Original Research and Scientific Commentary
All papers in this collection were authored by David Allen LaPoint, President of the Primerfield Foundation, and reflect his independent scientific research and analysis.
Truth and Authority
This paper examines a foundational but often overlooked distinction: the difference between what is true and who is speaking. It argues that truth is determined solely by whether a statement matches reality, not by credentials, status, or authority. Using clear examples from science and history, the paper explains why expertise is valuable without being infallible, why appeals to authority can fail, and why evidence—not reputation—is the final judge of what is real. It is written for general readers and is intended to clarify how truth should be evaluated in science, medicine, and public discourse.
Why “Trust the Experts” Isn’t Always Good Enough
This paper examines the distinction between informed trust in expertise and what the author terms authority-dependent judgment—the refusal to evaluate ideas unless they are endorsed by recognized authorities. Using historical examples from science and medicine, it argues that appeals to credentials, peer review, or consensus are not substitutes for evidence, logic, and direct engagement with arguments. The paper highlights limitations of traditional peer review, documents multiple cases where experts were wrong for decades, and proposes AI-assisted cross-checking as a more transparent way to audit logic, math, and claims without suppressing unconventional ideas. It concludes that critical thinking requires understanding reasons and evidence, not merely deferring judgment to authority.
Why Math Can’t Prove Reality
This paper explains a critical but frequently misunderstood limitation of mathematics: while math is an extraordinarily powerful tool for describing and predicting behavior, it cannot by itself establish what is physically real. Through clear examples from physics and history, the paper shows that mathematical consistency, elegance, and predictive success do not guarantee that a model corresponds to reality. The distinction between mathematical possibility and physical existence is emphasized, demonstrating that only observation and experiment can determine which mathematical descriptions, if any, apply to the real universe.
Is the Standard Model Really a Sub-Standard Model?
This paper presents a rigorous, evidence-based critique of the Standard Model of particle physics, arguing that its most serious problems are not unresolved details but foundational failures. It examines seven major anomalies—including the measurement problem, dark matter and dark energy, the hierarchy problem, matter–antimatter asymmetry, the cosmological constant catastrophe, incompatibility with general relativity, and neutrino masses—and shows that each represents a structural breakdown rather than a gap awaiting extension. The paper distinguishes predictive success from physical understanding and argues that reliance on adjustable placeholders and post hoc modifications signals a paradigm in crisis. It is written for readers seeking a clear, uncompromising evaluation of whether the Standard Model still deserves its foundational status.
Post-Higgs Silence
In 2012, the Higgs boson discovery was celebrated as confirmation of the Standard Model. Many expected it would open doors to new physics—new particles, new forces. More than a decade later, that hasn't happened. This paper examines what the Higgs discovery actually confirmed, introduces the concept of "framework lock" in scientific interpretation, and argues that precision is not the same as understanding. The absence of new discoveries is itself meaningful information.
Transverse Sensitivity Scale of Photons
When light passes near the edge of an object, the edge affects where photons are detected—even at surprising distances. This paper answers a simple question: how far sideways from an edge can light still be affected? The answer is about 2 millimeters for visible light, which represents thousands of wavelengths. This work establishes precise, quantitative constraints that any theory of light must be able to reproduce.
When Scientists Get It Wrong About Who’s Right
This paper examines how scientifically correct ideas can be ignored or dismissed for decades—not because they are mathematically wrong, but because they conflict with prevailing assumptions, disciplinary boundaries, or expectations about who is “authoritative.” Using the case of Hannes Alfvén and the delayed acceptance of Alfvén waves, the paper shows that evidence and correctness alone do not guarantee acceptance. It explores how authority, consensus inertia, and psychological resistance shape scientific judgment, and compares Alfvén’s experience with other historical cases such as continental drift, meteorites, and early quantum theory. The paper concludes that skepticism is necessary but can fail when correct ideas are ignored rather than critically tested, demonstrating that scientific consensus is a human process rather than a flawless truth filter.