Welcome › Forums › Gravitation › New begin in physics
This topic contains 6 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Gyula Szász 1 year, 1 month ago.

AuthorPosts

June 20, 2016 at 10:21 am #612
Not any prognoses of physical theories are confirmed by experiments
Dear colleagues,
you are surely shocked to hear that not any prognoses of physical theories are confirmed by experiments and you don’t believe that. I try to explain and I use knowledge of my new quantum field theory based on stable elementary particles which carry two conserved elementary charges and is described in http://www.atomsz.com.
At first, as I have shown, five natural constants are enough to describe all physical phenomena: They are c, e, mP, me and G (or g with G = g^2/4∙π). The Lagrange multipliers, such as the Planck constant, h, are not natural constants. All natural constants, up to G, are known with an approximate uncertainty of 108. The uncertainty of the universal gravitational constant is greater than 1.5 % what shows already that the physics has a big problem with the gravitation. The elementary masse of proton and electron, mP, me, are fundamental physical properties of the stable particles and are not equivalent of energy. The elementary masses are connected to the conserved elementary gravitational charges, gi = {± g∙mi}. The second elementary physical properties of the stable particles are the conserved electric charges, qi = {± e}.
None any equation of motion could be correctly derived in physical theories which describe the motion of particles/bodies. The first equation of motion in physics, the movement of protonbased matter in gravitational field, set up by Newton, must be thorough testing and enhanced. The acceleration in gravitational field is dependent of the composition of a body,
a(body) = – a0∙mg(body)/ mi(body) = – a0∙(1 + Δ(body)), – 0.109% < Δ(body) < + 0.784%.
because the gravitational mass, mg(body), is different from the inertial mass, mi(body), see my lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsyJjxC7SRc. I mention, that proton must be considered as stable elementary particle because no decay of this particle is observed and therefore, the proton is not composite of other particles. Newton’s equation is entire false at the movement of neutrinolike particles and at the movements between protonbased and eltonbased matter. In the last case, the gravitation is repulsive.
Although, the field equation of the electromagnetic field could be correctly found by Maxwell, but, this equation is destroyed with the quantization by photons, E = h∙ν. Furthermore, it is not recognized that the charge current of electric charges in Maxwell’s equation is a probability current density. In physics, the equation of motion of the gravitational field could not be discovered up to my theory. According Einstein’s theory of gravitation which is based on the UFF hypothesis, the gravitation is a deformation of space and time. However, the ingoing assumption is invalid in his theory. In “reality”, the field equation of gravitation is a Maxwelllike equation, only the sign of the charge current of gravitational charges is minus. Both fundamental fields, the electromagnetic and the gravitational field, are nonconservative fields and propagate with the same constant velocity c. And both fields appear always together in any physical processes in finite ranges of Minkowski space.
According to these arguments, a complete new begin in physics must be done, than not any prognoses of “accepted” physical theories are confirmed by experiments.
Sincerely,
Gyula I. SzászJune 20, 2016 at 11:53 am #613How physical journals prevent new developments in sciences is discussed in The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/howjournalsnaturesciencecelldamagescience
Sincerely, Gyula I. Szász
June 20, 2016 at 1:30 pm #614I wrote an Randy Schekman:
How physical journals prevent new development in sciences is similary as discussed in The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/howjournalsnaturesciencecelldamagescience
Sincerely, Gyula I. Szász
June 20, 2016 at 2:50 pm #615Scientifically is impossible to consider the confirmation of QED with the statement:
“As of February 2007, the best measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron was made by the group of Gerald Gabrielse at Harvard University, using a single electron caught in a Penning trap.[3] The difference between the electron’s cyclotron frequency and its spin precession frequency in a magnetic field is proportional to g−2. An extremely high precision measurement of the quantized energies of the cyclotron orbits, or Landau levels, of the electron, compared to the quantized energies of the electron’s two possible spin orientations, gives a value for the electron’s spin gfactor:
g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76),
a precision of better than one part in a trillion. (The digits in parentheses indicate the uncertainty in the last listed digits of the measurement.)
The current stateoftheart theoretical calculation of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron includes QED diagrams with up to four loops. Combining this with the experimental measurement of g yields the most precise value of α:[4]
α−1 = 137.035 999 070 (98),
a precision of better than a part in a billion. This uncertainty is ten times smaller than the nearest rival method involving atomrecoil measurements.”
The electrons don’t have magnetic moments and in specially, they don’t have anomalous magnetic moments.It is scientifically impossible to believe the results of the experiments for the confirmation of the weak equivalence principle:
1981 Keiser, Faller [25] 4×10^11 Fluid Support
1987 Niebauer, et al.[26] 10^10 Drop Tower
1989 Stubbs, et al.[27] 10^11 Torsion Balance
1990 Adelberger, et al.[28] 10^12 Torsion Balance
1999 Baessler, et al.[29] 5×10^14 Torsion Balance
cancelled? MiniSTEP 10^17 Earth Orbit
2016 MICROSCOPE 10^6 Earth Orbit
2015? Reasenberg/SRPOEM[30] 2×10^17 vacuum free fallThe mass relation, mg(body)/mi(body) is different from 1 in the range up to 0.784%!
Gyula Szász
June 20, 2016 at 5:12 pm #616The two fields don’t influence each other; they propagate with the same constant velocity c. In particular, the much weaker gravity doesn’t influence the electromagnetic field.
Gyula Szász
June 21, 2016 at 9:03 pm #617Why is a new beginning in physics necessary?
Dear colleagues,
sometimes, one is faced with the statement that in physics are “whyquestions” not allowed. Nevertheless, we have to answer the question why is a new beginning in physics necessary? Thereby at first, we must to bring in mind how research works in physics.
Form very accurate results of measurement, physics try to explain what the surrounding nature is and how natural processes are proceeding in time. The first part, to determine what the surrounding nature would be, is the most difficult part of the scientific problem because infinite accurate physical measurements cannot be performed and the experimental observations are always localized in finite spacetime regions. The second part, to determine the time proceeding of physical processes, depends on the recognition what nature is, and how the interactions between constituents of matter are which would finally allows deriving prognoses for the time developments. In order to solve these connected problems usually some fundamental physical assumptions are established, the so called fundamental hypotheses. The fundamental hypotheses must at first taking into account the measuring procedures, they must be generally valid and must be able to give a determination what matter physically is and how the time depending prognoses can be derived by a mathematical formalism. At the determination of fundamental hypotheses, the most important would be to clear up what are constant physical quantities and what are none. The principal task of physical researchers must be to find the fundamental natural constants which characterize matter and to derive the time development of physical processes from those constants.
The for 400 years established physics considered the energy conservation as the main fundamental principle, despite of the fact that closed physical systems don’t exist and, most probably, all physical interactions are nonconservative interactions. The currently best known interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, is a nonconservative interaction. The overwhelming numbers of theories in physics use the energy conservation as fundamental principle: the energetic physics has been broad established. The researchers have tried to connect all important physical quantities with energy. At the beginning of the last century, in a time when the atomistic and energetic physics have arranged a nonreconcilable duel, the physicists decided wholly for the energetic physics: they quantized the energy with E = h∙ν, declared the energymass equivalence, E = m∙c^2, and the gravitation was also explained with a stressenergy tensor. Natural, the researchers have tried also to derive the timedevelopments of physical processes from energyexpressions. The classical physics is halfhearted generalized to quantum theories; such physical statements remain: it is assumed a quantum state is completely known at a fixed time t. The success to find the fundamental natural constants remains unrealized and generally valid equations of motions could also not be derived. Nevertheless, the researchers remain at their fundamental principle of energy conservation and lead the physics in a deadlock. Nowadays, it is impossible to say what matter is and what the quantized interactions are and how they look like. Thus, more than the (3+1)dimensional spacetime continuums are also discussed. The researchers have setting up several further adhoc assumptions, such as the spin of particles and the existence of quarks and gauge bosons for the description of particles and interactions. At the end, a complete physical explanation of nature could not be reached. Opposite to the overwhelming convictions of researchers, nature is not sufficiently accurate described within the established physics. The gravitation could not be incorporated in the established quantum theories.
These are the mean arguments why I have broken with the energetic physics.
At first, I defined fundamental physical constants and I derived the time developments of physical processes from these constants. I distinguished between matter and interactions which are present between all constituents of matter. According to these assumptions, matter is composed of pointlike, localizable physical objects and the interactions are continuous fields. Thus, I have subdivided nature in particles and fields. The constituents of matter are fixed with conserved physical characteristics and these physical properties generate the fields. A further fundamental constant, the constant propagation velocity of the interactions, c, is also assumed. Therefore, the spacetime continuum is to be described in Minkowski space. The constant propagation of the interactions is independent of the state of matter at the emission. The interaction fields are assumed as not be quantized; they are nonconservative and are defined in finite spacetime regions. At the generalization of classical physics, the measuring procedures are taking into account: I didn’t assume the exact knowledge of initial conditions. That means, I don’t use exact positions and exact velocities of particle at any time. And natural, I didn’t suppose adhoc that all bodies move in the gravitational field with the same acceleration. I supposed that the constituents of matter have two kinds of conserved physical characteristics. The physical characteristics of the elementary particles are two kinds of conserved elementary charges which cause the two fundamental interactions between the particles. The only fundamental physical constants are the two kinds of conserved charges, together with the constant propagation of the interactions, c. The gravitation and the electromagnetic fields, caused by elementary charges appear always together.
This theory is a quantized unified field theory, however, only the sources of the fields are quantized with the conserved elementary charges. The theory is an Atomistic Theory of Matter based on four kinds of stable elementary particles carrying two kinds of elementary charges. The theory is described in http://www.atomsz.com. At the concrete realization, I refer to the stable elementary particles, the electron (e), the positron (p), the proton (P) and the elton (E). The elton is labeled with the name “antiproton” in the established physics. For protons, the lifetime is measured to be greater than 1030 years and none protondecays are experimentally observed. The four kinds of stable elementary particles have two kinds of conserved elementary charges, the elementary electric charges qi = {± e} and the elementary gravitational charges, gi = {± g∙mi}. The elementary gravitational charges, gi, are connected to the universal gravitational constant, G = g^2/4∙π and to the elementary masses, mp and me, of proton and electron. The elementary masses are not equivalent to energy; they remain always the same; they can neither annihilate, nor can be created in any physical processes. It is further assumed that the elementary particles are not composed of other particles. The main difference to the established physics is to consider the gravitation as caused by elementary gravitational charges, gi with two signs for the gravitational interaction between particles. Therefore, attractive and repulsive gravitation exist and it could be neither considered as universal massattraction, nor as caused by deformation of spacetime around masses.
An action integral for the field and the particles is set up in finite ranges of Minkowski space in a form which is valid for all possible large velocities of particles. The action integral contains five natural constants, c, e, mp, me and g. Furthermore, for the fields and particles subsidiary conditions must be taken into account at the variation principle and naturally boundary conditions. The action integral with the subsidiary conditions is taken for the derivation of equations of motions for field and particles. The subsidiary conditions of particles include the particle numbers conservations and produce Lagrange multipliers in the equations of motion for the particles. The Planck constant, h, is such a Lagrange multiplier. But, the action integral is not an expression for energy. The action integral allows also calculating bound energies and lifetimes for composite particle systems with the help of Lagrange multipliers. Such mathematic procedures were unknown in the established physics. For all composite particle systems both masses, the gravitational masses and the inertial masses, can be calculated and they are different. The different gravitational and inertial masses for different composite particle system lead to violation of the Universality of Free Fall. This is the first most important deviation to the established physics; see lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsyJjxC7SRc.
