A Novel New Look At Some Basic Physics Concepts, This is an introduction for a new theory

This is an introduction for a new theory that eliminates many of the paradoxes in modern physics
I ended up spending decades on this collection of ideas – trying hard to go back to the truly verified basics. It starts with an extended discussion aimed at highlighting a variety of basic errors that are often taken as solid givens. Prime among them is the over dependence on, and overconfidence in mathematics. It does take awhile to get to the new concepts – but, by then, hopefully everyone is on the same basic page. This part may seem overdone to some, especially in our 30-second sound bite world, but there are reasons for everything that is presented. Because the primary problems are mostly conceptual – the presentation is kept on a mostly conceptual plane.
I start by looking at some very familiar concepts for clues and then take a giant leap that identifies some concepts that could be right before our eyes, and yet persistently hidden from view. It then first looks at field forms and the composition of the photon. Along the way, the conjectured true composition of the photon enables an understanding of such things as the source of quantization in quantum mechanics and how the wave particle duality of both photons and particles can make easily comprehensible, logical sense. It also then addresses how the single and dual slit systems work – even when there is only one photon at a time traversing the slits.
It also address relativity, with an entirely new interpretation of the cause, which does not end up distorting time, changing distance, or increasing mass in incomprehensible ways. It also addresses redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation with a picture that does not involve the “Big Bang”. It covers other ideas and areas as well – but I have covered enough for this entry.
All of these are outgrowths of the same basic concepts – where the intent is to show that it truly results in a cohesive, coherent, logical, comprehensible picture of energy matter and reality. It is not a short read – it is about 400 pages. It is a sincere attempt to present the rather interactive concepts in a reasonably understandable manner. It is available for download at the following website:
tbbon.net
If after reading it you have questions or comments, it has a link for e-mailing me on the website.
If you are really interested in understanding many of the currently confusing areas of modern physics, and not afraid of some very novel and different ideas – this should be a compelling read for you.
Hope you find it interesting,
T. B. Bon

Maybe you should post it in bite-sized pieces one at a time on this forum. Discussing one concept at a time would probably be easier and more constructive than trying to have everyone discuss everything on 400 pages at the same time.

I for one and definitely looking forward to low-math, conceptual propositions, as I'm sure are many others who understand a lot about physics without being experts at calculus.

Such people might think they 'understand a lot of physics' but they don't. They can only arrive at conclusions other people. who have done the quantitative stuff, tell them because they have no logical way of combing results.

For instance, knowing magnetic fields affect charged particles as they move through them doesn't tell you by how much or how to build anything based on that principle. Superficial, qualitative knowledge is fine, I wish people had more of it, but don't for a second think it give you a good grasp of physics.

The original poster unfortunately seems to be thinking the opposite.

There aren't many, if any. The information paradox is the only one I can think of.

Let me guess, you were never very good at maths in school.

Space-time distortion isn't 'incomprehensible'. It would be if you utter avoid or are incapable of doing any mathematics but that doesn't mean it's incomprehensible and should be thrown out. I can't speak Japanese but I don't try to convince all Japanese people to speak English so they are comprehensible.

Sounds like you're another person who didn't like the fact there was something other people could understand and he couldn't so you've decided to convince yourself you don't need to learn such things and infact you've got all the answers. It's a common crank delusion.

Why don't you point me to your work where you derive the following things :

1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.

If you can't provide me with those things or a method by which I can immediately set about calculating them then you don't have any right to claim you've got a new physics.

