About Quantum-Geometry Dynamics

Some questions we ask ourselves when we come across a new theory in physics is “Who is its author?” and “What is its author’s credibility?”  or “What qualifies the author?” Questions that helps us to decide whether or not it’s worth investing time and effort to understanding it.

We’re all busy people working obsessively on our own projects, ideas, theories, experiments; activities that are so demanding that unless new ideas fall within our areas of research or promise to help us make some progress, we ignore them. We ignore them even if their authors are authorities in their field.

Then there are theories from outsiders whose credibility cannot be asserted in the usual ways. Statistically, work by people who are well established and respected are much more likely to fulfill the criteria of relevance and usability than work by some unknown, unaffiliated individual whom almost certainly is a crackpot peddling some naive and ill-conceived contraption to which he affixed the term “theory.”

In fact, it is a near statistical certainty that an unknown, unaffiliated individual will contribute nothing of value to a field. In light of that, the preferred response to ideas or theories from unknowns is to simply ignore them.

Another response is to reject those theories but it requires some minimal work since one has to at least summarily evaluate what one rejects. The exercise requires time few are willing to sacrifice so most will stick with the preferred response. But then, how should one respond to anomalies such as Srinivasa Ramanujan? If G. H. Hardy had applied the preferred response, it is most likely that Ramanujan’s work would have been lost to humanity.

Granted that when it comes to theories from outsiders, the “shoot first ask questions never” is understandingly the preferred response but its efficiency comes at a price; the loss of contributions from Ramanujan-like anomalies.

There is an efficient though less expedited way to sort through the barrage of crackpots (academics and non-academics alike) without losing Ramanujan-like anomalies which, considering the number of people on this planet, must exist in significant absolute numbers. So even though Ramanujan-type anomalies are statistically insignificant, the potential qualitative value of these anomalies is too important to ignore. So why not do what scientists do best; apply some objective and scientific criteria?

I propose the following questions be asked of any proposed theory:

  1. Do its axioms form an internally consistent set?
  2. Is the theory rigorously derived from its axiom set?
  3. Are all descriptions derived from its axiom set consistent with observations?
  4. Are its explanations of observations rigorously derived from its axiom set?
  5. Can testable predictions that are unique to the theory be rigorously derived from its axiom set?

Quantum-geometry dynamics, which is the theory this website is dedicated to, is an outsider’s theory. As such, it is likely that it will provoke the preferred response in a large majority people who come across it. If despite my arguments you chose the preferred over the scientific response, then you’ll move on if you haven’t already done so without giving a second thought to the possibility that there may be something of value in QGD. But it is my hope that some of you will be Hardy-like anomalies and you will ask about quantum-geometry dynamics (as one should of any theory) the five questions above or apply some equivalent objective criteria rather than submit to some sociological consensus.

Statistically, it is even more unlikely that I am a Ramanujan-type anomaly than that you may be a Hardy-type anomaly but, since such anomalies exist , that we are remains a possibility. Isn’t exploring that possibility, however slight, worth a few minutes of your time? If you believe so, then see suggested readings below.

An Axiomatic Approach to Physics  (a short presentation of the ideas of quantum-geometry dynamics)

Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics 3rd edition  (a detailed discussion)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 131 access attempts in the last 7 days.