The Photon Wave-Particle Travels at Superluminal Velocities or,
How to Avoid Protophysics Writing

Introduction to Science Writing in Physics Today

            My incursion into the study of physics began rather late in my academic life. It began in earnest on my sabbatical leave in 1977. I was a social scientist by trade, having finished studies in International Relations, Oriental Studies, Latin American Studies, and Sociology. I had just finished writing two lengthy manuscripts: one on the theoretical conception of spacetime/motion and, another on society, an attempt to understand what a kinder society might look like ---kinder than the ones that two world wars had produced.
             My studies in physics came about as part of the search to find who in the past had developed something similar to what I understood to be the theoretical conception of spacetime/motion.  I had already examined as much social science literature as possible, including vast amounts of the writing on economics and politics.
            The outcome of my reading of physics then caused me to consider Francis Bacon as the one who came closest to presenting analyses that were based on a theoretical outlook of spacetime/motion. That same search continued for the next fifteen years, while I continued to study and write about socioeconomic and sociopolitical relations in society. Then in 1992, after having worked as an adviser to the President of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples [Ottawa, Canada], my studies took a drastic turn in the worlds of the ancient past. After having become completely discouraged by studying society specifically, I plowed full steam ahead into researching ancient artwork and its possible relationship to science. Just that; in a very abstracted manner. My purpose was to see whether the ancient peoples had reached a theoretical conception that may have understood spacetime/motion similar to what I had come to understand as one.
            My studies of the math and geometry into ancient artwork caused the queries to flow over into, not only physics, but chemistry, astronomy, and other fields of scientific endeavor.  In my view, the ancients had in fact a theoretical conception of reality based on a perspective of spacetime/motion. And, my expanded studies into the so-called exact sciences have led me to now, where I must write about my experience in some of the science writing in today's physics.
            In order to view some of the related analyses and their conclusions in the exact science and in the ancient sciences, please, visit my web-site, www.earthmatrix.com. For now, the purpose is to present some of my findings about how the field of physics has behaved during the past one hundred years plus in its theoretical and practical research.

            The only writing that I have come across that resembles a theoretical spacetime/motion perspective has been in regards to a few papers on ballistics.  ["Muzzle Velocity and Energy" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, www.wikipedia.com].  Science writers on ballistics, whether they write about firearms or archery, present studies and explanations that precisely and exactly trace the spatial/temporal/relational coordinates of their subject-matter in an extremely effective and faithful manner.

            The great majority of science writers in other disciplines, from the literature that I have examined, in general, have difficulties in following the spatial/temporal/relational coordinates of their subject-matter and, furthermore, love to invent new word-concepts that generally cause them to get lost in their own analyses and explanations. The invented word-concepts are often not descriptive identifiers of the objects of analysis, but at times poetic or metaphorical labels that, in turn require explanation. Hence, much of today's science writing employs expressions of analogies, where the objects of analysis are described as being "like" some other object. For example, one that comes to mind: physicists have identified a characteristic of particles that they call "color", only to affirm that well it is not really color, but more like a charge. Physicists invent descriptive word-concepts that are irrelevant to the description.
            Personally, I find this kind of science writing based on analogy totally frustrating and outside of the traditional investigative research practices in the exact sciences.
            But, the purpose of my study here is not to flood the reader with uncountable incidents of science writing by analogy. Rather, there is another practice in today's science writing that is even more questionable than that committed by analogy. I have come across, as surely many of you have encountered, examples in the study of matter-energy in the exact sciences whereby a discovery is made, yet the scientists brush it aside by declaring it irrelevant in some manner.
            I have already written about other examples of this in genetics for example. In the literature on genetics, one may read the commonly held notion about the size of the chromosomes. The classification of the chromosomes presents chromosome number 22 as being the smallest chromosome in size. Yet, one will read that geneticists have found that that classification was erroneous as they later discovered that chromosome number 21 was the smallest. However, they continued to present their traditional classification where number 22 is presented as the smallest, knowingly full well that this is incorrect. The reason generally offered for maintaining the error in the classification is that since everyone employs the wrong classification, it may as well be maintained.
            In my view, that kind of rationalization [not reasoning] is counter to everything that the history of science stands for. I wrote up a proposal for a correction of the classification of chromosomes by size, which has gone basically been ignored. The reasons for that are clear. The geneticists are not going to change their traditional outlook. They have decided that it is perfectly fine to work with errors. I find it difficult to believe that young students would accept such behavior. Yet, if one examines the popular comments in blogs throughout the Internet, it is also obvious that young people quickly learn and adapt to this kind of rationalization. [Some of my selected publications cited below have been published by Earth/matriX Editions, New Orleans, USA. Titles, dates and pagination are given.]

Down Syndrome, Trisomy 1', The Earth/matriX Human Karyotype & Table of Chromosomes, Genes and Related Diseases (A Proposal), 2013, 66 pages.
The New Order of the Genetic Code by Molecular Weight for RNA (A Proposal by Earth/matriX for Listing the Amino Acids from Smallest to Largest), 2013, 31 pages.

            In my research of the exact sciences, I have found similar practices regarding the study of the fundamental physical and chemical constants

Proposal to Correct an Omission and an Error in the CODATA, 2013, 1 page.
CODATA: Planck Constants, Errors and Omissions, 2010, 94 pages.
Natural Units and Atomic Units, 2010, 11 pages.
Metric Time and the Speed of Light (259,020.6837 kilometers/metric-second) Time Systems, Clocks and Spacetime Measurement , 2009, 25 pages.
The Schemata of the Elements: A New Periodic Table of the Elements, 2002, 174 pages.

Another example concerns Albert Einstein's famous formula about the supposed equivalency of energy and matter

The Physics Challenge, 2012, 109 pages.
Powers and Roots of the Speed of Light in a Vacuum, Cycles of Fractal Multiples of Powers of c, c311 = c158 c153, 2011, 9 pages.
 Einstein: Mass Confusion, 2010, 229 pages.
The International Temperature Scale 1990 (ITS-90) in Celsius, Kelvin and Energy-
Matter Units (A Proposal from Earth/matriX), 2007, 41 pages.
Elemental Triplicity, 2006, 139 pages.
The Inverse Fine Structure Constant: A Redundant Notation, 2006, 1 page.
Particle Mass Difference, 2004, 182 pages.
Temperature Scales and Ancient Reckoning, 2005, 105 pages.

            In geography something similar has occurred with regard to the theory of continental drift.

Down to Earth, (Original Title: Eventpoint Cosmogeography), 2010, 816 pages.
Earth's Life Cycles Contradict the Supercontinental Cycle:
 Pangaea-Pangaea Ultima, 2009, 17 pages.

It is not randomly coincidental that in both physics and geography one finds theses based on an expansive singular event [respectively, Big Bang | Break up of continental mass] followed by a contracting singular event [respectivey, Big Crunch | reuniting continental mass]. These two similar propositions occur at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The theory of the Big Bang and the theory of continental drift constitute old theses that have existed for more than one hundred years, respectively in physics and geography. It is time that they are evaluated for what they are, a discourse based on how matter-energy appears to exist to an observer.
In astronomy one may examine the ideas flowing around the astronomical unit.

The Astronomical Unit (AU) Mercury|Sun Distance, 2000, 5 pages.
           
In the field of mathematics in general, these are too many examples to cite.

The Goldbach Conjecture and the Universe of Primes, 2004, 182 pages.
Fractal Triangles: Complements to Basic and Special Right Triangles, 2004, 110 pages.
The Beal Conjecture: A Proof and Counterexamples, 2002, ca. 45 pages.
Fermat's Last Theorem: Powers and Last-Digit Patterns
(Relations of Non-Equivalency and Approximate Equivalency), 1998, 4 pages.
Extension of the Pythagorean Theorem to the Cube and an
Emendation to Fermat's Last Theorem, (w3 + x3 + y3 = z3), 1996, 5 pages.

            The previously cited examples generally derive from the normal practice of scientific research being performed out of good intentions. As one may observe, it is more difficult to develop and maintain the theoretical conception of spacetime/motion in science writing. The history of science has taught us this well, but at times we are poor learners.
            In general, in my view, the scientists have shown a lack of theoretical understanding that would allow them to comprehend the nature of the practical discoveries that they have found. They do not have the theoretical perspective/conception that would permit to recognize the nature of their own experimental discoveries. Columbus discovered that the Earth was not flat. He did not realize that he had discovered that Earth was an oblate sphere, or that he had discovered the nature of the solar system, and the conformation of our galaxy, or the nature of the Universe with that same discovery. Without the theoretical conception of spacetime/motion, it is difficult to understand all of the spatial/temporal/relational coordinates of a single spacetime/motion event.
            Aside from that theoretical limitation, it would appear from the statements made by scientists that they choose not to learn; they prefer to continue with the errors in conception. For, even when errors are pointed out they decide to ignore them. One reason why this may occur, and their infinite reasons to cite, is that theoretical writing at times has little to do with practical matters. So, a scientist may continue talking about and writing about a particular subject without making adjustments for discoveries. This obtains because the science writing is just that, writing. It does not affect better practices.

            With all of this in mind, I began studying the formulas of special relativity. In fact, I even wound up writing a brief summary of what I thought to be the deficiencies in the theory of special relativity. I did this with the purpose of carrying this analysis over into my manuscripts on how gravity works in my view [what has been loosely known as general relativity].
            As usually happens in researching physics, I was surprised to come up with the idea that the measurement of the maximum speed of light in vacuum is erroneous. You might think that this could not be possible, given all the historical research on the theme. But, given my experience in researching the other disciplines and related subjects in physics [cited above], I have come to believe anything possible regarding the way in which research is carried out in the so-called exact sciences. Errors are not just overlooked, but discoveries of new knowledge are even buried on purpose.
            I then put aside my manuscript about the formulas of special relativity, and began writing up my ideas as to why it appeared to me that the method and measurement of the speed of light in vacuum was incorrect. That took me only seven pages to complete the idea.

            Then, it occurred to me that this could not be right. Surely someone had noticed this earlier. There was no way that myself, a social scientist, not a physicist, could possibly identify an error in methodology in physics.
            Sure enough, I found that the physicists already knew about superluminal speeds in relation to the speed of light in vacuum. In fact, I found a citation referring to a study in 1983, but I have lost that reference; still looking. Only they are viewing it somewhat distinctly still from the manner in which I have concluded about this subject.
            Nonetheless, this constitutes another example of how scientists find new knowledge but rationalize the maintenance of their paradigm and make all attempts possible to bury the new knowledge.
            The new knowledge that was floated around about the speed of light in vacuum stated that the phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave is superluminal at times. Let me paraphrase their rationalization summarized as such.  "The superluminal speed does not carry a signal or information, and therefore is irrelevant and need not be taken into consideration regarding the theory or relativity. Further, phase velocity need not be taken into consideration as an example of superluminal velocities, nor used to counter the relativist idea that c, the speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum velocity attainable by matter-energy."
            Why? Well, firstly because they said so, secondly they stipulate to be superluminal the signal must carry information. They changed the rules defining superluminal as they wish. A superluminal velocity of matter-energy now needs to be a material event that carries a signal, not just merely superluminal: their new definition. They move the goal posts.
            The possible existence of a hypothetical superluminal tachyon is dispatched in a similar manner. Any reason is good enough to maintain the idea that c, the speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum velocity attainable by a spacetime/motion event in matter-energy. Sure, I have worded this in a much more acceptable manner than how it appears in the general science literature. 
            In summary, today's physicists maintain the notion that matter-energy cannot travel faster than the velocity of the speed of light in a vacuum. At the same time, they know that some matter-energy events travel faster than that maximum velocity at superluminal speeds. One may read the most cited academic journals or the everyday blogs of the Internet to view how this essential contradiction of statements is maintained as being totally acceptable. 
            Not having gone through any formal program of physics studies, I was unaware that this particular belief/anti-belief thesis existed. I remember reading recently that a few physicists thought that they had measured the neutrino at breakneck superluminal velocities, but then found that there was a loose wiring or something in the measuring device. But, I had not come across articles about superluminal phase velocities. That's why I wrote the seven pages presented herein.
            As you shall learn, my article is somewhat different from the perspective presented in the study of superluminal phase velocities. In fact, my studies have led me to consider redefining some of the basic word-concepts used in physics, such as the word-concept wavelength, among others. In fact, my understanding of a theoretical spacetime/motion analysis leads me to question the entire methodology of measurement as viewed in physics, in general/special relativity and specifically in the measurement of the speed of light in vacuum or in anywhere else.
            So, on the one hand, there will be those physicists and individuals that shall not read this manuscript on purpose. They wish no harm to come to their given paradigm. Now, for those of you who venture into the queries posed in this book, exists the possibility of understanding how an analysis based on the theoretical conception of spacetime/motion performs contrary to the established outlook in physics.
            Where did Einstein say that matter-energy travels at superluminal velocities, but it is irrelevant because it does not carry information. Albert Einstein said that it was "meaningless" (1905).
            Superluminal velocities of matter-energy exist. The current science literature already presents experimental data in this regard. My research tells me that even the recognized speed of light in vacuum itself travels faster than the numerical value defined as 299,792,458 m/s. In fact, according to my view, even the photon wave-particle (the electromagnetic wave as described by scientists today) travels at superluminal velocities.
            The self-recognized thesis that the speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum velocity attainable by matter-energy is deficient. The following analysis represents a theoretical spacetime/motion confirmation of this thesis.

©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.