The main points on one A4 Doodle Graphic

A 9-minute read (edit September 25th & edit 28th adding polaroid photo’s)

This mainstream view of physics and astronomy is well stated in this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Before I venture to again pose valid falsification of the mainstream Copenhagen- type views I’ll first provide a Wikipedia-style interpretation of what the dynamic interactive and paradoxical geometries are of most scientists’ mostly algebraic understanding of the cosmos and its interactive workings.

As I prove here the main points can be presented in one A4. And, I also in so doing prove that this is childishly simple to explain to any first-grade high school kid who has at least twelve years of Bildung.

Okay as a > 99% truth I better should say any twelve to eighteen-year-old such a high school kid.

I challenge any scientist to show that this isn’t a fair representation of the stated geometry in some algebra and word salad English. There are many variations on the theme, I only present what I understand to be the most broadly held view within physics and astronomy in 2010 in my Wikipedia-style way.

The reason I do this is that I started on my model of the cosmos in 2010. Since then much of what I predicted then has indeed been found. This is an 80% claimed score outside my field of expertise, but using my Just Proof method.

NOBEL PRIZE

The scientist that marries via algebra the theories of Einstein namely the theory of general relativity (GR) and the theory of quantum mechanics (QM) with the classical mechanical laws of Newton (CM) will get a Nobel Prize for shore.

This I’ve depicted in the lower right-hand corner of the doodle graphic.

The adage in physics and science is “shut up and calculate” even since the time of Sir Isaac Newton. It must be testable, quantifiable, and reproducible to be deemed non-pseudo-science. When scientists such as physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians state to “have the mathematics” of GR and QM they mean “algebra”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra

The central problem is that each theory *only* in its respective set theory box very much holds under the rigorous scrutiny of repeated test results. Set theory via Venn diagrams is something every first-year high school kid should have learned about. The circles with elements can be viewed as boxes filled with data represented as dots. The latter are the elements in mathematics and are seen as point masses or infinitely small singularities by physicists and astronomers.

A probative value of 99.999999999999999999 % score is repeatedly reached in QM in predictions that are thus validated.

Yet counterintuitively quantum mechanics is weird when viewed from our everyday laws of Newton’s understanding of our world. Thus it’s called quantum weirdness.

EINSTEIN’S PREDICTED PHOTON

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Historical_development

Alas, this Wikipedia article has one serious omission. The Michelson and Morley (M&M) experiment in 1887 isn’t mentioned in this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

And here in this article on Wikipedia, the M&M experiment is only linked to Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The latter is completely consistent with the doppler effect of classical mechanics. Intuitively known and taught to all high school kids. Namely the high pitch of the sound of a motorcycle that is coming towards you that turns to a much lower pitch when it has passed you and moves away from you.

The same is true for light. That is called red-shifting. That is how we know that galaxies are observed by the law of Hubble to be moving away faster from us the further off they are. The faster the lower the frequency thus the more red-shifted.

This is depicted in the right-hand middle of the doodle graphic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

But first back to the left-hand top of the doodle graphic.

The M&M experiment is of course critically important. It was the first time the speed of light, central in all of Einstein’s theories was measured to be a surprising constant. Contrary to the prior belief that an aether would be found, showing that the speed of light is a constant, falsified the existence of such an aether.

A scientist working with light and as a moderator on a physics forum who called himself Swansont, explained to me after the Higgs particle was found later than 2010 the following:

When a photon interacts with any aether or even field (the latter is local and an aether is everywhere in between particles) then all theories of Einstein collapse.

The reason why this is a fact is easy to explain.

Most high school kids must learn the mathematical formula of the physics of Newton’s falling apple I gave, which starts with St = v0t… (Top left-hand corner.)

In word salad, the quick and dirty written formula states that the distance S covered in the period t is equal to the starting velocity plus half the acceleration ‘a’ and the period squared. (The latter period times that same period)

Because the M&M experiment measures nothing in between particles of light traveling thru space and Einstein combines all the equations such as the Maxwell equations, Einstein predicted that all matter that per definition exerts a gravitational force, will bend space-time having a light beam emerge at a different spot then Newton’s laws would predict. In other words, matter exerts a greater gravitational pull on light than on normal matter such as a planet. The latter was described accurately by the laws of Newton.

This was indeed subsequently observed and measured.

Much later an individual and also predicted by Einstein light particle was found called the photon.

In 2010 science saw it as depicted by me here. A wave-particle duality. Namely, an energy packet followed by a wave of one meter. All traveling at a constant speed of light c.

Here indeed the theory of GR breaks with CM. Easy to explain. When you drive your car in a straight line on a level surface at a constant speed of 100 km/h you only have to give so much gas to overcome the opposing resistance force of the road and air.

Now when you make a curve and don’t give gas then you will slow down to say 90 km/h at the end of the curve. In other words, you must accelerate by putting your foot down on the accelerator to maintain a constant speed over the distance traveled in the curve. Yet by doing that at a given same time as traveling in a straight line, the distance covered must be greater.

There was absolutely no way any scientist could figure out how this could be, other than what Einstein stated that the closer you get to the speed of light the more massive a particle of matter becomes. The greater the amount of mass moving or accelerating the greater the amount of energy. Having a particle of matter at c requires an infinite amount of energy following these equations. The photon must thus be massless to reach the maximum speed in the cosmos. The maximum speed of light is also the minimum speed (for it is a constant). Light only seemingly travels more slowly when sent for instance by mirrors along a different route.

In order not to have the photon travel further in the given period given the (assumed!) impossibility of it accelerating having thus a = 0, we get St = v0t. Indeed this seeming contradiction can be solved by turning back the clock and making time relative.

Having curved space as the deepest truth then indeed it’s much easier to work with only four restrictive mathematical axioms than adding the fifth axiom of Euclidean geometry. The definition of a straight line using only 4 axioms is a circle with an infinite radius. Because space is curved the approximation suffices. Massless particles exist in Einstein’s model and are shown to work. This makes the algebra with a point mass an infinitely small singularity. In a curved space of assumed nothing, this works much easier to indeed produce the great triumphs of science.

Doubt is however in order whether mathematician Lewis Carroll is correct in stating that doubting that Euclid’s fifth axiom in geometry is indeed an axiom. Lewis stated and predicted that not doing so will end you up in Alice in Wonderland.

The fifth axiom of Euclid states that two parallel lines never cross even in infinity. If indeed curved space is the deepest level then the axiomatic existence of such a noncurved straight line as an axiomatic truth is in doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

This incompleteness of the story of science because of the existence of this doubt is sold as something good by science. It even has a mathematical theorem. A ‘theorem’ is nigh absolute proof that is reachable in quantified mathematics say algebra. The only loophole of doubt then is the uncertainty that we and mathematics exist as part of an existing cosmos. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems provide the nigh absolute proof that science is loophole-free on the correct being best possible track. This is the strong deeply felt religious belief that quantified proofs are the only best proofs of humanity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

In current Science, these are seen as proven to be unsolvable problems of marrying QM to GR and CM. Even though each is in a different set theory box and each has different axiomatic assumptions.

DARK MATTER

This term is visualized in the top right-hand corner. Humanity observes galaxies spinning with massive objects such as planets. According to the Laws of Newton (In current scientific jargon it should be the Theories of Newton, yet historically called laws.) the speed at which especially the outer planets are moving, the galaxies should, taking the amount of observed matter, and thus gravity, disintegrate and fly off into outer space. Yet, they don’t. Some unknown dark force is exerting more gravity than can be by observation accounted for. Gravity is per definition caused by matter hence the problem is called Dark Matter.

DARK ENERGY

The observations of Hubble show that the Law of Hubble dictates that the further away galaxies are observed the faster they are traveling away from us.

I’m not quite sure how most scientists visualize their quantified vision of the cosmos. The only way to marry all the quantified data seems to be either a balloon being blown up with the galaxies as spots on the balloon. Or a more refined way of visualizing the cosmos as a whopping expanding pretzel with nonexpanding raisins in it. The raisins depict nonexpanding galaxies each with a large black hole in its center.

Humanities visible universe and larger observable universe spheres are smaller than the whole visualized object. If I were to visualize what I guess it is they are saying I’d depict the sphere as a whopping rising space cake with raisins in it. The raisins depict the galaxies with Earth in the center. This cosmic inflation has a starting point mostly seen as a singularity or having started everywhere from nothing. Something from nothing because the algebra tells this impossible to visualize yet religiously believed to be a true model.

And indeed in QM observations particles pop up out of nowhere and vanish in the same way.

BLACK HOLES

To make the model work requires black holes that Einstein predicted. This is where the laws of physics seem to collapse at the event horizon being as far as we can observe. This is all part of the very large part of the cosmos governed by an extremely slow astronomical timescale that is far slower than the also very slow geological timescale of slowly rising mountains and tectonic shift etc.

It’s important to note that everything from the smallest particle to all matter has wavelengths. These waves make them observable.

http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Duality.html#:~:text=Everything%20has%20a%20wavelength%2C%20but,too%20small%20to%20be%20observable.

THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY

I already touched on this as having observable consequences. Even in our current daily lives when using satellite navigation on our smartphones. The signal sent from geostationary satellites must be corrected using the theory of general relativity of Einstein to be giving proven correct positioning of the phone.

The high speeds of satellites and curved space make this correction necessary.

GR can be said to be fairly mathematically consistent with CM. The latter doesn’t have c as a constant. But CM can be visualized as having more or less curved nothing as space.

SUB ATOMIC LEVEL OF QM

When we on the other hand go sub-atomic we get into the realm of the very small and fast quantum mechanics. Here things happen that are absolutely at odds with both GR and CM.

To understand the basics there are some easy experiments anyone can do at home using polarised sunglasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves)#Polarized_sunglasses

In the center top picture having three such glasses, each glass will of course be heated, or the photons reflected that don’t get through the glass. Polarisation can be seen as the bars of a prison. We can only observe half of the picture.

Glass A is put in an upright position and is vertically polarised. So an unpolarised beam of photons that passes through the glass will have lost for sake of the argument half their energy. But also the beam will have become vertically polarized. The same polarization is true for each photon. Having passed the polarisation filter the photon will have the same energy as it had before passing through the filter.

Glass B is tilted and then produces a horizontally polarized light beam.

When both glasses are at right angles to each other hardly any light passes thru.

The weird thing is that when a third glass C is squeezed in between glasses A and B which are at right angles but glass C is put at a 45o angle then nearly all the light passes thru all three glasses. Instead of blocking even more light which is what one would expect. At least one would expect a loss of 7/8th. 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8th light remaining. Yet I understand the energy loss is less. Mind, the usual energy loss per glass isn’t 1/2 but far less. That loss is of course to be added up.

The weird thing is of course that instead of getting even darker by adding a glass at the correct angle it becomes brighter.

DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

Another experiment one can in part do at home is the double slit experiment. Shining a laser beam through blackened glass with two slits scratched on them will show a normal bell curve distribution interference on the detector screen. This is depicted in the lower middle of the doodle graphic.

One CM thing that needs to be understood here is that two light beams that shine through each other have never shown to interfere with each other. This interference of waves in the way that two ships in water have their waves interfere not only with each other but even effecting the waving or bobbing around of the ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Now, how can it be that even when single photons (or other very small particles) are fired in succession through the double slits an interference pattern emerges that ultimately shows a normal bell curve distribution? Okay, maybe the wave of the photon interfering with one of the two slits it’s going through causes that. Yet there is a difference when only one slit is used. Which is strange when a photon only has passed one of the two slits. It is assumed due to the M&M experiment that there is no medium like water with ships passing a lock that could cause any interference at all.

But the experiment becomes weird when a detector is used to observe through which slit the photon goes. Then the whole interference pattern disappears. The latter is what you would expect when say a bullet is shot through one of the slits, having the distorted air in its wake no influence on the bullet. All subsequent bullets form a line. But if this was only the case when it’s observed going through one or the other slit then that would be strange. Very weird indeed.

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

In the lower left of the illustration, this is depicted. It’s possible to have photons entangled so they are arranged in the same way. Using such photons or other small particles this experiment can be performed.

Sending even one photon through a beamsplitter crystal towards two different detectors Alice and Bob which are polarized, when we indeed get a result, the odd thing is that always when Alice shows a vertically polarized photon with half the energy then Bob shows the exact opposite. Namely then a horizontally polarized photon of half the energy.

This holds even at distances of 5 km and in theory irrespective of the distance.

Einstein called this spooky action at a distance. And Einstein stated that God doesn’t play dice. Both quotes made in German refer to the Copenhagen interpretation. Einstein believed in a deterministic and not probabilistic universe. Usually referred to as “statistical” as the term for the superset of all non-deterministic reasoning. Mind that ‘probability’ also tells you where the billiard balls will end up when a deterministic prediction isn’t possible. ‘Statistics’ used in the correct nonsuperset way tells you how far the balls are reliable spheres.

The current Copenhagen interpretation dogma in quantum physics holds that this information is transported instantaneously and thus at infinite speed as the only possible explanation.

ALBERT EINSTEIN, ERWIN SCHRöDINGER, and LEWIS CARROLL ALL ANTI-COPENHAGEN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

The thought experiment with the cat being alive and dead at the same time in the Copenhagen interpretation was rejected by this thought experiment. The formulas used in CM are deterministic. Such as the formula St = v0t + 1/2at^2. The formulas of Einstein are probabilistic.

STRING THEORY

http://www.robbertdijkgraaf.com/html/EN-H.html

On the homepage of Physics Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, he shows his interpretation of the dynamics of Planck scale strings. He believes this String theory to have the most promise of explaining the smallest and largest scales of our universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Well, this is me in a lift on spaceship earth in a many-worlds interpretation.

· Permalink

Sir, an interesting read, but I spotted a few errors. The first is this :- “The M&M experiment is of course critically important. It was the first time the speed of light, central in all of Einstein’s theories was measured to be a surprising constant. Contrary to the prior belief that an aether would be found, showing that the speed of light is a constant, falsified the existence of such an aether.”

It did no such thing(s). The MMX was set up in air at normal atmospheric pressure, so the speed of light was measured in a medium where it’s speed is c/n, where n is the index of refraction of the atmosphere (at a given pressure), and c/n is with respect to that medium.

Here is a second error :-

“Now when you make a curve and don’t give gas then you will slow down to say 90 km/h at the end of the curve. In other words, you must accelerate by putting your foot down on the accelerator to maintain a constant speed over the distance traveled in the curve. Yet by doing that at a given same time as traveling in a straight line, the distance covered must be greater.”

There was absolutely no way any scientist could figure out how this could be…”

The answer is simple. As the car turns, it deviates from a straight line invoking a slight sideways force which increases road resistance. Hence slightly more power is needed.

And a third:- “Even in our current daily lives when using satellite navigation on our smartphones. The signal sent from geostationary satellites must be corrected using the theory of general relativity of Einstein to be giving proven correct positioning of the phone.”

The GPS does not use relativity. It quite simply triangulates the position of the (GPS) receiver. It does not matter whether the satellites’ clocks are running faster or slower than the clocks on Earth, it only requires that the satellites’ clocks are synchronised with each other.

Another slight error which has no real bearing on your article but does show your lack of knowledge of the GPS is that the GPS satellites are not in synchronous orbit.

· Permalink

Hi Tom, Sorry for the late reaction. I’m just getting the hang of this and needed expert help to tell me why and how I could approve your comment.

As such all comments, I thought would automatically be approved. That isn’t the case I just now learned.

Certain words always trigger a block that I didn’t know how to lift. Now I do.

I’ll react to your post tomorrow.

Gerhard

· Permalink

Hi Tom,

In reaction to your first point:

“It did no such thing(s). The MMX was set up in air at normal atmospheric pressure, so the speed of light was measured in a medium where it’s speed is c/n, where n is the index of refraction of the atmosphere (at a given pressure), and c/n is with respect to that medium.”

I agree with your point which is indeed more accurate than my quick and dirty explanation style for high school level. M&M came very close to indeed measuring c accurately. This was in the link I gave on Wikipedia and explained well enough for further reading.

The also valid point of refraction as deflection I dealt with elsewhere in my short description.

· Permalink

The second error you state:

“The answer is simple. As the car turns, it deviates from a straight line invoking a slight sideways force which increases road resistance. Hence slightly more power is needed.”

Here as well I agree with your point. What I simply wanted to explain is that Einstein’s predictions came true based on a massless photon that due to the inexistence of a medium (aether) via the M&M experiment, would be observed to travel at a constant speed further in the same time without a ‘road’/ medium or another possibility like a rocket to accelerate. Assuming all that then dialing the clock back was indeed the only way left to deal with that in a consistent way.

· Permalink

On the third and fourth slight error: “The GPS does not use relativity. It quite simply triangulates the position of the (GPS) receiver. It does not matter whether the satellites’ clocks are running faster or slower than the clocks on Earth, it only requires that the satellites’ clocks are synchronized with each other.

Another slight error that has no real bearing on your article but does show your lack of knowledge of the GPS is that the GPS satellites are not in synchronous orbit.”

Well, according to NASA as I understand it, GPS is vital to GPS.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/images/einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-critical-for-gps-seen-in-distant-stars.html

I quote: “How does this connect with General Relativity and GPS? As predicted by Einstein’s theory, clocks under the force of gravity run at a slower rate than clocks viewed from a distant region experiencing weaker gravity. This means that clocks on Earth observed from orbiting satellites run at a slower rate. To have the high precision needed for GPS, this effect needs to be taken into account or there will be small differences in time that would add up quickly, calculating inaccurate positions.”

Indeed triangulation is what is done: that I knew and thus took what someone else or another source stating this to indeed be correct. And contrary to what I thought GPS is indeed not in a geostationary orbit. Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed an error that is not central to my argument.

· Permalink

· Permalink

· Permalink

· Permalink