It is a common belief that the knowledge of physics constitutes a stable, well-defined and consistent whole. Until proven otherwise, it is considered the greatest product of the human mind up to that point in time. It is considered a good thing that people believe that science exists as a compact and unique structure.
All teachers think this makes it easier to diffuse the methodologies of rational thought that we know by the name of “scientific thought.”
Even professors and physics teachers feel the need to believe – or at least give the impression of believing – in the existence and consistency of such a monolithic scientific structure. They would otherwise consider themselves at a psychological disadvantage in communicating the certainty of knowledge to their students.
Some professors, however, and among them some of the most active and interested in the status of their field are aware that the body of knowledge recognized as physics is about as consistent as custard with a very few hard and consistent lumps floating on top. And those who engage in research alongside their teaching or do only research are certainly conscious of how changeable the structure is.
Nonetheless, each of them would be ready to bet their lives at least on these hard lumps that have become established beyond any reasonable doubt and would never be willing to put them into question. This attitude might seem productive. It might seem a good way of keeping the foundations solid as the construction of scientific knowledge proceeds. But this is often a misleading illusion.
These clumps too are subject to transformations. They are foundation stones that can often be shifted, trimmed or modified to provide a better foundation as to how science is constructed.
At times it happens that the center of gravity with the scientific monolith shifts. This happens for reasons relating to the construction’s internal structure.
The fact is that science is not a single entity or structure. At the same time, many and diverse theories coexist that seek to explain the same phenomenons from different perspectives. These often conflict with one another and present opposing visions of science. Coexistence almost always proves difficult and is at times even impossible.
Two opposing perspectives have been at war since the 1920s over the physics of the basic building blocks of matter and radiation.
The one hand, quantum mechanics presented a probabilistic and indeterministic view of the physics of particles and fields. The other, the remains of the school inspired by Einstein views the same phenomenons in terms of causal connections among physical phenomenons.
It considers the search for such connections one of the basic pillars of any scientific investigation.
In an attempt to make one or the other vision predominate, the two parties have opposed one another for decades.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Jordan, Dirac and all the supporters of the so-called “Copenhagen School”, which promoted the probabilistic, corpuscular and indeterministic vision of particles and fields, on the one hand, and Einstein, Planck, de Broglie, Schrödinger, Bohm and all those who considered quantum mechanics’ vision incomplete on the other hand.
The latter committed themselves to the view that there could be a truly consistent and strictly causal explanation of the behavior of particles and fields. They believed and continue to believe that a microphysics can exist that investigates causal connections among physical phenomenons rather than merely the probability that they will occur.
The most illustrious victim to fall in the bloody conflict that followed was Einstein. Abandoned on the battlefield, Einstein was excluded from the mainstream, dismissed as obstinate and ultimately as an old man attached to obsolete 19th century models of causality at all costs.
After numerous, futile attempts to convince the supporters of the Copenhagen school of the risks arising from the indeterminism their choice involved, he forced himself to be silent.
He threw himself completely into his search for a new unitary theory that would demonstrate by means of its explicative powers that research into the causal connections among physical phenomenons was possible even at the microphysical level of the quantum world. He wished to use facts to demonstrate that quantum mechanics’ probabilistic description was incomplete.
He died after 30 years of fruitless research.
His strange failure frustrated him, but he remained firmly convinced that “God does not play dice”, as he wrote to the friends-enemies: Max Born and Niels Bohr.
By this he meant that the nature of microphysics could not be probabilistic. Einstein was never in doubt about the final outcome of the dispute. He was certain that a strictly causal unitary theory would one day be found, which would provide a complete and deterministic image of the world.
A few traces and some lean groups of partisans from Einstein’s faction survived this conflict. They continued to argue that quantum mechanics was incomplete. The other party however came out on top. It prevailed to such an extent that it could block any attempt to reopen discussion even of questions it was clearly unable to answer.
This happened in ancient Egypt, where a winning religious or political faction in a power struggle would erase the very memory that the opposing faction had existed. It destroyed the other faction’s statues and temples, and deleted the inscriptions that might have testified to its opponents’ very existence.
After its victory in the fight for scientific predominance, the Copenhagen School’s faction similarly sought to erase any surviving memory of Einstein’s thought from the universities, specialist journals and physics students’ minds. In its place, it presented its own interpretation of the world as if it were the only one and no alternative was possible.
One can try to understand the reasons and motives for this behavior by looking at the way physical knowledge developed, and methods physicists currently use to organize their collective knowledge. One can seek to explain the almost metaphysical aberrations that have become established in some current branches of the science and are spreading like an oil stain to the rest of scientific knowledge.
Kuhn is a great expert of the scientific methods. He justified the repeated changes in scientific approaches by introducing into the historical analysis of scientific methods an explicit distinction between periods of stasis that focus on the consolidation of scientific knowledge and revolutionary periods during which such knowledge develops rapidly.
For Kuhn, the hard clumps floating on the surface of the custard of physical knowledge taken together constitute the “paradigm” responsible for the stability of the periods of stasis.
During such periods, the body of knowledge extends horizontally and supports itself on existing solid and well-established foundations. The paradigm is applied to the entire field and provides explanations for as many phenomenons as possible.
The paradigm is periodically challenged. It may then be replaced by a new paradigm. A revolutionary explosion of new ideas then allows science to develop vertically and jump to the next level of generalization, which unifies and explains phenomenons that had remained inexplicable at the lower level.
Further construction of the structure of science sometimes makes it necessary to modify or even completely recreate the network of connections between the old and the new knowledges.
The links in the old network may establish vertical connections with the new network, but the new concepts that emerge often cannot coexist on the same plane in the new network.
Many historical examples demonstrate how these paradigm shifts at times destroy existing basic structures that had previously been considered untouchable to substitute them with other ones that are more solid and more general.
The old paradigm resists changes fiercely before it finally yields to the new.
Established groups interested in conserving the dominant paradigm often strenuously oppose the creation of a new one. This is a perfectly legitimate in most cases as it helps extend experimentation horizontally and enlarge the body of knowledge possible under the aegis of that paradigm.
At times, however, something happens that should never happen for the good of knowledge. We can today observe the phenomenon of science feeding on itself.
At times, scientists officially recognized as the most qualified and best trained and thus considered the most suitable to conserve the paradigm adjust so well to protecting the old that they can no longer recognize vertical pressure for a new paradigm.
The official protectors do not seem to wish even to admit the possibility that the old ideas might have to be changed or renewed. They refuse to give way even when gaps appear on all sides in the old paradigm as phenomenons emerge that it cannot explain.
Paradigm shifts are almost always preceded by long periods of crisis more or less recognized as such induced by discoveries of new phenomenons or the development of explanatory theories that have become more visible than the others.
At times, however, advocates of theories supported by the paradigm do not wish to recognize the crisis and attempt to explain things that are inexplicable in their theories.
To satisfy this abnormal desire to survive, paradigms are ready to make any sacrifice and fight everything and everyone. It seems to deny its own reason for existing, absorbing and minimizing alternative explanations even prejudicing the increase of knowledge.
As a result, to remain close to the paradigm of the moment, some theories are forced to go to great lengths to justify ever increasing numbers of experimental phenomenons that cannot be understood directly in the context of the current orthodoxy.
This was true of the epicycle theory proposed to preserve the Ptolemaic system. Increasingly precise observations of planetary orbits made it necessary to push the epicycles to a level of complexity that it became increasingly difficult to justify. The same thing is happening with many of the cosmological theories of astrophysics today from field theory to theories dealing with elementary particles.
Advocates of many such theories that remain incomplete in one way or the other had to leave a considerable number of problems unresolved in order to be allowed to continue research at all. They left out passages that failed to satisfy them logically along the way and presented possible phenomenons that could not be justified conceptually. And they deduced impossible experimental proofs and revealed other embarrassing signs of their own inability to describe a world that failed to conform to their pretense of coherence and rationality.
