Brian Wang has a wonderfully intriguing post up at Next Big Future.
A company called Blacklight Power has announced their development of a prototype power generation device that functions based upon a new resolution of the paradoxes inherent in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. While I make no secret of my high school dropout status (quite the contrary, in fact), the following statement by Dr. Mills, who's theoretical work (.pdf) it is drawn from, seems critically important to uneducated me:
"However, this inability to identify or understand the nature of
absolute space and an absolute frame at rest should not be confused with the lack of their existence and the consequences for the nature of spacetime, matter, and energy."
What this statement implies to me is that all the experimental work performed using Einstein's (and others) theoretical work as a basis cannot be considered exclusive of other work performed using a (proposed) more complete theory. None of which necessarily speaks to the accuracy or honesty of any such previous work, just by the way. I would go so far as to ask, how could a theory which doesn't acknowledge a certain datum possibly disprove anything derived from that previously unrecognised datum?
Thus, when a commenter at Next Big Future said:
"Strling Westrup said...
This is sheer nonsense. Mills is explicitly saying that Quantum Mechanics, the most rigorously tested theory in all of science is flat out wrong.
For him to be right, the last 30 years of experiments would have to have all been falsified.
The chances are MUCH higher that little green men will arrive tomorrow and give us advanced alien energy technology. Why not write about them instead?
June 18, 2008"
... I was slightly taken aback.
If his reaction can be fairly taken as indicative of mainstream response to Dr. Mills' theoretical work, then it becomes quite obvious that certainly in Mr. Westrup's case he hasn't bothered to think the matter through very well, if at all.
As seems obvious to me, the fact that an admittedly incomplete theory (by none other than A. Einstein himself) doesn't take into account data that it does not include hardly equates to, "the last 30 years of experiments would have to have all been falsified.", does it? Dr. Mills is proposing a complete Unified Theory which, if I understand things, includes Quantum Mechanics as a contributing component, after all.
Strikes me as a lot of hand waving while resolutely looking the other way, Mr. Westrup.
None of the foregoing should be taken as any sort of endorsement of all this on my part; I firmly associate myself with the position advanced by fellow blogger Al Fin:
"al fin said...
The proof is in the pudding. The company has set its goals in a short enough timespan so that we will soon know whether they are just trolling for investors, or if they actually do have something new.
Brian isn't vouching for the technology or science. He is only letting us know what the company is doing and what its claims are. You can do what you want with the information."
Let me also take this opportunity to say that my use of Mr. Westrup's readily available comment to illustrate a point was not an attempt to insult him personally. No offense was intended, Sir.