Pardon me, I apologize for the oversight. In trying to keep my entry from getting too long, I guess that I forgot to mention a few things.
First of all – I am an actual physicist. I have worked with physics and engineering my entire career. I do understand the math, however, I also understand very well that when someone asks “WHY”, and the person standing up to answer that question writes down an equation – he hasn’t answered “WHY”, only how we figure out “HOW MUCH”. Mathematics is a modeling tool, and can be a very good one, but only if it is used correctly, which, unfortunately is not always the case. If we have very good equations that accurately tell us how much, but we do not really understand correctly why they work, if we don’t have a fairly good and accurately correct picture of the physical phenomenon behind the interaction – we haven’t really got it right.
As I have reviewed much of what has developed, I have finally reached the conclusion that there seems to have been a bit too much dependence, for some time now, on mathematics alone – as if it were the one superlative super-tool that could somehow guarantee that we would always get it right. NONE of the tools that we have are reliable enough, all on their own, to be depended on too heavily or completely. Mathematics is no exception. As a result, I believe that we have gotten a bit off track, conceptually at least, from the truth. Much of the math is good (sometimes exceptionally good!), in so far as it enables us to make accurate predictions, but many of the concepts behind that math appear to be somewhat strange and befuddled to say the least.
This is not meant to fault the many herculean efforts that have been pursued over the last hundred years or so. It’s just that when so many areas become counterintuitive and then remain so as even more conundrums develop; it just seems that we must have missed something basic somewhere. However, if we truly have, it would also seem rather logical that it would not likely be very obvious – whatever it was.
Whomever it is that thinks that there are no significant paradoxes in physics must certainly have never taken any of the classes that I did, nor have they followed much of the various discussions and developments over the years. I suppose that it is also possible that they are so thoroughly satisfied by the mathematical predictions that they tend to dismiss those paradoxes and conundrums as so much drivel – expounded by (what they must think are not) good physicists (such as I) who simply do not feel that the capability to come up with a good number is really enough. To such, I think we should just recognize that we obviously do not agree with each other. I believe that there are some very serious problems in physics today, and I believe that an honest read of what I have written would show that I am not just full of “crank delusions”.
The treatise is primarily conceptual for a reason – the problems are not necessarily reflected in the math – if they were, they would likely have been recognized and corrected long ago. For example, the mathematics behind relativity, especially some of the basic equations are extremely good – excellent even. However, the ways that those equations were interpreted, right from the beginning, have created a variety of conundrums that have yet to be properly resolved by the mainstream physics community. They are just accepted as an unavoidable dilemma that must somehow be a part of “nature”. I very deeply believe that Reality, once we have it correct and have had time to considerate long enough, will prove to be imminently comprehensible and logical. Since the answers are good and produce excellent numbers that have been very well verified, math absolutely CANNOT be used to adequately resolve the problem. Whatever concepts come out of any such reevaluation would ultimately have to produce equations and answers that were ultimately mathematically equivalent to what we already have.
I suppose that another way to put it is that I am stating unequivocally that understanding the mathematics alone will also NOT truly give one a good grasp of physics. Many seem to have thought that it can – but it has been very obvious to me that we have missed something crucial somewhere. Until we develop a good grasp of both the concepts AND the math – we do not really have a good grasp of Reality. If we did, physics would not be nearly as disjointed in the ways that we must treat things as it is.

I sincerely appreciate the comments about the “bite-size” pieces, but Reality is highly integrated in the ways that it works. I do not believe that bite-size pieces would be adequate for the task at hand. Some of the ideas, when first presented will surely seem to be quite a leap from anything that they have seen before. Remember, the premise is that we would need to be identifying factors that would be anything but obvious (or it would likely have been resolved long ago). Therefore, the follow through to show how it all works and fits together is every bit as important as are the initial concepts.
T. B. Bon

Mr. T. B. Bon,

"While 14 billion years may seem like endless eternities to us, is it really long enough for everything about us to arise......without an intelligence to drive it?"

That's from your The Theory of Field Interaction.


Do you want to explain that. And is that drivel that light in the tunnel posted on another part of this site also from your book?

This post has been edited by orestis on Sep 16 2009, 08:05 AM

I missed where you actually answered my request.

I'm sure there's a very good psychoanalytic explanation for why mathematicians desire to exclude those who circumvent the math from learning and using what they have learned in the form that they know it. It probably has to do with some adolescent need that was resolved by gaining prestige for mathematics ability.

