Science topic

# Theoretical Physics - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Theoretical Physics, and find Theoretical Physics experts.
Questions related to Theoretical Physics
Question
I don't even know what the mathematical definition of "equal footing" is, but I do understand the meaning of the postulate (which I am not complaining about) that the laws of physics are expressible in a way that can be used by all observers. However, given this postulate that I accept until convinced otherwise, this still does not imply any equivalence between time and space. They have some similarities in the Lorentz transformation in special relativity but they also have profound differences, including:
1. The most obvious difference is human perception that perceives time differently from space.
2. On a more mathematical level, the metric tensor has only one eigenvalue having the sign for the time coordinate and three eigenvalues having the opposite sign for spatial coordinates.
3. Still using math, the time coordinate can always be used as the parameter in the parametric equations representing a particle trajectory, while other coordinates can serve this purpose only for special cases.
4. Because of the usefulness of time as a parameter (see item 3), Hamilton's equations give time a special role.
5. Constants of motion in any physics topic refer to quantities that do not change with time.
6. Getting more mathematical, but really referring to Item 5 above, the topic of field theory identifies field invariant quantities as spatial volume integrals that are constant in time.
So why are we told to treat time and space in the same way?
What is meant by that is that there exist linear transformations-Lorentz boosts-that mix" time and space. That’s all.
Question
Max Planck wrote of natural units; ... These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as 'natural units'
1. Could the units (kg, m, s, A, K) share this numerical relationship (kg = 15, m = -13, s = -30, A = 3, K = 20)?
2. Could these geometrical MLTA objects (see diagram below) be natural units?
This is actually easy to test. These MLTA objects are the geometry of 2 dimensionless constants; the fine structure constant alpha = 137.035999139 and Omega = 2.0071349496, and so can have numerical solutions, i.e.: V = 25.3123819. We can then use a scalar v = 11843707.905m/s such that V*v = 299792458m/s or v = 7359.323miles/s gives V*v = 186282miles/s.
As the scalars have units associated (v uses m/s or miles/s), they will share the same numerical relationship (v = 17, l = -13, t = -30 ...), and so we would only need 2 scalars to define the others.
This then permits us to arrange combinations of (G, h, c, e, me, kB) whereby the scalars will cancel (scalars = 1), if this unit relationship is correct, then the SI constants will return the same numerical solutions as the equivalent MLTA constants ... for if the scalars are gone (cancelled), then the SI constants are MLTA constants (in the example, see diagram below, the 2 scalars are r, v).
Eliminating the SI numerical values from the SI constants will expose any embedded natural units, which we can use to determine what the natural units are, and 1 solution is those MLTA objects.
The methodology is explained here
1. Is there a logical flaw to the above?
2. Are there other arguments to support/refute this?
3. Is this evidence that ours is a mathematical (simulation) universe?
Some background.
"My electron" is only my hobby. Since then I try to prove it wrong or right by experiment.
Question
For those that have the seventh printing of Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" so I don't have to write any equations here. The Lagrangian for electromagnetic fields (expressed in terms of scalar and vector potentials) for a given charge density and current density that creates the fields is the spatial volume integral of the Lagrangian density listed in Goldstein's book as Eq. (11-65) (page 366 in my edition of the book). Goldstein then considers the case (page 369 in my edition of the book) in which the charges and currents are carried by point charges. The charge density (for example) is taken to be a Dirac delta function of the spatial coordinates. This is utilized in the evaluation of one of the integrals used to construct the Lagrangian. This integral is the spatial volume integral of charge density multiplied by the scalar potential. What is giving me trouble is as follows.
In the discussion below, a "particle" refers to an object that is small in some sense but has a greater-than-zero size. It becomes a point as a limiting case as the size shrinks to zero. In order for the charge density of a particle, regardless of how small the particle is, to be represented by a delta function in the volume integral of charge density multiplied by potential, it is necessary for the potential to be nearly constant over distances equal to the particle size. This is true (when the particle is sufficiently small) for external potentials evaluated at the location of the particle of interest, where the external potential as seen by the particle of interest is defined to be the potential created by all particles except the particle of interest. However, total potential, which includes the potential created by the particle of interest, is not slowly varying over the dimensions of the particle of interest regardless of how small the particle is. The charge density cannot be represented by a delta function in the integral of charge density times potential, when the potential is total potential, regardless of how small the particle is. If we imagine the particles to be charged marbles (greater than zero size and having finite charge densities) the potential that should be multiplying the charge density in the integral is total potential. As the marble size shrinks to zero the potential is still total potential and the marble charge density cannot be represented by a delta function. Yet textbooks do use this representation, as if the potential is external potential instead of total potential. How do we justify replacing total potential with external potential in this integral?
I won't be surprised if the answers get into the issues of self forces (the forces producing the recoil of a particle from its own emitted electromagnetic radiation). I am happy with using the simple textbook approach and ignoring self forces if some justification can be given for replacing total potential with external potential. But without that justification being given, I don't see how the textbooks reach the conclusions they reach with or without self forces being ignored.
A revision with a more appropriate title is attached. The Conclusion section is specific about the difference between what is in this report and what is in at least some popular textbooks.
Question
Dear Sirs,
In the below I give some very dubious speculations and recent theoretical articles about the question. Maybe they promote some discussion.
1.) One can suppose that every part of our reality should be explained by some physical laws. Particularly general relativity showed that even space and time are curved and governed by physical laws. But the physical laws themself is also a part of reality. Of course, one can say that every physical theory can only approximately describe a reality. But let me suppose that there are physical laws in nature which describe the universe with zero error. So then the question arises. Are the physical laws (as an information) some special kind of matter described by some more general laws? May the physical law as an information transform to an energy and mass?
2.) Besides of the above logical approach one can come to the same question by another way. Let us considers a transition from macroscopic world to atomic scale. It is well known that in quantum mechanics some physical information or some physical laws dissapear. For example a free paricle has a momentum but it has not a position. Magnetic moment of nucleus has a projection on the external magnetic field direction but the transverse projection does not exist. So we can not talk that nuclear magnetic moment is moving around the external magnetic field like an compass arror in the Earth magnetic field. The similar consideration can be made for a spin of elementary particle.
One can hypothesize that if an information is equivalent to some very small mass or energy (e. g. as shown in the next item) then it maybe so that some information or physical laws are lossed e.g. for an electron having extremely low mass. This conjecture agrees with the fact that objects having mass much more than proton's one are described by classical Newton's physics.
But one can express an objection to the above view that a photon has not a rest mass and, e.g. rest neutrino mass is extremely small. Despite of it they have a spin and momentum as an electron. This spin and momentum information is not lost. Moreover the photon energy for long EM waves is extremely low, much less then 1 eV, while the electron rest energy is about 0.5 MeV. These facts contradict to a conjecture that an information transforms into energy or mass.
But there is possibly a solution to the above problem. Photon moves with light speed (neutrino speed is very near to light speed) that is why the physical information cannot be detatched and go away from photon (information distribution speed is light speed).
3.) Searching the internet I have found recent articles by Melvin M. Vopson
which propose mass-energy-information equivalence principle and its experimental verification. As far as I know this experimental verification has not yet be done.
I would be grateful to hear your view on this subject.
Information isn't a special kind of matter-it's a property of any kind of matter, that describes the state matter is found in.
Question
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?
Dear L.D. Edmonds , if I understand your question, you do not understand where in Bell's theorem the locality assumption is made.
In section “Bell’s theorem”, page 424, in “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics”, 2nd Ed., David J. Griffiths, we read:
"The argument is stunningly simple. Suppose that the “complete” state of the electron/positron system is characterized by the hidden variable(s) λ (λ varies, in some way that we neither understand nor control, from one pion decay to the next). Suppose further that the outcome of the electron measurement is independent of the orientation (b) of the positron detector – which may, after all, be chosen by the experimenter at the positron end just before the electron measurement is made, and hence far too late for any subluminal message to get back to the electron detector. (This is the locality assumption)…”
It is also worth noting that the Bell’s theorem was formulated to resolve a thought experiment called the EPR paradox. One of the key assumptions of the EPR paradox was that the result of a measurement at one point cannot depend on whatever action takes place at a far away point at the same time .
Question
Dear RG community members, in this thread, I will discuss the similitudes and differences between two marvelous superconductors:
One is the liquid isotope Helium three (3He) which has a superconducting transition temperature of Tc ~ 2.4 mK, very close to the absolute zero, it has several phases that can be described in a pressure - P vs temperature T phase diagram.
3He was discovered by professors Lee, Oshero, and Richardson and it was an initial point of remarkable investigations in unconventional superconductors which has other symmetries broken in addition to the global phase symmetry.
The other is the crystal strontium ruthenate (Sr2RuO4) which is a metallic solid alloy with a superconducting transition temperature of Tc ~ 1.5 K and where nonmagnetic impurities play a crucial role in the building up of a phase diagram from my particular point of view.
Sr2RuO4 was discovered by Prof. Maeno and collaborators in 1994.
The rest of the discussion will be part of this thread.
