Reciprocal System of theory
From Wikinfo
The Reciprocal System of Theory (RST) is a non-standard cosmological theory. It is held by advocates to be a theoretical framework capable of comprehensively explaining all physical phenomena from subatomic particles to galactic clusters. The framework, based on the work of Dewey B. Larson, an American engineer and author, was originally described in his book The Structure of the Physical Universe in 1959 and has more recently been published in three revised and enlarged volumes. The ideas are promoted by the members of 'The International Society of Unified Science, Inc.' (ISUS) whose objective is to "advance in all ways deemed feasible the Reciprocal System of physical theory as proposed by Dewey B. Larson".
The RST and the work of Larson is essentially unknown or ignored in the mainstream physics community, since it is completely at odds with relativity, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang and many other modern theories, including the nuclear theory of the atom. In fact, Larson wrote another book specifically addressing the latter theory. It is entitled, The Case Against the Nuclear Atom.
In this book, Larson not only makes a case against the established nuclear theory of mainstream physics, but he also elaborates upon the theme of scientific endeavor, and his disillusionment with the scientific establishment, which he finds is not always as guided by scientific discipline and methodology as he had envisioned in his youth. He writes,
- In spite of the high ideals to which the scientific world subscribes in theory, today's best guess is just as firmly enthroned in the field of science as it is in economics or any other of the less "exact" branches of knowledge, and the extent to which general acceptance is taken as the equivalent of proof in present-day scientific practice is nothing short of astounding. It is true that the areas in which the facts have been positively and unequivocally established are much larger in science than in these other fields, but outside of these fully explored areas the scientist is just as reluctant to admit ignorance as his counterparts in other disciplines, and just as prone to present his opinion or that of the "authorities" in his field as positive knowledge. There is, in fact, a very general tendency to elevate currently popular scientific theories and assumptions to the status of incontestable articles of faith whose validity must not be questioned, and the path of the innovator who dares to take issue with these cherished doctrines is thorny indeed.
Larson certainly spoke from first hand knowledge, as his work is most innovative. Not only does he challenge the established theory of the nuclear atom, but also most all of the ensuing theories of modern physics. Indeed, after publishing the expanded and revised edition of his major work, The Structure of the Physical Universe, in which he introduces an alternative paradigm for formulating the laws of physics, he published another book entitled Beyond Newton, focusing on the phenomenon of gravity, and how Einstein's theory of general relativity represents an unfortunate detour from the main track of unraveling this most fundamental of all mysteries in science. He writes in the preface of the book,
- I should perhaps explain why the title is Beyond Newton and not Beyond Einstein, since Einstein's work is generally regarded as occupying the more advanced position. My findings indicate that Newton's Law of Gravitation is correct, so far as it goes, and that the functions of such a work as this are first, to clarify the application of this gravitational law and those areas where its validity is now in question; and second, to furnish an explanation for each of the characteristics of gravitation, including particularly the two items which Newton made no attempt to determine: the origin of the gravitational force which he postulated and the mechanism whereby this force is exerted.
Today, these issues are by no means settled, even though one might be led to believe the contrary. The accepted theory of general relativity is based on the four dimensional continuum of space and time and works very well, as far as can be determined, except at very large and very small scales. However, it's still a theory, not a law, and mankind is spending hugh amounts of money in unsuccessful attempts to reconcile it with other theories, while at the same time seeking experimental confirmation of it's validity.
For instance, great experiments employing ultra-sensitive, multi-million dollar devices are getting underway during the early decades of this century in order to detect gravitational radiation, a requirement of general relativity. Larson contends that gravity does not operate via transmission and that such waves do not exist; that gravity operates without any medium or continuum such as the four-dimensional (4D) curved-space of relativity, or any process of transmission between gravitating bodies. While supporters point out that his position is in complete accord with observations, opponents contend that there is indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational radiation. This evidence is from binary neutron star measurements. General relativity (GR) predicts that, due to gravitational radiation, the orbit of such systems is predicted to decay at a specific rate. This decay is observed, and the rate is as predicted by general relativity, to an accuracy of 0.5%. Hopefully, the new experiments employing gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGO, VIRGO, LISA and others, may soon provide a definitive answer to the question by either producing direct evidence for the existence of gravitational radiation, or, on the other hand, evidence of its absence.
