Science topic
Recycling - Science topic
The extraction and recovery of usable or valuable material from scrap or other discarded materials. (from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th ed.)
Questions related to Recycling
We are looking everywhere in the world a recycle of research ideas and outputs. This is at the expense of huge financial resources and time. It is also against the evolution of ideas and progress of knowledge and development. Therefore, is there any one who has hard facts about the impacts of research recycling on progress of science, social values and economic implications? How can we reshape the current situation?
Best way to do proper recycling.


How to recycle 200g resin AmberLite™ IRC120 H from chlorhydric acid or sulfuric acid ? Thank you so much !
I want to implement a process in the plastic industry for reusing recycled materials as transparent color or by adding other masterbatch in order to reduce costs.


Discusses some of the problems associated with recycling. Example: More “things” are being recycled than can be used. Thus, these “unrecycled” recycled items ends up in land fills anyway. Such “recycling” makes people “feel like they are recycling,” but they are adding to the land fills in spite of their efforts.
I want a party from which I can obtain data on plastic recycling in Egypt
Is an economics model based on the concept of sharing economy an essential element of a sustainable circular economy?
Is the sharing economy model an essential element of a sustainable circular economy and an important factor in protecting the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
Is the sharing economy model an essential element of a sustainable circular economy and thus a sustainable green zero-carbon economy or one that strives for zero-carbon, green transformation of the economy, protection of the climate, the biosphere and the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
The sharing economy model, i.e. the sharing economy, the sharing economy, the collaborative economy, is an important element of what is more broadly referred to as a sustainable circular economy. On the other hand, the processes of green transformation of economies aimed, among other things, at reducing the consumption of natural resources, decreasing waste generation and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions are expected to lead to a reduction in the scale of carbon emissions, i.e. greenhouse gas emissions and thus slow down the progressive process of global warming and reduce the scale of environmental pollution, reduce the scale of loss of biodiversity of natural ecosystems and the consumption of strategic natural resources such as water and rare raw materials. The phenomenon is based on people's willingness to cooperate, help others and share their time and resources, which is reciprocated in various ways (material and non-material). In the past, this form of cooperation was limited to a narrow circle of family, friends and neighbours, and with mass production, the development of trade and services and stronger migration resulting in the separation of multi-generational families and the loss of networks of acquaintances, this phenomenon slowly lost its importance and its functions were taken over by companies and institutions (e.g. public institutions). The other side of human nature, which is the desire to compete and look after narrowly defined self-interest, is the basis of classical economics, but under market economy conditions it sometimes leads to distortions (exploitation, fraud, etc.). Thanks to the development and application of new technologies, collaborative economics is once again gaining popularity and economic rationality. A key determinant of the dynamic development of the sharing economy was the financial crisis in 2008, as well as the need to save money, make better use of resources and change social relations. The development of the concept of a sustainable circular economy should therefore also take the sharing economy into account. The circular economy takes into account, among other things, the minimisation of the environmental impact of the production cycle. An important element of the closed loop economy can be the production method called in Polish 'from cradle to cradle'. This idea specifies methods for designing and producing objects in accordance with the concept of sustainable development, so that, at the end of their useful life, they can be put back into the production cycle. The circular economy also has a territorial dimension. In the context of the functioning of regions and especially urban areas, it refers to yet other economic solutions, e.g. the concept of the sharing economy, according to which unlimited consumption or accumulation of property gives way to sharing, exchanging or borrowing. According to this concept, people give up many goods for their own exclusive use in favour of others, i.e. they reduce the need for products whose production cycle often requires large amounts of raw materials and energy. The sharing economy is defined as a social and economic phenomenon that involves a shift in organisational and distribution models towards distributed networks of interconnected individuals and communities, involving both the direct provision of services by people to each other, as well as sharing, co-creation, co-direction, etc., enabling a radical increase in resource efficiency. Accordingly, the sharing economy model is an essential component of a sustainable circular economy and thus a sustainable green zero-carbon economy or one that strives towards zero-carbon.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
Is the sharing economy model an essential element of a sustainable closed loop economy and thus a sustainable green zero-carbon economy or one that strives for zero-carbon, a green transformation of the economy, the protection of the climate, the biosphere and the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
What is your opinion on this subject?
Please respond,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz

I am a research engineer at the École Mohammadia d'Ingénieurs in Rabat, Morocco, where I conduct research on copper scrap recycling. My work primarily focuses on optimizing recovery processes for non-ferrous metals, with a strong emphasis on eco-friendly methods and advanced materials treatment techniques.
In this context, I would like to explore the possibility of scientific collaboration with your researchers to undertake joint projects and exchange our respective expertise.
Given that the universe’s overarching processes—such as star formation, black holes, and entropy—focus on the large-scale recycling and transfer of energy over billions of years, biological life appears to be an anomaly. Life processes energy in small, localized amounts, such as humans consuming chemical energy to produce movement, heat, and thought, which pales in comparison to the immense energy flows within stars or galaxies.
If life exists by temporarily utilizing solar energy before returning it to the broader system, could it be argued that life is a fleeting byproduct of specific conditions, rather than a central component of the universe’s energy dynamics? What implications does this perspective have for understanding humanity’s place in the cosmos?
My institution recently stopped our pipette tip box recycling program due to no organizations in my area accepting Polypropylene (PP-#5) material. Does anyone who currently uses one of these programs have any recs or suggestions? I would love to have the program back at my institution instead of every lab just throwing their plastic in the trash. Thanks!
More than 360 million tons of plastic waste is being generated every year, and only 9% of this is being recycled. Who is building solutions around this mammoth issue. What's being researched and what technological solutions are ready to be implemented on mass scale.
Please share your thought and useful links.
Thanks
Aman Arora
For the sake of recycling electrolyte of a polymer Li-ion battery, the salts like LiPF6 will be recycled with CO2 supercritical extraction method.
But how can we preserve the volatile organic solvent carbonates to be used again, as these solvents start evaporating as soon as a cell is opened?
Hi, I am using sodium iodide to separate density carbon fractions of my samples. I want to recyle it for further uses. While searching I only get the process to recycle sodium polytungstate (at the stage I am not using SPT). So, I would appreciate if you give me some hands on tips for recycling NaI. Thanking you in anticipation.
Hello everyone
I have question about alternative scenarios for Life cycle assessment.
Where should I find data for alternative scenarios of a task? For example, the scenario of recycling or burning plastic.
Thank you
We are recylcling rPVC with a proprietary formulation that, among other things, contains DOP and wax. The pellets immediately stick together when they are cut by the cutter and form a string (imagine the beads in a rosary.) This is problematic becauase the product should be in pellet form not string. How could we solve this problem?
I need to find a proper method to prepare sample solution by digestion for Pt-Pd-Rh elements from spent automotive catalysts. Any suggestion except application of microwave-assisted digestion would help me.
I am currently working with recycled aggregate concrete and using finite element simulations to predict its behavior under different conditions. I have faced several challenges in accurately modeling the properties of this material, especially considering its heterogeneous nature and the variability of recycled aggregates.
I would like to know what specific challenges others have encountered while modeling recycled aggregate concrete in finite element analysis and what methods or techniques have proven effective in addressing these issues. Any insights into improving the accuracy and reliability of these models would be greatly appreciated.
We are working on a robot that cleans solar panels using fresh water supply and a rotating brush. We are trying to conserve as much water at possible by recycling the dirty water that is collected from the cleaning to use it again on the panels.
Hurdle: All the filtration systems are just too heavy, big and energy demanding to be mounted on a robot (needs to be approx 25 kg max) which can clean 2500-5000TDS and 300-500NTU water into <50TD and <150NTU. Required flowrate is about 1m3/hr
We are happy if the filter cartridge needs to be changed/ cleaned every 50 Liters of water.
I couldn't find any evidence to worry about oxygen concentration, ORP, pH and conductivity, please mention if otherwise.
#filter #robot #recycling #water #reverseosmosis #mechanical #solarpanels #renewableenergy #sustainibility #deakinuniversity #researchanddevelopment
The ISS is nearing its decommission date and various deorbiting plans are under consideration, but they all seem to involve crashing it into the Pacific Ocean in one way or another. That's a lot of raw materials going to waste. Would it be feasible to crash land it on the moon instead? That way materials for processing or parts for repurposing would be available to future Lunar settlers.
How can integrated water management systems utilizing hydraulic and porous media technologies improve the efficiency of greywater recycling in residential buildings?
"How do we understand special relativity?"
The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply
Abbas Kashani
A lot to work with, Abbas.
However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.
My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.
Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.
To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.
Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.
--
Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.
We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.
Now comes the mistake:
The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.
Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.
Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).
--
I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.
Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:
Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...
Wolfgang Konle added a reply
"Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum."
Richard Feynman's idea is perfect, and there is no reason to reject it. The existence of vacuum energy, or better dark energy is consistent with Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant.
The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.
The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?
As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:
This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.
On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.
But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.
But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
"How do we understand special relativity?"
- the answer to this question, which is really fundamental one, since is about what is some physical theory as a whole; what really means – why and how the postulates of a theory, in this case of the SR, really are formulated, and why and how the postulates
- which in any theory fundamentally – as that happens in mathematics, where axioms fundamentally cannot be proven – aren’t proven; while are formulated only basing on some experimental data, which fundamentally prove nothing, though one experiment that is outside a theory prediction proves that this theory is either wrong, or at least its application is limited.
Returning to the SR, which is based on really first of all four postulates – the SR-1905/1908 versions relativity principle, SR-1905 also on the postulate that light propagates in 3D XYZ space with constant speed of light independently on light source/ an observer’s speeds; and, additionally,
- in both theories it is postulated (i) that fundamentally there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) - [so] that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.
In the standard now in mainstream physics SR-1908 additionally to the SR-1905 it is postulated also that observed contraction of moving bodies’ lengths, and slowing down of moving clocks tick rates, comparing with the length and tick rates when bodies and clocks are at rest in “stationary” frames, is caused by the “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc..
Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;
- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that
- Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so some “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space can exist, while applications, i.e. measurements of distances and time intervals, of moving in the space inertial frames aren’t completely adequate to the objective reality; and
- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.
Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.
That is another thing that
- according to SR-1905 relativity principle there is some extremely potent entity “light”, the constancy of which for/by some mystic reasons/ways forces moving bodies to contract and moving clocks to slow down tick rates; and
- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.
All that above in the SR really is/are only postulated illusions of the authors, nonetheless, again, the Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle is really . extremely mighty, and the SR indeed in most cases at everyday physical practice is applied in completely accordance with the objective reality. The fundamental flaws of the SR reveal themselves only on fundamental level.
The post is rather long now, so here
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”
In the SS post above it is pointed that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, however to say more it is necessary to clarify - what are “space” and “time”, just because of the authors of the SR – and whole mainstream physics till now - fundamentally didn’t/don/t understand what these fundamental phenomena/notions are, the really mystic and simply fundamentally wrong things in the SR were/are introduced in this theory.
What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,
- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., which is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics,
- can be, and is, clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
More see the link above, here now only note, that, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model, Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system of informational patterns/systems – particles, fields, stars, etc., which, as that is shown in the model, is based on a simple binary reversible logics.
So everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space, momentum P[boldmeans 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation and motion c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].
Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by a practically infinitesimal P impact; but if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation of the “FLE-flipping point” in the 4D space above along some 4D helix,
- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above, mis inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P;
- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.
In the SS posts above it is pointed that everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of FLEs, which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, spacetime,
- and that happens always in utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and corresponding spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z ct), where ct is the real time dimension.
At that particles, most of which compose real bodies, at every time moment exist as “FLE –flipping point” that move along some4D helixes that have frequencies ω, having 4D momentums P=mc, m are inertial masses, a helix radius is λ=λ/P;
- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.
So in Matter there exist two main types of particles – “T-particles”, which are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis [more generally – by 4D momentums cτ-components, but here that isn’t too essential], and so, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along cτ-axis with the speed of light, and at that a T- particle’s algorithm ticks with maximal “own frequency”, the particle’s momentum is P0=m0c, where, correspondingly, m0 is the “rest mass”.
If a such T-particle, after some 3D space impact with a 3D space momentum p, moves also in 3D space with a velocity V, having 4D momentum P=P0+p, its speed along the cτ-axis decreases by the Pythagoras theorem in (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. in reverse Lorentz factor,
- and, at that, despite that the helix’s frequency increases, the algorithm is “diluted by “blank” 3D space FLEs flips. So the “own frequency above” decreases in Lorentz factor, so the algorithm ticks slower; and so, say, moving clocks that are some algorithms as well, tick slower in Lorentz factor as well; if a particle algorithm has some defect, and so at every its tick it can break with some probability, so the particle is unstable and decay, such moving in 3D space particles live longer.
Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.
In the SS post above it is explained why and how internal “own” processes rates in moving having rest mass [and it is explained what is “rest mass”] particles, bodies, etc., are slowed down comparing with the case when the bodies are at rest; and to derive that it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem; Matter is rather simple logical system,
- but that isn’t a unique physical effect that differ “rest and motion”. As that is pointed in 2-nd SS post, particles are some “4D gyroscopes”, the 4D “rotation axis” of which is always directed along particles 4D momentums P.
So if a T-particle is at rest in 3D space, the axis is directed along the cτ-axis, if the particle moves in the space, say, along X-axis, it rotates in the (X, cτ) plane so that the Cosine of the angle between P and X-axis is, again by Pythagoras theorem, equal to (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. reverse Lorentz factor, while Cosine of the angle between P and cτ –axis is V/c.
If particles constitute some moving rigid body that has, if is at rest in 3D space, length L, they rotate the body as a whole in the (X, cτ) plane on the angle above, and so:
(i) - the body’s length 3D space observable projection is contracted comparing with when it is at rest in inverse Lorentz factor, what is observed experimentally, say, that was yet at M&M experiments, at that, of course , nothing happens with the 3D space; any postulated in the SR “space contraction” fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist; and
(ii) - the body’s front end has lesser coordinate value on the cτ –axis than the back end, the difference is correspondingly –VL/c.
Since the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed extremely mighty, motion of everything in real time ct-dimension in mainstream physics, and, of course, in everyday humans practice, till now isn’t observed, so in the mainstream the rather specific really space cτ- dimension is used as the time dimension in both – classical 4D Euclidian with [usual, when t-coordinate isn’t multiplied by the c constant ] metrics (t,X,Y,Z) , and the SR Minkowski with metrics (it,X,Y,Z) [“i” is imaginary unit], spacetimes.
So in this metrics a moving body’s front end is “younger” than the back end on –VL/c2,
- what is the Voigt-Lorentz decrement in the Lorentz transformations.
Correspondingly, if we remember that moving body’s [including moving reference frames] clocks showings are slowed comparing with the rest case, and that
Lorentz transformations – quite equally as that Galileo transformations are also, really are equation of motion of points of the moving body’s [including systems of the bodies that are inertial reference frames systems of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks] in a stationary “K” frame with using data of measurements that are made in the moving “K’ ” frame,
- we above, by using Pythagoras theorem, derived these transformations.
At that, again – these equations/transformations relate only to points of rigid bodies /rigid systems of bodies that they occupy in the 4D space /mainstream spacetime at a current time moment. If in a system the bodies are free, that above, including the Lorentz transformations, is applicable only limitedly, so, say, the Bell paradox exists,
- but what is much more important in this case, by using a system of free bodies it is possible to observe motion of the bodies in the absolute 3D space and to measure the absolute velocity of a system, while, say, Poincaré stated that that is impossible. Corresponding experiments were proposed yet in 2013-16 , more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible
Cheers
Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?
Sergey V. Shevchenko1 and Vladimir V. Tokarevsky2
1Institute of Physics of NAS of Ukraine, Pr. Nauki, 46, Kiev-28, Ukraine
2 Professor ret., Pr. Nauki, 46, Kiev-28, Ukraine
Abstract
One of popular problems, which are experimentally studied in physics in a long time, is the testing of the special relativity theory, first of all – measurements of isotropy and constancy of light speed; as well as attempts to determine so called “absolute speed”, i.e. the Earth speed in the absolute spacetime (absolute reference frame), if this spacetime (ARF) exists. Corresponding experiments aimed at the measuring of proper speed of some reference frame in other one, including [the absolute speed] in the ARF, are considered in the paper.
Key words: informational physics, special relativity theory, spacetime, experimental testing
PACS numbers: 01.70.+w, 03.30.+p, 04.80.Cc
1 Introduction
In [1 - 3] it was rigorously shown that Matter in our Universe – and Universe as a whole - are some informational systems (structures), which exist as uninterruptedly transforming [practically] infinitesimal sub-sets in the absolutely infinite and absolutely fundamental “Information” Set. This informational conception allows to propose the physical model (more see [4], [5]), which, when basing practically only on Uncertainty principle, adequately depicts the motion and interactions of particles in the spacetime. In the model [subatomic] particles are some closed-loop algorithms that run on a “Matter’s computer [6] hardware”, which [hardware] consists, in turn, of a closed chains of elementary logical gates – fundamental logical elements (FLE) that are some (distinct, though) analogues of C. F. von Weizsäcker’s “Urs” [7 – 9]. The FLE’s sizes in both – in the space and in the “coordinate” time (see below) – directions are equal to Planck length, lP, lP = (hcG3 )1/2 (his reduced Planck constant - the elementary physical action, G - gravitational constant, c- speed of light in the vacuum); the time of the FLE’s “flip” is equal to Planck time, ττP P, = lcP . Relating to the mechanics of fast particles/ bodies motion and interactions, the model allows to obtain basic kinematical and dynamical equation that were obtained in the Lorentz theory and the special relativity, but, at that, in the model these equations are obtained basing on other [then in the Lorentz theory and in the SRT] principal suggestions, thus from the model a number of new inferences follow, including – that the real Matter’s spacetime is absolute 4D Euclidian manifold and all/every material objects move in the 3D spacetime with absolute 3D speeds; what is principally prohibited in the special relativity. In this paper a couple of experimental methods aimed at the testing this suggestion (as well, of course, the testing by this way the SRT) is presented.
Spacetime. The introducing of the Space and the Time notions in the model [3], [5], [10] is quite natural – they are fundamental and universal, i.e. which act on whole Set, logical rules/ possibilities that allow (and define or “implicitly govern” how to single out) to single out specific informational patterns / structures, for example, particles, in the main informational structure (i.e., Matter); at that taking into account both - fixed and dynamical – characteristics of the structures[1].
As possibilities Space and Time are different in that Space in the Set has infinite number of “dimensions”, when for Time now only two “dimensions” – “true time” and “coordinate time” (see below); the number of the dimensions that are “used” in a concrete informational system is determined practically completely just by properties of this concrete system. In the system “Matter” Space and Time realize themselves as some 4D-Emptiness (5D-?) where a dense 4D FLE lattice (“4D Aether”) is placed – some analogue of “spin-network” [11], “causal set” [12], “Space-time points in causal space” [13], etc. The Space and Time possibilities are universal and “absolute”, they exist “forever”, since they exist also (“virtually”) before a beginning and after an end of any specific informational structure, including, in this case, of Matter in our Universe. As the rules Space and Time establish that between informational fixed patterns (including material objects – particles, bodies, etc.) must be non-zero “space interval”, between different states of a changing pattern must be a non-zero “time interval” (a “non-zero duration”). The time intervals always accompany every change of every changing pattern, so the constant increase of the time interval at the Matter’s evolution sometimes is called as some self-independent “time flow”; tough this flow only accompanies changes of material objects and Matter’s evolution as a whole. On the other hand since “Matter as computer”, and every “automaton” in this computer, i.e. every material object and every system of objects, “operate” with a stable “operation
rate”, measured concrete space and time intervals are useful at a description of processes that go in material systems as “the time” and “ the space” variables that indicate changes of the objects in the 4D Euclidian spacetime, when any element of Matter – a particle, a molecule,
a star, etc. – has its own space and time coordinates.
The space is 3D Euclidian manifold, when the time is “two-faced” – in Matter simultaneously two rules/possibilities “Time” act - “absolute (or “true”) time” and “coordinate time”. Absolute/ true time defines that for any change in Matter (e.g., for a FLE’s flip in any - “space” or “coordinate time” – direction) is necessary to spend same “true time interval”. Since all material objects always move in the 4D spacetime with identical by the absolute value 4D speeds (which are equal to the speed of light), the true time interval, which always accompanies these processes, changes (“true time flows”) for all Matter only in one (“positive”, as that is accepted in physics now) direction by definition. The “coordinate time” is necessary because of to do reversible operations, which are logically incorrect, if only the true time acts, it is necessary to have corresponding rule that allows and defines such operations. This rule/possibility exists/acts in Matter as the “coordinate time” and material objects can move in the possibility “coordinate time” in both (direct and reversal, ±) directions – like along of a spatial direction. This time constitute, with the space, Matter’s 4D “space-[coordinate]time”, or further in the text - the “spacetime” (as well as below “time” as a rule is “coordinate time”).
The time axis in the spacetime is orthogonal to any spatial line, including, naturally, to 3 [e.g., Cartesian] spatial axes (so the 4D spacetime is in reality “Cartesian”); what follows from the model’s premise that FLEs have 4 independent degrees of freedom and, for example, from the experimentally measured the “rest mass” and “relativistic mass” relation, from the equality of “transverse” and “relativistic” masses – insofar as in macrophysics usually all interactions happen as an exchange by 3D spatial momentums, when a body at rest moves in the temporal direction, thus, because of the orthogonality of the t-axis, the “relativistic mass” turns out to be the “transverse mass”, etc.
The absolute time isn’t a coordinate in the model, though it can be fifth coordinate in a 5D spacetime, where all Matter’s objects, since they are uninterruptedly changing and so - are moving [after Matter obtained at Beginning a portion of something, what in the physics is called “the energy”] with 4D speeds having identical absolute values in the 4D spacetime, move also simultaneously with the speed of light along “true time coordinate” in positive direction, remaining always simultaneously in one true time moment (one elementary true time interval).
2 Comparing of the SRT and the model
In this informational model the Lorentz transformations can be obtained quite naturally, [4] if it is [rather reasonably] postulated that:
(1) The Matter exists and evolves in a [at least] 4D lattice of FLEs, at that every particle and every system of particles (material body) moves – as some disturbance of the lattice through the lattice, and, because of the FLEs’ sizes are identical, through 4D spacetime also, with identical (by absolute value = the light speed in the vacuum, c) 4D speeds. At that in Matter there exist two main types of particles (and bodies that are systems of particles) – “Tparticles” that were/ are created after an impacts [on the lattice] with the 4D momentums, which were/are directed along the t-axis (electrons, protons, etc.); and “S-particles”, when the impacts’ momentums were/are spatially directed (e.g. photons); thus T-particles can move in the 1D [coordinate] time and in the 3D space simultaneously, when S-particles move in the 3D space only;
(2) The lattice – and the spacetime as well – don’t depend on any Matter’s bodies motion, they are absolute and constitute by this way for Matter absolute coordinate system(s) (4ACS). Insofar as the lattice is highly standardized for steps in any – time or space – direction (there is an “equal footing”), there can be established “absolute reference frame” (4ARF) which is at rest relating to an 4ACS and so it is inertial reference frame. There can be infinite number of equivalent 4ARFs and 4ACSs, as results of translations and/ or (spatial only) rotations of some 4ARF (4ACS).
However such [“4D”] 4ARF cannot be realized in practice since every material object, including clocks, rules, observers [in certain sense, since the observers are partially nonmaterial objects], etc., that are necessary constituents of any reference frame, are some “Tobjects” that always move in the spacetime/the lattice (excluding some exotic cases when some T-particles can be, in certain sense, at rest in the 4ACS if they are built from particles and antiparticles, e.g. – the mesons). Thus there is a sense to say only about “absolute” reference frames that are at rest only relating to one of the two main dimensions of the Matter’s spacetime – at rest in the 1D time and at rest in the 3D space. The first version can be realized only if all constituents of the reference frame – clocks, rules, observer – are made, for example, from photons; what is evidently cannot be realized on the practice; thus there is a sense to seek for the ARFs that are at 3D spatial rest only. Just these 3ARFs, which are at rest in the 3D Aether, were sought for in last decades of 19 century, including the Michelson and Morley experiment [14], and were claimed as principally non-existent in the special relativity theory – as well in this theory the absolute “Newtonian” spacetime is postulated as being non-existent, though.
Correspondingly in this paper below only the absolute reference frames that are at 3D spatial rest are considered. The existence of such frames in the informational model is evident – that are the frames, where the frames’ clocks, rules and observers (not only, of course) move in the [coordinate] time only, what is evidently possible.
(3) Since all/ every particles/ bodies always move in the 4D spacetime with the sped of light, the particle’s/ body’s motion is characterized by the 4D momentum, which is an r = mVr , Pr = mckr , where mis some coefficient (the analogue of the classical momentum, P
r r inertial mass), k is 4D unit vector, at that every particle is always oriented relating to the k . Thus if a number of particles constitute a rigid body, this body becomes be oriented relating to its movement direction also. An example – moving rigid rod having the length L - is shown in the Fig.1.
Fig.1. A rod having the length L moves in the spacetime: (a) – the rod is at 3D spatial rest (moves in the time only) in the ARF, (b) the rod moves also along X-axis with a speed V. The spatial length of the accelerated rod, LX = L(1−β2 1) /2
At rest (Fig. 1 (a)) the rod moves along [coordinate] temporal axis [with the speed of light] having the momentum pr0 = m0cirt that is perpendicular to the rod. If the rod was impacted with transmission to the rod a spatial momentum prX = mVr , it moves in the space also, having in the spacetime the total momentum Pr = pr0 + prX , Pr is again perpendicular to the rod.
From the Fig. 1 immediately follow the main equations of the special relativity theory (as well as of the Lorentz theory, though). Lorentz transformations: - the first equation [β≡V c/ ]
x = vt + x′(1−β2 1) /2 , (1) - and the second one:
t′ = (1−β2 1) /2t −Vxc2′ , (2)
but with essential difference from the SRT – these equations aren’t valid in whole [in the SRT – pseudoEuclidian Minkowski] Matter’s spacetime, but are true for points of rigid mechanical systems (e.g., a system Earth + a satellite is rigid system also because of the gravity force) only, nothing happens at a motion of a body with the spacetime. Besides that the variables x′,t′correctly relate to relative positions of the rod’s points in the spacetime, they are also can be measured lengths (here - from the back of the rod) to some (here – the rod’s) matter points, and clocks’ readings in these points; thus for some rigid system of bodies it is possible to set some local inertial reference frame.
As well as from the postulates above follow main equations of the SRT dynamics.
Since P = mc and since t-axis is normal to any spatial direction (so the momentum of a particle at 3D rest remains be constant as the temporal component of the 4D momentum at any spatial motion) it can be easily obtained for T-particles that pX = mV = (1−m Vβ0 2 1) /2 ≡γm V0 , (3)
and, for example, calculating the work of some force F at the spatial (an temporal impact results in the creation of new particles) acceleration of a body with rest mass m0 on a way
S (in the Eq. (4) below p ≡ pX for convenience),we obtain:
A = F S dS = m pp0 (p2 +pdpm c022 )dp = c∆P . (4)
0
Since at motion of a body the work of the force results in the change of the body’s kinetic energy, from (4) we obtain
∆E = E − E0 = cP −cp0 , (5a) or
E = cP = m c2 , (5b)
and for a body at rest in an 3D ARF
E0 = cp0 = m c0 2 . (5c)
3 Kinematical relations in moving mechanical systems
The Voigt-Lorentz t- decrement [in Eq.(2)] for the rod’s matter (including clocks) along the rod’s length (the maximum is − VLc2 ), appears at the acceleration of the rod up to the speed V and further remains be constant for any fragment of the rod at the uniform motion. So if (i) - one synchronizes a number of clocks along the rod before the acceleration; and, (ii) - after the acceleration up to some speed, e.g., the back end clock is transported slowly along the rod to the front end, so, that this clock constituted with the rod rigid system, - then the moving clock’s and stationary clocks’ [along the rod] readings will be identical, including for the [moved] back end and front end clocks eventually. But if one accelerates also a pair of synchronized clocks, which were placed initially on the distance L(Fig.2 (a)) also, let to the same speed V (Fig.2 (b), independently (freely), then the front clock reading will be identical to the both back ones, but will show later time then front end rod’s clock; though all clocks are in both cases evidently in the same inertial reference frame.
Fig. 2. Two pairs of synchronized clocks in the same reference frames. (a) at rest in an ARF, and (b) all clocks move with the same speed in the ARF, one pair constitutes the rigid body with accelerated rod; other pair moves independently on the rod.
This “de-synchronization” of clocks, which were equally impacted at the acceleration, dependently on are the clocks free or they constitute a rigid system, occurs not only in the case above.
Besides consider a simple kinematical problem.
Let in the middle point of moving rod a short light flash occurs. The rod’s clocks readings, when the flush photons hit the clocks, are, if corresponding clock readings in an ARF is t and at the flush all clocks where set in the zero: on back end clock: tA = t(1−β2 1) /2 ; on the middle point clock; tM = tA − 2VLc2 ; on front end clock:
tB = tA −VLc2 .
Since photons move only in the space, the flash will be registered with some time increment, for example on back end clock, it is ∆tA = L2((1V−+βc2)) . So observed in the rod’s reference frame elapsed time is ∆tMA = 2Lc (1−β)+ 2Lcβ= 2Lc , so measured by this way speed of light in the rod’s IRF is equal to c , though the real speed at photons’ motion to the rod’s back end is evidently equal to V +c .
Analogously the same result (measured speed of light is equal to c ) can be easily obtained for the pair “middle point – front end” clocks; for the case, when the light moves from back end to front end (a mirror) and back, etc.
And on the contrary – if on the rod’s ends there are two clocks and the time moments, when flashes hit the clocks, are set in the clocks as equal clocks showings, the clocks become be synchronized in accordance with the Lorentz transformations – that is “Einstein synchronization” in the SRT.
However from the Lorenz transformations for rigid systems evidently follows another synchronization method – the “slow clocks transport”, when clocks are set in equal showings at some spatial point an further clocks are slowly (γ≈1) moved to the points where it is necessary to measure time intervals.
But if the clocks are free, the Lorentz transformations aren’t valid completely and both synchronization methods above become be incorrect also, besides – the results of the “synchronizations” are different. Just this fact allows to observe the absolute motion of a system of clocks and to measure the absolute 3D speed of this system – what is principally impossible in the SRT.
4 Measurement of proper speed of an IRF
4.1. The use of the rigid and free systems of two clocks
From above follows the possibility of measurement at least of the proper speed of concrete reference frame [15], if in this frame an observer uses simultaneously a set of rigidly connected and independent (free) clocks, see Fig.3.
Fig. 3. A plot of clocks movements at measurement of the proper speed of a reference frame.
So, if there is a pair of synchronized clocks, and further one clock, here – the clock-2 is moved slowly back and forth in any direction, the clocks’ readings at the clocks rendezvous will be identical, independently on – the moved clock-2 was rigidly mechanically connected by some rod with the fixed one (with clock-1) or the clock-2 moves independently.
But the moved clocks’ readings at the motion are different. When the independently moved clock-2 readings are always identical to the fixed clock-1’s ones, the connected [to the rod] clock-2 obtains additional decrement (if the clock is moved along a speed Vr of the reference frame), − Vxc2 , where xis the distance between the clocks, measured by the observer’s (on the rod) rule.
Thus, if on some moving object, for example – on an Earth satellite, an observer can implement the scheme that is shown on the Fig. 3, then it can measure his proper speed. To do that, the observer should use two clocks and some rigid rod, let – with the length L.
Let one clock (clock-1) is fixed in the satellite and other clock (clock-2) is rigidly fixed on the rod’s end, both clocks are synchronized. Then, if the rod is pushed along the satellite speed forward and back, after returning both clocks will have identical readings. However, if the clock-2 is pushed forward being rigidly coupled with the rod, but returns back independently, for example, by using own engine, the time decrement, which this clock obtained at pushing forward conserves and so the clocks’ readings are different at their rendezvous on the decrement −VLc2 (at pushing back - +VLc2 correspondingly). For example, if the experiment would be made at the International Space Station (V ∼7600 m/s) and for the rod’s length L=30 m, the decrement is ~ 2.5.10-12s.
Correspondingly from measured in this case the clock readings difference ∆t12 and known rod’s length the observer can determine the proper speed of his RF; in the case above
– the orbital speed of the satellite, V ≈ ∆t12c2 .
L
It is evident that such a procedure can be repeated any times with the accumulation of the decrements, so the requirements to the clocks’ precision aren’t too rigorous provided that
they have adequate stability. If there were Nrepetitions, then V ≈ ∆t cS 2 ; where
NL
tS t12i .
The measurement error for a single measurement in first approximation depends practically on the internal clocks’ readings long-term and short-term uncertainties. Let the sum of the clocks’ uncertainties is ∆ ≈ ∆h h1,2 21/2 ,where ∆h1,2 are the [equal here]
individual clocks’ error. Then for relative error for measured the β= V value in first c
approximation obtain
, (6)
and so
δ∆( )hβc . (7) β≈
L
For δ( )β , for example be equal to 10%, L = 30m , ∆ ≈h 10−13 s, it is possible to measure the value β ∼10-5(and more, of course), i.e. the proper speed of the clocks’ system ∼ 3000 m/s; the proper speed of the ISS above can be measured with 5% precision.
Note, again, that on Earth orbit it is impossible to measure the “proper absolute” speed, since all clocks, because of Earth gravity, always constitute a rigid systems relating to the absolute Mater’s spacetime.
4.2. The use of free two clocks system
Another way to measure the absolute [or proper speeds for near Earth systems] speed is using of two synchronized in one point clocks 1 and 2 after the clocks are slowly transported apart on a distance L and measuring one-way time intervals of light flushes hits in opposite clocks at light motion between the clocks.
In this case real (in an ARF) one-way time intervals [in contrast to the case of a rigid system in the sec. 3 above], are t1 = c V−L and t2 = c V+L , here t1 and t2 are possible clocks-1, 2 readings in an absolute reference frame. Though these values are unknown, we can obtain the actual (measured) clocks’ readings - t1′ = L(1c(1−−ββ2 1)) /2 and t2′ = L(1c(1−+ββ2 1)) /2 , where values L and β are unknown and the β value must be measured. Nonetheless we can use the equations t1′ −t2′ = 2cL (1−ββ2 1) /2 and t1′ +t2′ = 2cL (1−β12 1) /2 to obtain the equation that doesn’t contain unknown [non-measurable] value of the distance between the clocks:
β= t1′′+−tt22′′ (8) t1
To estimate possible proper /absolute speed measurements errors in first approximation obtain (∆h - see the sec. 4.1 above):
dββ≈ d t(t1′1′−−tt′2′) + d t(t1′1′++tt′2′) ≈ t1′∆−ht′ + t1′∆+ht′ ≈ t1′∆−ht′ ,
and the relative uncertainty occurs twice lesser then in the case when the system of free and rigidly connected clocks is used that is considered in the sec.4.1. But the rest is the same:
δβ= dββ≈[t1′−t2′ ≈ 2Lcβ] ≈ 2∆Lhβc (9)
and
(10)
- i.e. this method allow to obtain twice better precision or twice lower measured speed at equal errors comparing with the sec. 4.1 method.
However that is true only if the distance between the clocks is stable at the measurement (this problem is practically inessential in the experiment in the sec. 4.1 above), and the main contribution to the error is determined by the clocks precision limits. If that isn’t so, then the rough analysis above isn’t correct.
To estimate a possible contribution of the distance fluctuation consider an optimal but easily executed variant when the light flashes happen practically simultaneously, for example – by a program that make flashes at both clocks in given times in the cocks, for example – every exact second (or in any known times/ periods); after an measurement’s cycle, the data about t1i and t2i are analyzed to make the βi values by using the Eq.(8).
In this case fluctuations, dL , impact on the measurement results if they occur practically inside the intervals (t1 ±t2 ) ≈ 2L / c (or L c/ ). For the corresponding error being near clocks errors, dLc ≈ ∆h , and suggesting that the fluctuations happen with constant acceleration, a , for the a obtain: a ≈ cL32 ∆h and for the distance L ≈ (c3a∆h )1/2 .
It seems as rather reasonable that there cannot be impacts on, for example, a space probe with forces when corresponding acceleration would be greater then, say, 100 m/s2. Thus an acceptable distance, when the errors because of the fluctuations are comparable with the errors that depend on the clocks’ inaccuracy, for, for example, ∆ ≈h 10−12 , is L ≈ 500km ; returning to the Eq.(9) obtain that at such distance it is possible to measure the proper/ absolute speed lesser then 1 m/s.
I.e. in the case when the time intervals above are measured practically simultaneously, there is no the problem of the distance stability; including, besides the considered case above, the case when the distance between clocks changes constantly because of a difference of the clocks’ spatial speeds up to a few m/s; at that this distance change can be rather simply determined, measured and decreased if necessary.
5 Conclusion
From the consideration above follow a number of implications.
First of all from the informational model’s approach, which is used here, follows that if a system of measurement devices, i.e., rules and clocks, constitute a rigid system (because of the Earth gravity it is possible to create rigid systems even between / with satellites, well known example is the GPS system), then outcomes of any experiment aimed at the measurement of the speed of light value or observation of some proper speed of this system will be in accordance with the special relativity; as well with the Lorentz theory, though, because of in this case the theories are experimentally indistinguishable. Measured values will be the [standard] speed of light and zero object’s proper speed correspondingly. This inference is true independently of what experiment was executed – “tests of Lorentz invariance” at using interferometers, “round trip” or “one or two way” methods at measurements of the light speed value or its isotropy (see, e.g., [16]-[22] and refs therein); as well as of what clock synchronization is applied – “Einstein synchronization” or slow transport of synchronized clocks. If some deviations from the theories would be observed, than there will be, with a great probability, an artifact.
But if one creates at least partially free system, some possibilities appear. The described above experiments on Earth satellite seem as rather promising, since on stationary orbits Earth gravity gradient (at least on a circular orbit) is small, and so rather possibly in this cases is inessential, so the measurement of a satellite orbital (proper in the Earth’ reference frame) speed, rather probably, would be successful.
Nonetheless the Earth gravity makes impossible the measurement of the absolute speed, since the gravity always “has time” to correct the positions of clocks and rules in the 4D spacetime at the satellite orbital motion, so the instruments always constitute rigid systems relating to the ARF[2].
However principally the measurement of the absolute speed is possible. To do that is necessary to send corresponding cosmic probe in a point in space where resulting gravity force (not the gravity potential), for example – in some “global libration points” in deep space, is weak enough. Further an automaton could execute the set of measurements of the probe speed values in at least 2π directions by using the retractable rod and the pair of clocks, or a pair of distant clocks, as that is described in the section 4 above. The direction of the rod or spatial direction between free clocks, when the measured speed value will be maximal, will be the direction of the absolute speed and the absolute speed value. At that the experiment with a pair free clocks (sec. 4.2) seems as more promising, however the chouse depends on concrete technological possibilities.
There are no principal technical constraints for such experiments yet now. The mass of the probe would be, rather probably, not bigger then those that were launched already at other space missions. As well as seems that there aren’t problems with the clocks – the measurement of time intervals with accuracy ∼10-16(see, e.g., [23], [24]) isn’t now something exotic.
H. Poincaré wrote about the absolute motion in “Science and hypothesis” [25]:
“… Again, it would be necessary to have an ether in order that so-called absolute movements should not be their displacements with respect to empty space , but with respect to something concrete. Will this ever be accomplished? I don’t think so and I shall explain why; and yet, it is not absurd, for others have entertained this view…I think that such a hope is illusory; it was none the less interesting to show that a success of this kind would, in certain sense, open to us a new world…”
Acknowledgements
Authors are very grateful to Professor M. S. Brodin, Institute of Physics of NAS of Ukraine, for support and useful discussions of the problems that were considered in this paper
[1]We don’t consider here the main problem of the Time notion definition, which follows from the logical inconsistence of any change in any, including material, system, including, for example, its spatial motion – that is discussed in a first approximation in [3]; and adopt here the existence of dynamical systems and of motions of objects at least as the experimental fact.
[2] Note, though, that that is true only if forces that act on the clocks and the rules are small enough, what is true in the existent now experimental situations. Besides in this case it is important that the Earth’s absolute speed is rather small – possibly near 500-700 km/s. If the forces are large, the Earth gravity becomes be inessential and, for example, if the Earth’s absolute speed would be large also – with γ essentially >1 - and be directed, say, in the ecliptic plain, then in such case it would occur, that unstable particles, which are created in accelerators, whose tubes are parallel to this plane, would live long, say, at day and short at night in summer and on the contrary at winter.
Just as in the case of greenwashing where people can get tricked because the word GREEN sounds good, the same can be said with respect to the current move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking where some people may be tricked because the word CIRCULAR sounds good.
But those familiar with science based revolutions a la Thomas Kuhn should be able to spot WHERE THE TRICK IS.
And this raises the academic question, Why the current move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking is inconsistent with Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop?
What do you think?
Can you see the inconsistency?
And hence, can you see the trick?
overall strategy and analytical approach that you have chosen in order to integrate, in a coherent and logical way, the different components of the study, thus ensuring that the research problem will be thoroughly investigated.
Dear friends, I am Stefano Cipriani and dong an ecolabel that will be useful for the market, especially to increase use of recycled materials.
I have a question that would love to share here in order to receive feedback from you guys :
1) Based on LCA of a fiber that is publicly available, I do not have LCA of the recycled fiber since is not yet available from any official the case studies at present time of knowledge i2) If the recycled material is produced from preconsumer waste generated in same company that receive virgin material with available LCA , can I simply calculate the Co2 saving assuming that the global Co2 emitted from the material (virgin + recycled) that is processed togheter with same process of the 100% virgin material from beginning of the production stage is the average between Co2 of virgin material (in the % of it in final product) and zero Co2 of the preconsumer material (in the % of it in final product) with the evidence that both toghether are processed from same mill?
Any resource or suggestion to be shared will be welcome!
Thanks a lot in advance
for my review of related literature
Our community is invited to edit book for Springer International Publisher entitled: Recent trends in aluminium production, processing and applications.
So we invite all who have interest to contribute with book chapter. You can pick up chapter title from the following subjects or you can propose a new chapter title. Please send the title and abstract before July 20, 2023 to the following email address
1- Alumina and Bauxite
* Aluminium ores
* Bauxite ore
* Alternative aluminium resources (kaolin – nepheline syenite)
* Alumina extraction by Bayer process
* Recent trends in Alumina production
- The alumina production using sintering process
- The alumina production using Acidic leaching
* Recycling of red Mud
2- Primary Aluminum Industry - Energy and Emission Reductions.
* Low energy consumption Technologies
* Waste gas emissions
* Waste gas recycling
* Aluminium industry and climate change
3- Recent applications of alumina in advanced industries
* Ceramics
* Batteries
* Alloys
* Chemicals
- Aluminum Reduction Technology
* Electrode Technology for Aluminum Production
* Anode processing
* Recent trends in anode processing
* Non-consumable anodes
* Novel materials in anode processing
* Anode Effect
* CO2 Emissions
* Energy consumption
4- Aluminum Alloys, Processing and Characterization: Alloy Development and Applications
* Melting, Alloying, and Melt Treatment
* Ingot Casting
* Rolling
* Extrusion
* Shape Casting
* Thermal Treatments
* Advanced Aluminium Alloys
5- Corrosion and Surface Treatmenrt of Aluminium Alloys
* Corrosion Behaviour of Aluminium Alloy
* Mechanical Surface treatment
* Anodizing Treatment
* Sealing anodic coatings
* Chemical Conversion Coating
* Organic Coating
6- Recycling and Sustainability in aluminium industry
* Recycling of aluminium metal
* Recycling of solid wastes
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Salah Salman
Mining and Metallurgy Eng. Dept.
Faculty of Engineering
Al-Azhar University
Currently, I am trying to model packers made from recycled plastic material (E=360N/mm^2 and a poisson ratio of 0.4). The best way to model these packers would be to only adjust the contact properties between the segmental linings to simulate this behaviour. How can I adjust the interaction properties to obtain the same result without creating an additional part between the segmental linings?
Hello guys,
In conducting a gate-to-gate LCA for a reverse vending machine (RVM) that collects plastic bottles and metal cans with a boundary spanning from the assembly of the RVM, placing beverage containers into the RVM, automatic pressing & separating, issuing a monetary receipt to the client, and selling the collected stuff to recyclers, which functional unit (FU) should I define regarding boundary? i.e., 1000 plastic bottles / 1000 metal cans?
Your advice & help are highly appreciated.
My conclusion is heaven is universal. Respectfully, how does the uniqueness of each sperm relate to the probability reincarnation? The fact that each sperm fertilizing the egg results in a different individual being conceived, and then maybe born, causes reincarnation to fall in probability. The recycling of consciousness(the theme of reincarnation) is further lowered in probability by the uniqueness of each sperm. Also each sperm, forming a completely different individual than another sperm, creates a completely different consciousness than another sperm would have. How could someone who had died have their consciousness recycled through the genitals of others? Thus, the uniqueness of each sperm( and the randomness of which sperm fertilizes which egg) causes reincarnation to be a less parsimonious explanation of the afterlife than heaven without reincarnation is. Sources:
Keywords
- sustainable textiles
- eco-friendly textiles
- circular design
- recycling technologies
- green manufacturing
- biodegradable materials
- smart textiles
- low-impact finishing
- circular economy
- materials science
- environmental impact
- human–textiles interaction
- social responsibility
- innovation in textile engineering
- circular design principles
- textile recycling
- ethical manufacturing
- life cycle assessment
- renewable materials
- sustainable fashion
This special issue is now open for submission.
Hi Researchers,
I have a question about the using ethyl acetate more than once in evaporation process. I was wondering whether ethyl acetate can be recycled used more than once again, and again.
I trust this message finds you well.
I am Purushotham Reddy Pothireddy, a master's student at Northumbria University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, currently pursuing MSc. Construction Project Management with BIM with Advanced Practice.
I extend my sincere gratitude for your willingness to participate in my research study. Your valuable input is crucial for the success of this investigation, focusing on the evaluation and implementation of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) introduced in 2015. The study aims to explore perspectives at three levels: corporate, branch, and sector.
Your involvement is integral to the success of this research, and I kindly request approximately 15-20 minutes of your time to share your invaluable insights. Please be assured that your responses will remain anonymous and confidential, exclusively used for academic purposes.
Should you have any questions or require additional information about the survey, please feel free to reach out to me at purushotham.pothireddy@northumbria.ac.uk.
Your participation is highly appreciated, and I want to express my gratitude for your time and support.
Best Regards,
Purushotham Reddy Pothireddy
MSc. Construction Project Management with BIM with Advanced Practice
Northumbria University (Newcastle)
In the context of the human-induced accelerating process of global warming, the increasing scale of environmental degradation, the extinction of many species of flora and fauna, the decline in the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems, people are increasingly asking themselves: where do you think each of us can start in terms of protecting the climate, nature and biodiversity of the planet?
A key premise for formulating such questions is the adage that a drop beats a rock. Often, when we wonder whether to choose a bicycle instead of an internal combustion car as a means of transportation in a situation of driving to a nearby store, the answer appears that, after all, with this one gesture, this action performed only by us in a situation where many other people, including neighbors, friends, etc. do not do it, we ourselves will not save the climate and the biosphere. But, after all, this is what many people think. And each individual, if this thinking would change and replace the car with a bicycle then one drop will turn into thousands and then into millions of drops, into rain, into a river and large-scale changes will be realized. The same applies, for example, to the issue of segregating waste, to the use of pesticides in the home garden, to the creation of a flower meadow instead of mowing the lawn, to changing consumption habits to more prudent and sustainable ones, on the reuse of used products and recyclables in the sharing economy, etc. Of course, green financial subsidies, regulatory change are key instruments to motivate this kind of change, to systemically address the issue of smoothly carrying out the green transformation of the economy to build a sustainable, zero-carbon, green closed-loop economy. However, the adage that a drop drills the scale is valid. In this regard, it is particularly important to change the consciousness and mentality of individual people individually and, at the same time, of many people in society.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
In the context of the human-induced accelerating process of global warming, the increasing scale of environmental degradation, the extinction of many species of flora and fauna, the decline in the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems, people are increasingly asking themselves: what do you think each of us can start with in terms of protecting the climate, nature and biodiversity of the planet?
Where do you think each of us can start in terms of protecting the climate, nature and biodiversity of the planet?
And what is your opinion about it?
What is your opinion on this topic?
Please answer,
I invite you all to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Warm regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz

The WCED 1987 documented traditional economic thinking as the source of social and/or environmental sustainability as it turned out to be socially and/or environmentally unfriendly.
This is because traditional market pricing only account for the economic costs at a profit, and hence, traditional markets are externalizing social and/or environmental cost associated with economic activity. AS TRADITIONAL MARKET EXPANDS, THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES AND THEIR SUSTAINABILITY GAPS EXPAND.
Hence, Making traditional economic thinking circular still has the social and environmental externality problem associated with it SO IT CAN NOT BE THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS IT CREATES. This means that selling circular economic thinking as the solution of sustainability problems requires either paradigm shift knowledge gaps or willful academic blindness as the drivers of willful academic tunneling as the mean to present it or promote it.
And this raises the question; Can we make circular economic thinking the solution of critical problems like the environmental unsustainability without the use of alternative academic facts?
I think No, what do you think? Yes, why you think so? No, why you think so?
Which mixing approach is the best for producing recycled concrete ? in term of performance, cost and time ?
Hello, This is Romesha & I am working on a research project based on Reduce, Recycle & Reuse Wastes in Hospitals. So should i add the AI factor to improve the system more effectively or leave it for the way ahead?
Are there technologies available to produce biofuels based on organic compost, from organic crop waste, that could serve as engine fuel to power tractors and other agricultural machinery in sustainable, organic, pro-environmental, pro-climate farming?
In recent years, in connection with the inclusion of the agricultural sector in the process of green transformation of the economy as well, new solutions are being sought, created and implemented to enable the transformation of productive farms into sustainable, pro-environmental, pro-climate, organic farms growing crops and other aspects of agricultural activity in accordance with the principles of organic farming and with the simultaneous implementation of sustainable development goals. Accordingly, on a farm operated in accordance with the formula of sustainable organic agriculture, pesticides and other chemical pesticides and chemically produced fertilizers are not used in agricultural crops, energy is obtained from renewable and emission-free energy sources, water is obtained mainly from rainwater catchment facilities, organic manure and processed organic waste from composters are used to fertilize farm fields, crop rotations are used within the framework of multi-year cycles to restore high soil quality and prevent soil aridity, individual farm fields are separated by green belts and flower meadows to provide foraging areas for pollinating insects, on-farm mini-treatment plants are built to treat wastewater generated on the farm and not used in a specific way for farm purposes, etc. Besides, on a farm run according to the formula of sustainable organic farming, available technologies for the production of biofuels based on organic compost, from organic waste from agricultural crops, through which motor fuel is produced to power tractors and other agricultural machinery, should be used. These may include the construction of biogas plants, where biogas can be produced, which can then be used to power agricultural machinery. Besides, in a sustainable, ecological, pro-environmental, pro-climate farm, agro-tourism activities may also be developed, and certain preserves, food products, such as jams, juices, cheeses, etc., may be produced within the framework of a micro-production activity or manufactory, within the framework of local brands on the basis of organically produced, cultivated crops. In addition, such sustainable, organic agritourism farms may be associated within a local producers' cooperative with silos, warehouses, etc. in which crops from the cultivation of several or more locally operating farms and/or agritourism farms are stored, including or mainly, only those operating under the formula of sustainable organic farming.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
Are there technologies available for the production of biofuels based on organic compost, from organic crop waste, which could be used as motor fuel to power tractors and other agricultural machinery in a sustainable, organic, pro-environmental, pro-climate farm?
Could biofuels from agricultural waste be used as engine fuel to power tractors in sustainable organic farming?
And what is your opinion on this topic?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Warm regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz

I want to apply green supply chain process to reduce, reuse & recycle wastes which I think is a very critical case for hospitals.
Hi All
How is chemical recycling of composite materials done in Simapro?
Currently, I am studying related to integrated assessment model for modelling of plastic waste recycling using system dynamics approach. The factors will be considered in model framework are environmental, economic and material performance (mechanical properties). I am still confused, how to evolve the last factor (mechanical properties) in System dynamics. Anybody has the experience related to the similar case?
Thank you in advance.
A lot seems to be coming out in publications about the circular economy or sustainable development and the circular economy or circular economy and sustainability or circular economy, sustainable development and global warming...and so on.
All researchers and publications seems to have the same theme of directly or indirectly indicating that the broken circularity traditional market economy can be made circular by non-green market means; and hence, they advocate circularity without indicating where the circularity problem came from or comes from; hence, without indicating whether they are fixing a broken circularity problem or patching that broken circularity problem plus their circularity thoughts seem to be disconnected from the need to one day transition away from the pollution production based economies to the pollution free economies....
They seem to start with addressing the consequences of the broken circularity problem without any regards with respect to fixing the root cause of the broken circularity problem.
And this raises the question, Can you have a circular green economy without green markets? If No, why No? If Yes, why yes?
Hello everyone
Why the aim of the agglomeration is to increase the bulk density of the waste?
Thanks in advance
Hello all dear
The shear mechanism is mentioned on this site, can anyone explain more?
Thanks in advance
Remark_1: science is not only about publishing papers dealing with problems that are acceptable (well seeing) by the "normal" academic canon or, on the other hand, with problems that are, relatively speaking, much easier to solve or, at least, it is not highly complicated to try to "solve".
Remark_2: scientists from the developing world, regardless the discipline, might start thinking farther on what does the "hard" Sustainable Development (SD) version mean for their countries, and how bad is to replicate (to support) discourses that comes from communities (whether interested stakeholders, nations, international organizations, think-tanks...) that want to keep the high rates of economic growth regardless any physical, ecological, and climate-based constraints. Much to my regret, there is a concerning amount of advocates to such an approach (outer-space mining) in Latin America as a whole... We need to rethink what development is all about and what will be the fate of the Latin American nations under such sustained trend of a lack of governance of the outer space domain.
- Is it really necessary to go far beyond Earth atmosphere to carry out very risky outer-space mining activities...?
- Why specific sectors are pushing for investing in the outer space mining when it is highly visible and measurable (at naked eye) the amount of thrash that it is piling up and surrounding all cities in the world...?
- What about the amount of metal, plastic and other "strategic" material (including wood/timber) that should be recycled at great scale in all continents and regions in the planet...?
- What education policies should transfer the current effort aimed at funding already useless careers and titles to empower the next generation of skilled workers, technicians, and experts in recycling al at levels of the society....? What impede that transformations in the labor force worldwide...?
- To the fans and advocates of the circular economy scheme: (1) have you already thought about the huge amount of energy that would be required for such a large-scale recycling (The thermodynamics laws always will matter despite economics could claim)...? (2) Shouldn't be a maximum number of human population that make circular economy feasible...? (Human population trends) are not in the equations of the hard SD version). (3) Do we (humans) have time for a step-by-step circular economy development (more action and less "floppy" business papers)...?
As I have pointed out in all my questions, the 2030 SDGs agenda is already compromised and no major advancement is being achieved regarding the speeding up overlapping and non-linear climate and Earth's ecology breakdowns, therefore, why humanity should embark in another wishful-thinking reckless economic push within the "New Space Economy"...?
As we keep trying to keep humans outside the equations..., all what be published regarding sustainability (science), governance, and the so-called cutting-edge research on Climate Policies and Action will be just a futile act of absolute incompleteness and despair.
Thus, I call scholars from all the disciplines to carry out their major effort in adding the humans into their equations (schemes, models) and start writing as we are the root of the current problems , but also the solutions to those human-sparked messes... A major shift must be empowered in the way science is made... Science has being under crisis for twenty years or so... We all know by 2000 the problem will be greater and will advance faster than our potential response as a species... All has been an unprecedented large-scale denial...
Willing to interact to write more realistic (with policy implications) papers and for teaming (network-building) in searching for implementing sound "cutting-edge" research proposals whenever funds will be available.
Regards,
Hernan L. Villagran
When addressing the socio-environmental challenges associated with the traditional economy mainstream researchers and organizations start from the point of view "Our current economy is linear” “ The economy of the future is circular”, taking the position that linearity is the root cause of sustainability problems, see for example: https://www.metabolic.nl/what-we-do/circular-economy/?gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwpJWoBhA8EiwAHZFzfoJkA5YMY6R6Crk_hIVmoam5SZZ8zjojNJOsh6PgMWygbt0t8LV8TRoCupMQAvD_BwE
They seem to be doing this without asking themselves the question, why is the current economy linear? Since when it has been linear? Could not be that the root cause of that linearity is the root cause of sustainability problems? If this was the case, then addressing linearity by going circular a la traditional market still leaves the root cause of the problem untouched and active.
And this raises the question: Is economy linearity the root cause of social, economic, and environmental challenges? If yes, why?. If not, why not?
What do you think?
I have heard that the shampoo which is about to expire can be recycled into to cleaning agents etc. Is that possible ? What is the process? Also, most of shampoo has oil in it. So, how will the oil be removed? Will it be through chemical dispersion?
According to the Regulation, issued by the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/833, it is not allowed to produce insect biomass on manure and catering wastes. Is it because of potential contamination of these wastes with deleterious chemicals, like pesticides, antibiotics, and endocrine disruptors (which can be applied in farming processes and in kitchens), or because of potential contaminations with pathogens, which is common for agricultiral animals and human? This legislative restriction significantly reduce the opportunity of the recycling of the valuable compounds (fat, amino acids etc.) from the by-products. So, I want to understand, what can we do in order to make the by-product save for recycling by means of insects, earthworms and other invertebrates? For instance, we can use manure from animals, which are free from pharmaceutical usage (I mean veterinary treatments), or we can thermally sterilize the by-products to prevent the propagation of human pathogens.