torsdag 5 september 2024

Conundrum of Modern Physics

A modern physicist will proudly tell you that modern physics is based on two theories: 

  • Einstein's Special Theory of Relltivity SR and General Theory of Relativity GR replacing Newton's Mechanics NM.
  • Quantum Mechanics QM replacing Maxwell's Electromagnetics ME and NM on atomic scales.  
Modern physics is based on SR/GR + QM, while classical physics is based on NM + ME. 

A modern physicist will then inform you that SR/GR and QM are the greatest scientific achievements of all time, each with complete agreement with all observations. The only caveat well understood from the start 100 years ago, is that SR/GR and QM are incompatible, which has plunged modern physics into a credibility crisis. Real physics cannot be incompatible/contradictory and so something must be fundamentally wrong with the mathematical models. But what?

QM can be seen as a generalisation of ME and NM to atomic scales and there is no incompatibility here. So it must be SR/GR posing the problem. 

SR without gravitation introduces new relativistic mechanics based on Lorentz transformation mixing space and time into new strange effects of space contraction and time dilation, and so dismisses NM without gravitation, because it is not Lorentz invariant, as an ad hoc requirement.

GR introduces gravitation as a geometric effect of curved space-time and so dismisses NM with gravitation as a classical field theory in Euclidean space. 

NM has thus been replaced by SR (1905) and GR (1916) as a prime achievement of modern physics with very little change into our days, as if the last word was said 100 years ago. 

But NM is the most successful theory of all times encompassing a very large range of phenomena in computable form opening to a very rich world of simulations. In contrast GR is admittedly very difficult to put to work in simulations, because it is so incredibly complicated that even the largest computer and best programmer cannot make it go. The only way to put GR to use is to let it collapse to NM, while GR beyond NM is reserved for speculations on cosmological scales, or bigger.

Newton's theory of gravitation connects gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ to mass density $\rho (x)$ by the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$ acting in a Euclidean space with coordinate $x$ by 
  • $\rho (x)=\Delta\phi$  for all $x$      (NG)
which can be viewed as an assignment creating mass by differentiation of gravitational potential and which can be motivated from conservation principles as shown in this post.  (NG) is the only possible connection between gravitational potential and matter well understood by the Creator.  You find more information on (NG) under tag New View on Gravitation.

Einstein decided to throw out (NG) as the pinnacle of mathematical thinking all times all areas. Einstein replaced (NG) by GR taking the position of Newton under the excuse "Newton, forgive me!" and so was exploited by the physics community to represent all the marvel of modern physics to the world, while his fellow physicists viewed him with pity for missing the train to modernity.

It is now time to reconsider the reasons put forward to replace NG by GR. The cost is very high, while the gains may just be fantasy. 

10 kommentarer:

  1. The obvious gain is that SR match experiments unlike Newton.

    SvaraRadera
  2. SR mechanics does not include gravitation while Newton does. SR does not contain any physics.

    SvaraRadera
  3. Newton still gives the wrong answers for objects moving close to the speed of light. If you have any gold item you can admire it knowing that the yellow color comes from relativity.

    SvaraRadera
  4. There are no objects in our galaxy moving with speeds close to speed of light, at most 1%. Far away galaxies can recede with speed much bigger than speed of light.

    SvaraRadera
  5. Heard of cosmic rays? It's not hard to accelerate elementary particles to close to light speed.

    SvaraRadera
  6. Is a cosmic ray a material object, like a stone, or is it rather like a ray of light, whatever that is? A stream of particles? Why focus on utterly extreme physics of forever unknown nature to overthrow the whole World of normal possibly understandable physics?

    SvaraRadera
  7. An atomic nucleus is a material object. By all means use your "normal possibly understandable physics" in most situations, but be aware that it isn't strictly correct. GPS and a bunch of other technologies wouldn't work without taking SR and even GR into account.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. GPS satellite clock are continuously synchronised with a Master Clock on Earth making SR/GR without any role to play. Nothing in an atom moves very fast and so SR/GR has no role to play.

      Radera
    2. I meant that you can accelerate nuclei to close to the speed of light where relativistic effects are important.

      I suppose you could correct for the errors of not including GR in GPS by synchronising with a clock on Earth suffiently often, but don't you think its more elegant to use the correct physics from the start?

      Why are you so determined to stick to physics we know is not correct?

      Radera
    3. What is the point of accelerating a proton to near speed of light?
      Continuous synchronising GPS clocks is necessary beacuse of varying conditions which cannot be compensated for by any constant preset. Newton covers most situations which astonishing precision

      Radera