Updated Prologue of forthcoming book "Quest to Unify Physics"

Latent Falsehoods cause False Realities

Propagandists know how to subtly plant lies and then afterwards, by repetition, skillfully misleading the public to end up believing that such a falsehood is reality. Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda was competent in this regard. One expects that for this to succeed it must not be blatantly obvious that the falsehood is absurd. But this is not always the case.

Many times, even when it is blatantly obvious to a sane mind that an argument is a falsehood, this tactic still succeeds when this falsehood is what the majority wants to believe: Afterwards sane people are prevented by peer-pressure from questioning this false-reality: Those who do not bend to this pressure, experience insults, persecution and excommunication. In physics such peer pressure has become institutionalized during the past 100 years through the increasing misuse of “peer-review”: The latter process has inexorably become censorship in physics: It blocks the raison d’être on which the existence of physics must be based.

Scientists, especially physicists, argue that the “science-method” is self-correcting, and will thus not maintain false realities; since each physics-theory must be verified by experimental measurements performed by independent scientists. I have also believed this for many years, but had to discover to my horror that this argument is a falsehood which has generated many colossal false-realities in physics; especially during 20th century up to now. In this book examples are given which prove that experimental verification of a physics theory or model is not always decisive to weed out false realities. Mother Nature turns out to be very cunning: She guards her secrets well, especially from the scrutiny by superstitious incompetents.

During the years, 1999 to 2000, I obtained excellent results from an experiment which was designed to extract electrons by a positively-charged probe (an anode) from a diamond which had been modified by ion-beam treatment to have conduction-electrons near its surface (called an n-type diamond). These electrons are released by a distribution of suitable atoms (called donors), so that they can move within the diamond: Each free electron leaves a stationary, positive charge behind.

The objective to extract electrons from such a diamond had been hotly pursued during the 1980’s and 1990’s, since previous experimental results, based on photo-electron spectroscopy, proved that an electron within the bulk of a diamond will be at a higher energy than it will be outside the diamond: But these attempts to extract electrons had been without any spectacular success. The reason for this is that, below the surface of the diamond, the donated electrons generate a positively-charged insulating layer (called a depletion-layer) which prevents the electrons within the bulk from being extracted; even though these electrons are at a higher energy than they would be outside the diamond.

My experiment proved that it is possible to extract electrons, provided an appropriate electric dipole-layer is generated across the external surface of such an n-type diamond. This dipole-layer consists of a high density of positive charges, within the depletion-layer at and below the surface of the diamond, which are juxta-positioned to electrons that are external and above the surface of the diamond. The high density of positive donors decreases the width of the insulating layer so that electrons can tunnel out of the diamond. Tunneling is known to happen, but is probably not correctly modeled, since all these models demand that the conservation of energy must be violated. Nonetheless there is enough experimental evidence that this process is physically-real. This is also confirmed by my experiment.

I subsequently also discovered that, by further increasing the density of the concomitant external electrons, electrical-conduction above and parallel to the surface of the diamond becomes possible. When subtracting the contact resistances to this external layer, the results extrapolate to zero electrical resistivity. This suggests that superconduction might be occurring (at room and higher temperatures) within this external electron-layer. Since charge-carriers move through the dipole-layer by tunneling, this result indicates strongly that tunneling must be at the heart of the mechanism which causes superconduction.

Since these results indicate that superconduction occurs within the electron-layer outside and above the diamond’s surface, one is compelled to conclude that, if this is the case, the charge-carriers within this layer cannot be paired electrons formed by “phonon-exchange”; as is claimed in the BCS-model (by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer) that they must be for superconduction to be possible. These paired-electrons (called Cooper-pairs) cannot form outside the diamond’s surface since there are no atoms outside the surface of the diamond which can “vibrate” to generate phonons that can act as “force-particles”, which supposedly bond electrons.

Dipole-layers also form internally across interfaces between two materials that have different electronic properties (for example n-type and p-type silicon): Such interfaces are routinely used to manufacture solid-state diodes and transistors. The positive charges and the negative charges form two insulating layers adjacent to the opposite sides of the interface. When applying a voltage across such a dipole-layer, diode-switching occurs: An electric-current flows along one direction while it is blocked from flowing along the opposite direction.

In order to model the electric-field within such a dipole-layer, which causes this diode-behavior, it has been assumed that, on both sides of such a dipole-layer, the maximum energies (called Fermi-levels) of the electrons within each material must end up to be at the same electronic energy. This demands that there cannot be an electric-field within such a dipole when there is no current flowing through the dipole. Solid State Electronics has since 1948 been solidly based on the latter assumption. The scientists who assumed this were Shockley, Brattain, and, also in this case, Bardeen. Bardeen might have the dubious honor that he won two Noble prizes; each for wrong theoretical physics!

When a voltage is applied across such a dipole-layer, this SBB-model assumes that the energies of the Fermi-levels (within the two materials) cannot remain at the same energy, and that the resultant offset in these two energy-levels now causes an electric-field within the dipole-layer, which manifests as diode-switching. The model based on this scenario corresponds well with experimental measurements, and this scenario has therefore become holy dogma which can be found in all text books.

When I modeled the extraction of electrons from an n-type diamond, by analogy to the dipole-layers that form between two materials, it came as a massive shock to realize that, if the Fermi-levels do align across the interface between an n-type and p-type material, diode action will NOT be possible when switching on a voltage across the dipole: This is so since the dipole-layer will adjust its charges in order to also cancel the applied electric-field generated by this voltage. Current-flow through the dipole-layer is then not inhibited along any direction. The dipole-layer acts as a “dead-short”; also called an ohmic-contact.

It is obvious from the laws of static-electricity that, in order to have a diode interface, the Fermi-levels must not align at the same energy across such a dipole-layer when no voltage is applied. There must be an electric-field within the dipole-layer before a voltage is applied: An applied voltage modifies this electric-field in order to cause diode switching. It is thus false to claim that an applied voltage can generate an electric-field within a dipole-layer when the Fermi-levels align in energy across such a dipole-layer before switching on this voltage.

This false-reality has not been picked up (since 1948) by hundreds-of-thousands of scientists doing experimental measurements on diode-action.. The reason for this is subtle: One must have an electric-field within the dipole-layer in order to have diode-behavior, and since it has been assumed that such a field does only form when switching on a voltage across a dipole layer, for which the Fermi-levels align before switching on the voltage, the model gives results in terms of an electric-field, even though this field cannot physically manifest in this case. Thus, although this model experimentally fits the measured data, which are only valid if there is an actual electric-field present, the model is a false-reality based on an electric-field which cannot be there!

That this has been the case for 70, years is scary, since it proves that, in contrast to the religious beliefs of mainstream physicists, the “scientific-method” can fail. Experimental verification is not always sufficient. The model can be based on a latent falsehood and still fit the experimental data as if it models a real-reality instead of a false-reality. In such a situation it is near impossible to argue that the model is false, since those who want to believe this model, are able to claim that the model has been verified by experiment.

The following question arises: Since it did happen in the case of diode-junctions that a false-reality fits the experimental results, could it have happened for other physics theories and models? As already mentioned above, a suspicious possibility is the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer-theory (BCS-theory) which is used to model low-temperature superconduction within metals: According to this theory “electrons” must “bond” by “phonon-exchange” to form pairs (known as Cooper-pairs).

It is argued that, according to the statistical probability-interpretation of quantum-mechanics for “particles with integer spin”, these Cooper-Pairs are supposedly able to form a “lowest-energy” electronic-phase, called a Bose-Einstein Condensate. It is further argued that an electric-current can move through such a “condensate”, from an injection-contact to an ejection-contact, without these charge-carriers being scattered; since, each charge-carrier is in its lowest-energy state possible: None of them has energy that can dissipate by scattering.

But what has been missed by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer, is that, when superconduction occurs, the charge-carriers must not only avoid scattering, but must move from the injection contact to the ejection-contact without being accelerated. If they accelerate, they will gain energy that can scatter away, if not on their journey between the two contacts, then definitely when they enter the ejection contact. Such scattering must register as electrical-resistance. But such an electrical-resistance is not measured when superconduction occurs.

Although the BCS-theory gives reasons why the charge-carriers should not scatter when moving from the injection-contact to, and into, the ejection-contact, it cannot give any physics-reason why and how these charge-carriers can complete this journey without being accelerated by the applied electric-field. And for as long as this model cannot give a reason why and how this is possible, it cannot model superconduction.

I came to the conclusion that acceleration will only not occur when a charge-carrier within a superconductor moves from one position to the next position by means of tunneling "through" the energy barrier between the two positions, and that in this case each charge-carrier need not be a pair of electrons to be able to tunnel: A charge-carrier, even when it does not consist of a pair of electrons, cannot scatter when it moves through the superconductor by consecutive tunneling-steps. I thus modeled superconduction in terms of consecutive tunneling-steps, and obtained perfect verification of this model for all the experimental results which had been measured on all known superconductors to date: Including the ceramic-superconductors, discovered since 1986, which superconduct at substantially higher temperatures than the metal superconductors.

I submitted a manuscript to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, in which I proposed this alternative mechanism for superconduction, and pointed out that for the BCS model there exists no reason why each charge-carrier should not be accelerated. The reviewer rejected this manuscript with the following comment: “In the conventional pairing theory the description of the electromagnetism of superconductors is remarkably complicated…. Being not an expert of this theory I can’t say how this formalism explains the cancellation of a static electric-field, but I would be very surprised if it really can’t do so.”

Halloooo! How can this person be a reviewer for a “prestigious journal” like Proc. Roy. Soc. when he/she admits that he/she is not an expert in the field he/she is reviewing? And since when does one reject a manuscript by claiming that it would be “surprising”, and therefore it must be wrong? I always thought that the most important rule when doing physics-research must be to accept that a “surprising” result could be a discovery which points to a new paradigm in physics.

But what this reviewer is saying is that the mathematics on which modern physics is based has become so complicated that only a few selected high priests can understand it, and these high priests are so clever that it will be “surprising” and unacceptable, for the proletariat of physics-practitioners, if these high priests are wrong. So who the hell are you, Johan Prins, to question their holy wisdom before having been ordained by them to understand their complicated mathematics? He is telling me, for no logical reason, to F-off!

Surely this reviewer must be a bloody fool: One expects that such a fool must be an exception to the high standards expected from somebody who is seriously doing physics! But my subsequent appeals to Proc. Roy Soc. were flatly ignored: Does this mean that this fool is representing the mentality of the majority of physicists, who will never question a false-reality once it has established itself by majority opinion? If this is so, this would mean that new knowledge, which is in dire need of being discovered when doing physics research, is repressed by physics societies like the Royal Society of London, the America Association for the Advancement (sic) of Science, Nature, etc., etc., etc., since “surprising” results in physics are not tolerated when these imply that there could be a false-reality in existing physics-dogma.

Many subsequent submissions of my model, based on tunneling, to other editors and reviewers during the past 15 years have proved that this reviewer is not the exception, but the rule. With every submission the manuscript was rejected, since the editor and/or reviewer could not bring themselves to even consider the possibility that the BCS model could be flawed, even though they know, and admitted that the BCS model fails miserably when it is applied to the ceramic superconductors. After all, a Nobel Prize has been awarded for the BCS-model: It must thus be unassailable and holy!

Can it be possible that all mainstream physicists are bloody fools? Can a person who won a Nobel Prize in physics be a bloody fool? I decided to find out, and through a contact sent a copy of my model to Brian Josephson at the University of Cambridge, who won a Nobel Prize in 1973 “for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier”. He is regarded as the world’s expert on tunneling through a barrier while superconduction occurs; which is exactly the mechanism on which my model is based. In the letter, accompanying my manuscript, I informed him that my model explains superconduction for both the low-temperature metals and the higher temperature ceramics in terms of the same, single mechanism based on tunneling, and that this mechanism does not require that the charge-carriers must be Cooper-pairs.

