[Gyula Szász]

The velocities of elementary particles can also be calculating according the formula for the energetic lowest state

(v/c)2/(1 – (v/c)2) ) = m’∙c^2/(2∙E(bound)).

As the bound energy of two-particle systems, E(max,bound), cannot be greater than the sum of the elementary masses of the two particles, the velocities of the elementary particles are always lower than c. However, they can reach almost c.

[Gyula Szász]

Greatest possible mass density and closest approach between elementary particles

According to the formulae for Lagrange multipliers

h = e^2/2c ∙(m’∙c^2 /2∙E(bound))1/2

and for the radii of two-particle system

r= h^2/(4π^2m’e^2).

With the reduced mass m(P,e)’ = mP∙me/(mP+me) and the bound energy E(bound) =13.8 eV the “ground state of hydrogen atom” is characterized with the Planck constant as Lagrange multiplier

h(Planck) = 6.62607004∙10^-27 cm^2 g/s,

and the Bohr radius

r(Bohr) = 0.529177∙10^-8 cm.

Indeed, the energetic lowest ground system of the proton-electron system occurs at the bound energy

E((P,e)-ground state, bound) = (mp+me)∙c^2.

With this bound energy and with the reduces mass m(P,e)’ = mP∙me/(mP+me) the Lagrange multiplier is

h’ = h(Planck)∙0.0011831 = h(Planck)/845.2

and the radius is

r’ = r(Bohr)∙1.4∙10-8= 0.748∙10-16 cm.

This radius leads to a greatest mass density of matter

ρmax = (mP+me)/(4/3πr’^3) = 1.75∙10^+24 g/cm^3.

As the sizes, d, of the two particle systems in the ground state of the electron-positron (e,p) is

d(e,p) = 0.703∙10^-13 cm

and for the proton-elton (P,E) system

d(P,E) = 0.383∙10^-16 cm

one must notice that two elementary particles cannot approach each other under the influences of their mutual interaction nearer than 10^-17 cm.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.

[Gyula Szász]

I 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 “why-questions” 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 space-time 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 time-dependent 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 time-development 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 non-conservative interactions. The best understood interaction, electromagnetic-interaction, is non-conservative. 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 energy-mass equivalence, E = m∙c^2, and also explained gravitation with a stress-energy tensor. Naturally, researchers have also tried to derive the time-developments of physical processes from energy-expressions. Classical physics is only half-heartedly generalized to quantum theories. Many un-physical 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 ad-hoc 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 space-time 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 point-like, 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 space-time 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 non-quantized; they are non-conservative and are defined in finite space-time 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 ad-hoc 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, unified-field 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 proton-decays 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 mass-attraction, or as being caused by the deformation of space-time 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 particle-motion. 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 non-deterministic, however causal.
Even so, some “why-questions” 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 “why-questions” most probably lie beyond contemporary physics.

Gyula I. Szász

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.

[Gyula Szász]

With other words, dear Bill, you have to explain inner connections between the natural constants c, e, mP, me and G=g^2/4π. The Lagrange multipliers in the equations of particle motions are connected to subsidiary conditions of the four stable particles.

[Gyula Szász]

All of this taken into accounts, the equations of motions for the fields and for the particles could be derived. The fields are described with four-vector potentials, the particles with normalized Dirac spinors.The fields and the particles have to fulfill subsidiary conditions in finite space-time regions.

Gyula

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.

[Gyula Szász]

Dear Bill,

the theoretical (the physical and mathematical) problem is clear:

Nature is apparently built up from four point-like, independent, stable objects with two independent, conserved physical properties. Point-like mean, these objects behave above 10^-17 cm as would they have two conserved elementary charges. Since a universal uncertainty principle is valid, the exact positions and the exact velocities of the elementary objects are unknown. (Just the same way, it is unknown if the four objects have an inner structure below 10^-17 cm which produce the four “point-like” objects with both physical properties. But, it is assumed that above 10^-17 cm no more stable objects and no more physical properties of the objects are existing.)

The two kinds of conserved elementary charges of the objects – they are the physical properties – generate two kinds of independent, continuous, non-conservative fields which propagate with c. The interactions between the stable objects above 10^-17 cm is described with the two independent fields.

Bill, you have the absolute freedom to do everything in regions below 10^-17 cm, but above 10^-17 cm the just described physical properties must come out.

Sincerely,
Gyula

[Gyula Szász]

If you could explain with your “space-time phase shifts” the existence of the two elementary charges, qi and gi, of the four elementary particles, e, p, P and E, you would bring physics to new territories.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Gyula Szász.

[Gyula Szász]

Why is a new beginning in physics necessary?

Dear colleagues,

sometimes, one is faced with the statement that in physics are “why-questions” 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 space-time 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 non-conservative interactions. The currently best known interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, is a non-conservative 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 non-reconcilable duel, the physicists decided wholly for the energetic physics: they quantized the energy with E = h∙ν, declared the energy-mass equivalence, E = m∙c^2, and the gravitation was also explained with a stress-energy tensor. Natural, the researchers have tried also to derive the time-developments of physical processes from energy-expressions. The classical physics is half-hearted 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 space-time continuums are also discussed. The researchers have setting up several further ad-hoc 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 point-like, 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 space-time 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 non-conservative and are defined in finite space-time 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 ad-hoc 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 proton-decays 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 mass-attraction, nor as caused by deformation of space-time 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 “why-questions” 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 “why-questions” belongs not to problems which could be solved within physics.

Gyula I. Szász

[Gyula Szász]

The 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

[Gyula Szász]

Scientifically 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 g-factor:
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 state-of-the-art 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 atom-recoil 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/SR-POEM[30] 2×10^-17 vacuum free fall

The mass relation, mg(body)/mi(body) is different from 1 in the range up to 0.784%!

Gyula Szász

[Gyula Szász]

I 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/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Sincerely, Gyula I. Szász

[Gyula Szász]

How physical journals prevent new developments in sciences is discussed in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Sincerely, Gyula I. Szász

[Gyula Szász]

Somebody, Bharath Chennu, wrote in net:

“There was so much discussion on this list about broken peer review in the journals and the journal editors are completely biased towards materialistic stand. So they cannot judge properly what is “Pseudoscience”. Journal editors should to be equal to both theistic and atheistic views and they should see which is justified by the evidence. Most importantly journal publications are motivated by gaining academic credential and profit making. Therefore there is no diving force towards genuineness of the works that are published in the journals.”

This can also be otherwise formulated.

Opposite to the overwhelming convictions of researchers, in physics is nothing proven. That means, not any prognoses of physical theories are confirmed by experiments.

Gyula I. Szász

[Gyula Szász]

My efforts, a quantum field theory based on conserved charges of elementary particles, lead obviously to an Atomistic Theory of Matter and are opposite to the energetic theory of modern physics.

The quantum field theory based on conserved charges is described in https://www.atomsz.com.

[Gyula Szász]

Generally, the gravitational masses of composite particles are conserved and the inertial masses are changing. Newton’s equation of motion in gravitation field must be enhanced.

[Author]

Posts