Friday, June 16, 2006

Are We Quacks?

Of course, I'm always questioning whether in fact we may indeed be quacks. After all, why would a physics theory claiming to have the Unified Force Theory and the precise geometry of quantum structure be so slow in gaining wide-spread acceptance? Surely the top physicists of today would be able to spot a good theory when they saw one, right?

I recently had a discussion with a top-notch PhD physicist professor, Warren Siegler. He teaches physics at CNY Institute for Theoretical Physics at SUNY. What started the discussion was a web page he had posted that describes the qualities of quacks. I simply wanted to know whether a quantified theory based upon empirical data would be considered a quack theory. This ended up giving me the unexpected opportunity to actually defend the theory. To my surprise, his only response was to find ways to ignore the theory.

With his permission, I have posted the complete discussion between us online at:

One would think it would be easy to simply find errors in the theory being presented, but instead, Prof. Siegel was intent to respond to my theory by touting other theories. It was like trying to tell a Baptist about Buddhism. Every comment about Buddhism would be followed by a quote from the Bible that both judges the error of Buddhism and praises the wonders of Christianity.

Check it out. See why it is so difficult to present a new physics theory to people who think they already have the answers.

1 comment:

MNIverson said...

Deleted my first post as there were some spelling errors!

I've just read your lively email discussion wtih the Physicist. No, you are not quacks. Why? Because from your interchange with the "Prof", you were the one who maintained an open-mind, just wanting a non-emotional, objective analysis of your hypothesis (not theory). The "Prof" clearly was on the defensive from the very beginning, and even despite numerous explanations of "structure" vs "mechanics", he couldn't think outside the box of mechanics. Quite interesting, and at times entertaining. The publication of this back and forth debate is enlightening.

As far as APM is concerned, is a hypothesis for the internal structure of particles useful? Perhaps -- that remains to be seen. Is it physics? Definitely. And any physicist interested in learning and understanding the universe better would welcome a model which explains something that mainstream physics doesn't yet have a model for. The prof's clear fear of even admitting some interesting aspects of APM is proof that he is suffering from "science as religion". Not uncommon.

Although not an endorsement of APM, this comment is an endorsement for the way you respectfully conducted yourself, and clearly sheds light on the closed-mindedness of some mainstream scientists.