Ron's Eagle. Physics, Theory Vs. Reality Ron Lebar
Formulae &
Sine waves &
DeciBels &
Active & Passive
Preface Anomalies Physics Waves Particles Slang Voodoo

Starburst  Reality VS. Theory Starburst

Preface, Thoughts of Ron
The real difference between reality & theory

In 1746 physicist Pieter van Musschenbroek, of Leiden University in the Nederlands, tried pumping electricity from an electrostatic generator into a bottle of water. There's no accounting for some people. Nothing seemed to happen but, when he picked up the jar to disconnect it, he got an almighty wallop. The Leyden Jar was born, called a condenser, because it held 'condensed' electricity!

Some of the theory taken for granted, taught in our colleges & universities comes from then, or earlier. Many formulae date back 150 years or more. Benjamin Franklin postulated in 1752 that electricity consisted of positively charged fluid & thus flowed from positive to negative. Some physicists still insist this is so, despite contrary proofs before & after the dawn of the 20th Century.

Most of the theoretical body of 'knowledge' that is available for all is based on mistaken assumptions from a time long before today's analytical tools became available. Formulae & equations work for most undemanding applications. This is because they were developed to fit the observed phenomena & those assumptions. It is akin to doctors believing in blood letting to cure diseases.


This vast store of misinformation is perpetuated by the establishment. Tutors & lecturers stick with it because to do otherwise may cost them their livelyhoods. Cutting edge research is frequently held up & costs increased because of this. If we are ever to break with our past & move forward we must get it right. In the middle ages a conservative & powerful church held back human development.

We are less likely to be burnt at the stake these days for speaking against convention. But those who do may be ostracised from the physics community for their views. It is difficult to estimate how much this head in the sand attitude has held us back.

The human spirit evolved by questing for new knowledge & exploring the unknown. If we are ever to explore space we must first get a truer picture of how the universe works.

It is still taught that electric current causes a rotating magnetic field. It was known in 1898 that the reverse is the case. The following quote is part of a preface, by Malcolm Davidson, to Ivor's book 'Electromagnetics 1'.

< With Ivor's good counsel and the help and support of David Walton, I began to uncover a treasure trove of knowledge. My first so-called discovery was in an engineering library at Marconi Elliott Avionics, where I found a book by J.A. Fleming from 1898. On page 80 he states;

"It is important that the student should bear in mind that, although we are accustomed to speak of the current as flowing in the wire in one direction or the other, this is a mere form of words. What we call the current in the wire is, to a very large extent, a process going on in the space or material outside the wire." >

A further quote from the same preface.

< Those of you who feel that many of the ideas in this book are not mainstream should find a copy of "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers" by Donald G. Fink and H. Wayne Beaty. In all editions up to and including 12 (published in 1987), there is a section entitled "Electromagnetic Wave Propagation Phenomena".

This seminal work gives a clear and unambiguous description of the role that conventional electric current plays in energy flow.

"The usually accepted view that the conductor current produces the magnetic field surrounding it must be displaced by the more appropriate one that the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor produces, through a small drain on the energy supply, the current in the conductor.

Although the value of the latter may be used in computing the transmitted energy, one should clearly recognize that physically this current produces only a loss and in no way has a direct part in the phenomenon of power transmission."

It should be noted that the 13th edition has deleted this entry, as this excellent description has been replaced by more "up to date material"! As engineers, academics and scientists, are we interested in truth, or do we just pay lip service to it, justifying our actions as not wanting to rock the boat? >

There we have it, it has been know since the late 1800s that electricity is transmitted by electromagnetic waves. The wire acts merely as a guide, in the process absorbing some energy from the wave in resistance losses. This knowledge has effectively been suppressed since 1987.

It is still taught that the magnetic field is merely a byproduct of the current. In reality it is the other way round, the current we are able to measure is a predictable artifact of the magnetic phenomena. Once we are able to make the intellectual leap in accepting this it all starts to fall into place.


Current physics, as taught, is similiar to voodoo. Complex & unneccesary mathematics replace the chanting. Obscuring the essential simplicity & elegance of reality. Most effort goes into maintaining the incredible density & incomprehensibility of the subject. Little if any is expended in moving forward.

We must get rid of the witch doctors running our profession, to let in some real engineers & thinkers.

Two quotes attibuted to Filipo Bruno, burnt at the stake by the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century. The wording is modernised by me, but is fundamentally original:

1. "I make no personal claim to the truth, only the right to seek it, prove it in argument, and to be wrong many times in order to reach it."

2. "We have made a cage of words and placed our God inside, as boys trap a cricket, to make him sing for us alone."

His crime was to publicly state that the Universe is infinite, stars are distant suns, and that other worlds are populated. He also subscribed to Nicolaus Copernicus' Heliocentric view of the solar system.

Galileo Galilei, 1564 to 1642, only escaped a similiar fate by toning down teaching of his beliefs & discoveries. He was however, placed under house arrest & exiled outside Florence for life.

Signor Bruno's second quote can be modified as the motto of modern physics:

We have made a cage of fancy mathematics and placed physical reality inside, as boys trap a cricket, to make it sing for us alone.

Author; Ron Lebar.


A Form of Words

On various pages of this site, including this one, we refer to current flow, capacitors being charged etc. This is merely a convenient form of words, based on the habits of over two centuries. It does not mean we accede to the dualist or particle theories. Nor do we accept quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle & all their ramifications.

Until we get our house in order, a new form of language, in keeping with reality, will not fully evolve. So, for the present, we are stuck with the arcane way of describing things. Together with the arcane theology called 'modern physics'.

Physics, the Reality

The question is often asked 'Why is physics such a dense & inpenetrable subject?'

The answer is very simple: Because it is a subject devised by physicists. The two groups sharing a common root both, in common with naturalists, rely on dead languages. Physicians use Latin or early Greek as the basis for their art.

For a very long time their use of words derived from extinct languages set them apart from their patients, or victims. Since no one else could understand them their social standing & high salaries were safe. This technique has served well for many groups, see the page on Rhyming Slang.

Naturalists use the same principle, this makes them sound erudite & clever. After all, 'gastropod' sounds a lot more technical than 'one footed slimy thing' or 'slug'.

Then along came physicists, their rhyming slang is the use of ancient Greek letters or symbols. This is allied to complex mathematics of doubtful usefulness. After all, how can nature, which has evolved from the elegant simplicity of the atom, require such involved calculation to make it work?

Again the answer is simple, it is not required. A general rule throughout existence is that the simplest answer is usually correct. Not so with physics, enveloping that simplicity with an arithmetic fog maintains the status quo, preventing us from all understanding the subject.

Dead languages are not taught in working class schools, that keeps US in our place.

Many other professions and groups have developed their own jargon or rhyming slang. Civil servants have their 'gobbledegook, the legal profession their 'legalese'. Young people have their 'street slang', this changes so rapidly that adults, trying to join in, show themselves up badly.



Wave Theory
The true nature of particles

A question has been around for a long time, is the electron a particle or a wave?

This is not a matter of faith, but of logic. Matter can become energy & vice versa. There is the strange phenomenon of the discrete levels of atomic orbits, so called electron shells. How does an electron know it is only supposed to be in these shells? What is to stop it moving halfway, in order to change shells it must traverse the no mans land between.

If thought about, the only answer is that the electron is a wave, pure & simple. This explains so many things, a wave must orbit at a circumference that is a multiple of its wavelength. Otherwise, when it completed a circle, it would start to cancel itself out. Rather like a snake eating its own tale.

It is perfectly possible to change radii in finite time, provided this time is shorter than its period. The quanta released when an orbit decays is simply the shedding of one or more cycles of energy. This has been obvious to me since my teens, particle theory has always seemed odd & suspect.

There is the strange obsession with spending billions of pounds or dollars on particle research. An international competition to build ever bigger & more powerful cyclotrons. With budgets rivalling the nuclear arms race. To me it seems like firing blue balls into red balls with more & more force. Eventually a chip of paint will be knocked off, bingo, we have a new particle.

If the electron is a wave, it follows that so must the proton be. With a higher frequency as it occupies less space, but with more energy since it has greater mass. The neutron, considered as a close coupled proton-electron pair, presents an enigma. More genuine research is needed.

The Holy Trinity has held the Christian faith in stasis for 15 centuries. It will be a disaster for mankind if the Holy Duality does the same for physics. We may become extinct.



Waves versus Particles
The Holy Duality

After the theory of relativity confusion reigned as to the nature of energy & matter. Previously it was generally accepted that matter was composed of particles, with distinct sizes. Energy, such as electromagnetic radiadion, was usually thought of as waves. Then there was the photon.

This enigmatic little beast took some sorting out. Albert Einstein proposed that light occurs in discrete quantities, logically called quanta. Later the word photon was coined, somewhere along the way it was proposed that these quanta or photons are particles. This goes back to Sir Isaac Newton, in the 17th century, who thought that light is a stream of particles.

In his later work on optics, published in the early 18th century, Sir Isaac used a combination of wave & particle theory to explain his findings.

The 20th century breakthough came in 1924 when Louis de Broglie introduced his Particle/Wave duality theory. This was a blinding flash of pure inspirational genius. It solved everything & explained nothing. Although it could not be proven it also could not be refuted. All matter, all energy, is waves. All matter, all energy, is particles.

The theory fits the observable facts & correlates with all measured data. It remains a mystery, thus keeping physicists in their exalted position. It can not be understood, but must be accepted as an item of faith. Quite like the Holy Trinity that enabled theologians to explain everything, whilst explaining nothing. It is brilliant & unassailable.


More past errors & current nonsense

Electrical current is always a flow of electrons, from negative to positive. In a conductor they do not actually flow directly through, an electron arrives at an atom & joins its outer valency ring. In doing so one already there is displaced. Attracted towards the positive terminal it encounters another atom, displacing a further electron & so on. In a vacuum it is a true electron flow.

In the early days of electrical experimentation it was assumed that current flowed from positive to negative. In other words, that the moving particles were positive charges. This mistake persisted until Dr. A.J. Fleming's invention of the thermionic valve in 1904. His original diode proved beyond doubt that the travelling electrons are negative & flow from negative to positive.

Despite this many physicists, even today, insist that true current flows from positive to negative. Pigheadedly perpetuating a 200 year old mistake, despite a 1 hundred year old proof to the contrary. Books are still published showing 'conventional' current flowing from positive to negative whilst electrons flow the other way.

What a nonsense! When I was at school, in a 'science' class we were shown a so called educational film. This featured, in cartoon form, current flowing one way, whilst electrons went the other. I remember thinking at the time, 'this is rubbish, the opposite charges will collide & cancel out'. This is something they are still trying to push.

Millions of pounds are spent every on research into positrons (anti-electrons) and anti-protons. Atoms are bombarded in cyclotrons & other mega-expensive machines. Whatever the potential uses for these exotic particles they do not contribute to current flow. They can only be isolated in high energy environments.

A lot of time & money is spent studying the theory of 'anti-matter'. This has atoms with a negative nucleus & orbiting positive charges. It will be handy to provide the astronomical energy requirements for interstellar space travel, along with warp drive & matter transporters.

It certainly can't exist in the same place as normal matter, otherwise the two would cancel. Unleashing a force sufficient to make an atom bomb seem like a firework. So we are not likely to be able to mine it on any planet where we can survive.

Courtesy, Excellence & Value.
The standard others are judged by.

E-Mail: For Design Work.



Information given is generally brief & is based on our experience. If you spot any factual mistakes or 'typos' please feel free to let us know. We are not perfect & won't sulk over constructive criticism.

Regards & thanks for reaching our Site, an ongoing project.
Watch this space.

Courtesy, Excellence & Value.
The standard others are judged by.



Reality. Updated on the 15th of May 2005. Ron Lebar, Author.