Essay Abstract

Foundational aspects of classical physics, including special relativity and Maxwell's equations, are adversely criticized on the basis of the claim that covariance is inferior to genuine invariance. In each case invariant alternatives are adduced and their superiority established. An invariant form of Maxwell's field equations due to Hertz is demonstrated to entail an electromagnetic force law similar to that of Lorentz, but containing an extra force term. The presence of this extra term may explain why hot fusion experiments have been destabilized by what amount to (supposedly non-existent) Ampere longitudinal forces.

Author Bio

The author was born in Champaign, Illinois on 26 January, 1925, the son a a Physical Chemistry Professor at the University of Illinois. He was educated at Harvard, where he received a PhD in Nuclear Physics under Norman Ramsey in 1951. Prior to that, he did war work in Operations Research (later called Systems Analysis) for the Navy Department under Professor P. M. Morse of MIT. Later employments included work at the Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, California and the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in Maryland. He retired in 1980 to do physics research in a home laboratory.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Edwin Phipps,

I read and enjoyed your essay, and received food for thought, though I regret I am not familiar enough with some of the mathematical descriptions you mention to be able to comment on them. I think you did a great idea presenting your ideas.

I found it interesting that you approached the essay theme so differently than I did. More food for thought.

I wonder: do you have a view on Bondi's k calculus?

Best wishes.

Bob Shour

    Dear Thomas Erwin Phipps,

    A number of essays express the belief that physics has jumped the track and that mathematics is the problem. Your essay says it better than most. And acquaintance with 'real' physicists (those currently working for the establishment) reveals Jack Horner-like self-satisfaction, and, as you say, "second thoughts are heresy." Only the old guys, retired from the rat race, can blow the whistle, with all the grief that implies these days.

    You also note the "need for magic" is time-invariant. As a large percentage of physicists have "grown beyond" religion (properly mystical) they apparently find solace by incorporating mysticism into their physics. But not just any mysticism. Any fool can worship a mystical God, but only us really really smart guys can understand this mystical, non-local, quantum mechanics and non-simultaneous (meaning non-synchronized) space-time curvature.

    Your focus on covariance is simply excellent. As you note, "If one wants true form preservation, one must demand true form invariance." You address asymmetry (in the form of space-time). All of the symmetries I am aware of, from iso-symmetry to SUSY, are approximate. They are not exact symmetries. If they ever were, they broke. Thus, while it is part of the physicist's Credo that symmetry implies conservation, I believe it is far more likely that fundamental conservation yields symmetries.

    Your GPS-based discussion of relativity was also very interesting, including the asymmetry of the Master-slave clock required to make the system workable. I also found your discussion of Maxwell interesting.

    Finally, I agree with you that, once the mind has been cleared of the "current universal fog of political correctness" things are easier to comprehend. It is truly amazing that after almost a century of quantum progress, the prevalent interpretations are still as confused as they were during the first decade. What can that possibly imply except that those first stabs at understanding the QM world were not even close?

    My current essay explains how Bell's significant oversimplification of his model yields bad physics embedded in good math, with the complete nonsense of non-local entanglement as the accepted gospel. I hope you will read my essay and provide feedback to me.

    My very best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Wonderful presentation. Box's quote is right on target. It seems many forget the currently popular models are not correct but wrong and will be replaced although the entrenched society is defending the status quo at all costs.

      The pendulum swings. One side is the experimental with a new model starting the swing. The new data shows holes in the model. As the troublesome data builds, the theorists add ad hoc additions to defend the status quo. Then comes complex math and ignoring the new by rejecting the papers. As the data builds as you suggest, eventually a new model with new and wildly different assumptions finally produces a revolution if we are lucky. Today there is already enough data to construct a new model. You point out some that is `misinterpreted' or ignored. The theorists must take center stage for now. Unfortunately, the `defend the status quo' seems to be winning and physics is becoming entrenched. One side effect is that with little really new, funding from politicians dries up. Want funding - produce a radically new, exciting (not metaphysics) model.

      Thanks for the excellent job of addressing the problem with standards.

        Dear Thomas E. Phipps Jr.,

        Per aspera ad astra.

        When I quoted you in essay 1364 I already understood you as follows: "Phipps [25] pointed out that the lacking covariance was built into the [= Maxwell's] equations according to [Michelson's null result]."

        Meanwhile I am sure, Michelson's 1881/1887 (Potsdam/Cleveland) null result was correct. Just the expectation by Michelson, Morley, Lorentz, etc. was not warranted.

        An unwarranted trick can definitely not be the truth. That's why your essay is by far my favorite one despite of minor imperfections.

        Thank you and all the best to you,

        Eckard

          Dear Erwin Phipps,

          I agree with you: 'mathematical concepts' masquerade as 'physical concepts', and this is the major problem in present-day physics. Equations are just tools. Different tools can be used in different situations. But the argument that the tool can tell the whole tale is incorrect. Space-time, curved space, expanding space, mass-less particles, mass-giving particle, force particle, etc. are examples of meaningless physical concepts derived from equations. The present philosophy can be termed 'mathematicalism', the view that the real nature of the physical world can be understood based on equations alone. I argue for 'physicalism': an equation can be interpreted in many ways; out of these, physically meaningful interpretations alone need be considered. My essay will soon be available.

            Honourable Sir,

            I'm quite impressed with your essay. Your work is very thoughtful.

            Simply great!

            Kindly,

            Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

              Thank you for your kind words. No, I never heard of the Bondi k calculus. Being 90, I finished my education long before Bondi came along. Good luck with your essay.

              Best, Tom

              Thank you for the most explicit and insightful comments I have received. I have my own tweaks I would like to make to the math of quantum mechanics -- but that is a separate topic. Good luck with your essay.

              Best, Tom

              Thank you for your kind words. Yes, there does seem to be increasing entrenchment of rather ludicrous ideas these days. The politics of it reminds one of climate science.

              Best, Tom

              Thanks for your comments. I agree with you about Michelson-Morley.

              Good luck with your essay.

              Best, Tom

              I have tended to favor Bridgman's operational philosophy. I expect it has much in common with your physicaliam. Good luck with your essay.

              Best, Tom

              Thanks for your favorable assessment. I appreciate your kind words.

              Best, Tom

              Many thanks. I would like to do a similar number on mathematics itself. Its practitioners have been riding high too long. They are great on proofs, but what about definitions? Those are even more important, and seldom critically discussed.

              Best, Tom

              Dear Tom,

              I will be lucky if you could read my essay and comment critically on it. We shouldn't expect luck with the scores. Some author who did definitely not yet take part in the discussion of your essay rated it 1. At least he understood its implications.

              Best,

              Eckard

              I am reading through these essays. Some are about a disconnect between physics and math. These papers have this in common. Then these papers use examples to demonstrate the disconnect as does my own essay. The examples vary widely. This is my observation. My main goal here is to applaud your point of view of the disconnect of which you get some of my points. I suspect pressure from people like you are going to change the face of physics. Thank you.

              Al Schneider

                Dear Dr. Phipps,

                I read your essay with great interest. I will have to read it more carefully before making substantive comments.

                Incidentally, I remember your advisor Prof. Ramsey. I worked in his atomic beams laboratory in 1974, before moving on to a thesis project in superconductivity.

                You might be interested in my essay "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory"

                I argue that premature adoption of an abstract mathematical framework prevented consideration of a simple, consistent, realistic model of quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes of indeterminacy, entanglement, and non-locality. What's more, this realistic model should be directly testable using little more than Stern-Gerlach magnets.

                An earlier FQXi essay was entitled "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"

                But I have not been critical of classical mechanics. Maybe I should reconsider that, as well.

                Alan Kadin

                  I should like to think that my rather impassioned attempts to reform physics might succeed. But, realistically, I doubt that is possible. I have never participated in the academic life. This means I am an outsider. My impression is that the Worldwide Professors United, though not a recognized organization, nevertheless exists and knows how to close ranks in defense of a status quo. This means that progress can occur only from inside, and at a snail's pace. It is to be hoped that the snail increments are more or less in the right direction. But the creature responds only to its own internal rumblings.

                  Best, Tom

                  I will read your "Blinders" essay with interest. Thanks for the link.

                  My first and only Phys. Rev. publication was in 1960, called "Generalization of Quantum Mechanics." It was about hidden variables. It disturbed me that a whole class of classical canonical variables, the "New Canonical Variables" or constants of the motion, were absent from QM. What kind of "formal Correspondence" omits a whole class of formal variables? So, I explored the possibility of restoring those variables to the formalism. I claimed advantages from so doing. That paper was several years in the refereeing, and I learned my lesson: Don't bother.

                  Best, Tom

                  At age 90 I am not of that generation that is computer savvy at birth. It is not obvious to me how to get hold of your essay. Can you send me a link? I must admit I find the consequences of submitting an essay to be bewildering.

                  Best, Tom

                  After reading your "Blinders" essay, I must say I am struck by how different intuitions can be about a problem. We agree that something is not right about QM, but have gone about looking for the flaw in almost diametrically opposite directions. You have discarded Hilbert space and looked at a nonlinear alternative. I stuck to Hilbert space and looked for a rigorized formal Correspondence. It has been over half a century, but what I vaguely recollect ia that when I included formal analogs of the classical constants of the motion, these attached themselves to the wave function in such a way that by assigning numerical values to them one could sever phase connections. So, instead of everything being phase-connected forever, the equations of motion contained parameters that could cut the connections. That was my approach to improving the theory's relationship to reality.

                  After all, as long as phases are uninterrupted everything stays in a pure state and is therefore unobservable. Sorry, this is not helping you, since you have chosen a different path. I see it as rather bad news for physics, if nonlinearity is needed from the start. The beauty of QM via formal Correspondence is that it connects directly to the grand Newtonian tradition (through the canonical version of that, due to Hamilton and the rest).

                  Dear Tom,

                  when I first read your fantastic essay I knew it would attract many positive comments and votes. Congratulations! It seems still worthwhile to try to stem the tide of mainstream concordance in physics.

                  Best Lutz Kayser

                    Yes, the physics mainstream does seem to be settling into a particularly muddy rut at this stage of history.

                    Best, Tom

                    Dear Thomas,

                    John Archibald Wheeler left to physicists and mathematicians a good philosophical precept:"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers."

                    When physicists and mathematicians speak about the structure and the laws of Universum for some reason they forget about lyricists. I believe that the scientific picture of the world should be the same rich senses of the "LifeWorld» (E.Husserl), as a picture of the world lyricists , poets and philosophers:

                    We do not see the world in detail,

                    Everything is insignificant and fractional ...

                    Sadness takes me from all this.(Alexander Vvedensky,1930)

                    It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise,

                    as the sailor or the fugitive slave keeps the polestar in his eye;

                    but that is sufficient guidance for all our life.

                    We may not arrive at our port within a calculable period,

                    but we would preserve the true course. (Henry David Thoreau,1854)

                    Do you agree with Henry David Thoreau?

                    Kind regards,

                    Vladimir

                      I do not have any particular religion of my own. That would partly close my mind, which I prefer to keep open. I do, however, have a sort of frankly irrational suspicion -- which is akin to faith -- that when we understand the fundamental ways in which nature works we shall be far more stunned, shocked, amazed than even the lyricists, poets, etc. have it in their power to imagine.

                      Best, Tom

                      Welcome outsider from another mainstream outsider with a radical new model of the big and the small. I'm also retired and went back to my original love - physics.

                      We join Einstein (a clerk because he was rejected by the academic community when he first publish), Newton (he isolated himself), some who were excommunicated, and others outside the status quo.

                      Respected Sir,

                      Once again you have proved the adage: old is gold. There is so much similarity between your views and our essay "REASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS" here that one author wanted us to comment on the central theme of your marvelous essay. We have covered the same points in a different style to finally suggest the need for scrapping the modern text books and rewrite physics afresh.

                      Mathematics describes only the quantitative aspect of Nature - how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics. Thus, you have correctly described them as parallel tracks. Welcome to read our essay on this forum.

                      Regards,

                      basudeba

                        Hello, are you maybe mixing Lorentz covariance with vector contravariance? In relativity Lorentz covariance is a local phenomenon. Also spacetime symmetry does not mean space and time symmetry. You deny the mathematical foundation but what you propose instead? GT does not work in particle accelerators. It does not even work for planet Mercury. Anything else you may suggest?

                          Thanks for your kind words. I am glad we agree in principle.

                          I will look up your essay.

                          • [deleted]

                          • Post #32

                          Dear me! So, "universal covariance" has gone out of style, and covariance is now a "local phenomenon." I would doubt that it is a phenomenon at all, as I understand the word. But let us not quibble.

                          Is it true that spacetime symmetry has acquired a new, more subtle meaning than what the words suggest? I suppose this should not surprise me, as relativity can evolve only toward the more arcane. By this time Einstein might say of physics, as he did of mathematics, that he no longer could understand it.

                          I thought I was specially explicit about the alternative I support -- namely, invariant formulations of Maxwell's field equations and relativity. I freely admit that although it is easy to propose a crucial experiment, and I have done this elsewhere (Physics Essays), I have not tried to analyze the huge number of experiments credited with supporting conventional relativity.

                          The form of GT I support uses GPS time for the time parameter. This automatically brings in time dilation via the "Lorentz factor" correction for motion but it does not bring in a spatial Lorentz contraction. Any empirical evidence for that immediately refutes my proposals.

                          Maybe, comments on Maxwell-Hertz Equations by Branko Petrovic will open the eyes of Newman and many others who don't believe you.

                          In order to conveniently access my last essay, you might click here . While I understand and respect your firm trust in standard mathematics, I cannot hide that e.g. Heaviside and perhaps also Gibbs are to blame for not following Hertz. I am fully aware that average mathematicians will reject my criticism too.

                          Above I gave you already an opportunity to simply click my essay 1364.

                          Best, Eckard

                          • [deleted]

                          • Post #34

                          Thomas,

                          Many, many thanks. From the bottom of my heart, many thanks.

                          Your explanation of how clock timing for the GPS system works is something I have desired to know for years. It makes perfect sense to me. All the clocks are adjusted to be consistent in the receiver's frame of reference. I may use your essay as a citation for this subject.

                          The v/c correction that you include in the equation for Lorentz force is very interesting to me. I am working with quaternions and attempting to express physics using them. I have proposed that the LT be expressed as follows:

                          LT = cos(theta) i*sin(theta) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) (v/c)*i.

                          I have not yet attempted to place this into the Maxwell Equations, but when I do, I suspect that the term you have added will be present. Now I have a plausible explanation for it.

                          Best Regards and Good Luck,

                          Gary Simpson

                            Thanks for our favorable words.

                            I have always been interested in quaternions, but never found a way to use them.

                            It is good that someone is keeping abreast of the problem.

                            Best, Tom Phipps

                            Dear Tom,

                            It is a saying in Africa that if you want to hear the truth, go to an elderly man. At 90, you are no longer looking for money, grants, job promotion, etc. All you wish for now is that Truth should rise again in our physics. Only those you called 'first class citizens' will oppose you.

                            Your analysis of the Maxwell equations was superb. Although you mentioned GPS, I observe that you did not make mention other experiments showing that earth motion can affect light arrival times, contrary to the Michelson-Morley findings. The challenge is how to reconcile the two seemingly discordant findings. I use Galilean transformation and invariance principles to suggest a solution in this paper.

                            My essay is also here, and I will be happy for a truth seeker to view and criticize.

                            Best regards,

                            Akinbo

                            4 days later

                            Dear Tom,

                            It's great to hear from you again after all these years! (Jeff K. of "The Alternate View" fame was quite happy to be told you had appeared here.) I'm sorry that we just went unconnected for awhile. I appreciate your giving a good Referee report to get my first journal publication, for Physics Essays. I find your gadfly Socratic challenges to be refreshing and thought-provoking, even if I am not convinced of your grand vision. I do think it's important to look into longitudinal field issues, whatever the explanation.

                            You (and others) will surely be interested in my own offering this time. It's about EM interactions extrapolated to higher-dimensional spaces. In particular, I take up the problem you referred to in Heretical Verities as the "left-behind potential hill". This is in essence the "4/3 paradox" about electromagnetic mass, and how does one explain it "directly" in terms of primary EM interactions PLUS that special correction from the internal stresses. I show how to solve that not just in 3-D space, but all spaces with analogous physics - and find that it will not work OK unless D = 3, number of spatial dimensions (taking one of time for granted.)

                            Then I give my philosophical thoughts, which I hope are interesting but I'm proud I could provide some actual physics meat there too. Well an email address is given in my essay, so drop me a line sometime. And still going strong at 90, that is great. You remind me of my 87 y.o. mother. Cheers.

                            Hi Tom,

                            Once again you have encapsulated so concisely and elegantly the philosophical and mathematical woes of the current physics paradigm. I think specifically your discussion of the GPS clocks makes clear the inconsistencies that many present physicists are happy to accept. Fortunately the GPS system was developed by engineers who were quite happy to accept "Newtonian" time if that was required to make the system measure unambiguous locations on earth. This demonstrates that the mathematics of falsifiable engineering is always more useful than the fanciest of untestable field theories.

                            I thought your development of a new way of expressing the Ampere force by combining the methodology of Ampere, Neumann and Weber is an interesting development and one I look forward to exploring further.

                            In the meantime, I encourage your continuing efforts to try and make the scientific funding bodies aware of how unimaginative and wasteful their current grant awarding strategies are. Maybe this essay will bring this to their attention and we can see more research into longitudinal forces in fusion plasmas and other technologies in which unclosed or flexible circuits will highlight the existence and potential benefits of longitudinal EM force.

                            Congratulations on a very encouraging and poignant essay.

                            Regards

                            Neal

                            6 days later

                            Tom

                            This is one of the best essays, I've read in a long time. All of it was good including your comments on relativity and Maxwell's Eqs. Particularly good were your comments about covariance and invariance. Many are with you on the surface problems (e.g., relativity), but those comments provide even deeper insight!

                            Nick Percival

                            Dear Nick,

                            Thanks for the words of encouragement.

                            For Neal Graneau:

                            I have been thinking a bit more about the plasma instability problem. Deep within the body of a plasma there must be perfect symmetry in all directions. So, any new force term can be expected to exert no net observable effect. But near any boundary there is asymmetry, and a new force term may produce unexpected results. That is as far as I can go without calculation.

                            Best, Tom