These explanations give answer why a new beginning in physics had to be done. The prognoses of the new unified quantum field theory have to be derived for all possible physical processes and their controls must be performed with experiments. Only if the prognoses of the new theory for all physical processes are confirmed by the results of experiments, without any new physical assumptions, would we accept the new theory to describe nature complete.
Thus, also after that case some “whyquestions” remain: Why the four kinds of stable particles are existing, and not more? Why the elementary particles appear as would they have two kinds of conserved physical properties? And why the interactions propagate with c? But, most probably, the answering of these last few “whyquestions” belongs not to problems which could be solved within physics.
Gyula I. Szász
June 28, 2016 at 7:10 am #627I have sent an open letter to physical journals, physical organisations and to many colleagues in order to make public the necessity to change the established physics.
An open letter from Gyula I. Szász
Why is a new beginning in physics necessary?
Dear colleagues,
Sometimes one is faced with the statement that “whyquestions” are not allowed in physics. However, we have to answer the question of why a new beginning in physics is necessary. Thereby, we must first bear in mind how physics research works.
Using very accurate measurement results, physics tries to explain what the natural world is and how natural processes proceed over time. The first step, determining nature, is the most difficult part of the scientific problem, because totally accurate physical measurements cannot be performed and experimental observations are always localized to finite spacetime regions. The second step, to determine the time proceeding of physical processes, depends on the recognition of what nature is, and how the constituents of matter interact. This would finally allow one to derive prognoses for the time developments. In order to solve these connected problems one usually establishes some fundamental physical assumptions, known as the fundamental hypotheses.The fundamental hypotheses
– must take into account the measuring procedures,
– must be generally valid,
– must be able to provide a determination of what matter is and from it,
how the timedependent prognoses can be derived within a mathematical formalism.For the determination of fundamental hypotheses, the most important stage would be to clarify what constitutes physically constant quantities. The principal task of research physicists must be to find the fundamental natural constants which characterize matter and to derive the timedevelopment of physical processes from those constants.
Established physics has considered energy conservation to be the main fundamental principle for over 400 years, despite the fact that closed physical systems don’t exist and that, most probably, physical interactions are nonconservative interactions. The best understood interaction, electromagneticinteraction, is nonconservative. An overwhelming number of physical theories use energy conservation as a fundamental principle: energetic physics has been broadly established. Researchers have tried to connect all important physical quantities to energy.
At the beginning of the last century, at a time when atomistic and energetic physics were set in a irreconcilable duel, physicists decided to wholly back energetic physics: they quantized energy with E = h∙ν, declared the energymass equivalence, E = m∙c^2, and also explained gravitation with a stressenergy tensor. Naturally, researchers have also tried to derive the timedevelopments of physical processes from energyexpressions. Classical physics is only halfheartedly generalized to quantum theories. Many unphysical statements remain: it is assumed that a quantum state is completely known for a fixed time, t. The goal of finding the fundamental natural constants remains unrealized, as are generally valid equations of motion. Nevertheless, researchers remain faithful to their fundamental principle of energy conservation and this has lead physics into a deadlock. Even today it is impossible to say what matter actually is, or what the quantized interactions are and how they might look. Researchers have further established several adhoc assumptions to describe particles and their interactions, such as the spin of particles and the existence of quarks and gauge bosons. Thus, more than the (3+1)dimensional spacetime continuums are currently discussed. Ultimately, a complete physical explanation of nature has not been reached. Despite the overwhelming conviction of researchers, nature is not sufficiently described by established physics. Gravitation could not be incorporated into the established quantum theories.These are the mean reasons why I have broken from energetic physics.
