On March 19 2013 I asked a legitimate question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57378) about the scientific theoretical validity of Quantum Mechanics. This question was backed up with a scientific article, on which the moderator, nor Nobel laureate Prof. ‘t Hooft nor any other physicist was ever able to point out a falseness/error/mistake or whatever incorrectness.

I understand that scientists do not appreciate that their knowledge is questioned, but this cannot be used, and is certainly not a scientific argument, to suppress questions that point out possible mistakes in science.

How can omissions in science be eliminate, when scientists do not allow substantiated articles or questions to be published?

  • $\begingroup$ I have edited the title, as per meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4113/… $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Mar 21 '13 at 8:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did you get substantive (i.e., concerning content) remarks from 't Hooft? I so, could you include those in this/your question? Did he say: "I tried, but I couldn't find the hole/error" or did he say something along the lines of the current answers? $\endgroup$ – Řídící Mar 21 '13 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ You have to read the correspondence yourself to make your own opinion. Scientifically, I hardly dare to say, it was pathetic. $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 18:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's precisely why I asked to include it. :) But if, in your opinion, it's pathetic, you probably shouldn't refer to 't Hooft in this/your question. (There's a potential difference between refusing to answer and not having an answer.) Still, if you could summarize his response (perhaps in a comment), I would appreciate it. $\endgroup$ – Řídící Mar 21 '13 at 19:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How can I include or make an epitome with only 570 characters, when the correspondence is over 10.000 characters. Impossible. paradox-paradigm.nl/wp-content/uploads/hooft2.pdf $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ It is non-mainstream physics, and is based on pathetically flawed premises, and t' Hooft pointed out in the correspondence you linked. $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Jul 20 '13 at 9:36

This site is not a peer review site for new theories and research results. It is a site where questions about current physics knowledge are addressed with references and links.

It is too much to ask of people here to review a paper purporting to change the current physics model, to the level of peer reviewing a paper. This is done in submissions to physics journals.

There are also submissions to the arxiv where there is no peer review, but the papers are checked for consistency. There is also vixra where off the beaten track papers are accepted as long as they are coherent, and might draw the interest of similar researchers.

As a particle physics experimentalist I can see contradictions in your model: you use classical electrodynamics on particles, when particles are par excellence quantum mechanical entities. The only reason we know there are particles is because we can analyze their behavior with the rules of quantum mechanics, not of classical mechanics and electrodynamics which you are using.

In any case, you are asking for a peer review, and this site is not appropriate.

  • $\begingroup$ “This site is not a peer review site for new theories ....” The article I ask science to falsify is not a new theory. The article concerns current physics knowledge. So your argument above is incorrect. “As a particle physics experimentalist I can see contradictions in your model: you use classical electrodynamics on particles, when particles are par excellence ...” You see contradictions in the model from the view of QM. The article, when correct, falsifies QM. So your argument above can only be valid when you first falsify the article, which is exactly what I want. Please do so. $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 12:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt In my opinion you have a logical blind spot. The concept of particles as such, that the electron is a particle, that the proton is a particle with all the paraphernalia of the particle data measured experimentally including the periodic table of elements are described perfectly by the quantum mechanical view in a one to one correspondence. The weight is on somebody proposing something new to explain with his/her model all the existing data encapsulated in the standard model of particle physics and show that it also predicts something the standard model does not. $\endgroup$ – anna v Mar 21 '13 at 15:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model . The situation is similar to the jump from the geocentric model with its epicycles to the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model became the new standard because it explained everything the geocentric explained and in addition it made several successful predictions for new phenomena. Your model is not following this scientific path. $\endgroup$ – anna v Mar 21 '13 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Anna-v experimental science is undeniable. That is for all verifiable experiments. I’m not disputing experimental science. When however theoretical conclusions are drawn on the basis of experimental correct formulas, then there is no guarantee these conclusions are correct. The article proves that QM/EM violates the energy conservation law when EM is used for calculating the electromagnetic mass by Thomson, Feynman and in general QM. Experimental formulas are valid for calculations, but when theoretical conclusions based on theoretical false formulas then the conclusions are invalid. $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 16:18

I think you should mainly look at the comment of Qmechanic which points to the FAQ. The FAQ states:

Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:

Pitches for your own personal theories or work

We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is probably not appropriate at this site.

I think the key here is actually not on the latter part about mainstream physics (although many people would be inclined to look at that as well), but on the first part about pitching your own work. You post the question as if it is `just a paper' but in fact it is YOUR paper.

  • $\begingroup$ My paper or someone else paper. What is the difference? Should science not give a correct answer why the paper is not valid? Over 14 years I point out to science that mistakes have been made. Not one legitimate scientific argument has been given. Even Nobel laureate Prof. 't Hooft was not able to dimiss the paper in any way in a discussion I had with him (www.paradox-paradigm.nl). Is science nowadays just ignoring arguments against the general scientific opinion? $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 10:30
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The journal where this paper was published is Galilean Electrodynamics. On the main page for this journal it says "Galilean Electrodynamics is devoted to publishing high quality scientific papers ... that are critical of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang theory and other establishment doctrines. Thus, the material in Galilean Electodynamics, assuming they publish papers that are in accordance with the policy on their website, is not mainstream physics, and thus not appropriate for this site. $\endgroup$ – Peter Shor Mar 23 '13 at 18:05

The fact your question was closed doesn't mean it isn't a valid question, it just means it's not appropriate for this site. The big difference between us and the myriad of physics forums out there is that this is not a discussion site. We restrict ourselves to well focussed questions that have a well focussed answer. Your post did not fit this criterion.

  • $\begingroup$ If it is not an invalid question, please tell me where in the scientific community this question can be raised? All kind of questions are answered on this site, but a question on which no answer can be given is inappropriate! It is not a discussion. I just want an answer: Is the article I refer to false or not? QM is an exact science. So when QM is correct, QM should be able to falsify the article. That is all I ask. Science is the search for the truth and not obstructing the search for the truth. At least that is what I always thought. $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 10:45
  • $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt: You could try asking in Physics Chat. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Mar 21 '13 at 16:08
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt "please tell me where in the scientific community this question can be raised?" You submit it to a peer reviewed journal. You are claiming to have a very significant result. No one is going to take that claim seriously until it passes peer review. It's not like that is a high hurdle: it's the bare minimum. $\endgroup$ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mar 21 '13 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ All peer reviewed journals rejected the article not on the basis that it was incorrect or false, but with the argument that the article was not actual, not relevant. For the non-arguments peer reviewed journals use to reject I have to refer to paradox-paradigm.nl/?page_id=152 $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ I read your e-mail interaction with 't Hooft. He continually points out that you start your speculations with wrong premises. Wrong premises means wrong conclusions. I do not know whether you can really see this as you are so focused on your "theory". I had an uncle who was sure he had built a perpetual motion machine. It was impossible to convince him of conservation of energy. $\endgroup$ – anna v Mar 22 '13 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ Anna you say: “I read your e-mail interaction with 't Hooft. He continually points out that you start your speculations with wrong premises.” Sorry I do not want to be unpleasant, but can you tell me what premises I wrongly use according to you and Prof. ‘t Hooft in the correspondence? $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 22 '13 at 7:14
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Anna if you claim I use false premises then you should back up your claim when asked, otherwise it is just rhetoric trying to mislead others. $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 22 '13 at 17:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt you link provides the back up paradox-paradigm.nl/wp-content/uploads/hooft2.pdf . Sorry, I cannot participate in this discussion. it is not constructive as far as I am concerned. In my answer I have given links where you could publish on the net your article and wait to see if there are physicists agreeing with you. $\endgroup$ – anna v Mar 22 '13 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ Anna how can you say “Sorry, I cannot participate in this discussion. it is not constructive as far as I am concerned” after you first give 4 comments on my question? That is inconsistency pur sang, like quantum mechanics. $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 23 '13 at 10:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt I meant "any longer". It becomes repetitious and a dialog of deaf people. $\endgroup$ – anna v Mar 23 '13 at 10:30

This website's policy prevents us from giving your work the review it deserves. However, I'm sure that if you ask for comment at The Reference Frame, then Lubos will give you an accurate and honest assessment of your ideas.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ps. Discussing your paper in the third person -- as if it were something you'd just found rather than something you have a personal stake in -- makes you appear dishonest. $\endgroup$ – user1504 Mar 21 '13 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ I never hide my name or pretended I did not write the paper. Should science not judge on merits and not on appearance. $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 15:58
  • $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt: We are not science. We are a Q&A site about science. We have this rule for a reason, allowing non-mainstream physics can lead to flame wars and soapboxing. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Mar 21 '13 at 16:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt If you're trying to convince people of the truth of your ideas, it is best to avoid the appearance of deception. Be forthright. It will make your task easier. $\endgroup$ – user1504 Mar 21 '13 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ When a question is answered on this site is that not applied science? $\endgroup$ – Carel van der Togt Mar 21 '13 at 16:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @CarelvanderTogt If a bear asks an irrelevant question in the woods, will any one give him a useful answer? $\endgroup$ – user1504 Mar 21 '13 at 17:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .