SRP LOGO SRP Soft Collision Side

SRP Air Tables How to Order Books The Science Journal The Minkowski Institute International Council of Academics or Progressive Education

Neurolinguistics and Fundamental Physics

Neurolinguistics and Fundamental Physics

Other published articles and presentations

The New "Royal Society"

In 1662, under the patronage of the king, a group of former Oxford comrades founded the Royal Society in London. Their aim was to encourage progress in philosophy through the study of systems, history and experiments pertaining to "natural things, mathematics and mechanics" ([13], p.86).

Every week, some learned scientists or well-off amateurs were invited to present "three or four significant experiments". A number of new and daring ideas regarding all aspects of natural sciences could now be freely aired and discussed, in an atmosphere of freedom of thought very conducive to the elaboration of new theories.

It is in this atmosphere of general intellectual feverishness that in 1687 was published by Sir Isaac Newton, a now illustrious member of the Royal Society of the time, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, a monumental work in which he explained his theory on gravitation and proposed the mathematics which are still universally used to calculate the motion of celestial bodies and the trajectories of all bodies launched on ballistic trajectories: missiles, satellites, spacecrafts, shells, etc.

But sadly, the freedom of expression that flourished for a few decades, mainly under the leadership of Robert Hooke, its first curator, eventually faded to leave the field open to the sterile dogmatisms that are too often found in the various scientific domains, a situation that was exposed as recently as 1993 by Sir John C. Eccles, Nobel Prize of medicine in 1963 ([9], p.18). Throughout history, current orthodoxies have always fiercely resisted any change that was not a logical evolution of currently popular premises.

The current state of knowledge covers so much ground in such a seemingly satisfactory manner that despite longstanding unresolved issues, any hint of re-questioning current paradigms immediately brings up frowns of suspicion regarding the extent of the knowledge of the questioner.

Most physicists involved in research today are attempting to expand existing restricted theories to a hypothetical better fit, but considering that subsets cannot be made to include the superset that they belong to may well be the reason why so little progress has been made in fundamental physics over the past many decades. We will try to avoid this trap here and try to define a superset that would encompass all currently useful theories, which may however hint at some adjustments to be made in some for them to perfectly fit together into the larger frame being defined.

A very insidious problem is also at play, that blurs still more the issue. It is the tendency towards hyperspecialization and compartmentalization of the various disciplines at the university level, that has been on the increase ever since the 1940's. The end result is that all modern reference works have been written by great experts of each sub-specialty, who often have only superficial notions of some of the other sub-specialities of their own field.

Over time, as sub-specialties kept being separated, reorganized and eliminated, important information eventually completely ceased to be referred to in reference works written subsequently, and have thus completely disappeared from the collective consciousness of the physical community, even though they are still available in the humongous mountain of past writings.

Unresolved issues

For example, De Broglie's important conclusion regarding a possible internal structure for photons, which, in conjunction with Abraham and Kaufmann's discovery regarding the insensitivity of kinetic energy to any force applied transversally, seems to be the very key to building the last missing causality link between the kinetic energy that accumulate by means of electromagnetic acceleration of particles and the energy that quarks up and down have to be made up of.

But even more fundamental issues remain to be addressed without drawing much attention. Even today, the only theory in existence that properly deals with free moving electromagnetic energy at the general level is still Maxwell's wave theory, although the critical step of adapting it to directly describe real discrete electromagnetic photons has not yet been taken, notwithstanding the very precise measurements that QED allows. This issue will be addressed in Chapter Maxwell's Geometry.

Special Relativity on its part has not yet been adapted to account for the internal contraction of complex particles such as protons and neutrons as a function of the local intensity of electrostatic interactions between elementary charged components of surrounding matter (up and down quarks) and of the impact of this interaction on the local rest mass of these complex particles as a function of the local density of surrounding matter (the local intensity of gravity). SR still deals with protons and neutrons as if they were rest mass invariant elementary particles!

Could this be why no one can currently properly calculate the trajectories of Pioneer 10 and 11, even with the General Relativity equations ([38]), a theory that supposedly is the final word on all observed inertial gravitational phenomena? Moreover, data gathered for other spacecrafts definitely hints at the possibility that the assumed anomalous acceleration phenomenon is systematic and due to some aspect of fundamental reality not yet covered by traditional theories.

Presently, GR has persistently been researched to no avail for the past decade for ways to account for two distinct so-called anomalies observed regarding the Pioneer spacecrafts, one pertaining to a seldom documented so-called "anomalous" loss of angular momentum about their spin axis ([38], p.23), that we will address in chapter Four Types of Permanent Attractors, and the other pertaining to a so-called "anomalous" acceleration directed towards the Sun as they escape the Solar system on their hyperbolic trajectories, that we will address in Chapter The Slowing down of Atomic Clocks.

