First, I want to tell a story.
Back in Antiquity, after the foundation of Alexandria and the famous Library of Alexandria, there was a flourishing new thing: SCIENCE.
Not long ago, Antiquity was disregarded because of an alleged lack of "method". This has recently been proven wrong by physicist and science historian Lucio Russo. (I recommend his book, acclaimed by "Nature" and others, "The Forgotten Revolution")
Since the decoding of the Antikythera Device
(see reconstructions on NewScientists youtube-channel)
there was no doubt about high scientific standards in Antiquity.
As you might know, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth correctly and with the right experimental method.
It is now clear that the Ptolemaeic Alexandria and other Hellenistic states were leading the way.
Lucretius, the Roman philosopher, sums up the knowledge of Ancient Greece in his science poetry "De Rerum Natura".
In this book, he states some kind of Law of Energy conservation, something like the Planck lenght/time, he described how things must fall at equal acceleration in the vacuum.
Now that is something, huh? He even explains how life evolved through natural selection of animals not adapted for their environment.
WTF!!! That was in the 1st century BC - and it was some kind of compendium, not even a scientific paper!
The scientific papers we have (like the "Palimpsest" of Archimedes, in which he invented calculus) use scientific methods of today.
The problem was: too few people understood science, and the Romans just needed the high-tech, they didn't care for basic research.
We know today, that ancient scientist already HAD a relativistic view.
They KNEW that Heliocentrism describes what really is, but invented epicyles to match the *phenomena*, that is: what is perceivable through observation!
Ptolemy the Astronomer forgot what was already known - thanks to that we went back to Geocentrism...
Now what has that to do with the topic, you might ask.
Well, I read through the whole discussion and could not but palmface all the time. Not about what was actually the topic, but about the behavior of some people here.
MattusMaximus, you are truly the champion of willing misunderstanding here.
As a scientist, you should know that it is still possible, if not likely, that the next "GUT" comes from an outsider.
If Faraday had posted on this forum, he would have been ridiculed. Shame on all of you.
In no way do I want to defend any of the papers that are in question. It's the principles of science that matter.
There are people, who WANT to misunderstand, who refuse to think a whole knew model.
Now think about the Greeks. They had TWO models. Heliocentrism is the most SIMPLE model to EXPLAIN the movement of the planets.
Geocentrism with epicycles is EASIER to calculate, if you want to predict phenomena.
Now think about Frank Znidarsic again. He may be an eletrical engineer and self tought physicist. He sees things like an engineer:
Harmonic motion of an electron can be modeled as a spring.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING THAT.
The math comes out right.
Now, what do we have in Quantum Mechanics? There's a probability map, which rerived out of empirical data.
Plancks constant ist empirical data. So are most measurements of particle masses and so forth.
It is therefore absolutely legitimate to introduce a speed (Vt/ct) that actually represents something REAL and discard Plancks constant. It might seem circular at first, but it is possible to connect all relevant equations and predict things that CANNOT BE PREDICTED USING PLANCKS CONSTANT ALONE or NOT AT ALL.
If Frank can predict radii of atoms or orbitals, you have to look at what the math *means*. You have to imagine a new model.
If you read Lucretius, you will find something like vacuum energy, if you follow HIS terminology. It is the concept that suggests it *means* "our" vacuum energy. And of course, Lucretius is a philosopher and won't deal with maths.
Besides: Logic dictates that if two models (let's say Quantum Mechanics and FZs transitional state theory) are based on the same data (as you implied by saying FZ's "vt" is derived from Planck's Constant) but produce experimental results contrary to either one of the theories, then the mathematically consistent model proves the acquired data wrong.
FZ produces the exact spacing of two nuclei.
The radius of the proton is not known exactly. If FZ produces a value that does not match, what does a real scientist do?
He looks for something *in the theory that predicted the "wrong" value*.
Something that could be the CAUSE why the empirically obtained data does not match. For instance, if the measurement method directly affects the radius of the proton. Or if the measurement tool can't measure it. Remember - only a sieve fine enough will give away the finest sand.
As for Cold Fusion, you might have heard about this one:
At least this time it seems actual scientists of the University of Bologna made reports on the device that allegedly produces 12 KW out of 400W input.
See article on physorg.
Please for the sake of truth, for which you all shall strive:
MattusMaximus, as a professor you should not look down upon laymen or students. Do not disregard those who QUESTION, for those who question are the natural selection of the evolution of science.
If they are wrong, tell them where they are wrong.
All YOU did was saying: "It does not accord to the Standard Model we have today, therefore it must be wrong."
You have to prove HIM wrong. His math is valid. You have to USE HIS equations to fill in the gaps of QM and find out what does not comply and WHY. Present your findings in an orderly scientific discussion. If you ridicule those people, they will never publish peer reviewed papers.
Lord Kelvin said around 1900: "There is nothing new in physics. All we have to do is measure correctly." Or words to that effect.
Boy, was he wrong.
