Science topic
Modern Physics - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Modern Physics, and find Modern Physics experts.
Questions related to Modern Physics
Publication Announcement: "The Mechanics of Time"
I am thrilled to announce that my book "The Mechanics of Time" is now available on Amazon!
What is it about?
This book explores a new interpretation of quantum and relativistic mechanics, introducing the concept of absolute time and absolute space. The damped oscillation of the electron, the imaginary Lorentz factor and space-time feedback are analyzed to explain quantum and cosmological phenomena from an innovative perspective.
Why is it relevant?
The theory of approach proposes a new model for the quantization of energy, offering a dynamical description of atomic stability and possible implications for cosmology and high-energy physics.
Where to find it?
The book is available here: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0F26WG8J7
Invitation to discussion
I am open to discussions, criticisms and collaborations! If you are interested in theoretical physics and in finding new perspectives on the structure of matter, I will be happy to discuss with you.
Open question to the community:
How can we experimentally test the concept of absolute time in modern physics?
I look forward to your feedback!
How to write a systematic review paper on Modern Physics?
Soumendra Nath Thakur
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803
Match 16, 2025
Abstract:
Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) refines the classical understanding of force, energy, and mass by incorporating the concept of negative apparent mass. In ECM, the effective force is determined by both observable mass and negative apparent mass, leading to a revised force equation. The framework introduces a novel energy-mass relationship where kinetic energy emerges from variations in potential energy, ensuring consistency with classical conservation laws. This study extends ECM to massless particles, demonstrating that they exhibit an effective mass governed by their negative apparent mass components. The connection between ECM’s kinetic energy formulation and the quantum mechanical energy-frequency relation establishes a fundamental link between classical and quantum descriptions of energy and mass. Furthermore, ECM naturally accounts for repulsive gravitational effects without requiring a cosmological constant, reinforcing the interpretation of negative apparent mass as a fundamental aspect of energy displacement in gravitational fields. The framework is further supported by an analogy with Archimedes’ Principle, providing an intuitive understanding of how mass-energy interactions shape particle dynamics. These findings suggest that ECM offers a predictive and self-consistent alternative to relativistic mass-energy interpretations, shedding new light on massless particle dynamics and the nature of gravitational interactions.
Keywords:
Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), Negative Apparent Mass, Effective Mass, Energy-Mass Relationship, Kinetic Energy, Massless Particles, Quantum Energy-Frequency Relation, Archimedes’ Principle, Gravitational Interactions, Antigravity
Extended Classical Mechanics: Energy and Mass Considerations
1. Force Considerations in ECM:
The force in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) is determined by the interplay of observable mass and negative apparent mass. The force equation is expressed as:
F = {Mᴍ +(−Mᵃᵖᵖ)}aᵉᶠᶠ
where: Mᵉᶠᶠ = {Mᴍ +(−Mᵃᵖᵖ)}, Mᴍ ∝ 1/Mᴍ = -Mᵃᵖᵖ
Significance:
- This equation refines classical force considerations by incorporating negative apparent mass −Mᵃᵖᵖ, which emerges due to gravitational interactions and motion.
- The effective acceleration aᵉᶠᶠ adapts dynamically based on motion or gravitational conditions, ensuring consistency in ECM's mass-energy framework.
- The expression (Mᴍ ∝ 1/Mᴍ) provides a self-consistent relationship between observable mass and its apparent counterpart, reinforcing the analogy with Archimedes' principle.
2. Total Energy Considerations in ECM:
Total energy in ECM consists of both potential and kinetic components, adjusted for mass variations:
Eₜₒₜₐₗ = PE + KE
By incorporating the variation in potential energy:
Eₜₒₜₐₗ = (PE − ΔPE) + ΔPE
where:
- Potential Energy: PE = (PE - ΔPE)
- Kinetic Energy:( KE = ΔPE)
Since in ECM, (ΔPE) corresponds to the energy displaced due to apparent mass effects:
Eₜₒₜₐₗ = PE + KE
⇒ (PE − ΔPE of Mᴍ) + (KE of ΔPE) ≡ (Mᴍ − 1/Mᴍ) + (-Mᵃᵖᵖ)
Here, Potential Energy Component:
(PE − ΔPE of Mᴍ) ≡ (Mᴍ − 1/Mᴍ)
This represents how the variation in potential energy is linked and identically equal to mass effects.
Kinetic Energy Component:
(KE of ΔPE) ≡ (-Mᵃᵖᵖ)
This aligns with the ECM interpretation where kinetic energy arises due to negative apparent mass effects.
Significance:
- Ensures energy conservation by explicitly including mass variations.
- Demonstrates that kinetic energy naturally arises from the variation in potential energy, aligning with the effective mass formulation.
- Strengthens the analogy with fluid displacement, reinforcing the concept of negative apparent mass as a counterpart to conventional mass.
3. Kinetic Energy for Massive Particles in ECM:
For massive particles, kinetic energy is derived from classical principles but adjusted for ECM considerations:
KE = ΔPE = 1/2 Mᴍv²
where:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ + (−Mᵃᵖᵖ)
Significance:
- Maintains compatibility with classical mechanics while integrating ECM mass variations.
- Reflects how kinetic energy is influenced by the effective mass, ensuring consistency across different gravitational regimes.
- Provides a basis for extending kinetic energy considerations to cases involving negative apparent mass.
4. Kinetic Energy for Conventionally Massless but Negative Apparent Massive Particles:
For conventionally massless particles in ECM, negative apparent mass contributes to the effective mass as follows:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = −Mᵃᵖᵖ + (−Mᵃᵖᵖ)
Since in ECM:
Mᴍ ⇒ −Mᵃᵖᵖ
it follows that:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ
Significance:
- Establishes that even conventionally massless particles possess an effective mass due to their negative apparent mass components.
- Provides a self-consistent framework that supports ECM's interpretation of mass-energy interactions.
- Highlights the role of negative apparent mass in governing the energetic properties of massless particles.
5. Kinetic Energy for Negative Apparent Mass Particles, Including Photons:
For negative apparent mass particles, such as photons, kinetic energy is given by:
KE = 1/2 (−2Mᵃᵖᵖ)c²
where:
v = c
Since:
ΔPE = −Mᵃᵖᵖ.c²
it follows that:
ΔPE/c² = −Mᵃᵖᵖ
Thus:
KE = ΔPE/c² = −Mᵃᵖᵖ
Significance:
- Establishes a direct relationship between kinetic energy and the quantum mechanical frequency relation.
- Demonstrates that photons, despite being conventionally massless, exhibit kinetic energy consistent with ECM’s negative apparent mass framework.
- Reinforces the view that negative apparent mass plays a fundamental role in governing mass-energy interactions at both classical and quantum scales.
6. ECM Kinetic Energy and Quantum Mechanical Frequency Relationship for Negative Apparent Mass Particles:
KE = ΔPE/c² = hf/c² = −Mᵃᵖᵖ
This equation establishes a direct link between the kinetic energy of a negative apparent mass particle and the quantum energy-frequency relation. The expression ensures consistency with quantum mechanical principles while reinforcing the role of negative apparent mass in energy dynamics.
7. Effective Mass and Apparent Mass in ECM:
In ECM, the Effective Mass represents the overall mass that is observed, while the Negative Apparent Mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) emerges due to motion or gravitational interactions. This distinction provides deeper insight into how mass behaves dynamically under varying conditions, differentiating ECM from conventional mass-energy interpretations.
8. Direct Energy-Mass Relationship in ECM:
hf/c² = −Mᵃᵖᵖ
This equation is inherently consistent with dimensional analysis, showing that negative apparent mass naturally arises from the energy-frequency relationship without requiring any extra scaling factors. This highlights ECM's compatibility with established quantum mechanical formulations and reinforces the role of negative apparent mass as an intrinsic component of energy-based mass considerations.
9. Effective Mass for Massive Particles in ECM
For a massive particle in ECM, the effective mass is given by:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ + (−Mᵃᵖᵖ)
where:
- Mᴍ is the conventional mass.
- −Mᵃᵖᵖ is the negative apparent mass component induced by gravitational interactions and acceleration effects.
ECM establishes the inverse proportionality of apparent mass to conventional mass:
Mᴍ ∝ 1/Mᴍ ⇒ Mᴍ = − Mᵃᵖᵖ
Thus, we obtain:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ − Mᴍ = 0
which represents a limiting case where effective mass cancels out under specific conditions.
10. Effective Mass for Massless Particles in Motion
For massless particles such as photons, the conventional mass is:
Mᴍ = 0
However, in ECM, massless particles exhibit an effective mass due to the interaction of negative apparent mass with energy-mass dynamics.
From ECM’s force equation for a photon in motion:
Fₚₕₒₜₒₙ = −Mᵃᵖᵖaᵉᶠᶠ
This indicates that the apparent mass governs the photon’s dynamics.
Since massless particles always move at the speed of light (v = c), ECM treats their total apparent mass contribution as doubled due to energy displacement effects (analogous to Archimedean displacement in a gravitational-energy field):
Mᵉᶠᶠ = (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) + (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ
Thus, for massless particles in motion:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ
This confirms that even though Mᴍ = 0, the particle still possesses an effective mass purely governed by negative apparent mass interactions.
11. Archimedes’ Principle Analogy in ECM
ECM’s treatment of negative apparent mass is closely related to Archimedes’ Principle, which describes the buoyant force in a fluid medium. In classical mechanics, a submerged object experiences an upward force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. Similarly, in ECM:
- A mass moving through a gravitational-energy field experiences an **apparent reduction** in mass due to energy displacement, akin to an object losing effective weight in a fluid.
- For massive particles, this effect reduces their observed mass through the relation:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ + (−Mᵃᵖᵖ)
- For massless particles, the displacement effect is **doubled**, leading to:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ
This is analogous to how a fully submerged object displaces its entire volume, reinforcing the interpretation that massless particles inherently interact with the surrounding energy field via their negative apparent mass component.
Physical & Theoretical Significance
(A) Massless Particles Exhibit an Effective Mass
- This challenges the traditional view that massless particles (e.g., photons) have no mass at all. ECM reveals that while they lack conventional rest mass, their motion within an energy field naturally endows them with an effective mass, explained by negative apparent mass effects.
(B) Quantum Mechanical Consistency
- The ECM kinetic energy relation aligns with quantum mechanical frequency-based energy expressions:
KE = hf/c² = −Mᵃᵖᵖ
This suggests that negative apparent mass is directly linked to the fundamental nature of wave-particle duality, reinforcing ECM’s consistency with established quantum mechanics principles.
(C) Natural Explanation for Antigravity
- The doubling of negative apparent mass for massless particles introduces a natural anti-gravity effect, distinct from the ad hoc introduction of a cosmological constant Λ in relativistic models.
- Since massless particles propagate via their effective mass Mᵉᶠᶠ = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ, ECM naturally incorporates repulsive gravitational effects without requiring modifications to spacetime geometry.
(D) Reinforcement of ECM’s Fluid Displacement Analogy
- The analogy with Archimedes’ Principle provides a strong conceptual foundation for negative apparent mass. Just as an object in a fluid experiences a buoyant force due to displaced volume, mass in ECM interacts with gravitational-energy fields via displaced potential energy, leading to apparent mass effects.