Best Regards to All.
Soon there will be a preprint on this subject from our group.
Question
How much does the existence of advanced laboratories and appropriate financial budgets and different support for a researcher's research affect the quality and quantity of a researcher's work?
Many sciences cannot function at all, unless they have laboratories, for instance physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, pharmacology, and plenty of other ones. Those labs, and their equipment and technologies are necessary prerequisites for successful research.
Question
Heidegger said that philosophy is thinking. What else is philosophy? What is the ultimate aim of philosophy? Truth? Certainty? …
Heidegger said that science is knowledge. What else is science? What is the ultimate aim of science? Knowledge? Truth? Certainty? …
Question
Scientists have been using quantum theory for almost a century now, but embarrassingly they still don’t know what it means. An informal poll taken at a 2011 conference on Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality showed that there’s still no consensus on what quantum theory says about reality — the participants remained deeply divided about how the theory should be interpreted.
I guess what happens is a lack of advanced QM knowledge in young generations and some of their famous supervisors.
Many researchers have to take the theoretical minimum of the Book Landau Lifshitz in nonrelativistic QM including scattering theory, QM was done very well during the 10s to 50s in the 1900 century, also these famous personages with wiki pages have to review the chapters of Prof. Messiah QM's book on symmetries and stop traveling too much with their huge grants.
I had to stop reading papers just because I feel that new generations don't even know how hard was to derive and establish this wonderful formalism and prefer to choose a non-sense new impossible to understand vocabulary, in titles, abstracts, and research works, this, of course, is for my subfield superconducting solid-state theory.
Best Regards.
Question
1. Bose-Einstein condensation: How do we rigorously prove the existence of Bose-Einstein condensates for general interacting systems? (Schlein, Benjamin. "Graduate Seminar on Partial Differential Equations in the Sciences – Energy, and Dynamics of Boson Systems". Hausdorff Center for Mathematics. Retrieved 23 April 2012.)
2. Scharnhorst effect: Can light signals travel slightly faster than c between two closely spaced conducting plates, exploiting the Casimir effect?(Barton, G.; Scharnhorst, K. (1993). "QED between parallel mirrors: light signals faster than c, or amplified by the vacuum". Journal of Physics A. 26 (8): 2037.)
Regarding the first problem, there are many examples. For instance, the paper by O. Penrose, Bose-Einstein condensation in an exactly soluble system of interacting particles'', esearchportal.hw.ac.uk/en/publications/bose-einstein-condensation-in-an-exactly-soluble-system-of-intera
Cf. also, the paper by E. Lieb and R. Seiringer, Proof of Bose-Einstein Condensation for Dilute Trapped Gases'',
Regarding the second problem, the boundary conditions break Lorentz invariance. That's why the question isn't well-posed, whether in the classical limit or when quantum effects must be taken into account. In a finite volume it requires care to define the propagation velocity properly, since the equilibrium field configurations describe standing waves.
Question
I have to fabricate a 2D Hot electron transistor for my project.
I come mainly from a theoretical physics background. So I don't know what to search or read to know about what parameters affect the frequency of a 2D heterostructure Transistor. Can someone help me out by pointing the literature I should really be looking for?
Question
At the beginning of the 20th century, Newton’s second law was corrected considering the limit 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.
According to particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other and energy has mass and momentum, we can recorrect relativistic Newton’s second laws directly by using conservation law of momentum.
Question
quote from the book "Мathematical notes on the nature of the things"
-- So, conceptually, we proceed from the fact that the real Universe is a dynamic flow on a seven-dimensional sphere, therefore, a vacuum, without taking into account the evolutionary component, is a globally minimal vector field of matter accelerations, forming on the surface of the sphere $S^{7}$ a foliation $S^{1}\times S^{3}\times S^{3}$, a typical layer of which has the shape of a Clifford torus $S^{3}\times S^{3}$, and taking into account the periodicity of the foliation in time, its dynamics it is described by a toroidal manifold $S^{1}\times S^{1}\times S^{3}\times S^{3}$. However, since the globally minimal vector field of matter accelerations evolves to its absolutely minimal state so that in the process of evolution the radius of one of the spheres of the Clifford torus increases and the radius of the other sphere decreases, then there is no periodicity of foliation in time, and the dynamics of vacuum foliation is described by a cylindrical manifold $\mathbb{R}^{4}\times S^{1}\times S^{3}$ and it is convenient for the observer to operate with the space $M\times S^{1}\times S^ {3}$, where $M$ is Minkowski spacetime, and $S^{1}\times S^{3}$ is the compact component of the vacuum foliation.
Dynamic flows on a seven-dimensional sphere that do not coincide with the globally minimal vector field, but remain locally minimal vector fields of matter accelerations, we interpret as physical fields and particles. Moreover, bosons are associated with point-like perturbations of the vacuum vector field, and fermions are associated with node-like perturbations of the vacuum vector field, that is, the current lines of fermionic vector fields have a topological feature in the form of nodes. -- (p. 16)
(19) (PDF) MATHEMATICAL NOTES ON THE NATURE OF THINGS (researchgate.net)
In our collapsed Finsler metric space, let the trajectories of the vector field features be helical lines, and therefore the features themselves make their own angle of rotation, and thus they have such a characteristic as angular velocity. Note also that the trajectories described by perturbations of the vector field have a regular helical shape only in vacuum, that is, in the absence of fields (distortions of the globally minimal vector field), while gravitational fields change the pitch of the helical lines, and calibration fields are responsible for twisting the helical lines.
Question
I was wondering if surface electromagnetic waves can propagate at interface between two dielectrics, both isotropic and homogeneous, but having different relative permittivities.
The literature shows that their characteristics must be different.
Yes., there will be propagation of surface waves at the interface between the two dielectrics of the same properties. It is because they will have a different set of characteristics, which arise due to the difference in disturbance of equilibrium of positive and negative charges (Polarization). These displaced charges create an electric field of varying magnitude. It is different from the field produced by the surface wave.
Question
Should the scholars at RG and elsewhere be alarmed by the press reports on the influence of the unholy alliance of big money and theology on high-value scientific research, particularly on theoretical physics and cosmology?
The British newspaper, The Guardian report: The MIT-Epstein debacle shows ‘the prostitution of intellectual activity’. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/07/jeffrey-epstein-mit-funding-tech-intellectuals
BBC reports:
Big Bang and religion mixed in Cern debate
Big Bang: Is there room for God?
Dear Professor Abdul Malek
After a careful search in my records of research related to the Big Bang Cosmology I have realized that all interactions between big money, science and religion mentioned in your question are much more complicated that it is openly admitted. Please consider the following quote describing the seminal contribution of a Belgian scientist who should be credited as a sole creator the Big Bang Theory:
”…Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology.
It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.” “
Source:
Question
As we all know, the wavefunction of such a particle has a certain number n of zeros due to boundary conditions. If at these points the wavefunction is zero, then, since the probability of finding the particle there is equal to the square of the wavefunction, it follows that the particle cannot ever be there. However, there is nothing physical at those points that would prevent the particle from being there at some instant.
Moreover, a wavefunction psi_n corresponds to an energy level E_n. As you change to a higher energy level, the index n grows, and we have more nodes of the wavefunction; i.e., more places where the particle cannot be. Again, there is nothing physical at these points.
I guess, the meaning is in the Kronig-Penney model, Prof. Raul Simon
I don't have with me my notes from my Moscow Supervisor, I lost them when I run in Venezuela...
Best Regards.
Question
This paper is a project to build a new function. I will propose a form of this function and I let people help me to develop the idea of this project, and in the same time we will try to applied this function in other sciences as quantum mechanics, probability, electronics …
Are you sure you have defined your function correctly?
1. Usually z=x+iy. But in your function z is in the limit, thus being in both the arguments and what the integral is computed against. If z is not x+iy, the function is not a function of (x,y).
2. What do you mean by limit? Do you want to compute the case when z->0?
Question
The special theory of relativity assumes space time is formed from fixed points with sticks and clocks to measure length and time respectively. The electromagnetic waves are transmitted at the speed of light through this space time. This classical space time does not explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics. Do you think that maybe there is more than one space time?
Humans have two kinds of space-time observers: the chord (tonality) observer and the non-chord (atonality) observer. They observe two kinds of space-time: chord space-time and non-chordal (atonality) space-time. Space-time is two The second level of existence.
Question
I have several confusions about the Hall and quantum Hall effect:
1. does Hall/QHE depend on the length and width of the sample?
2. Why integer quantum Hall effect is called one electron phenomenon? there are many electrons occupying in single landau level then why a single electron?
3. Can SDH oscillation be seen in 3D materials?
4. suppose if there is one edge channel and the corresponding resistance is h/e^2 then why different values such as h/3e^2, h/4e^2, h/5e^2 are measured across contacts? how contact leads change the exact quantization value and how it can be calculated depending on a number of leads?
5. how can we differentiate that observed edge conductance does not have any bulk contribution?
You distinguish a normal classical Hall efect from a Quantum Hall effect.
Normal size devices exhibit the first, contain considerable number of electrons.
The magetic field acting on the current pushes electrons to one side of the device
and is counteracted by the Hall voltage set up from charge accumulation. Proportionality between magnetic field and Hall voltage for steady current.
Quantum devices contain fewer electrons in narrow or small devices (Nanostructures) . The magnetic field provokes the equivalent of Landau levels that contain the states for electrons. These pass at regular intervals as the magnetic field increases. Thus there are regular jumps
in the electron conductance as magnetic induction increases.(In single electron conductance, or normal quantum hall effect
The fractional quantum Hall effect is believed to be the consequence of electron interactions and quasi particle formation. This is an extremly complicated phenomena, and not nearly as well understood as many would have you believe.
Question
The Nilsson diagram is obtained by solving the Schrodinger equation. If the deformation parameters are continuous, I wonder the orbits should be continuous as well. If the Pauli exclusion principle is the reason, the nilsson quantum number are not always equal, such as 5/2 and 5/2, why?
ear
Question
Possibly: 4/3 scaling is a fundamental universal principle. Nothing underlies it. Why? It accounts for expanding cosmological space. Since 4/3 scaling brings 3 dimensional space, and hence everything else, into existence, it must be fundamental.
Can that be right? What favors and disfavors this notion?
The ratio between the whole volume of the universe and the dynamical part of the same volume is about 1 : 0,74... (both quantities are determined by a different irrational number). In quantum field theory it means that the ratio between the volume of the Higgs field and the volume of the electric field in vacuum space is about 0,74 : 0,26 (total = 1,0).
Vector fields like the magnetic field and the field of Newtonian gravitation have no spatial dimension on their own. Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes the dynamical part of the volume of our universe – otherwise space cannot curve – thus the consequence is that the model of spacetime is restricted to 26% of the whole volume of the universe. The consequence is that gravity is an emergent force field (like Eric Verlinde proves for Newtonian gravity).
We may expect that ratios at the lowest scale size of reality that are present everywhere in the universe will “multiply” their ratio at larger scale sizes (like fractals do).
With kind regards, Sydney
Question
Could anyone suggest a suitable and affordable phase noise analyzer to characterize pulsed laser sources with rep rates around 200MHz.
Thanks
Question
Dear Sirs,
The elevator example in general relativity is used to show that gravitational force and an inertial force are not distinguishable. In other words the 2nd Newton's law is the same in the two frames: inertial frame with homogenous gravitational field and the elevator's frame without gravitational field which has constant acceleration in respect to the inertial frame.
But every one knows that an inertial force is a force which does not obey the 3rd Newton's law. For example such forces are cetrifugal force and Coriolis force existing in the Earth reference frame. Gravitational force satisfies the 3rd Newton's law. So one can conclude that the gravitational force is not inertial.
Could you clarify the above controversy.
Question
Dear Sirs,
R Feynman in his lectures, vol 1, chapter 12, Characteristics of force wrote:
"The real content of Newton’s laws is this: that the force is supposed to have some independent properties, in addition to the law F=ma; but the specific independent properties that the force has were not completely described by Newton or by anybody else, and therefore the physical law F=ma is an incomplete law. ".
Other researchers may consider the 2nd Newton's law as a definition of force or mass. But R. Feynman did not agree with them in the above chapter.
What is your view on the 2nd Newton's law?
Dear Mr khripov,
I prefer that we agree on the questions you ask.
For me F'=-kx is Hook's law.
For me F=ma is Newton's second law.
If in a given problem F=F', then -kx=ma.It is Newton's law particularized to the case where the force applied is that of a spring (Hook's law).
At static equilibrium, we have theoretically kx=mg. The theory tells you that kx=mg.
You want to check this relation experimentally. Fabricate identical objects of the same mass m. Hang on the spring one object, then two objects, then three objects, etc.... At the first elongation mark the elongation with a pen x=X0. You will notice experimentally that for 2m you will have an elongation of 2(X0), for 3m you will have 3(X0), etc ..... Plot on a graph the elongation of the spring as a function of the hooked mass. You will see that the curve is a straight line and that the slope of this line is (1/k) in the system of units you have used.
Conclusion:
1) You have therefore verified the linearity of x as a function of m and this is the verification you wanted to make.
2) You have deduced the value of k.
Important remark:
Clearly, the measurements you have made do not depend on any law (including the law of the relation you want to verify).
Question
Sometimes I have found an inconsistency gives a helpful clue of how to improve a theoretical investigation. Early on I viewed mistakes as hurdles. I still think they are hurdles but have many times found them to be helpful. My view is that it encourages persistence to know that mistakes are part of the process of figuring things out. Are there articles about the role of making mistakes in theoretical physics?
Dear Robert Shour,
I have found that after some mathematical derivation or during logical conclusion of some ideas, I make mistakes sometimes.
Later, further thinking over that matter, when the mistakes are found and corrected, I get much alert and the mistakes give me the idea of what problem was there in my conception. Overall, these helps a lot.
Thanks
N Das
Question
Dear Sirs,
Everyone knows the derivation of Lorentz transformations from electromagnetic wave front propagation. But Lorentz transformations are the basis of the general mechanics theory. It seems to me it is logically correct to derive the transformations from purely mechanical grounds. But how to do this? Mechanical (sound) waves are not of course applicable here. Or there is only purely mathematical approach? I The later is also not good in physics. Could it be derived from gravitational wave propagation? If it is so is there any controversy because General relativity is based on special relativity? I would be grateful for your suggestions.
Length contraction CAN be deduced by purely mechanical processes. The other Transformations are substituted by other mechanical means. For example, time dilation can be speed of light changes in different media density.
Question
I would like to do work on quantum gravity. But general relativity is not complete. So if i want to do work on GRT. I am beginner for this course. GRT fails in few aspects. Any one suggest me research papers. Please send me your answers.
Today I read a quote from Einstein (1934) that the properties of all the basic fields (universal “back ground” fields) represent the properties of space itself. I was a bit flabbergasted because it was Einstein in 1920 who stated that the theory of general relativity (gravitation) don’t exist in a universe without matter. A concept that was proved in 2011 by Eric Verlinde (emergent Newtonian gravity).
The consequence of an emergent force field is the absence of an “independent” field structure that is only dedicated to this force field. It means that gravity – no matter if it is GR or Newtonian gravity – is mediated by one of the existing universal “back ground” fields. In other words, at the moment matter is created in the universe there emerges a field we have termed “gravitation” and it is mediated by the Higgs field, the electric field or the magnetic field.
The exchange of energy between decreased scalars of the Higgs field and the local electric field is determined by Planck’s constant (the Higgs mechanism). But the magnetic field is a vector field and cannot exchange energy. A vector field only determines the direction of the transfer of energy. That is why the electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding fields. The electric field generates a local quantum and the local quantum creates a vector within the magnetic field and visa versa. The duration between the start of the increase of the local energy – the beginning of the flow of a fixed amount of energy – and the moment the quantum has the energy of Planck’s constant is termed “quantum time”. Thus quantum time is a constant.
But if the field of gravitation is mediated by one or two of these universal fields the “holy grail” of quantum gravity already exists. Because we know the properties of these universal fields.
If Einstein’s curved spacetime is mediated by the magnetic field GR is equal to Newtonian gravity but space isn’t curved at all (because the curvature of space represents nothing more than the magnitudes of the vectors).
If GR is mediated by the electric field curved space is not a real curvature but a resultant “curvature” because the electric field is a topological field with a discreet structure that is responsible for the creation of quanta, the fixed amounts of energy (Planck's constant).
The last possibility is the Higgs field. Unfortunately the Higgs field is nearly totally flat in the whole universe (vacuum space). Only rest mass itself forces scalars of the flat Higgs field to decrease their magnitude. Therefore it is impossible that space itself is curved like GR predicts.
The main law in physics – the law of conservation of energy – is restricted to the electric field if there exists no matter in the universe. The consequence is that all the vectors of the corresponding magnetic field in the universe are conserved too (a more fundamental conservation law than the conservation of momentum because momentum is directly related to detectable phenomena). So if matter is created in the universe a new situation is born. The decreased scalar(s) of the Higgs field doesn’t exchange vectors but at the same moment the force of gravitation emerges. The only sensible solution to this problem is that the force of gravitation is equal to the “lost” vectors of the magnetic field because the total amount of vectors in the universe is conserved. So at the end Newton was right although the vectors of the force of gravitation are influencing matter as a push force.
With kind regards, Sydney
Question
Dear Sirs,
I would like to find out whether galilean relativity principle (which means the same
form of three Newton's laws in all inertial frames) is derived from the three Newton's laws or
any other classical mechanics statements.
Galilean relativity principle is the statement that Newton's laws are invariant under the transformations of the Galilean group. And this can be checked. Conversely, the equations of motion that are invariant under the Galilean group, describe Newton's laws.
Question
The document: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4285.9289
Mathematically the question is to determine all the transformations realized between some coordinate systems which have a physical reality for the experimenters: each of these four-dimensional coordinate systems is formed by a cartesian and rectangular coordinate system of a three-dimensional Euclidean physical space, and by a particular temporal parameter which is qualified as cartesian and whose construction is specified. We obtain then a group of nonlinear transformations that contains the Poincaré group and is described by about fifteen real numbers.
Interpretation:
1 / The paradox of Ehrenfest:
If the elements of a family of observers are not motionless the ones with recpect to the others, in other words if their world lines are not elements of a unique physical space, then even in the context of classical kinematics, how they can manage to put end to end their infinitesimal rules to determine the length of a segment of curve of their reference frame (each will naturally ask his neighbor not to move until measurement is ended) ? this is the basis for the proposed solution to Ehrenfest paradox. Inspired by the expression of the law of Hubble, every theory must provide explicit or implicit assumptions to compare "the proper distance" D (which can vary over time) which separates an arbitrarily chosen experimenter P from a certain object, and "the proper distance" D' which separates another arbitrarily selected experimenter P' from the same object and this because it is admitted that this concept of proper distance has a physical meaning even in a non-comoving reference frame.
2 / The authorized relative motions are quantified:
I establish an Eulerian description of the construction of all the physical spaces of the "classical kinematics" and an Eulerian description of the construction of all the physical spaces of nature in the context of the new theory. In classical kinematics all the authorized relative motions between observers can be described by two arbitrary functions of the universal temporal parameter (one of the rotation and one of the translation) and in the context of the new theory, all the authorized relative motions between observers are described by at most 15 real numbers. A notion of expansion of the universe is established as being a structural reality and a rigorous formulation of the experimental law of Hubble is proposed.
Thank you.
The Modification of Special Relativity:
The Modification of Newton's Gravitational Law and its Application in the Study of Dark Matter and Black Hole: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-373969/v1
The Physical Cause of Planetary Perihelion: Precession:https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-536456/v1
Question
Dear RG community. I have a question that probably most of you are not facing. But where are the citations in RG to papers written in the former URSS? First-class Soviet Journals such that Journal of experimental and theoretical Physics (JETP and its letters) and Low-temperature Physics (from Kharkiv)
Vzla 09/05/20
Thanks to various inputs to this thread, the topic of discussion became wider & more interesting: The kind of science made in the former URSS: Did it become after the cold war a forgotten ghost? or Did it spread all over the world? or Did former URSS scientists change their science schools for new ones?
Regards,
Pedro L.
Dear colleagues, I have already said on several occasions that the indicators usually used to assess the impact of an investigation are not fair and respond to the interests of great Editorials, those that have open-access journals and, with that, the obligation to pay for to post. Many journals from the former USSR are not published by Western publishers, so they are ignored by databases such as Scopus and WOS.
Question
A. Bejan, A. Almerbati and S. Lorente have concluded that `the economies of scale phenomenon is a fundamental feature of all flow (moving) systems, animate, inanimate, and human made’ (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974962).
The universe’s space everywhere flows — expands — outwards from its beginning. Economies of scale appear to arise in flowing systems. Is cosmogenesis an economy of scale phenomenon for the entire universe?
Are the physics of cosmogenesis and economies of scale the same?
According to piling evidence, the cosmos driving forces are based on electromagnetic forces besides gravity. I recommend to watch videos on the following YouTube channel. Scientifically, the work of people behind those discoveries is very rigorous.
The task will be to find out what is the medium facilitating interactions among economic subjects. Similarly to electromagneti forcess among stars.
Definitely, cosmological processes are affecting economy at many scales. One example would be earthquakes & volcanoes that are triggered according to the latest research by activity of the sun (it is better to say that they are correlated.)
Your idea can bring a lot of interesting results when studied sufficiently in depth. That paper about correlation of solar activity and volcanic activity is probably shared in the project '"Complexity Digests ..." If not then ask me, I will find it for you.
Question
This question relates to my recently posted question: What are the best proofs (derivations) of Stefan’s Law?
Stefan’s Law is E is proportional to T^4.
The standard derivation includes use of the concepts of entropy and temperature, and use of calculus.
Suppose we consider counting numbers and, in geometry, triangles, as level 1 concepts, simple and in a sense fundamental. Entropy and temperature are concepts built up from simpler ideas which historically took time to develop. Clausius’s derivation of entropy is itself complex.
The derivation of entropy in Clausius’s text, The Mechanical Theory of Heat (1867) is in the Fourth Memoir which begins at page 111 and concludes at page 135.
Why does the power relationship E proportional to T^4 need to use the concept of entropy, let alone other level 3 concepts, which takes Clausius 24 pages to develop in his aforementioned text book?
Does this reasoning validly suggest that the standard derivation of Stefan’s Law, as in Planck’s text The Theory of Heat Radiation (Masius translation) is not a minimally complex derivation?
In principle, is the standard derivation too complicated?
Its just not. Heat is one of the finest areas of physics, so nothing is really outworldly, just find a book suitable for you to study.
Question
The reasoning behind this question is to align the ratios of the proton potential in energy per charge to the speed of light in distance per time. As these two dimensions appear to be related, having identical numerical values would simplify the maths when making calculations in physics.
approximately;
(938,272,310 Joules per Coulomb)/(299,792,458 meters per second)
Basically setting the units so 1 J/C = 1 m/s
For our friends in the U.S. this would be like bringing back the foot ;)
In my brief paper below I show why potential and speed are one and the same thing.
Steven
Steven Sesselmann , I don't understand your distinction between the absolute speed of light and the local speed of light. For example when LIGO detected a neutron star merger at a distance of 130 million light years it found that the gravitational wave and the light and gamma radiation all arrived at the same time.
Would you consider this to be the result of the local speed of light or the absolute speed of light?
Richard
Question
As we know there are many papers in literature trying to derive or explain fine structure constant from theories. Two of interesting papers are by Gilson and by Stephen Adler (see http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/1972/pub/Pub-72-059-T.pdf), other papers are mostly based on speculation or numerology.
In this regards, in December 2008 i once attended a seminar in Moscow State University, Moscow. The topic of that seminar is relation between fundamental constants. Since the seminar was presented in russian language which i don,t understand, i asked a friend about the presenter. And my friend said that the presenter was Prof. Anosov. I only had a glimpse of his ideas, he tried to describe fine structure constant from Shannon entropy. I put some of his ideas in my note book, but today that book is lost.
I have tried to search in google and arxiv.org to find out if there is paper describing similar idea, i.e. to derive fine structure constant from Shannon entropy, but i cannot find any paper. So if you know that paper by Anosov or someone else discussing relation between fine structure constant and Shannon entropy, please let me know. Or perhaps you can explain to me the basic ideas.
Hello. If you are interested, please see this new paper on ResearchGate which derives the fine structure constant from trace dynamics and the exceptional Jordan algebra:
Question
In epidemiology, earthquakes, tokamak disruptions etc., there is possibility of approximations with the sequence of Gaussians and with the appropriate risks ( see my papers in Journal of Fusion Energy, 2015 and International Journal of Molecular and Theoretical Physics, 2017 ). What is the role of thresholding and bifurcations?
This behaviour is maybe studying in form of chaos theory
Question
1. Is the GHZ argument more useful than BKS theorem or is only a misinterpretation of EPR argument?
Sorry but you didn’t understand neither the EPR argument nor Bell’s theorem.
Question
Chord language is a natural information system, The basic forms are: chords (quantized discrete spectrum), chord geometry (open, closed, membrane strings), and mathematical models of chords (temperament, harmonics), often used in time (music) ), space (painting), life (meridians) and other chord semantic expressions; chord semantics comes from the chord spectrum, which is the manifestation of natural spirit and natural laws.
The impression of chord observation is: the language of chords is the language of time-space (life); the language of all things.
Music and physics are connected by sound waves and accoustics. Music could not exist without it's physical aspect.
Diana Ambache
Question
We know that these principles apply to particles. How is it used in magnetic field now?...
Magnetic field is quantized in superconductors, because the superconducting current in any loop containing magnetic field (or no magnetic field) is described by a wave-function that has to have a whole number of cycles in a loop, and the phase slope is proportional to current, I think.
Question
With 2 indices it's Aij=(Aij+Aji)/2+(Aij-Aji)/2 for GL(N).
Question
No. At the most fundamental level, Interpretation of physical theory by mathematics may not be appropriate. The reason-
"Suppose a Circle of radius zero and with theta(zero) radians. It is physically a point. But a point also will have radius(how ever small it may be, it will have a radius).So point is two dimensional or we can say one dimensional but we can not say zero dimensional. Thus a 'zero dimensional' object can not be interpreted by mathematics".
In physics-
" Suppose a quantum particle like photon.Space is zero for it . So every thing is zero for it.Even energy also should not exist, since there is no length(one dimension)or space (three dimensions). It is a quantum particle of EM force.
By quantum physics ,it can be explained as zero dimensional object.That means ,it is not even a point in space(nothing-since space zero as per physical meaning) but it will have some thing which can be explained by quantum mechanics .Thus zero dimension can be explained by physics.
