Our Belief in Our Belief Richard Lawrence Norman, Editor in chief, Mind magazine Journal of Unconscious Psychology
[email protected] Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Departments of Mathematics and Physics (retd), University of Hull, England;
[email protected] There is a fundamental error hiding beneath the floor, the foundation of truth and error lies hidden, or perhaps the lie was just a mistake. The human community practices the noble disciplines which have sustained the progress of our race and hence, there is a second factor beneath our truth, beneath the mathematics and analysis is the fact of the human equation; for it is the community of man which determines the essence of fact. Fact is that which is agreed is fact. However, consensus is a limit past which truth is oft’ excluded. In many cases, consensus is the axiom upon which paradigm is based. What is ‘known’? This is a question first sought, then forgotten. But the wise, foolish and daring have often questioned this, those such as Nietzsche…always questioning the foundations, un-answering the certain thing upon which we stand, cracking up and breaking apart the ice of belief, until it is shifting and unsure…look down, now we can see into the bottom and beneath, a dangerous tonic not suitable for most–– Depth…is an uncomfortable and hazardous proposition. The rumor is that philosophy is the mother of our noble disciplines and sciences, and in the rare case of one such as Nietzsche perhaps it is so. The better scientists admit their doubt, and do not stand in certainty upon the opinion of others as a boast. The limits of science are but the limits of its models, and any good scientist knows this. It is the rare model which is an exact match for reality, its mechanisms and causes. We are quite sure none has yet been found! The finest of all scientists understand and admit this. The utility of a model and its correspondence to reality are deeply intertwined, and of course are always ripe for doubt, change and improvement. Just what sort of scientist understands this, and to whom does it apply? Think of the role of Newton. His theories were brilliant and timeless, and contained within them much truth about reality in the way models do. We quite rightly do not speak of the accomplishments of Newton as being foolish or wrong headed simply because a more detailed model such as relativity or quantum theory comes to the fore. No, we understand that the picture has been sharpened and the model made anew, so we might gain further insight into the nature of reality. Experiments sharpen the limits of our models and in this, we have scientific progress. Scientific progress is found in the refinement of its models, nothing more than that. Einstein himself understood the limits of scientific model making, and often related his doubts to those with whom he had correspondence. It is to be remembered that Einstein was a good scientist, and did
himself doubt the validity of his own models, models of things which involved the concept of curved space-time. He also strongly doubted the validity of quantum models. Einstein wrote about his misgivings concerning his own theories in a letter to his friend Michel Angelo Besso: “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and the] rest of physics.” Einstein understood the situation. One must always be on the lookout for the new idea, the new model, which will claim even more of the elusive prize. Dogma has no place in science; none. Einstein knew this best. Indeed, the models of quantum theory and relativity have brought us a new world of hope and wonder. We have nuclear fission and fusion, we have the most accurate model ever conceived by man: Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED). Of course, Feynman who helped perfect QED was no less the scientist than Einstein, and admitted without hesitation that QED was causally, a mystery of confusion to him and all others. A re-normalized theory of stunning accuracy, but based upon unknown grounds…Feynman is famous for saying this illustrious theory of unprecedented accuracy was based on a mystery, and much was ‘swept under the rug’ as to the causes. Recall that Feynman shared a Nobel Prize in 1965 for his work with QED and also note how clear he is about the fact that QED, stunningly accurate as it is, is a model with limits, and not a pure representation of truth. Just as Einstein, we see good scientific thinking, and lots of doubt. From his famous book QED, the strange theory of light and matter in typically direct language we read (p. 128): “The shell game that we play to find n and j is technically called “renormalization.” But no matter how clever the word, it is what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. . . . I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate. What is certain is that we do not have a good mathematical way to describe the theory of quantum electrodynamics: such a bunch of words to describe the connection between n and j and m and e is not good mathematics.” Here, Feynman describes the single most accurate model ever devised by man! Of course Feynman is correct and we see in QED only an accurate model and not certain truth, as science itself is based on models and mathematics, no more than that. Progress is to be found in sharpening those models. Those who profess certain truth in any current scientific dogma, are not strictly honest. We speak now as always only of science, only of models. Just ask Einstein or Feynman. Dogmatism is anathema to good science. Unfortunately, those men are rare. History paints a different picture for us of the more usual situation. Think in a basic way of the life and work of Nietzsche and how his writing was never checked, the original source manuscripts never inspected and the word of the Nazis was simply accepted as the right meaning. Later, the truth emerged and a complete reversal of the lies was discovered. Often the interpretation of an experiment or data is like that. Once all agree as to the meaning, the case is closed and be it error or truth…the very question is then removed from view. Once a result is agreed upon the foundation is sealed over, and the bedrock upon which our scientific foundations are
