Questions related to Modern Physics
Mach's Principle is gernerally ignored in modern physics. Many have tried to include it. But data indicates it is needed. So, in addition to uniting GR and QM, Mach's principle should be necessary.
Consider the quantum field theory (QFT) operator (an operator for each space-time point) that the field amplitude becomes when making the transition from classical field quantities to QFT operators. We will call this the field-amplitude operator. The type of field considered is one in which the classical field amplitude evaluated at a given space-time point is a complex number instead of a real number. In the QFT description, the field amplitude is not an observable and the field-amplitude operator is not Hermitian. Can we still say that an eigenstate of this operator has a definite value of field amplitude (equal to the eigenvalue) even when the field amplitude is not an observable and the eigenvalue is not real number?
In the elementary quantum mechanics (QM) of a single particle responding to a given environment, the state of the particle can be specified by specifying a set of commuting (i.e., simultaneously knowable) observables. Examples of observables include energy and angular momentum. Although not simultaneously knowable, other examples include the three rectangular spatial coordinates and the three components of linear momentum. Each observable in QM is a real number and is an eigenvalue of some Hermitian operator. Now consider quantum field theory (QFT) which considers a field instead of a particle. First consider the classical (before introducing QFT operators) description of the state of the field at a selected point in time. This is the field amplitude at every spatial location at the selected time point. For at least some kinds of fields, the field amplitude at a given space-time point is a complex number. Now consider the QFT corresponding to the selected classical example of a field. Is the field amplitude an observable even when it is not a real number? It is not an eigenvalue of any Hermitian operator when not real. So if the field amplitude is an observable, there is no Hermitian operator associated with this observable. My guess (and my question is whether this guess is correct) is that the real and imaginary parts of the field amplitude are simultaneously knowable observables, with a Hermitian operator (assigned to each space-time point) for each. This would at least explain how the field amplitude can be an observable but not real and not have any associated Hermitian operator. Is my guess correct?
I am interested to know the opinion of experts in this field.
My understanding of the significance of Bell's inequality in quantum mechanics (QM) is as follows. The assumption of hidden variables implies an inequality called Bell's inequality. This inequality is violated not only by conventional QM theory but also by experimental data designed to test the prediction (the experimental data agree with conventional QM theory). This implies that the hidden variable assumption is wrong. But from reading Bell's paper it looks to me that the assumption proven wrong is hidden variables (without saying local or otherwise), while people smarter than me say that the assumption proven wrong is local hidden variables. I don't understand why it is only local hidden variables, instead of just hidden variables, that was proven wrong. Can somebody explain this?
My question is: "What are the major and most effective refutations of Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity?"
The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed. Many of the best Answers were probably posted at the beginning, in April of 2018, long before I joined Research Gate on the recommendation of some of my university colleagues. Out of respect for the initiator of the original Question, who states his decision to close his Question, I am posting a very similar question in the interest of accommodating the views of scientists who have not yet had an opportunity to answer the Question, and, possibly, the repeated and updated views of scientists who have already posted on the original Question at Research Gate from April 2, 2018, to December 2019.
I am familiar with elementary quantum mechanics which is a non-relativistic treatment of a single particle interacting with a given potential energy function produced by a fixed (given) environment. I don't understand quantum field theory and searched for a book with a title like "Quantum Field Theory for Dummies". The closest thing that I could find to that is 300 pages long. I have a question that maybe has a quick answer that can be given without reading 300 pages (I am trying to learn a lot of things so quick answers are appreciated if possible). My understanding from the first few chapters of that book is that what was a wave function in elementary quantum mechanics becomes an operator in quantum field theory. The operator is a function of time and space coordinates so there is a different operator for each space-time point. What I don't understand, even after reading a few chapters, is what that operator operates on. In elementary quantum mechanics, operators operate on elements (state vectors) of a vector space (a Hilbert space) and I know the mathematical significance of these elements (state vectors) that the operators operate on. I have no idea of what the entities are that the quantum field theory operators operate on. Can this be explained to a person with my level of education in a few paragraphs?
As its known today that Quantum spectrum can give more deep understanding of universe at constituent levels. At current we have Plank constant and Schrodinger equations etc to understand the Quantum Mechanics. But, these are not enough and limited for few parameters.
1) Do we need Spin Constant? why and why not?
2) Do we need Quantum Constant for motions? why and why not ?
