The Scientific Method in Science determines that premises, on which a theory is based, must be experimental verified, when possible.

It is however possible that theories of the past are based on premises, which could not be experimental verified at the time the theory developed.

When technology advances over time to a level, where unverified premises of a theory can be verified, the scientific method determines that verification must still take place.

The Electromagnetic Theory (EM-theory) of Physics has developed since the second halve of the 19th century. The EM-theory is based on undeniable experimental observations and unverified premises.

Undeniable experimental observations, at the basis of the EM-theory, is that two parallel electric currents, where the electrons move in the same direction, attract each other (by means of the induced magnetic fields). The EM-theory however assumes (=assumed premise) that a parallel currents of protons and electrons, where both particles move in the same direction, repel.

This assumption of the EM-theory has never been verified, although verification is already realizable for many decades.

Requests to scientific institutions to verify this fundamental premise of the EM-theory by means of a simple fundamental experiment is refused, although the Scientific Method determines that verification must be performed.

The proposed experiment is described at: http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/?page_id=130

Must the science Physics, like any other science, obey and follow the rules determined by the Philosophy of Science and verify assumed premises?

closed as off-topic by Dave, user9166, Hunan Rostomyan, virmaior, James Kingsbery Dec 19 '14 at 18:28

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions that push a personal philosophy with no question beyond "am I right" or "what do you think" are off-topic here as this is not a blog. It's ok to express unique opinions, but you must have an actual, answerable question to go with them." – Dave, Community, Hunan Rostomyan, virmaior, James Kingsbery
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Where did you see the assumption that a parallel current of protons and electrons would repel? just curious. – surelyourejoking Dec 16 '14 at 14:51
  • I am now convinced that you have gotten your science wrong (of course it could be me who is wrong and in which case I sincerely apologise). Protons cannot flow. Willing to discuss this further as we could both learn something. – surelyourejoking Dec 16 '14 at 14:55
  • This experiment has been done at Fermilab and Cern and any other place that a proton (or anti-proton) beam has been made: the beam is confined/directed by magnetic fields due to the motion of electrons thus thus proton-electron EM interaction has been extensively experimentally tested. – Dave Dec 16 '14 at 15:13
  • surelyourejoking: Of course protons can flow. Not in an electric wire, but in vacuum. If you are curious read the synopsis or book "Unbelievable" (paradox-paradigm.nl/wp-content/uploads/Unbelievable.pdf). Dave you state that Fermilab and and CERN cannot work. Why? The only thing I state is that the direction of the induced magnetic field of a proton beam is different than assumed by the EM-theory. This has no effect on the forces etc. induced in the labs. – Carel Dec 16 '14 at 15:14
  • In my deleted comment, I stated that "Fermilab and Cern would not work if the electron-proton EM interaction were different from (relativistic) EM theory" -- I said this because the way you make, and confine, a proton beam is via specially configured magnetic fields, setup through the use of electromagnets. So we have the moving electrons in the electromagnets and the moving protons in the proton beam interacting electromagnetically in a manner as described by (existing) EM theory. – Dave Dec 16 '14 at 15:18

You don't have to test every single permutation of a theory to have good evidence for it or for it to be well-tested. Indeed, the point of having a theory is so you don't have to check every possible combination; you can verify that some basic principles work and then reason from them.

In particular, everything from mass spectrometry to the accelerator at CERN would be hopelessly broken if your experiment didn't work out as expected.

(Your exact experiment might have been done, but since it's annoyingly hard to make strong currents of protons in a vacuum, it's a lot of effort for a very unrewarding result.)

  • The experiment is certainly not hard to perform. Just put an electron beam, which is available in every high school physics lab, parallel to a proton accelerator and the bending of the electron beam will indicate whether the beams are attracting or repelling. Wouldn't it be spectacular to see whether QM is – Carel Dec 16 '14 at 12:13
  • If you fired beams of protons and electrons, they would attract. – surelyourejoking Dec 16 '14 at 14:54
  • Yes proton and electrons attract by the electrostatic force. However the shell of the proton accelerator is in fact a cage of Faraday shielding the electric fields. So no distortion of the magnetic force by means of the electric charge of the beams. – Carel Dec 16 '14 at 15:01
  • @Carel - Mass spectrometry is already spectacular. It's almost identically your experiment. chemguide.co.uk/analysis/masspec/howitworks.html – Rex Kerr Dec 16 '14 at 22:26

I think there is a confusion in your question between the premisses and the empirical consequences of a theory.

  • What you are refering too are empirical consequences of EM, not premisses. The premisses would be quantum field theory, or Maxwell's equations.
  • All consequences of a theory need not be tested: that would be impossible, because they are in infinite number.
  • Only the premisses need to be tested: once the premisses are well tested, it is reasonable to assume, as a matter of logic, that all their consequences ensue as well.
  • Premisses are abstract statements and are never tested directly, but through their consequences. However it is not necessary to test all consequences (which, again, is impossible) to be confident that the premisses are true.
  • The premisses of EM are all very well tested, therefore we can assume with high confidence that all its consequences (including the one you are refering to) are true as well

There is also probably a confusion on what you can expect from scientific institutions. Institutions do not follow explicit methodological rules. Philosophers (and sometimes scientists) reflect on the methodologies which happen to be succesful but nothing obliges an institution to perform a specific test.

If you think your test deserves consideration, you should try to convince others by publishing an article to defend this view in a scientific journal. Or you should integrate a university departement (e.g. make a PhD) and attempts to get funds for your experiment.

  • I had correspondence with Nobel laureate Prof. 't Hooft about the experiment. Prof. 't Hooft did not say that experiment was not relevant. He just said "I'am not interested". The experiment is so simple to perform, that there is no disturbance whatsoever. The test can be done while the proton accelerator is in use for other purposes. On the question whether I could perform the experiment in his lab the answer was a simple "Of course not"! The correspondence with 't Hooft is over 1000 words, but if you want to read download: paradox-paradigm.nl/wp-content/uploads/hooft.pdf – Carel Dec 16 '14 at 15:31
  • 1
    No I don't care. He had a normal reaction as far as I can tell. – Quentin Ruyant Dec 16 '14 at 16:42

Carel, why don't you do the experiment yourself?

the attraction / repulsion of two parallel wires with electric current is due to magnetic fields created by drifting electrons.

These electrons actually move quite slowly (order of mm/s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity

Therefore if you wish to experiment with moving electrons vs moving protons, what you need to do is have one of the wires move in the opposite direction to the drift of the electrons at their drift speed, and therefore you would have the electrons in the wire at rest relative to your desktop and the protons in the wire moving relative to your desktop.

Good luck with shocking the world.

And more particularly to your question - I think it is actually about epistemology.

Who should one believe? 100 years of physics by mind blowing scientists, or someone who could be, for all we know, just wasting everybody's time with his misunderstandings and bad physics or math? and in case you are not aware, the internet abounds with such cases.

Once while studying Einstein's SR, I stumbled on a website by a physics PhD who purported to show why SR is wrong; unfortunately, one week into my studies was enough to realize where he got his math wrong; nevertheless he was advertising his errors for years.

Not to mention crackpot sites by young earth believers, geocentrists, holocaust deniers, etc, etc...

In short, please excuse the world if it chooses to ignore you.

  • Why getting emotional? Science should be looking objectively at the facts and make logical conclusions. Mistakes have been made and will be made; even in Physics. The problem is that people, and certainly scientists find it very difficult to admit mistakes. There is no one to blame here, but mistakes of this magnitude cannot stand to last. Sometime in the future the omissions have to be corrected; better now then later! – Carel Dec 16 '14 at 21:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.