Here is a list of some crazy ideas.
- The idea of the Big Bang.
- The idea of the absence of an absolute frame of reference.
- The idea of pointless structureless elementary particles.
- The idea of antimatter.
- The idea of black holes.
- The idea of exchange interaction.
- The idea of strings, superstrings and branes.
- The idea of quarks.
- The idea of the Higgs boson.
    As you can see, most ideas were born very recently. In fact, this list is several times longer. We took only the most popular ones.

Suppose that one of the scientists discovered a new phenomenon. He does not yet fully understand the mechanism of this phenomenon. He still can not realize all the consequences of this discovery. For example, a scientist discovered the process of "annihilation", when a photon is observed in the cloud chamber. He begins to study the process of producing photons and finds that a photon is produced as a result of a collision of an electron with an unknown particle that has flown from space. The scientist makes information throwing (Fig. 2), directed mainly to scientists. "Particles arriving from space are found that, when colliding with electrons, behave like a" plus "connection with a" minus "in the electrical network. That is, there is some energy release, annihilation, a small explosion. The electron and cosmic particle disappear, and two photons are born. By the ability to annihilate, new particles resemble "antimatter". This is only a superficial hypothesis. "

This hypothesis is picked up by journalists who write about science. The society wants sensations. And journalists give them these sensations. An avalanche of journalistic fabrications begins. If we compare it to the maps of military operations drawn by military generals, then a blow from the flanks to the advancing offensive of science takes place. The blows from the flanks surround the detached group of science, and cut it off from the basic science.

Further, the already surrounded groupings are completely transferred to the command of journalists. They do what they want with this information. Sensation! Antimatter found! This is the same matter, only with a minus sign! When a matter meets an antimatter, an explosion of enormous strength takes place, and everything turns into photons! In space, there are whole galaxies out of antimatter! Possible bombs of antimatter! New types of weapons! One writer urgently writes a novel about the love of a beautiful earthly girl to an equally handsome alien, but consisting of antimatter. Ladies cry when they read a novel. The novel is awarded a literary prize. A feature film is being shot, and then a series on the topic of romantic relations with aliens from antimatter. In the film, there are many thermonuclear explosions in love hearts, chases and shooting bullets from antimatter. Society likes this idea. Society accepts the idea. An anti-electron is given a beautiful name: a positron. This name becomes the most popular for newborn babies.

Inspired by the approval of society, scientists quickly write "theory of antimatter", they enter it into the list of elementary particles. The number of elementary particles is immediately doubled. Antimatter is "tied" to all sections of physics. They contribute to all textbooks. Find the masses, charges and spins of the positron, antiproton and antineutron. Fortunately, it's not difficult to do, just attribute a minus sign. The number of scientific articles "substantiating" the existence of antimatter increases many times. Scientists of all countries support the idea of ​​antimatter. The financing of antimatter research is increasing many times. The number of dissertations devoted to antimatter and scientific degrees also increases many times. As from the cornucopia of astronomers confirm that here and there are found stars, by all indications similar to stars from antimatter. And here's the logical result: with universal ecstasy and approval, the author of the opening is awarded a Nobel Prize!

But in fact, there was no evidence of the existence of antimatter as it was not. Only the simplest observations in the cloud chamber are valid. And only with the electron. All the rest is fudge. Worse than that. Long-term searches for anti-galaxies lead nowhere. There are no anti-galaxies. There are attempts to come up with the origin of such an inequality of matter and antimatter. Begins pseudoscientific verbal gymnastics. Type: in the first 0.1•10^-57 seconds after the Big Bang, there was a random fluctuation in the direction of ordinary matter, which then left an imprint on the entire subsequent history of the universe. Is not it funny?
   The plot described here with the birth of antimatter occurred with all the phenomena listed at the beginning of the article. Perhaps with some variations. And terrible as it may be, all modern astrophysics, elementary particle physics, electromagnetism and gravitation physics are built of defective concrete blocks and on unsteady ground. The building of physics creaks under the gusts of the wind and is about to collapse.

4. All wave objects in the Gukuum are described algebraically, by specifying the parameters of the elasticity of Gukuum and the three-dimensional wave equation. It is assumed that these are "small" and "linear" waves. And rather, even stress waves without deformations.
5. As the letter parameters (formulas are given by links) it is convenient to use the Lame coefficients L₁, L₂, L₃ (these are elementary combinations of the coefficients of compression, shear and torsion of a solid body). No numerical values are imposed on the Lame coefficients. Just the Lame coefficients L₁, L₂, L₃ and everything.
6. Thus, the universe and all the matter contained in it are described only by letters, algebra. However, objects can already be compared numerically. For example, the mass of a proton can be numerically compared with the mass of an electron.
7. Here in general terms. Details in our previous articles on https://www.academia.edu (.pdf) and on the site http://universe100.narod.ru (.doc, click the button English).

