The Greatest Blunder of Science : „Electric Charge“ is a Synonym for „Geometric Area“. Its fundamental SI Unit „Coulomb“ is a Synonym for „Square Meter“
Abstract: The current definition of the basic quantity „electric charge“ and its fundamental SI unit „coulomb“ in physics is, undoubtedly, the greatest blunder of modern science. When the principles of mathematical formalism are applied to this definition, it can be proven in an irrevocable manner that „electric charge“ is not an intrinsic property of matter, as is erroneously believed in physics today, but a synonym for „geometric area“, while its SI unit „coulomb“ is a synonym for „square meter“. The reason for this systemic blunder is the incomplete, and hence, formalistically wrong translation of the current definition of electric charge into a mathematical equation by physicists, from which they have subsequently derived all known laws of electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism. Thus, this formalistic blunder has been replicated numerous times throughout the history of science and has biased the whole edifice of physics and natural sciences from mathematical, epistemological and cognitive point of view. This revolutionary physical and mathematical proof affects the very foundation of modern science. At the same time it opens the possibility of a full axiomatisation of physics and its development to a consistent, unified theory of the physical world.
I would like to refer to the first paragraph of page-5. There has been an unusual correlation of charge and current with cross-sectional area. In my opinion, the rate of flow of charge dC with respect to time dt would result in an electric current A=dC/dt, irrespective of the fact if the charges flow through a cross-sectional area of a1 or a2 or any area.
If one refers to the Maxwell's equations, the current density has a proportionality with electric field intensity through a material. Area integral of these quantities would result in electric current and charge, and thus we have a proportionality between them, without any expression for area in it.
If one considers the cross-sectional area in both the cases, we might infer that for the same amount of electric current and charge, if the cross-sectional area of the conductors are varied, then it would only result in higher current densities and electric field intensity. To keep it simple, the proportionality between both these quantities is the electrical conductivity of the material through which current is flowing, which is independent of cross-sectional area of the conductor.
So, this proposition looks incorrect to me.
NB: I haven't read the entire paper in full length, after I realized the the first contradiction in the arguments.
First of all I would be already cautios, if someone declares something really fundamental in science "the biggest plunder" and his/her own work as "revolutionary" correction to that "mistakes", which is in this peticular case tested thousands of times.
So, from that general remark to the paper - I just quickly went through it and to me it seems completely nonesense. Firstly the author is not even really aware of how physical units really work (and, of course, just do some abitrary division of two identical units will cancel out these units. Also I am not sure why this is even done as there is no reason to do that at all.
Secondly the paper is not even consisten within its own framework of rules. Here a quote from page 14: "We conclude: All physical quantities are numerical, dimension-less relationships between two real systems, one of them being usually defined as a reference system, and are thus independent of the choice of the reference unit."
So, if all physical quantities are unitless, why should the charge have a unit of m²? - According to the author's own assumption it should have no unit at all.
Secondly I don't see any mathematical proof of anything in this publication, whatsoever, there are only really basic physical equations (which in most cases are not even the right ones) mingled into some obscure explanantions.
So I would not give any consideration to that article.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetism