The Hydrino Hypothesis: Chapter 1

An Introduction to the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics

This monograph is an introduction to Randell L. Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, Hydrino science, and the efforts of the company Brilliant Light Power (BLP) to commercialize Hydrino-based power technology, as told by Professor Jonathan Phillips. Out of necessity, it assumes a degree of familiarity with physics and physics history. An overview of the BLP story which serves as a helpful introductory piece to those unfamiliar with its sweeping scope can be found here.

By Professor Jonathan Phillips

Introduction

The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) is a relatively new theory (~30 years old) of atomic scale physics based on “old” physics developed by Dr. Randell L. Mills.

That is, the GUTCP employs classical physical laws, pre-1872 equations only, to explain all physical observations, in particular atomic scale phenomenon.  This restriction to classical physics means, among other major paradigm shifts, that standard quantum mechanics (SQM), the version of quantum mechanics based on the Schrödinger equation and first introduced in 1925, which dominates all of science and physics education, is not part of the theory.

The GUTCP is not a “revision” or “approximation” of SQM: it is a total paradigm shift.

The first half of this monograph focuses on how the GUTCP employs classic physics equations, specifically Maxwell’s Laws and Newton’s Equations, to correctly predict and model all known features of all atoms. This monograph focuses on the GUTCP solutions to the hydrogen atom, helium, and lithium atom.

This predictive ability of the GUTCP is in contrast with SQM’s failure to predict the known features of any atom with more than one electron, hence its restriction to hydrogen. This failure will be explored in detail.

The second half of the monograph focuses on the Hydrino hypothesis, the theory that hydrogen atoms can literally shrink to form a lower-energy state known as Hydrino, as well as the experimental evidence which supports the hypothesis. The new state of hydrogen was predicted to exist by Dr. Mills using the GUTCP framework.

Harnessing the tremendous energy released when ordinary hydrogen is converted to Hydrino states in a power-producing device is the objective of Brilliant Light Power (BLP), the company founded and directed by the author of the GUTCP, Dr. Mills.

An overview article about the company and their efforts can be found here.

Disclaimer

The material covered in this monograph represents a very restricted review of the GUTCP, as it encompasses less than 10% of the first volume of Dr. Mills’ three-volume GUTCP, herein labelled the “Source Text.”¹

This very restricted review of GUTCP allows for a fairly complete analysis of the components of the theory relevant to the Hydrino hypothesis, including much of the mathematics and experimental evidence, demonstrating that the GUTCP is consistent with all known atomic physics data.

The GUTCP

The GUTCP is truly unique.  It is shown in this monograph to predict with remarkable precision (ca. <2.5 % maximum error, generally far less) the ionization energies for the first twenty-five atoms in the Periodic Table and all ions derived therefrom.

Moreover; it is clear the method can be extended to every atom, and every ion derived therefrom, in the Periodic Table.  The demonstration for the first twenty-five atoms of the Periodic Table is done using simple algebra (solved using spreadsheets), just five constants taken from the US National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), and no adjustable parameters. 

There is nothing remotely similar in SQM. 

Indeed, as discussed in detail later, SQM cannot solve for multi-electron systems.  Rather, so-called approximate models, which are not really approximations as the math is entirely different than the actual theory, are solved. Solving the approximate theories, of which there are many, requires massive computational power, and at least two adjustable parameters.

In addition, there is the issue of what SQM approximate models actually solves for: “extended charge probability distributions for infinitely small particles?” Nothing is clear.

Is this success of the GUTCP in atomic physics significant simply from a fundamental knowledge perspective? 

A brief story, told by a colleague, tells the tale.  To wit:  In her first quantum chemistry course in college she questioned the unique focus of the course on hydrogen, week after week. “Can we apply SQM to transition metals?”, she asked.  After laughing at the naivety of the question, this answer was given: “Young lady, we can’t even generate a predictive model of helium!” 

And in the intervening three decades, nothing has changed.

Contrast: the GUTCP quantitatively correctly predicts with no adjustable parameters:

• All atomic ionization energies.

• Quantization of atomic energy levels.

• Lamb shift.

• G-factor.

• Fine structure.

• Hyperfine structure.

Other predicted phenomena, explored in this book, that fall directly out of the GUTCP’s prediction of Hydrino states are:

• Line broadening and excess heat in plasmas predicted to support Hydrino formation as observed.

• The existence and characteristics of dark matter.

• EUV spectra of interstellar medium.

