Connect with us

Physics without Modern Physics

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by [email protected], Oct 20, 2006.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Guest

    Hi all,

    I intend to email the address of the site containing the articles
    of my book
    to real and serious physicists, who apparently don't refer to
    newsgroups normally,
    and invite them to study and criticize them. So, I request every one
    who have any
    email addresses of any of them to send their email addresses to my
    email address:
    hamidvansari<at>yahoo<dot>com or hvansari<at>gmail<dot>com

    Thanks



    Introduction and Abstract of the book "Great mistakes of the
    physicists"

    Introduction of the book
    ------------------------
    History of science tells us that there were many theories having
    widespread acceptability during long times such that based on their
    acceptability many additions were added to them till finally a research
    or a scrutiny showed their invalidity and contrary to all of their
    additions and widespread acceptability sent them easily to the archives
    of history, what has remained being more solid and more scientific
    superseding theories or at least those seeming to be so. Let's see
    that,
    contrary to all of the apparent validity and acceptability and
    additions,
    what would cause a researcher to dare to oppose a theory and to
    scrutinize
    its bases succeeding in changing the theory in this way. The answer is
    clear: The researcher firstly looks into the theory with an acceptance
    view. Secondly, he or she tries to become thoroughly conversant with
    all
    the details of the theory. Thirdly, in the case of weakness of the
    theory,
    the points of weakness, like some tied knots, find an annoying state in
    the mind of the researcher, and he or she spends all his or her mind
    and
    time to obviate them. Fourthly, little by little the knots are untied
    and the difficulties are solved and logical supersedings appear.

    What can be said about the contemporary theoretical physicists is that
    many of them are practically content with only the first phase; they
    accept many of the current theories only because of their widespread
    acceptability and add more and more additions to them without any
    serious
    scrutinizing of their details in order to find out their validity or
    invalidity. A smaller group of the physicists proceed to these
    scrutinies,
    but don't attach any importance to the mental knots created for them
    and charge them to the weakness of man's perception or of the logic of
    the mathematics!

    This book is a collection of some physical articles searched on the
    basis of some scrutinizing in the above-mentioned manner. Each of them
    has been a set of knots that for their untying a great logical endeavor
    has been made. In this explanatory introduction, we introduce them in
    three categories.

    Contemporary physics, ie the physics related chiefly to the last
    century, has been extremely associated with two subjects which at
    present bear the much familiar titles of Quantum Physics and
    Relativistic Physics. These physicses are still presented under
    the title of Modern Physics although they were born many years
    ago, and it seems that their novelty is not because of their lateness
    but is because of the difference they have with the logic of the
    classical physics. It is said that for perception of these physicses
    one must go out of the frame of the classical logic. There will be no
    problem in this act if firstly superseding frame exists, secondly it is
    logical ie in principle is really (not only seemingly) a frame, and
    thirdly in principle this act is necessary ie really there exit some
    phenomena which the logic of the classical physics is not able to
    justify them and it is proven that such a justification is not
    possible,
    not after encountering a phenomenon which we are not able to justify it
    by the classical physics at present we merely try immediately to create
    new frames of logic or try to find a position for it in the numerous
    current frames of non-classical logic without trying to think
    that whether it has any position in the frame of the classical physics
    or not. In other words it is not true that the physicist to hide his or
    her inability to justify a phenomenon by trying to justify it in any
    probable possible way by retouching the logics by their inconsistency
    there won't remain any basis for any genuine work. Is it difficult to
    be said that we now don't know or only know a little but we are trying
    to know, without any haste and trying to disturb everything?

    A group of the articles of this book proceeds chiefly with what on
    which
    the quantum physics has been based. In an article the famous relation
    E=h<nu> is rejected analytically (11); in another article we proceed
    with
    the real justification of the photoelectric effect, and the
    justification
    of this relation by this way is also rejected (10). With a full beauty
    and
    simplicity the Compton effect is justified in the classical manner (2),
    and
    this is the case for the Stern-Gerlach experiment (5) and Franck-Hertz
    experiment (16) in two other articles. Some other phenomena which are
    thought
    as quantum phenomena are also justifed classically in an article (12).
    It is tried that the wave equation to be solved for the cylindrical
    wave, and in this way it is shown that how weak the bases of the
    struggles for solving the Schrodinger wave equation are (14). We
    justify
    the Hall effect and we see that maybe no longer it is necessary that
    the
    twentieth century physicists believe in forces exerted on "nothing"
    according to their belief (8)!

    Another group of the articles proceeds chiefly to the bases of the
    relativistic physics. In an article the electromagnetic theory is
    generally
    revised in details and in an interesting manner it is seen that how
    easy the relativity is hindered from resorting to this theory in its
    justification (13). In another article we see that attraction of the
    stars
    light passing beside the sun is simply optical and it is not necessary
    to consider it as gravitational (3). By investigating the stellar
    aberration in rejecting the existence of ether we shall see in another
    article that how surprising the current reasonings in support of the
    relativity are involved in apparent weakness (4).

    Another group of the articles proceeds chiefly with some material which

    are basically not related to the modern physics although more or less
    will
    be related to it. Some quite sure mistakes in the electrostatics will
    be
    shown in a detailed article study of which should be done with great
    attention (6). In some articles it is shown that how some quite open
    mistakes are still current in the world of physics (7 and 9), and
    because of the cursory passing of the physicists over them, their
    existence in the preliminary textbooks has exposed the prestige of the
    physics to danger. And in a very important, brief and simple article
    (1),
    existence of the geomagnetic field has been justified careful and deep
    study of which is recommended particularly in comparison with the
    current unsatisfactory theories in this respect (including the theory
    of dynamo). In an article we try to see what mass and force are, and we

    shall see that distinguishing between inertial and gravitational
    masses is invalid (15). We try to find out what actually the conductor
    is and in this respect we discover that probably volume of the electron
    is so much bigger than what is thought at present (18). It is
    shown that in a polished surface, solid matter has not flowed and
    filled
    unevennesses of the surface as the current theories state (17). That
    the
    torque exerted on a stationary body is zero must not be presented as an
    axiom (19). As appendices (A1 and A2), the simple solution
    to the famous four-color problem is presented and Goldbach's conjecture
    is proven.

    What remain are non-few other phenomena of the kind of the first and
    second categories, which we don't proceed to their
    classicaljustification,
    just as there are many other phenomena of the third kind that we don't
    proceed to their classical justification or to obviating the mistakes
    from their justifications. Namely, after careful studying of the
    articles
    of this book, maybe you can believe that those unconsidered phenomena
    of
    the first and second categories must have the same sensitivity as
    unconsidered phenomena of the third category, and no more. And maybe it
    can also be understood that we can have confidence in the frame of the
    classical logic trying to justify the unknowns in this frame. Rush of
    the plentiful empirical results of the physics of the 20th century
    cannot
    justify destruction of the frame of home, but we should look for the
    places of the existent things in the home and if we are not able to
    find
    the position of a phenomenon at present, we must commit this work to
    posterity.

    If, after careful studying of this book, you are made aware that much
    of its contents proceeding to the bases and being in the level of the
    first years of the undergraduate courses of physics, just because of
    this very reason and without any scientific encountering and because
    they are not in the category of the material being published enormously
    in the international journals of physics chiefly in praise and
    admiration of the modern physics, are rejected by some international
    first-rate physicists, won't you entitle the author to select the title

    on the cover of his book? Should the writers of the history of science
    confine lonliness of science to only the past eras? We read in the
    history of science that Fresnel, who was diligently defending the
    wave theory of light, answered Poisson, who was defending the
    corpuscular theory of light, when he had said to him "Your theory
    is not in accordance with my equations", that "The remedy is that you
    change your equations". Now, if by this book, we become able to prove
    that we cannot ignore so easily the logic of the classical physics,
    can it be said that what we can do with the huge amount of the
    material published in support of the modern physics? Logic, and only
    logic, must be the only guide. What presented as nonclassical logic
    will be acceptable only if it is really logic; but we believe that
    this is not really the case.

    I hope that, in next editioins of the articles of this book, in
    addition
    to the inclusion of new materials, I can proceed to the improvement of

    and necessary changes in the articles criticism of which by the readers

    is requested insistently.

    In the articles of this book there are many proposals for experiments
    related to the theoretical contents of the articles that since
    performing
    of them has not been possible by the author, accomplishing of them is
    left to the interested readers as a test for the validity of the
    articles.

    Hamid V. Ansari

    Abstract of the book
    --------------------
    We use the following terminology here:
    ~A means the vectot A.
    [] indicates subscript.
    <four> means 4.

    0 Great misakes of the physicists
    _Return to logic.
    1 Geomagnetic field determines ionization energy
    _Magnetic field of the earth comes into existence due to the movement
    of
    the freed electrons of the hot core of the earth along with the earth
    rotation.
    2 Compton effect is a Doppler effect
    _Compton effect is completely a Doppler effect.
    3 Deviation of light by Sun is optical
    _Deviation and speed reducion of the stars light passing beside the
    sun is completely an optical phenomenon.
    4 Stellar aberration with ether drag
    _Stellar aberration is not in any contradiction with the ether drag.
    5 Stern-Gerlach experiment is not quantized
    _Classical physics does not at all predict a uniform distribution
    for magnetic atoms of the beam in the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
    6 Obvious mistakes in Electrostatics
    _The famous formula of the electrostatic potential energy in the
    current form U=1/2<integral>~D.~Edv is completely wrong and in it
    ~E must be replaced by ~E[<rho>]. Then, capacitance of a capacitor
    does not at all depend on its dielectric which indeed acts as a source
    of potential. Besides, there are two different kinds of potential
    difference for a capacitor; thus the results of the experiments of
    Millikan and Thomson to determine the charge and mass of the electron
    must be revised.
    7 Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
    _Current relations <capital delta>p=4<gamma>/R and
    <capital delta>=2<gamma>/R for pressure difference between inside and
    outside of a bubble and a solid drop respectively are completely wrong.
    8 Logical justification of the Hall effect
    _To justify the Hall effect it is not necessary to suppose existence of
    hole and of magnetic force being exerted on it (ie in fact on nothing).
    9 Actuality of the electric current
    _Countrary to the current belief, existence of the electric conduction
    currnt is not because of the existence of any electric field in the
    conductor.
    10 Photoelectric effect is not quantized
    _Empirical results of the photoelectric effect have a perfect classical
    justification, thus cannot result in the relation E=h<nu> exclusively.
    11 Wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor
    _A quite wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor is current that just
    on the basis of this wrong construing the famous relation E=h<nu> has
    been derived (by Planck). Correct form of this factor is presented.
    12 Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical
    _Gas molecules existent in the electric discharge tubes play role
    of a medium for the electron beams which thereby propagate as
    longitudinal waves showing wave phenomena; thus there is no need
    to suppose existence of matter waves.
    13 Electromagnetic theory from a new viewpoint
    _Considering point magnetic charges fundamental equations of
    electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations are completed and modified.
    Therefore, no longer the action-reaction law is breached, form of the
    electromagnetic wave motion throughout its carrier medium is justified
    beautifully, and the relativity is hindered from resorting to the
    electromagnetism.
    14 Cylindrical wave, wave equation, and mistakes
    _Wave equation (eg cylindrical wave equation or Schrodinger equation)
    cannot be solved for general spreading of the wave by using the method
    of
    separation of variables.
    15 Definitions of mass and force; A critique
    _Mass is an undefined concept, and force is not anything but prevention
    of masses against each other, and separation of mass into inertial and
    gravitational is a wrong and useless act.
    16 Franck-Hertz experiment is not quantized
    _What we see in the Franck-Hertz experiment isn't anything but a
    regular
    repetition of a breakdown voltage.
    17 A wave-based polishing theory
    _In a polished surface, solid matter has not flowed and filled
    unevennesses of the surface.
    18 What the electric conductor is
    _Probably the volume of electron is very larger than what is
    thought at present.
    19 Why torque on stationary bodies is zero
    _That the torque exerted on a stationary body is zero must not be
    presented as an axiom.
    a1 Solution to four-color problem
    _The four-color problem is simple and solved easily.
    a2 A proof for Goldbach's conjecture
    _A busy problem solved by a systematic mind.

    My email addresses: hamidvansari<at>yahoo<dot>com or
    hvansari<at>gmail<dot>com
    To see all the articles send an email to one of my above-mentioned
    email addresses.

    http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_k.html
     
  2. RP

    RP Guest


    Some of your objections are justifiable, but your solutions are not
    justifiable.

    The Hall effect is due to the imbalance of *effective* charge in the
    conducting materials.

    The force between parallel conductors (which have B fields associated
    with them in lab frame) is the vector sum of four components of force,
    these are:

    1) The mutual attraction of the protons in conductor 1 to the electrons
    in conductor 2
    2) The mutual attraction of the protons in conductor 2 to the electrons
    in conductor 1
    3) The mutual repulsion of the electrons in conductor 1 and the
    electrons in conductor 2
    4) The mutual repulsion of the protons in conductor 1 and the protons
    in conductor 2

    Given equal numbers of quanta in both conductors, the net force on any
    charge component will be exactly equal to the net force on its
    complimentary component when the currents and electron drift rates are
    perfectly equal, i.e. the electrons and protons in conductor 1 will
    have equal forces acting on them (in the same direction), the net force
    on the conductor being the algebraic sum of the forces acting on these
    two charge components within the conductor. Likewise for conductor 2.

    If however the conductors are restrained from moving wrt each other,
    then the electrons will migrate from one side of the conductor to the
    other, that is, since they are free to move within the conductor, while
    the protons are not, the latter essentially being the conductor itself.
    If the currents are parallel then the electron components will migrate
    toward the other conductor, or toward the *inside edge* of their own
    conductors. If the currents are anti-parallel, then they will migrate
    toward the outside of their own conductors. In terms of classical
    electromagnetic theory, this migration is supposed to be due to the
    deflection of the electrons by the B field, whereas the B field, in
    contrast to the classical view, is a completely fictitious entity. The
    migration is due instead to the attraction of the electrons to the
    protons in the other conductor, which is due in turn to the Lorenz
    force developed between them because of their motion relative to each
    other.

    Thus in order to achieve the opposite migration of the electrons when
    the currents are parallel, we need only have the repulsive component of
    force on the electron charges be greater than the attractive component
    of force acting on them. This can be achieved by allowing the electrons
    in the two conductors to be moving much faster wrt each other than they
    are moving wrt the protons. If the electron drift rate is v in
    conductor 1 and 20v in conductor 2, then the relative velocity of the
    electron charges wrt each other will be 19v. The force developed is
    proportional to their relative velocity squared, and thus chopping
    units we can simplify the math and state that the force developed
    between the electron components is 361 units, which will be a repulsive
    component of force on the electrons. Because of the assymetric
    currents, the velocity of the electron components wrt the proton
    components in the opposing conductors will no longer be equal, thus
    breaking the symmetry that existed in the ideal case.

    The velocity of the electrons in conductor 1 wrt the protons in
    conductor 2 will be 1v thus providing an attractive component on the
    electrons in conductor 1 of 1 unit, leaving a net force on the
    electrons of 360 units toward the outside of the conductor.

    The velocity of the electrons in conductor 2 wrt the protons in
    conductor 1 will be 20v, thus providing an attractive component of the
    electrons in conductor 2 of 400 units, leaving a net force on the
    electrons of 39 units toward the inside of the conductor.

    Thus with these two conductors one will "appear" to conduct by positron
    flow, and the other by electron flow, even though it is only electrons
    flowing in both.

    Such paradoxes illustrate the evils of the very concept of the B field,
    which being a frame dependent field should never have been regarded as
    real, nor allowed to explain such things as the Hall effect, which it
    has nothing whatsoever to do with.

    Richard Perry
     
  3. RP

    RP Guest

    That would be properly "alternative reality." . Just hold onto that
    crap if it makes you happy to do so.

    Richard Perry
     
  4. Sam Wormley

    Sam Wormley Guest

    It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work!
     
  5. RP

    RP Guest

    Are you saying that I'm more spiritual that you? :)

    Regardless of your sentiment about that, let me share with you that the
    Hebrew scripture states something like "seek ye the truth in all
    things, " and also "in all things be spiritual." Thus I might conclude
    from these two statements, having like eliminands [Carroll] that being
    spiritual means remaining in touch with reality, which is quite
    contrary to the general view, at least from my perspective, since those
    who *claim* to be spiritual are for the most part a pack of raving
    lunatics. I can only conclude that man made religion is mutually
    exclusive to spirituality. So I concur with your statement above,
    wholeheartedly. What remains to be seen is whether you will accept the
    derivation of the Hall effect that I just presented, or whether you
    will choose to be less spiritual. :)

    Richard Perry
     
  6. Sam Wormley

    Sam Wormley Guest

    You seem to imply that spirituality is a measure of scientific correctness?
    Get real--the real arbiter is agreement with the unbiased data of observation
    and experiment.
     
  7. RP

    RP Guest

    You just contradicted yourself in these two statements. Scientific
    correctness is synonymous with empirical agreement. Get spiritual,
    Sam.

    Richard Perry
     
  8. Sam Wormley

    Sam Wormley Guest

    It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work.
     
  9. Bill Hobba

    Bill Hobba Guest

    False. In order to understand current theories any serious student (and
    that includes virtually any student that goes on to become an actual
    physicist) will look for possible alternatives.
    http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
    'Do get me right: you don't have to believe anything you read on faith -
    check it. Try alternative approaches, as many as you can. You will discover,
    time and again, that really what those guys did indeed was the smartest
    thing possible. Amazing.'

    Rest of misconceptions snipped.

    Bill
     
  10. RP

    RP Guest

    Agreed. What we probably don't agree upon is "how things work." I
    think very many of the great scientists understood that a mathemtical
    model doesn't pass for "understanding," and in light of the fact that
    very many mathematical models have very many equivalent
    interpretations, this seems to be an obvious truth. For instance the
    various quantum interpretations shown later to all be equivalent [See
    "Quantum Realtiy"]. Even special relativity that has an aether
    interpretation and a non-aether interpretation.

    The problem with the B field is that it is always assumed to be at rest
    wrt the obsever, which is of course contradictory to the premise that
    reality is independent of frames of reference (PoR).
    If only the electron charge drifts wrt the conductor, then there is an
    assymetry wrt lab frame. But if we assume a frame of reference such
    that the protons and electrons are moving in equal but opposite
    directions then we reestablish a symetry. Only in this frame is the B
    field the lone operator. In the lab frame there is also an E field
    component, because in actuality we are moving wrt the seat of the B
    field and thus experience a vB or E field. Only when an external charge
    is moving at a much greater speed than the drift rate of the electrons
    does the B field appear to be at rest wrt that charge, and then only
    approximately. But when we are dealing with the forces exerted on
    charges in an opposing conductor due to their drift, then we are not
    dealing with fast moving charges. The lateral force on that current
    will depend upon whether it is flowing at a drift rate that is either
    greater or lesser than 1/2 the drift rate of the electrons in the other
    conductor. Thus the entire argument that I presented initially can be
    derived in terms of E and B fields, though we would have to assume a
    drift of the B field at a rate exactly 1/2 that of the electron drift
    rate. This is of course assuming that there are equal numbers of
    positive and negative quanta of charge in the conductor, which isn't
    going to be the case in real materials. Thus I only provided a
    beginning point, the purpose of which was to show that the Hall effect
    is not at all mysterious.

    The quantum hall effect is no more mysterious. It is the difference in
    binding energies of the conduction bands of the material that produce
    the quantum "stepping" of the hall effect. This follows from the fact
    that the release of an entirely new set of drifting electrons alters
    the equation that I prescribed. When another band of electrons is
    released the drift velocity reduces because there are now more carriers
    present in the material. This must result in a sudden change, or
    "step", in the Hall voltage.

    Richard Perry
     
  11. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al Guest

  12. It is traditional to have scientific monographs reviewed by other
    scientists. Lots of theories, while well meaning, are quickly
    punctured under the scrutiny of other brains.

    One excellent example was at CalTech, where a PhD candidate was
    explaining his theory, worked out over the course of several years.
    In the audience was Richard Feynman. The explanation was long, and
    Feynman apparently nodded off into a light doze. The presenter was
    well into his third blackboard of equations when Feynman awoke with a
    start and shouted out "WAIT, that can't work!". His nearby colleagues
    tried to reassure him it looked okay. But he persisted, and went to
    thee blackboard and showed how the equation violated some very basic
    principle (don't recall, it might have been the Heisenberg or Pauli
    principles, or some obscure quantum principle). The poor guy's years
    of research, sincerely undertaken, and vetted by his advisers, was
    wrong.

    More recently, Wolfram's pretty and very thick book, although very
    intriguing, once you look into it, doesnt really give any usable
    predictions or useful science.

    So while you may be totally sincere in your musings, let them be looked
    over by others for little holes first BEFORE you announce all these
    breakthroughs to the world. Saves wiping a lot of egg off your face.
     
  13. PD

    PD Guest

    Shhh! You'll scare him away!
     
  14. Bob Kolker

    Bob Kolker Guest

    Al? Al? How did your experiments go?

    Bob Kolker
     
  15. Bob Kolker

    Bob Kolker Guest

    Wolfram is rich enough and has enough time to write a vanity piece. A
    physical theory based on descrete automata arrays would be totally
    intractible. How do you approximate them?

    Bob Kolker
     
  16. Sorcerer

    Sorcerer Guest

    | wrote:
    | [snip crap]

    FOaD. This is the river of shit, you fucking hypocrite.
    Androcles
     
  17. Sorcerer

    Sorcerer Guest

    |
    | Bob Kolker wrote:
    | > Uncle Al wrote:
    | >
    | > > wrote:
    | > > [snip crap]
    | > >
    | > >
    | > >>My email addresses: [email protected],com or
    | > >>
    | > >
    | > > [snip crap]
    | > >
    | > > Idiot.
    | >
    | > Al? Al? How did your experiments go?
    | >
    | > Bob Kolker
    | >
    | > >
    |
    | Shhh! You'll scare him away!

    The fish has already been landed. I caught him in the river of shit,
    sucking on a pebble he thought was a diamond while relying
    on the Chinese to do his work for him.
     
  18. I have a New Theory of How The Universe Works, and I can't even get
    anybody to _read_ it, let alone critique it.

    The problem is, any Theory of Everything has to include all of the gods
    and devils, and other crap that people claim that since they don't believe
    in them, that therefore they don't exist.

    Oh, well. Eventually everyone is going to learn the truth.

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
  19. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al Guest

    1) Parity Eotvos experiment. Physics won't perform it. Cowards.
    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

    2) Parity calorimetry experiment. 500 g of benzil in hand and two
    DSCs promised at an acceptable latitude; hoping for four. Growing
    xtals as you read this. To be run during Xmas lull.
    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

    3) Ambient pressure diamond synthesis from molten Devil Solvent,
    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/c_four.mp3

    2007 promises to be an interesting year. Patience.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-