AGNOSCO'S MUSINGS
While the occasional 'qualified' person has said the ideas in Quantum Mechanics – A Classical Interpretation cannot be right because physics has believed something different for over 100 years, there has not been one analysis challenging the facts or the logic of the argument put forward.
“The most important ideas are likely to be the ideas that are most disruptive.” Eric Weinstein
“What if in fact we had all sorts of things exactly backwards and completely wrong?” Eric Weinstein
“We need to be able to reinsert dissidents.” Eric Weinstein
Are my words beyond a reasoned challenge? Surely not.
And yet, no person, physicist or otherwise, has provided a reasoned rebuttal of any nature despite my hypothesis having been viewed by many, many people since the publication of my website in February 2016.
Not one opposing argument has been put forward by any of the many scientists and science writers/journalists asked directly for comment.
I'm beginning to take the lack of dispute arising from my description of the nature and behavior of light as an unspoken endorsement of my hypothesis.
It would be reasonable, I think, for me to seriously question the personal integrity and commitment to science of each physicist asked for comment.
Setting aside any other aspect of the hypothesis, my description of the Double Slit Experiment interpretation is simplicity incarnate should be subject to counter argument if such an argument exists.
History may yet reveal that a great deal of time has been wasted in the pursuit of phantoms while a simple but ego confronting answer to many unresolved questions in physics lay at our feet.
“THE QUESTION IS, OF COURSE, IS IT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO AMALGAMATE EVERYTHING, AND MERELY DISCOVER THAT THIS WORLD REPRESENTS DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF ONE THING?”
Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-2
At first I felt somewhat foolish in putting forward my unsophisticated ideas among the learned experts but being unable to fault my own logic, pressed ahead.
I wanted to know if the ideas were true.
Continuing thought in the interim has strengthened my confidence that a very simple adjustment to how we view the world at the micro level allows us to weave this universe of ours into an amazingly clear and elegant network of interconnected logic. This viewpoint provides tools permitting the visualization of every feature of reality that I have analyzed to this point in time.
A clear understanding of the simple mechanics of heat and expansion is only the beginning.
If I am able to do this, what could the truly great minds of this planet accomplish if they absorbed this very simple idea?
With a bit of a rethink, anyone smart enough to be a quantum physicist would be able to take the small conceptual change I suggest, and do far more with it than I would ever be able to do.
But unfortunately, we are creatures with firmly entrenched patterns of behavior in our lives.
Few are able to alter an established habit. Our subconscious mind fights relentlessly to prevent any revision of what we have previously decided is true.
Everything we have learned is part of our habit system, thus we adamantly refuse to engage with contrary ideas. Such things are a direct challenge to 'who we are', that is, to our ego. Our knowledge, to some degree, IS who we are.
My conscious self is not really in the driver's seat to the extent I prefer to think it is. Neither, I believe, is yours.
Few retain the neural plasticity enabling true learning or creative imagination beyond the formative years. Thus few truly new ideas arise from mature individuals in any field, specifically including the sciences. And we are far less adaptable to new ideas than we tend to believe ourselves to be.
As I wrote elsewhere recently, Ego > Sex > Food > Integrity. You may wish to alter the sequence of Sex and Food, but Ego always remains paramount.
Why should physicists risk investigating dangerous new ideas? The simple answer is 'because that is what thinkers do'. And in that direction lies the greatest chance of exciting discoveries.
With even small incremental gains in particle physics proving progressively more elusive and no clear path forward being apparent, why not have a quiet look at Ignis to see if there is really anything there? Do this as an interesting imaginative diversion at first, or even to ridicule what you find. Despite yourself you may discover an excitement you considered no longer possible for you.
Give it a try.
"A great nation is like a great man: When he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers. He thinks of his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts. If a nation is centred in the Tao, if it nourishes its own people and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others, it will be a light to all nations in the world:" Lao Tzu - Source: Tao Te Ching, Chapter 61
How do Einstein's 'packets of energy' FORCE molecules of matter apart in the process of thermal expansion?
Quite simply, on a regular repetitive basis each photon acquires momentary mass and charge.
For each photon, the acquired mass and charge are proportionate to its energy, which also determines its materialising repetition rate.
Photons MUST engage with matter via some mechanism that imparts FORCE to its molecules.
Physics has not yet explained how this comes about.
“..........the team think they'll be able to use it to detect unfathomably small amounts of drag caused by the 'friction' within a vacuum.” [Agnosco: The 'friction' in this experiment is likely to be between the rotating object and the photons of the laser suspending the material. With the photons of the Ignis model having mass and charge during the period of interaction with matter, the rotating object will encounter a force opposing its rotation as it causes the materialised photons of the laser to deviate from their previous path.]
“When the photons that make up light strike an object, they exert a tiny amount of force on it, known as radiation pressure.” [Agnosco: They call it this but have no idea of how it works. The Ignis photon with mass and charge explains this interaction.]
Feynman’s insistence on ordinary language recalls the statement attributed to Einstein about not really understanding something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. It is equally useful for testing the claims of others. If someone cannot explain something in plain English, then we should question whether they really do themselves understand what they profess…. In the words of Feynman, “It is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudoscience.”
Choose any of the currently espoused 'theories' and:
a). Attempt to visualize what is claimed to be happening, and
b). Attempt to describe the ideas in plain English without the aid of mathematics.
"All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, “What are light quanta?” Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself. - Albert Einstein
"When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge."— Albert Einstein
"For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is."— Albert Einstein
No comments:
Post a Comment