Create Presentation
Download Presentation

Download Presentation

39 Questionable Assumptions in Modern Physics

Download Presentation
## 39 Questionable Assumptions in Modern Physics

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

**39 Questionable Assumptions in Modern Physics**By Greg Volk**Paradigms**• Modern physics is messed up! • Standard Model & String Theory • Big Bang (or Big Dud!) • New Energy anomalies • Non-inertial propulsion • Math isn’t the problem. • Need MAJOR Kuhnian paradigm shifts.**Assumptions**• Necessary & practical • Many are “obviously true”. • Examples in history • Flat Earth • Acceleration and weight (Aristotle) • Hard to spot**Goals**• Identify some “hard to spot” assumptions. • Define “light”, “mass”, “aether”, etc. • Introduce alternate paradigms • Mach’s Principle • Toroidal, vortex particles • This is NOT a complete theory.**Mach’s Principle**• Ernst Mach, George Berkeley, Aristotle • "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." • Stephan Hawking, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (1973). • Matter there influences motion here. • Motion is with respect to matter. • Not space itself, not observer**Machian GedankenExperiment**• Imagine an element of matter. • Is it moving? With respect to what? • If space, by what mechanism? • If observer, in what frame? • If matter, then all other matter must actually BE present at that location. • Can matter be present where it is not?**Yes! … And No!**• It depends on the definition of matter. • To exert its influence elsewhere, matter must possess ‘fields’. • If an element’s field is inseparable from it (permanently attached), then it is actually present throughout all space. • Then all forces are ‘local contact forces’. • Energy density: the influence a localized element of matter exerts at other points.**Toroidal Particles**• History of Vortex Theory • The Greeks, Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, Swedenbourg, Boskovic, Ampere, Kelvin • Parson, Compton, Bostick, Krafft, Bergman, Lucas, Ginzbburg, Kanarev, Sarg , Tewari • Physical, finite model • Obeys the laws of electrodynamics**Bergman CSS Model**• ±e = Net charge • c = Speed of balance • m = E / c2 • h ~ mcR • electron, ferris wheel • proton, tiny ring • What’s ‘k’?**#1 - Light is a ‘thing’ in itself.**• “All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to the answer to the question: what are light quanta? …..…… Of course, today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself.” • Albert Einstein**What is ‘light’?**• Does ‘light’ travel from A to B? Or is it permanently attach to both A and B? • Could ‘light’ be an interaction rather than an independent ‘thing’? • Wavefronts interact to create wavefronts. • Does the wavefront exist independently? • Interference => Interaction.**History of the ‘thing’ idea**• Fermat’s Principle of Least Time (Action) • Römer’s Jupiter moon calculations (1677) • Bradley’s stellar aberration (1727) • Young’s double slit (1801) • Feynman’s sum of all paths**#2 - Energy (light) can exist without matter.**• The quantum ‘free energy’ concept • Has anyone ever isolated a quantum of ‘free energy’? • Can ‘free energy’ be measured without matter? • ‘Free energy’ comes in bundles called ‘photons’.**#3 - Photons are ‘things’ in themselves.**• Can ‘light’ be a wave and a corpuscle? • Interactions are continuous and discreet. • Phenomena described by photons: • Photoelectric Effect • Compton Effect (Ashworth & Jennison) • Photons: the absence of discontinuities?**#4 - The constant ‘c’ is a property of space.**• Does space itself impede motion? • Constants e, m & h: properties of matter • Planck derived k via particle interactions • Is ‘c’ alone the only property of space? • The Weber-Kohlrausch experiment (1856). • Toroidal particles explain c via matter.**#5 - Nothing travels faster than ‘c’.**• First, with respect to what? • Einsteinian relativity collapses with superluminal velocities • Orbital stability demands speeds 107 * c. • LaPlace (1805), Van Flandern (1998) • Quantum entanglement (Rodriguez)**More on superluminal velocities**• Longitudinal forces: rope analogy • Scalar waves: changes in scale • Water arcing (Graneau & Graneau) • Railguns (Graneau & Graneau) • Homopolar induction • Achilles & Guala-Valverde (2007)**#6 - Instantaneous action at a distance (IAAD) is**impossible. • EPR & Bell’s Inequality • Quantum mechanics is incomplete OR particles are instantaneously entangled. • Clauser-Home-Shimoy-Holt (CHSH) & Aspect experiments => entangled • Newton’s and other inverse-square laws plus Gauss’s Laws favor IAAD.**Retarded Action at a Distance**• Effects are not always immediate • Liénard & Wiechert (1898, 1900) • Preceded by Riemann (1861) • Weber & Kirchoff obtained ‘c’ with IAAD • Stirniman(2000) IAAD solution equals the sum of retarded and advanced solutions. • Is the Standard Solution of the Oscillating Electromagnetic Dipole Physically Satisfying?**#7 - All forces must be ‘contact forces’.**• Matter cannot act “where it is not” • Definition of ‘contact’. • A. Billiard ball interaction OR • B. Field (energy) interaction • With permanently attached fields, matter can be “in contact” simultaneously with all other matter.**#8 - Fields are fundamentally quantum.**• Do fields really exist? Or are they just mathematical abstractions? • What really exists is interaction, which can be described by fields or potentials. • The quantum source: fields or particles? • Poincare believed it was the particle • Continuous fields <-> discontinuities?**Discontinuities**• Discontinuity of the vortex particle • always a zero, never a pole • Discontinuity of an interaction • Sun - Earth magnetic field example • Does every so-called ‘particle’ represent a different kind of discontinuity? • Photon, nutrino, muon, pion, etc.**Catastrophe Theory**• The mathematics of bifurcation (Thom) • The Zeeman catastrophe machine • Multiple solutions depend on ‘history’ • Magnetic memory**#9 - Matter is sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle.**• Is nature confused? Or is science? • Inseparability of matter and field • demystifies wave-particle duality • Davisson-Germer & George Thomson • ALL particles in a beam interact via fields. • Particles that DON’T pass through slits affect the behavior of particles that DO.**#10 - The energy of a particle resides only locally, where**the particle resides. • Local matter & non-local field inseparable • By Poynting, energy density is defined as the interaction of fields: D*E + B*H. • Since fields are ‘non-local’, so is energy • If energy is spread through space, then space contains a ‘sea of energy’.**#11 - Space is empty.**• A ‘sea of energy’ is anything but empty. • This ‘sea’ is sometimes called ‘aether’. • Definition of ‘aether’: • A. Energy of matter spread thru space OR • B. Reference frame (property) of space itself**#12 - Mass is a measure of matter or ‘stuff’.**• Definition of ‘mass’: • A. Amount of substance OR • B. Resistance to motion (inertia) • If mass is not ‘stuff’, what is? • Matter must exert itself through fields. • Its presence is indicated by divergence. • What thing has the form ? Charge!**#13 - Elementary particles never change.**• Must the ‘mass’ of a particle stay fixed? • No, toroidal particles may expand & collapse. • Then why are mass constants constant? • A particle’s instantaneous energy does not remain constant, but the equilibriumvalue about which it oscillates does. • Toroids ‘radiate’ with continuous changes in energy, but discreet changes in ‘state’.**Mass of elementary particles**• If mass changes, do other properties? • Some properties, such as q and h, remain constant, due to Gauss D & Faraday’s Laws. • Account for mysterious mass differences? • Proton (P) + Electron (E) = Neutron (N) + ? • 12 P + 12 E = C12 + ? • Limited number of discontinuity types • Correspondence with elementary particles?**#14 - Quantum events can’t be described continuously.**• The Strobe Effect • Wagon wheel in an old western • Roulette wheel in Las Vegas • Interaction between ‘inertial’ frequency and ‘actual’ frequency • Toroid particles have inertial frequencies. • Interaction with environment: discontinuities**#15 - Matter and light must be corpuscular or continuous,**but not both. • Particles have energy due to geometry alone (‘self’, ‘inertial’ energy or ZPE) • AND energy due to environment (actual) • If energy in space is immediately and inseparably connected with matter… • phenomena of matter <-> phen. of energy • Discontinuities ALWAYS have zero energy**#16 - Gravity is fundamental.**• Discontinuities of gravity (black holes) • poles, having infinite energy density • Are gravity and EM BOTH fundamental? • Is G a fundamental constant? • Unit system analysis says no. • Andre Assis suggested gravity as a fourth-order non-cancelling attraction. • Charles Lucas derived the math (2008).**Another Gendanken Experiment**• Imagine a river or water through a pipe. • What happens when the flow narrows? • It flows faster. • What happens when velocity decreases? • The flow widens. • Matter through cross sections don’t vary.**Ampere’s Law: the Source of Attraction**• Charge thru a cross section is invariant. • Motion and attraction are inseparable. • Examples: • Bernoulli Effect • Poynting-Robertson Effect • Ionic & covalent bonding • Strong nuclear force**#17 - Gravity is the dominant force in the cosmos.**• Coulomb force (~kCe2) ~ 1040 * Gravitational force (~Gmpme) • Gravity only governs with no net charge. • Even with no net charge, dipole and higher order charge moments trump gravity. • EM provides repulsion AND attraction. • Not “Is GRT correct?” but “Does GRT apply?” • Surface charge effects (T. T. Brown) are vital**Electricity in the Cosmos**• Anthony Peratt EM computer simulations • Filamentary structures including ‘ball lightning’ • Laws of EM produce all know galaxy types. • Including Halton Arp’s Peculiar Galaxies • Hannes Alfven claimed plasmas govern 99% of the Universe. • Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)**#18 - Energy from the sun arises from hot nuclear reactions**in the core. • Can EM explain the sun? • Ball lightning model reproducible since Tesla. • Hot fusion interior model NEVER reproduced. • The sun’s rays have filamentary structure • => electrical interactions. • Huge temperature and voltage gradients near the sun’s surface inexplicable?**#19 - Redshift is caused by Doppler expansion of space.**• Halton Arp’s intrinsic redshift • high-redshift quasar near low-redshift parent • William Tifft’s redshift quantization • Conventional physics ASSUMES quantization. • EM fields DERIVES it from interactions. • Bode’s Law: another example of quantization**What IS Redshift?**• Interaction energy per total energy • The definition of entropy • Compton-like interaction with matter • Doppler Effect assumes properties of space itself • Holds when matter density is uniform.**#20 - Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) results from space**expansion. • Scientists back to 1900 associated CBR with blackbody radiation (Assis) • Penzias & Wilson (1965) confirmed what had been predicted by these scientists. • Mainstream science, assuming empty space, claimed the discovery as proof of expansion.**#21 - The age of the Universe is the inverse of Hubble’s**constant (H). • Conclusion based on other assumptions. • Hubble’s original redshift data based on R0 = c/H, z = R/R0 • Hubble himself disliked the Doppler idea • Dirac: ke2/Gm2 ~ 1040 ~ mcR0/h**#22 - The Big Bang.**• aka “The Big Dud” • Mass-based theories demand singularities • Expansion itself is relative to matter • Violates energy conservation • Violates thermodynamics: T constant during adiabatic expansion - Bligh**#23 - Point particles exist.**• All modern theories based on P.P.s • Singularities - like the Big Bang Universe • Useful approximation: Maxwell,Boltzman • Ignores the question of structure • Experimental data: Compton, Hofstadter**#24 - Quantum “spin” exists without current.**• Rotation demands “groups” • “Spin” without finite size is nonsense • Magnetic moments known only to result from closed circuits (currents) of charge • Thus particles must be closed circuits or physics differs at the quantum level.**#25 - Quantum mechanics cannot be explained**“classically”. • “Classical” = “not derivable from QM”? • “Classical” = “via the laws of EM”? • Does QM explain structure? • Structure -> divisibility -> continuum • QM assumes quanta, EM continua • div B = 0 demands closed loops -> quanta**#26 - Elementary particles are “things” in themselves.**• What are protons, muons, pions, bosons? • Discreet measurable effects, nothing more • Correspond with flow singularities? • Poincaré’stopology -> Thom’s catastrophe • 7 catastrophes -> 7 elementary particles Paul D. Tinari, "Use of Catastrophe Theory to Obtain a Fundamental Understanding of Elementary Particle Stability", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, V25, N7, pp. 711-715 (1986). E. P. Battey-Pratt & T. J. Racey, "Geometric Model for Fundamental Particles," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, V19, N6, pp. 437-475 (1980).**#27 - Muons, pions, and even neutrons are “elementary”.**• Particle zoo > Mendeleev’s elements • Billiard balls or energy distributions? • “Elementary” =? “can’t be broken down” • “Fundamental” =? “stable flow pattern” • “Decay” -> “instability” of interactions**#28 - There are two types of charge.**• Rather two different “charged particles” • 3D flow circuits -> helicity • Repulsion between adjacent ‘fibers’ balanced radially by parallel motion • Balance between cross sections -> motion around cross sections -> helicity • Two types of helicity in 3d: RH & LH**#29 - Matter can be produced and annihilated in pairs.**• Is matter really created and destroyed? • whirlpools, Borchardt dust,virtual annihilation • Dirac’s anti-matter = mirror matter • Energy distributions “copy” real particles? • Real production/annihilation -> energy singularities**#30 - The wave function has nothing to do with**electro-magnetic fields. • Quantum wave function ψ normalized • Could adopt ψ ~ E + icB, ψ* ~ D + H/ic • Complex wave function admit shear • Vector field equivalent to 2 scalar fields* • Can vector potential A be replaced? Edmund T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions", Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, 1, (1904), pp. 367-372.