• The temperature of the Sun’s corona.

Why Is The GUTCP Important? 

In addition to improving man’s understanding of the physical world, on every scale, from the sub-atomic to the cosmos, it suggests a path to a new primary source of energy, one which is nearly free and non-polluting.   The transition of electrons in hydrogen to lower energy Hydrino states produces large amounts of energy: about 200 times that of hydrogen combustion. 

Dr. Mills founded BLP in 1991 to commercialize power generation technology based on the Hydrino reaction, as discussed in our overview piece.

The fact that GUTCP provides precise predictive models of the energy levels in atoms and ions using only simple classical physics already makes it one of the Great Theories of Physics, in a class with Newton’s Laws, Maxwell’s Equations, and Relativity.  

And by extension, this achievement alone means Dr. Mills is one of the towering figures in the history of physics. For this author the achievement is stunning, spectacular, moving, inspiring…please, hand me the thesaurus!   

The Hydrino Hypothesis 

The GUTCP does not end with atomic physics, hence neither does this monograph.  The second section of the book focuses on a radical proposition derived from the theory: according to the GUTCP, so-called “dark matter” is Hydrino, a form of hydrogen that exists below what is considered by current theory to be the “ground state”, the lowest energy level possible for the hydrogen atom.

In the GUTCP, a detailed mechanism for the production of Hydrinos from standard hydrogen is provided. Specifically, Hydrinos are formed from normal atomic hydrogen via a catalytic energy transfer process.  This process literally shrinks standard hydrogen to form small hydrogen, aka Hydrinos.

Later in this monograph, a wide variety of experiments, conducted by several laboratories, capable of debunking this hypothesis are reviewed. 

It is shown that the hypothesis remains viable.

In sum, it is rational to conclude based on the review of the scientific literature that the standard quantum paradigm of SQM has been relegated and replaced with a new/old model which perfectly fits available data.  As noted later in this book: “In conclusion, the GUTCP atomic model success indicates it has supplanted SQM as THE Quantum Theory.”   The findings described herein also provide rationale for continuing efforts to produce Hydrinos and capture energy from the process.

Why You Haven’t Heard About The GUTCP

So, why haven’t you learned about the GUTCP?  Why has this alternative theory of atomic physics been cancelled?  Why is there extreme opposition to even questioning SQM, a theory that clearly has a multitude of  problems? 

Indeed, in contrast to the physical GUTCP model employing classical physics equations, SQM is based on a totally non-physical picture of the electron.  As explained in more detail in subsequent chapters, the electron of SQM is an infinitely small particle with a “probability” of being in a particular location.  The electron obeys neither Newtonian Laws nor Maxwell’s equations. 

Moreover, despite its status as the current totally dominant paradigm of quantum systems, SQM is NOT predictive of any ionization energies values in multi-electron systems.  Indeed, for any system with more than one electron SQM requires multiple “adjustable parameters,” adjusted until the model matches observations. 

In short, the GUTCP is a predictive model using old physics, and SQM is a curve fitting model that rejects classical physics entirely.  

The SQM community, that is virtually all of physics, clearly finds any questioning of the difficulties of the SQM theory threatening, thus it cancels any discussion of the GUTCP alternative.

Why threatening?  There are a number of factors. 

First, there is a broad problem with acceptance of new ideas, even in science.  Most assume this is not an issue in science; however, history shows the problem of accepting novel ideas exists in all human affairs, even scientific ones.  In fact, there is increasing evidence that the scientific landscape is becoming even more resistant to change.

That statement is statistically supported.  For example, the reader should consider this quote from a recent paper in the journal Nature, based on a thorough and sophisticated statistical analysis:

“We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. This pattern holds universally across fields and is robust across multiple different citation- and text-based metrics…”²

This may seem a surprising finding given the increased access provided by the internet, the increase in the number of journals, an absolute increase in the number of scientific institutions, and other similar factors.

And yet, to this author it is clear that the trends toward central control of funding, and an accompanying need for scientists to accede to “narrative control” by the grant system more than counter-balances any technical improvements in information access.

In short, the GUTCP is a model advocating against the standard paradigm in an age in which this is a particularly steep climb.

A second reason is more personal.  To wear the badge of “Quantum Expert” requires years of work mastering some very complicated mathematics. The course of study is so long and complicated that “Quantum Expert” becomes a significant part of the identity of those who claim it. To accept even the possibility that the GUTCP is correct is a threat to the very identity of the Quantum Expert. 

In sum, why is GUTCP openly disparaged? 

Short answer: it threatens to upend a long standing paradigm and the credentials of its experts. 

And to summarize, it will be argued in detail in subsequent chapters that there are two quantum theories:

• The GUTCP, which is predictive and claims physics is that same at all scales.

• SQM, which currently monopolizes all education and virtually all journals, which predicts nothing and insists that there are two physics, one at the quantum scale and one at the macro scale. 

In the GUTCP bound electrons are assumed, as are all elementary particles, to be well defined three-dimensional physical objects that obey classical physics laws (pre-1872), specifically spherical ‘bubbles’ of charge/current, that symmetrically surround the nucleus. 

It will be shown that GUTCP is quantitatively predictive.  For example, it will be explained in detail that this model predicts, using classical physics force balances and the assumption of conservation of angular momentum:

• The ionization energies of all atoms and atomic ions to a remarkable level of accuracy, using simple algebra and not a single adjustable parameter.

• The classical physics origin of the magnetic moment of electrons. 

In contrast, SQM rejects classic physical laws at the quantum level, uses a non-classical equation from 1925 to describe only that which occurs at the atomic scale. It employs elegant but extremely complex math.  Yet, in the final analysis, as explained in great detail later in the book, SQM is a curve fitting algorithm, generally requiring tremendous computational power, that predicts nothing.

Monograph Goals

There are four major goals for this monograph. 

• First, there is a need to reframe the discussion of GUTCP because it is so misrepresented by the general physics community. 

• Second, it is hoped this essay will provide the first simple explanation for the theory.  The goal is to explain the model at a level that makes it accessible to anyone with an elementary level physics education. Dr. Mills has written a book and published many articles regarding the theory, yet these are all written at a level which is daunting even to the professional physicist. ³⁴⁵

• Third, there is a need to compare the fit of data versus the predictions of the GUTCP model, and to compare that with the data fitting (not predictions!) of the standard quantum paradigm.   The intent is to show that the scientific process demands that the GUTCP be accepted as the new paradigm of quantum physics.

• Fourth, demonstrate the viability of the Hydrino hypothesis.

Reframing Discussion and Countering Misinformation

In this introductory chapter we begin with the first goal: countering the vast amount of misinformation regarding GUTCP.  Exemplary of this misinformation is the Wikipedia entry on Brilliant Light Power.

We have written a point by point rebuttal to the entry which can be found here.

The entry is clearly structured with a bias toward dismissing the GUTCP that is so strong it is antithetical to the scientific method.  The proposition that the Wikipedia entry is designed to mislead is examined below via the method of deconstruction of several components of the entry. 

Start the process by consideration of the largest section entitled “Criticism” which begins as follows:

The Wikipedia analysis in this section is based on the testimony of experts.  These experts, the reader should note, do not claim deep knowledge of the GUTCP.  Likely, much of the information regarding the GUTCP held by these experts is secondhand, that is, hearsay.  Such secondhand evidence is not permitted in the courtroom or in science. 

As noted above, reading the theory as presented by Dr. Mills is daunting even for the professional physicist, hence seriously undertaken by very few. 

In general, arguments from authority, such as those compiled by the Wikipedia editors, hold no place in the scientific process.  There should not be “a cult of personality” in science. There is expertise, but even experts need to present more than opinion to be persuasive.

A second example of misinformation is the very deliberate censorship of any explanation of the GUTCP.  Wikipedia advertises that its entries can be edited by qualified individuals.  

Not true.  

Multiple attempts to edit in the basics of the GUTCP, or to record its agreement with experimental observations made by PhD physicists and chemists, have failed. Wikipedia effectively cancelled all objective discussion and analysis of the theory and demonstrated agreement with data. 

Why?  Why not give a single example of the failure of the model to match experimental data? Why not include a simple introduction to the theory, as presented in the first paragraph of this essay?  To wit:

“GUTCP only employs classic physics, pre-1872 equations, to explain all physical observations, in particular quantum phenomenon…”

Also, why not provide a reasonable review of the extensive, peer reviewed, and historical data that agree with predictions of this entirely classical physics-based theory?

A third example of the misinformation contained in the Wikipedia is the entirely misleading history of the interaction between BLP and the US Patent Office.  The Wikipedia article states:

Clearly, after reading the Wikipedia article one is expected to believe that the primary early patent filing of BLP was rejected, implying an official US Government position, and an identical official European position that claims regarding Hydrinos are fundamentally fraudulent.

It is clearly implied no patents have ever issued for BLP.   One objective of this essay is to provide an antidote to misinformation using factual information.  We start here.  Not noted in Wikipedia is that the patent that underwent such tough opposition was issued decades ago:

R. L. Mills, W.R. Good, J. Phillips and A.I. Popov, Lower Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures, U.S. Patent No. 6,024,935 (2000).

Not only was all the sound and fury generated by some standard paradigm supporters regarding this patent signify nothing, the patent, as of Dec. 31 2022, was cited 87 times. 

Subsequent to the granting of this patent, at least eight US patents have been issued to BLP, including five that claim processes that generate Hydrinos, even in the abstract:

1. Patent #11,333,069: Power generation systems and methods regarding same

2. Patent #11,230,776: Electrical power generation systems and methods regarding same

3. Patent #11,158,430: Thermophotovoltaic electrical power generator network

4. Patent #10,753,275: Power generation systems and methods regarding same

5. Patent #10,443,139: Electrical power generations systems and methods regarding same

In total, the company now has around 80 granted patents in many major energy markets and over 100 patents pending. Why does Wikipedia not allow mention of this fact?

A more complete discussion of the BLP patent issue can be found in our Wikipedia rebuttal piece.

Unfortunately, as noted before, the Wikipedia entry is exemplary of the GUTCP treatment.  Unscientific standards, highlighted by the employment of poorly informed expert opinion, by all the major journals, encyclopedias, as well as popular science programs, continues to dominate the very limited public discussion of the GUTCP. 

This resistance is not surprising, as it is well-established that once an idea is entrenched in the culture, even scientific culture, it is difficult to dislodge. However, properly employed, the scientific method allows the entrenched paradigm to be overcome by models that better match observation, as the GUTCP does.

Monograph Organization

The remainder of this monograph is organized as follows:

• First, an introduction to the proper scientific and philosophical approach to evaluation of new theories in science is given.  This is done to provide a template for the reader to independently determine whether the GUTCP or SQM better meets scientific requirements. 

• Second, a contrast (some math in this section!) between the GUTCP and SQM is developed in order to clarify the unique paradigm shift which makes GUTCP a theory of true historic significance. 

• Third, the validity of the theory is demonstrated by testing the predictions of the theory against data, well-accepted, published, non-controversial data. All the data presented is undeniably consistent with GUTCP as applied to accepted forms of matter. The same data is inconsistent with the standard textbook quantum theory (SQM). 

• Fourth, the Hydrino hypothesis is presented.  This section lays out the GUTCP case for a “previously unidentified” form of matter, Hydrinos.  

• Finally, the Hydrino hypothesis is tested against data, and found to remain valid! 

Much of the data presented in support of the Hydrino hypothesis originated with BLP or was conducted in laboratories working with BLP.  This data was collected by competent scientists, many with a record of decades of excellent science, and the work reviewed and published. 

This work cannot be summarily rejected/cancelled as fatally biased, because to do so contradicts the entire scientific process.  To do so is a form of scientific “gaslighting,” that is trivializing data that is consistent with a theory opposed to the one that advances your own prejudice, and diverting away from the scientific method by challenging not the substance of the arguments, but rather the supposed corrupt morality of the scientists involved. 

Also, there is data from truly independent laboratories, all of which was collected by scientists opposed to GUTCP, or simply unaware that a test of an alternative quantum theory was implicit in their work.   Again, it is found that no data from any source debunks the Hydrino hypothesis. 

In sum, as of this writing, the Hydrino hypothesis remains a viable theory.

A Challenge

This Introductory chapter ends with a challenge to the reader.  Recall the primary theme in Lewis Carol’s, “Through the Looking Glass.”

To paraphrase it: on one side of the glass is the Real World, on the other the “Bizzarro” World. Consider carefully as you continue reading: which is real, SQM or the GUTCP?  Which is Bizzarro?  The SQM experts exude with absolute certainty the notion that it is the GUTCP which is Bizzarro, but is it?

Chapter 1 Personal Notes

Note to the reader: each chapter will include my personal experience with Dr. Mills, the GUTCP, and Hydrino science.

