Science topic

# Modern Physics - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Modern Physics, and find Modern Physics experts.
Questions related to Modern Physics
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Plenum is real.
light is a particle with a structure (not a point or a wave)
Plenum (aether, spacetime, etc.) waves are longitudinal with only a very small and very limited transverse component.
matter warps plenum to emerge to gravity.
hods are magnets with N & S poles (hence no monopoles).
Only 1 field and 1 force (plenum gradient).
There once was a time where nothing existed, means that both plenum and hods are created and are the only 2 components of the universe. So, when models suggest the gradient produces a force such as Newton & GR, they ignore the origin of the plenum.
Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
Thus, we agree that a real field amplitude is an observable, presumably. I think this can be extended to a complex field, which just consists of a couple of real fields, assembled in a complex number to better represent the O(2) symmetry.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
The same as in quantum mechanics, only now they're probabilities per unit time and unit volume.
The field amplitude isn't observable, any more than the wavefunction is; it's the modulus squared of the field amplitude that describes the probability density at each point in space and time.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
I am interested to know the opinion of experts in this field.
Photons are massless and therefore non-localisable (consider any typical solution of Maxwell's equations, ), i.e. there are none that stay at a fixed and specific point-like location in space. In contrast, the wavefunction of a massive particle can be so localised.
Thus I would say that photons never match the common definition of a particle (because they are not point-like localisable, even in principle). However, since they can be counted, I would, if prevailed upon to suggest a qualitative description, instead describe them as "countable waves".
This is because in QED we quantize inside "mode" solutions of Maxwell's equations (see any quantum optics text, or the paper I cite above), and can describe the quantum state within each mode in terms of combinations of photon number states.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
Dear L.D. Edmonds , if I understand your question, you do not understand where in Bell's theorem the locality assumption is made.
In section “Bell’s theorem”, page 424, in “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics”, 2nd Ed., David J. Griffiths, we read:
"The argument is stunningly simple. Suppose that the “complete” state of the electron/positron system is characterized by the hidden variable(s) λ (λ varies, in some way that we neither understand nor control, from one pion decay to the next). Suppose further that the outcome of the electron measurement is independent of the orientation (b) of the positron detector – which may, after all, be chosen by the experimenter at the positron end just before the electron measurement is made, and hence far too late for any subluminal message to get back to the electron detector. (This is the locality assumption)…”
It is also worth noting that the Bell’s theorem was formulated to resolve a thought experiment called the EPR paradox. One of the key assumptions of the EPR paradox was that the result of a measurement at one point cannot depend on whatever action takes place at a far away point at the same time [1].
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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 can only comment that there will always be more dense vacuum energy near the mass.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Why expectation value of angular momentum square operator <Jx2> = <Jy2> ? How can we prove this?
I don't claim that the real and imaginary part of the operator J+2 vanish; I claim that <J+2>=0 implies that the real and the imaginary part of the expression of <J+2>, which are both numbers vanish; x+iy=0 implies that x=y=0 IF both x,y are real, and in this case are, since Jx,Jy are Hermitian.
The expression <J+2>=< Jx2-Jy2> +i<JxJy+JyJx> results from the expression of J+2 by linearity; J+2 is linear.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
Dear Dr. L.D. Edmonds
You can try the Book by Prof. H. Hankel, many years ago I read it. Is not well-edited but it is a wonderful forgotten piece of the origin of the second quantization, that is, the quantization of the fields as really it was conceived for solidists. It is much easier to read than Prof. Bogoliubov and Shirkov's classical monography.
Attached is the refecerence in a slide.
Best Regards.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Dear Fellows,
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?
Thanks
An excellent question
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Can any body upload PDF file of "concepts of modern physics by Arthur Bieser,7th edition"
If you have it can you please share?
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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
1. In what frame of reference (or in what class of reference frames) this hypothetical conservation law is realized?
2. For your question, it may be useful to recall Helmholtz's theorems on vortex motion in combination with Gauss's theorem and Maxwell's work "On Faraday lines of force". And in general, to pay attention to the achievements of aerodynamics and hydrodynamics.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Hello,
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.
Thank you.
1.
2.
