search
top

Incompetent Science – Part 2/3



Incompetent Science - Part 2/3

When you are inter­ested in physics you must read “Unbe­liev­able”!

Before Ein­stein “dis­cov­ered” rel­a­tiv­ity, phys­i­cal sci­ence con­cluded that the “field momen­tum” of a mov­ing charge could not explain the mass of the elec­tron (R.P. Feyn­man, Lec­tures on Physics Vol­ume II, chap­ter 282 and 283). The false assump­tion that the elec­tro­mag­netic mass of a charged bulb can­not explain the mass of the elec­tron results in the addi­tion of a “mechan­i­cal” mass.

The arti­cle The Equiv­a­lence of Kinetic and Mag­netic Energy (Galilean Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics 17, 110114 November/​December 2006) proves that the above men­tioned math­e­mat­i­cal deriva­tion of the elec­tro­mag­netic mass is invalid since the con­ser­va­tion law of energy is vio­lated when that mass is cal­cu­lated. This omis­sion casts very seri­ous doubt on Quan­tum Mechanic’s treat­ment of (charged) par­ti­cles and its abil­ity to “explain” the elec­tron and other par­ti­cles within elec­tro­mag­netic the­ory. Attempts to mod­ify Maxwell’s the­ory of elec­tro­dy­nam­ics failed dra­mat­i­cally (R.P. Feyn­man, Lec­tures on Physics Vol­ume II, chap­ter 284 and 285).

The pos­i­tivis­tic atti­tude of sci­ence ele­vates the empir­i­cal sci­ence of QM to a the­o­ret­i­cal absolute. The empir­i­cal math­e­mat­i­cal solu­tions of QM are con­sid­ered to be the exact truth! Sci­en­tists, sci­ence jour­nal­ists, ref­er­ees and edi­tors are again not pre­pared to con­sider the pos­si­ble con­se­quences of this very early omis­sion that shapes the per­spec­tive of QM so dra­mat­i­cally. They reject the above paper on mag­netic energy also on the argu­ment that it is not top­i­cal; not relevant.

How could an omis­sion that shaped phys­i­cal sci­ence so pro­foundly ever be not topical?

Com­ment added Novem­ber 2007: the fal­si­fi­ca­tion of QM

QM assumes that electrostatic-​, elec­tro­mag­netic– and mag­netic fields are con­ser­v­a­tive. One of the impli­ca­tions of this assump­tion is that these fields must be radial. In the above men­tioned arti­cle it is proven that this assump­tion is phys­i­cally incor­rect, because with the premise that the fields are con­ser­v­a­tive the con­ser­va­tion law of energy is vio­lated. (Sec­tion 4. “The Elec­tro­mag­netic Mass”).

When J.J. Thom­son (1881) derived that the EM-​theory could not explain the elec­tro­mag­netic mass of an elec­tron, dur­ing which he bru­tally vio­lated the energy con­ser­va­tion law, no one ques­tioned the cor­rect­ness of his con­clu­sions. His false analy­sis was com­pletely copied by QM and serves them as proof that the EM-​theory is inad­e­quate to describe ele­men­tary par­ti­cles. Feyn­man copied Thomson’s mis­take in his Lec­tures on Physics to which arti­cle I refer above.

Why did QM-​physicists never ques­tion Thomson’s fun­da­men­tal false derivation?

The answer to this ques­tion is to my knowl­edge the relent­less faith of physi­cists in Maxwell’s equations.

Maxwell’s equa­tions describe the assumed inter­re­la­tion­ship between the elec­tric field, the mag­netic field, elec­tric charge and elec­tric cur­rent. Although Maxwell’s equa­tions are math­e­mat­i­cally cor­rect, appar­ently no physi­cist ever ver­i­fied whether these equa­tions are also valid in phys­i­cal sense!

The con­se­quence of the energy con­ser­va­tion vio­la­tion is that QM assumes fun­da­men­tally false EM-​properties for all ele­men­tary particles.

All formulas/​equations of QM/​QED/​QCD are based on the assump­tion that these fields are con­ser­v­a­tive and there­fore radial. When it is proven that this assump­tion or premise is false all formulas/​equations of QM/​QED/​QCD lose their the­o­ret­i­cal sig­nif­i­cance, because all the derived par­ti­cle for­mu­las of QM/​QED/​QCD are phys­i­cally impos­si­ble and there­fore the­o­ret­i­cally false. The derived QM-​particles equa­tions only pos­sess mathematical/​experimental sig­nif­i­cance. The QM-​particles can­not exist in real­ity because their assumed phys­i­cal prop­er­ties vio­late the most impor­tant physics law: the energy con­ser­va­tion law.

QM states that it is the most suc­cess­ful sci­ence ever. The empirical/​mathematical sig­nif­i­cance of QM is undis­putable. An empirical/​mathematical derived for­mula that describes a par­ti­cle doesn’t imply that the equa­tion is cor­rect in phys­i­cal sense. It is proven in the above men­tioned arti­cle that the math­e­mat­i­cal pre­sen­ta­tions of the QM-​formulas are phys­i­cally false.

The con­se­quence of this arti­cle for QM is that QM-​scientists are not allowed to deduce the­o­ret­i­cal con­clu­sions based on these for­mu­las. To be able to deduct valid the­o­ret­i­cal con­clu­sions the for­mu­las must also be valid in phys­i­cal sense.

The above men­tioned “radial” aspect of the elec­tro­mag­netic field is just one of the phys­i­cal enti­ties “fields” must pos­sess to qual­ify to be “con­ser­v­a­tive”. Fur­ther analy­sis of this vio­la­tion of the energy con­ser­va­tion law by QM demon­strates that the Maxwell equa­tions are phys­i­cally incor­rect and thereby the the­o­ret­i­cal basis for QM/​QED/​QCD col­lapses entirely.

Sci­en­tists can­not believe that QM is invalid. They argue that it would oth­er­wise be impos­si­ble to derive such cun­ning for­mu­las. They say the exper­i­men­tal proof of QM over­rules the the­o­ret­i­cal flaws! For a the­o­ret­i­cal sci­ence the fun­da­men­tal laws must always be the basics. A sci­ence degrades to a pseudo-​science when basic the­o­ret­i­cal fun­da­men­tals are ignored.

The rea­son why QM is empir­i­cally so suc­cess­ful is that thou­sands of sci­en­tists search every day for many years for for­mu­las that fit the exper­i­ments. Sta­tis­ti­cally stun­ning for­mu­las have to be found. Sta­tis­ti­cal “Luck” is the basis for QM’s exper­i­men­tal suc­cess; not the­o­ret­i­cal insight. Still claim­ing that QM is a the­o­ret­i­cal sci­ence degrades it to pseudo-​science.

I tried to com­mu­ni­cate with many expert sci­en­tists about these the­o­ret­i­cal incon­sis­ten­cies but no one was will­ing to dis­cuss them.

For those who want to read the cor­re­spon­dence with Nobel lau­re­ate Prof. Dr. G. ‘t Hooft read: Cor­re­spon­dence with ‘t Hooft.

Expert sci­en­tists know that QM is the­o­ret­i­cally dis­qual­i­fied and that the famous Stan­dard Model is merely fic­tional sci­ence. They do not want to dis­cuss this because then they have to admit they have been wrong for more than 100 years, and that is too embarrassing.

Expert sci­en­tists pre­fer to ignore and to be dishonest.

For those who want to ver­ify that the QM-​derivation of the elec­tro­mag­netic mass is fun­da­men­tally false:

Elec­tro­mag­netic Mass Lec­tures on Physics Vol­ume II, Feynman

When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!

Before Einstein “discovered” relativity, physical science concluded that the “field momentum” of a moving charge could not explain the mass of the electron (R.P. Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II, chapter 28-2 and 28-3). The false assumption that the electromagnetic mass of a charged bulb cannot explain the mass of the electron results in the addition of a “mechanical” mass.

The article The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy (Galilean Electrodynamics 17, 110-114 November/December 2006) proves that the above mentioned mathematical derivation of the electromagnetic mass is invalid since the conservation law of energy is violated when that mass is calculated. This omission casts very serious doubt on Quantum Mechanic’s treatment of (charged) particles and its ability to “explain” the electron and other particles within electromagnetic theory. Attempts to modify Maxwell’s theory of electrodynamics failed dramatically (R.P. Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II, chapter 28-4 and 28-5).