3) Do we need Entangle Constant? why and why not?
4) What will be scenario for "theory of relativity" after discovery of these 3 constant values
5) how much modern physics will get change when we can "see" exact states...Past Quantum State Level-1 (PQ 1). Current Quantum State Level-1 (CQ 1) and Future Quantum State Level-1 (FQ 1)
6) Will such discoveries enhance Qubits to cross threshold level to simulate different universal systems. especially Biosphere webs with true paths in past and future?
7) How the generation of such a huge Data will be handled, will it over burdened?
8) Will it be end of Solid state and Quantum world for knowledge and only further applications will left to develop and understand with more perfection?
9) What will be after the Quantum ? any ide, any clue? any new dimensions? as we are going to cross 3rd dimension and getting enter into 4th dimension "physically"
10) After every known, there is always an unknown, till get into the Reality, is there any known limit of levels till getting into ultimate reality? is yes then how many levels more?
The importance of the conservation laws in physics, if they not more than the physical constants, certainly, is not less than them. The conservation laws in physics define the boundary between possible events and the impossible.
If we ignore the law of conservation of energy, we can build a machine in our imagination that produces energy from nothing. That is, we will have an erratic universe that is more compatible with our imaginations than with observable realities.
Over the course of the last century, physics has been plagued by many problems, and their numbers are increasing day by day, to the point where modern physics is in a state of stagnation and crisis.
These problems are due to the fact that in modern physics, there is a law of mass-energy conservation, but there is no law of conservation of amount of speed. I first proposed the conservation law of the amount of speed in 1387 (1992 AD) and published it in the Persian language.
The conservation law of the amount of speed shows that the universe behaves more realistically and accurately than we ever imagined and that the whole universe is an automated and highly precise system.
Generalization of the Dirac’s Equation and Sea, 2016
I have been looking for a citable reference for this, but I'm not finding any.
So far I have found two links on the internet, which mention different values for it. One mentioned 17e28 1/m^3 and the other one, 8.5e28 1/m^3 (links provided below), and both seem to be blogs, so not citable.
Does anyone know which one is correct? Also, it would be really helpful if you could provide a citable reference for it.
There is still no consensus on whether the fields are composed of particles or no. For examples:
Art Hobson, There are no particles, there are only fields, American Journal of Physics 81, 211 (2013);
Robert J. Sciamanda, THERE ARE NO PARTICLES, AND THERE ARE NO FIELDS, American Journal of Physics 81, 645 (2013);
This problem arises because modern physics describes quantum phenomena in quantum scale (subatomic particles). So, to describe the fields we have to cross the quantum scale and reconsider quantum phenomena at the sub-quantum level to understand what are fields made of?
I just try to perform a calculation for a cluster of TinOxide for determining a reaction mechanism in an organic reaction. I tried to run this calculation using a mixing basis set Lanl2dz for tin atoms and 6-311++g(d,p) for oxygen, but, after run, I obtained the next error (I am attaching the .log file, all calculation in Gaussian09):
There are 22 symmetry adapted basis functions of B3 symmetry.
There are 116 occupied orbitals but only 88 basis functions!
Error termination via Lnk1e in /usr/src/g09/l301.exe at Thu May 14 07:37:12 2020.
What is the reason for this error? Do I need to use a large basis sets?
As I have seen several studies using the same computational method as I performed, I am very confused for this.
Thanks in advance,
I want to download a pdf book "Perspectives of Modern Physics" written by Arthur Beiser. Please someone help me to download it.
i mean, i know that its classic rols and thats modern physics, but... why?
it can be metaphysics, because for example We all have to die, but something called motivation for survival takes us in the opposite direction, maybe the world has soul
Over the past 400 years of development, physics alternately replaced each other in the era of a rational-physical (model) and formal-mathematical method of describing the world.
Today, formal methods of describing phenomena have exhausted themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to move from the tradition of axiomatization to a visual model description, to logic, to common sense. We must swim against the stream to the sources, return to JK Maxwell, JJ Thomson, Lord Kelvin and Louis de Broglie. Above all, it is necessary to realize the role of the electromagnetic field as our environment. The study of its structure and its place in the picture of the world is relevant. Modern physics in general does not set as its goal the study of the nature of fields. The electromagnetic field is not in the parameters of the Standard Model.
Today we consider Maxwell’s electromagnetic field an invisible dispersed gaseous medium that fills all space. The smallest particles of the field - gravitons - continuously move at the speed of light. The rotational flows of gravitons is a magnetic field. The translational flow of the electromagnetic field we consider an electric field. Divergent vortex flows we know as transverse radio waves. The white noise of the field medium we record as microwave background radiation. Longitudinal waves in the medium arising from accelerations and shock perturbations of space objects, we now call gravitational waves. We are convinced of the existence of an electromagnetic field as a global environment whenever we bring a mobile phone to our ear.
I think that only people create difficulties for themselves in order to overcome them later. Nature is perfect in its simplicity. Today we do not have a sense of nature. Matter does not exist for us - we solve equations only.
Protons do not push each other out of the nuclei of atoms. The charge has no central symmetry. A charge is a thin ray of gravitons (quanta of an electromagnetic field) rotating at the speed of light. It is directed from the core outward, as shown in the diagram. Figure taken from the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2" in my profile.
Modern physics claims the innate property of the masses to attract each other (through the exchange of particles). This is medieval mysticism. To repel each other (due to thermal motion) is an innate property of the masses. The pressure of the external environment of the electromagnetic field holds the protons in the nucleus (it pushes them towards each other). Gravity is the action of repulsive forces, not attraction.
Based on college sophomore-level knowledge, we developed  a description of special relativity (SR) that applies to accelerated, and arbitrary, motion.
This discussion considers, although not regularly offered at sophomore-level, that general relativity (GR) gives a better basis in undergraduate courses, and can be derived using .
This is useful because GR underlies much of the contemporary understanding of modern physics, including the big bang, pulsars, quasars, and gravitational waves.
As shown in , the laws of SR are just often simpler when they work in-between inertial frames, as originally stated.
I understand that Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) and all its variants are regarded as the main physical experiments that support Special Theory of Relativity. However, I have shown a conceptual mistake in the design of MMX .
Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley Type Experiments. Applied Physics Research; Vol. 8, No. 3; 2016 https://tinyurl.com/h996hq9
Relativity: a pillar of modern physics or a stumbling block. Proc. of SPIE Vol. 8121, 812109 (2011). https://tinyurl.com/ybez4v2h
Like Crystal Molecules Having Geometric Structure. Atom Has It Too.
Modern Physics can't give us a simple picture of the atoms. Please read my paper on He-2-4 to understand the Geometry of the nucleus, which is the mother nucleus for rest of nuclei's along with Father H. It is most Symmetric, most Abundant, most Stable and also satisfies Quark, QCD, Yukawa's unit of strength of 200 Electrons Mass (actually 206), Nature's Packing of Spheres for inner layer and Thompson Problem for outer layer.
It also satisfies the Equi Partition Theorem and the Principle of Reuse/Recycle by Nature, which Modern Physics does not use. It uses Muon and Anti Muon as building blocks.
It proposes uses of a Space Field which can be called Dark Energy, Higgs Field, Ether, Prana or Chi.
It uses Equivalence Energy Principle to see how much Electro Static Energy will be required to hold the cluster of 12 Nodes and 6 Nodes in next layer. There are two ways the mass of the nucleus is calculated to the accuracy of 99%. In complex calculations, we match results up to 4 digits!
It also demonstrates the Gravity at works at this fundamental level but the paper will come later.
It also explains why Noble Gases are stable besides the outer 8 electrons but He-2-4 has only 2? It is because the nucleus is stable and when the Nucleus is not stable, the Weak Force decay happens.
Who is right, Democritus or Einstein?
δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτῶι τάδε• ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους καὶ κενόν, τὰ δ'ἀλλα πάντα νενομίσθαι [δοξάζεσθαι]. (Diogenes Laërtius, Democritus, Vol. IX, 44)
“The first principles of the universe are atoms and empty space; everything else is mere opinion”
“Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13
Einstein had doubt about his view by the end of his life; Democritus had none!
“I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,
What the historical, social and scientific practices (as the criteria of knowledge) of the last few centuries tell us about who is right?
Sean M. Carroll:
Modern Physics describes four fundamental interactions naming: Strong Nuclear Interaction, Weak Nuclear Interaction, Electromagnetic Interaction and Gravitational Interaction. Among other three fundamental interactions, the three major questions about gravity remained open;
Why the gravity is extremely weak? Hierarchy Problem
Why the gravity is always attractive force? Even anti matter is attracted to itself and to the matter.
