# New concepts in modern physics

### www.physikgrundlagen.de

### www.uwes-physik.de

*This is a very short English summary of my German home page. It will grow in the future, proportional to the length
of the text.*

## Crisis of modern physics?

The Einstein anniversary is over. We have seen TV movies with strange pictures. Is physics so complex and
incomprehensible? It seems to be. If you dig deeper, you will find a lot of contradictions and paradoxes. Something is
going wrong in modern physics. Even the fundamental terms are improperly defined. Does anybody know what "the universe"
is? From the philosophers view, the universe is the sum of **all** existing things / energies. Therefore it's
illogical to talk about "many" universes or to believe that black holes could disappear from our universe. And so on.
What is the matter? Where goes the kinetic or the gravitational energy? Many questions! So it's urgent to think through
the basic concepts and fundamental terms.

The purpose of physics is to deliver a mathematical description of physical reality. Math is the tool to get the equations. Every physical equation uses math, but not all math equations have physical reality! Some famous math constructs, e.g. coordinate systems, are only "Gedankendinge", thought objects, without physical existence. Physics is the interaction of energy entities, matter is also a kind of energy.

Our brain has a limited capability of understanding, so when we develop a physical theory, we need a model of the reality to describe it. We tend to simplify the models, but oversimplified models are disastrous for the theory. Einstein's Relativity uses some oversimplified models, which should be corrected.

**We need new models, more precise models!**

How do we prove a theory? With an experiment, e.g. Eddington's solar eclipse experiment in case of relativiy? But the great philosopher, Karl Popper showed us that it is impossible to prove a theory with an experimen; at the most you can falsify a theory.

What does it mean? A modern theory must be "Popper-proof", that is, if you find a single contradiction, you must
reject or rethink the theory. Let us rethink things from the bottom-up, with the precondition *energy
conservation*.

## Relativistic speeds in everyday life

Let us look at an amazing example. A physicist (weight m = 80kg) takes an airplane for a vacation trip. The speed of
the airplane is 1000km/h. The physicist stores within his body the kinetic energy E_{kin}=1/2 mv^{2} ,
that is 3,085*10^{6}J = 740kcal. This energy is sufficent to rise his temperature to circa 47°C or
116°F, what might be dangerous for his health. But luckily this doesn't happen because the energy is stored
somewhere else. Regarding this huge amount of energy, we should ask where the hidden energy is. This real existing
energy cannot vanish due to a coordinate transformation, although it is unusable on board of the airplane.

This simple example is worth further investigation. We find an answer in Paul Marmet's paper Natural Length Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic Energy : the energy is stored inside of the atoms. Marmet shows how the growing relativistic electron mass enlarges the Bohr radius, which results in different inter-atomic energy levels, larger dimensions of matter and slower emission frequencies. (The latter effect slows down a moving atomic clock.)

## A new approach with Paul Marmet

I learned very much from **Prof. Paul Marmet.
His website is www.newtonphysics.on.ca. Marmet writes:**

*In these web pages below, we present explanations, which are always compatible with conventional wisdom and logic. We also require the principle of causality. No other web sites or books seem to use those criteria in modern physics. Consequently, esoteric models requiring the “probabilistic existence of matter” and the “non-locality” of quantum mechanics and the inescapable lack of*

**mass-energy conservation**in Einstein’s relativity are irrelevant. We can see in all papers below, that matter has a realistic existence and Nature is always rational. It is an error to believe that Nature cannot be explained with natural logic.First I refer to the following papers:

- Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical
Mechanics.

*This book demonstrates that using "Conventional Wisdom", "Conventional Logic, "Newton's Physics" and Galilean coordinates, classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. Einstein's Relativity is completely useless.* - Natural Length Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic
Energy.

*This paper gives a realistic description of the physical mechanism responsible for length contraction and the change of clock rate, when masses move at high velocity. This description is a natural consequence of the principle of mass-energy conservation and classical mechanics without the esoteric principles of Einstein's relativity.* - Natural Physical Length Contraction Due to
Gravity.

*This paper demonstrates how quantum mechanics solves all the problems previously attributed to relativity, when atoms acquire gravitational energy. Using mass-energy conservation and conventional logic, this paper presents the fundamental explanation of the "Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury" and the "Pound and Rebka" experiment.* - Fundamental Nature of Relativistic Mass and Magnetic
Fields.

