show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Viraj,

With your essay N2 A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc I understand your thesis better now. Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD...

view entire post

Dear Viraj,

With your essay N2 A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc I understand your thesis better now. Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD since DC is a part of AC which is the relativistic energy. In this case DC will have physical meaning. And appearance of gamma-factors in special relativity is explained in another way. About muons. Taking the muon lifetime at rest as the laboratory value of 2.22 microsecond, the lifetime of a cosmic ray produced muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is about five times longer (Wikipedia). In special relativity all the motions are measured with the help of electromagnetic waves. It leads to the fact that energy and momentum have the multiplier in the form of Lorentz factor gamma. It looks like the speed of bodies can not exceed the speed of light. But I am sure that the real speed of cosmic ray muons is about 5 times of speed of light if do not use special relativity. About analogy of mechanics with the first law of Thermodynamics. I think it may be formulated so: Internal motion and interaction of particles in the system, moving in space, does not change the state of motion of the system, the total momentum and the relativistic energy of the system remains constant. The change is possible only in interaction of particles with external particles or background fields. The Earth as a system has energy connected with the motion of Earth in space or with fields in space. These energies may be used by earthlings if and only if they will interact with the entities which are not parts of the Earth. The first law of thermodynamics sounds in another way: a system can not do work eternally on the base of its own internal energy. Also I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical meanings?

Sergey Fedosin

view post as summary

Dear Sergey,

You wrote: “I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical...

view entire post

Dear Sergey,

You wrote: “I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical meanings?”

Here is my reply:

I think for you as the proponent of Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, it will be quite easy to accept the “Hierarchical Nesting of Motions” which actually is the main foundational concept of Galileo-Newton physics.

: “… if a place is moved, whatever is placed therein moves along with it; and therefore a body, which is moved from a place in motion, partakes also of the motion of its place. Upon which account, all motions, from places in motion, are no other than parts of entire and absolute motions; and every entire motion is composed of the motion of the body out of its first place, and the motion of this place out of its place; and so on, until we come to some immovable place, as in the before-mentioned example of the sailor” (Prnicipia, p.9).

It is on this basis, that Galileo and Newton formulated their principle of relativity. The most essential feature in this principle is that a particle moving relative to the earth also has another separate motion in common with the earth.

Galileo started off his discussion on the principle of relativity in the following way: “Then let the beginning of our reflections be the consideration that whatever motions comes to be attributed to the earth must necessarily remain IMPERCEPTIBLE to us and as if non-existent, so long as we look only at terrestrial objects; for as inhabitants of the earth, WE CONSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MOTION” (p. 114).

(I have formulated the parallel of Ist law of TD to be consonant with the above statement).

Using the analogy of a moving ship and the earth Galileo wrote: “The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship’s motion is common to all the things contained in it” (p. 187).

The absence of common motion is a foundational error in Einstein’s relativity principle. And it is missing in your modified principle also:

Your principle of relativity lacks common motion: “However, we can introduce such principle of relativity, that the observer and his instruments would change their properties (sizes, masses, characteristic speeds) while moving along a scale axis in order to ensure that the observer could not see during his motion any changes in the surrounding objects”.

With the foundational concept of common motion out of the minds, people can’t make the link how the (x –ut) terms happens in LT.

You wrote: “Also I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ?”.

Note u stands for the velocity of orbital motion of the earth. It is to form a component of energy forming an organic link with the background velocity field (u) that the fraction (Mv/c).u is usurped. This is similar to the fraction of energy that gets usurped in Carnot’s ideal engine in relation to the background temperature field.

This will show how Mvc breaks up into two parts analogical to the ideal engine in TD.

I will address your other points in a separate post.

Best regards,

Viraj

view post as summary

Dear Sergey,

Here are my replies to your other concerns:

You wrote: “Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD since DC is a part of AC which is the...

view entire post

Dear Sergey,

Here are my replies to your other concerns:

You wrote: “Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD since DC is a part of AC which is the relativistic energy. In this case DC will have physical meaning. And appearance of gamma-factors in special relativity is explained in another way”.

Before I discuss the above, I must comment on one of your positions which I agree with. You have written in your essay:

“According to the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter at each basic level of matter there is ITS OWN FORM OF GRAVITATION. At the level of stars and planets we have the ordinary gravitation and at the atomic matter level the main force of gravitation is assumed to be strong gravitation”.

I completely agree with you on this. The fusion interaction between AB and BC is the mechanism through which gravitation operates at that level. I will explain.

But first here’s the dialectic of gravitation.

Unity of the two bodies P and Q (in this case at a distance r) occurs by each of them seeking to fulfill what is deficient within itself, by getting it from the other. So nature plays a trick on them. It withdraws a fraction of energy from each body in proportion (G) to the mass of each and depending on the distance r between them. Due to this deficiency created, each body is now compelled to share the energy of the other and tries to come closer. This is how “attraction” occurs. When they have come closer (from r to r’) they lose more energy and the “attraction” (that is the urge to move closer to share each other’s energy) becomes even stronger and this process goes on until they ‘fall’ on to each other. This process of outflow of energy when they come closer and vice-versa is why when a GPS atomic clock is on earth it runs slower than when in orbit. When in orbit the caesium atom is further away from the earth, so it gains internal energy. And this makes its internal oscillations to intensify which manifests as the gain in time.

See: the section on ‘Clock Rate Increase Due to altitude increase in a GPS Clock.’ in the website: http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/viraj5.pdf

The accuracy of the above results will prove that in gravitation between bodies, there is an inflow and outflow of energy from the bodies as the distance between them changes. Mass of a body depends on the distance from the other body. This means that when the earth is in perihelion it has a lesser mass than when it is at aphelion.

You have said: “at each basic level of matter there is its OWN FORM of gravitation”. Very true. So the DIFFERENT FORMS of gravitation amounts to the different ways in which the above dialectic of causing attraction and repulsion by way of influx of energy out of the ‘body’ and in to the ‘body’ is made operational.

Looked at this way, the fusion of Mc2 and pc in the motion of a particle is also a FORM OF GRAVITATION. It uses the same dialectic of depriving fractions of energy from each so that the two quantities of energy fuse together to form a system.

I am attaching a document prepared for you by taking extracts from some other paper of mine, for your reference. I am entitling it as: “Two Subsystems and the Lorentz Force”.

Note: 1. With the above explanation you will find why AD and DC are two separate entities and not integral parts of ‘relativistic energy’ AC as you suggest.

2. As I pointed out there are two gamma-factors. One involved with ‘mass increase’, SRT can explain this gamma-factor as due to mass increase. But then it cannot explain the slowing down of processes in terms of an energy decrease. It cannot account for Lorentz force either.

About Muons: I have considered the case of a muon in a cosmic ray traveling at 0.9c. I suppose your example of 0.98c is for the CERN experiment. I would suggest that you look at all the data before you come to the conclusion that muons travel at 5 times the speed of light.

With my algoritm (Fig 1B) I can PROVE that a matter particle cannot reach the velocity c.

Best regards,

Viraj

view post as summary

Well, let me try again... it wants to delete everything after the "less than" sign.

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as...

view entire post

Well, let me try again... it wants to delete everything after the "less than" sign.

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as “less than”). For example, given any pair of distinct natural numbers A and B, either A is less than B or B is less than A. This is precisely why I built my approach out of relations, which represent cause and effect. Time in my approach is just a way of talking about these relations.

3. “A theory is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, the more different kinds of things it relates, and more extended its area of applicability.” Again, I absolutely agree. The modern theories assume a great deal of structure that in my opinion has no physical justification. Of course, if you assume less, you have to explain more, and that is the challenge we face.

4. Thermodynamics must be central to any successful theory. Thermodynamics is ultimately based on information theory; the entropy of a system is related to its information content. The dependence of entropy on simple counting arguments (“multiplicity of microstates”) in classical thermodynamics shows that the Second Law is mathematically inevitable and must be incorporated into any serious theory at the most fundamental level. In my approach, a version of the second law determines the probabilities, although I only have room to mention this very briefly.

5. I agree that Lorentz invariance as Einstein conceived it is not exactly right, but it is close enough to being right that I prefer to regard it as an approximation of the correct principle. This is what I mean when I discuss “reinterpreting the principle of covariance” in my essay. “Covariance” is usually understood to mean “Lorentz invariance,” i.e., group symmetry. I do not think group symmetry is the right way to think about this principle.

6. I agree that “all inertial frames are not equivalent,” but I think this is very close to being true at large scales.

Geometrodynamics:

1. You take energy as a fundamental concept, whereas I take relations as fundamental. These viewpoints do not necessarily contradict each other, because relations are what give rise to “time,” and time and energy are inextricably linked in physics (for instance, the Hamiltonian is the energy operator in QM, and is the infinitesimal generator of time evolution).

2. Some of your computations puzzle me a bit because they seem to rely on geometric notions of space, while I thought that you did not regard space as fundamental. For instance, orthogonality and angles (page 6) rely on properties of Euclidean space.

3. Another concept you use which is ordinarily viewed as depending on a background space is a field. Mathematically, a field is an assignment of a vector, scalar, tensor, or whatever to each point in a space. So again I am wondering what you mean by a field when you do not take space as fundamental.

I would appreciate any additional thoughts on my own essay. A good rating would be nice too, if you feel my submission justifies it! Take care,

Ben Dribus

view post as summary

Dear Ben,

You have gone through my paper extentsively. Thanks. Pls give me some time to go through yours once again and make my comments. In the meantime I rated yours on its merit and your essay is now in position 3.

