Critique of: Scientific Discoveries that Changed the World By Roger A. Rydin Associate Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, University of Virginia
Abstract National Geographic [1] has published a special issue on 100 Scientific Discoveries that Changed the World, including latest breakthroughs, thrilling innovations and ancient discoveries. Ten of these discoveries in the area of physics are insufficiently supported by experiment, or contain conceptual errors, or even mathematical errors. Portions of the National Geographic descriptions are quoted and commented upon or refuted, showing that the state of theoretical physics is badly in need of rethinking and revision. The order of discussing these discoveries is connected to the historical record of how one discovery led to another, and one conceptual error led to others. Included on the large scale are: non-Euclidean Space; Special Relativity; General Relativity; Big Bang; Inflation; and then on the small scale: Bohr Atom; Quantum Mechanics; String Theory; Standard Model; and Quantum Gravity.
1. Large Scale Theories
1.1 Euclidean Geometry (300-BC) “Euclid published his revolutionary approach to geometry in a series of books called The Elements of Geometry. The series presents a set of axioms and, from these, deduces propositions and theorems. Although Euclid's work was not necessarily new, he was the first to show how these theorems could fit into a comprehensive and deductive system. According to Euclid's axioms, any two points can be connected by a straight line; any straight line whose length can be determined can be extended in a straight line; a circle can contain any center and any radius; and all right angles are equal to each other. The fifth axiom has to do with the intersections of lines in a plane.” Euclidean geometry describes the real world as we see it. 1.2 Non-Euclidean Geometries (Ca 1830) “Euclid's fifth postulate, also known as the parallel postulate, is as follows: Given a straight line and a point p that is not on that line, there is exactly one straight line through p that never intersects the original line. In the 1800s mathematicians discovered that they could modify the fifth postulate and thus create very different - yet mathematically consistent geometries. The discovery of non-Euclidean geometry had wide- reaching consequences, especially in physics, because it showed that conceptions of space and time other than the familiar Euclidean one were possible.” It can be said that the seeds of conceptual error in physics were sown here, when it was not recognized that these geometries, although mathematically pleasing, had nothing to do with the real world. Erickson [2] has shown that infinitesimals along the number line define all locations in space, and that time is an infinitesimal of now, where the past no longer exists, and the future is yet to exist. He makes a mathematical case that Euclid was right, and space is absolute, time is sequential and universal, and motion occurs in fixed space. As such, space-time does not exist! 1.3 Special Theory of Relativity (1905) “Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity, which made use of two key physical ideas that were known previously: the principle of relativity and the constant speed of light.” The conceptual problem here was his unproven assertion that all inertial reference frames were equally valid, and the speed of light was constant for each frame, rather than for an absolute reference frame as suggested by Newton. This led to many paradoxes, such as twins aging differently, time slowing down and space contracting. “Prior to the Theory of Relativity, physicists believed that electromagnetic waves moved through a medium called ether, much like ocean waves move through water. They viewed ether as a background against which all movement took place. Einstein felt that it was a mistake to assume the existence of ether, which had not been verified experimentally. In the construct of Special Relativity, he did away with ether altogether, assuming only that the laws of physics, including the speed of light, worked the same no matter how an observer was moving. The mathematical consequences of Einstein's theory were stunning, and they have been experimentally verified.” This last statement about experimental verification is not correct, but rather some experiments have been interpreted as verifying the theory. GPS satellite clocks are synchronized by engineering adjustments [3], and not by Special Relativity. “For example, as an object moves with a velocity relative to an observer, the object's mass increases and its length contracts.” There is no experimental proof that mass actually increases beyond the rest mass. Otherwise fast moving galaxies would have greater mass, or seen from their viewpoint, we would have greater mass. It is impossible to make atoms heavier and still retain their properties. What we see in a cyclotron is a nonlinear relationship between velocity and energy that has nothing to do with a relative observer. Likewise, there is no proof that length actually contracts. “Perhaps the most famous consequence of the theory is the equivalence of mass and energy that is captured in the equation E = mc2.” Actually, this relationship was suggested years earlier by Poincare and by Heaviside, so Einstein may have simply adopted their ideas into his derivation! “The Special Theory of Relativity also created a fundamental link between space and time, a four dimensional framework called the space-time continuum. This continuum consists of three dimensions representing space - up/down, left/right, forward/backward - and one dimension representing time. Einstein’s theory is considered special because it applies the principle of relativity only to the special case in which the motion of objects is uniform.” As a matter of fact, in this theory, space could only contract in one dimension and time could slow down, but nowhere was space-time in a tensor sense addressed in the 1905 paper. Müller [4] in a 200 page monograph, has analyzed the 1905 paper line by line, and concluded that there are at least twenty nine errors and inconsistencies, of which he denotes fifteen as grave, and eleven as moderate. He says that Arthur Miller, an Einstein biographer, agrees with eight of these grave errors but then ignores their significance. But these errors are precisely the ones that produce paradoxes like the “twins”, and produce the problems noted by Cahill [5] and others about two- way synchronization of transmission in cables. 1.4 General Theory of Relativity (1915) “When Albert Einstein introduced his General Theory of Relativity in 1915, it showed that Newton’s law of universal gravitation, which had been accepted for more than 200 years, and which formed the foundation of how scientists understood the universe - was only partially correct. It no longer applied when the gravitational force became too strong. While Newton’s laws are very accurate at explaining most kinds of motion, they cannot predict the exact behavior of very massive objects, such as planets in orbit. With Einstein's earlier Special Theory of Relativity, time was no longer objective and absolute, and space and time could be considered to be united in the single four-dimensional continuum of space-time. General Relativity was a completely new, astounding mathematical theory that interpreted the force of gravity as a curvature in space-time.” Virtually everything in this paragraph is an assertion, that space can bend in some way (in space?), and time can be different in different places, contrary to Erickson’s [2] analysis. “Starting from the key insight that a person in freefall does not feel his own weight (called the Equivalence Principle, likewise unproven) he constructed a theory that models gravity as curved space-time. General Relativity provided not only a new way to interpret gravity, but also a new framework within which to understand the evolution of the universe. For example, the mathematical aspects of the Big Bang theory are based on General Relativity. Also, using the General Theory of relativity, cosmologists and astronomers were able to predict accurately, and subsequently prove, the existence of Neutron Stars, Black Holes and Gravitational Waves.” Neutron stars or Pulsars were found experimentally, as well as Black Holes. But Black Holes are assumed to be singularities, which is unproven. It is not clear that Gravitational Waves have ever been observed, even after a long search.
Theorist Smolin [6] says, “General Relativity and Quantum Theory each has a problem of infinities. In nature we have yet to encounter anything measurable that has an infinite value.” The late Robert Heaston followed all the steps in Einstein’s derivation of General Relativity [7]. Heaston’s reconstruction, with some of the dates the steps occurred, is shown graphically below. Step 2a or 2b gives a maximum condition between the size of a body and the mass it can contain. Heaston noted that Einstein made an error when he went to geometrized variables by setting c = 1, and that error led to a singularity as an asymptotic solution. But if that step was not taken, then the relationship 2a or 2b leads to the limit given in relationship 5 or 8 where mass has to convert to energy. A Neutron Star begins at n = 0.3 and a Black Hole begins at n = 0.5. The consequence of having the Heaston limit, n <= 1.0, is no Big Bang, finite Black Holes, no String Theory, etc. After all, gravity does escape a Black Hole, so gravity must move much faster than light as the late Tom Van Flandern, an expert in Celestial Mechanics pointed out.
An Australian, Stephen Crothers, contends that General Relativity physicists use a solution to the Black Hole problem that is different from Schwarzschild’s original published solution, and this solution gives only one singular point and not two [8]. Then, he says, “The usual General Relativity formulation does not contain mass, violates conservation, and has differential geometry flaws.” Crothers says, “It is reported almost invariably in the literature that Schwarzschild’s solution for the Ricci tensor, Ric = Rμν = 0, is (using c = 1, G = 1), 1 2 2m 2 2m 2 2 2 2 2 ds 1 dt 1 dr r d sin d , r r 0 r , where in it is asserted by inspection that r can go down to zero in some way, producing an infinitely dense point-mass singularity there, with an event horizon at the ‘Schwarzschild radius’ at r = 2m: a Black Hole. Contrast this metric with that actually obtained by K. Schwarzschild in 1915 (published January 1916). 1
ds 2 1 dt 2 1 dR 2 R 2 d 2 sin 2 d 2 , R R 1 3 3 R R r r 3 , 0 r , His solution clearly forbids the Black Hole singularity because when Schwarzschild’s r = 0, his R = α, and so there is no possibility for his R to be less than α, let alone take the value R = 0.” In fact, in a 1915 letter to Einstein, Schwarzschild [9] told him of his mistake, saying the correct solution is similar to the one Einstein gives, but does not have a singularity. Schwarzschild also told him that his low order approximation for the orbit of Mercury was missing a term which made the solution indeterminate. Vankov [9] subsequently demonstrated that Einstein did not do the complete elliptic integral, but only one correction term, assuming that the other term was the normal orbit. When the constraint between the terms was used, and both terms solved, the net correction for the Perihelion motion is zero! The actual motion of the Perihelion is tortuous, and the alleged discrepancy small, so that a small experimental uncertainty would cover any real effect. The small Perihelion discrepancy discovered by Le Verrier in 1859 [10] was based on analytic fits to data, and hand calculations, It was insensitive to errors in the mass of several planets, of the order of the discrepancy, and hence cannot be considered proof that there was a discrepancy. Le Verrier suggested that an undiscovered planet Vulcan was responsible for the problem! 1.5 Big Bang Theory (1931) “According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was initially in an extremely hot, dense state that expanded rapidly; it has since cooled by expanding to its present diluted state, and it continues to expand. Belgian physicist Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory in 1931. The theory is often put forth as an explanation of how the universe came into being. Rather, it describes the general evolution of the universe since it came into being.” “The kernel of this theory lies in observations of spiral galaxies in 1912 (actually Cepheid Variables), which American astronomer Vesto Slipher showed to be receding from Earth. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that all remote galaxies and clusters are moving directly away from Earth's vantage point. Two years earlier, in 1927, Lemaitre had proposed that the universe was expanding in order to take into account some astronomical observations. In 1931 he took this a step further by suggesting that the universe began as the expansion of a single point bringing time and space into existence.” It was subsequently assumed that Einstein’s General Relativity explained the motion of galaxies in the universe, but examination by Rydin [11, 12] of six different deep redshift galactic pencil surveys, and indeed the entire Sloan Survey, shows that the distribution of galaxies is spherically symmetric about an origin about 70 million light years from Earth in the direction of Virgo, is decreasing in density approximately as 1/r-squared, and is periodic with a period of 400 million light years. None of these observations corresponds to the General Relativity solution, because the mass distribution is not isotropic and homogeneous, and it is not center-less. We must conclude that General Relativity has nothing to do with the motion of galaxies in the universe!
1.6 Inflationary Theory Of The Universe (1980) “Inflationary theory was developed by Alan Guth in 1980 to explain observable features of the universe. According to the theory, the universe is the result of an extremely rapid but short-lived expansion-known as the inflationary epoch-during its early history. Precursors to inflationary theory include thinking by Albert Einstein, several Soviet cosmologists, and others, who attempted to explain why the universe appears flat, homogeneous, and uniform in all directions-rather than highly curved and heterogeneous. The Big Bang, the prevailing theory of the development of the universe, is a classic example of inflationary theory at work. Astronomers have made precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation left over from the Big Bang and have determined that the radiation arrives at Earth from all directions with the same intensity. Tracing the development of this radiation backwards, cosmologists concluded that the temperature and density of matter in the universe must have been uniform when the cosmic background radiation was released.” Inflation was invented because it is impossible to extrapolate back from the present distribution to a beginning singularity, so inflation conceptually connects the two. But the galaxy distribution refutes the Big Bang model, so inflation did not actually happen!
2. Small Scale Theories 2.1 Bohr Model of the Atom (1913) “When Danish physicist Niels Bohr joined forces with British physicist Ernest Rutherford at Manchester University, his primary goal was to improve on Rutherford's model of the atom, which had been introduced in 1911. Rutherford’s model depicted the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus, in much the way that a solar system's planets orbit the sun. The model was flawed, however: The atom would have much too short a life span because the electrons would lose energy, emit electromagnetic radiation, and spiral inward in an unstable fashion.” “While analyzing a hydrogen atom, Bohr quickly found the solution to Rutherford's problem and created his own model of the atom in 1913. Bohr's model was the first to use quantum mechanics to describe the behavior of an atom. In this model, when an electron absorbs electromagnetic radiation, the electron jumps into a different - but very specific - orbit. That is, the electrons can only occupy the orbits prescribed by Bohr's theory; they cannot be in between orbits. Because there is an innermost allowed orbit, the electrons do not spiral into the nucleus. Bohr's model advanced the study of atoms, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1922. While Bohr's model is still used to introduce the topic of atomic structure and behavior to new physics students, it is not considered the best model (it is not extendable to heavier atoms). The model used today is called the electron cloud model, which depicts electrons in a random cloud pattern around the nucleus, rather than orbiting it.” Lucas [13] has a model of atoms, where the electrons do not move at all, and hence do not radiate, but rather occupy fixed positions in 3D space in states of electromagnetic force balance. The electrons occupy six shells, and using geometrical filling rules, Lucas predicts the Periodic Table. When excited, the electrons vibrate around their equilibrium positions, and if another stable state is reached, the transition takes place with emission of the energy difference between states, which appears to be quantized. 2.2 Standard Model of Particle Physics “The Standard Model of particle physics describes the universe in terms of matter, which is made up of particles called fermions, and force, which is made up of particles called bosons. There are four known forces of nature, each mediated by a fundamental boson particle: Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetic Force, and Gravity.” Smolin [6] says, “For all its usefulness, the Standard Model has a long list of adjustable constants. We have no idea why these numbers have the values they do, we simply determine them by experiments and then plug in the numbers. There are about twenty such constants, and the fact that there are so many in a fundamental theory is a tremendous embarrassment.” The mediator of Gravity is the graviton, which has not been observed. The mediator of Electromagnetism is the photon, but how this can work over large distances has not been explained. The mediator of the Weak Force is a pair of massive particles called W+ and W- but how these can cause low energy beta decay has not been explained. The mediator of the Strong Force is the gluon, which has not been observed.
“The Standard Model as it currently exists was finalized in the mid-1970s with the confirmation of the existence of quarks (although no free quarks have been found). The discoveries of the bottom quark, the top quark, and the tau neutrino have given this model even more credibility. Because scientists can use the Standard Model to explain a wide range of experimental results, it is sometimes called the theory of everything. However, this model is not without its limitations. For example, it does not take the physics of General Relativity, such as gravitation and dark energy, into account. Despite these limitations, the Standard Model of particle physics is one of the best explanations scientists have for how the universe works. One elementary particle predicted by the standard model has yet to be observed: the Higgs Boson.” Charles Lucas has proposed an Electromagnetic Model of Particles [14] in terms of three levels of wrapped +- 1/3 e charged fibers. With this model, he has representations for all the exotic particles and their decay products while having conservation of fibers (almost). Stephan Gift [15, 16] has proposed that the Standard Model is too complicated, and the various families of three particles can be considered to be excited states of the basic particle. The Lucas representations of particles, as modified by Gift, show the structure of the families and how you go consistently from the electron, to the muon and tauon, or from the up, to the charm to the top quark, if they indeed exist, etc. Quarks are not fundamental in the Lucas model, but have representations so that theories using quarks can be used.
Lucas’ Fiber Structures for Neutrinos and Quarks with Gift’s Modifications Showing the Base Particle and Excited States for These Families
2.3 String Theory (1969) “String theory, which was first explored by physicists who were studying the dual-resonance model - a physical theory of the Strong Nuclear Force - is an attempt to bring together Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity by removing the discrepancies that exist between the two theories. According to String Theory, electrons and quarks within an atom are not zero-dimensional objects. Instead they are one-dimensional, oscillating lines called strings. How a string vibrates determines the amount of energy that is produced and results in a specific type of subatomic particle. Five mayor string theories have been formulated since the theory's beginnings in the late 1960s. In the mid-1990s these five theories were unified into what is called M-theory, which asserts that strings are really one-dimensional slices of a two- dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional space.” Lee Smolin [6], laments in his book that very little progress has taken place in theoretical physics since 1980. This is primarily because almost all the funding and faculty positions in physics have gone to string theorists, who have produced theories that cannot be experimentally verified. Perhaps this is because strings do not actually exist!
2.4 Quantum Mechanics (1927) “Quantum Mechanics is a field of study dedicated to the behavior of matter on atomic and subatomic scales. It came about in the 1920s in response to the realization that Classical physics could not explain certain phenomena. The principles behind Quantum Mechanics can be hard to grasp, especially since scientists are used to viewing the world through the lens of Classical physics.” “A few of the main aspects of the theory that capture its weirdness are wave particle duality - the Uncertainty Principle, and Superposition - the last of which plays a major role in quantum computing. Wave-particle duality refers to the fact that on small scales light and matter have both wave- and particle-like properties. The Uncertainty Principle says that both a particle's position and its momentum cannot be known with certainty - the more accurately one of these quantities is measured, the less accurately the other is known. Superposition is the Quantum Mechanical idea that a particle can exist in all possible states at the same time. As odd as the theories of Quantum Mechanics seem, physicists have determined through experiments that the theories do accurately represent the nature of reality on very small scales.” Since there is strong evidence that General Relativity is wrong, perhaps the failure to combine it with Quantum Mechanics is understandable. Quantum Mechanics may also be wrong and needs replacement too! A nonlinear model based on vibrations in 3D could correspond to quantized excited states that decay to more stable configurations. 2.5 Quantum Gravity “Quantum Gravity is an area of physics research (pursued by Smolin) in which scholars are attempting to unify Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, also known as Quantum Theory. Quantum Gravity is a theory that is unconfirmed and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. For one thing, the energy levels required to observe the phenomena that the theory predicts cannot be achieved in current laboratory experiments. In addition, Einstein's theory of General Relativity makes certain assumptions about the universe at the macroscopic sale that are quite different from the assumptions of Quantum Mechanics, which works at the microscopic scale.” Smolin [6] says, “The current revolution in physics began in 1900 with Max Planck’s discovery that energy is not continuous but quantized. This revolution has yet to end. Albert Einstein was certainly the most important physicist in the twentieth century. Perhaps his best work was his discovery of General Relativity, which is the best theory we have so far of space, time, motion and gravitation. However, in spite of great progress, the theories remain incomplete. Each has defects that point to the existence of a deeper theory. The main reason each theory is incomplete is the existence of the other.”
