This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
"Foogod" wrote that "lack of published error information and an apparent limited amount of third-party investigation have resulted in little or no rigorous verification of these claims."
It took about 6 minutes with a spreadsheet, using the CODATA value of the fine structure constant, 0.007297352568, to verify that Mills' expressions evaluated to the values he claimed. (I can email the spreadsheet to you if you like, so you can verify my verification.)
Therefore, it is fact, not opinion, that Mills' predictions deviate from experimental values by, at most, 0.0036%. No need to delete this information out of POV concerns.
Also, CQM makes predictions about mass ratios only -- not about the masses of particles or atoms. (Unless you know something about CQM that I don't know... please provide a source.)
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
"Foogod" wrote that "lack of published error information and an apparent limited amount of third-party investigation have resulted in little or no rigorous verification of these claims."
It took about 6 minutes with a spreadsheet, using the CODATA value of the fine structure constant, 0.007297352568, to verify that Mills' expressions evaluated to the values he claimed. (I can email the spreadsheet to you if you like, so you can verify my verification.)
Therefore, it is fact, not opinion, that Mills' predictions deviate from experimental values by, at most, 0.0036%. No need to delete this information out of POV concerns.
Also, CQM makes predictions about mass ratios only -- not about the masses of particles or atoms. (Unless you know something about CQM that I don't know... please provide a source.)