*Einstein's does not give any physical model explaining the fundamental nature of the increase of mass at relativistic velocity. We demonstrate that this is due to magnetic energy, as calculated by the Biot-Savart equation. In fact, we can calculate the relativistic parameter γ, using electromagnetic theory. This leads to a physical description of the internal structure of the electron compatible with the de Broglie equation. We conclude giving a realistic description of photons, which solves the wave-particle paradox.*

An other topic is cosmology. The main work with the greatest influence on cosmology is the paper A New Non-Doppler Redshift.

Marmet writes: *It shows that "normal" physics leads to a slightly inelastic collision of photons due to traces of
hydrogen in outer space. These inelastic collisions are responsible for the redshift, which is undistinguishable from
the cosmological redshift. Numerous observations give strong supporting evidence for that previously ignored natural
phenomenon. The observed redshift can then be explained without any expansion of the universe.*

This redshift in my opinion is the "missing link" in cosmology: everywhere in the universe is energy interaction. When light interacts with energy / matter, its energy loss manifests as redshift. Such a redshift must exist due to the principle of mass-energy conservation. If the Doppler redshift would be predominant or the only redshift, this would violate energy conservation.

Also related to cosmology are the following interesting papers:

- Redshift of Spectral lines in the Sun's Chromosphere.
- Non-Doppler Redshift of Some Galactic Objects.
- Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death.
- The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars.

## Conclusion

Working through these papers, we come to the following conclusion:

- The universe is the sum of all existing entities. There is no "outside", because the universe contains everything
that exists. The universe is therefore infinite and eternal.

- The entities are different manifestations of energy, matter is a manifestation of energy.
All energetic entities interact. Interaction means energy exchange and/or energy transformation.
Energy cannot vanish, because there is no "outside". That is the reason for the principle of energy
conservation.

- The energy interaction between light and matter is observable as redshift (light can only loose energy by
lowering its frequency). The farer a light source the lower its frequency.
The main part of this redshift can be explained as "Marmet redshift", an interaction of photons and
interstellar hydrogen H
_{2}.

- We can observe only the
*visible*universe which is**not**the universe itself. Farer parts of the universe cannot be seen due to the energy loss of the light measured as redshift. The radius of the visible universe is determined by the magnitude of the energy interaction between light and matter.

- A Natural Length Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic Energy: no need for Einstein's concept.

- Natural Physical Length Contraction Due to Gravity: ditto.

- The charged particles are nothing but their electric fields, which decrease with 1/r
^{2}spreading into infinity. The particles have infinite size, though the main part of their energy is concentrated immediately in the neighbourhood of the classical particle radius.

- The Space is not empty: it is filled with the exterior parts of the fields of all particles, because the
particles are infinite. This sum of the exterior parts is a kind of ether.

- The Kinetic energy is identical with the magnetic field generated by the motion of the (charged) particles. The
field has a concentric vortex structure, which is compatible to the De Broglie wave length. The vortex structures are
generated due to the interaction of the moving particle and the sum of all other particles in the universe
(ether).

- Light is generated when the vortex structures are accelerated and propagates with velocity c in the "ether" = sum
of the exterior parts of all particles.

- The absolute inertial reference system exists due to the above mentioned ether. "At rest" is zero velocity to the
sum of all velocities of all particles in the universe.

## What's in the (german) chapters:

- 1 Einleitung

Models restrict our thinking, wrong models led to wrong theories, we need new models - 2 Ein Neues Materiemodell

How big is an electron? A new model of matter - 3 Die Kinetische Energie

The Kinetic Energy - 3.1 Die Kinetische Energie des Elektrons

Electron's Kinetic energy = magnetic mass - 3.2 Die Kinetische Energie des Atoms

Where is the kinetic energy stored? What happens to the moving atom? - 4 Die Potentielle Energie

The difference between an atom in outer space and an atom in the gravitational potential of a star. - 5 Die Gravitation

A new model of gravitation - 6 Maßeinheiten

Local and absolute units (length, time, velocity) - 7 Licht

The light - misunderstandings and a new model - 8 Rotverschiebung

A new non-doppler redshift - 9 Der Urknall

The big bang - did it really happen? - 10 Fazit: Ein neues Weltbild

After a good deal of thought we get a new model of the world.