Instead of trying to shut me out of a discussion for expressing happiness that someone has written something more conceptual than mathematical, why can't you just say, "ok, bring the concepts," and then poke holes in them where holes are due, based on your math knowledge, conceptual knowledge, or a combination of both?

I am not arrogant enough to think that there is no math knowledge that would make my physics better if I would master it. However, I am not a professional physicist. This is a hobby for me. I know enough about physics to understand much of what I read, and I have the ability to ask questions and express creative ideas. When these are wrong, I welcome learning why, because that improves my knowledge.

Math is unquestionably useful in defining practical applications and making predictions, probably also in theorizing. I use simple math, and concepts from the higher math I understand, for all sorts of applications, so I understand the relevance AND my own shortcomings. Still, I don't think that I deserve to be continually bullied about it OR be told to butt out of discussions.

Mostly what I am doing on this website is learning, but discussing helps my learning process and makes it more interesting. If you don't want to support my learning, no one says you have to.

Do you also propose music without notes?

And you won't have anyone else on the same page as you if you get rid of mathematics. It's the only universal language.

And certainty only looks and feels like accuracy.

If you want converts do something other than talk. Invent something based on your theories.

Or maybe they don't like people talking giberish.

Actually I play by ear, yes, because I never learned to read notes. Another hobby, not my profession. I find my music greatly inferior to what I hear people do by reading music, but I have vastly more skill and tonality than someone who avoids playing instruments or singing altogether. So there are shades of grey.

Why do you keep implying that mathematics is somehow under threat of elimination? It's like listening to the pouting girl who baits compliments by whining about how no one thinks she's pretty.

As for its universality; yes, wonderful, I agree. The problem is that scientific concepts about reality cannot be expressed in maths alone. Fascinating pure concepts, yes. Logic, probably, yes. But there are many concepts and phenomena that require words. Plus, words can be very conceptually precise when used well.

I apply physics and other science in daily practice all the time. It's not inventing something, in the sense that you mean it I think, but it does allow me to approach things with more than recipe knowledge. You probably don't know anything about everyday practical engineering, though, because you probably just have other people do everything for you and spend your time doing research and writing papers - not that there's anything wrong with that if you do, but it would prevent you from having the chance to apply science in practical applications.

Orestis
Looks to me like you are just trying to pick at things that you may not like without really reading through the book. You will not get a valid understanding or impression of what is there with such tactics. That particular quote was only included as a question which relates to many of the assumptions which have been made and incorporated into our current physics dogma without any real substantiation. It is purely a rhetorical question for the reader to consider for themselves.
As for the quote by light in the tunnel, it was the text of my original posting.

AlphaNumeric
If what you mean by “answering your request” is for me to address the specific questions that you listed at the bottom, they have nothing whatever to do with what is covered by the book, so of course, they are not addressed. As far as all of your other less-than-complimentary comments, I do believe that they were adequately addressed. It is quite clear that there are a number of areas where we disagree – but that does not indicate that I am inept.

buttershug
At no point have I said that mathematics is expendable – it is an absolutely critical part of physics, science, engineering, and etc. However, it is not truly the “universal language” that many seem to think that it is. Just like all of our other tools, it too has its imperfections and it can be misused. We have a number of tools available to us, and all of them are needed, none of them are expendable, nor are any of them reliable enough to be used in isolation or as a final arbiter.

