>It maybe imposible to unify Physics (universally) or to say
>Physics should easily be constructed rather simply for a small
>area of space - say our Galaxy.So far we can postualise for
>observations we can make from a positive matter planet.When
>a Galaxy is formed it is chance that dictates weather or not
>the predominate material will be matter or anti-matter or dark
>matter or ... Unification on our small scale should have been
>acomplished by now, I suggest omission and misdirection in
>education is the probable cause. The Big Bang should not have
>been taught (just mentioned) because it is unproved.Likewise,
>our present equipment allows us to glimps roughly 12 billion
>light years. Why then should we assume we can view the edges
>of the universe? We may be in a small galaxy cluster, and are
>only observing it. In fact I would say from observation that
>black hole size is limited and The big bang could not have
>happened.When a black hole reaches a critical size it seems to
>crittical mass, Quasar, create a galaxy.Of course this is from
>observation only.One can only speculate about matter that has
>collapsed so completely that electrons can no longer orbit.
--- In matter-energy-gravitation@yahoogroups.com, "sarg137"
<sarg137@y...> wrote:
> In the beginning of the new millennium the contemporary modern
> physics is in crisis. After many decades of efforts a large number of
> problems and mysteries exist in all fields of theoretical physics:
> from particle physics to cosmology. They are well systematized in the
> article "Open questions in Physics"
> http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppuk/PhysFAQ/open_questions.html
> In the same article one of the biggest problem is emphasized: "How do
> you merge Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to create a
> quantum theory of gravity?" The opinion that the modern physics is in
> serious trouble has been circulated in the last decade not
> officially. Now this problem became more acute and some papers began
> to appear even in peer review journals. In a recently published
> article "Physics in crisis" in Physics Today (and in FermiNews
> simultaneously), Sidney Nagel (2002) points out the existing gap
> between the fast advancing fields of applied science and the
> theoretical models of particle physics. He writes; "So, in order to
> study geology, condensed matter physics, or biology, does one really
> need to know the standard model? Does it even help? Of course not."
> The increasing gap between the theoretical physics and applied field
> is not a single problem.
> Let pose some common sense questions from a logical point of view:
> - Why the human logic appears so successful in computer science,
> while it fails in the Quantum Mechanics and in the explanation of
> space-time enigma?
> - Why the causality principle (the relation cause – reaction
> characterized with unidirectional time scale) that is so evident and
> undisputable in our everyday life, does not work in the theoretical
> fields about microcosmos (in particle physics for example)
> - Is it reasonable to consider that the enormous matter of the
> observable Universe began from one mathematical point (without
> dimensions) about 12 billions years ago, or said in other words from
> nothing? If so why similar effect has not been happened in another
> point? The fundamental stones of the Big Bang theory (with its large
> number of problems) are two difficult for proof arguments: (1) the
> space of the Universe is isotropic and (2) the red shift of the
> galaxies is of Doppler type. Couldn't Big Bang concept be a greatest
> illusion in the physics of 20th century?
> The "dark matter" became a hot discussed issue in the last decades.
> Now signature of dark matter is observed in all spiral galaxies by
> measuring of their rotational curves. Currently the analysis of the
> observations point out that most of the matter in the visible
> Universe is in a form of "dark matter. One of the largest rotation
> curve data base of spiral galaxies clearly shows that the "dark
> matter" is rather a rule, than exception. (An analysis of 900 optical
> rotation curves: Dark matter in a corner?, by D. F. Roscoe,
> (1999)). ". In recent years it has been found that the spiral galaxy
> contain supermassive black holes. A surprising strong relation has
> been found between the mass of the supermassive black hole and the
> mass of the whole host galaxy. It seams that the black hole know how
> much mass exists in the host galaxy or there is some kind of mass-
> energy balance. We are able to observe large distances expressed by
> billions light years, but we are not able to measure distances beyond
> the Compton wavelength (2.426E-12 (m)) and time intervals below the
> Compton's time (8.09E-21 (s)). However, there are two important
> physical parameters – the Palnck's length with value of 1.616E-35 (m)
> and the Planck's time with value of 5.39E-44 (s). Let considering
> now the larger observed parameters with the same dimensions. These
> are the largest observable distance of the Universe (about 12
> billions light years and the larger observable time of 12 billion
> years. If expressing these two parameters in the same unites they are
> respectively … and … . Then we see that our observable limit of
> Compton length and frequency stays closer to the largest observed
> values on the scale of distance and time. Then a logical question
> appear: Is the matter structures of the Universe terminate at the
> Compton length or they exist in the microscale range beyond this
> point? We do not have aright to dismiss the second option, so we
> must investigate it. In favor of this is the following logical
> consideration. We know that smaller objects possess larger resonance
> frequencies. Then the largest frequency corresponding to the Planck's
> time is reasonable for the smallest Planck's length.
> From the above made considerations we may conclude that the
> possibility for existence of microstructures of matter below the
> Compton's length could not be excluded. Then it stands to reason
> raising a question: Isn't the indirectly detectable "dark matter"
> exists only in the distant space from us or it is around us and
> even "within us"? If the latter is the case then the "hidden matter"
> should be a more appropriate name for this invisible substance? Then
> the concept of the vacuum should be inseparable from the concept
> of "dark" or "hidden" matter. This automatically leads to a
> conclusion that the currently adopted concept about the vacuum space
> might not be correct. This, however, is not something new. The
> concept about vacuum has been changed four times since the seventeen
> century, two times of which are in the last nineteen century.
> Until the 17th century the Aristotel's view has been accepted
> according to which the vacuum is a physically impossible. It has been
> overthrown after the invention of the barometer by the Evangelista
> Torrichelli in 1644. The vacuum has been accepted as a pure empty
> space. This concept has been changed again in 19th century after the
> physicists discover the electromagnetic radiation. In the last
> decades of 19 century the concept of the vacuum has been dominated by
> the aether theories. In the beginning of 20 century the aether theory
> has been ovethrown and replaced by the Einstein vision about the
> vacuum. In the article "Can Quantum-mechanical Description of
> Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?", A. Einstein, B. Podolsky
> and N. Rosen (1935) write: "Every element of the physical reality
> must have a counterpart in the physical theory." In one of its
> articles H. E. Puthoff, (1997) writes about the Einstein's view about
> his theory of General Relativity: "With the rise of special
> relativity which did not require reference to such an underlying
> substrate, Einstein in 1905 effectively banished the ether in favour
> of the concept that empty space constitutes a true void. Ten years
> later, however, Einstein's own development of the general theory of
> relativity with its concept of curved space and distorted geometry
> forced him to reverse his stand and opt for a richly-endowed plenum
> under the new label spacetime metric".
> In another article H. E. Puthoff (1997) provides a citation from A.
> Sakharov (the developer of Russian hydrogen bomb) "Searching to
> derive Einstein's phenomenological equations for general relativity
> from a more fundamental set of assumptions, Sakharov came to the
> conclusion that the entire panoply of general relativistic phenomena
> could be seen as induced effects brought about by changes in the
> quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum due to the presence of
> matter".
> The concept about the vacuum is a fundamental stone of the modern
> physics. If changing this concept number of initially adopted
> postulates have to be reconsidered. One of them is the light
> velocity. Additionally, some physical laws adopted as absolute may
> also occur not universally valid. One may imagine what could be
> effect on the enormous number of highly abstractive theories built on
> a mathematical logic. Some of them may catastrophically collapse.
> This is the main reason why the concept of vacuum and any
> reconsiderations of the adopted laws and postulates are excluded from
> discussion in the peer review journals stacked to the mainstream
> science. If the current concept about the vacuum, however, is not
> correct our vision about the processes in the microworld beyond the
> observational point could be significantly distorted. This inevitably
> will affect our present concept about the Universe and especially the
> theory of Big Bang.
> One may ask: What could be the benefits from alternative concept of
> the vacuum space followed by revision of the absolutism of the
> adopted postulates? The reply is the following:
> If stepping on the correct concept of the vacuum space we may obtain
> the following benefits:
> - obtaining a reference point for solving of space-time enigma.
> - resurrection of the power of the human logic in analysis of tough
> problems.
> - obtaining of logical explanation of the zero point energy of the
> vacuum, the cosmic radiation background, the quantum propertries of
> the vacuum, fields and their propagation, what is the absolute zero
> temperature, quantum motion of the electron and other elementary
> partricles
> - a possibility for analysis of the phenomena in real three-
> dimensional space and one direction of time from a new point of view.
> - understanding the rules of the quantum mechanics and relativistic
> phenomena.
> - finding the relation between gravitational field from one side and
> electrical and magnetic fields from the other.
> - finding more fundamental laws and postulates from which the known
> laws and postulates are derivable
> - understanding the relation between matter – energy – gravitation.
> Finally we may built a successful unified theory about the Nature and
> Universe, that may allow:
> - More basic understanding of what is mass, electrical charge and
> magnetic field
> - Finding out do elementary particle possess structure?
> - Understanding the atomic nuclei, their excited states and processes
> of radioactivity from a physical point of view
> - Understanding why the orbiting electrons in atoms do not emit EM
> energy
> - Finding out the boundary conditions of electronic orbits in atoms
> - Deeper understanding of the observed cosmological phenomena;
> - Studying the possibility for new energy and interstellar flights
> from a new point of view.
> At this point we must clarify that the acceptance of distributed
> hidden matter does not return the physics to the last century age of
> the aether theories. More or less they have been based on an aether
> substance like an ideal fluid. The recently developed theory titled
> Basic Structures of Matter use a unique model about the vacuum space
> having nothing common to the ideal fluid. In the same time it is able
> to satisfy all the above considerations. The correct vacuum concept
> alone is not still enough guarantor for building of successful
> unified field theory. A new methodology is also required. It is
> described in the article "New approach for building of unified theory
> about the Universe and some results", by S. Sarg (2002).
> Discussion: Why any alternative concept about the vacuum is
> considered as a taboo in the main streem science? In the present time
> it is quite difficult to find a scientific conference or peer review
> journal for expression and discussion of alternative concept.
>
> References:
>
> L. Ferrarese, D. Merrit, A fundamental relation between supermassive
> black holes and their host galaxies, arXiv: astro-ph/0006053 v. 29
> Aug 2000
>
> S. Nagel, Physics in crisis, Physics Today, Sep 2002, 55-58
> D. F. Roscoe, An analysis of 900 optical rotation curves: Dark matter
> in a corner?, Phahama - journal of physics, Indian Academy of
> Sciences, Vol. 53, No 6 Dec 1999, p. 1033-1037
>
> S. Sarg, New approach for building of unified theory about the
> Universe and some results, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205052
> (2002)