Total Physics Woo Pawnage of Our Undiscovered Universe

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.


8 Responses to Total Physics Woo Pawnage of Our Undiscovered Universe

  1. Reality Check says:

    Also see my review at
    The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
    Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
    Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
    A really bad atomic model “proving” that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
    Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
    Postulating that galaxies have “galactic cores” which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.

    Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.

  2. ibyea says:

    Ugh, this book makes me sick, especially since it seems to appear pervasively in science magazine ads. The stupid, it burns really bad.

  3. Sara says:

    Here is an open-minded review of Null Physics. Eveyone in the scientific community seems very upset over the book. Some readers have even spent their valuable time tracking down Mr. Witt online and posing reviews every time they see his name. I wonder why? Is it because Witt has discovered something important they don’t want the world to read about? Dr. Morse’s review is very fair. Every review should bring out the positives and the negatives. He also does not use the word “crackpot.” I’ve never featured out what a crackpot is anyway.

    He also has some very interesting points about James Randi on his web site as well.





    Just when you thought you were starting to understand quantum physics, here comes Terence Witt with Our Undiscovered Universe in which he challenges virtually all the accepted assumptions underlying our current perception of reality. Terence Witt’s Universe is infinite, timeless (no beginning and no end), with no Big Bang, no accelerating galaxies away from the center, and no sub-sub atomic particles such as quarks. Instead, he postulates that the Universe consists of nothing! This is why he calls his theory “Null Physics”. But not just empty space, not that kind of nothing. Terence Witt’s view of the Universe is that is consists entirely of curved space, gravity, and energy forming a complex balance of matter and anti-matter, energy and dark energy, all adding up to nothing at all.

    I love this sort of book as it forces scientists to re-examine their most cherished assumptions. As a physician-consciousness researcher, I have used the quantum non-local reality physical reality model as the best fit to understand our current scientific concepts of consciousness. However, Witt’s book forces all of us to re-examine everything that we believe to be real. I am not qualified to do the math needed to critically evaluate his book, but my best guess is that ultimately he will be proven wrong. He is so thoughtful and thought provoking, however, that the book is well worth it for the hours of discussion it has provoked between me, my wife, and friends.

    It is clear, well organized and simply written. It is often funny. You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand his basic concepts. He presents a broad comprehensive theory of reality which incorporates subatomic reality, ordinary reality, and the latest understandings of astronomy and cosmology. He has great lines such as describing modern physicists as being so astonished by their experimental findings that they have become “infused with a hysterical mysticism”.

    He does a great job of summarizing the basic principles of quantum physics in one of the best and succinct presentations I have read for the non-physicist. He accurately points out the many flaws in the current scientific model and he nicely outlines the mainstream understanding of the difficulties in creating a coherent unified theory of reality given the constraints of the current paradigm. Let’s face it, there is plenty of room within modern theoretical physics for Witt’s Null Physics, given that many no longer feel the Big Bang is a viable theory and mainstream physicists state the Universe is made mostly of “dark energy” and “dark matter” and that we have no idea what they are.

    His critics are legion, yet mainly consist of anonymous chat room “experts” and graduate level physicists who have not read his book. The substance of their criticism consists mainly of repetitively chanting “crack pot, crack pot” over and over again. Sort of a Lord of Flies meets the Internet gone really really bad. As Harold Bloom points out in The Lucifer Principle, “the most insubstantial things we call ideas . .can lead to the basest cruelties.” I have reviewed the websites of Witt’s critics and understand their concerns. These primarily young men are in the process of establishing themselves within their fields. It takes a sense of confidence and maturity to read Witt’s book which most people are going to completely disagree with. By challenging our basic beliefs, Witt forces a healthy re-examination of the fundamental assumptions of modern physics and a greater understanding of whatever model of reality we ultimately end up with.

    I have written peer reviewed articles with theoretical physicists, and I showed the book to them. They hemmed and hawed, and muttered ridiculous, and yet ended with a healthy respect for what Witt is trying to accomplish. One internationally recognized theoretical physicist told me that “he is totally wrong, really doesn’t get it at all. However, if he is right, he is on the right track, I would work on his math, some of it needs complete revisions, but for a first effort, not bad, not bad at all.” It is telling that he declined me to allow his name to be used, given the controversy the book has created. Scientific American has recently decided to refuse Witt’s advertisements for his book, a sad commentary of the power of the current Scientific Fundamentalist movement (see side bar). No one wants to offend them or they too will have to suffer an Internet onslaught of chanting science drones.

    As a scientist who challenged the medical model of consciousness by documenting the near death experiences of children, I will always have a soft spot for intelligent outsiders who dare to take on the scientific status quo. My theories of consciousness are now well accepted enough that they have been replicated by other scientists, and published in the American Medical Association Medical Journals, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The United Nations recently launched a multi-medical center study of near death experiences, yet 25 years ago I was also dismissed as a crackpot.

    Ultimately, I am not sure if Mr. Witt’s theories will stand the test of time. It is not my field, and stranger things have happened in the history of science. However, I do know I learned a lot from reading his book, and it stimulated me to rethink my own theories of reality.

  4. ibyea says:

    I don’t see how it challenges perception when all Terrence seems to do, according to the two reviews I have posted, make stuff up, with no support by experiments. Also, it seems like whoever wrote that review seems to be creating an illusion of controversy, for the only controversy I see here is Terrence Witts versus the other theoretical physicists. Also, note that there are a lot of crackpots who think they have discovered something that physicists are tired to contend with. Finally, it seems like he hasn’t bothered to publish anything in any scientific papers, and his background isn’t fit enough to be a theoretical physicist. Ergo, making stuff up is not scientific.

  5. ibyea says:

    Oh, and one last thing, treating infinity as if it was a number is probably the most amateurish thing a physicist and mathematician could do. Infinity is NOT a number, it is a concept.

  6. […] it is internally inconsistent and well, not real. And so, here comes, from my comment in one of my posted reviews of “Our Undiscovered Universe.” It is boring and insipid, so be ready, and also be […]

  7. Reality Check says:

    “BOOK REVIEW BY MELVIN L MORSE MD FAAP” really needs a link to the actual review so that we can find it. However I note that the author is a medical doctor who seems to be researching near death experiences. This may not make him well qualified to to review a book about mathematics and physics.

    Dr Melvin L. Morse thinks that “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt contains a summary of the basic principles of quantum physics shows Dr Morse has forgotten some of his physics. He is wrong – there are only a few principles mentioned or explained, e.g. Schrodinger Equation is completely absent.

    A list of the theoretical physicists with “a healthy respect for Witt” would be good. They after all should really want their names associated with the next breakthrough in physics (and mathematics)! I especially like the reference to an “internationally recognized theoretical physicist”

    Basically the reason that people in forums (like myself and several more qualified people) call Terence Witt a crackpot is because he is a crackpot. Here is an example of the many flaws in his book: He defines infinity as a finite length!
    Any mathematician seeing this will laugh out loud since infinity is not finite.
    Any physicist seeing this will roll on the floor laughing since infinity does not have units.
    Any theoretical physicist seeing this will probably die laughing.
    Any first year science undergraduate seeing this will say that the author is a crackpot.

  8. […] In the last few issues, they have been displaying the usual telescope ad. Not the quack physics turd they had been displaying lately. Maybe their contracts expired or something… I don’t […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: