Wolfgang Pauli, who was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics, had a sarcastic way of dismissing scientific papers he considered banal or not in conflict with existing theory in an interesting way: “It isn’t even wrong.” In his opinion a “perfect paper” is probably too cautious and hence unlikely to represent a bold advance.
I agree. Performing experiments that resemble too closely work already done is boring. However, it is EXTREMELY difficult to come up with something really new. I have conceived of only three so far:
1.The tilted (incyclorotated) image experiment.
2. The application of vibration to the eye.
3. The centrifuge experiment.
This page consists of two distinct parts: What actually happened to me as a result of my experiment. When I first noticed the result, a dramatic change in my vision, I spent many hours walking the streets of Mexico City (where I lived at the time) reading distant street signs (without my usual negative lenses) that formerly would have been totally blurred. All the time, running through my head was the thought “This is impossible! I’m a high myope! How could this happen?”
In attempt to find out the cause I did an extensive search of the literature on physiological optics and found dozens of papers that, inadvertently, provide support for what happened. This in turn led to the hypothesis presented here.
Of the these papers, the strongest support came from work on nearwork-induced transient myopia (NITM).
Because there is so much evidence against the hypothesis, I am asking this question. If the hypothesis is nonsense (and I’m sure most will agree) I want to know in WHAT WAY. Where did I go wrong? Specifically, did I miss some crucial fact about visual mechanisms? Are some of the papers I cite flawed or unreliable?