The Need for New Physics
Our contemporary science of Physics is based on numerous famous inspirations, many of which, unfortunately, at some time or another have turned out to have been mistaken and had to be either modified or revised – or, in some cases, abandoned altogether. Plainly, no-one is to be blamed for this. It is just a part of the natural progression of man’s curiosity and the finitude of his knowledge of the world he inhabits. From time to time, therefore, whole concept systems may have to change, no matter how radical and painful that transition process may be. More and more scientific thinkers are beginning to believe that at this stage in our history, such a conceptual upheaval is imminent and unavoidable – indeed, overdue. This, it may be argued, is for the following reasons.
Fundamental mistakes in our traditional physics
1. Newton’s ‘First Law of Motion’
From this present standpoint in time it seems that one of the greatest and most fundamental of these unfortunate mistakes was Isaac Newton’s ‘First Law of Motion’. This asserts that in the absence of any externally applied force – i.e., in the vacuum of space – all bodies travel in straight lines. In fact, however, no free-moving bodies are ever observed to travel in this way. Without exception they all travel in curves of one kind or another. The logical implication of Newton’s hypothesis, therefore, is that bodies which do not travel in straight-lines – that is, all bodies whatsoever – are acted upon externally by invisible in vacuo ‘forces’ of some sort. This has created that whole plethora of imaginary in vacuo ‘forces’ that have been arbitrarily named ‘gravitational’, ‘magnetic’, ‘electrostatic’ … and so on, which are held responsible for the naturally curved trajectories of bodies in various situations. It is the study of this mess of fictional ‘forces’ which, up to the beginning of this twenty-first century has formed the basis of what is now our standard orthodox Physics.
It is therefore hardly surprising that despite all the ingenious attempts there have been made throughout our cultural history to make some unified picture of this mess of ideas there is simply no logically consistent and coherent story or picture of nature that can be made of these disparate fictions. But how else would it be, since the task it presents is somewhat akin to having to merge the fairy tales of writers such as Lewis Carroll, Hans Anderson, the brothers Grimm, etc., etc. Little wonder, then, that after so many centuries of failure to achieve this unification of ideas, there have been physicists who have seriously suggested that our felt need for cramming these disparate ideas into conformity with the laws of human logic and intuition merely inhibits scientific progress. Our need for what we call ‘understanding’, they say, is anthropocentric. They urge that for this reason it should be abandoned as counterproductive to the scientific search for the purely practical benefits that physical science can provide for our society in the pursuit of industrial, financial, military and other such advantages.
Surely, though, nothing is more indicative of this centuries-long failure of our standard orthodox Physics than this policy of defeatism in our search for true understanding. The search has been long and hard and now, apparently is producing nothing but nonsense. So is it, perhaps, that this liberation from commonsense logic now makes our theories of the universe more arts-like and generally entertaining, opening-up another avenue for the display of intellectual creativity and mathematical dexterity. If so, then this is akin to the breakaway movement in painting and sculpture from what some artists saw as the stultifying conventions of Realism in art generally. Certainly, there are similarities to be seen between some of the more bizarre physical and cosmological theories of our leading scientists and the works of painters such as Picasso and Salvador Dali.
Some say, however, that this cavalier contempt on the part of the Theoretical Extremists of modern science to ape this artistic anti-realist movement makes a mockery of our contemporary Physics and Cosmology, especially as more and more of these ridiculous theories are published. What it signals most clearly, the defenders of commonsense say, is the need for a whole new root and branch review of our customary approach to Physics. This would be to lay aside all the current theoretical extravagances, to step back and take a new, long and hard look at nature as it actually presents itself to us behind the theories, to scrape away the thickening layers of historical accretion so as to reveal where it all went wrong. In this way we might unearth a different approach to physics which, if followed, would be more fitting for this Twenty-First Century’s appetite for a simple, ahistorical and unprejudiced understanding of the physical world and how we relate to it.
2. Newton’s ‘Law of Universal Gravitation’
Surely, then, an altogether truer basis for our physics of motion than that of Newton’s First Law should have been that of Aristotle, who argued that straight-line motion is impossible. All force-free motion, he said, has to be curved or orbital. This, he argued, is because continuous motion in a straight line has to start somewhere and end somewhere, hence is discontinuous; otherwise, it has to be infinitely long, which is unreal. The only truly continuous force-free motion therefore, he concluded, has to be cyclic, or circular. This logical conclusion, of Aristotle’s, is obviously more in tune with everything we know nowadays about physical motion, from the trajectories of stars in galaxies to those of particles in atoms.