Dear Anouar Jbeli,
I agree with you. The free election density differs in bulk and surface and also on the lattice structure of Fe.
The election density of α-iron and β- iron are different obviously.
Thanks
N Das
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Hi guys,
I have to study Modern physics but I completely missed the classes, Do you know a clear resource for learning Modern physics? someone introduced me the book MODERN PHYSICS (Serway, Moses, Moyer). do you admit?
Have a look at these four, which are representative of different levels of difficulty and/or kinds of emphasis (you can also scroll down on each webpage for other options):
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
Theorist Sean Carroll thinks it’s time you learned the truth: All of the particles you know—including the Higgs—are actually fields, 2013
Charles Sebens, If you think of electrons as a field, then you can think of photons the same way, 2019
Art Hobson, There are no particles, there are only fields, 2013
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Theoretically, the probability of such states of two electrons is different from zero (as well as the spin o pairs treated as BCS pairs in modern physics). Is there a mechanism for suppressing such states?
Maybe this lecture by Anthony J. Leggett would be helpful.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Hi all,
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.
Julián :)
Hi Julián,
Maybe if you show the input we can see problem better.
-You can use pseudopotentials for Sn, and your job will be faster (I think the problem is because you don't have enough basis to describe core electrons... So forget about them!!)
-triple-z basis for one atom and double-z for another... Maybe it's not a good idea, you can have some fake charge transfer, since you are not describing with the same "quality" both elements. So I'd use something as 6-31G(d,p) for oxygen.
Geometries barely change from DZ to TZ, so I think it should be enough.
-See attached file, just a single point of SnO using pseudos!
Also, you can use "Def2XXXXX" basis (https://gaussian.com/basissets/) which include pseudopotentials.
Hope it helps,
Fernando
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
You are welcome dear professor Dildar Ahmed
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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
Good question. Why is there not nothing, but rather something, namely, being? One answer only: GOD.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Dear Valery Pakulin,
If we use absolute time in QFT and relative time in SR every schoolboy understands there must be something fundamentally wrong. But in physics everyone claims that the favorite model is proved by experiments. Experiments “don’t lie” so we have to conclude that our theoretical problems are caused by the physicists who interpret the experiments (and the related models).
The electric field and the magnetic field have different properties. The electric field shows to be a topological field and the local changes withing the field are known as quanta (fixed amounts of energy). The magnetic field is a vector field and is coupled directly to the electric field. That means that a local increase of energy with the amount of 1 quantum will result in a local increase of the corresponding vector of the magnetic field.
The theory of general relativity is founded on the equivalence of mass and energy. Matter is translated into energy but there is no differentiation between rest mass and non-rest mass. Mass is a local concentration of quanta from vacuum space around thus there is no doubt that mass represents an energy differentiation within the electric field. Unfortunately, rest mass is caused by the transfer of energy from 1 or more local decreased scalars of the flat Higgs field. As a result the local electric field shows a local surplus of energy: the rest mass carrying particle.
The consequence is that general relativity “claims” that gravitation is caused by the deformation of spacetime because of the local existence of matter. But spacetime shows to be the electric field because of the transfer of energy from the flat Higgs field to the electric field. Moreover, the electric field is a topological field and is responsible for the transfer of energy in the universe (vector fields don’t transfer energy).
Newtonian gravity doesn’t transfer energy either because it acts like a vector field. Only the electric field is responsible for the transfer of quanta. In other words, Newtonian gravity must be the vectorization of the scalars of the flat Higgs field by the local decrease of one or more scalars. Einstein’s gravity is the response of the electric field around on the existence of matter. Einstein’s gravity is limited by the speed of light and Newtonian gravity acts instantaneous.
The description above don’t match your description (second part). Think about it because if there is so much difference between “well known” interpretations of the mechanisms behind phenomenological reality you have to agree that it is really tricky to switch to the concepts of Descartes before we fully understand the concepts of Newton and Einstein.
With kind regards, Sydney
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Dear Valery!
You can also ask why do electrons repel each other and otherwise do they cause the chemical bonds.
