<<< At the beginning
The present book is not a review on the theme in any degree. First of all, the theme is rather old. Not only Rene Descartes discussed a theme of vortexes, but many other scientists before him. We only added the adjective electromagnetic to the word «vortex». Secondly, there are a few modern works, which can be cited. Mainly it is only special literature. Probably, the cause is the occupation of the author which scientific career deals with a radiolocation, i.e. the world of quite real waves. Anyway, it was known many years ago that alternative electromagnetic fields must create charges and its moments. But concerning the theoretical physics of the 20th century, there are many doubts.
The matter is that the problem of the vortex has forced to get acquainted with this discipline rather comprehensively because the solution of this problem would allow discovering the structure of fundamental particles. There was also a hope to find any reference points, useful for concrete calculations. The logic was simple. If we need data on bolts and nuts, we take the manual on mechanical engineering. If we want to renew the knowledge of equations, it is possible to use the manual on mathematics. So in theoretical physics we expected something similar. However we have touch to large surprises and we are not going to hide them from our readers.
One can read in the book of L.D. Landau «Theory of Field» (Moscow, 1967) on p. 355: « … in the presence of electromagnetic field without any masses the scalar space-time curvature is equal to zero». After translation into understandable language it means, that the electromagnetic field cannot create mass. This strong statement should correlate with Maxwell equations. However there is no at least one such equation in this book. There are some equations, assigned to Maxwell, but absolutely not peculiar to him since he never confused a field with induction. Simply it is the essence of his theory. Thus, the Landau’s textbook material is based on a conscious forgery. But who will work by obviously false tool? Therefore Landau verses can be ignored simply. But is interesting to find out how such things get into textbooks.
One more textbook by Landau «The quantum mechanics» (Moscow, 1972) begins with the statement: «The classical mechanics and electrodynamics enter the sharp contradiction with experience at attempt to apply them to an explanation of the nuclear phenomena results. Most clearly it is visible from the contradiction gained at application of a usual electrodynamics to model of atom in which electrons move around of a nucleus on classical orbits». «Foul play» again. Again forgery: the obviously false Boor hypothesis named as atom model is thrown to the reader. Next the conclusion necessary to the author is drawn that the physics is erroneous, but not a hypothesis. Such is Landau and such is its craft.
It is impossible to tell, that scientific ethics so strongly limped at all physicists-theorists of 20th century, as at Landau. For example, P.À.Ì. Dirac adequately and fairly divides physics and its craft - mathematical models. In occasion of orbital model of the Boor he has noticed : «… connected with a stationary state in the theory of the Boor changing quantities, amplitudes and frequencies of an orbital motion, have no physical sense and any mathematical value». It is known , that Landau has disagreed with Dirac’s viewpoint and has called him a fool (the outrage in use of a speech as we shall see below, it is characteristic and for other academicians). However participants of this discussion strongly are not equal among themselves.
We know, that all the authors are either creators or interpreters. In poetry, for example Shakespeare, Pushkin etc were creators. Critics were their interpreters.
In the physicist it is possible to compare Dirac who has created a quantum electrodynamics, has opened spin at an electron and a positron, with Landau who verbalized but nothing discover in view of boundedness of talents. The quantity of interpreters occurs in orders of magnitude more than creators. Approximately their incomes differ also. And the main thing here is that interpreters do their work from position of their own quite another culture. Here we have been compelled to get acquainted with this culture and world-view of possible opponents. Development of an original theme is gained: lie in a science.
So, the impudent lie is the principle of Landau’s scientific culture as we see. But he had some financial support. Therefore there always were some scientists wishing to join Landau and to go his way.
The "Electrodynamics" by C.P. de Groot and L.G. Suttorp (Amsterdam, 1972) looks quite respectable. In the preface one can read: «… it is possible to get laws of electrodynamics of continuous medium from the laws of point particles. Such approach is offered in this book». It is possible to discuss what was early: an egg or a hen. But there is another case with field and particles. The electromagnetic field is measurable and also predicted in all details, i.e. there is a reality given in sensations. But a particle is the convention with suspicion on a field origin. Therefore the sense of this Amsterdam work is similar to a book on meteorology, which begins with the statement: «the wind blows because trees shake». We could not include this book in the list of the recommended literature also. It is obvious, that this book is not of a practical value. But it shows the scientific culture of scientists, which cautiously demonstrate loyalty to an especially dishonest group.
The almost encyclopedia of academician L.B. Okun under the name of "Physics of fundamental particles"  has appeared more resolute. The sensational maxim is there on page 19: «A source of a gravitational field is the tensor of energy-impulse». And what is the source of this tensor – a part of linear algebra, i.e. the matrix? Remembering the history, it is worth mention of talented mathematician Mileva Marich, the co-author, and may be the author of the relativity theory, officially named by Albert Einstein, which did not know the mathematics, according to his teachers and his own words. Her signatures under her works had been erased (due to discrimination by two attributes: sexual (woman) and national (Serbian)). And Poincare review has been simply eliminated. It is possible to read this, for example, in the book by I. Bojarintsev . And source of Mileva were her daddy with mum, her grandmother, etc. The academician was not casually mistaken regarding gravitation in all three editions of his book. And his statement is not a fruit of a children's fantasy. But L. B. Okun swears allegiance to someone. He has shown the mendacity (or the succession in mendacity) already in the third or fourth generation. I.e. here the lie acts already in a sacral sense. Some people offer worship to it, swears to it. The author of known Wlasow equations has not sworn, and consequently has not been appointed an academician. Neither a scientific school, nor pupils has remained after him. Only the equations of plasma dynamics have been kept. But what hides a behind academic lies? The Okun book will not answer this question. However it gives a key to understanding of the technology of a pseudo-scientific demagogy, which covers a primary inconsistency of the far-fetched theories. It is a question of the methodology of a modern theoretical physics in a view of the hypotheses quantity, which it operates. This quantity has appeared equal approximately 100 or more. In the book there are sections «Models, models …» and «Models, models, models … ». But when they use the word "models", they mean hypotheses.
