The Annals of Frontier and Exploratory Science
What's Wrong with Particle Physics and Atomic Science Regarding
the Averaging Assessment and Prohibited Idea of Scaling in Them?
It is not the current state of affairs in Particle Physics that the idea of
Volumetric, Structured Electron (other particles) was not coming to physicists
(non-orthodox, or mixed dissident physicists) before. There were and are the
attempts and theories of volumetric (extended) fundamental particles.
Still the main fundamental issue these theories could not involve.
What is in it for a Polyphase surrounding? What is it? So, what?
What if it might be a Volumetric particle, what else so important we can do
about it? And How?
We keep answering in the sub-sections of this section to this question.
Briefly we might say -- Oh, well, but this is opening the whole world of
physics sub-atomic scales interaction -- not an "action-at-a-distance," gauge
theories, etc., but real. This also opens a way to justify, really justify
after ~110 years of "one scale for all" (OSFA) the paths and models for
scaleportation of physical phenomena between the scales, that is already known
and working in other physical sciences. Which up to now is the ad-hoc business
in Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Physics (COHP). We said enough on an
inadequacy of the Homogeneous MD pseudo-science
already.
First of all from the sub-atomic scale to the meso-scale continuum
description. Much more on that in this and other websites sections on HSP-VAT
and Physics 2.
The real volumetric particles and heterogeneous, hierarchical physics and
mathematics deliver a number of new unobservable in COHP physical effects and
variables.
Also, the problem of infinity that adheres to the point field theories in COHP
is vanishing when particles are volumetric. This point was and is never
straightly discovered and discussed on public (and mostly in the universities)
in conventional Homogeneous physics. Because this is the real flaw also. Who
wants to name the deal for living as the flawed thing?
In this sub-section (chapter for books) in the website we would like to pay
more attention to the issues that really could not be raised by conventional
physicists.
The problem is with the inadequate methods, mostly mathematical, but and
intentional erroneous methods in physics for treatment of point-mass
point-charge "particles." The central issue is - Regarding the
Averaging Assessment and Prohibited Idea of Scaling in Them?
Because in particle physics almost everything is studied as the single out
particle to make in the subsequent move the assessment, data reduction and
analyses of the overall, bulk, averaged behavior, properties of some volume
with these particles.
Otherwise the whole analysis is not worth the paper it is done on. We cannot
feel or otherwise detect the particles influence, unless in a bulk behavior.
The counters and other special measurement instruments, apparatuses are for
the singled out particles having a sense with the further bulk analysis and
assessment.
As we have shown a few years
ago and published in this website (and mirror sites) in the the sub-sections
and
and in the section -
that many oversimplifications regarding the mathematics of
freevolous particles treatments in reality are the false methods.
Three Important Assumptions That Have Destroyed
Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Physics
1) One is that the sub-atomic ("elementary") particles are the mythical just
mathematical points with mass and charge, but not the real Physical objects of volumetric character.
Because the point in mathematics has No Volume, No Surface, nothing -
just the location coordinates. Physicists probably did not realize this at
that time?
Meanwhile, the subatomic particles have volumes, surfaces, structures, and
other properties.
Water molecules, electrons, hydrogen atom,
hydrogen molecule,
and Point-Mass-Charge-Spins (PMCS) arrows
of COHP those should have no visibility, no image at all, but
only arrows showing the
places in the coordinate system of real points that being
designated in COHP as the Sub-atomic volumeless "particles" -
as well as
of atoms, as it is taught to students in COHP. And these
arrays of arrows do "create" (?!) the Homogeneous media of COHP
in the Upper part of the volume outlined by sphere, but not
the Lower part of this volume REV in the figure.
This Lower part is the real Heterogeneous media of material
substances, any substance.
2) Number two wrong issue that is habitual in particle physics is
the inadequate description of Electromagnetic phenomena related to sub-atomic
particles when the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz (MHL) electrodynamics theory
applied with the system of equations that used for explanations for more than
a hundred years in Continuum Mechanics. In spite
that even in the XIX century there were noticed imbalances in initial set up
and conceptual approach to the MHL system of equations with the lack of
experimental verification. During the XX century and the beginning of this XXI
many scrupulous scientists found imbalances, and inadequacies in applications
of MHL electrodynamics to technical, practical problems. And started
questioning and advancements. More of that, the substantial and well-founded
GEK (Galilean Electrodynamics by Klyushin) theory (we are talking on the
really well-founded one) had been advanced. Not only one new theory
is known now, but the best right now (we have been
analyzing other theories as well and critique has been laid out and known
elsewhere) and we put forward many arguments
supporting new Galilean Electrodynamics now [10-13].
3) The third area of inadequate reasoning in particle physics is the
wrong mathematics they (orthodox professionals) used for centuries, but for
and with another goal. We are talking about the wrong Homogeneous mathematics
used in particle physics as well as in all physics for everything on this
planet and for astrophysics as if media are Homogeneous. At the beginning of
XX, and in the earlier times in XIX, in the midst of XX there were no correct
tools to use for Heterogeneous problems so, mathematicians and physicists used
and continue to use in their research what they knew - the Homogeneous Calculus and related
disciplines for that.
These three areas, among others, when they are wrong they had brought
in many inadequacies and problems in descriptions for particle physics
phenomena.
We understand and the source of such insolvent mathematics for the imbalanced
physical assumptions, conjectures.
The reasons are that a great amount of electrodynamics, its methods,
theoretical constructions at the beginning of XX had been already
developed for the electrical charges as being the
CONTINUUM MATTER, which after discovery of particulate charges should be
re-thought in terms of the mathematical validity of MHL electrodynamics and
the whole physics as well.
That was not done [10-12]. Due to a few reasons, all of them are false and insolvent.
And that hidden path of physics advancements had brough the almost mortal
consequences.
Now physics has been stuck in its own trap.
We would like to put here some of the findings from the advancements of
Electrodynamics 2 and Particle physics 2 texts to clarify the habitual errors
that are not seen as errors at all - so much of wrong education has being
placed in the heads of students through these ~110 years.
The kind of undoubted conventional Homogeneous physics statements that we will
put in below probably can be found in every textbook on Quantum Mechanics
(QM), atomic physics, small scale materials science, etc. These theses are
intended to prove the claims of QM proponents that everything is good apart of
to the point when the classical physics "seems" cannot overcome the
difficulties of the theory of sub-atomic physics.
We took these theses from a university book and don't want to spell out the
name of author of this textbook - because those books are million, and all are
similar in their teachings and content. So, in these sentences there are
nothing new or extra- special in terms of uniqueness or originality of this
text. If anybody want to know the author of this textbook - we will spell it
out, turn in for this to us. Then, seems better if we won't spell out the
author's name - because we would like to affirm the HSP-VAT arguments that
destroy these many decades taught QM false statements.
1 Fundamental Concepts of Conventional Orthodox
Homogeneous Physics (COHP) and Quantum Mechanics
1.1 Breakdown of Classical Physics as COHP and Comments
Based on HSP-VAT
"The necessity for a departure from classical physics is demonstrated by the
following phenomena:
1. Anomalous Atomic and Molecular Stability.
According to classical physics, an electron orbiting an
atomic nucleus undergoes acceleration and should, therefore, lose
energy via the continuous emission of electromagnetic radiation, causing it to
gradually spiral in towards the nucleus. Experimentally, this is not observed
to happen."
Our comment: The problem with this statement of COH
physics is that they declare the wrong initial premise - that
"an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus undergoes"
while this fairy tale that started by N.Bohr is not of reality. The planetary
model of Atom does not correspond to many evidences, experimental results
- see publications by Kanarev, Ph.M. [1-9] and other professionals agreed with
him.
So, because electrons ARE NOT CIRCLING THE NUCLEUS
the said above statement of COHP is dismissed in whole.
"2. Anomalously Low Atomic and Molecular Specific Heats.
According to the equipartition theorem of classical physics, each degree of
freedom of an atomic or molecular system should contribute R/2 to its molar
specific heat capacity, where R is the molar ideal gas constant. In fact, only
the translational, and some rotational, degrees of freedom seem to contribute.
The vibrational degrees of freedom appear to make no contribution at all
(except at high temperatures). Incidentally, this fundamental problem with
classical physics was known and appreciated by the middle of the nineteenth
century.
Stories that physicists at the start of the twentieth century
thought that classical physics explained everything, and that there was
nothing left to discover, are largely apocryphal (see Feynman, Volume I,
Chapter 40). "
Our comment: That is not true - well, may be in the
North America physicists wanted to say just differently- afterwards, but in
Europe that mode was real and widespread.
In his autobiography A.Ioffe wrote about that mode - and
Ioffe knew everyone significant physicist in Europe and might be in the US.
So, that was true, and nothing was said by Feynman - oh, he was about like to
exaggerate, even dangerously.
Now, returning to the fabricated "Anomalously Low Atomic
and Molecular Specific Heats" clause - we might say that this story is
belonging to the Homogeneous One Scale for All (OSFA) classical physics, along
with Equilibrium Homogeneous Thermodynamics. And in reality is not to be
described as that - it is the polyscale matter problem and assessments should
be attained via Polyscale Polyphase methods.
Of course, the atomic or molecular systems are the
polyscale matter to talk about - and in these terms "its molar specific heat
capacity" not to be determined as in the OSFA physics that does not
distinguish properly the Heterogeneous systems and their properties.
Meaning, there is no such a problem at all.
"3. Ultraviolet Catastrophe.
According to classical physics, the equilibrium energy density of an
electromagnetic field contained within a vacuum cavity whose walls are held at
a fixed temperature is infinite, due to a divergence of energy carried by
short wavelength modes. This divergence is called the
ultraviolet catastrophe. Experimentally, there is no such divergence,
and the total energy density is finite."
Our comment: Oh, yah, there is no such divergence as
long as - there is no such an electromagnetic field based on presentation of
electromagnetic radiation in Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Physics (COHP)
as the field - but the flux of photons of different energy. Because of this -
the conceptual mathematical construction for a real amount of photons within
the cavity - is the subject of correct Polyphase particle physics - but not
mathematical constructions of "mythical" electromagnetic field. There is the
PHOTON FIELD which can be modeled via wave mechanics at some conditions.
"4. Wave-Particle Duality.
Classical physics treats waves and particles as completely distinct phenomena.
However, various experiments (e.g., the interference of light, the
photoelectric effect, electron diffraction) demonstrate that waves sometimes
act as if they were streams of particles, and streams of particles sometimes
act as if they were waves. This behavior is completely inexplicable within the
framework of classical physics."
Our comment: There is no any "wave-particle duality" as
long as there is no the one scale physics when we deal with the mass
number of similar acts, bodies, particles, phenomena.
This behavior IS COMPLETELY EXPLAINABLE within the scaled
Heterogeneous physics (HSP-VAT) as long as the whole amount of moving
particles with the correct physical, mathematical treatment of their collective
interacting movements and properties can have the PATTERNS OF WAVES (and
mathematically) or the behavior of particles.
"1.2 Fundamental Principles of Quantum Mechanics
There is nothing special about the transmission and absorption of photons
through a polarizing film. Exactly the same conclusions as those outlined
above are obtained by studying other simple experiments, such as the
interference of photons (see Dirac, Section I.3), and the Stern-Gerlach
experiment (see Sakurai, Chapter 1; Feynman, Chapter 5). The study of these
simple experiments leads us to formulate the following fundamental principles
of quantum mechanics:"
"1. Dirac's Razor.
Quantum mechanics can only answer questions regarding the outcome of possible
experiments. Any other questions lie beyond the realms of physics."
Our comment: This is true about the first sentence, but
not a complete truth, we do not have doubts about that. The issue is - What
about to form the more correct questions and models for those?
Saying that QM is the only tool and no other tools for
physics are in need it's over-bluffing. It's incorrect.
"2. Principle of the Superposition of States.
Any microscopic system (i.e., an atom, molecule, or particle) in a given state
can be regarded as being partly in each of two or more other states. In other
words, any state can be regarded as a superposition of two or more other
states. Such superpositions can be performed in an infinite number of
different ways."
Our comment: Oh, this is the clever formulated principle
- instead of honestly say - that we consider only the linear and potential
kind of interactions, states.
In this formulation physicists at the beginning of XX
went far enough to change the names of the subject - it is easier to say the
"state", instead of some real physical definition like - coordinate, velocity,
mass, field value, etc.
Because not many people mathematically proficient to the
level to understand - that the "superposition principle" just means that we
don't want to say straightly that we do only addition of effects, we can not
assess, calculate the real total collective interactions, period.
And you know why conventional physicists could not
calculate the collective interactions - yes, that is the mathematical problem,
not solved at that time and not solved by COHP even now! So, they decided to
hide these words and saying like - "any state can be regarded as a
superposition of two or more other states."
That is not true and even the great simplification for most
of the states, because most of the problems are Collectively Interactive and
ARE NONLINEAR.
Another great reason is that what we have been saying for
decades - is that in COHP there is no ways to determine the correct averaging
procedures, because everything and especially in a microworld - is a
heterogeneous matter.
While COHP can not do the bulk assessment, averaging of
Heterogeneous matter - either in the sub-atomic or macro- scales. Yah,
professors even don't know about that.
Also, this is the great secret in COHP.
"3. Principle of Indeterminacy.
An observation made on a microscopic system causes it to jump into one or more
particular states (which are related to the type of observation). It is
impossible to predict into which final state a particular system will jump.
However, the probability of a given system jumping into a given final state
can be predicted. The first of these principles was formulated by quantum
physicists (such as Dirac) in the 1920's to fend off awkward questions such
as "How can a system suddenly jump from one state into another?",
or
"How does a system decide which state to jump in to?".
As we shall see, the second principle is the basis for the mathematical
formulation of quantum mechanics. The final principle is still rather vague.
We need to extend it so that we can predict which possible states a system can
jump into after a particular type of observation, as well as the probability
of the system making a particular jump. "
Our comment:
To be politically (in present days) correct the author,
who is the fan of Dirac seems, does not mention first of all the name of
Werner K. Heisenberg who's name has this principle.
It is known generally that this postulate is actually
incorrect: either from the polyscale HSP-VAT point of view or/and following
other arguments including experimental evidences.
Then for this COHP (QM) statement we might mention the
conclusion by M.Evans in - http://www.aias.us
"9) Refutation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Some_Obsolete_Concepts_of_the_Standard_Model
....."7. The principle of indeterminacy has been refuted experimentally by up
to nine orders of magnitude, and is meaningless dogma that violates causality."......
Good words in refuting one of the QM outdated approximate
statements.
But the most dramatic and simple argument against this
"principle" is of the scale consideration:
As long as all sub-atomic particles are the Volumetric
objects - that means that at any different moment and angle of interaction with
observation or instrument of another influence - the response (reaction of
collision, for example), momentum after collision and location of collision
can be different in dependence of the size, angle and other properties of this
Volumetric objects - particle and of another Volumetric object (particle) that
collides with it.
Now, we demonstrated that there is no need to blame the
physics in general to shift for explanation to only
QM and point-mass structureless particle physics,
because that COHP physics of the beginning of XX has been advanced definitely
and in many directions. The polyscale polyphase physics HSP-VAT that is
restoring value of an aether (along with other great scientific advancements
by non-orthodox physicists) as a component of interaction (no
action-at-a-distance, but polyphase interaction as in nature is indeed)
explains with its methods and results the all like "roadblocks" toward the
sub-atomic physics theories.
Further for our arguments we are providing here the excerpts from the long
texts in the sub-sections
and
where we will make a specifically focused observation for students and other
interested professionals of many (not all of them here) hidden imbalances or
wrong features in conventional Homogeneous particle physics, electrodynamics
in particle physics mostly when issues are on the Collective particles
interaction.
Physics needs an averaging in this situation. And
according to the concepts we have been working out for many years and
published in some sections-sciences of this website (for each science they are
different or substantially different) and for particle physics as well - the
averaging assessments one needs to do everywhere in physics and particle
physics especially.
Lorentz (1923) on the Future Modifications of Maxwell Equations
Lorentz himself in his "Clerk Maxwell's
Electromagnetic Theory. The Rede Lecture for 1923, Cambridge" (1923) used to
say that:
"Will it be possible to maintain these equations? I am not
thinking here of the comparatively slight modifications that have been
necessary in the theory of relativity;.....
A greater and really serious danger is threatening from the side of
the quantum theory, for the existence of amounts of energy that remain
concentrated in small spaces during their propagation, to which
several phenomena seem to point,
is in
absolute contradiction
to Maxwell's equations...."
Maxwell's equations.
However this may be, even if further development should require
profound alterations, Maxwell's theory will always remain a step of
the highest importance in the progress of physics."
where he was citing Maxwell himself:
"It appears to me that while we derive great advantage from the recognition of
the many analogies between the electrical current and a current of a material
fluid, we must carefully avoid making any assumption not warranted by
experimental evidence,......
A knowledge of these things would amount to at least the
beginning of a complete dynamical theory of electricity, in which we should
regard electrical action, not, as in this treatise, as a phenomenon due to an
unknown cause, subject only to the general laws of dynamics, but as
the result of known motions of known portions of matter, in which not
only the total effects and final results, but the whole intermediate mechanism
and details of the motion, are taken as the object of study."
Our comments:
Note that Maxwell said these
words long before an electron, a nucleus, other particles, and atomic
structures of matter were discovered.
Landau and Lifshits on Averaging of Atomic Scale
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Electromagnetism Equations
Landau and Lifshits (1957, 1960) wrote on
the Macroscopic form of Maxwell set of atomic scale equations.
In the very first page 11 (Russian publication) they
wrote:
"That is, instead of real "microscopic" value of electric field strength
we will be considering its averaged value, determine it as
Basic equations of continuum mechanics electrodynamics usually obtained by
averaging of equations of electromagnetic field in the vacuum. This
transformation from micro- to macroscopic equations was firstly performed by
G.A.Lorentz."
Our comments:
In p. 12 authors just boldly saying that averaging of microscopic equations
and
straightly bring the forms
Averaging by these authors has been made mainly verbally.
Levich's "Averaging" of Atomic Scale
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Equations
In our comments: .....
..Also, there is no description on - What is the
averaging volume? and
How it exactly will be averaged - if the bounding
averaging volume surface is cutting through the particles, charges, atoms,
molecules, etc.?
They did not need the form, shape and bounding surface of the
REV, because they did not describe that REV at all!! Can we imagine this
now?
More on that - they just do the integration! In the first part of XX
century they did not bother at all - how to do that averaging? They don't do
averaging in most cases at all, a mean integral value, no - they do just the
unspecified volume integration! That's it, no deletion on the volume of REV?!
Unbelievable, but people are so accustomed to this incorrect 'averaging," that
do not note - What is this mathematics all about?
More on that - they just do the integration! In the
first part of XX century they did not bother at all - how to do that
averaging? They don't do averaging in most cases at all, a mean integral
value, no - they do just the unspecified volume integration! That's it, no
deletion on the volume of REV?! Unbelievable, but people are so accustomed to
this incorrect 'averaging," that do not note - What is this mathematics all
about?
.........What a simple averaging !
That is why nobody wanted
throughout these >40 years after 1967, when firstly appeared the Heterogeneous
Gauss-Ostrogradsky and other heterogeneous media theorems, to recognize the
correct averaging over the heterogeneous subjects and media. Because of the
averaging mode that had established itself in atomic physics, particle physics
as that has being thought that in the 1900th-50s of XX century the good
procedures, mathematical methods for averaging the points with nothing in
between in an unspecified unknown volume
to average the atomic,
sub-atomic matters all over the same unspecified volumes.
Jackson (1999) Pseudo-Averaging of Atomic Scale
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Equations
In p. 248 Jackson (1999) starts the attempt to connect the microscale - atomic
actually, and the continuum mechanics model of Maxwell-Lorentz equations,
starting writing the macroscale Maxwell equations.
From our comments:
"........We ought to declare the complete ignorance also and of this
rather well known author regarding the averaging mathematics as it was
developed since 1967. /SPAN>
The matter of fact is that the
(6.67) both equations are incorrect and the following wrong statement about
the commutation of averaging and operators is the base of the hundred years
falsification in atomic and macroscopic as they say physics.
We need to write here regarding these
pseudo-averaging rules the very important two notes and observe the following
two issues:
1) The first is that the real averaging volume - Representative Elementary
Volume (REV) has never been described or even briefly illustrated
in homogeneous physics.
Even there is no figure students can locate in textbooks (if anyone find and
point me out the place of publication, I will comment on that).
And this is common in orthodox homogeneous physics - researcher, reader or
student can be easily driven into a variable false construction in need at any
moment. Mostly in atomic and particle physics this is the frivolous REV - most
often the REV that is so large that it embraces the whole subject, piece of
matter, material that is under investigation. This is done to declare many
surficial integrals equal to zero. ....."