Then Why physics is completely dependent on mathematics? Why mathematics is dominating in theoretical physics? Is it reasonable?. It is an important point in synchronization of QM with GR.
Math does not describe cause-and-effect. Thus, math has difficulty with time's arrow and entropy. Most math equations are symmetric in time which nature is not.
Question
This question does not relate to philosophical romanticism applied to science that had some currency in the 1800s. Roughly it seems that scientific romanticism differed from enlightenment by inserting humanity into nature and seeking union via human consciousness and problem solving.
The romantic aspect of physics I allude to shares some features of the medieval tale relating to chivalry, such as Don Quixote and qualities of adventure into unknown parts remote from settled life, such as the adventures of Richard Burton, who translated the Arabian Nights.
The mystery is: how has nature contrived these things we observe?
The remoteness is that the answers may require extrapolation in size, microscopic or cosmological, or in length of time, short or long, or in eons past or yet to arrive, remote from human experience, or principles that defy and challenge human perception, such as universal gravitation, or the nature of time, curvature of space, or quantum particles.
The adventure involves all the steps to solve the problem.
It seems to me that theoretical physics is a romantic quest. If the physicist arrives at a partial or provisional understanding of some mystery, then that is a great romance.
Yes, I do agree to your observation. When physics leaves the experimental method, it is becoming romantic, either in formulating mathematical beauty or aesthetic texts. Such is the poetic consciousness of our physical universe, which is still a concealed mystery of dead and living matter.
Question
Will this be the final incarnation of this question?
My purpose in asking these questions is to motivate the kind of physical theory that accepts that Physical Laws are part of The Universe, as opposed to standing outside it. And that rules governing The Universe must stem form The Universe itself. Otherwise, we should be asking: Where do the Physical Laws come from?
"Laws of the Universe" is ambiguous between regulative properties and statements about regulative properties. If laws are aspects, tendencies, or dispositional properties of the universe then they are just that, namely physical features. Self-reference and logical circularity can only arise in referential symbol systems that are used to describe or model the universe and its dispositional properties.
Question
Sometimes, perhaps, the largest impediment to solving a problem, in general and in physics, is the framing of the question in the context of widely accepted implicit, or unstated or assumed concepts.
If, unaware and unknowledgeable — ignorant – of those learned assumptions, one blunders into the problem, can that be an advantage, unencumbered by what the learned think they know? The more unquestioned those assumptions are, the harder it is to tackle the unsolved problem is?
Or does the inquiry of the ignorant lead to merely ignorance elaborated?
Are there historical examples?
I can agree provided that by "factual knowledge" you mean experimental observations without any imposed model of the observation. For example, the observation is redshift of light from clouds of stars (galaxies) not Hubble shift or Doppler shift - that it is due to velocity is unproven and many other observations suggested they were galaxies.
Question
It was the day Carl Anderson discovered a particle which we today know as the positron and also the day I suspect physics went off on a tangent.
About 4 years earlier Dirac published a paper predicting the yet unseen anti-matter, so when Anderson's cloud chamber experiments found tracks that looked like electrons curving the opposite way in a magnetic field, he assumed it was the antimatter predicted by Dirac and consequently won the Nobel price for his discovery.
The problem I see is, Dirac never predicted these particles to be so rare, in fact he suggests in one of his papers that the proton might be a candidate, so clearly in his mind matter and anti-matter ought to appear in equal numbers.
* Incidentally over the last 90 years we have never ever witnessed matter creation events where matter and anti-matter did NOT appear in equal numbers.
The assumption made by Anderson, about the positron being anti-matter swept some major problems under the carpet, and we are now paying for it big time, think LHC, dark matter, Higgs boson etc.
There is a better way, I show in Ground Potential Theory, how Dirac's intuition was absolutely correct and explain why our world is made of protons and why the electron is proper anti-matter. Further I go on to calculate ground potential from first principles and show that time is nothing more than a change in electric potential.
The historical sequence of events should have been...
1) Discover that light speed is finite
2) Discover that electric potential is finite
3) Discover the laws of special relativity
4) Apply wave theory and develop quantum mechanics
Missing out on the second step left a void in our understanding which has now been pushed around for 90 years..
The standard cosmological model and the standard model for particle physics is consequently full of unicorns*.
If we want to make progress, I think we need to go back to 1932 and right the wrongs, what do you think?
Steven Sesselmann
Ref:
* Unicorns - Unseen inexplicable phenomena that can't be measured
PS: When in the next 5 -10 years physics finds itself in a major crisis because the fundamental electron is gaining mass, remember Ground Potential predicted it.
Well, as far I understand your description well – I haven’t read your paper yet – it is quite similar to what I have done in the past. Unfortunately, all theoretical physics is developed with the help of a top-down process. But I am one of the few researchers who do it bottom-up (“building discrete space”). So it is not easy to communicate.
If we imagine a region in space where the Higgs field is flat, there is no rest mass within this volume. So it is vacuum space. Vacuum space is the domain of the electric field and the corresponding magnetic field. The Higgs field itself is totally flat in vacuum space.
There are conservation laws in physics and the meaning of these laws is that observable reality is dynamic and the changes are caused by the continuous redistribution of properties in space. One of these properties we have termed “energy” and it is proved that within observable reality energy is quantized. At the sub-atomic scale the quantization is termed “a quantum”.
In vacuum space the electric field is redistributing the property “energy” and it shows like all the “points” in space try to minimize their amount of energy. The result is the division of the volume into a small spot that has a high density of energy and a large volume that has a deficit of energy that is equal to the number of quanta concentrated in the small spot (in the center of the volume). Actually, what I have described is E = mc2 and the energy in the center is the mass m. The electric field is a topological field thus c2 is related to the amount of local surface area of discrete space itself.
The concentration of quanta has created 3 different volumes:
1. a small volume with a surplus of energy (mass m);
2. a large volume with a deficit of energy (the energy transferred to the center);
3. all the volume around 1 and 2 (the average density of energy).
If we ask the observer to describe the 2 phenomena (1 and 2) the observer will answer that 1 and 2 are kept together by a mutual interaction, an attracting force. Because volume 2 has redistributed its average energy density too (the boundary of the volume).
Is the electron (2) the anti-particle of the mass (1)? That is only true if 2 – as an observable phenomenon – represents the whole deficit of energy that is concentrated in the mass m. But that is really difficult to prove because at the moment the concentration of energy has its maximum density there starts a rearranging of the mutual relations between 2 and 3 and the mass m is related to a small volume in space. That’s why it is reasonable not to think in terms of “tangible” phenomena but to think in corresponding processes.
Unfortunately modern physics has always been phenomenological physics (trying to describe the mutual relations between the observable phenomena).
With kind regards, Sydney
Question
I have attached there some equations which is needed to be solved by keller box method.but I have faced problems with block elimination portion because of here momentum equation starts with f'' instead of f'''.I have also attached here sample matrix when equation starts with f'''.what will happen when it starts with f''?what will be iteration of converges for this?
Your coefficient matrix will be of order 8 instead of order 7 for new set of equations with boundary conditions
Question
Dear Sirs,
I think many knows the ideas due to Jules Henri Poincaré that the physics laws can be formally rewriten as a space-time curvature or as new geometry solely without forces. It is because the physics laws and geometry laws only together are verified in the experiment. So we can arbitrary choose the one of them.
Do you know any works, researchers who realized this idea. I understand that it is just fantasy as it is not proved in the experiment for all forces excepting gravitation.
Do you know works where three Newtons laws are rewritten as just space-time curvature or 5D space curvature or the like without FORCES. Kaluzi-Klein theory is only about electricity.
Force, mass, and energy are a parallel set of descriptions of the effects of special relativistic Thomas Precession. All matter and space, and their interactions are described with distance in three dimensions, time, and their derivatives.
Newton's first law of motion is , "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."
Yet the concept of motion requires at least two objects, and if there are two objects, then there is always an external force, which is gravitation.
So the idea of rewriting Newton's laws without force (or mass or energy) is good, but it should be extended to incorporate the most basic non-linear effects of motion in space time, which are special relativity and Thomas Precession.
See my article describing the recent discovery of the effects of Thomas Precession the particle and galactic scales.
Article Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space
Recommended / Share
• 3 Recommendations
Question
Theoretical physics is often distinguished from experimental physics.
Is the philosophy of physics written by philosophers, and theoretical physics something physicists do?
What are the distinctions?
Or are there none, apart from how the author is designated?
If a theoretical physicist raises questions about fundamental notions in quantum mechanics, for example, as John Bell did, and if a philosopher raises questions about fundamental notions in quantum mechanics, what is the difference in what they are doing?
The subject matter is the same, but the skill sets and conceptual reference frames differ for the two investigators? If that observation about what is the same and what is different were valid, then the difference between the philosophy of physics and theoretical physics is not the target subject of inquiry, but rather in the approach and perspective.
---End quotation
As I see it, philosophy of physics is about physics--the science of physics, just as the philosophy of science has the various sciences as its subject-matter. A science is what is written up in papers, expounded at conferences and practiced in laboratories. Its a human activity and the results of human activities summed up in its published and generally accepted writings. Physics, on the other hand, takes physical nature as its subject-matter. It is about the natural world. So, on this account, philosophy of physics is a second-order discipline. But none of this is to say that a single person could not be both physicist and philosopher of science. Einstein is a good example of someone practicing both.
Philosophers, including those engaged in the philosophy of physics have a different training and orientation than do physicists. But that it not to say that what is done in the philosophy of physics can cast no light on what physicists are doing or have done. The philosopher of physics may try a hand at physics --usually of the more theoretical variety. But the philosopher is more likely to be focused on questions like "What is explanation?" What counts as good evidence?" What is "confirmation?" Or, perhaps, what are the general presuppositions of this or that approach to problems in physics? Its more a matter of analysis and broad comparisons.
Trying to answer this question it strikes me as important to have a working familiarity with philosophy of science and how it fits into philosophy generally. Philosophy of physics is not a variety of physics, just as philosophy of religion is not itself a religion.
H.G. Callaway
Question
There exist   theoretical evidences that this hipothesis is true, especially, it is strongly supported by the Casimir type electron stability mechanism suggested by Prof. Hal Puthoff in his nice work: Puthoff H.E. "Casimir vacuum energy and the semicalssical electron". Int J Theor Phys, 46, 2007, p. 3005-3008, as well as in the works by Valerii B Morozov,  2011 Phys.-Usp. 54 371 doi:10.3367/UFNe.0181.201104c.0389
"On the question of the electromagnetic momentum of a charged body",
Rohrlich F. Self-Energy and Stability of the Classical Electron. American Journal of Physics, 28(7), 1960, p. 639-643,
Prykarpatsky A.K., Bogolubov N.N. (Jr.) On the classical Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics, the inertia problem and the Feynman proper time paradigm. Ukr. J. Phys. 2016, Vol. 61, No. 3, p. 187-212
and by Rodrigo Medina in the work "Radiation reaction of a classical quasi-rigid extended
particle", J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006) 3801–3816 doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/14/021
The last one is very learning and also solves the well known "4/3"-problem formulated by Abraham,  Lorentz and Dirac more than 100 years ago.
I'm happy you' re talking about logic. This word triggers lots of associations: first of all, they are Gödel's incompleteness theorems; and related to it consepts of intuitionism; truth which cannot be equated with provability in any effectively axiomatizable theory; logicism of course :) and so on.
We all know that there is no exact and right answer to this question ("Is the electron mass strictly of electromagnetic origin?"). Even your reasoning and formulas are based on assumptions that are not undisputed.
But you have a "unique" logic - your views are your arguments and you equate your beliefs with the truth.
Well, you have the right to do that. But please, do it more polite and less insistent, because we also have the right to disagree with you.
For me electronics is much more important than the considerations the purpose of which, as far as I understand, is to make a list of permissions who should talk and about what.
Although I believe it will be difficult to make this list as well, because the contradiction often comes to the forefront. For example, in one answer, you tell to Abdelhalim abdelnaby Zekry "I criticize you and electronics both."
And in another, you say: "I don't criticize persons." So, the question remains, will this list include only ideas or people with them, too?
Finally, one question, and one request:
Question: You wrote "Wrong is wrong." Yes, also "a table is a table," "a window is a window" and in general by the law of identity "a is a". What of it follows in the framework of of this discussion?
Request: you wrote: People should not identify themselves with wrong ideas and should not believe on the myth of science as the last myth.
Please let people identify themselves with whom or what they want and believe in what they want. This is more important than scientific beliefs or even achievements. I believe the essence of scientific discussion is in facts and arguments, not in taboos.
Regards,
Dimitri
Question
To me it is mostly a story.
There is, at the outset, a puzzle about some natural phenomena, perhaps encountered by inadvertence.
Then some other process exhibits a similar pattern. The question becomes is there some reason, perhaps based on the thermodynamics of the two systems, that connects them?
This takes the curious inquirer into a conceptual forest, or overgrown garden, path obscured, looking for a common principle. When a principle is discerned, there are more questions.
Does the pattern appear elsewhere?
Is there a more fundamental principle underlying the first principle discerned?
Does a principle, even more fundamental, connect all the different phenomena sharing a kind of pattern? Does the same pattern appear but in subtle ways in other phenomena?
Can the phenomena be modeled? What assumptions are extraneous to arriving a model in common? What is the set of minimal assumptions?
Many more paths and tangles appear.
Can the winding path so obscure at the outset be reduced to a set of logical statements that resemble in their appearance mathematical deduction? Never finally, but at least provisionally?
But first, there is a story.
How do you regard physics?
Robert Shour,
No truer words were ever spoken. I am somewhat reminded me of the "Two Cultures of Mathematics" discussions that went on in the wee hours between mathematics graduate students. That is the "problem solvers" vs. the "theory builders." Some subjects lend themselves to problem solvers, say analytic number theory which requires everything including the kitchen sink to be thrown at it and on the other hand algebraic number theory which has volumes theory laid as foundations. Paul Endros was maybe the King of the Problem Solvers and Michael Atiyah the King of the Theory Builders.
Of course most mathematicians are somewhere between and broad theories all start out addressing a problem - often with long historical roots. Which category a mathematician falls in is more a matter of temperament and personality than a choice and most mathematicians most likely move between the two. There are those that focus on a problem and during that focus understand what assumptions can be loosen so that the solution is not just of a specific problem but a theory for a much larger category of problems.
Often times one sets out to develop a theory - hoping to apply it to a larger category of problems just to find the assumptions required in the theory are not satisfied by the candidate problems one is trying to address. This happened in the 1960's in what was termed global analysis where problems in the calculus of variations were to be viewed as critical points of functions on infinite dimensional manifolds - with a broad robust calculus developed to apply to this critical point theory similar to Morse theory for function on finite dimensional space to variational prolems. Smale's condition C, now know as the Palais- Smale compactness condition was required for the functional calculus. After this beautiful theory was developed, it turns out that most of the classic problems in calculus of variations do not satisfy condition C. The utility envisioned for this theory - did not fully materialize.
While those that focus on expanding the tools of theoretical physics often find that they make progress by starting with examples (specific problems) and exploring the commonality. For me the solution of the problem (or a category of similar problems) is the key and I lose interest in working to expand the conditions under which the results still hold. As Gauss says once a problem has been wrestled to the ground and tamed, time to move on the the next challenge. But as you say that is a matter of temperament.
As far the theoretical physicists it is often - their vision needs quite a bit of help wrapping mathematical rigor around it. For example without Maurice Grossman, Einstein would not have able to present his theory of general relativity in a coherent and simple mathematical way. Without Roger Penrose, Steven Hawkins would have suffered in his understanding and explaining of black holes, singularities, big bang, etc., in a robust way. In fact on Hawkins' thesis defense, Penrose noted Hawkins' sloppy mathematics. After that the two started working together. It took Stone and von Neumann and later Segal and Bargmann to put quantum mechanics and quantum field theory as envisioned by Dirac, Pauli, Feynman, etc. on a firm robust mathematical footing that it enjoys today. So in reality I think theoretical physicists are more of the story tellers who often depend on others to fill in the details to make the story meaningful and to be able to stand up to experimental validation/falsification.
Question
One of the consequences of relativistic physics is the rejection of the well-known concepts of space and time in science, and replacing them with the new concept of Minkowski space-time or simply space-time.
In classical mechanics, the three spatial dimensions in Cartesian coordinates are usually denoted by x, y and z. The dimensional symbol of each is L. Time is represented by t with the dimensional symbol of T.
In relativistic physics x, y and z are still intactly used for the three spatial dimensions, but time is replaced by ct. It means its dimension has changed from T to L. Therefore, this new time is yet another spatial dimension. One thus wonders where and what is time in space-time?
Probably, due to this awkwardness, ct is not commonly used by physicists as the notion for time after more than a century since its introduction and despite the fact that it applies to any object at any speed.
The root of this manipulation of time comes directly from Lorentz transformations equations. But what are the consequences of this change?
We are told that an observer in any inertial reference frame is allowed to consider its own frame to be stationary. However, the space-time concept tells us that if the same observer does not move at all in the same frame, he or she still moves at the new so-called time dimension with the speed of light! In fact, every object which is apparently moving at a constant speed through space is actually moving with the speed of light in space-time, divided partially in time and partially in spatial directions. The difference is that going at the speed of light in the time direction is disassociated with momentum energy but going at the fraction of that speed in the other three dimensions accumulates substantial momentum energy, reaching infinity when approaching the speed of light.
Dear Prof. Ziaedin Shafiei
As a conservative physicist & non-expert in relativity, I would like to answer your question in the following way, as it is elaborated in Landau & Lifschitz classical book: the Classical Theory of Fields. They introduced the idea of the light cone many years ago to described events in space-time in a general way. For them: time is an axis, space is another axis & 1/c the inverse speed of light is the slope of the plot. Hereby, my answer is: t is the time.
