About the possibility to solve the main problems of theoretical physics by murat Asgatovich gaisin

murat gaisin

Essay Abstract

The author in his article shows the possibility to solve the main problems of theoretical physics by full revision of its basic principles.

Author Bio

I am an independent theoretical physicist. My interest is the study of the foundations of theoretical physics. I have published in the Internet more than 20 scientific articles.

Download Essay PDF File

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Murat Asgatovich Gaisin,

Since you wrote: "the four-dimensional space-time which is viewed in the general theory of relativity as the physical object in fact is the abstract mathematical object. So, all the conclusions drawn from the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity about the physical reality are mathematical abstractions", I hope you will comment on essay 2021.

Regards,

Eckard

murat gaisin

I will read the article that you wrote.

John Hodge

I see you are interested in foundations of physics. The section 2 of entry has some suggestions for alternate postulates. Some of them are in the STOE. The STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics develop this idea a little. There is a long way to go.

I'd be interested in your comments.

murat gaisin

13. N. Nikitin "It is time to look for Higgs".

http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1176523,

accessed on April 12, 2014,

14. М. А. Gaisin "The Standard Model of physics - the triumph of the absurd"

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/10172.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

murat gaisin

Dear John C Hadge,

I would be interested to read your article

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

Leo Vuyk

DEAR MURAT,

Could you please check your reference links, I tried four but half did not show up.

murat gaisin

Links checked.

Literature

1. Lee Smolin. «The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of

a science, and what comes next» Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2006. Translated by

Juri Artamonov. http://www.rodon.org/sl/nsfvtsunichzes/,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

2. «Will the astronomers' observations undermine the theoretical basis of

physics?» Internet CNews. Source: articles of the "Nature" magazine.

http://kuasar.narod.ru/library/astronomy-and-physics/index.htm,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

3. М. А. Gaisin «Physical nature of rotation figures of atom's electron shells

configurations formations (atom's electron shells configurations) Magnetic poles

physical nature. Exchange energy physical nature».

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8706.html,

accessed on April 12,2014.

4. М. А. Gaisin «Physical nature of origin of nuclears, of green-stone belts,

ancient lithospheric plates and the Earth mantle».

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8684.html,

accessed on April 12,2014.

5. М. А. Gaisin «The dark matter and dark energy nature. The Milky Way

structure». http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8771.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

6. М. А. Gaisin "The continuum problem solution. (Continuity principle)".

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8770.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

7. М. А. Gaisin "The unified field theory. Physical nature of gravitation.

Physical nature of positive and negative charges. Actual physics of elementary

particles. Proton and neutron structure. Physical nature of strong and weak

interactions". http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8746.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

8. М. А. Gaisin "Positron - the mathematical "phantom" of real electron".

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8902.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

9. М. А. Gaisin «About the left-right symmetry breakdown in nature».

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8966.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

10. М. А. Gaisin "The concept of time - conceptual catastrophe of the 20th

century". http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/9336.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

11. М. А. Gaisin "The physical nature of the Kozyrev effect. The detection of

the gravity waves". http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/8888.html,

accessed on April 12, 2014.

12. М. А. Gaisin "Visual concept of photon's and neutrino's physical nature.

The proof of the absence of the "weak interaction" notion".

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/9348.html

Georgina Woodward

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin,

Just want to let you know that I have read your essay. I'm afraid I have failed to find, what would appear to me, to be actual solutions to or approaches to solving the main problems of physics, or how humanity should steer the future. Nevertheless it was interesting for me to hear your thoughts on a number of subjects.

murat gaisin

The main point of my article is that modern theoretical physics consists entirely of epistemological errors.

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Asgatovich,

I thought that your excellently written essay was fascinating. I hope you do not mind my offering a solution to your "Problem 1: To merge the grand theory of relativity and the quantum theory into the one, which can claim to be the theory of nature."

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. All material surfaces must travel at the constant "speed" of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent "speed" that is less than the "speed" of light. As a surface can only travel at the constant "speed" of light, and that speed cannot be exceeded, a surface cannot peel away from a sub-surface. As a sub-surface is attached to a surface by a random fluctuating energy field, a sub-surface cannot reduce its inconsistent speed to the point where it becomes inertial. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

I use the term "speed" of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the "speed" of light. When it strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real firelight, real candle light, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

No need to thank me sir.

Joe Fisher

murat gaisin

I read your article with interest.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Murat,

Fully agree with you: in basic science (physics and mathematics) understanding crisis, the crisis of the philosophical foundations of fundamental sign systems. But what will it take to overcome this crisis?

Here, writes Carlo Rovelli article «SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS»

«This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its empirical content. Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is. Now, there's something disturbing, for me as a theoretical scientist, in all this. I feel that something is missing. Something of the story is missing. I've been asking to myself what is this thing missing? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I want to present some ideas on something else which science is.

This is particularly relevant today in science, and particularly in physics, because if I'm allowed to be polemical, in my field, in fundamental theoretical physics, it is 30 years that we fail. There hasn't been a major success in theoretical physics in the last few decades, after the standard model, somehow. Of course there are ideas. These ideas might turn out to be right. Loop quantum gravity might turn out to be right, or not. String theory might turn out to be right, or not. But we don't know, and for the moment, nature has not said yes in any sense.

I suspect that this might be in part because of the wrong ideas we have about science, and because methodologically we are doing something wrong, at least in theoretical physics, and perhaps also in other sciences.»

The development of mathematics and physics, to overcome the "crisis of understanding" - is more secure future of Umanity. Is not it?

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Vladimir Rogozhin

Murat,

Give references the original article Carlo Rovelli and in Russian

murat gaisin

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

I believe that in modern theoretical physics underestimated philosophical thoughts. As a result, the basis of theoretical physics contained errors on the epistemological level.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin.

Andrej Rehak

Dear Murat

I would refer to five greatest problems you quoted. Explaining these problems is not the issue. The problem is in the acceptance of the "insulting" simplicity of their single solution. As we witness, in all aspects of our institutionalized society, the problems are maintained and created. This knotted matrix of problems iterates itself... maintaining and creating the age of problems.

I appreciate your criticism, which is to be expected from anyone who is sane :), but I have to correct your delusion about mathematics. In their description QT, STR, or GTR use mathematical rues of relations. However, their equations contain unexplained variables, so called "universal constants of nature". Hence, they are not mathematics. As such, they remain local descriptions, not universal explanations. Mathematics and the physical world are the same - the abstract principle, independent of scale. Nature draws shapes and motions the same way geometry does.

Regards

andrej

pjackson

Murat,

Very well written, I commend you on all counts, including the incorrect concept of time (SR and GR), and that fundamentally; "modern theoretical physics consists entirely of epistemological errors." Full marks for all of that. You'll recall our positions were the same last years

However two small points I'd like to raise. You say that to unify SR and QM, first; "it is necessary that the original theories are accurate." True if we're being pedantic, but I've found a small fundamental change of assumptions to each DOES then allow unification. Time is absolute, space contains a diffuse particulate medium, (pure fermion/proton plasma) parts of which move just like air or water, and c is the local propagation speed everywhere, so waves Doppler shift just like sound. (I think you agreed may last 3 essays setting out other conditions and evidence). interestingly that means the postulates themselves just need better interpreting. Most have been looking in the wrong place.

QM is simpler to resolve with classical mechanics. That what I do in this years essay using geometry and simple dynamics. The same mechanism solves the errors of both, we just need to properly apply absorption and re-emission, the latter always at c in the electron rest frame. We have just been short of intellectual evolution. But we can't solve the problems at the heart of physics in a few lines. I do hope you'll read my essay as I'm sure you'll understand and agree (I hope so anyway, I also need the points!). I hope you don't lose heart and keep putting out the message, the more specific and evidenced the better. We're long overdue for a paradigm change. Heads can't stay implanted in the sans forever.

Very best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Murat,

You seem to have disappeared, I hope you are well, and your score undervalues the quality of your essay. I also hoped you may read and discuss my own which agrees your basic premises with important results.

Best wishes

Peter

murat gaisin

Dear Peter Jackson,

I will read your article.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

Aaron Feeney

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

murat gaisin

Dear Hải.CaoHoàng,

thanks for the appreciation of my critics state of modern physics.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin