Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   41 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
Sci Tech

Is theoretical physics dead-ending?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 6 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Interesting 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 8/13/14

Become a Fan
  (27 fans)
- Advertisement -

Theoretical physics has effectively become a branch of mathematics. An epoch ago, Einstein, a physicist of the old school, first conceived of physical relationships, and only subsequently sought to substantiate them with equations. Hawking, in the new orthodoxy, concluded that entropy could just as easily be reversed, despite the manifest universality of its direction, simply because its formula is indifferent to sign. In quantum theory there is the "probability wave" -- a statistical construct not unlike a Bell curve -- that is commonly confused with a physical wave, leading to all sorts of mathematical (meta-physical) fantasies. Then there is String Theory, which has to calculate to eleven dimensions to achieve even a partial and remote approximation of what happens in four.

Theoretical physics is engrossed with minutia. Not since the foundational reign of Ptolemaic astronomy has the re-evaluation of a paradigm, or the reconciliation of paradigms, been considered so out-of-bounds. The journals are devoted to measurements of particulars and paradigm-saving concoctions of epicyclical remedies, like dark energy and dark matter. The very expensive search for the graviton and the specifications of its expected properties could go on endlessly, undeterred by its enduring elusiveness, and despite its inherent incompatibility with the force-free geometry of the General Theory of Relativity.

Theoretical physics has become a gated community. In small part, it's a reaction to the distractions created by those derided as "cranks" and "crackpots": dilettantes proposing (usually) baseless theories, and clamoring for attention and acceptance. In larger part the wall is for the protection of careers, fellowships, and grants, and a strong sense of professional speciality.

Theoretical progress requires an openness and interest in discovery, not merely an eagerness for confirmation. But there is little evidence today of the discovering sort of interest, by which large amounts of research might be put at risk of being overthrown and rendered useless. In my own experience I've encountered dismissive rejections of a hypothesis without comment, without critique, or sometimes because it isn't confined to research findings based on accepted premises. Whether the hypothesis is right or wrong, such responses are symptomatic of dogmatism and disinterest: an institutional dead-end.

These are contentious claims, I know. How can one person claim to be right about something, and an entire field of science to be wrong? Well, how can one person be reduced to resignation without being refuted?

I've written a paper that explains why light is the ultimate speed, and why it is clocked at ~300,000 km/sec no matter how relatively fast an observer is traveling. By means of an alternative to the Minkowski spacetime diagram I can show graphically why two observers in relative motion will each regard the other's clock as moving more slowly -- the counter-intuitive paradox that has repelled critics of Einstein's relativity theory since its publication. If these explanations are sound, they are significant and important. If not, they should be easily refuted. Sadly, frustratingly, I believe it is a testament to the state of theoretical physics today that the paper can neither be published nor critiqued.

Hypotheses can be easily refuted if actually invalid. I've been approached by someone with an imaginative "theory of everything", based on the idea that everything in the universe is constantly and uniformly expanding in size, and I've refuted it by showing that it's only plausible (if at all) if confined to explanations of relationships between two bodies. I've been approached with a theory that gravity is somehow related to light, and I've simply pointed out that the intensity of gravity doesn't vary with luminosity. Such exercises can sometimes be challenging and even intimidating as potential threats to one's beliefs, but they can also be entertaining as puzzle-solving, and rewarding even to the would-be theorists who can be relieved of further pursuits of wasted efforts.

I'm pasting my paper below in hope that the intelligence and open-mindedness of readers here can rescue me from a mistaken path, if it is indeed mistaken. The ideas and mathematics involved are not beyond the grasp of those with a background in high school physics, and I believe the graphics provide the best explanation of Special Relativity available. If I'm wrong, refutation should be short work for anyone with a protective interest in the integrity of theoretical physics and an inclination to accept the challenge. If I'm right, the responses of critics should at least provide a fascinating glimpse of the present defects in the culture of theoretical physics.

- Advertisement -

Time as the dynamic aspect of the continuum

By James Arnold

Abstract

- Advertisement -

The Minkowski diagram, by which the concept of spacetime has been graphically represented and interpreted, is shown to have a pre-relativistic flaw: It depicts the relative motion of a body moving in time as-if it is moving along with the observer's clock, not as it is actually observed, according to its own proper time. An alternative diagram provides an accurate representation of relativistic relationships and enables heuristic insights into the nature of relativistic effects, and of time, light, and gravitation.

