## 24 Model

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.

One key point is that the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, which conflict and must therefore logically contain errors, are treated as entirely correct and used as the basis for more recent theory. They are also treated as sufficiently important and well established that we are prepared to question determinism, the entire established methodology of scientific theory, and even basic physical laws such as conservation of matter-energy.

We have argued that this reverence is misplaced, as each theory contains problems that have been detailed. We would also argue that their continued acceptance has been uncritical, leading physicists to overlook some very basic and important points, in particular the rather obvious ones that the photon hypothesis has not been validated by the successful mathematics and that in gravitational relativity even the mathematical model has not been properly established.

As an important part of our re-analysis of earlier conclusions, we re-examined some of the detail of the work of James Clerk Maxwell and concluded, with detailed arguments, that his fluidic aether with elongated vortices interpreted as magnetic field lines was improperly rejected. As this earlier rejection was a key element in requiring relativity and the particle photon, this has the effect of opening up the prospect of a new and alternative physics that is physical, mechanical, deterministic and based on light as a longitudinal wave.

This has assisted us in re-evaluating the 1905 concept of relativity and detailing how and why it has come to be rejected by the gravitational theory. It has also allowed us to identify a gaping hole in the supposed proof known as Bell’s Theorem.

Light has been at the centre of this analysis. We have highlighted the set of contradictory beliefs about the nature of light that have become enshrined into physics research. These have been accepted as the necessary basis for further ‘advances’, and carry over into its education where they are treated uncritically. Physics claims to have discovered a wholly new phenomenon requiring an entirely new logic of science, thereby abandoning a cautious, coherent and highly effective epistemology of enquiry that had served it well for several centuries. Even the claim is specious, as there is no consistent or even clearly stated logic or methodology behind the new physics.

Very much like a community of errant bankers, theoretical physicists have pushed for theoretical growth and self-aggrandisement at the expense of sound intellectual currency. The result, we have argued, is that they have felt it necessary to close their minds to obvious failings and possible alternatives. As an essential part of this process, criticisms have been ignored, critics suppressed, and all of the illegitimate tricks of poor logic and metaphysical obfuscation wilfully employed to that end. These we have tried to expose in some detail.

If two theories are in conflict, then logically at least one must contain an error. If they are in fundamental conflict, as is the case in physics, then at least one must contain a fundamental error. It is certainly legitimate to attempt to move forward, to try to produce further theories that may provide additional information about the errors in our theoretical foundations, but it is entirely unacceptable to do so without simultaneously making a determined attempt to re-examine those original theories and to discover where those errors are. This is the primary failing of modern physics, and a distinguishing feature of this rogue science; it is what this book has attempted to redress.

We should also note that physics has determinedly inducted several generations into these theories and ideas, without being clear about the consequences. Not only do students learn to accept, respect and defend the indefensible, but they also acquire some of the hidden curriculum that poor logic, imprecision of language, and hand-waving metaphysical explanations are legitimate tools of the modern theoretical physicist.

The great majority of physicists, thankfully, reject this whole area, maintain their scientific principles and produce excellent work that moves technology forward. Others suspend their disbelief and spend their years in theoretical toil and obscurity trying to extract some sense from the inherently nonsensical. A handful experience a catharsis, a liberation from the oppressive strictures of traditional scientific method and appear on our bookshelves and television screens spouting what can only be referred to as gobbledygook.

There are unavoidable consequences of building on disputant theories. The foundations of your new theories are known from the start to be in doubt. When you attempt to incorporate both into a new viewpoint, without first identifying where the errors occur, then there is every chance that your new theory contains that unidentified error. This means inevitably that all modern theories are of doubtful provenance, and this is why we have chosen to examine instead their century-old foundations with the significant benefit of hindsight and a hundred years of additional observations.

There are also worrying consequences that follow inexorably from the flight from causality, away from Schrödinger’s ‘habit of picturing the physical world as a reality.’ Theories lose much of their ability to be checked, to be capable of falsification. They become vague, as in the duality ‘model’ that light ‘has the properties of’ both wave and particle.

They start to produce predictions that are odd and conflict with causality and conservation principles, such as time travel, imaginary time and instantaneous communication. Physics is no longer able to say reliably whether these genuinely amount to a *reductio ad absurdum*, as it has abandoned the tools required to do a proper evaluation. Scientists become casual with causality across physics, introducing unphysical ideas such as inflationary theory, expanding space and dark energy in cosmology and bizarre suggestions such as quantum teleportation and that the future Large Hadron Collider is influencing its own past.

We tolerate such imaginative ideas – in the view of this writer – for the same reason that we once accepted that the Earth was flat and immutable and that the Sun was a God: because we know no better.

This book has attempted, is attempting, to improve this situation, going beyond criticism to deconstruct each theory and idea and then attempting to determine which of these are reliable and which are not.

Despite the widespread acceptance that the quantum world is necessarily weird and beyond the ken of mortal man, we were able in quantum theory to identify a very simple split between the mathematics, which is a highly accurate model of subatomic processes, and the informal postulate of the particle photon, which we have concluded is responsible for all the bizarre metaphysics associated with quantum mechanics.

We were able to identify that the successful mathematics of Schrödinger appears to have a straightforward hydrodynamic interpretation and can therefore readily be incorporated into a deterministic and mechanistic model of physics. This means that all the many arguments and ‘proofs’ that a mechanism or ‘hidden variables’ must fail while quantum mechanics and the Schrödinger equation succeed are inevitably flawed. We saw, for example, that Bell’s iconic theorem erred by ignoring wave motion, which is inevitably more complex and contains more information than a particle, and naturally acts in a coherent fashion at distances (or ‘non-localised’).

Let us be very clear, if the Schrödinger equation has a possible mechanistic interpretation, as we have suggested, and if it provides a basis ‘from which all possible predictions of the physical properties of the system can be obtained’, as Rae correctly states, then each proof that only the Schrödinger equation works has achieved the exact opposite of what its authors thought.

Deconstructing relativity was a more complex task. We found a principle that has been abandoned and an imposing edifice of gravitational mathematics that is unsubstantiated, unnecessary and inappropriate. We found that the principle and the mathematics served to obfuscate these simple and important facts, as the photon and duality do in quantum mechanics. We will need to return to general relativity shortly, in order to detail what is reliable and what is not.

We have therefore identified a number of clear and glaring errors in the current, inherited position. There are errors of analysis, most notably in evaluating the work of Maxwell but also when reflecting on what has grown from that failure. There are errors of synthesis in both disputant halves of modern theory, in the casual way the confusing photon hypothesis has been appended to the exceptional mathematics of Planck, Schrödinger and Dirac, and in the construction of the towering mathematical structure of general relativity on insecure foundations. In defending and obscuring these errors, a multitude of intellectual crimes have been committed against the best principles of Science and Education.

Back in chapter 4 we raised the possibility that light has a physical reality and that it is a wave. In the exceptional work of Maxwell and others we found – somewhat remarkably – nothing to dissuade us from this conclusion and the associated one that there is a background medium that we have called the aether.

This is a dramatic break with the orthodoxy of the twentieth century, and we recognise how significant is the rejection of these ideas to the foundations of modern physics. It is important to emphasise here that many of the criticisms of existing theory are *not* dependent on this new model, but that current ideas fail on their own terms, and rather more dramatically when judged against the pre-existing criteria and methodology of theoretical science.

We have run with the idea of light as a pressure wave in a fluidic medium for the prime purpose of showing how badly current theories have failed. In the view of this sceptical enquirer, we tolerate inconsistency, obscurantism and the wholesale flight from causality only because we are assured that in the underlying physical reality nothing better can be found. We have attempted to show that this is not at all the case.

From chapter 19 onwards, we have constructed the outlines of this alternative theory, based on a hydrodynamic aether, and have identified in rough outline a fundamental particle in the form of a vortex ring, and shown that this model appears to provide a detailed physical interpretation of the iconic equation of quantum theory, the Schrödinger equation.

This model may or may not turn out to be an accurate representation of physical reality. There may be new or existing observations that make it untenable, but what our analysis makes abundantly clear is that it is not ruled out by the observations and conclusions that are currently believed to do so, and this alone is enough to warrant our attention.

