I am still a newbie in RS2 but I am a quantum chemist (and have studied also
quantum field theory etc.) and I really think it's vital to write a good book on
RS2 for the scientific community and I also maybe want to do it but first I need
to fully understand everything, study a little more RS2, algebra and even
conventional physics. In my humble opinion there are 2 main reasons why Larson
failed to provide his findings to scientific community.
1) did not use acceptable terms to describe what he found
2) rotational basis
In modern physics we still use are many strange concepts which are accepted. In
quantum chemistry we calculate properties of atoms, molecules and solid state Ab
Initio - so we have a theory how generally universe works and we calculate
everything in "atomic units" i.e. all physical constants are by definition 1
and then you just convert the result to regular units. The method my group uses
is solving Dirac equation (one of possible incorporations of relativity in to
quantum mechanics) which btw says that vacuum is fully occupied by "electrons
and positrons" (but these are here not any particles - it's a quantized function
of pseudocartesian space) So why not RS? It's not more strange then Dirac
equation. I think it's because if you want to talk to an ordinary scientist you
have to talk in strictly mathematical terms. e.g.
I want to describe what is universe from the non-relativistic quantum physics
view (and limit it for now to mass only):
Universe is a complex function of 3 Cartesian dimensions and time = 4
dimensions and it's square is observable as mass.
This means universe has in each point of its space and time has some complex
value (the square of integral through this function is mass).
Sentence "space is composed entirely of motion" is (for me) rather difficult to
understand because it does not say which mathematical structure I should use to
describe space. The previous example clearly says: "To create your universe you
have to create a function in 4 dimensions. If you give me a vector containing 4
real numbers, I will give you a complex number" In the Larson's way my sentence
would sound like:
"Space is entirely composed from wavefunction existing in 4 dimensions and it's
values are complex"
The rotational basis is an other problem solved by RS2 - no need to discus
In quantum chemistry we use both equations completely rigorous and also
completely empirical fictive... simply what ever you want just to get correct
numbers. Using RS2 (which seems to be holly grail of theoretical physics) should
be able to derive a way how to predict molecular properties and if so in this
field of science they will be accepted despite of way you get them. Then it will
be a short fight to get this in to other parts of science.
Now to Bruce Peret: If you mean it seriously that if somebody makes an
comprehensive outline you will fill in the contents, I will gladly write the
outline so that the reader will be able to reproduce the whole process and also
be able to continue. No white spaces, no hypothesis only logical development
from previous assumptions (physical axioms).
PS: I do not guarantee that my opinions are correct...