Gravity is not unified with other interactions by successful theory like Chromodynamics or Weak Theory.
Yes, in three topics at least, as shown below, usually called modern physics: special relativity (SR), general relativity (GR), and quantum mechanics (QM).
The basis of both SR and GR, for more than 100 years, is the model of spacetime, a 4D universe, as first explained by Minkowsky . To contrast, Newtonian mechanics was based on a 3D universe, where time is absolute and NOT influenceable by an experimenter.
From a basic theorem in topology, and even more basic type theory results, a continuous path in 4D may create a discontinuous path in a lower dimension, such as in 3D; any one-to-one mapping between spaces of different dimensionality must be discontinuous in that a continuous path in one space maps into a broken path in the other.
Therefore, there are discontinuities in the transition to 3D (Newtonian mechanics) from SR or GR, even at v << c, from an arbitrary path in 4D. Some paths in 4D may be continuous in mapping to 3D.
The same topological argument applies to the relationship between Newtonian physics and QM. The quantum results WILL NOT always correspond to the Newtonian results in the limit of large quantum number n or, equivalently, in the limit of Planck’s constant h going to zero. The topological spaces have different dimensions, and discontinuities will result. Again, some paths in higher dimension may be continuous in mapping to 3D.
This is not a conceptual choice only, but must be also experimental. Reality, experimentally, must be at least 4D, it “does not fit” inside 3D in all cases.
The answer chosen here also contributes to explain current differences of opinion in these areas (SR, GR, QM), and the “weirdness” of QM logic, whereas the discrepancy is due to a difference in dimensions, and its experimental effects, that are not considered. Such differences may be just illusory, seem from a meager 3D view, impotent to reach 4D.
Thus, modern physics, including SR, GR, QM, and other fields such as Cosmology, is expected to show conceptual and experimental differences with Newtonian physics, even when v << c, n >> 1, or h goes to zero.
The intuition gained in Newtonian physics is not efficient in modern physics, and will lead to contradictions in an arbitrary path taken in nature.
 Minkowsky, 120 years ago, that "Henceforth, space for itself, and time for itself shall completely reduce to a mere shadow, and only some sort of union of the two shall preserve independence."
The crucial problem of Einstein’s theory of relativity is that the relative spacetime (length contraction and time dilation) is not true.
If the relative spacetime was true, in any sense, Einstein’s theory of relativity should be a very great theory. But, in fact, relative spacetime does be false.
The crucial experiment is that, in the high energy accelerator, the speed of particles is the highest close to the speed of light and the condition is the most stable, precession and repeatable. But, no length contraction and time dilation was observed in it. Then, why the relative space and time was observed in other objects? It is certain, these observations are false. For example, it is not true that the life of the highspeed mesons is longer than that of the stationary ones. First, there are not the so-called stationary particles. Second, the mesons decay with N(t)=N0e-kt. The lifetime of some mesons is longer than others. Third, the mean lifetime is determined with N0. If the number N0 of the so-called stationary mesons are larger than that of the highspeed ones, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons may be longer than that of the highspeed ones.
We analysized a paper for the lifetime of highspeed muons. It is shown that the conclusion is questioned:
Assuming two groups of mesons Na0=10 decaying with Na(t)=Na0e-t/Ta and Nb0=100 with Nb(t)=Na0e-t/Tb . After a time duration t, as e-t/Ta=0.01 and e-t/Tb=0.001. One muon is observed in a distance of L.
Then, there are the conclusions:
first, we cannot know, whether this one muon is belong to Na0 or Nb0.
Second, we cannot know Ta or Tb from this one muon.
So, the question is: what was measured in “Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons”.
In , it was measured: The numbers of N0=563 and N(t)=408 per hour. i.e., on average, 1.56*10-7 muon is measured in one μsecond.
So, in , it is not 563 muons of one group were measured. In a very big probability, it implies that 563 groups of N(t) were measured and one muon of one group was measured.
From the above conclusions we know, first, they cannot know the mean lifetime T from one muon of one group.
Second, the mean lifetime for every group is different. But, they give a same mean lifetime for all of the 563 groups.
So, the conclusion in  is questioned.
In “Measurement of the Muon Lifetime”, it is reported that “We find a muon lifetime of (864.6 ± 1.2) ns”. We know, in the papers to prove time dilation, the mean lifetime of the so called stationary muons is 2.19μs. If  is validly related with these papers, it means that all the papers for proving time dilation are invalid.
