|Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: First of all, I am very thankful to the Editor Vlad. |
I would like to explain what is really controversial in theoretical
physics, because such a subject is very controversial.
My theory is not controversial. Controversial are the current theories of physics.
are controversial because in current theoretical physics were adopted
fundamental principles that make no sense. They violate the Logic.
instance, Einstein proposed that the space is empty, but it has the
property of contraction, and it is able to produce the magnetism. This
makes no sense. This is controversial. Something empty cannot have
contraction. And something empty (that is, something that does not
exist), cannot produce magnetic fields.
Other example: according
to current quantum mechanics, the electron disappears from a level in
the atom, and instantaneously appears in another level, without to
travel the space between the two levels. This is controversial. An
electron that disappears from a position and appears instantaneously in
another position moved with infinite velocity, because in the equation
E= v.t the time is zero, and so v= E/0 = infinite. This nonsense brings
down Einstein’s relativity.
In my theory the new
foundations are all them in agreement to Logic. Besides, my theory is
supported by results comproved by mathematic calculations.
So, if somebody accuse my theory of being controversial, then he has to conclude that the mathematics is controversial.
Well, this conclusion is right. The mathematics is controversial.
not the math used by me, because I don’t use math abstract concepts as
the imaginary number, or any other math concept created with the aim to
achieve results that conciliate the theory with the experimental
To show that math is controversial is among the
objectives of my book Subtle is the Math, where it is shown that a
controversial math was introduced by Einstein, and it was used
successfully along the 20th Century, and continues being used.
math used by Einstein (and used up to now by the physicists) does not
reflects what really happens in the realm of Nature. Many fundamental
principles adopted in current Theoretical Physics do not exist in
Nature. But with the introduction of suitable artifices in the math, as
the imaginary number, it is possible to achieve to results that are
confirmed by experiments.
A good example is the coupling
light-matter used in quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
the interaction between two electrically charged particles is promoted
by the exchange of photons between them, as shown in the Figure 1.
Can we be sure that such mechanism proposed in QED is really the same mechanism existing in nature?
is controversial. First of all, there is not in current theoretical
physics an atomistic structure of the electric field, despite more than
70 years the Wolfgang Pauli said in his Nobel Lecture:
the point of view of logic, my report on ‘Exclusion principle and
quantum mechanics’ has no conclusion. I believe that it will only be
possible to write the conclusion if a theory is established which will
determine the value of the fine-structure constant and will thus explain
the atomistic structure of electricity, which is such
an essential quality of all atomic sources of electric fields actually
occurring in Nature.”
QED is considered the jewel of physics, because of its accuracy, confirmed by experimental results.
But among the imaginary number used in QED, there is other interesting abstract math apparatus used in the theory: the bispinor.
the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law and fine-structure
constant”, published in the book Subtle is the Math, it is proposed that
the interaction between two electrically charged particles occurs
actually through the interaction of the “electricitons” of the electric
fields, which move with the speed of light, as seen in the Figure 2.
So, what is the real mechanism that promotes the interaction between two fields?
1- The real mechanism existing in Nature is by the “System f-f”, shown in the Figure 2
by using the math adopted in QED, through the adoption of the imaginary
number, together with the bispinor, the “System ph-ph” shown in the
Figure 1 is mathematically equivalent to the “System f-f” existing in
Then obviously QED can be successful, because its
mathematical apparatus is equivalent to the mathematics of the “System
f-f”, existing in Nature.
In the end of the book Subtle
is the Math is proposed to theorists a challenge: to prove the
mathematical equivalence between the “System ph-ph” and the “System
If such mathematical equivalence be proven mathematically, two conclusions will be achieved:
1- The mathematics used by the physicits is indeed controversial.
2- QED is successful thanks to a “mathematical coincidence”, the equivalence of two systems: the “System ph-ph” adopted in QED, and the “System f-f” existing in Nature.
the physicists are afraid to accept this challenge. Because if the
mathematical equivalence of the two systems be proven, this will prove
that QED does not work through the fundamental principles existing in
Nature. And what is worst: it will be proven that the mathematics used by the physicists is controversial.
my book Subtle is the Math is shown that the own Lord used the imaginary
number when He built the Universe. Then somebody obviously could claim:
well, if the own Lord used the imaginary number, then there is not any
on controversy in the math used in Modern Physics, since the own Lord
used the imaginary number, when He had created the Universe.
But the question is not so simple.
math used in current physics is controversial because the theorists
start from some initial assumptions, which do not exist in Nature, and
then they have to introduce some math tools not introduced by the Lord.
For instance, in current theoretical physics is considered that symmetry
plays a fundamental role in the working of the Universe. But in my book
“The New Nuclear Physics” (to be published in 2022) is
shown that symmetry does not play any fundamental role in the structure
of atomic nuclei, as nowadays nuclear theorists believe.
example: Einstein started from the hypothesis that the space is empty.
But the Lord did not create the Universe from an empty space. Then
Einstein used the imaginary number in a different way of the way used by
the Lord, because Einstein and the Lord had two different starting
points: Einstein supposed that the space is empty, whereas the Lord has
created the spaces as not empty. Therefore Einstein’s mathematics is
different of that used by the Lord.
Other example is the
difference between the “System ph-ph” used in QED, and the “System f-f”
existing in Nature. The Lord did not use the bispinor, when He created
the Universe, he used only the imaginary number. But the theorists had
to introduce the bispinor, because in their theory there is not the
atomistic structure of the electric field. Thereby, as something very
fundamental is missing in QED (the atomistic structure of electric
fields), there was need to create a new math apparatus, the bispinor,
which the Lord did not use, because He created the atomistic structure
of the electric fields, and so the Lord did not need to use the bispinor
in His Mathematics.
So, the mathematics used by the Lord is
different of the mathematics used by the physicists, despite, from the
introduction of some additional math tools, it is possible to establish
an equivalence between the mathematics of the Lord and the mathematics
of the physicists. And the physicists did it successfully along more
than hundred years.