The assumption is simply wrong that atomic nuclei consist of separate protons and neutrons. Atomic nuclei are spatial grids of particles (light mesons, mostly muons but also kaons) in a highly symmetrical arrangement. Protons and neutrons consist of the same particles as nuclei. Unstable nuclei emit protons and neutrons because this particles are more stable than the starting nucleus and not because protons and neutrons are preformed within the nuclei.
Insofar is present particle physics merely a theoretical gibberish about the microcosm.
Best! Hans
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Based on college sophomore-level knowledge, we developed [1] 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 [1].
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 [1], the laws of SR are just often simpler when they work in-between inertial frames, as originally stated.
[1]
This discussion is now closed. RG is unsuitable for physics discussions, for lack of moderator and presence of cabals. I can be reached by PM.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
topic must be related to these points:
Interference
Diffraction
Polarization
Wave Mechanics
Semiconductors
Lasers
kp Schrödinger Systems
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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
Thanks for the apology, André Michaud , no problem with me.
It is interesting how all topics which somehow touch upon physics paradigms are divisive and lead to bitter fights, just as bitter as those between advocates of different religions. It does not speak well of us Scientists ... On these topics, I also agree with Daniel Baldomir , but I do not have a solution to most of these problems. Nobody has, probably, it seems to be in the human nature.
I have seen these bitter wars between ideas to flame up many times. It is not always a guy with an alternative theory/paradigm challenging the "establishment" scientists and being rebuked by them; invariably, guys with other alternative theories start fighting the first proponent just as viciously. Sometimes I think that our culture (basically the Western one) errs in attaching so much glory and rewards on scientific achievements.
I always try to impress one thing onto young would-be-scientists: NEVER, but really never, say that somebody else was wrong. Not unless you first discuss face-to-face with him/her, and absolutely never when they are dead. Remember that, in the long run, everybody will be proved wrong. Plus, it is in bad taste. Rather, focus on what you have in mind. Be Popperian, and try honestly to find the weak points in YOUR ideas, to disprove yourself. If others see that you are not attacking anybody, and that you honestly tried and your idea still stands, maybe they will be more willing to listen.
Returning to the original question: I think it is severely flawed, for the simple reason that NO theory can be EVER proved correct. Physics theories are just models of reality and none of them is definitive. There exist (occasionally) experiments that are in a clear conflict with a theory; in such a case that theory will eventually die (and yes, most likely only after all its proponents are buried). But an experiment that does not conflict with a theory is ineffective in proving anything. It is simply not in conflict, which is far from being a proof.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Dear Sunil,
Modern Physics can give us a simple picture of the atoms. Look at the my picture from the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 1" in my profile.
There is an example of “shielding” of weak interaction. Figure shows a block diagram of alpha-particle. The protons p1 and p2 and the neutrons n1 and n2 form a closed circuit. The moments and charge tubes of protons direct outwards, and the moments of neutrons direct inward. The total moment of the particle is zero. No nucleons have an orbital moment. They rotate only around its axis. The upper proton (as seen from the top of the figure) rotates counterclockwise. The lower proton rotates clockwise. Neutrons rotate around the axis in opposite directions too.
The diagram shows how in the nucleus of an atom the forces affect the neutrons that prevent them from falling apart. The free protons p1 and p2 and the protons bound in the neutrons n1 and n2 form a strong four-link power circuit. The components of neutrons — two electrons and two antineutrinos (two quarks) — are enclosed within this circuit. Protons chain quarks, the chain does not allow them to transfer their energy to the external environment, does not allow increasing their size.
You may see the photon and electron animations on my site http://gravity.spb.ru
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Who is right, Democritus or Einstein?
Democritus:
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”
Einstein:
“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
“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?
References:
Sean M. Carroll:
Dear Lena and Konstantinos,
It is not a spurious question as you might think. It is a question of the philosophy of science and not a pure scientific question as such. Democritus and Einstein are separated by many centuries. Natural science as we know it is only few hundred years old and it always expands; so a direct comparison from this perspective is meaningless.
What is meant here is the relative strength of the conceptual and perceptual merit of their ideas or theories and also prescribes the criteria for making this judgement in the following way: “ What the historical, social and scientific practices (as the criteria of knowledge) of the last few centuries tell us about who is right?”. Of course I have my own opinion on this subject and that influences my work and my view on natural science. This question is meant to challenge the generally perceived notion of “science” (particularly physics) both by the physicists and the general public.
There are two streams of philosophy of science (natural philosophy) and both of these originated with the early Greeks. One stream (dialectical materialism and classical materialism including Newtonian physics)) represented by Heraclitus, Leucippus, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus and others among the important names like Spinoza, Hegel, Marx; flows still today and to which I subscribe. The other stream (mathematical idealism) represented by Pythagoras, Permenides, Plato and other innumerable official philosophers and theologists of various epochs including the modern Vatican, form the essential basis of Einsteinian (New) Physics. On the basis of the above criteria of knowledge, I assert that field-based Einsteinian physics provides no positive knowledge of the world but only mathematics driven myths and phantasm. I know that it would be outrageous to many; but I am trying to justify my stance through my various works and publications (books, journal articles) and public media like RG. Please see my comments in various RG forums, specially the following few:
An atom in the conception of the Leucippus and Democritus is the smallest unit of elemental matter (that still retains the property of the bulk matter); forms the essential basis for modern science (especially physics, chemistry and biology). With the present knowledge of the structure of atoms, the whole wealth of knowledge is summarized in the Periodic Table; which was in fact formulated even without the knowledge of atomic structure. The knowledge about the structure of atoms was built up through centuries and was impossible for Leucippus and Democritus to know; but it was their essential concept of the atom that led natural science to the present stage and naturally also ushered in the revolutionary quantum phenomena. Social/historical practice, technology, industry etc., that followed from that concept prove its validity in everyday modern social life.
Einsteinian physics is here with us for more than hundred years; but provided not a single social/historical practice, technology etc. The virtual edifice of “field”-based new physics, which Einstein himself called the “Castle in the Air” is only metaphysics that has dragged back physics to the level of decadent medieval scholasticism. We have apologist official physicists like Carroll (in the YouTube video) to justify Einsteinian (abstract) "field"- physics (as opposed to Democritus' material atoms) through abstract mathematical cobweb-spinning and contrived and fraudulent experimental “proofs”. The physics based on Democritus’ concept never needed centuries long (or any ) “proofs” at all! Even now his physics is “proved” through our everyday life experience!
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Hi Hewa,
some interesting replies here. I also think gravity and the other 'forces' are interactions. Gravity IS linked to quantum theory however, and to GR (read my article for example) which shows the electrostatic interaction is also related. Gravity = GE/c (squared) = [2 x phi (4th) x elementary charge x momentum]/pi (squared), among other expressions. I hope to also show how gravity links with the strong and weak interactions in the near future.
It appears gravity is a property or cost of having mass. Since many of the 'constants' run with the energy scale (e.g. the fine structure constant, gravitational constant, elementary charge) and they are all united via an 'interaction constant', we can have constant change (with energy) in the universe without changing principal ratios. Current 'mainstream' beliefs about masses of galaxies are incorrect, and when suitably modified by running constants, remove the need for ad hoc features like dark energy/matter. [It would actually be more fun, and no less correct to have dark chocolate filling space :)].
Like momentum, gravity is only a 'one-way' deal. You either have it, or not. If you don't, then you don't have mass or wavelength.
Gravity is only a 'weak' interaction in weak energy fields. At large energies (close distances) gravity becomes very strong. It is this aspect that fuels researchers to seek a theory unifying all the 'forces'.
Thank you for asking good questions.
regards,
Terry
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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 [1]. 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.
[1] 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 mapping from 4D to 3D is not one to one, it is a projection, therefore the reasoning doesn't apply.
The limit of quantum mechanics when h tends to zero is classical mechanics, but not any classical mechanics. Contrary to what is widely believed, the limit is geometrical optics, not corpuscle mechanics. Thus neither is subsumed by the other, they are different theories. They can't be the same since they are different representations of a same Poisson structure.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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”.[1]
In [1], 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 [1], 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 [1] is questioned.
In “Measurement of the Muon Lifetime”[2], 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 [2] 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
Dear Paul,
Nice to hear from you. The “most probably” was only for reasons of politeness. Of course I’m sure! :) I have noticed your comment in another discussion, “The fundamental unsolved problem is physics itself”. That is quite correct, but instead of “physics” I would write “modern physics” because, according to Wikipedia, “Physics that incorporates elements of either QM or Einstein’s relativity (or both) is said to be modern physics.” This leaves out the classical electromagnetic theory and its nonlinear extension, which is the correct foundation for a plausible world view.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Hi
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?
Thanks
Wave speed in different directions give an indication of density and rigidity, which together with other data make a model.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Quantum Mechanics or modern physics
Very true, Zbigniew.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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
For the moment dark energy can be perfectly well described by the cosmological constant. There's nothing particularly mysterious about it at all.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Black body radiation of the black hole tell us only about ratiation itself but not about black hole. For statement that "black hole is in equilibrium" we need model of black hole with it's internal structure. If this model indicates that black hole is in equilibrium, we musy agree with this. Without such a model we cannot speak about equilibrium of a black hole.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
To doubt about one theory, any theory, is always a healthy exercise and the GRT was one of the theories that was tried to modify several times. What is not so healthy is if the discussion transforms in a war between personal opinions without given enough information on where can be the fails and if there is one real alternative. I think that it would be very worthy if it would be possible to present these "weak" and "strong" points.
1. For more than one hundred years very good scientists were following the GRT and trying even to find a better theory. One of them was Einstein with the unified theories trying to unify electromagnetism with the gravitation (classical theories), for example Kaluza-Klein theory. This has failed.
2. More recently String theory or its generalization in M-theory found a mode of oscillation with coincides with the graviton. This is very appealling because unifies quantum mechanics and gravitation (with the possibility of introducing the gravitation in the context of the Standard Model) but it only works at very low energies.
3. With the simple Hilbert action and Einstein's motion equations this old theory of GRT follows to be the simplest and more accurate theory of gravitation for explaining the present phenomenology.
There are several basic problems associated to gravitation
4. It is a very weak interaction (difficult to carry it to the lab) if we compare it with the other three interactions and the geometrical Riemann interpretation introduced by Einstein is not possible to be introduced within perturbation metheds (renormalization group).
Perhaps what would be interesting is to know what are the concrete points of criticisms that can be put to GRT instead of transforming this fantastic achievement of physics as a personal attack to his creator.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Dear Johan,
Alfred Korzybski wrote in 1921:
"Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories to facts is essential to science. Epistemologically, the fundamental theories must develop in converging lines of investigation, and if they do not converge, it is an indication that there are flaws in the theories, and they are revised."
I think this is the issue here. Too much bending facts to self consistent theories in the physics community and not enough revisions undertaken to match theories to facts.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Details are in the text of the Hobby Project "A small thought experiment about a finite size universe".
Hi,
It seems that in this discussion about a non Non Euclidian space structure, automatically an Euclidian space distorted by General Relativistic effects is assumed. But the original question was meant more generally. The question is dedicated to a finite geometry of the whole universe and the distortion is exclusively caused geometrically by finity. In this context "static" is only related to the geometry and not to objects which follow eventually modified laws of nature within that geometry.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
<< In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) 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?
Dear Rommel,
Newton then Mach and to a certain extent also Einstein formulated the "nihilist" hypothesys in the conception of what is *in between*  objects with mass (from Quarks to Quasars). Provided that it is not even well defined what objects are, Quantum electrodynamics which is the best tested theory so far, teaches us that  emptiness does not exist, in this view the Mach hypothesys is totally void of any meaning. Mach suggested that universe is determined by masses and their relations, QED and QCD teach us that governing dynamics are strictly related to an active Background, it is all the way around.
Newton looked for an absolute reference frame which he resonably found in the fixed stars, Mach did give  power to the stars to influence behavior of other "objects" We know that they are sufficiently far to nullify any gravitational or inertial influence.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
okay then, dear mr. Baumgarten, why don`t you calcutate the square root of c²; maybe because between minus-c and plus+c the result were 2*c?! and why do physicists handle with c² if that were km² per square-seconds? is square-second 2-dimensional?
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
Dear Carly,
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?
Kind regards,
Stephen Stetson
RSAT
Hi Stephen,
We have done photon emissions from humans.  I know that each person has their own individual photon emission profile, so you can tell people apart.  That is Dr Persinger's project so I actually don't too many details.  I do mostly the sample preps for them.
I've attached my paper, let me know if it doesn't work.
Carly
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Dear Theophanes,
Classical Electrodynamics has an ambit of application and it cannot be applied to concepts as particle or mass of such particle. Such frame belongs to other fields as QED where the renormalization of the charge or mass are solved.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
How did Einstein's Spacetime pull of gravity on the Planet Mercury differ in value than Newtons?  Was it simply via the spacetime fabric adjusting this value?
Thanks:)
Your interpretation is utterly incoherent and unsupported by anything in the text. Einstein merely says a point moving in k must have a value of x' which is constant. In other words, the value of x' for a point moving with k must be constant. Mere obvious kinematics, following from the definition of velocity. Nothing is ever said about x' being ``attached'' to k. Nor is it true that it is measured using moving rods. Rather, x is measured using rods at rest with K, so is vt, and therefore the difference between the two is also a distance measured by rods at rest with respect to K. Your screaming ``Nonsense'' merely shows lack of understanding. The idea that such a distance ``cannot be measured'' is again a figment of your imagination: there is no difficulty whatever in measuring the distance between two moving points.
This discussion has, of course, no meaning: your only point is to denigrate relativity, for purposes best known to you. I have stated the truth of the matter, by following the actual original text (which you were afraid to quote) as closely as possible. For any interested readers who might have been confused by your nonsense, this should be enough. You I do not think worth an additional second of my time.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
Stam,
You do not enter in the question and you go to other things. I am speaking on your sentence which is absolutely wrong. You mixture things in a nonsense and it seems that you can pick up vacuum, representation of groups, spin, spinors, coordinates, ...etc.
Let me then to change (no to the inflation of Guth) and to go to the initial remark that I have made you.
Although the Lorentz group SO(3,1) is locally isomorphic to the special linear SL(2,C), and you can interpret the spinors as a kind of Lorentz transformations. This is not the case and you need in fact to take relativistic representation of the spinors, you have to go to the subgroup SU(2)xSU(2) e.g. Dirac, Weyl or Majorana. But this doesn't means that you have a coordinate dependence as every physicist knows.
On the other hand, vacuum polarization that lies at the core of Haag's theorem. Any interacting quantum field (including non-interacting fields of different masses) is polarizing the vacuum, and as a consequence its vacuum state lies inside a renormalized Hilbert space Hq that differs from the Hilbert space Hf of the free field. Although an isomorphism could always be found that maps one Hilbert space into the other, Haag's theorem implies that no such mapping would deliver unitarily equivalent representations of the corresponding canonical commutation relations, i.e. unambiguous physical results that surely Agostino could speak a lot about of them.
The problem is that there are "hooligans" of saying words without meaning but within the Standard Model and it seems that they are always right. Most practitioners (by the way I doubt that you are) of QFT appear to ignore the implications of things Haag's theorem entirely and prefer to go ahead producing numbers, or what is worse words, without understanding basic physics.
I would be very surprise if you could respond me directly to the questions and no mentioning personal features as basic Lie groups, irrelevance, ignorance, etc...
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Victor,
One of the contributing factors that promote the idea of an expanding universe is the decrease in energy of light photons that arrive here from the far reaches of the universe.
Per Maxwell’s work, light and radiation have magnetic and electric properties. The work of Planck and Einstein indicated radiation is made up of quanta (photons) and is not continuous. It should be remembered that Maxwell’s differential wave equations only indicate that radiation translates in a waveform but is not a wave itself. Therefore, by connecting the two bodies of work, the quanta (photons) derived by Planck and Einstein are the constituents that trace Maxwell’s waveform when they translate.
Since the photon has electric properties, it has the capability to interact with another photon through the electric force. For example, a light photon can interact with a CMB photon if their paths cross. During such interaction, an infinitesimal quantity of energy is transferred from the more energetic light photon to the lesser energetic CMB photon. Therefore, light photons that travel extremely long distances through space will undergo very many interactions with CMB photons and thus, will lose measurable quantities of energy. Hence, an expanding universe need not be necessarily invoked to understand how light photons that travel long distances lose energy.
Any non-spherical model of the photon has to show how it traces a waveform when it translates and how it gives its magnetic and electric properties. A photon model that realizes the above properties has been derived incidentally to the derivation of the electron. A view of the electron is given in Figure 2 of the attached article and view of the photon is given in Figure 1.
In Figure 1, the photon fiber is referred to as a heat fiber (please see footnote 1 in the article as to why). The energy of a photon fiber, given by Planck’s law E = hν, arises from its light-speed oscillatory motion along its length and about its origin (which is at its mid-length), rather than its translational motion. Its oscillatory motion is perpendicular to its translation; thus, a waveform is traced as it translates. The level of energy given by the fiber oscillation is related to its oscillation range or stroke; shorter strokes yield shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies, and thus greater energies.
Per Figure 1, perpendicular elements develop along the fiber length, due to Lorentz length contraction, as it oscillates back and forth at light-like speed along its length. These perpendicular elements give the photon’s B-field as it twirls about its origin. The electrical force potential (E) of the photon fiber is derived from and is synchronized with “B”; changes in “B” give “E” per Maxwell’s equations and is perpendicular to “B”. It should be noted that “B” is a field and “E” is a force potential that results from movement of the field.
To see how two photons interact and how a transfer of energy between them occurs, please refer to Section 11.D.2 in the book from which, the attached article is excerpted.
Regards,
Dan S. Correnti
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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.
Stefano,
I think you are correct to a point.  In science if we do not start from zero then there is room for error and I think that by not understanding this we set our self up to fail..  This is very evident in the inability to solve so many problems in Physics today.
Aristotle said "the beginning is the most important part".  He meant that you must start to get done but I also see it as where you start is vital.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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 [1] 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?
[1] 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.
That certain operators have a discrete spectrum doesn't, by itself, imply anything about whether the dynamical degrees of freedom are point-like or not. For example, in quantum mechanics, the phase space volume is always quantized, but the spectrum of the Hamiltonian of a point particle can be continuous or discrete, depending on the potential and the boundary conditions. So what matters is what precisely is the area or volume these operators measure.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
More precisely through quantum tunnelling of information via the time dimension.
Hello Pejvak,
I am unaware of quantum tunnelling of information via the time dimension, but quantum entanglement can influence traditional quantum tunnelling significantly. In particular, quantum entanglement can enhance or suppress quantum tunnelling under certain conditions: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960105003324
I hope you find this paper useful.
Best regards,
Alex
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
I didn't get any appropriate answers to this question. Could someone explain this?
Actually it's a straightforward calculation: Let's assume that the original photon has momentum p in direction z (that is, px=py=0 and pz=p). Then it has energy E=pc.
Now imagine you want to produce a particle-antiparticle pair of non-zero mass m (assume without loss of generality that the momentum is so that py1=py2=0). Then, according to momentum conservation, their momenta have to be pz1+pz2=p, px1+px2=0.
According to Relativity, each particle has Ei^2 = (mc^2)^2 +c^2 pxi^2 + c^2 pzi^2 (where i=1 or 2). We have Ei^2 = (mc^2)^2 + c^2 pxi^2 + c^2 pzi^2 > c^2 pzi^2, that is, Ei > pzi c. Therefore we get (E1+E2)^2 = E1^2 + 2 E1 E2 + E2^2 > (pz1^2 + 2 pz1 pz2 + pz2^2) c^2 = (pz1+pz2)^2 c^2 = pz^2 c^2 = E^2, and therefore E1+E2 > E. That is, the energy of the two generated particles is larger than the energy of the original photon, which would violate energy conservation.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question
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?
I try my best to find deficiency in the PAPPAS experiment. Pappas inserted the Cupper wire into Mercury, but mercury dissolves the Cupper, formind amalgame. We know nothing, how this amalgame behaves inder initial DC current conditions. The process could lead to a polarization nerar Cu/Hg interface, leading to an Electrochemical Overpotential. Then, changing polarity, the Voltage is partially or in full is compensated by this overpotential, resulting to the assymmitry in the mecanical results.
The only metal, which is not dissoleved in Hg is IRION, which should be used as a CONDUCTOR - WIRE . But Electrochemistry was not addressed in the PAPPAS experimental work.
• asked a question related to Modern Physics
Question