Update at the bottom of the post.
I am really late, but I still think it is worth it. You see, a commenter, apparently from MIT’s lab of nuclear science named Ben Monreal (that is what it says on the web page) reviewed that book I mentioned. That book is “Our Undiscovered Universe,” and it seems to be the work of just a crank physicist trying to make things up. Well, this guy makes this really long review of how he got everything wrong. That is right, Terrence Witt couldn’t get almost anything right. It is too long to go into full details in here, but basically, he makes stuffs up. Here is the link. And his conclusion is written below.
Terence Witt, following in the footsteps of a long history of depressingly similar crackpots, has written a vast collection of sloppy nonsense and careful alibis. The nonsense is a vast architecture of pseudo-set-theory and geometric-sounding definitions, and expensively-reproduced pictures of circles and graphs. The alibis are the excuses for why the world still looks like it does, despite Witt’s hope for a world of bouncy spheres that he can visualize easily.
What went wrong? Well, everything, or exactly the usual crackpot list of things. Null Physics relies on a standard-of-proof that would embarrass a homeopath. Witt seems to have fooled himself with the infinite mutability of Null Physics. Any particle that the experimentalists can invent, Witt thinks he can “explain” by adding up his components. In the crackpot mind, this is good; in science it’s bad. Witt’s theory is just as good/bad at “explaining” the Unobtainino, which doesn’t exist, as the Omega- baryon, which does—in other words Null Physics conveys no information whatsoever. Witt’s atomic physics similarly contains no information about atoms—orbits? quantum numbers? spin? Pauli exclusion? Ground states?—except for the single solitary property (“ground state hydrogen cannot emit photons”) he read about and decided to include. Witt’s theory of “quantum hysteresis” is just as good at predicting that the two-slit experiment shows interference, doesn’t show interference, reflects/destroys/bends every 2nd photon, or hoards photons and mails them to Ovaltine for a free decoder pin. Witt’s theory of astrophysics predicts, with equal confidence, that the Universe is static, quasistatic, winding down, or filling with energy from an unknown source—Witt has simply chosen the numbers (he thinks of these as “solutions” because equations are involved) in order to match his philosophically-preferred version.
In other words, if you’ve bothered reading this far: my professional physicist’s opinion is that Terence Witt’s book, “Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics, the Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality” is worthless and unreadable crackpottery. Trying to find sensible physics insights in this book is like trying to glean advice about aerospace engineering from a hypnotized UFO abductee. It is not going to “lead to” an exact theory, because Null Physics fundamentally does not and cannot lead at all—it can look at experiments and respond, like a bad analyst who explicates yesterday’s markets with a new theory every day. Despite its strenuous objections to the contrary, Terence Witt has written a book of crackpot physics, expounding a crackpot theory. There is, of course, a fan base for crackpot theories, and he may attract some of it with his massive ad campaign—but his hopes for a Null Physics paradigm shift are, like so many crackpots hopes, (is there any way to discuss this book without saying it?) completely null.
Update: Another guy commented and gave a site to his review. Once again, I can say with full certainty that this book is full of crap. I don’t know how the hell they end up in a sci mag’s ad, but they do. I guess business will always be business.