Anyone who may be interested
What I have tried to do is to provide a reasonable opportunity for reasonably intelligent and interested people to take a sincere look at some ideas and perspectives that I sincerely believe approach some of the truths of the Reality that lies all about us. Most of the mathematical equations that we already have generally provide numerically valid or equivalent answers; however, there is a great deal of disjointedness in modern physics, which I believe, reflects some serious conceptual questions. If the math already gives us the correct numeric answers (where we can test them) – then a mathematical approach could not provide any basis for differentiation. In such a case, we need to rely instead on our other tools – but in the end, there will also need to eventually be a mathematical evaluation to confirm that the results are indeed mathematically equivalent. But that is beyond the scope of this initial treatise.
To take lots of potshots at what I have provided as introductory comments, and not read what is contained in the referenced book, is a bit disingenuous. It seems clear that some have already decided that I must be inept. They are welcome to their opinion. However, I do believe that anyone who is truly interested in understanding how the world and universe around us work would at least find that the ideas that are presented would at least provide some novel concepts to consider. There are some suggested tests presented therein that could be made, which might possibly corroborate or disprove what is presented – naturally, we would need to wait for such results to be made available by someone who has the resources to perform them.
If you are truly interested, I suggest that you read the book through before you write it off as so much drivel.
Best regards,
T. B. Bon

This post has been edited by T. B. Bon on Sep 17 2009, 06:38 AM

I'm your target audience. I have limited math skills beyond everyday needs. I also have a lifelong fascination with the exact questions you're trying to address and/or discuss. It's why I'm here. I even have some concepts/ideas that I believe are novel.

But, I'm not going to read your book unless you give me a reason to do so. A quality summarization might do that. Of course, it might also give others here lots of ammunition to shoot your theories down. Perhaps that's why you don't summarize?

I really don't give a damn what it looks like to you. Five pages of "physics is wrong, read my book," sent me scanning. Somewhere between page 300 and 305 you implied that 14 billion years is not enough time for the universe to be what it is without "intelligence to guide it."

What did you do with light in the tunnel? Send her out to prepare the way for you?

Link your book and let it speak for itself. Let the people who know the language and math check it out for you. If you cant do it have your disciple do it.

This post has been edited by orestis on Sep 17 2009, 10:22 AM

Once Orestis said he scanned it, I decided to take a look, but when I went to the website it says I have to download it.

No offense, but I am very cautious with what I download. Why don't you put it in an html window so it can be viewed as text directly on your website without having to import it into my hard drive?

If you do that, I would take a look. I don't know if that would lower the hurdle for others or not.

Alphanumerica: Your mention of item 3 as a helpful shared observation, let me try to "fold" this to your comments to T.Bon's 400 pages, of which I quickly scanned, noting his what I consider T. Bon's basic pictorial model, concentric circles that move to the right show that the circles originally of increasing diameter, end up with their horizontal right wall touching together as they move close to the speed of light from their original velocity= zero.

"3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%."

[comments: rm: if the e-p is viewed as two flat equal lateral triangle, 2-felt, one three negative 1/3 charged, drawn towards three positive 1/3 charged felts, but with opposite magnetic spins, something like the Pauli Exculsions Principle, and comparing this with T. Bon's concentric circles=>nearer to C limit, I conclude T. Bon's would have to supply near infinite energy to the inner former central concentric photon, or point particle.

So, consider that instead of concentric circle model, like a drop of water onto a still flat water surface, substitute "bunje cord" gravity strings, thus as theformer concentric point particle is made to move to the right nearer to the C limit to light, ... let confusion set in, and we might end up in Albert Einstein's free falling elevator, and have to rethink the 400 pages.

Personally "not by words alone", physics needs the mathematics, bare bones. The author T. Bon does end with the math that shows infinite energy required, that means the whole bundle of all universes, unless you think about infinte powers of infinity, leaves a little more wiggle room for a chat.

Best, rm]

[comments to other "bloggeers: Reading each additional reply, that is a dialog between myself and the writer at that time, but to be timely, with the half dozen or so writers, talking about visual models of which aspects can be done with mathematics, and my own recognition that those who appear to have 'mastered' that math within the profession of groups of mathematicians, the social networking, I am pleased to read what has been written, the "negative name calling" shows me, when I do feel that urge, that my confusion has increased, so I alter the visual model, connect to the linear, type away.

Best, rm]