Inconsistent Relationships posed in Scientific Theories

[StringsNThings]

If you know of inconsistencies between physics theories and observations, please post them here.

 

 

 

This topic was created to support Robert Oppenheimer's interest in my statement in the "Introducing Yourself" thread.

 

I stated that I have a pet peeve about scientists not including contradictory relationships in their writings that they knowingly are aware of.

 

Care to share an example of such contradiction?

Link

 

 

 

I selected an article somewhat arbitrarily from the internet physics resources.

 

http://solid13.tphys...rnt1/par1.3.pdf

 

 

The article attempts to associate electromagnetic forces between fermions.

 

The assumptions provided seem to be contradictory, and referenced support is not provided.

 

Macroscopic Maxwell equations are attempted to be used to describe forces at the atomic scale.

 

Electrons (systems of influence) are characterized here as charged particles moving in complex systems of electromagnetic fields.

 

For the Maxwell equations to be representative, the back-emf must also be applicable and the relationships between time and position.

 

The assumptions state that the "sum of the electric field and the time derivative of the vector field does not exhibit vortices" and therefore the related system can be treated as a scalar. This statement is not supported with any references that relate real-world observations to this mathematic statement.

 

 

Fig 1: Equations resulting from acting on these assumptions.

 

If there is conservation of energy, how can there not be vortices. The shell nature of electrons seem to support that vortices do likely exist to cause the shell nature of observable electron shells. The vortices might be necessary to conserve energy and cause the shell structure.

 

If the shell structure does not have vortices then particle physics does not apply directly to atomic structures and observations are better modeled with some other system. Perhaps the shell would be a causal system of influence that forms relativity in this case by moderated influence between the observer and the broad systems of consequence related to the electron shell. A tangent subject.

 

 

 

Fig 2: Actual picture representation of electron shells

 

 

The electron systems of influences is interacting with complex systems of electromagnetic interactions. This would imply that the universe acts as a balanced system such that the sum of the E-field and time derivative of the vector field is true for all electrons in the universe simultaneously; since electromagnetism and gravity have influences throughout the universe this would imply vortices do exist from macroscopic observations.

 

The microscopic use of maxwell equations to atomic scale fermions seems inconsistent.

 

Maxwell equations in this form of application would seem to be more indicative of an atomic scale moderator of complex fermion systems that result in macroscale observations. But not applicable to direct atomic scale calculations.

 

I would like to have seen references that support their statements so that I can better understand their suppositions. Based upon real world observations, the equations used seem to be unrelated in several regards to observations.

 

As stated in my profile, and in my introduction, I am a physics hobbyist. So if my observations are inconsistent, please bring it to my attention so I and all other hobby physicists can learn from your insights. Seriously, don't mistake my candor as combative. I truely want to exercise my mind productively.

Edited June 28, 2012 by StringsNThings

[Vent]

I consider the contradictions in science and between different theories as due to the approximate nature of our theories. They are all a work in progress. Does this model work to a useful degree in this area? Yes? Then use it. But it contradicts another theory... so? Some models that are more accurate are actually thrown out because they are too complicated (in economics with rational agent models being a good example), and simpler ones are used instead. The simplest argument for the benefit of science is that it works. I don't think contradictions are something to be too worried about, just cross them off as we go.