About "A New Light In Physics"

[billvon]

Actually I'm coming from the drawing board.

That's great! There's a lot to learn out there,

Don't continue spending your time in a wrong paradigm. Both are wrong. Try a totally new theory.

I would suggest you learn about the existing theories (which you apparently do not understand) before you try to create a new one.

 

[martillo]

That (the number of posts before martillo got disgusted and left) must be some kind of record here. I wonder what that means? I hope it wasn't my fault. Really didn't mean to do that.

Don't worry. I didn't leave. Thanks for the consideration.

 

[martillo]

Could I just say that I started here over eight years ago with some basic ideas/concepts that were against the mainstream, as are yours. I used to get hundreds of comments, corrections, arguments, criticisms, and even personal attacks, etc., and I stuck it out; you could too. I addressed every objection, learned from those that proved correct, and evolved my model from the bottom up. I continually update it with new known science and meaningful contemplations, and I offer each step along the way for discussion.

Your approach here seems to try to shortcut the phase of presentation and selling of the ideas, and goes right to a document that you say is great. Members here are not going to spend the time to wade through the material in your link; it is overwhelming and too much to absorb, even assuming you have everything nailed. From my experience, the approach of presenting the ideas in small pieces and defending them, or learning from the comments, is better than one big "release".

Good luck with whatever approach you take, whether it is closing up shop here, or trying to heed a little advice that many members are willing to offer.

I'm in the Forum since 2005 when I begun the same way you did and very similarly discussed ideas and received lot of criticism which didn't beat me and as you, let me perfection the ideas and the manuscript which (although I know it will never get perfect) reached its current final version on 2012. The criticism at those times were much more aggressive than now and I got tired quite leaving the forum for some long time only returning with brief comments sometimes. These days I found it could be interesting in which would be the opinions on my final manuscript I would get at the forum at this time. As there are many new people here now things are different and we will see how things run now. May be I post some specific ideas to discuss as you suggest.

 

[martillo]

That's great! There's a lot to learn out there,

I would suggest you learn about the existing theories (which you apparently do not understand) before you try to create a new one.

I do understand them more than you think but although not being any expert on them I also know some of their failures. Coming from the engineering areas I think I have the vantage of a more "open mind" to perceive things differently as a good physicist would letting me question everything with much more freedom. Coming "out of the box" also let me have some original ideas to work on. I don't need to learn more about current theories than I know now, on the contrary and really modestly, I think it would be good for you to learn a bit of the new theory I'm presenting which for sure have very original ideas you should be aware.

 

[martillo]

I would like to receive comments on a particular proposition of the new theory which I think was one of the first great ideas I had at the beginning in the theory development. Is at Section 2.2 which begins with:


2.2 NEW ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS AND FORCES

It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces formulas must be corrected.


We are going to make a modification on the fields’ formulas that will represent the behavior of the basic particles like the electron and the photons at high velocities. It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces are directly responsible for that behavior.


When particles travels trough Electric and Magnetic Fields, it has been experimentally determined that a factor s = (1 – v^2/c^2)^1/2 appears, although it is only visible when large velocities are present in the particles. It is well known, for example, that when electrons are passed trough a strong magnet it describes a circular trajectory that verifies the equation:


qvB = (m0/s)(v^2)/r

where s = (1 – v^2/c^2)^1/2


c is the light velocity in vacuum emitted with a source at rest:

c ≈ 3x108 m/seg


It is proposed that the factor s is present both in the Magnetic and Electric Fields and Forces.


In the example above the equation should be rewritten to:


sqvB = (m0v^2)/r


It is proposed that the factor belongs to the other side of the equation. This gives the same kinematics results but means a different cause to the behavior.


This is the alternative to the proposition of mass variation in the Relativity Theory.


Then, if we denote Bc and FBc the field and force of Classical Physics it is proposed that the actual Magnetic Field and Magnetic Force are:

B = sBc

FB = sFBc

...
...
...

NOTE
The new Electric and Magnetic Fields will verify the classical Maxwell Equations at small velocities (s ≈ 1). The validity of the equations at high velocities and the form they can have for the new fields in the general case is a subject for future study.

...
...
...

 

[quantum_wave]

I would like to receive comments on a particular proposition of the new theory which I think was one of the first great ideas I had at the beginning in the theory development. Is at Section 2.2 which begins with:


2.2 NEW ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS AND FORCES

It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces formulas must be corrected.


We are going to make a modification on the fields’ formulas that will represent the behavior of the basic particles like the electron and the photons at high velocities. It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces are directly responsible for that behavior.


When particles travels trough Electric and Magnetic Fields, it has been experimentally determined that a factor s = (1 – v^2/c^2)^1/2 appears, although it is only visible when large velocities are present in the particles. It is well known, for example, that when electrons are passed trough a strong magnet it describes a circular trajectory that verifies the equation:


qvB = (m0/s)(v^2)/r

where s = (1 – v^2/c^2)^1/2


c is the light velocity in vacuum emitted with a source at rest:

c ≈ 3x108 m/seg


It is proposed that the factor s is present both in the Magnetic and Electric Fields and Forces.


In the example above the equation should be rewritten to:


sqvB = (m0v^2)/r


It is proposed that the factor belongs to the other side of the equation. This gives the same kinematics results but means a different cause to the behavior.


This is the alternative to the proposition of mass variation in the Relativity Theory.


Then, if we denote Bc and FBc the field and force of Classical Physics it is proposed that the actual Magnetic Field and Magnetic Force are:

B = sBc

FB = sFBc

...
...
...

NOTE
The new Electric and Magnetic Fields will verify the classical Maxwell Equations at small velocities (s ≈ 1). The validity of the equations at high velocities and the form they can have for the new fields in the general case is a subject for future study.

...
...
...

Is this modification related in any way to near and far fields?

 

[martillo]

Is this modification related in any way to near and far fields?

No, its a correction in the classical definition of the Electric and Magnetic Fields.

 

[quantum_wave]

No, its a correction in the classical definition of the Electric and Magnetic Fields.

So is it just a mathematical modification that you propose, or does the modification have some physical significance? Can you put into words what the difference in definitions does to improve the classical definitions?

 

[billvon]

I do understand them more than you think but although not being any expert on them I also know some of their failures.

Well, you just spent a lot of time explaining one of those failures, but it's not a failure - the theory predicts what will happen quite accurately.

Coming from the engineering areas I think I have the vantage of a more "open mind" to perceive things differently as a good physicist would letting me question everything with much more freedom.

I come from an engineering background as well.

Coming "out of the box" also let me have some original ideas to work on. I don't need to learn more about current theories than I know now

That's quite literally true. But you seem to be going on about a "flaw" in the standard model, and it's not a flaw - you just don't understand the standard model well enough to see that there is no flaw. Given that, any effort you put into explaining that flaw will be wasted.

 

[martillo]

So is it just a mathematical modification that you propose, or does the modification have some physical significance? Can you put into words what the difference in definitions does to improve the classical definitions?

As in the text above it is said: "This is the alternative to the proposition of mass variation in the Relativity Theory."
In spite of introducing the factor k=(1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2 with the Lorentz Transforms causing the space-time alteration (length contraction plus time dilation) in the new theory is introduced the factor s=(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 in the definition of the electric and magnetic fields giving the same kinematics results in those analyzed experiments without any space-time distortion. This also allow to reach at the famous equation "E=mc^2" (Section 4.1) but with a different physical meaning.

 

[martillo]

Well, you just spent a lot of time explaining one of those failures, but it's not a failure - the theory predicts what will happen quite accurately.

I come from an engineering background as well.

That's quite literally true. But you seem to be going on about a "flaw" in the standard model, and it's not a flaw - you just don't understand the standard model well enough to see that there is no flaw. Given that, any effort you put into explaining that flaw will be wasted.

Relativity predicts the twins' paradox while I demonstrate is just an inconsistency in the theory.
For the Standard Model I didn't say it's flawed, I offer a completely alternative way to explain all the subatomic particles detected with high energy experiments and a new model for the basic particles: proton, neutron, electron, neutrino and the photon.

 

[paddoboy]

Relativity predicts the twins' paradox while I demonstrate is just an inconsistency in the theory.

The fact is that the "twin paradox" is not a paradox anyway.

 

[billvon]

Relativity predicts the twins' paradox while I demonstrate is just an inconsistency in the theory.

The case you described does not show an inconsistency in the theory.