Question
The Carnot cycle is a theoretical thermodynamic cycle proposed by Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot in 1824 and expanded by others in the 1830s and 1840s. It can be shown that it is the most efficient cycle for converting a given amount of thermal energy into work, or conversely, creating a temperature difference (e.g. refrigeration) by doing a given amount of work.One of the great virtues of the Carnot cycle is its potential applicability to any working substance.The Carnot cycle for a photon gas provides a very useful tool to illustrate the thermodynamics laws and it is possible to use for introducing the concepts of creation and annihilation of photons in an introductory course of physics.
Interesting thread Dear Prof. Manuel Malaver de la Fuente
I taught stat physics several years & I never asked or heard students asking about this possibility. So both distributions Fermi Dirac & Bose Einstein allow to build a Carnot cycle.
I guess that for electrons it is possible since they carry heat inside a solid (electronic heat transport & electronic specific heat), for phonons is the same
(lattice heat transport & lattice thermal heat) but for photons? Interesting, I thought photons only induce radiation in the atmosphere.
Question
Where the redshift value could be the combination of gravitational, rotational and Doppler and matching with observed values.
Following.
Question
If Temperature is related to motion, then what’s wrong if I relate Temperature to Time Dilation concept of Relativity?
Temperature is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy associated with the disordered microscopic motion of atoms and molecules.
Thermodynamic temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy in molecules or atoms of a substance. The greater this energy, the faster the particles are moving, and the higher the reading an instrument will render. This is the method lay people most often use.
therefore; based on this motion verses velocity dependency of Temperature, i am predicting that Time runs slow at greater Temperature.
the complete mathematical flow is given in the attached document or link. please go through it and most welcome for your valuable comments/feedback.
I think the fact that specific heat capacity is defined for bulk solids renders the final result (equation (8)) inapplicable. How does one explain the final result for an elementary particle (eg. a fermion or boson) in relativistic motion?
Question
Is a theoretical physicist, believing a hypothesis true, ethically obliged to advocate for it? Is there an obligation running from physicist to theory?
Is it a desire to repay in some measure society for the advantages it confers?
Does vanity seek triumph over an unsolved problem?
Does the possibility that a mind can forge ideas and advance civilization lead to a theoretician promoting a hypothesis?
Is it curiosity?
Is it the desire to create ideas that outlast a human life?
Is it the desire to experience personal and private joy of (partly) converting confusion to knowledge, lifting the curtain?
What motivates?
It is the self-enthusiastic zeal for self-upgradation in the world of knowledge, wisdom and truth that keeps a theoretical physicist always vibrant
Question
In Nature in 1971, volume 233, page 357, W. H. Brock reviewed a book by Robert Fox, The Caloric Theory of Gases from Lavoisier to Regnault, published by Oxford U. The reviewer begins with this comment of Edward Frankland: “it is by no means necessary that a theory should be absolutely true in order to be a great help to the progress of science." Very nice quote. It relates to the epistemology of scientific knowledge as well as the historical progress of science. No source is given for the quote. Do you know the provenance of the quote?
Question
Isaac Newton floated his boat in the cosmic ocean, powered by his brilliant terrestrial mechanics and the Second Law of motion aided by a “First Impulse”. But this boat was lunched without the balancing radar of his Third Law and against the expressed wisdom of G.W. Leibniz. The journey faltered because Newton cannot take even a single step in terrestrial Nature without his Third Law! Albert Einstein foisted a magic sail of ideal mathematics on Newton’s boat that gave it unlimited motion. Where do you think this project will lead humanity to?
Abdul Malek
Dear Abdul,
You are a real poet. Poets have intuition and imagination. And you still have a critical mind. It is now very easy for us to criticize A. Einstein. But I would not treat him too harshly. Yes, he was a positivist, admirer of Sophia Blavatsky and Mach. He interpreted the formulas with his conclusions, which did not correspond to physical reality. Reducing size, slowing down time, curving space are myths. They say that he canceled the world ether. This is not quite so.
In 1910, in the paper "Principle of relativity and its consequences" Einstein wrote: "It is impossible to create a satisfactory theory, not abandoning the existence of a medium filling all space." Later, in the paper "Field and the theory of relativity" (1920) and "About the Field" (1924), Einstein changed his mind about the existence of the ether, but this fact is little known and did not affect the ratio of to ether by the majority of theoretical physicists.
Adoption of the proportionality body mass of its energy was also not supported by the physical model, as did J. J. Thompson back in 1903 related to the mass of the field. In future issues of accelerated motion and gravitation have been the subject of general relativity. Trying to to agree the principle of equivalence with the invariance of four-dimensional interval, Einstein came to the idea of depending on the geometry of space-time from matter. Thus was given the status of a physical object four-dimensional space-time of Minkowski.
In later works, Einstein explained that he excluded from consideration only "absolutely stationary space", attributing space-time property of the physical environment: the duration and extent. The properties of the physical space-time and ether are identical, so that you can abandon of the term "ether" as unnecessary. The last 40 years of his life, Einstein spent searching unified field theory. He wrote:
"In summary, we can say that the general theory of relativity space gives physical properties. Thus, in this sense ether (field) exists... It's a tough four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity has to some extent a fixed three-dimensional analogue of the field of Lorenz...Thus, Descartes was not so far from the truth when believed that the existence of empty space should be avoided...The elementary particles of matter in nature is a thickening of the electromagnetic field...".
To Einstein's honor, he doubted the validity of his ideas until the end of his life. Here is what he wrote in his declining years:“It seems to everyone that in quiet solitude I look at the results of my life. But everything looks very different in the vicinity. There is not a single concept regarding which I would be sure that it would remain unshakable, and I’m not convinced if I’m at all the right way ... "
In the morning on all sails
A young man at sea seeks, -
In the broken boat at night
You ask what will happen to Einstein’s theory? Followers are always more radical than founders. Hundreds of theorists need to count. Let the model be wrong - it doesn’t matter! When in Princeton A. Einstein said that ether exists, the young professors silently twisted a finger at the temple behind him.
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
Question
Hi there,
my question concerns a situation in which the law of free fall and the relativity of simultaneity come into play simultaneously.
The general assumptions are as follows:
1. if we let two objects fall at the same time, they will reach the surface at the same time, regardless of their mass (although gravity has a stronger effect on larger masses, inertia is also greater to the same extent).
2. the relativity of simultaneity shows impressively that different observers moving relatively to each other do not have to agree on whether two events really happen at the same time, depending on their reference system.
My question now is, what happens, if we combine both things. A person is standing in a space ship and lets two objects with different masses fall simultaneously through a technical apparatus (atomic clock). In his frame of reference this person has no problem - he sees that both objects arrive at the floor at the same time. But what does an external observer see when the space ship passes? Does he now have the impression that the objects no longer fall onto the surface at the same time, even though the law of free fall implies uniform acceleration? Or must all external observers agree that both objects reach the floor at the same time, because the law of free fall cannot be circumvented? Or is it the case that the external observer could observe that the person in the space ship does not drop the objects at the same time, although the person in the space ship observes that the objects are dropped at the same time?
Simple and straightforward:
If the space separation between the two freely falling objects is very small, then you can regard them as a single extended small object (a string), therefore all observers see the same fall. BUT, if the space separation is finite (noticeable), then what is the simultaneous drop for the spaceship observer, it is not simultaneous for other observers, and so is the free fall! Space separation is the key!
Question
As the explanation goes, hole is a figment to the absence of electron as it moves to some different energy state as a result of absorption of energy of some kind. That is, I think of holes as voids, which are "said to" have positive charge for the sake of charge neutrality because there once happened to be an electron at that place. But, it doesn't have it's own actual charge like any other physical charged particle (like an electron), right? Then, how can we define an exciton that is based on coulombic forces between an electron (in conduction band) and a hole (valence band), which actually requires presence of two physical charges?
Dear Prof. Saransh Gupta Maybe you find interesting a reading of the following book: Quasiparticles by Prof. M. I. Kaganov, and Academician I. M. Lifzhits.
I was introduced to the topic of quasiparticles many years ago by one of the authors and I find extremely useful to read the book particularly to understand the use of the phenomenological approach of Quasiparticles in Quantum Solid State Theory. Regards.
Question
The question is wether we could differentiate the two procedures: a) Information sent by an transmitter/emitter and b) Information received by a receiver.
If these procedures could be distinctive, then how we could exclude the possibility that information reaches receiver simultaneously with its emission, and not that the time elapsed (according to receiver) is due to receiver's (in)ability to encode it?
Is there a possibility that information-transfer consists of two mechanisms: one simultaneous and the other with light's speed? Obviously, the later is the time-related one.
If we take the law of conservation of energy serious every emission of energy is at the same moment a receiver of energy, otherwise energy cannot be conserved. Unfortunately, in phenomenological physics we only pay attention to the observable phenomena, like matter. The result is that we propose there must be an amount of distance and time before one phenomenon can influence another phenomenon.
In a non-local universe – our present concept of reality – everything influences everything simultaneously. This seems “crazy” because we observe a distance and a delay of time before one phenomenon shows the influence of another phenomenon.
