Relativity, Model of Rotary Thinings, and Greek overthrow of physics

A couple of years ago, we had a thread in which they were discussed inflated achievements of Greeksand in particular the phenomenon of hawk and exaggeration from the media that present them as subversive, radical, and generally much greater importance than they really are. I also left my comment and continued my life, but recently during a lazy search on my own profile I discovered that my comment was mysteriously deleted. Since I don’t like to leave things in the middle, especially for an object I have very close to my heart, I would like to talk to you about Dr. Constantinos Vayenas and his associates in particle physics.

Dr. Constantinos Vayenas, a professor at the University of Patras and a member of the Academy of Athens, is a chemical engineer, one would be able to say significant work in his field. Here I want to emphasize again that since I am not a chemistry expert (I forcibly passed her in high school) I can not at all I personally comment on the quality of his work in chemistry, but judging by the references he has collected and index-h His contributions to the field (specifically to the theory of abolition and electrochemistry) are certainly important.

Things so far fine. But since 2010, Dr. Vayenas has begun to be active in physics, and publications in the Greek press on his achievements give and take (icon because Reddit for some reason is blocking the post).

Sorry but only so can I link them.

The issue is common and I think we all understand: the Greek scientist who shakes the waters of the establishment. Will you tell me, what is the problem? Is it better to be an unnatural ethnicist and to ignore the work of our compatriots? Of course not. There are huge Greek names in theoretical physics: I do not want to mention specifically to avoid any infringement through the omission of names, but it is not very difficult to verify on your own. So we don’t miss productive Greek physicists. So the present is not an attempt to silence Greek voices in science.

Do I want to say that physics is for a few, and the gaze will do well to stay away from her? Not even to the minimum. Personally I love physics too, too, and that’s why I want to see as many people dealing with her! You do not have to be an expert to show interest in either physics, nor chemistry, nor mathematics, nor in sociology, history, psychology, nothing. But physics (and the theoretical physics) is a field that requires good mathematical foundation, without which you cannot do proper research. Let’s say you can’t break the rules without knowing them. So the present is not even an attempt to remove the “beginners” from physics.

Let’s talk about the so -called idea of ​​the Dr. Vayenas. Somewhere in the end of the 2000s, Dr. Vayenas had the idea of ​​combining nervonia gravity with special relativity. By doing this, calculated Newton’s constant, examined a electric-gravity oscillatorand suggested a model for restriction rapid and light particles. So he ended up suggesting the Model of Rotary Thinin which the particles consist of three neutrons that revolve around their common center of mass, acquiring energy and thus, according to the well -known Einstein equation e = mc^2. Dr. Vayenas and his associates claim that such a model solves not only the problems of the established model of particle physics as the masses arise computing, but also explains both the strong and the weak interaction as the remains of the two real powers of nature, electromagnetism and gravity. In a summary presentation The model even claims to solve the problem of dark matter! The theory that is, a multi -tool.

Before we look at these allegations, let us speak in summary about Newtonian gravity and relativity. After all, nervonia gravity describes the attraction between two bodies at low speeds and relatively long distances. Improved (not “rejected”) with the help of Einstein’s general relativity, which describes what happens when the curvature of space -time is large enough that the nervonia gravity is no longer valid. Special relativity (in which space -time is not curved) was already known, but let’s say a “naive” attempt to marry her with Neonia mechanics was rejected since 1919 when Sir Eddington with the its well -known experiment He showed that the gravitational focus of light is undoubtedly following Einstein’s equations and not Newton. Newtonian gravity can also not describe the passage of Hermes periphery (since the force of gravity against Newton is exclusively central).

The point I want to emphasize here deserves its own paragraph: Although Einstein indeed He shook the waters of physics, this does not mean that we throw away the joke in the trash, nor that we were “wrong”. There are simply conditions in which nervonia gravity works fine and conditions in which it does not work so well or not at all. The same is true for each model: there are conditions for we can apply it, otherwise we simply play with the numbers. Example: A simple population model for amoeing shows that they are exponentially reproduced. If we are in the future in the future indiscriminately (that they are reproduced every two days), we find that in a few months the recipients would swallow the earth. But obviously this is not the case because in the long run, the amoebas die, they do not reproduce, and their population in laboratory conditions follow a sigmoid with a maximum, not uncontrolled exponential function. So every model, even a “law” of physics, has a framework in which it is applied.

