Comments on "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy"

and Techniques for Verifying Projections from Hyper-Dimensional Particles

Article by Don Hotson published in issues #43-44 of Infinite Energy, 2002

Review and Comments by D. A. White

Don Hotson has recently written an article exploring Dirac's relativistic wave equation

and theory of a sea of negative energy. In this article Hotson independently has arrived

at some of the important insights into the foundation science that I call Observer Physics

(OP). Dirac was a strong inspiration underlying the development of the OP theories. I

recall back in the late 50's the deep impression I got from first encountering Dirac's ideas

of the negative energy sea and his remarkable prediction of the positron.

I have a few helpful suggestions for Mr. Hotson's approach that I will mention below, but

generally I agree with most of his main points, data, and logical arguments. I will have

to make a few revisions to OP based on points he brings up, but generally we are in

amazing agreement. The OP models of the electron and proton and neutron plus ways

of linking the Dirac equation with recent discoveries will definitely help us bring a

revived and refined vision of Diracian ideas into the lab for verification.

Hotson is right that we need to step back and look at all the theories we have concocted

and evaluate them from fundamentals, testing them logically and objectively against our

best data, with no fear of letting go of a paradigm when it is proven wrong. Scientists

tend to be cranky, but that is no excuse for becoming afraid to do real science.

Sometimes people who appear trained as scientists sell out to political and/or economic

interests, but they should realize that sooner or later the facts will discredit them and that

will lessen their status as scientists. The politics of fear can lead to abuse of science.

On the other hand, the appearance of new data that disproves your theory is not a disaster.

As Hotson points out, "With new discoveries made almost daily, no theory can be

expected to be the final answer." We are all on a learning curve. As scientists we

should NEVER question new data, especially if it contradicts a recognized theory.

Replicate the experiment that gave the data and devise other ways of testing both the data

and the theory. If the anomalous data stands up to testing, then the theory changes --

unless you want to play God and redo the universe to fit your theory. That's always a

possibility, but then you will have to take responsibility for how the whole thing shakes

out. If the data fails the tests, then we see if we can account for the aberration of the

data. Were the instruments off? Did other factors, objective or subjective, distort

measurements? And so on.

Here are some suggestions for refining Hotson's interpretation of Dirac.