Fundamentals

Have the necessary foundations of a viable “Modern Physics” never even been discussed? Did I have to invent the word “Primitive” to fill a void?

I would very much like any reader to notify me as to where this kind of discussion exists. I suggest that in the 20^th century there was no such discussion anywhere. That is, there was no interest in the central features of science. Please forward prior evidence of discussion to ivorcatt@btinternet.com

It all hinges on the principle that there is no instantaneous action at a distance. I understand that it is accepted that this is fundamental to “Modern Physics”, although instantaneous action is drifting in via “entanglement” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Whatever happens at a point in space results from what is at that point at that instant in time plus whatever arrives at that point at that instant in time. Everything else is “elsewhere”, more or less in different universes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Thus, for example, Newton’s Laws of Motion do not function at the primary, initial level, because they discuss “a body” which resides at more than one point in space at the same time.

In my subject, Electromagnetic Theory, Faraday’s Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction involves more than one point in space, and so is not operational at the fundamental level. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7877.jpg ; http://www.ivorcatt.com/2811.htm .

The most basic laws of physics must relate to a single point in space. If we rule out infinite density, a point in space can only have the density of something, not its mass or some such.

The most basic laws must relate to what I have had to christen “Primitives”. It is possible that this necessary concept has never before been stated in “Modern Physics”.

The Catt world view says that there is nothing stationary. There only exists TEM energy travelling at the speed of light. (This view simplifies matters, reducing from stationary energy and energy arriving, to only energy arriving.)

At a single point we do not have energy , but only energy density. This becomes very difficult to talk about and think about, so we broaden up to consider a very thin flat wafer of energy (density) travelling forward at the speed of light. This wafer knows nothing of what is ahead of it or behind it, because it travels at the speed of light. It still only has density, since it lacks volume. If there are many such wafers, one next to the other, we come to something that we can more easily think about and talk about. However, when developing our theories, we must bear in mind that each wafer does not know whether other wafers exist.

The “particle” either has zero volume, and so can exist as a Primitive. However, in order to have mass it would have to have infinite density. This has never been stated, so presumably the “particle” discussed in “Modern Physics” does have some volume. In that case, it is not a Primitive, not a basic building block. In my work, I dismiss the particle as not a viable concept.

Ivor Catt 2 July 2013