However, for whatever reason, Aristotle’s more logical and straightforward description of force-free motion became historically sidelined in favour of Newton’s purely theoretical one. This latter remains the current explanation of the orbital motions of macrophysical bodies which is, of course, what has long been conceived as the invisible in vacuo force of ‘gravity’. This is according to another ‘Law’ which Newton devised, the ‘Law of Universal Gravitation. According to that law, ‘Every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force that is directly proportional to the square of the distance between their centres’. Newton claimed that this was an empirical law, gained by pure observation of the way bodies behave in relation to one another. Again, however, this ‘force’ was purely fictional. There is no way in which it can be observed acting directly and materially in the space between bodies. The medium in which it was supposed to act is the pure vacuum of space, where it is both invisible and undetectable. The only warrant for assuming its existence, and that of its associated so-called ‘gravitational field’, was as a theoretical explanation of the curved motions of bodies which, according to Newton’s First Law would otherwise be travelling in straight lines. So the upshot is that Newton’s First Law demands that all free-moving bodies travel in straight lines and this additional ‘Law of Gravitation’ postulates a fictional force to explain why they do not. Viewed in retrospect, it seems incredible that scientists of that time, schooled as they all were in logic, were not aware of the completely fallacious character of this piece of Newtonian reasoning – a perfect example of what in Logic is known as the fallacy of petitio principii, or reasoning in a circle.
In the Aristotelian account of motion there is no such fallacy, hence no such entourage of fictional ‘forces’ and associated ‘force-fields’, no illustrious Mystique to be studied in the name of ‘Physics’.
3. Newton’s ‘Inertial motion’
According to our traditional Physics, motion is an amount, or quantity, which is the mass of a body, m, multiplied by its velocity v, the product of measures called momentum (mv). However, there is, as we say, no such thing in nature as rectilinear or ‘inertial’ free motion, so the descriptive term ‘momentum’ in the context of this discussion is incomplete. This is not least because it involves no reference to any other bodies, whereas there can be no case of a body having momentum in itself in complete isolation from other bodies. The full description of physical motion therefore must include not only the two parameters, mass m and velocity v of the body but also the distance, r, of that body from some other body or bodies of reference. Since these have masses, they also have to be included in any true description of physical motion.
For Newton, the sufficient description of motion was that it is the rectilinear quantity mv. The truer description of the quantity of free motion is that it is all angular momentum mvr, where r is the radial distance of the mass m from the centre (barycentre) of the motion between it and some balancing countermass M which is some mass . In this way of thinking, straight-line motion is no more than the theoretical upper limit of an infinite angular momentum mvr with r at theoretical infinity and v at theoretical zero. (A circle of infinite radius and a straight line are one and the same.)
There is, then, no such thing as straight-line ‘inertial’ motion or momentum of a body on its own, in a Euclidean space of the sort Galileo and Newton conceived, so the idea, expressed by Newton’s First Law of fundamentally rectilinear free motion was never more than a theoretical ideal, and a mistaken one, at that. By contrast, all true motion, or momentum, is angular momentum in which all bodies naturally orbit one another in paired and balanced systems of angular momentum. In each specific case, a body of mass m, such as a planet, say, travels around a large reference body M, such as the sun, at some distance r from somewhere near the centre of that body, so that the true measure of that motion relative to M, is L = mvr. In that case, the only straight-line free motion of a finite mass m, as Newton imagined it, is an infinite angular momentum L = mvr between m and M at an infinite distance r with a velocity v of theoretical zero. This, of course, entails, an altogether infinitely motionless and therefore infinitely massive central body M so that it doesn’t ‘wobble’ in sympathy with the motion of m like, for example, the hammer-swinger in a hammer-throwing a competition.
What is true physical motion?
Such, then, are three of the most obvious mistakes upon which our existing tradition of Physics is built. A logical corrective to these mistaken ideas is as follows. For the sake of simplicity, let us ignore the value of the central mass M – or, which is virtually the same, assume that the mass M is infinitely large. The situation thus described is, of course, purely ideal. In all real situations there are always more than just two bodies involved, which presents physicists with the notoriously insoluble many-body problem in calculating their orbital trajectories. For the sake of this present discussion, however, those practical considerations may be set firmly aside to enable us to understand, in the simplest possible way, what angular momentum is, both logically and in principle.
As we have seen, in theoretically linear free motion the amount of angular momentum mvr is theoretically infinite, in which case the radius r of the motion is also infinite, with the orbital velocity, v , at zero. From this it follows that all true or finite free motion is automatically curved, or orbital. It follows also that the theoretical orbit for just two bodies is exactly circular, since in the absence of other bodies the radius r for every point on the trajectory is the same.
All true free motion, then, is naturally orbital and circular, as Aristotle argued. Also, like all true circles the orbit of m must be closed – except, of course, in the case of a theoretically infinite angular momentum, of which there is no real natural example.
A way forward
So much, then, for what we are customarily taught to think of as ‘Physics’, the study of fictitious force-fields, particles and processes in a primordial vacuum of Euclidean dimensions. Plainly, in its present form, this cannot serve from here on as the best form of Physics to pursue. For instance, it cannot be reconciled in any natural logical way with Quantum Physics. By contrast, in the new, post-traditional physics we prescribe, energetic motion (action) is quantised at its conceptual root. For instance, angular momentum is a conserved quantity, which means that it can be neither created nor annihilated. From this it follows that no amount of angular momentum can be lost in one place without that exact amount appearing instantly somewhere else – that is, in a proper-time-instantaneous unmediated quantum jump. Moreover, angular momentum is irreducible in amounts below a certain quantity, or quantum mvr = ħ (the symbol known ‘h-bar’). The simple mass components of this quantum are the masses M and m (analogous to the sun and our earth) equal to what we customarily call the ‘proton’ and ‘electron’, respectively. These are not ‘charged’ with any mystical ‘electrostatic’ quantity, as customarily conceived; they are just plain masses measured in kilograms but with a spin kinetic energy measured in joules [  ]. They spin in opposite directions, each with a spin angular momentum of a half ħ so that the total orbital plus spin angular momentum is an integral amount ħ, the so-called ‘atom’.
These angular momentum ‘flywheels’ (atoms) act as quantum accumulators, transacting energy directly in quantum units of action h, which are the energy equivalents of what in our extant physics have been called ‘photons’, customarily conceived as the material constituents of what, throughout history, has been called ‘light’. In the new physics, these light-quanta do not travel. They are direct and reciprocal interactions between atoms according to the principle of equal and opposite action/reaction in which energy is transferred instantly from the higher accumulation of energy to the lower, in a timeless or instantaneous quantum jump. What we call ‘light’ is a statistical evolution in observer time (relative time) of statistical numbers of these proper-time-instantaneous quantum ‘blips’ projected in observation similarly to the way in which, in cinematography, time sequences of transitory photographic frames, or ‘stills’, are perceived as the real motions of actors and objects. On the Internet this has been called the ‘Cinematic Model’. It presents, in effect, the inverse of extant physics. In extant physics real motion is assumed to be continuous and cinematic motion illusory. In complete contrast, in the new physics it is the cinematic (i.e., quantised) motion that is real and the continuous motion that is illusory. In this way, our traditionally divided relativistic physics and quantum physics fall naturally and logically together as a single, unified Physics.
The Einstein connection
This new physics was started more than half a century ago in a short and unique piece of private correspondence between Einstein and a unacademic young telephone lineman working in the mountains of Wales [  ]. As an eventual consequence of that brief exchange of ideas, the lineman discovered that Einstein’s relativistic time-dilation formula can be deduced much more simply and commonsensically from purely geometric principles applied to the three measures of observational space without involving Einstein’s assumption of light travelling at a constant speed relative to the vacuum of space (Einstein’s well known ‘Second Axiom’ of Special Relativity). Instead, the new physics the lineman conceived was to make c a constant, not of light-speed in space but purely of dimensions for all observers. This is in the same way that for all observers there is a constant ratio of 39.37 inches to the metre in the measuring of length, or 2.2046226 pounds to the kilogram in the measuring of weight. Needless to say, this is regardless of the motions or dispositions of those observers or measurers relative to one another, which dispenses straight away with the mystery following from this discovery by Michelson and Morley that led originally to the Einsteinian Theory of Relativity.
Over the half-century following that unique piece of correspondence, this new approach to physics has been developing steadily, more or less in isolation from Academic Physics. (Its first academic publication was in 1987 [], when it was ineptly reported as a ‘Modelling Approach to Special Relativity’, its vital independence of ‘light-speed’ having been missed out altogether.) It presents, in effect, an inversion – a ‘photo-negative’, as it were – of its predecessor insofar as it replaces the old idea of ‘light in space’ with that of space in light; that is, with space as an informational projection from observation in the ‘cinematic’ manner already described. Every logical and mathematical move in this development has been checked-out and approved by experts in those subjects. Unfortunately, due to the artificial Educational divide between Arts and Science, this confusing, ahistorical mixture of those two separate disciplines, Philosophy and Physics, the theory was not placeable in any official Educational category. So the result was, as one university authority put it: ‘We have no-one qualified to take oversight of this extremely irregular combination of Philosophy and Physics.’ Its point, therefore, could not be grasped any more than that of a ‘shaggy dog’ story constrained to be told in various bits to different audiences in different halls on different and unconnected occasions. All publications regarding the theory as a whole were thus in dismembered bits in different conference-proceedings and journals [ ].
Information replaces matter and motion as the basic stuff of new physics
In our physics so far, the basis has always been the study of mass and mechanical motion. In the new physics, the radical departure is that the basis of the study of physical reality is quantum information in cinematic patterns and sequences of proper-time-instantaneously transacted action-blips, or quantum pixels. Each such pixel is therefore at once as much a part of the observed object as of our clearest and most direct perceptions of it, which solves at a stroke the old philosophical, problem of the ‘veil of perception’. This solution is that the reality of an object is not something remote from perception but something immanent in perception, something we perceive from the most correct interpretation of the object within its widest observational context, which makes the phenomenon dimensionally observer-centred in the same sense as in Einsteinian relativity. This new physics is therefore, automatically, both quantised and relativistic in all senses of those words. The essential departure, of course, is that in the new physics, Einstein’s Second Axiom regarding the ‘constant speed of light in vacuo’ is redundant and is therefore omitted, leaving the logical and philosophical implications of that relativising of physics to develop uninhibitedly, free of distortion by wizards in the art of mathematical and theoretical creativity.
Time-Dilation and atomic frequency.
In the new physics, Einstein’s Second Axiom is replaced by another axiom according to which, for every observer, all observer-projected spatial distances are also times in the constant ratio of units c. From this reduced set of axioms, an equivalent to the standard relativistic time-formula is derived. From this, in turn, are derived, in short order, the Balmer-Rydberg formula for the series of spectral frequencies, a formula for orbital time-dilation and a simple answer to the so far unsolved puzzles regarding the anomalous non-obedience of NASA’s space-probe trajectories and the motions of stars in galaxies to Newton’s gravitational law. The new physics explains both of these latter anomalies as due, not to nature but to Newton’s omission of spin angular momentum in his formula for the orbital motion of spinning bodies. When this spin angular momentum is properly included in the orbital motion of a spinning body – such as, say a NASA space-probe or a spiral galaxy – the so-called ‘Gravitational Constant’ G , ideally a constant for non-spinning bodies becomes a variable, which disposes of both those alleged ‘anomalies’ at a stroke.
The history of this new – actually, half-century old – idea has been, not surprisingly, one of rejection. This has not been on the grounds of logical refutation in the sorts of argument that are proper to scientific debate, but of a complete refusal to entertain the premise on which the thesis is based, namely, that light is not something that travels but is just what we see in informational patterns and sequences – the opposite of dark. The notion that physics is the study, not so much of physical phenomena as such but more of underlying, unobservable processes in vacuo, appears to be endemic in all attempts there have so far been to construct a common logical understanding of the natural world and of our true place in it. Physics as we know it has been, up till now, almost entirely a train of logical implications of this deceptive ‘light in vacuo’ assumption. It is the associated belief in all those fictional in vacuo ‘field-forces’, how they are encapsulated how they travel in that theoretical nether world, how they interact etc. that has so far constituted what we customarily call ‘Physics’, which is reminiscent of what the ancient Greeks thought of nature as the underlying activities of the gods on Mount Olympus.
There can be no New Physics based on fictions of this or any other kind. It would have to be based on what we truly see and rationally interpret. Such a firm foundation for future physics cannot continue to be the vain pursuit of fictitious entities in some mathematical nether-world of ‘quarks’, ‘tachyons’ and other ‘singularities’ – such as ‘gravitons’ – and the now infamous ‘Higgs boson’, called the ‘God Particle’. Surely it is now high time that these immensely extravagant researches for mere mathematical chimeras were set aside in favour of a much more economical and commonsensical approach to physics, possibly along the simple logical lines that have here been proposed.
Neville Vivian (Viv) Pope
Hon. Professor of Relativistic Quantum Physics,
Member of the Scientific Advisory Board,
International Institute of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics (IITPM)
 This is after Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck.
 Its first academic publication was in 1987.
 All publications regarding the theory as a whole were thus in dismembered bits in different Conference Proceedings and journals.