Physics of Anti-Gravity Explained in Detail - a preliminary critique

A current thread entitled
Physics of Anti-Gravity Explained in Detail
is generating a considerable amount of attention and speculation. Essentially a claim is being made that the underlying principles of Quantum Mechanics, considered to be the leading theory providing a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and the interactions of energy and matter, are in fact classical in nature. This is completely contrary to the current belief that the behaviour of matter and energy departs from classical mechanics primarily at the atomic and subatomic scales, the so-called quantum realm.

Since the birth of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's, many physicists have tried unsuccesfully to reconcile the behaviour at the atomic scale within that of a classical physics framework. Currently, the consensus is that such an attempt is futile. However, if the work being proposed by Frank Znidarsic is valid, then this will prove to be one of the biggest upsets in scientific history and will result in a complete shakeup of modern physics.


Now this claim by Znidarsic struck a particulary strong note with me as I have long held the personal belief that the rules of matter and energy, rather than becoming simpler the deeper we probe into the atomic and sub-atomic realm, instead apparently give all indications that the underlying makeup of the universe is actually becoming more and more complex.
In fact, I even created a thread some time ago that expounded this very view and entitled
Is physics rapidly leaving the realm of SCIENCE and RE-ENTERING the realm of MAGIC ?
So having Znidarsic come along and make his incredibly bold claim that the Quantum world can after all be exlained in the simpler concepts of classical physics seemed like the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

So naturally, I took it upon myself to watch all 16 Youtube clips and read every published paper by Znidarsic. And admittedly, on the surface it appeared that just perhaps, he may actually have stumbled onto something of incredible significance.

Unfortunately however, it didn't take long to pick out a number of errors and inconsistencies in his work. This doesn't necessarily invalidate his theory which may still turn out to be solid, but in my opinion such inconsistencies serve to cast doubts on the remainder of his work.

In this thread, I'll point out some of these inconsistencies and leave it up to you to decide whether his theory remains water-tight.


Paper published as "The Control of the Natural Forces" in the September/October 2009 (issue 87) of Infinite Energy.

On page 2, Znidarsic states

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f48f3a25895.jpg[/atsimg]

In the above, Znidarsic is referring to the radius of the proton and then goes on to define the radius of the electron as being twice the radius of the proton. Admittedly, some ambiguity is present as the above statement could just possibly be interpreted to mean that the radius of the electrons orbit, rather than the radius of the electron itself, is located at a distance of twice the protons radius. The assumption here is that we're referring of course, to the ground state of the electron within a hydrogen atom, to keep things simpler.

However, no matter how you interpret the statement, it's just wrong.

The radius of the proton is approximately 0.8 x 10^-15 meters ... the radius of the electron is approximately 2.8 x 10^-15 meters ... the radius of the electron orbit in its ground state within a hydrogen atom is approximately 5 x 10^-11 meters.

So no matter how you shuffle the values around, we will never get the radius of the electron, or the radius of the electrons orbit, equal to twice the radius of the proton.



Also on page 2 of the same paper, Znidarsic states

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/094a44843ce3.jpg[/atsimg]


Now, the Compton frequency of an electron is given by the following equation

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99769136c206.jpg[/atsimg]
and when evaluated using the rest energy of the electron, gives a value of approximately
1.235 x 10^20 Hz .


However, using Znidarsic's equivalent equation, and using his supplied value of
Vt = 1.094 x 10^6 Hertz-meters, we obtain a value of approximately 2.176 x 10^20 Hz .... a 76% discrepancy increase in frequency.

The only way that Znidarsic is able to make his equation provide the same Compton frequency value for the electron as the text-book equation is by replacing the currently accepted value of the proton radius of approximately 0.8 x 10^-15 m with his own value thats almost twice as large at 1.409 x 10^-15 m.


So, just in one of his many papers we find a number of obvious discrepancies with the most serious being the (almost) doubling of the accepted value for the protons radius ... despite the countless number of experiments that have experimentally determined a very accurate value for the protons radius.
If these discrepancies are carried into his other equations, then it makes it difficult indeed to trust their validity or the validity of the entire theory ... as much as I would love to believe that he may have performed the "impossible" in removing the "queerness" from quantum physics and dragging it back into the classical realm.



Edit to add why Znidarsic felt it necessary to change significantly the accepted value of the protons radius to prevent his theory from failing.

In his paper entitled The Elastic Limit of Space and the Quantum Condition, Znidarsic has taken the unusual step of assuming that space posseses a similar property to that of a spring, namely a property of elasticity. As he states

A spring has a limit to its elasticity. It breaks down when stretched beyond its limits. Space also has a limit to its elasticity. Space breaks down when the intensity of a force field exceeds this finite limit. The elastic limit of space is qualified by a minimum of capacitance.

Essentially, Znidarsic is saying that space is able to be stretched beyond its normal state .. but only to a certain extent .. at which point some (or all) properties of space break down. He further makes an analogy between the elasticity possessed by space and makes it equivalent to the capacitance property possessed by an electrical system.

A novel idea ... whether valid, who knows ....

