Answer to Critique

Rory,

Thanks for obtaining the critique from Dr. Walter Harbut. I would like now to respond to this first offering my thanks that he has at least taken the trouble to respond.

He says he is looking for "the flaw" as if he has already decided the case before reading the article. I had hoped that any critic would look at the whole picture presented and not just look at a small portion, find a problem and dismiss the whole thing on that basis. I suppose he would be very busy and not have the time to take in properly what was written because he has missed the point in one important way as I will show. He is looking at my base level of reality, the i-ther, consisting of real particles, the positive and negative primaries, as if they were part of the quantum level of reality. I make it quite clear that the quantum level is the next higher one generated by the mathematics of the i-ther. If it is true that non-Euclidean geometries have to apply at the quantum level this is readily provided, even with Euclidean geometry at the i-ther level, since these can be purely mathematical constructs of the i-ther just as our mathematicians model them. The i-ther level can therefore remain Euclidean. He makes much of entanglement and tunnelling. I am fully aware that Newtonian mechanics cannot account for tunnelling. However, the interpretation I give for wave-particle duality shows that sub-atomic particles do not have to be considered as real and need not obey Newton. They obey quantum mechanical principles as purely mathematical constructs of the i-ther, arranged so that Newtonian mechanics arises at the macroscopic scale. At this scale I show Euclidean geometry applies despite Einstein's curved space-time approach. This is because I show the density of the i-ther, speed of light and mass-energy of an object all vary with distance from a massive object in such manner as to be mathematically equivalent to curved space-time. This yields the same predictions as GR but with the huge advantage of being fully quantum compatible. So here at least no higher dimensions are required. He makes no reference to this. I think the problem is that theorists are still considering sub-atomic particles as real when wave-particle duality indicates that they are simply abstract constructs of the background mind. He makes no comment about this crux issue, assumes from the start that my theory is flawed and ignores all the attractive aspects of the approach. The points he makes about particles penetrating filaments indicates he is thinking of them as sub-atomic particles obeying quantum rules. They are not.

I have assumed that at the i-ther level Newtonian mechanics can be re-applied since only here do real particles exist. They are no longer wave-constructs and so it is wrong to apply quantum mechanics here. He thinks the spinors of Penrose offer more promise. I would like to ask how these predict the survival of consciousness following bodily death. The experimental evidence for this as fully proven fact is now available. It is not obvious to theorists since this area has been effectively discredited by scientists who regard it as a threat. But this does not diminish the experimentally established facts. Non-locality and entanglement do offer problems if very entangled "particles" do affect one another absolutely instantaneously at great separating distances. However, if a minute time delay is permitted then this can be accommodated by superluminary transport of information along filaments.

I do think he could have considered the very large number of positive aspects of the theory: the way it solves the problems of the big bang by eliminating the cosmological constant and replacing this with a gentle ever-accelerating expansion of the universe as already shown by study of distant superenovae. It removes the singularities from the centres of black holes and he could have commented on the way it provides what I consider to be a far better interpretation of wave-particle duality than those already available. But although I am disappointed at his response please thank him for his effort.

Ron

An Exact Classical Mechanics leads toward Quantum Gravitation - Ronald Pearson

This pamphlet suggests that misconceptions in classical mechanics are responsible for blocking progress in physics. Refinements are described which spill over into quantum theory and appear to provide answers to vexed questions. For example, it leads to alternatives to both special and general relativity which match the achievements of both. Unlike relativity, however, the new solution is fully quantum-compatible, being consistent with the concept of the quantum vacuum.

"Consciousness as a Sub-quantum Phenomenon" - Ronald Pearson's paper

Published in the journal Frontier Perspectives, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Volume 6. No. 2, Spring/Summer 1997 (pp70-78). ISSN: 1062-4767

Summary of Ron Pearson's Theory - by Rory MacDonald