Conclusion
ECM’s interpretation of effective mass provides a self-consistent framework where both massive and massless particles exhibit observable mass variations due to negative apparent mass effects. The Archimedean displacement analogy reinforces this concept, offering an intuitive understanding of how energy-mass interactions govern particle dynamics.
This formulation provides a clear, predictive alternative to conventional relativistic models, demonstrating how massless particles still exhibit mass-like behaviour via their motion and interaction with energy fields.
12. Photon Dynamics in ECM & Archimedean Displacement Analogy
Total Energy Consideration for Photons in ECM
In ECM, the total energy of a photon is composed of:
Eₚₕₒₜₒₙ = Eᵢₙₕₑᵣₑₙₜ + E𝑔
where:
- Eᵢₙₕₑᵣₑₙₜ is the inherent energy of the photon.
- E𝑔 is the interactional energy due to gravitational effects.
When a photon is fully submerged in a gravitational field, its total energy is doubled due to its interactional energy contribution:
Eₚₕₒₜₒₙ = Eᵢₙₕₑᵣₑₙₜ + E𝑔 ⇒ 2E
This represents the energy displacement effect, aligning with ECM’s formulation that massless particles experience a doubled apparent mass contribution in motion:
Mᵉᶠᶠ = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ
Photon Escaping the Gravitational Field
As the photon escapes the gravitational field, it expends E𝑔, reducing its total energy:
Eₚₕₒₜₒₙ ⇒ Eᵢₙₕₑᵣₑₙₜ, E𝑔 ⇒ 0
Thus, once the photon is completely outside the gravitational influence:
Eₚₕₒₜₒₙ = E, E𝑔 = 0
This describes how a photon’s energy and effective mass vary dynamically with gravitational interaction, reinforcing the ECM perspective on gravitational influence on energy-mass dynamics.
Alignment with Archimedean Displacement Analogy
This ECM interpretation strongly aligns with Archimedes' Principle, where:
- A photon in a gravitational field is analogous to an object fully submerged in a fluid, experiencing an energy displacement effect.
- As the photon leaves the gravitational field, it expends its interactional energy E𝑔, similar to how an object leaving a fluid medium loses its buoyant force.
This analogy further strengthens ECM’s concept of negative apparent mass, where the gravitational interaction displaces energy similarly to how a fluid displaces volume.
Conclusion & Significance
- The ECM photon dynamics equation aligns with the Archimedean displacement analogy, reinforcing the physical reality of negative apparent mass effects.
- This provides a natural, intuitive explanation for how photons interact with gravitational fields without requiring relativistic spacetime curvature.
- It further supports the energy-mass displacement framework, demonstrating how photons dynamically exchange energy with gravitational fields while maintaining ECM’s effective mass principles.
This formulation elegantly unifies photon energy dynamics with mass-energy interactions, further validating ECM as a robust framework for fundamental physics.
13. Effective Acceleration and Apparent Mass in Massless Particles
For photons in ECM, the effective force is given by:
Fₚₕₒₜₒₙ = −Mᵉᶠᶠaᵉᶠᶠ, Where: aᵉᶠᶠ = 6 × 10⁸ m/s²
- Negative Apparent Mass & Acceleration:
Photons possess negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ), which leads to an anti-gravitational effect. Their effective acceleration (aᵉᶠᶠ) is inversely proportional to Mᵉᶠᶠ and radial distance r.
- Within a gravitational field, the photon has more interactional energy E𝑔, increasing aᵉᶠᶠ.
- Escaping the field, it expends E𝑔, reducing Mᵃᵖᵖ and lowering aᵉᶠᶠ.
- Acceleration Scaling with Gravitational Interaction:
E𝑔 ∝ 1/r
- At r₀ ⇒ E𝑔,ₘₐₓ ⇒ Maximum −Mᵃᵖᵖaᵉᶠᶠ ⇒ aᵉᶠᶠ = 2c.
- At rₘₐₓ ⇒ E𝑔 = 0 ⇒ Minimum −Mᵃᵖᵖaᵉᶠᶠ ⇒ aᵉᶠᶠ = c.
This confirms that effective acceleration (2c) is a function of gravitational interaction, not an intrinsic speed change, reinforcing ECM’s explanation of negative apparent mass dynamics.
14. Extended Classical Mechanics: Effective Acceleration, Negative Apparent Mass, and Photon Dynamics in Gravitational Fields
Analytical Description & Significance:
This paper refines and extends the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) by establishing a comprehensive formulation for effective acceleration, negative apparent mass, and their implications for massless and massive particles under gravitational influence. The analysis revises ECM equations to incorporate Archimedes' principle as a physical analogy for negative apparent mass, clarifies the role of effective acceleration (2c) in different gravitational conditions, and demonstrates how negative apparent mass serves as a natural anti-gravity effect, contrasting with the relativistic cosmological constant (Λ).
A key highlight is the kinetic energy formulation for negative apparent mass particles, which aligns with quantum mechanical frequency relations for massless particles. This formulation provides deeper insight into how negative apparent mass influences energy and motion without requiring conventional mass assumptions.
Key Implications & Theoretical Advancements:
Refined Effective Acceleration Equation for Massless Particles:
- ECM establishes that photons, despite being massless in the conventional sense, exhibit negative apparent mass contributions, leading to an effective acceleration of aᵉᶠᶠ = 6 × 10⁸ m/s² = 2c inside gravitational fields.
- This acceleration naturally arises due to the relationship between negative apparent mass −Mᵃᵖᵖ and gravitational interaction energy E𝑔.
- The effective acceleration decreases as a photon exits the gravitational field, reaching c in free space.
Negative Apparent Mass as a Replacement for Cosmological Constant (Λ):
- Unlike Λ, which assumes a uniform energy density, negative apparent mass dynamically varies with gravitational interaction energy.
- This formulation provides a self-consistent explanation for observed cosmological effects, particularly in gravitational repulsion and expansion scenarios.
Physical Analogy with Archimedes’ Principle:
- The ECM framework aligns negative apparent mass effects with Archimedean displacement, where gravitational interaction leads to energy displacement effects analogous to buoyant forces in fluids.
- In gravitational fields, a photon's interactional energy (E𝑔) contributes to its total energy, analogous to an object submerged in a fluid experiencing an upward force.
- As the photon escapes, the loss of E𝑔 mirrors an object emerging from a fluid losing its buoyant support.
4. Revision in the Energy-Mass Relation for Massless Particles:
- The study revise prior inconsistency by explicitly linking the kinetic energy of negative apparent mass particles to quantum mechanical frequency relations, ensuring consistency between ECM and established quantum principles.
Conclusion:
This research enhances ECM’s predictive power by clarifying the role of negative apparent mass in gravitational dynamics and demonstrating its relevance to photon motion, cosmological expansion, and gravitational interactions. By introducing effective acceleration (2c) as a natural consequence of gravitational interaction, ECM provides a compelling alternative to relativistic formulations, reinforcing the practical applicability of classical mechanics principles in modern physics.
How to integrate concept mapping in Modern Physics?
Upload of .zip is a requirement. While I upload my zip file but the same step remains pending in the end
The possible combinations of "limits" and "boundaries" in nature are [1]: 1) "limited and bounded'; 2) “limited and unbounded”; 3) "unlimited and bounded”; 4) “unlimited and unbounded”. Here the object of "limit”can be geometric size, matter, energy, etc., and the object of “boundary”can be regarded as space-time boundary. We need to pay attention to two points here, first, what is the 'space-time boundary'; second, the static 'boundary' and dynamic 'boundary' of the essential difference. For the first point, usually the boundary of space can only be constituted by geometric points, lines and surfaces [2], which ensures that there is no indeterminate space on both sides of the boundary. If set time is the boundary in another dimension, the endpoints of such a boundary are zero-dimensional if they exist at all. For the second point, the Koch snowflake, a fractal curve, is often used in mathematics to express 'infinite perimeter, finite area', which presupposes that the 'boundary' is dynamically progressing infinitely. But once it is stationary at a fixed N(≠∞) [3], it becomes 'limited and bounded’.
‘Symmetry dictates interaction’is a motto of modern physics [4]. Symmetry is in some sense invariance. Coordinate symmetry reflects energy conservation, momentum conservation [5]; charge conservation reflects gauge invariance [6] ....... If time Displacement invariance, and space Displacement invariance, are globally applicable to any individual, do they thereby determine that the entire universe must be unconditionally time Displacement and space Displacement symmetric? Does this dictate that the entire universe must be unbounded in time and space? If there are boundaries to the universe, how can symmetry be maintained at such special places as boundaries? If the universe is anything like "limited and unbounded" [7], how does it support the finiteness of space if conservation of momentum applies globally, when the universe is viewed as a whole object? If conservation of energy is globally applicable, how does it support the finiteness of time? Either way we have to deal with some kind of 'boundary' violation. And if time is cyclic, then the universe must form an 'Ouroboros' [8]. Therefore, if the laws of nature are required to apply globally, it is impossible to face any 'boundary'.
Suppose a finite set, whatever its nature, can we always assign it a centre, as with a tangible entity, we can define its centroid, centre of mass, center of gravity, and so on. Can a finite universe then avoid the existence of a centre? If there is a centre, the universe must have boundaries. At this point, are the time and space boundaries symmetrical? And if we assume that the universe is, infinite in space, infinite in time, and infinite in energy, what would be the catastrophe for our cosmology, or would it be a convenient and useful gateway for research?
---------------------------------------------------
Notes
* It has been said that the universe is limited and unbounded similar to the surface of the Earth, where clearly no boundaries are defined.
** Multiverse theories are receiving more and more attention, and it is more appropriate to think of them as subuniverses within an entire universe.
---------------------------------------------------
References
[1] Chian Fan, "Supersymmetry : Light String and Light Ring". https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369527872_Supersymmetry-Light_String_and_Light_Ring.
[2] Can This Be an Argument for 3-D Space? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO1_Can_This_Be_an_Argument_for_3-D_Space2.
Yang, J. (2016). The Boundary of A Boundary is Null. https://jeffycyang.github.io/the-boundary-of-a-boundary-is-null/index.html .
[3] Weisstein, Eric W. "Koch Snowflake." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/KochSnowflake.html.
[4] Yang, C. N. (1980). Einstein's impact on theoretical physics. Physics Today, 33(6), 42-49.
Symmetry, Invariance and Conservation (1) - Who is the Primary? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO20Symmetry_Invariance_and_Conservation_1-Who_is_the_Primary
[5] Kosmann-Schwarzbach, Y. (2011). The Noether Theorems. In Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach & B. E. Schwarzbach (Eds.), The Noether Theorems: Invariance and Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century (pp. 55-64). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87868-3_3 .
[6] Brading, K. A. (2002). Which symmetry? Noether, Weyl, and conservation of electric charge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 33(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-2198(01)00033-8 .
[7] Einstein, A. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein [爱因斯坦文集] .