 

[quantum_wave]

As in the text above it is said: "This is the alternative to the proposition of mass variation in the Relativity Theory."
In spite of introducing the factor k=(1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2 with the Lorentz Transforms causing the space-time alteration (length contraction plus time dilation) in the new theory is introduced the factor s=(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 in the definition of the electric and magnetic fields giving the same kinematics results in those analyzed experiments without any space-time distortion. This also allow to reach at the famous equation "E=mc^2" (Section 4.1) but with a different physical meaning.

Do your equations correspond to this video?

If not can you explain how they are different and what the significance of that difference is?

 

[martillo]

Do your equations correspond to this video?

If not can you explain how they are different and what the significance of that difference is?

The video shows the concept of relativistic mass variation I mention in my text.
I already told you that my equations introduce the same "relativistic factor" (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 but in the definition of the electric and magnetic fields as it is said in the posted Section 2.2 and in what you quoted giving a totally different physical cause for the "relativistic phenomena" of the experiments. In spite of the mass increase concept we have the forces decrease concept. Do you get it?

 

[origin]

Relativity predicts the twins' paradox while I demonstrate is just an inconsistency in the theory.
For the Standard Model I didn't say it's flawed, I offer a completely alternative way to explain all the subatomic particles detected with high energy experiments and a new model for the basic particles: proton, neutron, electron, neutrino and the photon.

What a waste of time. Sorry that you are so good at deluding yourself.

 

[martillo]

What a waste of time. Sorry that you are so good at deluding yourself.

Waste of time is yours looking for inexistent "dark matter" just to "fix" an erroneous theory with the observations of real phenomena. Since 1922 and without any positive result. Not to mention how your minds are lost in surrealistic thoughts like time travel, wormholes, parallel universes, etc, etc, etc. That's a waste of time, resources and minds!

 

[paddoboy]

Waste of time is yours looking for inexistent "dark matter" just to "fix" an erroneous theory with the observations of real phenomena. Since 1922 and without any positive result. Not to mention how your minds are lost in surrealistic thoughts like time travel, wormholes, parallel universes, etc, etc. That's a waste of time, resources and minds!

Wow! Gee, sounds like somebody I know!
Irrespective, as I have said three times [or was that four?] if you believe you have anything concrete or substantial to invalidate relativity, then submit a paper for peer review. As you know forums such as this are open to all sorts, that can claim whatever they please and dream up.
I predict though, like the hundreds that have gone before you, this will be more wasted paper, time, and bandwidth, undertaken by the usual over inflated ego, tall poppy syndrome and/or religious baggage.

 

[quantum_wave]

The video shows the concept of relativistic mass variation I mention in my text.
I already told you that my equations introduce the same "relativistic factor" (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 but in the definition of the electric and magnetic fields as it is said in the posted Section 2.2 and in what you quoted giving a totally different physical cause for the "relativistic phenomena" of the experiments.

So the significance is that there is a totally different cause for the observed results at relativistic velocities?

In spite of the mass increase concept we have the forces decrease concept.

I am at a disadvantage because I am not sure if your discussion is limited to SR, or does it address GR? The forces that decrease as mass increases part, ... I'm not sure what forces are applicable in SR.

Do you get it?

Not yet.

 

[martillo]

So the significance is that there is a totally different cause for the observed results at relativistic velocities?

Exactly.

I am at a disadvantage because I am not sure if your discussion is limited to SR, or does it address GR? The forces that decrease as mass increases part, ... I'm not sure what forces are applicable in SR.

I don't treat GR. Getting SR wrong is enough. SR wrong implies GR wrong but this is not the point here.
You are right that SR assume constant velocities but someway in the examples treated the moving object reached that state isn't it? How it reached the movement doesn't matter for SR but the concept that there was a mass increase exist and has its proper equation relating m=m0/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2
In Section 2.3 are treated two known experiments where this mass is considered in the calculations of the trajectories of electrons which differ from the classical predictions. What I state is that the same kinematics results are obtained if in spite of considering that increase on mass we consider the correspondent decrease in the electric and magnetic forces applied. This way redefining the fields including the factor s=(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 the same trajectories are obtained but there was no space-time distortion but just the natural action of the electric and magnetic fields which decrease with the velocity of the electrons.