Will the adoption of the GUTCP and the development of inexpensive energy technologies based on it usher in a new age, the Hydrino Age?   Will current energy technologies like combustion engines, nuclear power, wind power, even solar power be found only in niche applications in a future Hydrino Age?  Like vacuum tubes, sailing ships, record players, land lines, coal stoves, and card catalogs, will the current highest energy tech be largely relegated?  Will our only contact with those technologies be at the local Holodeck? And will there be other disruptive technologies, for example in materials, that are generated by this fundamental paradigm shift?

If Hydrino power does achieve all that it promises, there will be a new Age, and historians will be looking for information regarding the details of this transformation from the old age to the new.  Who?  How?  What?  When?  Why? So, just-in-case-fingers-crossed, at the end of each chapter of this monograph, I will step out of the role of science navigator to tell a few stories.  Hopefully, they will be both entertaining and of some historical interest. The reader is urged to note these are just snapshots of an enormous and complicated story.

The Beginning

“Begin at the Beginning…and go on till you come to the end, then stop,” the King told Alice. 

Picking the beginning is hard, so I will start in the vast middle: my undergraduate degree is from an institution that was not accredited to give Bachelor of Science degrees, so I received a Bachelor of Arts degree with a physics major. Thus, I probably suffered a bit of loss on the technical side of physics but had the opportunity to pursue so much more on the philosophical side than those with B.S. Physics degrees.

Yes, I believe in the old-fashioned liberal arts concept of education!  In particular, one needs much more than technical knowledge and expertise to excel in science.  At a minimum, one needs to truly understand the philosophy of science.   A good bit of historical knowledge regarding the shifting of paradigms with time and the impact of social pressure on science is important as well. Writing coherently is also a rather important outcome of a liberal arts education.  In sum, getting a B.A. from a liberal arts school better prepared me for a more philosophical deep dive into physics than my colleagues with B.S. degrees.

Developing a philosophical perspective on science was the greatest value of the “liberal arts” component of my scientific education for me.  Of particular significance: I became a fan of the epistemology of Bishop Berkely.  In short, with relevance for this story, I believe that what we are aware of, and reality, are close cousins.   There are, in this philosophy, three spatial dimensions, time is time (unfortunately), and we are all literally sharing the same universally connected space.   In short, I believe in the Berkely version of common sense.

The GUTCP is essentially grounded in this Berkely version of common sense, a notion that fits the character of Dr. Randell L. Mills.

In my early visits to Hydrocatalysis Power, Malvern PA, now evolved into Brilliant Light Power in Cranbury, NJ, Randy would tell a few personal anecdotes, generally over lunch.  For example, he told me that prior to and while attending college he owned and ran what I call a farming service company. 

For a fee, he would drive the big machines that plant and harvest. These are special machines, requiring expert operators, hence often the realm of farm service companies.  In fact, while excelling at college, he continued to operate his successful company because he loved to drive those monster machines, being exhilarated in their physical power. He told me he made the time for this activity by not participating in the drunken reverie of the frats, a much more common pursuit for his fellow students.

My understanding of the story of the farm service company was that Randy believes in the earth and a physical reality; basically, he is a Berkely follower too. 

The physics of Dr. Mills’ GUTCP is three dimensional and the same at all scales; no eleven dimensional space, no change in the laws as a function of scale.

He was and is grounded!

Now the above story begs the question:  How did a Penn State University Professor of Chemical Engineering find his way to a small company hours to the east, a company based on the notion of overturning a central tenet of academic physics?  Academics are generally not comfortable working with non-academics who are promoting paradigm shifts.  Dangerous territory!

This story begins with Prof. Stewart Kurtz, first head of the Materials Research Institute at Penn State (1989). 

Stewart, a well-known physicist with years of experience in industrial research, (Bell Labs, N.J.; Director of Exploratory Research at Philips labs in the Netherlands; Vice President and Senior Scientist at Bristol Myers; finally, a lead role in Materials Science at Penn State), who sadly passed in 2021, was the consummate science impresario.  He loved to organize teams to tackle problems, and to introduce the right expert to the right problem, and right funding agent.

In the early 1990s Stewart undertook the organizing of a team at Penn State to study cold fusion, a hot topic after the announcement of Pons and Fleischman that they had achieved a fusion reaction in a tabletop electrochemical cell in 1989.

The team had the nuclear engineers required to study radiation postulated to be emitted during “cold fusion,” chemists working in electrochemistry to organize the fusion cells, physicists, mathematicians, and one chemical engineer, yours truly, with an expertise in calorimetry. 

Of course, one needs a calorimeter to determine the precise energy production!

I caught Stewart’s attention when I applied a Thermodynamics First Law energy balance to some data on the perplexing subject of cold fusion, as an explanation for the observation of excess energy measurements from palladium electrode and salt water electrolyte electrochemical cells. 

It was the measurement of unaccounted for heat that was the basis for the postulated process of nuclear fusion at room temperature, cold fusion. But my analysis based on a proper energy balance of the electrochemical systems employed in the cold fusion work indicated there was something fundamentally askew.   

A proper energy balance suggested there was something fundamentally wrong. Without providing the complex details, it was clear to me that the balance equation didn’t close, i.e. the balance didn’t balance.

My solution: there was some assumption in the analysis of the electrochemical cell heat data, incorporated into the energy balance, that was not justified. In particular, it was not justified to assume all current passed through such cells is related to water splitting into hydrogen and oxygen.

A standard assumption made in electrochemistry, including by Pons and Fleishman, is that all the current passing through a water-based electrochemical cell relates to the splitting of water.  It is so common to make this assumption, so embedded in the scientific literature, that it has morphed from an assumption to a “fact.”  

The Problem: if this “fact” is not true, there could be chemically standard, classical,  explanations for the excess heat observed in these experiments.  In other words, if the assumption was not true, no excess heat was observed!

My electrochemist colleagues immediately reacted to my postulate as a form of apostasy.   After a mighty debate, followed by a collaborative investigation with a chemistry professor with expertise in electrochemistry (Prof. Joe Jordan), we determined/agreed after a detailed review of the literature that this well-known “fact” has never been demonstrated for any electrochemical process in which water is the electrolyte. 

That is, it has never been properly demonstrated that all the current passing through electrochemical cells employing a water-based electrolyte is related to the breakdown of water. There could be other processes, involving different free energy changes, that contribute to the charge transfer process.

Sometimes, it turns out “facts” are not what they seem to be.  And without this particular “fact,” the entire experimental interpretation, leading to the conclusion that there is excess heat evolving in palladium electrode electrochemical cells, hence cold fusion, becomes less certain. No excess heat? No cold fusion? The issue remains open today. 

My interactions with Stewart took a turn of interest, at least per the GUTCP story, years later, long after the sputtering out of the cold fusion committee.

One day in the spring of 1994, Steward invited me to a breakfast meeting, ostensibly to introduce me to someone with whom he thought I would find common cause.  My understanding was this was simply another mission with the impresario master, one I hoped, as a young professor in constant search of research support, might lead to collaboration and a grant.  Naturally, I thought any breakfast meeting would be at the Waffle Shoppe, or the Corner Room, common meeting places in State College for Stewart and me. 

No! Only after an hour of driving east was the truth revealed: I was being “kidnapped” to meet an individual who was the owner of a small company doing fundamental physics and technology studies, almost three hours to the east.  And, I was informed, this fellow had a new theory of quantum mechanics and was using it to make a prediction of a process that could produce excess energy. Perhaps his theory could explain all the cold fusion observations.

I thought: oh no, I’m going to meet a “nut” with three eyeballs and snakes for pets!  Meeting a guy who had overturned quantum mechanics seemed as likely to me as meeting a talking giraffe on the streets of State College, PA. 

On arrival I quickly learned I was so wrong.  The “nut” notion was immediately zapped when I met Randy Mills and realized he was a tall, charming, charismatic, brilliant fellow. I also found Randy had great taste in laboratory space.  He located the company in a very large, high-ceilinged space in a business park surrounded by small ponds, grass, and loud Canadian geese. 

We hit it off famously, we had a great lunch together, and for a few years thereafter I could argue I was his right-hand academic man.  

As will be discussed further in subsequent chapters, this led to both scientific collaborations, particularly in calorimetry and plasma physics, and efforts to raise awareness of the new theory.

1. R.L. Mills, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, April 2023 ed. (Randell L. Mills, 2023)

2. M. Park, E. Leahey, and R.J. Funk, “Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time,” Nature 613(7942), 138–144 (2023).

3. R.L. Mills, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, April 2023 ed. (Randell L. Mills, 2023)

4. R. L. Mills, “The hydrogen atom revisited,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 25(12), 1171–1183 (2000).

5. R. L. Mills, P. Ray, “Spectral emission of fractional quantum energy levels of atomic hydrogen from a helium–hydrogen plasma and the implications for dark matter,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 27(3), 301–322 (2002).