Dear Malek

Must look to these two different realms as complementary. In a dialetic philosophical/scientific basis.

Dear Prof. Vasconcellos,

Thanks for your comment and your support for a dialectical synthesis in the epistemology of the microcosm and the macrocosm as these are complimentary domains. The dominant epistemology used so far in natural science and philosophy is based on causality. But Immanuel Kant have shown conclusively that causality is a faulty epistemology, because beyond everyday life experience, specially on the ontological questions, causality leads to the mystery of a "first cause", contradictions and antinomies; where the opposites can both be proved to be equally true and equally false, providing no clear judgements.

We see the ill effects of using causality in the cosmological and quantum realm, where mystery, paradoxes, conflicting and contradictory views are rampant; depriving us of coherent positive knowledge of these realms. The quantum phenomena pervade all of Nature from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Although at macrocosm the quantum effect is not directly perceived; it remains at an inherent sublevel and is crucial in determining the upper levels of the existence of matter and motion that fundamentally characterize the various levels of objective reality. Causality based on the gross and apparent certainty, determinism, stability etc. that describe the human level of the macrocosm can give no intuition about the enormously complex and characteristically uncertain microcosm; only dialectical mode of thought based on chance and necessity can have any possibility of dealing with such phenomena. Following the lead of Frederick Engels in natural science, I have made some humble attempts of using materialist dielectics as a tool of investigation of those realms and would welcome suggestions and/or independent contributions along this line.

Hi

I like your phrasing: "Dialectics represents a qualitative leap in epistemology – a discrete and quantum jump and not a continuous transition from one to the other!"

That's great. I agree with you. I think that the philosophical basis of science is dialetics! Good job!

I am going to differ with the above answer and respectfully suggest that Classical and Newtonian mechanics have been badly misrepresented in Vasconcellos's last statement. To the contrary, in my humble opinion, Newtonian mechanics give a better description of reality than both quantum mechanics and general relativity under three important conditions. The first is that you understand the nature of Einstein's wave function Psi, the equation for a photon. I have developed one and no critic has been able to point out what observations of photons properties it does not match. Irrespective of what the "experts" say, it give a physical explanation of why photon's have mass. It explains why they automatically behave like particles and waves in the appropriate circumstances.

The second is that you need to know that every individual sub atomic particle is composed of a photon of the appropriate frequency rotating twice within its wavelength. It is that structure that is responsible for all the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time with velocity. They are little more than Pythagoras' theorem. It also shows that, for those corrections to apply, the radius of the particle must diminish with with its velocity. That is why energetic electrons, high GeV and TeV, scatter as if they were point particles with a radius of < 10^-18 m. It also explains why particles have their properties such as charge and magnetic moment. The quantum mechanical property of spin is simply the angular momentum of its rotation. Its two values depend upon from which side it is viewed. An anti-particle is a mirror image of the particle because it is the same photon rotating in the opposite direction with respect to its magnetic field. In E = mc^2, energy E is the photon traveling in a straight line, mass m is the same photon rotating twice within its wavelength. When a particle and anti-particle meet, they unlock each other's angular momentum and the two photons become linear and move away at c.

For those really interested, that model matches the properties of all stable particles, electron, proton, neutron, neutrino and photon. The structures of those particles has been developed, yes, including the neutrino. The proposed structures match observed properties quite well and also predict over a dozen unknown properties. It has two important results. First it makes determining the structure and properties of any nucleus quite simple. Given A and Z it is possible to work out the most probable arrangement of protons and neutrons inside any nucleus and calculate some of its properties. That model predicts which isotopes are likely to be the most stables, which ones have half lives shorter than ≈ 1 sec and why. It also shows such riddles as why He4 has the highest charge density, while Li6 has one of the lowest. The skin effect becomes immediately apparent. And more. It also shows that most of the peculiar quantum properties, eg electrons preferring to travel in pairs and quantized orbits are automatic properties of the structure of the electron.

Applying Newtonian mechanics to photons gives general relativity for low redshift. It certainly supports Einstein's contention that mass distorts space-time, generating gravity. It does not predict the existence of black holes. Photons can escape from below r = alpha. They will have a reduced frequency, hence longer wavelength and will be redshifted. Further calculations extend the accuracy of Einstein's field equations to about z = 0.1, depending upon the accuracy of the measuring equipment. Beyond that, Einstein's field equations no longer provider an accurate representation of reality. For that you need to extend Newton's gravitational law to photons into higher redshifts, eg z > 1. When that is done, a couple of features are apparent. The first is that there is good physical explanation of why black holes can't exist.Several mathematicians have demonstrated the inconsistencies of black hole mathematics. That is not difficult because black hole mathematics is flawed. General relativity "experts" overcome that by ignoring them. The second is that gravity becomes significantly weaker than that calculated under the inverse square law. In turn that means that an infinite steady state universe will not collapse under gravitational attraction.

In other words, using Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations and the Einstein/Planck/de-Broglie model of photons describes a universe in which all features can be described in three space dimensions and time. It also shows why there is no need for additional mass to describe the more rapid rotation of galaxies. It would be expected they would rotate as observed. Dark energy is explained by the variations in the density of matter within the universe.

Newtonian mechanics is neither a “.. gross averaged out or a crude representation of the internal micro-world ..”, nor a simplistic representation of the macro universe. Combined with the structure and properties of photons and that all particles are composed of photons of the appropriate energy making two revolutions within their wavelength, Newtonian mechanics gives a more accurate description of the micro and macro worlds than do quantum mechanics and general relativity respectively. It unites them into the one theory.

The above are not idle words unsupported by physics and mathematics. They are well supported by both. This author is putting the finishing touches to a book explaining all in great detail. It is a Treatise on “How to build a universe from scratch”. Chapter 1 starts out with the properties of free space and shows how it supports photons, giving them their properties , including mass. Chapter 2 describe the properties the rotating photon imparts to all particles. Chapter 3 describes the application of those properties to the neutron, proton, electron and neutrino. Chapter 4 goes on to explain the properties of some of the "elementary particles" generated in particle accelerators and by comic rays. In particular why pions and muons are so common. Chapter 5 takes the properties of the proton and neutron under this model and shows how they combine to make the nuclei. The binding rules are simple and the results match observation across all nuclei. Chapter 6 shows how the abundances of the various elements as observed in the sun, and other stars, are produced by fusion in the stellar core. It doesn't need super novae events to form them.

Having formed all the nuclei, chapter 8 shows what happens when electrons gather around them to produce atoms. It shows that many of the quantum mechanical laws are the natural consequence of the structure of electrons and nuclei. Newtonian mechanics and the structure of matter handles the situation quite well without the need for quantum mechanics. Of course quantum electrodynamics gives one aspect of that in greater detail. Those who study it in detail will observe that much if it is about photons as the force carrying particles.

From then on, modern physics based science has done a reasonably good job of describing observed properties from molecules to clusters of galaxies, their rapid rotation excluded. Chapter 9 establishes the basis of the general relativity corrections to Newtonian mechanics that work well for low z. Chapter 10 shows why galaxies would be expected to rotate faster than they should under the influence of gravity alone, without the need for the dark matter that astronomers and particle physicists have been unable to find. Chapter 11 develops the space-time geometry equation for space inside matter and shows how to use redshift to calculate distances. It shows how the observed neutrino spectrum is better matched by an infinite static universe than by the Big Bang model.

It is all put together in three space dimensions and time with no need for undetected particles like quarks and gluons, or many space dimensions and strings and branes. No need for dark energy, no need for dark matter. All it needs is Maxwell's equations, Newtonian mechanics, the photon, the photonics structure of matter and known physical principles applied in a logical manner.

In answer to your question, current mainstream physics theories can’t adequately unite the quantum and relativistic worlds. The above suggests understanding photons and their properties can extend Classical and Newtonian mechanics into the micro world of quantum mechanics and the macro world of relativity and gravity. It is respectfully suggested that such extension gives a better description those worlds than do quantum mechanics and relativity respectively.

VR> "In turn that means that an infinite steady state universe will not collapse under gravitational attraction."

Dear Vivian,

Congratulations! You seem to have achieved the impossible that mainstream physics is struggling to do for a century, i.e., the “Theory of Everything” – unifying physics in one theory! But so far all that you are saying remain mere assertions unless the physics community can see your books or articles and more so the social practice of your theories – the only criteria of the validity of the theories as far as dialectics is concerned.

The only thing your comment (model, theory?) seem to agree with dialectics is your apparent notion that the universe is Infinite (also eternal?). But absolutely none of mainstream physicists, mathematicians or philosophers (past and present) will agree with you on the Infinite universe. What is more, ALL of your theory/model (also of Newton's and Einstein's theories) will collapse on you if you accept the dialectical view that the universe is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing!

Before you incorporate the notion of the Infinite universe in your theory/model, I would humbly suggest you to please read the article on the dialectical view of the Infinite linked below:

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Hi Vivian

Newtonian physics corresponds to the limit of the relativistic description of an event for which the velocity v is much lower than the velocity of ligth, c (v

Dear Vivian

Just to be clear. Maxwell equations (ME) originally describes the unification of electric and magnetic fields at the classical level. At this level they have nothing to do with quantum mechanics!

There exists quantum mechanical versions of the ME of course. In general one has to introduce gauge concepts.

To derive for instance a quantum mechanical version which complies with gauge transformations of first and second kind, one may use for instance the principle of form invariance of quantum mechanics under multiplication of the quantum wave function of a system by a space and time‐dependent phase factor which corresponds to a local gauge transformations. As a result we get vector and scalar potentials, which are shown to transform under the known gauge transformations of electromagnetism. The electric and magnetic fields may be introduced as gauge independent quantities. Faraday’s law and the condition of no magnetic monopoles may be obtained from the gauge transformations of the EM potentials. Assuming conservation of energy and the linearity of the field equations one may obtain Gauss’ law and the Ampere‐Maxwell law.

Dear all,

This forum proposes a reassessment of the theories of the larger cosmos – the macrocosm and microcosm that is outside our everyday life experience and beyond direct putative knowledge. In my view, the theories of modern physics suffer from two very fundamental limitations: 1) these are based on the world view of causality; 2) these theories arbitrarily presume a finite universe; without any justifications.

Immanuel Kant already proved conclusively that causality is a poor tool for epistemology, because beyond everyday life experience causality it leads to contradictions and antinomies, where two opposite notions can be proved to be equally false or equally true. Moreover, causality in an iterative way always leads to a “First Cause”, which is the “effect” of a “cause” that is unknown or unknowable; hence a mystery – such as God in theology or a Big Band origin of the universe in physics. Causality thus provide no positive knowledge of the universe at large. Moreover, the theories of modern physics have to depend on the unlimited extension of idealized mathematics as a tool in the realm beyond ordinary life experience, when even in the ordinary realm mathematics shows its fatal limitations.

Our view of the larger cosmos since Einstein has been initiated and so far exclusively guided by the “continuous field” (spacetime. Quantum, Higgs etc.) based theories or observations that has been made to fit to these theories; because idealized mathematics is a suitable tool for dealing with “continuous fields. As we know, these theories are axiomatic and depend on certain premises; the conclusions are valid only if premises are valid. As we discuss these theories in this forum and elsewhere, we see that there are problems with the premises of the theories; like the notion of a finite universe. Hence we must accept the fact that the conclusions derived from these premises are problematic as they give rise to singularities, paradoxes etc., and what we think we know about the cosmos may not be true. In fact modern mainstream cosmology is a giant tautology based on some arbitrary axioms.

I have tried to offer a consistent critique of the theories of relativity and other related theories of modern physics. In addition, I offered some humble and tentative alternatives in opposition to some fundamental premises and interpretation of the theories of relativity and in favour of a dialectical universe that is infinite in time and space and ever-changing. I hope that in addition to the other issues pointed out above; some members of this forum (or anyone else) would consider giving their opinion on some of my proposed ideas based on the materials available in my RG profile and linked below:

1. I oppose the notion in physics and mathematics that space and time are finite and limited with a beginning in the finite past: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

2. Minkowski-Einstein “Spacetime” as a tangible geometrical manifold of objective reality has no basis since space and time are abstract entities beyond any manipulation of any kind: I contest and firmly counter this assertion in my booklet:

“The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”

3. I oppose the notion of the Big Bang origin of the universe and the official interpretation of the observational evidence with regards to the CMBR; the origin, evolution, structure and the dynamics of the cosmic bodies and other phenomena: Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

4. I proposed a (qualitative) idea of gravity based on dialectical contradictions of the universal free motion of cosmic bodies on the one hand and their limitation by gravitational attraction, on the other. This view opposes both the universal attraction of Newtonian gravity and “Free Fall” of Einstein’s GR: Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

5.. I oppose the forced interpretation of redshifts; their, arbitrary modification to fit the theories and the notion of an expanding universe; arbitrary use of Supernova Type IA as standard candle and luminosity measurements that favour cosmological expansion. I support Halton (Chip) Arp and other's views on discordant redshifts and the nature and the origin of the Quasars: https://www.researchgate.net/project/QUASARS-RETROSPECT-PROSPECT-AND-AS-A-POINT-OF-DEPARTURE

6. I also proposed a dialectical interpretation of quantum wave/particle duality:Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

As I insisted earlier, it is my view that our exploration of the cosmos should be guided not by mathematical idealism and causality based epistemology that lead only to mysteries, but by materialist dialectics; guided by the positive knowledge gained in the terrestrial realm. We already have some limited knowledge about gravitation (or absence of gravitation); the different forms of energy , including those involving fission and fusion; the whole range of electromagnetic radiation including very high energy gamma rays; we know (in a limited sense) the constituents of the cosmic bodies and the processes going on there, from their EM spectra that we also see on earth; we can roughly measure their distances and movements from proper redshifts and luminosity measurements that we know about; we can see the structure of nearby objects with telescope and so that we can relate these with terrestrial based knowledge.

But we cannot continue the endless and impossible search by looking at cosmic bodies further and further away! In fact, only one life-supporting earth among many, only one sun in their billions, and one Milky-Way galaxy (among the infinite ones) with its family group; form the essential basis of our knowledge of the infinite and eternal universe. The only thing is that the universe is presented to us at unimaginable scale and scope and also some possible new objects and phenomena that are not experienced yet in terrestrial situation. But we have to deal with this limitation and be guided by dialectical intuition obtained from terrestrial life experience so far. There is no sense in being preoccupied with imaginary objects like so-called “black holes”, dark matter/energy and so on until we can get some sense of those in the terrestrial realm like producing a mini “black hole” or “dark matter” particles in machines like the LHC, for example.

Dear Vivian

Maxwell equations do not fit the Newton's and Galileo's relativity. You cannot join Newton physics with quantum mechanics. They are not compatible! You cannot join also the classical version of Maxwell equations with quantum mechanics. They are also not compatible! Unless you quantize MEs. You have no fundamental principle, no data, no symmetries, no conservation laws, no fundamental kaws, no physical elements to allow such kind of "theory of (almost) everything" as said by Malek. It makes no sense. When you say that in your opinion "Newtonian mechanics give a better description of reality than both quantum mechanics and general relativity" it makes no sense. It is not a matter of opinion. Physics do not work this way. Theories in physics must fit fundamental principles, fundamental laws, and data!

Dear Cesar,

I agree completely with you. You must have noticed the ironic way I responded to Vivian's extraordinary claims!

Gentlefolk, thank you for your advice. It would appear you think my work a little "off the beaten track". But that doesn't make me wrong if the results I get agree with observation at all levels. Quantum mechanics has introduced a number of rules like quantized orbits and the exclusion principle that are automatic consequences of the structure of matter with which I am working. As are the special relativity corrections of mass length and time. Particles of the form I propose automatically move to the special relativity corrections, as do all particles. Despite what the theorists say, spin is, as was originally proposed by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit, angular momentum; half hbar for particles and hbar for circularly polarized photons. Electrons have half hbar angular momentum even though they have been measured as having a collision cross section of ≈ 10^-18 m because an added special relativity correction of the radius of a particle composed of a rotating photon diminishing as its speed increases according to the special relativity correction. It also answers such mundane features as why neutrinos can be detected on Earth about a second or two later than photons from a supernova event within our galaxy. Neutrinos have mass, a very small. I get the same answer for the rest mass of a neutrino from that observation as I do from properties of neutrons decaying to protons, electrons and neutrinos.

You may not be able to unite quantum mechanics with Newtonian physics. But that doesn't stop this model from smoothly transiting between the smallest sub atomic particle effects through to Newtonian mechanics and on to general relativity effects without having to introduce any other postulates. Well I do insist there are only three space dimensions and time. The de Broglie wavelength of particles is an automatic consequence of the rotating photon model of particles I use. The particle nature of photons is also an automatic consequence of the photon model I use. It is also used by others. Nothing is a point particle to which properties are attached in some kind of Hamiltonian. There is a physical reason for everything and that is what my work is telling me. I am not saying I know that reason for everything. But I have developed this work enough that other interested parties can fill in the gaps is they have any desire.

I am amazed at the number of people who wish to dismiss Einstein's special and general relativity theories. I am managing to extend them. In special relativity I give the physical explanation for all his corrections - they aren't just some mathematical "mumbo jumbo". I extend SR to include the radius of the particle diminishing as its speed increases relative to the observer. Things like"Twin paradox" or which traveller is moving the fastest are made by people who have no understanding of his work and/or physical reality. As for his general relativity theory, it also has a very firm physical basis. I have improved and extended calculations in GR by using scalars instead of tensors. They work fine. When you delve into the distortion of the fabric of space-time you soon realize how ridiculous is the concept of black holes with an event horizon. Einstein never believed in them. They are, as a famous physicist once said, a mathematical extension from the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equations with no physical basis. They can't happen physically. The don't happen in my space-time metrics. That doesn't prevent large masses from accumulating.

Again in response to Abdul's original question. No, mainstream physics can't unite the macro and quantum worlds, no matter how complex they make the mathematics or how many dimension they use. That doesn't mean the world and macro universe can't be united with the femto and pico worlds in one set of simple rules that explains everything currently explained by many hypotheses in the "quantum world" and the relativistic world.

I realize some of you have an opinion about the unlikely ability to use classical ideas, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian effects to describe general relativity and quantum mechanics. I refer you to a reprint I have posted in Research Gate on The origins of General Relativity and the Fabric of Space-Time. See below address for further details.

Preprint The Origins of General Relativity and the Fabric of Space-Time

 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22427.16165

Feel free to read it. I believe it adequately unites them with general relativity. I further suggests that, unlike Einstein's tensor approach, this scalar approach shows that gravity gets weaker than inverse square law as mass increases, this shows how the effect occurs and that Newton predicted as early as 1687.

If you have any other explanation for the fabric of space-time, it would interesting to read about it. I would like to think this may give you some indication that classical concepts can indeed be extended into the relativistic world. Extension to the quantum world is similarly possible.

Your comments welcome