Index of D. B. Larson's books

This issue of Reciprocity marks its fourth anniversary, and provides a suitable occasion on which to make some comments with respect to the progress that has been made toward the objective that was defined in the first issue: promotion of understanding of the Reciprocal System of physical theory. The most serious obstacle in the way of a new theory in any field is the prevailing tendency to dismiss it summarily on the ground that the a priori probability of its being correct is too low to justify taking the time to examine it. In the sixteen years that have elapsed since the first publication of the theory, and particularly in the four years that Reciprocity has been in existence, much of this initial handicap has been overcome. While unwillingness to consider the theory on its merits is still our biggest problem, there is a growing awareness that no serious arguments have thus far been advanced against it. Consequently, there is an emerging tendency, especially in foreign countries, to regard it as a legitimate competitor of currently accepted physical thought, and to recognize its extraordinary potentialities. As expressed in the long review of Quasars and Pulsars that was reprinted in the April 1974 issue of Reciprocity, “If it [the Reciprocal System] does [stand the test of time] the physicists will find in it their long-cherished desire, viz. one comprehensive theory with universal applicability.”

This review from the Indian Journal of Physics is one of the best available tools for use by those who want to get friends and associates interested in the theory, and if any readers would like to obtain a quantity of copies for distribution, a good supply is still available. They can be obtained free of charge either from me or from Professor Meyer.

In view of the amount of progress that has been made, I believe we are now in a position to take a somewhat more aggressive attitude, and to emphasize that the Reciprocal System complies fully with the basic requirement of science—agreement with observation and measurement—whereas so-called “modern” science no longer does. “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong”, says Richard Feynman. “In that simple statement is the key to science.” But present-day scientists have been frustrated in their attempts to explain recently discovered phenomena in terms of theories that agree with the observed facts, and because they feel that they must have some kind of an explanation in each case, they have abandoned the traditional requirement that Dr. Feynman sets forth in the foregoing quotation. In my publications I have pointed out a great many places where present day physical and astronomical theory violates this principle that is the “key to science”, and resorts to one evasive device after another to conceal the failure to meet established scientific standards.

The currently accepted nuclear theory of atomic structure is a good example. According to the theory, the atom has a “nucleus” composed of protons and neutrons. If we go entirely by what we know, and require our theories to agree with known facts, the nuclear theory must be rejected because our observations show that (1) protons repel each other, and (2) neutrons only live about 15 minutes. But the theorists have taken the stand (which they call unscientific when anyone else relies upon it) that the known facts do not apply where they are in conflict with this theory. In order to “save” the theory they have assumed, entirely ad hoc, that there must be a “nuclear force” holding the protons in place (the modern equivalent of the “angels” or “demons” that early-day scientists postulated when faced with similar situations), and that the neutrons must have an indefinitely long life when they are inside the atom. There is not the slightest independent evidence that either of these assumptions is valid. In essence, they amount to nothing more than assertions that for the purposes of the nuclear theory these particular conflicts with observation must be disregarded.

It is now appropriate, in my estimation, to begin laying more stress on the fact that there are no ad hoc assumptions in the Reciprocal System. Indeed, there are no assumptions at all other than the assumptions that define the theory: those that are contained in the two fundamental postulates. Nor does anything that has thus far been definitely deduced from the basic premises of the theory conflict with any definitely known facts. Here is a theoretical system that is in full compliance with the fundamental scientific requirement stated by Dr. Feynman: a requirement that “modern” physical theory is far from being able to meet.

Reciprocity, Vol. V, No. 3 (October 1975)

Index of D. B. Larson's books