Hawking, S. W., & Hertog, T. (2018). A smooth exit from eternal inflation? Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(4), 147. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2018)147
Taming the multiverse: Stephen Hawking’s final theory about the big bang, https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/taming-the-multiverse-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang#:~:text=Hertog%20and%20Hawking%20used%20their%20new%20theory%20to%20derive%20more
Should there be a cosmological constant Λ term in the GR field equations? Is the Λ term symmetric with Gμν?
"According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity should lead to a slowing of the cosmic expansion. Yet, in 1998, two teams of astronomers studying distant supernovae made the remarkable discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. To explain cosmic acceleration, cosmologists are faced with two possibilities: either 70% of the universe exists in an exotic form, now called dark energy, that exhibits a gravitational force opposite to the attractive gravity of ordinary matter, or General Relativity must be replaced by a new theory of gravity on cosmic scales."[1] In order to match the phenomenon of cosmic expansion, the general theory of relativity introduced the cosmological constant term and various speculations on its cause have been made [2]. However, these studies have rarely addressed the possible solutions in the structural aspects of the universe [3].
If there is only gravitational force, it looks like there is a deficiency. We believe that if there is a gravitational force, there is a corresponding repulsive force. But who should cause it and under what circumstances? It is important to know that in electromagnetic interactions, both positive and negative forces are formed by charges, and our goal is to unify the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Would dark energy be a repulsive force symmetrical to gravity? Where does their symmetry come into play? If the result is to be symmetrical, the cause must first have symmetry. According to the assumptions of modern physics, the dark energy that causes the expansion of the universe is background and not symmetrical with the energy in GR. Regular energies are floating above the dark energy background, so they cannot have symmetry. In Einstein's gravitational field equation, Gµν + Λgµν = G*Tµν, the energy Tµν leads to an unmeasurable intrinsic Space-Time Curvature Gµν [4] while Λgµν is assumed to be a measurable extrinsic Space-Time Expansion due to the universal energy [5]. Specific and background, intrinsic and extrinsic, curvature and expansion do not have any symmetrical meaning. It would then not be appropriate to arrange them in a GR field equation.
Philosophically speaking, there should be no difference with ‘existence’ at this time and the other time, this place and the other place, i.e., when space and time are considered as background *, ‘existence’ does not depend on space-time coordinates. Therefore, the equations of the universe should not require boundary and initial conditions. Physics, by analysing observational data, has proposed the ‘Big Bang Theory’ and the ‘Accelerated Expansion Theory’ of the Universe, both of which are inconsistent with this. Therefore, the hypothesis of dark energy based on this foundation is questionable.
Our Questions:
Does the existence of ‘energy’ necessitate the existence of ‘dark energy’ or ‘anti-energy’? The hypothesis of the existence of dark energy is based only on the observation of the expansion of the universe. Is it the only explanation for the expansion of the universe? [6]
The function of energy is to drive interactions, and energy is presented in discrete forms, which can be manifested in a variety of forms, including gravity. Is the function of dark energy only to cause negative gravity? Is there only one form of dark energy?
Conservation of energy is an important physical principle, is dark energy conserved?
If gravity and negative gravity cancel each other out, why can't energy and dark energy cancel each other out directly?
-----------------------------------
Notes
* We believe that existence itself has a space-time parameter, but not a coordinate parameter.
-----------------------------------
References
[1] Dark Energy Survey, Collaboration. https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-des-project/overview/
[2] Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. (2003). The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.
[3] Fan, C. (2023). Convergent and Disperse Cyclic Multiverse Model (CDCMM). https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202309.0784/v2
[4] Doubts about General Relativity (7) - Is Space-Time Bend a Motion? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO42Doubts_about_General_Relativity_7-Is_Space-Time_Bend_a_Motion；
Doubts about General Relativity (5) - Should there be "negative gravity" in General Relativity?，https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO40Doubts_about_General_Relativity_5-Should_there_be_negative_gravity_in_General_Relativity.
[5] Doubts about General Relativity (3) - Are Space-Time Curvature and Expansion Two Different Geometrical Mechanical Properties? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO38Doubts_about_General_Relativity_3-Are_Space-Time_Curvature_and_Expansion_Two_Different_Geometrical_Mechanical_Properties.
[6] Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe?
Despite its success, physics is not the ultimate tool to predict and solve all scientific ambitions. One reason might be inherent in its epistemological approach which gave it its success. Some double edged traits of it are
**absence of componential relations i.e does not identify relation of part (with function) to whole
** simplistic direct one on one consequences i.e in cause effect chains there is only one consequence and the complexity of one Act causing in direct reactions that might even lead to different course are omitted. Biology is not like this
**absence of agent relations i.e even force does not identify one objects as agent due to mutual interactive nature of force concept given by Newton
Does "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies?
Newtonian gravity behaves differently at very large scales of mass and distance, i.e., galaxy scales, in contra-indication to the assumption that massive quantities of invisible, or "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies.
… Read more
- 717 kB27.pdf
Preston Guynn added a reply
Your discussion statement question is:
- "Does 'dark matter' make up large proportions of those galaxies? Newtonian gravity behaves differently at very large scales of mass and distance, i.e., galaxy scales, in contra-indication to the assumption that massive quantities of invisible, or 'dark matter' make up large proportions of those galaxies."
The phrase "Newtonian gravity" refers to a very specific equation relating mass and acceleration, so saying it behaves differently under some condition is not a correct usage of the phrase. Newtonian gravity is Newtonian gravity, and it gives incorrect results at scales greater than the solar system. There is a significant body of research on modified Newtonian gravity, and you can find it by searching on the phrase or "MOND".
Your question"Does dark matter make up large proportion of those galaxies?" is the question that numerous branches of research are investigating either experimentally or theoretically. First of course is the search for any experimental evidence of any matter that couples gravitationally but not via the electromagnetic field. No evidence of any such matter has been found. Second is that there is no such matter expected from current models such as the so called standard model of physics.
Even if there were some type of matter that couples gravitationally but not via electro-magnetic coupling, the number of non-conforming physical observations cannot be solved by such matter. The galaxies not only have a rotation that is unexplained by GR, but the galaxies interacting in clusters, and the clusters of galaxies interacting in superclusters could not simultaneously be described by such matter regardless of its distribution patterns. Additionally, gravitational lensing observed due to galaxies and clusters of galaxies could not be described by GR simply by applying such conjectured matter. The number of non-conforming observations cannot be solved by adding matter or energy, so general relativity should be abandoned as a dead end. Newtonian gravity does not apply, and no known modification of Newtonian gravity describes all the observed interactions. Modern physics will only progress when GR is abandoned and my research based on special relativity is adopted. See
Article The Physical Basis of the Fine Structure Constant in Relativ...
Article Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space
For some insights on dark matter see :
Article Cold Dark Matter and Strong Gravitational Lensing: Concord o...
Abbas Kashani added a reply
Dear and respected Preston Gan
Researcher in Guynn Engineering
United States of America
You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas
Jouni Laine added a reply
According to my theory, the influence of quantum entanglement on spacetime curvature could provide an alternative explanation for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter in galaxies. Traditional models suggest that large proportions of invisible “dark matter” are required to account for the observed gravitational behavior at galaxy scales. This is because, under Newtonian gravity, the visible mass of galaxies cannot account for the gravitational forces observed, leading to the hypothesis that there must be additional, unseen mass—dark matter.
However, my research proposes that quantum entanglement could be influencing spacetime curvature in a way that mimics the effects of this “missing” dark matter. If quantum entanglement can alter the curvature of spacetime, it might enhance the gravitational pull within galaxies without requiring massive quantities of unseen matter. This would mean that the observed discrepancies at galactic scales could be due to quantum entanglement effects rather than vast amounts of dark matter.
In this view, while dark matter has been the dominant explanation, it might be possible that the gravitational anomalies are instead the result of entanglement-induced modifications to spacetime. This theory could offer a new perspective on why Newtonian gravity appears to behave differently at large scales, suggesting that the need for dark matter could be reconsidered in light of quantum effects on gravity.
Abbas Kashani added a reply
Dear Johnny Line, greetings and respect
You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas
Forrest Noble added a reply
2 days ago
No ! Dark Matter, like Dark Energy, is simply a 'place holder' for an unknown source of energy which cannot presently be explained excepting via speculation and related hypotheses. If either or both do not exist, their replacement will do damage to, or also cause the replacement of mainstream cosmology, by far simpler but presently unrecognized alternative(s).
Courtney Seligman added a reply
4 hours ago
It is conceivable that the constant "G" varies according to where you are, but the only way to prove that is to be somewhere so far from here that we will never be able to prove it, which makes it a novel but scientifically pointless proposition (if there is no way to prove something, it cannot be considered scientifically reasonable because then you can invent thousands of explanations, only one of which (if any) that can be correct, which is a doomed explanation). "G" is certainly a constant everywhere within 30 thousand light-years from us, and there will never be any way to measure its value even at that distance, let alone hundreds of thousands or millions of light-years distant. So at the moment I would say that "dark matter" almost certainly exists IN GALAXIES, and possibly BETWEEN GALAXIES IN RICH CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES. However, whether it exists in the huge amounts posited by cosmologists EVERYWHERE is certainly "up in the air" in every sense of the phrase. And I'm reasonably certain that "dark energy" is a fantasy made up to explain something that doesn't need explaining.
Recommend
Share
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 16 June 2024. "Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman have denounced modern physics as incompatible with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Physics, they say, must return to a Newtonian viewpoint; much of relativity theory must go, along with essentially all of quantum mechanics, string theory, and modern cosmology. In their insistence on justifications in terms of “physical nature,” they cling to a macroscopic worldview that doesn't work in the high-velocity arena of relativity or the subatomic level of quantum mechanics. It is suggested that the concept of identity be widened to accommodate the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena."
I don't know.
1)
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 14 June 2024.
2)
Modern physics because afterlife prediction is new. More specifically, exact and concrete quantum mechanics.
The afterlife is so unpredictable, empiricism is more accurate than rationalism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381108355_Quantum_mechanicsmore_exact_would_predict_the_afterlife_more_accurately_than_relativity_more_theoretical
Quantum mechanics because the statistics. Relativity is more theoretical.
When reading the literature, I frequently encounter the assertion that the arrow of time is controlled by increasing entropy. But I never find an explanation of what physical system the entropy refers to. Is the physical system the entire universe? Or is it the environment that is local to a point in space in question? There are examples of physical systems that can be divided into two interacting subsystems with a decreasing entropy in one subsystem and a correspondingly increasing entropy in the other so that the entropy of the combined system is increasing. Should a clock that is residing in one subsystem run in a different direction than a clock that is residing in the other subsystem? Perhaps this question is answered by the answer to the original question: The entropy of what?
Elementary explanations of the second law of thermodynamics refer to probabilities of system states and seem convincing. But not when considering time-reversals, because the same statistical arguments should also apply there but they produce contradictions regarding entropy increases with time. (I think the difficulty is in whether or not the assumption of statistical randomness is appropriate because it depends on what is given and maybe also on the direction of time but I'm not an expert and this doesn't answer my question anyway.) While reading some literature about the direction of time I learned that the direction of time and the second law of thermodynamics all come from a very low entropy immediately after the big bang, with increasing entropy produced by things that include gravitational clumping (e.g., the formation of black holes and the merging of black holes to produce larger black holes). I learned that this is responsible for the second law of thermodynamics but it seems to me that this is an incredibly large-scale thing. Given this explanation it seems amazing to me that we can randomly select a tiny piece of matter (large enough to be macroscopic but tiny from the point of view of human perception) and find that it obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Is there an explanation of how such large influences on entropy (e.g., objects produced by gravity clumping) can produce a second law that is so incredibly homogeneous that we find the law obeyed by all of the tiny specs of material?
I search the internet for quantum computing and find that it uses qbits. I search the internet for qbits and find that they are used in quantum computing. I'm not learning anything from that. Some discussions on the internet talk about superpositions of quantum states. I already know about superpositions of quantum states. I already know about the deterministic time evolution of states between measurements, and the probabilistic effects of measurements. And I know a little about quantum entanglement. But I still have absolutely no idea how any of this is used for computing. The literature I found on the internet mentions all things above without any explanation of how we use that for computing. Can you help to explain this?
We cannot imagine the existence of classical and modern physics without Newton's second law in its general form.
Newton's second law is a hypothesis of universal law that does not need mathematical proof.
It is inherent in almost all theories of physics such as Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, Einstein's relativity and even the QM Schrödinger equation.
The famous Potential plus Kinetic law of conservation of mechanical energy, inherent in most formulas of QM and classical mechanics, is a form of Newton's law.
We would like to see a rigorous proof of the famous E = m c ^ 2 without Newton's second law. [1].
The unanswered question arises:
Can Schrödinger's PDE replace Newton's law of motion?
1-Quora Q/A, Does Newton's law of motion agree with the special theory of relativity?
One person, called the observer, is far from a black hole and is watching another person, called the victim, fall into the black hole, where "fall in" is defined by crossing the Schwarzschild radius. My understanding is that, from the victim's point of view, he will fall into the black hole in a finite amount of time. But from the observers point of view, the victim will approach the Schwarzschild radius but never reach it. So, from the point of view of the observer, how can the mass contained within the Schwarzschild radius (i.e., the mass of a black hole) ever grow?
I figured out that as new mass enters, the Schwarzschild radius gets larger, so the falling mass and the Schwarzschild radius are approaching each other. But I still don't understand how the falling mass gets within the Schwarzschild radius when it can't cross that radius.
From the earliest Pythagorean (~570BCE-~490BCE) view that "everything is number" [1], to the founder of modern physics, Galileo (1564-1642), who said "the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics" [2], to attempts by Hilbert (1862-1943) to mathematically "axiomatize" physics [3]，and to the symmetry principle [9], which today is considered fundamental by physics, Physics has never been separated from mathematics, but there has never been a definite answer as to the relationship between them. Thus Wigner (1902-1995) exclaimed [4]: "The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. gift which we neither understand nor deserve."
CN Yang, commenting on Einstein's "On the method of theoretical physics" [5], said, "Was Einstein saying that fundamental theoretical physics is a part of mathematics? Was he saying that fundamental theoretical physics should have the tradition and style of mathematics? The answers to these questions are no "[6]. So what is the real relationship between mathematics and physics? Is mathematics merely a tool that physics cannot do without? We can interpret mathematics as a description of physical behavior, or physics as operating according to mathematical principles, or they are completely equivalent, but one thing is unchangeable, all physics must ultimately be concretely embodied in its physical parameters, regardless of who dominates whom. We need to remember the essential question, "That is, we don't invent mathematical structures - we discover them, and invent only the notation for describing them"[7]. Mathematics is abstract existence, physics is reality. We cannot completely replace physical explanations with mathematical ones. For example, ask "How do light and particles know that they are choosing the shortest path [8]. The answer is that it is determined by the principle of least action. This is the correct mathematical answer, but not the final physical answer. The final physical answer should be, "Light and particles are not searching for shortest paths, they are creating and defining shortest paths". Why this can be so is because they are energy-momentum themselves. The ultimate explanation is just math*，if we can't boil it down to specific, well-defined, measurable physical parameters. Following Pythagoras' inspiring vision that the world can be built up from concepts, algorithms, and numbers [9]. When we discuss the relationship between math and physics, do we need first ask:
1) What are numbers? Shouldn't we first attribute numbers to "fundamental quantities" in mathematics and physics? Are scalars, vectors, and spinors complete expressions of such fundamental quantities? All other quantities are composites of these fundamental quantities, e.g., tensor.
2) Do mathematics and physics have to have these fundamental quantities in common before we can further discuss the consistency between their theorems? That is, the unification of mathematics and physics must begin with the unification of fundamental quantities.
3) Where do these fundamental quantities come from in physics? In what way are they represented?
--------------------------------
Notes：
* And then what do imaginary numbers in physics correspond to? [10][11]
--------------------------------
References：
[1] McDonnell, J. (2017). The Pythagorean World: Why Mathematics Is Unreasonably Effective In Physics Springer.
[2] Kosmann-Schwarzbach, Y. (2011). The Noether Theorems. The Noether Theorems: Invariance and Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century. Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach and B. E. Schwarzbach. New York, NY, Springer New York: 55-64.
Einstein, A. (1934). "On the method of theoretical physics." Philosophy of science 1(2): 163-169.
[3] Corry, L. (2004). David Hilbert and the axiomatization of physics (1898-1918): From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik, Springer.
[4] Wigner, E. P. (1990). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences（1960）. Mathematics and Science, World Scientific: 291-306. 【这个说法本身可能是存在问题的，不是数学在物理学中的有效性，而是不能够区分物理学准则和数学算法。】
[5] Einstein, A. (1934). "On the method of theoretical physics." Philosophy of science 1(2): 163-169.
[6] Yang, C. N. (1980). "Einstein's impact on theoretical physics." Physics Today 33(6): 42-49.
[7] Russell, B. (2010). Principles of mathematics （1903）, Routledge.
[9] Wilczek, F. (2006). "The origin of mass." Modern Physics Letters A 21(9): 701-712.
[10] Chian Fan, e. a. (2023). "How to understand imaginary numbers (complex numbers) in physics." from https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO6_How_to_understand_imaginary_numbers_complex_numbers_in_physics.
[11] Baylis, W. E., J. Huschilt and J. Wei (1992). "Why i?" American Journal of Physics 60(9): 788-797. 【复数、虚数、波函数】
Certainly non psychological, there are many nature like entropic, illusional (block universe theory), Aristotelian (that which realize change), mathematical (Smolin, Bergson).
Still none of these characterizes properly Galilean physics or the bulk of established literature of physics.
What do you think is the nature of time that characterizes best the meaning it is ascribed in its use and in the framework of the definitional choices of physical parameters in theories modern physics?
Given that consciousness is energy, if the concept of identity is expanded enough throughout physics, could the afterlife be charted? Why? How? Yes, because the concept of identity must be expanded to fit the law of identity, the law of no contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. “laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity”( https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought ) .
“Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman have denounced modern physics as incompatible with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Physics, they say, must return to a Newtonian viewpoint; much of relativity theory must go, along with essentially all of quantum mechanics, string theory, and modern cosmology. In their insistence on justifications in terms of ‘physical nature,‘ they cling to a macroscopic worldview that doesn't work in the high-velocity arena of relativity or the subatomic level of quantum mechanics. It is suggested that the concept of identity be widened to accommodate the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena”(Gibson 2013).
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 3 Dec. 2023.
Consider the quantum mechanical (QM) problem of measuring the energy of some particle. No incompatible measurements are simultaneously made so there is no theoretical limit on how accurate the energy measurement can be so we can imagine the measurement to be close enough to perfection to satisfy whatever accuracy requirement that is imposed. A fundamental QM postulate is that the measurement of an observable (at least in the limiting case of a perfect measurement) results in the post-measurement state (the particle state immediately after the measurement) being an eigenstate of the observable with eigenvalue equal to the measured value. However, an energy measurement that I am familiar with deduces the energy of an ionizing particle according to the number of electron-hole pairs liberated while traveling until it stops in a semiconductor material fabricated into a particle detector. For this measurement the post-measurement state is not an energy state with energy equal to the measured value. The post-measurement state is a state of a particle stopped in the material. Another measurement that might be considered deduces the particle energy according to the destination it reaches while traveling through an electric and/or magnetic field. But this requires a detection of particle location so, again, the post-measurement state is a state of a particle that is stopped somewhere. How do we measure the energy in such a way so that the post-measurement state is an energy state with energy equal to the measured value?
The same question can be asked about other observables. How do we measure momentum? More generally, how do we measure an observable in such a way so that the post-measurement state is an eigenstate of the observable with eigenvalue equal to the measured value? In other words, how do we perform QM measurements in such a way so that the above stated postulate is really true? I expect that there are textbooks on experimental methods of QM but I hope that a simplified (by omitting details that are not essential to concept) answer can be given in a few paragraphs.
Physics Tests yoday in all levels rely on calculative predictions and conceptual assesment type questions. But there others i.e
** conceptual synthesis i.e how principle A works or related to principle B? Orehstis the relation of two principles
** historical questions i.w how gallileo proved Aristotle's theory inadequate and in which aspect of ""good theory" requirement
** when type of questions i.e when did classical physics separated from modern physics
** how Qs i.e are Transformation s obtsined
** stating assumptions i.estate assumptions behind application of principle C
**answer choice given Qs i. E is acceleration of reference frsmes intrinsic or extrinsic property
Do you think such Qs could, in a pedagogical assesment - wise valid way take as much as 60% on a physics Test?
This approach is rarely but non inexistent i.e rtredprof, Arisaka, schollar Sochi etc
Special&general relativity, one the pillars and one of the 3 more successful physical theories, gives a prime or hierarchically high role to the properties of light, which are the startingbpoint or "effective cause" in Aristotelian linga, tonits inspection.
However, as these theories, despite continuing confirmational success, show resistance to be compstible with a big portion of other physics (exceptions such as Dirac relativistic Quantum mechanics exist).
Therefore one gets to think that maybe the tact that their physical motivational mothering was more peripheral than required to deserve such a prime role in unification (a discipline level definitional trait) than currently ascribed.
When I look up the definition of a Lie group I find that it is a differential manifold. When I look up the definition of a manifold I find that it is a space that is locally Euclidean. My understanding is that a manifold is not required to have a metric tensor or distance measure so "Euclidean" cannot be referring to the Pythagorean theorem for triangles. So what does Euclidean mean? I look up the definition of a Euclidean space and find that it is a space defined through axiomatic theory. So I put all of these statements together to obtain the definition of a Lie group? We invent an axiomatic theory to obtain a manifold, then arrange for it to be differentiable (whatever that means) and now we have a Lie group. This makes no sense to me. Can somebody please give more understandable definitions of Lie group, manifold, and Euclidean space?
I took a first course in abstract algebra where a group was defined without any mention of a manifold. It seems to me that reference to a manifold in the definition of a Lie group is unnecessary and makes the definition unnecessarily difficult to understand. Even if so, I am still looking for an easy-to-understand definition of a manifold.
A body at rest has rest Energy, so it should also have rest Momentum.
