"Energy fragments" rather than waves and particles

[♦ Fuego ♦]

This is being proposed as a different way of modeling reality. Thoughts?

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fragments-energy-not-waves-particles-131816318.html

[◊ Krowb ◊]

An interesting read.  I'm sure @pantheory will weigh in

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Were y'all not paying attention when PittsburgJoe explained that this is jesus? 

[walterpthefirst]

Hmm...

 

1. 

When the links to the orthodox science of Particles and Waves are clicked on they lead to these Wikipedia pages.  

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

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

But when the link to Fragments of Energy is clicked on the Physics Essay page comes up with 'Message Product not Found'.

So this is a dead end.  The casual reader cannot evaluate for themselves the pros and cons of what is being claimed.

 

2.

The journal in which the paper (which cannot be linked to or read) is published is Physics Essays.  That journal doesn't make it into the top 290 ranked science and physics journals.

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3101&page=1&total_size=290

 

3.

Which begs the question, Why hasn't this ground-breaking theory, which would seem to re-write the work of Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and Schrodinger, appeared in any of the most prestigious and respected science journals?  The usual suspects, perhaps?  A global conspiracy by mainline, orthodox scientists to block all dissenters?  

 

4.

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

The journal was indexed in Current Contents/Physical, Chemical, and Earth Sciences and the Science Citation Index Expanded until it was dropped in 2015. After re-evaluation, it is now included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal had a 2013 impact factor of 0.245.

 

Physics Essays was dropped, re-evaluated and then placed on this list.

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

 

Jeffrey Beall argued that among the databases produced by Clarivate Analytics, the Emerging Sources Citation Index is the easiest one to get into and that as a result it contains many predatory journals.

 

Beall was the originator of this listing.

https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/

A predatory journal is one that throws open its pages to anyone who will pay to have their work published.  The bottom line in predatory science journalism is money.  In my opinion any science paper appearing in any journal with such a questionable track record should be viewed with suspicion.

 

5.

Fuego pulled this off Yahoo News, who, in turn, pulled this off The Conversation.  https://theconversation.com/us

If this theory is ground-breaking and revolutionary and overturns not just General and Special Relativity, but also Quantum theory, why isn't this all over CNN, the BBC, Fox news, Reuters, the New York Times or the Washington Post?

 

6.

The Fragment of Energy link goes to this Youtube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W31lEn7v4X0

YouTube is not the proper medium for scientific publication or discourse.  There are other channels for that.  Anyone can say anything or make any claim on YouTube.

 

7.

From the text of the Yahoo/Conversation article, where Professor Silverberg describes his new theory duplicating the results of Einstein's General Relativity.

 

For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.

 

Our initial work demonstrated how a new building block is capable of accurately modeling bodies from the enormous to the minuscule. Where particles and waves break down, the fragment of energy building block held strong. The fragment could be a single potentially universal building block from which to model reality mathematically – and update the way people think about the building blocks of the universe.

 

Apart from the sloppy spelling mistakes (modelled, not modeled and modelling, not modeling) Silverberg has not given his readers any way of testing, checking or verifying his claims.  So, what does he expect us to do?  Accept his claims on faith? 

 

As an Ex-Christian and a sceptic I find it very hard to accept anything much on faith.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Energy Fragments is a good theory; one might say a better perspective of reality than present theory IMO.  About the year 1900, Max Plank was proposing that energy was not an analog (a continuous stream). Instead, he realized that it comes in a more digital form which he called 'quantum bundles' (English, from the German). This was the beginning of quantum theory, where the word quantum today refers to subatomic particles and energy bundles. But in Planck's time atomic particles, electrons, protons, and neutrons, had not yet been discovered.

 

Newton, in the late 1600's, proposed that light was made up of corpuscles, which today we call particles -- and light is today referred to as only a small part of the electromagnetic spectra. About a hundred years later, the English polymath Thomas Young proposed that light was a wave. His proof of this claim was his invention of the double slit experiment, the results of which was strong evidence that light was a wave. About 50 years after that, many physicists were asking: If light is a wave, what is the medium in which this wave is generated and moves?  Many were agreeing then on the word 'aether,' a physical medium and background field of some kind. But this aether theory was not new, it was hundreds of years old even at that time, but at that time it was becoming mainstream theory.

 

Afterwards In the 1880’s, a famous experiment was conducted whereby most, in time, believed contradicted aether theory, called the Michelson-Morley (M & M) experiment. A minority of theorists then and now, however, were not convinced, having many other alternative explanations concerning the result and interpretations of the experiment.

 

Soon after M & M and Planck's theory, Einstein came on the scene in the beginning of the 1900's. He agreed with Planck and proposed that light was made up of quantum bundles which he called particles, and which later later were called photons. And that these particles were moving at the speed of light. But in time it was realized that particle  was a nebulous term, and in some cases had a meaning more mathematical than real.

 

About the 1920's, experiments were being conducted showing the existence of a background field, like the aether, which was being called Zero Point Energy (ZPE). Accordingly the vacuum of space minus matter still had something important within it according to experiments at that time and countless quantum experiments since then. But the word aether had become ‘verboton’ (German language, or forbidden in English), because most believed that the aether idea contradicted the foundation of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which it did.

 

From Planck’s proposal of quantum bundles one could ask, bundles of what? And from the knowledge of the existence of the ZPE one could ask the question, the energy of what?

 

Now to the subject proposal “Energy Fragments.” This seems to be similar, or the same as Planck’s original proposal when in 1900 he called such fragments quantum bundles. Certainly IMO one could look at reality from this perspective. But some take it even further than this by asking the question, energy fragments of what?  To answer this question, a number of theoretical physicists today propose that the ZPE is the energy of a physical background field which they call the Zero Point Field (ZPF). Some propose that the background field's smallest particulates are vastly smaller than anything presently known. From this model light would be made up of waves of these particulates, and that energies of this field could be called bundles of these particulates, which brings us back to the aether and ZPF proposal. And this proposal of a physical background field is my preference, as well as relating to my own theory.

 

But to throw in a little levity, one can realize that our Christian friends would probably not be interested in, understand, or agree with any of the above

 

[pantheory]

On 12/6/2021 at 6:36 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Were y'all not paying attention when PittsburgJoe explained that this is jesus? 

 Or as PittsburgJose would say, this is the essence of Haysoos  ( Jesus pronounced in Spanish).