An Investigation of Modern Physics by Brian Williams
RSS icon Home icon
  • How Physicists “Find” Their Particles!

    Posted on June 25th, 2011 Brian No comments

    This really started  with ‘Brownian Motion’ and Einstein’s interpretation of  it. Over the years the equipment has got more sophisticated and costly.

    Note: No-one as ever seen or isolated any of the physicist’s particles, or even presented a sensible explanation of them. The cloud Chamber, the Bubble chamber and the Hadron Collider only show tracks that may be particles, atoms or molecules. there is no actual evidence of what the tracks really are.

    Simplified, they fire something into a liquid or gas and see what happens. (Please understand that they don’t actually know what it is that they are firing.)

    They then take photographs of what happens. The photographs require 100s of thousand of photons to produce each one. (Please understand that they do not know what a photon is. They think that it is something between a particle and a wavy line.)


    This photograph is claimed to show the mutual annihilation of an Anti-proton and a Proton, and the creation of charged Pions. Again, don’t panic, because the names are meaningless.

    Below is a simplified version of the above.

    The Red line shows the path of an imaginary ant-Proton. This strikes a ‘supposed’ proton at 2. The Blue lines are claimed to be the tracks of positive Pions and the green lines are claimed to be the tracks of negative Pions. The heavy line at 3 is claimed to be a positive pion that finally strikes some unknown object and bounces off to become a positive Muon. (The actual statement from the physicists is that comes to rest and decays into a Muon.) Why would it change direction on becoming a Muon?

    At the right hand side of the Proton? there is a negative Pion that appears to split into two negative Pions.

    It may have occurred to you that all the positive Pions travel anticlockwise and the negative Pions travel clockwise. If we had a photograph taken from directly opposite the camera taking the above picture would physicists mark the above positive Pions as negative Pions, etcetera.

    Now let us look at other options. Let us consider that the Proton at 2 is actually an atom. Now Pions, Muons, and all the other mythical particles are all deemed to be parts of atoms. Therefore the atom is quite massive relative to the particles.

    Now if atoms are partly composed of all these other particles, then on being struck by a high speed particle, these other particles are quite likely to be dislodged or sent flying in all directions. If dislodged particles have some degree of spin, then they will travel a curved path, either clockwise or anti-clockwise, depending on the direction of spin, just like a tennis or cricket ball.

    What if the tracks were caused by electrons not mythical Pions? Well, this would go against the physicists hypotheses, because they claim that hydrogen only has one electron. However, that is just an hypothesis, for there is no proof to back it up, My own hypotheses indicate that it is not true.

    However, electrons could certainly fit the above photographic ‘evidence’.

    Another problem with the above is relating to the energy of the particles. Line 3 is stated to be of ‘relatively low energy as gauged by the small radius of curvature of its trajectory’. The curvature is caused by the amount of spin on the particular particle. The total energy of a speeding particle is a combination of its forward speed and its rotation.

    Spirals on the photograph.

    In the top right hand side of the photograph there is a spiral track as shown below.

    The physicists claim that these sort of tracks are caused by electrons.

    I am very doubtful of this claim. A tight track such as this would indicate an unbalanced force in operation. The spiral paths are far more likely to caused by a spinning molecule. If it was a spinning electron it would have to have a very high spin rate and would not suddenly stop as shown. The type of camera used could also affect the results. Also the length of exposure of the film. As previous notes, they have really no idea what it is that they are ‘apparently’ seeing.



    The photograph used in this post is quite a famous one in physics circles and is claimed as proof of many aspects of ‘particle’ physics. It is one out of millions of photographs taken in an attempt to justify the physicists hypotheses. 99.999% of the other photos do not justify the hypotheses! Its like taking a million photos in a shopping mall and finding one that shows only men, and then claiming that this proves that only men go to shopping malls. Anything can be claimed when searching through millions of photographs of purely random interactions between particles.

    Matter and anti-matter particles.

    Physicists constant discussions and publications relating to anti-matter particles is based on on photographic ‘evidence’ in the same way as the above photograph. If a particle is fired into the gas (or liquid) and appears (on the photograph) to suddenly disappear, there are many possible reasons for this. It could have slowed down and then stopped.  It could have hit an atom and bounced off either away from or towards, the camera. It could be in orbit around an atom


    Note: The Hadron Collider is just a very, very expensive version of this experiment.


    “Tevatron teams clash over new physics.”

    All the above comments also apply to the Tevatron accelerator in the USA, currently in the news. I suspect that they are struggling to find a magic particle to enable them to keep the unit open. (It is due to close shortly.)


    Author;Brian Williams

  • Einstein and the Atom Bomb.

    Posted on June 25th, 2011 Brian No comments

    Einstein, E = mc2 and the Atom Bomb.

    In 1937, Einstein was told by Leo Slizard (better known for his Science Fiction  writing ) that based on his (Einstein,s) E = mc2 , an atom bomb was probably being made by Germany (Which it was trying to do). At this time, Slizard was already trying to work out some means to produce an Atom Bomb. Slizard convinced Einstein to back him, and Slizard drafted a letter to President Roosevelt which Einstein signed. That was the extent of Einstein’s involvement with the Atom Bomb.

    Let us consider E = mc2 ,

    i.e. Energy = Mass x (The Velocity of Light)2

    This is based on the standard formula in mechanics, E = mv2 or Energy = Mass x Velocity2 , modified because of Einstein’s interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

    Einstein argued that for anything travelling at the speed of light, any variation in energy must mean a variation in the mass, based on the argument that the speed of light was a constant value.

    In fact, neither formulae have any relevance to the Atom Bomb. The actual Atom Bomb is based on well known classical mechanical principles.

    A match head is a source of energy, a gallon of petrol is a source of energy, a piece of coal is a source of energy and uranium is a source of energy. The ignition of any of these items is an atomic reaction. An atomic reaction involves only the complete atom, a nuclear reaction affects the nucleus itself, a far more serious situation. Even our sun is unlikely to involve nuclear reactions, it is far too small to contain the really dangerous atoms required for nuclear reactions to take place.

    The danger could arise from material arriving from outer space that does contain the really dangerous atoms that could be accidentally included in an atomic explosion

    None of them (so far) have produced nuclear reactions, thank God, otherwise we would not be here.

    I have just to-day read an article on the web about Einstein. Although blatantly anti-Semitic, (I did’nt even know he was Jewish) it argues that all Einstein’s work was plagerized from more deserving (none Jewish) physicists. In that case I feel that they were even more incompetant than Einstein.

    Author, Brian Williams

  • Running my web-site – General Notes

    Posted on June 20th, 2011 Brian No comments

    I get a  lot of general comments and questions relating to this web site.

    1.The basic Web operating system is WordPress. 2.9.2. Note I have been trying to upgrade to the latest version for over 18 months, without success

    2.The basic theme is a Gear 1.2.1. modified (By my son) to my requirements.

    3.My first web site I did myself, but I cannot remember what system I used.  I was very simple, free, and had reasonable instructions.

    Generally I find WordPress rather difficult to use, mainly due to a lack of any clear instructions. I may produce a post setting out the basic operations.

    Note; 20th June 2014. I have now managed to upgrade WordPress and am just getting used to the improvements.

    Formatting of text and graphics can sometimes be a nightmare.

    I have been trying to get comments to display as latest comment first.

    I cannot find an explanation of why the editing page sometimes defaults to html mode, making updates extremely difficult to do, especially formatting.

    I would like to delete some statistic categories which I am not interested in and return the ‘Spy’  category which was very useful but disappeared one day about 18 months ago along with 18 months of data.

    Note, it is no use  asking me why your computer does not show the posts correctly, or will not print properly. I am not an expert on computer operating systems.  My posts show correctly on hundreds of computer systems and on most browsers. Even if you  gave me all your computer and operating system information, I would still not be able to help.The web site was checked using my my three computers, an Apple Power Mac 8600/200 running Apple OS 7.5, OS 8, OS 8.6 and OS 9.1, Plus a PC running Windows 2000 and a PC running Linux Ubuntu.

    These are problems with your system. It is no use trying to view this web site on a mobile phone, it is designed to be viewed on a proper computer screen.

    I use the Windows PC for running Autocad plus WordPerfect. I use the Apple for producing colour graphics from drawings produced on Autocad plus any publishing requirements. The Linux computer is mainly used as a back-up plus running off copies of Sudoku puzzles (its saved me more than the computer cost, I usually print them 8 to a page). Its a free operating system, fairly comprehensive and has some interesting features.

    I DO NOT DO ADVERTISING. Allowing advertising on my website would destroy its integrity and effectiveness. (It would also drastically reduce its loading speed.)

    Copying my posts.

    No one is authorised to copy my posts. I will not authorise them  because unless I could validate the integrity of the copyist I would have no means of  controlling their usage in promoting scam sites, pornography etcetera.

    Partial copying is legally allowed for use in critical reviews, but must include my site information and a written review by the copyist.


  • Physics in the News – Two Slit Interferometer.

    Posted on June 4th, 2011 Brian No comments

    From BBC News – 3 June 2011

    Quantum mechanics rule ‘bent’ in classic experiment

    By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News

    Water ripples
    Light can interfere with itself just as water ripples can add to or cancel one another

    Researchers have bent one of the most basic rules of quantum mechanics, a counterintuitive branch of physics that deals with atomic-scale interactions.

    Its “complementarity” rule asserts that it is impossible to observe light behaving as both a wave and a particle, though it is strictly both.

    In an experiment reported in Science, researchers have now done exactly that.

    They say the feat “pulls back the veil” on quantum reality in a way that was thought to be prohibited by theory.

    Quantum mechanics has spawned and continues to fuel spirited debates about the nature of what we can see and measure, and what nature keeps hidden – debates that often straddle the divide between the physical and the philosophical.

    For instance, a well-known rule called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle maintains that for some pairs of measurements, high precision in one necessarily reduces the precision that can be achieved in the other. [ This is not so. Brian]

    One embodiment of this idea lies in a “two-slit interferometer”, in which light can pass through one of two slits and is viewed on a screen.

    Let a number of the units of light called photons through the slits, and an interference pattern develops, like waves overlapping in a pond. However, keeping a close eye on which photons went through which slits – what may be termed a “strong measurement” – destroys the pattern. Etcetera, etcetera.


    More waffle from the physics establishment. This experimental information is covered in my book Physics or Fantasy – Section 1 – Light and Relativity.

    The experimental results obtained show that light functions strictly in accordance with normal fluid mechanics, and have nothing to do with quantum mechanics.  Just as in my experiments on colour, the main items of equipment in these experiments are the slits themselves. The significance of the ‘mechanics’ of the slits is totally ignored by the physicists, mainly due to their creed that mechanics cannot have anything to do with physics.

    Light is the ultimate  fluid.  People do not think of light as a fluid,  yet it functions like a fluid. The main difficulty is that light is so fluid it that it travels a lot faster than liquids or gases.  The main definition of a fluid is it takes the form of any shape that contains it.

    The speed at  which a fluid conforms to the shape of the  containing vessel determines  its fluidity. Treacle, Oil, Water, Dry Sand,  Oxygen, Hydrogen etcetera are all fluids. However, they all take  different amounts of time to fill any containment of them. They are also subject to to gravity and internal frictional forces. Light is  only very, very little affected by gravity, and is only affected by external friction, again, only in a very small way. The slit experiments demonstrate the effects of friction on light.

    However, do not expect to put light into a bottle, put a stopper in and use it later. Once light is stopped, its energy is dissipated. The particles (Or if you are a physicist, wavy lines) are still there but have lost their energy. The particles have to have a certain speed to be detected by the eye as ‘light’. Below this speed they cannot trigger the eye/brain receptors.

    The experiments are explained in simple language.

    See also

    How Physicists “Find” their Particles

    The Full Mathematics of the Michelson – Morley Experiment