Null Physics

  1. stewartcs

    stewartcs 2,284
    Science Advisor

    Has anyone heard of this theory? A friend on mine is reading a book on it and said it was very interesting. Anyone else read it?

    CS
     
  2. jcsd
  3. I'm probably not the best guy to answer this, but I am sure this is the first time I am hearing such a word (null physics)...o.0
     
  4. stewartcs

    stewartcs 2,284
    Science Advisor

    Here is the book link...

    http://nullphysics.com/

    CS
     
  5. Wallace

    Wallace 1,253
    Science Advisor

    Hmm it's seems that you can buy The Meaning of Life for just $59 for the Hardback edition. Perhaps I'm a little cynical but I'll go with 'if it sounds too good to be true it probably is' on this one.
     
  6. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    From the description, the title translates to "not physics". Ie, this is not a theory, it's just pseudophilosophical daydreaming.
     
  7. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    I found this post on another forum:
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94861

    So I was wrong. If it were just philosobabble, it wouldn't be wrong, it would just be useless. But it says concrete things about reality that are in the domain of physics - and is straightforwardly wrong about them. That makes it pure crackpottery.
     
  8. The guys has been buying 2-page adds in Discover magazine for some time now.

    I haven't read it, but if it just mumbo-jumbo pseudo science, I'd be rather disappointed at the magazine allowing it to be printed and to be associated with it.
    I tried to look for secondary sources about it, reviews, etc. and didn't find anything, which leads me to believe that it is a whole lot of nothing.

    EDIT: oops didn't see your post there russ. So it is just that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2008
  9. stewartcs

    stewartcs 2,284
    Science Advisor

    Ah, so now I know not to waste my time reading it.

    Thanks...

    CS
     
  10. stewartcs

    stewartcs 2,284
    Science Advisor

    Thanks Russ, that thread was very useful...although very long it is worth reading.

    CS
     
  11. while I am fully confident this theory is either total bs or completely undistinguishable from current theories experimentally, a lot of the claims he makes on his website are incredibly misleading. Most of them are horribly out of context (which begs the question as to WHY he would make them so out of context), and he does have some type of explanation for them.

    For example, the neutron = proton + electron thing. I read his reponse on that forum and also emailed him with some questions. While I don't know the math behind his theory, it at least seems to be self consistent.

    His basic idea is that everything is made from electrons, protons, and photons. However these particles can take on multiple states, bound and free are the terms he uses I believe. An electron in a hydrogen atom is "free" and has a radius of something like 10^-13 meters and a spin of 1/2. An electron in a neutron is bound to a proton and has a radius comparable to the radius of a proton and a spin of 0. A neutron is formed from a neutrino (or an anti neutrino, dont rly remember its not important), and electron, and a proton just like in "real" physics (maybe it emits a neutrino? I rly dont remember but I know its the same as in the accepted theories). The difference is that a neutrino is a "bound" photon with a spin of 1/2, and the proton is a fundamental particle not made of quarks.

    Anyway, Im just saying that a lot of his seemingly ridiculous claims do have explanations that at least make them logical. Like I said before, it is very likely his theory is either wrong or a rewording of current physics with some metaphysics mixed in. However, from what Ive read about it I believe it is AT LEAST likely to be logically consistent. While he is not a physicist he does have physics grad students working with him (so he says), and he does have a PhD. I find it hard to believe any intelligent person would publish a theory that isnt self-consistent.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2008
  12. cristo

    cristo 8,412
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Since it's been established by russ that this is crackpottery, as per PF guidelines, the topic is not open for discussion here. Thread closed.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?