----> ---- ---- ---- ----
English ----> Español ---- Deutsch ---- Français ---- Italiano ---- Português ... If translation leaves the bottom of a page still English, copy and translate HERE.

New Science Theory - exemplified by physics theory

Albert Einstein . Isaac Newton . Rene Descartes . William Gilbert ........ Science History . General Image Theory .......... Sitemap . About us

- Site Search at bottom - v

useless atoms picture

Science is basically the combination of good logical reasoning with good practical knowledge of actual natural phenomena. All humans do some logical reasoning and have some practical knowledge of some actual natural phenomena, but most have to busy themselves with feeding themselves and their families as best they can. Few people have been able to devote much of their time to reasoning and/or gaining better knowledge of nature, and only some of these have made small or big contributions to the development of science. In considering science theory, this site concentrates especially on the theory ideas of four major physicists - Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes and William Gilbert - but we also have good related sections on Johannes Kepler, on Galileo Galilei, on Gravity phenomena, on Light, on String Theory and physics now on The Standard Model and on Science Philosophy.

- Hear briefly, our basic science methodology in various languages :-

PHYSICS NEWS. The most powerful electromagnetic charged-particle accelerator built to date was switched on at CERN on 10th September 2008, though problems mean its experiments are not expected to really begin till 2010. The £5 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will smash electrically charged protons into each other at energies up to seven times greater than any achieved before. The LHC machine is housed in a 27 kilometre (17 mile) tunnel buried under 100 metres of rock, straddling the borders of Switzerland and France. Proton beams will be electromagnetically accelerated in opposite directions through the ring-shaped machine, cooled to just 1.9 degrees above absolute zero (minus 271C), to velocities up to maybe 99.99% of the speed of light ?! The electrically charged particle beams will collide in four detectors designed like giant microscopes, but still not capable of observing any actual collision contact. Supporters of a variety of physics theories will be hoping that its experiments will support their theory, though some of these theories do not cover electromagnetism and most are varieties of push-physics only. It remains unproved if electromagnetism or 'collision' involves push contact.

The CERN LHC is now maybe being outdone by the T2K Neutrino Collider ? And you have to wonder if modern physics has been seriously dumbed-down as 2009 also sees two physicists claiming that 'the LHC was disabled by a bird from the future' - discussed in our Science History section.

The 2007 Nobel Prize for physics went to Albert Fert and Peter Gruenberg for their excellent experimental work on magnetic signals that advanced Information Technology - and they like all modern physicists never considered a signal theory of physics. This surely made William Gilbert turn over in his grave, believing that experimental magnetism proved his signal theory physics. This 2007 Nobel Prize does support Gilbert's main argument on the value of experiment, but perhaps confirms the naivety of Gilbert's subsidary view that experiment would also lead to correct theory.

The 2008 Nobel Prize for physics went to mathematical physicists Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa for quantum mechanics theory work predicting a new family of quarks - their calculations fitted high-energy particle physics experiments indicating that elementary particles are composed of six types of quarks -- up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top. Of course this might as well alternatively indicate six types of signal response along the lines William Gilbert discussed in his signal response physics.

The basis of science theory.

Those who have specialised only in logical reasoning have often been called philosophers, and some of the best of these first emerged in Ancient Greece. The most rigorous logical reasoning, as with Euclid, has often been in the field of mathematics. Those who have specialised only in gaining better knowledge of nature have often been artisans or nature lovers, and their studies often have been concerned with their work or their leisure. Here metallurgy and astronomy were two fairly significant fields of study, with many others. The chief scientific advance in gaining better knowledge of nature came with the realisation that it chiefly needed the precise measurement of natural phenomena so that the rigours of number could replace vagueness and be better amenable to logical reasoning so that the two chief elements of science better combined.

Early ideas on the natural world generally took some vague magical or religious form, as that natural bodies had life forces or that god caused everything. In line with this, the widely accepted though entirely unproven explanation of gravity by the philosopher Aristotle was that all bodies had 'a natural tendency' to move to their 'natural place'. Such unproven opinion was to be challenged by the emerging scientific method, chiefly in getting more rigorous descriptions of natural phenomena and then in some cases in deriving theories to explain them. Science theories came in two basic types - Black Box theories of laws of universe behaviour like gravity to explain what happens, but not trying to explain why things happen, and full-explanation theories that did seek to explain why things happen.

It was not until the 1500's that real science emerged first in Europe, with the chief requirement that both good logical reasoning and good practical knowledge of actual natural phenomena must be combined to produce valid descriptions of natural phenomena and valid science theories. Though there were earlier neo-science developments in different parts of the world, the real emergence of science was driven first by Europe wanting to explore and exploit the wider world, and then by Europe's developing industrial revolution. World exploring required use of the astronomer's stars and of the magnetic compass. A basic compass was in some use from the 1200's, and after his death in 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published an improved description of heavenly bodies where the Earth correctly orbited the Sun. William Gilbert in 1600 (shortly before his death) having studied the Earth's magnetic field and improved compass use, published his physics substantially confined to magnetism but deriving a rarely understood full-explanation effluvia signal theory of physics relating to the Earth and bodies generally.

Like many other early scientists then, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) working in mechanics and astronomy had a lot of trouble from religion and government for backing Copernicus, but William Gilbert (1544-1603) working mainly on magnetism openly dismissed Aristotle and all philosophising or theorising that was not directly substantiated by scientific experiment, and practised what he preached with his one early publication concentrating on his many experiments - and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) working in mathematics, optics and astronomy also backed Copernicus and developed a 'forcefield push' version of Gilbert's physics.

But then the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) produced a different type of full-explanation mechanical push physics theory that impressed many as fitting with much of the emerging science - especially with that of the mathematician and physicist Isaac Newton (1643-1727) though he himself settled for a black-box physics theory like a few other physicists then. While advances continued in other sciences, physics theory had to wait about 200 years before Albert Einstein produced his new partial-explanation forcefield spacetime theory. One basic advance in physics then had been the discovery that the originally supposed elementary particles 'atoms' seemed basically mini-solar-systems with smaller particles and mini-action-at-a-distance. Strong evidence that solids are far from solid supported the conclusion that at least some 'pushes' may not be pushes and so maybe at least partly supports either a field type physics or a signal type physics ?

After Newton, physics theory seems to have somewhat sidelined experimental study in favour of mathematical study, so that increasingly universities located theoretical physics in their mathematics departments rather than in physics departments. And certainly physics theory since Einstein, such as 'string' and 'loop' theory, seems to largely have been on the mathematics and structure of fields and/or of 'elementary' particles as possibly explaining everything somehow though it perhaps is muddy water - and 'fields' may yet be shown to not exist and/or the 'elementary particles' may yet be shown to be mini-mini-solar-systems themselves. In physics the big may be as reasonable a model of the small as vice versa, or not, and a signal physics may yet prove of some use also.

Many have been involved in the development of science, and many more in supporting or opposing it, covering all countries. But the key science theory ideas around physics can perhaps best be seen by going backwards from Einstein. Einstein considered that the theory that he chiefly had to face up to was Newton's, and Newton considered that the theories that he chiefly had to face up to were Descartes' and Gilbert's. Few understood Newton's evaluation of Gilbert, but I think the key physics theories were indeed those of Gilbert, Descartes, Newton and Einstein which this site examines further on other pages in an interrelated way rather than entirely separately. (Generally science is really best understood backwards, studying the newer clear waters first to then go back to understand older muddy waters. But with physics theory it may well be that the more recent ideas are muddier water, so it may be best to start studying physics theory with Gilbert and Kepler and work forwards)

While Newton considered various possible explanations of gravity and other 'forces', he ended up supporting none and insisting that physics should support none. He concluded that black-box mathematical behaviour laws were enough for science, and that any explanation must involve untestable unseens and be 'outside science'. This basic conclusion of Newton can certainly be challenged, but Einstein and others ignoring it and claiming Newton's theory was a simple billiard ball push theory was one of the worst mistakes in physics theory history. It meant that no physicist has worked from or built on Newton's actual physics position - only on a simplified false 'Newton position' ?

And although Gilbert, Descartes and Newton took science as not allowing contradictions, Einstein and others later adopted 'duality physics' for light and for particles requiring them both to be 'wave' and be 'not-wave' and so allowing contradiction in their science. Not just allowing contrary interpretations and contrary mathematics, but allowing actual contradiction in experiments and in actual nature. This became possible by rejecting earlier strict definitions of 'wave' and 'particle' and basically using no strict definitions.

The interest of Gilbert and Newton in signal physics theory was perhaps before its time and has been developed by nobody since. But its possible relevance still is maybe suggested by one recent quote of Google on them now letting application developers for their Android phones use C or C++ code "as in signal processing, intensive physics simulations, and some kinds of data processing". See Google.

It is maybe of some small interest that Einstein was the only one of these four major scientists to marry, suggesting that having a family to feed can hinder the development of substantial new science !? The ideas presented on this site are based on extensive studies of William Gilbert and of much of Descartes, Newton and Einstein and others relating to their theories. Currently the internet offers little of these four to read online, and much of their work has still not been translated, so this site will be trying to help with that over time. Science histories often have serious weaknesses , and for basic physics history this website's interpretations are the best and should be studied first, but you may also like a look at this mostly not too unreasonable summary science history.

Good physics experiment and good physics theory.

Physics experiments and physics theories have at times come from very different types of sources, some good and some not. Early good physicists, like Galileo or William Gilbert, often had no physics training and some were hobby physicists or anti-establishment physicists.

Today some insist that every good physicist must have a physics degree, and that everybody with a physics degree is a good physicist (but we certainly do not have 900,000 Isaac Newtons today). It may seem more accurate to say that today a good physicist should probably have a physics degree, and that some with a physics degree are probably good physicists.

1. But this issue maybe needs clarifying somewhat to account for the fact that physics involves basically two different aspects - experiment and theory - and useful physics experiment seems to have somewhat less need of formal training than physics theory. Hence most technology advance has been independent of theory, so a computer engineer working for Google may produce some good physics experiments.

2. A further issue concerns the nature of formal physics theory training, in earlier times including substantial philosophy and history of science - but today seeming entirely confined to post-Einstein physics theory. This may suggest that most of todays formally trained physicists may have too narrow a focus to their physics theory ideas, so a philosopher or historian might be a better source.

We should of course still expect most good physics today to come from those with a physics degree, but should not be entirely surprised if some good physics ideas comes from a philosopher or engineer. A modern William Gilbert is possible.

Great scientists and great skills

All great scientists do need to have some great skill or skills, but all great scientists do not need to have every possible great skill. But highly skilled people perhaps tend to be one of three skill types ;

1. Mathematicians and rule followers
Some great scientists like Isaac Newton have had great mathematical skill, and have been great at mathematical rule following reasoning. Of course some of them, maybe also including Isaac Newton, have also had some great artist-artisans rule breaking experimenting skills.

2. Artist-artisans and rule breakers
Some great scientists like Galileo Galilei have had great artist-artisan skill, and have been great at rule breaking experimenting. Of course some of them, maybe also including Galileo Galilei, have also had great mathematical rule following reasoning skill.

3. All-rounders or multiskilled
Some great scientists may have had great mathematical skill and great artist-artisan skill, but some of these may have employed one strength more than the other. These may have been great at rule following reasoning and great at rule breaking experimenting, but some of these employed one more than the other. This might depend on their own view of science and of its priorities at the time, and some great scientists have had different views on that.

Most great science has been the work of great individuals working alone, and little has come from team collaboration perhaps with teams being too often composed of too narrow a range of skill types ?

While artist-artisan based skills often show culture differences - as in Egyptian, Roman and other art/science/technology - mathematics has generally developed as one mathematics involving the following of one set of rules. And while science does seem to require that there can be only one actual truth of anything, it can reasonably be claimed that science does not also require that there can be only one valid description of one truth. So modern physics dependence on mathematics only may be inadequate. Art often describes the same thing in different ways successfully, and a science with one mathematics may still validly allow of different image-theory explanations. But a one-truth science does not seem to really allow of contradictory explanations such as Duality Theory in current physics ?

While we do consider science theory generally, this site is the very best at examining the fundamentals of physics, and at considering the more important new discoveries in physics and physics projects. If you want to really learn physics online then this website really helps people with mastering physics online, and can also point you to the best physics ebooks.

PS. Some might say that the last 50 years has maybe seen no significant new science theory published. I am old enough to remember when lots of scientists and governments were saying that very cheap nuclear energy was about to greatly improve the world. And around the same time when lots of scientists and governments were saying that the emerging computer science was about to greatly improve the world also. But by now everybody should be aware that generally business and government hijack any new science to their own ends, maybe leaving little real value to any new science ? But I have been sitting on a new general science theory for the last 40 years developed after the first BSc degree I took. Then for a second BSc degree when I took year 1 Philosophy, I part ran it past the Professor of Philosophy who had been a Physicist, in a 1985 essay for him on the history of physics. He gave that top marks and promptly made several attempts to get me to switch to majoring in philosophy under him (which I would have done but at that time I could not see it as a practical career option for feeding my new wife and baby). But being satisfied that the basics of my new general science theory may possibly be worth publishing rather than all dying with me, I have now to put the basics of it on this website - in the hope that you may find it interesting (and this website is all interrelated so studying all of it should help you understand it). Additionally, this site simply tries to clarify some of the basics of science theory history to date as I see it - though many do interpret science history differently and often very wrongly. Some of the problems involved in the history of science are discussed in our Science History, or you can check our Site Map.

You can do a good search of this website, or of the web, below ;

Custom Search

Or two websites to help inform you on what physicists and astronomers are up to lately are Physics Web and Universe Today - and for one about some of the weaknesses of Einstein's theory you could try Relativity Collapse.

Or if you might want to buy science books in our USA science books or UK science books sections.

You may want to learn a bit about Kissing, dating, love, marriage, weddings and first baby or KissN, d8N, luv, mariG, wedNs and 1st baby.
Or see an interesting website on USA and UK poverty and bad housing.

otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :- New Science Theory - write Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN327AT UK.

You are welcome to link to this website homepage, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/

....This Homepage in some other languages :- Español ---- Français ---- Deutsch ---- Italiano ---- Português
For the full website in these languages, at the top of this page click language name for other language, then use normal 'around the site'.

Hosted by :-