Everything Flows Against Let There Be Light
by Mathias Hüfner

Behind the two sentences ‘Everything flows’ and ‘Let there be light’ hide two different worldviews. The former is assigned to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus (520-460 BC). He claimed a material conception regarding the world order. From this he derived a sustained criticism of the superficial perception of reality and way of life of most people. A recurring theme of his philosophizing was the concept of the logos, which could be interpreted in a variety of ways rational world order and its knowledge contained. This was also connected with that causal explanation of the natural processes of constant becoming and change, which is then in the sentence ‘panta rhei’ was summarized. In his essay, Heraclitus represents a causal world event. In contrast, ‘Let there be light’ means creation out of nothing, i.e. an acausal event. This essay deals with the contradiction between the beliefs of modern physics and the reality of life in our technical world.

Let there be light

In 1801, the French Louis Jacques Thénard discovered that metal wires can be made glow by galvanic current — and thus fueled the inventive talent of other scientists. The American inventor John Wellington Starr received British patent no. 10,919 for the invention of an incandescent lamp that is lit using carbon pins in an evacuated glass envelope. The Brit William Robert Grove is said to have presented the first incandescent lamp with platinum filaments in a spiral shape in 1840 but without a vacuum. Thomas Alva Edison made the breakthrough for the technical application of this invention in 1881, and by 1890 he was able to illuminate the whole of New York.

It must have greatly disturbed the Vatican that the light no longer appeared at the behest of God. Around this time Pope Pius X reigned (reigned 1903–1914) and at his behest, written in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, the Catholic Church began the fight against modernity. The combination of light and electricity defied the understanding of religion. The first quote from Genesis is: Let there be light. God speaks it out and his idea materializes. According to the Holy See, even today, the sciences of sacred theology must serve as a handmaid. I don’t know of any recent statement from the Vatican that contradicts this.

With the intention of reconciling religion and science, the priest scholar and astronomer George Lemaître (1894–1966) took the ancient myth of the cosmic egg, linked it to the Old Testament and Einstein’s theory of relativity, which was directed against James Clerk Maxwell’s theory of electricity, to a pseudo-scientific explanation of the world. He believed that this would save religion. Further activities, such as the founding of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1936, were necessary to detach physics from the leading role in the Industrial Revolution and to make it subservient to the Catholic faith, as the 1907 encyclical demanded. This, however, contradicted the theory of relativity because of the requirement for the speed of light to be constant during the Lorentz transformation. Thus, the cleric claimed that the universe was closed and would expand like a balloon.

Finally, Lemaître’s world model was developed by the British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), who together with the Austro-British Hermann Bondi (1919-2005) and the US-American physicist Thomas Gold (1920-2004) developed an alternative equilibrium model (‘Steady State’) of the universe, referred to as the Big Bang model, in which the world was born from God’s idea. Since the late 1940s, Hoyle has argued that if space is expanding forever, it must nevertheless maintain a roughly constant density. To do this, it must continuously form new matter. These particles would then merge into galaxies and stars. They would appear at just the right rate to take up the extra space created by the expansion. Hoyle’s universe was always infinite, so it was open and in a ‘steady state.’ However, his idea did not catch on.

On the other hand, an experiment to check the anisotropy of light (directional dependence of the speed of light) could have seriously jeopardized the idea of the Big Bang: the Michelson-Morley experiment to prove a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. In the 1930s on Mount Wilson, the American physicist Dalton Miller discovered that there really is such an anisotropy of light and that the earth and the solar system are moving at a speed of 208 kilometers/second towards the apex of the southern celestial sphere. At that time, it was not known that the entire solar system rotated around the center of the Milky Way. This discovery jeopardized Einstein’s theory of relativity, as he noted in a 1925 letter to US science writer Edwin E. Slosson. After Miller’s death, the physicist Robert Shankland carried out an analysis of the measurements requested by Einstein and rejected Miller’s results.

It is interesting in this context that an unpublished manuscript entitled “On the Cosmological Problem” was found at the University of Jerusalem, where Einstein dealt with the idea expressed by Hoyle in 1940 as early as 1931. According to Nature magazine, the manuscript had gone unnoticed for decades. It is said to have been created during Einstein’s trip to California in 1931. There he expressed an idea about the origin of the universe as follows: “For the density to remain constant, new matter particles must be constantly formed.” The manuscript was overlooked for many years after being preserved in the Albert Einstein Archives in Jerusalem, although it was later made available online as well. Experts had mistakenly listed it as the first draft of another paper. Einstein probably scrapped the idea because it contradicts the principle of causality. With the sentence “God doesn’t play dice!” he rejected the acausal interpretation of quantum mechanics.

According to the understanding of the Enlightenment of the 19th century, the task of science is to uncover the cause of phenomena. For Einstein’s formula E=m·c², this means that the movement of the mass of the elementary particles is the cause of the energy, for according to Newton, energy is the time integral over momentum, which is the same as a quantum of action multiplied by the frequency of momentum. Therefore, the above equation is not a symmetrical relationship in the mathematical sense, but a causal relationship, which contradicts Hoyle’s idea that mass can be replaced by the ratio of energy to the square of velocity. In the case of light propagation, the deceleration of an electron with mass me causes a light pulse that spreads over all surrounding masses at the speed of light. This momentum is also known as a photon. Mistakenly many believe people, like the German Schildbürger, that photons are particles.

Anyone who still remembers the pranks of the Schilda citizens from childhood, which their grandparents knew about, may still remember the story of the building of the town hall in Schilda. In fact, when the walls were pulled up, the window openings had been forgotten. Now the councilors sat in the dark at their first meeting. However, since the sun was glorious shining on the street, one of the councilors had the brilliant idea of sweeping up the photons from the pavement and carrying them in sacks illuminating the council chamber. I can’t remember the name of this councilor. Maybe his first name was Albert? With all due respect, he must have had serious deficits in experimental physics, especially electrodynamics, and as a student, he received a reprimand from the director of the ETH Zurich for truancy in experimental physics. Obviously, he was never able to compensate for these deficits.

“Faith and reason are like the two wings on which the human spirit takes flight to contemplate the truth,” wrote Pope John Paul II in the first sentence of his encyclical Fides et Ratio. In doing so, he did not consider that only the wing of reason moves while that of faith lames. Thus, truth staggers between the interests of power.

Abolition of causality in favor of symmetry

In a causal relationship, mass or charge is the carrier of energy and not vice versa. According to the ideas of Lemaître and Hoyle, however, energy should also be able to generate mass. This would practically eliminate the causality. What Werner Heisenberg then finally claimed in his writing “Quantum Mechanics and Kantian Philosophy” in 1932. He wrote there:

“But when Kant describes the forms of intuition space and time and the category of causality as a priori to experience, he runs the risk of making them absolute at the same time and claiming that their content must also appear in the same form in any physical theories. But this is not the case, as shown by the theory of relativity and quantum theory.”

Causality means that every event is dependent on a cause. Example: If the dog wags its tail, then the dog is the cause. No sane person would think that the tail would move the dog, except perhaps a flea eating its meal on the dog’s tail. If we were to accept the flea’s view, we would have symmetry of view. So much for Einstein’s relativity. Causality brings order to our logical thinking.

In another quote, Heisenberg is even clearer:

Modern atomic physics has pushed natural science away from the materialistic direction it had taken in the 19th century.

That must have been well received by the Papal Academy of Sciences, to which he belonged from 1930 at the latest. After all, miracles and metaphysical powers were a specialty of this house.

Of course, Kant’s space and time are a priori order relations with which the movements of real masses are related to one another. Undoubtedly, from the observer’s point of view, these relationships are relative, physical units of measure are socially standardized, and consequently, they should appear in different theories in the same way, otherwise, these theories would be incompatible, such as relativity and quantum mechanics.

A trick can be used to eliminate causality. If you formally replace the mass m by p/v in Einstein’s energy equation and carry out a few mathematical operations, you finally get the alleged increase in mass of a moving mass compared to a stationary mass. But what does m=p/v refer to? A mass is an uncountable quantity of the ratio p/v permissible at all, taking causality into account? That would be fine if they were simple mathematical quantities, but now m is a physical quantity meant to represent the proportionality of two vectors. However, a vector division is not defined and so the derivation of the above relations is a faux pas, as is the use of the product of the speed of light and time as an independent vector in a four-dimensional reference system since both quantities have no direction and thus differ from the three spatial dimensions. This violates the law of generalization, which does not provide for quality changes.

Mechanics, electro- and thermodynamics describe parts of the dynamics. If you accept that the atom consists of positive and negative charges that interact with each other, then you must come to the compelling conclusion that both thermodynamics and mechanics are based on the laws of electrodynamics. However, modern physics wanted to trace electrodynamics back to mechanics, just as it did with thermodynamics. It failed at that. The other way around, it should be easier by reducing thermodynamics and mechanics to electrodynamics. That was the concern of the materialistic 19th century, on the basis of which the engineering achievements of our modern society, such as the energy industry and microelectronics, are built. There is therefore no logical reason not to incorporate this knowledge into our world model out of consideration for religion.

Not at all, in Vladimir Netchitailo’s world-universe model (WUM for short) the old model experiences a new edition. We’ve been exchanging ideas for a long time. His paradigm or basic belief is:

The three-dimensional world is a closed, curved hypersurface and it stretches within the four-dimensional universe with the constant velocity c. That universe serves as an unlimited source of energy, whose energy is continuously released into the world and penetrates beyond its borders.
The matter of the world consists of protons, electrons, photons, neutrinos, and dark matter particles, which are active agents in all physical phenomena of the world.
Two basic parameters in different rational exponents define all macro and micro features of the world: the fine structure constant α (is about 1/137 and indicates the strength of the electromagnetic force) and an also dimensionless quantity Q. While α is constant, Q increases with time and is actually a measure of the size and age of the world.

My criticism of Netchitailo’s world model is that starting from Lemaître’s model, he mixes knowledge and belief by stacking hypotheses on top of each other. On an absolute timeline, the world is virtually created from energy by conversion to mass, which the world’s surrounding four-dimensional universe provides to hold the density. He negates the dynamics of time cycles and forms two new dimensionless quantities from the constants of the old model.

Radical paradigm shift

I oppose this with a completely different paradigm:

The three-dimensional world is an open dynamic system. It is asymmetrical and causal, self-similar over many scales, dissipative in its energies, and fractally divided into four material phases.
The four material phases consist of the asymmetry of sluggish protons and nimble electrons, bound or free in atoms whose charge dynamics guarantee their different cohesion.
The basis of all dynamics in the world is the Lorentz force (force on a charge in an electromagnetic field), consisting of two mutually perpendicular components, which together form a helix, the ends of which unite to form a vortex ring if they do not meet a phase boundary.

Stigmergy

At least on one point, I know I agree with today’s Pope Francis. In his encyclical Laudato si’ from 2015 he writes under III/79:

In this universe, shaped by open and intercommunicating systems, we can discern countless forms of relationship and participation.

When intercommunication is mentioned here, physics is about impulse transmission in a coherent force-coupled system. I call this connection stigmergy. Stigmergy is understood in biology as a kind of self-organization. However, an organization has an organizational goal. Self-organization competes with external organization. We cannot yet speak of this in inanimate matter.

The mathematization of physics while at the same time neglecting experimental physics by influential representatives of theoretical physics of the 20th century such as Einstein and Heisenberg finally led to a dead end after initially apparent success.

Heisenberg, who demonstrably also had a strong aversion to experimental physics, also justified his acausality philosophically, which led to the fact that only the mathematical equation and thus the symmetry determined the thinking of the physicists, although dynamics contradicts all symmetry.

Physics in the 20th century was significantly shaped by two men who had only insufficient knowledge of the dynamics of physical processes. Despite this, both received the Nobel Prize in Physics. This made them role models for generations of physicists whose aim was to symmetrize their theories. So their imitators created a series of phantoms like black holes and wormholes, multiverses, and especially in the particle neutrinos and the whole particle zoo, including antimatter, whereas the Immaculate Conception of Mary was only a humble miracle.

Vortex rings and spirals

Forces act in circuits and form vortices, which close to vortex rings and strengthen or weaken each other. The idea of cosmic eddies already appeared with the philosopher and scientist René Descartes, whose work fell into the time of the Reformation Wars. Typically, 13 years after his death, his writings were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum by the Holy See in 1663. The Jesuits complained that he left no room for God.

Newton rejected Descartes’ vortex theory. It was Hermann von Helmholtz who took it up again in 1853, thereby inspiring William Thomson, who later became Lord Kelvin. Newton’s law, on the other hand, applies to two mass points in the plane, and it only describes the attraction and not the torque. In our closer range of experience, this is sufficient, since a uniform velocity in the gravitational field perpendicular to the inertial center is force-free, which astronauts can confirm. If, however, the central mass is distributed in a cylindrical disc extended up to the test mass, then instead of a potential vortex, a solid-state vortex is obtained, which explains the profile of a speed plateau of a galaxy even without the addition of a hypothesis of a halo and a black hole.

In one of these galactic whirlpools of plasma, the sun and all its planets follow the Lorentz law of force. Not the Lorentz transformation, but the Lorentz force with its electrical components and its magnetic moment provides a mechanical helix in the cosmic plasma, which gives an image of the real movement of the stars in our galaxy. These laws of motion are from the cosmic plasma currents to the area of the atoms and electrons scalable. This is where Newton’s law of force fits in as a projection of motion into the plane of the ecliptic (Draufsicht Diagram 2) while the wave function of the quantum mechanics can be viewed as a projection of electron motion into the plane (Seitenansicht Diagram 2) through the cylinder axis of the vortex filament.

In a democratic country, every person is free to choose whether to orientate themselves on the reality of life or on a belief. But faith ends where knowledge begins, and the knowledge of responsible citizens does not serve theology, not even in a hidden form. That would be abuse of the mind for the sake of power.

Dr. Mathias Hüfner is a German translator volunteer for The Thunderbolts Project. He studied physics from 1964 until 1970 in Leipzig Germany, specializing in analytical measurement technology for radioactive isotopes. He then worked at Carl Zeiss Jena until 1978 on the development of laser microscope spectral analysis. There he was responsible for software development for the evaluation of the spectral data. Later he did his doctorate at the Friedrich Schiller University in the field of engineering and worked there 15 years as a scientific assistant. Some years after the change in East Germany, he worked as a freelance computer science teacher the last few years before his retirement.

Since 2015, Mathias has run a German website of The Thunderbolts Project http://mugglebibliothek.de/EU and his latest book is entitled Dynamic Structures in an Open Cosmos

The ideas expressed in Thunderblogs do not necessarily express the views of T-Bolts Group Inc. or The Thunderbolts Project.