StringsNThings

We need to move this discussion to a forum. I posted a reply as a topic in philosophical discussions at: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67383-inconsistent-documentation-of-scientific-theories/#entry686966

If you know of inconsistencies between physics theories and observations, please post them here. This topic was created to support Robert Oppenheimer's interest in my statement in the "Introducing Yourself" thread. I stated that I have a pet peeve about scientists not including contradictory relationships in their writings that they knowingly are aware of. Link I selected an article somewhat arbitrarily from the internet physics resources. http://solid13.tphys...rnt1/par1.3.pdf The article attempts to associate electromagnetic forces between fermions. The assumptions provided seem to be contradictory, and referenced support is not provided. Macroscopic Maxwell equations are attempted to be used to describe forces at the atomic scale. Electrons (systems of influence) are characterized here as charged particles moving in complex systems of electromagnetic fields. For the Maxwell equations to be representative, the back-emf must also be applicable and the relationships between time and position. The assumptions state that the "sum of the electric field and the time derivative of the vector field does not exhibit vortices" and therefore the related system can be treated as a scalar. This statement is not supported with any references that relate real-world observations to this mathematic statement. Fig 1: Equations resulting from acting on these assumptions. If there is conservation of energy, how can there not be vortices. The shell nature of electrons seem to support that vortices do likely exist to cause the shell nature of observable electron shells. The vortices might be necessary to conserve energy and cause the shell structure. If the shell structure does not have vortices then particle physics does not apply directly to atomic structures and observations are better modeled with some other system. Perhaps the shell would be a causal system of influence that forms relativity in this case by moderated influence between the observer and the broad systems of consequence related to the electron shell. A tangent subject. Fig 2: Actual picture representation of electron shells The electron systems of influences is interacting with complex systems of electromagnetic interactions. This would imply that the universe acts as a balanced system such that the sum of the E-field and time derivative of the vector field is true for all electrons in the universe simultaneously; since electromagnetism and gravity have influences throughout the universe this would imply vortices do exist from macroscopic observations. The microscopic use of maxwell equations to atomic scale fermions seems inconsistent. Maxwell equations in this form of application would seem to be more indicative of an atomic scale moderator of complex fermion systems that result in macroscale observations. But not applicable to direct atomic scale calculations. I would like to have seen references that support their statements so that I can better understand their suppositions. Based upon real world observations, the equations used seem to be unrelated in several regards to observations. As stated in my profile, and in my introduction, I am a physics hobbyist. So if my observations are inconsistent, please bring it to my attention so I and all other hobby physicists can learn from your insights. Seriously, don't mistake my candor as combative. I truely want to exercise my mind productively.

alpha2cen, on 13 June 2012 - 05:25 PM, said: I changed a little. "The cause of obtaining mass and the cause of obtaining gravity are the same." Gravitational Aberration is instantaneous, this would seem to imply an association with gravity (extending throughout the universe). While a graviton is associated with time (propagation) and a local effect. Might the curviture of space/time be related to the interaction of gravity with some fabric of time propagation? What we are calling time being something ... different. What is another description of "time propagation"? Maybe "Consequence"? If time propagation passes through fields of instantaneous gravity, what is the resulting qualities of the interacting fields? Substituting Consequence for time propagation. If Consequence passes through fields of instantaneous gravity, what is the resulting qualities of the interacting fields? Maybe "causality"? "The cause of obtaining mass and the cause of obtaining gravity are the same." If causality is a fundamental characteristic, might graviton and mass be the same, but mass is causally connected to additional factors, while graviton without reference to those other causal factors only become apparent when systems of causality interact? Something like observation when related to quantum entanglement.

Hi Everyone, A little about myself. I am: a project manager for a construction company interested in physics as a hobby interested in understanding the foundations of the universe read about what people say they develop and then try to apply it to what I see around me far from being an expert, but I express myself with the same candor as scientists who write about their "theories" I find it annoying that many "scientists" accept contradictions and do not modify their theories, and do not cite the shortcomings they know exist in their efforts. This is the same as what religion does. I very much am looking forward to fitting together a better picture of physics that forms the foundations of the universe. My current interest is in String Theory.

Entropy is the evolving interactions of gravity and electromagnetic couplings throughout the universe. The opposite of entropy is the ordered evolving interactions with reversed systems of causality. A common assumption is that entropy is degenerative, but this seems to be short-sighted based on systems we are only now coming to understand to exist. String Theory provides systems of approximations for influence, but the model of string theory buries necessary causality in its mathematic design. Without modification, string theory is missing the components needed to describe gravity interactions. Therefore, unification is without support.