Therefore we have to split our ideas about observable reality into two different concepts:
1. the mechanism of change everywhere in space (the cause behind the existence of energy);
2. the direction of every change within space (the direction of energy transfer).
Space at the macroscopic level is homogeneous and isotropic. Therefore we have to conclude that the mechanism behind change everywhere is a basic property of space (1). We know this basic property because of the existence of fixed amounts of energy, the quanta.
But all those local changes must be synchronized otherwise there is violation of the law of conservation of energy (2). That means that the direction of the transfer of quanta is directed by the vectorization of space. A vectorization that is caused by the local differences of energy.
Quanta are propagated in space with the speed of light and vectors act instantaneous (vectors don’t transfer energy, vectors dictate the direction of the energy transfer and visa versa).
In other words, the whole problem is caused by our habitude to think with the help of the phenomenological point of view. If we accept that the whole universe is acting as a whole, the problem no longer exists.
With kind regards, Sydney
Question
I demonstrated that all astronomical observations refute General Relativity.
Since I did that, somehow, not a single scientist came to refute that conclusion.
Here is the argument:
Feel free to rebut it.
############################################
############################################
############################################
Bigger than Einstein's equations not describing the Universe?
Question
Bruce M. Boghosian in the November 2019 issue of Scientific American (p. 73) writes about wealth distribution. Using math and physics, it seems that a slight perturbation to a symmetric or isotropic starting point can result in inequality. Slight inequality results in increasing inequality (anisotropy) over time. These issues are also canvassed in the Growth of Oligarchy in a Yard-Sale Model of Asset Exchange by Bruce M. Boghosian, Adrian Devitt-Lee, and Hongyan Wang, arxiv 2016 and in The Affine Wealth Model by Jie Li, Bruce M. Boghosian, and Chengli Lion, arxiv 2018.
Ehud Meron in Physics Today November 2019 issue writes about Vegetation Pattern Formation (p. 31). While water distribution for a given topography may initially be isotropic, vegetation can distribute in anisotropic patterns.
Are these two instances of initial isotropic distribution leading to anisotropic patterns connected by the same physics? If so, what is the physics?
The common properties of the systems described in the question are the complexity, the multi-scale nature and the self-similarity of the governing laws with respect to scaling. The concept of complexity used here is very general and indicates that the system is composed of a large number of interacting parts and has a marked tendency to self-organization (emergence of macroscopic structures).
Multiscale complex systems are described by a non-Gaussian statistical distribution. They also exhibit the self-organized criticality observed in phenomena ranging from earthquakes and landslides to undesirable stock market behavior.
In examining the problem from the historical point of view, it is worth mentioning that the non-Gaussian statistical distribution was identified in 1892 by Wilfredo Pareto after a survey of the income distribution. Asymmetrical distributions, similar to those studied by Pareto, have also been observed in the natural sciences.
This fact led to the creation of a physical economy based on the methods developed in statistical physics. This new disciplines shows significant predictive skill with respect to the forecasting of general trends.
Question

As we know, many cosmologists argue that the Universe emerged out of nothing, for example Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010), and Lawrence Krauss, see http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/a-universe-from-nothing/. Most of their arguments rely on conviction that the Universe emerged out of vacuum fluctuations.
While that kind of argument may sound interesting, it is too weak argument in particular from the viewpoint of Quantum Field Theory. In QFT, the quantum vaccuum is far from the classical definition of vaccuum ("nothing"), but it is an active field which consists of virtual particles. Theoretically, under special external field (such as strong laser), those virtual particles can turn to become real particle, this effect is known as Schwinger effect. See for example a dissertation by Florian Hebenstreit at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5965v1.pdf.
Of course, some cosmologists argue in favor of the so-called Cosmological Schwinger effect, which essentially says that under strong gravitational field some virtual particles can be pushed to become real particles.
Therefore, if we want to put this idea of pair production into cosmological setting, we find at least two possibilities from QFT:
a. The universe may have beginning from vacuum fluctuations, but it needs very large laser or other external field to trigger the Schwinger effect. But then one can ask: Who triggered that laser in the beginning?
b. In the beginning there could be strong gravitational field which triggered Cosmological Schwinger effect. But how could it be possible because in the beginning nothing exists including large gravitational field? So it seems like a tautology.
Based on the above two considerations, it seems that the idea of Hawking-Mlodinow-Krauss that the universe emerged from nothing is very weak. What do you think?
A universe can be created from nothing without any external laser or strong gravitational field. In QFT vacuum real particles can be created and annihilated thereafter provided their lifetime dt and energy dE satisfy the uncertainty relation, roughly dtdE~h where h is the Planck constant.
Owing to the uncertainty relation, borrowing a small amount of energy (dE~0) from vacuum is allowed for a long time. According to some estimates the total energy (including negative gravitational energy) of our Universe is precisely zero or very close to zero. Hence, if the Universe is created as a quantum fluctuation its lifetime can be almost infinite.
Question
Assuming that particle consists of a photon that moves circularly in the loop, creating standing wave obeying the rule that its closed path 2*Pi*R=n*Lambda (1) (resonator where resonator length 2*Pi*R is „n” times photon wavelength) and knowing particle's mass (experimental value), we can calculate its radius.
Lets put c/v (2) for Lambda in the above equation (1), where v is photon frequency. We get then 2*Pi*R=n*c/v (3). Now if we assume that particle's mass is of EM origin and m=E/c^2 (4) where E=hv (5) is the energy of circulating photon as described above we can rewrite (4) as m=hv/c^2 (6) or v=mc^2/h (7) (letter h stands for Planck constant of course). Now lets put (7) into (3) and we get 2*Pi*R=n*c/(mc^2/h) (8) or simplifying R=n* h/2*Pi*mc (9).
Now, let's take proton for our considerations. Assuming n=4 in eq. (9) and m=1,672621637(83)*10^(-27)kg (experimental value) we can calculate proton's radius to be R=0.84124 fm which stays in agreement with the experimental value of 0.84184 fm +/- 0,00067 fm (the most accurate experimental value measured in a Hydrogen atom with a Muon in 2010).
You can read more about that theory and mechanism in my paper here:
What do You think?
Dear
László Attila Horváth
EM origin not fermionic :D
Explain "fermionic".
Question
1) There is some tradition in philosophy of mathematics starting at the late 19th century and culminating in the crisis of foundations at the beginning of the 20th century. Names here are Zermelo, Frege, Whitehead and Russel, Cantor, Brouwer, Hilbert, Gödel, Cavaillès, and some more. At that time mathematics was already focused on itself, separated from general rationalist philosophy and epistemology, from a philosophy of the cosmos and the spirit.
2) Stepping backwards in time we have the great “rationalist” philosophers of the 17th, 18th, 19th century: Descartes, Leibniz, Malebranche, Spinoza, Hegel proposing a global view of the universe in which the subject, trying to understand his situation, is immersed.
3) Still making a big step backwards in time, we have the philosophers of the late antiquity and the beginning of our era (Greek philosophy, Neoplatonist schools, oriental philosophies). These should not be left out from our considerations.
4) Returning to the late 20th century we see inside mathematics appears the foundation (Eilenberg, Lavwere, Grothendieck, Maclane,…) of Category theory, which is in some sense a transversal theory inside mathematics. Among its basic principles are the notions of object, arrow, functor, on which then are founded adjunctions, (co-)limits, monads, and more evolved concepts.
Do you think these principles have their signification a) for science b) the rationalist philosophies we described before, and ultimately c) for more general philosophies of the cosmos?
Examples: The existence of an adjunction of two functors could have a meaning in physics e.g.. The existence of a natural numbers - object known from topos theory could have philosophical consequences. (cf. Immanuel Kant, Antinomien der reinen Vernunft).
There is a view that if mathematical categories are kinds of mathematical structure, then what is important mathematically are the functors from one category to another, because they provide a means of find a neat way of discovering a new property in a category by translating proofs in another category. This is a way of formalising reasoning by "analogy". Personally I find reasoning about categories as abstract algebras difficult and unintuitive, and find it much easier to look at a concrete realisation of a category than considering a category with a list of pre-defined desirable properties; but I recognise that that is a matter of learning preferences.
Question
Is a physical basis that necessarily requires constancy of the speed of light a logical impossibility, or is the constancy of the speed of light the result of ideas not yet found or applied?
Does isotropy require constancy of the speed of light?
Jensen’s inequality for concave and convex functions, implies for a logarithmic function maximal value when the base of the log is the system’s mean. Mathematically, this implies that the speed of light must be uniform in all directions to optimize distribution of energy. This idea has a flaw. Creation of the universe happened considerably before mathematics and before Jensen’s inequality in 1906. Invert the conceptual reference frame and suppose that Jensen’s inequality is mathematically provable in our universe because it is exactly the type of universe that makes Jensen’s inequality mathematically true in it. A mathematical argument based on Jensen’s inequality goes around in a circle. Are there reasons, leaving aside Jensen’s inequality (or even including Jensen’s inequality), that require constancy of the speed of light?