The possibility has even been mentioned that the human mind might be incapable of comprehending the world of micro- and mega-phenomenons fully. This was used to suggest that the concept of research into a partial and non-unitary vision of reality might be justified and at times even inevitable.
The most serious problem is that this orthodoxy is passing off as important and fundamental revelations extremely brilliant sophisms based on physical models that are unverifiable “on principle” with the claim that they are true and real scientific theories.
They present models of various levels of hypothetical structures each based incorrectly on the other in a highly complex acrobatics act. An acrobatics act they want to use to pass off phenomenons without any basis in reality and paper castles built on clouds as sublime creations of the human mind.
They have constructed enormous and complex theoretical structures based on hypothetical assumptions and then base still further theoretical assumptions on these that they pass off as concrete scientific constructs.
Painted balloons passed off as heavy granite balls.
Quarks, gluons, fractional electrical charges, magnetic monopoles and Higgs bosons should normally be presented as elements of a taxonomy or cataloguing system ascribing specific characteristics and qualities to the properties of the elements yet to be discovered.
Instead, they are presented as actual real “elementary particles” made up of an ever increasing number of components, whose existence we would only be able to perceive using accelerators as big as the solar system or galaxy.
In cosmology, we are seeing a rapid increase in the number of unverifiable universes of unimaginable dimensions in which the phantoms of the least irrational minds will circulate.
More than one generation of astrophysicists has been talking to us about “black holes” for twenty or more years. They tell us that the hypothesis of their existence is predicted by an extreme extrapolation of the dictates of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
This is a shameless deceit as it intentionally ignores Einstein’s own repeated warnings to astrophysicists to be careful in pushing the validity of his own theory to the extreme.
The failure of attempts to provide an observational basis for the elusive “black holes” has forced the aforementioned astrophysicists to attribute to them visible evidence from completely unrelated sources simply to make them observable in some way.
In the wake of these same unfounded extrapolations on the theory of general relativity, decades of research have been used to investigate the first micro nano and pico-seconds in a big blunder that is supposed to mark the beginning of the universe with no initial physical causes in a mythical “big bang”.
The whole construct is crowned by a mass of inconclusive theories that are at best probable or possible, but that cannot possibly admit the existence of any alternative theory, and yet cannot possibly be verified itself.
Super-unitary theories are put forward on the basis of hypothetical macro-condensations of gravitational energy (close relatives to black holes). Superstrings’ theories are described in five or six different versions that cannot possibly be distinguished from one another. Fables are told about expanding universes and other strange animals inhabiting an unbounded zoo in which only those theories are acceptable which cannot be demonstrated.
All empty bottles bearing enticing labels that glorifying contents which do not exist!
Up to now, there has been no other option but to criticize. Some authors made courageous and isolated attempts to criticize that often led to their ostracism. These people frequently found themselves cut off from research funds and at times even denied the right to teach.
No one listened to these voices, which were isolated deliberately from the normal means of communication and excluded from conferences. The most important specialist scientific journals all refused their articles.
These journals, the officially recognized channels of scientific communication, are dominated by a rigid lobby of referees: specialist critics who enjoy the editors’ confidence. They are supposed to be impartial, but, as physicists who have enjoyed success within the dominant paradigm, they are impudently partisan by definition. They in fact consider themselves the guardiane of orthodoxy and defenders of the direction the mainstream is flowing, even if it has become reduced to a muddy stream.
Dissidents’ voices often fall silent when they encounter too many obstacles. They become aware that the fight they have undertaken is unequal and rejoin the ranks, bow their heads and forget their sacrosanct objections in some hidden corner.
The paradigm resists unmoved, strong in its dominance over all the world’s universities, strong in its possession of the most sophisticated research tools, strong in the funding and powerful support of the powerful people. It ensures its security by rigorously controlling the distribution of scientific discourse and opposing dissidents with strict censorship.