based is imagined solid. So has it been agreed. However, the issue may well be one which has been settled by way of a sort of “vote.” All agree the meaning is what it is. The mass of opinion gives weight to the process of factual determination, and so, that process is really a matter of conflict resolution, more so than certainty. This may well be the case, not in all, but surely in some instances and perhaps, in regards to some very key pieces of foundational scientific ‘fact.’ We believe in science, and science is based upon those earlier beliefs and interpretations upon which its later “truths” are founded. What lies hidden, beneath our belief in our belief? To look upon the familiar history of science under doctrine, we see an effect much the same as modern consensus and its resulting doctrine in determining what is or is not ‘acceptable’ truth. This is not a matter of experiment, nor is it open to debate. The fact of ‘truth,’ precedes those things. Even as far back as the late 1800's the view into history was millennial, and the sight clear to interpret. From Bechamp's seminal work, The Blood, we read: "An historian of the founders of modern astronomy recently related that the philosopher Cleanthus three millennia before our era, wished to prosecute Aristarchus for blasphemy, for having believed that the earth moved, and having dared to say that the sun was the immovable centre of the universe. Two thousand years later, human reason having remained stationary, the wish of Cleanthus was realized. Galileo was accused of blasphemy and impiety for having like Copernicus and following Aristarchus, maintained the same truth; a tribunal condemned his writings and forced him to a recantation which his conscience denied." ". . . I, Galileo, in the seventieth year of my age, on my knees before your Eminences, having before my eyes the holy gospels, which I touch with my own hands, I abjure, I curse, I detest, the error and heresy of the movement of the earth." Clearly, the thing which lies hidden beneath doctrine is truth itself, and so––hope. We might ask: What has been accepted, agreed upon and made firm as modern doctrine; what has been crafted as truth within the community of man, now held as firm fact, but, is in truth of fact but a forbidden sight, a blinder which forms the flawed hidden foundation of science and hence, the limit of man, his hope and his knowledge? Here are but a few pieces of consensus masquerading as fact, for history might find truth and as a pick axe shatters black ice, we may then see beneath the foundation and so, into a better future. To honor and to improve: Science will never admit final theories. In this fact is contained the full measure of human hope. Science is never static, it is a series of evolving models, each hopefully more closely approaching the truth. Today, there is great pride in our scientific paradigms, and for good reason. However, this pride, deserved as it is, exerts a paralyzing inertia, as a kind of dogma which prevents the next tier of solutions from emerging. Money and
reputation are invested in the current interpretations, which are set up as a sort of irrefutable truth. The best way to honor the lauded lineage of scientific progress is to improve it. Let us examine this current state of progress and the history upon which it is founded and ascertain if the next step toward a better future may be derived. Today, we have achieved incomplete combustion burning fossil and other available fuels, such as wood and oil, coal, gasoline and natural gas with their associated pollution and high cost. We have achieved fission and used this science to create nuclear power along with much risk and the familiar poisonous radioactive waste products that persist for many centuries. We are attempting to harness the processes of fusion such as those within the sun and achieve at enormous cost and substantial risk a hot fusion, with no useful success. Cold fusion is laughed at by orthodox science. Today we have medical practice with many great successes and also many limitations, such as high priced toxic drugs and chemotherapies associated with a host of familiar deadly hazards and of course, deeply prohibitive costs. These advances and limits may be clearly traced to the limitations of current science and those, may be traced back to specific episodes with clear historical import. First we will review our current limitations and then present a new pathway toward our better future. Science is the bride of human progress, and as such we must vow to honor and improve that to which we are wed. In science and human affairs alike: It is stasis which is our limit and hence, the limit of future hope. We do not suggest that the current paradigms should be discarded; certainly not. We suggest that they may be reevaluated, and those areas which do not yield needed new results may be reformulated and, in some specific cases, replaced or augmented with a new perspective. These new ways of understanding the systems we examine within biology and physical