Modern science needs a better foundation!

Modern science is facing major problems today. Three fundamental theories in science which where "accepted" about 100 years ago (quantum mechanics, two theories of relativity and the Kinetic particle theory) have lead to different controversial conclusions and unsolved questions. An increasing number of scientists do now question different aspects of these old theories. The scientists that considered these old theories to be everlasting truths have until now managed to keep critics of these theories away from ordinary scientific publications. But no man-made theory should be considered as an absolute truth, and in a time when also scientific authorities seems to loose influence, it is our hope that the good old scientific principle once more will dominate in science. A main problem the last years has been that many in scientific communities seem to focus more on what person that says things than what is said. This sort of blind faith in authorities is not a good foundation for building the science of the future.

It is therefore a general hope that it should be possible to discuss fundamental scientific questions without risking serious sanctions from scientific authorities. An important principle in science is to check all theories against new knowledge and discoveries, and there are no scientific reasons for not including those old theories that are mentioned here. The main goal for this web site is to present an electro magnetic model (em-model) which has been systematically neglected in scientific communities in many years. To do this, we will here use two different approaches.
1) To obtain acceptance for a claim that there is a need for a better scientific foundation, it is necessary to point out where the old theories fail.
2) This sort of critics have little value if we cannot bring forth a better alternative. A main point here is therefore to show that the em-model can explain both the observations that the old theories tried to explain in addition to many newer observations that the old theories fail to explain.

In general we can say that a building will be as firm as the foundation allow, and a general assertion here is that the quantum mechanics, the two theories of relativity and the kinetic particle theory may be compared with a foundation which is so full of holes and may fall together at any time. See the illustration. A main aim is therefore to support science by replacing the old foundation with a new one before it falls.

4.11.04 Erling Skaar

Problems with Quantum Mechanics!

Problems with the theories of relativity

Problems with Kinetic theory of Heat


Albert Einstein once said that light and other electromagnetic waves are quantified and therefore acts like particles. On the other hand  particles like electrons behaves like a wave. Here we will use
QM-model when we refer to the general idea behind the quantum mechanics that says that says that everything in nature (radiation and mater) is quantified on the most fundamental level. We then include both the original quantum theory and related theories.

Modern textbooks say:
“Attempts to apply the law of classical physics to explain the behavior of matter on the atomic scale where totally unsuccessful. Various phenomena, such as blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the emission of sharp spectral lines by atoms in a gas discharge, could not be understood within the framework of classical physics...
Another revolution took place in physics between 1900 and 1930. This was the era of a new and more general scheme called quantum mechanics. This new approach was highly successful in explaining the behavior of atoms, molecules, and nuclei...”(PSE p.1146)

What textbooks don't say:

Thomas G Barnes once wrote that all observations and experiments may be explained by assuming that electromagnetic radiation are only waves and particles are only particles. This model is based on classical electromagnetic principles and her we call it the

As long as the textbooks do not present any better evidences for Einstein's equation than the Cockcroft and Walton experiment, it seems that it is those people that are open for the possibility that E=mc² may be incorrect, that is the real scientists although most people seems to be indoctrinated to believe the opposite.





Albert Einstein once said that Brownian motion was due to high velocity molecules in gas and liquids which increases with temperature. Here we will use KH-model when we refer to the general idea behind the Kinetic theory of Heat that temperature and inner energy is due to erratic movement in atoms and molecules.

Modern textbooks say:
In 1827, the botanist Robert Brown reported that gains of pollen suspended in a liquid move erratically from one place to another, as if under agitation. In 1905, Albert Einstein developed a theory in which he used thermodynamics to explain the cause of this erratic motion, today called Brownian motion. Einstein explained this phenomenon by assuming that the gains of pollen are under constant bombardment by "invisible" molecules in the liquid, which themselves undergo an erratic motion. This important experiment and Einstein's insight gave scientists a means of discovering vital information concerning molecular motion...(PSEp.505)
In current view of gas behavior, called the kinetic theory, gas molecules move about in a random fashion, colliding with the walls, of their container and with each other...Furthermore, the kinetic theory provides us with a physical basis upon which the concept temperature can be understood. (PSEp.560)

What textbooks don't say:
The EM-model have an alternative explanation which says that it is the
electrons that mainly stores internal energy and temperature should be connected to both mean frequency in the electromagnetic radiation and the density of the radiation and not kinetic energy of particles as common in textbooks today.

According to this model, Brownian motion is then due to high velocity electron and not high velocity molecules.


Our classical alternative to modern physics is called the EM-model (ElectroMagnetic model) which is a new development which is based on the electromagnetic part of classical physics. A founder of the modern version was Thomas G Barnes, Texas, USA and the two books: "Physics of the Future, A classical Unification of Physics" (1983) and "Space Medium, The Key to Unified Physics" (1986) was a main inspiration for my work with this model.

Note that the main difference between modern physics (Quantum Mechanics, the two theories of Relativity and the Kinetic Particle theory) which we find in textbooks and the EM-model is that the common models are mechanical models of nature where mass,  gravitation and inertia are fundamental concepts, while the EM-model is an electromagnetic model where charges,  electric force and magnetic force are fundamental concept.

Main source for observational facts and standard model description is internet and books as: Serway: Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, Third Internal Edition 1992(=PSE)






Articles about what model that best explain observation (will be published soon):


-Blackbody radiation support the EM-model

-Photoelectric effect support the EM-mode

-Atomic spectra support the EM-model

-How classical spin can explain different QM-problems

-A simple explanation of the atomic clock and related observations 

-Different properties of water is best explained by the EM-model



-Atomic energies is easier explained in the EM-model

-Problem with the fundamental constants in modern physics?


-Brownian motion support the EM-model, not the KH-model

-Atmospheric electric properties support the EM-model

-Temperature problems in space


-Ohmic resistance according to the EM-model


So why stick to a theory that is so diffuse that neither lecturer nor students really understands it?