7 Who is Wrong Table of Contents Previous Next

Who is Wrong in Physics?

All of the basic concepts in physics had a historical start with someone. These concepts went through a peer review process either formal or informal, and left us with a body of knowledge that is the science of standard physics. DWT makes a case that some of this body of knowledge needs to be reconsidered in terms of how things move.

In this section I will list those who have established the world of physics we live in and give a critical review in terms of DWT. They are listed in order of importance to DWT. Please excuse my criticalness, I know that DWT would not exist except for the contributions of those listed below:

1. Zeno of Elea: Zeno’s argument against a “continuous” motion is absolutely correct and unassailable. So, we are in a bind, we know objects can move via our own senses, and logically (via Zeno) know that they can not move! In this bind the thing that -gives- (according to DWT) is humanities notion of velocity. There is no such thing as a velocity for a photon or a particle. All photons and particles λ-hop over the points of space-time. We can think of this as a kind of velocity if we want, but more correctly it is “changes in position and time”. Zeno’s notion of the impossibility of continuous motion has been considered by many (mostly mathematicians) to be overcome via the mathematics of calculus. DWT actually agrees with this as long as you stay in the universe of mathematics, but as soon as you enter the real world of physics this is no longer true, and Zeno cannot be easily dismissed (see Section 12).

2. Isaac Newton: 1. Was wrong in giving velocity the definition of v=dx/dt. Velocity at a point is an impossibility given the way that particles move. Thus the value of calculus is limited in physics. See Section 12. Newton took a different tac than Zeno and started with an object in motion. He defined that motion as a velocity v=Δx/Δt. He then made the calculus which logically showed that velocity existed for the object where the object existed. He did this by making the Δx’s and Δt’s smaller and smaller. This result of this calculus was a new velocity for the object v=dx/dt, an instantaneous velocity for the object at the position of the object. And general agreement was soon to follow, an object can have a velocity as a property. Just about everyone agrees Newton defeated Zeno and objects can mathematically have a precise velocity at a point in space-time. The calculus was great mathematics and screwy physics. A particle cannot be at a point of space because it must have a wavelength.

3. Louis deBroglie: Was wrong about how to interpret his own wave equation. He was interested in groups of particles and developed concepts of pilot waves and group/phase velocities. This was very interesting but not as interesting as particles considered in isolation. When looking at particles in isolation his formula presents a digital matter wave. This digital matter wave is simple and compact and is far superior to the Schrodinger wave equation (a complex linear differential equation).

4. Erwin Schrodinger: The Schrodinger equation attempts to give a continuous analog interpretation to something that is inherently non-continuous and digital in nature. The Schrodinger equation and the standard model of particle physics are still somewhat workable but will always be problematic because the reality it is attempting to model is discontinuous.

5. Albert Einstein: Was wrong about how an object’s mass increases to infinity as it approaches the speed of light. It is shown by DWT that all particle masses approach the Planck mass (not infinity) as the ultimate limit to its mass value with speed. See FQXi.org essay (An Elephant in the Room).

Also, Einstein’s starting postulate of general relativity that “Mass Curves Spacetime” is also questioned in this website which has made a case that mass causes gravitons and it is the gravitons that curve spacetime (section 19).

6. Richard Feynman: Thought that it would not be possible in the dual slit experiment to visualize how a single particle could go thru both slits at the same time. Feynman thought we would have to rely on the equations of quantum mechanics (QED) without a physical understanding. DWT has a physical way to visualize why a particle never goes through a single slit (let alone two slits). Particles (and photons) move by λ-hopping over space-time, the slits in the physical barrier are taken into account during the hop, the particle never goes thru anything, that is not how it moves. Section 13.

6. Werner Heisenberg: Was wrong about the uncertainty principle. DWT thinks the uncertainty principle was an effort to advance quantum theory while maintaining the continuity of a particles existence. An alternative to the uncertainty principle is the λ-hopping principle which puts non-continuity up front. Heisenberg and Schrodinger made the path that allows calculus to function below the level of the wavelength of a particle. This will not be possible with DWT, however this may be a benefit in that many of the infinities associated with quantum field theory will be eliminated without the need for “re-normalization”. Section 3.

7. Donald Limuti (your humble author): DWT encompasses a lot of physics (and speculation) and the odds of getting it even close to totally correct are remote. I would have liked to limit the work to just one thing at a time, but the concepts were just too intertwined and foundational. I felt that I needed to counter the “trouble with physics” on one battlefield (this website). I did not include anything that I thought was incorrect, but I am sure there will be things that will need to be corrected. I could be eating a lot of crow.

The work presented here is the result of an evolution. I continue to find mistakes and things that need to be added and omitted. I have every reason to suspect that the work presented here is not the final revision.

The first attempt at DWT was called ZenoPhysics and had a website www.zenophysics.com. The first update to ZenoPhysics was the essay “Gravity from the Ground Up” submitted for the FQXi.org essay contest “What is Ultimately Possible in Physics”. The next addition came with the publishing of “Mercury’s Precession Reconsidered” eventually redone as “A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury’s Orbit http://prespacetime.com. Another FQXi.org essay contest entry was Making Waves where a quantized gravity was investigated. Next came another FQXi.org essay entry An Elephant in the Room which shows that particles have a limit as to how much mass they can gain with velocity. The next redo was initiated by an insight into gravitons (Section 17) which provides a straight forward way to account for dark energy. A way to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating is presented in (Section 19). Section 20 gives an alternative way of calculating the precession of Mercury’s orbit using gravitons. The most recent updates were Section 21 outlining an experiment to show the validity of gravitons, and Section 18 explaining the basics of Foucault’s Pendulum and gyroscopes in general.

And this website still needs yet another editing cycle. It is choppy and redundant and not well organized in many instances, Apologies......Don Limuti

This theory (DWT) needs a lot of experimental verification (the hard work) before it can be taken as more than just another theory.