Josephson responded by informing me that he did not open the file with my manuscript since “I think that even without reading the paper I can predict that I am very unlikely to agree with it”. He concluded: “The conclusion is that zero resistance is now well understood and there is no reason to look for alternative theories, as indeed seems to be needed for high Tc. But in the case of ordinary superconductors the BCS theory fits the facts so well that there is really no cause to look elsewhere for an explanation”. In other words, again he blindly believes that it is so impossible that the BCS theory can be a false-reality that he refuses to ever contemplate it.

This is absurd: Josephson agrees that the BCS-theory cannot be used to model the ceramic superconductors. He claims that, therefore, if I have a model which explains both the metals and ceramics in terms of a single mechanism, which does not encompass the BCS theory for the low temperature metals, my model must be wrong. And since “all” experiments prove that the BCS model is correct for the low-temperature metals, my model, which also models these same experiments (even better than the BCS-model), must be wrong. The fact is that the BCS-theory cannot explain the neutron-scattering data on superconducting lead; while my mechanism can.

In retrospect Josephson’s reaction should have been expected, since he received the Nobel Prize for “proving”, in terms of extremely complicated mathematics (based on Feynman-diagrams; see below) that each Cooper-pair tunnels as if it is a single point-entity having a ghostly “probability-wave” which determines where this point-particle will be found when making a measurement. In contrast, if my model is correct, superconducting-tunneling does not require Cooper pairs and this would mean that the model for which Josephson received the Nobel Prize is a false-reality. He is definitely not going to put in an effort from his side which could lead him to prove himself wrong. To do this takes a lot of courage and physics-integrity: The latter has become a very scarce commodity among the modern physics-community.

But what does Josephson mean by “ordinary” superconductors? When is a material, which superconducts, not an “ordinary” superconductor? For no logical reason, Josephson defines the ceramic superconductors (which he denotes with being high Tc) to be “not ordinary” superconductors: The sole reason for this classification is that they cannot be modeled in terms of the BCS-theory. This is really rich! One has a model which supposedly explains superconduction within materials, but when superconduction is measured in a material which cannot be explained by this model, it cannot be the model that is wrong: It must be this material which is “not ordinary”. Naughty-naughty material which refuses to conform to the model!

Historically when such a result had been obtained, it is the theory that became suspect. But not in the 20th and 21st centuries anymore! After all, the BCS model has been canonized by being awarded a Nobel Prize. Modern theoretical physicists cannot be wrong! They are the high priests who understand “esoteric mathematics” which the proletariat is not able to understand!

The possibility that experimental proof would be found that the BCS model is wrong, has been on the cards all along: The late Berndt Matthias, who during his lifetime discovered a plethora of superconducting metals, had argued time and again that the BCS model cannot be physics-reality, since the mathematics on which it is based is very complicated, and, more importantly, it cannot be used to predict those materials that would be able to superconduct. This brilliant scientist, who died at too young an age of 60, was hated by the mainstream physicists for pointing this out. But instead of admitting, after the discovery of the ceramic superconductors, that Matthias was correct, this correct conclusion was sidestepped by dividing superconductors into “conventional” superconductors (those that adhere to the gospel of BCS) and “non-conventional” superconductors (those atheist-materials who reject the gospel of BCS).

The major culprit who, while he was alive, propagated the dubious reality of conventional versus non-conventional superconductors had been another Brian at Cambridge University; namely Brian Pippard. In a handbook of superconducting materials published in 2003, he concluded by referring to the BCS theory as follows: “There were critics from the beginning, who agreed the theory described the phenomenon as no other had done, but were dissatisfied because it had little power to predict which metals would be superconductors, or what their transition temperature would be. With further theoretical developing they had fallen silent (Yes, Berndt Matthias died: It is a “strange fact” that after dying you are silent!) before the events beginning 1986, when the new class of cuprate superconductors was discovered and made clear that BCS might not be a universal theory. Despite valiant efforts the high temperature superconductors remain fundamentally mysterious. But those with transitions below 25 K, and well described by BCS, have acquired and seem likely to retain the classical status of “conventional superconductors”.

