New-Physics.com

Philipp Mikhailovich Kanarev, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Chair of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Kuban State Agrarian University. His scientific proceedings are published on a Finnish site, an American site, and an English site.

Correspondent: Philipp Mikhailovich, you celebrate your seventy-year jubilee being an ordinary professor, and your scientific proceedings are published on the foreign sites. Why not in Russia?

Ph. M. Kanarev: In the year of 2001, I was invited to the European Energy Congress to read a lecture on water as the future energy source. The lecture was recognized as one of the best lectures. There, I got acquainted with Juha Hartikka form Finland. He suggested to make my homepage on his site for a publication of my proceedings. I agreed. Now there are more than 30 MB of information in the form of the articles and books in the Russian and the English language. This page is visited by more than 5000 readers every month.

Sterling D. Allan, the American, publishes the results of my researches on his site copying them from the Finnish site. Willy Smith, the Englishman, does the same on his site with a tile “New physics”. The total number of those who visit the sites with the results of my scientific researches competes successfully with the number of visitors of the best world scientific journals. On these sites, a figure of 5000 visitors per month is considered to be a record.

Correspondent: What is the result of such number of visitors?

Ph. M. Kanarev: Within these years, I received many letters and many suggestions concerning a cooperation. An American research group informed my that they studied all my proceedings and found them to be the most logical proceedings and the deepest ones, which state the complicated issues of physics and chemistry in a simply way. The American Biological Institute keeps on suggesting to inscribe me in a list of the famous people. This year in my last letter, I have informed them that I am not a conceited person, and have asked not to disturb me. I refused from many proposals to work abroad.

Now, our researches are financed by a firm, which is going to enter the market next year with the products being manufactured according to our elaborations. I cannot go into details, because it is a commercial classified information.

Correspondent: In your reply you have touched upon physics and chemistry, but you are a mechanical engineer by education. How does it happen that you have taken a great interest in physics and chemistry?

Ph. M. Kanarev: I gave a detailed answer to this complicated question in the book “History of scientific search and its results”. It has already been out of print and is quite popular, especially with the managers.

Correspondent: What scientific results did you describe in this book?

Ph. M. Kanarev: A scientific part of the book is written in the form of several lectures, in which the mistakes of a number of the Nobel Prize winners in physics and chemistry are shown. Nobody has presumed to contradict my point of view. It is impossible to do it, because the evidences are based on strict analysis and strict calculations.

Correspondent: The Nobel committee awards the prizes for the results of fundamental researches. Can you evaluate them really? Don’t you think that you undertake too much? Where do you get such information, which allows you to make such conclusions?

Ph. M. Kanarev: If a man is engaged in an analysis of the foundations of science within the significant part of his life, he in his seventies has accumulated such stock of knowledge, which allows him to predict its fate in the nearest future.
It so happened that I was busy with this matter during 25 years in parallel with the fulfillment of direct labour. The results were so significant that there were only several specialists in the world who could appreciate them. Now it is clear that they will be the provinces of scientific interests of the future generations. The only thing is left for me: I should try to predict the results of the analysis of my scientific ideas by the descendants. In order to make them understandable for many people, I omit numerous mathematical proofs of their authenticity.

First of all, these results will touch all tellurians, because they will be included in the school textbooks and university manuals on physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics and other sciences.

Correspondent: Have you managed to note any law of historical development of sciences?

Ph. M. Kanarev: Certainly, I have managed. Previous to me, nobody noticed it. Everybody, who is busy with science, should know its essence.

I often recollect my ancient colleagues who have thought that the Earth is flat and rests on three whales. It has been a natural supposition being brave for that time as a whale is the largest animal. Let us recollect how Ptolemy has formed a hypothesis that the Sun rotates round the Earth. It was a natural and logical supposition at that time. The keepers of the bible commandments, in which this hypothesis was reflected, faggoted those people who tried to discredit it. Nearly two thousand years passed before a new scientific information, which proved erroneousness of the initial hypothesis concerning the Sun motion round the Earth, was obtained.

Correspondent: It is referred to geography mainly. As far as exact engineering sciences are concerned, it is easier to find the truth in them. It is proved by an experiment. That’s why there should be no mistakes here, shouldn’t it?

Ph. M. Kanarev: You know, at first sight it seems so as you have told, but when you penetrate into details, the picture proves to be different. It is known that magnetic field is formed round a wire, in which direct current flows. Maxwell described this phenomenon with the help of the graceful equations as they were called later on. It has appeared from them that if the current pulses move in the wire, the electromagnetic wave pulses, which propagate in space with speed of light, are formed round it. These electromagnetic waves transfer the information, which is coded in them, to an aerial of the receiver. Here, an obvious question existed as well: how does a spherical electromagnetic wave move away from the aerial of the receiver, broaden and preserve its strength being enough for an excitation of the electrons of the antenna of the receiver arranged at a significant distance from the transmitter? There exists no answer to this question for more than 100 years.

