CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
A Treatise on Foundational Problems of Physics by Viraj Prema Fernando
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Viraj Prema Fernando wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
Essay Abstract Abstract: In the Preface to the Principia, Newton has clearly stated the reason why he has resorted to space time mechanics was because he was unable to figure out (1) how the least particles (read as quanta of energy) behaved and (2) Geometric physics (yet to be found) is the most accurate, and his provisional mechanics less accurate. (3) Hopes his mechanics would be a stepping stone to a ‘Truer method of Philosophy”. This “Truer Method” is Geometrodynamics of Energy (GDE). The guiding philosophy of Geometrodynamics of Energy (GDE) that we develop in this paper, has been inspired by the above intuitive notions of Newton, Leibniz, Maxwell, Einstein and those of others founders in regard to the foundational problems which they confronted, such as the point mass without an internal structure, centrifugal force with no identifiable source of energy underlying it, closed system. With GDE all these foundational problems and many more are overcome. GDE contends that phenomena arise from interactions of energy, and these interactions are geometrically determined, and that by discerning the various geometrical algorithms which determine these interactions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena can be discovered. GDE therefore concerns, geometrical representation of interactions of energy that underlie various phenomena.
Author BioBio: Author is an Independent Researcher in History and Philosophy of Physics. He has spent the last twenty years researching on the foundational problems of physics and the reason why classical mechanics could not explain relativistic phenomena, and to find ways to explain these phenomena as in terms of states of changes of energy as Maxwell suggested independent of Special Relativity. The author is a Naval Architect by profession (now retired). Lives in Toronto Canada.
Download Essay PDF File
Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear Viraj,
I have read your essay and appreciate your viewpoint. Finally, do you agree that the two founding postulates of Relativity are wrong? Your proposal of GDE needs to be studied in depth.
All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.
As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.
Kindly read my essay titled,"
Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.
Best Wishes
G S Sandhu
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Dear Gurchan,
Thanks for your mail and thanks for looking through my paper. I will certainly read your paper and comment.
For the time being I will say that Einstein-Poincare Principle of Relativity is flawed and it has aggravated the crisis. Galileo-Newton principle is correct. If you like I can explain the difference between the two.
Einstein's assumption of constancy of the velocity of light is correct, but Einstein has not explained the physics behind it. My EndNote3 (Leibniz' Internal Principle) gives this explanation. I would like you to comment on this position.
The primacy of space and time concepts, and velocity their derrivative is a fiction created by Newton. We need to base physics on energy and its components as primary concept. Velocity v is the intensive component of momentum p,and inertia M is its extensive component such that p = Mv (just like in heat Q = Vp). Trying to prove Newton's fictions right will not help us out of the crisis. To escape from Newton's fictions we need to be guided by Newton's other insights written in the Principia and in the Queries plus Maxwell's insights in Matter and Motion.
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 05:03 GMT
Dear Gurchan,
An interesting essay on the foundational issues confronting scientists seeking a foundational geometry for the unification of Physics.
May I suggest EQUILATERAL geometries as the foundation you seek [as outlined in my essay - Tetryonics - the charged geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter in motion]
I'm sure you will see many problematic phenomena in QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology all explained through this simple geometry [in deference to spheres].
Of note is the fact that in physics SQUARE numbered quanta form EQUILATERAL geometries (and it is this geometry that determines all our coupling constants etc].
Sincerely
attachments:
Figure_20.05__Quantum_Mechanics_800x600.jpg,
EM_massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 10:51 GMT
Dear Viraj,
It seems in formula before Fig 1 there should be (Gamma Mc
2)
2, not Gamma Mc
2. In explanation of centrifugal force you point out to field energy that has flown into the system that is the underlying source of the centrifugal force. Then if the energy is flown into system the energy of the system must be rise all the time?
I hope you understand that your explanation of the cause of slowing down of internal processes for bodies in motion is only an interpretation of motion with the help of Lorentz transformations. In their turn the Lorentz transformations are result of axioms of SRT, see
Extended special theory of relativity . But the constancy of light speed is conventional axiom which is the result of spacetime measurements by electromagnetic waves only. In other words if we change spacetime measurements or take another waves and their speed we will find another value of slowing down of internal processes and other effects of relativity.
In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?
Sergey Fedosin Essay
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Sergey,
Thanks for the post and for showing the typo. Apart from that the diagrams have lost parts and will have to request FQXi to insert the correct one.
I will address the matters you have raised on an itemized basis.
1. Centrifugal Force. “field energy that has flown into the system …… source of the centrifugal force. Then …. energy of the system must be...
view entire post
Dear Sergey,
Thanks for the post and for showing the typo. Apart from that the diagrams have lost parts and will have to request FQXi to insert the correct one.
I will address the matters you have raised on an itemized basis.
1. Centrifugal Force. “field energy that has flown into the system …… source of the centrifugal force. Then …. energy of the system must be rise all the time?”
Your argument implies that the exertion of the centrifugal force expends energy continuously and this would require a continuous supply of energy (Aristotlean idea). Well if this is the case, energy of the system will be at a steady level all the time and it will not be a case of a continuous increase of the energy of the system.
2. “your explanation of the cause of slowing down of internal processes for bodies in motion is only an interpretation of motion with the help of Lorentz transformations”.
a) As you know Lorentz transformation (LT) is: x’ = (x- ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2. The term u in SRT stands for the velocity of the moving frame. There is nothing in my explanation of slowing down of internal process that involves the u-term.
b) Or are you referring to the Lorentz contraction (LC) - x’ = x/(1 – v2/c2)1/2? Here as you know v is the velocity of the particle (or the body or Michelson’s apparatus) and not the moving frame.
c) I hope you realize that the Gamma-factor in LT is entirely different to that in LC?
c) I assume you mean Lorentz contraction. My explanation is certainly not an interpretation of the Lorentz contraction. You seem to forget, that the (LC) was suggested in desperation to find an answer for Michelson’s experiment (MMX), where Lorentz specifically said that the contraction is IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION. My explanation has not connection to the direction of motion.
d) In Fig. 1C I show that two quantities of energy fuse to form a system by both quantities lose fractions of energy in equal proportions (1- 1/). The slow down is a direct result of this lost fraction of energy. This has no connection to a change of length in the direction of motion (LC).
3. “In their turn the Lorentz transformations are result of axioms of SRT”.
How can that be? Einstein has clearly stated that the two basic axioms of SRT are in contradiction and this gets resolved by POSTULATING Lorentz transformations. Actually LT is the third axiom and nothing more.
4. “But the constancy of light speed is conventional axiom which is the result of spacetime measurements by electromagnetic waves only. In other words if we change spacetime measurements or take another waves and their speed we will find another value of slowing down of internal processes and other effects of relativity”.
The value c in the expressions of natural processes appeared for the first time in Biot-Savart’s law. And Weber and Kohlrausch in 1856 made a measurement of this and they found it to have the SAME VALUE as the speed of light. The value c appears in expressions of interactions of energy not because light plays a role in all these interactions. All energy has the generic formula mc2, and that is why c appears in the expressions of interaction of energy. Since light is also a form of energy it too has the same value c in it. What is unique is that photons is the form of energy which can move with a velocity equal to c. Matter particle’s cannot. Unfortunately my Fig. 1B has not come out properly. Otherwise I could have demonstrated why matter particles cannot reach the velocity c.
5. “In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?”
This is a very good point which will enable GDE transformation to be verified by experiment. Thanks.
a) Let us take the case of the muon in motion which Feynman talks about (ref 8 of my paper). If one were to measure its displacement, do you agree that it should conform to LT - x’ = (x- ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2?
b) Then how come the time change is not given by LT of time t’ = t(1- xu/c)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 but by t” =?. As I have shown the time change is proportional to the fraction of energy lost.
d) There will be a small time change in relation to the LT too. Here there is an influx of energy from the field, and increase of a fraction of energy. Accordingly the time of the muon will be
T = [t.(1- u2/c2)1/2]/(1- v2/c2)1/2
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT
Hi Sergey,
I am re-posting para 5. Sorry I will have to learn to insert equation using LaTex. Until then ....
5. “In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?”
