I can start a semiconductor company and say that I have a way to produce magnetic monopoles. My employees and I can then publish respectable work - work that has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles - in respectable journals. Then I write up a website mixing in my pseudoscience non-peer-reviewed "essays" with the real science to give the impression that my monopole theory is well supported. If I am lucky, I may even be able to sneak in some monopole tidbits into peer-reviewed journals so prestigious that all you have to do is have a pulse and pass over the $1500 publishing fee. Maybe three or four stealth papers, over a decade.
Sad as it looks, these guys are the heavyweights of pseudoscience because they at least, in part, perform real science. And they are at odds with quantum mechanics, a subject rife with avenues for playing semantics games, taking advantage of the history of the subject (ie "interpretations"), and, most importantly, it is a subject that is in many ways counterintuitive to everyday experience.
If they are sincere, I wish them all luck. And if they are correct, while I am wrong, I'll eat humble pie (a lot of it). I'd expect the same from them (if pigs flew).
Sigh. At least they aren't thermodynamics kooks. A few times in the past, after very minor media exposure, I received correspondence from people who had learned "just a little bit" about thermal physics and thought they had invented an infinite energy source. Or designed 100% efficient solar cells that they cooked in their oven at 450. No mention of black helicopters, fluoride poisoning, or tinfoil beanies, but still somewhat entertaining.
First, what the heck is up with fractional values for the principle quantum number? My curiosity is because of how stupid it appears to suggest a number that has to be an integer (because it denotes a term in series regardless of the form of the wave equation or the boundary conditions) be an integer fraction. I have to admit that I haven't spent much time trying to read Mills' book. Is he just saying that his new solution of his new wave equation has terms containing 1/n? I mean the radial portion of the solution to the time independent Schrödinger equation has 1/n in it, and the principle quantum number, n, is an integer. Is he being that stupid or is there some justifiable logic behind posing a fractional quantum number? (I know I should just slog through his "solution" on my own. The math just isn't that easy to work through and I'm being lazy and asking someone else.)
Second, the NASA engineer, Luke Setzer, that has supported him to the hilt – has he suffered professionally for going so far out on a limb? Is he getting something from Mills for his support?
There's no reason you should know or be willing to answer, but considering what you posted I just thought I'd ask.