The history of past scientific revolutions teaches us that none of the ideas that have governed science has ever survived untouched the repeated revolutions that have taken place in the way we understand the world.
Political revolutionaries can be thrown into prison, but it is almost impossible to put all the minds and ideas of scientific revolutionaries in chains. Sooner or later, the new ideas will emerge despite proscriptions and isolation.
The unrest and first skirmishes of the imminent revolution have already been in the air for some time.
Quantum mechanics and the whole pantheon of theories that surround it is about to be replaced by a better theory that is more complete and has greater explanatory power.
An alternative has now finally emerged.
It is finally possible to present a new theory that is more advanced than quantum mechanics and will do justice to Einstein and his determinism and to his dedicated research in the unified field theory. The new theory will justify de Broglie’s and Schrödinger’s wave interpretation and Bohm’s hidden parameters.
It will also show the correctness of Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminism in the opposition’s camp and of his last contested doubts about the continuity of space-time.
A new unitary theory of physics has been born, that seeks to establish a new paradigm that will justify everything which has been learned in classical and quantum mechanics in a coherent, rational and above all comprehensible fashion. It presents phenomenons and new laws that predict new experimental phenomenons in a new context.
This theory interprets all the phenomenons described by quantum mechanics in human terms and in a new comprehensible language. It constructs a coherent theory to describe elementary particles that eliminates the inconsistency in the singularities of fields with mass and charge. It provides a unitary causal explanation for all the fields of astrophysics and cosmology that have abandoned observed and experimental reality to lose themselves in Pindaric hyperbole which transcends the Galilean spirit.
The new theory has already demonstrated itself capable of predicting new phenomenons which it can interpret in connection with phenomenons already known in the light of a single, unique and new physical principle.
The new theory has already existed for a while, it was created over a period of 30 years and has been published since 1984, in a book whose title evokes the dream long pursued by Einstein: “Il Campo Unificato” “The Unified Field”. We have documentary evidence that it already existed several years earlier, however.
It is called: Wave Field Theory, (title of the second and enlarged book published in 1989). It has also already made several unpublished predictions. One of these, for example, provides a theoretical basis for the phenomenons observed in the controversial “cold fusion” experiments.
Another of its predictions provides a coherent justification for the discovery of the existence of an interactive repulsive fifth force, a kind of “antigravity” of which some American researchers at Purdue University have found evidence. This evidence was subsequently confirmed in other embarrassing experiments that have not been publicized or accepted by the official physics establishment as it cannot be justified in the context of official theory.
These predictions made as consequences of the new theory have already been confirmed in recent years, but no one shows any sign of knowing Wave Field Theory. Nor is anyone willing to take it into consideration, despite numerous orthodox and unorthodox attempts already undertaken to make it known.
The official scientific establishment ignores it. No one wants to raise doubts about ideas considered to have been fully established. Even if this would reveal knowledge of nature’s greatest secrets and achieve dreams which the official physics establishment itself considers impossible.
How is a new scientific theory supposed to become known and be judged if it cannot reveal itself to the rest of the intellectual and cultural community?
In this new attempt, I will address the public directly in a popular but not a truncated or reductive style. I charge the public to judge whether the new theory can make us understand nature in its comprehensible complexity.
They will consider this to be the greatest insult.
The author has disqualified himself in the orthodox establishment’s eyes which considers itself the only possible judge in scientific questions.
There is no other alternative, however. Too much time has already been lost.
This book offers careful readers who need not possess specialized scientific training the data, ideas, alternatives and simple and comprehensible models on which to base their judgement.
Using Wave Field Theory, we will make clear within a single model the way in which elementary particles interact, their relationships to the phenomenons of atomic theory and the resulting connections with the rest of physics and demonstrate the resulting links with the rest of the universe in terms of a strictly causal sequence.
Like all things which have universal validity, this is a simple and elegant theory. It is even beautiful and would have pleased Einstein, who had a developed sense of aesthetics in his research work.
This new theory completes the use of geometry in physics begun by Einstein with the theory of General Relativity. It is an easy theory to understand, because its models can be represented graphically using geometry.
In this theory, almost all mathematical formulas describing the interactions between matter and radiation can be substituted or supplemented with images and explanations that can be understood in normal everyday language.
We have been told for years that mathematics is the language of physics. And they tell us that the extreme complexity of elementary physics today unfortunately only allows them to share vague shadows of the complex reality of scientific knowledge with ordinary mortals. Only specialists can understand science as a whole, they tell us, as only they know the sophisticated mathematics required to describe it fully.
This is very often just mystification ornamented with obvious truths. It is a trap into which many specialists have themselves fallen by allowing mathematical models to guide them as they create their physical models. As they groped along behind these models, they often lost contact with physical reality. They then found themselves blindly following mathematical developments that had less and less connection with the realities they wanted to illustrate.
A perfect situation for physicists involved in radical speculations about particle physics and astrophysicists exploring the extreme limits of relativistic developments in cosmological hypotheses that often cannot be justified by General Relativity itself as von Neumann told mathematicians in 1947:
“When a mathematical discipline becomes too distanced from its empirical sources or, what is worse, when two or three generations receive inspiration solely indirectly from “reality”, it runs extremely grave risks.
It increasingly becomes a purely aesthetic activity, an “art for art’s sake” (. . .) and there is grave danger that the discipline will develop along the course of least resistance. So far from its source, the stream may separate into a multitude of insignificant branches and that discipline could become a disorganized mass of details and complex notions.”
What von Neumann feared might happen to mathematicians then has become reality for physicists today. They now obstinately (and often exclusively) manipulate formulas and have abandoned the indispensable investigation of ideas with a physical content in a stubborn search for a necessarily mathematical proof.
Without physical models that have been thought out and are essentially comprehensible to refer to, mathematical investigations of potential developments in a theory can lead one wildly astray. It can take us so far from reality that the human mind can no longer comprehend anything.
This is what has already happened and what is still happening now. This betrays science’s very purpose. Science is supposed to be a tool by which humans can know the nature of the universe.
The fact that nature still appears incomprehensible to us after we have investigated it is not the fault of some characteristic intrinsic to nature. It is due to a fundamental error in the methods we have used to investigate it.
Of course, none of the current paradigm’s defenders would ever admit that contemporary physics is currently facing a comprehension barrier as it investigates the primary elements of matter. Or that it is offering us the unpleasant prospect of having to examine an infinite set of Chinese puzzles consisting of particles within particles within other particles ad infinitum.
Similarly no cosmologist or astrophysicist would accept that the Standard Model, which implies the existence of the big bang, is facing the ultimate antiscientific wall, by definition, of creating the entire universe out of nothing, outside time in an absurd, infinite “inflationary” instant.
Anyone who wishes to give meaning to the expression “search for knowledge” will have to hope to be able somehow to get around this wall. In a search for possible alternatives, we can turn back along the path already traveled to search for the tracks that led us astray.
In Einstein’s view, the error was basic. The scientific world accepted a theory like Quantum Mechanics, whose very structure forced it to limit scientific investigation to the interpretation of observed data without accepting the underlying support of the principle of causality.
The invention of new mathematical algorithms had made it possible to achieve significant experimental results in predicting new phenomenons at the quantum level. But it had made it impossible to understand these same phenomenons in terms of cause and effect.
We will now present a new theory which, while it achieves the same results as quantum mechanics, provides a comprehensible image of the same phenomenons of cause and effect that by definition quantum mechanics could not examine.
Wave Field Theory has discovered new phenomenons in the quantum field. It provides comprehensible causal links and explanations for even those phenomenons located on the current frontiers of physics.