It is not surprising that this is what Brian Pippard desperately wanted to believe, since if it were to turn out not to be the case, it would mean that at the age of 83 (when he penned the above opinion) it would have been more prudent for him to have had acknowledged that most, if not all his contributions in the field of superconduction, have been of little value. It must be a bitter pill for an old man to swallow: But if it is the case, it is imperative to be honest in the interest of the future of physics. Even wrong models contribute to the advancement of physics, provided that it is acknowledged that they are wrong, or could be wrong, once evidence is found to this effect.

As an interesting aside: When Pippard was asked to comment on my book entitled: “Superconduction at Room Temperature without Cooper Pairs” he became so insulting that it was decided not to convey his foaming tirade to me. It would not have mattered if they did convey this to me, since I do not have a high regard for he scientists at the Cambridge University who do research on superconduction. One can only pity them.

It struck me that if the BCS-model, which is based on the interpretation according to which an electron is a “point-particle” with a “dual” de Broglie wave which is not a “real-wave” but a “probability-wave”; which supposedly has an intensity that models the “probability” to find the “point”-electron at a specific position in space, could be a false-reality. This interpretation has been assigned to Schr?dinger’s wave-equation by the Copenhagen-cabal under the auspices of Bohr, Heisenberg and Born.

I thus analyzed Schr?dinger’s wave-equation by comparing it with Maxwell’s wave-equations, which model the motion of a single light-wave through free space, and came to the conclusion that Schr?dinger’s wave-equation does not model the de Broglie-wave of an electron which is moving with speed v through space. Owing to its imaginary phase-time, Schr?dinger’s wave-equation only models a stationary wave, which manifests when an electron is trapped within an energy-cavity; where the latter cavity is defined by the potential-energy of the electron. And it is only approximately correct, since the magnetic character of such an electron-wave has to be added in an ad hoc manner as a point-charge that “spins” around “itself”. This is a contradiction in terms! How can a singular point “rotate” around itself?

By dropping the absurd idea that a free-electron is a point-singularity in space, one expects that it must have a spherical-volume of radius R(e) with a center-of-mass. According to Galileo’s inertia, there must be a reference-frame within which this center-of-mass is stationary at a coordinate position (say x=y=z=0) within this (which will be called “primary”) reference-frame. Note that, in contrast to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, this demands that the momentum and position of this center-of-mass must manifest simultaneously with 100% accuracy.

Within another reference frame (which will be called the “target” reference-frame) which is moving with a speed relative to the primary reference frame, the center-of-mass of this electron will be moving with speed v. Also in this case the instantaneous position and instantaneous speed (and thus momentum) manifest simultaneously; each with 100% accuracy: Again not adhering to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. If the motion is along the x-direction, the position X of the center-of-mass at time t within the target reference-frame follows from the Galilean-relativistic coordinate transformation, which gives that X=vt.

I found that the differential wave-equation for an electron, which is moving with speed v, follows logically, from the Lorentz-relativistic coordinate-transformation of the dimensions of the stationary electron, from the primary reference-frame into the reference-frame relative to which the center-of-mass of the electron is moving with speed v. It is found that along the direction of motion, the diameter of the electron [D(e)]=2[R(e)] changes to become a Lorentz-length L=(gamma)[D(e)] where (gamma) is the Lorentz-factor which for v>0 is larger than unity. Furthermore, in contrast to the Galilean-transformation, the Lorentz-transformation also transforms time. This gives a concomitant time difference T=[v/(c^2)]L across the length L, where c is the speed of light. Thus, the stationary-electron, within the primary reference-frame, Lorentz-transforms into the target reference-frame, relative to which it manifests as a moving entity with length L and a time interval T across this length.

The only moving-entity for which this can be possible is a coherently moving wave that has a phase-speed c*=(lambda)f, where (lambda) is the wavelength of the wave and f is the frequency of this wave. Since c*=(lambda)/(tau), where (tau) is the time-difference across a single wavelength, one must have for a wave of length L and a time difference T across this length that L/T must be equal to (lambda)/(tau); so that c*=L/T=(c^2)/v. This transformed wave has a phase-speed that is larger than the speed of a light-wave.

When multiplying and dividing with the mass m of the electron one obtains that c*=[m(c^2)]/[mv]=E/p where E is the total energy of the wave and p is the momentum of the center-of-mass. But c*=(lambda)f, so that (lambda)=[E/f]/p. If the relationship between E and f follows from Planck’s equation so that E=hf, one obtains that (lambda)=h/p; which is the de Broglie wavelength for, in this case, an electromagnetic wave. This wave cannot be a “probability”-wave since it follows from the Lorentz-transformation, which transforms the wavefronts of a wave which consists of continuously-distributed electromagnetic energy.

Thus, this electron’s de Broglie wave must also be a wave with electromagnetic-energy which has a phase speed c* so that E=p(c*). For a single light-wave one has that E=pc. Thus, the differential wave equation for a moving electron through space is given by Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave-equations when using the phase speed to be c*=(c^2)/v. It is not Schr?dinger’s equation!

The three examples above, which flowed consecutively from the results of my electron-extraction experiment, raise a serious question: Are there more physics-theories and models which are revered and believed to be correct, since they fit selected experimental data rather well, but which are false realities in which the mainstream physicists want to believe with the same fervor that the Nazi’s wanted to believe Goebbels? Just the mere possibility that this could be so, demands that the postulates on which accepted physics-theories are based, must be regularly and meticulously re-assessed, and weeded out if they are falsehoods which are anchoring false realities.

One of the big frustrations of modern physics is that Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity are not compatible: These theories do not jointly give a unified explanation of physics. It might be that the latter unfortunate situation is caused by false realities which have not been identified, since these false realities are hiding in the woodwork without being detected experimentally; or prevented from being detected by the mainstream physicists who have the same idiotic mentality that the reviewer for Proc. Roy. Soc. has. I thus felt compelled to re-assess accepted physics in order to look for such possibilities. To my astonishment I found that, especially modern physics, is crawling with false realities.

There are many examples, from time immemorial, of latent falsehoods which created false realities in our understanding of Mother Nature. It is known that Plato and his student Aristotle planted a latent falsehood when they claimed that the Earth must be the “stationary center” of the Universe. This false-reality seemed to be experimentally correct, since it is observed that all matter-objects, when released from a height above the surface of the Earth, fall back to Earth; and that the Moon, Sun, and stars move around the Earth as if they are moving around a stationary object.

It did not seem to trouble these ancient Greeks too much that some of the heavenly-bodies do not follow purely circular paths around the Earth: The latter bodies were observed from Earth to make loops in the sky, and they therefore became known as planets (“wanderers”). Their paths could not be modeled as if they solely move around an Earth as if Earth is the stationary center of the Universe.

Are planets the “exceptions that prove the rule”? No, in physics an exception actually proves that the rule is not consistently correct, and that this must mean that the actual physics-reality behind the rule is not yet fully understood. Discovering a rule is useful when doing physics, but, in my opinion, a rule is not physics until the reason for the rule can be logically explained in terms of a unified system of physics-laws. If a theory is based on an assumption or a postulate and a single contradiction, or absurdity is found, which cannot be logically explained, the only rational conclusion must be that this assumption or postulate is a latent falsehood which has created a false-reality.

The motion of planets did bother Claudius Ptolemy about 500 years after Archimedes: He modeled planetary-motion by postulating the existence of “epicycles”; according to which each of these planets, in addition to following a path through space “around a stationary Earth at the center of the Universe”, also moves along a circle around this path. We now know that the latter is a latent falsehood, since such motion is not possible without a force which attracts the planet to its path. There are physicists who reason that Ptolemy’s epicycles is a “useful tool” which can be used to obtain correct positions for the planets in the sky; and must therefore be accepted as a valid physics-model.