This is a very good point which will enable GDE transformation to be verified by experiment. Thanks.
a) Let us take the case of the muon in motion which Feynman talks about (ref 8 of my paper). If one were to measure its displacement, do you agree that it should conform to LT - x’ = (x- ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2?
b) Then how come the time change is not given by LT of time t’ = t(1- xu/c2)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 but by t” = t/(1-v2/c2)1/2?. As I have shown the time change is proportional to the fraction of energy lost.
d) There will be a small time change in relation to the LT too. Here there is an influx of energy from the field, and increase of a fraction of energy. Accordingly the time of the muon will be
T = [t.(1- u2/c2)1/2]/(1- v2/c2)1/2
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear Viraj,
If the particle is in the rest in a frame K` then the speed of the particle V` is zero in the frame K` and we can test properties of the particle using only the speed u of the frame K` relative to laboratory frame K. So we come to Lorentz transformations. If the speed V` is not zero in the K` then there is the rule of speed summation for the speed of particle V in K, the speeds u and V`. Then, what is the speed in your transformation? Is it u or V` ?
Sergey Fedosin Essay
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Viraj,
I repeat the post from my space for you.
In a) is: After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2.
From the fig. 1B of your essay it is seen that Mc2/gamma = AF , and pc/gamma = Mvc = BF. What we can do with AF and BF more? Why these...
view entire post
Dear Viraj,
I repeat the post from my space for you.
In a) is: After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2.
From the fig. 1B of your essay it is seen that Mc2/gamma = AF , and pc/gamma = Mvc = BF. What we can do with AF and BF more? Why these quantities are important for you? For the physics are important only the quantity AC = gamma Mc2 and p = gamma Mv. The quantities AF and BF are not at the one line and can not be added arithmetically. And with geometrical addition we have AB that is the energy of rest. What is new from here?
In 1. is: < In a system of particles moving relative to their common centre of mass, the energy of motion of the centre of mass cannot be made use of to make discrete changes in the particles relative to each other. > I think it is trivial since the energy of system of particles can not be known without the speed of motion u of the centre of mass. It is a consequence of superposition principle for vectors of velocities: every velocity is a sum of all individual motions velocities of particle.
Your sentence 2 looks like a tautology: when we applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle that particle can not have the speed v. It is very unclear. If we have for the particle Mvc then the speed of particle is v. If the speed of particle is smaller then v in the case the momentum of particle is smaller then p and the particle has no energy pc/gamma = Mvc.
I can not understand how to use in practice your sentence 2a. In physics in the system of particles, if momentum and energy are known for every particle, we can determine total momentum and energy of system and after it mass and velocity of the centre of mass as secondary quantities. For the closed system the total momentum and energy are conserved. Then what does mean Mvc in sentence 2a? Is it for particle or for system of particles?
Sergey Fedosin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 18:43 GMT
Dear Viraj Prema Fernando,
In
Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, point mass is substituted as eigen-rotational string segments and the eigen-rotations are the energy by intrinsic thermodynamics of universe, in that its energy dynamics is sustained by the state changes of energy in segmental localities.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:58 GMT
Dear Viraj
Your essay touches many diverse topics, and I agree with you that in his SR Einstein diverted physics into a 'fictitious' (i.e. physically unrealistic) solution. Very true. By postulating that c is constant he forced reality to contort in accordance with this ad-hoc idea.
The most important point you raised, in my opinion, is that space and time are emergent from something more basic. And I thank you for pointing out Leibnitz' ideas - I have to study them more carefully. In my
Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) too space and time are emergent from something more basic.
I am not qualified to judge your GDE - at my age I should concentrate whatever energy I have to presenting my (BU) in a more concise and understandable way. As you wisely point out the program to solve the problems of physics is a group effort- we at fqxi present 'seed ideas' that hopefully will be accepted and nourished by those who see the same need for change that we do, but who are also fully proficient in QM RT. Only by showing that our ideas can replace current paradigms in a more efficient way will the physics community accept our notions of what are the correct foundational issues in physics.
I wish you all success.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 02:50 GMT
Hi Viraj. FUNDAMENTAL inertial and gravitational equivalency (and balancing) has never been explained. (Combining, including, and balancing opposites is essential. Instantaneity and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded would have to be accounted for as well in any truly fundamental understanding of physics.
The question is how does true and fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing account for fundamentally stabilized and balanced distance in/of space. This would also involve fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. This would fundamentally balance and average acceleration as well -- AS THIS WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY DEMONSTRATE F=MA. EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF GRAVITY LACKS THIS. THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION IN PHYSICS. DO YOU AGREE?
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 11:53 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 22:00 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 00:31 GMT
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
attachments:
THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 09:07 GMT
Dear Viraj,
You write < 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. > I want say that there is an opposite situation - when Earth is closer to the Sun (in perihelion) then the mass of the Earth must increase. See the article: Fedosin S.G.
The Hamiltonian in covariant theory of gravitation. vixra.org, 22 May 2012. About your reference
THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc I can say the next: The mass and the charge of particle are constant in special relativity. The more energy the more speed the more Lorentz factor but mass is constant. For derivation of Lorentz force you can take electric force and apply to it Lorentz transformation. The same is true for 4-vector of energy-momentum - after Lorentz transformation we find formula for relativistic energy with Mc2 and Mvc components.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Sergey,
When I wrote:” 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”, I came to this conclusion from the fact that in a GPS clock when the altitude is increased the clock gains time. Why before the launch of the satellite energy E = hf when in orbit E’ = hf’. In GPS technology, clock rate is directly proportional to frequency. So the clock rate increase is due to the increase of the frequency. This means f’ is greater than f. Hence E’/c2 is greater than E/c2. Which means that the mass of the caesium atom increases when it is further away from the earth.
Sergey, I do not dispute that in SRT mass and the charge are constant. But I do not accept SRT. Do you want me to accept constancy of mass and charge just because SRT says so?
Similar to the case of mass increasing when the atomic clock is in orbit due to the altitude increase, due to its orbital motion there is an energy decrease, (hence a mass decrease). In the case f’ is less than f this reflects as the slowing down of the clock.
Analogical to the energy decrease (hence mass decrease) when an uncharged particle is in motion, there is a charge decrease when a charged particle is in motion. Please have a look at the small article on the Lorentz force I sent previously and let me know what you think. I brought up the Lorentz force, because you said that in my Fig. 1B DC has no meaning. Lorentz force paper AD = q.cos(theta) = q1 and DC = q.sin(theta) tan(theta) = q2. Lorentz force is found on this basis.
With you method mentioned do you derive the expression for the Lorentz force and simply and accurately as mine? I would like to see your derivation.
Best regards,
Viraj
attachments:
7_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc,
1_THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 06:59 GMT
Dear Viraj,
I have read and rated your essay as you requested. I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing. My belief is that its standing will improve as more serious authors read it.
I am in almost complete agreement with the philosophy and foundational ideas behind your approach. There are aspects of the approach itself that I either disagree with or do not yet adequately understand. Here are my remarks.
Background results and philosophy:
1. “Leibniz’s position was that space and time are not substantial, but phenomenal forms through which relations of substances manifest…. …This suggests that the only way out of this crisis is
to cut off the Gordian knot of space-time, and to find a new way to explain phenomena independent of the primacy of concepts of space and time. “ I absolutely agree. Also, I will point out that this is exactly the objective of my approach to viewing spacetime as a way of talking about cause and effect (causal metric hypothesis).
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
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Viraj,
This got cut off somehow. I resume with item 2.
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
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 00:50 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Viraj,
As we are both retired we have the time to think (I think).
Spacetime is an illusion, the BB is a thought experiment and inflation a result of it. I think you can agree with that.
If you have somle spare time pls read (and rate)
"THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION"Good luck
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Viraj,
I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames. In SRT approximation the Maxwell equation may be rewritten in four-dimensional form. Then if
is electromagnetic tensor,
is 4-current,
is stress-energy of electromagnetic field, then electromagnetic 4-force density is:
From here in contravariant index 4-force is:
Where
is electric field strength,
is 3-vector of current density, c is the speed of light,
is 3-vector of force density and
is charge density in motion,
is magnetic induction. If 4-vector of force multiply with the volume of moving particle taking in account Lorentz contraction of the volume then we find total force applied to the particle by electromagnetic field:
where q is charge and
is velocity of the particle. So for the particle we have 4-vector of force:
The same picture is for gravitational force in
Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG).
Sergey Fedosin Essay
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 04:04 GMT
Dear Sergey,
You wrote: “I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames”.
(1) Contrary to your claim that mass remains constant, is it not the case that SRT’s contention is that a mass of a particle...
view entire post
Dear Sergey,
You wrote: “I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames”.
(1) Contrary to your claim that mass remains constant, is it not the case that SRT’s contention is that a mass of a particle INCREASES when in motion? When the energy increases from Mc2 to gamma.Mc2 does not the mass increase from M to gamma.M in SRT?
(2) If mass of a particle does not increase when in motion, how can you explain that in order to set a particle of mass M in motion it requires momentum p = gamma.Mv?
(Note: I have given a different explanation consistent with an energy decrease by factor gamma).
(3) If the energy of a particle increases, is it not counter-intuitive to claim that this results in a slow down of internal processes? Isn’t this a contradictory situation?
(4) It is because of this contradictory situation that SRT cannot explain the mechanism of how the internal processes slow down. It only merely “plugs in” data to the time dilation ‘factor’ to solve problems.
Here is an example: “A very interesting example of the slowing down of time with motion is furnished by mu-mesons ….. THE FACTOR BY WHICH THE TIME IS INCREASED HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN AS 1/(1-u2/c2) ….. We do not know why the meson disintegrates or what the machinery is, but we know its behavior satisfies the principle of relativity. THAT IS THE UTILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY – IT PERMITS US TO MAKE PREDICTIONS, EVEN ABOUT THINGS THAT OTHERWISE WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT. - Feynman Lectures on Physics , Vol I Ch 15 – 7).
(5) The fact is that I have obtained extremely accurate results for GPS clock time differences a) due to altitude change (energy increase) and b) due to motion (energy decrease).
What you do not seem to understand is that I derive the “time dilation” equation by a GEOMETRICAL THEOREM, in terms of decrease of energy of a particle when in motion. . This formula is the same as SRT’s. When I work out this same formula on the basis of energy changes and get very accurate results, I am PROVING THAT MY CORRELATION BETWEEN ENERGY CHANGES AND GEOMETRY IS RIGHT. And in turn it proves that for geometry to be right, that the energy decreases with motion has to be right.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 05:31 GMT
Dear Viraj,
Mass of particle is a constant and is determined with the help of energy E and momentum p:
E and p may be increased under action of force but m is constant. About slow down of internal processes of particle in motion. It is so only in the case if we shall register it with the help of electromagnetic waves with their speed c. If we take another wave with other speed the result will be another. About your geometrical approach. I think it is possible to use geometry for deducing of SRT results. But you must give good explanation at every step.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
Sergey,
In the equation (Mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (gamma. Mc2)2
Left hand side represents the initial state before the interaction and the right hand side represents the final state after the interaction. The question is whether the mass remains constant after the interaction.
It is not correct to carry over the term (pc)2 to the other side and mix up the terms of the intial sate and the final state to determine the mass of the final state. In fact what you have done is to say:
“mass of the intial state” = “mass of initial state”
Thanks for letting me know that my geometric approach is workable in your opinion.
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 21:48 GMT
Viraj
We agree about the inherent foundational errors and seemingly most other things. Perhaps we view the world similarly, what kind of boats did you design as a Naval Architect? I trained as an Architect and also worked in fluid dynamics and yacht design. (My own boat recently won the Solent IRC championships overall). Super essay, I agree with almost all, and a good score coming. I felt while reading that I could almost have written it myself, but probably not as clearly.
I decided a while ago that we need "to find ways to explain these phenomena as in terms of states of changes of energy."
I suggest a 'simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea' was yet to be found, and describe one that seems to work very well. It involves kinetics and waves, but as someone used to the dynamics of boats negotiating waves I assume that's not a problem. It's a multi part self build ontological construction with foundations in logic, that seems to me too unify relativity and QM. I'm really interested in your view as to whether you see it as heading 'the right way.'
Very best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:37 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.