FAQ - or Freelance Discussion on the Topics of HSP-VAT Education

Here we would like publishing few, may be many, questions (topics) and responses on those having been surfaced during years of experiences with the HSP-VAT various aspects - from the very ground ones to the sophisticated and absurd. Again - for the benefits of the reading and interested public. As long as these questions had not found the qualified description in the published books, or other mathematically boring manuscripts.

It is important to understand that the advancements and the pace of progress in doing the HSP-VAT when being applied to a variety of disciplines (sciences) is not equal, of coarse.

Few sciences are under development say for 30 years, still by only handful of people, less then 5-10 people. I mean who is advancing and making contributions.

Others sciences and technologies are just at the starting stand, some of 10-12 years in the conceptions and few years of first publications. Many things firstly were published in this website, many are not yet.

Regarding the use and dissemination of ideas and methods of HSP-VAT, the thing is that we came to the stage when it is not anymore only the question of taste, like or dislike this "color" in science.

Right now, since 90th, it became the ground which laying the "decision making", the issue of kind "to be or not to be?".

Why is that? The problems, a lot of problems became connected to the question - Which is the way, which theorem, what mathematics we should follow?

Why is so straight and strong?

There is no or we can say the very slow advancements in many fields of science and technology - see, what's going on in particle physics, plasma physics, ITER, energy related physics and technologies, "fundamental" physics, HT superconductivity, medicine, biotech, nanotech? All of this is concerned in our pages.

Quantum mechanics long ago became a religious science, sacred "cow". Why should be as this? Too many questions are located within and communicate to QM. That's the reality.

It is known that if something of the kind related to one’s profession he/she can not understand, and then can not consume (use), then the things tend to be and almost always be declared as unserviceable, of no need, and inappropriate, or even wrong. This kind of examples in history of science and technology are known, remember just few of them –

• "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

• "Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

-- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work.

• "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

• "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".

-- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.

• "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon".

-- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

Etc., etc.

There were and are more serious and long lived deadlocks in science. Among them few are very famous and dearly paid for:

Following I.Newton there were the Two hundred years of the kinetic theory oblivion in physics! Yes, even Newton could be a detractor.

For more than hundred years the Boltzmann equation has been accepted as the "ab initio" tool in physics, especially in Statistical Physics. Nevertheless, when at last this equation was checked out through the last like 10 years by Chinese physicist more scrupulously for validity, it has been found to be as the incorrect one.

I have seen hundreds of papers and many books (there exist thousands and thousands of studies and texts - GOOGLE gives more than 700,000 links!) with the main goal as how to "explain" and explore this "ab initio" "theory" and equation. Well, how do you mean the theories were constructed (construed) at the beginning of 20th century for all over the physics and have been developed since then with this equation at the center, experiments have been run and money was spent and is being spent now ?

Long ago I had a reservation regarding the Boltzmann equation and still, oh name, was hesitant to speak out loudly.

My reservations were sure apart of those recently discovered by C.Chen, they were basically concerning the averaging procedures in derivation of Boltzmann equation, as of the volumetric phenomena not of a Point in space interactions collision term validation.

Right now that is mostly fears of too many new mathematical and physical subjects to account for by the gate keeping people. That is the "multiscale" community, as any other human community under threat, with people in the defense of their positions because what is suggested in HSP-VAT is the Disruptive science that these people (people actually with the “above scale” professorship status) can not consume due to lack of broad multidiscipline education, traditional perception of physics, carrier concerns, and of coarse, personal egos.

Remember the Cold Fusion suppression case in 1989? It is not done yet; they are still in the control of funding.

That's might be no more a secret that the science and high end technologies are run as a corporate enterprise, a business, already for many years. In any case, we can use the language of business and psychology while approaching some "pure" phenomena in science and high tech.

See more on that in -

The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next

From that piece - "The social constructivists claimed that the scientific community is no more rational or objective than any other community of human beings. ........
We tell our students that belief in a scientific theory must always be based on an objective evaluation of the evidence. Our opponents in the debate argued that our claims about how science works were mainly propaganda designed to intimidate people into giving us power, and that the whole scientific enterprise was driven by the same political and sociological forces that drove people in other fields."

And is driven right now.

The language on the Disruptive science and technologies I am using is not the same as of the disruption phenomena used in the plasma physics technical definitions. This language is of economic base and it is from the economic literature studying this phenomenon in industries and technologies, please, see among many others in the website -

"Disruptive Innovation"