As the relative spacetime does be non-existent, the hypotheses and “theories” based on it are false. Unfortunately, in the past 110 years, many theories and experiments were based on it. A lot of false stories were produced. More unfortunately, these false stories are regarded as great theories and the experiments are very dominated.
So, if we hope to understand modern physics and Einstein with his theory of relativity, we have to first know whether or not the relative spacetime is true.
And, may I advise the friends who try to advance the theory of relativity or to develop new theory from it. As the space and time are not relative, these tries are unfruitful.
This question is revised according to the arguments with Professor Kåre Olaussen on
Rock characteristics such as porosity, density, mineralogy and mechanical properties have correlation with wave propagation. Can i achive a base method for modeling the rock with all properties?
We can make model of deep ground with seismology. Than how can optimized these methods?
Why dark energy produces a repulsive force field is a bit complicated. Quantum theory says virtual particles can pop into existence for the briefest of moments before returning to nothingness. That means the vacuum of space is not a true void. Rather, space is filled with low-grade energy created when virtual particles and their antimatter partners momentarily pop into and out of existence, leaving behind a very small field called vacuum energy.
That energy should produce a kind of negative pressure, or repulsion, thereby explaining why the universe's expansion is accelerating.
In recent years, several papers have been published to solve dark matter and dark energy problems. The emphasis of these papers is on quantum vacuum and faster than light speed. A new theory proposes that faster-than-light particles known as tachyons could answer a lot of questions about the universe. According to a paper published in European Physical Journal C by Herb Fried from Brown University and Yves Gabellini from INLN-Université de Nice, may be a kind of particle called a tachyon.
A tachyon is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light.
Motion is an intrinsic property of physical existence. But there is a problem about concept of acceleration in theoretical physics. At the beginning of the 20th century, Newton’s second law was corrected considering the limit of speed c and the relativistic mass. At that time there has not been a clear understanding of the subatomic particles and basically there was little research in high energy physics . It means we need review our understanding about acceleration.
In addition; recent researches show, to solve the problem of dark energy, dark matter and inflation theory, quantum vacuum and faster than light speed should be considered and analyzed, which was done in following book. But regardless to reconsidering the relativistic Newton's second law, how can we resolve the faster than light speed problem? Besides that, the old definition of acceleration prevents the recognition of the nature of acceleration. Due to this reason in 1987, CPH Theory has begun by review the structure of photon, sub-quantum energy and faster than light speed.
Moreover, one could explain the expansion of the universe better and more real through reviewing relativistic Newton’s second law.
For faster than light speed see section 1; review acceleration and the relativistic Newton's second law, see section 5 of following book:
Beyond the Standard Model : Modern physics problems and solutions
The definitions of temperature and entropy are related to the concept of "thermodynamic equilibrium". In the absence of equilibrium, these concepts cannot be introduced. A black hole in combination with radiation presents a closed system, one of the subsystems of which (radiation) is close by its parameters to equilibrium, but other subsystems (black hole itself) do not. I.e., if the emitted radiation carries away entropy, this does not mean that in the remaining part it (being additive) is reduced by the same amount, because the very notion of a black hole cannot be introduced.
See our paper
Melkikh A.V., Melkikh E.A. Can we use thermodynamics in the system with gravity? 2017. Modern Physics Letters B.
It is said of general relativity that it has been experimentally proven.
But what about experiments involving black holes and the recent LIGO experiments - do they really uphold GTR?
After having worked over several decades in both, experimental physics and engineering science my answer is: In physics data are preferably evaluated in view of still unconfirmed theories while in engineering science data eventually have to yield a functional product.
Maybe the above statement will help understanding what's presently going on with black-hole mergers, gravitational waves, big bang observation, dark matter and similar.
In physical science open discussion of experimental data from an engineering point of view is sometimes avoided in favour of diverging theoretical claims and associated passionate dispute.
Details are in the text of the Hobby Project "A small thought experiment about a finite size universe".
Excerpt from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle :
<< In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter, as exemplified by this anecdote:
You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?
Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here". >>
Somewhere else, it is written about Geometry of Newtonian gravity :
<< According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For example, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket as it does on Earth, provided that the acceleration of the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s2 (the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth). >>
My conclusion is that, for an arbitrarily chosen experimenter (whatever his state of motion), a material body whose motion is rectilinear and uniform generates no gravitational field and it can create a gravitational field only when its movement is accelerated relative to to the experimenter.
