JREF : What is controversial in physics?

The Editor Vlad of ZPEnergy
posted the following reply
to a comment of mine,
in his site:

“Please understand that I'm doing my best
to give you another platform to make
your controversial research in theoretical physics known”

First of all, I am very thankful to the Editor Vlad.

However, I would like to explain what is really controversial in theoretical physics, because such a subject is very controversial.

My theory is not controversial.

Controversial are the current theories of physics.

They are controversial because in current theoretical physics were adopted fundamental principles that make no sense. They violate the Logic.

For instance, Einstein proposed that the space is empty, but it has the property of contraction, and it is able to produce the magnetism. This makes no sense. This is controversial. Something empty cannot have contraction. And something empty (that is, something that does not exist), cannot produce magnetic fields.

Other example: according to current quantum mechanics, the electron disappears from a level in the atom, and instantaneously appears in another level, without to travel the space between the two levels. This is controversial. An electron that disappears from a position and appears instantaneously in another position moved with infinite velocity, because in the equation S= v.t the time is zero, and so v= S/0 = infinite. This nonsense brings down Einstein’s relativity.

In my theory the new foundations are all them in agreement to Logic. Besides, my theory is supported by results comproved by mathematic calculations.

So, if somebody accuse my theory of being controversial, then he has to conclude that the mathematics is controversial.

Well, this conclusion is right. The mathematics is controversial.

But not the math used by me, because I don’t use math abstract concepts as the imaginary number, or any other math concept created with the aim to achieve results that conciliate the theory with the experimental results.

To show that math is controversial is among the objectives of my book Subtle is the Math, where it is shown that a controversial math was introduced by Einstein, and it was used successfully along the 20th Century, and continues being used.

The math used by Einstein (and used up to now by the physicists) does not reflects what really happens in the realm of Nature. Many fundamental principles adopted in current Theoretical Physics do not exist in Nature. But with the introduction of suitable artifices in the math, as the imaginary number, it is possible to achieve to results that are confirmed by experiments.

A good example is the coupling light-matter used in quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED, the interaction between two electrically charged particles is promoted by the exchange of photons between them, as shown in the Figure 1.

See
Figures 1
in the botton of this thread

Can we be sure that such mechanism proposed in QED is really the same mechanism existing in nature?

This is controversial. First of all, there is not in current theoretical physics an atomistic structure of the electric field, despite more than 70 years ago the Wolfgang Pauli said in his Nobel Lecture:

“From the point of view of logic, my report on ‘Exclusion principle and quantum mechanics’ has no conclusion. I believe that it will only be possible to write the conclusion if a theory is established which will determine the value of the fine-structure constant and will thus explain the atomistic structure of electricity, which is such an essential quality of all atomic sources of electric fields actually occurring in Nature.”

QED is considered the jewel of physics, because of its accuracy, confirmed by experimental results.

But among abstract math tools as the imaginary number used in QED, there is other interesting abstract math apparatus used in the theory: the bispinor.

In the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law and fine-structure constant”, published in the book Subtle is the Math, it is proposed that the interaction between two electrically charged particles occurs actually through the interaction of the “electricitons” of the electric fields, which move with the speed of light, as seen in the Figure 2.

See
Figures 2
in the botton of this thread

So, what is the real mechanism that promotes the interaction between two fields?

Suppose that:

1- The real mechanism existing in Nature is by the “System f-f”, shown in the Figure 2.

2- However, by using the math adopted in QED, through the adoption of the imaginary number, together with the bispinor, the “System ph-ph” shown in the Figure 1 is mathematically equivalent to the “System f-f” existing in Nature.

Then obviously QED can be successful, because its mathematical apparatus is equivalent to the mathematics of the “System f-f”, existing in Nature.

In the end of the book Subtle is the Math is proposed to theorists a challenge: to prove the mathematical equivalence between the “System ph-ph” and the “System f-f”.

If such mathematical equivalence be proven mathematically, two conclusions will be achieved:

1- The mathematics used by the physicits is indeed controversial.

2- QED is successful thanks to a “mathematical coincidence”, the equivalence of two systems:

the “System ph-ph” adopted in QED, and the “System f-f” existing in Nature.

But the physicists are afraid to accept this challenge. Because if the mathematical equivalence of the two systems be proven, this will prove that QED does not work through the fundamental principles existing in Nature. And what is worst: it will be proven that the mathematics used by the physicists is controversial.

In my book Subtle is the Math is shown that the own Lord used the imaginary number when He built the Universe. Then somebody obviously could claim:

"Well, as the own Lord used the imaginary number,
then there is not any controversy in the math used in Modern Physics,
since the own Lord used the imaginary number,
when He had created the Universe".

But the question is not so simple.

The math used in current physics is controversial because the theorists start from some initial assumptions, which do not exist in Nature, and then they have to introduce some math tools not introduced by the Lord. For instance, in current theoretical physics is considered that symmetry plays a fundamental role in the working of the Universe. But in my book “The New Nuclear Physics” (to be published in 2022) is shown that symmetry does not play any fundamental role in the structure of atomic nuclei, as nowadays nuclear theorists believe.

Other example: Einstein started from the hypothesis that the space is empty. But the Lord did not create the Universe from an empty space. Then Einstein used the imaginary number in a different way of the way used by the Lord, because Einstein and the Lord had two different starting points: Einstein supposed that the space is empty, whereas the Lord has created the space as not empty. Therefore Einstein’s mathematics is different of that used by the Lord.

Other example is the difference between the “System ph-ph” used in QED, and the “System f-f” existing in Nature. The Lord did not use the bispinor, when He created the Universe, He used only the imaginary number. But the theorists had to introduce the bispinor, because in their theory there is not the atomistic structure of the electric field. Thereby, as something very fundamental is missing in QED (the atomistic structure of electric fields), there was need to create a new math apparatus, the bispinor, which the Lord did not use, because He created the atomistic structure of the electric fields, and so the Lord did not need to use the bispinor in His Mathematics.

So, the mathematics used by the Lord is different of the mathematics used by the physicists, despite, from the introduction of some additional math tools, it is possible to establish an equivalence between the mathematics of the Lord and the mathematics of the physicists. And the physicists did it successfully along more than hundred years.

Attached Images