Letter of an anonimous Referee June 28th, 1995.
Feltrinelli - Publisher (MI) tel. 039 02 72001064.Report of an anonymous Referee for the second edition of the book “Albert was rigth - God does not play dice” submitted to Feltrinelli publishing house and rejected.
(The same book was then edited by Pendragon publishing house of Bologna on July, 1996)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Thesis of the book
The author invokes as a basis for his work a return to causality in opposition to the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, a theory aimed at limiting observation to the interpretation of the observed data, without being conditioned by causality".
New mathematical algorithms have been created obtaining excellent results like the prediction of new quantum phenomena without understanding, however, their cause-effect ratio. In order to give more importance to the cause-effect dualism, he thinks that physical research must be carried out by following a “comprehensible” model, that is based on the current sensory experience.Is it a banal error of interpretation or bad faith?
The author uses the term “comprehensible” in the sense of “conceivable, that is something you can imagine.”
And this doesn't mean that the phenomenon must be necessarily drawn " by the current sensory experience.”
From the point of view of model, this support of intelligibility is recognized in the use of the geometric construction for the interpretation of phenomena and the demonstration of assumptions, and, from the point of view of substance, in the imagination of a noumenon ( that must be interpreted however in the light of the new theory) in which “beings”
(Cassani refuses the term “particle”) consist of sources of subquantum spherical waves propagating in a discontinuous space-time.All the observable phenomena should be interpreted according to reflection, refraction and absorption of these subquantum waves. As a result the new theory is called Wave Field Theory.
The author's ambition is to have a room in the debate started in the 20s and 30s between Einstein, supporter of a possible field theory unifying gravitation, electromagnetism and atomic phenomena, and the Copenaghen's school (sic of the referee) which saw an insurmountable gap between the new quantum mechanics and the essentially continuous nature of field theories.
Hasty and fundamentally wrong judgment.
The author's purpose is much more ambitious: he wants to found a new unitary quantum physics that is at the same time deterministic and comprehensible.The author supports Einstein's followers.
2) How should we read the book?
Beyond every judgment on the merit of the content of the text, the book makes difficult reading.Liar and dissembler.
The malevolent judgment on "the merit of the content of the text" is evident since the beginning.He takes it for granted that Cassani's reader knows at the level of a university course in structure of matter or of theoretical physics institutes, the fundamental stages of the development in physics dating from the first half of the twentieth century. In order to understand Cassani's well-known examples, the reader should know at least the
classical repertoires of the 30s like Atomic Physics by Max Born (700 pages) or Atombau und Spektrallinien by Arnold Sommerfeld (1500 pages).The successful terrorist attempt to frighten publisher with a possible vast market of readers is evident in each of his word and quotation, and in his way of defining the book: "disagreeable even for specialists", at the cost of contradicting himself.
Cassani's ideal reader has been accustomed by the quoted texts to a 4-stages process: chronology of the most important experimental events of the beginning of the physics of the twentieth century, bad detailed interpretations of electromagnetism and classical mechanics, first “heuristic” models including the action quanta and, finally, the axiomatic exposition of the new quantum mechanics.
Cassani takes instead a transversal direction: its exposition is neither systematic nor complete. No problem, even the most complex one, can merit two or three pages. The comparison with the experimental data and with the
previous theories is essentially symbolic and continuously reduced, postponed or left out for further important developments we expect to reach.Poor him! He has not understood that when you want to found a new physics, relying on new unifying bonds among phenomena, you must necesseraly change your exposition and your way of linking up the explanations.
Therefore, the ideal reader will not be satisfied with his elusive way of proceeding. As for the "ordinary" reader who doesn't know either Sommerfeld or Dirac or Born, he is unlikely to follow Cassani's reasoning or appreciate the main points of his new theory,
I wonder why the reader must be necessarily ignorant of physics to the point that he doesn't know either Sommerfeld or Dirac or Born?
also because of a faulty exposition which shows an uniform sensationalism (almost every page announces a fundamental result) that ends up by dulling the reader's attention.
The Referee seems to be the only one to become sluggish, because he is so longer used to reading about fundamental results seeing that, by now, quantum mechanics has been still for seventy years at the 20s.
3) Sources and style.
All the sources of Cassani's interpretation derive from the “tradition” of the twentieth century's physicsAt first he claimed I hadn't ever followed tradition in my exposition, and this was extremely scandalous for him; now he accuses me of adhering to tradition.