RST proponents also claim that it is consistent with recent observations that the geometry of the universe is flat (from the CMB data), and that the cosmological parameter, Omega, is precisely equal to one. These data are in conflict with traditional Big Bang cosmology, where Euclidean geometry would appear to be highly unlikely. While the theory of cosmic inflation is the method accepted by most physicists for overcoming this apparent contradiction, and, as opponents point out, the RST has not been invoked by any mainstream physicist as an explanation for why these conditions prevail at this time in the history of the universe, it's easy to understand why: The problem simply doesn't exist in the new paradigm. Indeed, in order for any mainstream scientist to adopt an RST solution to any of the current range of major problems in the field of physics, would require a wholesale rejection of many long held and cherished concepts, and an acceptance of a new paradigm, with completely unfamiliar concepts, a highly unlikely scenario indeed.
According to proponents of the RST, the recent discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe is another example of how the new paradigm solves great cosmological problems. The observed acceleration is thought to be produced by a gravity-like repulsive force. Some think that this force, dubbed "dark energy," by Michael Turner of the University of Chicago, might be vacuum energy, represented by the "cosmological constant" (Λ) in general relativity or possibly something called "Quintessence." While this new force is thought to be similar to gravity, and though it is in conflict with established theories, a similar outward scalar motion has been an integral part of the RST from the beginning, and is a component in the RST's calculations and explanations of both the large-scale structure of the universe and its atomic and molecular scale structure.
In fact, it plays a fundamental role in the RST's explanation of the recession of galaxies, star formation, galaxy formation and the explosions of stars, without the need for the 'big bang,' 'nucleosynthesis,' 'cosmic inflation,' or black holes to explain these processes. Again, opponents stress, that the RST is not necessary to explain this outward motion--Einstein himself proposed the cosmological constant soon after his proposal of the theory of relativity, and other mainstream scientists are exploring theories of expansion that, hopefully, can find a solution within the current paradigm. Yet, it must be admitted that there are already predictions, some from very prominent and leading physicists such as Dr. David Gross, of the Kavli Institute at the University of California Santa Barbara, who predicts the emergence of a new paradigm that will be based on a different understanding of the nature of space and time, certainly a prescription that the RST fills very well, according to its proponents.
In Nothing But Motion, Larson makes theoretical predictions of the periodic order of the elements. He claims that his theory accurately derives the elements in correct order without employing the concepts of electrons and atomic nucleus, and predicts that the maximum number of elements in the periodic table is 117. In contrast, quantum mechanics, upon which the current theory of the atom is based, fails to predict the correct order of the table and places no such limit on the number of elements. Also, the RST shows that the reason that the number of elements grows with each new row in the table, is due to the periodic nature of its structure. This is most clearly seen in the Wheel of Motion, an alternate, perhaps more natural, representtion of the periodic elements.
In Basic Properties of Matter, Larson makes theoretical predictions for a large number of properties of a range of chemical species, including atomic mass, interatomic distance, compressibility and heat capacity. It appears that he calculates these values from simple closed-form analytic formulas. If accurate, this would be a vast improvement on the complex calculations required to make theoretical predictions under quantum mechanics. However, in many cases Larson does not specify precisely which formula should be used, and the formulas used are sometimes changed from species to species with very little explanation. Also, Larson lists characteristic constants for the various species which are specific to RST, such as "specific electric rotation". He does not give an unambiguous procedure for calculating these constants, and based on that book alone, it is impossible to rule out the allegation that they were selected arbitrarily to make the predictions fit the data.
According to its proponents, RST can also be used to solve the famous problem of the precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. This problem was first solved using Einstein's equations of general relativity, which assumes relative values of space-time in the equations of motion, as opposed to Newton's assumption that space and time should be treated as absolute concepts in the equations of motion. Larson, in the RST, also assumes absolute values of space and time, but goes beyond Newton in the definition of these crucial concepts. Using these definitions, K.V.K. Nehru produced a paper describing the orbital motion of high-speed planets. The result he found from the RST was precisely the same as that from relativity. Hence, like general relativity, the RST is fully in agreement with accurate measurements of Mercury's orbit.
