History and analysis of one of the causes of the crisis in modern physics

1. Introduction

The crisis of fundamental physics. Modern fundamental physics, despite its numerous and impressive experimental successes of the past years, is currently in the stage of a deep and protracted crisis.



Tell me please:

1. Is the crisis in modern physics continuing? Does it take place even now, or has it already been successfully overcome long ago and successfully, and scientists are moving forward to new knowledge?
2. Is there a “correct” way of development of science today (without a crisis), or is modern theoretical physics not a science, but an illusion, as Machu justly remarked (fantasy or pseudoscience)?
3. To eliminate the crisis, the following conditions must be met:
   
   
   
   
   • First, it is necessary to find out the real reasons that led to the crisis.
   • Secondly, it is necessary not only to eliminate the causes, it is necessary to correct the mistakes provoked by the crisis.

In modern scientific critical publications, there is no convincing description of the main causes of the crisis. Some scientists write, for example, about the limitations of classical theories, because they, relying on classical theories, could not explain new experimental discoveries. The idea is expressed about a weak knowledge of philosophy (the theory of cognition of scientific truth).Researchers also write about other factors [1].



Perhaps the clearest and most consistent philosophical analysis of the crisis in physics was given by V. Lenin in [2]. Lenin was not a physicist. He could not describe the physical reasons for the crisis, i.e. show due to what physical errors and delusions a crisis has developed, which led to philosophical delusions in the scientific worldview. He clearly showed that ignorance of dialectical materialism harms the development of science. Lenin left correct remarks, for example, that among the positivists " matter has disappeared, only equations remain. " This substitution of explanations of phenomena by a heap of mathematics has survived and is multiplied in existing physical theories.



I consider his statement about the ignorance of "dialectics" by physicists to be sharp, although true. Physicists, of course, had an idea of ​​dialectics, but they did not know how to apply their philosophical knowledge in practice. This is tantamount to not knowing. There is nothing surprising in this conclusion, given that the vast majority of positivist philosophers are incompetent in matters of the philosophy of science.



Let me give you an example. What is "dialectical contradiction" in theory? I quote, the opinion of the philosopher Academician Omelyanovsky, from work [3]:



“According to Bohr's ideas, the contradictions between the corpuscular and wave properties of atomic objects seem to solidify in the form of the opposition of two classes of mutually exclusive experimental installations with which "additional" phenomena are associated. Meanwhile, the true resolution of the “antinomy of complementarity” is to consider the corpuscular and wave properties of an object as a unity of opposites ”[4].



A figurative comparison arises here. Two rams have rested their horns and are standing motionless (in a stupor). This is a monument to "Omelyanovsky's dialectics". And where is the "living soul" of dialectics - development ? I am not a believer, but I have a feeling that in the next world Hegel rushes after Omelyanovsky and, desperately hitting him on the back with a knotted stick, says: “This is for you, for dialectics, son of a bitch! This is for your dialectic, you pervert ! "

2. The beginning of the development of the crisis

The beginning of the conflict. Wave-corpuscle dualism is the ideological foundation of modern quantum physics. For this reason, it is important to once again recall the history of the emergence of particle-wave dualism. It starts back in the 18th century. The laws of classical Newtonian mechanics relied on instantaneous action at a distance. Light "didn't really want" to fit into its mechanics. The decisive role was then played by the authority of Newton. His opinion that light is a flux of corpuscles has long been considered the main argument in favor of the corpuscular theory.



Dissatisfied with classical mechanics in its standard form, Hamilton suggests that it describes the motion of bodies only approximately, like geometric optics.



Geometric optics describes the rectilinear motion of light rays, whereas light is actually a wave. Proceeding from his ideas, Hamilton constructs a complete analogue of the geometric optics of bodies (the Hamilton - Jacobi formalism of classical mechanics).

This desire to "force" light to "obey" the laws of mechanics seemed to be an obvious direction in the development of mechanics.



The beginning of fundamental changes in the understanding of the nature of light was laid by Thomas Jung. Young's theory of interference perfectly explained a number of optical phenomena. But the position of the proponents of the corpuscular theory was still strong, since its mathematical basis for Jung's theory was weak. Fresnel's work helped to overcome the difficulties of theory. The studies of Huygens, Fraunhofer, Foucault and other scientists also made a great contribution to the development of the wave theory of light.



The struggle between supporters and opponents of the wave theory of light was, in essence, a struggle between supporters of instantaneous action at a distance and supporters of short-range action. Due to the inability to use the achievements of philosophy, the struggle took on an uncompromising character. In fact, we are faced with the usual dialectical contradiction between two different objective points of view. Either of these points of view has strong experimental confirmation and practical application. For this reason, there is no good reason to discard any of them.



This dialectical contradiction is solvable. The disputing parties would have to distinguish between the areas described by instantaneous action at a distance, and the areas described by wave processes. In this case, each theory would have its own area of ​​application, which did not overlap with the area of ​​application of another theory. Thus, all contradictions would be eliminated! Alas! Physicists reacted negatively to the use of dialectics. This step was hindered by Comte positivism, which places any philosophy in the category of "speculation."

3. Comte's positivism

The 18th century saw a special period in the development of Western European philosophical thought - the so-called Age of Enlightenment. In the 18th century in society there was a rejection of the religious worldview dictated by Christian dogmas, and an appeal to reason as the only source of knowledge of man, society and the world around him.



Official science was freed from the burdensome need to be bound to biblical canons. The 18th century gave great philosophers and scientists: d'Alembert, D. Berkeley, D. Hume, I. Kant, G. Leibniz, D. Locke, J.J. Russo and others.



The emergence of the philosophy of Comte is natural. The presence of numerous philosophical directions based on speculative constructions and the development of scientific disciplines that gained independence (mechanics, optics, astronomy, thermodynamics, etc.) required systematization and putting in order of scientific and philosophical knowledge.

The current situation is reminiscent of the modern Internet "littered" with advertising, unnecessary and useless information. O. Comte points to the "corrosive influence" of the specialization of scientific work and deduces from this the need for a "new science" (ie positive philosophy), which is called upon to "prevent the fragmentation of human concepts."



Here Comte makes a major mistake. He "separated" all philosophical trends without exception from "positive knowledge", i.e. from natural sciences. According to Comte, the philosophical dispute between materialism and idealism has no serious basis and is meaningless. Philosophy must reject both materialism and idealism and be based on positive (scientific) knowledge. In his opinion:

1. philosophical knowledge must be absolutely accurate and reliable;
2. to achieve it, philosophy must use the scientific method in cognition and rely on the achievements of other sciences;
3. the main way for obtaining scientific knowledge in philosophy is empirical observation;
4. philosophy should investigate only facts, not their causes, the "inner essence" of the surrounding world and other problems that are far from science;
5. ;
6. « », , — , ( - ) , .

In simple terms, the essence of positivism (anyone!) Is contained in its slogan: “ Science is philosophy itself! ". Comte contrasted positive (scientific) knowledge with speculative philosophy (in the worst sense). It follows from the thesis that any scientific theory forms its own theory of knowledge and relies on it in the process of its development. Science does not need philosophy as such.



The scientist gets "creative freedom", not limited by any worldview (philosophy). He can come up with any ideas. Theories can logically conflict with each other. Moreover, in the theories themselves there may be logical contradictions if they are postulated in the theory. This is a simplified (vulgar) explanation of the essence of positivism.

Comte's concept turned out to be poison for science. The positivist philosophers were forced to adjust the foundations of their philosophy to the latest theories, neglecting historical human experience. This allowed scientists to compare the work of positivist philosophers with the work of the priestesses of the ancient profession.



I will give two opinions:

- " One of the founders of quantum electrodynamics R. Feynman ... emphasizes that a philosopher is required to do more than just think and say to the physicist:" Maybe space in the world is discrete, shouldn't we try this opportunity? " The physicist knows about such possibilities himself. The problem is how to apply them concretely to the development of physical theory. The philosopher, as Feynman says, stands aside and makes stupid remarks ”[5];

- "When this method (metaphysical - V.K.) failed, the physicist at the same time abandoned philosophy. Now he does not expect anything good from her. The very word “philosophy” can make him smile ironically or even contemptuously. He does not enjoy spinning in emptiness ”[6].

4. Continuation of the development of the crisis

The historical situation in the world for the period up to the 20th century developed rapidly:

1. the rapid development of technology required scientific and engineering personnel;
2. the role of education has grown, which has dramatically increased the number of people engaged in scientific research;
3. science was replenished by young scientists who did not have sufficient experience, but were arrogant, had creative ambitions and high self-esteem;
4. along with technical progress, the instrumental base and experimental technique were improved;
5. the number of experimental discoveries that required explanation increased dramatically.

The further development of science takes on a dramatic character. In 1873, Maxwell's major work, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, was published. Maxwell introduces a bias current. Thanks to Heaviside, Poincaré, Lorentz and other scientists, the equations of electrodynamics take the form of wave equations.



Now the proponents of close proximity felt more confident. Their joy was great. Based on a superficial analysis of Maxwell's equations for the Lorentz gauge, they concluded that all fields have a wave character and instantaneous action at a distance does not exist in nature in principle.



As a result, there was a strong opinion that all classical mechanics, for example Newtonian mechanics, strictly speaking, is not a "scientific theory". Critics argued that classical theories were "outdated" and could be viewed as an approximate description of physical phenomena. These theories need to be replaced by "latest theories."

5. Physicists' mistake

Physicists have not resolved the dialectical contradiction. It seemed to them that the external form of 4 Maxwell's equations really confirms the theory of short-range action. They did not differentiate between the areas of application of the two concepts. Maxwell and all other physicists did not see that there was a surprise in the Lorentz calibration condition. “The devil is in the details” [7].



Pay attention to a well-known fact. No physicist will deny it. The instantaneous scalar potential of charge fields in motion generates a vector potential. But it was precisely in this fact and in the Lorentz condition for calibration that the "time bomb" lay.



From the divergence of the vector potential A (Lorentz gauge), we can obtain the continuity equation for the scalar potential [8]. In turn, this step allows the time derivatives to be eliminated from Maxwell's equations. Thus, we get the second branch of solutions containing instantaneous potentials. The first branch describes retarded potentials.



Neither Maxwell nor the supporters of short-range and long-range action knew about this. Did Maxwell get the description of wave processes by chance? We will not answer this question. However, it was thanks to the second branch that a rigorous solution to the problem of electromagnetic mass was found and "magnetic paradoxes" in quasi-static electrodynamics were eliminated [9]. This will happen much later.



See a comparison of the properties of charge fields and wave fields.



Quasi-static branch[7] Charge fields are instantaneous at a distance. The fields E and H of the charge are always "tied" to the charge and cannot exist without charge. The magnetic field of the charge depends on the speed of movement of the charge v. If the charge is at rest, the magnetic field is zero. The electric field of the charge has inertial properties, i.e. there is electromagnetic mass (rest mass), momentum and kinetic energy. The speed of movement of the fields of the charge is always equal to the speed of movement of the charge and can be equal to zero. The connection between electromagnetic mass, electromagnetic impulse is described by Umov's law.



Wave branch[7]. The fields of electromagnetic waves are delayed. After radiation, the wave propagates and its fields E and H no longer depend on the radiation source. The magnetic field of the wave is always rigidly connected with the electric field. These fields cannot exist separately. The energy density of an electromagnetic wave cannot be matched to the density of inertial mass. The density of the rest mass of an electromagnetic wave is always zero. The speed of movement of an electromagnetic wave in free space is constant and always equal to the speed of light c. The relationship between the energy density and the pulse density of an electromagnetic wave is determined by Poynting's conservation law.



An incorrect analysis of the solutions of Maxwell's equations created and even now maintains a stable illusion that any fields have a wave character. Thus, one of several erroneous directions was established, which gave life to the logically contradictory wave-particle duality and quantum theories.



The properties are fundamentally different. What kind of field identification (dualism) can we talk about?

6. "Defeat" of classical theories

Let's continue to explore the development of science. Supporters of short-range action received complete confidence in the victory of their point of view after Heinrich Hertz's research on the experimental detection of electromagnetic waves. G. Hertz confirmed by experiments the existence of electromagnetic waves.



Based on a superficial analysis of Maxwell's equations for the Lorentz calibration, scientists concluded that all fields, without exception, have a wave character and instantaneous action at a distance does not exist in nature. As a result, there was a strong opinion that all classical mechanics, for example Newtonian mechanics, strictly speaking, is not a "scientific theory". Critics argued that classical theories were "outdated" and could be viewed as an approximate description of physical phenomena. These theories need to be replaced by "latest theories."



The following circumstances should be taken into account here.

1. -, . . « ». , . .

1. -, , , , . «» ( ) «».

What is a "postulate"? This is a common hypothesis, which has been given the appearance of absolute truth. Absolute truth is dogma. There can be no absolute truths in physics. Only God (if he exists) can postulate something. We see a vain desire to be raised to the level of God. The postulate is similar to a "brick", i.e. it looks like a no-lane sign. Thus, he interfered with the subsequent analysis of the causes of the "paradox". Jokes aside.



At the end of the 19th century (already at that time!), For example, prof. O.D. Khvolson in his “Course of Physics” [10] wrote: “… At the present time the conviction has become common property that actio in distans should not be allowed in any area of ​​physical phenomena. But how to expel it from the doctrine of universal gravitation? ".



Khvolson writes about instantaneous action at a distance, as about some kind of "infection" or "infection" that should be expelled from physics. So, by the beginning of the 20th century, due to the rejection of instantaneous action at a distance, the soil was ripe for the identification of material bodies and waves, i.e. The way for particle-wave dualism has "opened".



Electrodynamics had two problems during this period; the problem of electromagnetic mass and the problem of radiation. Critics of classical theories believed that new theories would solve problems. But they were wrong. It is ridiculous that physicists have not only failed to solve the problems of classical theories. They themselves subsequently faced difficulties, the roots of which have a classical basis. The "latest theories" failed to solve the problems.

7. Conclusion

We see that there is no physical basis for the introduction of the hypothesis of particle-wave dualism. Dualism is a false direction in physics, caused by mathematical errors and philosophical ignorance of physicists. This result is not unexpected for us. Physics textbooks are an example of replicating errors in science. Whatever field you take, everywhere you find a violation of logic, mathematically incorrect results, erroneous proofs. In the book [11], [12], we gave an analysis of the errors that provoked a crisis in physics.



Let's list some errors:

1. A mistake you already know in electrodynamics. Physicists “did not find” the quasi-static branch of solutions to Maxwell's equations.
2. , . .
3. («») .
4. - .
5. . ..
6. The results of the analysis are very sad. In fact, there are few scientific theories left without errors and delusions. Let's list those that are completely unsuitable for use: quantum theories and QED (theory of the atomic nucleus, theory of the atom, theory of elementary particles), thermodynamics in which the MKT is a completely useless superstructure, electrodynamics, requiring a revision of the theory of radiation and the interaction of charges with a wave, general relativity, SRT and other theories.

The crisis of the fundamental concepts of modern physics requires a revision of virtually all of physics. It is the theorists (the experimenters are a special elite) who resemble Napoleon's army in 1812, when, after the capture of Moscow, they fled to France in disgrace.



Crises in science are inevitable without a good theory of knowledge.



Links:

1. 1. . . … yandex.ru/tutor/search/docs/?text=++++19-20+#a50021a964743a22da8777d3cd7902c6).
2. 2. .. « ». .: , 1984
3. 3. .. . 2018. « — ?» www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001f/00163633.htm
4. 4. . . . . . 1973.
5. 5. .. . 1977. , , .
6. 6. . . 1975. , ., .
7. 7. A. Chubykalo and V. Kuligin. Unknown classical electrodynamics. Boson Journal of Modern Physics (BJMP) ISSN: 2454-8413. SCITECH Volume 4, Issue 2 RESEARCH ORGANISATION, August 03, 2018.
8. 8. .. , .. . 2015. « ». www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001e/00162877.htm
9. 9. Chubykalo, A. Espinoza, V. Kuligin, M. Korneva. Once again about problem “4/3”. International Journal of Engineering Nechnologies and Management Research. Vol.6 (Iss.6): June 2019, ISSN: 2454-1907 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3271356
10. * .. , .. , .. . 2018. «» . www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001f/00163788.htm
11. 10. .. . 1897. , 1. . ( ), .1 – 36. .. ,
12. 11. . . 2020. - ! www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0001/005d/00012454.htm
13. 12. V. Kuligin. 2020. Attack on the Wave-Particle Duality and Errors in Physics. Publising Polmarum. # (5281), ISBN 978-620-2-39434-5.

Note. The (*) symbol is used for additional sources of information.