

Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics.
See:

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

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

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


 * I think I am fairly neutral as far as this article is concerned (no interest in the subject whatsoever, and I had never heard about the theory). The most recent edit by TStolper added 3 passages that have since been reverted.


 * 1) Based on looking at the Rathke reference, I would say the first new paragraph is factually correct. I will try to put it in a form that I hope will be closer to consensus. If anyone doesn't like it, please don't revert it wholesale but work towards consensus if at all possible.
 * 2) The second passage is a sentence about Mills' attempt to refute the plagiarism accusation. To me this looks more like an unconvincing excuse than a refutation. However, it seems that the source we are citing here for the accusation is already the best source known to Google. That's bad, because 1) the author avoids using the word "plagarism", and 2) this is not an adequate source. I have asked at the BLP noticeboard for advice, but with no success yet. In the meantime I have found WP:SPS and WP:BLP, which are both absolutely clear: A blog is never a reliable source for information on anyone but the blog author themselves. The way I interpret WP:BLP, this claim must be removed immediately, even if it should be true.
 * 3) I am not sure that the existence of the "pseudoscience" and "pseudophysics" categories is a good thing. Referring to the categorisation of an article breaks the rule that articles should not speak about Wikipedia or themselves (I can look where it is written down, if necessary). E.g. in a printed version of Wikipedia the categories may not even be present. I also see no need to draw attention to this categorisation, or to make unconvincing attempts at refuting it. Since the categorisation seems to imply that Mills is a pseudoscientist, and since we seem to have exactly zero sources for this negative claim (reliable or otherwise), I see no alternative to removing this article from these categories until a reliable source has been found.
 * Please, do not reinsert the plagiarism claim without citing a reliable source.
 * Please, do not add this article to these two categories again without citing a reliable source.
 * I am not an expert in interpreting WP:BLP. Any BLP expert is of course free to ignore this if my interpretation should be too strict. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While trying to rephrase the first passage that TStolper1W wanted to include, I realised that when read in context the statement about experimental evidence probably means the following: "It is unfortunate that some people tried to support the hydrino model experimentally, and that peer reviewed journals published the result, before anybody even checked whether the hydrino model is internally consistent. (Which it is not.)" I don't think that such a remark should be included in the article. Neither should TStolper1W's first passage, because it is misleading. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding pseudoscience:
 * A very nice review amongst others of this particular page: from Cosmos (magazine). There is of course also this (full text can be read  (scroll down)).
 * Btw. Since Robert L. Park is an authority on the subject of physics (and also on pseudoscience/voodooscience)- his blog comes under the exceptions specifically stated in WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This case, however, seems to be covered by the exception to the exception - Park's newsletter, as he is a recognized relevant expert, may be used to say that hydrinos are inconsistent with modern physics but not whether or not Mills (a living person) committed plagiarism. At least, that is my reading of WP:SPS. I do not remember if in Voodoo Science he treats Mills' book at all or just his ideas. If Mills' alleged academic improprieties are really relevant to the article, we may need to dig up Skeptic (magazine) 8(4) - "Bigger than Fire? A scientific examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino”" Theory by Aaron J. Barth. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointers! Okay, the following sentence from Nature would certainly be enough if this article wasn't so much tied to a single person: "This vagueness, together with the ridicule heaped on hydrino research by figures such as Robert Park, the American Physical Society's director of public information and a keen observer of pseudo-science, makes some NIAC officials nervous about having funded Marchese's work." But as it is, it only convinces me (even more) that it is pseudoscience, but not that we are allowed to say so in this particular article. The statement is a bit too indirect for my taste. Oh, and I agree with Eldereft that the exception to the exception applies. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article starts out by calling the idea a "pseudoscience" and at this point that seems too extreme. I realize that the concept isn't supported by current knowledge, but as of May 28th 2008 the company reports that it's ready to go with a reactor. They're a privately owned company who doesn't seem to have the hallmarks of a typical scam. That means more time and exploration is needed before ruling the entire concept out. This article should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.247.185 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at WP:PSCI for how Wikipedia treats pseudoscience. I agree that it could be phrased better (to say maybe "is seen as a pseudoscience by the majority of scientific community" or something, still in the intro, but a little later than the first sentence), but it still is a pseudoscience, and it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Deamon138 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it richly deserves the label pseudoscience. If his theory were true, then there would be more