We will not reject assistance from mathematics in this new theory. But we will undertake a mathematical description of the relationships among phenomenons and physical models using geometry almost exclusively.
Geometrical figures will almost always allow us to create intellectual models of the phenomenons under investigation in which cause and Effect can be seen in the interplay of logical links.
The connection between the graphic representation and the physical reality of the phenomenon will be linked each time to the knowledge we already have of the physical phenomenons, but this knowledge will not necessarily condition it.
We depend to a great extent on the logic of representative models. A geometric figure may be the expression of sophisticated mathematics, but it is unlikely to be the product of a comprehensible model if it has no direct relationship with the reality it seeks to illustrate.
The new Wave Theory of the Field assumes the existence of only one entity: the discrete space-time.
The whole world of our experiences and the interactions between matter and radiation derives from this single assumption. The properties ascribed to discrete space-time make it possible to introduce the symmetry principle, from which we derive all the behaviors of the elementary masses as the sources of fields.
This leads us to the unexpected discovery of the local nature of inertia, and provides a consistent explanation of gravitational fields that is comprehensible and uses both wave and quantum theory.
We then pass to a higher level of generalization and discover the isotropic principle that encompasses the symmetry principle and also explains the wave-like nature of charges and electromagnetic radiation subject to a single condition.
We derive the other interactions already known in a causal and coherent fashion and justify the phenomenons already known, predict new ones and explain the laws that line them to the various chains of cause and Effect.
The creation of a comprehensible and exclusively wave model of elementary particles leads us to a coherent analysis of the properties and structure of particles and their products in terms of waves and a description of the various phases of their existence.
The explanatory results we can deduce from matter as basic as simple space-time make them seem more credible.
The simplicity of representing them tells us, in a new language, about the wave-like nature of elementary particles and the wave laws that determine their reciprocal interactions. We finally find a rational and “totally causal” model of the atom, which can be used to describe the phenomenons of emissions as they really occur by following them step by step along a perfectly comprehensible deterministic path.
The models used to justify the new unitary principles reveal that the same laws that govern behavior at the micro level can be applied to phenomenons at the macro level in the universe.
The laws determine the structure and life cycles of the stars, the formation and actual shapes of galaxies and the evolution of galaxies shoots and, among other things, prove that the “missing mass” – a source of embarrassment for every cosmologist today – does not exist.
The deduction of the existence of a new fifth repulsive gravity interaction on the basis of models developed by Wave Field Theory provided us with plausible and coherent grounds for stating that black holes are impossible and the big bang useless.
This Antigravity Fifth Force provides a rational explanation for the escape of the galaxies and the existence of low energy isotropic or so-called “fossil radiation”, which was thought to remain from the improbable first instants of the creation of the entire universe out of nothing.
A different interpretation of the most controversial astronomical observations based on the principles of the new theory provides us with a rational model of the true nature of “quasars” and the many other marvels observed that up to now have remained inexplicable. The theory leads us toward a single image of the universe, which is finally comprehensible.
Some astrophysicists who are aware of the field’s current inability to describe cutting edge phenomenons in causal terms would prefer to resolve current paradoxes in a way that would allow them to remain as close as possible to the theories currently considered orthodox. They would prefer not to try to put together explanations that depend on new assumptions that may prove “arbitrary”.
The ideal would of course be to employ the laws known to physics and apply them to the “real” observations made by astrophysics and particle physics rather than to create ad hoc new laws to justify these observations.
It would be even worse, however, to theorize “opportune” observations that do not upset the framework of the laws known to physics. It is thus not always possible or at times even desirable to employ current laws in every case to explain “every” observation.
When current knowledge no longer suffices to explain new physical phenomenons, it becomes necessary to revise the entire framework and reestablish where necessary the basic structures.
To justify his theory of gravitation, Newton refunded the laws of the contemporary dynamics and even reconstructed the mathematical structures needed to describe it practically from nothing. He then invented the theory of gravitation and, on the basis of that same dynamic, revolutionized cosmology and provided a theoretical basis for the observations of the Copernican system.