science are surprising and vary from what is already believed, and so are often subject to reflex rejection and quick condemnation by the scientific community at large. However, in due course experiment after experiment will prove sound science to be valid. If medical science and the fundamentals of quantum physics, chemistry and relativistic physics were treated thus, what would the result be? In a word: Hope. First, we will articulate a few unspoken facts which if addressed will permit needed advancement and a new future. The basis of modern scientific theory must be plainly understood if we are to locate the targets for scientific reformulation, and offer up the new solutions we need. We must refine the theory, to change the fact. Three general points will suffice to allow us to see beneath our beliefs, and so find needed new solutions. 1. Quantum theory and its offspring quantum chemistry have limits. Although quantum chemistry is touted as a complete solution to the problems it attempts to address, this is clearly not the case, nor should we expect it to be. The facts although but quietly acknowledged, are well known. Remember, science does not admit final theories! In the words of Ruggero Santilli: “Recall that quantum chemistry was unable to achieve an exact and invariant representation of the main characteristics of the water molecule from unadulterated first principles despite efforts over the past century. In fact, a historical 2% has been missing in the representation of the water binding energy, while the representation of its electric and magnetic moments was embarrassingly wrong even in
the signs.” [Quote from: Santilli R. M. (2005) The New Fuels with Magnecular Structure, International Academic Press. http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/Fuels-MagnecularStructure.pdf] 2. Although very successful and useful, Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity were designed around specific limits within which they are solely meant to apply. Those limits have been exceeded and also, particular aspects of the formalism are based in the supposed Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equations which however, is not actually Schwarzschild's and this leads to several troubling consequences. This article is too brief to take a full accounting of the details, but suffice it to say for the sake of brevity that the original conditions of Einstein’s special theory upon which his general theory is based are very specific in relating only to the propagation of light through a vacuum, and also, do not rightly apply to hadronic scale interactions and resultant charge deformation as demonstrated in recent experiments with neutron synthesis from an arc of current and hydrogen gas. 3. Medical science is on the cusp of a revolution, and those at the forefront of such revolutionary change, quite naturally, meet with stiff resistance. Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier, discoverer of the AIDS virus is in just this position. Before him, was a man named Benveniste. These men articulated the role of electromagnetic and quantum phenomena within the body as they affect tissues in ways similar to chemicals and drugs, and also showing how these new aspects take on a clear role in sustaining disease processes and health. A pseudo-scientific tribunal headed by a man named Maddox and relying on the views of a professional magician destroyed the good reputation of Benveniste. However, some scientists with whom we are associated have repeated experiments many times over, which are directly akin to Beneviste’s and indeed, those experiments are repeatable. Benveniste’s ideas have been proven right. Montagnier has demonstrated in scientific papers and also before a film crew that DNA itself may be formed from raw PCR ingredients with no trace of a physical DNA template! The possibility of contamination has been eliminated by sending the signal over a thousand kilometres to an independent lab for aqueous instantiation, PCR processing and verification. The result is unambiguous; only encoded electromagnetic radiation is needed to affect the aqueous system and structure DNA from raw ingredients and so, we understand the processes which sustain disease themselves and those of health as well are deeply connected to electromagnetic information and quantum processes, once understood in this new medical context. What would happen if we questioned our belief in our belief? What might the result be if we were to admit these foundational questions and then, answer them? Could our future be different if science were to advance in these areas? If so, how? Our future: To include information theory and electromagnetic processes within our medical models and also, to “cover” (ie. keep the good and then improve) quantum and relativistic science so as to gain results which are new will, in our estimation, create a better future
