Contradictions in Modern Physics
The modern theory of matter rests upon such
supporting theories as the Standard Model of Elementary Particles,
Quantum Mechanics, and the Special Theory of Relativity. After decades
of work by thousands of physicists, the theory has "grown" until it can
explain a very large body of physical phenomena. This has made the
theory very successful; but the theory is not adequate or true because:
 It is only a mathematical model consisting of
equations and does not usually specify physical structure for
elementary particles.
 It frequently contradicts itself.
 It provides no mechanism for such fundamental
processes as the exchange of energy.
 It has to rely upon numerous assumptions
Consider how Quantum Theory deals with the
electron, a chief constituent of all matter:
1. Mathematical, not physical.
"Modern physicists today do not possess a single metaphor that unites
in one image the principle features of quantum theory." Depending upon
the situation, the quantum model of an electron is a particle or a
wave, or a set of waves that form a wave packet, described by certain
equations of energy, angular momentum, and wavelength.
There is only a tenuous link (given by Born) to a
structure or physical interpretation of these equations. The
McGrawHill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology states that "a good
theory of electron structure still is lacking....There is still no
generally accepted explanation for why electrons do not explode under
the tremendous Coulomb repulsion forces in an object of small size.
Estimates of the amount of energy required to `assemble' an electron
are very large indeed. Electron structure is an unsolved mystery...."
Modern science has no idea what holds an electron
together and simply assumes it hangs together on its own. On the other
hand, CSS has developed a proper model of elementary particles and
published (in a refereed journal of physics) an explanation for a
balance of forces on the electron. As a result of new classical models
and research published since 1990, statements that classical physics
cannot account for physical phenomena are no longer accurate. Today,
physical models of CSS account for most fundamental phenomena without
the numerous assumptions and selfcontradictions of Quantum Mechanics
or the Special Theory of Relativity.
2. Internal contradictions of
the modern theory.
It is common to consider the electron as a pointlike particle and omit
or subtract unwanted mathematical terms associated with infinite
energy. The aim is "not so much to get a model of the electron as to
get a simple scheme of equations which can be used to calculate all the
results that can be obtained from experiment." The point electron is
still a dominant feature of the modern model of the electron. Not long
ago, Nobel Prize winner Hans Dehmelt wrote about the "structureless
point particle predicted by the Dirac theory."
But the electron, proton, and neutron all have
measured amounts of spin (angular momentum) and magnetic moment. These
features can only exist because the particles have a finite, nonzero
size. So, a selfcontradiction of the common theory is evident: On one
hand, the particles are said to be pointlike; on the other hand, they
are known to have a finite size (needed to have a spin, magnetic moment
and the distribution of charge referenced in the next paragraph). This
inconsistency in modern science is incompatible with a JudeoChristian
world view of consistency where expediency is rejected and
contradictions are never allowed.
Even when a point particle model is used for
physics calculations, the particle is also said to have a wavelength
that must be used in other calculations. And the point particle
assumption for elementary particles has been proven false by Hofstadter
(Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1961) who showed that neutrons, protons,
and other elementary particles have a measurable finite size, an
internal charge distribution (indicative of internal structure), and
elastically deform in interactions.
The point electron used for convenience has
additional problems called a "mystery" by Sellin. Concentration of the
electron charge in a point would require an infinite amount of energy
and an infinite force to balance the outward directed Coulomb Force. If
the rest mass energy is infinite, then the equivalent mass (M) equal to
energy (E) divided by the light velocity (c) squared must (by modern
theory) also be infinite. But the rest mass of an electron has been
measured, and it is not infinite. Evidently, the point particle
assumption is contradicted by the known rest mass of an electron.
The significance of a correct model has become
apparent: It is impossible to derive the stability, spin or magnetic
moment of an electron from an infinitesimal point, so modern science
assumes the electron has the right value for the spin and moment. In
contrast, common sense science based on causal theory can derive
electron characteristics from a physical model that has real size and
shape. Proven equations of Coulomb, Ampere, and Faraday are used to
relate electrical and physical features of the physical model.
Attempts by the modern theory to explain other
features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions.
Orbiting electrons in the atomic shells or nucleus must radiate energy
into space according to well proven laws of electricity and magnetism
and demonstrated daily by broadcasting radio stations. Atoms with
orbiting electrons should suffer radiation death, but they are
obviously stable! Originally, this inconsistency was simply postulated
away by Bohr, though he well understood the contradiction. Bohr took
the view that "A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also a
truth," and to remove all doubt, he argued that the two statements
"There is a God" and "There is no God" are equally insightful
propositions.
One day, "A visitor to Niels Bohr's country
cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door.
`Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe
over the entrance to a home brings good luck?' `No,' answered Bohr, `I
certainly do not believe in this superstition. But you know,' he added,
`they say it brings luck even if you don't believe in it.' "
Since atomism allows noncausal events and
actions, the contradictions in atomistic theory are explained in terms
of assumptions or a disconnection of cause and effect. In contrast,
consistency is inherent in the law of cause and effect.
3. No mechanism for fundamental
process.
The foundation of a rational theory is cause and effect. In a rational
theory, everything happens for a reason and not just by chance.
Finitesized physical objects are essential for a rational, causal
theory. An example will make this clear. When a spring is compressed by
holding one end fixed and applying a force to the other end of the
spring, the spring becomes smaller and potential energy is added to the
spring. The spring with its resistance to the external force of
compression provides a mechanism for storing energy. There is a cause
and effect relationship: the spring is compressed because of the
external force. The spring has releasable energy because it has been
compressed.
Now, instead of a spring, let us consider how a
point object of zero size might store energy. But, a point cannot store
energy! Clearly, there is no compression possible for a point and no
energy can be stored in the point object. Although we have imagined the
point object to exist, it is incapable of the property of deformation
needed to store energy. So, we may assume a point object, but we cannot
derive its properties from the laws of physics. The point object has no
mechanism capable of storing energy in any form. It cannot react to
other forces or objects; and the point object is not a proper, rational
model to explain the phenomena observed for objects of the physical
world. Therefore, in quantum theory the fundamental properties of
elementary particles are assumed (because they cannot be related to
force laws, other objects, or selfrelated properties of the same
object). Quantum theory usually solves this problem by assuming that
other shortlived "particles" exist to "carry" the forcesor by
assuming new forces (the Strong and Weak Forces) that exist only in the
atomic nucleus or in certain particles such as the neutron (when it
disintegrates outside the atom). New force laws, new "particles" and
new terms in equations will continue to be added in efforts to conform
the modern theories of particle physics to results from new
experiments. At some point, the theory will be abandoned when it
becomes as cumbersome as the Ptolemy Theory of epicycles to explain
planetary motions.
Since quantum mechanics has no physical mechanism
for cause and effect relationships for atoms and elementary particles,
some rational scientists try to add "a `disturbance model' of
measurement [to] account for quantum randomness, the Heisenberg
uncertainty relations, and other quantum mysteries as well. In this
`disturbance picture,' an atom's actual position and momentum are
always definite but usually unknown; its measured position and momentum
cannot be accurately predicted because the measuring device necessarily
changes what it measures." The "disturbance model" is not really a part
of quantum theory and cannot be used to combine classical and modern
physics. "Both Heisenberg and Bohr warned against interpreting the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in terms of a measurement
disturbance." " In brief, the Copenhagen Interpretation [named for
Bohr, of Copenhagen] holds that in a certain sense the unmeasured atom
is not real: its attributes are created or realized in the act of
measurement." "Quantum theory is peculiar in that it describes a
measured atom in a very different manner than an unmeasured atom."
4. Assumed properties of
elementary particles.
Since the quantum electron has no physical structure, and no mechanism
exists for exchanging energy or transmitting forces, then it is
necessary to assume fundamental properties for the electron and proton:
The quantum theory assumes that electrons and protons have intrinsic
properties of spin, magnetic moment, stability, and inertial mass. The
theory makes no attempt to derive them or relate them, but chooses such
models that cannot relate its features: a point model is chosen for
some occasions, and a wave model is chosen on others. The theory is
unable to say if the essence of an electron is a particle or a wave;
the theory can only say that an elementary particle is consistently
inconsistent!
