Crackpotry or I'm missing something?

  • Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date
In summary, Gabriel Lafreniere's website is full of strange and confusing ideas, and his illustrations are also trying to hypnotize the reader.
  • #1


Gold Member
I've made a search on PF about Gabriel Lafreniere and it seems that some -serious- people (such as Mysearch) consider his "theory" or "theories" interesting.
His website: <<link deleted, we don't need to promote his site>>. I've tried to read some of it, but I can hardly understand any of his ideas. I don't know if I don't have the level of expertise to understand or almost all what he said is nonsense.
Some parts of the texts makes me yuck: Such as
Lafreniere said:
In 1925, Samuel A goudsmith and George E. Uhlenbeck proposed that the electron had an intrinsic angular momentum and the word "spin" rapidly followed. A similar spin was also attributed to the proton and even to its three quarks as a "fractional" and "colored" charge.

This is ridiculous because the electron alone does not behave like this. A silver atom behave as a whole, as well a the hydrogen atom, whose unique electron is also unpaired, hence magnetic.
As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is the result of the magnetic field created by both the electron and the proton. This experiment separates only two behaviors while there are actually four possible combinations. As demonstrated below, a pi / 2 phase difference produces an astounding unidirectional radiation which is the true cause of a magnetic field.
His "proof" is an animation of something that doesn't make sense to me.
Another one of the so many parts that makes me faint:
Lafreniere said:
For instance, I suppose that electrons and positrons, which are hidden inside quarks, are capable of moving to and fro on a given frequency. This suggests that a resonance phenomenon could cause them to be ejected from the quark, and this would liberate the kinetic energy which was captured in the gluonic field. Such a fission by resonance should also be possible for quarks inside a whole proton or neutron.
It seems like he believes all matter is made of electrons (and positrons?). I don't see much equations, too many texts that looks like a huge garbage; at least for an undergraduate student.
I'd appreciate if someone could confirm that he's a crackpot or if I'm wrong on this. Is there something that makes sense in his theories?
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on
  • #2
He's certainly in love with his animations but, on their own, they don't prove a lot.
But I must admit that I didn't spend long on the site.
  • #3
fluidistic said:
It seems like he believes all matter is made of electrons (and positrons?).

quarks cannot possibly be made of electrons and positrons. This would seriously violate charge conservation. How can you get a fractional charge of a quark from adding the -1 and +1 charges of electrons and positrons. No matter how you look at it, the up quark has Qu=+2/3, so how can you get 2/3=+1+1+1...-1-1-1-1... etc? Also, wouldn't leptons have to interact strongly if this were the case? I would have to say he is full of it, but I have not yet looked at the site.
  • #4
The more I read, the more I feel this is total nonsense.
He does not believe in photons. He believes in aether. He says matter and anti matter does not annihilates but
Lafreniere said:
It is also well known that electron/positron collisions produce quarks.
. I thought the interaction between an electron and a position would lead to the production of 2 photons... He says that gravity does not bend space. Light isn't stopped by matter (he gives the example of radio waves and x rays... this sounds ridiculous to me. Looks like he never opened a physics textbook on EM). The list goes on.
  • #5
Well, you can produce quarks through electron/positron collisions. e+e- -> q+q- is a valid process, but this is mediated through the photon or a Z! Ya, the more I read, the crazier and crazier he sounds. But, I have to admit, I wouldn't mind smoking something and staring at all those pretty animations he made for a couple hours!
  • #6
Without incoming energy, the electron would still emit spherical outgoing waves. So it would rapidly fade out. Obviously, it needs replenishment. This is accomplished by powerful and constant aether waves. Traveling waves penetrating through standing wave antinodes are deviated because of a lens effect. A small part of the energy is transferred to the standing waves. This constantly refilled energy allows the electron to exist forever.

Sounds crackpotish to me.

And I think his illustrations are trying to hypnotize me!

We are all made of electrons.
Electrons feed from the great and powerful Aether.
The Aether is all nourishing.
The Aether is god.
Repeat 100 times...​
  • #7
Yes, he's a crackpot as far as we're concerned. He's published his theories only on his own website and in two books. If he were really onto something, in ten years or more he'd have been able to get published in a real scientific journal, or at least get someone to refer to his theories in a scientific journal. I see no such references.

1. What is "Crackpotry"?

Crackpotry refers to ideas or theories that are considered implausible, unsubstantiated, or even ridiculous by the scientific community.

2. How can one determine if something is "Crackpotry" or a legitimate scientific theory?

Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and are subject to rigorous testing and peer review. If an idea lacks evidence or cannot be tested, it is often considered crackpotry.

3. Are there any red flags that indicate an idea may be "Crackpotry"?

Yes, there are a few common warning signs of crackpotry. These include grandiose claims without evidence, rejection of established scientific principles, and a lack of support from the scientific community.

4. Why is it important to differentiate between "Crackpotry" and legitimate scientific theories?

It is important to distinguish between crackpotry and legitimate scientific theories because the spread of crackpot ideas can lead to misinformation and hinder scientific progress. It also helps maintain the credibility of the scientific community.

5. What should I do if I have an idea that may be considered "Crackpotry"?

If you have an idea that may seem unconventional or controversial, it is important to seek feedback from experts in the field and to conduct thorough research and testing before presenting it as a legitimate theory. This will help ensure that your idea is based on evidence and will increase its chances of being accepted by the scientific community.

Suggested for: Crackpotry or I'm missing something?