But a useful tool is not a physics-model! Ptolemy’s useful tool is not able to explain why the planets perform epicycles: It is purely a curve-fitting exercise. Such models, of which there are more in physics, like Feynman-diagrams in Quantum Electrodynamics, do not explain the fundamental reason WHY what we see or measure is happening. And when we do not know “why” and “how” in physics, our physics-knowledge reverts to rules based on superstition!

Therefore, when modelling modern “particle-physics” in terms of Feynman-diagrams, illegitimate mathematics is invoked (called “renormalization”) in order to fit curves to what the physicists want them to be. Albert Einstein pointed out that renormalization is similar to the reasoning that had been used for epicycles. This could mean that Feynman’s diagrams are, like epicycles, latent falsehoods which are causing the theory of “particle physics” to be a false-reality.

In this book false realities in physics have been sought: For those that have been identified so far, alternative interpretations and mathematical derivations are proposed. These alternative scenarios point to a unified explanation for physics based solely on (a) Galileo’s concept of co-motion, (b) Newton’s laws when also differentiating the mass of momentum with time, and (c) Maxwell’s equations when solving them subject to the fact that a light-wave must be emitted by a source, and that such a light-wave, when emitted into free-space outside matter, does not manifest in another hypothetical material called aether.

The alternative models, proposed and derived in detail in this book, could replace the false realities which are embedded within modern physics: For example: (a) the interpretation of “wave-particle duality” is a false-reality, (b) the existence of “probability waves” is a false-reality, (c) As already proved above, it is a falsehood that Schr?dinger’s equation is valid for a free electron, (d) The belief that there is an electron-gas within a metal when there is not an applied electric-field within the metal, is a false-reality, (e) The belief that there is a static electrical energy-field in free space around a solitary electric charge, is a false-reality, (f) Einstein’s concepts of “time-dilation” and “length-contraction” are false realities, (g) Minkowski’s “space-time manifold” is a false-reality, (h) Poincaré’s assertion that any set of relativistic coordinate-transformations must adhere to the mathematical rules of group-theory is a false-reality, (i) the existence of dark matter is a false-reality, and (j) the existence of dark energy is also a false-reality. I am sure there are more false realities than these! In this book the ones just named will be concentrated on.

The analyses in this book lead to the conclusion that the experimental evidence, which supposedly prove that these false realities are correct, has been incorrectly interpreted. For example, the experiments which supposedly prove that two “particles” can become “entangled” to be in instantaneous contact with one another, do not involve two separate “particles” but a single electromagnetic wave which must be in instantaneous contact with itself (within the volume it occupies) owing to the fact that the electromagnetic energy of this wave is continuously-distributed within the volume of this wave. Einstein was correct when he argued that two separate particles can never communicate with one another at a speed which exceeds the speed of light. But, at present, the mainstream physicists claim that it has been experimentally proved that Einstein was wrong.

They do not realize that these experiments, which supposedly prove that Einstein is wrong, must be interpreted in terms of a single electromagnetic wave which does not consist of separate “particles”. A measurement can, however, cause such a single wave to decohere into separate parts. Even in this case, the resultant separate parts are not separate “particles” but separate waves, which also cannot be in instantaneous contact with one another since they do not form a single wave with continuously distributed electromagnetic energy. If these experiments were to be done for separate wave-entities, with space between them, it will be found that Einstein was most certainly not wrong, since instantaneous contact will not be measured across space between any two separate entities.

But Einstein was not always correct: He was wrong to conclude that the Lorentz-factor, which can be experimentally obtained from the Doppler-shift of a light-wave, is proof that two different instants in time can be simultaneous: i.e. that “time-dilation” occurs. This is an absurd contradiction in terms since simultaneous means the same time: Nothing else! The Lorentz factor measured for the Doppler-effect is actually proof that an electromagnetic-wave does not move in aether. The two different times which Einstein interpreted to be simultaneous “clock-times”, are not real times but two different simultaneous phase-times for the same wave-front within two different reference-frames. It will be proved in this book that these phase-times must be different owing to the fact that an electromagnetic wave REALLY does not move in aether.

