Null Physics?

[foofighter]

I keep seeing ads in astronomy magaine and other popular science publications for this book written by some guy who claims that he has all the answers that all the string theories don't - he claims that his picture of reality is complete and doesn't need anything to be plugged in ad hoc, such as constants. I'm no physics expert - however such grandiose claims always cause me to raise an eyebrow. Has anyone read this book (which I think is only available from the author's website, nullphysics.com), and if so, does it stand up to critical review? Or are his claims like those of TV infomercials?

[fredrik]

Never heard of it. And checking that website definitely does not give me a sufficient reason to motivate a purchase.

 

/Fredrik

[ajb]

Unless it becomes published by a reputable publisher and/or in a peer review journal and/or becomes well supported by the physics community I would leave it alone.

[CaptainPanic]

Are those the guys of 'the electric universe'?

 

I do believe that the role of electricity and magnetism might be underestimated by popular theories.

[ajb]

The only (classical) theory of electricity and magnetism is Maxwell's Electromagnetism. (may be various approximations).

[swansont]

The reviews are all from non-physicists, (including ranting about DOGMA) and the background/overview sounds like the standard "physics doesn't answer my metaphysical questions about things" misunderstanding. Working in isolation for 25 years with no publications. Doesn't sound promising. Not something I'm going to spend my money on.

 

 

There seems to be an extensive discussion of it on the JREF forum

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94861

[fredrik]

Not something I'm going to spend my money on.

 

I keep seeing ads in astronomy magaine

 

Perhaps a first question is what kind of magazines are you spending time and money on that gives you ideas on what to spend further money on?

 

/Fredrik

[foofighter]

that is what is so unbelievable - i saw it in Astronomy magazine - i thought it was reputable, and i think it is - but all these mags in order to make money will sell ads to anyone i guess.

[fredrik]

Perhaps. I don't read that magazine, except possibly once or twice at the denist waiting room. My general experience is that the colourful and "designed" magazines aren't the best place to get good info, except if you want to see nice pictures or illustrations. But I shouldn't say too much about that specific magazine because I never read it.

 

As for science stuff, I personally mainly buy standard textbooks. On rare occasions i've payed for online articles.

 

I have not principal problem with unknown authors or non-mainstream ideas, but still it's up to my own judgement to decide what information I want to process. There are a sea of information out there, and one can easily drown in them unless one can rate what to consume and not to.

 

I'd say at best, that website does a poor job of selling me whatever answers he is providing.

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

"Null Physics is not a mathematical model, and as such it does not, and does not need to, reduce mathematically to other mathematical models."

 

Ugh.

 

I find it not at all surprising that the take-down of the book over at JREF sounds exactly like things we discuss here in speculations, and that the defense of what the "new theory" is and isn't supposed to be all about is exactly like stuff that gets put into the speculations section.

 

i.e. ask for specific predictions and falsifiability, and get a whole bunch of evasion on why that isn't part of the "theory"

 

The thing is, "explanations" are easy. There's mention of how a neutron is just a proton and electron stuck to each other, or something similar, neutrinos as “bound states of photons”, and mesons as “high-energy” states of electrons. But what interests physicists is how you test to see of these explanations are valid, and to do that, you need experiments that generate relevant data. Without that, it's just fluff.

[Reality Check]

See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist:

http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html

 

Also see my review at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html

The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:

• Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
  
• Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
  
• A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
  
• Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
  
• Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.
  

Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.

[Tom Vose]

In case people here do not know what null physics concerning the photon, it means, the following.

 

The photon does have a non-zero 4 momentum [math]P^{\mu}[/math] and a certain non-zero 3 momentum [math]P^{i}[/math]. So the photon accordining to the special laws of relativity, moves along a null trajectory (so it experiences a zero path through time, which according yet again to relativity, has no movement through space itself.) So but in the quantum bible, of the energy [math]E[/math] and the 3-momentum this is [math]P^{\mu}P_{\mu}=0[/math], so the respective modulus of 3 momentum is [math]E^2+P^2=0[/math].

Edited December 19, 2008 by Tom Vose

[swansont]

Null Physics is a crackpot physics book. That's the topic under discussion here.

[Reaper]

ANYWAYS, back on topic.

 

I keep seeing ads in astronomy magaine and other popular science publications for this book written by some guy who claims that he has all the answers that all the string theories don't - he claims that his picture of reality is complete and doesn't need anything to be plugged in ad hoc, such as constants. I'm no physics expert - however such grandiose claims always cause me to raise an eyebrow. Has anyone read this book (which I think is only available from the author's website, nullphysics.com), and if so, does it stand up to critical review? Or are his claims like those of TV infomercials?

 

 

You might want to read this book review from MIT press, it does a very good job explaining all of the horrid details, so that you don't have to :

 

http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html

 

Don't worry, your suspicions about this book aren't misguided; this book is complete trash:

 

In other words' date=' if you've bothered reading this far: my professional physicist's opinion is that Terence Witt's book, "Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics, the Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality" is worthless and unreadable crackpottery. Trying to find sensible physics insights in this book is like trying to glean advice about aerospace engineering from a hypnotized UFO abductee.

[/quote']

[north]

Unless it becomes published by a reputable publisher and/or in a peer review journal and/or becomes well supported by the physics community I would leave it alone.

 

I disagree

 

too keep an open mind is important

 

peer reviews and the physics community can be politically motivated

 

therefore bias

[Bignose]

I disagree

 

too keep an open mind is important

 

peer reviews and the physics community can be politically motivated

 

therefore bias

 

While people are human, with all their flaws, you really have to have a negatively slanted view to think that the entire community behaves as you suggest.

 

It really is a simple hurdle that had to be jumped in order to be accepted -- there has to be evidence to support the idea. That is it. The new idea has to be able to explain all the known phenomena at least as well as the current idea. The new idea has have some experiment, or some math, something that says that, yes, this could be the answer.

 

I've written it before, and I'm sure I'm going to write it again, but the vast majority of scientists I know would salivate at the chance to work on something brand new. To work towards discovering something that has never been discovered before. The chance of discovering something that has never been discovered before is one of the primary motivations people become scientists in the first place!

 

But these same people aren't going to run with something just because it makes for a good story, or because a group of people ardently believe in it! There has to be evidence that backs up the idea. Otherwise it is rejected. This is nothing personal. But, indeed it is biased -- it is biased toward following the ideas that are best supported by the existing evidence. No evidence -- no publication in scientific journals. It is really that simple.

 

It makes me very angry when people write garbage accusing the community of this nonsense. Every single scientist is looking for something new -- that's the whole point of science! But, they only follow things that are new AND are supported by evidence. It isn't like buying a new shirt just because it's new, or getting a new set of golf clubs just because they are new -- new science is only acceptable and only becomes science when it is supported for evidence. It isn't acceptable just because it is new. If there is evidence for the new idea, it will get published. It may not be trumpeted as the next great thing in physics (or engineering to math or whatever) -- but it will be published.

 

If it has evidence behind it, it will be published. If it doesn't have evidence behind it, it will not be published. End of story.

 

------------

 

Speaking of which, is there actually any evidence of this supposed bias by the community? Can you cite any theory, ever, that wasn't published solely because of the person who presented it? That is, specifically, can you cite any idea that had significant amounts of corroborating evidence, and no significant evidence that clearly indicated it was wrong, and was a truly testable and falsifiable theory? If you know of one, please enlighten me. Otherwise, this "biased community" hypothesis of yours just bites the dust like so many other unsupported hypotheses. And rightfully so.

[Sara]

Here is an open-minded review of Null Physics. Everyone in the scientific community seems very upset over the book. Some readers have even spent their valuable time tracking down Mr. Witt online and posting reviews every time they see his name. I wonder why? Is it because Witt has discovered something important they don't want the world to read about? Dr. Morse's review is very fair. Every review should bring out the positives and the negatives. He also does not use the word "crackpot." I've never featured out what a crackpot is anyway.

 

He also has some very interesting points about James Randi on his web site as well.

 

Sara

 

OUR UNDISCOVERED UNIVERSE BY TERENCE WITT

 

BOOK REVIEW BY MELVIN L MORSE MD FAAP

 

SPIRITUALSCIENTIFIC.COM

 

Just when you thought you were starting to understand quantum physics, here comes Terence Witt with Our Undiscovered Universe in which he challenges virtually all the accepted assumptions underlying our current perception of reality. Terence Witt’s Universe is infinite, timeless (no beginning and no end), with no Big Bang, no accelerating galaxies away from the center, and no sub-sub atomic particles such as quarks. Instead, he postulates that the Universe consists of nothing! This is why he calls his theory “Null Physics”. But not just empty space, not that kind of nothing. Terence Witt’s view of the Universe is that is consists entirely of curved space, gravity, and energy forming a complex balance of matter and anti-matter, energy and dark energy, all adding up to nothing at all.

 

I love this sort of book as it forces scientists to re-examine their most cherished assumptions. As a physician-consciousness researcher, I have used the quantum non-local reality physical reality model as the best fit to understand our current scientific concepts of consciousness. However, Witt’s book forces all of us to re-examine everything that we believe to be real. I am not qualified to do the math needed to critically evaluate his book, but my best guess is that ultimately he will be proven wrong. He is so thoughtful and thought provoking, however, that the book is well worth it for the hours of discussion it has provoked between me, my wife, and friends.

 

It is clear, well organized and simply written. It is often funny. You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand his basic concepts. He presents a broad comprehensive theory of reality which incorporates subatomic reality, ordinary reality, and the latest understandings of astronomy and cosmology. He has great lines such as describing modern physicists as being so astonished by their experimental findings that they have become “infused with a hysterical mysticism”.

 

He does a great job of summarizing the basic principles of quantum physics in one of the best and succinct presentations I have read for the non-physicist. He accurately points out the many flaws in the current scientific model and he nicely outlines the mainstream understanding of the difficulties in creating a coherent unified theory of reality given the constraints of the current paradigm. Let’s face it, there is plenty of room within modern theoretical physics for Witt’s Null Physics, given that many no longer feel the Big Bang is a viable theory and mainstream physicists state the Universe is made mostly of “dark energy” and “dark matter” and that we have no idea what they are.

 

His critics are legion, yet mainly consist of anonymous chat room “experts” and graduate level physicists who have not read his book. The substance of their criticism consists mainly of repetitively chanting “crack pot, crack pot” over and over again. Sort of a Lord of Flies meets the Internet gone really really bad. As Harold Bloom points out in The Lucifer Principle, “the most insubstantial things we call ideas . .can lead to the basest cruelties.” I have reviewed the websites of Witt’s critics and understand their concerns. These primarily young men are in the process of establishing themselves within their fields. It takes a sense of confidence and maturity to read Witt’s book which most people are going to completely disagree with. By challenging our basic beliefs, Witt forces a healthy re-examination of the fundamental assumptions of modern physics and a greater understanding of whatever model of reality we ultimately end up with.

 

I have written peer reviewed articles with theoretical physicists, and I showed the book to them. They hemmed and hawed, and muttered ridiculous, and yet ended with a healthy respect for what Witt is trying to accomplish. One internationally recognized theoretical physicist told me that “he is totally wrong, really doesn’t get it at all. However, if he is right, he is on the right track, I would work on his math, some of it needs complete revisions, but for a first effort, not bad, not bad at all.” It is telling that he declined me to allow his name to be used, given the controversy the book has created. Scientific American has recently decided to refuse Witt’s advertisements for his book, a sad commentary of the power of the current Scientific Fundamentalist movement (see side bar). No one wants to offend them or they too will have to suffer an Internet onslaught of chanting science drones.

 

As a scientist who challenged the medical model of consciousness by documenting the near death experiences of children, I will always have a soft spot for intelligent outsiders who dare to take on the scientific status quo. My theories of consciousness are now well accepted enough that they have been replicated by other scientists, and published in the American Medical Association Medical Journals, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The United Nations recently launched a multi-medical center study of near death experiences, yet 25 years ago I was also dismissed as a crackpot.

 

Ultimately, I am not sure if Mr. Witt’s theories will stand the test of time. It is not my field, and stranger things have happened in the history of science. However, I do know I learned a lot from reading his book, and it stimulated me to rethink my own theories of reality.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Sara

[swansont]

Everyone in the scientific community seems very upset over the book. Some readers have even spent their valuable time tracking down Mr. Witt online and posting reviews every time they see his name. I wonder why? Is it because Witt has discovered something important they don't want the world to read about?

 

Perhaps it's because the claims are without merit, and these people feel an obligation to point this out. Silence can sometimes be viewed as tacit agreement. It's the same reason some scientists spend time debunking creationism.

 

Dr. Morse's review is very fair. Every review should bring out the positives and the negatives.

 

Why? If the work is fundamentally flawed, having some positive qualities will not salvage it. The reviewer isn't a physicist and admits that he is unqualified to evaluate the math and science. We're supposed to buy it for the jokes?

[Reaper]

Speaking of which, is there actually any evidence of this supposed bias by the community? Can you cite any theory, ever, that wasn't published solely because of the person who presented it? That is, specifically, can you cite any idea that had significant amounts of corroborating evidence, and no significant evidence that clearly indicated it was wrong, and was a truly testable and falsifiable theory? If you know of one, please enlighten me. Otherwise, this "biased community" hypothesis of yours just bites the dust like so many other unsupported hypotheses. And rightfully so.

 

Well, I hate to rain down on all your parades, but there actually is a real life example of this happening.

 

Although, I will note that this was done mostly out of political reasons, rather than scientific. Regardless, this is something that one does have to keep an eye out for, because it has happened in the past.

[swansont]

Well, I hate to rain down on all your parades, but there actually is a real life example of this happening.

 

Although, I will note that this was done mostly out of political reasons, rather than scientific. Regardless, this is something that one does have to keep an eye out for, because it has happened in the past.

 

Except those works were published, just not in Germany. It was local, and not related to the material. What is proposed here is a global suppression of an idea, because "they" do not want you to know "the truth."

 

———

 

In rereading the review, I have to wonder — if Dr. Morse is not schooled in physics, how does he know he learned a lot from reading the book? I mean, if you "learn" that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes, have you actually learned anything?

[Bignose]

As I said, Reaper, people are human with all the inherent flaws of humanity. And, as also pointed out, the papers were published, just not in the top journals in Germany. It would end up being the same thing with any new theory today. Unless it is exceptionally well supported by evidence, any brand new alternative theory today would end up being published in smaller low-impact journals. That's where new ideas start, unless the proposer of the idea has a very good reputation. Is this entirely fair? Probably not. People with good reputations propose dumb things all the time, and people without any reputations propose good things all the time.

 

The main point is that people without reputations that can provide evidence to back up their ideas get published. People with reputations who want to publish something still need to provide evidence, too! The common theme here -- they all need evidence. The reason "Null Physics" isn't in any peer-reviewed scientific journal is because the evidence in non-existent or wrong. Is is possible that the ideas could be right? Sure. But, there needs to be evidence backing it up. The valid questions that are raised by the people on the forum, and the many, many other actual scientists need to be answered. If the new idea cannot answer them, then it isn't much of an idea, then is it?

 

So, I guess I should have been a little more explicit. Has there ever been a case of a scientific theory that is well supported by evidence that was refused to be published just because the scientific community didn't want it to get out? Not because of any political or religious or racial overtones. Simply because "the community" refused it?

 

-----

 

There is any even bigger reason why I don't think that you will see this happen today. Every low-impact journal desperately wants to be a high-impact journal. And what better way to become a high-impact journal than to be the journal that is publishing "the next big thing". But, what happens almost always is that in reaching to get the rights to publish "the next big thing" is that some slightly dodgy papers get through. People read some of these slightly dodgy paper, and the journal get a bad reputation and it stays low-impact.

 

Nevertheless, whether you get your paper into a high-impact or low-impact, the simple truth is that all a paper needs to be published is evidence backing up the idea. If the idea is sound, keep publishing results based on it, and it will get noticed and you will get a good reputation and then you'll get published in the high-impact journals.

 

Like I said, it isn't fair. But, the system does work in that only evidence-based ideas get published. And, the converse is true, too. If it isn't evidence-based, it doesn't get published. So, where are the peer reviewed papers based on "Null Physics"? And, the larger question I asked, where are the ideas that are supported by evidence that were shot down by "the conspiracy"?