Lao Tzu said, “Gravity is the root of lightness; stillness, the ruler of movement”(重为轻根，静为躁君)*. The meaning of this statement can be extended in physics to mean that "big-G determines how light or heavy an object is, and rest-m determines how easy or difficult it is to move".
According to the mass-energy equation** [1], E=mc^2, any object with mass m has "rest energy" [1], regardless of its inertial frame†. Note that E here is meant to be the energy lost when radiating the photon γ, which is absolute and unchangeable in any inertial frame. The mass-energy equation has been experimentally verified [2] as the correct relation.
According to special relativity [3], the mass of the same object is different in different inertial frames, m' = βm. Therefore, the energy of conversion of m of an object into photon γ is different in different inertial frames. This issue has been discussed in [4], but there is no consensus. Our view is that the "rest energy" is theoretically not Lorentz invariant, and the existence of a minimum value is a reasonable result. The most rational explanation for this is that the minimum corresponds to an absolutely static spacetime, i.e., absolute spacetime(Later we will show that absolute space-time and relative space-time are not in conflict). Analytically, this is one of the reasons why absolute spacetime should exist. The constant speed of light is another reason.
In all cases in physics, energy and momentum coexist and have a fixed relationship, not independent metrics. The energy-momentum ‡ of a photon, E=hν[5], P=h/λ[6]; the energy-momentum relation of Newtonian mechanics, E=P^2/2m; and the relativistic energy-momentum relation, E^2=c^2p^2+m^2c^4. Therefore, it is assumed that if there is a body of mass m that has "rest energy", then it should also have "rest momentum". There is a "rest momentum", and the rest momentum cannot be zero. The rest energy is not intuitive, and the rest momentum should not be intuitive too. The calculation of the rest momentum is the same as the calculation of the rest energy. The nature of mass looks more like momentum; after all, energy is a sign of time, while momentum is a sign of movement. Therefore, instead of calling it the principle of equivalence of inertial mass and rest-energy[1], it should be called the principle of equivalence of inertial mass and rest-momentum.
When positive and negative electrons meet and annihilate [7], -e+e→γ+γ, radiating two photons in opposite directions. Their energy is conserved and so is their momentum. Energy is a scalar sum, while momentum is a vector sum. It seems that the "rest momentum" inside the object should be zero. However, one could argue that it is actually the momentum of the two photons that is being carried away, but in opposite directions. The momentum of the two photons should not come out of nothing, but rather there should be momentum of the two photons, also in some balanced way, and probably playing a very important role, such as the binding force.
Our questions are:
1) Since energy and momentum cannot be separated, should an object with "rest energy" necessarily have "rest momentum".
2) Elementary particles can be equated to a " energy packet ", and energy is time dependent. If an elementary particle is also equivalent to a "momentum packet", the momentum in the packet must be related to space. Does this determine the spatio-temporal nature of the elementary particles? And since momentum is related to force, is it the force that keeps the "energy packet" from dissipating?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes：
* Lao Tzu，Tao-Te-Ching，~500 BCE. This quote is a translation of someone else's. There are some excesses that I don't entirely agree with. Translating classical Chinese into modern Chinese is just as difficult as translating classical Chinese into English.
** There is a historical debate about the process of discovery of the mass-energy equation, and digging into the history shows that there were discoverers and revisers both before and after Einstein, see literature [8][9]. Important contributions came from Poincaré, F. Hasenöhrl, Planck et al. Their derivations do not have the approximation of Einstein's mass-energy equation. And there is also a debate about the interpretation of the mass-energy equation. Notable debates can be found in the literature[10].
† There is a question here, i.e., is the rest mass Lorentz invariant? That is, is the rest mass the same in different inertial systems? Why?
‡ Einstein questioningly emphasized that energy and momentum seem to be inseparable, but did not explain it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References：
[1] Einstein, A. (1905). "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content." Annalen der physik 18(13): 639-641.
Einstein, A. (1935). "Elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy." Bulletin of the American mathematical society 41(4): 223-230.
[2] Rainville, S., J. K. Thompson, E. G. Myers, J. M. Brown, M. S. Dewey, E. G. Kessler, R. D. Deslattes, H. G. Börner, M. Jentschel, P. Mutti and D. E. Pritchard (2005). "A direct test of E=mc2." Nature 438(7071): 1096-1097.
[3] Einstein, A. (1905). "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." Annalen der physik 17(10): 891-921.
[4] Is there a minimum value of m in the mass-energy equation E=mc^2? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO7_Is_there_a_minimum_value_of_m_in_the_mass-energy_equation_Emc2；
[5] Planck, M. (1900). " " Verh. Deutsh. Phys. Ges 2: 237.
[6] Einstein, A. (1917). Physikalisehe Zeitschrift xviii: p.121
[7] Li, B. A. and C. N. Yang (1989). "CY Chao, Pair creation and Pair Annihilation." International Journal of Modern Physics A 4(17): 4325-4335.
[8] Ives, H. E. (1952). "Derivation of the mass-energy relation." JOSA 42(8): 540-543.
[9] Sharma, A. (0000). "The past present and future of the Mass Energy Equation DE =Dmc2." http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm.
[10] Peierls, R., J. Warren and M. Nelkon (1987). "Mass and energy." Physics Bulletin 38(4): 127.
I am trying to learn modern physics and frequently encounter the phrase "gauge theory". I look up the definition and find that it is a theory in which a Lagrangian is invariant under a certain class of transformations. That sounds to me like we are using Noether's theorem to find constants of motion. I learned enough math to know several ways of finding constants of motion. One way is Noether's theorem. Another way is to find operators that commute with a Hamiltonian. A third way is to derive implications directly from the given governing equations. Which, if any of these methods, are called "gauge theory"? And why?
Masters, pedagogicallly, are about high level critical skills.
Physics uses math problem Solving ability to Test this.
But my argument is that article writing topics, even in physics, can equally well test this.
I. E in topics in modern physics modules, standard in physics Masters, 2 article topics such as
"Proper time and clock hypotgesis in the theory of relativity"
Or
"The fundamental role of proper time in general relativity and in quantum mechanics suffice"
Nore:
*Phrases in titles like role demands masters level critical skills
* Its impossible to get a pass if you dont have a article structure that reflect deep. Knowledge and understanding of topi
* Its impossible to. Make a credible point without laying out at least a page of mathematics in these
Apart from the mathematical systems that confirm human feelings and perceptive sensors, there are countless mathematical systems that do not confirm these sensors and our sensory data! A question arises, are the worlds that these mathematical systems evoke are real? So in this way, there are countless worlds that can be realized with their respective physics. Can multiple universes be concluded from this point of view?
Don't we see that only one of these possible worlds is felt by our body?! Why? Have we created mathematics to suit our feelings in the beginning?! And now, in modern physics and the maturation of our powers of understanding, we have created mathematical systems that fit our dreams about the world!? Which of these mathematical devices is actually true about the world and has been realized?! If all of them have come true! So there is no single and objective world and everyone experiences their own world! If only one of these mathematical systems has been realized, how is this system the best?!
If the worlds created by these countless mathematical systems are not real, why do they exist in the human mind?!
The last question is, does the tangibleness of some of these mathematical systems for human senses, and the intangibleness of most of them, indicate the separation of the observable and hidden worlds?!
Since, the cosmological constant problem is a unsolved problem and a great challenge to modern physics? The cosmological constant problem arises from the observation that the energy density of vacuum or empty space appears to be much smaller than what is predicted by theoretical calculations. So, How does Quantum Physics approaches to solve this phenomenon?
What is your opinion about the possibility of your own immortality?
How do you perceive space-time?
"All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist. " - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
"I don't care if I'm remembered or not when I'm dead." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
For our immortality the most important is time of our life. Nothing else will be so for sure given to us like this time events and friends. Still experienced a new.
According to Nietzsche and modern physics. And what is your opinion about such possibility of your own immortality?
This question is continuation of my older one:
(27) Would you really like to live forever_.pdf - see attached file:
High school physics does not have the best affective appeal - not reputation among general student population-possibly due to content emphasis. Affective aspects however are important in early to mid stages of education.
Torques, circular motion and coulomb fields are depressing topics to the scientifically inadept; even more modern physics topics and high esteem terms like "constructive superposition" of waves and related phenomena do not faire better.
One however has to keep in mind that the mission of k 12 is to build some conceptual& skillsets/deep understandings that the next generations of scientists should have. Appeal is quarabteed what ever the topic choice for the later.
So the compromise is hard-leading to current win-lose solutions.
Suggestions such as for incorporation of whole year curricula on exciting, high contemporary culture status topics like radioactivity, laser apps, Vacuum conductivity have been raised to be balanced with half year courses on scientific method-a facelifted version of mentioned depressing content with deenpasis on content to teach skills/conceptual areas but keep things attractive to general population are still to gain persuasive power to be adopted.
Mach's Principle is gernerally ignored in modern physics. Many have tried to include it. But data indicates it is needed. So, in addition to uniting GR and QM, Mach's principle should be necessary.
Consider the quantum field theory (QFT) operator (an operator for each space-time point) that the field amplitude becomes when making the transition from classical field quantities to QFT operators. We will call this the field-amplitude operator. The type of field considered is one in which the classical field amplitude evaluated at a given space-time point is a complex number instead of a real number. In the QFT description, the field amplitude is not an observable and the field-amplitude operator is not Hermitian. Can we still say that an eigenstate of this operator has a definite value of field amplitude (equal to the eigenvalue) even when the field amplitude is not an observable and the eigenvalue is not real number?
In the elementary quantum mechanics (QM) of a single particle responding to a given environment, the state of the particle can be specified by specifying a set of commuting (i.e., simultaneously knowable) observables. Examples of observables include energy and angular momentum. Although not simultaneously knowable, other examples include the three rectangular spatial coordinates and the three components of linear momentum. Each observable in QM is a real number and is an eigenvalue of some Hermitian operator. Now consider quantum field theory (QFT) which considers a field instead of a particle. First consider the classical (before introducing QFT operators) description of the state of the field at a selected point in time. This is the field amplitude at every spatial location at the selected time point. For at least some kinds of fields, the field amplitude at a given space-time point is a complex number. Now consider the QFT corresponding to the selected classical example of a field. Is the field amplitude an observable even when it is not a real number? It is not an eigenvalue of any Hermitian operator when not real. So if the field amplitude is an observable, there is no Hermitian operator associated with this observable. My guess (and my question is whether this guess is correct) is that the real and imaginary parts of the field amplitude are simultaneously knowable observables, with a Hermitian operator (assigned to each space-time point) for each. This would at least explain how the field amplitude can be an observable but not real and not have any associated Hermitian operator. Is my guess correct?
I am interested to know the opinion of experts in this field.
My understanding of the significance of Bell's inequality in quantum mechanics (QM) is as follows. The assumption of hidden variables implies an inequality called Bell's inequality. This inequality is violated not only by conventional QM theory but also by experimental data designed to test the prediction (the experimental data agree with conventional QM theory). This implies that the hidden variable assumption is wrong. But from reading Bell's paper it looks to me that the assumption proven wrong is hidden variables (without saying local or otherwise), while people smarter than me say that the assumption proven wrong is local hidden variables. I don't understand why it is only local hidden variables, instead of just hidden variables, that was proven wrong. Can somebody explain this?
I'm interested to know if the so called non-physical 'bare' model especially for massive elementary particles, which treats the particles as mathematical dimensionless points without any volume and attributing to these physical intrinsic properties like mass, spin, charge is the main source of the infinities appearing in the calculations and therefore needing these to be neglected by using renormalization?
What kind of infinities appear if any due this adopted model?
And why is this model still used today in quantum theories? I can see that historically this model has served its purpose since for example we cannot measure any finite physical size for the electron but wondering as if this model is not causing in modern physics more problems than the merits it offers?
What prevents us to adopt today a more physical "dressed" model for elementary particles having for example a finite charge radius at rest? Would that not address the infinities problem appearing in the calculations and eliminate the need to apply re-normalization techniques which are accused by many as not being accurately describing the actual physical process and being a mathematical trick?
The bare model implications addressed by Dirac in his lecture:
(watch from the above time stamp and on)
Dear Walter Smilga ,
Thank you very much Sir for your expert input.
However, if this is formilized so well why there are many references in the literature and even consensus expresed that the size of the mass of the electron has an upper limit size<10-17m ? Is that not a contradiction with the estblished foemulation? From where this value comes from? Is it a derivation or experimentally found? What is this size? Crossection or radius? How they can define experimentally a size that is clerly larger than the Uncertainty? Is this by ansatz derived? What are the assumptions made in order to derive this size upper limit?
The most known dressed electron (i.e. charge radius) value, theoretically derived is the classical radius of the electrron:
r= α0α2 ~2.8χ10-15 m. From where they get this <10-17m? Is that for a free electron at rest?
How we can give a size for the electron if we don't have a clue (apart that is has perfect near field spherical charge distribution in space experimentally found) of its topology if it has indeed a volume?
According to my research the topology of the dressed electron is not exactly a sphere since it is referring only to the charge topology (sphere) and not the also important magnetic moment topology (a straight fluxgate). The proposed complete topology of the charge of the electron including also its magnetic dipole moment topology resembles this here:
The above proposed topology of the dressed electron at rest complies with the Lorentz group that obeys the quadratic equation on R4 :
(t, x, y, z) |--> t2 -x2 -y2 -z2
The four connected components are non-simply connected and therefore this strongly infers that in a three-dimensional Euclidean space the electron would have a non-simply connected 3D topology as demonstrated in our proposed dressed electron model (see animation above).
Also in our proposed dressed electron model the coupled magnetic dipole charge and electric charge constituting the unified EM charge of the electron under this topology, the mass of the electron is the total EM flux focused in a dimensionless point, center of mass, located at the center of the proposed horn spheroid (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/HornTorus.html) topology of the electron (see figure). Therefore there is no conflict between dressed electron model and the accepted bare model thus a dimensionless point massive particle.
Actually it explains how both models bare and dressed can coexist without conflict. The radius is of the proposed unified bare-dressed electron model is the reduced Compton wavelength ƛ~3.86x10-13m larger radius as the classicall and therefore allowing a surface velocity equal with c or less and therefore classically explaining the known spin angular momentun value of the electron (√3/2)ħ as being generated by actually the electorn physically spinning as first suggested by
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil
My question is: "What are the major and most effective refutations of Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity?"
The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed. Many of the best Answers were probably posted at the beginning, in April of 2018, long before I joined Research Gate on the recommendation of some of my university colleagues. Out of respect for the initiator of the original Question, who states his decision to close his Question, I am posting a very similar question in the interest of accommodating the views of scientists who have not yet had an opportunity to answer the Question, and, possibly, the repeated and updated views of scientists who have already posted on the original Question at Research Gate from April 2, 2018, to December 2019.
Why expectation value of angular momentum square operator <Jx2> = <Jy2> ? How can we prove this?
I am familiar with elementary quantum mechanics which is a non-relativistic treatment of a single particle interacting with a given potential energy function produced by a fixed (given) environment. I don't understand quantum field theory and searched for a book with a title like "Quantum Field Theory for Dummies". The closest thing that I could find to that is 300 pages long. I have a question that maybe has a quick answer that can be given without reading 300 pages (I am trying to learn a lot of things so quick answers are appreciated if possible). My understanding from the first few chapters of that book is that what was a wave function in elementary quantum mechanics becomes an operator in quantum field theory. The operator is a function of time and space coordinates so there is a different operator for each space-time point. What I don't understand, even after reading a few chapters, is what that operator operates on. In elementary quantum mechanics, operators operate on elements (state vectors) of a vector space (a Hilbert space) and I know the mathematical significance of these elements (state vectors) that the operators operate on. I have no idea of what the entities are that the quantum field theory operators operate on. Can this be explained to a person with my level of education in a few paragraphs?
Dear Dr. L.D. Edmonds
You can try the Book by Prof. H. Hankel, many years ago I read it. Is not well-edited but it is a wonderful forgotten piece of the origin of the second quantization, that is, the quantization of the fields as really it was conceived for solidists. It is much easier to read than Prof. Bogoliubov and Shirkov's classical monography.
Attached is the refecerence in a slide.
Best Regards.
Dear Fellows,
As its known today that Quantum spectrum can give more deep understanding of universe at constituent levels. At current we have Plank constant and Schrodinger equations etc to understand the Quantum Mechanics. But, these are not enough and limited for few parameters.
1) Do we need Spin Constant? why and why not?
2) Do we need Quantum Constant for motions? why and why not ?
3) Do we need Entangle Constant? why and why not?
4) What will be scenario for "theory of relativity" after discovery of these 3 constant values
5) how much modern physics will get change when we can "see" exact states...Past Quantum State Level-1 (PQ 1). Current Quantum State Level-1 (CQ 1) and Future Quantum State Level-1 (FQ 1)
6) Will such discoveries enhance Qubits to cross threshold level to simulate different universal systems. especially Biosphere webs with true paths in past and future?
7) How the generation of such a huge Data will be handled, will it over burdened?
8) Will it be end of Solid state and Quantum world for knowledge and only further applications will left to develop and understand with more perfection?
9) What will be after the Quantum ? any ide, any clue? any new dimensions? as we are going to cross 3rd dimension and getting enter into 4th dimension "physically"
10) After every known, there is always an unknown, till get into the Reality, is there any known limit of levels till getting into ultimate reality? is yes then how many levels more?
Thanks
Can any body upload PDF file of "concepts of modern physics by Arthur Bieser,7th edition"
The importance of the conservation laws in physics, if they not more than the physical constants, certainly, is not less than them. The conservation laws in physics define the boundary between possible events and the impossible.
If we ignore the law of conservation of energy, we can build a machine in our imagination that produces energy from nothing. That is, we will have an erratic universe that is more compatible with our imaginations than with observable realities.
Over the course of the last century, physics has been plagued by many problems, and their numbers are increasing day by day, to the point where modern physics is in a state of stagnation and crisis.
These problems are due to the fact that in modern physics, there is a law of mass-energy conservation, but there is no law of conservation of amount of speed. I first proposed the conservation law of the amount of speed in 1387 (1992 AD) and published it in the Persian language.
The conservation law of the amount of speed shows that the universe behaves more realistically and accurately than we ever imagined and that the whole universe is an automated and highly precise system.
Generalization of the Dirac’s Equation and Sea, 2016
Hello,
I have been looking for a citable reference for this, but I'm not finding any.
So far I have found two links on the internet, which mention different values for it. One mentioned 17e28 1/m^3 and the other one, 8.5e28 1/m^3 (links provided below), and both seem to be blogs, so not citable.
Does anyone know which one is correct? Also, it would be really helpful if you could provide a citable reference for it.
Thank you.
1.
2.
Hi guys,
I have to study Modern physics but I completely missed the classes, Do you know a clear resource for learning Modern physics? someone introduced me the book MODERN PHYSICS (Serway, Moses, Moyer). do you admit?
There is still no consensus on whether the fields are composed of particles or no. For examples:
Art Hobson, There are no particles, there are only fields, American Journal of Physics 81, 211 (2013);
Robert J. Sciamanda, THERE ARE NO PARTICLES, AND THERE ARE NO FIELDS, American Journal of Physics 81, 645 (2013);
This problem arises because modern physics describes quantum phenomena in quantum scale (subatomic particles). So, to describe the fields we have to cross the quantum scale and reconsider quantum phenomena at the sub-quantum level to understand what are fields made of?
Theoretically, the probability of such states of two electrons is different from zero (as well as the spin o pairs treated as BCS pairs in modern physics). Is there a mechanism for suppressing such states?
Hi all,
I just try to perform a calculation for a cluster of TinOxide for determining a reaction mechanism in an organic reaction. I tried to run this calculation using a mixing basis set Lanl2dz for tin atoms and 6-311++g(d,p) for oxygen, but, after run, I obtained the next error (I am attaching the .log file, all calculation in Gaussian09):
There are 22 symmetry adapted basis functions of B3 symmetry.
There are 116 occupied orbitals but only 88 basis functions!
Error termination via Lnk1e in /usr/src/g09/l301.exe at Thu May 14 07:37:12 2020.
What is the reason for this error? Do I need to use a large basis sets?
As I have seen several studies using the same computational method as I performed, I am very confused for this.
Thanks in advance,
Julián :)
I want to download a pdf book "Perspectives of Modern Physics" written by Arthur Beiser. Please someone help me to download it.
i mean, i know that its classic rols and thats modern physics, but... why?
it can be metaphysics, because for example We all have to die, but something called motivation for survival takes us in the opposite direction, maybe the world has soul
Over the past 400 years of development, physics alternately replaced each other in the era of a rational-physical (model) and formal-mathematical method of describing the world.
Today, formal methods of describing phenomena have exhausted themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to move from the tradition of axiomatization to a visual model description, to logic, to common sense. We must swim against the stream to the sources, return to JK Maxwell, JJ Thomson, Lord Kelvin and Louis de Broglie. Above all, it is necessary to realize the role of the electromagnetic field as our environment. The study of its structure and its place in the picture of the world is relevant. Modern physics in general does not set as its goal the study of the nature of fields. The electromagnetic field is not in the parameters of the Standard Model.
Today we consider Maxwell’s electromagnetic field an invisible dispersed gaseous medium that fills all space. The smallest particles of the field - gravitons - continuously move at the speed of light. The rotational flows of gravitons is a magnetic field. The translational flow of the electromagnetic field we consider an electric field. Divergent vortex flows we know as transverse radio waves. The white noise of the field medium we record as microwave background radiation. Longitudinal waves in the medium arising from accelerations and shock perturbations of space objects, we now call gravitational waves. We are convinced of the existence of an electromagnetic field as a global environment whenever we bring a mobile phone to our ear.
I think that only people create difficulties for themselves in order to overcome them later. Nature is perfect in its simplicity. Today we do not have a sense of nature. Matter does not exist for us - we solve equations only.
Protons do not push each other out of the nuclei of atoms. The charge has no central symmetry. A charge is a thin ray of gravitons (quanta of an electromagnetic field) rotating at the speed of light. It is directed from the core outward, as shown in the diagram. Figure taken from the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2" in my profile.
