24 Model

December 10th, 2010 by

There are two elements to this book, and it is important to distinguish between them.

The first is a detailed deconstruction and criticism of current theory. It has been taken as read that modern physics theory is complex and mathematical, and we have suggested that this is partly but not solely the cause of its unintelligibility. The case we have argued is that modern physics, from around 1905 onwards, is literally incoherent, containing fundamental conflicts in its ideas and theories, and that this runs much more deeply than the acknowledged bifurcation of theory post 1900. Most damagingly, there are significant elements of this that amount to a basic rejection of scientific methodology. Read the rest of this entry »

23 Non-linear gravity

December 1st, 2010 by

What is clear is that, in this model, gravity is a non-linear effect. This has some very interesting implications. While the average pressure on the two sides of a vortex ring particle near a gravitating body is the same, the non-linearity essential to this model means that this pressure translates into effective force in a non-linear way, so that the average force on the particle may not be zero, indeed is not expected to be.

This means that gravity is what is called a second-order effect, due to small and quite subtle differences of detail, and this tallies well with its being by far the weakest of the forces.

In this model we have a very limited number of mechanisms available, and are forced to look for gravity as a wave effect. We can calculate that wave energy diminishes as the inverse square of distance, and is therefore an excellent choice for gravitational mechanism. While this is true, the non-linearity postulated suggests that the inverse square law of gravity is unlikely to be perfect, and this has significant consequences.

It may, for example, provide an alternative explanation for the advance of perihelion of Mercury, where, as we shall see later, the mathematics is a lot simpler than might be expected under general relativity. Another effect of non-linearity, and a crucial one, is that two or more gravitational effects will not combine in the way we assume at present. Newton showed that an inverse square law of gravitational attraction could account for the motion of both a falling apple and the planets, within observational error of the time. After that, we make an assumption, the simplest one available, that we can add together gravitational effects in a linear manner, a conjecture known as superposition.

In current theory, we have for example two situations where gravitational attraction is zero or nearly so. One is far from the nearest star or galaxy. The other is the point between the Earth and Moon, or Earth and Sun, where the opposing attractions balance out. In the new theory this is also the case, but one situation is far more noisy than the other and so the two are not equivalent.

Where there is equilibrium, as just described, this difference is not an issue, but when there is a net attraction the non-linearity in the new model suggests that we must also take into account the amount of noise. In current theory we add the gravitational pulls, and take account of direction; in the new theory we do the same, but must also account for the noise, which does not cancel in this way. The new theory does not as yet tell us how to account quantitatively for this difference in noise, but it tells us that account for it we must.

The astute scientific Reader may object that we have used the current way of combining gravitational effects for centuries, and it has proved effective. The orbits of planets are affected by each other’s gravitational pull. We also accept that the gravitational pull of each of the Earth’s atoms may be combined linearly, without there being any non-linear effects.

Yet in practice we do many of these calculations in the other direction, inferring the mass of planets and the Earth’s composition from an assumed linear combination of gravitational effects. As with light pressure in the previous chapter, it is not clear that the evidence is decisively against the new model.

Where we have some sort of check on this is in the observation of nearby galaxies and groups of galaxies, and here we find that indeed their rotation is not as we currently predict. Fritz Zwicky in 1933 suggested that there was insufficient visible matter in the Coma galactic cluster to account for the mutual rotation. Vera Rubin in 1974 is acknowledged as the start of a modern upheaval, with measurements of the velocity of stars at the edges of galaxies turning out to be greater than current gravitational calculations would predict.

These observations, together with an acceptance of an ideal inverse square law and simple superposition, lead to the hypothesis of additional ‘dark’ matter. However, dark matter is invoked in different ways to account for different observations, and is not an ideal suggestion, not least because it is ad hoc, introduced for a particular set of uncooperative observations. There are therefore a number of counter proposals, including ‘modified Newtonian dynamics’, a crude and equally ad hoc adjustment to the inverse square law.

At the time of writing, there are a number of further cosmological anomalies. As Pioneer spacecraft leave our solar system, deceleration – the pull of gravity – appears greater than anticipated. The new model would appear to be an appropriate one for examining this.

Peering in the infrared toward the centre of our galaxy we see stars orbiting the centre too rapidly, and infer a black hole, but we have not taken the overall gravitational environment into account.

22 Attraction

November 20th, 2010 by

Noise is also potentially the key to gravitational effects. We are all familiar with our inability to fly or float in the air. The clearest indication that wave noise might be the mechanism for all gravitational effects comes, not from the effect of gravity on matter, but on light. Light bends as it passes the Sun, and this is a gravitational effect and well studied. It is another indication that calling light ‘electromagnetic’ may be inappropriate.

This is a mathematically simple phenomenon and sometimes referred to as gravitational refraction. It is well known to be equivalent to a rather non-relativistic suggestion, that the speed of light is dependent on its gravitational environment, with light moving slower in a stronger gravitational field. Read the rest of this entry »

21 Noise

November 10th, 2010 by

The first clue that the aether might be ‘noisy’, even dominated by noise, is in the question of light detection. Light spreads out in the manner of a wave, and this means that very little of the emitted energy is available for detection at any point. Current theory accepts, incorrectly as it appears, that all the emitted energy arrives at a single reception event. Since it considers any existence between emission and detection as more mathematical than real, it talks about this detection as the ‘collapse of the wavefunction’, and the destruction of a photon. The new model does not support any of this. Unphysical talk about light sounds like nonsense because it is nonsense. Read the rest of this entry »

20 Matter

October 30th, 2010 by

What the Schrödinger equation tells us is therefore consistent with our earlier conclusions about light and electromagnetism and the ‘luminiferous aether’.

That suggests that we should look for the nature of matter, not in particles of an unspecified nature, but in the behaviour of the substance that seems to be the universal and only one, the aether. That means that we have to look for a hydrodynamic structure that has some stability, and the only candidate, much studied in hydrodynamics, is the vortex ring particle or smoke ring. Read the rest of this entry »

19 The wave equation

October 25th, 2010 by

Schrödinger’s equation looks like this:

The wave equation 1

Schrödinger did not create this in the way that Maxwell did with his equations. This is a brilliant piece of pure mathematical modelling. The key element here is ψ (or psi). It is shown as varying in both space and time (x and t in brackets), and in quantum theory ψ does not have a physical interpretation, although the square of ψ is a measure of the probability of a particle being observed.

Schrödinger’s equation is known as a wave equation, though not to Schrödinger himself, as we have seen. The reason Schrödinger distanced himself from the appellation is not Read the rest of this entry »

18 Schrödinger

August 29th, 2010 by

What sustains all the metaphysical nonsense promulgated in the name of quantum theory is its mathematical core, and that is something that is immensely accurate and hugely impressive.

Schrödinger’s formula is commonly described as a ‘wave equation’. Given what has been written above about Schrödinger, it is perhaps surprising to find that he never accepted this description, referring in 1952 to the ‘so-called wave picture’[i], and in 1957 to ‘so-called wave mechanics’[ii].

Schrödinger’s view of his own extremely successful equation was therefore somewhat more sophisticated than that attributed to him by Jammer earlier. It is likely that he recognised that there were important structural differences between his equation and the wave equation in use for sound and other wave phenomena, and these will shortly be important. There is nevertheless nothing in it to suggest particles either, and Schrödinger strongly resisted such a conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »

17 Bell and von Neumann

August 22nd, 2010 by

In 1932, the distinguished mathematician John von Neumann wrote ‘The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics’[i], which is famous for the elegant mathematical formalism it introduced and for its proof of the non-existence of hidden variables. In 1964, John S. Bell is credited with discovering a ‘flaw’ in this proof, and with correcting it.

The phrase ‘hidden variables’ is another of those in modern theoretical physics that is imprecisely used and inconsistently defined. One approach to it is as follows. We might infer that light is a wave from its remarkably wave-like properties, but we have historically only been able to observe its effect on absorption by a molecule on photographic paper or in our eye. Its wave nature, if it exists, is supposedly hidden from us and so would be a hidden variable in any theory. Read the rest of this entry »

16 Polarisation

August 10th, 2010 by

We have referred once or twice to polarisation, but have yet to examine it in detail.

The fact is that light can be polarised. The simplest way to see this is to take an old pair of polarised sunglasses and remove one or both lenses. When you place one lens on top of the other, and sight through both, what you see depends on the relative orientation of the pair. As you rotate one lens, there are two positions, 180º apart, where light fails to get through.

From this it is clear that light, at least after passing through the first lens, has an orientation and that this is at right angles to the direction that it is travelling. This allows us to identify some light as polarised, and to ascribe to it an angle of polarisation, such as ‘vertical’, ‘horizontal’, or ‘at 45 degrees’. Read the rest of this entry »

15 Entanglement

July 7th, 2010 by

Quantum entanglement is the notion that two detections of light, understood to be two photons created together in a single compound event, are part of the same phenomenon or event, and that the whole is properly described by a single mathematical function, or ‘wavefunction’.

This much is perfectly reasonable, so far as it goes. However, there is a further argument, dating back to von Neumann, that this means that what you do as an experimenter in measuring one part of this event (detecting one photon) has an effect, instantaneously and at a distance, on the other. There are two ways in which this whole topic is often handled poorly in the physics literature, and these are commonly obscured by the complex and often metaphysical language used. Read the rest of this entry »