|
xx Reprinted from Electronics
and Wireless World jan88 pp48,54. The
conquest of truth Catt
presents his views on why apparently liberal scientists combine in seeming to
suppress the facts. IVOR CATT Einstein
rejected the legacy of the early twentieth century, which I call "Modern
Physics", with which his name tends to be associated. In the 1940s, he
wrote* "…. I am quite convinced that
someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by
laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for
granted until quite recently." ". . . We all of us have some
idea of what the basic axioms in physics will turn out to be. The quantum or
the particle will surely not be amongst them: the field, in Faraday's and
Maxwell's sense, could possibly be, but it is not certain." "Quantum Mechanics and
Reality. In what follows I shall explain briefly and in an elementary way why
I consider the methods of quantum mechanics fundamentally
unsatisfactory." While
this rejection by Einstein is occasionally admitted**, the main thrust of
today's scientific propaganda makes out that Einstein was a card-carrying
member of the Modern Physics party. In the
July issue of EWW, page 683, I listed some of the characteristics of `Modern
Physics', describing it as a soft subject, lacking the brittleness of true
science, which it has usurped. In his book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. T. S. Kuhn opposes the softness of Modern Physics. On page 97,
he writes, ". . . The successful new
theory must somewhere permit predictions that are different from those
derived from its predecessor . . . It is hard to see how new theories could
arise without these destructive changes in beliefs about nature." In
stark contrast, 'Joules Watt' had this to say in EWW, July 1987, page 697, paraphrasing the same book, "Yet
the developed theory of electromagnetism still holds sway. If there are some
phenomena such a theory does not explain, then any new model must explain all
that has gone before - plus the new aspects. At least that is the way Thomas
Kuhn outlined the situation." A clue
to the attitude which could have led to these two extracts is given in the
assertion by Professor Ziman on television, quoted in the July 1981
editorial, "the aim of science is to achieve consensus." His
assertion that science is monolithic is supported by the fact that the
medieval method of achieving consensus, or suppressing heresy, in religion,
using anonymous censors, has been copied in today's science. Let us
investigate the consensus view of science. I feel that Kuhn is describing it
in what follows. "If science is the
constellation of facts, theories, and methods collected in current texts,
then scientists are the men who, successfully or not, have striven to
contribute one or another element to that particular constellation.
Scientific development becomes the piecemeal process by which these items
have been added, singly and in combination, to the ever growing stockpile
that constitutes scientific technique and knowledge." - T. S. Kuhn, op.cit., p.l. A Great
Scientist has successfully contributed one or more elements to the body of
knowledge. Any aberrant, heretical offering merely indicates that he is not
as great as he might have been. Something like 80% of his work takes its
place within the consensus, and the remaining 20% we must forget in order to
help the Forward March of Science. From the consensus point of view, this is
not suppression. Also, it is encouraging to find that the central circle, the
least common denominator, is so large. The consensus is obviously the centre
of gravity of so many mildly divergent views. It then becomes a short step to
rewrite the aberrant views of some of the more troublesome great scientists.
In fact, if Kuhn is regarded as one of the 'greats', then any reading of his
works which might indicate that he falls significantly outside the main
consensus circle must be a misreading. If he were so different, then he would
not be known. Having
dealt with the conquest of truth about scientists, we now turn to the
conquest of truth about scientific experiments. It
seems that any book called Relativity for Tiny Tots, or The Ascent of Man, or
such like, contains clear assertions about a number of pivotal experiments in
the history of science, nearly all of those assertions falsifying the
experimental results. This falsification of most of the key experiments
extends all the way up to about first-degree physics-level textbooks. It is
galling rather than pleasing to find that post-graduate books generally admit
to such errors, but on page 500, .not page 5. My position is that if there is
any uncertainty as to the conclusion indicated by the results of one of the
key experiments. then that should be reported in quite elementary texts, for
instance those used by 17-year olds. There
are four so-called "acid tests" of Relativity. All are disputed. (I
myself find Relativity flawed at other levels anyway.) Hawking/Israel admit
that light bending round the sun contradicts Einstein's prediction. Brillouin
says that the Mercury perihelion results, properly studied, contradict
Einstein's prediction**. Polanyi and continued
on page 54 *The Born-Einstein Letters by Max Born, pub.
Macmillan 1971, further discussed in Electromagnetic Theory Vol 2, by 1.
Cart. C.A.M. Publishing 1980, p;3117. Also see 1. Cart. El4'li', July 1987 ,
page 683. **P. E. Hodgson, Fontana Dictionary of Modern
Thinkers, ed. A. Bullock and R. B. Wordings, Fontana, 1983, p20ii. However,
if we read Hodgson on page 604 we see the ambivalence and confusion in the
admission. continued from page 48 others say that the
Michelson-Morley experiment does not produce a null result*** ' -In any case Einstein
did not develop relativity as a result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment****. The formula e=mc2 pre-dates relativity. Relativity pre-dates
Einstein. And so on. We are
helped in trying to understand why apparently liberal, progressive scientists
should combine to create such a reactionary, unstable juggernaut if we read
about the term "Whig History" in the dictionary of the History of
Science, 1981, page 83. ". . . . Although favouring
progressive movements in the past, the thought of Whig historians was
essentially conservative. They saw their own beliefs, practices and
institutions as the goals for all previous beliefs, practices and
institutions. The historian's task was reconstructing the progressive march
of history focusing on those past developments which anticipated the
present'' "The 'Whig' interpretation of
history has had a powerful influence within the history of science . . . . .
Some historians of science have, therefore, seen the present state of
scientific knowledge as an absolute against which earlier (and we would say
later) attempts to understand Nature could be evaluated." Like
the Whig historian, today's Establishment Scientist, although apparently
progressive, is in fact conservative. *See I. Catt. Electromagnetic Theory re published
C.A.M. Publishing 1986, p.lll. **See 1. Catt, op.cit.,p116 ***M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, pub. RKP 1958,
p.12. ****M. Polanyi, op. cit., P.10. MAXWELL,
EINSTEIN AND THE AETHER The
conventional story is as follows. Maxwell
followed in the wake of a physical, non-mathematical Faraday, who thought in
terms of tubes of flux in space. Faraday had a space in which resided
electric flux and magnetic flux. His space had physical reality and physical
properties, these properties making it able to accommodate his fluxes. Maxwell
set out to make Faraday's ideas more rigorous and scientific (a) by firming
up the physical model for space, or the aether, and (b) by placing a
mathematical structure over them. He
constructed a mechanical model for the aether, with large rotating wheels and
small idler wheels, on the lines of a gear box run riot in complexity. Using
this model, he constructed his Equations of Electromagnetism. However,
the reported' failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the birth of
Relativity led to the removal of the physical model upon which Maxwell
constructed his equations ". . . . one is almost
exactly the antithesis of the other: the primary function of the ether was to
provide a fixed frame of reference - . . . . the theory of relativity merely
implies the negation of this preliminary assumption, so that the two are
exactly antithetical." 2 "Now although Maxwell's
Equations have survived to the present day, the discovery of the electron and
the development of relativity theory have removed the physical props upon
which they were built.,"3 All of
this flows along swimmingly until we assemble the next disastrous pair of
observations. In 1949
Einstein wrote 4; "The special theory of
relativity owes its origin to Maxwell's Equations of the electromagnetic
field." Here we
reach the point where Einstein says that the foundation of relativity is
Maxwell's equations excluding, of course, its now defunct physical origin,
the aether; that is, space with physical properties. Now add
my own discovery that Maxwell's equations are devoid of any information
except that on the physical properties of space. "The only purpose served by
Maxwell's equations is as a package to deliver the constant Zo to the
theorist and to the practitioner. "5 Here we
have closed the loop in the argument, and the whole crazy structure
underlying `modern physics' collapses. To sum
up. Einstein says that relativity, which he believes to have been based on
the disappearance of a space with physical properties, is based on Maxwell's
equations, which are now found to contain only information about the physical
attributes of that disappearing spaces By
analogy, it would be possible to proclaim a new theory of mechanics which
lacked the concept of mass, but which contained both velocity (v) and moment
(mv) within it, and which preferably included lots of fancy maths involving
momentum and velocity. Then, unknown to any one among the awed observers, the
new theory could be made to function, produce results, and correlate with reality.
The necessary parameter m, like the rabbit in the hat, could go about its
business, staying all the time firmly hidden inside the hat, the hat being in
our case the term momentum and a fog of mathematics. Can we
not chase this obscurantist 'modem physics' out of our universities, and
start to prepare for a 21st century of real scientific progress? References 1. For
the exact nuances here, read Polanyi M., Personal Knowledge, R.K.P., 1958,
pp9-13. Catt, L, Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1, C.A.M. Publishing, 1979, p108 2.
Jeans, J., The Mysterious Universe, C.U.P.,1931 P.85 3.
Cullwick, E.G., Electromagnetism and Relativity, Longmans, 1959, p.ix. See
also Whittaker, E.T., A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity,
Nelson, 1951, p255. 4. Ed.
Schilpp, P.A., Albert Einstein, PhilosopherScientist, Library of Living
Philosopher, 1949,p62. 5.
Catt, L, The Hidden Message in Maxwell's Equations, EWW, Nov'85 Panel "Any physical law which contains a derivative (d/dt
or d/dx) is wrong because it implies instantaneous knowledge of two things
which are separated by distance or by time. This transgresses the principle
of 'No instantaneous action at a distance.' Integral
Eds = - d(phi)/dt, as a statement of Faraday's Law of Induction, is one such
faulty equation. - Michael S. Gibson. Please note, in amelioration of Gibson's assertion,
that he is writing about physical laws - prescriptive
statements. Also, he is writing about fundamental laws in physics. In
contrast, should a mountain get steeper higher up in a certain way, it is
perfectly valid to make the descriptive
statement dh/dx = kh should that happen to be true for that particular
mountain. Also, this could even be a prescriptive
statement should it be a necessary result of the wind or ice shaping the
mountain. However, in such a situation, we are not dealing with a
relativistic universe; in the case of erosion, we are within a universe of
discourse where we can conceive of "instantaneous" action at a
distance. Gibson refers to the deeper level of physics, with fundamentals,
where there is no instantaneous action at a distance. |
|
x |
|
x |