Modern physics claims the innate property of the masses to attract each other (through the exchange of particles). This is medieval mysticism. To repel each other (due to thermal motion) is an innate property of the masses. The pressure of the external environment of the electromagnetic field holds the protons in the nucleus (it pushes them towards each other). Gravity is the action of repulsive forces, not attraction.
Based on college sophomore-level knowledge, we developed [1] a description of special relativity (SR) that applies to accelerated, and arbitrary, motion.
This discussion considers, although not regularly offered at sophomore-level, that general relativity (GR) gives a better basis in undergraduate courses, and can be derived using [1].
This is useful because GR underlies much of the contemporary understanding of modern physics, including the big bang, pulsars, quasars, and gravitational waves.
As shown in [1], the laws of SR are just often simpler when they work in-between inertial frames, as originally stated.
[1]
topic must be related to these points:
Interference
Diffraction
Polarization
Wave Mechanics
Semiconductors
Lasers
I understand that Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) and all its variants are regarded as the main physical experiments that support Special Theory of Relativity. However, I have shown a conceptual mistake in the design of MMX .
Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley Type Experiments. Applied Physics Research; Vol. 8, No. 3; 2016 https://tinyurl.com/h996hq9
Relativity: a pillar of modern physics or a stumbling block. Proc. of SPIE Vol. 8121, 812109 (2011). https://tinyurl.com/ybez4v2h
Like Crystal Molecules Having Geometric Structure. Atom Has It Too.
Modern Physics can't give us a simple picture of the atoms.
Please read my paper on He-2-4 to understand the Geometry of the nucleus, which is the mother nucleus for rest of nuclei's along with Father H.
It is most Symmetric, most Abundant, most Stable and also satisfies Quark, QCD, Yukawa's unit of strength of 200 Electrons Mass (actually 206), Nature's Packing of Spheres for inner layer and Thompson Problem for outer layer.
It also satisfies the Equi Partition Theorem and the Principle of Reuse/Recycle by Nature, which Modern Physics does not use. It uses Muon and Anti Muon as building blocks.
It proposes uses of a Space Field which can be called Dark Energy, Higgs Field, Ether, Prana or Chi.
It uses Equivalence Energy Principle to see how much Electro Static Energy will be required to hold the cluster of 12 Nodes and 6 Nodes in next layer.
There are two ways the mass of the nucleus is calculated to the accuracy of 99%. In complex calculations, we match results up to 4 digits!
It also demonstrates the Gravity at works at this fundamental level but the paper will come later.
It also explains why Noble Gases are stable besides the outer 8 electrons but He-2-4 has only 2? It is because the nucleus is stable and when the Nucleus is not stable, the Weak Force decay happens.
Dear Sunil,
Modern Physics can give us a simple picture of the atoms. Look at the my picture from the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 1" in my profile.
There is an example of “shielding” of weak interaction. Figure shows a block diagram of alpha-particle. The protons p1 and p2 and the neutrons n1 and n2 form a closed circuit. The moments and charge tubes of protons direct outwards, and the moments of neutrons direct inward. The total moment of the particle is zero. No nucleons have an orbital moment. They rotate only around its axis. The upper proton (as seen from the top of the figure) rotates counterclockwise. The lower proton rotates clockwise. Neutrons rotate around the axis in opposite directions too.
The diagram shows how in the nucleus of an atom the forces affect the neutrons that prevent them from falling apart. The free protons p1 and p2 and the protons bound in the neutrons n1 and n2 form a strong four-link power circuit. The components of neutrons — two electrons and two antineutrinos (two quarks) — are enclosed within this circuit. Protons chain quarks, the chain does not allow them to transfer their energy to the external environment, does not allow increasing their size.
You may see the photon and electron animations on my site http://gravity.spb.ru
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
Who is right, Democritus or Einstein?
Democritus:
δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτῶι τάδε• ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους καὶ κενόν, τὰ δ'ἀλλα πάντα νενομίσθαι [δοξάζεσθαι]. (Diogenes Laërtius, Democritus, Vol. IX, 44)
“The first principles of the universe are atoms and empty space; everything else is mere opinion”
Einstein:
“Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13
Einstein had doubt about his view by the end of his life; Democritus had none!
“I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,
What the historical, social and scientific practices (as the criteria of knowledge) of the last few centuries tell us about who is right?
References:
Sean M. Carroll:
Modern Physics describes four fundamental interactions naming: Strong Nuclear Interaction, Weak Nuclear Interaction, Electromagnetic Interaction and Gravitational Interaction. Among other three fundamental interactions, the three major questions about gravity remained open;
Why the gravity is extremely weak? Hierarchy Problem
Why the gravity is always attractive force? Even anti matter is attracted to itself and to the matter.
Gravity is not unified with other interactions by successful theory like Chromodynamics or Weak Theory.
Yes, in three topics at least, as shown below, usually called modern physics: special relativity (SR), general relativity (GR), and quantum mechanics (QM).
The basis of both SR and GR, for more than 100 years, is the model of spacetime, a 4D universe, as first explained by Minkowsky [1]. To contrast, Newtonian mechanics was based on a 3D universe, where time is absolute and NOT influenceable by an experimenter.
From a basic theorem in topology, and even more basic type theory results, a continuous path in 4D may create a discontinuous path in a lower dimension, such as in 3D; any one-to-one mapping between spaces of different dimensionality must be discontinuous in that a continuous path in one space maps into a broken path in the other.
Therefore, there are discontinuities in the transition to 3D (Newtonian mechanics) from SR or GR, even at v << c, from an arbitrary path in 4D. Some paths in 4D may be continuous in mapping to 3D.
The same topological argument applies to the relationship between Newtonian physics and QM. The quantum results WILL NOT always correspond to the Newtonian results in the limit of large quantum number n or, equivalently, in the limit of Planck’s constant h going to zero. The topological spaces have different dimensions, and discontinuities will result. Again, some paths in higher dimension may be continuous in mapping to 3D.
This is not a conceptual choice only, but must be also experimental. Reality, experimentally, must be at least 4D, it “does not fit” inside 3D in all cases.
The answer chosen here also contributes to explain current differences of opinion in these areas (SR, GR, QM), and the “weirdness” of QM logic, whereas the discrepancy is due to a difference in dimensions, and its experimental effects, that are not considered. Such differences may be just illusory, seem from a meager 3D view, impotent to reach 4D.
Thus, modern physics, including SR, GR, QM, and other fields such as Cosmology, is expected to show conceptual and experimental differences with Newtonian physics, even when v << c, n >> 1, or h goes to zero.
The intuition gained in Newtonian physics is not efficient in modern physics, and will lead to contradictions in an arbitrary path taken in nature.
[1] Minkowsky, 120 years ago, that "Henceforth, space for itself, and time for itself shall completely reduce to a mere shadow, and only some sort of union of the two shall preserve independence."
The crucial problem of Einstein’s theory of relativity is that the relative spacetime (length contraction and time dilation) is not true.
If the relative spacetime was true, in any sense, Einstein’s theory of relativity should be a very great theory. But, in fact, relative spacetime does be false.
The crucial experiment is that, in the high energy accelerator, the speed of particles is the highest close to the speed of light and the condition is the most stable, precession and repeatable. But, no length contraction and time dilation was observed in it. Then, why the relative space and time was observed in other objects? It is certain, these observations are false. For example, it is not true that the life of the highspeed mesons is longer than that of the stationary ones. First, there are not the so-called stationary particles. Second, the mesons decay with N(t)=N0e-kt. The lifetime of some mesons is longer than others. Third, the mean lifetime is determined with N0. If the number N0 of the so-called stationary mesons are larger than that of the highspeed ones, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons may be longer than that of the highspeed ones.
We analysized a paper for the lifetime of highspeed muons. It is shown that the conclusion is questioned:
Assuming two groups of mesons Na0=10 decaying with Na(t)=Na0e-t/Ta and Nb0=100 with Nb(t)=Na0e-t/Tb . After a time duration t, as e-t/Ta=0.01 and e-t/Tb=0.001. One muon is observed in a distance of L.
Then, there are the conclusions:
first, we cannot know, whether this one muon is belong to Na0 or Nb0.
Second, we cannot know Ta or Tb from this one muon.
So, the question is: what was measured in “Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons”.[1]
In [1], it was measured: The numbers of N0=563 and N(t)=408 per hour. i.e., on average, 1.56*10-7 muon is measured in one μsecond.
So, in [1], it is not 563 muons of one group were measured. In a very big probability, it implies that 563 groups of N(t) were measured and one muon of one group was measured.
From the above conclusions we know, first, they cannot know the mean lifetime T from one muon of one group.
Second, the mean lifetime for every group is different. But, they give a same mean lifetime for all of the 563 groups.
So, the conclusion in [1] is questioned.
In “Measurement of the Muon Lifetime”[2], it is reported that “We find a muon lifetime of (864.6 ± 1.2) ns”. We know, in the papers to prove time dilation, the mean lifetime of the so called stationary muons is 2.19μs. If [2] is validly related with these papers, it means that all the papers for proving time dilation are invalid.
As the relative spacetime does be non-existent, the hypotheses and “theories” based on it are false. Unfortunately, in the past 110 years, many theories and experiments were based on it. A lot of false stories were produced. More unfortunately, these false stories are regarded as great theories and the experiments are very dominated.
So, if we hope to understand modern physics and Einstein with his theory of relativity, we have to first know whether or not the relative spacetime is true.
And, may I advise the friends who try to advance the theory of relativity or to develop new theory from it. As the space and time are not relative, these tries are unfruitful.
This question is revised according to the arguments with Professor Kåre Olaussen on
Hi
Rock characteristics such as porosity, density, mineralogy and mechanical properties have correlation with wave propagation. Can i achive a base method for modeling the rock with all properties?
We can make model of deep ground with seismology. Than how can optimized these methods?
Thanks
Why dark energy produces a repulsive force field is a bit complicated. Quantum theory says virtual particles can pop into existence for the briefest of moments before returning to nothingness. That means the vacuum of space is not a true void. Rather, space is filled with low-grade energy created when virtual particles and their antimatter partners momentarily pop into and out of existence, leaving behind a very small field called vacuum energy.
That energy should produce a kind of negative pressure, or repulsion, thereby explaining why the universe's expansion is accelerating.
In recent years, several papers have been published to solve dark matter and dark energy problems. The emphasis of these papers is on quantum vacuum and faster than light speed. A new theory proposes that faster-than-light particles known as tachyons could answer a lot of questions about the universe. According to a paper published in European Physical Journal C by Herb Fried from Brown University and Yves Gabellini from INLN-Université de Nice, may be a kind of particle called a tachyon.
A tachyon is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light.
Motion is an intrinsic property of physical existence. But there is a problem about concept of acceleration in theoretical physics. At the beginning of the 20th century, Newton’s second law was corrected considering the limit of speed c and the relativistic mass. At that time there has not been a clear understanding of the subatomic particles and basically there was little research in high energy physics . It means we need review our understanding about acceleration.
In addition; recent researches show, to solve the problem of dark energy, dark matter and inflation theory, quantum vacuum and faster than light speed should be considered and analyzed, which was done in following book. But regardless to reconsidering the relativistic Newton's second law, how can we resolve the faster than light speed problem? Besides that, the old definition of acceleration prevents the recognition of the nature of acceleration. Due to this reason in 1987, CPH Theory has begun by review the structure of photon, sub-quantum energy and faster than light speed.
Moreover, one could explain the expansion of the universe better and more real through reviewing relativistic Newton’s second law.
For faster than light speed see section 1; review acceleration and the relativistic Newton's second law, see section 5 of following book:
Beyond the Standard Model : Modern physics problems and solutions
The definitions of temperature and entropy are related to the concept of "thermodynamic equilibrium". In the absence of equilibrium, these concepts cannot be introduced. A black hole in combination with radiation presents a closed system, one of the subsystems of which (radiation) is close by its parameters to equilibrium, but other subsystems (black hole itself) do not. I.e., if the emitted radiation carries away entropy, this does not mean that in the remaining part it (being additive) is reduced by the same amount, because the very notion of a black hole cannot be introduced.
See our paper
Melkikh A.V., Melkikh E.A. Can we use thermodynamics in the system with gravity? 2017. Modern Physics Letters B.
It is said of general relativity that it has been experimentally proven.
But what about experiments involving black holes and the recent LIGO experiments - do they really uphold GTR?
After having worked over several decades in both, experimental physics and engineering science my answer is: In physics data are preferably evaluated in view of still unconfirmed theories while in engineering science data eventually have to yield a functional product.
Maybe the above statement will help understanding what's presently going on with black-hole mergers, gravitational waves, big bang observation, dark matter and similar.
In physical science open discussion of experimental data from an engineering point of view is sometimes avoided in favour of diverging theoretical claims and associated passionate dispute.
Details are in the text of the Hobby Project "A small thought experiment about a finite size universe".
Excerpt from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle :
<< In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter, as exemplified by this anecdote:
You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?
Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here". >>
Somewhere else, it is written about Geometry of Newtonian gravity :
<< According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For example, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket as it does on Earth, provided that the acceleration of the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s2 (the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth). >>
My conclusion is that, for an arbitrarily chosen experimenter (whatever his state of motion), a material body whose motion is rectilinear and uniform generates no gravitational field and it can create a gravitational field only when its movement is accelerated relative to to the experimenter.
Thus, in the same way that the existence of a magnetic field is only caused by the motion (possibly uniform) of electrically charged bodies in the reference frame of the experimenter, I conclude that the existence of a gravitational field is only caused by the accelerations of material bodies in the reference frame of the experimenter.
Thus, if a planet is constantly at rest with respect to an experimenter, he/she/it will conclude that the gravitational field produced by this planet comes from the superposition of the gravitational fields produced by the atoms that make up this planet because each atom contains electrons whose motions ate accelerated around the atomic nucleus. Moreover, accelerations of the gases expelled by the engine that propels the elevator can be the source of the gravitational field in Einstein's thought experiment. Written in French:
Has this interpretation of the Mach's principle already been explored?
Actually,I am trying to plot relic abundance of warm dark matter in (2,3)ISS in mathematica 10 and having this problem.I need to diagonalize this heavy Dirac matrix inking Right Handed and sterile states as demanded by the formula which is not diagonal.I have done it for (3,3) ISS with no problem.So,how is it possible?looking forward to your answers.
Dear Carly,
Can you send me a copy of the full text? I am interested to learn more about the frequencies employed and how those might be predicted according to cell type/structure. In particular, do you have any thoughts as to why/how the EMF is triggering the response?
Kind regards,
Stephen Stetson
RSAT
I have a question regarding one unusual (thought) system.
Some years ago at one Russian forum we discussed one thought device that, as its author claimed, can provide one-directional motion and only due to the internal forces. The puzzle had been resolved by Kirk McDonald from Princeton Univ. I attach Kirk's solution. I wish to say that the author of the paradox is Georgy Ivanov but not me.
Anyway, Kirk found that there is no resulting directional force. But one puzzle of this device remains. The center-of-mass of the device should move (in the closed orbit) only due to the internal forces. I marked this result of McDonald in the file.
In this connection, two questions arise:
1. Why the center-of-mass moves despite the total momentum conserves?
2. If the center-of-mass can move and this motion is created by the internal forces, is it possible to change the design of the device to provide one-directional motion?
Formally there is no obstacles to realize it. The total momentum conserves... Could some one give the answers to them?
This thought device works not on the action-reaction principle and if similar device can be made as hardware, it could be a good prototype for the interstellar flight thruster.
How did Einstein's Spacetime pull of gravity on the Planet Mercury differ in value than Newtons? Was it simply via the spacetime fabric adjusting this value?
Thanks:)
There are many articles that show, photon has upper limit mass and electric charge.
In modern physics, a charged particle emits and absorbs energy, but its mechanism is not described. So the question is; if the photon is an unstructured particle, with zero rest mass and no electrical charge (it is neutral), how charged particles absorb and radiate it?
In a recent paper published by Journal of Modern Physics, 2015, Walter Petry argues that it is possible to come up with non-expanding, non-singular universe. He explains that there is no expanding space, and Hubble law does not indicate that.
What do you think? Your comments are welcome.
The physical vacuum is not ‘nothing’: ‘nothing’ means ‘not being’, neither matter nor energy, neither space nor time, nor any physical property; the physical vacuum, instead, is "something" physically existing in space-time, in quantum mechanics represented by a state vector in accordance with non-zero and characteristic properties.
The difficulty for the old mentality, which lasts through Parmenides’ thought, to conceive the vacuum seems to be related to the theory of archaic Greek thought mentioned by the philosopher Ernst Cassirer about a “mythical age”, understood as the transition from primitive thought to the rational adult, where there is no distinction between word and thing.
Referring to Cassirer, philosopher Guido Calogero, saw in this attitude of the first Greek thought an " archaic coalescence ", a kind of fusion of language, reality and truth. for which the Greeks had a vision of reality as a "show"; therefore, not distinguishing between visibility, existence and thought: what was only visible really existed and thus could be thought and hence the difficulty of thinking ‘not being’ and, vacuum, that are not visible and then do not exist.
Moreover, according to Aristotle, the cause of the movement of bodies was not in the body itself, but in the medium. A bullet, once thrown, would continue to be in motion because pushed from the air, which continually scrambles to fill the void left by the bullet as it passes.
A body would therefore always be subject to a force during the motion and its speed would be directly proportional to it and inversely proportional to the resistance of the medium. It follows that the resistance in the vacuum would be nothing and the speed of the body would become infinite, that is, the body would have the characteristic of ubiquity.
Averroes (XII century) opposed this theory, arguing that is experience of everybody all that motion always takes place through a medium, and that resort to a hypothetical incorporeal force would seek the cause of things not in reality but in an imaginary abstract world.
Descartes published his Principia Philosophiae, where he claimed - among others - the non-existence of the vacuum referring to its identification of extension and corporeal substance (res extensa). In the same year the physicist Evangelista Torricelli described in a letter the experience of his famous barometer in which he managed to prove that the vacuum can exist in nature and that air has weight, thus putting an end to the millenary philosophical discussions on 'horror vacui’.
Aristotle refutes the positions of atomists in the discussion held in the Physics (IV, 6-9), arguing in Chapters 7 and 8 that the movement does not imply a vacuum; on the contrary, if it actually existed, it would prevent the movement, as confirmed by the analysis of displacement of a body. Nor are valid the arguments based on the existence of rare and dense, nor the motion of ‘graves’ downward. The Greek philosopher also considered that the sub-lunar world consisted of four elements (fire, air, earth and water) and argued that to each of them corresponded a natural place, from which they could only be moved by violence. In their natural environment elements had no weight. The air, then, for the Greek philosopher and his countless followers did not weigh, nor exerted pressure.
Continuing the quote of Aristotle's thought, everything is still in the vacuum, therefore the vacuum must be denied.
Scholastic philosophy accepted most of the Aristotelian arguments, summarizing its position in the well-known adage ‘Natura abhorret a vacuo’. In the modern age the adhesion of Gassendi to the atomistic doctrines led the philosopher to accept the idea of vacuum, rejected, instead, by Descartes because of his identification of extension and corporeal substance.
Now, we should deal with the subtle but sharp distinction between "absence" and "nothing": in fact absence is not identical to nothing. This risk may be lurking for all, this vacuum that is not an absence, but nothing.
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle leads to believe (for purely philosophical intent) that the quantic vacuum is equivalent to nothing. The astrophysicist says: " A good disclosure should never misrepresent or obscure the consolidated results of scientific research, especially when, as in this case, the average reader is not able to critically evaluate the correctness of the statements." For example, also the Italian astrophysicist Marco Bersanelli, spoke when he explained that "the primordial quantum vacuum” can give rise to a particle, and in principle to more complex physical realities. This means that the "vacuum" of the physicists is radically different from the “nothing” of the philosopher.
What the extrapolations of the physical vacuum to the metaphysical ‘nothing’ have to do with the Galilean science?
In the Universe, say the most reliable theories, there should be an equal amount (a symmetry) between matter and antimatter, two states that, if they come into contact, will annihilate, that is, become nothing. And since in nothing, in a vacuum, it is impossible to distinguish one part from another one, there is also the highest symmetry. But physicists have now discovered that the symmetries are not stable: they are made to be broken.
In modern physics, after having established, at least conceptually, the existence of an absolute vacuum, it is returned to the initial idea that even the vacuum is something other than nothing, because it has physical properties readily apparent. The empty space, understood as a container with no properties, is therefore not possible.
In the Standard Model leptons and quarks are pointlike with no internal structure. The properties of these particles are then simply labels attached to points. I want to know if such a view of particles is compatible with any quantum gravity theories, in particular loop quantum gravity. In loop quantum gravity the area and volume operators have discrete spectra. Does this imply particles can no longer be considered pointlike?
In string theory a point particle is replaced by a one dimensional string. Ahluwalia [1] has argued that the notion of a point-particle is no longer viable in a stabilized form of the combination of the Poincare and Heisenberg algebras because the resulting algebra features a modified Heisenberg sector.
Are there any reasonable approaches to quantum gravity that are consistent with the notion of point-particles?
[1] Ahluwalia-Khalilova, D. V. "Minimal spatio-temporal extent of events, neutrinos, and the cosmological constant problem." International Journal of Modern Physics D 14.12 (2005): 2151-2165.
More precisely through quantum tunnelling of information via the time dimension.
I didn't get any appropriate answers to this question. Could someone explain this?
I am referencing to the publication of PT Pappas:
The original Ampere force and Biot-Savart and Lorentz forces, Il Nuovo Cimento B, Series 11, Societe Italiana di Fisica, 1983, 76, 189-197 which can be found here:
The experiment shows that the Biot-Savart law cannot explain it while the original proposed law from Ampere can.
Since relativistic field theories are all based on Maxwell's interpretation which promotes Biot-Savart law, this has several consequences to modern physics.
So, why did we accept the Biot-Savart formula instead of the correct Ampere's one?
I'm layperson in physics, but I often read the sentence: matter is energy condensed. And I doubt if this claim is true.
