Profile photo for David Kahana
David Kahana
physicist unhingedAuthor has 8.8K answers and 21.4M answer views7y
Dewey Larson’s “theory” was actually so empty in the first place that it didn’t really require any debunking.
There was no actual mathematics in Larson’s theory and so it didn’t actually make any real predictions. Dewey just complained that the “official theories are wrong” and then he re-explained everything as it is observed and as he felt it should eventually be explained using whole lot of words.
I think that some of Dewey’s followers actually have tried to write some equations down.
But where they have actually made predictions - they have turned out to be trivially wrong when compared with very simple experiments, which apparently none of them ever bothered to try doing in real life.
In a flier from the Reciprocal Systems Theory website you can find the following description:
Conventional science considers space and time to be a framework in which the drama of the universe is played out, in manifest form. The thesis of the Reciprocal System, however, is that the universe is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which the basic reality is motion, and all entities—photons, particles, atoms, fields, forces, and all forms of energy—are merely manifestations of motion.
Space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of this motion, and cannot exist independently. They have no significance except to establish a common reference in describing phenomena. Velocity is a relation of space per unit time; with energy being the inverse relation of time per unit space. We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well. It is this discovery that opened the door to the quantum world, and the configuration space inside the atom, as a direct result of the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System of theory:
The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.
By developing the natural consequences of these postulates, Larson creates a theoretical universe that bears an uncanny resemblance to the universe we observe around us.
Now to me that reads as rather obvious gibberish, especially where the relation between energy and velocity is discussed, and I wouldn’t bother trying to debunk it, or trying to read it any more, except that the question comes up here on Quora.
So I’ve bolded one particular section there for special consideration.
We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well.
That’s a fascinating idea, that time is three dimensional, but it has a small problem - the Cauchy problem for the wave equation in three time and three space dimensions is not a well-posed problem and it doesn’t have a unique solution.
So such a classical 6-dimensional universe would be totally unpredictable - there would be no unique solutions for the initial value problems for the most basic equations, such as the Maxwell equations that describe the classical propagation of light.
Of course, it goes without saying that Dewey rejects all of quantum mechanics as it is formulated. He asserts that classical mechanics provides the co
David Kahana
physicist unhingedAuthor has 8.8K answers and 21.4M answer views7y
Dewey Larson’s “theory” was actually so empty in the first place that it didn’t really require any debunking.
There was no actual mathematics in Larson’s theory and so it didn’t actually make any real predictions. Dewey just complained that the “official theories are wrong” and then he re-explained everything as it is observed and as he felt it should eventually be explained using whole lot of words.
I think that some of Dewey’s followers actually have tried to write some equations down.
But where they have actually made predictions - they have turned out to be trivially wrong when compared with very simple experiments, which apparently none of them ever bothered to try doing in real life.
In a flier from the Reciprocal Systems Theory website you can find the following description:
Conventional science considers space and time to be a framework in which the drama of the universe is played out, in manifest form. The thesis of the Reciprocal System, however, is that the universe is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which the basic reality is motion, and all entities—photons, particles, atoms, fields, forces, and all forms of energy—are merely manifestations of motion.
Space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of this motion, and cannot exist independently. They have no significance except to establish a common reference in describing phenomena. Velocity is a relation of space per unit time; with energy being the inverse relation of time per unit space. We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well. It is this discovery that opened the door to the quantum world, and the configuration space inside the atom, as a direct result of the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System of theory:
The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.
By developing the natural consequences of these postulates, Larson creates a theoretical universe that bears an uncanny resemblance to the universe we observe around us.
Now to me that reads as rather obvious gibberish, especially where the relation between energy and velocity is discussed, and I wouldn’t bother trying to debunk it, or trying to read it any more, except that the question comes up here on Quora.
So I’ve bolded one particular section there for special consideration.
We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well.
That’s a fascinating idea, that time is three dimensional, but it has a small problem - the Cauchy problem for the wave equation in three time and three space dimensions is not a well-posed problem and it doesn’t have a unique solution.
So such a classical 6-dimensional universe would be totally unpredictable - there would be no unique solutions for the initial value problems for the most basic equations, such as the Maxwell equations that describe the classical propagation of light.
Of course, it goes without saying that Dewey rejects all of quantum mechanics as it is formulated. He asserts that classical mechanics provides the correct laws of the universe and he rejects special and general relativity too. He rejects QM starting from the Rutherford nuclear atom. He says that the atom doesn’t have any electrons or nucleus as such and that some sort of powerful energy fields areenough to explain the Geiger-Marsden experiments.
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
The conclusion that the nuclear theory of the atom is erroneous and that in reality there is no such thing as an atomic nucleus will be difficult for the present generation of scientists to accept. The individual who has from childhood visualized the atom in the manner pictured by Bohr, who has participated in the great debates over the use of “nuclear” energy, who reads Nucleonics and the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and who has perhaps taught classes in “nuclear physics” cannot be expected to look with enthusiasm on the prospect of life without a nucleus. We can, of course, remind him that the Bohr atom has long since vanished from the scene and that the “official” atom of modern physics cannot even be imagined, so the experts say, much less pictured. We can also point out that “atomic energy” and “atomic physics,” the terms that will have to be substituted when the nucleus is discarded, are already in common use. Most of the “nuclear physicists” in the United States work, directly or indirectly, for the Atomic Energy Commission. But this will probably be cold comfort. One is not easily reconciled to the loss of an old friend in the world of ideas.
Now, look, it’s fine to reject all of modern physics.
You can go right ahead and toss out the whole conceptual foundations if you like - but then it’s on you to provide some usable alternative, and that alternative should hopefully be not just equally as good as modern physics but actually superior to it.
The problem with Dewey is that the whole of his work is a wall of English language text, reading very much like these short sections above. This is not physics, whatever else it is: it’s simply not a physical theory.
There is not a single equation in that entire screed. And Dewey concludes, in the section called “Where to go from here?”
The new atomic theory that replaces the nuclear atom must therefore embody the quantum concept in some manner. Since this present discussion is intended only to indicate the general nature of such a theory, no attempt will be made to explore details, but it may be mentioned that the existing evidence points very strongly to the necessity of a major enlargement of the quantum concept: an extension of this idea drastic enough to quantize all motion. Only in this manner can we introduce numbers at a basic enough level to give us the “built-in” mathematical relations that we need in order to eliminate the necessity for ad hoc assumptions to supply the numerical values.
Well that all sounds great!
But to quote those immortal words:
Where’s the beef?
Where are the equations that I can use to calculate with?
If all of what Dewey says is true, about atoms and nuclei, then I would ask Dewey or any follower of the reciprocal system theory to explain, quantitatively, the observation and the very extensive phenomenology of Auger electrons.
Or, for that matter: just calculate the energy spectrum of the hydrogen atom as well as Dirac’s famous equation does it.
The energy spectrum of hydrogen is very well measured now: the level spacings and the term diagram are not up for debate any more - they are measured out to many, many decimal places.
Here’s a link to the chapter on “Atom Building” from Dewey’s 1959 unpublished manuscript laying out his whole theory. The book is called, unassumingly, “The Structure of the Physical Universe”:
The Structure of the Physical Universe, Chapter XXX
I defy anyone to find a calculation of the term diagram of hydrogen, the simplest atom of all, in there, much less to find anything even approaching to a clear mathematical statement of Dewey’s new theory in that entire work.
By way of contrast here’s a link to an excerpt from a classic text on “official” atomic theory - “The Quantum Mechanics of One and Two Electron Atoms”, by Hans A. Bethe and E. Salpeter.
Note that chapter one is on the hydrogen atom. Chapter two is on the helium atom. Buy the full book and read it if the excerpt isn’t good enough for you. I don’t blame you if it isnt’t since it starts at page 108: but I assure you that if you read that book and understand it you will be able to do a bang up job on the hydrogen atom at least.
Profile photo for David Kahana David Kahana physicist unhingedAuthor has 8.8K answers and 21.4M answer views7y Dewey Larson’s “theory” was actually so empty in the first place that it didn’t really require any debunking.