Fudge factors called “dark matter” and “dark energy” have been invoked in the mainstream literature since the wrong speeds for stars within a galaxy has been derived from the measured Doppler-shifts. When deriving these speeds correctly in terms of the correct equations which are valid for the Doppler shifts, when measured for light-waves which do not move in aether, it is found that the speeds of the stars are determined by Newton’s law of gravity. No correction is required, and therefore the concepts of dark matter and dark energy need not be invoked.

To me it is not surprising that experimental evidence for dark matter has not yet been found. I venture to predict that no experiment will ever detect dark matter. But I do not put it beyond the mainstream physicists to “discover” non-existing dark matter “particles”; just like they “discovered” the Higgs boson, which does not do what they claim it is doing: The latter entity is definitely not needed to ensure that other “particles” have mass. Neither can it be proved by any falsifiable experiment that this is so. The mere fact that a “noise” has been detected at CERN does not prove that this “noise” is what the “particle”-physicists want it to be.

There are so many false realities that it is difficult, if not impossible, to engage modern mainstream theoretical physicists to discuss issues which question the validity of accepted physics-theories, since these physicists are quite comfortable to believe that it is “impossible” that there could be false realities, which have not yet been discovered by experiment. Therefore they are not willing to read and study the logic of a person who claims there are: They argue that they do not have the time to “prove such a person wrong”. They do not realize that it is exactly this obstinate mentality (by them) which has allowed latent falsehoods to establish themselves and flourish like weeds in physics and thus befuddle a unified picture of physics.

This book is written with the specific goal to challenge the leading-lights of physics: To name a few: Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Steven Weinberg, Edward Witten, Alan Guth, Freeman Dyson, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Frank Wilczek, Peter Higgs, Anthony Leggett, Yoichiro Nambu, Kip Thorne, Michio Kaku, Jocelyn Burnell, Lene Hau, Lawrence Krauss, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, Adam Riess, David Gross, Neil Turok, Anton Zeilinger, Juan Maldacena, Lisa Randall, Robbert Dijkgraaf, Lee Smolin, S James Gates Jr., John Gribbin, Paul Davies, Marcus Chown, Jim Al-Khalili, Sean Carroll, Robert Laughlin, etc. to find fault with the analyses and conclusions presented in this book. I hope they will rise to this challenge. But I doubt that they will stop wallowing in their complacency. 

I apologise if I left out the names of other deserving leading lights, and therefore extend this challenge to all living physicists. Except for obvious practical difficulties, I would have had liked to also extend this invitation to all deceased physicists; especially so since the younger generation of physicists, like Brian Cox, tend to be more religiously dogmatic in their thinking than these late physicists had been: This is probably caused by the constraints placed on the younger physicists when they apply for funding, and the suffering they have to endure under the corrupt system of peer review when they dare to think for themselves. The latter proves (once again) that if a system can be abused, humankind WILL abuse it.

If any physicist of repute and integrity can find fault in the analyses and conclusions published in this book, by using rational logic or/and experiments, I will stand corrected, and this will help to clear up many relevant issues in physics which have been raised by many intelligent people during the past century, like for example Herbert Dingle. If modern physicists cannot find serious mistakes in the logic and mathematics in this book, a door might have been opened to simplify and unify the understanding of physics without having to call physics “anti-intuitive” and “weird”; as is the custom at present.

I do not believe that reality is weird. Only a false-reality can be weird. Physics is the search for cause and effect, which, when discovered, becomes common sense so that it can be simply explained to any average person with a measurable IQ. A physics theory which cannot be explained in this manner is like a “verbal agreement”: It is not worth the paper it is written on.

Johan F Prins,

July 2017.