# The beginnings of a new Theory in Physics

## Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

I will look at the links but I must mention now that the aim of this thread is not to talk about everything in the new theory but, as I said, to analise the problems I could face with the assumption that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v2/c2)1/2 actually be present in the E and B Fields and not in the mass or in the space-time metric as in Relativity Theory. And. as I also said, this is a completely original new proposition I never seen or heard anywhere before and which I think deserves attention.

I am going to go out on limb here, but I don't think you got anything worthwhile here.  Generally the only new physics discoveries are produced by researchers who actually work in the field.  There is not a lot of 'low hanging fruit' in the field of physics.  That being said, if you enjoy having speculative ideas, have fun!

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martillo said:

I MUST "cherry-pick"! My work has not the aim to describe the complete new theory. A so huge task is imposible for just one. Is not my aim to even give a complete demonstration of the theory, I can't do that, you should know that. That would be a task for an entire group or even community of physicists. My work is just a start-point for a new theory where some important key subjects are covered and solved for the new theory. The manuscript is just a collection of the main problems I have found to be more important to be solved for a new theory to begin to be developed. Just a start-point. That is enough for me. I can't do more myself.

A “theory” that only works for isolated cases isn’t correct. Like Phlogiston.

##### Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, swansont said:

A “theory” that only works for isolated cases isn’t correct. Like Phlogiston.

I think the theory works in all cases of course, is just that I'm not able to analyze and write about every case possible. Is this so difficult to understand?

Edited by martillo
##### Share on other sites
Just now, martillo said:

I think the theory works in all cases of course, is just that I'm not able to analyze and write about every case possible. Is this so difficult to understand?

Then show it works for cases where we see wave behavior.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

Then show it works for cases where we see wave behavior.

Which cases are you interested in?

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, martillo said:

Which cases are you interested in?

I listed them. Diffraction, interference, etc.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

I listed them. Diffraction, interference, etc.

You know, what I find here is too much predisposition to not accept something new and as I already said what you ask is beyond the scope of this thread. Is not the aim here to present everything of the new theory. As I got tired to say the subject of this thread is to discuss the possibility of the relativistic factor actually be present in the E and B Fields and I'm not seing any reference to that. In spite of considering this you are most interested in finding something against the new theory to not consider anything about anymore. So... I'm about to consider the thread finished with nobody really discussing about the proposed subject... Nothing else to say...

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, martillo said:

So... I'm about to consider the thread finished with nobody really discussing about the proposed subject... Nothing else to say...

Probably for the best.

##### Share on other sites
12 hours ago, martillo said:

You know, what I find here is too much predisposition to not accept something new and as I already said what you ask is beyond the scope of this thread. Is not the aim here to present everything of the new theory. As I got tired to say the subject of this thread is to discuss the possibility of the relativistic factor actually be present in the E and B Fields and I'm not seing any reference to that. In spite of considering this you are most interested in finding something against the new theory to not consider anything about anymore. So... I'm about to consider the thread finished with nobody really discussing about the proposed subject... Nothing else to say...

We’re a science site. So it should not be surprising that we require science.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, martillo said:

Well... I already looked in the links you provided and I don't find anything really conclusive:

If you want to believe that relativity is 'just' a theory that's your right.  Have fun with your speculating.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martillo said:

You know, what I find here is too much predisposition to not accept something new and as I already said what you ask is beyond the scope of this thread. Is not the aim here to present everything of the new theory.

You're just being asked to show how your concept works in the case of say, diffraction, which may or may not show where the concept fails. That's not a predisposition to not accept something, it's more like cross-checking yourself, or using dimensional analysis on your equations.

If it doesn't fail, that's a hurdle cleared, right?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You're just being asked to show how your concept works in the case of say, diffraction, which may or may not show where the concept fails. That's not a predisposition to not accept something, it's more like cross-checking yourself, or using dimensional analysis on your equations.

If it doesn't fail, that's a hurdle cleared, right?

I will understand, don't worry, it would be a problem of mine...

Is not so easy to discuss some things sometimes...

##### Share on other sites
23 hours ago, martillo said:

The new theory is an alternative to that assumption considering the classical Euclidian space with time as an independent variable or dimension

Ok, but the problem then is that such a universe would not permit any (tidal) gravity in the vacuum outside of massive bodies.

19 hours ago, martillo said:

It is considered right the classical Emission Theory of light in which absolute frame exist and the light velocity is c + u

This is contrary to both observational evidence in the real world, as well as Maxwell’s equations.

14 hours ago, martillo said:

Please tell me where. I can't wait to analyze such experimentation...

All of these, and many many more.
But you are getting this backwards, because, since you are the one proposing a new idea, it is up to you to show experimental evidence that there exists electromagnetic radiation that propagates at v > c.

13 hours ago, martillo said:

Also, the theoretical hypothesis of existence of EM waves from the EM wave equation is questioned since the theoretical solutional to them are infinite planes with the same field parallel to the plane in the entire plane for both, the electric and the magnetic one.

This is simply not true. The EM wave equation follows directly from Maxwell’s equations, and its solutions are precisely the kind of wave forms we find in the real world. The entire field of electrical engineering relies on this, and it evidently works very well - in everything from aircraft avionics to microwave ovens.

12 hours ago, martillo said:

I must mention now that the aim of this thread is not to talk about everything in the new theory but, as I said, to analise the problems I could face with the assumption that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v2/c2)1/2 actually be present in the E and B Fields and not in the mass or in the space-time metric as in Relativity Theory.

There is really only one field, the electromagnetic field $$F_{\mu \nu}$$; the E and B fields are merely observer-dependent aspects of this, and thus make up the various components of the field tensor. When you look at how these fields transform, you will see that they already contain the gamma factor, so this is nothing new.

12 hours ago, martillo said:

I will not discuss those experiments here. It is not in the scope of this thread to discuss that. If you find those experiments really conclusive enough to not consider this new theory I'm presenting it would be your opinion and your decision. Nothing to say about.

What is this? You are essentially giving us the finger here, by saying that you are not prepared to look at any evidence that might contradict what you believe. That’s not how science is done.

##### Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is contrary to both observational evidence in the real world...

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

All of these, and many many more.
But you are getting this backwards, because, since you are the one proposing a new idea, it is up to you to show experimental evidence that there exists electromagnetic radiation that propagates at v > c.

You ask me to show experimental evidence... I ask you why there are so few evidence for the invariance of the velocity of light? The invariance is the second postulate of Relativity Theory and has NEVER been tested DIRECTLY. I mean, to measure the velocity of a beam of light in two frames of reference with considerable different velocities. I know the reason, is very difficult to perform such experiment. Only a very few experiments (questionable let me say) measuring light velocity emitted from moving sources have been made. They do not measure the invariance in relation to frames of reference, they only tested the independency from the velocity of the source of the light. At wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) is commented only the following:

"No dependence on source velocity or energy

Emission theories, according to which the speed of light depends on the velocity of the source, can conceivably explain the negative outcome of aether drift experiments. It wasn't until the mid-1960s that the constancy of the speed of light was definitively shown by experiment, since in 1965, J. G. Fox showed that the effects of the extinction theorem rendered the results of all experiments previous to that time inconclusive, and therefore compatible with both special relativity and emission theory.[9][10] More recent experiments have definitely ruled out the emission model: the earliest were those of Filippas and Fox (1964),[11] using moving sources of gamma rays, and Alväger et al. (1964),[12] which demonstrated that photons didn't acquire the speed of the high speed decaying mesons which were their source. In addition, the de Sitter double star experiment (1913) was repeated by Brecher (1977) under consideration of the extinction theorem, ruling out a source dependence as well.[13]

..."

So few experimental evidence for so important postulate of the main theory in Physics? And you ask me to give you new experimental evidence at this time? Not fair...

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is simply not true. The EM wave equation follows directly from Maxwell’s equations, and its solutions are precisely the kind of wave forms we find in the real world. The entire field of electrical engineering relies on this, and it evidently works very well - in everything from aircraft avionics to microwave ovens.

Not at all. The solutions to the EM wave equation derived from Maxwell's equations are PLANAR waves while in the real world all "EM waves" are SPHERICAL ones centered in the object emitting the radiation. Pretty sure about that.

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

There is really only one field, the electromagnetic field Fμν ; the E and B fields are merely observer-dependent aspects of this, and thus make up the various components of the field tensor. When you look at how these fields transform, you will see that they already contain the gamma factor, so this is nothing new.

The gamma factor in the transforms is something very different from the factor in the definition of the fields. Not equivalent at all.

On 2/25/2021 at 7:23 PM, swansont said:

Then show it works for cases where we see wave behavior.

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're just being asked to show how your concept works in the case of say, diffraction, which may or may not show where the concept fails. That's not a predisposition to not accept something, it's more like cross-checking yourself, or using dimensional analysis on your equations.

If it doesn't fail, that's a hurdle cleared, right?

You know, I could only show that the photons particles as defined in the new theory can exhibit for diffraction for instance but I would also have to show how is the model of the photon particle defined in the theory which is different from the current model of point-like particle. It has a structure, a shape and you then will ask me for evidence for that model and so on... Endless discussion would folllow. I would at the end have to show the entire manuscript here posting in the forum... As I say this goes beyond the scope of the thread which was to just analyze a particular proposition in the theory, the presence of the gamma factor in the Electric and Magnetic fields. You as moderators in the forum always demand to discuss particular propositions to discuss posting, no to advertise theories. That's what I tried to do and is only what I can do...

If you would be really interested in other aspects of the theory you would read the manuscript which is now published (self-publishing) as a book in print and kindle formats but of course, I know, you won't.

Edited by martillo
##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martillo said:

You ask me to show experimental evidence... I ask you why there are so few evidence for the invariance of the velocity of light? The invariance is the second postulate of Relativity Theory and has NEVER been tested DIRECTLY.

Demanding direct evidence is an unreasonable burden. It excludes evidence that would show it to be correct.

It’s like demanding evidence of dinosaurs existing 100 MYA and it must be video. Or DIRECT evidence of electrons.

Quote

You know, I could only show that the photons particles as defined in the new theory can exhibit for diffraction for instance but I would also have to show how is the model of the photon particle defined in the theory which is different from the current model of point-like particle. It has a structure, a shape and you then will ask me for evidence for that model and so on... Endless discussion would folllow. I would at the end have to show the entire manuscript here posting in the forum... As I say this goes beyond the scope of the thread which was to just analyze a particular proposition in the theory, the presence of the gamma factor in the Electric and Magnetic fields. You as moderators in the forum always demand to discuss particular propositions to discuss posting, no to advertise theories. That's what I tried to do and is only what I can do...

If you would be really interested in other aspects of the theory you would read the manuscript which is now published (self-publishing) as a book in print and kindle formats but of course, I know, you won't.

Markus covered this above.

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, martillo said:

I ask you why there are so few evidence for the invariance of the velocity of light?

I just gave you a link for this, did you even look at it? Lorentz invariance automatically implies the invariance of c.

10 hours ago, martillo said:

The solutions to the EM wave equation derived from Maxwell's equations are PLANAR waves

while in the real world all "EM waves" are SPHERICAL onescentered in the object emitting the radiation

The solutions to the inhomogeneous wave equations are retarded Lorenz potentials - which physically represent spherical wave fronts propagating away (future-oriented) from the source, just as expected. I’ll skip typesetting this here, you can Google it if you want to see the actual expression.

The solution to the homogenous equations is any function f of the form

$\vec{E} =f( \omega t-\vec{k} \cdot \vec{r})$

and similarly for the B field. This can literally be any function at all, so long as it is smooth and differentiable within the relevant domain. It doesn’t even need to be sinusoidal. So the wave equation is only a very general constraint on what form the wave function can have, and not all of its solutions are plane waves. Of course there are plane wave solutions (both in 1D and in 3D), and these prove very useful for many applications.

10 hours ago, martillo said:

The gamma factor in the transforms is something very different from the factor in the definition of the fields. Not equivalent at all.

What do you mean by “definition of the fields”? The gamma factor is only meaningful as a relation between frames, i.e. it appears in how quantities transform. Locally within the same frame it is always unity.

10 hours ago, martillo said:

which is different from the current model of point-like particle. It has a structure, a shape

This is inconsistent with the Standard Model.
So you see, nothing in physics stands in isolation - if you radically redefine just one aspect, you will find that it is no longer consistent with everything else we already know.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I just gave you a link for this, did you even look at it? Lorentz invariance automatically implies the invariance of c.

The solutions to the inhomogeneous wave equations are retarded Lorenz potentials - which physically represent spherical wave fronts propagating away (future-oriented) from the source, just as expected. I’ll skip typesetting this here, you can Google it if you want to see the actual expression.

The solution to the homogenous equations is any function f of the form

E⃗ =f(ωtk⃗ r⃗ )

and similarly for the B field. This can literally be any function at all, so long as it is smooth and differentiable within the relevant domain. It doesn’t even need to be sinusoidal. So the wave equation is only a very general constraint on what form the wave function can have, and not all of its solutions are plane waves. Of course there are plane wave solutions (both in 1D and in 3D), and these prove very useful for many applications.

What do you mean by “definition of the fields”? The gamma factor is only meaningful as a relation between frames, i.e. it appears in how quantities transform. Locally within the same frame it is always unity.

This is inconsistent with the Standard Model.
So you see, nothing in physics stands in isolation - if you radically redefine just one aspect, you will find that it is no longer consistent with everything else we already know.

You know, seems imposible for me to follow the discussion. Too much things are questioned by the new theory, quite everything of "Modern Physics"...

As it is mentioned in the manuscript:

"The proposed new theory is consistent with Classical Physics, Photon’s Physics, the Einstein E=mc2 formula, Planck E=hυ formula and the De Broglie relation, although some corrections must be made.

It disagrees with Einstein’s Relativity Theory, the “Quantum Physics” based on the “Wave Mechanics Theory”, the Electromagnetic Wave Theory, the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom and today’s subatomic “Standard Model” based on the Quarks Theory.

..."

This way trying to defend the theory here in the Forum is just an imposible task. I will not try anymore...

Thanks for the criticism. It gave me some possible problems to think about...

Edited by martillo
##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, martillo said:

This way trying to defend the theory here in the Forum is just an imposible task. I will not try anymore...

!

Moderator Note

It's the only way where your assumptions are tested against experiment and observation in a methodical way. You assume your idea is consistent with many current approaches, yet you admit it's not correct. There's really no other way to keep you honest in your intellectual pursuit here. There are plenty of sites that will encourage WAGs and conclusion-jumping, but we aren't one of them. Rigor isn't impossible, just... hard. Thread closed.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

It's the only way where your assumptions are tested against experiment and observation in a methodical way. You assume your idea is consistent with many current approaches, yet you admit it's not correct. There's really no other way to keep you honest in your intellectual pursuit here. There are plenty of sites that will encourage WAGs and conclusion-jumping, but we aren't one of them. Rigor isn't impossible, just... hard. Thread closed.

Is not a problem with the forum nor anyone here. Everything right here. Is just that there are too much things to be questioned at the same time. Everything is interconnected someway in Physics, I know. Too much things to handle at the same time. The point is that I can't manage that. Same problem I would have in any other forum. It's a problem of mine...

Edited by martillo
##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×