Member

Covering a huge range of topics, physics is influenced in various ways not always helpful to it as a natural science in its own right. Particularly the misuse of mathematics facilitated to establish dogmas, making physics the battlefield of what may be called the language of power (LOP). LOP is the manifold voice of mainstream control over physics against justified criticism. The present essay exemplifies some ways of manipulation: Formulas, fancy names, ill-defined concepts, authority, fame, propaganda, gedanken experiments, lacking precision, "correct" results, the "heureka effect", or the hasty acceptance of "established knowledge". Exploring the traces of LOP including those beyond physics is good for some surprises - a valuable lesson for our everyday lives, too.

In 2013, we commemorate the centenary of several marked events in physics among which one is particularly dear to the NPA family: The publication of Sagnac's famous rotating interferometer experiment in the scientific French journal Comptes Rendues. Apart from that widely known experiment conspicuously little is officially communicated about Sagnac's life. Is it because he was a decided opponent (un opposant ardent) to special relativity? Here we have a chance and a duty to bring back the memory of Georges Marc Marie Sagnac (1869 - 1926) who is also credited for pioneering work with X-rays including the discovery of X-ray fluorescence. The Sagnac Award combines the merits of our fellow scientists with those of the still deplorably neglected namesake of the Award. Not only has Sagnac's research brought forth a wealth of technical applications - important lessons due to his work await to be learned. One of them is so elementary it is easily overlooked: We have to say farewell to the dogmatism which arouse from the overestimation of the observers' role. Uniqueness is the solid ground on which we may cautiously proceed in our efforts for more consistency (not "understanding"!) concerning various topics of physics. And -we learn a lot about the hidden psychological effects on our own efforts!

"The Enemy of Science is not Error - but Inertness" - Henry Thomas Buckle (1821 - 1862), English historian

"If you can't beat them, join them" has no justification in science, otherwise we would never had a Copernicus, a Kepler, a Galilei, a Giordano Bruno who courageously rose against dogma. Inertness is the easy path to dogma and a ?closed case? label on a still open issue. Physics suffers from too many premature ?case closed? labels. There is no closed case in natural science - that is one of its trademarks. The other trademark is self-correctness. Performing an experiment or setting up a theory means to keep track of conditions or assumptions, respectively. The photoelectric effect, Maxwell's equations, the ?ether hassle?, E = mc², the Michelson-Morley experiment, quantization, tunneling, ... - the list is long and none of its items is a closed case. Take an elementary (really?) ?down-to-earth? problem like the oblique throw: Its customary treatment is inconsistent. You don't have to do any calculation to see that this ?flat earth? result is definitely wrong, violating time honored physical principles, no matter how satisfactory its numerical outcome. If we fail here to arrive at consistency, how can we hope to cope with the above list? It's rather a matter of psychology than of science that we don't slow down in our jumping at conjectures and keep our feet on solid ground instead and release a result only if we are (at least halfway) sure that it will stand the ?test of time?. Practically all fields of physics require continuous fresh thinking. Science is the ?paradise of thinking? and we should not let inertness expel us from it!

Some cult theories of physics suffer from anthropocentric views. Dogmatizing the observer's role, his impressions or influence opens the door to questionable conclusions, like giving a transformation the status of a natural law, relying on "predictive powers" of light and tying its velocity to the observer, formulating the "uncertainty principle" or taking for granted that the universe is finite and started with a Big Bang. It's an irony of 20th century physics that Einstein was rejected where he was halfway right (his objection to Copenhagen quantum theory) and was accepted where he was definitely wrong (his relativity theories and his naive one-photon interpretation of the photoelectric effect). Worse still, "they" now signal to abandon relativity in order to save even more mysterious ideas that are all the rage. We have enough difficulties with other problems and should not bang our heads against walls that may be easily recognized as home-made obstacles, like confusing time and duration, energy and energy changes, dynamics and kinematics, or like over-emphasizing non-physical concepts like "probability" and "signal". A good idea is to step back far enough from the scenario in order to gain a fresh and distant view that not only covers different disciplines of physics but also different centuries - and includes one's own arguments. A distant view also implies that we don't invest our efforts in "understanding" or "explaining" (our experience has shown that this cannot be achieved), but content ourselves to strive for consistency. Here, we really may learn from math: If you can't explain it - define it. And math is a good teacher when it comes to getting a distant view. Some quantities and concepts like squared velocities or quantization appear under a new "light" when seen from a distance. There are instants where math seems to produce a correct result, but still fails to give an answer to the physical problem. A correct result is necessary but not sufficient to prove a theory right. No formula can do that. Il faut reculer pour mieux sauter - it's advisable to recede for a better jump, but not at conclusions.

We have gathered here at the occasion of the presentation of the 2011 Sagnac Award to Halton ?Chip? Arp.

This reward is particularly close to Chip's heart because, while the other prizes recognize results or new ideas or new observations, the Sagnac Award recognizes and honors Freedom and Courage. Indeed,
for Chip, a strong sense of freedom was required. Freedom to undertake new types of observations, critically examine current dogma, challenge common thinking, not giving in to the scientific social pressure.

This is, I imagine, one aspect of the freedom that the new Bundespraesident , Mr. Joachim Gauck, would like to see spreading widely throughout the society.

I would like to end by quoting the 6th paragraph of the preamble of the Swiss Constitution : Free is only the one who uses his freedom.

"We do not stumble over mountains - we stumble over mole hills" - Confucius

This philosophical motto continues to be a welcome inspiration to a distant view of science in general and physics in particular. Here the mole hill serves as metaphor for all those obstacles we tend to overlook in our intellectual efforts. If we watched out for those little mole hills at our feet, we would have a safer excursion to the mountains of science. As exemplified in the following, mole hills come in various kinds of disguises, some of them proving to be quite unsuspected and surprising, with a lot of psychology involved. Thorough observation and analysis (if needed, over and over again) definitely makes you a slow poke; but at times, it's quite rewarding to go slow in science. There is no need to dwell in formulas in order to formulate the warning about deadend roads, inconsistencies, unjustified conclusions and generalizations, and other kinds of pitfalls which will be presented here in a grab bag fashion. This is just an appetizer for your own mole hill hunting. Once you are on the lookout for those mole hills, you are sure to find more and more, outside science, too. And it's fun to do so.

Light has a hitherto unnoticed property. Einstein said that light has mass. If light has mass, then it must also have a gravitation potential. We suggest that is the constant gravitation potential of light and energy, which we call the c-square potential. A sample of the arguments used to justify this suggestion include the following: the c-square potential is consistent with the bending of light in a gravitational field, is the largest possible gravitation potential, is familiar from the definition of spacetime, constitutes the space-filling gravitational field far away from masses (limiting case of a ?matterless universe?), and has been overlooked because of the use of geometrized units. If the c-square potential is valid, then the Einstein field equations have something quite new to offer for the 21st century.

The abstract below is the overture to a joint paper which was to be Bob Heaston's latest publication on a subject that he shared with me during the past years. It became Bob's last paper. He was kind enough to take me aboard as co-author. In memory of Bob, a brilliant fellow scientist with varied interests and a good fried, I discuss the history and intention of the paper, its principal idea, and the reply from the editor of Annalen der Physik.

Science has its peculiar way: It doesn't forgive the slightest mistake, and, with its too many pitfalls, it makes us careless. These pitfalls are like mole hills that make us stumble all too easily while we look for the mountains. There are mole hills galore. They come in two categories: Psychological and factual, both playing an important role, usually entangled in a tricky way.

Psychological Aspects of Mole Hills

Pet ideas are easily adopted but hard to get rid of. A common pet idea has it that science provides us with ?understanding' so we can ?explain' when applying ?common sense'. But does it? All we can ask for is consistency. The price for carelessness is inconsistency which sooner or later surfaces, even if a theory happens to produce a ?correct' result that seems to be in accord with an experimental observation. We should not forget that correct results are just a necessary condition, but never sufficient to give a theory a permanent place in the Temple of Science. ?Success', especially if owed to ?mathematical benevolence', may be deceptive and may make us jump at conclusions. Observer-centered views and unscientific questions are dead-end roads which blocked the course of physics all too often. The old story of geocentric vs. heliocentric conceptions has been repeated by 20th century physics, invariably confusing the two worlds. We should be aware that an assumption, be it principal, conceptual or specific with respect to the experiment/theory in question, is not a fact and that science is in dire need of its own clear language and unambiguous definitions.

Factual (Scientific) Aspects of Mole Hills

Under the aspect of the above mole hills, it comes as no surprise that special and general relativity, Copenhagen quantum theory with its ?uncertainty principle' and misleading ?wave-particle dualism', Big Bang, and even the time-honored Maxwell electromagnetism remain open to justified criticism. A formula all by itself does not provide insight because math is blind to the underlying physical mechanism. There are several ways to interpret the Planck radiation formula, one of them excluding the existence of single photons; several ways to consider the role of Planck's ?quantum of action', one of them focusing on quantization as a dynamic ensemble effect; several ways to ?derive' the gamma factor of high-speed (?neo') mechanics in absolute space, one of them trying to give a dynamic reason for an upper limiting speed; several ways to interpret the Michelson-Morley result, one of them accounting for the conditions of both null effect and shift of interference pattern; several ways to account for the success of Maxwell electromagnetism, one of them including its limits and failures?

It is rewarding to keep an open eye on all those innocent-looking mole hills. In any case, personal cult is the most dangerous because unnoticed mole hill, a master pitfall! Modesty in science and hard work are the best medicine against its dangers.

Max Planck's 150th anniversary (April 23rd, 2008) is a welcome opportunity to devote some thoughts to the history and the role of his "quantum of action", h, which he hesitatingly established in 1900. Many-fold are the occurrences of h in physics ranging from the radiation law (the "cradle of quantum physics") and Planck's units to some aspects of nanotechnology. Quantization is considered a first-rate revolution in physics, but is there really a continental divide between "classical" and "post-classical" physics? The problem with the quantum is quite similar to that with relativity: Giving preference to mathematical reasoning ala Heisenberg, 20th century physics arrived at questionable conclusions in spite of numerically correct results. Some unorthodox views are in order to give h back to physics. True physical aspects seek answers asking questions off the beaten path. What is quantized? Obviously it is not energy, but action. What possibly links the two ingredients of action together? Why should there be a quantum at all? It might be due to some stability criterion and a compromise between two counteracting variables. What is the interplay of the variables that occur in formulas containing h? The "constant of least action" may still be good for some surprises.

The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) sponsors regular international conferences for presenting high-quality papers discussing aspects of philosophy in the sciences. Many papers offer challenges to accepted orthodoxy in the sciences, especially in physics. Everything from the micro-physics of quantum mechanics to the macro-physics of cosmology is entertained.

Though the main interest of the NPA is in challenging orthodoxy in the sciences, it will also feature papers defending such orthodoxy. Our ultimate purpose is to enable participants to articulate their own understanding of the truth. All papers are reviewed by society officers, and sometimes by other members, before presentation in conferences, and they are edited, sometimes very significantly, prior to publication in the Proceedings of the NPA.

NPA is, in turn, the only component of the non-profit corporation: The Natural Philosophy Foundation, Inc., (NPF). The NPF was incorporated in the State of Maryland on July 17, 1995 with the intent to become a long-term science fostering charity organization

In NPA 2004, Heaston reported on a theoretical derivation of a gravitational potential of (...) and called it the constant gravitational potential of light and radiant energy. This derivation was a part of a more general theme on ?The Characterization of Gravitational Collapse as a Mass-Energy Phase Change?. At the same conference, Marquardt talked about ?The Potential of Potentials: Old News from a Time-Honored Concept?, and mentioned the ubiquitous background occurrence of the  (...) potential. It is now possible to show that the constant gravitation potential of light is an unexpected consequence of the theoretical derivation of the Einstein field equations of gravitation starting with the Newton law of gravitation. Recognition that (...) is specifically associated with the gravitation potential of light changes the interpretations of a number of theories in physics. For example, a singularity is theoretically impossible. This paper will be presented in two parts: Part 1 focusing on the theory (Heaston) and Part 2 emphasizing the physical meaning (Marquardt).

Twentieth century physics is burdened by unnecessary pitfalls, and owes many of its troubles to unclear or false definitions, inconsistent modeling, untenable assumptions, neglected conditions, carelessly applied mathematics, careless simplifications (gedanken experiments), misunderstood experimental results, improper philosophical implications, etc. These artificial Gordian Knots must be cut before we may get back to the tremendous task of finding out a bit more about Nature. If analyzed correctly, famous experimental results do not support untenable theories that claim their fame from them. Physics blossoms when provided with a solid basis that does not have to be sacrificed if a defective theory gets into difficulties. Nature presents us with real Gordian Knots galore that have to be solved in an ingenious way. Some prominent examples will be explored.

Light possesses an independent existence while in transit from a source to its point of arrival. Waves and quantization are the consequence of many particles coherently forming rigid crystalline arrays. The mathematics of the Newton particle flux theory and of the wave in a medium theory for light are isomorphous. Both are valid for interacting particle ensembles only. The loss of interference below a critical intensity threshold proves the emission of photon bunches. Single photons are never involved nor observed in any experiment, the photoelectrical effect included. Single particles do not make waves. The Maxwell field theory, while yielding mathematical answers in agreement with some observations, cannot provide a physical basis for the existence of light.

No serious dynamic theory in physics can do without interactions, the trademark of event relativities as contrasted to kinematic mod-els. While fundamental force laws (Newton, Coulomb) have been successfully formulated in terms of simple one-body potentials, dy-namics calls for the more elaborate time-dependent potentials as pioneered by Weber for the case of two charges in relative motion. Local dynamic environments, changing incessantly in Nature?s real scenarios, are conveniently rendered in terms of generalized po-tentials which provide the relevant information on forces acting under changing conditions in agreement with Newton?s Action-Reaction Principle. Improper treatment or total neglect of potential energy in ?special relativity? and Copenhagen quantum theory discloses the weakness of these observer-centered theories. Important concepts (e.g. an upper speed limit, action, wave propagation, energy - a late arrival in physics, etc.) require absolute space, universal time, and a proper dynamic system of reference. The infinite and eternal Universe with its ubiquitous background potential defines the one-and-only legitimate dynamic inertial system where all of Nature?s laws hold without any of the severe restrictions artificially imposed by gedanken experiments and mathematical constructs.

The historical struggles between the geocentric and the final winner, the heliocentric model, (should) have taught us that neither pure observation nor pure mathematics suffice to provide a physically tenable model. The all-important ingredient in truly successful modeling is physical analysis. It helps to discard defective theories in spite of some of their numerical pseudo-successes (albeit confirmed by experiment like E = mc²; de Broglie's (lambda), Planck's (h-bar) that are owed to mathematical indifference against replacement errors rather than to physical intuition. A critical view discloses that these successes by no means prove the theories that became famous for them. Physical analysis should and can do still more as exemplified by accounting for both kinds of results of the MM experiment. Physical analysis does not strive for grand unification, explanation, understanding, nor does it call upon common sense. Based on uniqueness, causality, and consistency it simply intends to be the proper language of physics, clarifying basic definitions, respecting dimensions, trying to solve simple important tasks, keeping track of approximations, and distinguishing the event from the impression of observers who often are victims of their own gedanken experiments. The latter usually neglect the dynamic context and hence fail to handle energy, force, etc. correctly.

Science is a collection of successful recipes. - Paul Valery, French Poet and Philosopher

Interactions are ubiquitous in Nature. Physics is the scientific approach to local changes of energy. Energy, a fundamental quantity due to the specific spatial configuration of objects (masses, charges), requires a natural primary system of references and the language of dynamics: Causality, uniqueness, and consistency. These criteria are conveniently respected by modeling interactions in terms of the old and yet neglected concept of potentials. The potential of potentials may be greatly enhanced exploiting the possibilities offered by velocity-dependent (=dynamic) potentials. Exploring various fields of physics on this less-traveled route yields rewarding insights into neo-mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodyamics, and quantum physics. The Universe may be characterized by a c² background potential that is locally modified by the absolute y factor. Viewing E = mc² as a matter of potentials, mass (like charge) can be treated as constant. Forces on masses and charges arise from gradients of the respective potentials. Temperature is a consequence of local energy exchanges via potentials. Planck's constant relates two quantities linked by potentials in the micro world of elementary charges. Potentials are a tool so powerful that theories neglecting or misusing them may be ruled out as untenable in physics - despite some pseudo-successes.

The Lorentz force F = q(E + v x B) is independent of Maxwell?s field equations and is not derivable as a ?Lorentz-transformed Coulomb-law?. The similarity with the ?Lorentz-transformed? normal (to u) component of E, E_n' = (E_n + u x B) , where u denotes the uniform, relative velocity between two fictitious inertial frames of reference (IFR?s), is misleading. If at all, the Lorentz force pertains to external B-fields produced by closed currents. The violation of Newton?s third principle and, therefore, of the energy conservation law, cannot be avoided even if one takes radiation from accelerated charges into account.

All relativities whether Galileian, Machian, or Einsteinian, are ruled out on both principle and on observational grounds, irrespective of scale. From atoms up to galaxies, matter prefers to rotate, rather than expand. A slightly amended Newtonian gravitation theory, obeying the Third Principle, is able to account for the observed facts. Electromagnetic waves propagate (isotropically) in the fundamental frame of reference defined by the mass-energy distribution of the universe. Thermodynamics is a necessary ingredient in any cosmological theory. There is no cosmological arrow of time.

Discontinued