hydrinos in the universe than helium atoms. Paul Studier (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, take a look at this - evidence that dark matter is actually cold, "hard to detect" molecular gas. Sounds familiar? Just sayin' is all. Wackyhohos (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From Dark matter At present, the most common view is that dark matter is primarily non-baryonic, made of one or more elementary particles other than the usual electrons, protons, neutrons, and known neutrinos. Hydrinos are an electron and a proton, which is a baron. Paul Studier (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of the paper I cited is that dark matter must be baryonic. Otherwise it couldn't exist in dwarf galaxies - any non-baryonic dark matter would be swept away in the collision that formed the dwarf. Here is a more easily accessible summary of the paper. In particular, please note the use of the phrase "cold Hydrogen molecules that are extremely difficult to detect". All I'm saying is that here is evidence to refute your assertion - i.e that hydrino theory must be wrong because hydrinos are not observed in nature. Bournaud's work is pretty clear evidence that we need to understand the nature of baryonic dark matter before we can dismiss hydrino theory entirely. Wackyhohos (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Crap point. Study some astronomy and get back to us. Baryonic dark matter is an interesting problem, but it is an open question as to whether it really exists -- and there are those who remark in the literature that it's basically been accounted for. That's not evidence for the existence of hydrinos at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mills claims to have hydrino spectra. Spectra = easily seen. Contradiction. - mako 13:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a cornerstone policy of wikipedia call "Verifiability". We cannot state that Hydrino theory is pseudoscience without sources to clearly demonstrate that it is so, especially when articles supporting the field have been published in peer-reviewed scientifi journals. We are facing the same issue on cold fusion: feel free to contribute to the request for comment. Let's build a better wikipedia based on facts, not on unsourced opinions. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * "The last word on the subject", for our purposes, must be the paper most recently published in a reliable source. That's our policy. It means we do not attempt to get involved in reviewing papers ourselves, much less let our readers "judge for themselves". We report what reliable sources (i.e. sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) have said on the subject. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur with SheffieldSteel. Peteryo - which sentence is unreferenced? The one following the Šišović sentence is cited (currently note 16) to a paper in Reports on Progress in Physics, an IoP journal. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Is there any indication that this post is actually by Mills? WP:Biographies of living persons is very clear on the matter of citing to someone opinions that they do not hold. Iff blacklightpower or similar indicates that Mills posts under this ID and we can be reasonably certain that it is as it appears may we cite this source. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt the cited rebuttal is a genuine post by Dr. Randell Mills. At the Society for Classical Quantum Mechanics messageboard, he has been interacting with members of the public for nearly the past three years under his Yahoo ID, "drrandellmills".   71.221.125.66 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That does not address my concern - why do we have any reason to expect that that Yahoo! ID belongs to Mills? Incidentally, the IP removing your most recent additions was not me, though I agree with their rationale. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you're getting preposterous. At the Society for Classical Quantum Mechanics (SCQM) messageboard, people have posed questions to Dr. Mills for the past three years, and "drrandellmills" has answered them.  SCQM is moderated by a colleague of Mills.  Do you actually believe the moderator would allow some impostor to post in Mills' name? There are a great many portions of this article that could be deleted on the same grounds ("how do we really know that the author of the cited source is who they claim to be?")  but you are selectively applying this reasoning in order to suppress the fact that Mills and Phillips wrote cogent rebuttals to Rathke.  A neutral POV would not be interested in suppressing this fact.  71.221.125.66 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no general vetting of identities for such forum postings ("PLEASE NOTE: The list owner cannot possibly verify the identities of all list members and posters ..."). I could register User:DrRandellmills here and start answering questions, but that would rightly be completely unciteable. Is this rebuttal reproduced on Blacklight's website or do we have any other reason to expect beyond any reasonable doubt that this ID is in fact registered to Mills? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have supplied more evidence for the authenticity of this source, than anyone else has for any other source in the article. But fine, have it your way.  Attention all article contributors:  Eldereft says that if you can't verify the identity of the author of the cited source, the information must be expunged from the article!  199.46.245.232 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"We cannot possibly verify the identity of the authors of the cited source"