The positivistic attitude of science elevates the empirical science of QM to a theoretical absolute. The empirical mathematical solutions of QM are considered to be the exact truth! Scientists, science journalists, referees and editors are again not prepared to consider the possible consequences of this very early omission that shapes the perspective of QM so dramatically. They reject the above paper on magnetic energy also on the argument that it is not topical; not relevant.

How could an omission that shaped physical science so profoundly ever be not topical?

Comment added November 2007: the falsification of QM

QM assumes that electrostatic-, electromagnetic- and magnetic fields are conservative. One of the implications of this assumption is that these fields must be radial. In the above mentioned article it is proven that this assumption is physically incorrect, because with the premise that the fields are conservative the conservation law of energy is violated. (Section 4. “The Electromagnetic Mass”).

When J.J. Thomson (1881) derived that the EM-theory could not explain the electromagnetic mass of an electron, during which he brutally violated the energy conservation law, no one questioned the correctness of his conclusions. His false analysis was completely copied by QM and serves them as proof that the EM-theory is inadequate to describe elementary particles. Feynman copied Thomson’s mistake in his Lectures on Physics to which article I refer above.

Why did QM-physicists never question Thomson’s fundamental false derivation?

The answer to this question is to my knowledge the relentless faith of physicists in Maxwell’s equations.

Maxwell’s equations describe the assumed interrelationship between the electric field, the magnetic fieldelectric charge and electric current. Although Maxwell’s equations are mathematically correct, apparently no physicist ever verified whether these equations are also valid in physical sense!

The consequence of the energy conservation violation is that QM assumes fundamentally false EM-properties for all elementary particles.

All formulas/equations of QM/QED/QCD are based on the assumption that these fields are conservative and therefore radial. When it is proven that this assumption or premise is false all formulas/equations of QM/QED/QCD lose their theoretical significance, because all the derived particle formulas of QM/QED/QCD are physically impossible and therefore theoretically false. The derived QM-particles equations only possess mathematical/experimental significance. The QM-particles cannot exist in reality because their assumed physical properties violate the most important physics law: the energy conservation law.

QM states that it is the most successful science ever. The empirical/mathematical significance of QM is undisputable. An empirical/mathematical derived formula that describes a particle doesn’t imply that the equation is correct in physical sense. It is proven in the above mentioned article that the mathematical presentations of the QM-formulas are physically false.

The consequence of this article for QM is that QM-scientists are not allowed to deduce theoretical conclusions based on these formulas. To be able to deduct valid theoretical conclusions the formulas must also be valid in physical sense.

The above mentioned “radial” aspect of the electromagnetic field is just one of the physical entities “fields” must possess to qualify to be “conservative”. Further analysis of this violation of the energy conservation law by QM demonstrates that the Maxwell equations are physically incorrect and thereby the theoretical basis for QM/QED/QCD collapses entirely.

Scientists cannot believe that QM is invalid. They argue that it would otherwise be impossible to derive such cunning formulas. They say the experimental proof of QM overrules the theoretical flaws! For a theoretical science the fundamental laws must always be the basics. A science degrades to a pseudo-science when basic theoretical fundamentals are ignored.

The reason why QM is empirically so successful is that thousands of scientists search every day for many years for formulas that fit the experiments. Statistically stunning formulas have to be found. Statistical “Luck” is the basis for QM’s experimental success; not theoretical insight. Still claiming that QM is a theoretical science degrades it to pseudo-science.

I tried to communicate with many expert scientists about these theoretical inconsistencies but no one was willing to discuss them.

For those who want to read the correspondence with Nobel laureate Prof. Dr. G. ‘t Hooft read: Correspondence with ‘t Hooft.

Expert scientists know that QM is theoretically disqualified and that the famous Standard Model is merely fictional science. They do not want to discuss this because then they have to admit they have been wrong for more than 100 years, and that is too embarrassing.

Expert scientists prefer to ignore and to be dishonest.

For those who want to verify that the QM-derivation of the electromagnetic mass is fundamentally false:

Electromagnetic Mass Lectures on Physics Volume II, Feynman

top