Thus, in the same way that the existence of a magnetic field is only caused by the motion (possibly uniform) of electrically charged bodies in the reference frame of the experimenter, I conclude that the existence of a gravitational field is only caused by the accelerations of material bodies in the reference frame of the experimenter.
Thus, if a planet is constantly at rest with respect to an experimenter, he/she/it will conclude that the gravitational field produced by this planet comes from the superposition of the gravitational fields produced by the atoms that make up this planet because each atom contains electrons whose motions ate accelerated around the atomic nucleus. Moreover, accelerations of the gases expelled by the engine that propels the elevator can be the source of the gravitational field in Einstein's thought experiment. Written in French:
Has this interpretation of the Mach's principle already been explored?
Actually,I am trying to plot relic abundance of warm dark matter in (2,3)ISS in mathematica 10 and having this problem.I need to diagonalize this heavy Dirac matrix inking Right Handed and sterile states as demanded by the formula which is not diagonal.I have done it for (3,3) ISS with no problem.So,how is it possible?looking forward to your answers.
Can you send me a copy of the full text? I am interested to learn more about the frequencies employed and how those might be predicted according to cell type/structure. In particular, do you have any thoughts as to why/how the EMF is triggering the response?
I have a question regarding one unusual (thought) system.
Some years ago at one Russian forum we discussed one thought device that, as its author claimed, can provide one-directional motion and only due to the internal forces. The puzzle had been resolved by Kirk McDonald from Princeton Univ. I attach Kirk's solution. I wish to say that the author of the paradox is Georgy Ivanov but not me.
Anyway, Kirk found that there is no resulting directional force. But one puzzle of this device remains. The center-of-mass of the device should move (in the closed orbit) only due to the internal forces. I marked this result of McDonald in the file.
In this connection, two questions arise:
1. Why the center-of-mass moves despite the total momentum conserves?
2. If the center-of-mass can move and this motion is created by the internal forces, is it possible to change the design of the device to provide one-directional motion?
Formally there is no obstacles to realize it. The total momentum conserves... Could some one give the answers to them?
This thought device works not on the action-reaction principle and if similar device can be made as hardware, it could be a good prototype for the interstellar flight thruster.
There are many articles that show, photon has upper limit mass and electric charge.
In modern physics, a charged particle emits and absorbs energy, but its mechanism is not described. So the question is; if the photon is an unstructured particle, with zero rest mass and no electrical charge (it is neutral), how charged particles absorb and radiate it?
In a recent paper published by Journal of Modern Physics, 2015, Walter Petry argues that it is possible to come up with non-expanding, non-singular universe. He explains that there is no expanding space, and Hubble law does not indicate that.
What do you think? Your comments are welcome.
The physical vacuum is not ‘nothing’: ‘nothing’ means ‘not being’, neither matter nor energy, neither space nor time, nor any physical property; the physical vacuum, instead, is "something" physically existing in space-time, in quantum mechanics represented by a state vector in accordance with non-zero and characteristic properties.
The difficulty for the old mentality, which lasts through Parmenides’ thought, to conceive the vacuum seems to be related to the theory of archaic Greek thought mentioned by the philosopher Ernst Cassirer about a “mythical age”, understood as the transition from primitive thought to the rational adult, where there is no distinction between word and thing.
Referring to Cassirer, philosopher Guido Calogero, saw in this attitude of the first Greek thought an " archaic coalescence ", a kind of fusion of language, reality and truth. for which the Greeks had a vision of reality as a "show"; therefore, not distinguishing between visibility, existence and thought: what was only visible really existed and thus could be thought and hence the difficulty of thinking ‘not being’ and, vacuum, that are not visible and then do not exist.
Moreover, according to Aristotle, the cause of the movement of bodies was not in the body itself, but in the medium. A bullet, once thrown, would continue to be in motion because pushed from the air, which continually scrambles to fill the void left by the bullet as it passes.
A body would therefore always be subject to a force during the motion and its speed would be directly proportional to it and inversely proportional to the resistance of the medium. It follows that the resistance in the vacuum would be nothing and the speed of the body would become infinite, that is, the body would have the characteristic of ubiquity.
