The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) is sort of a non-mainstream theory proposed by Mills, https://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/ Looks like the books showed remarkable accuracy for the energies of atoms: E.g., page 253, 24.58741 eV, which is similar to experimental ionization energy −24.587387936(25) eV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_atom

And tables in http://www.millsian.com/papers/modeling101208S.pdf, with a few exceptions e.g., CoF2, ~0.3 eV

There are criticisms on https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/details-of-millsian-program.303955/, but I found they were mainly on the standard quantum chemical methods side.

I have two questions

  1. Page 253, " With the contribution of the magnetic energy (Eqs. (7.44) and (7.46))), the binding energy of either of the equivalent electrons of helium (Eqs. (7.44-7.46)) is E_B(He) = 24.58741 eV ", How the magnetic energy was evaluated?

  2. Is there any kind of random test for the accuracy of GUTCP? E.g., newly synthesized molecules?

  • $\begingroup$ I worry that the question is too broad. I also feel that, similar to Chem and Physics SE, discussion of non-mainstream models/theories may not be the best fit for the site. $\endgroup$
    – Tyberius
    Aug 27, 2022 at 14:31

1 Answer 1


A review of this author and his adventures in this field of "hydrinos" quickly reveals this is likely completely invalid. Their observations in some cases may have been observed experimentally, however it seems they are analyzing artifacts of methods outside of their limits and coming to the conclusion they wish to.

Anything and everything related to this theory is likely riddled with issues and should be disregarded in general. I will note that there are publications on this topic, but publications do not imply correctness. Even if there is a good agreement on some test set of data in some cases, it is meaningless if it cannot predict a diverse dataset and/or predict new data.

Further, it seems this particular paper that gives good agreement is suspect for even being legitimate. I have found a discussion where it turns out that the values listed in the paper are not consistent with the databases they list. They also do not report how they performed these calculations, failing to provide data they must need such as force convergence, etc. To me, this resembles a paper written by someone attempting to emulate real papers but not quite understanding what they are doing.

  • $\begingroup$ I somehow missed the link in your original post to the discussion. We linked to the same thing but I will leave it in both places to make it easy on the reader. $\endgroup$ Aug 26, 2022 at 19:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .