Alan Dennis Clark

Clark & Fischer-Clark GmbH, Germany · Physics & Technology

I have just re-opened my project “Unifying perspectives of the physics of prominent physicists from a Golden Age of Physics (1905 to 1935)” in order to get some feedback on what physicists believe to be the “true” fundamentals of physics. This is naturally a big topic however I did address this matter in detail during my own research.

Over the past years I have been surprised that many of the fundamentals of physics of the Famous Physicists are often not believed by today’s physicists, yet in all the fundamental cases I checked, there was ample evidence of the experiments carried out to validate the fundamental of physics presented. Alternative ways of looking at this data, new perspectives, were also found but these alternative perspectives did not change the fundamental results of the experiments.

As background information to this topic, I include here selected text from the abstract of the book “Physics in 5 Dimensions”: … I considered that a thorough research of the works of the many famous physicists that filled my physics textbooks could be rewarding … The method used involved establishing the current classical view of each topic, and then to consider other ways of viewing the results in the search for alternative perspectives and other hypotheses that still match the associated fundamentals of physics. The research was motivated by the results of each new stage and an ever improving “common” and “unifying” perspective of physics …. Each topic covered includes a description of the classical view of physics, with historical background where appropriate ... The resulting change of perspective between 4- and 5-dimensional spaces is exactly described … Developing alternative perspectives of classical physics demanded clear discrimination between the true fundamentals of physics, on the one hand, and any of my own assumptions and those of popular paradigms, that may not be true, on the other hand. Nearly all the wrong paths taken during my research were caused by making assumptions that seemed obvious but were in fact not true. The importance of this discriminating approach became a key feature of the research and checking that the mathematics consistently worked over the many fields of physics covered became the major test.

In my ResearchGate project I have asked for some feedback on the work of some of the famous physicists as featured in the book “Physics in 5 Dimensions” and as also featured on the following website which makes it easy to select a famous physicist and their associated work: https://www.physics-in-5-dimensions.com/famous-physicists/famous-physicists/. Some of the background data is summarised on the website and so the starting point of any review is immediately available. There is a large choice of topics covered by the selection of Famous Physicists and so you should find a few which can be more easily answered.

In all the example cases of the Famous Physicists selected, I found their results plausible. I would like to know if others view these cases in the same way. I realise my question may be demanding of anyone prepared to respond, however a simple yes or no to the topics presented would be appreciated, but I would welcome reasons if the fundamental of physics addressed is not considered to be “true”.

Responses should be factual and based on trying to respond to the truth of the fundamentals of physics considered. I like the comment from Christopher O’Neill who noted that “… we should not be concerned with what is 'fashionable' but only with what can be shown to be true by the scientific method”.

I look forward to some useful feedback.

Alan

The perspective adopted by a physicist for any one theory may make it difficult for the same physicist to analyse or accept alternative perspectives. Views developed and held to be true are based on years of working in our own fields of physics and may set limits on our ability and interest to look at other ideas. Also a changed view may reflect poorly on our own extensive research and status.

As much as the theories themselves, the way we think about them will determine our progress in theoretical physics. Taking a wrong turning when developing new theories, may mean ending up in a cul-de-sac and progress stops. But how do we know that? If other perspectives are not acceptable, or even considered, we may simply spend more & more time and money creeping ever closer to the end of the cul-de-sac! How can we stop this happening?