Crisis in Physics. Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Alexander G. Kyriakos

[deleted]

I looked at your paper and although I think that it contained more math than will be understandable by many readers that are not deeply involved in the field, I did like your concept of a photon becoming a matter particle and gaining mass through a rotation transformation. To make this transformation more easily understood and visualized in people's minds would you please explain without math the nature of this rotation. Do you visualize the photon being an extended object like a sphere that rotates on its axis like the earth or do you think of it more like the photon's path of motion becomes curved in such a way that it travels in a cycli8cal circular path. Also do you think of this rotation as a standard two dimensional rotation like the earth and the examples that I gave above or as a three dimensional motion and if it is a three dimensional motion, how does that work?

[deleted]

Paul N. Butler

Dear Alexander,

For some reason instead of taking my name and putting it at the top of the entry it took my greeting to you and put that at the top. I put my name at the top of this entry so if it does that again you will at least know that I sent this and the previous comment. I also noticed after I sent the message that I had somehow entered cycli8cal when it should have been cyclical. I guess I accidentally hit the 8 key also when I hit the i key. Sorry about that.

[deleted]

To make this transformation more easily understood and visualized in people's minds I have explained without math the nature of this rotation by means of diagramms of field transformations .Please, see figures in http://vixra.org/pdf/1009.0066v1.pdf and http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0013v1.pdf

Vijay Gupta

Dear Alexander G. Kyriakos,

A very informative essay from mainstream physicist. Your statement below expresses my views on mainstream theories in Physics:

"Scientific community has taken that any theory is true, if it is in agreement with experimental results when these experiments are invariant with respect to the space, time, experimentalists, technical means and some other conditions"

That is how PicoPhysics treat the theories from mainstream physics as statement of facts. A cross verification of facts in a different context does not prove anything but invariance of observed results in a different environment not previously documented. Recent proof of Higgs-Bosons as a result of statistical analysis is a case-in-point.

Pico-Physics works down from observed facts to relate seemingly un-related observations into a single axiom - 'Space contains Knergy'. The concept of Konservation, Knergy and space are partially available in my essay on Five Dimensions of universe .

PicoPhysics believe the origin of problem lies in concept of potential energy evolved to explain gravitation which is measured negative. This embedded neutralization into conservation, which was not part of conceptual conservation when it was just applied to matter/mass as in phase change between gas/liquid/solid states or chemical equations.

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

[deleted]

Dear Alexander,

I looked at your papers and from what I can tell without attempting to decipher all of the math, it looks like you are suggesting that the photon rotates about a center location in space much like the moon rotates about the earth rather than how the earth rotates about its own axis. If this is the case, you are ahead of most and have the right concept at least up to a point. The mass effect of a rotation is due to its angular motion (momentum) content. A standard rotation such as the earth on its axis or the moon around the earth is a two dimensional motion even when it occurs in 3 space because you can see that each particle travels in a two dimensional plane around its path. Such a rotation creates a directional mass effect (field). As an example, if a large mass were to impact the earth going straight down at the north pole of its rotation, it would not feel the rotational mass effect because it would not be trying to vary the angle of the two dimensional plane of rotation of the earth's particles in their paths around the axis of the earth. If the same object approached the earth from the north in a line that is parallel to the earth's axis, but such that it hit at a lower latitude, it would feel the earth's rotational mass effect. For everything to balance out, the photon must travel a three dimensional path around its center of motion. This gives a three dimensional angular motion component that creates a non-directional mass effect for the matter particle because regardless of from what direction you approach the particle an interaction always changes the angle of its plane of rotation in one or more dimensions. I have found that it is easiest to start with the fact that all photons and matter particles are composed of motions. Then it is only necessary to determine what combination of motions is necessary to generate the observational characteristics of each and the dimensional structure that allows each of these motions to exist as it does. Of course, it could be that I am interpreting your paper wrong and the three dimensional rotation is covered somewhere in the math in which case maybe you can explain it to me without the math, so I don't have to do all the work of deciphering it as I do not have the time to do that right now.

[deleted]

Dear Paul!

You write: «it looks like you are suggesting that the photon rotates about a center location in space much like the moon rotates about the earth rather than how the earth rotates about its own axis». The closest is the expression «It looks like the photon rotates about a center location in space», but in the linear theory is not clear how this happens. I will explain it at the popular level.

According to my theory, in process of production of the electron-positron pair, a photon in a very strong electromagnetic field of a nucleus undergoes the transformation of rotation, in which the photon fields begins to act upon itself. A self-interaction is the nonlinear interaction. A particle moves in its own field. A self-interaction does the particles either metastable or completely stable. This transformation is equivalent to the gauge transformation of the Standard Model (SM) , which from a physical point of view is the rotational transform.

When the fields of photon are "twirled" on the spot, then a photon, as it is seem, is stoped. More precisely, its energy is localized, and therefore, according to Einstein's formula, it is equivalent to the mass. Now, as a whole, this "twirled" photon could not travel at the speed of light. But the photon field is continuing to move in a circle with the speed of light. Due to the appearance of tangential currents, this "intermediate massive photon" is unstable, and after a short time, it breaks (in SM this is mathematically described as a field symmetry breaking). As a result, appears a pair of electron and positron.

The math of non-linear theory is equivalent to the SM theory and explains its as described in my articles.

Alexander

[deleted]

Hi Alexander. The crisis in physics begins with the failure to understand vision, the body, and thought [fundamentally] as they relate to physics/physical experience. One always starts with typical/ordinary experience and with function/purpose for meaning, perception, and comprehensibility. Thanks for your essay.

Paul Butler

Dear Alexander,

I believe you are right that such a rotated photon would not be stable because the EM field would not be strong enough to contain its angular motion mass effect. How are the electron and positron generated from the photon as it loses containment of its angular motion (mass) component in your theory? It is good that you see that the generation of the angular motion component requires an external motion input via the nucleus that you mention.

Paul

Vladimir Tamari

Dear Alexander

Thank you for the positive comments about both my research and fqxi paper, and about my response to your paper. I really look forward to reading more of your work and communicating about it with you - as you can imagine reading many fqxi essays and commenting on them is a time-consuming business - but well worth it!

Where are you studying or doing your research?

Best wishes

Vladimir

[deleted]

Dear Vladimir!

I understand your difficulties and I respect your courage to continue studies in science. When you have time, you can first get acquainted with the most simple parts of the theory (the photon, the intermediate massive photon, electron-positron, neutrino-antineutrino):

http://vixra.org/pdf/1009.0066v1.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0013v1.pdf

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO2PDF/V11N2KYR.pdf

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1KYR.pdf

If you have any questions, we can discuss them using the e-mail: a.g.kyriakAThotmail.com (where AT = @ ).

Sincerely,

Alexander

[deleted]

Dear Alexander,

I welcome your article and I appreciate it as truly/realistic. I see that we move in the same way in many aspects. We have reached to a some different points, however it is normal for independent workers. I am happy to find of like-minded! A mine work is "Rethinking the formal methodology...." (Topics 1430). Hopeful it may be useful for you as yours for me.

Regards,

George Kirakosyan

Gurcharn Sandhu

Dear Alexander,

I have read your essay and I appreciate your viewpoint. Your essay is very well-written, interesting and highly relevant. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria), as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.

I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.

You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

[deleted]

Dear Alexander/Sandhu,

I assume those who have replied to Alexander's essay are those who share similar trens of thought about the crisis in physics. After reading Sandhu's post I sifted through the list according to Community Ratings against the name of those who have replied here.

On a rough guesstimate here are the community ratings presently:

A. Kyriakos - 100

JCNS -55

Eckard -120

Joe Fisher -120

J. Merryman - 130

Geogina -110

Tamari - 60

P. Butler -190

G. Kirakosyan - 200

D. Dolce - 40

Sandhu - 60

Viraj - 125

The way things are none of our essays are likely to go to the Judges.

I don't think vote manipulation as it has been suggested is the answer. Then we fall into the same shameful category.

I wrote to the administrator (not complaining but) that the content of the essays should be in keeping with the Topic of the contest - Wrong Assumptions and not about other stuff, and to post my essay to the Community. I will copy it separately.

Best regards,

Viraj

[deleted]

Dera Alexander,

please consider my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1503

Motivated by the truble with physics that you describe I have developed an published in important journal a new challenging theory based on solid mathematical demonstrations. Unfortunatly nowdays if you have good and elegant results in physics you are in truble, so that I would appreciate your support.

best regards,

Donatello

[deleted]

Dear Alexander,

Further to my post just now (under Sandhu's post),as stated there I am copying my letter to the adminsitrator of FQXi.

--------------

Dear Brendan,

Thanks for clarifying how voting works and explaining the irrelevancy of 'Public Ratings'. Without any solicitations of votes from others or even without voting myself, some unknown readers have voted high for my essay. It once ranked on top (in Public Ratings), now in the first five (you may know who has voted for it but I don't). But this is all irrelevant. Community rating of my essay is dismal, perhaps because it is a later entry and there has been no opportunity for the Community to read and asses it.

Therefore I would like you (Brendan) to pass the following message to the Community.

The topic of the essay contest is: "Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?".

Here is my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

I would like to remind the reader that no matter how nicely an essay is worded or that it covers some other interesting topic in physics, the reader ought to bear in mind that the essay needs to be judged (rated) from the point of view of the contest in relation to RELEVANCE OF ITS CONTENT TO THE TOPIC OF THE CONTEST.

I this regard I would like to bring to your notice that my essay is strictly relevant to this topic for the following reasons.

1. I have listed out a number of assumptions that Newton made that have turned out to be foundational errors.

2. I have not only listed the errors, found a new approach to overcome these errors (guided by notions of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein) and provided accurate quantitative solutions.

3. I have discussed that these wrong assumptions of Newton have been carried over to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity and these too are afflicted by the same problems.

To quote from the essay: "We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated".

4. I have shown from Newton's writings (Preface to the Principia) that he intended to create only a makeshift theory (Mechanics) as a stepping stone until a "Truer Method of Philosophy" (a geometric theory based on the behaviour 'least particles') is found.

5. I have shown from Einstein's writings that he considered both Newtonian foundation as well as that of his own theory are based on fictitious concepts.

6. I have shown that Einstein has pointed that the 'Right Way' is yet to be found which would be based on simplest conceivable mathematical ideas connecting laws with phenomena.

7. I have shown why Einstein could not find the 'Right Way' himself which he was desperately in search of, by expanding the thermodynamic approach into whole of physics.

8. I have shown that Maxwell chartered an outline of a program for the future development of science, based on the paradigm that all phenomena are based on state changes of energy, and inflow and outflow of energy from a system (i.e. based on open systems).

9. By assimilating the intuitive notions of all the founders, in regard to the future development of physics should take, I have initiated to develop a new approach.

10. It a) provides the equation of motion for a particle at any velocity (slow or near light velocity) thus the schism in physics between Newtonian mechanics and SRT is removed. b) Explains how gamma-factors arise, c) why it requires momentum gamma-Mv for a particle to be set in motion with momentum Mv. d) provides the physical basis of the Lorentz transformation, e) the physical basis of the constancy of the velocity of light g) why physical processes slow down when a particle is in motion. h) From where the energy underlying the centrifugal force comes.

(This is all I could squeeze in within the 25,000 characters permitted by the contest. Elsewhere I have derived Lorentz force, gravitational time increase of a GPS clock, Compton scattering, explanation of Michelson's experiment by recognizing TDE changes frequency while keeping velocity constant etc.).

Unfortunately the diagrams in the essay have not come out properly. Therefore I also attach the essay in MS Word format

I request the Community to assess my essay and give the rating that you think it deserves.

Best regards,

Viraj FernandoAttachment #1: 5_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

[deleted]

Dear Viraj!

I believe that the authors of the articles should not participate in the vote. I agree with you that the manipulation with voting must not be allowed also from the readers. Therefore I think that the articles should be considered by independent experts who are good specialists in the field of science, in which the contest is declared.

Best regards

Alexander

[deleted]

Dear Alexander,

I agree with you that authors should not vote and about the requirement that the assessment of the articles be done by independent specialists only. The "specialists" then ought to be those academics who have credentials of having questioned the foundations and agree that there is a crisis in physics.

As you have pointed out in your essay, previously money was no incentive for pursuing science. I think there should not be any Prize Money offered. Then at least some of the entries would not have been there, and less essays for the specialists to sift through. Perhaps the funds could have been given to the specialist judges for their work.

Secondly, I assume that what you mean by voting by "readers" is voting by the members of the FQXi Community for what is called the 'Community Rating'. This is what would determine the final 35.

The 'Public Rating' is a fools paradise. For example there are contestants who have made their entries only at the end of Aug, and yet have top public ratings having obtained over 200 ratings. But we need not be concerned about this.

Best regards,

Viraj

[deleted]

Very interesting

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.pdf

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Alexander,

I appreciate your historical and philosophical analysis, and I think you're right; the descriptive success of quantum field theory, despite its conceptual deficiencies, led to an actual regression on certain foundational issues. It's amazing to consider what advanced problems the founders of quantum theory were trying to solve even in the late 1920's, and it took another two or three generations before consideration of such problems again became mainstream. By then, a lot of important conceptual and philosophical knowledge had largely vanished from much of the physics community. It's ironic to consider the possibility that many physicists over the last 30 years have proven ill-equipped to deal with foundational issues not in spite of what the field had accomplished over the previous half-century, but because of it. Take care,

Ben Dribus

[deleted]

Dear Alexander,

Although ideally, the rules should have been that authors should not be allowed to vote, voting by authors seems to be the main voting process here. So I feel voting on merit of the content has to be done by authors objectively and impartially. I have already read and commented on your most interesting essay. On that basis I have also rated your essay.

My essay is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 (I also attach the MS Word version for clarity of diagrams). I request you to rate it on the merit of its content.

Here is a summary of the essay:

1. I have listed out a number of assumptions that Newton made that have turned out to be foundational errors.

2. I have not only listed the errors, I have found a new approach to overcome these errors (guided by notions of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein) and provided accurate quantitative solutions.

3. I have discussed that these wrong assumptions of Newton have been carried over to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity and these too are afflicted by the same problems.

5. I have shown from Einstein's writings that he considered both Newtonian foundation as well as that of his own theory are based on fictitious concepts.

6. I have shown that Einstein has pointed that the 'Right Way' is YET TO BE FOUND which would be based on simplest conceivable mathematical ideas connecting laws with phenomena.

7. I have shown why Einstein could not find the 'Right Way' himself which he was desperately in search of, by expanding the thermodynamic approach into whole of physics.

9. By assimilating the intuitive notions of all the founders, in regard to the future development of physics should take, I have initiated to develop a new approach.

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: 11_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

« Previous Page Next Page »