♦ Scientific research methods in Physics

IV.1.c) Physics research.

The physics research should be a science that presents less problems because of the subject matter it studies. In principle, if Newton’s apple falls to the ground, it falls regardless of the ideologies or interests of any kind. However, if it is analyzed in greater depth, it will be revealed that the theories and knowledge of physics have changed throughout history, and at times, completely disproving the previous theory.

Some apples have fallen even after thousands of years, like the dance of the planets and the sun.

Galileo and the Inquisition
(Public domain image)

The biggest problem of the physics research is the new theories because basic definitions are never deductive and they deal with the unknown. There will always be a set of alternative theories proposing solutions more or less adventurous, and the population in general will take years or decades to assimilate the complexity of its era.

An illustrative example of the topic is the ancient witches in which we all have the concept of the pseudo-scientific explanations that were invented in order to gain power in the tribe. But if we analyze it from the point of view of their era, we would then realize that they were actually true modern scientists.

Let’s look next at some concepts of General Physics and Modern Physics that, in my opinion, attack common sense and distort the methodology of science by dulling the argumentation in the subject matter.

• Classical physics.

  • The concept of energy.
    

    What is interesting is the concept of energy being the acceleration of the mass of a unit of space, yet not having mass. It seems to be one of those mystical mysteries, especially, if on top of that, the transformation occurs between mass and energy, and that they are like two expressions of the same.

    In short, the newly acquired concepts in physics research are always rather imprecise and changeable for which they should not be considered unvarying.

     
    

    Energy = mass * acceleration * space  =  mass * velocity2 = kg * m2 / s2 Energy has no mass

     

  • The potential gravitational energy – Negative energies

    The potential gravitational energy of mass m in a point of space is the effort that the gravitational field exerts in order to move mass m from said point to infinity. According to the definition, the potential energy is always negative and its maximum is always zero. This does not help the mind when thinking about it or physics research in the particular subject.

    The relationship between gravity, potential gravitational energy, kinetics, and electromagnetism sets one to thinking in relation to the true nature of gravity. When something doesn’t seem like certain science, solutions are sought in order to be able to progress. The existence of negative energies, conventionally or not, is a good example of what not to do with a good methodology of physics since a conflict presents itself in basic references to the brain when arranging certain concepts.

  • Bond energy

    Bond energy is released when protons and neutrons are joined together to form an atomic nucleus, I think that it would be better to call it a release energy rather than bond energy, since precisely this energy is that which is not present in the bond or bonds of an atomic nucleus.

    This case is not as serious as those previously mentioned but the concepts and titles that do not correspond to the meanings of the words defy all logical reasoning, especially if it is common practice and if the meaning is exactly the opposite to that which the brain expects.

As a general rule, it can be said that speaking about the negative elements in physics research unfolds the brain limits in complex reasoning.

More information on the page about potential energy in the on-line book on the Potential energy of the Law of Global Gravity.

IV.1.d) Scientific research methods of Modern Physics

If the research methods in General Physics are affected by some concepts, in Modern Physics the examples are more abundant, such as those that we will see from the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Numerous problems of the theory with the scientific method are thoroughly discussed in the on-line book on the Theory of Relativity, Elements, Kriticism (Trek)

It is not that the Theory of Relativity of Einstein is false, but that it has some fairly correct and some very incorrect aspects, but above all else it is one of the theories that most unnaturally complicates the knowledge of reality and the progress of science.

As was expected, the maximum exponent of the degradation of the scientific research methods is contained in the physics’ theories of the last generation that give the impression of struggling to see which says something more surprising. It is what happens when placing the usefulness as thse philosophical base of the scientific method.

It is always encouraging when the scientific community declares the Theory of Relativity incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.

In the context of the most famous physics theories of Modern Physics, some aspects related to the scientific research method will now be discussed.

• Theory of General Relativity

  It is not easy to understand why a theory that unnaturally and quite radically breaks away from such basic concepts such as time and space came to be accepted.

  From the point of view of the scientific research method, it is revealing that by means of a relativistic philosophy one can come to generalizing the behavior of light on Earth to the whole universe. It is a behavior that is repeated in other branches of science – the human egocentrism is incredibly persistent.

  In a sense, what happened with Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity of Time in the beginning of the past century was the contrary to that with the theory of Natural Selection 50 years before. In Darwin’s theory, any aspect having to do with life, as a real entity with its very own will; it was ruled out reducing the whole problem of life to the product of a deterministic chance.

  With the theory of the relativity of time, perhaps due to the scientific community’s reaction or guilt complex in the face of the excessive indifference of science, a characteristic of life is unnaturally enforced onto one of the branches of science.

  On the one hand, it was appropriate for Lorentz’s mathematical formulas of relative positioning. On the other hand, since no one understood it, it looked very nice and, yet, it seemed to respond to something strange. Such as is the subjective variation of the perception of time in real life or something much more complex such as the possible real variations of subjective or internal time; which is dealt with by the online book Equation of Love.

  The Special Theory of Relativity, despite having permitted an important advance in science during the past century, it contains a series of objections, concepts or assumptions that are completely erroneous in my point of view.

  Beyond the relative relativities of time and space, due to being abstract concepts, we are told that time and space depend on each observer and speed. This implies that different times and spaces exist simultaneously and in the same place.

  Moreover, we find that so much emphasis placed on the idea of the maximum speed of light it is even applied not only to physical but also to abstract speeds, such as those of separation or those with arbitrary reference systems. In addition, when applied to mental experiments, which are impossible to prove empirically, the result can be consistent with any philosophical theory.

  In short, quite a few strange things can occur and they occur as a result of an excessive philosophical and mathematical influence on physics.

  We come to the other extreme of introducing watches that, starting from the same measurement or state, in various circumstances they end up showing distinct times, and it is argued following the scientific research method that it is not due to a measurement error. How impressive and bold!

  Intuitive basic concepts are important and not complicated formulas, because if the research method abandons the first, the second gives us absolutely nothing, nothing that we can understand.

  That is precisely what I think has happened to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, it gets lost in formulas for some satisfactory results, which without doubt collect together real rules on nature’s behavior, but conceptually they are really quite mixed up due to the mathematical veil.

  The scientific research method actually should go on to be called the technical research method because it will create technical advances, but the conceptual knowledge is being diluted to the point that I would not call it scientific knowledge.

  Corridor asylum - Van Gogh
  (Public domain image)
  

  Going back to the topic of external or conventional time, it is not altered by any means because, in my opinion, it would, in fact, have to stop being what it is: an abstract and absolute concept through pure convention. The same occurs with space; nevertheless, it has to be recognized that they can also be relatively defined, but the basic complaint is that one thing would attempt to substitute another, or eliminate time as an absolute concept.

  Expressions such as space-time continuum, the speed of time, gravity as a geometric effect, or constant change of units of measurement of the entire International System do not seem the most adequate for something calling itself a scientific research method. More comments about this issue can be found in the online books on the Theory of Global Equivalence.

• Quantum Mechanics

  An even bolder step in frightening neurons is taken by Quantum Mechanics, which must be for being subsequent to the Theory of General Relativity.

  Perhaps I am opposed to the new concepts, but the idea that the cat is alive and dead at the same time is especially difficult to imagine within my concept of research method.

  It is even tolerable when something is not known that the principle of uncertainty is applied.

  That the effect of the physical phenomenon could precede its cause even makes my neurons get up and dance poH piH..

  Forgive me, but the concept of being in two places at the same time exhausts the patience of my own scientific research method.

  Now then, Quantum Mechanics have a wonderful characteristic: its incompatibility with relativity. I want to repeat this fact because it tells us countless times that Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are proven only too well to be true throughout a century, I suppose that it has to do with a paradox more than with the scientific research method to which we are accustomed.

• The String Theory

  Without a doubt, the prize goes to the String Theory with its suit of tailor-made dimensions.

  The idea is great, since it is not known where the mass-energy will end up when absorbed through a black hole, we invent one or two dozen additional dimensions where everything is possible and solving the issue of unification, and surely there are additional available dimensions in case of absolute necessity. For example, in order to explain a white fountain or a neuron star.

  Just as well, they cannot empirically prove it. However, I do not understand why not, if they have proven that space stretches and that time contracts then I believe that the can prove anything.