 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
In all the work with this model for a general theory of matter, choices have been made for what seemed the correct option for explaining known phenomena. However, this model is a foundation for adapting and building an elaborate network of mathematical models, and it should be of little concern whether the model has to be revised on some points, as long as the general framework stands. The sub-models showing the different forces are not developed with mathematical models yet, and modifications must be expected. However, it is necessary at this stage to show a probable model for how nature works, in order to move on to the 100% correct model supported by math and more empirical data. It has been our quest to describe the K particle and some of the consequences such a particle will have on different aspects of physics, not to give all the detailed answers at this stage - which would be a formidable task. The model represents a major shift of paradigm in physics. Therefore most of the elaborations around the model have been ground braking, and references to other works has not been so much of an issue, since we work at a very basic level. The testing of the model has been against well known basic facts of physics. Also it has been a goal to make this theory available for the physics community through this website as soon as possible, with the hope to get constructive criticism and additional info supporting or denouncing the theory (or parts of it) from readers. However, for the future, the work to substantiate the theory will be through calculating what the model predicts for micro cosmos as well as for certain phenomena in our galaxy or wherever we can scrutinize the theory. Then also a normal set of references to other work in physics will be used. One should not expect many immediate changes in how we treat everyday phenomena because of this new understanding of the universe. Only regarding astrophysics will the impact be considerable at once. Both regarding the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, physicists have very successfully described the processes mathematically, without knowing the nature of the underlying processes. With their gravitons and gluons they were actually quite a bit astray if our model is correct, but nicely on target with their mathematical models. Better understanding of processes always leads to new discoveries, and we will see some astonishing discoveries based on our new knowledge. For the advances of physics it is better that the whole community can take advantage of this model now, instead of using years to perfect it. Therefore the model is published in this rather raw format, while much work remains undone on the mathematical formulation of the model.
Down to earth physics The lack of specific models in physics has jeopardised our understanding of our world, leaving it up to increasingly more complex mathematical models to explain the fundamental parts of nature. This situation has opened up for speculations about magnificent phenomena. Explaining the world down to the smallest details, as our model does, will demystify physics. It is hard to make time travels according to general relativity when it is only a matter of different K flux and absorption rates. And the mystical nature of the uncertainty principle is just statistical variations in K flux, not an inherent uncertainty in nature. The new model of the universe will not be quite so exciting, but this is a small price to pay in order to know the exact way nature works, and even have a model that is fairly easy to understand. Only then can we make the breakthroughs in science needed to meet the challenges of a rapidly more complex and difficult situation on earth.
The complete model for how the K particle describes all known forces in the universe was first published on this website in the period January 14th - 18th 2008, accompanied by a press relaese. It has later been revised in parts from time to time, but the fundamental view on the K particle still stands. Chapter 19. Last Remarks. This report has three levels of postulates. 1. The unifying K particle and the principles of Forces by Proxy. These postulates must be proven to be fairly correct for this theory to make sense. They constitute the basic hypothesis of this report. 2. The specific models for the basic forces depend on the basic postulates. These models are quite central in the theory, but major adjustments can be tolerated without undermining the whole theory. 3. The models for galaxies, stars and forces in cosmos also requires that the basic postulates proves to be true, and they are partly also based on the specific models for the basic forces. Much depends on whether the existence of the postulated repulsive plasma bodies can be proven. Hence, the models presented from chapter 12 have the uncertainty of the individual model per se, and additional uncertainty because it is based on a hypothesis (non-verified theory). These models are quite bold in their statements, and they are shown here despite their risk of not being correct, because I want to show some possible, far reaching consequences of the basic postulates, which can explain several anomalies in astrophysics. Standing alone, every sub-model seems improbable. Seen together, the totality of the sub-models makes perfect sense. Therefore, it has been difficult for me to present bits and pieces of this theory through a scientific magazine, since the theory only makes sense when it all comes together. The task of bringing every sub-model to the highest scientific level is formidable. For the advances of physics it is better that the whole community can take advantage of this model now, instead of using years to perfect it before releasing it. Therefore, the model is made available for the public in this rather raw format, while much work remains undone regarding testing, verification and mathematical formulation of the model. The lack of specific models in physics has jeopardised our understanding of our world, leaving it up to increasingly more complex mathematical models to explain the fundamental parts of nature. This situation has opened up for speculations about magnificent phenomena. Explaining the world down to its smallest details – as our model does – will demystify physics. It is hard to make time travels according to general relativity, when relativity is only a matter of K-flux deviation. And the mystical nature of the uncertainty principle is just statistical variations in K-flux, not an inherent uncertainty in nature per se. Our new model of the universe may not be quite so exciting, but this is a small price to pay in order to know the exact way nature works, and even have a model that is fairly easy to understand. Only then can we make the breakthroughs in science needed to meet the challenges of a rapidly more complex and difficult situation on Earth. The Trouble with Physics. Professor Lee Smolin, ph.d. from Harvard, teacher at Yale and
”We are missing something big … someone has to either recognize a wrong assumption we have all been making or ask a new question.”
He then gives some thought to recruitment to physics, and how open the community of physicists is for new ideas;
”Do we have a system that allows someone capable of ferreting out the wrong assumption or asking the right question into the community of people we support, and equally important, listen to?”
He points out that to qualify as a physicist, you must be extremely good at math. Quite often the attitude is that students shall ”shut up and calculate” as he expresses it. But neither Einstein nor Bohr excelled in that respect. They were creative visionaries.
”Mara Beller, a historian who has studied Bohr’s work in detail, points out that there were not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal arguments and pictures.”
Smolin about what it takes to innovate:
”
Smolin gives some examples on how little reward there is for being a visionary in science. It is rather counterproductive with regard to career advancement.
”If even the most honoured visionaries are not taken seriously once they begin to question basic assumptions, you can imagine how well people fare who are visionaries but not lucky enough to have made substantial contribution first”
Then on the question of recruitment:
“It’s not hard to pick out the people with daring ideas – they have almost always had at least a few such ideas already.”… “the payoff could be discovering how the universe works.”
A thought experiment.
Finally, I would like to ask the reader to do a thought experiment. Imagine that the down-to-Earth model of the universe presented here were prevailing orthodoxy in physics. Suppose its explanations fit perfectly with all known theories, after a few smaller adaptations. Then, someone comes along suggesting big bang with instant inflation, super contractive black holes which emit more energy than they attract, and they postulate some mystical dark matter to explain gravity in galaxies, while mysterious time travels are commonly postulated, mysterious gravitons and gluons shall replace plain particles pressure explaining contractive forces, no unifying theory, etc, etc. In short, to make it all work, you would have to abandon all common sense about how you perceive the universe. I expect that I will have a hard time advocating my model against today’s orthodoxy in physics. Then imagine how hard it would have been the other way around.
Jørgen Karlsen
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