 

Concerning antimatter.
    For those who are interested in antimatter proper, we give a link to our version of the explanation of the phenomenon of "antimatter" from ordinary matter. We still have two versions and we need a thorough analysis to determine which one is more correct.

https://www.academia.edu/34651096/Antimatter_that_does_not_exist._Hasty_name_and_recognition (.pdf) or http://universe100.narod.ru/115-Antimatter-angl-jpg.htm (.doc).

About the black holes.
We present our version of the behavior of matter in neutron stars. The substance can not be compressed to densities exceeding the neutron density. Because even long before such compression, the substance begins to turn into photons (according to the antimatter mechanism, see the previous chapter) and be emitted into space.

https://www.academia.edu/34719210/Why_there_are_no_black_holes._Deadlock_hypotheses_of_modern_physics (.pdf) or http://universe100.narod.ru/163-Black_hole-angl-jpg.html (.doc).

Experiment to determine the absolute frame of reference.
We have a proposal for an experiment to determine the absolute frame of reference. All are invited to attend.
http://universe100.narod.ru/160-Einstein-angl-ipg.html (.doc).
   In addition, it is quite obvious that the existence of dark matter violates Kepler's laws of galactic motion. And consequently refutes the principle of Einstein's relativity. In any case, the existence of dark matter refutes all measurements of the speed of light in the last century and casts doubt on the whole foundation of the theory of relativity. All the fundamental principles of the theory of relativity should be checked anew. Corrected for dark matter.

Structure of elementary particles.
All articles of the site http://universe100.narod.ru and all articles of Dubinyansky and Churlyaev on https://www.academia.edu are devoted to this problem. For example:

https://www.academia.edu/33884339/Internal_density_distribution_in_the_neutron_proton_and_electron (.pdf) and http://universe100.narod.ru/060-Kandidats-angl-jpg.html (.doc)

In occasion of quarks.
  There is another pseudoscientific temptation. Explain the device of an object consisting of smaller "bricks". This creates the illusion of scientific advancement. Type to explain that the proton consists of quarks, quarks consist of smaller "mini-quarks", mini-quarks consist of even smaller "mini-mini-quarks", and so on. As you might guess, such a science is nothing more than a fraud for children. As a rule, children like these answers are satisfied for several days. Then new questions begin. If we look at our articles on the structure of elementary particles, then on density plots (from the radius) three large layers of density can be traced. Perhaps the presence of three layers of density left an imprint on the properties of elementary particles, and served as support for the "three quarks". But these layers are never separated from each other, it is impossible. Elementary particles are indivisible. And to speak of smaller "bricks" than elementary particles is meaningless.

About the Big Bang.
   The Big Bang is a generally accepted cosmological model that describes the evolution of the universe from a point, namely, the beginning of the expansion of the universe before which the universe was in a singular state.
   The Big Bang theory with the theory of the hot Universe is supported by the existence of relic radiation, as well as redshift in cosmic radiation.
   To a large extent, the Big Bang model is a draw to the religious model of "creation."
   In any case, for all the phenomena that are taken as the basis of the Big Bang theory, there are quite rational explanations within the framework of ordinary physics. Relic radiation is quite understandable from the position of an infinite and eternal universe. A red shift is explained by the gradual loss of energy by photons in the process of millions of years of motion and interaction with the cosmic background.

About the idea of strings, superstrings and branes.
  Our opinion is that it's just a timid exercise before applying to describe the universe a normal three-dimensional wave equation.

Conclusions.
   Yes, of course, you can turn science into a religious ritual. Speak smart phrases without thinking about their truth. As it happens in religion. The Bible has been refuted by scholars thousands of times. The number of contradictions in the Bible is enormous. But despite this, the Bible exists. Because she needs someone. Because it has some nucleus, which attracts millions of people.
   But should you turn physics into Religion 2? Should mantras be repeated about antimatter, quarks, black holes, wormholes, entangled particles, Higgs bosons, "standard model", Big Bang, expansions and accelerations of the universe, gaseous or liquid ether, pointless structureless elementary particles, exchange interaction, strings, superstrings and branes, supersymmetry and other symmetries, quarks, magnetic monopoles, tachyons, time travel. The whole civilization lives by the production of carbohydrates. In 100 years the hydrocarbons will end. What's next? Is it worth spending these 100 years on pseudoscience? Is not it time to think about the truth?

Published: https://www.academia.edu/34900093/Delusional_ideas_of_modern_physics

Назад      Главная страница       Оглавление      Далее

Страница размещена на сайте в ноябре 2017 года