The last theories of 20th Century physics that might possibly be true are those Einstein proposed in his famous 4 papers of 1905. This includes special relativity, the photo-electric effect, Brownian motion, and E=M*C**2. These ideas may seem paradoxical, but they really are not, once we realize that space and time are not absolute. Or to put it another way, what we perceive as space and time are not ultimate reality, any more than the sense we have that the Earth is at rest in the center of the universe.

Every theory after that has cracked foundations and cannot possibly be true. They may be useful, as Ptolemy's epicycles were useful, but they cannot possibly be true. As Einstein said, "Whatever is logically impossible, is also physically impossible." That is why he drifted away from his younger colleagues, his only companion in his old age being the genius Kurt Goedel, who proved the incompleteness theory of math. This says there are true statements which cannot be proven. The same thing is true of science. There are true things which cannot be scientifically proven.

Prince Louis de Broglie's wave is not paradoxical, and is thus a firm foundation for a reformulation of Quantum theory. The de Broglie wave is an information wave, determining the possible states of its associated particle, and their various probabilities. One can write the de Broglie wave only for things which have momentum. Momentum is not the same as mass. Photons and gravitons have momentum, but they have no mass.

Prince Louis de Broglie's Ph.D. was in history, and he went on to a career in the French Civil Service. But he could always solve physical problems using his de Broglie wave. Nonetheless, he was left behind and ignored in the rush to quantum weirdness.

Quantum weirdness began with the wave-particle paradox. A thing cannot be both. Scale doesn't change logic. Yet, rejecting 2000 years of logic and mathematics, and much against Einstein's protests, the young Turks of the day proclaimed that they were smarter than mathematicians, and not bound by logic. So, they proclaimed that particles are simultaneously waves and particles.

They should have listened to Kurt Goedel, who proved that if there is a buried inconsistency in a logical system, anything whatsoever can be proven. And isn't that exactly what we see? We get multiple universes, where each branch point produces a new universe. We get entanglement of observer with observed, with a collapse of the wave function. We get the smearing out of particles over all the paths they could take. All of this is nonsense, and cannot possibly be true, no matter how useful it may be in making calculations. Future scholars will be amazed that this preposterous idea was accepted from 1927 at least until 2000. The acceptance of the truth of the wave-particle paradox happened at the fifth Solvay conference, in 1927.

Even Einstein's General Relativity is paradoxical, as he well knew. For instance, here is a paradox. Consider two space-craft, one just past the event horizon of a black hole, the other outside the black hole, with communication back and forth by teleportation. To the outside observer, the space-craft is caught forever like a bug in amber just at the event horizon. It never falls in, even if the universe last infinitely long. But to the people inside that space-craft, they do indeed fall in, and very rapidly undergo spaghettification. This is a paradox. A thing cannot stay stuck forever on the event horizon and at the same time undergo spaghettification.

Einstein's friend, Kurt Goedel, showed there are solutions to the equations of General Relativity which allow time travel. No theory can be true which allows time travel. Time travel is inherently paradoxical, since one can go back and kill ones own grandparents. General Relativity also allows singularities. Mathematicians insist there can be no real singularities. One can approach a singularity for an infinitely long time, as in Special Relativity, but one can never reach it.

I will save the biggest paradox of all for a second posting. But before doing so, I would like to point out a few consequences of special relativity, or we could call it 1905 relativity. One is that space and time separately are not real. What is real is 4-dimensional space-time. Also, time separately is not real. It is an imaginary number. To scale it to the same units as space, we must use the speed of light, C. Thus, in special relativity, time is iCt, where i=sqr(-1). This is another reason why time travel is impossible. It is not a real dimension, either in the mathematical sense or the ordinary sense. We create it with our imaginations, remembering the past and having expectations about the future. In the physical world there is only the universal now, an idea required by quantum mechanics. There are clearly good ideas in quantum theory, but the way it is formulated and interpreted now is logically impossible.

One proof that special relativity is true is the remarkable uses to which it has been successfully applied. Apply it to quantum theory, as Dirac did, and it implies the existence of anti-matter and intrinsic spin for all particles. And, observation confirms that. Einstein himself discovered the first remarkable consequence of the theory. Since everything in true physics must be 4-dimensional, it is the energy-momentum vector which is real, not energy or momentum separately. Only those things which are true for all observers are real. The energy momentum vector has a non-zero component, even when the associated particle is at rest. It is mass times the speed of light squared. This is the rest mass of a particle. C is a very large number, 3*10**10 cm/sec. C squared is an enormous number 9*10**20. Thus a gram of mass will produce 9*10**20 ergs of energy.

In our society, physicists have taken the place of priests. We believe whatever they say, no matter how absurd.

It is not necessary to understand the intricacies of modern physics to understand that none of it after 1905 can possibly be true. We only need to realize that it says things that are logically impossible.

In math there is a method of proof called reductio ad absurdem . We assume the opposite of what we want to prove and then deduce a reductio ad absurdem, thereby contradicting the initial assumption.

All of elementary particle physics after about 1950 is based on a reductio ad absurdem. I refer to the theory of virtual particles. This theory leads to the inevitable conclusion that the vacuum contains an infinite amount of energy. If it did, we would not be here. The universe would have immediately exploded or swallowed itself up into a black hole, an instant after it began 13.7 billion years ago. Do the physicists therefore assume there are no virtual particles? Not at all. Virtual particles are the basis of all the theories after about 1950, including QED and QCD. This is such a howler that even some physicists have complained, including Lawrence Krauss, the author of The Physics of Star Trek, as well as numerous articles in Scientific American and technical journals.

Virtual particles arise from applying Heisenberg's uncertainty rules to the vacuum. Everything in sub-atomic physics is probabilistic. Things like position X, momentum P, energy E, and duration T are all subject to little variations that I shall write dX, dP, dE and dT. I absorb the geometric factors into the variations. These two equations are Heisenberg's uncertainty rules:

dX * dP = h and
dE * dT = h where
h = 6.7 * 10 ** (-27) erg-sec

h is Planck's constant, a very very tiny number. When applied to the vacuum, there is nothing to restrain us from making dT unbelievably tiny, and that makes dE large enough to allow the momentary creation of an electron-positron pair, even though each requires 511 KEV of energy, a rather large amount. Of course, this pair will exist only for the infinitesimal time dT. Nonetheless, at any given time the vacuum will be filled with an infinite number of virtual particles.

Despite deriving a logical impossibility from the idea of virtual particles, physicists have gone ahead and believed in them anyway. It is as if they have rejected the mathematical method of reductio ad absurdem. This is what we call quantum weirdness. This is why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics, even though he was one of its founders. And he was right, and everyone else was wrong.

What, exactly are you saying? Surely you don't intend to argue that we can disprove the advances of physics through the use of the data we have gathered through the advances in physics?

Quote
In our society, physicists have taken the place of priests. We believe whatever they say, no matter how absurd.
Quote

Not nesscesarilly i dont ENTIRLY believe the String Theory is perfect. I believe it will be the nex big thing such as E=MC2, but not until they figure it out completly. I also believe the Physisists dont even understand what they state. Taking the String Theory again, the have no clue about the Membrane part. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the average human mind to comprehend. That Our ENTIRE UNIVERSE is just a bubble next to millions of other bubbles. this is impossible because of the Expanding Universe Theory and the Theory that the Universe is Infinite.

For that reason i have chosen to be and Astro-Physicist when I grow up (whenever that is

No, it is not the data that is wrong. It is the theories. And even the theories must be some approximation to the truth, since one can make correct calculations with them. It is the logical impossibility of the theories that I object to, things like singularities, infinities, paradox, reductio ad absurdem and so forth.

You could be right. I have said nothing against String Theory, since I regard it as 21st C. physics. So far, it has only one testable consequence, and that is extra spatial dimensions. According to Stephen Hawking, at least one could be unrolled, linear and infinite, and fills the inside of his Acorn nut model of the universe. This is just what is required for teleportation. So, psychical research may provide the first (and maybe the only) evidence for the truth of String Theory. String theory also eliminates the possibility of singularity, which is one of my main gripes against last Century physics. So, String Theory might have some possibility of being true.

You keep saying "logical impossibilities". What is so logically impossible about the examples that you have posted? Have you managed to falsify any of the theories you mention? I really haven't seen anything other than Argument from Incredulity coming from you.

Say your right, and every advance in physics after 1905 is incorrect(expect string theory), then how do you learn without taking a leap of faith? You cant just investigate science until you get to a roadblock and start over again. Sure, quantum mechanics has its weak points that are nonsensical, but overall the theory is a working model of how small particles interact. Newton had a working model of gravity, when Einstien came along he didnt throw out everything known about gravity and start from scratch. He took what newton had done, found the problems with it, revised the theory and added in his own concept of how the universe works. Thats what will most likely happen with quantum theory. Besides, you cant explain the workings of electrons and protons with the same model of the workings of planets and star. They are similar, but the forces acting on them are different(and not to mention the first is the fundamental element of the second). My point is this:

you will never understand the dimentions of a cube if you have never seen a square.

Does Brian Greene's books contain the equations of String Theory? I have never seen the equations.

I think it would be fairly easy to fix up 20th Century physics, at least up to about 1950. Begin by taking de Broglie's wave seriously. Schroedinger's equation is almost right; it just needs to be the 3-d version of de Broglie's wave. Make it a rule to apply Heisenberg's equations only to things which have a de Broglie wave. That would rule out applying it to the vacuum, since the vacuum has no momentum. So no virtual particles.

It is more the interpretation of QM that is wrong rather than the equations. Or in some cases, they are wrongly applied, such as applying Heisenberg's rules to the vacuum. There is no reason to imagine there are an infinity of universes. Nor is there any reason to assume that there is any entanglement of observer and the experiment. Nor is there any reason to smear the electron out over all the places it could be. An interpretation is just a verbal and geometric picture of what the equations mean. The numbers come out the same.

All this is explained in the last chapter of UFOs, PSI and Spiritual Evolution.

OK, let's look at some examples. Take a singularity, for instance. It is a place where a mathematical function goes to plus or minus infinity. In math, singularities are said to be undefined. In other words, math does not allow singularities. Consider the singularity of electric charge at the heart of an electron. It should have an infinite electric charge instead of one standard unit of charge. Or consider the wave-particle paradox that is at the heart of quantum weirdness. This makes it impossible to visualize or interpret, since everything is either a wave or a particle not both. And it is easy to avoid this paradox. We merely need to believe that the de Broglie wave really exists. Then both bosons and fermions become highly confined in space and time. They both become particles or particle-like. It is the de Broglie wave that supplies all the wave-like behavior of something like an electron, but also, something like a photon.

I am not trying to falsify QM. It is not that I have any new data. I am merely re-stating Einstein's dictum that "whatever is logically impossible, is also physically impossible." Consider virtual particles. If they exist at all, they give the vacuum at least 120 orders of magnitude more energy than all the rest of the universe put together. Energy is mass which is either gravity or anti-gravity. So the universe would blast apart, or collapse instantly into a black hole. That is a reductio ad absurdem, one of the main tools of mathematicians. If we deny that it is a valid form of proof in physics, how can we use it in mathematics? To accept the Standard Model is to reject mathematics.

Hold it. Undefined does not mean unallowed. Mathematics is done daily with using undefined variables in order to calculate a formula for which not enough data is available in order to come up with a definitive answer. How can you justify claiming that math does not allow singularities? It is only through math that singularities can be detected.

Now, what exactly are you referring to as the singularity of an electric charge at the heart of an electron? That statement makes no sense at all.

Honestly, you are using all the right words in some fairly strange places. It sounds more like you read this somewhere and decided to advocate it because it sounded impressive, not because you understood it.



Actually, there is very real support to the idea that something could be both a wave and a particle at the same time. Likewise, there are some interesting theories concerning no waves, particles waves, and, of course, the Broglie wave. Some questions have more than one answer. Some answers have more than one question. As science does, it will go with the answer that is most right most of the time, until another theory with a better track record shows up.



Energy is mass? Explain that, please. How is heat mass? How is electricity mass? Mass has energy, to be sure, but it does not follow, logically or otherwise, that energy is mass.

Do you know what the logical fallacy known as the Argument from Incredulity is?

I do know the argument from incredulity. It is:

"It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created."

It is, of course, a fallacy, and is not an argument that I use.
[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Damn, I had everything typed up, and then it gets erase...I hate that.

Oh well, quick and dirty, because I haven't the patience to do it all over again:



If mathematics does not allow singularities, why did I spend an entire semester studying Euclidian Geometry and the relation of its specific subsets and equations used in order to define the singularities present in multi-dimensional forms?



Yes, but in the quantum world, we have baseballs that both follow a trajectory and that are felt by the opposite side at the same time. Similarly, we have particles that have one property at one level, and another at another level. That quantum world is so different from ours that it is, for all intents and purposes, and entirely different reality. The rules that we follow, such as being only one thing at a time, don't necessarily translate well.



Oh, I read math. Not well, and not often, but I get the basic concepts. In this case, with Einstein's famous E=M*C^2, I can't help but recall that the purpose of this formula (today, not when it was first discovered) was to show that either something is energy, or it is mass, but is not both at the same time. This is where Heisenberg's Theorum is derived from. Now, the virtual particles that I am familiar with are not particles at all, but rather concepts of a force that we cannot otherwise imagine, such as the pull (or push) of electromagnetic or gravitational force. As such, they are representing energy, not mass. They are used to represent the energy present or possible; not as individual units of energy themselves, that can be transfered like heat. How does it follow that they would affect anything, much less the order of magnitude of a force, when they are used to describe the force that is being affected?

All energy has mass. All mass has energy. That is the beauty of Einstein's discovery. It applies to absolutely everything. Consider photons, for example. If they didn't have mass, they wouldn't be focused by gravitational focusing into multiple images of a quasar, or blue galaxies curved into a streak. Of course, it would be a difficult experiment to put a photon on a scales and weigh it, since it always moves at velocity C, and cannot be slowed down. It can only be shifted up and down the frequency scale, as in the famous red-shift of all distant galaxies discovered by Hubble.

Yes, but it cannot be perceived, much less measured, as energy and mass at the same time. That's Heisenberg. If it can only be one or the other at any given time, how would a photon, or anything else (are we dropping the nonsense about virtual particles?) affect a macro-scale effect when it is being perceived onlu in the quantum world.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ach du lieber! I had an entire post and then stupidly left the page without posting it! Believe me it was full of brilliant insights and cut through all the crap and resolved all the paradoxes! But, alas, it is gone forever, I am afraid.

Actually, we now have CCD detectors that can detect one photon at a time and display it on a screen. Plus, a whole system in identical quantum states can certainly be measured and observed in the macro world.