Accepted Science Issues

The science section of website-1 was subdivided into three parts: foundation, accepted and speculative science. In this context, website-3 should be seen as an extension of speculative science specifically discussing various types of wave models, where the opening section entitled the Wave Structure of Everything was more of a statement of requirements and not the assertion of a new wave model. As such, the WSE discussion was intended to outline a number of issues surrounding any potential wave model. While these issues are complex, the basic idea is simple:

Matter particles can have no definable ‘substance’ beyond some form of energy-density in the sub-atomic domain of protons, neutrons and electrons. However, if energy is a scalar quantity, a causal mechanism is required for its propagation within the universe.

As such, the various reviews of different wave models attempt to consider problems associated with physical causality. For example, how might potential energy propagate between two points in space, both as radiation and as a particle, which a wave model considers in terms of wave mechanics. If so, there is an implicit inference that any such wave model must challenge some aspects of accepted science founded on relativity and the quantum model. In this respect, this section will attempt to discuss aspects of relativity and the quantum model that might be challenged on the grounds that they have become too dependent on mathematical abstraction and, in so doing, fail to provide an adequate explanation of physical causality. This challenge is presented in terms of three discussions that should possibly be seen as a necessary precursor before reviewing any of the wave models.

While none of these challenges to accepted science are authoritative, it is believed that they raise some valid issues, especially if causal mechanisms are considered essential to scientific understanding. However, the following quote by George Box might be used as a more general justification on the grounds that it possibly tells us something about science that we should not forget.

All models are wrong.
Some are useful.

Models are by necessity simplifications of the real world, where its complexity cannot be fully comprehended. In this context we might understand why simplified models must, in part, be inherently wrong by the omission of detail. So, while accepting that some models are useful, there is an obvious corollary that suggests that some are not. In many ways, Einstein himself realised this problem in the following quote.

Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labelled as 'conceptual necessities’. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors.

So, if accepted science only provides a simplified model of reality, they may possibly be wrong in important details. If so, science itself has the responsibility to continuously challenge its own accepted models and not let them gain authority over us.