There was no actual mathematics in Larson’s theory and so it didn’t actually make any real predictions. Dewey just complained that the “official theories are wrong” and then he re-explained everything as it is observed and as he felt it should eventually be explained using whole lot of words.
I think that some of Dewey’s followers actually have tried to write some equations down.
But where they have actually made predictions - they have turned out to be trivially wrong when compared with very simple experiments, which apparently none of them ever bothered to try doing in real life.
In a flier from the Reciprocal Systems Theory website you can find the following description:
Conventional science considers space and time to be a framework in which the drama of the universe is played out, in manifest form. The thesis of the Reciprocal System, however, is that the universe is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which the basic reality is motion, and all entities—photons, particles, atoms, fields, forces, and all forms of energy—are merely manifestations of motion.
Space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of this motion, and cannot exist independently. They have no significance except to establish a common reference in describing phenomena. Velocity is a relation of space per unit time; with energy being the inverse relation of time per unit space. We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well. It is this discovery that opened the door to the quantum world, and the configuration space inside the atom, as a direct result of the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System of theory:
The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.
By developing the natural consequences of these postulates, Larson creates a theoretical universe that bears an uncanny resemblance to the universe we observe around us.
http://rstheory.org/files/Flyer.pdf
Now to me that reads as rather obvious gibberish, especially where the relation between energy and velocity is discussed, and I wouldn’t bother trying to debunk it, or trying to read it any more, except that the question comes up here on Quora.
So I’ve bolded one particular section there for special consideration.
We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well.
That’s a fascinating idea, that time is three dimensional, but it has a small problem - the Cauchy problem for the wave equation in three time and three space dimensions is not a well-posed problem and it doesn’t have a unique solution.
So such a classical 6-dimensional universe would be totally unpredictable - there would be no unique solutions for the initial value problems for the most basic equations, such as the Maxwell equations that describe the classical propagation of light.
Of course, it goes without saying that Dewey rejects all of quantum mechanics as it is formulated. He asserts that classical mechanics provides the co David Kahana physicist unhingedAuthor has 8.8K answers and 21.4M answer views7y Dewey Larson’s “theory” was actually so empty in the first place that it didn’t really require any debunking.
There was no actual mathematics in Larson’s theory and so it didn’t actually make any real predictions. Dewey just complained that the “official theories are wrong” and then he re-explained everything as it is observed and as he felt it should eventually be explained using whole lot of words.
I think that some of Dewey’s followers actually have tried to write some equations down.
But where they have actually made predictions - they have turned out to be trivially wrong when compared with very simple experiments, which apparently none of them ever bothered to try doing in real life.
In a flier from the Reciprocal Systems Theory website you can find the following description:
Conventional science considers space and time to be a framework in which the drama of the universe is played out, in manifest form. The thesis of the Reciprocal System, however, is that the universe is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which the basic reality is motion, and all entities—photons, particles, atoms, fields, forces, and all forms of energy—are merely manifestations of motion.
Space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of this motion, and cannot exist independently. They have no significance except to establish a common reference in describing phenomena. Velocity is a relation of space per unit time; with energy being the inverse relation of time per unit space. We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well. It is this discovery that opened the door to the quantum world, and the configuration space inside the atom, as a direct result of the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System of theory:
The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.
By developing the natural consequences of these postulates, Larson creates a theoretical universe that bears an uncanny resemblance to the universe we observe around us.
http://rstheory.org/files/Flyer.pdf
Now to me that reads as rather obvious gibberish, especially where the relation between energy and velocity is discussed, and I wouldn’t bother trying to debunk it, or trying to read it any more, except that the question comes up here on Quora.
So I’ve bolded one particular section there for special consideration.
We observe space as being 3- dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well.
That’s a fascinating idea, that time is three dimensional, but it has a small problem - the Cauchy problem for the wave equation in three time and three space dimensions is not a well-posed problem and it doesn’t have a unique solution.
So such a classical 6-dimensional universe would be totally unpredictable - there would be no unique solutions for the initial value problems for the most basic equations, such as the Maxwell equations that describe the classical propagation of light.
