Comparison of generally accepted and proposed approaches to the development of science

The basic dogma of the generally accepted approach to the development of science is a well-known utterance attributed to a number of authors: "There is as much science in science as there is mathematics in science". This began in the times of Pythagor, as who proclaimed that "mathematics is the gate to science". The mathematical era that started over 3000 years ago continues to the present day, and Isaac Newton is a symbol of this era. Newton's four laws, as well as the Euclid's axioms, enable us to derive many other laws.

However, not only Newton's laws but Bohr's, Maxwell's, Ohm's and Einstein's and many other scientists' laws are described as postulates (without mechanisms), meaning that they do not describe cause-effect relations. A striking example of the mathematical approach is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which declares a complete absence of cause-effect relations, at least in the microcosm. The most striking thing is that this principle has been recognized by the scientific community on the most representative and well-known Copenhagen Congress by poll (not in the course of scientific discussion).

In the 20^th century, physics developed according to following motton: "... the best way to create a new theory is to guess equations ignoring physical models and physical explanations" (R. Feynman, Nobel Lecture, 1965).

The generally accepted concepted ranking of physicists is as follows: A. Einstein (0.5), Galileo and Newton (1), N. Bohr and Maxwell (2), Schroedinger, Heisenberg, etc. The apotheosis of this ranking includes quantum mechanics and also general and special relativity theories (GRT and SRT).

According to Rosenberg (History of Physics in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Part 1, Department of Scientific and Technical Information, Moscow 1934, Leningrad): "... the strong point of mathematical physics is a logical finality and obligatoriness of conclusions. After accepting certain starting provisions, the mathematizing physicist then operates with a help of mathematical tools, and all of his conclusions finally represent the detailed expression of the content of these provisions. However, mathematical reasonings cannot create physics ... They should borrow their material from outside, from those observations which are already available. In other words ...passivity in regard to the material is typical for mathematical physics. And it suggests certain limits for its development. In addition, by asking only one question "how big is...", mathematical physics essentially does nothing in terms of discovering a qualitative mechanism for the explored phenomena and confines itself to their quantitative description".

We did not manage to find in physics textbooks (perhaps the reader will direct us) a single case of the mathematical approach used to solve scientific questions that would not be a solution of the inverse problem (simply said, would not be a fitting). In the process of compiling dependencies, assumptions are introduced which have no experimental evidence. Often, for the equations composed according to this pseudoscientific basis, the coefficients were chosen whose numerical values​​ were determined by experiment.

Hereafter, we propose to consider and compare two conceptions of the universe. One of them is firmly settled in academic institutions and, therefore, is generally accepted. The other conception, which in our opinion is a more progressive one, is electromagnetic.

I

Thus, the generally accepted conception:
Initial material essences: mass, charge, inertial properties of mass, gravitational properties of mass.

II

And now let's examine the electromagnetic  approach (EM).

The main essence of subsyance is the property that, historically, has been called a charge. This essence exists in nature in two forms: positive and negative charge. It has been deduced from experiments that similar charges repel each other, and opposite charges attract (only point charges). The magnitude of the interaction forces of the charges is described by Coulomb's law. According to intranuclear and molecular theories, all material bodies, from space objects to microparticles, are complex and, therefore, divisible systems. These systems consist of negative and positive charges rotating around a general center of inertia. The charges have inertial properties. According to mass-spectrographic experimental data, the inertial properties of protons are 1840 times greater than the same properties of electrons, although their opposite charges are equal in absolute magnitude. At the same time, according to the experimental data, the inertial properties of positron and electron are also equal (though they have opposite directions). These data allow us to suggest that a dramatic difference between the inertial properties results from the different structures of electrons and protons (such as the difference between their effective radiuses).

The forces of interaction are only electrodynamic. 

Interactions are described by cause-effect relations established during experiments studying the currents in conductors, convection currents and displacement currents. Space is three-dimensional. The basic conception: There is as much science in science as there is science in science (in physics - physics and in chemistry - chemistry, etc.).

We believe that the EM approach is more correct. Let's examine why.

1)      Basic essences. According to the generally accepted approach, there are two basic essences - the mass of substance and its charg. According to the proposed approach, there is only charge. The larger number of initial essences (the introduction of new postulates) makes the general accepted system less versatile.

