RELIGION OF PHYSICS
For thousands of years religions have evolved according to surrounding circumstances and managed to maintain prominence. Every religion proclaims itself as the unique way towards a salvation which is primarily meaningful within the framework of assumptions taken by the very same religion. The most fundamental aspect among all religions is the outsourcing of rational by the constituent members to the religion about what is correct and what is incorrect. In this regard, Physics is no stranger to the world of traditional religions and although it claims to merely be an outcome of scientific logic, its fundamental structure is barely different. Considering the mainstream scientific approach pursued by the majority of physicists as well as the claims made by many of Physics’ revered elites about proving certain aspects of traditional religions, overall, it is fair to say that today’s Physics is the new millennium religion at its best and a continuation of any other religion at its worst. To clarify the religious character of Physics, its general similarities with other religions are highlighted here.
1. PHYSICS HOLDS THE IDEA THAT THERE HAS BEEN A START TO UNIVERSE AND THAT THERE WILL BE AN END TO IT.
Physics believes in a start for Universe and relates its creation to an explosion it terms as Big Bang. Although some physicists undermine the significance of Big Bang by emphasizing its theoretical aspect, its widespread acceptance and the numerous offspring theories emanated from it has already rendered it a fact within Physics’ community.
Besides conceiving a start, Physics also believes in an end to Universe. Even though Physics lacks a clear stance on the final format of its end story for Universe, its current principles anticipate a freezing end to it. As deemed by Physics, the freezing will be facilitated through the expansion of Universe known as Expansion theory which itself is one of the fallouts of Big Bang theory. According to this perspective, Universe is aging towards a zero Kelvin era in which all the energy is radiated away from matter. Obviously, the presumed freezing doomsday scenario predicted by Physics will only be materialized if planet Earth were to survive being consumed by any of Universe’s imagined black holes.
2. CONSIDERING EARTH TO BE AT THE CENTER OF UNIVERSE.
Because regardless of their direction, farthest observable objects in the sky are located at comparable distances from Earth, to physicists, planet Earth is apparently believed to be at the center of Universe. In this respect, the borders of Universe stand at where the farthest bright objects of the sky have supposedly reached following the Big Bang explosion.
According to Physics the borders of Universe are located not farther than a distance of around tens of billions of light years. It is important to recall that the primary method in determining the distances of farthest galaxies from Earth utilizes the occurrence of red-shifts within the spectra collected from these galaxies which on its own renders the estimated distance of these galaxies highly questionable. A red-shift is referred to a displacement of spectral lines corresponding to an element towards lower frequencies. Physicists interpret the occurrence of these red-shifts within the Expansion theory according to which the farther objects, regardless of their location with respect to Earth, always exhibit larger red-shifts. Based on the current astronomical observations and assumptions, planet Earth is almost exactly located where the assumed Big Bang explosion has occurred. Thus, according to physicists, Earth has been and will always remain at the center of Universe.
3. PRESENTING ITS CLAIMS AS FACTS.
Physics presents all its claimed laws, rules, postulates, theories, and principles as ratified facts even though majority of them can never be backed by scientific evidence. Physics is sturdily intolerant of critical questioning of any of its assumptions which is ironically in stark contrast with its profound desire in portraying a tolerant and rational image of itself as is expected from an ideology capable of thoroughly addressing the fundamental issues.
4. JUSTIFYING WHATEVER PHENOMENON ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AS CONDITIONS DEMAND.
Physics presents explanations to the experimental phenomena in whatever way that serves its interests the best. With this attitude and in the absence of other viable justifications, Physics has presented some of the most ridiculous explanations regarding certain phenomena. The most interesting of such explanations have been presented after new experimental findings have created awkward situations for Physics in which the credibility of one or more of its established principles have been threatened. An example of such a situation has occurred around the well-established Rayleigh limit, also known as angular resolution, which sets a limit on the resolvable distance between two bright points based on the wavelength of the light. When later in a technique known as near field optical microscopy it was discovered that the limit of resolvable distance could in practice be much smaller than what was stated by the Rayleigh limit, Physics explained the reason by introducing a new concept of non-propagating evanescent field. It is, however, impossible to prove or disapprove the presence of the mysterious evanescent field or its non-propagating nature as it is supposedly not propagating to start with, contrary to the concept of conventional electromagnetic waves. Furthermore, Physics doesn’t seem to bother with explaining how photons make the journey to the eyepiece lens in such experiments considering the non-propagating nature of the waves involved. Much of the ample maneuverability space around Physics in explaining various phenomena, and as it pleases, is due to the vague nature of its justifications given to underlying scientific issues.
5. INSTRUCTING NUMEROUS EXCEPTIONS ALONGSIDE MOST OF ITS DEVISED PRINCIPLES.
Despite Physics desire in portraying itself as a highly well-structured ideology, there are extensive caveats inherent to its structure requiring the introduction of exceptions. These exceptions are mainly there to serve the short-term interests of Physics and therefore new exceptions are constantly devised to the recently risen problems driving the succession of ill-advised solutions until eternity. This behavior is essential to help the religious establishment appear potent in the eyes of its constituent members. There are hardly any laws in modern era Physics without exceptions. In most cases, the exceptions themselves are wittingly introduced as independent laws and rules of their own. Take for example, the Selection rules that are arbitrarily applied to various electromagnetic interactions or all the rules that are imposed to sustain Rutherford-Bohr atomic model.
6. MANY OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER.
Physics’ inability to admit and consequently correct its earlier mistakes is the reason why some of its principles will always remain in contradiction. Admitting mistakes is considered a weakness and therefore despised by Physics. Instead, Physics claims all its rules are there for good reasons. What makes the situation even worse is Physics insistence on coming up with answers to newly raised questions as quickly as possible hoping to further present itself as a highly capable ideology. This leads to the creation of short-term solutions which over time may turn contradicting solutions required for future findings. A remarkable example of a conceptual contradiction in Physics is the claim of simultaneous current flow and exclusion of magnetic field inside superconducting materials. As it is known in today’s Physics, zero-resistance of superconducting materials against the current of electrons has enabled scientists to produce very stable magnetic fields. In practice, highly stable magnetic fields generated by superconducting materials are extensively used in various medical and characterization equipment. Physics, at the same time, has another principle regarding the superconductors which is in stark contradiction with the previous one. This principle is known as Meissner effect and states that any external magnetic field is expelled from superconducting materials as they cool down below their superconducting temperatures. Thus, according to Physics, it is a lossless current of electrons inside a superconducting material that creates the extremely stable external magnetic field while at the same time there can be no magnetic fields inside the superconducting material as explained by Meissner principle. For Physicists it seems the superconducting material is somehow able to selectively identify and let the internally generated magnetic lines pass through while expelling any magnetic field lines generated by external sources.
7. PRONE TO BE ABUSIVE.
The abuse in Physics happens both systematically and on individual levels. A grave example of systematical abuse in Physics is the case of many prestigious prizes won by the so-called physicists whose only contribution to the award-winning research has been their authority over the work of genius researchers. On individual level, physicists can exploit the ones under their authority mainly because of a lack of independent supervision and due to the extreme powers given to the so-called elite within Physics. Whether the abuse is systematic or on individual level, it is Physics’ establishment that tolerates and allows for such abuse. Most of the time, such abuses are easier seen from outside the religious system since the inner members have already accepted the abuses as norms or are totally overlooking them. In practice, the enslaving religious system is always appreciated by both the elite and low-rank followers. Constituent members believe in religious system benefiting and raising only a limited number of devout members which leaves majority of the members in serving positions. In such systems, the so-called devout members are most of the time easily recognizable through the venerated titles prefixed to their names.
8. DESPISING INDEPENDENT THINKING.
Physics never negotiates on the authenticity of its assumed principles. All constituent members are expected to fully embrace these principles as the only true way towards understanding Universe. Thus, although Physics publicly pretends to be admiring critical thinking, it deems most of such attitudes as a disapproval directed at its establishment. Exceptionally, however, in cases where the new critical views somehow acknowledge some of the established principles within Physics, limited variations of such views are tolerated.
9. TAKING CREDIT FOR WHATEVER CONSIDERED NOBLE.
Physics directly or indirectly takes credit for all the human progress and whatever considered good, while at the same time laments other ideologies for causing backwardness. Physics tends to portray today’s technological advances as achievements obtained mainly via its vision of Universe. Nevertheless, an absolute majority, if not all, of the technological breakthroughs so far have been direct consequences of experimental findings solely accomplished via accidental discoveries or trial-and-error. Despite, Physics’ portrayal of itself as the ideology predicting and expecting those breakthroughs via consequential logic, in fact, its role has essentially been nothing but interfering after the experimental observation of every effect and presenting an explanation regarding the cause driving the phenomenon in such a way that suits its vision of Universe the best.
10. DEPICTING SEAMLESS IMAGE OF ITS ELITES.
Physics portrays its elite members and founders as the infallible icons who have immensely benefited the humanity through their ingenious contributions and that without their contribution it would have been impossible for humanity to be where it is now.
11. MAINLY FINANCED THROUGH DONATIONS.
Physics has promoted itself as one of the fundamental needs of humanity and has convinced various elements of the society to financially help it survive and prosper. At the same time, ironically, it has maintained authority over mechanisms issuing progress assessments required by some donating organizations for the extension of their financial support.
12. CONSIDERING THE SOCIETY MEMBERS AS RIGHTEOUS OR IGNORANT.
Physics considers those who believe in its ideology as the righteous members and those who do not fully embrace it as ignorant. Physics’ power structure systematically obstructs the spreading of idea’s owned by those it deems as ignorant.
