Categories
Physics

Missed Opportunities to Discover Nature

A calamitous series of mis-interpretations has derailed physics and cosmology onto extremely difficult lines of attack where complexity and confusion reign and progress is slowed. I’ll list these in rough time order.

  1. MICHELSON AND MORLEY
  2. EINSTEIN
  3. FRIEDMANN
  4. LEMAITRE
  5. HUBBLE
  6. FIFTH SOLVAY CONFERENCE ON ELECTRONS AND PHOTONS 1927
  7. IGNORING HOYLE
  8. McKELLAR, PENZIAS, WILSON
  9. GUTH
  10. NATARAJAN AND REES

Note: This post is not an attack on any of these scientists. They did the best that they could do. Often they were working within the mental models that were handed down from their predecessors. Scientists are open about how difficult it is to step back and reconsider ideas that require a paradigm change, especially the farther the science progresses. It seems that it will take a number of discordant observations to create the tension required that will result in reconsideration of radical new ideas. I think we will start building that tension to high levels with the next generation of space based instruments to be deployed in the 2020’s.


MICHELSON AND MORLEY 1887

naturalphilosophy.org

In 1887 Michelson and Morley failed to detect the spacetime æther. They could not measure how lightly spacetime æther interacts at the low energy density on earth. Spacetime æther is an emergent structure made from the Planck sphere particles, electrino and positrino.‬ It turns out that the æther particle maintains a relationship between its frequency and radius such that the speed of light always looks constant from within the æther. Furthermore the æther is very difficult to observe as it is an extremely low energy particle on Earth or in free space. Observations are always vulnerable to that which they can not observe! See A Vulnerability in the Mathematics of Physics.

It can be difficult to mentally adjust to thinking of the æther as a ~Riemannian construct in a Euclidean frame. First you have to un-think Einstein and spacetime as a pure Riemannian geometry. Then you have to think about what is happening in an absolute Euclidean frame. Then you have to show that an observer in spacetime æther would see what Einstein asserted. Hopefully you will understand that it has been difficult to communicate this idea to physicists because they are conditioned to defend against bad ideas that waste time. The problem is of course that the truly revolutionary idea is indistinguishable and will be rejected as well.

I now think from a perspective in absolute Euclidean space as if Einstein’s spacetime is a composite particle based æther that changes shape with energy.

Examining the strength of the forces we see that the strength of gravity is tens of orders of magnitude below the other forces. Gravity appears to be well below what is detectable, but we’ll need to show that calculation.

Wikipedia

Consider that structure emerges from Planck sphere electrinos and positrinos. Is it possible that one of those structures is an AC carrier of the electric field? I mean it is a bit complicated. There’s orbits and continuous energy exchanges between kinetic and electromagnetic form and field propagation at local c. But that’s at the Planck level. Anyway, do you think it impossible that nature evolved an AC transmission mode as a feature of the spacetime æther? That’s pretty much all you need right? The strength of that AC coupling is a function of local energy. I mean think about drilling down from a computer to chip to gates to silicon and doping and field effects and keep going all the way to Planck scale? Why not? And that’s just one set of reactions.


EINSTEIN

Opinion | How Einstein Became the First Science Superstar - The ...

Einstein’s general relativity (1917) should have been based on a Euclidean 3D space permeated by a physical spacetime æther – where electromagnetic energy density causes a local permittivity and permeability that determines c.‬ The consideration of physical limits, rather than mathematical continuum, would have translated into an maximally dense matter-energy core rather than a singularity and all the nonsense that followed.


FRIEDMANN

Aleksandr Fridman.png

Friedmann in 1922 introduced the idea of an expanding universe that contained moving matter. Correspondence with Einstein suggests that Einstein was unwilling to accept the idea of an evolving Universe and worked instead to modify his equations to ensure a static eternal Universe as believed from Newton’s time. Some years later, in 1926 Hubble published the redshift vs distance relationship, namely, all the galaxies in the neighborhood seemed to be receding at a rate proportional to their distance.

Wikipedia

In 1922 Friedmann was the first to derive the idea of an expanding universe from Einstein’s equations of general relativity. The error was conceptual in that space does expand local to each galaxy, but the universe is steady state.


LEMAITRE

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître – Wikipedia

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first to identify that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by a theory of an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law, or the Hubble–Lemaître law, and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article. Lemaître also proposed what later became known as the “Big Bang theory” of the origin of the universe, initially calling it the “hypothesis of the primeval atom”.

Wikipedia

Lemaître made the error of planting the seed that the universe could be traced back to a single originating point. Had he been more creative he would have imagined tracing to parallel and independent originating points distributed in time and space.


EDWIN HUBBLE

Hubble’s law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance. In other words, the further they are the faster they are moving away from Earth. The velocity of the galaxies has been determined by their redshift, a shift of the light they emit to the red end of the spectrum.

Hubble’s law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

Wikipedia

Unfortunately, Hubble, like LeMaitre, made a grand cognitive error by choosing the universe as a whole model on the left in the figure below, instead of the galaxy local model shown on the right. It is each galaxy local SMBH that implements the process for crunch, bounce, bang, inflation, & expansion.


FIFTH SOLVAY CONFERENCE ON ELECTRONS AND PHOTONS 1927

A. Piccard, E. Henriot, P. Ehrenfest, E. Herzen, Th. De Donder, E. Schrödinger, J.E. Verschaffelt, W. Pauli, W. Heisenberg, R.H. Fowler, L. Brillouin; P. Debye, M. Knudsen, W.L. Bragg, H.A. Kramers, P.A.M. Dirac, A.H. Compton, L. de Broglie, M. Born, N. Bohr; I. Langmuir, M. Planck, M. Curie, H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, P. Langevin, Ch. E. Guye, C.T.R. Wilson, O.W. Richardson Fifth conference participants, 1927. Institut International de Physique Solvay in Leopold Park. Image

Also in 1927, at Solvay, quantum mechanics took wing. In the following decades the Q-fields, QM, QFT, QED, and QCD, went hook, line, and sinker as believers in the geometry of spacetime. Had they known spacetime was an æther they would have evolved differently and quickly and may have solved nature by 1950 if not earlier.

A major cognitive failing in quantum mechanics is the attribution of the root cause of uncertainty to the particle. Instead uncertainty should have been attributed to the arriving electromagnetic waves of gravity transmitted via the spacetime æther. A reaction that is teetering between energy levels can be influenced one way or the other by the turbulent sea of passing waves in spacetime æther. This error in quantum mechanics has led to massive confusion with regards to entanglement, ‘spooky action at a distance’, the Bell tests, and more. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen objected but were not able to correct the mistake. See EPR 1, Spooky Action 0.


HOYLE

13654362_1191834250860615_7458850469515949818_n

Fred Hoyle coined the term “big bang” for a lecture on BBC radio in March 1949. It was meant as a pejorative; Hoyle favored the steady-state picture.

Cosmology’s Century – Peebles

McKELLAR, PENZIAS, WILSON

Early photo of Bob Wilson and Arno Penzias with the horn antenna
Bell Labs

The CMB was re-discovered in 1964 by Wilson and Penzias of Bell Labs. Since spacetime was assumed to be a geometry, and not an æther, the CMB was attributed to distant radiation.


Since 1975 or so, it is said the major theoretical work on the standard model was essentially complete. On the theory side, progress has been nil since then.


By 1980 it became the era of enormous experimentation with gloriously expensive equipment and huge teams of collaborators. And organizational approach to physics. Dilbert. Office Space. Post-grad drones. Any follower of NPQG knows that chipping away from 10^-20 is a long ways away from electrino and positrino Planck spheres at 10^-35.


GUTH

When the idea for an inflationary big bang and expansion was formulated circa 1981 by Guth (et al.). As an origin story it should not have been tied to a single event in time. The ‘pocket universe’ is a galaxy. The multiverse is the universe of galaxies.


NATARAJAN AND REES

Priyamvada Natarajan on Twitter: "Singular experiences this time ...
Twitter

Circa 1995 Natarajan and Rees missed an opportunity to realize that AGN SMBH were the primary implementation of crunch, bounce, bang, inflation, and expansion.


J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 25, 2020 : v1
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 26, 2020 : v2 : Added Hubble

p.s. I will add more to the timeline as I encounter historical material.

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate: https://www.paypal.me/johnmarkmorris

https://johnmarkmorris.com
https://twitter.com/J_Mark_Morris
https://www.reddit.com/r/NPQG/
https://www.facebook.com/NPQG/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmarkmorris/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s