What is with the Alice in Wonderland state of physics? It may explain
the results of some experiments, but none of it makes any intuitive
sense. Furthermore, it seems that in the last 100 years, we have not
made any substantial progress. We are nowhere close to being able to
figure out some fundamental problems like what gravity is. Pretty much,
the same theories that were worked out 100 years ago are the still the
same ones being used today.
Now it could be that the apparent lack of progress is because we have
totally figured everything out and there is nothing more significant to
be learned. Or, physics has ground to a halt because it has taken some
really bad turns and we are at a dead end.
From what I have researched, I am finding that physics has indeed taken
some really bad turns which have completely hindered any further
significant progress in the field. I'm not talking about some minor
error that requires a slight adjustment, I'm talking about 'Earth is
the center of the universe' type of wrong. In fact, I'd say that almost
everything that serious physists take as dogma over the past 100 years
is wrong. The only reason why it succeeds as much as is does is because it is almost completely backwards.
Just like scientists used to think the Earth was the center of the
universe, current physics has got the frame of reference for how things
work completely wrong. And just like the theory that the Earth was the
center of the universe, this backwardness allowed the scientists of the
day to accurately predict the movement of the stars, but in a way that
didn't make any intuitive sense. They had to invent things like
'epicycles' to explain the retrograde movement of the planets and had
charts showing how the planets moved in corkscrew patterns for no
apparent reason.
Of course, the theory must be correct, it makes correct predictions
they would exclaim. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make any
intuitive sense, it must be so. And so current physics similarly
exclaims that their theories must be correct because they make such
accurate predictions.
As is with the case of the Earth centered universe, current physics can
make accurate predictions because they are basing the results on a real
phenomenon, but are looking at it from a completely wrong angle. They
get the right answer for the wrong reasons. So where did physics take a
wrong turn, let me count the ways:
Wrong turn #1 - There is no aether
This has got to be the biggest and most fatal error of physics to
prematurely reject the hypothesis that all of space is filled with a
substance. If I am right, this will go down as even a bigger blunder
than the Earth centered universe. This has totally halted significant
development of electromagnetic theory by removing the medium by which
waves are carried through space.
Now if there is no aether, then there is nothing for waves to travel on
and therfore no waves are really possible. This means that everything
has to be particles. All interactions now have to happen through
particle exchange through the void of space. So light is particles,
gravity is particles, strong force is particles and so on.
However, the view is absurd. How can two objects exchanging particles
possibly cause an attractive force? It is often described as two
basketball players exchanging a ball which each other and the faster
they do the exchange, the more attracted are the two players. How
rediculous! Any such exchange would cause a repulsion, not an
attraction. There is no way this particle exchange can work! How can
serious physisists possibly take this seriously? This makes NO intuitive or logical sense.
We get into other problems because we observe a lot a wave phenomenon,
so we say light can be both wave or particle depending on the
experiment. Now how logical is this argument - something completely
changes its nature depending on how we are looking at it.It is sheer
lunacy to think subatomic particles care what we are doing in the
macroscopic world and change their behavior to suit us.
We get into all of these problems because we refuse to believe in an
aether. If we believe in an aether, then the world is a very simple
place. All interactions happen via waves propagated in the aether.
There are no particle exchanges required to transmit forces. It has
been shown that phased wave interactions can create attractive and
repulsive forces - objects emitting in phase waves repel, while out of
phase attract. There is no spooky 'action at a distance'. The only way
particle A can affect particle C is if goes through particle B. A most
sensible chain of cause and affect.
The only serious experiment indicating particle nature of light is the
photoelectric effect. However, I feel this can be easily explained if
you think that light is generated in specific wave packet quanta. This
would have the exact same effect as if a fixed sized particle hit a
surface - but it is created by a strictly wave phenomenon. By far the
larger experimental evidence shows that light is a wave. We only need
the medium (the aether) to make it work.
Since we think that the aether doesn't exist, we make no attempt to
detect it directly or to determine its properties or how it could be
manipulated. Instead, we spend billions trying to detect particle force
carriers and can only guess at the particles shooting out of these
collisions. Seems we've spent billions on accelerators, and what do
they have to show for it - a few pictures of squiggly lines - perhaps a
newly discovered particle here or there. We're never going to be able
to figure out how to neutralize gravity with science like this. We are
barking up the wrong tree - there are no exchange particles, we should
be studying the subatomic interactions of electromagnetic waves through
the aether.
Wrong turn #2 - The Michaelson/Morely MMX experiment disproved the existence of the aether.
Always cited as the premier reason why we don't believe in the aether
is the MMX experiment. This results of the experiment have been grossly
misunderstood. If you read the original paper, they do not conclude
that the aether doesn't exist - only that it is moving much slower than
the orbital speed of the Earth. The experiment, did in fact
return a small positive result and the authors suggested further
research. This further research was conducted by Daton Miller who
concluded that the aether could be detected. Daton Miller was a
professor of physics and would not be likely to make experimental
errors or wrongly deduce that his result was not within experimental
error. His experiment which was carried out over 20 years under a much
better environment was completely ignored in favor of the new 'whiz
bang' relativity theory of Einstein apparently that didn't require an
aether.
Bottom line, the MMX experiment did not disprove the existence of the
aether - although everyone thinks it did. At best, it indicated that
the aether (if it exists) moves relatively slowly on the surface of the
Earth. This would be like trying to disprove the existence of air by
measuring the airspeed while you were inside of an airplane. You say
that you expect the airspeed to be 100 mph, because you know the
airplane is going 100 mph. You measure nothing inside the airplane,
therefore you disprove the existence of air. Of course, this makes no
logical sense at all and neither does the MMX experiment.
Wrong turn #3 - The Rutherford atomic model
We are all familiar with the model of the atom as an extremely compact
nucleus containing protons/neutrons surrounded by a cloud of electrons.
The reason why we think this is because of the Rutherford experiment of
bombarding helium nucleus against a very thin film of gold. Rutherford
concluded that the nucleus of the atom had to contain all of the
positive charge and had to be incredibly small. Well everyone just fell
in loves with this theory since it reminded us of how the planets orbit the sun. Cute, but fatally wrong.
The experiment done by Rutherford is an extremely
indirect method of probing the atom and he made a number of assumptions
that fundamentally did not need to be true. His intial assumption was
that the atom was the 'plum pudding' model of an amorphous blob that
wouldn't put up much resistance to a helium atom. I'd say he proved
that that isn't the case, but he did not rule out other possible
structures that could reproduce the scattering pattern that he observed
from his experiments. All his experiments could show was that the area
that had to be solid was extremely small, but that isn't to say that he
proved it all had to be in the same place. It could have been spread
out into even smaller dots. My own experimental calulations show that
the scattering pattern could be repoduced by an octagonal shaped atom
and assuming that the atom is solid only along the atoms axis.
The reason why the interpretation of this experiment is so fatal is
because it has totally hindered the development of an atomic model that
makes any physical sense. For example, it makes no sense that all of
the protons could be crammed together in compact nucleus. So what does
this mean? It means we have to come up with some new "strong" force to
keep it together. In reality, this strong force doesn't exist and
doesn't need to exist and the evidence
for it is rather weak and circumstantial. Due to the dimesions
involved, we will never be able to directy measure the "strong" force.
But yet we spend untold millions looking for it
Something else that doesn't make sense is how chemical bonds could form
from blobs of electron clouds. How does each electron know to stay in
its energy level and how do the chemical bonds know to recognize only
the electrons from a specific energy level. It doesn't seem possible.
