Scientist inspired by Dalai Lama studies happiness

May 14, 2010 By RYAN J. FOLEY , Associated Press Writer
The Dalai Lama gestures as he speaks to an audience in Indianapolis, Friday, May 14, 2010. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

(AP) -- After hearing about his cutting-edge research on the brain and emotions through mutual friends, the Dalai Lama invited Richard Davidson to his home in India in 1992 to pose a question.

Scientists often study , and fear, but why not devote your work to the causes of positive human qualities like and compassion? the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader asked.

"I couldn't give him a good answer," recalled Davidson, a University of Wisconsin-Madison neuroscientist.

Since then, Davidson has become a partner in the Dalai Lama's attempts to build a connection between Buddhism and western science. This weekend, the Dalai Lama will mark the opening of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at the university's Waisman Center, where more than a dozen researchers will study the science behind positive qualities of mind. Davidson said the center will be the only one in the world with a room next to a brain imaging laboratory.

Davidson's research has used brain imaging technology on and other veteran practitioners of meditation to try to learn how their training affects mental health.

His team's findings suggest meditation and other "contemplative practices" can improve compassion, empathy, kindness and attention. They support the concept that even adult brains can change through experience and learning.

"He's made some interesting discoveries about meditation, and I think he is doing very good science," said John Wiley, who was university chancellor from 2001 to 2008 and is interim director of the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery.

Initially, "a significant number of his colleagues around the world were suspicious and thought that it wasn't adequately grounded in hard science," Wiley said. "He's proved them wrong."

The appearance comes as the Dalai Lama has spent more time promoting research into traditional Buddhist meditative practices and urging scientists to help create a more ethical and peaceful world.

Davidson, named one of Time magazine's most 100 influential people in 2006, will appear with the Dalai Lama at scientific events five times this year.

"His relationship with the Dalai Lama lends a great deal of public influence to the hard science that he does," said David Addiss, a former Centers for Disease Control official who now works at the Fetzer Institute, a Michigan nonprofit that gave Davidson a $2.5 million grant.

Yet Davidson's relationship with the Dalai Lama remains controversial. When he invited the to speak at a 2005 neuroscience conference, dozens of researchers signed a petition in protest.

Some of the criticism appeared motivated by Chinese researchers who disagree politically with the Dalai Lama's stance on Tibet. Others said it was an inappropriate mix of faith with science.

Davidson, who meditates every morning but does not consider himself a practicing Buddhist, has also been criticized for being too close to someone with an interest in the outcome of his research.

Davidson said the Dalai Lama's commitment to science is remarkable for a religious leader of his stature, and notes His Holiness has said he is prepared to give up any part of Buddhism that is contradicted by scientific fact.

"He also is the first one to point out the limitations of meditation and how it's not a cure all and be all for everything and has very limited effects on health," Davidson said.

Davidson is ready to test his research in real-world situations. The center plans to begin training local fifth-grade teachers next fall to cultivate skills like patience and relaxation among their students.

"We're really intrigued with his research that shows students can learn how to relax so they can focus more on learning," said Sue Abplanalp, assistant superintendent for elementary schools in the Madison public schools.

Explore further: The Edwardians were also fans of brain training

4.4 /5 (42 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Dalai Lama to 'tweet' on Tibet

Feb 23, 2010

The Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has joined micro-blogging service Twitter, attracting over 55,000 followers in just two days.

Apple blocking Dalai Lama, Kadeer, iPhone apps: report

Jan 01, 2010

Bowing to Chinese law, Apple is reportedly blocking iPhone users in China from downloading applications about two figures Beijing considers "separatists": the Dalai Lama and exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer.

Report: China-based hackers stole India secrets

Apr 06, 2010

(AP) -- China-based hackers stole Indian national security information, 1,500 e-mails from the Dalai Lama's office and other sensitive documents, a new report said Tuesday.

Buddhism on the dinner plate

Apr 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- New book by a Harvard nutritionist and renowned monk encourages the Buddhist sense of mindfulness in how people eat.

