Robert Masse

Physics

Why does gravity exist? What are light waves?.. Physics has provided no answers to these and many other basic questions concerning our Universe. You might even say that physics has failed to discover the very nature of our Universe. While the fundamental forces existing in our Universe have indeed been detected, and the laws describing these forces have generally been documented, the nature of these forces remains a total mystery. Why has the science of physics not made more progress in unveiling the workings of our Universe?

To find the answer to this question we must look back in time to the early 1890s. It was then that a couple of perplexing problems first arose in physics. The British physicist Lord Kelvin referred to these problems as two 'nineteenth century clouds' over physics. When physicists grappled with these problems, the conclusions they arrived at set physics on a path that quickly descended into a labyrinth from which physics has still not escaped.

Although physics can be employed successfully today on a practical level, the foundations of physics now rest on quicksand. As the Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed, 'It’s a terrible mix-up, and you might say it’s a hopeless mess physics has got itself worked into.'

The picture of reality that physics currently paints is so bizarre and, frankly, so unbelievable, that beginning students in physics when confronted with this picture can be excused from exclaiming 'You can’t be serious!' Unfortunately, the Alice-in-Wonderland worldview created by modern physics has done little to achieve a better understanding of the real Universe. And, yes, there is a real Universe.

Deciphering secrets of the real Universe requires taking a new look at some of the problems that plagued physicists over 100 years ago. As we revisit these problems, we will find that it is possible to arrive at conclusions quite different from those obtained many years ago. Moreover, with our new insight into these problems, we can begin to unravel some of the mysteries of our Universe that have puzzled mankind for centuries

QM

Two Slits Open for a Single Photon.. In such an experiment, a single photon from the light source will still be incident on both slits in the aperture screen at the same time, and will produce two coherent sinusoidal wavelets that interfere constructively and destructively. Each of these sinusoidal wavelets will have less energy than a photon of the same frequency, and so the wavelets will not be photons. Moreover, the energy of the two sinusoidal wavelets will generally not be equal.

When the sinusoidal wavelets reach the image screen, the destructively interfering parts of the sinusoidal wavelets will have significantly less energy than a photon of the same frequency, and so will be unable to produce an observable photographic or photoelectric effect. Dark fringes will result. Only the constructively interfering parts of the sinusoidal wavelets will have sufficient energy (approximately the energy of a photon of the same frequency) to produce an observable photographic or photoelectric effect that will contribute to forming bright fringes on the image screen. Moreover, a constructively interfering part of the sinusoidal wavelet must strike an atom on the image screen just right to provide sufficient energy for the atom to change state and eject a single electron.

Out of hundreds of interfering parts of the two wavelets, only one pair will generally produce any observable effect. This effect will usually be isolated to a single atom on the image screen. Therefore, the constructively interfering wavelets will appear to be very localized (at a point) similar to a single particle striking the image screen. Nevertheless, the change occurring in an atom of the image screen in a low-intensity experiment is due to constructively interfering sinusoidal wavelets; not to a particle

Maxwell

Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations for free space can be derived from classical elasticity theory as applied to transverse elastic waves propagating in a perfectly elastic aether..

QM Inconsistency

[Niels Bohr's] first postulated constraint is inconsistent with classical mechanics, which permits any of a continuum of orbital paths around the nucleus. The second constraint is inconsistent with classical electromagnetism, which requires that accelerating electrons radiate electro-magnetic energy that should be detectable... By adopting these postulates, Bohr effectively assumed that neither classical mechanics nor classical electromagnetism is applicable at the scale of atomic dimensions..

The atomic model initially developed by chemists to explain the formation and structure of molecules generally differed from the atomic model developed by physicists primarily in one important respect: the chemist’s atomic model was static..

From a theorem developed by Earnshaw (1842), we know that stable equilibrium cannot be attained by a system of stationary point charges interacting only according to Coulomb’s inverse-square force law... Electrostatic equilibrium cannot exist by itself. Therefore, the force keeping atomic electrons from falling into the nucleus cannot simply be electromagnetic force. Moreover, since the atomic electrons are not accelerating, the force keeping the atomic electrons from falling into the nucleus cannot be centrifugal force. Only one possibility remains: we must conclude that the force keeping the atomic electrons from falling into the nucleus is the weak nuclear force...

The atom is static as proposed in early atomic models developed by chemists.. Atoms are observed to possess a very great stability. This stability can now be seen as the natural result of electron positions in an atom generally corresponding to a minimum energy configuration. Classical physics can explain both the stability and structure of the atom..

Gravitation

Newton’s force law can be used to derive Poisson’s gravitational field equation. Moreover, since Newton’s force law of gravity is not a function of time, Poisson’s field equation of gravity only applies to gravitational fields that are stationary. Therefore, Poisson’s field equation of gravity and Newton’s force law of gravity must be mathematically equivalent for a stationary gravitational field... The physical interpretation of Poisson’s field equation of gravity is, however, very different from the physical interpretation of Newton’s force law of gravity. Rather than the action-at-a-distance interpretation of gravity obtained from Newton’s force law of gravity, Poisson’s field equation is based upon and must be interpreted in terms of the existence of a physical medium consisting of contiguous particles about any material body [aether!]

Relativity

Having concluded that time in our Universe is a result of the flow of aether into matter, we see that time cannot be modified in any way (shortened or lengthened). Time is then uniform and absolute throughout our Universe and is independent of the kinematic properties and spatial position of any observer. Since absolute motion (acceleration) exists in our Universe, it is to be expected that absolute time must also exist. Time is not relative, and time does to alter with the motion of any reference system.

We see, therefore, that Einstein’s special theory of relativity, with its kinematically dependent time, cannot be correct. We also see that, while Newton was correct in postulating the existence of absolute time, he was incorrect in assuming that such time is independent of anything external. Aether provides not only the absolute frame of reference in our Universe, but also (together with matter) the absolute time in our Universe. Time is not, then, a fundamental entity of our Universe..

Spooky QM

[Quantum action-at-a-distance] experiments performed using Bell’s test have generally used photons as the ‘particles’ and the polarization of photons as the discrete parameter. Photons are transverse waves, however, and not particles. Since the waves are split by the polarizer, the emerging waves are generally not photons. Their energy is no longer defined by their frequency. It is not clear that all factors influencing the results of Bell’s test have been fully understood as yet

Higgs

A Higgs particle can never be directly detected. It is thought to exist for only about 10 − 22 seconds. The existence of Higgs particles can only be inferred from indirect evidence. This inferential process involves examining the decay products of high energy particle collisions that occur within a particle accelerator in a search for a certain decay pattern that has been predicted for Higgs particles. Because of the massive amount of data produced in these high energy collisions, extensive data filtering is performed before any search for decay patterns even begins. Statistical methods are then used to detect Higgs particles based on a theoretical model known as the Standard Model of particle physics. If more decay patterns are found having the expected Higgs decay pattern than predicted by the Standard Model assuming Higgs particles do not exist, then the existence of Higgs particles is inferred.

In 2013 the existence of Higgs particles was inferred based upon such indirect evidence. Clearly the validity of this inference depends not only on the functioning of the extreme amount of computer filtering necessary to obtain a meaningful signal from the immense collision-created noise background, but also on the validity of the Standard Model.. The Standard Model has many problems, however, and is almost certainly wrong.. Ironically, the inferred existence of the Higgs particle is now being used to argue for the validity of the Standard Model