It would seem to be an incredibly chaotic situation where it is a
wonder why anyting bonds with anything at all. And how do the p, s, and
d orbitals form with their balloon and doughnut and dumbell
configurations form? This simply defies any explanation. Yet we are
stuck with this because we totally believe in the Rutherford atomic
model. If you want more evidence of what atoms really look like, we
have much more precise methods such as scanning tunneling microscopes.
If you look at some of the latest pictures of the surface of a silicon
crystal, these atoms do no look like blobs. In fact, they look like
hard little lego bricks. Current quantum atomic theory can in no way
explain how such a sharp feature could occur. This is a far better
picture of an atom than Rutherford could ever dream of. What are we to
believe - an indrect 100 year old experiment, or our own eyes looking
at a direct scan of an atom.
My own research shows that an atomic model built out of alternating
protons and electrons which form an octagonal shaped atom can reproduce
the scatter results and the apparent electron energy levels observed in
real atoms. This model requires no "strong" force and chemical
reactions are logically formed by natural docking ports created by the
exposed vertice of the atoms. Note that this isn't a random 'plum
pudding' model. Atoms take on a specific octagonal shape as they grow
larger. It is interesting to note that most large atoms like gold, form
octagonal crystals and the macroscopic crystal shape reflects the
subatomic shape of the individual atoms. It makes perfect sense. Atoms
are space filling and the electrons and protons are evenly spaced
througout the atom in a balanced network. The electrons do not orbit
outside of anything, in fact, they do not in any way form a cloud
around the atom. They are embedded within - which brings us to the next
wrong turn.
Wrong turn #4 - The Bohr interpretation of the hydrogen spectrum
Bohr's original interpretation of the motion of an electron around the
atom was that it was orbiting the nucleus. Even the modern quantum
mechanical explanation has the electron surrounding the nucleus in some
sort of undefined cloud. However, the whole idea that an electron is in
any kind of motion around the nucleus is completely wrong. In reality,
when an atom is in the ground (or unexcited) state, the electrons all
fall back into the nucleus of the atom (which is large) and stay there
in a static position. The only time they leave the atom is if they are
given enough energy from the outside to be ejected from the atom. This
happens when you do spectrum experiments where you zap hydrogen gas
with enough electricity to make it glow. What is happening at this
point is that the electrons are being kicked out of the hydrogen atoms
and are bouncing around the protons like little bouncy balls in some
totally
random pattern. There is no orbit, and there is no cloud either. The
only reason why quantum mechanics succeed is because it is based on
harmonic motion - which is the type of motion that the 'bouncy'
electron balls are taking.
The reason why specific spectrum of light is produced is a result of
the aether which defines the minimum amount that an electron can move
in space. Just like a block of sugar in a box of sugar cubes can only
take specific positions in the box, the electrons can only take fixed
positions away from the proton. This controls the the specific amount
of energy that an electron can take when it returns back to the
nucleus. It appears that when the electron drops and then bounces back
up, this is when the energy from its fall is released. The higher the
fall, the more energy is released in the form of higher wavelength
electromagnetic energy. Since the height of the drop can only come in
fixed increments, this also fixes the frequencies which can be released
and this is what we observe in the hydrogen spectrum experiments.
These are just some of the wrong turns that physics has taken. There
are more which I will get to time permitting:
Wrong turn #5 - Gravity is a different force than the electrostatic
force - it is not.
wrong turn #6 - The Earth's magnetic field is not caused by internal
forces, but by the weather
Wrong turn #7 - The big bang theory - can't explain the bubble
structure of the universe or dark energy/matter.
Wrong turn #8 - The orientation of the magnetic field around magnets -
got this backwards.
Wrong turn #9 - Almost everything Einstein said from a model
perspective, right math, wrong model.
Wrong turn #10 - The source of global warming and the predicted result
- ice age, not flooding
Wrong turn #11 - Quarks do not exist - everything is made up of
positrons/electron combinations
The explanations for some of these can be found on my main theory of everything page.
See Theory of Everything