We have seen that this model provides and requires background noise as a dominant feature, very much in keeping with certain modern ideas and providing a physical basis for Dirac’s noisy vacuum and zero point energy. It is this noise and the variety of important roles that it plays that is the powerful new element in the new model. As such, it is the most questionable and most vulnerable to theoretical analysis and experimental observation.

We have gone on to make tentative suggestions as to a mechanism in this model for gravitational effects on light and matter. We have also suggested, without detail or proof, that the close approach of hoop particles creates a complexity that is qualitatively reminiscent of the strong and weak nuclear forces.

There is a lot that is remarkable about this theory, even in the rudimentary detail in which it currently exists. It is physical and consistent, both features that have eluded modern theory to the extent that they have been deemed unattainable. It is mundane, with the hypothesised aether looking more and more like a macroscopic fluid the more we examine it.

While we have identified a small number of specific areas where it appears at variance with established observation, these conflicts are not fully established, and for the main part it is remarkably consistent with what we see across wide areas of physics in an apparently effortless manner, both internally and with a wide range of disparate observations, some of which are otherwise problematic. All of these features are highly desirable in a theory, as we have seen in other sciences, and not least because they render it readily amenable to detailed examination and potential falsification. In all these aspects, and in the way the new model resists obfuscation, the contrast with existing theory is stark.

We might ask how it overcomes the differences and disagreements between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

One of these is in relation to the observer. In relativity, he or she is important as each may measure events differently, leading to the conclusion that reality is different for different observers. In the billiard-ball rhetoric of quantum theory, in contrast, the process of observation inevitably alters the object observed, and, together with probabilism and a poorly understood positivism, this has given the observer a mythical status as the creator of events. In the new model, neither of these views is supported.

Another is in relation to the status of time in the two theories. Relativity insists that time be treated as another dimension, whereas quantum mechanics is ambivalent on this point. The Schrödinger equation treats time as a given, in the manner of classical (pre-relativistic) mechanics, while the Dirac formulation adopts relativistic time via its incorporation of the Lorentz transformation, but with no principled commitment.

‘The basic problem’ claims Gary K. Au of the University of Melbourne, ‘lies in the incompatible way in which the concept of time is treated in QM and general relativity.’[i] He cites Chris Isham at Imperial College, London, as saying: ‘The basic fact is that conventional quantum theory presupposes an external time whose ontological status is the same as it possesses in classical Newtonian physics.’

In the new theory, there is no need to take the relativistic route, and so Occam’s razor prevails and we can cope perfectly well, in regard to both physical theory and mathematics, with time as a given, a simple backdrop to both.

There is a further mathematical feature separating the theories. This is an anisotropy in the equations of general relativity that we have not yet examined. General relativity talks of gravitational ‘adjustments’ to clocks, which we will detail in chapter 26, and also to rulers. Its mathematics includes an ‘adjustment to rulers’ that is different in the radial direction (defined by the gravitating body) and in the tangential direction. We will see in chapter 27 that, like Eddington before us, we will not require this anisotropy, thereby removing a key barrier to incorporating the mathematics of quantum mechanics and of gravitation into a single theory.

A final barrier to unification is that, while neither theory offers a consistent cause and effect explanation of the phenomena it describes, the elements of normal scientific reasoning in each theory are patchy and disconnected, and not recognisably related across theories. This is automatically overcome by our insistence in the new model of using the same determinist principles and same mundane aethereal background across both the gravitational and the sub-atomic realms.

Given the power and potential of this model, we will continue to extend its range and detail, but the Reader should not forget that, regardless of whether this model turns out to be worthy of further investigation by others, it has served its primary purpose of helping to expose the rogue nature of some of the core ideas of existing theoretical physics.

There are three areas that we need to address. In addition to the two problematic theories of the early twentieth century, we need to look in a little more detail at electromagnetism, and try to complete the physical model of Maxwell. Following that, we have undertaken to clarify the details of gravitational relativity, and to re-examine the remaining evidence for the particle photon. There are additionally a few final points that may be important.

[i] Au is at: Research Centre for High Energy Physics, The University of Melbourne. His paper is available at: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9506/9506001.pdf

Tags: alternative physics, Bell’s Theorem, Dirac, James Clerk Maxwell, light as a longitudinal wave, Model, Planck, quantum mechanics, rejection of scientific methodology, Schrödinger, Schrödinger equation