for the race of man. Some aspects may be seen clearly as a matter of testable hypothesis and others are currently available for immediate use. Medical possibilities: Experiments clearly suggest that the dynamics of the bodily system involve electromagnetic information and quantum processes in sustaining disease and health, determining cell morphology and also, that drugs and chemical agents do indeed gain some substantial part of their efficacy through electromagnetic informational and quantum processes. What could this mean for the future? a. A disease may be diagnosed in moments with a non-invasive scan. b. A field may be applied to alter faulty encoding with correct patterning. This is the eventual potential. Any disease which demonstrates resonance should be treatable and diagnosed in this way. A resonant approach to disease and health is indicated. Here, perhaps, is found the common process basis of many diseases. There may be a simple process nexus which could allow the informational alteration of fundamental disease dynamics without recourse to drugs, high priced treatments, or invasive techniques. In Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences, Montagnier notes: "we have detected the same EMS in the plasma and in the DNA extracted from the plasma of patients suffering of Alzheimer, Parkinson disease, multiple Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. . . . Moreover, EMS can be detected also from RNA viruses, such as HIV, influenza virus A, Hepatitis C Virus." A great many diseases may possibly share the same mechanism of reproduction, and so may all be treatable and diagnosable in one simple way. Field effects may well hold the future of medical practice. Imagine a handheld device which scans, finds resonant aspects of specific disease and after diagnosis, initiates new healthy patterning within the bodily system via an informationally encoded field, without the use of drugs. One must think also in this context of the lost science of Rife and the hope for a cheap, safe painless cure for cancer. This is our future. Can electromagnetic information do the work of drugs? Can a computer network be established which will permit distribution of inexpensive and safe drug effects to all those in need, for little cost? Can information theory and the physics of electromagnetic encoding foster a new medical model under which the poor and rich alike may benefit from inexpensive nontoxic drug effects? Information is all but free to replicate and distribute, and no toxic chemical constituent enters the body in this mode of treatment. Energy and pollution: The covering of quantum and relativistic science is a daunting and detailed task which has been accomplished by a highly adept and unorthodox scientist named Ruggero Santilli. Although employed for many years at Harvard and MIT amongst other institutions of note and stature, his efforts have met with stiff resistance just as one might expect. What he has found may change the human situation in a profound and hopeful way: The notorious inefficiency of combustion leading to pollution from the utilization of
fossil and other fuels may be a thing of the past, allowing those fuels to be burned free of pollution, and also, permitting clean burning, nonpolluting cheap fuel to be synthesized from waste chemicals and sewage! Vehicles using said fuel need no catalytic converter, and emit oxygen in the exhaust. This technology, which extends directly from a mathematical covering of quantum and relativistic science, may provide our race with energy independence from oil and solve the issue of pollution so clearly caused by burning oil based and coal based fuels, which may be replaced or augmented, to create highly efficient clean combustion for little cost. “Hot” fusion which uses mechanisms such as those assumed to operate within the interior of the sun to create power is difficult to contain; the reactors are unreliable as of present and very costly to build, and also, the process, should it ever be practically obtained, emits hazardous radiation. Through a new understanding of the internal nuclear/hadronic structure, a sort of intermediate “warm” fusion has been achieved in experimental prototypes of substantial size. Silicon has been created by fusion of oxygen and carbon using air as fuel, and other new approaches as well. No radiation whatsoever is emitted in these energy releasing reactions. The above mentioned new understanding of internal nuclear structure has also allowed a new model of the neutron and other hadrons. Calculations extending from the model permit a possible new approach to the clean up of nuclear waste produced in our modern fission power plants. The theory implies stimulated nuclear decay may be possible, and instead of taking thousands of years to decay, the radioactive waste may be disposed of on-site in minutes or hours. This potential application of the new model in pointing the way to gamma stimulated nuclear decay must be tested. From the theoretical calculations, it is hypothesized that this decay can be stimulated by bombarding the nucleus with so-called ‘resonant’ photons with an energy of 1.294 Mev. Under normal circumstances the probability of this interaction is extremely low. However, Santilli claims that there is a large resonance peak in the reaction cross-section (that is, the probability of the said interaction occurring) for incident photons with an energy of 1.294 Mev. Conclusion: Science is itself human hope for one reason and one reason alone: science will never admit final theories. Instead, science is nothing but a series of evolving models which never rest as if content in a false posture as truth or dogma. Problems which one paradigm is unable to solve, may then be addressed with new thinking. In this there is hope for our race. From energy and pollution to medical science no paradigm or problem is written in stone, for truth may always be approached more closely within scientific pursuit which never rests, but remains ever searching and finding. Nothing is sure, for science must always look twice and reimagine its foundations. Science understands one thing most of all: we must always question the basis and build again. History, and so our future, may then be recast. Nothing is sacred and in this, there is all of hope: ––we may question our belief, in our belief.
.