Then a question arises: how many hypotheses it is possible to use simultaneously without fear to receive the false result? To get the answer, it is useful to know the opinion of great thinkers.
Rene Descartes in his «Reasoning on a method » (1637) recommends: «the First - never to accept anything as a truth if one is not able to accept it as a truth with all evidence, i.e. carefully to avoid haste and a bias and to include in the judgments only what, which is represented to my mind so clearly and that cannot give an occasion to doubt at all». In other words, Descartes does not advise to begin a work with hypotheses. And «the Third - arrange ideas in the certain order, beginning with the simple subjects up to knowledge of the most complex …». Here hypotheses are pertinent, but by the piece and in the rigorous order.
Isaac Newton wrote in his letter (1672): «The best and the most correct method to study the nature is a careful examination of the properties of things, finding these properties by means of experiments, and then descend very carefully to hypotheses for their explanation, because hypotheses are suitable only for an explanation of properties of things, but hypotheses are not to define these properties, hypotheses can only stimulate the experiments. Because if a hypothetical opportunity would be recognized as the truth, I do not see what reliability could be reached in a science».
It is interesting, that Emmanuel Kant has declared repeatedly the same thesis about the hypothesis and science interrelationship but in a voluminous form as a philosopher. In H. Poincaré's book «The science and a hypothesis» (1902) the same ideas were brought out.
All the listed authors have understood a hypothesis not as the high-grade statement, but as a certain question. Newton had in view of: «only stimulate the experiments». This question is necessary to be answered by proving validity of each hypothesis separately. Ensembles from hypotheses, which are not proved, are any more not hypotheses, but inspirations, which do not belong to natural sciences. Thomas Aquinas (13-th century) suggested even to put to law as false-coiner, those scientists who confuse a science with inspiration.
As a result we see that founders of a modern physics were strictly against multihypothetical system in science. However why? What did they know, and we have forgotten?
Medieval scholastics discussed a lot of different subjects in a sphere of multihypothetical systems. Let’s consider, for example, their favorite problem about quantity of devils on a needle tip. Let we have filled with hypotheses all mechanical aspects of the problem. Have assumed, that a tip of a needle is a sphere, have set the average size and elasticity (potentials of interaction) of devils, friction ratio etc. But how they can be devils if a belt can connect them? They will slide out of a belt. The additional hypothesis from area of psychology of a devil is necessary to define a degree of their desire to participate in experiment - to be linked. From here at once follows: the multihypothetical system in the senselessness withdraws to other areas of unknown. And so it is ad infinitum. It in addition illustrates its absolute uselessness particularly for a science. Certainly, profitableness is defined already by other factors: desire of the deceived customers to pay for any nonsense and patience of students that it to listen. Both Descartes and Newton knew about it for certain.
So, we approach nearer to understanding of culture of modern physicists-theorists or of swindlers-practitioners. As the Okun oath has shown, their strategy contains the latent mystical aspect. But tactics is simple. They juggle with uncountable hypotheses to divert the attention from profitable for them pseudo-theories. Certainly, it is difficult to define a circle of known cultures or civilizations to which these people concern, because they will jump out of this circle as devils jumps out of a belt. But we can go by exception and list those cultures to which they obviously do not belong.
Let's begin with Christian culture. Everything is simple here: the devil «is lie and the father of lie». And it is impossible to expect any science in general and physics in particular from the devil.
The Islam blames lie also. «Avoid are nasty idols, and also false speeches» (Koran 22:30). And «Do not mix up the truth and the lie, do not hide truth if you know it» (Koran 2:42).
Such is the attitude to the lie by the transnational world religions. But there are national religions and paganism, including atheism. Probably here one can find some roots of the rubbish, which some authors set as a base for the theoretical physics. At presence of desire, the reader "will calculate" itself these roots and the corresponding culture.
Anyway physical hypotheses of the 20th century have appeared absolutely useless for the present work. Therefore we do not cite them. The classical mechanics and electrodynamics were for us quite sufficient.
This book can be interesting to students, teachers, engineers, physicists and other inquisitive people even superficially familiar with electricity and a personal computer.
We cannot assert, that work is finished or the material does not contain technical discrepancies and mistakes. For such greater theme in principle cannot be mastered by one author. Naturally we hope for an aid of new researchers and for an objective criticism.
The author is grateful to relatives and friends who promoted the creation of this work. They cannot be listed all owing to size of the list and indeterminacy by order of its filling.
<<< At the beginning