|
ON THE FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS
I know there are many who love physics and study it with great care and detail. I should be one of them, though I am not, for I came to physics through the back door of philosophy rather than science. Hence, I am perhaps ill equipped to handle its formulation properly, though I had tried. I am no mathematician, nor physicist, for my expertise in real life is finance, things like stock markets, bonds, currencies and futures. But I have a passion for understanding how works the universe, and though this is at first a philosophical passion, I have come to understand some things, intuitively perhaps, that touch on the world of physics. And it was this that I tried to explain on these boards, though falteringly at times.
I have an intuitive idea, one that is in my mind's eye, that the universe is a very simple place. Because of this, I have difficulty living with much of current theory in physics which takes us to phenomenal heights of complexity, such as String or Brane theory. These are the products of spectacular mathematical achievements. But mathematics is a language first with its own rules, and a useful tool second to help us explain what we understand, and thus is not beyond the pale of being a language that can express gibberish even if totally correct by its own rules. The intuitive idea I have is that gravity and electromagnetism are not complementary, but rather they are opposing forces. This means that where there is an abundance of electromagnetic energy we will find that mass there will be well defined as matter exhibiting gravity, but that this gravity will in fact be very weak. The opposing force of gravity should, by this reasoning, be extremely powerful, as it is exhibited by the mass defined where it is measured, in areas where energy is weak. I had tried to explain this mathematically, which came up as what I called the Axiomatic Equation*, but not being a physicist nor mathematician, it may very well be that my feeble attempts only led to mathematical inaccuracies, or even gibberish. Nevertheless, what the equation tried to explain is that electromagnetic energy and gravity, within the full spectrum of what is Energy, are somehow inversely proportional to each other, and therefore where there is an abundance of energy, there is little gravity, and vice versa, because this is how matter becomes defined there. The reason this became important, at least to me, was that if true, then we may have another form of energy available for future use. The equation would indicate, perhaps wrongly, that by somehow eliminating electromagnetic energy, perhaps removing all the spectra of what is produced by our local star, gravity would once again reassert itself in its full force, and this could be a usable force. No thinking at present, to my knowledge, would indicate this to be true. So per this thinking, really only philosophical for now, may be the kernel of some future idea that will propel beyond the use of chemical and electromagnetic energy, i.e., fire, and take us into a realm of using gravity itself, i.e., darkness. Then it becomes a matter of focussing where this dark energy would be, and pointing it towards where we want to go, and have our ship designed to follow it. In this way, we may be onto unleashing what would be a virtually inexhaustible "dark" energy to be used at tremendous velocities, since the gravity force is an accelerative force which does not tire and is continuous. That is the dream, but I do not have the tools to make it reality.
In my attempts at understanding this vision, I no doubt had made many mistakes, as some have pointed out on these boards. But that is not a worry to me, since we learn from mistakes and are challenged to correct them. Hence, more study is needed on my part, time and other obligations allowing. Perhaps I will never succeed in understanding what I think I see, but the challenge should never be discouraged if done sincerely and with some degree of competence. I am sure the great scientific minds of the past did not have an easy time either. Under pressure to come up with a better theory of gravity than known since the days of Newton, Albert Einstein came up with his General and Special Relativity theories. They are brilliant, but they may not yet fill the void of our understanding of gravity, and perhaps even detour us from such understanding by enthralling us with its complexity. I know people who study this all their lives, and yet produce nothing new. Often, they resign themselves to becoming teachers of others, who will repeat this process again, without meaningful gain in the fundamental understandings of physics. And this is how I see the future of physics, that to break this cycle, all who have a vision of physics should be encouraged to pursue it, honestly and with much hard work, because though the odds of failure are very great, the slight chance of success will perhaps give us that special breakthrough to make it all worthwhile. This is the realm of new ideas of the future. Challenging each other to prove points, or to correct obvious errors, is part and parcel of that process, same as encouragement and support should be given where it is needed. Science is a hard taskmaster, so none should approach this project casually, but neither should anyone approach it trembling with fear. It takes courage to present a new idea, to be shot down, even humiliated, but all should be encouraged to present theirs. Take the chance, for we never know where the next jewel of truth with come from, sometimes unsuspectingly in spite of ourselves.
In a hundred years, all this may be different, and our understanding may have undergone a quantum leap in physics. We may be looking back at today with a wry amusement, that it was so difficult for us. Many of us know "something" worth sharing with others, though we should expect to falter in trying to either understand it better, and certainly in explaining it to others. When I was a kid, PS 149, Brooklyn, NY, we once had the school principal come into our science class and ask us what was wrong with placing a penny in an electric fusebox. Somehow, we all knew it was wrong and tried our hardest to answer, but not being conversant in scientific things, we all faltered in our explanations, though we understood in principle how it was wrong. I see a forum in Space-Talk like that classroom. Sure, we know something is wrong with physics today, but we falter in explaining it, or even understanding it, mostly because we are ill equipped, and perhaps largely because we do not have the necessary skills to do so. But once the class was told why a penny in a fusebox is a bad thing, everyone suddenly saw it clearly. This is the skill of a good teacher, and the future of physics, that what is so mysterious and difficult today will one day light up like a lightbulb in our head, and become eminently clear. Will we go into space with this new knowledge, perhaps achieving distances and velocities never imagined today? As a betting man, I'd bet a lot that in one hundred years, we will. And the process of search starts now, humbly in a place like this. It is a gift of the world wide web.
So the fundamentals of physics are only what we understand, but they do not yet encompass what we do not understand, of necessity. So it is up to a collective of interested and intelligent minds to each bring something to the table of how they see things. Together, we can make a truly wonderful collection of ideas, a kind of pot-luck, some of which will be absolutely awful, but others really quite good. And from this smorgasbord may yet evolve a new direction of how things work in the universe, which will be the next branch of physics that will take us far into the future, and into space.
So best wishes to all participants, for it is a noble and worthwhile cause. Don't be shy, tell your story clearly, and do not be offended if no one believes you. It's okay. Let history be your judge. Good luck!
Coppernicus2
*Axiomatic Equation:
http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/108.html
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.
Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.
|
Thread 
11/04/03 02:40
Problems with your idea Shambolic
Re: End Thread
