New concepts in modern physics

This is a very short English summary of my German home page. It will grow in the future, proportional to the length of the text.

Crisis of modern physics?

The Einstein anniversary is over. We have seen TV movies with strange pictures. Is physics so complex and incomprehensible? It seems to be. If you dig deeper, you will find a lot of contradictions and paradoxes. Something is going wrong in modern physics. Even the fundamental terms are improperly defined. Does anybody know what "the universe" is? From the philosophers view, the universe is the sum of all existing things / energies. Therefore it's illogical to talk about "many" universes or to believe that black holes could disappear from our universe. And so on. What is the matter? Where goes the kinetic or the gravitational energy? Many questions! So it's urgent to think through the basic concepts and fundamental terms.

The purpose of physics is to deliver a mathematical description of physical reality. Math is the tool to get the equations. Every physical equation uses math, but not all math equations have physical reality! Some famous math constructs, e.g. coordinate systems, are only "Gedankendinge", thought objects, without physical existence. Physics is the interaction of energy entities, matter is also a kind of energy.

Our brain has a limited capability of understanding, so when we develop a physical theory, we need a model of the reality to describe it. We tend to simplify the models, but oversimplified models are disastrous for the theory. Einstein's Relativity uses some oversimplified models, which should be corrected.

We need new models, more precise models!

How do we prove a theory? With an experiment, e.g. Eddington's solar eclipse experiment in case of relativiy? But the great philosopher, Karl Popper showed us that it is impossible to prove a theory with an experimen; at the most you can falsify a theory.

What does it mean? A modern theory must be "Popper-proof", that is, if you find a single contradiction, you must reject or rethink the theory. Let us rethink things from the bottom-up, with the precondition energy conservation.

Relativistic speeds in everyday life

Let us look at an amazing example. A physicist (weight m = 80kg) takes an airplane for a vacation trip. The speed of the airplane is 1000km/h. The physicist stores within his body the kinetic energy Ekin=1/2 mv2 , that is 3,085*106J = 740kcal. This energy is sufficent to rise his temperature to circa 47°C or 116°F, what might be dangerous for his health. But luckily this doesn't happen because the energy is stored somewhere else. Regarding this huge amount of energy, we should ask where the hidden energy is. This real existing energy cannot vanish due to a coordinate transformation, although it is unusable on board of the airplane.

This simple example is worth further investigation. We find an answer in Paul Marmet's paper Natural Length Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic Energy : the energy is stored inside of the atoms. Marmet shows how the growing relativistic electron mass enlarges the Bohr radius, which results in different inter-atomic energy levels, larger dimensions of matter and slower emission frequencies. (The latter effect slows down a moving atomic clock.)

A new approach with Paul Marmet

I learned very much from Prof. Paul Marmet. His website is Marmet writes:

In these web pages below, we present explanations, which are always compatible with conventional wisdom and logic. We also require the principle of causality. No other web sites or books seem to use those criteria in modern physics. Consequently, esoteric models requiring the “probabilistic existence of matter” and the “non-locality” of quantum mechanics and the inescapable lack of mass-energy conservation in Einstein’s relativity are irrelevant. We can see in all papers below, that matter has a realistic existence and Nature is always rational. It is an error to believe that Nature cannot be explained with natural logic.

First I refer to the following papers:

An other topic is cosmology. The main work with the greatest influence on cosmology is the paper A New Non-Doppler Redshift.
Marmet writes: It shows that "normal" physics leads to a slightly inelastic collision of photons due to traces of hydrogen in outer space. These inelastic collisions are responsible for the redshift, which is undistinguishable from the cosmological redshift. Numerous observations give strong supporting evidence for that previously ignored natural phenomenon. The observed redshift can then be explained without any expansion of the universe.

This redshift in my opinion is the "missing link" in cosmology: everywhere in the universe is energy interaction. When light interacts with energy / matter, its energy loss manifests as redshift. Such a redshift must exist due to the principle of mass-energy conservation. If the Doppler redshift would be predominant or the only redshift, this would violate energy conservation.

Also related to cosmology are the following interesting papers:


Working through these papers, we come to the following conclusion:

What's in the (german) chapters: