Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

Friends,

A set of beliefs, dogmas, postulates and axioms, along with concepts
and notions derived from particular interpretation of different
physical observations, constitute the paradigm of fundamental physics.
Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a
fundamental theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation
and need not contain causal linkages for physical explanation.
However, it is a fact that the current paradigm does not provide
logical foundations to the mathematical models which are being
projected as physical theories. In the grand maze of the unknown, the
current paradigm has lead Fundamental Physics to a dead end. To come
out of this state, we need to change the direction of research and
hence, change the current paradigm of Fundamental Physics.

http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

Dimensional Analysis
-------------------------
All equations in physics express some sort of inter-relationships
amongst various physical quantities associated with a particular
natural phenomenon. In order to ensure compatibility of physical units
on both sides of all equations, these equations must be dimensionally
balanced. Dimensional analysis is a powerful conceptual tool applied
in physics and engineering to check the plausibility of physical
equations. It is also used to study the inter-relationships of various
physical concepts and form reasonable hypotheses about complex
physical situations that can be tested by experiment or by more
developed theories of the phenomena. In short, dimensional analysis
provides a linkage between physical concepts and their mathematical
representation.We can employ dimensional analysis to study the
proportionality constants of permittivity and permeability associated
with free space or vacuum. Specifically, we need to understand how
these constants characterize the physical properties of free space.

http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

Reference Frames
---------------------
Basically all laws of Nature will remain valid and operative
independent of reference frames. However, in physics we quantify the
laws of Nature, so as to represent them through certain mathematical
equations involving dimensional physical parameters. We need the
structure of coordinate systems and reference frames to quantify the
physical parameters of relative positions, velocities, accelerations,
force, momentum and kinetic energy of various interacting particles or
groups of particles. To ensure that the laws of physics remain
independent of the reference frame, the form or content of the
mathematical equation representing any law of physics must not change
with any change in the reference frame. Obviously therefore, some
constraints will be required to be imposed on the choice of valid
reference frames.

However, physical parameters of velocity, momentum and kinetic energy
are not invariant in the inertial reference frames (IRF) in relative
uniform motion. As such, some of the laws of physics, the
representative equations of which include the parameters of velocity,
momentum or kinetic energy, will no longer remain invariant in the
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion. Hence it is
wrong to assume that all laws of physics are invariant in the group of
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.

Out of all other inertial reference frames which could be constructed
for referring the positions and velocities of given N particles within
a closed volume V, the total mass-energy content measured in a center
of mass (CoM) reference frame is the minimum. Hence, a CoM reference
frame may be considered as an absolute or fixed reference frame for
the given N particles contained within a closed volume V. This is the
fundamental notion of an absolute reference frame in relation to
matter contained within a closed volume of space.

http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

Curvature or Deformation of Space
----------------------------------------
The notion of deformed or strained state of the space continuum is
derived from the variability or invariance of arc element ds. Whenever
the arc element ds changes over to ds' under certain situations, the
changed state of the continuum will be termed as deformed or strained
state. The strained state can be considered fully defined or fully
determined once we know or uniquely determine the displacement vector
field U at all points of the continuum. The strained state can also be
defined through specification of strain tensor components provided
these strain components satisfy Saint Venant's compatibility
equations. Finally, the strained state can also be defined through
specification of modified metric coefficients from which the required
strain tensor components can be computed subject to the compatibility
conditions. However, the compatibility conditions require that the
modified metric must be Euclidean to ensure that the resulting
strained state of the continuum corresponds to smooth, finite and
continuous displacement components and to avoid discontinuities within
the continuum. This fact is of crucial importance for the invalidity
of the current mathematical model of General Relativity where the
deformation of space is presented as ‘curvature’ of space.

http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

Spacetime Continuum
-------------------------
The notion of spacetime continuum or spacetime manifold is just a
mathematical abstract notion and not a physical entity as assumed in
GR. The spacetime manifold includes both positive and negative values
of time on its time axis. In GR, localized mass energy content in a
certain region of physical space (say the solar system) is 'supposed'
to influence the metric of whole spacetime, including the region of
spacetime identified with the past time. But the transmission of
'influence' from the present to the past region of spacetime is
logically impossible. Once we understand that spacetime is just an
abstract mathematical notion, we cannot accept GR to be a physical
theory. Even if we 'assume' spacetime continuum to be a physical
entity, it can be shown that the gravitation induced deformation of
space leads to an incompatible set of strain components which cannot
be valid due to physical constraints. At the most GR could be regarded
as a mathematical model in which an abstract notion of spacetime
manifold has been used as a graphical template with differential
scaling of its space and time axes, to represent the particle
trajectories as geodesic curves.

http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

Physical Existence of Fields
--------------------------------
It is important to note that a value assigned to any space point in a
physical field, always represents some physical property associated
with that point (and its neighborhood). Of course, all physical fields
will have their mathematical representations. Let us consider a
continuum of space points representing the vacuum or empty space. We
can always define a mathematical field by assigning certain numbers or
mathematical functions to all points in the space continuum. If such
numbers or mathematical functions do not represent any physical
properties or parameters associated with these points of the empty
space or vacuum, such a field can have no physical significance or
physical 'existence'. A major contradiction prevailing in the current
viewpoint is that the space continuum representing vacuum or empty
space can support physical fields but the corresponding physical
properties associated with all space points, cannot represent any
physical medium.

Whenever the separation distance between neighboring points P and Q in
the space continuum, changes from ds to ds', it implies a relative
shift in the original positions of P and Q to the changed positions
say P' and Q' such that arc element P'Q' = ds'. This relative shift
in positions of P and Q to the changed positions P' and Q' may be
referred as the relative displacement of these points. Specifically,
the vector PP' may be defined as the displacement vector U and the
corresponding displacement of Q to Q' will then be represented by the
incremented displacement vector U+dU . The deformation of the
continuum can be said to be fully determined when the displacement of
every point P in the continuum is known or uniquely determined. This
explains how the values defining a displacement vector field, a
physical field, get physically associated with all points of the space
continuum. The derivatives of this displacement vector field will
yield the components of a strain tensor field in the space continuum.

Further, the GR postulates imply that the gravitation induced 'space
curvature' or the deformations in the space continuum are reversible
since the space returns to 'flat' or normal condition after removing
the source of gravitation from its vicinity. This reversibility of the
induced displacement vector field or the induced strain tensor field
will further imply the 'elastic' behavior of the space continuum. The
implied elasticity of the space continuum will associate a stress
tensor field with every strain tensor field. The development of strain
and stress tensor fields in the space continuum will consequently lead
to the association of strain energy with all displacement vector
fields. This strain energy associated with displacement vector fields
is popularly known as 'vacuum energy'. Maxwell's equations of
electromagnetism in vacuum can be fully expressed in terms of the
displacement vector field U in the space continuum. Further it can be
shown that all physical fields in Physics can be expressed in terms of
dynamic stress strain fields in the physical space continuum. All
forms of energy exist in the space continuum as the strain energy of
dynamic deformations in the physical space.

Existence of Matter Particles
---------------------------------
All forms of matter exist as standing strain wave oscillations in the
space continuum. A closed region of the Space Continuum in a strained
state, satisfying the equilibrium equations & boundary conditions, may
be termed as a strain bubble, provided the total strain energy content
in this closed region is time invariant constant. Although the strain
components at any point within the strain bubble are always functions
of space and time coordinates, yet the strain energy density at that
point may or may not vary with time. If the strain energy density at
all points within a strain bubble is time invariant, the strain bubble
is likely to be stable, otherwise unstable. The total strain energy
content E_0 of a strain bubble will represent its ‘rest mass’ m_0
through the famous energy equivalence relation E_0/c^2 = m_0.

At subatomic scale the primary constituents of matter, namely the
electrons and nuclear particles, are known to occupy an extremely
small volume fraction of the order of 10^ -12 percent of the physical
volume of any material body. These 'material particles' concentrated
in such a small volume fraction of entire space, consist of so called
'elementary particles' and are essentially characterized by their
'mass', 'charge' and interaction properties. In the parlance of
strain bubbles existing in the Elastic Space Continuum, the clusters
of pure and composite strain bubbles depicting 'elementary particles'
are essentially characterized by their 'strain energy content',
'strain wave fields' if any, and their interaction properties. In
principle, there could be a large number of different types of strain
bubbles occurring in the Space Continuum, that may be correlated with
equally large number of stable and unstable elementary particles.

Current Mathematical Models and Experimental Observations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is generally believed that any mathematical model that accounts for
all experimental observations concerning certain physical phenomenon,
can be regarded as a physical theory of that phenomenon. Incorporation
of causal linkages and logical explanations of the phenomenon are no
longer considered essential components of a physical theory. To
illustrate this point, let us consider a modified form of a popular
tale of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant".
http://www.wordinfo.info/Blind-Men-a...hant-crop.html

Imagine, six scientists conducting a detailed study of an elephant
(representing a physical phenomenon) located in pitch dark
(representing absence of a physical theory). They conduct detailed
physical measurements in six different regions of the elephant body
and compile six data sets of measurements. With these data sets of
measurements, they develop impressive mathematical models for each of
the data sets. After verifying that each mathematical model fully
accounts for the corresponding measurement data set, they pronounce
particular interpretations (representing physical theory) for each of
the regions of the elephant body.

Now, if someone throws some light (representing a comprehensive theory
covering the entire phenomenon) on the elephant under study, then each
of the interpretations (particular theories) will be found to be
erroneous and misleading, even though the mathematical models will
still be valid and capable of fully accounting for the measurement
data sets.

Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields
----------------------------------------------
Obviously, a paradigm shift in Fundamental Physics cannot occur in a
day or a month. It is likely to take a few years if not a few decades.
During this transition period, prolonged serious discussions are
expected to take place among scientists holding opposing viewpoints
For the purpose of such discussions, I have presented an alternative
paradigm on the fundamental reality of Nature, through my just
published book "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields".

Last year I had made a Request for Review of a pre-print book titled,
"Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4569a9cac9a346

This book has finally got published in May 2009, through iUniverse
Publishers.
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/B...=SKU-000127260

In this book I have presented a bold un-orthodox viewpoint that
demonstrates the feasibility of representing whole physical phenomenon
involving matter and fields in the form of orderly 'space-time'
distortions or dynamic deformations and strains in the physical space
continuum.

http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

Since most of the mainstream scientists are not expected to 'visit'
these discussion forums, I wish to take the liberty of requesting the
learned readers to forward this note to their friends and other
scientists 'well known' to them.

Regards
G S Sandhu
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

GSS wrote in message

Friends,

"Paradigm Shift" is marketing lingo and amounts to "Nonsense".
You picked the wrong newsgroup for this.

Dirk Vdm

On Jun 1, 11:40*am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
GSS wrote in message

*

Friends,

"Paradigm Shift" is marketing lingo and amounts to "Nonsense".
You picked the wrong newsgroup for this.

Dirk Vdm

He's also not Jewish, or perhaps merely not Jewish enough, by which is
your primary cause for taking those actions in the past, present and
future. As such, you wouldn't revise anything no matters what the
consequences. So what's the difference, or what's your point?

Are you suggesting that your sci.astro doesn't accommodate and
systematically promote mainstream "Nonsense"?

btw, what's with your incest approved "alt.marketing" bull****?

~ BG

"GSS" wrote in message
...

Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a fundamental
theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation

Who gave you that idea?

"GSS" wrote in message
...
Friends,

Hello crackpot.
..
..
umm...
..
..

Goodbye crackpot.

On Jun 1, 10:17*am, GSS wrote:
[snip all, unread]

Nobody has purchased your book so you decided to spew here.

This is unappreciated. Go away.

On Jun 2, 1:39*am, "Cwatters"
wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message

...

Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a fundamental
theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation

Who gave you that idea?

I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
have confirmed this viewpoint.

Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
foundations?

As per GR, mass-energy content in a certain region of space influences
the metric of spacetime without any physical or causal mechanism. Does
it represent a logical foundation.

SR is founded on its two postulates. Do you consider these two
postulates to be logical?

Do you consider the 'exchange theory of interactions' in SM to be
based on logical foundations?

GSS

On Jun 2, 4:25*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:17*am, GSS wrote:
[snip all, unread]

Nobody has purchased your book so you decided to spew here.

This is unappreciated. Go away.

I do not appreciate your close minded attitude!

On Jun 2, 10:13*am, ASS wrote:

SR is founded on its two postulates. Do you consider
these two postulates to be logical?

Yes.


Do you consider the 'exchange theory of interactions' in SM to be
based on logical foundations?

Yes.

Go away.

On Jun 1, 11:40*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
GSS wrote in message

*

Friends,

"Paradigm Shift" is marketing lingo and amounts to "Nonsense".
You picked the wrong newsgroup for this.

Dirk Vdm

Kindly refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S.
Kuhn
A Synopsis from the original by Professor Frank Pajares is available
here.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html

I said,
A set of beliefs, dogmas, postulates and axioms, along with concepts
and notions derived from particular interpretation of different
physical observations, constitute the paradigm of fundamental physics.
Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a
fundamental theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation
and need not contain causal linkages for physical explanation.
However, it is a fact that the current paradigm does not provide
logical foundations to the mathematical models which are being
projected as physical theories. In the grand maze of the unknown, the
current paradigm has lead Fundamental Physics to a dead end. To come
out of this state, we need to change the direction of research and
hence, change the current paradigm of Fundamental Physics.

GSS