13. ITS TIME AND EFFORT IS MAINLY DRAINED BY DISCUSSIONS BORN OUT OF ITS OWN PRESUMPTIONS.
Physics spends much of its time and efforts in clarifying topics which only exist due to its own earlier assumptions. Although Physics depicts such discussion as necessary, in fact they hardly have any constructive effect on human life or understanding of Universe. As an example, consider the transmission of light through a coated glass for which the refractive index of the coating is slightly less than that of the glass and that the thickness of the coating is comparable to the half wavelength of the incident light. This concept basically tries to relate the transmission of light through the coated glass to the destructive superimposition of light reflections from both the coating and glass. Based on Physics’ wording, intensity of transmitted light through the coated glass is maximized because light reflection is minimized due to the destructive superimposition of reflected waves. In other words, annihilation of photons on one side of the coated glass supposedly leads to the generation of photons on the other side. In fact, nobody outside Physics is interested in comprehending such nonsense and the only useful takeaway message here would be that the coating on the glass determines its transmissive or reflective behavior during an encounter with a beam of light. Another relevant example concerns the effect of gravity on light. Since based on Physics’ claim that energy propagation in the form of light involves no mass transfer, physicists should somehow find a way to justify why light beams coming from faraway galaxies are bent by gravity force such as what is seen in phenomena known as gravitational lensing. Instead of presenting a rational solution, however, Physics goes through the tiresome work of mathematical obfuscation of the problem and at the end claims that it has solved the mystery it created at first place by presenting what it calls curving of the space-time. Yet in fact, it is the initial erroneous assumption of zero-mass of photons which creates this whole need for hopeless follow-up problem obfuscations.
14. PRESENTING AN INTRICATE IMAGE OF UNIVERSE.
Physics suggests an intricate network of rules governing various interactions within Universe. This is, at least implicitly, to dissuade society members from expecting the details behind Physics’ so-called principles and that only the elite physicists may know the complete answers. Yet, in fact, Physicists have no convincing answers to questions regarding fundamental phenomena in Universe.
Another benefit of presenting an intricate image of Universe is in creating loopholes for future maneuverability when it comes to new justifications required for vaguely known issues. It is fair to say that today’s modern Physics is mainly the outcome of confusion created by Physics itself.
One of the primary mechanisms of making issues intricate is to use mathematical formulations involving complex numbers which can often be accompanied by twisted assumptions. Solutions derived from such formulae are most of the time non-unique and in practice, based on the path and assumptions taken, might even lead to rather contradictory conclusions.
15. ADVOCATING SUPERNATURAL CONCEPTS.
In line with portraying an intricate image of Universe and its governing rules, the supernatural concepts add to the intricacy that religion tries to associate with the philosophy of existence. Believing in supernatural concepts keeps the religious society always hopeful in fortunate coincidences or changes brought forward by the unknown. Quantum entanglement can be mentioned as one of the most remarkable supernatural concepts advocated by Physics. According to this concept, every independent particle such as an electron can travel in time to its past and re-adjust its state before presenting itself to an upcoming measurement that expects a specific state of the electron. Another remarkable supernatural example in today’s Physics is the concept of quantum tunneling. Based on this concept, for every two pieces of matter there is always a chance that they pass through one other upon collision. The concept of dark matter makes another example of supernatural concepts advocated in today’s Physics. This concept has been coined to justify the constant angular speed of stars located within the discs of spiral-galaxies. In fact, the number of supernatural, or better called superstitious, concepts in Physics is comparable with, if not more than, those in any other religion. Physics provides itself with some level of safety margins by labeling many of its superstitious ideas, as hypothetical. However, in practice Physics has for long embraced all its fundamental superstitious believes, plus a whole host of additional topics emanated from them, as indisputable facts and has been persistently trying to find ways to further consolidate their standing. In fact, the authenticity of today’s Physics is tightly tied to the credibility of its ample superstitious concepts.
16. UNDERMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING PREVALENT CHALLENGES.
Physics evades detailed discussion of even the most ubiquitous questions when it notices the potential dangers posed by the presence of logical-gaps within its presented justifications. It does so mainly through creating and magnifying fancy hypothetical challenges that often overshadow discussions encompassing the more fundamental ones. For instance, Physics is by far more involved in bragging about the consequences of Big Bang rather than talking about the likely conditions, if any, that could have led to such a presumed explosion.
FLAWED PRINCIPLES
Majority of the pressing phenomena shaping today’s modern Physics were discovered in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This period also witnessed significant advances in radio and televised communication technologies that facilitated the exposure of scientific debates to the public. At the time, the publicization of scientific challenges exerted extra pressure on Physics’ community to come up with explanations regarding the unknown. To protect its position as a capable ideology, Physics hastily provided erroneous or at best twisted explanations to a great number of scientific challenges in a span of one decade, leaving hardly any fundamental issues to be resolved later when adequate information would have perhaps become available.
Today’s Physics follows the same path taken primarily by the recognition of Rutherford-Bohr’s atomic model in 1913. The slow introduction of the relativistic theory during the coming years followed by erroneous explanations of the underlying experiments of Young and Michelson-Morley, all in the absence of viable alternative scientific explanations, led Physics towards the path it is still pursuing. Aggravating the situation was the new adaptations to Relativity theory that despite its highly questionable assumptions only received criticism during its first years of introduction. Since then, the Relativity theory has turned into the fanciest theory of all time, ostensibly understood only by the wise. It is extremely unfortunate that most of Relativity-theory sceptics are reluctant to express their frustration out of reservations of being labeled as not intelligent enough to understand the theory.
The harmonization of all the erroneous principles and twisted interpretations of Physics started nearly a decade later by the sluggish and everlasting introduction of Quantum Mechanics which was primarily established following the works of Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Quantum Mechanics along with its offspring Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics have since been utilized as an affordable filling substance to obscure the wide gaps constantly emerging from forcefully reconciling the numerous contradictory principles of Physics.
Physics’ inherent network of complex and intertwined paradoxical justifications has made it very difficult to bring corrections to its structure. Its ultra-complex establishment has successfully shielded it against all possible criticisms even regarding some of its most insane principles. Probably the best well-received example of such a case is the simultaneous application of wavelike and particle-like behaviors to light and other fundamental particles. Physics arbitrarily uses either of these doubly assigned characters to justify the observed effects as they better suit its justifications. In line with this senseless approach, Physics has introduced yet another principle known as measurement problem which basically states that a particle may only appear in a particular place when it is measured. In other words, according to measurement problem, at the same time both there are and there are no particles everywhere, or equally nowhere. This absurd conundrum is better known as Schrödinger cat and provides a perfect platform to further some of the most ludicrous theories of Physics. An exemplary circumstance that clearly characterizes the Schrödinger cat conundrum is the single photon experiment in Young’s interferometer. Based on Physics explanation of the interference theory, the bright and dark fringes are formed in the interferometer even when only one photon is shone to the slits. According to the Schrödinger cat principle, however, as soon as a parallel photon-detection-measurement is performed to validate the claim, it becomes evident that single photon does not lead to fringe formation because the only photon apparently always shows up where the photon-detection-measurement inside the interferometer is performed. The ridiculous outcome of this justification is that Physics safely retains its claim that even one photon leads to diffraction pattern formation which is a necessary requirement for its earlier claim of the wavelike behavior of light, without having a slightest worry about being proven wrong. Within the same context of paradoxical theories of Physics, another remarkable example is the black hole fallacy. According to Physics, black holes are so massive that nothing can escape their gravity force even the light. This implies that apart from darkness, there will be no observable record of any black holes ever, and therefore it will never be possible to validate or invalidate its existence. It is worth mentioning that the empty space observed at the center of many galaxies is just a vortex center void of matter like any other vortex center seen for example at the centers of whirlpools and whirlwinds and has nothing to do with a black hole. Galaxies are not stabilized because of the assumed existence of black holes at their centers, but because of the balancing gravity-force created by matter dynamics on the opposite sides of every galaxy’s center of mass. Similar invalidatable paradoxical subjects are widespread over various fields of Physics. At the same time, validating any of its senseless effects, theories, or principles is not among the concerns of Physics since they are expected to be known as facts anyway, especially in the absence of any presented rival explanations.
There are certain historical events that have for most part shaped Physics as it is today. These fundamental events are discussed here.
AETHER ILLUSION
Aether can probably be named the most underlying erroneous principle forming today’s Physics. When early physicists tried to explain the mechanism of light propagation in outer space, they thought it was necessary to have an invisible grid-like medium using which light could propagate. They subsequently called this imaginary medium Aether and assigned it with a character similar to air which was the most obvious medium using which sound could propagate.
A fixed speed was at first assigned to light travel based on an analogy to the speed of sound travel in air. The speed of sound or any other oscillatory spreading of kinetic energy only depends on the characteristics of the medium through which the wave propagates. Based on this analogy, light was assumed to travel with a constant speed, merely decided by the characteristics of Aether medium. Although, later it was claimed that the concept of Aether had been refuted by the outcome of Michelson-Morley’s experiment, in practice the erroneous interpretation of the experiment not only approved the concept of Aether but took it a step further. Currently Physics considers the speed of light propagation to be a fixed value regardless of the reference coordinate system used in determining the speed. That means, in simple words, the speed difference between every two neighboring photons within the same traveling beam of light would always miraculously be equal to the speed of light propagation.
WAVELIKE BEHAVIOR
Another underlying problem forming today’s Physics is the concept of wavelike behavior which was first applied to the light propagation and later extended to other particles. Although the wavelike behavior of light had partially been accepted through resembling its propagation in Aether to that of sound in ambient media, its proof of concept came only through interference patterns observed in Young experiment at the start of nineteenth century. In Young’s experimental setup, bright and dark fringes of light are created on a screen when light is shone on it from a distance after passing through two closely placed narrow slits. At the time, the fringe formation for physicists resembled the interference patterns observed among water waves inside a ripple tank. The Young interference experiment since then has been the strongest proposed proof of the wavelike behavior of light.