Initially, I defined the fundamental physical constants and I derived the time developments of physical processes from these constants. I distinguished between matter and interactions, which are present between all the constituents of matter. According to these assumptions, matter is composed of pointlike, localizable, physical objects and the interactions are continuous fields. I have thereby subdivided nature into particles and fields. The constituents of matter are fixed, with conserved physical characteristics. It is these physical properties that generate the fields. A further fundamental constant is assumed – the constant propagation velocity of the interactions, c. Therefore, the spacetime continuum is described in Minkowski space. The constant propagation of the interactions is independent of the state of matter at the emission. The interaction fields are assumed to be nonquantized; they are nonconservative and are defined in finite spacetime regions. At the generalization of classical physics, the measuring procedures are taken into account: I didn’t assume exact knowledge of initial conditions. This means that I don’t use the exact positions and exact velocities of particles at a given time. And naturally, I didn’t suppose adhoc that all bodies move in gravitational fields with the same acceleration. I postulated that the constituents of matter have two kinds of conserved physical characteristics. The physical characteristics of the elementary particles are two kinds of conserved elementary charges. These cause the two fundamental interactions between the particles. The only fundamental physical constants are these two conserved charges, together with the constant propagation of the interactions, c. The gravitational and the electromagnetic fields, caused by elementary charges, always appear together.
This theory is a quantized, unifiedfield theory, where only the sources of the fields are quantized with the conserved elementary charges. The theory is an Atomistic Theory of Matter based on four kinds of stable elementary particles carrying two kinds of elementary charges. The theory is further described at http://www.atomsz.com.
At the concrete realization, I refer to the stable elementary particles, the electron (e), the positron (p), the proton (P) and the elton (E). The elton is often called “the antiproton” in established physics. For protons, their lifetime is measured to be greater than 1030 years and no protondecays have been experimentally observed. The four kinds of stable elementary particles have two kinds of conserved elementary charges: the elementary electric charges qi = {± e} and the elementary gravitational charges, gi = {± g∙mi}. The elementary gravitational charges, gi, are connected to the universal gravitational constant, G = g^2/4∙π and to the elementary masses of the proton and electron, mp and me. The elementary masses are not equivalent to energy; they remain constant; they can be neither annihilated nor created by any physical processes. It is further assumed that the elementary particles are not composed of other particles. The main difference to established physics is the consideration that gravitation is caused by elementary gravitational charges, gi with two signs for the gravitational interaction between particles. Therefore, attractive and repulsive gravitation exist. Gravitation can no longer be regarded as universal massattraction, or as being caused by the deformation of spacetime around masses.
An action integral for the field and the particles is set up in finite ranges of Minkowski space in a form which is valid for all possible high velocity particles. The action integral contains five natural constants; c, e, mp, me and g. Furthermore, for the fields and particles subsidiary conditions and boundary conditions must be taken into account at the variation principle. The action integral with the subsidiary conditions is taken for the derivation of equations of motions for field and particles. The subsidiary conditions of particles include the conservation of particle numbers. They also produce Lagrange multipliers in the equations of particlemotion. The Planck constant, h, is one such Lagrange multiplier. But, the action integral is not an expression of energy. The action integral also allows the calculation of bound energies and lifetimes for all composite particle systems with the help of Lagrange multipliers. Such mathematical procedures are unknown in established physics. For composite particle systems both masses (the gravitational and inertial masses) can be calculated and they are generally different. The different gravitational and inertial masses of composite particle systems lead to the violation of the Universality of Free Fall. This is the most important deviation from established physics; see lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= WsyJjxC7SRc.
These explanations answer why a new beginning in physics must be achieved. The prognoses of the new unified quantum field theory have to be derived for all possible physical processes and controls must be performed with experiments. Only when the prognoses of the new theory are confirmed by the results of experiments for all physical processes, without any new physical assumptions, would we accept the new theory to describe nature completely. In any case, the laws of nature are nondeterministic, however causal.
Even so, some “whyquestions” remain: Why do the four kinds of stable particles exist, and why are there so few? Why do the elementary particles exhibit the qualities of having two kinds of conserved physical properties? And why do the interactions propagate with c?
However, the solutions of these last “whyquestions” most probably lie beyond contemporary physics.Gyula I. Szász
 This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Gyula Szász.

AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.