The fundamental characteristics of subquantum waves, which are at the basis of his model, are borrowed by the material waves De Broglie associated to particles in his thesis and articles of the 20s, and his "broad" point of
view considering matter as a deformation of space-time is directly borrowed by Einstein's theory of general relativity.Finally, he considers the various interactions only as discrete energyexchanges, as well as quantum mechanics asserts. Therefore, under its revolutionary appearance, Cassani's argument conceals systematically a criticism against the authorities of physics.
How easily the referee contradicts himself! He hasn't the faintest idea of coherence!Apart from its gaps and omissions, reading is made unpleasant by a resentful and polemical attitude toward “physicists” who, after all, have made a large number of experimental observations and theoretical evaluations that the author can't disregard, and to which he refers in order to enrich his statements.
If he can't stand the resentful attitude, he should say it and limite himself to that, without "beating about the bush".
Certainly, if physicists he speaks of are all like him, the author's attitude is not difficult to understand.
All the gaps and omissions are evident only to people who don't understand that a new theory must necessarily revolutionize its rudiments and represent them in a different way, otherwise it wouldn't be either revolutionary or unifying.We would like to remind the author, who is also aware that modesty is not one of his defects, that Newton attributed the success of mechanics to the fact he relied on the previous physicists' theories.
4) the book is not exhaustive.
You can accuse physicists of everything except the ability to question the basis of their competence.What a laugh! Now quantum mechanics has become an untouchable church in its dogmas. He himself is the perfect example.
Physics has done it at least twice in the last centuries and with a good deal of audacity.
It is true! But only once in the last 75 years !!!
Anyway, before accepting a new theory and separating it from the other ones to throw away, it was necessary for researchers to examine the experimental reality and its new interpretation minutely.
In the Sommerfeld's book I have quoted above, the model of Bohr atom is broadly used among other things for the interpretation of the facts of the emission spectroscopy. According to the model of Bohr atom, the atom is
analogous to the solar system, in which however some laws of classical mechanics are suspended and some new laws are postulated.
This model is still “rough” and not very valid from the point of view of the axiomatic and theoretical rigour.
However, about 500 pages of accurate and detailed analysis of the whole experimental corpus accumulated by two generations of spectroscopy experts derive from this model.Doesn't he imagine even for a moment that spectroscopy experts, beeing the only ones to have done such an effort, were more interested in putting their ideas in order, beyond the comprehensibility, rather than in physical
models, and that all this has influenced the historical development of quantum mechanics ? (see matrix mechanics et cetera...)This results in the strenghtening of quantum hypothesis which becomes the only theory to be used for the interpretation of atomic phenomena. Cassani, on the contrary, outlines the phases of the development of physics without a chronological order, and he doesn't organizes problems and phenomena.
To mention just one thing, the electromagnetic interactions appear off and on only from pag. 86 on. On page 84, the existence of particles and antiparticles has already been shown, while the most “rudimentary” fact of the existence of positive and negative electric charges has not been considered yet.Of course. Why doesn't the referee understand that a theory based on the space-time existence exclusively, must mainly explain the existence of elementary bodies considered as masses, instead of the complex and non-rudimentary existence of positive and negative electric charges?
Why does Cassani devote a chapter to Compton effect, make a brief reference to the photoelectric effect, and write no line to the blackbody radiation?
Once again he shows his narrowness by refusing to understand the elementary fact that Compton effect is the basis of the laws of the wave field theory, and therefore that in the theory this is the main explanatory phenomenon.
Is it possible that he considers more important to undertake the explanation of “cold fusion” than to draw the terms of the emission lines of the atom of hydrogen or the interpretation of Davisson and Germer's experience?
It is clear that he doesn't understand that cold fusion is a pretext for explaining the elementary structure of the ratio among the wave phenomena occuring around the spherical involute, which are indispensable for the comprehension of the elementary structure of matter.
At the same time he deliberately ignores the importance of the description and derivation of fine-structure constant which enables us to understand in a deterministic way the various emission lines in the atom.What is worse is that no aspect of Cassani's subquantum wave mechanism is described rigorously. We never understand for example if the relative symmetry principle, that is the basis of the author's “dynamics”, is valid for an observer at rest with respect to the body in motion or for an observer moving with it.
There are two possibilities: either he can't read or he doesn't understand what he reads.
Everybody knows that the term -relative-, which defines the -symmetry - of the relative symmetry principle, means relative to the particle and to the field of a phenomenon, and non-relative to the observer.Another unexplained point is the difference in phase among the various subquantum wave sources: is or isn't it a coherent emission? The naturalness with which the author evades the correctness of the treatment of the wave motion (the example of pag. 102 is sensational), that should also be the cornerstone of his theory, fully explains the refusal of Louis de Broglie foundation to publish one of his previous work (pag. 40). And I could go on.
Poor referee, unfortunately once more he has not understood what he has read.
PAG. 120 shows the gravitational interactions among wave sources identifying with bodies, and the waves in question are anything but sine waves, therefore they have no phase. These are perturbation waves of the Schild discrete space-time, which are defined as discrete waves describable by difference equations, and therefore unorthodox waves.5) Cassani's thesis.
As we have already mentioned, the author shows a model based on the definition of each body as a source of "subquantum" waves. Every interaction in this model is traced back to a kind of “geometric viewpoint” of such vibrations. Such a model (that besides doesn't add any new notion to those developed up to now by physics) would overcome the wave-corpuscle dualism in favour of the first one.What? How can he say at first that the purely wave model "doesn't add and new notion to those developed up to now by physics", and after a line that the model" would overcome the wave -corpuscle dualism"??????
Cassani still considers the wave -corpuscle dualism as the badge of modern physics.
It is like that, isn't it ?????
Quantum mechanics is characterized by the wave-corpuscle dualism, isn't it?????However, Cassani has some extrinsic motivations: we don't accuse Cassani of easing the formulation of a theory with his model, but of considering it as the ultimate principle of reality.
In Cassani's theory, beyond the experimental data on the electron, there is really a geometric construction, the double involute, which explains them.That's funny!
What has he said? Has he said that it explains them????-----
Is therefore the W.F.T a theory explaining the experimental data.....??????But this geometric construction and all the others used in the text, are not observable and cannot be compared to the experimental reality. He tells nothing but tall stories.
All the branches of physics we can combine to this model show the existence and the coherence of the model of spherical involute, so much so that the referee himself is obliged to confess a few lines above that such a theory
"explains the experimental data", affirming just the opposite to what he writes below (he affirms that the geometric construction cannot be compared to the experimental reality).This autonomy of model and his way of insisting on the wave-corpuscle dualism (both models are obsolete and insufficient) are in our opinion very dated positions and above all belong to a barely strict and ineffective theory.
That's funny!
Whenever did the wave-corpuscle model of modern physics become obsolete?
Dated positions? Weak theory?
For a theory like W.F.T, which combines Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, I think that these accusations are unfounded. Doesn't he realize that the same principle describing Compton effect thoroughly and causally is also able to describe inertia, gravity, nuclear force, electromagnetic interaction and so on?Cassani complains that "official" physics refuses to interpret what is not observable: a not excited atom whose electrons don't emit light is for quantum physics a dogma. Only energy transition and emission reveal it.
And any other description done for this fundamental state, will be absolutely unfounded and indemonstrable.Unfounded and indemonstrable?
If in the W.F.T we hadn't had the proof of the correctness of the wave model of atom through the derivation and the comprehension of fine-structure constant, we couldn't have demonstrated our theory.When at the beginning of the 20th century scientists gave up interpreting what is not observable, they made a very important contribution to physics.
This is the greatest tragedy science has ever witnessed.
As Einstein himself often affirmed and shouted uselessly, such a fact existed at that time and it still exists today because of similar refeeres and the defeatist immobilism of Quantum Mechanics toward the real reasons of things and causes of quantum physics.Therefore, Cassani's construction, for which he uses exclusively geometric instruments, has little or no formal rigour, is done in a hurry and comes to a definition of entities which add nothing to what we know and are barely efficient in discussing about data (Feynman said that good physics must give numbers, with comma and all the necessary decimals.)
(The referee rested anonimous)
By now, it is obvious also for an absent-minded reader how rotter is this criticism entirely written in bad faith.
Anybody can verify that the laws and the numbers for their verification represent the pivot of the Wave Field Theory.
The laws are beyond all doubt much simpler than those till now adopted by Physics.
But is simplicity a defect?It is for you to judge. And it is up to you to participate in the diffusion of this new theory.
But, what impudence! What a clear and evident bad faith!
And you, Referee, try to combine all the existing physical forces, to discover and foretell a nuclear force (not so much strong as we have thought up to now, as shown by the experiments on cold fusion) or the fifth antigravitational Interaction, that Cassani had already foretold in 1984 in his first book "The Unified Field", and more better in the last book: "Albert was rigth-Good not play dice".Try to do all of that in strict observance of the rules, accepting dozens of experiments aiming at falsifying (Popperian experiments) the Wave Field Theory!
This is all comes from a man prejudiced at all costs.
Instead, if you want to know how someone not prejudiced with an open and perhaps innocent mind reacts, you can read one of the hundreds of letters the author has been receiving after publishing his address on his book:
"Albert was right - God does not play dice".
The letter has been published with his consent.