Now this task is solved, and it has turned out that information is transmitted by the longitudinal waves of pulses of free electrons with the speed, which is close to speed of light. At the moment of pulse, the electrons emit the infrared (invisible) photons, which transmit the same information into space with speed of light. They excite the electrons of the aerial of the receiver and transfer the information in the form of broadcast, telephone speech or teleimages to it.

There is no room for Maxwell equations in the information transmittance process being described. It is known that they give an opportunity to calculate the simplest diagrams of the aerials; that’s why actually they play a role of mathematical rubbish in the information transmittance process description. There are the experimental proofs of it. I feel sorry for modern young people, whose heads go on to be filled with this rubbish.

Correspondent: It looks like a new idea, but let us consider an arrangement of the atom. It is the final truth, isn’t it?

Ph. M. Kanarev: The experiments have shown that the microworld consists of the nuclei and the electrons, a total of which forms the atoms. It was necessary to explain an interaction of the electrons with the atomic nuclei in order to get a notion concerning their arrangement. An arrangement of the atom was identified with an arrangement of the solar system, in which the planets rotated round the Sun by then. The atomic nucleus played the role of the Sun, and the electrons functioned as the planets. There appeared a planetary model of the atom. It appears from the mathematical dependencies describing the atom that the electron moves round the atomic nucleus in the same way as a planet moves round the Sun; the electron passes from orbit to orbit and emits the photons, which form the spectra coinciding with the experiment. Safety of the idea concerning the electron motion round the atomic nucleus was strengthened by a number of the Nobel Prizes being awarded to Bohr, Schroedinger, Dirac and Pauli.

Here as in case with the authors of the hypothesis concerning three whales as well as of the hypothesis concerning the motion of the Sun round the Earth and the information transmittance by the electromagnetic waves, a very important question arose: how do the electrons orbiting the nuclei combine the atoms into the molecules? The answer to this question was found. It completely destroyed the Bohr hypothesis concerning the orbital motion of the electron in the atom. The electron interacts with the protons of the atomic nucleus as a rotating spindle, and it combines the atoms forming the molecules.

Correspondent: I am afraid that it looks like you have failed to pay attention to a contradiction in your judgement. The formula helps to calculate the spectrum exactly, and you think that it is erroneous. How comes it?

Ph. M. Kanarev: Your question is natural. The thing is that there are several variants of a development of one and the same mathematical formula. A change of the variant of the development changes the physical sense being out into it. The Bohr formula calculates only a spectrum of the hydrogen atom. I have got similar formula; it helps to calculate a spectrum not only of the hydrogen atom, but of other atoms as well, and it does not contain the energy corresponding to an orbital motion of the electron in the atom.

Correspondent: Certainly, the experiments prove correctness of design formulas, but there are the so-called theoretical formulas, which only explain the experiments. How is it possible to understand if they are correct or not?

Ph. M. Kanarev: A sad fate of the mathematical theories by Maxwell, Bohr, Schroedinger, Dirac and other scientists demanded an analysis of the causes of imperfection of the most powerful instrument of cognition – mathematics. I was faced with this problem at the end of the last century.
A thorough analysis of the mathematical argument process has shown that the initial notions and axioms, on which the logic of all further mathematical operations is based, serve as the beginning of this process. As an axiom is an apparent statement, which has no exceptions and requires no experimental proof, a cause of invalidation of the mathematical demonstrations is the only one: an incomplete record of axiomatics, which exists aside from our will.

It has turned out that the foundation of the mathematical demonstrations lacks the main axiom of natural science: the space-matter-time unity axiom. An inclusion of this axiom into the mathematical demonstration process of authenticity of the experimental investigation results was like a hurricane, which destroyed the building of modern theoretical physics without mercy, and all physicists- theorists were back at the bottom of the ladder, figuratively speaking. The majority of them does not know about it yet and go on boasting their mythic knowledge.
The axiom is an independent judge. It is not me who will defend the results of my researches. It will be done by my unity axiom without my participation.

Correspondent: The twentieth century has passed under the banner of Albert Einstein theories, which are studied at the schools and the universities. Do you want to say that they are erroneous as well?

Ph. M. Kanarev: Einstein’s hypothesis, which says that speed of light does not depend on speed of its source, has luck. It remains alive, but with an important amendment. Speed of light in regard to space does not depend on speed of the source. By sight, it is an insignificant amendment, but it has buried both Einstein's theories of relativity. The consequences resulting from his theories have become erroneous as well. An origination of the Universe from a point as a result of the so-called Big Bang is one of them.

Correspondent: The whole world has known about the American astrophysicists awarding this year for a proof of the idea of the Universe formation in the result of the Big Bang. And you go against everybody and deny this fact. Is it too courageous?

Ph. M. Kanarev: If the Bag Bank took place indeed, there should be the evidences of existence of the Universe cooling process after it. They were found. The Universe background radiation investigations have shown that its regularity reflects a blackbody cooling process being described by Plank’s formula. By sight, a convincing conclusion has followed from it that the Universe (as the blackbody) is at the stage of cooling after the Big Bang. Triumph!!! This year, the Nobel committee repeated its error made in the year of 1978 and awarded the second prize for relic radiation having completely ignored its interpretation erroneousness evidences, which were published in the year of 2004.

Thus, the law of erroneousness of the well-known initial scientific hypotheses is inevitable. It operates successfully in the case of the Big Bang. The evidences of erroneousness of its existence are based on a deep analysis of the hydrogen atom spectrum, out of which it follows unambiguously and undeniably that the background (relic) radiation of the Universe is formed by a hydrogen atom origination process in the entrails of the Universe stars that takes place permanently and has nothing to do with the mythic Big Bang.

Correspondent: Why are your evidences ignored by the Nobel committee if they are published in the Internet?

Ph. M. Kanarev: It is difficult for me to give a concrete answer to this question, but its historical essence is as follows.
It is known that the ancient erroneous scientific ideas concerning an arrangement of the world, in which we live, were preserved by a mythological creation of people in early, then by the inquisitorial functions of religions; now the Nobel committee plays this role. Whether the Nobel committee members want or do not want, but they have formed the historical information about them, the essence of which will be described by the descendants in the following way, roughly speaking.

Due to the fault of the Nobel committee, there was formed an authority of the erroneous scientific ideas and theories, which have been included into the teaching process and have been put into the heads of the young people, who are taught, depriving them of the possibility of a creative search of knowledge connected with the reality. It is difficult to estimate a damage being done to the mankind by the Nobel committee. Due to its fault, the textbooks with erroneous scientific ideas were published with a print run of million not to educate the young people, but to fill in their minds with mystical knowledge, which has nothing to do with the reality.

Thus, history of science certifies that the primary well-known scientific hypotheses prove to be erroneous, and further ones are closer to the reality. But it does not mean that they will not be corrected by the future generations of scientists. My scientific ideas will not escape this lot, but the Unity axiom will remain the vantage ground of truth. Other ideas will be deepened and, possibly, corrected, but now it is difficult to say in what way. Nevertheless, at present I think that they have no competitors as far as proximity to the reality is concerned.

It is my brief prediction of an opinion of the future generations of scientists concerning my scientific investigations. I understand that it will be completely ignored by my contemporaries. But they are their problems. I have already solved mine when I have published a course of lectures on physchemistry of microworld. Inevitably, my knowledge will be studied by the descendants, and no academic clans and their false scientific committees will stop this process.

Correspondent: You have painted a cheerless picture. What should be done in order to rectify the existing situation?

Ph. M. Kanarev: If I were an adviser to the President, I’d recommend him to adopt a law, according to which the President of the Academy of Sciences should be appointed by the President of the country. But it is not the only thing. History has already proved that the existing procedure of the formation of the composition of the academy of sciences results in a formation of a clan of the scientists automatically. This process does not depend on humanity of the academicians. Whatsoever good people they are, the clan being formed by them will make them serve to the interests of the clan first of all, not to the interests of the state. In order to break the vicious circle of the clan interests, it is necessary to appoint not only the president of the Academy, but to affirm the majority of its presidium according to a presentation of the appointed President of the Academy of Sciences. In this way, the President of the Academy and its presidium will be responsible before the state, not before the clan.

If we think about higher education, a very contradictory situation has been formed in this area. The market requires a new approach to formation of the specialists with higher education, but the central bureaucracy does its best to hinder it imposing the curricula, which have nothing to do with a market mode of economics, upon the institutions of higher education.

Now an institute of higher education has the right to change its curriculum only by 20%, and 80% of its content is determined by the clan centre. Unless and until this state of things exists, a pathway to all newest scientific achievements will be closed for the students. The clan passes obsolete knowledge, which is necessary to nobody, to the students. The clan hates and has a dread of new knowledge, which is opened not to the members of the clan.

My course of lectures in physchemistry of microworld has already been published, and every university can include it into the curriculum. When the specialists get acquainted with it, they will understand easily that the new scientific information opens a wide pathway to the nest stage of scientific progress and to new technologies.

