Институт Физики Вакуума - Публикации

Gennady Shipov

Table of contents and drawings

Introduction

1 Shortcomings of contemporary theoretical physics

2 On implementing the Einstein's Unified Field Theory Program

2.1 Solving the first Einstein's problem (1972) - geometrizing electrodynamics

2.2 Solving the second Einstein's problem (1976-77) - geometrizing the energy-momentum tensor of matter

3 Dynamic equations of the inertia field (1979) and the consequence for the problem of motion of matter

4 Theory of Physical Vacuum (1988)

4.1 Equations of Physical Vacuum in spinor reference frame

4.2 Solving the equations of the theory of Physical Vacuum

4.3 Relation between the stability of a field particle and the singularity

4.4 On some geometrized energy-momentum tensors in field equations (2.39)

5 Nonholonomic mechanics of Physical Vacuum (Descartes mechanics)

6 Field of Consciousness, a psychophysical observer and an indirect evidence of the existence of God

Conclusion

List of Illustrations

Fig.1 Classification of theoreticians according to Landau logarithmic scale

Fig.2 Physical theories and fundamental experiments

Fig.3 Elastic scattering 17 MeV protons on copper nuclei

Fig.4 Three fundamental fields

Fig.5 Plots for the gravitational potential of interaction for solution (4.43)

Fig.6 Generalizations and modifications of Newton mechanics

Fig.7 On the right, it is a diagram of a symmetrical vibrator; on the left, it is a 4D gyroscope model on a test bench

Fig.8 Comparison between the theoretical and experimental plots:
on the left, the calculations taking into account friction forces under Newton theory as compared to the experiment; on the right, the calculations under the theory of non-holonomic mechanics using Matlab as compared to the experiment.

Fig.9 Comparison of the theoretical curves with the experimental data

Fig.10 Levels of reality in the theory of Physical Vacuum

Fig. 11 The psychophysical observer is capable of cognizing the Reality in a broader way than the physical one

Fig.12 Comparison of three types of Unified Field Theory

Fig.13 Theory of Physical Vacuum on Landau Curve

 

Introduction

There have been more and more publications in recent years showing the signs of stagnation in theoretical physics. For example, an American theoretician specializing in the field of quantum gravity Lee Smolin is quite skeptical about the results obtained in string theory [1] noting the absence of "prophets" and an excess of artisans in this sphere. Despite the great PR by Brian Greene [2], String theory can be conceived of as a kind of intellectual fitness employing a whole set of modern mathematical trends to arrive at “physically significant conclusions” not to be verified earlier than 100-150 years.

It is not surprising for reasonable doubts to occur among physicists about the correctness of the chosen path, if the leading role in theoretical physics is given to mathematics, while physics is reduced to the background. Sabine Hossenfelder [3,4] gives a colorful description of the modern situation in theoretical physics in her book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray [4] as opposed to earlier complimentary book by Brian Greene The Elegant Universe [2].

Constructive theories include the theories such as string theory implying the free flight of mathematical ideas but having a weak physical basis. It is convenient to divide all physical theories into three categories: fundamental, constructive, and constructive phenomenological ones. According to K. Popper, a fundamental physical theory should be falsifiable [5], or, to put it simple, have clear applicability limits, beyond which its principles and equations are not hold true. Only such a theory can constitute the basis for a further generalization of an existing fundamental theory. Neither the Standard Model nor string theory can be referred to the class of falsifiable theories as they allow for numerous possible generalizations, without having definite applicability limits.

According to the logarithmic classification of the Nobel Prize winner Lev Landau (Fig.1), the theoreticians of class 3.5-5 are involved in creating constructive theories. By this classification, the modern theory of elementary particle created by the scientists of class 1.0-3.5 is a constructive phenomenological theory. The fundamental theories of class 0.5-1.0, from Newton to Einstein, who is assigned class 0.5 by L Landau, appear to be the most valuable for science. L. Landau first attributed his own works to class 2.5, then evolved to class 1.0, in his opinion, and put himself on a par with Feynman and other scientists of class 1.0. The scientists of class >5 are considered by L. Landau, with intrinsic sarcasm, as "pathologists" making a "negative contribution" to the development of theoretical physics.

It follows from Fig. 1 that the leadership in theoretical research belongs to the scientists from the countries of the West and North America. This scientific work will reveal for this conclusion to be currently erroneous.

Увеличить >>>

Fig.1 Classification of theoreticians according to Landau logarithmic scale

1. Shortcomings of contemporary theoretical physics

Following Lee Smolin [1], we draw attention to the fact that the departments of theoretical physics at all the leading universities in North America and Western countries are headed by well-known specialists in string theory, i.e. inherently mathematicians far from fundamental physics, who are related to classes 3.5-5 by Landau classification, the latter class flanking 'pathologists'. At the conferences on theoretical physics, ironically, string theory adherents tend to look down on other theoreticians involved, for example, in quantum gravity research, considering them second-class ones [1]. Alongside with the features of its adherents, the possibility to choose from a vast variety of 10¹⁰⁰ to 10⁵⁰⁰ string theory versions put string theory in a range of pathological ones. Especially so as the conclusions of string theory were never connected by its founders to the experiments going beyond the framework of fundamental theories.

Another thing is the Standard Model initiated by E. Rutherford, who discovered nuclear forces in 1913 while studying the elastic scattering of charged α - particles on gold nuclei. Since there are no fundamental equations so far in official science, whose solution would lead to nuclear potentials, physicists had to handpick potentials containing arbitrary constants and set their specific values ​​comparing theoretical and experimental dispersion curves.

The Standard Model is currently a constructive-phenomenological theory which contains from 17 to 26 fitting constants, depending on its version (Fig. 2). In view of the above properties, contemporary constructive string theory and the Standard Model turn out to be quite meaningless, since the former is nowhere connected with fundamental experiments (e.g., has no solutions leading to nuclear interaction potentials), while the latter has to adapt continuously to newly obtained experimental data. Alas, this situation in theoretical physics cannot last indefinitely long, in the long run, fundamental theories are bound to replace constructive and phenomenological ones.

It is worth mentioning some fundamental experiments, which are usually overlooked while creating a new fundamental physical theory, such as famous N. Tesla's experiments on wireless or single-wire power transmission which led to the invention of power generators of 'zero-point' of the Physical Vacuum (or Ether energy, according to N. Tesla). Theoreticians choose to pretend being unaware of such widely known to everyone but them devices as Paul Baumann generator [6], which has already been used to light and heat several hotels in the town of Linden (Switzerland) for more than 30 years.

Увеличить >>>

Fig.2 Physical theories and fundamental experiments

Although performed more than a century ago, simple in form but fundamental Sagnac experiment still has not been given an unambiguous physical interpretation. As we show below, this experiment indicates the absence of rotational relativity of the fundamental physics equations.

Generally speaking, 1913 represented a branch point in fundamental physics, with the single physical tree trunk having ramified into three branches (Fig. 2). They are as follows:1) the constructive-phenomenological microcosm physics leading to the creation of the Standard Model; 2) the constructive-phenomenological quantum theory giving birth to quantum field theory, quark theory and string theory; 3) the general relativity theory (GR) by A. Einstein generalizing fundamentally Newton's theory of gravity to the case of relativistic gravitational fields.

It is clear now why neither string theory nor the Standard Model were able to combine these three branches despite long-term intellectual efforts - the reason is that it is essentially impossible to combine a fundamental theory (A. Einstein's GR) with constructive phenomenological theories (the Standard Model and string theory). A new fundamental theory cannot originate by generalizing multiple theories by a mathematician but can be created by a physicist by extending the physical principles and equations of a limited fundamental theory recognized previously by all theoreticians.

---

Полный текст доступен в формате PDF (2102Кб)

---

[Обсуждение на форуме «Публицистика»]