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 theory 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 theory.
It would be reasonable, I think, for me to seriously call into 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 and 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 some time ago, 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.”Lao Tzu - Source: Tao Te Ching,
No comments:
Post a Comment