What does that mean ? Which wikipedia policy are you applying when deleting these statements ? They come from reliable sources according to WP:RS (except for the arxiv search, which I agree should be deleted). Pcarbonn (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ask Eldereft what it means. The source that I cited was also reliable according to WP:RS, but Eldereft kept insisting that because he couldn't verify the identity of the author, it had to go.  Finally I got sick and tired of arguing with him, and I am now enforcing his policy consistently throughout the article. 199.46.245.232 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * New Journal of Physics (which is a reliable source) verifies the identity for us. Yahoo doesn't verify it for us, in fact it specifically states that it cannot do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be more specific: If its in a reliable source (NJoP), then the reliable source is considered to be the vetting agent. If its not in a reliable source (Yahoo), then we need some other agent to provide the vetting of identity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. The NJoP quotes can stay, the yahoo ones should be deleted (for selfpub).  Pcarbonn (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds in accord with my reading of policy, thank you. If anyone wants to link to the actual rebuttal instead of just an unverified borderline-crankish statement that Mills disagrees with Rathke, here is a link to the pdf (2 MB, 165 p.). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspect edit
I noticed that an edit (the last one so far as I type) by a user called Bourgoinr changed a mention of a paper by someone known as Bourgoin. This also happens to be the only edit that user has made. This seems a little dodgy. Who originally added the name and info on Bourgoin to this article? Was it an IP? Or an established user? I'm worried that this Bourgoin person is self-promoting. It could of course be perfectly innocent, but it's slightly disconcerting. Deamon138 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the ref to BOurgoin's article. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah that's okay then. Still find that edit by Bourgoinr a little strange, however since it was you that added that article in, it is merely a peculiarity now rather than being suspect. Cool. Deamon138 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle Misused to Rollback Non-Vandalism Related Edits
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HG, "Huggle is a tool for dealing with vandalism." According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback, "The rollback feature allows intentionally nonconstructive contributions (vandalism) to be reverted more quickly and more efficiently than with other methods... Rollback should not be used in content disputes". I am working to make constructive edits to this article and to add references to journal articles. If you disagree with specific edits I am open to discussion about how best to improve this article. Tedmund, please do not indiscriminately roll back all the edits I have been working on, unless you have reason to believe they constitute vandalism (which is certainly not my intent).68.164.228.115 (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreasonable roll-back in July 2008
Any article in Wikipedia which purports to present a controversial theory ought to present it. It is quite reasonable to include remarks explaining that most scientists consider the theory to be pseudo-science developed by some crank. BUT it is going too far when items explaining details of the theory, and refences to published papers, are deleted. People wishing to investigate a topic, using Wikipedia, should be permitted to see both sides of the controversy and, if they wish, to look into it more deeply and decide for themselves. Strong opponents ought to, rather, have a page called "Hydrinos are Nonsense" and it would be fair to link to that page quite prominently in the introduction to the Hydrino Theory article. A historical note: Maxwell's equations needed to introduce a concept of "displacement current" and many eminent physicists of his day could never accept that. (Sorry, am travelling so I don't know my log-in. Peter W. )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.84.11 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the "published papers" were not subject to the typical standard of peer review needed for the introduction of a extraordinary claim and served only to soapbox. Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot make any claims as to the "historical parallels" between Mills' nonsense and Maxwell's equations. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to hydrino
It is very debatable as to whether this is a legitimate scientific theory or not. Most of those in the physics community would scoff at the idea of calling it a "theory". So I moved the article here. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Undo redirect to hydrino
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory: in a science generally, a theory is "a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation" - and in physics specifically, "the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.) — which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems."

It is not debatable whether Mills' "hydrino theory" meets these two definitions. Mills' theory of hydrinos, which he calls "Classical Quantum Mechanics", factually meets both definitions: It is both a mathematical framework and a testable model of physical phenomena (for example the behavior of electrons in atomic orbitals), which makes specific experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems - predictions which can be readily verified or falsified through empirical observation. Indeed, in the latter respect Mills' model meets a more stringent definitional standard of scientific theory than some other models of physics, such as supersymmetric string theory.

ScienceApologist, please substantiate your claim that most of those in the physics community would scoff at the idea of calling Mills' model of physics a "theory" - (as opposed to the more supportable claim that most of those in the physics community would scoff at it as an incorrect or poor theory). 68.164.228.115 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)