The Black Hole Of Modern Physics

Newtonian and Einsteinian Mechanics

The Universe is formed from micro-scale electromagnetics and macro-scale gravitation. The essence of modern physics, as compared to classical (Newtonian) physics, is (i) the theory of quantum mechanics for micro-scale electromagnetics/light without gravitation, and (ii) Einstein's theory (special+general) of relativity for gravitation without electromagnetics/light.  

These two theories are hailed as the greatest triumphs of human intellect all times, way beyond Newton's mechanics, but there is a caveat: Quantum mechanics is viewed to be incompatible/inconsistent with general relativity. There is no convincing theory of modern physics including both electromagnetics/light and gravitation as the building blocks of the Universe, despite the more than 100 years which have passed since (i) and (ii) were introduced. 

There is thus bitter poison in the cup of glory when modern physicists are celebrating their achievements. If (i) and (ii) are incompatible/inconsistent/contradictory, then either (i) or (ii) must be wrong. Both cannot be true. The acknowledgement by leading physicists that this is so, is then viewed to be an act of scientific heroism rather than incompetence.   

It is also admitted that there is no incompatibility/inconsistency between quantum mechanics and  (iii) Newton's gravitation, only with Einstein's gravitation (ii). It is also admitted that Newton's mechanics captures almost everything on a macroscopic scale. 

What is then the difference between (ii) and (iii), that is between Einstein's equation and Newton's equations for a mechanical system subject to gravitation? 

The quick answer is: not much! It is like putting a moustache on da Vinci's Mona Lisa, which Dali did with a simple pen stroke (+added his own eyes). Mona Lisa is a true masterpiece made by a true master, while Dali's version is a simple distortion albeit done by a genius of some sort. But an art curator may tell you that Dali's version offers a whole new view on the World, da Vinci has been surpassed.

It is the same with (ii) and (iii): Einstein's equation reduces to Newton's equation in a system without space-time curvature like the flat Universe we apparently happen to have around us. Einstein's equation is is supposed to describe some ultimate extreme case like a black hole, which however is so extreme that observation is impossible, like a true real lady with moustache never to be seen. 

To be more precise, what are the observations showing that Newton's equations have to be replaced by Einstein's? A prime example is still Einstein's correction of size 45 to the 531 arcseconds/century prediction of the very slow precession of the perihelion of Mercury's elliptic orbit around the Sun, made by solving Newton's equation including all the planets in the Solar system. Einstein thus made a small correction of about 10% to an already very small effect computed by carefully solving Newton's equations, like putting a moustache on Mona Lisa and then claiming a complete revolution of world view. Or more accurately, after modifying Mona Lisa in a way which is not observable.

Einstein computed his "correction" by hand on the back of an envelope in several attempts during the 1910s until finally getting the desired result known beforehand, while solving Newton's equations for the Solar system from scratch by hand calculation is a formidable task, of course today feasible by computer. 

Einstein thus did not solve his equation to predict the precession, because he could not and this is still the case today even with biggest possible computer. 

What is truly remarkable, is that solving Newton's equations for the Solar system within the precision offered by the uncertain values of the gravitational constant, masses/positions of planets and the Sun, gives a prediction over a century in accordance with observation. In other words, da Vinci's Mona Lisa is as perfect it can be. There is no real need to modify neither Newton's equations nor Mona Lisa!

In any case, modern physicists claim that Newton's equations have to be replaced by Einstein's equations  even if solutions differ so little that it is beyond measurement. Einstein expressed his hesitance to take this step in "Newton, forgive me". In fact, modern physicist only took this step in 1950's after 50 years of brooding. 

The question remains: Why has modern physicists driven themselves into an impossible situation with two main theories which are inconsistent/incompatible, if there is not really any good strong scientific reason to do so?  If Newton is ok also today? Why has Einstein been chosen to be the icon of modern physics, thus reducing Newton? Which were the leading physicists in the creation of this myth?  

The crisis of modern physics witnessed by leading modern physicists may be seen as the inevitable result of a contradiction originally created by a young patent clerk desperately searching for scientific recognition, and succeeding! 

The aspect of small correction beyond observation is also present in Einstein's $E=mc^2$ with the mass defect in chemical/nuclear reactions too small to measure, a formula known by everybody as a fetish of modern physics without real meaning. Einstein's physics thus concerns corrections to known physics, so very small that experimental verification invariably rises more questions than answers.

Recall that according to $E=mc^2$ fully turning 1 grain of sand (as 0.000001 of 1 kg) into energy would suffice to heat an ordinary home in Sweden one year. One grain of sand! This would be 1 billion times more efficient then burning carbon, and 100-1000 times more efficient than what can be reached in a nuclear reaction. In other words, only a very small fraction of mass is really "equivalent" to energy, and so $E=mc^2$ has little if any meaning, yet is the beacon of modern physics visible to everybody.  

Recall that the mass $m$ viewed to effectively be transformed into energy $E$ in a nuclear reaction, is computed from $m=\frac{E}{c^2}$ and then shows to be 100-1000 smaller than the total mass involved. The "equivalence" of mass and energy thus appears as a formality from assuming $E=mc^2$, which has driven modern physics into a dead-end of contradiction. If anything: mass is not "equivalent" to energy. $E=mc^2$ cannot be used to predict the energy release in a chemical/nuclear reaction, because the small fraction effectively released is hidden. 

Recall the previous post on the new 2019 SI specification of unit of mass (kg), which is explicitly based on $E=mc^2$ thus making this relation into a definition including also a specification of the speed of light $c$ to be exactly 299792458 m/s in a specification the unit of length m.

The cornerstones of Einstein's contribution to science, $E=mc^2$ and the constancy of $c$, thus appear as definitions or SI agreements, which are to be viewed to be true independent of any physical reality and as such are empty of physics in the same way that the specification that there are 100 centimeters on a meter does not say anything about reality.  

Mathematicians make a clear distinction between between definition or agreement, which cannot be false, and theorem, which can be false or true. This is expressed in mathematical text by clearly announcing Definition: and Theorem:.  

Modern physicist make no distinction between between definition or agreement, which cannot be false, and physical law, which can be false or true. $E=mc^2$ and constancy of $c$ are thus introduced as definitions/agreements and then turned into physical laws, which cannot be false. This opens a black hole to modern physics.

Or is it ok to use $E=mc^2$ in the form $m=\frac{E}{c^2}$ to define mass in terms of energy $E$ and $c^2$ as an agreement among physicists (to be accepted by also the people). Does it hurt to make a possibly arbitrary agreement about something and then adjust other things accordingly. Of course we can agree that there are 50 centimetres on a meter and adjust measure accordingly. It could be a bit awkward but would cause a collapse of physics. In this spirit we could view $E=mc^2$ as a formality, which does not have any real consequence, just an empty gesture to salute Einstein. But by Occam's Razor such an empty gesture could as well be dispensed with.  Insisting would just add to the mystery of modern physics.

We may compare with Newton's 2nd Law $F=am$ with $F$ force, $a$ acceleration and $m$ inertial mass, which is the analog of the corresponding relation for gravitational force, gravitational acceleration and gravitational mass as primordial with thus force defined as gravitational force. Here $F=am$ gets real physical meaning by the fact that inertial mass = gravitational mass. In other words, the gravitation potential is primordial making bodies move according to gravitational forces thus prescribing motion to other (ultimately electromagnetic) forces. In this sense $F=am$ is a physical law and not only an agreement.