Sub Quantum Kinetics Review

[dangineer]

I've been reading LaVoilette's book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion" and some of his descriptions of his theory "Sub-Quantum Kinetics." I haven't really gotten very far through the book yet but found it such an interesting topic, I thought we could give his theory a good critical review.

Just some background: Paul LaViolette has a Ph.D. in systems science and a B.S. in physics. Supposedly, his theory has been confirmed several times over and he has predicted and discovered practically everything, including mysteries pertaining to medicine, cosmology, engineering, and even archeology.

His theory states that matter arises from fluctuations in the concentration of "ether" particles, governed by reaction and diffusion laws. He's probably a quack but I found his theories interesting thus far, as I am beginning a Ph.D. program studying reacting flows and non-linear dynamics, so I hope to be in a position to actually qualify his ideas.

Although he may be a crackpot, there is very little critical review of his work on the internet, so I thought it might be interesting to start one on this forum. That being said, if you have read some of his material, please post your thoughts here, and any validation of his claims you may find. As I examine his work further, I will post my comments as well.

 

[ramparts]

Giving his theory a jargony-sounding name, publishing his ideas in a book rather than peer-reviewed papers, and trumpeting a Ph.D. in "Systems Science" as if it makes you qualified to do theoretical physics (it doesn't). Sounds like a crackpot to me.

 

[drwayne]

"Although he may be a crackpot, there is very little critical review of his work on the internet"

Not picking on you here, just a general point...

Keep in mind that the primary job of scientists in a given field is not to debunk every nutcase that
comes along to proclaim that they have solved some problem if only they could get the narrow
minded, dogmatic powers that be to just look at it. There are far too many Dunning Kruger examples
to be found out there. FAR too many.

 

[ramparts]

Amen. If scientists were to take their time "critically reviewing" every crackpot theory out there and putting a detailed analysis online, they'd have no time to actually do science.

 

[Kessy]

Well, while I'm not defending this particular person (whom I've never heard of and know nothing about) I have noticed that the scientific community generally has a tendency to avoid subjects that have a giggle factor to them. While it's certainly understandable that people don't want to be associated with cloudcuckoolanders, it does mean that certain topics just aren't looked into seriously that really ought to be.

 

[dangineer]

Keep in mind that the primary job of scientists in a given field is not to debunk every nutcase that
comes along to proclaim that they have solved some problem if only they could get the narrow
minded, dogmatic powers that be to just look at it. There are far too many Dunning Kruger examples
to be found out there. FAR too many.

I agree completely, which is why I think it's appropriate that this review take place on an internet forum. I'm personally interested in his approach because its extended from a field I'm beginning to study. Also, I don't think his basic ideas are all that far off from approaches that some mainstream scientists are taking.

 

[nimbus]

Amen. If scientists were to take their time "critically reviewing" every crackpot theory out there and putting a detailed analysis online, they'd have no time to actually do science.

So far, what I've seen on the net is an uncanny correlation between those who don't go thru official peer review and their ability to entertain peer review. Most extreme case being e.g. KS15 & co. And with all due respect it applies to people like M. Mozina too where, no matter the how and why, nothing comes out of peer review even (or especially) when done on familiar terms as on a net forum such as SDC.

 

[drwayne]

"I agree completely, which is why I think it's appropriate that this review take place on an internet forum."

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Most internet forums include a significant number of the
same Dunning Kruger, word-salad tossers that I was referring too earlier. In a internet forum
discussion, they are going to form (in my experience) the majority of the responders. The folks
whose opinion you probably want are probably not going to have the time, and perhaps not the interest
to do an honest review. So, in my opinion, what you will get from an internet forum discussion of
a cutting edge/novel/fringe/kook theory is probably worse than not having done anything at all.

The above is not really a huge function of whether an examined question is important or interesting.
Clearly, the DK poster will tend to be drawn to things that are interesting / important. The problem
is that they will use the "word salad / argue things into acceptance" approach that has led to many
scars/burn marks/pulled out hair within the community, so the "You really need to look at this,
the questions he/she is addressing are really important!" argument for examination does have
a reasonable response like "So did the last dozen we looked at".

I will quit raining on your parade now - perhaps this topic will prove to be the exception to
everything I have said, and will be interesting and technically sound. If so, I will be exceedingly
happy with any associated egg on my face.

 

[ramparts]

Well, while I'm not defending this particular person (whom I've never heard of and know nothing about) I have noticed that the scientific community generally has a tendency to avoid subjects that have a giggle factor to them. While it's certainly understandable that people don't want to be associated with cloudcuckoolanders, it does mean that certain topics just aren't looked into seriously that really ought to be.

Plenty of ideas that once might have had a "giggle factor" are now accepted physics. Hell, look at quantum mechanics. The difference between those ideas and most crackpots' theories (most of which are plenty giggle-inducing) is the ones that get accepted have data and strong theory behind them.

I agree completely, which is why I think it's appropriate that this review take place on an internet forum. I'm personally interested in his approach because its extended from a field I'm beginning to study. Also, I don't think his basic ideas are all that far off from approaches that some mainstream scientists are taking.

I'm (obviously) with Dr Wayne's above response. Believe it or not, it actually takes years of study and experience with theoretical physics research to really be capable of verifying a modern physics theory (and I don't mean to suggest I have that kind of experience yet; I don't). Needless to say that doesn't apply to extraordinarily dumb theories, some of which a web forum can tear apart just fine.

 

[dryson]

Sounds like to me that ever critic here is jealous of his being published which his book would have come under some peer review. Jealous is what I smell in the air. :mrgreen: