Contemporary physics is from the view of particle physics a breeding ground for theories which quite misses a serious analysis of all the comprehensive facts collected over decades.
The amount of observed particles (called 'particle zoo') are not used to reconstruct the underlying structures of matter. Additional particles are invented instead by theoretical need. The own subjectivistic theories are described as the truth. There is a inability visible to face the facts. Contradictions are suppressed.
Physics is at a crossroads: Exact science or scientific founded faith.
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
The absolute majority of physicists still consider physical systems studied in an emptiness. That is why a number of mistakes and fantasies are available in their theories. But any motion of any particle occurs in a substrate (an either, vacuum, plenum, etc.) and the particle must interact with cells of this substrate, which makes real physics very different from what quantum mechanics or general relativity prescribe. Although the final results in many cases are the same....
IF YOU ARE GOOD IN MATHEMATICS AND CAN FAITHFULLY ANALYZE PHYSICAL EQUATIONS AND THEIR STRICT SOLUTIONS, THEN FIND MANY INCORRECT RESULTS
SOME PHYSICAL THEORIES ARE BUILT ON THEM
Hans-G. Hildebrandt
Hans
I think the answer is 'no' to both questions.
The leading edge of physical science has never been a precise series of measurements leading to irrefutable conclusions. This was perhaps the case when physics was more concerned with mechanics than modern physics is.
Really, since the inception of modern sub-atomic and interstellar physics the position is completely different.
Measurements are inexact, vague and arguable. This puts us in the position that theories are generalised, disputable and subject to change.
If we look at a recent example that falls right into this category; LIGO
- Split a laser beam, shine both sub beams down a long , dark tube and look for tiny differences in the beams at the receiving end.
- Discard any explainable differences caused by local traffic and noise then anything unexplainable might be (just might be) gravity waves. Or they could be something else completely different.
- Keep repeating and refining the measurements until you are convinced you have something serious.
- Let the scientific community chew over your results for a while and gradually a consensus of serious people will agree with you. Many will not.
Ian
Ian Proffitt: I'm the opinion experimental physics made a good job. But it received the orders and guidelines from theoreticians and theories.
In natural science it has to be the other way around. Experimental results, observations etc. have to determine the theories.
An example: Theoreticians have developed the quark-theory without any underlying experimental hint. Experimental physics get the order to prove 'quarks' and prove true the theory. Unfortunately was never a 'quark' observed until today. But particle physics and other areas of physics are centered on it.
What else than a scientific faith is contemporary physics?
The added picture shows a realistic image of atomic nuclei. It results from analysis of facts and not by theoretical mental games.
Building a theory is: 1st presume axioms. 2nd argue (using even fuzzy). 3rd get conclusions. If conclusions contradict axioms, then change the axioms and try again. If conclusions are coherent they must be proved by experiments. Now, what we`ve got with big-bang theory: some singularities (black holes, inflation, big bang, big crunch). Case one takes big-bang it is useless to prove it by experiments, because it is not coherent: in a singularity everything/ nothing is possible (that contradicts even axioms system).
There are two branches. Experimentalists try to be as exact as they can, but they all know there are errors that are unavoidable. Theorists try to understand nature, and the good ones know that with the best will in the world, they could be wrong, but unless they try, and give the experimentalists some guidance, understanding will not come. Scientific history is littered with theories that did not work out, but that does not mean those who got it wrong were stupid, or frauds, or whatever. Very occasionally someone lands on a great truth, but most of the time we guess, and often , guided by some observations, we get closer. Science is a great journey, with a number of contributions. Those that get it wrong still contribute, because we learn something when proving they are wrong. At least they entered the field, rather than sat back and criticised.
mathematics is so perfect that nature cannot match it. on the other hand, without certifying theories (like maths) one can step right upon the truth and doesn`t know it.
Modern physics is along two lines: Science fiction and fictional science. The first (astrophysics) is fiction based on science (observation) and the second is fiction masquerading as science (quantum mechanics). Mathematics is the culprit for both. Mathematics is only a tool, a glorified screw driver and should not lead theory.
The following absurdities are present in Mathematics. (Imaginary number i. It is at the heart of the Wave function. Infinity (black hole)- It is indefinable. And the worst - (2)x(-2)=+4 who laid down this?
I have an alternative published as a Kindle book "Unified model for Atomic structure" (159 pages). It is based Chemistry of the elements. It has been accepted as rational by JACS editor and another British Editor.
The important points are that nuclear geometry determines atomic geometry. This leads to points of experimental confirmation. I am attaching important files from the new theory..
that mathematicians make errors does not mean that whole mathematics is false.
@ Sithamalli Balasubramanian It is true that the complex number is at the heart of quantum mechanics, but you have to look at why. You can go directly from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics through Hamilton's "wave mechanics" provided the phase of the wave is given by exp(2πiS/h), which as far as I know, is what Schrödinger did. Now, the validity of the use of mathematics depends critically on understanding what the terms mean, and it is critical here to recognize that S, the action, is taken as the time integral of the Lagrangian. Since time evolves, so does the action, which is why you get a wave in the first place, and the oscillation comes from Euler's relation exp(πi) = -1, so you see, if this is accepted, ψ oscillates and becomes real at the antinode. Why this is not recognised eludes me, but is probably thanks to Bohr who never really got over quantizing angular momentum, not action. Since we are quoting ebooks, this has some interesting consequences as noted in my ebook "Guidance Waves"
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GTB8LJ6
everyone should be able to use merely that from maths he considers usefull
The reality is not a derivation from mathematics. The only way to understand the reality is to observe, to experiment, to gather experiences etc.
At first we have to understand the reality and than we can describe it inter alia with the help of mathematics. But the confidence in the pure theoretical and mathematical solutions of problems is only in physics nearly unlimited.
Bequerel discovered the radioactivity not by mental games and mathematical considerations but by an accidental experimental setup in his desk. Theoreticians are sitting on the desk and try to declare the microcosm and the origin of matter by mental games and mathematics.
We can be sure that the particles and atomic nuclei are resulting only from the duality of electron and positron. All experiments, the electron-positron impacts and nuclear fragmentations are demonstrating this.
dear Hans-G., You are right, but by using maths one tries to approximate, locate, aso. phenomena. if one can do the same things without using mathematics, that would not be a problem :))
In my opinion, and for that matter, the way I do theory, is first the proposed theory should try to explain an observation that is already there, but is so far inexplicable. If it succeeds, then you have the possibility that you have uncovered something, but there is still no guarantee you are right. However, if your theory is any good, it should predict, or be able to predict (because sometimes the theoretician does not necessarily see the full potential, or just doesn't think of something) something new, which should give experimentalists something to look for. Failing that, it might calculate a large set of different properties, and the bigger the set, perhaps the more likely it is to be true. However, if you cannot get any agreement with anything, then I do not think it is science at all.
dear Ian, You are right, but an explication can lead to yet unknown and not before seen phenomena, like (for instance) dark matter/ dark energy.
Paul, remember that dark matter and dark energy were postulated to explain observations that contradicted standard knowledge, so they started out with observations. Whether they are correct as explanations has yet to be determined.
Ian, case observations or explanations lead to yet unknown phenomena a new notion is to introduce...
I am confident in the power of formal logic. A theory where there are logical contradictions or violations of logic is nonsense. Such a theory reflects the author’s misunderstanding of physical phenomena (quantum theories, relativity, and other theories)
The chemical bond is caused by electrons. In logical sense or sense of physics is this a contradiction because this particles have the same charge and repelling each other.
The reality and the mathematics/logic are quite different things. We can never declare the reality by logic or mathematics (or even philosophy). But reality is not an inexplicable mystery. The world is recognisably!
The actual and eternal problem are the preconceptions. This means in case of physics the old and defective theories.
The mentioned particle physics (quantum theory) is wrong from the outset.
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
The chemical bond being caused by electrons is not a contradiction of physics. Actually, in my ebook "The covalent bond from Guidance Waves" (the guidance wave being a modified pilot wave) I show why electron-electron repulsion is critical to form the chemical bond. All it depends on is that the electron motion is consistent with the Schrödinger equation as Schrödinger first wrote it. The reason for that part is that the wave function must be factorised, and to maintain constant action (necessary to avoid the wave function self-interfering) the covalent radius contacts, but equally to maintain constant frequency for linear combination, there has to be a repulsive energy term to maintain constant energy as the electrons come closer to the nucleus. Combining waves linearly is not exactly radical, hence the original interactions sum to zero change in energy. The bond energy therefore comes from the new electron-proton interactions in the zone between the nuclei, so to a first approximation, from the linearity, and from the fact the electrons must be indistinguishable, the energy is 2 times 1/6 of the Rydberg energy, or 1/3 the Rydberg energy. That comes out, slightly accidentally as it turns out, to within 2 kJ/mol of the observed energy. The accident is we have left out the zero point energy, and the opposing fact that doing that has not quite normalised the electric field interactions and unless that is done, that does not quite satisfy Maxwell's equations. If anyone wants to go into this in more detail, and the amendments are even more accurate, then I suggest my ebook at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GCDYDRR
Schrödinger's wave theory is a theory to declare the unexplained and the not understood in the early times of particle physics. It declares reasonably the geometry resp. directional dependency of the shell electrons or valences.
The underlying and not answered question is why and how particles recieve wave properties. It is by no means proven that electrons are in motion within the atomic shell. This is an assumption of Bohr improved by some additional assumptions. The foundation of particle physics are merely assumptions.
It is highly probable that electrons and also other particles are able to build spatial grids. You can prove the atomic nuclei as spatial grids of light mesons. Forget all the mental games of 'quarks'!
Chemical bonds are the result of the overlapping of the electron grids. Lacks of electrons are compensated and highly symmetrical and stable grids arise. There are the real causes of the conductivity and superconductivity visible.
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
The concept that the electron is in motion comes, I guess from the size of the nucleus, the electron and the size of the atom. Something has to be outside the nucleus, observations are consistent with it being the electron, and as long as our electrodynamics are correct, it has to be moving. As for what the wave is, my Guidance Wave interpretation states it is an energy field, and that is more than a wild assumption as it is arrived at from the premise that the wave is responsible for the diffraction effects, but I suppose it is an assumption there is a wave. On the other hand you have to assume something to explain the effects labelled wave-particle duality.
physics- a breeding ground for theories AND Phyantasy and they still search for merely 1 theory of everything (or maybe of EVERY THINK),
The existence of observations that are in conflict with accepted models should and has in the past resulted in a restatement of the fundamental postulates. For the last 50+ or more years, the new observation resulted in ad hoc additions to the standard models rather than new physics. But this is a questionable procedure that removes the "exact science" view and tends toward the "breeding ground" of weird speculations (I hesitate to call these things "theories" - more like flights of fancy0.
Paul Pistea : One theory of everything was Einsteins favourite toy in his last half. Since then it is the big dream in physics. It is also a dream of philosophy to have a doctrine about everything in the world. But they take for sure the second step before the first.
Science emerged but no great theoretician would admit to know only a part of the truth.
Hans-G. Hildebrandt ;
Knowing the 'truth' or even a part of it is a step too far for most theoreticians;
Having a theory which is a good fit to known measurements is the best most of us can hope for.
a theory of everything cannot include more describing formulae because in one law do appear terms which don`t appear in others, ergo: some laws are invariant to some terms while other are variant to the same terms. ergo: fuzzy logic is needed. @Hans-G. Hildebrandt
Paul Pistea
This means there is another equation that describes the origin of your 2 seemingly unrelated equation, a emergence condition.
dear John, no: it means that either there should be 1 single equation including all physical terms, or 1 equation without any terms. ergo is impossible (when using binary logic)
Paul Pistea
Or 1 equation at the heart from which all other equations follow with appropriate to the physics of the size scale. Such is the STOE:
Article STOE replaces relativity and quantum mechanics
dear John, I already have an unifying theory for both (RT and QT): distributions theory (to avoid singularities)- but at theory level fuzzy logic is to use, and at epi-theory level binary logic can be used.
A first theory says: straightaway as one understands the universe, it instantly changes in a more bizzare something, whereby a 2nd theory says: the 1st theory already occured. Well, mr. Douglas Adams, physicists search for one single theory (of everything. Not for two.)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Elementary Particle Physics
- Particle