To fully account for a wavelike behavior of light, however, it was necessary to explain the interaction mechanism between the waves passing through the two adjacent slits in Young’s interferometer setup. Therefore, an additional justification was needed to bring an exception to the overwhelmingly accepted fact that light was travelling in straight lines with little divergence. The exception should have stated that light propagated in wide angles after passing through each slit. Physicists at the time backed their imaginations using the notes of Huygens who wrote about a similar idea nearly a century earlier. Concurrent with Young’s studies, Fresnel adapted Huygens’ idea to formulate his own mechanism of diffraction pattern formation in what is today known as Huygens–Fresnel principle. The adopted principle states that every point on a wave-front might be considered a source of secondary spherical wavelets spreading in forward direction at the speed of light and that the new wave-front is the tangential surface to all the secondary wavelets. To a non-physicist rational this implies as expecting every point on the beam front possessing intelligence which enables it in deciding and generating a tangential secondary spherical light wave spreading only in the direction of originally propagating beam and which only occurs after light beam passes through small openings.
Physics takes the wavelike behavior of matter to an extra level of absurdity by applying the same wavelike concept to single particles such as electrons when shone on slits in Young’s experiment. As explained by Physics, in a phenomenon termed as electron wave enigma, closely entangled with the Schrödinger cat conundrum, as soon as the position of an electron on its way towards the interference screen is known, a time travel of electron to its past occurs. The miraculous time reversal takes the observed electron all the way back to where it earlier entered the slits as wave and subsequently transforms itself into a particle before re-entering only to the slit where the electron detection was performed. The re-entered electron, at zero time difference meets the detection device and this time reveals itself as a particle. In other words, for physicists, a single electron can cause the creation of bright and dark fringes once it is shone on slits of Young’s interferometer since the single electron enters the setup as a wave. However, once a parallel experiment tries to establish the wave character of the shone electron, the electron resists giving away its wavelike identity. Therefore, the electron travels back in time and re-enters the setup through the slit on which the parallel measurement is performed and identifies itself as a particle. For physicists, the observation of electrons as particles on their way towards the screen renders the interference pattern formation unsuccessful, as electrons are expected to be waves within the interferometer apparatus. However, the truth is that by measuring the presence of electrons at the position of one of the slits, electrons are blocked from traveling the rest of their trajectory to the screen. Therefore, fringes are not formed only because electrons on one of the beams are blocked by the detection apparatus. Yet, physicists are astounded by the absence of diffraction pattern on interferometer screen once a parallel measurement is performed to establish the wavelike behavior of electrons.
Instead of admitting the particle nature of electrons as it is partly evidenced from the outcome of Young’s experiment, physicists further misuse their false justification of the Young experiment to bring credibility to yet another absurd theory of theirs which is known as uncertainty principle. Uncertainty principle is widely used by physicists to attribute dual wave-particle behavior to all moving matter. However, at its root, the uncertainty principle drastically fails in establishing a consistent reference coordinate system regarding its definition of speed.
Around the beginning of twentieth century, Physics obtained all the extra evidence it needed to accept the sheer particle-like character of light through Compton and Photoelectric effects which clearly demonstrated the interaction between light and electron particles. Unfortunately, nonetheless, the strong evidence provided by Compton and Photoelectric effects was apparently not clear enough to compel Physics into reconsidering the wavelike character it had assigned to light and other fundamental particles. The final verdict of Physics was the assignment of both wavelike and particle-like behaviors as conditions demanded. Since then, Physics has constantly tried to obscure the ever-emerging fallouts of the dual wavelike and particle-like behavior-assignments to light using complexities provided by Quantum Mechanics and its offspring branches.
CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT
In the late nineteenth century Michelson and Morley performed their famous experiment, named after them as Michelson-Morley, which followed long debates on Aether and light propagation mechanism. Perhaps one of the most fundamental mistakes that has led Physics to be where it is today was the failure of Michelson, Morley, and other physicists of the time in correctly interpreting the fringe formation mechanism in Michelson-Morley’s interferometer apparatus. The psychological environment that Aether and wavelike behavior of light had created within the scientific society during those days played a significant part in the final adoption of their mistaken interpretation. According to Michelson and Morley, changes in fringe layouts could have only been occurred due to interference between two light rays with slightly shifted wave patterns. They expected a small shift in wave patterns of the two branched light rays in their setup to be caused by the difference in the speed of light as measured relative to Earth’s direction of motion in Solar system. The fact that Michelson-Morley’s interferometer showed no changes in the layout of fringes, for measurements performed during different seasons, made them and other physicists erroneously interpret the outcome of the experiment as a proof that light was traveling with a constant speed in all spatial directions irrespective of the relative motion of Earth around Sun and through Aether.
Interestingly, the concept of a constant speed of light travel was adopted by Physics’ community at a time when a similar but more ingenious experiment clearly refuted the conclusions inferred from Michelson-Morley’s experiment. That experiment is known after its designer, Sagnac, who arranged the same interferometer setup used by Michelson and Morley on a rotating table while mounting the light source on the same rotating table. Thanks to Sagnac’s unique setup configuration, the effect of Earth movement in space could have easily been discarded. Sagnac’s interferometer clearly showed varying fringe formations by changing the setup’s rotation speed or direction. Based on the outcome of Sagnac’s interferometer, light speeds of the two branched beams were differing according to the dynamics of the rotating table which consequently resulted in changes to fringe layouts, the same change Michelson and Morley wanted to see but couldn’t owing to their setup’s design limitations. Unfortunately, even though the variations of the Sagnac interferometer since then have widely been used for precise gyroscopic navigation purposes, instead of cherishing the experiment and utilizing it as a base for development of a suitable approach towards the issue of light propagation, the conclusions drawn from Sagnac’s interferometer were silenced and any mentions of the setup were left out of educational curriculum to further portray the interpretations inferred from Michelson-Morley’s experiment as unchallenged.
Nowadays, regrettably, the constant speed of light is one of Physics’ most foundational principles and its credibility is closely tied to that of Physics itself. Despite the erroneous constant-speed-of-light conclusion drawn from Michelson-Morley’s experiment, in fact, this and the more sophisticated Sagnac interferometers were perfect experiments that demonstrated the particle-like behavior of light. In these experiments, it is clearly seen how light beam undergoes speed changes as it reflects from moving surfaces. The reflected light beam gains an extra speed equal to the speed of moving mirror in case the mirror is moving against the direction of the incoming light beam. On the other hand, the light beam loses its speed by a value equal to the speed of receding mirror that moves in the same direction as the incoming light. In other words, the reflected light beam is blue-shifted once the mirror is moving against the direction of the light beam, while it is red-shifted when the mirror is moving away from the light beam. In Michelson-Morley’s interferometer, once the branched light beams from the two perpendicularly placed mirrors rejoin at the position of the splitter, both of which have the same absolute speed values as they had during the splitting. This is because either of the perpendicularly diverted beams has had to make an even number of reflections and therefore an even number of speed-gains and speed-losses before arriving back at the splitter position. Hence, considering a fixed travel distance for either of the branched beams in the setup, it always takes the same amount of time for either of the branched light beams to come back to the point at which the original light beam was split, regardless of the dynamics of planet Earth within Universe. On the other hand, in Sagnac’s interferometer, the speed of light beams between two perpendicularly placed mirrors differs according to the rotational dynamics of the interferometer setup. While a non-rotating Sagnac interferometer setup results in a similar outcome as observed in Michelson-Morley’s interferometer, a rotating one introduces a sideward blue-shift or red-shift to the branched rays of reflecting beams according to the setup’s angular speed and rotation direction.
A close look at all types of interferometer setups, reveals two essential conditions that must be met for interference patterns to form. One of the conditions is realized by employing the same source of light to create the branched light beams. This results in identical coherence pattern of the interacting light beams within interferometer setups. The second condition is achieved by superimposing the branched light rays at grazing angles. In general, whenever two or more beams of light with similar coherency meet under grazing angles, whether it happens in Young, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac, or any other interferometer setup, a discrete pattern of bright and dark fringes is formed at any distance on a screen blocking the propagation of superimposed beams.
ATOMIC MODEL
Absence of a viable atomic model that could explain the neutrality of matter while at the same time incorporated the known charged subatomic particles of the time, namely negatively charged electron and positively charged nucleus, can be mentioned as another pressing issue challenging physicists’ knowledge in justifying scientific phenomena during early twentieth century. Among the numerous proposed models that were presented by different scientific circles of the time, Bohr’s model was especially selected as it could acceptably be manipulated to justify the interaction of light with matter. In this model, electrons are assumed to rotate around the positively charged nucleus in a manner similar to the rotation of planets around Sun. Interestingly, Bohr’s Solar-system-based atomic model was proposed in an era when the dynamics and characteristics of subatomic particles were still the subjects of heated debate. In fact, Bohr’s atomic model was accepted only few years following the discovery of positively charged nucleus by Rutherford in 1911, less than two decades after the discovery of negatively charged electrons by Thomson, and especially around two decades before the discovery of neutrons by Chadwick. Both prior and after the adoption of Bohr’s atomic model, many complementary laws had to be coined and applied to force consistency on its inconsistent assumptions. One of these laws became known as quantum jumps and was necessary to justify the light emission and absorption processes occurring in atoms after electrons assumingly jumped to different permitted energy levels. It was also assumed that the rotational orbitals of electrons were restricted to certain radii around the nucleus. This latter law was necessary to silence any critical argument about why the negatively charged electrons would not fall on the positively charged nucleus, particularly considering the constant energy loss of electrons due to their continuous electrostatic friction against other passing-by electrons. Furthermore, another law was required to prevent coexistence of any two identically characterized electrons within the same orbital trajectory. This is known as Pauli exclusion law and was essential to justify the multiple valence numbers shown by single atoms. Two decades later another additional assumptive law was imposed on the atomic model under the name of strong nuclear force that by the time became necessary to justify the extremely close-distance coexistence of positively charged protons within the nucleus of atoms other than hydrogen. The envisaged nuclear force was assumed to act and overwhelm Coulomb repulsion only in situations where protons were extremely close to one another. The proposition of strong nuclear force coincided with the discovery of neutrons which together with protons were assumed to form the nucleus and therefore the total measurable mass of atoms. Around the same time as the proposition of strong nuclear force, the fallouts from Bohr’s atomic model continued even further with the introduction of weak nuclear force that suddenly became vital in creating a pathway to justify the radioactive decay phenomena shown by certain atoms.
TIME
Time indicates a rate of change between new and old states of any of matter’s dynamic representations including its properties and location. Due to its comparative essence, the notion of time is only relevant when an observer tries to extrapolate the occurrence of a specific change-event. For example, the concept of change-rates as quantified by two independent fictional observers who can see either a rock located in an isolated corner of Universe or an isolated photon far from all other matter could be similar as both observers are restricted to quantify changes with respect to a single reference object. The rates of change, however, will be immensely different once a single observer quantifies the changes for both systems because in this case it would be possible to compare the rates of change in either of the systems to the other one. Thus, the definition of the term time is a relative concept that varies according to the presumed reference events and that association of fast-forwarding, slowing down, stopping, and reversing to the concept of time is absurd.
Binding time to position within the concept of Relativity theory in what is today known as space-time has contributed to numerous ridiculous theories negating even the causality law that states no event may precede its cause. Among these illusionary theories, the gravitational waves, which are assumed to spread with the speed of light, and time mirrors, according to which there are parallel Universes where time passes in reverse direction from the future to the past, are among prime examples.
MATHEMATICS
Mathematics in general is the most logical language ever developed by human being. Its regulations are defined within clear and rigid borders that always, regardless of the path taken, direct every problem towards a unique answer or set of answers. The logical framework of mathematics compels everyone to accept its derived solution for every single problem. However, the formulation of the problem itself can be a subject of scrutiny. It is the human brain who should be directing the mathematics towards the right direction through meaningful formulation of problems and not the other way around. Take ‘zero to the power of zero equals one’ in mathematics for instance. This mathematical law is there to get our definitions right and to direct the solutions towards the right answer. However, materializing such a mathematical regulation in real world leads to fallacy. This valid mathematical regulation in real world will read as ‘creating one thing from raising nothing to the power of nothing’. Such twisted interpretations of mathematically driven formulations have already resulted in adoption of many illusionary theories in Physics. An example of this is physicists’ belief that energy could be extracted from vacuum based on the illusion given by what is known as zero-point energy.
Similar misconceptions in Physics are driven by mathematics’ utilization of its powerful imaginary numbers tool. ‘The square root of negative one’ is only there to help with finding solutions to various polynomial and differential mathematical equations. In real world, on the other hand, ‘negative value of something’ is on its own meaningless let alone materializing a ‘something that results in negative of something if multiplied by itself’. Therefore, outmost care must be taken when applying some of the mathematical rules to real world trends and phenomena.
The wrong formulation of original problems along with uncontained interpretations of some of the mathematical outcomes, especially in topics related to Quantum Mechanics, has made Physics very susceptible to the emergence of superstitious theories. Illusions defined within the framework of what is known as modern Physics such as quantum electrodynamics or existence of extra dimensions emanated from String theory are among prime examples of such misconceptions. In fact, most of the theoretical laws within the framework of today’s so-called modern Physics are illusions stemming from either wrong original formulation of perceived problems or forced-materialization of mathematical solutions in the real world. The irrationality in some of the proposed solutions of modern Physics, that have primarily been well-received as the most genuine contemporary theories, has even been openly admitted by physicists such as Planck, Feynman, and Heisenberg who pioneered the creation of the very same modern Physics.
Unfortunately, instead of being about understanding Universe, contemporary Physics has become making up arbitrary rules and formulae that partly fit different data. A clear example of such a law is known as Schrödinger wave function which is exclusively aimed at atomic and subatomic scale structures. Schrödinger’s equation can for most part be directed towards any desired solution by selective implementation of certain boundary conditions and pre-assumptions especially when seeking solutions in complex atomic systems. In fact, leaving few cases of the classical Physics aside, the established formulae in today’s Physics are entirely based on empirical observations that are exclusively calibrated through extensive trial and error mechanisms.
STUMBLING JUSTIFICATIONS
Physics’ state-of-the-art experimental equipment and its adoption of fancy terminologies such as Graviton, Magnon, Skyrmions, etcetera help indoctrinate the notion that it has already fully solved the old scientific problems and that it is rationally looking for answers to the emerging unknowns of Universe. Nonetheless, focusing on the fundamentals of modern Physics reveals that it has yet to answer many of the most basic questions regarding its devised principles during its relatively short history. A selection of such ignored questions that expose inherent shortcomings associated with Physics’ offered justifications are highlighted here.
1. Why, as it was first reported in late eighteenth century, does a positively charged metallic sphere discharge when moderately heated while a negatively charged metallic sphere keeps its charge under the same conditions? Charge loss in the positively charged object occurs even when it is kept under vacuum isolation.
2. Through irradiation heating of an electrically neutral metal in vacuum, its electrons are emitted in what is known as thermionic effect. Considering the finite number of free electrons inside such a metal, why doesn’t electron emission stop or degrade after heating up the metal in vacuum for a long time? In a discussion also related to the previous question, after it is cooled down, such a metal is expected to have a net positive charge proportional to the number of electrons it has lost. The question is why after it is cooled down the metal would be electrically neutral?