2)      Destruction. According to the accepted approach, when elementary charges approach each other they are destroyed (for example, electron + positron), and the mass inherent in the charges turns into energy, according to the law E=m·c². After this, the Coulomb energy disappears somewhere. It is logical to suppose that the Coulomb energy should also turn into energy. However, in practice, the amount of released energy is substantially smaller than would be expected in this case.

E_annil =Е_Coul+2m·c² 

If they were annihilated,  then, according to Coulomb's law, the amount of released energy of point charges would be endless. Coulomb energy would add to the energy derived from mass. In practice, this is not observed! Coulomb interaction energy of converging particles seems to disappear mysteriously.

According to the proposed EM approach, as opposite  the charges approach each other, they do not annihilate each other but form a pair (particle), rotating around the charges' center of inertia. These charges are tied together by Coulomb forces. According to the EM approach, all material objects (macro- and microscopic objects) are composed of oppositely charged charges that rotate around the center of inertia. Complex particles are stable formations. When energy is imparted to them, they can reach an excited state. For example, when a hydrogen atom absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy (about 13.5 eV), it reaches an excited state. After this, the distance between the electron and the nucleus increases 10 compared to the distances between them in the ground state of the hydrogen atom. Over 10^-13 seconds, an excited hydrogen atom returns to its ground state, emitting a quantum of EM energy of about 13.5 eV. It is experimentally proved that an electron and a proton approach each other to a distance of 0.529 Å and form a hydrogen atom, in which electron and proton rotate around the center of inertia.

Likewise atoms, molecules, nucleons and all the other elementary particles are formed. During the formation of complex particles energy is released. The release of energy results from the fact that, during the formation of a complex particle, potential Coulomb energy turns into kinetic energy of particles rotating around a common center of inertia.

3)      According to the generally accepted approach, when an electron and a positron approach each other positronium is first formed and then "disappears," emitting a quantum of energy, according to the law E=m·c². Furthermore, during irradiation of the nuclei of heavy elements by the energy quantum of such power, an electron-positron pair is formed. Within the framework of the generally accepted theory, the chargeless EM energy transitions into oppositely charged particles with the same mass and equal in magnitude but opposite in sign. According to the generally accepted theory, charges are formed from the uncharged EM matter! This phenomenon at least requires an explanation of what the charge is and how it is formed from an uncharged substance.

This explanation supposes that the formed energy quantum remains in the space where it was formed. Despite such a contradiction in interpretations, this experiment and its explanation are presented in almost all textbooks. The main reason for the wide use of this explanation stems from the fact that this experiment is nearly the sole quantitative confirmation of the transition of mass into energy, according to the most famous equation of the 20^th century.

According to the generally accepted approach, the phenomenon of positronium formation and its subsequent disappearance is related to the fact that the positronium observed in the course of the experiment at the first stage is in an excited state. The excitation of positronium accounts for the decrease of potential energy during the approach of the charges. The excited positronium then turns calms to the ground state. During irradiation by the energy quantum, the positronium in the ground state segregates into an electron and a positron.

Everything takes place almost identically to the process of formation of a hydrogen atom from an electron and a proton and the process of decay of a hydrogen atom into an electron and a proton under irradiation with sufficient energy of quantums near the nuclei of heavy elements.

4)                 Inertia.

According to the generally accepted approach, two primary definitions of the forces of inertia are used. In popular encyclopedias, the following is presented:

The force of inertia is a vector value which is numerically equal to the product of the mass m of a material point on the module of its acceleration, which is directed opposite to the acceleration.

In the case of curvilinear motion, the force of inertia can be decomposed into a tangential component.

The force of inertia is a fictitious force that can be introduced into a noninertial reference system so that the laws of motion will coincide with the laws of inertial systems. In mathematical calculations, the introduction of this force is due to rearrangement of the equation

F₁+F₂+...+F_n=m·a  

into

F₁+F₂+...+F_n-m·a=0

where F_i is an actual operating force and ma is the force of inertia. "

The allocation of forces of inertia to the fictitious force was connected with the fact that these forces, unlike all other forces, contradict Newton's third law

F₂  = - F₁. 

