NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2026
NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2026
Clash of the Titans?
For an illustration of how muddled and confused scientists and philosophers of science become by swallowing the numerous ontological fallacies introduced by the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics look at Bernard Kastrup’s website where he narrates his disputes with Tim Maudlin and Sabine Hossenfelder.
The dispute with Tim Maudlin covers inter alia Bell’s inequalities, which Kastrup has taken at face value and backed this up with reference to the Physics Nobel prize winners of 2022 as proving that physical realism is incorrect.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com
/2023/10/my-unfortunate-attempt-at-debating-tim.html
Then with Sabine Hossenfelder the dispute rages over ‘hidden variables’. This was originally proposed by Einstein to explain the ‘entanglement’ phenomena.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2022
/02/sabine-hossenfelder-digs-herself-into.html
Please listen to my podcast on Atomic Circus and Magic Particles or read the accompanying material available free on this website to find out in detail why I believe these debates are fatuous.
Examples of Recent Scientific
Gobbledygook
I purchased a copy of The New Scientist in November 2025 to read an article by Vlatko Vedral entitled No Space no Time no Particles. I thought it sounded promising until I read that he believed Schrödinger had supported the idea of ‘entanglement’ whereas if he had read Schrödinger’s papers of 1935 and 1936 on Probability Relations Between Separated Systems to the end he would have realised the
opposite was the case. Further on, instead of banishing particles he introduces ‘ghost photons’:
‘But here’s the weird thing: we can only ever detect photons in two [of four] of these modes. The other two cancel out and aren’t detectable, even in principle. These “ghost” photons are therefore unobservable yet unavoidable.’
So to add to the menagerie of unobservable objects or quantities such as virtual particles, neutrinos, gravitons we must include ghost photons.
The irony is that the scientists promoting and investigating this pseudo science are the first to tarnish others with this brush.
The Electric Universe (EU)
This is such a theory that has been labelled as ‘pseudo science’ in the recent Wikipedia entry but the website for the EU includes the 2005 Wikipedia entry which is more balanced. The argument for the EU is that over 99% of the Universe is made of plasma (ionised gas) and therefore surpasses gravity as the dominant force. Its main proponent was an Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill.
https://www.electricuniverse.info/.
What I find compelling about this theory is that experiments were formulated under the Safire Project and a company Aureon Energy set up to exploit the results.
As the current gravity based theories seem to be falling apart at the seams perhaps it is time to look at different approaches.
Future Podcasts 2026
A newsletter and podcast will be published each month in 2026. These podcasts will be subscription based.
January
Fantasy Physics: The Non-existent Neutrino
available now Click here
February
The Vacuum Energy Catastrophe or a Contradiction in Terms
March
Why “Intelligence is Non-Computable”
April
The God Particle or a Blip on a Screen