Could this failure be related to the fact that SR (to which GR is intimately associated) does not yet take into account the relativistic implications of the fact that protons and neutrons are not elementary, and that their momentary rest mass may well depend on local electrostatic intensity dependant velocity of the quarks making up their structure? This model will put in perspective how the effective rest mass of complex particles can be correctly integrated.

The present state of hyper-specialization and the difficulty of expanding current theories has caused recent experimental observations, the likes of which used to throw physics circles into frenzied effervescence at the be-ginning of the 20th century, and sent every physicist of the time into an unbridled race to discovery, to be taken on today with a level of interest akin to apathy, each physicist being under the impression that colleagues, "experts" in this new field, will take charge somewhere, and that they will eventually be informed of the answer, none of them feeling particularly competent to deal with the new issue, as strikingly exemplified by the Pio-neer 10 and 11 so-called anomalies.

Other phenomena that SR and GR are unable to explain are the following, now very well documented, that is the fact that the Moon is progressively receding from the Earth at a rate of about 3.8 cm per year and that the earth's rotation is higher in summer than in winter and that it is steadily decreasing from year to year, in a manner that no current theory can explain.

We will study in chapter The Slowing down of Atomic Clocks how these phenomena can possibly be explained for the same fundamental reason that explains the apparent anomaly in the trajectories of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts and the slowing down of atomic clocks. The present model predicts in fact that this so-called anomaly is no anomaly whatsoever, but a normal behavior of all small bodies moving in space.

It is also well known that the inability of GR to mathematically explain certain other observed or hypothesized astronomical phenomena led to conclude for example, to the hypothetical existence of an undetectable "dark matter" to "explain" a postulated but unproven mass default in the Universe, and to the existence of an unexplained and undetectable "strange or dark energy" to "explain" a postulated but unproven accelerated expansion of the Universe.

On the other hand, it was not recently that Scientific Academies have begun rejecting without examination the too numerous papers that have been sent to them each year by unknowns, considered a priori and in bulk as crackpots. It was already the case in the second half of the 19th century, just as it still is the case today.

As far back as the beginning of the 20th century, Poincaré himself considered that they were not wrong in doing so and that they ran no risk of smothering any serious discovery, for, as he explains: « If you had asked academics [regarding this], they would have answered: "We have compared the probability that an unknown scientist had found what we have been looking for in vain for so long, to that of there being one more fool on the Earth, the second would have appeared greater". » ([15], p.198).

Paradoxically, to explain the reluctance of academics to consider any new idea and their recurring belief that all has already been discovered, Poincaré wrote in the same book: "Each of us carries within himself his own conception of the world, which he cannot so easily dismiss." ([15], p.159); which, of course, is a psychological problem that affects all humans and has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

After having invested years of their life to become comfortable with Minkowski's 4-dimensional space geometry, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field theory and Feynman's quantum electrodynamics, fledgling physicists then tend to subscribe to them for good, particularly after having accepted as impossible that a force based theory could deal with more than weak fields and having abandoned the idea that such a force theory could one day supersede GR and reconcile all valid theories with fundamental physical reality.

They are afterwards very unlikely to ever risk losing intellectual footing again by reconsidering the whole, including the premises. Unfortunately, despite the importance of the remaining problems, orthodox theories always seem too satisfactory, and life too short, for them to consider re-investing even part of their precious remaining time in looking for potentially more appropriate alternatives at the fundamental level.

Paradoxically, the very same physicists who are convinced that no force theory could ever supersede GR have been trying for half a century to reconcile what they consider the 4 fundamental forces: 1) electromagnetism, 2) strong interaction, 3) weak interaction and finally, 4) gravitation, in an effort to define a Unified Theory that would obviously supersede GR!

To them, reconsidering fundamental space geometry, for example, or explore where could lead the idea that electron spin could be due to pulsating instead of spinning, seem like useless extreme mindbenders, or quite wrongly feel inadequate to deal with such re-questioning, even if it could potentially cause our theories to evolve towards solving the remaining problems.

Peer pressure to conform to the norm is also a powerful extinguisher of new promising ideas.

It must be said also that there is no one blinder than one who doesn't want to see, and we can consequently seriously wonder where the next significant progress could possibly come out of, given that all contemporary academics seem resigned a priori to the idea that no further major discovery will ever again be possible at the fundamental level, due to the general acceptance of the idea that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would represent the physical reality rather than being a simple restriction inherent to the mathematical method being used!

Consequently, it was with nostalgia that I deplored not being able to identify any contemporary place on the planet where new ideas could be expressed and freely discussed as in Newton's time.

Impossibility to formally published ideas deemed "too speculative"

One day, on the advice of a friend, I inquired to the vice-president of an international physics congress being prepared, about the possibility for me to present a paper on fundamental physics. To my surprise, I was henceforth invited to participate! No pre-conditions! No pre-selection! I was welcome to come and propose my ideas!

This is how I unexpectedly discovered a contemporary center of intellectual freedom, the existence of which I was no more hoping for! Since 1989, is held every 2 years at the St. Petersburg State University, an International Congress on the "Fundamental Problems of Natural Sciences", whose aim is exactly the same as that of the original Royal Society.

Anatoli P. Smirnov, who recently took over the presidency from A. A. Efimov, founder of the congress, very diplomatically declared at the opening session of the 5th edition of the congress in 1998: "Today, many areas of fundamental knowledge, in particular physics and mathematics, are in a deep crisis, for they are unable to explain many phenomena of the environment of our world. This crisis of the sciences is the crisis of the contemporary paradigms on which these sciences are based" ([11], Préface).

All along the 6th edition of the congress, "CONGRESS-2000", which was held from July 3 to 8 of 2000, I observed with what patience and openmindedness president Smirnov and vice president Klyushin listened to the great variety of presentations of more than 200 participants, speeches during which sometimes transpired the pent up frustration of some of them, who had been forced to silence for too long by the orthodox scientific establishment, and who could at long last freely express their personal viewpoint on aspects of fundamental research that had become important to them.

All of them were now guaranteed that their work would be published at least in the official proceedings of the Congress.

Some could believe that such a congress, which is open without any reservation to all non-orthodox theories, would be the undertaking of a small marginal group, but the fact that it is directly endorsed by no less than the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg State Mining Institute and the Russian Geographical Society, leaves no doubt as to the seriousness of the endeavor.

I am deeply convinced that it is from this unique crucible, modern version of the Royal Society, where ideas can again be exchanged and discussed freely beyond everyone’s deep convictions, that will emerge the fundamental solutions that will allow Humanity to resume its walk towards new horizons.

Non-orthodoxy being the hallmark of the St. Petersburg Congress, the solution proposed here can be expected to be non-orthodox by definition, despite being grounded on the well established conclusions of Maxwell and Coulomb.

So, for complete reading enjoyment, the reader is invited to leave behind, for a moment at least, all preconceived ideas that could stem from accepted orthodox theories.

As to the solution proper, it originally was nothing more than a simple demonstration of logical reasoning by perception of coherences in sets ([12], p.79), which was part of a project aimed at rekindling interest for neglected neurophysiological conclusions which are critical for the development of the full intellectual potential of all human children.

After verification however, it seems to be the first logically causal hypothesis of electromagnetic mechanics of fundamental particles to ever have been formulated.

I hope that this book will contribute to rekindle the causality debate that died down when its most famous promoter, Albert Einstein, passed away in 1955.

The following question will of course jump to the reader's mind: Why attempt to reawaken such an old debate after close to 50 years.

The reason is that this historic debate on causality that very actively raged during the first half of the 20th century between causalists Einstein, Planck, Schrödinger, de Broglie, et al., and the promoters of the Copenhagen-Göttingen school of thought, that is, Bohr, Heisenberg, et al., has actually never been resolved, as is clearly emphasized by Franco Selleri.

I refer interested readers to his outstanding analysis of the situation for a complete perspective on this so damaging conflict between these two irreconcilable fundamental philosophical approaches ([18]).

Let us now reexamine de Broglie hypothesis on photons' possible internal electromagnetic structure without letting any preconceived idea obstruct our view, and observe how so many currently unresolved issues find a simple and coherent explanation.


France, Flammarion, France 1937, Second Edition 1993, with new 1973 Preface by
L. de Broglie
· [ 9] John C. Eccles. HOW THE SELF CONTROLS THE BRAIN , Springer Verlag,
Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1994.
· [10] André Michaud. Our Bankrupt Elite, Canada, SRP Books, 1999.
· [11] Efimov A.A., Klyushin Ya.G., Smirnov A.P.. CONGRESS-98 PROCEEDINGS,
Fundamental Problems of Natural Sciences, Volume 1, St.-Petersburg, 1999.
· [12] André Michaud. Theory of Discrete Attractors, Canada, SRP Books, 1999.
France, Gallimard, 1995. Presented and commented by François De Gandt
· [15] Henri Poincaré. LA SCIENCE ET L'HYPOTHESE,
France, Flammarion, 1902, Édition de 1968
France, Flammarion, 1994, Preface by Karl R. Popper
Abstract and Table of Contents of the Paper

Top Of Page