A confirmation of our hypothesis is this quote from the encyclopedia "Krugosvet": "If, in order to change the state of rest or state of uniform and straight motion, we need an external force, obviously something counteracts such change. The ability to resist change in the state of rest or motion common to all the bodies is called inertness, or inertia. When it comes to pushing a car, you need to expend more effort to move it from its place than to keep it rolling. Here, inertia is manifested in two ways. First, it is manifested as the resistance to the transition from a state of rest to a state of motion. Second, if the road is smooth and slick, it is manifested as a tendency of the rolling car to continue in its state of motion. In this situation, everyone can feel the inertia of the car trying to stay in its motionless state. Making the car start moving requires much more effort than sustaining its movement."

V.I. Nikolaev wrote in his article, "The forces of inertia in the general physics course" (Magazine "Physical Education", v.6, № 2, 2000): "Now, let's return again to the question of the 'queerness' of the inertial forces. The inertial forces have peculiarities which distinguish them from the so-called 'usual' forces. In particular, it's impossible to apply Newton's third law to them, because the inertial forces are not the interaction forces, and hence it is impossible to point out the body from which they operate. With close examination of the peculiarities of the inertial forces it is not difficult, however, to find that in our reasoning we actually treat them like 'usual' forces. Thus, in discussing the question of the applicability of the third law of Newton to them, we have to remember how to introduce the forces of inertia. Any violation of Newton's third law is out of the question. After all, if each of the varieties of inertial forces results from the contribution to the 'absolute' acceleration, which an observer doesn't see in his noninertial system, even at this early stage of the generation of the inertial forces (forces as the concepts of the dynamics of the point motion), confirmation of the meaninglessness of the application of Newton's third law to them is practically formed: yes, the inertial forces are forces too, but they are not interaction forces, and hence the question about the application of Newton's third law is eliminated."

Within the framework of the proposed conception, we  prove that the inertial forces result from the charges which comprise the material bodies. First of all, they are determined by the charges of nucleons. Mechanical mass - inertial mass introduced by Newton - is not an independent essence but reflects the phenomenon of self-induction.There is a cause-effect reletionship between them and the forces that caused acceleration. The equality of these forces is caused not by miracle but by the laws of electrodynamics and Lenz's rule. Inertia is the reaction of elementary charges to an attempt by the external forces to accelerate them. This is why they are equal in value, and one is a direct and an unavoidable consequence of the other.

5)                 Self-induction.

 "The electric current in a separate coil produces a magnetic flux which permeates through this coil. If the current in the coil varies with time, the magnetic flux permeating through the coil will also vary, inducing an electromotive force (EMF) in it, according to Faraday's law, exactly as it proceeds with the transformer work. The occurrence of EMF in the coil at the current change in it is called self-induction. Self-inductuib influences the current in the coil much as inertia influences the motion of bodies in mechanics; it slows down the setting of a direct current in circuit at startup and hinders its momentary stop at shut down. It also causes the appearance of sparks jumping between the contacts of breakers in case of a circuit opening. In AC circuits, self-induction creates reactive impedance which limits current amplitude". (Encyclopedia "Krugosvet")

Using the example of a hydrogen atom, we have proved that the laws of conventional current are identical to the laws of normal current streaming through the wires (see V. Gankin and Y. Gankin "How Chemical Bonds Form and How chemical reactions Proceed"). According to the laws of induction and self-induction, inertial forces are not fictitious but are the usual electromotive forces. These forces are the same as the forces caused by motion of bodies with acceleration. In electrodynamics, not only the mechanism of the emergence of inertial forces but also the peculiarities of those forces are explicable without additional assumptions. Thus, the electrodynamic substantiation of the phenomenon of inertia explains the action mechanism of Newton's laws and eliminates the internal contradictions emerging  when applying these laws. The knowledge of the electrodynamic mechanism of inertia even allows us to exclude the concept of mass (such as gravitational and inertial mass), a physical entity the scientific community has been unable to understand for over 320 years.

6)             Gravitation.

According to the generally accepted approach, gravitation is a fundamental force that results from the interaction of masses. All that is stated in textbooks on gravitation is that it is described by the fourth law of Newton. Fgrav ˜ m1· m2 / r2 According to R. Feynman, the most convincing proofs of correctness and manifold predictive opportunities were the prediction of the location of Neptune and the explanation of twice-daily tides. Feynman did not note any disadvantages or contradictions in Newton's theory of gravitation. Moreover, he believed that this theory was a good example of the mathematical approach to issues of natural science, or, in the words of Feynman from his Nobel lecture, "... the best way to create a new theory is to guess equations ignoring physical modesl or physical explanations."

In his famous lectures in the chapter on gravitation, he wrote: "... since Newton's time and until today no one could describe the mechanism hidden behind the law of gravitation without repeating what has already been said by Newton, without complication of mathematics or prediction of phenomena which do not really exist. So until now we have no other model for the theory of gravitation, except the mathematical model."

Over the centuries since the adoption of the law of universal gravitation, it was discovered that Newton's theory is self-contradictory. The accepted theory leads to the paradoxical conclusion that bodies under the action of their own gravity force should shrink uncontrollably and "collapse" - i.e. practically disappear from their surrounding space (see the article on gravitation).

Over recent years, perceptions about the universe have changed drastically. Today we imagine the following picture of the universe:

The share of usual matter accounts for only 5% of the total mass. Dark matter is about 20-25%. The main part, which is 70-75% of the total mass, consists of the most mysterious substance - dark energy.

What can we say today (in 2009) about the physical nature of the gravitational force and its quantitative assessment in the proposed approach?

Over the 320 years which have passed since the introduction of mass and the law of gravitation in science, it has been found that:

I. Macrobodies and microbodies differing from each other in size by 30 orders (10¹⁵ - 10^-15cm) are arranged uniformly. Charges of opposite signs rotate around a common center (a molecule of hydrogen, positronium, an atom of helium, the Sun, Earth). The position of the point around which opposite charges are rotate is determined by the concentration of the charges in space. According to the experimental data, the inertial properties of atomic nuclei are proportional to the number of nucleons contained in them. Inertial properties of nucleons are completely charged to account for the mass of the nucleons. In the same way, the inertial properties of electrons are also charged to account for the mass of electrons. It is assumed in all calculations that the charge of the nucleons and electrons is the same in absolute value and, consequently, their difference in inertial properties results from the different amounts of mass contained in them. In the currently accepted explanations, the inertial properties of electric charges of elementary particles are not considered at all, not are they anywhere stipulated or explained.  

All the compound bodies interact with each other according to the laws of electrodynamics because they consist of charges moving with acceleration.

Absolutely all bodies interact with each other according to the electrodynamic laws. In cases of the interaction of bodies whose net charges are of opposite signs, the bodies approaching each other form  system that rotats around a common center of inertia. In cases when bodies are charged similarly, they diverge. In both examined extreme cases, the interaction force between these bodies is inversely proportional to the squared distance between the bodies. If you give these bodies the opportunity to move freely according to the action of Coulomb forces, then as far as changing the distance between the bodies, the rate of motion acceleration of these bodies increases in the first case and decreases in the second. The variation in motion acceleration of these bodies leads to a variation in the EMF of self-induction of charges moving with acceleration. When the EMF of self-induction becomes equal to the Coulomb force, bodies cease to approach or diverge. The only possible movement available in the case of forces of mutual attraction is rotating around the center of inertia. In this system, the body moves with a constant magnitude of centripetal acceleration. At the same time, centrifugal forces are equal to centripetal ones, because the EMF of self-induction balances the Coulomb force.

When bodies do not have nonequilibrium (excess) charges they join together by the mechanism of association of the atoms in the molecule and association of the nucleons in the atom nucleus. In this case, the dependence of forces on the distance is more complicated.

II. A study of microparticles arriving from the Sun and from space, and resulting in a cyclotron and collider, found that all stable microparticles (with lifetimes longer than 1 sec), and even some unstable microparticles (with lifetimes shorter than 10^-5 sec) are complex and consist of charges. The complexity (compositeness) of particles and the presence of the charges in them is proved experimentally by:

• the presence of magnetic moment in all the particles;
• the composition of the decay products of unstable particles;
• the spontaneous decay of free neutrons;
• the proximity of the inertial masses defined by the deviation in the electric and magnetic fields to the sum of the masses of decay products. Electrons and positrons in the fields of these forces fly in circles of equal radius, and centripetal forces are the Lorentz forces. Their circular motion is opposite in direction.
• the detection of unstable particles. which are the excited states of stable ones.

So far, a substance that does not consist of charges has not been detected. Work aimed at the detection of microparticles which do not bear a charge (such as the search for Higgs particles at the European Hadron Collider and the American Tevatron) has been unsuccessful. Moreover, experiments conducted at the Tevatron befor 2009 show, with a probability of 95%, that neutral particles do not exist.

The most fashionable theoretical justification for the origin of mass, the Big Bang theory, has been strongly criticized in scientific writing. Already, more than 350 professionals worldwide have expressed agreement with the criticism of this theory.

Investigation of the composition and structure of material bodies and particles showed that they all have analogous nuclear, atomic and molecular structure and consist of stable charged (or composite) particles: electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons.

III. A charge moving with acceleration causes the appearance of the EMF of self-induction opposing the acceleration of the charge. Similarly, when the charge slows its movement, the EMF appears, counteracting the slowing of charge's motion. Accordingly, in case of variation of direction of charge's motion, the EMF prevents variation in the direction of motion. The EMF of self-induction is the mechanism that explains the inertia of matter. Inertial mass has electromagnetic origin. All the matters and particles bearing charges have inertial mass. As for the others - as we have just proved, there are no others.

Now, when explaning gravitation, it is logical to assume that gravitation, like inertia, is an electromagnetic effect.

According to the electrodynamic explanation of the picture of the universe, only electrodynamic forces take part in the interactions referred to as gravitational: Coulomb forces, electromagnetic, including the Lorentz forces, etc.

The consideration of these forces can explain the contradictions in the generally accepted theory of gravitation, the role and the nature of dark matter and energy and such phenomena as the recession of galaxies, without superinduction of experimentally undetectable entities. Galaxies scatter as they do because the burning stars bear excess positive charge. Dark matter represents clouds of excited and unexcited microparticles (electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, positroniums and so on).

The assessment of value of summary action of the mentioned forces in cosmic scales can be made ​​according to formulas of dependence of force on the inertial mass and the centripetal or centrifugal acceleration,  according to Newton's second law.

What is the progression of the transition from mechanical mass to electrodynamic mass, and what issues have now become the foremost questions?

So, electrodynamic mass is an integral feature of the charges manifesting itself when they move with acceleration. How does this compare to the mechanical mass of Newton?

In contrast to mechanical forces, inertial forces,when theeectromagnetic mass in the accelerated motion of bodies wises, are always diametrically opposite to the action of forces that caused the acceleration. They do not depend on the type of operating forces. They may be gravitational and Coulomb forces, or any mechanical forces, such as centripetal ones (from the atoms to the planetary systems).

The inertial forces associated with the electromagnetic mass's accelerated motion do not depend even on the nature of the acceleration. This can be either centrifugal acceleration perpendicular to the motion's direction or acceleration coinciding with the forces' direction.

What kind of phenomenon, in our opinion, can be first explained by the conception of electromagnetic mass? It is, first of all, the principle of equivalence of masses (gravitational and inertial).

The mechanical mass, considered a separate feature of matter, not connected with either its internal structure or its electrical properties, allowed scientists to believe that an uncharged, electrically neutral matter can exist in nature.

There are no assumptions in our explanation which have not been included in the existing textbooks adopted by the scientific community for the last 150 years. The main starting point is the nuclear, atomic and molecular structure of matter.

In particular, it is well known that:

a) Matter consists of atoms (the theory of Dalton and Rutherford). An atom consists of charged electrons and the nucleus. Nuclei consist of charged protons and neutrons. Free neutrons decay during over 860 seconds (average) with the formation of the charged electron and proton.

b) The charges moving with acceleration, being an alternating convection current, generate the electromotive force (EMF) of self-induction, according to a well-known Faraday law. According to Lenz's rule, this EMF is directed against the source of the acceleration of charge.

The advantage of our worldview over the generally accepted mathematical one is expressed primarily by the number of initial entities. The fewer initial entities, the more universal a worldview is.

The next factor which determines the advantages of one conception over another is the number of phenomena which can be explained with the help of the conception. The more phenomena it explains, the more universal the proposed conception is. The EM conception does not contradict any existing physical law and helps to eliminate a number of contradictions. In particular, it takes into account the Coulomb energy at annihilation, explains the complexity of any charged particle and more (this will be discussed in a separate article).

The third philosophical criterion of the advantage of one conception over the other is the potential for further development of the conception.