Let’s go back to the model’s claims. Very rough, in special relativity, when a particle has high speeds, its energy increases in a way different from the one predicted by classical physics. In the past, this was explained by the idea of ​​a “relativistic mass”, but this idea was abandoned because there is no relativistic mass, but two, depending on the direction of power. Even so, if we distinguish between “transverse” and “longitudinal” mass, we cannot simply replace the mass in Newton’s well -known law f = MA with “relativistic mass” at such high speeds: when there is gravity and the space is not needed: It is something that every student of theoretical physics learns in the degree.

And yet, in all their texts, Dr. Vayenas and his associates show a complete understanding of modern physics. Their mathematics are not incorrect, but they apply equations where they do not apply. They claim to find the masses of the particles based on the masses of neutrinos, but the masses of neutrinos are not known: they have a ceiling, so playing within the boundaries they can find whatever number they want. Their knowledge of modern physics (quantum chromout, quantum field theory, general relativity) is highly limited. This is obviously not bad, but it is good to know the basics before we try to break them down.

There are other questions, maybe a little techniques, but they are important: what about the baryon number? Isn’t there? If there is, how does it come from the model? How can they claim that the boson Z_0 consists of an electron, a positron, and a neutrino since their spins (1/2) are not properly summed up to get a z_0 spin 1? How can they describe the forces without even talking about fields? How can they claim that the basic equations of general relativity are “maintaining energy and maintaining momentum” without even talking about metric function and field equations? (Let the energy be maintained in general relativity in the same way that is maintained in classical field theory).

Dr. Vayenas as I said is reached. He has his job and he has nothing to fear. But his students with whom he writes such articles? He may have led them to believe that working with him on this model are working to cut research in particle physics. But this is not the case at least, and I hope it does not affect their future career. The fact that their many articles have either been left as preprint (that is, not published) is not unexpected. More unexpected that some have actually been published, even in magazines unrelated to modern physics (mainly in magazines Topics in Catalysis and Axioms and Physica A): One would expect the corresponding editor to suggest them to submit them to a more relevant magazine, or maybe the reviewer will understand the size of the ignorance of Dr. Vayenas and their partners and suggest their rejection. This has happened at least once: they themselves quote the following comment (I quote the original):

The paper implies:
i) quantum chromodynamics is unnecessary if not plain wrong as a field of particle physics,
ii) dark matter is an artifice due to an error on the theoretical estimation of stars‘ gravitational attraction,
iii) there is no matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe since protons contain positrons in them,
iv) protons have, in addition to positrons, 3 neutrinos for a total of 4 fermions whose bound state nonetheless still has spin 1/2,
v) Hydrogen atoms contain a positron-electron pair yet they do not annihilate vaporizing matter as we know it and
vi) there is no such thing as baryon number since protons, neutrons, etc are made up of leptons. This paper dismisses many decades of established research by countless scientists in different fields of particle physics.
The model in the paper does not account for nearly as many phenomena as the theories it is meant to replace. For these reasons my recommendation is to not publish this work.

It seems really absurd to me that such articles are not only published, but also resulted in the establishment of their authors and by members of the Greek academic space, but also by the media. Their claim that physicists have “ignored a factor C6” for so many years that makes dark matter not necessarily dare to say that it is at least arrogant, as well as being squeezed by some mathematical acts a bunch of physics fields, simplifying them and ignoring them.

It is a shame but perhaps somewhat expected a title such as “Greek scientists are examining the sensitivity of cosmological inflation to the initial conditions according to model Strombinsky under the latest measurements of Planck, Act, and Desi” to be less catchy than “Greek”.

PS You can also see my post on the r/HypotheticalPhysics here In which I present up and down what I wrote here, and my comment that was deleted here. To emphasize that my comments are only about the work of Dr.. Vayenas, and not his character, and how science, as a human attempt to understand the universe, can only bloom with transparency and criticism.