Averroes (XII century) opposed this theory, arguing that is experience of everybody all that motion always takes place through a medium, and that resort to a hypothetical incorporeal force would seek the cause of things not in reality but in an imaginary abstract world.
Descartes published his Principia Philosophiae, where he claimed - among others - the non-existence of the vacuum referring to its identification of extension and corporeal substance (res extensa). In the same year the physicist Evangelista Torricelli described in a letter the experience of his famous barometer in which he managed to prove that the vacuum can exist in nature and that air has weight, thus putting an end to the millenary philosophical discussions on 'horror vacui’.
Aristotle refutes the positions of atomists in the discussion held in the Physics (IV, 6-9), arguing in Chapters 7 and 8 that the movement does not imply a vacuum; on the contrary, if it actually existed, it would prevent the movement, as confirmed by the analysis of displacement of a body. Nor are valid the arguments based on the existence of rare and dense, nor the motion of ‘graves’ downward. The Greek philosopher also considered that the sub-lunar world consisted of four elements (fire, air, earth and water) and argued that to each of them corresponded a natural place, from which they could only be moved by violence. In their natural environment elements had no weight. The air, then, for the Greek philosopher and his countless followers did not weigh, nor exerted pressure.
Continuing the quote of Aristotle's thought, everything is still in the vacuum, therefore the vacuum must be denied.
Scholastic philosophy accepted most of the Aristotelian arguments, summarizing its position in the well-known adage ‘Natura abhorret a vacuo’. In the modern age the adhesion of Gassendi to the atomistic doctrines led the philosopher to accept the idea of vacuum, rejected, instead, by Descartes because of his identification of extension and corporeal substance.
Now, we should deal with the subtle but sharp distinction between "absence" and "nothing": in fact absence is not identical to nothing. This risk may be lurking for all, this vacuum that is not an absence, but nothing.
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle leads to believe (for purely philosophical intent) that the quantic vacuum is equivalent to nothing. The astrophysicist says: " A good disclosure should never misrepresent or obscure the consolidated results of scientific research, especially when, as in this case, the average reader is not able to critically evaluate the correctness of the statements." For example, also the Italian astrophysicist Marco Bersanelli, spoke when he explained that "the primordial quantum vacuum” can give rise to a particle, and in principle to more complex physical realities. This means that the "vacuum" of the physicists is radically different from the “nothing” of the philosopher.
What the extrapolations of the physical vacuum to the metaphysical ‘nothing’ have to do with the Galilean science?
In the Universe, say the most reliable theories, there should be an equal amount (a symmetry) between matter and antimatter, two states that, if they come into contact, will annihilate, that is, become nothing. And since in nothing, in a vacuum, it is impossible to distinguish one part from another one, there is also the highest symmetry. But physicists have now discovered that the symmetries are not stable: they are made to be broken.
In modern physics, after having established, at least conceptually, the existence of an absolute vacuum, it is returned to the initial idea that even the vacuum is something other than nothing, because it has physical properties readily apparent. The empty space, understood as a container with no properties, is therefore not possible.
In the Standard Model leptons and quarks are pointlike with no internal structure. The properties of these particles are then simply labels attached to points. I want to know if such a view of particles is compatible with any quantum gravity theories, in particular loop quantum gravity. In loop quantum gravity the area and volume operators have discrete spectra. Does this imply particles can no longer be considered pointlike?
In string theory a point particle is replaced by a one dimensional string. Ahluwalia  has argued that the notion of a point-particle is no longer viable in a stabilized form of the combination of the Poincare and Heisenberg algebras because the resulting algebra features a modified Heisenberg sector.
Are there any reasonable approaches to quantum gravity that are consistent with the notion of point-particles?
 Ahluwalia-Khalilova, D. V. "Minimal spatio-temporal extent of events, neutrinos, and the cosmological constant problem." International Journal of Modern Physics D 14.12 (2005): 2151-2165.
I am referencing to the publication of PT Pappas:
The original Ampere force and Biot-Savart and Lorentz forces, Il Nuovo Cimento B, Series 11, Societe Italiana di Fisica, 1983, 76, 189-197 which can be found here:
The experiment shows that the Biot-Savart law cannot explain it while the original proposed law from Ampere can.
Since relativistic field theories are all based on Maxwell's interpretation which promotes Biot-Savart law, this has several consequences to modern physics.
So, why did we accept the Biot-Savart formula instead of the correct Ampere's one?