Recommended for you

Family dinners reduce effects of cyberbullying in adolescents

2 hours ago

Sharing regular family meals with children may help protect them from the effects of cyberbullying, according to a study by McGill professor Frank Elgar, Institute for Health and Social Policy. Because family meal times represent ...

The Edwardians were also fans of brain training

8 hours ago

Brain-training programmes are all the rage. They are part of a growing digital brain-health industry that earned more than US$1 billion in revenue in 2012 and is estimated to reach US$6 billion by 2020. The extent to which they actually improve brain function re ...

Report advocates improved police training

Aug 29, 2014

A new report released yesterday by the Mental Health Commission of Canada identifies ways to improve the mental health training and education that police personnel receive.

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aennen
3.3 / 5 (7) May 14, 2010
Ah if we all had such sanity and common sense.
kasen
1.6 / 5 (9) May 14, 2010
an inappropriate mix of faith with science


Yeah, that pretty much nails it.

The center plans to begin training local fifth-grade teachers next fall to cultivate skills like patience and relaxation among their students.


Because fifth graders are so stressed out and really need to chill.
BigTone
5 / 5 (4) May 14, 2010
@kasen normally I would 100 percent agree with you...

but what caught my attention...

His Holiness has said he is prepared to give up any part of Buddhism that is contradicted by scientific fact.

Wow! Give the guy a little credit just for that!!
bcode
4 / 5 (5) May 14, 2010
[qBecause fifth graders are so stressed out and really need to chill.

Obviously you haven't been a fifth-grader for quite some time.
Going
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2010
I meditate; it changes my mood for the better each time. I'm glad someone is checking out what's going on here.
magpies
not rated yet May 15, 2010
Wow looking at what makes people happy??? Who would have thought of that. Why don't they do the next best thing and look at what makes people people or study some philosophy.
kasen
1.6 / 5 (5) May 15, 2010
His Holiness has said he is prepared to give up any part of Buddhism that is contradicted by scientific fact.


I haven't fully read any Buddhist texts, or the Bible for that matter, but I'm pretty sure the way they're formulated makes any attempt of study by the scientific method futile. It's really the whole point of them.

The only reason Buddhism hasn't been pounded on by scientists(read biologists) is because it doesn't have a cosmogony and a history of corrupt institutions.

Science deals with the road, religion deals with the beginning and the destination. People need to stop looking for scientific facts in religious texts and religious meaning in scientific facts.

I'm glad someone is checking out what's going on here.


So, let's say they discover it's a neurotransmitter that could also be triggered by a drug. They start commercialising it and now instead of spending 30 mins a day, you could just pop a pill. Would you keep meditating traditionally?
johanfprins
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2010
Science deals with the road, religion deals with the beginning and the destination. People need to stop looking for scientific facts in religious texts and religious meaning in scientific facts.

A scientist that makes such a statement cannot blame religious fundamentalists of being bigots. He/she is far more bigoted than anybody else on earth can be. This is the problem with modern physics: It is NOT open to new ideas anymore!
Alizee
May 15, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 15, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Djincs
not rated yet May 15, 2010
science had discovered psihologi, we dont need religion or budism in particular, the bad thing is that majority of people dont care about psihology but she can be really helpfull.
johanfprins
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2010
I can fully agree with this stance - but it's you, who is violating this stance often. For me it's quite entertaining to observe, how you're denying my ideas in the same way, like mainstream scientists are denying your ideas - compare the discussion there, for example:

I am open to new ideas but need not agree with illogical new ideas like yours just to distance myself from mainstream dogmatism.

Guy_Montag
4.3 / 5 (3) May 15, 2010
Regardless of your stance on religion, it's impossible to deny that people who meditate say it improves the quality of their lives. If it does indeed improve their lives (which I'm sure is one of the questions they are asking), there has to be some sort of scientific reason behind it. Is there really anything wrong with investigating it?
Mercury_01
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2010


I haven't fully read any Buddhist texts, or the Bible for that matter, but I'm pretty sure the way they're formulated makes any attempt of study by the scientific method futile. It's really the whole point of them.


Yeah, thats it, a thousand years ago, spiritual texts were designed to evade scientific study. Thats how diabolical these weirdos are. Thats the only explanation for why you cant understand spirituality.

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (6) May 15, 2010
If it does indeed improve their lives (which I'm sure is one of the questions they are asking), there has to be some sort of scientific reason behind it. Is there really anything wrong with investigating it?

Valid question. You will, however find that your modern-day mainstream physicists will crucify you for asking this question!! Just as Galileo's peers wanted to burn him at the stake. It was NOT the church but his fellow scientists who advised the church; just like the present day cranks who are advising instititutions like the Royal Society of London.
Skepticus
4.2 / 5 (10) May 15, 2010
You guys here don't know nor understand what Buddhism is. The Western world labeled Buddhism as a religion for a lack of label, since they can't quite categorize it. It is more closer to a living philosophy. In Buddhism there is no such thing as an omnipresence God, nor Gods. Buddhist cosmology does not teach of The Universe being created by an omnipresence being, nor commenting on how the "first creation" happened, but deal with the material world's existence in terms of causes and effects henceforth, much similar to the big bang theory, albeit in Buddhist terminology. Buddhism Texts don't go foaming at the mouth "what say here is the gospel, all the others are bullshit, heresies or infidels", but give guidelines for critical examination of the process of thinking, reasoning and formulation of conclusions in a journey of self discovery of the mind and of self. Perhaps that why it has never caused crusades nor incites fanatics to blow themselves up. Think about it.
kasen
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2010
Still ain't science and doesn't try to be. If you're so illuminated on these matters, you should know better.

I hate to repeat myself, but there's this idea of the sound of one hand clapping. Think about it.
John_balls
not rated yet May 15, 2010
[qBecause fifth graders are so stressed out and really need to chill.


Obviously you haven't been a fifth-grader for quite some time.

My sentiments exactly.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) May 16, 2010
It should be the motto of every scientist to "search for enlightenment". Did somebody with the name of Budda not come to this conclusion?
Not that I am a follower of the organization called Buddism; but give credit where cedit is due.

I admire the Dalai Lama as a person. If we had more people like him practising physics, we would have been light years ahead from where we are now!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 16, 2010
@kasen normally I would 100 percent agree with you...

but what caught my attention...

His Holiness has said he is prepared to give up any part of Buddhism that is contradicted by scientific fact.

Wow! Give the guy a little credit just for that!!

I give all Buddhists that credit. Buddhism is one of the few world religions that is complimentary and rational in its view of Science, with the exclusion of its mythology that is used to teach morals and ethics as opposed to being taught as a literal and historically accurate account.
kasen
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2010
Don't confuse the Buddhism-lite sold to westerners with the actual religion which does have scriptures claiming historical accuracy, priests, monks, hierarchies, rituals, prayers, temples(some made of solid gold) and its fair share of corruption.

Buddhism has the advantage of dispensing with a creation myth and having been subject to far less centralisation than Christianity has, due to the greater socio-cultural variety of the geographical area it emerged in. Even today there are 3 major divisions, the Dalai Lama is only representative of Tibetan Buddhism. Such fragmentation has meant that the clergy couldn't have amassed too much power and influence, hence less overt corruption.

The scientific method has its basis in causality, logic and empiricism. Religions teach us there is more than that and show us how to transcend the limitations of our own mind. Meditation, Nirvana, Siddharta Gautama or prayer, Heaven, Jesus...Same thing.

Dalai Lama and the Pope? A world of difference.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2010
Regardless of your stance on religion, it's impossible to deny that people who meditate say it improves the quality of their lives. If it does indeed improve their lives (which I'm sure is one of the questions they are asking), there has to be some sort of scientific reason behind it. Is there really anything wrong with investigating it?

Meditation is not a religious act. It is exercised in some religions, but it is not a religious act. Praying and meditating however is. Just like drinking wine and eating bread has nothing to do with religion until you involve prayers. Meditation is a form of therapy and it doesn't need to be something exotic and alien. How can closing your eyes, breathing slowly and focusing on being relaxed not make you relaxed? Of course it makes you relaxed. As always the problem comes when people try to mystify something that really is quite mundane.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (1) May 17, 2010
"Religions teach us there is more than that and show us how to transcend the limitations of our own mind."

Really now? In that case: What is the difference between religion and a fictional story that attempts to explain the existence of the universe? Imagination helps keeping your doors open for the pursuit of truth, but it does _NOT_ tell you which door to go through. So don't try to justify religion. It always crosses that fine line between possibility and reality without any reason other than that the subject simply wishes for the world to be that way and has no interest of knowing the truth.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) May 17, 2010
It always crosses that fine line between possibility and reality without any reason other than that the subject simply wishes for the world to be that way and has no interest of knowing the truth.

An excellent description of modern physics since 1927. Maybe I should rather try religion? It probably does not matter one way or another anymore! Should one support the Church or the Royal Society of London. The latter institution is probably worse than the Vatican was in the time of Galileo.
kasen
not rated yet May 17, 2010
What is the difference between religion and a fictional story that attempts to explain the existence of the universe?


None, as far as logic is concerned. Just a matter of taste and memetic fitness, in the end.

the subject simply wishes for the world to be that way and has no interest of knowing the truth.


So, tell me, what is the truth?
Objectivist
not rated yet May 17, 2010
An excellent description of modern physics since 1927. Maybe I should rather try religion?


Are you telling me you honestly see no difference between physics from 1927 until present time and religion? You do realise that there is absolutely nothing we can say to eachother that will enlighten either of us if you enter a discussion with such a stance. So yeah, let's just leave it at that.
Objectivist
not rated yet May 17, 2010
So, tell me, what is the truth?

Truth to what?
kasen
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2010
Truth to what?


My point exactly. What truth are you interested in knowing?
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) May 17, 2010
Are you telling me you honestly see no difference between physics from 1927 until present time and religion?

Maybe I should have said "organised physics" and "organised religion". The Church forbid Galileo to point out that the world is moving since it violates Ptolemy's model; while at present I am barred from pointing out that the accepted models on superconduction cannot explain how a conservative electric field is cancelled within these materials. So at present there is no difference between the organisations in control of physics and the Vatican in the time of Galileo.
The mentality is the exactly the same. Physics has reached the lowest of the lowest since its inception when Galileo postulated inertia: The Physics Church does not even want to hear that Heisenberg's interpretation of his so-called "uncertainty" relationship for position and momentum actually violates Galileo's inertia. Another persecution of Galileo nearly 400 years after his death? Yes of course!
Objectivist
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2010
My point exactly. What truth are you interested in knowing?

You are not making any sense. My argument provides proper means to finding out any truth. In the progress of finding any truth, whether it is about yourself or about your surrounding, you need to be factual and sceptical. You must also always be prepared to abandon any of your perceptions at any given moment -- but most importantly you should never let your wishes and desires interfere with the outcome of any experiment, if you wish for your results to be factual and accurate.

I'm not saying people can be completely unbiased, although that is the aim.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) May 18, 2010
In the progress of finding any truth, whether it is about yourself or about your surrounding, you need to be factual and sceptical. You must also always be prepared to abandon any of your perceptions at any given moment


Amen! Just a pity that the mainstream theoretical physics church has totally abondoned this approach since 1927. The Dalai Lama is thus a breath of fresh air.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2010
So you're saying that all mainstream physics since 1927 is based on nothing but belief because: "the accepted models on superconduction cannot explain how a conservative electric field is cancelled within these materials"? Are you telling me that absolutely no mathematics can be applied here that could in any way go around this paradox of yours? Can you prove it? Or do you expect that simply crying wolf is going to have everyone change their mind?

(continue)
Objectivist
5 / 5 (3) May 18, 2010
Do you realize that in any model often many details can be changed and even though new data arrives essentially the model still works and provides accurate results? The Newtonian model describes our world very well, but like any theory it never reached perfection. It was still very useful. Science is not a card house, and swapping one pillar will not make it collapse. If nobody takes your claims seriously perhaps the whole world is wrong, or perhaps it's just you. Perhaps it can be explained, just not by you. Either way it will always be up to you to prove it. But remember that no model has ever been perfect and no model will ever be, so what are the products and outcomes of these models? Well you're looking at one pretty advanced product as we speak.

"The imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man."
kasen
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2010
be prepared to abandon any of your perceptions at any given moment -- but most importantly you should never let your wishes and desires interfere


This is exactly what we can learn from religion. Renunciation of your own ego. Whether to an omnipotent god figure(west), or to plain nothingness(east), it's really the same thing. Infinity and zero are informational equivalents.

There is a difference between a religion and a church, that's all I'm saying.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) May 18, 2010
So you're saying that all mainstream physics since 1927 is based on nothing but belief because: "the accepted models on superconduction cannot explain how a conservative electric field is cancelled within these materials"? Are you telling me that absolutely no mathematics can be applied here that could in any way go around this paradox of yours?

The experimental fact is that Onnes discovered that an electric-field is immediately cancelled as soon as superconduction sets in. He ascribed it zero resistivity but did not realise that such a concept does not explain zero voltage. Charge carriers are still accelerated even when they do not scatter. To explain superconduction you must explain why V=0 and why the charge-carriers can then move without being accelerated. Not a single model; to date, except a model by myself (see my website) can explain this.

I agree with all you said in your second posting, but it does not apply in this case. The Copenhagenists derailed us.

Objectivist
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
@Kasen

That is not what we learn from religion. That is what we learn from science. If this, being our fundamental understanding of science and religion, differ us then there is no need for further discussion as it will lead us nowhere.

There is a difference between religion and a church, no doubt. But the church is a product of religion. Much like the computer is a product of science. I have no time or interest for religion, churches or self righteousness.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
I have no time or interest for religion, churches or self righteousness.

So are science institutions like the Royal Society of London, AAAS, APS, IOP, Nature Publishing House; to name a few. At least the church is honest by not claiminfg that their paradigms are based on experiment and logic. The modern science institutes claim the latter but are more dogmatic and bigoted than any church can ever hope to be.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
I think you're blowing things out of proportion.
At least the church is honest by not claiminfg that their paradigms are based on experiment and logic.

That is not a good thing. No matter if you are right or wrong there is always justification for failure as long as you can motivate your methods. The church cannot, and thus there is no justification for what they do.
The modern science institutes claim the latter but are more dogmatic and bigoted than any church can ever hope to be.

That isn't true, that is simple rhetorics. Also not all scientists agree or think alike, inside or outside these organizations.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
That isn't true, that is simple rhetorics. Also not all scientists agree or think alike, inside or outside these organizations.


I have overwhelming proof that this is the trend at present. Even though all scientists do not think the same there are very few modern ones who are willing to contest accepted scientific dogma; even when the facts and logic are overwhelming that it must be done. They fear they might be "shunned" by their peers and lose their grants. And in fact, this is exactly what happens without exception! During the past 10 years I have encountered far more religious persons with open minds than I have encountered physicists with open minds.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
I have overwhelming proof that this is the trend at present... They fear they might be "shunned" by their peers and lose their grants... During the past 10 years I have encountered far more religious persons with open minds than I have encountered physicists with open minds.

Again -- your parallel to religion is irrelevant. I don't want to repeat myself but an open mind (imagination) will only keep your doors open. It will never tell you which door to go through. That is where logic enters. You should stop comparing science to religion if you wish to be heard. It makes your case seem -- not very elaborated. I'm sure you have a lot of research on the subject as you seem to be somewhat obsessed with the idea (no offence). I'd rather listen to you explain why the quantum computer is a sham and why it will never be, as the technology used would most certainly be based on mainstream physics research conducted after 1927.

(continue)
Objectivist
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
But what you're explaining is necessary in maintaining any order. You cannot expect that your institution or anyone for that matter should fund you unless you provide something in return. A hunch is not enough. This is not a perfect system, but it is as good as it gets. Feynman wasn't very popular among a lot of his peers, and when he presented his famous diagram he was ridiculed on the spot -- by Bohr among others. I'm sure there are better examples but Feynman's case is enough to see that great ideas that go against the establishment don't always get lost. And keep in mind that most of the time the discarded theories are simply wrong or worse than the existing ones.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2010
That is where logic enters. You should stop comparing science to religion if you wish to be heard.

That is not what I am doing. All I am saying that from personal experience during the past 10 years it is clear that it will be easier to convince the Pope that Jesus is not the Messiah, than to convince Brian Josephson that the BCS model cannot explain how an applied electric-field is cancelled within a superconductor.
You cannot expect that your institution or anyone for that matter should fund you unless you provide something in return. A hunch is not enough.

Not a hunch: The proof is incontestable that I can generate an electron phase which can transfer charge while the electric-field within it is cancelled by polarisation. In fact this is the first phase for which the proof is incontestable. There is no other phase EVER claimed to be a superconductor for which this can be proved. But it is ignored since the physicists are more dogmatic than the Pope can ever be.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2010
Feynman wasn't very popular among a lot of his peers, and when he presented his famous diagram he was ridiculed on the spot -- by Bohr among others.

Probably the first time that Bohr was right!
I'm sure there are better examples but Feynman's case is enough to see that great ideas that go against the establishment don't always get lost.

Unfortunately Feynman was wrong because his diagrams are based on Bohr's complementarity which is wrong and is now holy dogma within the physics church: Any experimental data add odds with complementarity is viciously suppressed. The physics church is at present, the most bigoted institution in the world.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
@jahanfprins: Do you ever stop and think that maybe you're incapable of communicating your theorems in a manner that will convince others? Or maybe you should stop and think that maybe you're just an a-hole that no one likes because of your persecution mentality? Maybe it is YOUR ego that is in the way of success and you're just blaming everyone else, much like your friend seneca/Alizee/broglia and her concept of Dense Aether Foamy Santorum.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
.. maybe you're incapable of communicating your theorems in a manner that will convince others? Or maybe ..you're just an a-hole .. your persecution mentality? Maybe it is YOUR ego ... much like .. seneca/Alizee/broglia and her ... Dense Aether Foamy Santorum.

Very good question: But I can with an open mind deny that this is my problem. I must admit that after 10 years trying to explain the simple fact that Ohm's law is ONLY applicable when the resistivity is non-zero and then finding that so-called experts on superconduction are just not able to grasp this fact which any intelligent high-school pupil can, I have become embittered; and have to fight it: The fact is that it is easy to find fundamental flaws in the physics of Alizee: So far nobody has done so in my work.
A typical remark from the Roy. Soc.: The mathematics of BCS is very complicated, I am not an expert, but will be surprised if it cannot explain zero electric-field: Surprise is enough to reject! (continue)
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
My papers on superconduction at room temperature have been in the public domain since 2003. Although Prof. Marshal Stoneham castigated the editor for publishing papers "that must be wrong", he has not come forward with any argument based on real physics why "they must be wrong"; even though he has been invited to do so.
The only reason why it "must be wrong" is that, if it is correct, the BCS-model must be wrong. Thus it is a repeat of defending Ptolemy's model and epicycles and declaring any other possible model wrong.
If a model is wrong it is usually very easy to find contrdictions and to point them out. Therefore I always consider other viewpoints with an open mind: Even those of Alizee and Mark MaCutcheon's "Final Theory" and can in these cases criticise in terms of basic physical laws. This courtesy has not been extended to me since 2001.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2010
Unfortunately Feynman was wrong because his diagrams are based on Bohr's complementarity which is wrong and is now holy dogma within the physics church: Any experimental data add odds with complementarity is viciously suppressed. The physics church is at present, the most bigoted institution in the world.
Of course this is an impossible discussion for merely two humans. But it does not matter. Your point was that it is difficult to go against the scientific establishment, and my point was that it is possible. Feynman being right or wrong does not change the fact that the scientific community was contradicted.

How come you don't look for partners? Surely there must be someone else looking at the problem from your angle. It will be much easier convincing the establishment if you're not alone.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
Your point was that it is difficult to go against the scientific establishment, and my point was that it is possible.

Point accepted: However, Feynman would not have had a chance at present. Many things have changed since the 1930's and 1940's
How come you don't look for partners? Surely there must be someone else looking at the problem from your angle. It will be much easier convincing the establishment if you're not alone.

What do you think I have been doing for the past 10 years? I have even offered superconducting substrates for testing (see my website). No takers since if they have to agree with me they will have to agree that the BCS model as well as the principles on which all QFT's are based are wrong. Allowing Feynman to publish his diagrams did not require a change in dogma which had been built up over 80 years. In my case it does. This is far too much to expect from the "priests" in charge of the "physics church". I am thus shunned as a heretic!
Objectivist
not rated yet May 21, 2010
What did I say about comparing science to religion? It won't help your case and it most certainly won't help to insult your colleagues.

Have you found any practical consequences of your work? Any implication that could prove valuable for someone. If what you're saying is true then there must be a chain of consequences to your findings that at some level will predict something useful. And something useful can be enough for private funding.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
What did I say about comparing science to religion? ... it most certainly won't help to insult your colleagues.

All I am reporting is that over the past ten years I have found far more religious lay people who have open minds than physicists: This is just an experimental fact that you can verify by reading the examples in "A sordid tale" on my website.
..practical consequences...

The fact that I can generate substrates that superconduct at room and higher temperatures has the prospect, according to Michio Kaku, of starting a new industrial revolution. I am sure if you are a physicist the practical consequences should be obvious: But everytime I try to obtain funding, the so-called "experts" on superconduction advises that I must be wrong: Their argument is that BCS cannot be wrong! Therefore my superconduction which proves a model which explains both low temperature metals and ceramics cannot be correct. No need for a new model to explain low temperature metals!
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
If what you're saying is true then there must be a chain of consequences to your findings that at some level will predict something useful. And something useful can be enough for private funding.

If I could get the funding I will go for processor chips which will be faster than the ones we have at present since they will generate no heat: Furthermore, because they generate no heat we can stop blasting heat into our atmosphere. So if you can obtain funding for this without being blocked by the so-called "experts" on superconduction: Let me know! I am trying my best on this side. Obviuosly one needs an established semiconductor-chip fab. Unfortunately I cannot construct one in my garage. In North Carolina it took funding from the State Government, Three Universities, and many industries like IBM, GE etc. to build such a facility.
kasen
not rated yet May 21, 2010
I can generate substrates that superconduct at room and higher temperatures


So...why don't you make a small proof-of-concept sample? Just what sort of exotic materials and tools would you require, that couldn't be bought with 10 years of savings?
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
So...why don't you make a small proof-of-concept sample? Just what sort of exotic materials and tools would you require, that couldn't be bought with 10 years of savings?

I have already stated above that I have done that: I can produce substrates (about 4mmx4mm) which are superconducting at room temperature: I have stated that I am willing to supply such substrtates to laboratories with suitable expertise to test. What more do you want me to do? Manufacture a processor chip in my garage. PLEASE BECOME REALISTIC!!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
If you can produce said substrates and experimentally show that they are superconducting, put up a youtube video. That'll get everyone's attention very quickly.

HP labs contacted me for information on a hypothesis I tossed up there a while ago. I did rather well in the exchange. The idea didn't pan out, but the device was funded for a full 6 months.
johanfprins
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
If you can produce said substrates and experimentally show that they are superconducting, put up a youtube video. That'll get everyone's attention very quickly.

What must I produce on a youtube video to convince people? You tell me and I will do it! The fact is that you have to prove that the electric-field becomes zero. Not even Onnes could have proved that on youtube video for his mercury wire. You have to deduce this from physics-logic. It does not make a convincing youtube video does it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
You have to deduce this from physics-logic. It does not make a convincing youtube video does it?

I'd watch it. The problem you're going to run into is you're going to need to show ALL of your work. My fellow scientists cruise youtube and disprove crazy ideas all the time. If they stumbled upon yours and the logic was sound and irrefutable, you're going to get noticed quickly.

If you have to do it via logic and cannot do so via experiment, make sure you use a blackboard/whiteboard so that the figures are clear.

Youtube has provided the garage scientist with his own version of TED, but it allows for some dumb people to tag along as well. It wouldn't be a futile effort.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
Youtube has provided the garage scientist with his own version of TED, ..It wouldn't be a futile effort.

The logic: Over any electronic interface a dipole forms. It forms to cancel the electric-field which would have been there if it did not form. Such a dipole also forms over the surface of an n-type diamond to the vacuum: Otherwise the electrons within the diamond will be at a higher energy than outside: When applying an electric-field with an anode, one increases the width of the dipole layer to also cancel this applied electric-field. When you pull the external electron-layer into the anode, the dipole still cancels the e-field within the dipole. Even so it is then experimentally found that electrons still transfer from the diamond to the anode while there CANNOT be an e-field driving them through. THIS IS SUPERCONSUCTION! If I could not get this simple logic through the thick skulls of physicists during the past 10 years, why would Youtube help to get it across?
kasen
5 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
If I could not get this simple logic through the thick skulls of physicists during the past 10 years, why would Youtube help to get it across?


Forget the physicists, for crying out loud. You're claiming room temperature superconductivity and I suppose you're not living in Alaska. Investors don't give a damn about the logic, they just want the product.

Now, my physics might be off here, but a permanent magnet should levitate on one of those substrates of yours. That would make quite a nice video, if you ask me.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
Now, my physics might be off here, but a permanent magnet should levitate on one of those substrates of yours. That would make quite a nice video, if you ask me.
Yes, this claim would immediately get you in front of a large media audience in this day and age. It would bring your data and information to the forefront where it would be repeated at higher volume with more academic minds objectively experimenting.

Effectively, you'd become YouTube Famous.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
Investors don't give a damn about the logic, they just want the product.

Really? Where are these investors? I have been trying to reach them for 10 years, but they rather listen to the thick-skulled cranks who believe that the BCS model can explain superconduction.
Now, my physics might be off here, but a permanent magnet should levitate on one of those substrates of yours. That would make quite a nice video, if you ask me.

Yes it is off! The weight of a magnet also plays a role. I am making very thin layers. In the case of the extracted superconducting phase very light steel powder does float around it, but one cannot microscopically distinguish this powder from the the SC rod. There are problems involved, which can be overcome if I can get the money to build the required rigs: As I have already told you I DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY NOR THE FACILITIES IN MY GARAGE! It is easy to make suggestions, as you are doing, without understanding the technical aspects involved
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
The weight of a magnet also plays a role. I am making very thin layers. In the case of the extracted superconducting phase very light steel powder does float around it, but one cannot microscopically distinguish this powder from the the SC rod. There are problems involved, which can be overcome if I can get the money to build the required rigs: As I have already told you I DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY NOR THE FACILITIES IN MY GARAGE! It is easy to make suggestions, as you are doing, without understanding the technical aspects involved

Then levitate the sheet over the magnet. Do you have a real objection or does it not experimentally work now that you're being called to the carpet?
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
Then levitate the sheet over the magnet. Do you have a real objection or does it not experimentally work now that you're being called to the carpet?

Nice try; but again you are not thinking. The superconducting layer is on a substrate which also has weight. To show that magnetic powder floats on top of this substrate I need equipment which is sophisticated, since the powder must be extremely small and will thus float at extremely small distances above the surface.
As already mentioned above it has been photographed by somebody else, who has the equipment, that a rod of this superconducting material becomes thicker when a fine magnetic powder is generated. Unfortunately this idiot who has this equipment is dogmatically wedded to BCS and will therefore not allow me to use this result. So I DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY NOR THE SUPPORT: AS I HAVE NOW TOLD YOU MANY MANY TIMES! THE PHYSICS CHURCH IS FAR MORE DOGMATIC THAN ANY OTHER CHURCH CAN EVER HOPE TO BE!! PHYSICISTS = BIGOTRY