Acceptable and unacceptable are merely neural impulses in the mindWhat constitutes an acceptable scientific article in terms of what is acceptable and what is not? For instance, is any writing that is inimical to established scientific theories automatically considered to be ‘wacky’ content? Take, for example, the quantum mechanics contention that at the level of the very, very small, objects behave differently. Take, note that this is an un-corroborated statement; by its very nature there can be no way in which to prove that it is either true or untrue. The implications that arise out of accepting the quantum mechanics statement that at the level of the very, very small, or at the level of the sub-atomic if you like, “things behave differently”, are equally difficult to prove or disprove. When, for instance, quantum mechanics states that a solid particle like an electron or a proton can be a wave when looked at in one way and a solid particle when looked at in another way, there really exists no proof that the statement is true. If one ignores the fact that wave particle duality was born out of an exigency to show that atoms can exist, the conclusions and methods used by quantum mechanics become even more doubtful. The need for wave-particle duality was born out of the need to explain the fact that charged particles, like electrons, as they orbited the nucleus, must radiate away all of their energy in about 10 pico seconds (10^-11 s) and fall into the nucleus. Consider the implications of this discovery, it meant that atoms could not exist, this in turn meant that nothing; in our world, the solar system or the Universe can exist! Quantum mechanics, in the manner of chicken little, rushed about trying to find the reason that atoms were able to survive in spite of electrons radiating away all of their energy and plummeting into the nucleus. They came up with the mathematically and philosophically inept solution that all sub-atomic particles even if they possessed measurable mass, could be either a wave or a particle as the situation dictated. From a purely logical viewpoint is this conclusion acceptable ? Is it not a little ‘wacky’?
Regardless of what the answer to that question might be what cannot be ignored are facts. The facts are that just after and during the second world war, physicists had been working on anomalies in the behaviour of electrons in atoms. It was found that electrons were continuously emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons. It is thought that these virtual photons are exactly the same as ‘real’ photons but complete their interactions over such short time intervals, or with such low energies, that for all purposes they do not exist. In other words these virtual interactions are ignored by the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. If this is so, it offers the perfect ‘classical’ physics explanation as to why electrons do not spiral into the nucleus. The electron by constantly emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons is in effect self-regulating its energy precluding falling into the nucleus. This being so, quantum mechanics should, if ethics are involved, immediately have withdrawn wave-particle duality in deference to this new theory that the electron in its journey around the nucleus self-regulates its energy; but wave-particle duality was too deeply embedded in quantum mechanics for this to be done. Look at this article on ‘What are elementary particles?’ published in live science magazine: What are Elementary particles ?
It doesn’t make sense that modern main stream physics is so touchy about the topic of ‘virtual’ particles, when it is well known that the nucleus itself is held together by massless virtual particles called gluons. If the nucleus is held together by virtual interactions, surely it makes sense that similar virtual interactions are responsible for the stability of the electron around the nucleus?
This raises the question of whether something published or referred to in Live Science magazine can be referred to in a thread on Live Science Forums or would it automatically be considered ‘wacky’ since it goes against established science, in this case 'wave particle duality' ?
Returning to the question of the inferences raised by the quantum mechanics assertion that at the level of the very, very small, “things work differently” several what can only be called occult practices or beliefs arise. This, in spite of the fact that atomic force microscopes that penetrate almost to the level of the sub-atomic have seen no changes in the laws that prevail at the macro level, similarly femto-second lasers that can trace the orbital of an electron have also not detected any departure from the normal such as that suggested by quantum mechanics. For instance some of the occult beliefs in quantum mechanics are that a particle with a measurable mass can be in two places at once. That light as it travels from A to B ceases to be real. This is a process called disassociation whereby light as it travels from A to B exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Quantum mechanics even holds that sub-atomic particles are cognitive, they can sense when to be a wave and when to be a particle.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about ‘virtual particles’ :
“In particle physics, a gauge boson is a force carrier, a bosonic particle that carries any of the fundamental interactions of nature, commonly called forces. Elementary particles, whose interactions are described by a gauge theory, interact with each other by the exchange of gauge bosons—usually as virtual particles.“ Wikipedia –gauge boson.
The point of this article is: How can quantum mechanics with its theories of a particle possessing mass being in two places at once (superposition) of undergoing decomposition and then re-appearing (disassociation) possess the property of action at a distance (quantum entanglement) be one thing or another as the situation demands (wave-particle duality) be given preferential treatment ? While theories like Gestalt Aether Theories, which have no occult properties at all and explain everything empirically, be treated as a ‘wacky’ theory and be put in an alternate science category?
Admittedly ‘Live Science Forums’ has been very tolerant so far but who is to say that this policy of toleration will continue?