I will have to respond to your comments part by part, since the posts cannot be too long. In this post I will take up your comment about “Lorentz...

view entire post

Dear Ben,

You have gone through my paper extentsively. Thanks. Pls give me some time to go through yours once again and make my comments. In the meantime I rated yours on its merit and your essay is now in position 3.

I will have to respond to your comments part by part, since the posts cannot be too long. In this post I will take up your comment about “Lorentz invariance”.

You wrote: “5. I agree that Lorentz invariance as Einstein conceived it is not exactly right, but it is close enough to being right that I prefer to regard it as an approximation of the correct principle. This is what I mean when I discuss “reinterpreting the principle of covariance” in my essay. “Covariance” is usually understood to mean “Lorentz invariance,” i.e., group symmetry. I do not think group symmetry is the right way to think about this principle”.

Let us look at this issue from a historical point of view. And also let me quote Einstein in regard to his own views on evolutions of concepts.

‘The concepts originate from experience by way of ‘abstraction’ i.e. through omission of a part of its content… (They) easily achieve so much authority over us that we forget their earthly origin and take them for something immutably given. They are then stamped as ‘necessities of thought’, ‘a priori given’, and so on. The path to scientific progress is often obstructed by these errors for a long period of time. It is therefore no idle amusement at all, when we are preoccupied with analysis of concepts that have been current for a long time and with showing, upon what circumstances are dependent their justification and utility and how they emerge, individually, from experiential data. Thereby their excessively great authority is broken down. They are omitted, if they cannot be made properly legitimate; corrected, if their co-ordination with the given objects was too carelessly established; or replaced, if it is possible to construct a new system which we, for some reason prefer” (4, p.19).

There are a lot of mathematical baggage that has been overlaid in trying to interpret the EMPIRICAL EQUATION for the DISPLACEMENT that Lorentz discerned by TRIAL AND ERROR by ITERATING the data of Kaufman’s experiments on fast moving electrons. By ‘interpret’ I mean what mainly Poincare (and Einstein too) did to give it a twist to make it fit into his line fictitious thinking of about the “nature of SPACE and TIME”. (Note: Displacement is what is measured directly, “SPACE” is where the displacement occurs). Now people have been so indoctrinated that they cannot discuss LT in simple terms as an expression for displacement, without getting confused into using this mathematical baggage concerning the ‘nature of space’.

So if we are to understand what Lorentz transformation really means, we must forget all the interpretations that have been assigned to it, and consider its point of birth by ‘curve fitting’ of data, “ showing, upon what circumstances are dependent its justification and utility and how it emerged, individually, from experiential data”.

What has happened is when Lorentz curve fitted data for particles moving at NEAR LIGHT VELOCITIES (v/c tending to 1) he had unknowingly missed out the term v/c which should have belonged to that empirical equation. Then this equation with the v/c term deficient was taken over by Einstein as true and perfect and made it into a postulate of the theory.

If you consider the equation x’ = gamma (x – ut), it gives very accurate results when v/c is almost equal to one. As a result when the empirical equation of Lorentz conforms to the DISPLACEMENTS of particles at very fast velocities, the credit goes to SRT. But everybody forgets that every time x’ gets confirmed, time does not correspond to t’ = gamma. t(1- ux/c2) as SRT contends, but SRT gets a free pass on this.

However, as the velocity declines to 0.9c, 0.8c, 0.7c there is a progressive degeneration of the accuracy x’ in a non-linear manner. Below 0.5c the degeneration becomes more marked. And at much lower velocities the degeneration of results reach exponential proportions.

We can now understand why the theory has been named “special” theory. It is valid only for the special condition of v/c tending to 1. So there is a schism in physics, SRT [meaning displacement x’ = gamma(x –ut) and gamma’ F for force] for very fast motion and Newtonian mechanics (meaning x= vt for displacement and F for force). But this leaves out the vast middle ground between very slow and very fast motion. Should not there be an equation that covers the whole range of velocities from very slow to very fast?

From the above observations (about the degeneration of results with declining velocities) we can re-construct the equation to be valid for all velocities v by following simple logic. If the LT equation is valid for the condition v/c = 1, then the equation that will be valid for all values of v will be

x’ = gamma. (v/c)(x – ut) or x’ = gamma .vt(1- u/c).

This then is the general equation of motion valid for all velocities. It can be verified by the computer analysis of all the relevant experiments done in the last century.

Your next comment: “6. I agree that “all inertial frames are not equivalent, but…” is closely connected with why the discrepancy (wrt classical x = vt) in a straightforward displacement measurement had to be interpreted as arising from the “nature of space and time”. I will touch upon this in my next post.

(My essay: : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549)

Best regards,

Viraj

view post as summary