Modern physics as atom physics has opened entirely new technologies with the atomic bomb and the computer as undeniable strong demonstrations of the power of abstract thinking of modern theoretical physicists. Despite these amazing examples of progress offered to human civilisation, modern physics is today in a state of deep crisis as if the mind of a theoretical physicist now somehow is prevented from constructive development of new technologies. How can that be?
I have been pursuing a line of thought putting the blame primarily on Einstein with his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity SR from 1905 and General Theory of Relativity GR from 1916. Both SR and GR were initially viewed with much skepticism (for good reasons), but then very slowly found roles as fundamentals of modern physics, which today is the ruling paradigm.
The trouble with SR/GR is that it is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics, as an incompatibility of electromagnetics and Newtonian mechanics, which means that modern physics is founded on a contradiction, which is the root cause of the crisis.
Since real physics cannot harbor a contradiction, there must be something fundamentally wrong with either electromagnetics or Newtonian mechanics. More precisely, electromagnetics is Lorentz invariant while Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant and the question is which part to give up?
Recent posts present evidence that Lorentz invariance is unphysical and so is then also SR which thus must be eliminated from modern physics. Here Many-Minds Relativity MMR appears to fill the gap after SR as a theory compatible with Newtonian mechanics. MMR thus shows an opening to get out of the crisis of modern physics. Do you want to test this possibility?
Inlägg
The problem with Newtonian mechanics is that it is incompatible with reality as shown in countless experiments.
SvaraRaderaWhich experiments show that Newton's mechanics is wrong?
RaderaWikpedia ger några exempel:
Raderahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
The SR experiments all show null results concerning existence of a unique aether. Einstein concluded no-aether-at-all while I suggest to consider the other possible consequence of null results, namely many-aethers as a new aspect to explore. Ok?
RaderaThat's only one aspect. You also have to consider the relativistic movement of particles. In Newtonian mechanics particles could be accelerated to arbitrary velocity, for example.
RaderaCan you give an experiment in which your theory give a different result than the established?
Far away galaxies are seen to recede with velocities much bigger than the velocity of light from large red-shift, which violates SR but not Newton.
SvaraRaderaFor cosmology you need GR, not SR, as space is expanding. Everything works out just fine. Why can't you see velocities greater than light speed in a lab if they are possible?
RaderaIt is difficult to observe an object coming towards you at a speed larger than the speed of light, since you cannot see it until it has passed. It is different if the object is moving away from since you can see it under any redshift/large velocity.
RaderaYou are just avoiding my question. If there is no testable way your theory is different from the established it isn't physics, or at least not new physics. Besides, you don't even need superluminal speed to get arbitrarily large redshifts.
RaderaSo you say that the Universe is expanding slower than the speed of light?
RaderaYou are still avoiding my quetion about experiments. The expansion of the universe is expansion of space, not movement in space, GR not SR. Maybe you should start with some textbook in the subject?
RaderaConcerning textbook I refer to my Many-Minds Relativity MMR. What is “expansion of space” in SR? You seem to agree that observations show galaxies receding from us at speeds much bigger than the speed if light, which is in violation with SR but not MMR. This means that SR does not correctly describe physics on large scale and so must be dismissed, because on
Raderasmall scale it has no role. Right?
YOU NEED GENERAL RELATIVITY FOR COSMOLOGY! Stick to answering my question about an experiment that you think would violate SR. SR certainly has a role on small scale. Kaufman more or less demonstrated the effect before Einstein even came up with SR.
SvaraRaderaThere you have it: MMR conforms with cosmology, while SR does not.
RaderaWhy do you think Einstein went on to develop the General Theory of Relativity? Not that I think your MMR really conforms with cosmology. I'm still waiting for that experiment where you show your theory is better.
RaderaAll experiments supporting Newtons Mechanics also support MMR. There are no experiments in contradiction to MMR.
RaderaThat's a contradiction as there are lots of experiments that contradict Newton.
RaderaIf person A can think in the conceptual frameworks X and Y, while B only thinks in framework X, should A stick to X and thus forgo Y when talking to B? If A wants to explain Y but B demands answers in X... Person A claims that Y avoids a contradiction, i.e. says less when necessary. Person B demands that person A say more than X... To say that something (accepting the results of some experiments) would lead to contradiction in framework X, does not lead to contradiction in Y...
SvaraRaderaThere are no contradictions in SR of physical nature since SR does not say anything about physics.
Radera