3. Despite having their outer orbital shells fully filled by electrons, why do massive inert gases such as Argon, Krypton, Xenon, or Radon not only form covalent bonds with other atoms but also show relatively high valence numbers?
4. Why cannot He+1 or He+2 ions, under ambient conditions, make covalent bonds with other atoms and reach stability after filling their orbitals?
5. Based on Physics’ principles, it seems logical that radical hydrogen atom would obtain the inert gas structure by acquiring one electron and turning into H-1. However, why is there no H-1 in ambient conditions and yet, on the contrary, the positive nucleolus tends to repel the only electron from its orbit and turn the atom into H+1?
6. N2 is a very stable molecule since its two nitrogen atoms have made three bonds. However, based on the same analogy, why despite good overlap of sp3 hybrid orbitals between two adjacent carbon atoms, doesn’t C2 molecule exist?
7. Why is dissociation energy of every second pi bond in diatomic molecules, for example between carbon atoms in Acetylene, less than that of the first pi bond, despite involvement of similar hybrid orbitals in both bonds?
8. Since reflectivity in metals has been attributed to the interaction of its free electrons with light’s electromagnetic field, it seems conceivable to manipulate the color of every conductor by adjusting the magnitude or direction of an applied electric field. Nevertheless, why wouldn’t electrical charging of materials alter their color states?
9. After a photon hits the surface of a reflective metal, how does the spherical atom or valence electron know the incidence angle to accordingly give an exact reflection angle to the photon? More specifically, in surface analysis techniques of materials such as infrared spectroscopy, how does the energetically shifted photon come to know the reflection direction, especially after undergoing an inelastic energy exchange with electrons of the target material?
10. The intensity of a laser beam might be amplified after it enters a gain medium through what is known as the stimulated emission of the pumped electrons. How do the excited electrons in the amplifying medium know towards which direction they should radiate their energy once they recoil to lower states? Similarly, how in a potassium dihydrogen phosphate crystal, better known as KDP crystal, is the second-harmonic output beam created primarily in the direction of traversing laser pulse? This occurs while it is far more logical to have an isotropic emission of generated higher harmonic frequency by KDP after excited electrons are recoiled to lower energy levels.
11. Why does a laser beam diverge more significantly when for the same intensity the beam diameter becomes smaller, even though photons are considered to be bosons and should principally be neutral towards one another?
12. Why aren’t diffraction patterns formed when laser beams of similar frequency and intensity but generated using separate setups are shone on each of the slits in Young’s interferometer? If it is the wave nature of the light that leads to the fringe formation, regardless of the light source used, bright and dark fringes must be formed after the so called constructive and destructive superimposition of waves propagating from the two slits.
13. In Young experiment, interfering bright and dark fringes are observed when the dimensions of the slits are comparable with the wavelength of the incident visible light. Why is not the same experimental concept applicable to long radio waves entering slits with widths adapted to their wavelengths?
14. Why is magnetic field around a beam of electrons flowing in vacuum immeasurable, as opposed to the measurable magnetic field around a wire conducting an identical electron flow?
15. If it is the intrinsic spin of electron that creates its magnetic dipole moment, why is it not possible to produce a magnetic field out of spinning a macro-scale charged sphere around its axis?
16. If magnetism is indeed due to the electron-ordering patterns inside individual atoms, then why is there no single atom that can magnetically be absorbed by a magnet?
17. When electrically charged, a metallic sphere creates a single isotropic electric field. Why is it not possible to make an analogous magnetic sphere with only one single pole?
18. If it is the spin orientation of electrons that makes oxygen magnetic in its crystalline phase, why doesn’t a similar magnetization occur to fluorine or sulfur whose atomic structures, compared to oxygen’s orbital structure, have one extra electron in P-orbital and the same configuration of electrons, respectively?
19. If ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, or diamagnetic behavior of an element is solely related to the number of electrons in its outermost atomic orbital, why do some of the elements in Mendeleev table exhibit such a magnetic property while other members of the same group do not necessarily show the same property?
20. Why are not particles more massive than alpha emitted by radioactive atoms?
21. Why is it not possible to use a similar gamma source for studying different target nuclei in Mossbauer spectroscopy? For example, why is it not possible to use a 57Co source, which is very effective in studying 57Fe atoms, in studying 191Ir atoms? In theory, one could increase cobalt source’s range of effective energy sweep by adjusting the oscillator’s speed and thus use the same gamma source in studying nuclear energy levels of 191Ir atoms.
As religion, Physics will never admit its inability in answering any of these questions as it considers such admissions to be detrimental to its establishment. Yet, physicists will skillfully find ways to justify these and any other flawed aspects of their ideology by aptly switching between classical and modern concepts of Physics or by obscuring the issues using mathematical twists. At the end, nevertheless, no matter how much Physics’ presented justifications are cherished by its constituent members, these justifications will remain meaningless to rational critics outside the faith of Physics.