The interview has been carried out by an unknown correspondent
6-Nov-2006.

AN ANSWER TO THE OPPONENT

“How does a spherical electromagnetic wave move away from the aerial of the receiver, broaden and preserve its strength being enough for an excitation of the electrons of the antenna of the receiver arranged at a significant distance from the transmitter? There exists no answer to this question for more than 100 years.” (Kanarev)

Is Kanarev more than 100 years old, not 70, and has he failed to familiarize himself with the equations, which describe electromagnetic field intensity, during this time? And if everything is not so, how should it be? Does he get other intensity? It has been checked and tested not once. There is no discord in the existing equations. Or does his mobile phone provide consistent reception all over the world without the base stations?

The point of view of the respected opponent is not a solitary one. It belongs to the majority of the physicists in the same way as the idea of the Sun motion round the Earth belongs to the majority of the Ptolemy’s adherents during many years till Copernicus appeared. Similar opponent of Maxwell equations appeared nearly 30 years ago. I cannot quote here an extensive correspondence with him, but I hope that it will result in a joint article, which will bury an idea of information transfer in space with the help of Maxwell electromagnetic waves forever.
He is a man of principle who has carried out numerous experiments using Maxwell equations. When he placed the rusty bolt heads on the reflective surface, the reflected signal lost linearity, and the spectral lines appeared in it. Now this effect is known with the military men as a rusty bolt effect. He began studying this phenomenon, but his research manager disagreed with him positively, because a search of an answer to this question could discredit Maxwell equation operation in the description of this process.

The research manager suggested to call this phenomenon a non-linear impedance of the contact area of the reflective area. A fact of the significant deviations between the experiment and the calculations with the use of Maxwell equations was ignored. So, the Maxwell equations were saved. It happened 30 years ago. The author of this research abandoned the recommendation of his research manager having demonstrated the spirit of Copernicus and Giordano Bruno; he left the postgraduate studies. After it, several doctorates and more than ten degrees of candidates of science were awarded for an analysis of non-linear impedance. Now, the discrepancies between the calculations according to Maxwell equations and the results of the non-linear impedance measurements are of several orders of magnitude, but the admirers of Maxwell equations attribute them to a mysterious non-linear impedance, not to Maxwell equations. It is natural that such approach failed to give the holders of these degrees an ability to answer the elementary questions, the answers to which should result from Maxwell equations. There are more than fifty such unanswered questions now (I must apologize, the answers have already been obtained, but not from Maxwell equations), and they are published in my books. I address only one question to the respected opponent. How does the Maxwell electromagnetic wave manage to preserve strengths of its expanding magnetic and electrical fields on the way to a star, which is situated at a distance of, say, 10 10 light years, from us?

Reproducibility of calculations according to Maxwell equations with the results of several experiments is obtained due to the fact that a sine wave, which does not change its form while integration, is introduced into it. Only the amplitude and the argument of the sinusoid, the necessary values of which can be obtained without Maxwell equations, are changed.

“Thus, history of science certifies that the primary well-known scientific hypotheses prove to be erroneous, and further ones are closer to the reality. But it does not mean that they will not be corrected by the future generations of scientists. My scientific ideas will not escape this lot, but the unity axiom will remain the vantage ground of truth.” (Kanarev)

It is right! Except Kanarev, many people, including Einstein and ancient philosophers, pretend to an enunciation of this axiom.
A correct objection evokes respect to the opponent. But he does not know subtleties. Physics of the 20th century was based on Minkowski’s axiom, the essence of which is reflected in one of his statements: “The subject of our perception is only places and times taken together”. This categorical assertion was introduced into science under the name of a space-time unity axiom, and Einstein has nothing to do with it. It is a foundation of all non-Euclidean geometries.

The opponent is right: an idea of a space-matter-time unity has been discussed by the philosophers since ancient times; the representatives of exact sciences regard it as a philosophical idea, not more.

Dear opponent, there is an unwritten rule: in order to judge, one should know the details of the thing being judged. It is especially important in science, because one can get into an awkward situation if this rule is ignored. The essence of this detail is in the fact that Ph.M. Kanarev has been the first to describe the details of the juridical functions of the unity axiom in exact sciences and has shown how they are realized and what result they give by this realization. Now this process is simplified to a state, which can be easily perceived by the diligent pupils of the senior forms of the secondary school. It is stated in the course of lectures in physchemistry of microworld, which has already been published and is popular with the searchers of the scientific truth (there are RAS academicians among them). It is a pity that my opponent is deprived of such aspiration.

Best regards, Ph.M. Kanarev
09-Nov-2006.