Anyway, to determine the value of this spatial "elasticity", he proceeds by using the well known relationship between energy (E), voltage (V) and capacitance (C) possessed by an electrical system. In other words, he considers space and the matter and energy contained within it to be analogous to an electrical system.

So he starts with this equation that supplies the relationship between energy, voltage and capacitance within an electrical system ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9aa0b4b19279.jpg[/atsimg]

Another equation is then supplied that shows the relationship between capacitance (C), charge (Q) and voltage (V) within an electrical system ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3f583805f90.jpg[/atsimg]


Now equation (2) is substituted into equation (1) giving a new equation (3) ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37f4d7c693db.jpg[/atsimg]

The E value in the above equation represents the rest energy of the electron and the Q value represents the charge associated with one electron.
By re-arranging the above equation (3) and solving for capacitance C, Znidarsic arrives at what he believes to be the quantum (minimum) value of the elasticity of space ... equation (4) ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ca423f7215fc.jpg[/atsimg]


Finally, he assumes the proton has a structure analogous to that of a sphere and uses this to determine the electrical capacitance possessed by a proton ... equation (5) ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91c87bcbf5df.jpg[/atsimg]


And lastly, he rearranges equation (5) to solve for the radius of the proton ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84a33039c12b.jpg[/atsimg]

to arrive at a proton radius of 1.409 x 10^-15 meters.


Unfortunately for his theory, the well established value for the proton radius is currently
0.8 x 10^-15 meters.

Having arrived at this grossly inflated proton radius value, Znidarsic then proceeds to use it throughout the remainder of his equations.


As I stated earlier in this post, I would be overjoyed if Znidarsic's theory would prove to be a valid one, thereby bringing a well overdue simplicity back into physics.
However, until it can be shown this his "different" value for the proton radius can be shown to be the correct one (and I'm not holding my breath), then I really don't hold much hope of acceptance by the scientific community.

Very nicely done. I've been hoping for someone to give a solid critique of his work, and throughout my youth, to my mature detriment, never cared about math. Thanks for the information and an opposing viewpoint to those videos and paper, all of which I watched and read today. Much appreciated, I believe the appropriate term on ATS is F + S?

S & F + subscribe, will go over this when (if) I have time.

P.S. why do interesting threads always come up when its nearly time to go off line?

Well spotted tauristercus regarding the discrepancy between his calculated value for the proton radius compared to the one accepted by the scientific community. Just makes it seem extremely strange that he makes no mention of this in his Youtube vids and makes no attempt to explain the huge difference in values. I can't believe for one minute that he wasn't aware of the published proton radius value and simply assumed that his value must be the correct one - doesn't seem right to me.

Originally posted by afoolbyanyothername
Well spotted tauristercus regarding the discrepancy between his calculated value for the proton radius compared to the one accepted by the scientific community. Just makes it seem extremely strange that he makes no mention of this in his Youtube vids and makes no attempt to explain the huge difference in values. I can't believe for one minute that he wasn't aware of the published proton radius value and simply assumed that his value must be the correct one - doesn't seem right to me.

I have to agree with you that the omission does indeed seem quite strange.
So until Znidarsic comes up with a valid explanation for his "unique" proton radius value, then I'm reluctantly going to have to give his theory the thumbs down

Although the subject matter is interesting to me I am in no position intellectually to either challenge or contribute .I leave that to peers .What I can contribute to is a basic knowledge of the misdirection or misunderstanding that is a constant theme running threw our history ..ie...News , AGW ,Religion, History,Politics and yes, even Science ...Take any side of the dogma that may be in of any group and it wouldn't be hard to understand why our world seems to be disconnected from reality. So saying that I present ....The Answer to all our energy "problems": Cold Fusion www.youtube.com... peace
ps S&F for your work and presentation

He seems like an accessible guy. Have you sent your findings to him to see if he has anything to say?

it's not really called anti-gravity. It's called dark energy and it is the reason why the universe will end in a big freeze. Every messier or galaxy if you like is moving further away from each-over and all the stars will go out just as easy as they came on. I'm not saying that everything is getting bigger but the space between every galaxy is getting larger.
Imagine your viewing a room with 100 people sitting on chairs. Each person is moving from each over or though it may look like your moving away from everything, everything is moving away from you.

Unless your religious then we will die via the Apocalypse

Fine job taking the time to write this out.

I watched all the videos and stopped there drawing similar conclusions about problems with the math. It would be amazing and elequent if all of this was true but i'm afriad it's just a clever manipulation of common equations. His "magic" numbers are simply meaningless filler that makes his equations work.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude towards his theories though, this is how breakthroughs of this scale have to happen. You gotta think outside the box and start playing with things that no one would consider using.

Well done! The devil is always in the details.
I knew it sounded to good to be true,but thanks to your observations we may get closer to the solution.

Originally posted by flyingfish
Well done! The devil is always in the details.
I knew it sounded to good to be true,but thanks to your observations we may get closer to the solution.

That was my thoughts also when I 1st came across reference to Znidarsic's revolutionary theory ... that it was too good to be true. But deep down I'm still hoping that he has opened up the door to further research into simplifying and demystifying the quantum realm.

One other point that bothers me is that his entire premise is based on an energy transfer occuring between the incoming photon and orbital electron when the "impedances" between the two match exactly. Only when this condition is met will there be a 100% transfer of energy from the photon to the electron at which point a quantum transition occurs and the electron moves to a higher orbital/energy level.
To achieve this "impedance match", Znidarsic states that the velocity of light within the atomic structure is slowed down to exactly match the velocity of what he refers to as "sound" within the nucleus itself. However, this "sound" is actually more akin to a mechanical vibration.
So according to Znidarsic, the impedance match is perfect when the speed of light within the atomic structure and the speed of sound in the nucleus both match a velocity of 1.094 x 10^6 meters/sec.

Now I've looked through his papers and listened to all the Youtube clips and unless I've managed to miss it completely, at NO point does Znidarsic explain how the speed of light outside the atomic structure at 2.99 x 10^8 m/s gets dramatically slowed down to a much reduced speed of 1.094 x 10^6 m/s by the simple act of passing the outermost electron and entering into the atoms interior volume. How does this happen and where does the energy come from to act on the photon causing it to slow down ? In fact, slowing the velocity of light is equivalent to it losing momentum and therefore losing energy ... where does this energy loss go ?

reply to post by tauristercus


Thats a very valid point that you've just made. Any new theory MUST explain every aspect being presented and MUST remain self-consistent throughout. Here it seems we're being asked to take it on blind faith alone that the speed of light slows down dramatically to make the new theory work.

reply to post by tauristercus


Came across this first thing.

A team of international researchers led by physicists in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering has made a significant breakthrough in an effort to understand the phenomenon of high-temperature superconductivity in complex copper oxides.

I thought this could be of some interest concerning anti-gravity.
Novel Type of Magnetic Wave Discovered
www.sciencedaily.com...

Got to get to work check back later.

Your diligence is appreciated. However, you have only pointed out one flaw - that is the radius of the proton. If you assume Znidarsic's calculation of the radius of the proton to be correct, the other mathematics are logically consistent. The only problem here is the radius of the proton. Other things depend on it of course - it is a fundamental part of the theory. But you cannot pick apart the rest of the theory because the proton radius is different - he clearly intends to revise current ideas on proton radii with his work.

The work is internally consistent as far as we have seen. Any inconsistency or flaw must be determined by comparing the empirically testable results from Znidarsic's theories. Your criticism is that the theory is externally inconsistent when considering the radius of a proton.

Wow, kudos to tauristercus to going through this stuff.

the other mathematics are logically consistent

This doesn't make his proposal a useful one.

We've got a guy presenting an ideal capacitor(or one dimensional capacitor) model of the atom(specifically hydrogen). To make it fit he is replacing the Plank constant by another one(Znidarsic constant or transitional velocity) and even then he gets the numbers wrong(proton radius, Bohr radius).

And why does there have to be a tauristercus to point out the flaws? It almost looks like Znidarsic doesn't care. He would have done the calculations by himself and checked the validity of his proposal before going into public if he was really into it.

What is Znidarsic's contribution? Replacing a constant by another one doesn't cut, sorry.

PS: He is proposing that the photon is slowed down entering the atom(capacitor). This can only happen due to a change of vacuum permeability between proton and electron(capacitor plates). Never heard of such effect. And what about electron(charge) photon(em-wave) interaction?

Originally posted by tetsuo
Your diligence is appreciated. However, you have only pointed out one flaw - that is the radius of the proton. If you assume Znidarsic's calculation of the radius of the proton to be correct, the other mathematics are logically consistent. The only problem here is the radius of the proton. Other things depend on it of course - it is a fundamental part of the theory. But you cannot pick apart the rest of the theory because the proton radius is different - he clearly intends to revise current ideas on proton radii with his work.

The work is internally consistent as far as we have seen. Any inconsistency or flaw must be determined by comparing the empirically testable results from Znidarsic's theories. Your criticism is that the theory is externally inconsistent when considering the radius of a proton.

edit on 12-11-2010 by tetsuo because: (no reason given)

Let's start with this. We know the formula for angular distributions in Compton scattering is correct, as it was tested in the 1920's and quickly yielded a Nobel Prize.

Does this theory replicate those results?

Congrats! this is true science folks.

Thanks for you comments. I will attempt to address the questions.
How does the electron slow down to this velocity. I don;t know, however, according to Feynman the electron attempts to take all possible paths. Only one of these paths has the correct amount of impedance to allow the energy to flow. It takes this path by default.

Where does the energy go when the photon slows down? The same place it goes when light slows down in glass. The strength of its field increases with the decrease in velocity. Thats the way a dielectric medium works and conserves energy.

Is 1.409 the radius of the proton? I have had some confusion there myself. It is half the classical radius of the electron. This the point where the electron exceeds its elastic limit when crushed. It is the classical idea (elastic limit) the results in the quantum condition.

Check out my lecture in Washington.

www.angelfire.com...

Frank Znidarsic