• [deleted]

Hi George,

Thanks you for reading and commenting on my essay. This was most appriciated. I have read your essay many times and feel that many of your ideas correlate well with those I have also contemplated.

You state:

"A key assumption underlying most present day physical thought is the idea that causation is bottom up all the way: particle physics underlies nuclear physics, nuclear physics underlies atomic physics, atomic physics underlies chemistry, and so on."

Yes! however, recall that as we became the ultimate reductionists, we stumbled on the idea that the degrees of freedom for obtaining information at the tiniest level is dual physics to the grandiose level ie., ADS/CFT. Information we measure at the microscopic scale is the same as that from the dual information measured on the grandiose scale. It may be that the informational physics at the center of these two measures is where "life" does its measuring. At this central point location in "life measure" we get top/down & bottom/up in fairly equal proportion. It is a kind of life information model having "Feynman-Wheeler 1/2 amplitude (retarted and advanced) summed information" with causal being the measurable actions and the non-causal being our thoughts that came before the action. The causal actions are subject to be measurable information while the non-causal actions are the "result" of thoughts that come prior to the action. Currently thoughts are not subject to be measurable information and this may be why the advanced wave is not subject to any dielectric affects in the space between emit and receive, a tackyonic "think space," for Feynman-Wheeler to accurately predict radiation reaction.

Like all physics, Maxwell's equations to Einstein's equations we get converging and diverging wave solutions, and, BOTH can and should be used in the proper manner for obtaining total information (think what would happen if Dirac threw awat his positive solution... no positron prediction). We tend to throw away the solution that we just can't put our "causal measurement finger" on, but, it may be that we are throwing away the top/down or bottom/up information that must be used to accomodate all the information obtained from things we do "measure" ... possibly clearing up all the misconceptions in entanglement, etc, as Feynman-Wheeler actually addressed quite well when proper boundaries are applied.

In your statement:"Hypothesis: bottom up emergence by itself is strictly limited in terms of the complexity it can give rise to. Emergence of genuine complexity is characterised by a reversal of information flow from bottom up to top down"

If physical characteristics of "life" is what emerges in the top/down approach we will likely also require information from bottom/up to explain the utmost detail in how it evolved. Could "life information" be a superposition of both top/down and bottom/up, and, thoughts and measureable actions compromise the top/down and bottom/up information, respectively?

Have a great day,

Tony DiCarlo

    George I appreciate your last comment on my thread and would like to make one final comment.

    Please note that the source term is mass current density. Thus any quantum effect will depend upon mass density. For example Michael Goodband's particle model is a rotating black hole at the Planck scale which "drags space-time" [that is, produces a C-field]. Such a particle would have an electron mass and a radius of 10^-57 meters which is more than enough to result in a wave of the type I propose. My own model is far less dense, with a radius of ~10^-19 meters and does require the stronger C-field that Tajmar claims to have measured.

    Thus the wave function model is mass density dependent and therefore particle model dependent. Also, since mass density is "an ill-defined concept" in general relativity, relativists may be less inclined to credit it. Finally, the mass density of atoms and molecules, and hence solar objects, is very low compared to elementary particles, so Gravity Probe B measurements are as expected, even if a coherence coefficient does exist.

    Thanks again for your consideration,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Anthony

    Thanks for that.

    "Could "life information" be a superposition of both top/down and bottom/up, and, thoughts and measureable actions compromise the top/down and bottom/up information, respectively?"

    Yes indeed. May essay kind of takes the bottom up for granted. Maybe I need to emphasize that it occurs too!

    George

    Dear George,

    The Born rule in this setting where you have a system that is perfectly entangled with the environment, can be derived from the symmetries of such a state. Zurek has given a derivation here.

    My personal idea on (effective) wavefunction splitting would be to first define the observer as some algorithm that can be in various computational states. E.g. a neural network that given the coordinates of some points can recognize certain certain shapes, like the points forming a square, a circle, or it doesn't recognize anything. Then if we were to give a microscopic description in terms of the electrons etc. then the generic state of this system would be some superposition, and you can then collect together the terms that correspond to "circle", "square", and "nothing".

    Hi Saibal

    I really like Zurek's work on environmental decoherence, particularly because it is indeed a form of top-down action from the environment to the system. It embodyies one of the key forms of top-down action: namely adaptive selection. However I've never thought of it as being a form of the many-worlds view. I'll have to look at it again.

    A key point to remember here is that any proposal to deal with the measurement problem must deal with individual cases: dealing with statistics in not enough. Statistical results only exist if individual events occur.

    George

    Regarding "There is nothing new under the sun":

    Readers of this thread will have noticed I am under persistent attack by an anonymous theoretical physicist who hides behind this ludicrously false pseudonym (counterexample: the internet). He repeatedly claims I have not given one single valid example of top-down causation that cannot be explained by bottom up causation alone. I'm going to do a summary response to his claims here, not because I believe there is any chance he will actually listen to what I am saying and comprehend it, but so that he cannot mislead those of you who have not followed the details of my responses to him.

    He gets this result by ignoring or denying inter alia the following examples I have cited:

    • The way the human brain functions, as evidenced for example by Chris Frith in Making up the Mind, Dale Purves in Brains: How they seem to work, Eric Kandel in The Age of Insight, and Karl Friston in A Theory of Cortical Responses .

    • The physiology of the heart, as described by Denis Noble, FRS, in his book The Music of Life and his article A Theory of biological relativity . To counter these writings, the anonymous commentator insinuates [Sept.14@20:00 GMT] that Noble does not understand the molecular basis behind the physiology of the heart: a truly pathetic claim. Here is Noble's citation record, which attests both to his standing and his understanding.

    • Patricia A Quant: "Experimental application of top-down control analysis to metabolic systems." Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, UK. Trends in Biochemical Sciences [1993, 18(1):26-30].

    • The way digital computers work, as briefly mentioned in my essay, and developed in more detail in my

    http://www.turing100.manchester.ac.uk/index.php/speakers/invited-list/11-speakers/54">

    talk ](https://

    http://www.turing100.manchester.ac.uk/index.php/speakers/invited-list/11-speakers/54) at the recent Manchester Turing meeting.

    • The arrow of time issue that has preoccupied many great physicists since the time of Boltzmann. He believes that Weinberg's quantum field theory derivation of the H-Theorem solves this problem, even though (as he himself admits) that derivation is time symmetric (just as in the case of the Boltzmann derivation of the H-theorem, the H-Theorem (3.6.20) Weinberg gives in his book The Quantum Theory of Fields I will hold equally for both directions of time: just reverse the direction of time and relabel alpha to beta: the derivation goes through as before). This result cannot therefore solve the arrow of time problem in a bottom up way [see my post of Sept 16 @ 14.06 GMT], no matter how emphatically he and his mentors deny this basic fact. They are apparently ignorant for example of the Wheeler and Feynman absorber theory of radiation , which would be unnecessary if quantum field theory by itself solved the problem.

    • The fact that the mechanism of superconductivity cannot be derived in a purely bottom up way, as

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/laughlin-lecture.pdf"> emphasized ](https://

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/laughlin-lecture.pdf) by Nobel Prize winner Bob Laughlin; see the Appendix to my essay for Laughlin's statement in this regard. The reason is that existence of the Cooper pairs necessary for superconductivity is contingent on the nature of the ion lattice, which is at a higher level of description than that of the pairs; they would not exist without this emergent structure.

    • The fact that state vector preparation, as for example in the Stern Gerlach experiment, cannot be explained in a purely bottom up way, because it is non-unitary; see here for an analysis and many other examples.

    It only requires one of these examples to be true for his whole dismissive thesis to fall apart. But they are all true.

    He apparently believes I am denying the validity of the bottom level physics. This is of course incorrect: what I say is based in an uncompromising stand that that lower level physics is indeed valid, as is quite clear in my paper on quantum physics. The key issue is what determines which

    specific aspect of the underlying physics is deployed when and where; and that is where top-down effects from the context come in, embodied in constraints on what happens at the lower levels. This is for example extremely clear in the case of epigenetics: see Gilbert and Epel's excellent book Ecological Developmental Biology.

    What I am pointing out in my essay is that physics does not by itself determine what happens in the real world, see also my Nature article . Physics per se cannot account for the existence of either a teapot or a Jumbo jet airliner, for example. You need to have a somewhat larger causal scheme to understand where they come from. Please see the quote from David Deutsch by J C N Smith on my thread on July 20@13:06 GMT for a great comment in this regard. Another example is particle collisions at the LHC at CERN: these are the result of the top -down effect of abstract thoughts in the minds of experimenters to the particle physics level. Without these thoughts, there would be no such collisions.

    The postings by this anonymous commentator are a textbook example of the enormous arrogance that infects part of the theoretical physics community, who live in intellectual silos disconnected from the rest of physics, let alone the rest of science, and then look down on those outside these silos in the belief that they themselves are superior to all around (readers of this thread my find relevant my comments on fundamentalism in academia, see sections 2-4 of this paper ).

    Please do not delete his postings: sociologists of science will have a field day analysing them in years to come. The casual insults that are taken to be a normal part of scientific discourse, replacing rational argument, are classic. The idea of respecting those you disagree with - the basis of civilised discourse - is non-existent, as is the idea one might have to revise one's own ideas in the face of the counter evidence. Extraordinary that he is willing to present this as his public face.

    George Ellis

      Correction: "Extraordinary that he is willing to present this as his public face" should read "Extraordinary that he is willing to present this as the public face of theoretical physics". He himself, being anonymous, has no face at all: maybe that's why he feels safe making these derogatory remarks.

      Roger Penrose has been one of the most able and creative thinkers in mathematical physics for the past 50 years, inter alia transforming general relativity theory. For someone with no discernible academic record of any kind to denigrate him in this way is outrageous. The senior physicists who have mentored this anonymous commentator have truly failed him by letting him think this behaviour is acceptable - and they have badly let down theoretical physics too. Do you really want to present the subject in this extraordinarily negative light? Is this the atmosphere you want to encourage? It is actually possible to do better.

      George Ellis

      • [deleted]

      Hi George,

      Sociological implications aside, your withering rebuke of the O.P. has much value for the scientific implications of a fully relativistic theory at multiple scales. That " ... existence of the Cooper pairs necessary for superconductivity is contingent on the nature of the ion lattice, which is at a higher level of description than that of the pairs ..." conveys the physical reality of uncollapsed potential; i.e., the information exchange between particles in the dynamic Cooper state has the particles conspiring to maintain zero angular momentum -- which IMO is fully translatable to higher levels of organization as pure unitary wave function. E.g., conceivably able to deal with questions of large scale phenomena, such as posed by Tanmay Vachaspati "What does an observer who falls into the collapsing object experience?" and Vesselin Petkov, "Can gravity be quantized?"

      Point is, the distribution of causality at all levels of organization blurs the distinction between particles -- the "bottom" of the hierarchy -- and systems of particles interacting with other systems to create top down causality.

      Back in May, I wrote a short piece that I never submitted or posted anywhere, "A fermionic condensate test of Bell's Inequality & local realism" that agrees with Lucien Hardy's statement, "I anticipate that quantum gravity will be a theory having indefinite causal structure whereas quantum theory has definite causal structure." I will attach it to a post on my own essay site ("The Perfect First Question"). I hope you get a chance to read it, as well as my essay.

      George, your forum has become quite a clearinghouse for state of the art research in interdisciplinary science! I think it represents the best of what I perceive that FQXi is about.

      All best,

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      What is your attitude to Gerard 't Hooft

      Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings ?

      arXiv:1207.3612 (replaced) [pdf, ps, other]

        Hi Tom

        thanks for that. Your article is very interesting: will take me time to digest. I am a slow thinker, but quiet thorough when I get there!

        "Point is, the distribution of causality at all levels of organization blurs the distinction between particles -- the "bottom" of the hierarchy -- and systems of particles interacting with other systems to create top down causality." Yes indeed, but it is subtle. The ions create the lattice with electrons imbedded and this then creates the possibility of existence of phonons, Cooper pairs, and so on (if its properties are just right). So an inevitable conjecture is, is the existence of the electrons and protons also an outcome of some top-down effect? Maybe those who hold that only fields are real and particles are just excitations of fields are already saying that, but I've always had difficulty getting my head round that one - particularly because particles seem so solid and durable at the macro level.

        The thing is that physics has so many aspects, and each aspect can be described in so many different ways (as Roger Penrose points out in The Road to Reality), and each of us is an expert in some corner of the thing - but seeing how it fits together coherently is the difficult part. Yes its easy to learn specific formalisms and calculation tricks and apply them to some part of the whole. That does not necessarily give enlightenment.

        Cheers

        George

        • [deleted]

        Dear Dr. Ellis,

        I have read your essay with interest. As you have pointed out there are hierarchies of structures which influence the structure at lower levels.

        In my view, interactions occur within a given structure only with a limited independence. In every interaction there is an overriding-interaction forming an organic linking with the next higher level of the hierarchy. This will be seen from the following. Why we have not realized this in regard to the Lorentz transformation is because hitherto it has always been given a kinematic interpretation. (In my essay I explain and derive it from dynamic principles).

        IS LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION A MANIFESTATION OF A TOP DOWN CAUSATION?

        We live in a state of indoctrinated amnesia in regard to earth's gravitation, when we apply Newtonian mechanics or SRT to problems of motions of particles. But occasionally we wake up to the fact that earth's gravitational field matters. But it never comes to mind that earth's gravitational field is enveloped within the Sun's field.

        So the question is, is there a top down causation on the motions of particles on earth by the Sun's gravitational field?

        As we know Earth and all its part 'fall' towards the Sun as it orbits. When a particle is set in motion at velocity v relative to earth, it not only has its own intrinsic energy Mc2 (which was falling towards the Sun even at rest), now it has an additional quantity of energy p'c = Mvc, and it too has inertia Mv/c. This p' too must orbit with the earth as well as 'fall' towards the Sun along with the particle on which it acts.

        This means that p' must create out of itself a component, that renders itself to co-move with the earth at the orbital velocity u. So the component momentum is (Mv/c).u. (energy Mvc.u/c). Then what is left of p'c for motion relative to earth is only p"c = Mvc(1-u/c).

        Just like the earth when it orbits at the velocity equal to the sq rt of the gravitational potential, it develops a centrifugal force equal and opposite to sun's attraction, so the energy p'c in motion (along with the particle) is equipped now with a centrifugal force opposing sun's attraction.

        The momentum that is available motion relative to earth is

        p" = Mv(1-u/c) of which the velocity v' = v(1-u/c) and hence the displacement x' = v't = vt(1-u/c).

        How this displacement x' turns out to be x' = gamma (x -ut) is explained in my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

        I also attach the MS Word Doc version, since the diagrams have not come out well in the pdf version above

        You would find that within the immediate space interactions occur seemingly independently, as if there is no interference from the next envelope of the hierarchy. Or so we assume. But there is 'top down causation' always a top down interaction occurring to form an organic link with the background energy field.

        I have shown in my essay the parallel between Lorentz transformation and the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile in terms of this top down interaction. It is in regard to this connection Einstein wrote: . "By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead to assured results. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics. The general principle was there given in the theorem: laws of nature are such that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum mobile" ( p.53).

        Best regards,

        VirajAttachment #1: 6_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

          Yuri,

          I think he is an original and interesting thinker, and this is certainly worth pursuing. However I think cellular automata are rather limited in what they can do, despite Wolfram's propaganda. Yes I now they are Turing equivalent - but not in any practical way.

          The usual concept of cellular automata, as I understand it, relies on symmetry: no neighbour is distinguished from any other. That's precisely what is *not* the case when top-down constraints are in place, e.g. the wiring in a computer channels causation at the lower levels in precisely specified ways between the components. Effective potentials also break lower level symmetry in a similar way. It is this symmetry breaking that creates possibilities of higher level complexity (Anderson points out the key role symmetry breaking has on emergence). So cellular automata is not the way I'd go - or at least not simple versions of that idea. Additionally I'm not a great fan of string theory, so I don't find the combination of the two ideas compelling.

          Actually what I do find very intriguing is t'Hooft's work on conformal gravity - but that's another story.

          George

          So come on. Which is it?

          * Do you have a counter argument showing I'm wrong? If so what is it? Where is the mistake in this elementary logic?

          or

          * Do you have the stature to concede you and your Santa Cruz experts are simply wrong? - you did not grasp this elementary logic?

          or

          * will you lurk in the shadows, unable to answer and unable to admit you were wrong? -- proving you don't have the capacity to admit that you are wrong, nor the stature required to apologise for the insulting nature of your comments.

          If you give no reply, you choose the last option. Wheeler, Feynman, Sciama, Davies, Zeh, Penrose, Carroll, and others including myself are vindicated, and your condescending comments are discredited.

          Hi Viraj

          yes I agree: "So the question is, is there a top down causation on the motions of particles on earth by the Sun's gravitational field?" - indeed we live in that environment and it has some effect. But it is a small effect, because of the equivalence principle: the Earth and all on it fall together freely in the the Sun's gravitational field, so we feel that effect of that field only through the tidal force due to the Sun. This is mediated by its free gravitational field: the Weyl tensor it generates here on Earth.

          "But there is 'top down causation' always a top down interaction occurring to form an organic link with the background energy field." - in principle yes; but it will not have an local discernible effect if it is a uniform gravitational field. Only inhomogeneity will be effective (that is the equivalence principle).

          George Ellis

          Addendum:

          It is the electric part of the Weyl tensor that represents tidal forces. If the magnetic part were non-zero, that would generate the kind of GEM effect that Edwin Eugene Klingman considers in his essay, a different form of top-down effect from rapidly moving massive objects to the local environment. However the magnetic Weyl tensor components are are probably very much smaller than the electric ones: there are no rapidly moving (in relativistic terms) massive objects in the solar system vicinity.

          George

          Dear George,

          I read your essay.It is well written and your argument is very clear. However, I would like to point out that the statement "The concepts that are useful at one level are simply inapplicable at other levels" is an assumption. It may not be true.It is that assumption that leads to the question whether it should be from bottom to top or reverse.

          Bottom-top and top-down causations are equally possible, and you have pointed out examples. This may indicate that the system is in equilibrium and the ongoing process is a reversible one.The universe may be in a state of equilibrium at any instant, and the expansion may reversible process.

          Another point where I diagree is with the statement "random events take place at the micro level". If what happens at microlevel is random, then surely top-down causation will not take place. But we find that in a given situation,the events happen in a pre-determined way. Otherwise when we type A, we can expect any character to appear on the computer screen. The whole computer programming becomes possible just because the events are deterministic.

            • [deleted]

            Dear Dr. Ellis,

            Thank you for your response. I would like to mention that Physicists who are 'imbued with their mother's milk' into believing in Einstein's principle of relativity, are blinkered not to see the top down structure, between the motion of a particle relative to earth and earth's GRAVITATIONAL MOTION round the sun.

            One of the great damages that happened to physics is due to Poincare's rejection of Galileo's principle of relativity, whose BASIS is that an object moving relative to earth shares also a MOTION IN COMMON with the earth.

            Galileo: "Then let the beginning of our reflections be the consideration that whatever motions comes to be attributed to the earth must necessarily remain IMPERCEPTIBLE to us and as if non-existent, so long as we look only at terrestrial objects; for as inhabitants of the earth, WE CONSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MOTION" (p. 114).

            As an analogy he wrote: "The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it" (p. 187).

            Poincare culled off the common motion with the local reference frame from Galileo's principle of relativity, and MISCONSTRUED that all IFR are equivalent, and that laws of physics are the same in all IFR. And Einstein accepted it uncritically in the formulation of SRT.

            The absence of COMMON MOTION in our frame of thinking is why we cannot conceive the top down effect of Earth's gravitational motion round the sun on a motion of a particle relative to earth.

            What Galileo has stated is that the top down effect is imperceptible. The reason why they thought it to be imperceptible is because at the low level of velocities of objects that Galileo and Newton were dealing the effect is extremely minute, since the MATHEMATICS DETERMINING THIS EFFECT IS NON-LINEAR. It is at high velocities the non-linearity comes out of its relative dormancy and turns to manifest effects exponentially. So although both Galileo and Newton made mention of the COMMON MOTION, physics developed as if this is of no consequence because of the relative dormancy of the mathematics determining the top down effect.

            But when experiments with very fast moving began at the turn of the 20th century, new phenomena arose, which seemed to contradict classical views. See Lorentz 1904 paper which led to the formulation of empirical equation which came to be known as the "Lorentz transformation". He begins the paper: "The problem of determining the (top down) influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena by a translation, .... IN VIRTUE OF EARTH'S ANNUAL MOTION ....".

            Thus Lorentz came very close to giving the top down interpretation to the "Lorentz transformation". If a determined and a consistent effort was continued to get to basics in terms of dynamics, then the problem would have been solved. But unfortunately Einstein turned it into a kinematic postulate of SRT and the matter has got buried under this theory ever since.

            There is one question I would like to ask you in regard to SRT's position on the LT's. SRT never discovered or predicted LT. It took hold of Lorentz' empirically developed equation and turned it into a postulate. And when subsequent experimental results confirm LT ("space co-ordinate"), the credit goes to SRT. But if SRT's interpretation about LT is correct, then along with the confirmation of the 'space co-ordinate', the 'time co-ordinate' too must be experimentally confirmed. The question I ask you is that has there been even a single experiment which has confirmed, that when x' = gamma(x -ut) the corresponding time is t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)gamma?

            I have pursued the on the Top Down influence of Earth's gravitational motion on the relative motions of objects on earth. In my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

            I have followed Einstein's efforts (besides relativity) to develop what he called the 'Right Way' by extending the approach of thermodynamics to whole of physics. I have explained why Einstein could not succeed in spite of his convictions - This is because he left out the possibility of top down effect of earth's motion from his frame of thinking.

            Once the top down effect is properly taken into account (as I show in my essay), the general equation of motion of a particle derived from first principles becomes:

            x' = gamma[vt(1 -u/c)] and t = t,

            I have shown that a) when v tends to c, the equation turns to LT and b) when v is very much less than c, x = vt.

            Hence this general equation holds for all velocities (very low to near light velocities). By this the schism in physics as regards Newtonian physics is valid only for low velocities and SRT is valid only for near light velocities disappears.

            I am attaching the MS Doc version of my essay because the diagrams pdf version in this website have not come out properly. I request you to comment on my essay.

            Best regards,

            VirajAttachment #1: 8_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

              Dear Jose

              You say "the statement "The concepts that are useful at one level are simply inapplicable at other levels" is an assumption. It may not be true." Agreed. There are a few concepts that remain valid at higher levels: energy and momentum for example. But in most cases the relevant variables are very different at different levels. I look at this in some detail in my paper here .

              "Another point where I disagree is with the statement "random events take place at the micro level". If what happens at microlevel is random, then surely top-down causation will not take place." Well random events are what happens at the bottom level, whether we like it or not, inter alia because of the validity of quantum theory. Additionally there are classical statistical fluctuations at the lower levels, and this plays quite a role in biology, as is now becoming evident. This actually facilitates adaptive selection (a key form of top-down causation) because it provides an ensemble of items or behaviors that can be selected from to attain some higher level goal.

              The remarkable thing, as you point out, is that reliable behaviour can emerge at higher levels from this unfirm lower level foundation. Basically both engineers and biology have learned to construct robust devices in the face of this fluctuating lower level behaviour. That's largely an effect of large numbers, combined with the stability of macro structures in energetic terms, plus the fact that classical structures do indeed emerge from the underlying quantum dynamics. It's the power of coarse-graining: lower level details are usually irrelevant as far as higher level structures are concerned.

              George Ellis

              Dear Viraj

              "The question I ask you is that has there been even a single experiment which has confirmed, that when x' = gamma(x -ut) the corresponding time is t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)gamma? " Yes - the decay of cosmic ray particles. This is discussed in most standard texts on special relativity, for example Flat and Curved Spacetimes (Ellis and Williams).

              Special relativity is an extraordinarily well verified theory, within its domain of applicability; apart from predicting nuclear energy and nucleosynthesis, all those collider experiments at places like SLAC and CERN verify it millions of times over each time they do a run. I don't think there is much mileage in trying to show it is a wrong theory. It's not something I'd spend time on.

              George