Of course, it goes without saying that Dewey rejects all of quantum mechanics as it is formulated. He asserts that classical mechanics provides the correct laws of the universe and he rejects special and general relativity too. He rejects QM starting from the Rutherford nuclear atom. He says that the atom doesn’t have any electrons or nucleus as such and that some sort of powerful energy fields areenough to explain the Geiger-Marsden experiments.
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
The conclusion that the nuclear theory of the atom is erroneous and that in reality there is no such thing as an atomic nucleus will be difficult for the present generation of scientists to accept. The individual who has from childhood visualized the atom in the manner pictured by Bohr, who has participated in the great debates over the use of “nuclear” energy, who reads Nucleonics and the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and who has perhaps taught classes in “nuclear physics” cannot be expected to look with enthusiasm on the prospect of life without a nucleus. We can, of course, remind him that the Bohr atom has long since vanished from the scene and that the “official” atom of modern physics cannot even be imagined, so the experts say, much less pictured. We can also point out that “atomic energy” and “atomic physics,” the terms that will have to be substituted when the nucleus is discarded, are already in common use. Most of the “nuclear physicists” in the United States work, directly or indirectly, for the Atomic Energy Commission. But this will probably be cold comfort. One is not easily reconciled to the loss of an old friend in the world of ideas.
Now, look, it’s fine to reject all of modern physics.
You can go right ahead and toss out the whole conceptual foundations if you like - but then it’s on you to provide some usable alternative, and that alternative should hopefully be not just equally as good as modern physics but actually superior to it.
The problem with Dewey is that the whole of his work is a wall of English language text, reading very much like these short sections above. This is not physics, whatever else it is: it’s simply not a physical theory.
There is not a single equation in that entire screed. And Dewey concludes, in the section called “Where to go from here?”
The new atomic theory that replaces the nuclear atom must therefore embody the quantum concept in some manner. Since this present discussion is intended only to indicate the general nature of such a theory, no attempt will be made to explore details, but it may be mentioned that the existing evidence points very strongly to the necessity of a major enlargement of the quantum concept: an extension of this idea drastic enough to quantize all motion. Only in this manner can we introduce numbers at a basic enough level to give us the “built-in” mathematical relations that we need in order to eliminate the necessity for ad hoc assumptions to supply the numerical values.
Well that all sounds great!
But to quote those immortal words:
Where’s the beef?
Where are the equations that I can use to calculate with?
If all of what Dewey says is true, about atoms and nuclei, then I would ask Dewey or any follower of the reciprocal system theory to explain, quantitatively, the observation and the very extensive phenomenology of Auger electrons.
Or, for that matter: just calculate the energy spectrum of the hydrogen atom as well as Dirac’s famous equation does it.
The energy spectrum of hydrogen is very well measured now: the level spacings and the term diagram are not up for debate any more - they are measured out to many, many decimal places.
Here’s a link to the chapter on “Atom Building” from Dewey’s 1959 unpublished manuscript laying out his whole theory. The book is called, unassumingly, “The Structure of the Physical Universe”:
The Structure of the Physical Universe, Chapter XXX
I defy anyone to find a calculation of the term diagram of hydrogen, the simplest atom of all, in there, much less to find anything even approaching to a clear mathematical statement of Dewey’s new theory in that entire work.
By way of contrast here’s a link to an excerpt from a classic text on “official” atomic theory - “The Quantum Mechanics of One and Two Electron Atoms”, by Hans A. Bethe and E. Salpeter.
Note that chapter one is on the hydrogen atom. Chapter two is on the helium atom. Buy the full book and read it if the excerpt isn’t good enough for you. I don’t blame you if it isnt’t since it starts at page 108: but I assure you that if you read that book and understand it you will be able to do a bang up job on the hydrogen atom at least.
http://hacol13.physik.uni-freiburg.de/fp/Versuche/FP2/FP2-10-Positronium/Anhang/H.A.Bethe,E.Salpeter.pdf
The difference will be immediately apparent, I assure you, to anyone who compares the two texts seriously.
The second is what real physical theory looks like.
The first is simply pure gibberish, and I am being very kind in my choice of words.
My conclusion about Dewey’s work is that it is not even wrong.
Good lord what an interesting post. Thank you! I got a lot to read