Introduction

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

 

A former visitant of UC Santa Cruz, former union boilermaker, ex-Marine, Vietnam vet, anti-war activist, dilettante in science with an earth-shaking theory on the nature of light (which no one will consider), philosopher in the tradition of Schelling, Hegel, Merleau-Ponty, Marx, and Fromm (sigh, no one listens to me on that either), author of a book on wine clubs (ahem), and cast-off programmer of ancient computer languages. I've recently had two physics articles published in an obscure but earnest Central European journal (European Scientific Journal http://www.eujournal.org/index.php/esj) but my main interests remain politics and philosophy.




Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Thom Hartmann's book on the JFK Assassination

Spartan Women: History's greatest conspiracy?

Is theoretical physics dead-ending?

Steven Hawking is wrong on Extraterrestrials

Immigration Policy: the Liberal/Progressive Dichotomy

Gravitation, force and energy

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 41 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I'm offering this as a challenge: If my descriptio... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:45:51 AM
Jim, I looked at this pretty closely. Unfortunatel... by Daniel Geery on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:12:07 AM
Thank you for trying, Daniel. The math might actua... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:55:40 AM
I am not a physicist and, while I have some acquai... by BFalcon on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:32:02 PM
"If no experiment or event distinguishes between t... by Jim Arnold on Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:07:25 AM
I can't claim competence there.Didn't Einstein acc... by BFalcon on Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:31:13 AM
Einstein endorsed tMinkowski's great contribution,... by Jim Arnold on Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:52:56 AM
So, Minkowski is the "evil dude" and wrong too?I d... by BFalcon on Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:52:28 PM
By implication, I must be contradicting Einstein, ... by Jim Arnold on Friday, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:44:20 AM
It was a joke, what does it really matter that Min... by BFalcon on Friday, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:42:24 AM
This is why I will be sending this article around ... by Daniel Geery on Friday, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:04:39 PM
Thank you, Daniel. I'm very grateful.I am a little... by Jim Arnold on Friday, Aug 15, 2014 at 4:43:03 PM
The caption for figure 5 is truncated -- probably ... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:43:08 AM
Hi, Does it always have to be perpendicular? Or... by Eric Côté on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:01:21 PM
Eric,Special Relativity was founded on, and is ful... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:30:47 PM
Jim I think you sent me this. I meant to look at i... by Paul Easton on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:00:32 PM
I think maybe you are right about physics. All kin... by Paul Easton on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:04:15 PM
Thank you, Paul ... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:58:30 PM
Paul, I was hoping that you'd take a look at this.... by Daniel Geery on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:34:36 PM
Hope so! ... by Jim Arnold on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:53:13 PM
Well, it's disappointing that there have been no i... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:19:59 PM
The dialog, part 1 (I'm a paid member -- I don't u... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:22:30 PM
The dialog -- part 2Quote: An alternative diagram ... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:23:35 PM
One evening at the observatory:Scholastico: Why do... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:24:48 PM
I cannot in any way give you a respectable comment... by Kim Cassidy on Monday, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:48:51 PM
Thank you for sharing your belief, Kim. Intuitions... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:59:36 PM
And thank you for your respectful reply, jim. It'... by Kim Cassidy on Monday, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:17:12 PM
Yes. ... by Jim Arnold on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:26:21 AM
Jim, consider this postulate, which is just 'someb... by Tommy Wright on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:30:15 AM
I believe strongly that it is by 'imagining' that ... by Tommy Wright on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:43:32 AM
And Kim, I agree with you, intelligence is not de... by Tommy Wright on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:46:42 AM
Couldn't have said it better myself, tom, and I to... by Kim Cassidy on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:58:33 AM
I think if they do destroy the majority of life, a... by Tommy Wright on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:20:05 AM
We need fundamental change. The problem is we have... by Tommy Wright on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:06:33 AM
Kim and Tom,I've appreciated, I've enjoyed the rad... by Jim Arnold on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:27:54 PM
Radiant goodness!!! Would we have a better world f... by Tommy Wright on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:32:38 AM
Telepathy is only an extension of empathy. I have ... by Tommy Wright on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:36:35 AM
So I would say yes, the theoretical physics of the... by Tommy Wright on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:38:06 AM
Wow, this has become the most relevant thread in t... by Kim Cassidy on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:44:30 AM
Very well put. ... by Tommy Wright on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:39:54 AM
I believe we are on the cusp of a renaissance. A t... by Tommy Wright on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:36:50 AM