Einstein achieved practically the same thing. He dethroned Newton and disposed the whole dynamic to extend its explanatory capacities beyond familiar observations and used relativity to provide a theoretical explanation of phenomenons that could not previously have been explained and predicted new ones.
If we have learned anything from them, we must say that where a leap is needed to overcome an obstacle, there is no point in walking. To make such a leap, however, it is necessary to fulfill specific conditions and not enough to create hypotheses constructed solely to describe a particular sequence of observations.
When the compromises one has to make to justify the unjustifiable become too difficult, one must have the courage to begin again from scratch.
It was not by chance that Newton and Einstein had to reconstruct a Dynamics that could support the improved quality of their interpretations of the links among observed facts. It was clear to them that it would only be possible to enlarge the structure if they could modify its foundations.
The same is now true for Wave Field Theory. The new theory ushers in a new and more extensive dynamics with an explanatory power which combines the previous dynamics with relativistic, quantum dynamics and electrodynamics.
A new Dynamics is drawn from macroscopic systems including an undulatory Quantum Gravity and a repulsive fifth force that has macroscopic effects on the great concentrations of mass. At the same time, we achieve a consistent explanation of the families of elementary particles, their properties and all their interactions.
Is this too good to be true? Yes, and really too much for a man who is still on his own.
It really is too much, but we cannot reject it just because it is too much, if everything comes out to us on the basis of a “single” physical principle as a result of a simple only human change in the hypothesis of the continuity of space-time.
If we change the assumption of continuity that up to now has conditioned our understanding of physics and assume that space-time is discontinuous rather than continuous, we are able to use the same laws to describe the structure of elementary particles and the evolving shape of the galaxies, the significance of the wave-nature of the fine structure constant, the missing mass in the galaxies, the true nature of quasars and many other phenomenons, situations, actions and structures.
This involves the entire field of physics at all levels.
Is this really too much? Is it impossible?
No! It really is like this. I ask only that you read what I have written, discuss it, ask questions, refute it even, but do not reject it a priori without looking at it.
As you can easily imagine, it is very difficult or almost impossible for a theory like this to end up in a specialized journal. As I have already noted more than once, however, no one has ever raised a serious argument to challenge what I say.
Almost everyone says that a theory like this cannot exist without reading it let alone analyzing it in detail.
On the other hand, everyone who has seen its application to one of the many problematic phenomenons in microphysics has realized how relevant and coherent it is.
No one who represents the established institutions has yet been able to analyze it in detail for the simple reason that each of them – with a sense of group solidarity that is all too easy to see through – seems unable to conceive that such a Theory could exist.
Some other intellectual will have to accept the challenge now.
I look to you, reader, in the hope that you have retained enough intellectual autonomy to be able to reopen discussion of things you always thought you already knew but did not understand fully.
When they made you doubt yourself, they trapped you. You can understand everything. No aspect of knowledge is inaccessible to you “on principle”.
- If you have no career to defend at the cost of truth,
- if you have no reputation to keep up at the cost of coherence,
- if you need to discover in order to understand,
- if you need to understand in order to know.
This is the time to satisfy your rational instinct’s most intimate need. It certainly will not be easy. You will have to exercise your mind in this new field. You will have to subject your brain to your desire to understand. But in the end you will find yourself with a new and more highly developed awareness of yourself and your relationships with the world.
I like to imagine the relationship between us has been clear up to now. When I express some idea as author, or make a request using the plural, I am certainly not using the “royal we”.
“We” means the “I” who am writing and “you” who are reading. In my hopes and fantasy, you also feel the need that is shared by all rational thinkers.
The reader in my utopian dream shares my vision and the concept of coherence that results from it. Insane delusion? Of course!
But a willingness on your part to try to understand constitutes an essential prerequisite for any dialogue between us that is focused on the evidence.
Let me take you by the hand and let us think together.