Physics for non-lunatics

Mathematical Laws of Nature for non-lunatics

(and How All Professors of Mathematical Physics Violate Them Daily)

BIG BROTHER TO WINSTON SMITH: “The Earth is at rest and the Sun revolves around the Earth. Do you think that it is beyond our astronomers to do that? Have you forgotten ‘doublethink’?”

George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four, London, 1949

Introduction

A Mathematical Law of Nature is a mathematical formula (either equality or inequality) governing a specific natural phenomenon or artificial effect whose mathematical symbols correspond rigorously to exact specific physical quantities. Most Mathematical Laws of Nature may be expressed in the functional form:

y = f(x₁, x₂, …. x_n)

where y, x₁, x₂, …. x_n are physical quantities. The physical quantity y depends only on the physical quantities x₁, x₂, …. x_n and on no other physical quantities!

All professors of Mathematical Physics of the 20^th and the 21^st centuries do not understand what a Mathematical Law of Nature is, and there is ample proof of this sweeping assertion. The validity of this contention will be demonstrated below beyond any doubt by several concrete examples, but in the meanwhile we have to define the new scientific terms “Significacy” and “Insignificacy”.

Significacy and Insignificacy

In order to codify scientifically the appalling and disgraceful situation in current ‘physics’ theory (and elsewhere, in fact everywhere), we next define “significacy” as the thorough knowledge and perfect comprehension of the correct meaning, the precise essence, the true significance of words and phrases, symbols and equations, equalities and inequalities (and the symbols that they contain), processes and operations, techniques and methods. “Insignificacy” is either the lack or absence of such full knowledge and comprehension, and there are several variants of the incidence of insignificacy: there is Orwellian ‘doublethink’, there is political ‘doubletalk’, and there is also loose talk in poetry, theology, as well as ordinary language. But as we show below, the most extraordinary variant of insignificacy is ‘multi-think’ and ‘multi-talk’ in current ‘physics’ theory.

The Wave equation for non-lunatics

Physics teachers correctly teach 15-year old school students that the acceleration of any material body moving freely in the gravitational field of the Earth (whereby the only force acting on the material body is the gravitational force exerted by the Earth) is independent of the mass of the body, because the mass of the body does not feature in the mathematical formula for the acceleration in question that is derived from (i) Newton’s law of dynamical motion and (ii) Newton’s law of gravity. The many 15-year old school students that commit a mistake on this issue are of course penalized.

But what bizarre nonsense do physics professors teach 19-year old university students in a similar circumstance involving the wave equation and the velocity of the electromagnetic wave?

The wave equation is the mathematical formula (ie the law of nature) that governs the propagation (ie spread, transmission) of a ‘signal’ of any shape or form (determined by the source), and of amplitude (variance, divergence, deviation, departure) ∂φ about the average value φ of the ambient field of force through this very same ambient field of force.

For brevity and simplicity, we next consider the one-dimensional wave equation. In higher dimensions, all the arguments expounded below about the wave equation are of course still valid.

In the one-dimensional wave equation

∂²φ/∂x² - ∂²φ/c²∂t² = 0

and its solution

φ = f(x ± ct)

feature only the following physical quantities (and no others!):

φ = field of force

and

c = velocity of propagation of the wave

and nothing else!!!

In the wave equation there is no source (ie emitter), no sink (ie receiver), and no observer, there is only the background field of force. The inescapable conclusion is that the velocity of propagation of the propagating undulation has to be referred with respect to the ambient field of force and with respect to nothing else.

The physics professors also teach that light is an electromagnetic wave. In the case of the electromagnetic wave, and as the physics professors also teach 19-year old university students, the field of force in the wave equation is either the electric field of force or the magnetic field of force. Assuming the correctness of this particular teaching, the inescapable conclusion is that the velocity of propagation of the electromagnetic wave has to be referred with respect to the ambient electromagnetic field of force and with respect to nothing else.

Yet the thoroughly illogical, insignificate, moronic, and lunatic physics professors (and therefore non-scientist) also teach the 19-year old university students that the velocity of propagation of the electromagnetic wave may be referred with respect to any and every observer!

Diabolical behavior

(From “On the Method and Scope of Research”, Imola Conference on University and Research, 5-7 September 1988, pp. 173)

“If an experimenter measures the velocity of light and finds it to be some value “c” with respect to the emitter, then this finding will be a particle property. If the experimenter measures the velocity of light and finds it to be some value “c” with respect to some medium of propagation, then this finding will be a wave property. But if the experimenter finds it to be “c” with respect to anything and everything, then this remarkable finding will be a truly diabolical property.”

Black holes, white elephants, and red herrings

A ‘black hole’ is supposed to be a material body so massive that its ‘escape velocity’ is greater than the ‘velocity of light’. From these data it allegedly follows that even light will not escape from a ‘black hole’.

(In the following considerations there is no need to state fully the Mathematical Laws involved.) We note that ‘escape velocity’ is a concept derived from (and therefore applies to) the Newtonian gravitational force interaction at all times between material bodies. We also note that the ‘constancy of the velocity of light’ is a wave concept and therefore the constant value of the velocity of light has to be referred always with respect to its medium of propagation only, never with respect to anything else (eg this or that or any observer). As light never exerts a gravitational force to any material body (and vice versa), the concept ‘escape velocity’ does not apply to light.

With this rigorous scientific scrutiny it becomes clear that the concept ‘black hole’ is a figment in the minds of insignificate morons.

Time dilation and the twin paradox for non-lunatics

The physics professors also teach the 19-year old university students that the rate of time shown by two identical clocks moving with constant relative velocity v with respect to each other differ by the factor

(1-v²/c²)^-½.

Moreover, the same factor allegedly gives the difference in the ageing of twins, one of whom stays at home and the other goes on a long journey with constant relative velocity ±v (+v for the outward and -v for the homeward part of the journey) with respect to the stay-at-home twin, apart from short durations of acceleration at the start, middle and end of the journey. To the query, “which of the twins ages less”, the physics professors say the twin that has travelled because it is the one that has undergone acceleration. But where is the acceleration in the mathematical formula that allegedly gives the difference in the ageing of twins, namely the factor (1-v²/c²)^-½? It is nowhere to be found in the mathematical formula, and thus the insignificate lunatic physics professors again and again commit the same type of error that the 15-year old school students are of course penalized for committing.

Annual stellar aberration of light for non-lunatics

The effect exhibited by all stars known as annual stellar aberration of light was discovered by James Bradley in London in 1725. As it was the first novel confirmation of the heliocentric planetary theory and therefore also of Newton’s theory of gravity, Sir Isaac Newton himself congratulated Bradley and named him the best astronomer in Europe (ie the world). Bradley himself derived the mathematical formula (ie the law of nature) that explains and governs the effect:

ϑ = v/c

where

ϑ is the aberration angle (observed by Bradley to be approximately 20 arc seconds or 10^-4 radians),

c is the velocity of light (already calculated from Roemer’s observations to be approximately 300000 Km/sec), and

v is the velocity of the Earth with respect to the Sun only (already calculated by Newton to be approximately 30 Km/sec), and with respect to nothing else, and specifically not the relative velocity with respect to the observed star, which fact of course proves the physical superiority (as far as the annual stellar aberration of light phenomenon is concerned) of the co-ordinate system of the Sun over all other co-ordinate systems. Bradley derived his mathematical formula by employing vector addition to the vector quantities v and c.

Scandalously, most physics students are never taught the Bradley effect, and so most physics graduates remain ignorant of its monumental importance. More scandalously, the conventional history of physics and/or astronomy books describe more or less correctly in their 18^th century chapter the effect known as annual stellar aberration, but when they come to the 20^th century they are oblivious to the fact that it refutes experimentally the alleged equivalence of all co-ordinate systems. Even more scandalously, some relativity textbooks contain in their pages the annual stellar aberration of light and either imply or even state explicitly that it is explained by relativity theory. Such is the scandalous state of insignificacy of all the professors of Mathematical Physics throughout the world.

The thorny question, “How does relativity theory derive the Bradley mathematical formula (ϑ=v/c)?”, is never explicitly asked, let alone answered. The standard practice of the thieving relativists is to misappropriate for themselves the classical mathematical formula and apply the so-called “relativistic correction” (ie the factor (1-v²/c²)^-½).

In this way we have shown once more what many other genuine scientists over the last century have proven, namely that the so-called relativity theory is not a proper scientific theory but instead an incongruous set of bizarre and contradictory assumptions. As a matter of fact, to what was both known to both Newton and Maxwell and true, Einstein added absolutely nothing that was both new and true. Moreover, scarcely any of the post-1900 conjectures, suppositions, hypotheses, presumptions, enunciations, postulations, proclamations, declarations, and theories generally are sensible, let alone tenable.

Principles of equivalence?

Several of the absurd postulations come under the heading “principles of equivalence”: (i) of inertial co-ordinate systems (1905); (ii) of all co-ordinate systems (1916); (iii) of mass (or is it matter) and energy; They are all either scientifically too ill-defined, too vague, or demonstrably untenable experimentally. As we have shown above, the latter is the case with the alleged equivalence of all co-ordinate systems which was enunciated in 1916, but its experimental refutation by James Bradley was already known to all genuine scientists since 1725. The scientific meaninglessness of the alleged equivalence of mass (or is it matter) and energy is demonstrated below.

Does the Earth really move?

To both scientists and the general public, both Galileo and Einstein are scientific superstars, and are celebrated chiefly for the following reasons. Galileo is best known, not for any of his own considerable discoveries, but instead for teaching the real and absolute motion of the Earth with respect to the Sun and definitely not the other way around, for which teaching Galileo was indicted, tried, and convicted. Einstein, on the other hand, is best known for teaching the relativity of all motions. The following is a remarkable excerpt from the book by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, CUP, 1938, p. 224:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus [is] then [seen to] be quite meaningless. Either co-ordinate system [can now] be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', simply mean two different conventions concerning two different co-ordinate systems.”

But how many physics graduates and professors are aware of this glaring contradiction? Nearly three decades ago the present author prompted, not once but twice, by the obvious and harmful ignorance of the issue displayed by prominent and influential articles in in the prestigious journal Nature , I succeeded in publishing brief articles pointing out the scandalous inconsistencies and calling for an urgent resolution (Nature vol. 341, no. 6238, pp. 100-100, 1989, Nature Vol. 363, p. 108, 13 May 1993). However, banging at the door of the (in this case brain-)deaf is totally ineffective and futile.

BIG BROTHER TO WINSTON SMITH: “The Earth is at rest and the Sun revolves around the Earth. Do you think that it is beyond our astronomers to do that? Have you forgotten ‘doublethink’?” George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four, London, 1949. The present author is not familiar with how well George Orwell was acquainted with this whole issue when he wrote this passage in 1948, and of course wants to be informed.

E = mc² – a scientifically meaningless mathematical formula

The section that follows is entitled “MATTER, MASS AND ENERGY” and is taken verbatim from “On the Method and Scope of Research”, Imola Conference on University and Research, 5-7 September 1988, pp. 171-172:

In ordinary language the meanings of the words “matter”, and “mass” are often confused. In physics they denote different things, and they must not be confused although of course they are – insignificacy again! To dispel the confusion, I will give a brief but fairly precise and rigorous definitions of these terms in physics. The word “matter” denotes the general notion of “substance” or “stuff”. There is no symbol to denote the (measured) value of matter has no such value to be measured. Instead, the measured values of the observable properties of a material body are measured. “MASS” is not matter, nor strictly speaking is it a “quantity of matter”. The term “mass” is used to denote two distinct properties (that have been confused into one), among many others, of a material body. The latter has a host of other properties: size, shape, temperature, color, taste, smell, (electric) charge, (magnetic) moment, momentum, (potential, kinetic, thermal) energy. The term “mass” as generally employed in physics has these two different but related meanings: (i) inertia, (ii) (gravitational) mass. In fact the first is proportional to the second, but contrary to a widespread misconception, they are not identical.

“Energy” is just another property of a material body (and of a wave), and it comes in several different forms, which may change from one to another. Both energy and mass belong to the same conceptual category (they are properties of a material body), but they are distinct from each other, and from “matter”. The latter belongs to an altogether different conceptual category. Only the insignificate could confuse them.

Because the term “equivalent” lacks any well-defined and precise meaning, the phrase “mass (or is it matter) and energy are equivalent” is empty of any real scientific meaning. In the phrases “mass (or is it matter) may be converted into energy” and “when mass (or is it matter) is destroyed, energy is liberated” the words “convert”, “destroy” and “liberate” have better-defined meanings than “are equivalent”. However, from the above analysis it transpires that these phrases are insignificate. Those who utter them do not really understand what they are talking about. Again, whatever the experiments have proven, it certainly is not all this insignificacy.

Creative Ignorance

The phrase "Creative Ignorance" I believe was coined by Foster Lindley (tfl0@msn.com) in an article with this very title "Creative Ignorance" in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 1593-1601, November 2001). It is useful to quote these passages that explicate the characterization "Creative Ignorance":

"The probabilist converts cognitive uncertainty into physical uncertainty. … As the probabilist presents his failure to differentiate as a discovery about the nature of reality, it is a creative use of ignorance."

It is clear that "Creative Ignorance" is a special case of the much more general term “insignificacy”. But the greatest, longest running, and the most outrageous incidence of "Creative Ignorance" occurs in so-called quantum mechanics.

Quantum Creative Ignorance

The arguably most lunatic manifestation of insignificacy in Mathematical Physics in the 20^th and the 21^st centuries concern the interpretation of the so-called Heisenberg inequalities (worked out by Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s):

h ≤ dp dx

h ≤ dE dt

We rely on an eminent professor of Mathematical Physics to “explicate” the so-called Heisenberg inequalities. The following is a remarkable excerpt from an article by Freeman J. Dyson in Scientific American 188(4), pp. 57-64, April 1953:

“The basic axiom of quantum mechanics is the uncertainty principle. This says that the more closely we look at any object, the more the object is disturbed by our looking at it, and the less we can know about the subsequent state of the object. Another less precise way of expressing the same principle is this: All objects of atomic size fluctuate continually … ” (emphases added)

The key words in the first expression of the ‘uncertainty principle’ are “look” and “disturb”. But the second expression which is noteworthy in that it is made immediately after the first and in the same paragraph, is not quite “less precise”. Although to most readers it appears similar to the first, it is quite different, for it states an altogether different hypothesis. In the first expression of the ‘uncertainty principle’, the “disturbance” was caused by our “looking at it”. In the second expression of the ‘uncertainty principle’, the fluctuations are real, continuous, universal, and intrinsic to the object even when there is no one “looking at it” to “disturb” it. The second expression of the ‘uncertainty principle’ has nothing to do with looking any longer, or with any uncertainty of knowledge. On the contrary, according to the second expression of the ‘uncertainty principle’, we now know (with certainty?) that all quantum objects really fluctuate by themselves.

Ultimate Creative Ignorance

Next, these so-called “quantum fluctuations” (that were derived from the ‘uncertainty principle’) were assumed (again perversely) to occur in the absence of any ‘quantum objects’ in the complete vacuum of empty space! The next lunatic step was to assume that these so-called “quantum fluctuations” in the vacuum of empty space in the first place created the material ‘quantum objects’. However, the greatest lunacy was to postulate that these so-called “quantum fluctuations” in the vacuum of empty space in the ultimate first place created the whole material universe! In other words, it was an uncertainty in Werner Heisenberg’s knowledge that created (14 or so billion years before Heisenberg’s birth) the entire material universe that we observe today!!!!! One is bound to ask: Which proposition is more believable (never mind true)?:

(i) The Universe was created by an all-mighty God;

(ii) The Universe was created by an uncertainty in Werner Heisenberg’s knowledge.

On careful reflection, the latter does not give sufficient credit to Heisenberg, so it must be re-phrased thus:

(ii)' The Universe was created (some 15 billion years before Heisenberg's birth) by an uncertainty in Heisenberg's knowledge.

Imbecillence and Bogic

As we have seen above, the insignificate lunatic physics professors again and again commit the same type of elementary error that the 15-year old school students are of course penalized for committing, as well as numerous other types of moronic blunders.

In this way we have shown beyond all doubt that the emperors have no clothes. Moreover, it must be emphasized the all these blunders are not momentary lapses. Most of these howlers were committed over a century ago and never corrected, despite the earnest and persistent endeavours over the past century of numerous genuine scientists as well as the present author. Yet the lunatic physics professors are still incapable of perceiving their colossal messing up. How then is this dire situation of humanity to be explicated? The infants have their adult guardians to safeguard them from their cerebral inadequacies. But how are the general public to be protected from the intellectually abysmal incompetence of their scientific and philosophical leaders? Clearly, the simple lack of intelligence and the mere absence of logic are not enough to account for all this enormous shambles. For a sound explanation of this weird state of affairs we define ‘imbecillence’ as the exact opposite of ‘intelligence’ and ‘bogic’ as the precise contrary to ‘logic’. It is therefore the workings of both imbecillence and bogic that have brought about all the present fiascoes. It is only on the basis of this correct diagnosis of the terrible malaise currently afflicting humanity that one can hope for a remedy.

Thus we realize that the well-known saying “to err is human” must be expanded and converted into the adage “to err is human but to blunder is professorial”. Moreover, we agree with many others that the much talked about information overload is indeed a serious problem. However, as we have shown, the immensely much more serious problem is mis-information overload, and being “economical with the truth” as well as “fake news” have been with us for much longer than normally acknowledged.

As for the entirely baseless predictions about the allegedly very powerful “quantum computer” and the accompanied totally false claims that it will usher artificial intelligence into a new era of advancement, we can only respond by remarking that with so much natural imbecillence around, the prospect for the much talked about artificial intelligence is very bleak. Likewise, the related idea of the so called “fuzzy logic”, the fuzziness clearly lies in the sloppy thinking of its creators, and not necessarily in the outside world.

Tesla’s Greatest Experiment

(A fable)

A whole century ago Nicola Tesla devised and built, on his own, several original instruments (some of which nobody else has succeeded yet in replicating):

(i) Gravitational mass accelerator

(ii) Electric charge accelerator

(iii) Gravitational wave detector

(iv) Electromagnetic wave detector

(v) Electron fission machine

Using his electron fission device, Tesla separated the electric charge of the electron from its gravitational mass. Then by employing his electric charge accelerator, Tesla accelerated the detached (from its gravitational mass) electric charge, and then detected the resulting electromagnetic wave with his electromagnetic wave detector. Ditto with the corresponding gravitational entities: By using his gravitational charge accelerator, Tesla accelerated the disconnected gravitational mass (from its electric charge), and then detected the resulting gravitational wave with his gravitational wave detector.

We remind the reader again that all the above achievements were made singlehandedly by Tesla himself a whole century ago. It was Tesla’s contemporary Ernest Rutherford who correctly remarked, “an ounce of thought is worth a ton of equipment”. In our metric era, we may supplement Rutherford’s witty aphorism with, “a milligramme of thought is worth a trillion of euros”.

Dear reader, if you have the wit to use your brain, then use your brain.