## onsdag 18 januari 2023

### The State of Modern Physics

Alexander Unzicker gives in his last book Make Physics Great Again: America Has Failed a very critical evaluation of the state of modern physics:

• All in all physicists have developed a system that keeps itself alive by detaching from observations, by abandoning comprehensible mechanisms and clean mathematics, by postulating arbitrary concepts and by weawing a "theoretical explanation" for every thinkable phenomenon, which amounts to nothing other than fitting fantasy products to measuring values.
These are tough words, but probably very true and as such cannot be directly refuted and so will be met by total silence by the physicists setting the agenda of contemporary physics.

A main theme on Unzicker's Real Physics youtube channel is the question if all constants ultimately can be reduced to a few fundamental physical constants like the gravitational constant $G$, the speed of light in vacuum $c$ and Planck's constant $h$. The Standard Model of fundamental/particle  physics includes 29 constants, which adopting Unzicker's view means that it is not fundamental physics.

The value of physical constants directly connects to the specification/definition of units used in experimental or observational physics. The definitions reflect specifications to make measurements. In the new 2019 SI standard
• Time in seconds is measured in terms of number of oscillations of a certain Cesium atom.
• Length in meter is measured in lightseconds as the distance traveled by light in vacuum per second.
• Mass $m$ in kilo is measured in terms of h and c assuming that Einstein's Law $E=mc^2$ and Planck's Law $E=hf$ with $f$ frequency, are valid.
What is of special interest here is that by definition the speed of light is set to be exactly = 1 lightsecond per second or $c=1$, which thus by definition makes the speed of light constant. With a common unit of time for all observers, the choice of length unit for all observers (possibly moving with different speeds) is to be such that the speed of light is exactly = 1.

Einstein's postulate that the speed of light is constant stated as a physical fact, which could be wrong, is thus turned into a definition which cannot be wrong. It is just an SI standard to be adopted by all observers: $c=1$.

We meet the same phenomenon with the kilo defined assuming $E=mc^2$ and $E=hf$. This means that $E=mc^2$ is made into a definition just like $c=1$, by adjusting the definition of kilo so that $E=mc^2$.

We meet here a confusing mixing of physical fact and definition, typical of Einstein's physics, which makes it possible for Einstein and all followers to be 100% sure that the speed of light is constant and that energy is equivalent to mass according to $E=mc^2$.

But mixing a proposed physical law, which may false, with a definition, which cannot be false, can give you the false impression that the physical law is a true physical law.

This aspects are very difficult to discuss with physicists who have been trained that Einstein's postulates that the speed of light is constant and energy is equivalent to mass, really are true postulates about physics, which in addition to being physically true are ideal as standard. This is like mixing analytical and synthetic truths in logical positivism which is an endless source of confusion making modern physics into a true mystery.

More on this theme in Many-Minds Relativity. There is a limit to the confusion.

By definition all humans are equal, but we know that this is not really so.

#### 1 kommentar:

1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks20 januari 2023 kl. 00:08

Claus Johnson wrote:
"Einstein's postulate that the speed of light is constant stated as a physical fact, which could be wrong, is thus turned into a definition which cannot be wrong."

That's only for Special Relativity. Einstein reiterated many times that for the later General Relativity, the speed of light cannot be a constant.

1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.”

The Equivalence Principle states that there is no functional difference between actual translational acceleration and gravitational acceleration.

1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.”

1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable.”

This is how gravitational lensing (ie: the curvature of light rays around a gravitating body) occurs, which was what originally corroborated Einstein’s theory.