3. Summary Conclusions All of the large scale theories and discoveries have been shown to contain conceptual and mathematical flaws, plus no valid experimental validation, and they should simply be discarded in favor of a more Classical approach. Among these are: Non-Euclidean geometry as it applies to reality; Special Relativity and General Relativity; and the Big Bang model with Inflation to get it started. Some of the small scale theories work with difficulty, but require an embarrassing number of fits to overly complicated models. String Theory, which has no experimental proof, should be discarded completely, and Quantum Gravity is not worth pursuing. The Standard Model of particles is overly complicated, and the Probability Model of electrons in atoms cannot be proven experimentally. They should both be replaced by electromagnetic models that feature static particle positions of force balance and vibratory modes of decay. Quantum Mechanics may also be better explained in terms of excited vibrations leading to quantized eigenvalue states with fixed energy transitions. The state of theoretical physics on both the large scale and small scale is bad. New and better theories based on a more Classical approach are needed. There are some candidates for replacing them, but considerably more work is needed to flesh these theories out. Considering how long we have been spinning our wheels on the old theories, it is time we got to work on new ones.
References 1) “100 Scientific Discoveries that Changed the World”, National Geographic Society, ISSN 2160-714, 2012. 2) Peter F. Erickson, Absolute Space, Absolute Time, & Absolute Motion, Xlibris Corporation, 2006. 3) Ronald R Hatch, "A Modified Lorentz Ether Theory," Infinite Energy, Vol. 7, No. 39, pp 14-23, 2001. 4) Francisco J. Müller, “The Anomalous Origins of Einstein’s Relativity Theory”, preliminary edition, unpublished, 2005. 5) Reginald Cahill, “A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected”, Progress in Physics, Vol. 4, pp. 73-92, 2006.
6) Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007.
7) Robert. J. Heaston, ” A Third Alternative to the Generation of Energy by Fission and Fusion”, 15th Annual Conference of the NPA, 7 – 11 April, 2008, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Vol. 5, No 1, pp. 85 – 92, 2008.
8) Stephen J. Crothers, “The Schwarzschild Solution and its Implications for Gravitational Waves”, Proceedings of the 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, 25-29 May, 2009 at University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 2009.
9) Anatoli Vankov, Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”, http://www.wbabin.net/eeuro/vankov.pdf ,2011.
10) Roger A. Rydin, "The Theory of Mercury's Anomalous Precession", Proceedings of the 18th Natural Philosophy Alliance International Conference, Vol. 8, pp 501-506, July 6-9, 2011, at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2011.
11) Roger A. Rydin, "Experimental Evidence that the Density of the Universe is Not Constant", Proceedings of the 13th NPA International Conference, April 3 - 7, 2006, at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Vol. 3, No 2, pp. 246-249, 2006.
12) Roger A. Rydin, “A Case Against Tired Light and the Big Bang”, Proceedings of the 14th Natural Philosophy Alliance International Conference, May 21 - 25, 2007, at University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 2007.
13) Charles W. Lucas, Jr., “A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles – Part 1, Introduction”, Foundations of Science, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.1 – 8, November 2004.
14) Charles W. Lucas, Jr., “A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles – Part 2, Intertwining Charge Fibers”, Foundations of Science, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.1 – 16, May 2005.
15) Stephan J. G. Gift, “Model of Fundamental Particles I, Quarks”, Physics Essays, Vol. 17. No. 1, pp. 3 – 13, 2004.
16) Stephan J. G. Gift, “Model of Fundamental Particles II, Leptons”, Physics Essays, Vol. 17. No. 2, pp. 117 – 132, 2004.