Chapter 21. Last Remarks.
This report has three levels of postulates.
-
The unifying K particle and the principles of Forces by Proxy. These postulates must
be proven to be fairly correct for this theory to make sense. They constitute the basic hypothesis
of this report.
-
The specific models for the basic forces depend on the basic postulates. These models
are quite central in the theory, but major adjustments can be tolerated without undermining the
whole theory.
-
The models for galaxies, stars and forces in cosmos also requires that the basic
postulates proves to be true, and they are partly also based on the specific models for the basic
forces. Much depends on whether the existence of the postulated repulsive plasma bodies can be
proven. Hence, the models presented from chapter 12 have the uncertainty of the individual model
per se, and additional uncertainty because it is based on a hypothesis (non-verified theory).
These models are quite bold in their statements, and they are shown here despite their risk of not
being correct, because I want to show some possible, far reaching consequences of the basic
postulates, which can explain several anomalies in astrophysics.
Standing alone, every sub-model seems improbable. Seen together, the totality of the sub-models
makes perfect sense. Therefore, it has been difficult for me to present bits and pieces of this theory
through a scientific magazine, since the theory only makes sense when it all comes together. The task of
bringing every sub-model to the highest scientific level is formidable. For the advances of physics it is
better that the whole community can take advantage of this model now, instead of using years to perfect it
before releasing it. Therefore, the model is made available for the public in this rather raw format, while
much work remains undone regarding testing, verification and mathematical formulation of the model.
The lack of specific models in physics has jeopardised our understanding of our world, leaving
it up to increasingly more complex mathematical models to explain the fundamental parts of nature. This
situation has opened up for speculations about magnificent phenomena. Explaining the world down to its
smallest details – as our model does – will demystify physics. It is hard to make time travels according to
general relativity, when relativity is only a matter of K-flux deviation. And the mystical nature of the
uncertainty principle is just statistical variations in K-flux, not an inherent uncertainty in nature per
se.
Our new model of the universe may not be quite so exciting, but this is a small price to pay in
order to know the exact way nature works, and even have a model that is fairly easy to understand. Only then
can we make the breakthroughs in science needed to meet the challenges of a rapidly more complex and
difficult situation on Earth.
The Trouble with Physics.
Professor Lee Smolin, ph.d. from Harvard, teacher at Yale and
Penn. State , and cofounder of The Perimeter Institute, has written several books in physics.
In ”The Trouble with Physics” (Houghton Mifflin 2006) he takes a critical look at the current
position of physics, scrutinising every aspect of it.
In Chapter 18 he ends up with the conclusion:
”We are missing something big … someone has to either
recognize a wrong assumption we have all been making or ask a new question.”
He then gives some thought to recruitment to physics, and how open the community of physicists
is for new ideas;
”Do we have a system that
allows someone capable of ferreting out the wrong assumption or asking the right question into the community
of people we support, and equally important, listen to?”
He points out that to qualify as a physicist, you must be extremely good at math. Quite often
the attitude is that students shall ”shut up and calculate” as he expresses it. But neither Einstein nor Bohr
excelled in that respect. They were creative visionaries.
Mara Beller, a historian who has studied Bohr’s work in detail, points out that
"there
were not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal arguments and
pictures.”
Smolin about what it takes to innovate:
”Science is based on a paradigm….A scientific revolution
happens when the paradigm breaks down… We are indeed in a revolutionary period, but are we trying to get out
of it using the inadequate tools and organization of normal science?”
Smolin gives some examples on how little reward there is for being a visionary in science. It is
rather counterproductive with regard to career advancement.
”If even the most honoured visionaries are not taken
seriously once they begin to question basic assumptions, you can imagine how well people fare who are
visionaries but not lucky enough to have made substantial contribution first”
Then on the question of recruitment:
“ It’s not hard to pick out the people with daring ideas
– they have almost always had at least a few such ideas already.”… “the payoff could be discovering how the universe works.”
Do you have any comments? Click HERE
You are currently on page: Last Remarks
Previous page: The Michelson-Morley
experiment Next page: The Birth of a
Theory
|