.........
Schwinger et al. (1998) Pseudo-Averaging of Microscale
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Equations
In the textbook by Schwinger et al. (1998) given the good example of
reasoning, methods used in homogeneous physics to derive (and by this to
validate, justify) the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz electrodynamics equations for
a continuum. Everyone was able to analyze these rather complicated
mathematically ideas and methods used for "homogenized" mixing of atomic scale
particles and of the "vacuum" to get Up to the continuum media
electromagnetism governing equations.
After more of tedious deliberation of scaleportation in MHL electrodynamics,
then in the first part of this analysis - "What's Wrong with the
Pseudo-Averaging Used in Textbooks on Atomic Physics and Electrodynamics for
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Electromagnetism Equations", on the initial
fundamental conjectures in the textbook by Schwinger et al. (1998) we found
the need to write almost the same comments as we wrote for the very accepted
in physics of English speaking communities book by Jackson (1999), namely:
Our comments:
Here is very important to
note and observe the following two issues:
1) The first is that the real averaging volume -
Representative Elementary Volume (REV) has never been described or even
briefly illustrated in homogeneous physics.
Even there is no figure that students can locate in
textbooks (if anyone find and point me out the place of publication, I will
comment on that).
And this is common in orthodox homogeneous physics - researcher, reader or
student can be easily driven into a variable false
constructions that are in need at any moment. Mostly in the
atomic and particle physics this is the frivolous REV - most often the REV
that is so large that it embraces the whole subject, piece of matter, material
that is under investigation. This is done to declare many surficial integrals
equal to zero.
That is the recent design of coarse-graining sequence
algorithms of "Superatoms" in chemistry of polymers is taken from the
hierarchical scaled methodology developed in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal
physics in 80s-90s, while using only chemical specific homogeneous techniques
- which is the incorrect averaging.
The very important reason to hide and not specify the
REV for this kind of averaging is obvious from the averaging construction (by
Lorentz) of Atomic scale (microscale) Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz equations
when for the key averaged terms
and
at the end needs to be fixed (fitted) the mathematical expressions for
surficial integrals in a way that nullify the very important terms that we
need to retain for correct integration.
In this way the equations are brought to the
homogeneous continuum media form obtained by Lorentz and that form is incorrect.
In All subsequent effort in atomic physics
workers should have
followed these simplifications by Lorentz to get the same bulk continuum media
electrodynamics equations - as we know them for more than 110 years.
This misfortunate situation lasts for so long
because the proper mathematical tools for heterogeneous media averaging were
not at disposal of Lorentz.
2) The formulae (4.51) hide the important features of averaging for multiphase
heterogeneous media.
Generally, these formulae are not correct for
Heterogeneous media. That is why the orthodox conventional physics for so many
years since 1967 and during the following in
the 80-90s developments in the HSP-VAT tried to hide,
suppress and silence the truthful physics and mathematics of multiphase
microscale theory, modeling with averaging and scaleportation, presented in
the HSP-VAT methods and math.
Because in this way all these constructions of
averaging in atomic, particle physics, and continuum mechanics as given above
for only this example of averaging Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz equations, are falsified.
And they have been falsified anyway, because the correct physical and
mathematical methods of HSP-VAT already proved for many problems that
homogeneous methods just bring approximate and often misleading incorrect
results.
See in our -
and
plus achievements updated up to 2004-2005 (we do more on that
- not all achievements can be stood plainly up-front):
and other pages of our websites.
Meanwhile, all other conventional textbooks on
electrodynamics and materials science are showing the same type of
homogeneous mathematical procedures for
heterogeneous averaging.
And this falsified electrodynamics lies in the
very core of the Contemporary Orthodox Homogeneous physics (COHP) - from
particle and atomic physics up to astrophysics of "Big Bang" and "Black Holes".
The Conclusions we wrote regarding the false averaging procedures accepted in
Electrodynamics and particularly in particle physics Electrodynamics for
sub-atomic imaginable "particles" since 1920-40s are worth to apply and to
other sub-atomic methods that are "happily" used in conventional Homogeneous
Particle Physics.
Meanwhile, there are numerous pieces of developments in particle physics that
have been done wrongly because of Homogeneous physics methods or Homogeneous
mathematics applied to Heterogeneous problems.
CONCLUSIONS:
1) All the effort spent by physicists in XX century when for justifying the
appearance of Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz
electrodynamics continuum scales equations was to find out the appropriate or
approximate mathematical procedures which can be called "fixing" for making
a way to pseudo-average the atomic scale Lorentz electromagnetism equations and
present them looking as the macroscale equations also by Lorentz, but for
which Lorentz could not use the correct averaging mathematics and physics of
the end of XX century.
Up to now physicists had not used the correct scaled
averaging methods for atomic scale Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz electrodynamics
equations.
2) Because the problem of averaging of the array of moving atoms, molecules,
free electrons, photons embedded in a medium that
can be called vacuum (and is not really empty space - it
is what for hundreds years called as the aether) is the problem of scaled
heterogeneous physics, it should be treated with the tools of that physics,
including first of all the various Volume-Surface integration theorems,
developed for Heterogeneous media.
That is why the methods used in homogeneous physics must fail and
have been failing for >130 years to develop the
correct macroscale medium electrodynamics governing equations.
3) What is used right now in physics as for the
macroscale continuum homogeneous medium, and not only homogeneous, are the
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz electrodynamics equations that is the statement
that has been adjusted to the form developed by Lorentz after discovery of
electron and that is the incomplete governing equations set for
electromagnetism phenomena.
There are written the huge amount of documents, papers,
books on evidences on inconsistency and disagreement of modeling using these
governing equations with experiments. These evidences continue to be ignored
by conformal physics establishment (the reasons are also known and said of
many times) and that precludes the purposes of higher standards of education,
exclude chances for basic science breakthroughs, understanding of many
puzzling effects and inventions.
4) Generally, these averaging formulae and pseudo-averaged EM governing
equations used up to now in homogeneous microscale electrodynamics, are not
correct for atomic scale, for the Upper scales
averaging, for Heterogeneous media. That is why the orthodox conventional
physics for so many years since 1967 and during the following in
the 80-90s developments in the HSP-VAT tried to
ignore, suppress and silence the truthful physics and mathematics of
multiphase microscale electrodynamics theory, modeling with averaging and
scaleportation, presented in the HSP-VAT methods and math.
Because of this way of homogeneous averaging in atomic and particle physics as
given above for averaging of Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz equations, the Upper
scale (continuum mechanics) equations have been falsified and incomplete.
All conventional textbooks on electrodynamics and
materials science are showing the same type of incorrect mathematical
procedures for heterogeneous averaging. Well - this is actual cheating on the
students and general public, professionals in various sciences and
technologies!
Meanwhile, this falsified electrodynamics that is
being adjusted for every case, lies in the very core of the Conventional
Orthodox Homogeneous Physics (COHP) - from particle and atomic physics up to astrophysics.
5) Lorentz himself in his "Clerk Maxwell's
Electromagnetic Theory. The Rede Lecture for 1923, Cambridge" (1923) used to
say that:
"Will it be possible to maintain these equations? I am not
thinking here of the comparatively slight modifications that have been
necessary in the theory of relativity;.....
A greater and really serious danger is threatening from the side of
the quantum theory, for the existence of amounts of energy that remain
concentrated in small spaces during their propagation, to which
several phenomena seem to point,
is in
absolute contradiction
to Maxwell's equations. ......"
6) There would be many formulations in electrodynamics for different matters
and for different scales. Not as of the case that used right now which is the
application of the same kind of Lorentz' Continuum Mechanics electrodynamics
equations for any scale and any medium. Just using changed coefficients that
are the adjusting parameters right now.
7) We have found the ways to obtain the Upper macroscale of Continuum
Mechanics modeling electrodynamics equations all based on correct
heterogeneous mathematics applied to the atomic scale Equations of
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz :
8) This analysis of COH
particle physics is/was not conceivable to provide on the base of the same
COHP because there are no tools, concepts, methods of HSP-VAT that are the
generally acceptable parts of COHP (they cannot do the
correction operation themselves being inside of themselves),
but only in a few fields
of Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Physics, Continuum Mechanics, Earth sciences,
Environmental, Mechanical, Aerospace, and Chemical engineering where research
was supported by the USSR and the US government agencies throughout ~25 years,
by the way.
In all other physical and engineering sciences -
especially in those
critically important for conventional Homogenous academic
physics and biology as Electrodynamics, Atomic, Nuclear, Spinning, and Particle Physics,
Hierarchical Mathematics, Biology, Biophysics, Medicine,
some other parts of physics everything have being
developed by private efforts.
That is why the many parts of Hierarchical Scaled physics
and mathematics are existing mostly outside of the
university classes and laboratories in the US.
We need to remind to students that HSP-VAT is the
covering (embracing) physics for COHP, which is obvious for researchers in
exploratory sciences.
REFERENCES:
1. Kanarev, Ph.M., The Transfer of Information in the Space. 7th New Lecture on Unity Axiom," http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Lectures", retrieved 05/05.2013
2. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Model of the Electron," Apeiron, Vol. 7, No. 3-4, pp. 184-194, (2000)
3. Kanarev, Ph.M., "A Model for the Free Electron," Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 13, No. S1, pp. 15-18, (2002)
4. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Electrons in Atom," Journal of Theoretics, Vol.4-4, pp. - , (2002)
5. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Modelling the Photon and Analyzing Its Electromagnetic and Physical Nature ," Journal of Theoretics, Vol.4-1, pp. 1-12, (2002)
6. Kanarev, Ph.M., Photon, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013
7. Kanarev, Ph.M., Nuclei of Atoms, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013
8. Kanarev, Ph.M., Answers to Microworld Questions, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Answers"; retrieved 05/05/2013
9. Kanarev, Ph.M., Introduction to New Electrodynamics, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013
10. Travkin, V. S., "Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P (Polyphase-Polyscale-Polyphysics),"
retrieved 06/05/2013
11. Travkin, V. S., What's Wrong with the Pseudo-Averaging Used in
Textbooks on Atomic Physics and Electrodynamics for Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz
Electromagnetism Equations,
(2009)
12. Travkin, V. S., Incompatibility of Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics
Equations at Atomic and Continuum Scales,
(2009)
13. Travkin, V. S. and Bolotina, N.N., "The Classical and Sub-Atomic
Physics are the Same Physics,"
,
(2013)
14. Travkin, V.S., "Solid State Plasma Models,"
(2006)
15. Travkin, V.S., Nanotechnologies - General
Concept for Pretty Large Amount of Pretty Small Gadgets
Embedded Into Something and Consequences for Design and
Manufacturing,
(2006)
16. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics - Heterogeneous
Polyscale Collectively Interactive,
(2011)
17. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics (Particle
Physics 2). Fundamentals,
(2013)
18. Travkin, V.S., Nuclear Physics Structured.
Introduction,
(2006-2013)
19. Travkin, V.S., Experimental Science in Heterogeneous Media,
(2005)
20. Travkin, V.S., Statistical Mechanics Homogeneous for Point
Particles. What Objects it Articulates?
(2014)
21. Travkin, V.S., Solid State Polyscale Physics. Fundamentals,
(2014)
22. Travkin, V.S.,
"Two-Scale Three-Phase Regular and Irregular Shape Charged Particles (Electrons, Photons) Movement in MHL Electromagnetic Fields in a Vacuum0 (Aether),"
23. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N.,
"Two-Scale Two-Phase Formation of Charged 3D Continuum Particles - Sphere and Cube From Electrons in a Vacuum0 (Aether). An Example of Scaleportation of Charge from the Sub-Atomic to Continuum Charged Particles, Conventional MD Cannot be Applied,"
24. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N.,
"One Structured Electron in an Aether (Vacuum0) Electrodynamics,
Many Electrons in an Aether Fixed in Space - the Upper
Scale Galilean Electrodynamics ,"
25. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N.,
"Electrons and CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) Flux of
Photons in a Vacuum0 (Aether) - Two-Scale Galilean Theory ,"
and in publications mentioned above.
====================================================================================
Any information displayed here is the propriatary information
in the area of:
"What's Wrong with Particle Physics and Atomic Science Regarding
the Averaging Assessment and Prohibited Idea of Scaling in Them?"
These are also the well known
problems - still can not be solved within the Homogeneous One-Scale
particle physics, electromagnetism, gravitation theories.
491) UNDER CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT
