1

New Theories / How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 30/05/2021 07:41:32 »

I have seen a post on this subject in the Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology Forum but thought I should post my question here since it does involve some rather controversial ideas.  Paul Drude’s  theory of the propagation of electricity in a wire formulated in 1900 was so intuitively compelling that it was being taught as part of the school curriculum for physics well into the 50’s and 60’s.  It is known as the ping pong ball theory and follows the logic that electrons in an electrical conductor resemble a tube filed with ping pong balls when a ball is pushed into the tube at one end another ping pong ball pops out of the other end.   

In actual fact free electrons within an electrical conductor are separated by immense distances and the chances of hitting one electron with another would be the equivalent of trying to hit one billiard with another ball that is 250,000 km distant.  This along with the fact that electrons in a wire in which a current has been established travel at the extremely slow speed of 10^-3 cm/s contribute to demonstrate that the Drude theory on the propagation of electricity is not tenable.

              However, a closer examination of the present day theory of the propagation of an electric current in a wire , shows that the extant theory is also not an accurate description of how an electric current propagate in a wire. Here is the present day theory for the propagation of electricity in a circuit:

The mechanism of energy transport through a medium involves the absorption and re-emission of the wave energy by the atoms of the material. When an electromagnetic wave impinges upon the atoms of a material, the energy of that wave is absorbed. The absorption of energy causes the electrons within the atoms to undergo vibrations. After a short period of vibrational motion, the vibrating electrons create a new electromagnetic wave with the same frequency as the first electromagnetic wave. While these vibrations occur for only a very short time, they delay the motion of the wave through the medium. Once the energy of the electromagnetic wave is re-emitted by an atom, it travels through a small region of space between atoms. Once it reaches the next atom, the electromagnetic wave is absorbed, transformed into electron vibrations and then re-emitted as an electromagnetic wave. While the electromagnetic wave will travel at a speed of c (3×10⁸m/s ) through the vacuum of inter-atomic space, the absorption and re-emission process causes the net speed of the electromagnetic wave to be less than c.

Although it is tempting to believe in such a scenario it does not fit in with facts as they are known. Max Planck had convincingly demonstrated the particle nature of light wherein each particle has a distinctive energy. The energy of a wave is by its very nature dispersive, it is not possible to talk of individual energy levels. Further in every instance (outside an electrical conductor), the photon has been observed to be the mediator of energy for the electron. The electron mediates its energy levels through the absorption and emission of photons. For instance Max Planck in his experiments on Black Body radiation (Heat & light) found that all of the heat and light was mediated by photons.

The present theory of an electric current states that a current flows when individual electrons get excited and start to vibrate and oscillate, as the electrons in the conductor begin to oscillate they generate an electromagnetic wave that is passed on to the next electron in line and this, in simple terms, is how the propagation of an electrical current is described in terms of present day mainstream physics. Together with this effect the electrons also move in a return to the ping pong theory, the idea being that there are so many free electrons in a copper conductor 8.05 x 10²² that the density ensures that the EMF wave is carried to the end of the wire at almost the speed of light. Proof of this is that the mean free path is equal to the drift velocity of the electron. This means that the sheer density of electrons available in the wire ensure the conveying of an electric current by a generated  Electromagnetic Radiation, that travels from electron to electron. Therefore, according to this theory electrons are the charge carriers of an electric current, since they are physically present to convey the current. 
But there are questions, what is the exact frequency and wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation that electrons in the conductor generate. Surely the frequency wavelength and energy of the generated electromagnetic wave, that supposedly carries the electric current would vary widely with each circumstance that the electron encounters in the confines of the conductor. For instance, changes in temperature, obstructions or occlusions in the metal of the conductor or even the distance to other electros might all qualitatively change the kind of electromagnetic wave being generated.  Further, what is to stop the electromagnetic wave that is generated by the electron from merely travelling to the next electron, which in terms of a wave is an infinitesimal distance away, why can’t it travel several feet or yards, giving part of its energy to electrons along the way.  Finally since it is a wave how does this electromagnetic wave deliver the correct energy component since as it can be seen it can vary widely according to circumstance. In short this theory of electricity being conveyed by an electromagnetic wave generated by electrons and being carried from electron to electron is full of inconsistencies. It is an inaccurate model it completely ignores the findings of Max Planck who after all had to account for all kinds of frequencies and wavelength in his theory and subsequent discovery of the Planck constant. In sum the present mainstream or quantum mechanics explanation for the propagation of an electric current in a wire falls far short of acceptable standards in physics.
 
The Gestalt Aether Theory of the propagation of an Electric Current

Before an attempt is made to explain the actual mechanism by which an electric current is transmitted, it is necessary to examine the reference to personal theory removed model for the structure of the photon.  The structure of a photon in reference to personal theory removed is based upon looking at facts rather than statistics as is the case with quantum mechanics. This is much the same as the method used by Watson & Crick to find the structure of DNA, examine the properties of the subject and determine which model best fits all criteria.
 Seeing that the electron is a charged particle that has to constantly mediate its energy, a deduction was made that the electron emitted pulses of electric energy. These pulses of energy became polarised, since the initial pulses of energy are stronger than subsequent ones.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

The result of the polarisation was that a solenoid field is formed. The definition of a solenoid field is that there no open loops exist all loops are closed loops. This structure is in fact an electromagnetic dipole.  The gap between the pulses of electric charge emitted by the electron serve as a capacitor type formation enabling the photon, because this is what this structure is, to maintain its energy forever. This structure now in every way possess a completely stable configuration and is as stable as a particle.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

 All the properties of a photon are now met:-
1)   The photon has no mass.
2)   The photon always travels at the speed of light in a vacuum
3)   The photon is electrically neutral.
4)   The photon comes in trillions of wavelengths and frequencies.
5)   The photon maintains its identity (energy) forever.
6)   The photon is both a wave and a particle

As can be seen all the properties of a photon are fulfilled. However, one very big problem remains. No it is not the propagation of light (Read my book :”advertising removed, for a full account) it is a question of size. Radio waves, some with wavelengths of 1,000,000m possess identical properties with those of the photons described above. How can this be. In short, it can’t. (For a more complete explanation of radio-waves and how they are formed read my book) There must therefore be some maximum size limit of a photon that an electron can emit. This size limit is the greatest size of photon that an electron can emit and it is called the ‘conduction’ photon since it is used in the conduction of electricity. Conduction photons are emitted only by free electrons. They are the largest photon that an electron can emit they are also the lowest energy photon that an electron can emit. They are the type of photons that are emitted when one picks up a pencil or moves a conductor through the air.
Traditionally, free electrons are banned from emitting or absorbing photons, because, without the massive nucleus to fall back against and absorb recoil, a free electron cannot emit or absorb photons. It is against the conservation of energy and momentum.  Quantum mechanics often prides itself on its out of the box thinking, yet an examination of its fundamental precepts demonstrates that far from being innovative much of quantum mechanics is definitely tradition bound and tied down by doctrine. Even after Max Planck had conclusively proved that energy is conveyed by photons and not electrons they would not consider photons as being the charge carriers in an electric current.

But think for a moment can a free electron absorb and emit a photon?

The most acceptable explanation is that free electrons are able to emit and absorb photons due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to time and energy:

One consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that we can take seriously the possibility of the existence of energy non-conserving processes—provided the amount by which energy is not conserved, E_violation , exists for a time less than . Thus it is possible for a free electron to emit a photon provided that it immediately reabsorbs that photon in an extremely short time on the order of 10⁻¹⁵ s. Gestalt Aether Theory states that this is how electromagnetic fields are formed, a free electron within the conductor emits a photon, but in order to avoid violation of the laws of energy conservation, the photon has to be reabsorbed by the same electron within the stipulated time of 10⁻¹⁵ s. In the same way photons that are emitted need to be reabsorbed by an electron needing the correct energy level, the nearest source of such electrons are within the conductor, this process also explains the process of induction. Conditions in a wire at room temperature are chaotic, often the electron that originally emitted the photon has already absorbed another photon before the emitted photon can be reabsorbed! If this happens the original photon leaves the conductor and circles back to be absorbed by another electron. This is why the lines of force form around a conductor. When a photon is emitted by a free electron within a conductor it has to be immediately reabsorbed, often the shortest route for the photon to achieve re-absorption by an electron is to exit the conductor and circle back, when this happens the photons of the 'virtual photon' aether which are present throughout the Universe, line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon resulting in the distinctive lines of force seen around a conductor. This model perfectly explains the right hand rule of current in a wire. The emission and absorption of photons by electrons in a wire offers the perfect solution as to how and why an electric current is conveyed through a wire. It is true out of the box thinking.
Looked at on a time line it would be as follows: At t₁, free electron e₁ emits a photon. In which case, by momentum conservation, e₁ will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. (c) At some time t₂, less than ( and before the recoil can take place), electron e₁ re-absorbs the photon in such a way that the total energy of the electron e₁ is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. In the second scenario at t₁ electron e₁ emits a photon. In which case, by momentum conservation, e₁ will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. At some time t₂, less than ( and before the recoil can take place), the photon exits and re-enters the conductor and is absorbed by electron e₂ which has also emitted a photon, while electron e₁ absorbs a photon emitted by another free electron within the same time period. These transactions take place in such a manner that the total energy of the electron e₁ and electron e₂ is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. Still looking at the time line and applying it to real situations e.g., current in a wire it is found that the time stipulation of 10⁻¹⁵s is well within the limits of the possible.
Thus the theory is advanced herein that the existing explanation of how a current flows in a conductor is unsatisfactory and a suitable explanation for how current propagates in a wire including an explanation for the formation of lines of force is proposed.

2

New Theories / Could the present day interpretation of the Hubble Constant be wrong?

« on: 29/05/2021 14:45:02 »

              Over the past hundred years or so since Hubble made his discovery of an expanding Universe, the Hubble constant has been the subject of intense study and research all of which served to substantiate Hubble’s conclusion that distant Galaxies demonstrated a red-shift that varied linearly with distance. This showed that the further away a galaxy was, the greater was the red-shift that it demonstrated and therefore the greater the speed at which it was moving away.  It is therefore pointless to try to negate Hubble’s findings and to state that the Hubble constant is wrong. There can be little or no doubt cast on the conclusions that Hubble reached, there is just too much evidence available in support of the Hubble constant to suppose that Hubble was wrong.  What is interesting is that Hubble’s constant points an unwavering finger at the fact that the Universe probably originated from a single point or singularity as postulated by Lemaitre.
   The picture of the Universe that emerges from Hubble’s observations is a strange one. It depicts a Universe in which each star and galaxy is expanding rapidly away from a central event in every direction. This is surely one of the strangest phenomena to be encountered in the Universe.  Yet it might be advantageous to examine the conclusions that have been drawn from Hubble’s constant in a little more depth in order to decide whether this view of the Universe really has any standing or not.  Looking into the Universe in our immediate locality it is possible to see that the Andromeda Galaxy is the galaxy that is closest to us. It is located at a distance of 26.5 million light years away. This is the only galaxy that can be seen with the naked eye and even through a powerful telescope individual stars are detected only with difficulty. To the naked eye the Andromeda galaxy can be seen as a patch of luminous sky that occupies about the diameter of the full moon as seen from earth.  If this fact is extrapolated into the vast distances of the Universe, it can be understood that merely to distinguish an individual galaxy is difficult and to identify individual stars within that galaxy is all but impossible.
         Hubble used line spectrometry and the resulting red-shift for his calculations of the Hubble constant. The factors, that appear to have been omitted when calculating the Hubble Constant is that two types of spectra exist, these are line spectra and continuous spectra. Continuous spectra, consists of the familiar rainbow coloured spectra resulting from the dispersion of light into its constituent colours; line spectra are the lines characteristic of the presence of certain elements.  Line spectrometry is based on radiation and absorption spectrometry in which individual lines depicting different elements can be identified.
              If it is taken for granted that at the earliest stage of the Big Bang expansion no elements heavier than hydrogen existed, then what is the explanation as to why these stars and galaxies involved in the Hubble constant exhibit continuous spectra? If the effects of a normal explosion, are examined, what is seen is the initial shock wave racing outward at speed from the epicenter and the rest of the mass of which the explosion is made settling into a cloud after the shock wave has passed. Could this be what is seen when the Hubble shift is examined? The Hubble shift being indicative of the initial expansion of the Big Bang travelling at speed. This initial expansion must have carried huge masses of energy with it, which after the shock wave had passed gradually coalesced into matter, into stars and Galaxies etc.,
            Using credible data from the cepheid variables and the Hubble red shift,  it is found that the data indicates that the Universe is expanding away from every other point at the rate of the Hubble constant (i.e., about 72 km/s ) per mega parsec. But again could be this true? Yes and No. Yes in the sense that the distance when corroborated by cepheid variables makes the speed of the galaxy or star calculated by the Hubble constant true, no in the sense that  there is a huge discrepancy between the data that has been collected and the conclusions that have been drawn. When calculating the redshift of distant galaxy, the main criteria that is used to determine how fast a star or galaxy is moving away is the emission spectrum of hydrogen. This is because heavier elements would not have formed at this early stage of the Universe. For instance for the element iron to emerge takes a minimum of several billion years, which is the time taken for all the hydrogen and helium in a star to undergo fusion leaving iron, which does not undergo fusion.  Astronomers have noted that all of the stars and galaxies used in the search for the Hubble constant, exhibit a continuous spectrum and the line spectrum of hydrogen used for calculation of the Hubble constant, is derived from this continuous spectrum.  Look at the image below:



             This information gives rise to the possibility that we are living in a Universe at rest, a Universe that is no longer expanding in every direction for as far as the eye can see. Instead what we find is a Universe at rest, where every star seen in the time period close to the expansion process, has now, in our time reached zero expansion speeds and is instead moving at speeds solely governed by gravitational forces. A view of the Universe emerges with proof of its origin running through it like a tell tale thread, supported by data from the cepheid variables and the Hubble constant. Side by side with this can be seen stars and galaxies that formed either concurrently or a little after the expansion process was over. It is a filled in picture of the Universe that illustrates in great detail and verisimilitude the fact of a three dimensional Universe. 
              What is the end result?  The result of such a calculation is incredible. It shows data that supports in an undeniable fashion, the theory that sustains the original expansion theory of the Big Bang. Also, that the expansion of the Universe although it travelled a great distance, lasted in any sector of the Universe for only a short time.  What this means is that when we look out at the Universe it is found that not only did the Universe expand at an incredible rate after the Big Bang and that it continued to expand until relatively recently but that all along that time line, from the moment of the Big Bang to the end of the expansion phase can be seen to exist innumerable stars and Galaxies that formed after the expansion period was over in that particular area. This gives an incredible three dimensional view of the Universe.  Running through it there is the incredible discovery of the Hubble constant and the expansion of the Universe; but even more incredible is that running beside these events can be seen stars and galaxies that evolved concurrently or just after the expansion process was over. 

         

3

New Theories / What are radio waves, how are they formed ?

« on: 24/05/2021 05:52:39 »

          Radio-waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation. The explanation for how radio waves are formed is that radio waves are radiated by charged particles when they are accelerated.  The peculiar property of radio-waves is that they possess identical properties to that of optical frequency photons (Wavelength of 1nm to 10,000nm). They are electrically neutral, they possess no charge. They always travel with the speed of light, they preserve their energy intact over enormous distances. They exhibit Doppler shift. They are mass less. They are never still but always travel at the speed of light.

     But there are also differences. While optical photons and photons possessing higher frequencies possess wave-lengths on the order of 500 nm, radio waves can be massive. A 60 Hz signal (super low frequency on the frequency chart) can possess a wavelength of 5,000,000 m. How can an electron with a classical radius of  about 3 x 10 ^-15 m possibly radiate strongly enough to produce a wavelength that is 5,000,000 m long.  If one is perfectly sincere, an electron with such infinitesimal size, can’t possibly produce such gigantic wave-lengths, even if it is accelerated; it is an impossibility. Further, still thinking logically, how is it possible to have two explanations for the same phenomenon? Optical photons in the range of  10nm to 10,000nm are emitted directly by the electron due to excitation of the electron but radio-waves are radiated by accelerated electrons.

          The differences can get even more evident: radio-waves  are created due to synchronised,  periodic change of electric or magnetic field. Depending on how this periodic change occurs and the power generated, different wavelengths of electromagnetic spectrum are produced. In a vacuum, electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light, commonly denoted c. In homogeneous, isotropic media, the oscillations of the two fields are perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation, forming a transverse wave. Fine but where do photons come into all this?

                 In quantum mechanics, an alternate way of viewing EMR is that it consists of photons, uncharged elementary particles with zero rest mass which are the quanta of the electromagnetic field, responsible for all electromagnetic interactions.  Quantum electrodynamics is the theory of how EMR interacts with matter on an atomic level.  How can a 5,000,000 m (5 x 10 ⁶ wave interact with an atom having a radius of  5 x 10^-10 m ?

           One possible conclusion is that botyh quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are wrong.

4

New Theories / Does the CMBR really exist?

« on: 20/05/2021 05:29:01 »

              Atoms are made up of 99.99999999% empty space. How is it that we can’t just walk straight through walls considering that we are made up of 99.9999999% empty space? We live in a world of electrostatic attractions and repulsion. When we attempt to pass through a wall,  we first experience a neutral force where the electron- proton attractive force is neutral because both forces are in equilibrium, as the wall gets closer the  electron-electron repulsion force is stronger than the electron-proton attractive force because the electrons are much closer to each other, and it is not possible to advance further.

        One aspect of living on earth is that we often ignore just how volatile our environment is. If we pick up a pencil, trillions of electrons have to re-adjust themselves in order to maintain equilibrium. When we walk amazing feats of balance are involved featuring untold interactions.  In fact, every single movement or action that is made results in the displacement and re-arrangement of the electrostatic forces that surround us, this involves trillions of electrons.  Given that this is so, it is strange that the theories we have of the Universe reflect nothing at all of this aspect of existence. The theories of the Universe that are at present in wide-spread use, see the Universe  as a place that is completely at rest.

     Further, one of the founding principles of science, is that light can never be at rest, it and all electromagnetic radiation are either moving at the speed of light or have been absorbed. This being so, how is it that we have this humungous dinosaur called CMBR which is apparently just hanging there, immobile fixed in one place in the Universe? Is it possible?

    The answer is that it is not.  THE CMBR is not the thermalised (static??) radiation that everyone seems to accept without question.  Instead, it is a reflection of present events that are taking place in the Universe, it correctly reflects the distribution of matter in The Universe. Think of the huge, massive beyond belief, clouds of gas in which the CMBR has its origins. Is it possible to think that these massive clouds of gas are static, that no movement at all takes place. No. You can be sure that currents are generated that give rise to radiation and constant interactions with light and electromagnetic radiation coming in from stars and galaxies taking place. 

            Why is the CMBR so homogenous? In order to understand why the CMBR is homogenous one must have some comprehension of the size of these clouds of hydrogen which are moré or less homogenous in composition. This being so, if CMBR emerging from these clouds were not homogenous, it would be cause for concern and investigation. 

             To think of electromagnetic radiation just hanging stationary in space, is absolutely farcial. It cannot happen and yet that is what we are told is happening with the CMBR, it is hanging stationary in space, it exists everywhere. Poppy cock!  What we think of the CMBR as being the remnant radiation from the Big Bang is actually representative of present day activity taking place NOW in the present.

             If you want to know what the CMBR is, look at dark matter.

   

5

New Theories / The Quest For A Universal Time Clock

« on: 16/05/2021 19:11:14 »

         Towards the end of the Nineteenth Century, efforts were made to create a world clock that would be able to give the correct time anywhere in the world, a kind of Universal clock. In order to do this, electromagnetic (radio) signals were used. It was realized that because light (radio-waves) had a finite speed, this would have to be accommodated for in the calculations.  However, in order for this method of using radio signals to record the time in different places to work, it had to be assumed that the speed of light was constant in all directions.  It should be noted that this issue of the speed of light being constant in all directions could have been treated as more of a philosophical problem than as a practical one, but this would have meant that the principles of physics were no longer true, since the solutions that were arrived at would be inaccurate.



   For instance, for a radio-signal to travel from New York to Chicago (1178 km) has been measured as taking exactly 3.93 milliseconds. If, the time taken for a radio-signal to travel in the opposite direction, from Chicago to New York also takes exactly the same time, it should be assumed that the measurement is correct. By making repeated measurements of this sort in all directions it should be possible to come to know if the speed of light is constant in all directions. In the same way it should also be possible to very accurately measure the physical distances between any two points that were being measured by radio signals, this should have given fairly conclusive evidence that the speed of light was constant in all directions.

   The problem arises when one considers that the earth is not at rest. So the measurements that are made from New York to Chicago, and vice versa, assume that they are both, (the timekeeper in Chicago and the time Keeper in New York), at rest. This is not the case, the earth is moving around the sun and the sun itself is moving through the solar system and so on; in addition to that the earth is itself spinning on its axis. So in reality nothing is at rest and it cannot be assumed that either the distances or the times are accurate.  Therefore, although the measurements made are accurate for all practical purposes, if the truth be told nothing is certain.

   The only way in which it could be thought that the speed of light was constant is if a universal aether existed, that permeated the whole of the Universe and remained absolutely at rest with respect to it.   This would mean that the position of anything that moved within the Universe could be calculated according to its position and time with respect to the aether. So, in theory, if the position at which an object was at a given time was known, it is possible, given the trajectory, velocity and direction in which it was travelling, to extrapolate its position at a future time and vice-versa. Although difficult to implement in practice; in theory it is foolproof, so that the velocity of light can be taken as constant in all frames of reference.  The presence of Dark Matter which makes up 85% or more of all matter in the Universe, and possesses similar properties to that of the aether: low interaction with matter, non-tactile, odourless, undetectable, leaves room for thought. In this scenario, the Newtonian plotting of courses through space is possible.

         The problem with this scenario is that the Michelson & Morley experiment at the turn of the nineteenth Century all but ruled out the existence of an aether. However, it should be noted that the Michelson & Morley experiment was based on the idea that the earth would drag the aether around with it and is completely contrary to the observed properties of the aether, namely that it possessed very low interaction with matter and could not therefore be dragged around by anything. Keep in mind that the aether could still be detected at any time, a modern aether that has different properties, for instance a modern aether would have very low interaction with matter, it would be very similar to dark matter if not synonymous with it.

          The other solution in which the speed of light is constant, is that the speed of light is a Universal Constant and that both time and space change to enable it to remain constant in all inertial frames of reference.  In this perspective the speed of light remains constant in all frames of reference but time dilates and distances contract in order for it to be true.  According to this theory, which we know of as special relativity; space and time are not independent of one another but can be mixed into each other and therefore must be considered as the same object, called the space-time continuum. The consequences of mixing space and time result in: time dilation and length contraction. Using special relativity to plot courses would be difficult since neither time nor space are fixed, making the plotting of exact times and positions impossible. Although, some are of the view that special relativity raises the possibility wormholes exist, through which it is possible to be instantly transported to another location in space that is maybe billions of light years distant from the present location. 

         However, another lesser known property of special relativity is that it chops and dices space and time until the possibility of any sentient life forms is reduced almost to zero. 

6

New Theories / Einstein, Relativity and light:

« on: 14/05/2021 04:50:05 »

          Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a strange situation prevailed in the science of physics.  For hundreds of years physicists had been speculating on the manner in which light propagated.  An observation of the properties of light: it travelled in straight lines, its intensity varied inversely with the square of the distance travelled, while the area over which it spread out, varied directly with the square of the distance travelled, it had a finite speed that never varied; all seemed to indicate that light travelled through a medium. It was in trying to identify the medium through which light travelled that difficulties arose.   Numerous efforts to identify the medium ended in failure, but some idea of the properties that this medium must possess were identified. It was non-tactile, it was invisible, it was odourless, it had no mass, it had extremely low interaction with matter, it was permeable to all solids to the extent that the planets and the stars could pass through it without being obstructed to any discernible degree. Physicists were satisfied that some kind of medium must exist to both limit the speed of light and account for these properties but were content to leave it at that, even if such a medium was not immediately identifiable. They called this medium the aether.   

             Then in 1865 everything changed with the publication of James Clerk Maxwell’s: “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.”  This paper predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves that could travel through the air, although it took another 20 years before these waves were finally discovered in 1887 by Henrich Hertz. Maxwell identified light as a transverse electromagnetic wave.  This created a whole new dimension for the properties of the aether; it now had to possess a rigidity several times that of steel in order to accommodate a transverse wave moving with a speed of 3 x 10 ⁵ km/s. This rendered the whole concept of an aether completely ridiculous.

            The death knell to the aether theory was sounded when Michelson and Morley in their experiment of 1887 to detect the aether ended up with a null result.  There was no aether.  Sheer disbelief that light was able to propagate without a medium resulted. Scientists came up with all kinds of theories as to how the aether could have escaped detection. The Irish Physicist Fitzpatrick, half jokingly suggested that the aether might not be discoverable because lengths contracted in the direction the aether was measured. The Dutch physicist and mathematician Henri Lorentz pondering the issue and with time on his hands, in a half whimsical frame of mind, formulated a  mathematical basis for Fitzpatrick’s theory which came to be known as the Lorentz transformations. 

              In 1905 Einstein published his paper on special relativity, dismissing the aether on the grounds that it was no longer needed and that Maxwell’s explanation for the propagation of light (electromagnetic waves) precluded the need for an aether; the two types of fields being self sustaining, the one increasing while the other was decreasing and vice-versa, resulting in a self-sustaining mechanism that could propagate forever.   Einstein’s special theory of relativity had two very important postulates:

1)   The laws of physics remain the same in all inertial frames of reference.
And
2)   The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.

         With regard to the first postulate, take a train moving at a constant speed, four people are sitting around a card table in the train and playing cards, their experience would be identical to four people sitting on a stationary platform and playing cards. There is no difference; the laws of physics remain the same in both circumstances.

            As to the second postulate, in what sense is it used? Does it mean that the speed of light in a vacuum is so constant and accurate that all other speeds can be measured against it? Or does it mean that nothing can move faster than the speed of light? Or does it mean that the speed of light remains constant regardless of the motion of its source or observer? It turns out that the postulate of the speed of light as a universal constant means none of these things, what it does mean is that the speed of light remains  the same regardless of the frame of  reference of the observer.
 
           There are two important consequences of Maxwell’s equations. The first, as has been mentioned, is the possible existence of electromagnetic waves. The second unforeseen consequence is the breakdown of Newtonian mechanics, leading to Einstein’s relativity theory.

              According to Einstein; Newton’s laws are incompatible with Maxwell’s equations.  While Newtonian mechanics obey Galilean laws and are invariant with time and distance; the time at which an event takes place remaining constant everywhere in the Universe and the distance measured being likewise constant, Maxwell’s equations are not invariant with Galilean transformations. Maxwell’s equations are, however, invariant with Galilean transformations when the Lorentz transform is used. This situation raises two important possibilities that will now be examined:

1)   Maxwell’s equations are wrong.
2)   There is only one special reference frame in which Maxwell’s equations are true, namely the rest frame of the so-called aether.

             Taking the first point:  Is it possible that Maxwell’s equations are wrong? Certainly, quantum mechanics has had a tough time trying to rationalise Maxwell’s wave theory with quantum particle theory by using processes such as normalization and re-normalisation etc., without making much headway in reconciling the two properties, wave and particle, of electromagnetic radiation.  In short Maxwell’s equations are outdated a new theory has to be formulated. So, unlike the situation that prevailed at the end of the nineteenth century when Maxwell’s equations were deemed inviolate, today their validity can be questioned.

             Galilean transforms add and subtract; thus two cars moving towards each other at 50 km/h and 60 km/h would have a combined speed of  110 km/h, the same cars moving away from each other would have a relative speed of 110 km/h. If the cars are moving in the same direction, the car moving at 60 km/h would be moving away from the other car at a relative speed of 10 km/h.

          The second option proposed is one that discusses the possibility of a preferred frame of reference. The special or preferred frame of reference, if it exists would invalidate Einstein’s special relativity. But what does it mean?

           Consider a huge empty space crowded with people, Grand Central station in New York, comes to mind. Consider that each of these people is carrying a lit torch. Some are moving towards each other, some are moving away from each other, some are moving fast, others are moving slowly, some are climbing stairs others are descending stairs and so on.  You can imagine the confusion if one tries to calculate how fast the beams of light are moving in each frame of reference using Galilean transformations. There would be thousands of different readings, the light from each torch would be moving at a different speed depending on the frame of reference from which it was seen.   

         How does Einstein rationalise this situation?  Put simply Einstein uses Lorentz transformations in order to keep the speed of light constant for all observers.  This means that in the example given of Grand Central Station, distances and time would have thousands of different values for the speed of light to remain constant for all observers. Distances would have to contract and times would have to dilate in order to ensure that the speed of light remained constant in all frames of reference.

             On the earth, in the solar  system, in the whole of the vast Universe, there is one, and only one, possible frame of reference in which the speed of light remains constant in all frames of reference. Thus in this special or preferred frame of reference, the speed of light would remain constant regardless of whether an observer were moving towards or away from the source and regardless of whether the source or the destination itself were moving and more importantly whether inertial or accelerated frames of reference were involved! This preferred frame of reference is the aether. Yes,  in the presence of a medium, the speed of light would remain constant in any frame of reference; regardless of the movement of the source or if the observer were approaching or moving away from the light.  The existence of an aether (or medium) is what Maxwell based his equations on.

          Which theory is more probable? Consider dark matter, its presence was detected much before Einstein made an appearance.

    “Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about 27% of its total mass–energy density or about 2.241 × 10⁻²⁷ kg/m³. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen.” -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

             When physicist agree that 85 % of all matter in the Universe is dark matter and that they don’t know what it is or how to detect it; it is astonishing that the ‘aether’ with exactly similar properties, could be summarily dismissed on the grounds that it could not be detected. 

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same?

« on: 13/05/2021 15:53:10 »

Unfair shift to New theories. This is my new theory. Bye

8

New Theories / E = mc^2 : What does it mean?

« on: 12/05/2021 10:46:32 »

           Perhaps the greatest event in modern physics is the discovery of matter-energy equivalence. Certainly the equation E = mc²  is the most famous equation that  the world has seen or that had such far reaching implications.  Given the extreme renown that this equation has enjoyed and the practical benefits that have resulted from its implementation, it is amazing that relatively little is known about it. Traditionally we have been used to thinking of matter as one thing and of energy as another totally different thing. How was the leap made between thinking that solid objects that one could hold and touch were actually made up of such a transient and impalpable a concept as energy? The two were mutually exclusive, so that to learn that energy could be changed into matter and that matter could be changed into energy, was an epoch making event. How was the discovery made? What kind of thinking led to such a revolutionary change in the way we see the world around us? A little thought shows that there was an ordered sequence of events leading up to the climactic announcement of Einstein’s momentous equation  E = mc² and the phenomenon  of mass-energy equivalence.



           The newly announced discovery of radio-waves (electromagnetic radiation) made by Hertz in 1887, gave rise to many unanswered questions.  What were these radio waves? How were these radio waves able to convey energy, heat etc., Obviously, if anything can convey energy it must possess momentum, yet these radio waves had no mass! Hence the equation for momentum  p = mv could not apply. How was it possible for an object to convey energy without possessing mass?  In the same way the equation for potential energy p_e  = mg  was also ruled out since gravity cannot act on an object with zero mass. When Einstein came up with his equation for the energy of a photon E =fh, where f equals frequency of the photon, and h equals planck’s constant. it seemed to offer new avenues to explore in the search for a solution of defining what radio waves and electromagnetism actually were. Was it, for instance, a new kind of matter? As a completely new field, the problem of defining electromagnetic radiation,  attracted the attention of almost all of the leading physicists of the time.

   Therefore, the relationship between energy and mass was already being widely discussed by the time Einstein considered the matter. Henri Poincaré, one of the leading thinkers and mathematicians of the time, had stated that electromagnetic radiation had a momentum and thus effectively a mass. His approach closely approximated the solution that Einstein eventually came up with. Poincare’s idea was that a moving electron acquired mass. He eventually came up with the equation E₀ = 3/4 mc² in which he tries to indicate the increase in mass of a moving electron. Oliver Heaviside, the most gifted physicist and mathematician that England could boast of at the time, thought of the problem as a spherical electric field surrounding the electron. His solution was m = (4⁄3) E / c²  where E  is the energy of a spherical electric field. In Germany, physicist Max Abraham argued that a moving electron interacts with its own field, E₀, to acquire an apparent mass given by E₀ = 3/4 mc². Hasenohrl, also a German physicist whose name has often been (falsely?) implicated with anti-Semitism, approached the problem by asking whether a black body emitting radiation, experienced changes in mass when it is moving relative to the observer. He calculated that the motion adds a mass of 3/8c² times the radiant energy. The following year he corrected this to 3/4c². Hasenohrl’s approach was the closest to Einstein’s and allegations have even been made that his work predated Einstein in finding the correct solution. A claim that seems to have  been disproved by the work of two physicists, Boghn and Rothman, who have re-examined Hasenohrl’s papers.

      When considering the history or origin of the equation E = mc²  Einstein’s own recent history is often ignored. For instance on March 8th 1905 , he had submitted a paper entitled, "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light" to the prestigious German scientific journal Annalen der Physik.  This is in all probability one of the most remarkable scientific papers that was ever published.  In this single paper, Einstein not only validated Max Planck’s discovery that energy was discrete or made up of “quanta” by demonstrating why the photoelectric effect that was first discovered by  Heinrich Hertz worked in the way that it did but he also showed that light interacted with matter in ways similar to a particle. For instance, the amount of energy that each quanta of light delivered was fixed and for a given frequency of light, was always the same. Further, the solving of the photoelectric effect riddle which had occupied scientists for at least 15 years, paved the way for scientist’s like the Danish physicist Neils Bohr to investigate the working of the atom on a practical basis. It enabled the determination of the binding energies of atoms, and the energy with which electrons occupied different spaces ‘orbits’ in the atom.



            The whole point of bringing up Einstein’s paper on the photoelectric effect is to illustrate what a big part this paper must have played in his life: it also earned him, the lifelong friendship of both Max Planck and Neils Bohr.   His discovery that light did indeed come in discrete packets of energy or quanta, as stipulated by Max Planck, must have been very much on his mind. His paper on mass-energy equivalence entitled : “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?” was published in the journal “Annalen der Physik” on November 21, 1905, just 6 months after the publication of the photoelectric effect. This gave him a huge advantage over his peers, since his paper on the photoelectric effect had not been fully absorbed or widely circulated. In his own mind, Einstein must have been very sure of the conclusion of his paper on the photoelectric effect ‘one photon emitted,one electron ejected ’. Einstein could not possibly have ignored the particle properties of these photon-electron interactions.  Instead of being caught up in thinking of light as a wave, he was able to, at least theoretically, treat light as a particle.  This approach enabled him to use the straight forward equation for energy of a moving object in his quest to determine the inertial mass of  light (electromagnetic radiation). It was already known from Bernoulli’s equations that  E  the energy of motion was  proportional; to the square of the velocity.  Thus it is perfectly possible that just using the equation for kinetic energy K.E = mc²/2 and eliminating the parts that were not relevant, yields an almost immediate answer.  Whether, Einstein actually used this method to formulate his theory or even to validate it, is not known, although Bernoulli’s equations themselves were widely taught. 

           Einstein’s explanation is based almost exclusively on relativistic ideas, in fact it could be said that the foundations of relativity can be found in this paper.  In his explanation Einstein conceives of an atom B with mass M that emits two bursts of light travelling in opposite directions along the z axis, therefore the energy emitted in any one direction equals E/2 and the total energy emitted is E .  These bursts of light are examined from two different inertial frames, F and F’. In one of the frames of reference F the atom B is stationary, while the second frame of reference is moving  along the x axis in the negative direction. An observer at rest in F judges that the light emitted by B travels up and down the page. For an observer at rest in F’ , the object B moves to the right with velocity v and the light is emitted toward the right making an angle θ with the x-axis. the atom B remains at rest in F frame . It follows directly from this that since B remains at rest in F, that the velocity of B does not change in F’ after the emission of light.
While the velocity of B does not change, the momentum of B does changes in both the F and F’ frames of reference  because the light it emits carries away momentum. If we assume the classical definition for the momentum of B as the product of its mass m and its velocity v, and v does not change, it follows that in order for the law of conservation of momentum to be satisfied, the mass (i.e., rest-mass) of B must change.

    Examining the light emission from the perspective of the inertial frame F’.  Relative to F’,B, moves (to the right) with velocity v. Because relative to F  the bursts of light are collinear (equal), the x-component of the velocity of the light as measured in F’ must be v. The velocity of the light also has a vertical component, i.e., a z-component.  The changes to the momentum along the z-direction are equal and opposite and cancel out. Therefore Using elementary trigonometry, for one of the bursts of light, the momentum along the x-direction is:



 the total momentum of the emitted photons, relative to F’, is:


 
Considering that B does not change in either F or F’ it is possible to use the equation for classical momentum:



or



This means that the total momentum lost by B due to emission of light equals:



                 In Einstein’s own words:“If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c² . The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10²⁰, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes.”

     From the wording of this paper on mass-energy equivalence two very important aspects emerge. The first is that using the concept of an aether it is possible to arrive at the expression E = mc² using classical physics. Instead, in this paper, Einstein laid the foundations for relativity by abandoning the ether and making the speed of light invariant. What does become clear from a reading of the paper is that although Einstein begins by using a relativistic framework he ends up by approximating away all of the relativistic parts, until what is  left  is a classical calculation. It is clear that even at this early stage Einstein already had a clear intention of introducing a radically new physics, namely relativity, to the world.

        Einstein is often castigated for never citing prior works or giving due credit to fellow physicists who had made contributions to the field. The reason for this probably lies in his work at the Swiss patent office. He must have quickly learned that any admissions of using prior material could quickly lead to landing up in court. So his discretion in not mentioning contemporary  research into the subject might have been the better part of valour.

         It is interesting to explore what his motivation might have been in taking such a radical approach, instead of trying more conventional methods. That his work was indeed radical there can be little doubt; even fifty years after he had first published his research on mass-energy equivalence and  special relativity and long after any Nazi intimidation was possible,  the Nobel prize committee refused to acknowledge these two topics. There must surely have been valid grounds for them to do so. As to Einstein’s own motivation, the prospect of introducing a radical new physics to the world must have been captivating, even though he, like many other scientists of the time, must have been disillusioned at the horrendous use to which science was put in the name of nationalism.

         There would be no point in relating the events that led up to Einstein’s E = mc² equation if one did not follow up on the events that ensued.  For almost thirty-five years after the publication of the mass-equivalence paper, it remained an oddity on which much speculation was spent. Then due to the efforts of a truly extraordinary person, the theory was finally proved.  Lisa Meitner was an Austrian born Jewish physicist, who was one of the first women scientists to gain fame, renown and recognition for her work. She received her doctorate in –physics from the University of Vienna in 1905 at a time when most women did not know what a University was. She moved to Berlin in 1907 in high hopes that she would be able to work with Max Planck.  She was in for a rude shock, women at the time were not allowed to gain official recognition in German Universities.  She was shunned by almost everyone that she met. Fortunately one of the Professors, Otto Hahn a chemist, had read her work and arranged for collaboration. Despite being a colleague of Hahn’s , Lisa was not recognised by the University, a disused unheated carpenter’s shed was allotted to them for their research. Neither of them received remuneration for their research from the University.  Nevertheless, the partnership made great progress and five years later, Hahn and Meitner moved to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute where Meitner and Hahn both were appointed as professors.



            In 1932 after Chadwick had discovered the neutron, Meitner and Hahn tried to bring about the transmutation of Uranium into a heavier element by bombarding the Uranium nucleus with neutrons.  In 1938, when the work was just beginning to bear fruit, Meitner was stripped of her position and her privileges. She received numerous requests from foreign Universities to attend conferences and seminars, but all such requests were turned down by the fascist Nazi party.  In 1939 Lisa Meitner managed to flee to Sweden, where she continued her work. Remarkably she was still allowed to communicate with Hahn through letters. She instructed Hahn on what experiments to conduct to maximise results. These experiments were performed in Germany in Otto Hahn’s laboratory. He wrote back to  Meitner  that strange things could be seen in the Uranium sample used for bombardment by neutrons. Instead of seeing a heavier element, what Hahn found were traces of  Barium,  which was a much lighter element than Uranium. Thinking about this result Lisa Meitner realized that the weight difference between a barium atom and a uranium atom amount to about 200,000,000 eV. Lisa Meitner realized that the splitting of atoms to form new elements resulted in the release of enormous amounts of energy, she called this new process nuclear fission.   Einstein’s equation E = mc² came to mind and when it was checked was found to agree phenomenally well with the result. Lisa Meitner had discovered nuclear fission. Unfortunately, Otto Hahn her one time partner, failed to recognize her contribution and in 1944 was awarded the Nobel prize as the sole discoverer of fission. Lisa Meitner’s contribution was not mentioned, she did, however, receive many other awards, she was nominated for the Nobel prize no less than 23 times between 1922 and 1944.

             A wonderful turning point in the history of the human race. However, doubts remain. In the excitement of all these discoveries did Einstein quietly remove our version of the Universe and just as quietly replace it with his own version of the Universe?

   

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, is principle the right term?

« on: 09/05/2021 19:30:31 »

           Einstein’s s equivalence principle, states that uniform acceleration is indistinguishable from a homogeneous gravitational field (the principle of equivalence). He illustrates this statement by demonstrating that the effect of gravity in free-fall is totally abolished in all possible experiments and general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial state. To make this issue more comprehensible: The Equivalence principle states that “inertial force and gravitational force are the same thing.” Or, that “acceleration and gravity are the same thing.”

   If we are to examine this issue on an absolutely level playing field, the first thing is to get rid of the sentient observer. We don’t give a flying f_ _ _ _   whether it is a man, a monkey  an elephant or a slab of stone in the accelerated room in space, it doesn’t  matter what it thinks or what it makes of it all; all that matters is its composition. Right!  Or, for the finicky in this forum, the mass of the object.

   Newton had an equation for the situation described by Einstein in which an object in an enclosed room somewhere in space experiences an acceleration of 1g.  It is not necessary to wonder what the object thinks about this experience, or whether the object discerns that it is in an earth like environment, all that matters is that the force it experiences depends on its mass and acceleration. What does this mean? It all comes down to how Newton thought of mass and of how the force of gravity acted on it.  Neither Newton nor Einstein were ever able to explain exactly what gravity was although, especially in Newton’s case, they were both able to explain how it worked. In Einstein’s case it might almost be said that he took Newton’s  gravitational force and replaced it with a gravitational potential that was represented by mass. (Same difference!) Here in Newton’s own words are the thoughts he had on where the cause of gravity might lie:

"I have not yet assigned a cause to gravity. Indeed, this force arises from some cause that penetrates as far as the centers of the sun and planets without any diminution of its power to act, and that acts not in proportion to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles on which it acts (as mechanical causes are wont to do) but in proportion to the quantity of solid matter, and whose action is extended everywhere to immense distances, always decreasing as the squares of the distances." Principa Mathematica, Isaac Newton

   From the above it is clear that Newton’s definition of mass had to do with its density, or more accurately the density of the matter of which it was made.  Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every mass attracts every other mass in the universe, and the gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. But to Newton force and gravity were different.

        The crucial fact here is the equation F = ma. According to Einstein it is impossible to distinguish gravity from acceleration. Is that really true? Consider two objects in space. One of the objects weighs 20 kg and the other object weighs 10 gm. If a force of 10 N is applied to each of these objects what happens? The object weighing 10 gm acquires an acceleration of 100 m/s²  and travels 100 m in 1 second, while the object weighing 20 Kg  acquires an acceleration of 0.5m/s²  and travels a distance of 0.5m in one second. How can one equate acceleration due to a force with gravity?

   

10

New Theories / Misleading post - there is a finite number of colours?

« on: 10/09/2020 06:42:13 »

What the OP  states is true, all colours are quantized, which means that only whole photons of a particular frequency and colour can be emitted by excited electrons. Yet, there is another aspect of light that is being ignored and this is that light of various frequencies can combine together, just as radio frequencies do, to get a whole new array of frequencies and colours or as sound waves mix to give an almost countless array of sounds. For instance red light can mix with blue and green to give different shades of orange and so on.  Light of different frequencies can mix because they are very close together frequency wise. The same thing applies to sound and radio-waves, for instance, it would be difficult to mix sound wave frequencies of 10Hz with 20,000 Hz and so on.  This is also the reason that photons (light) are considered to be electrically neutral, the difference in energies and frequencies between optical photons and electromagnetic (magnetic) radiation is so great, that for all purposes it does not exist and photons can pass through a magnetic or electromagnetic field without being affected at all.

11

New Theories / Does Einstein’s Equivalence Principle have any physical standing?

« on: 17/11/2019 13:24:56 »

I have just been reading Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe” .  What struck me while going through the book was the equivalence principle quoted by Einstein in support of General Relativity. . Einstein stated it thus:
“we ... assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system”.  — Einstein, 1907
What it means I suppose is that the acceleration of bodies towards the centre of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g= 9.81 m/s² being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g. The key insight that Einstein had was that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable from each other.  For instance, if your compartment is being accelerated upward you will feel the force of the floor on your feet. Einstein's realization was that within the confines of your tiny compartment, you will not be able to distinguish these accelerated situations from ones without acceleration but with gravity: When their magnitudes are judiciously adjusted, the force you feel from a gravitational field or from accelerated motion are indistinguishable.
   But think about this is it really true that gravity and accelerated motion are interwoven or the same? Take the example given of a space craft somewhere deep in interstellar space, where gravitational forces are at an absolute minimum. In these conditions the only gravity available is the gravitation due to the mass of the space craft. Normally gravity is calculated by simply multiplying the mass of the object by the acceleration due to gravity, which on earth is 9.8m/s². In interstellar space there is no earth and hence no acceleration due to gravity. Let’s just suppose (as a special case) that in interstellar space there is a planet exactly like earth about 50 billion miles away from the space ship, which weighs 2 tons or 2000 Kg. Then the acceleration due to that  planet would be 9.8m/s² and the gravitational  attraction between the planet and the space ship would be  G x (5.972 x 10²⁴ x 2x 10³)/((5X10¹⁰)2) = 0.000318860846 m³ kg^-1 s^-2 . It is now possible to see that the gravity exerted on the space ship is very small, therefore if the mass of the spaceship were to be multiplied by the force of gravity a total force of 0.00031 N which is an extremely small force would be exerted by gravity. If the ship were being accelerated at 9.8m/s² then the force exerted on the space ship would be equal to F = 2000 Kg x 0.00003 m/s¹ = 0.62 N which is a ridiculously small force and certainly would not have the effect of pushing anyone in spaceship back against their seats. Where am I going with this? I am trying to show that the equivalence principle of Einstein’s has absolutely no real meaning, it is just using gravitation as an explanation of itself. Here we have an object in space being accelerated to an equivalent acceleration of the acceleration due to the gravity on earth (i.e., 9.8 m/s² ) yet it has no effect, some gravitational mass is needed close by to make it work.

12

New Theories / Did Einstein emulate Newton?

« on: 23/06/2019 09:59:15 »

       Newton’s achievement in postulating the manner in which gravity works is today often underrated because of the importance given to Einstein and his General Theory of Relativity.  Yet, the simplicity and lucidity of Newton’s explanation of how gravity works, still remains.  In fact Newton’s concept of Gravity, or rather of how gravity works, is so compelling, that one is tempted to wonder what is so special about General Relativity.

   For more than a decade after coming up with the theory of Special Relativity, Einstein struggled trying to evolve an alternate theory for Gravity, in the end he succeeded. The question is did he really succeed in overthrowing Newton’s version of gravity OR did he merely assign different functions and characters to Newton’s gravitational equations? By following this strategy it was possible for Einstein to reach the same results that Newton’s equations yielded albeit in a hidden and obscure manner.  If looked at in an unbiased manner, this is plain plagiarism at the highest level.

   How true could this assumption be? In order to discover the truth it is necessary to examine Einstein’s  field equation relating the curvature of spacetime to energy sources, which serves as the bedrock principle of general relativity:



where is the Ricci curvature tensor, R is the scalar curvature, is the metric tensor,  G is Newton's gravitational constant, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and is the stress–energy tensor. What it means is that :

(gravity) = 8 G × (energy and momentum).

The amount of gravity is proportional to the amount of energy and momentum, with the constant of proportionality is given by , where G is a numerical constant. This is interesting  because Einstein takes Newton’s theory one step further when he uses the principle of mass energy equivalence to state that gravity is due to energy and momentum.

   This is truly a wonderful approach and deserves appreciation. The question is how did Einstein achieve such a close and uncanny approach to Newton’s results? Einstein’s equations achieve such uncannily similar results to Newton’s that it is absolutely mind-boggling, his results vary by those of Newton only by one in several decimal places. How is this possible?

   One of the problems is that although Newton’s equation for gravity remains one of the most influential in the history of science, it, unfortunately, leaves out one of the main objects of the theory, namely an explanation of why gravity works in the way it does.  Instead, Newton’s theory of gravity seems to depend on action at a distance — two objects exert a gravitational force on each other from far away, without any intervening substance. Newton himself considered this to be an unacceptable state of affairs, although he didn’t really have a good answer as to why this was so. He could have easily postulated that gravity was carried by an invisible field called the Aether but he was adamant that he would not speculate:  Hypothesis non fingo! (I make no hypothesis.)

Einstein’s solution to this conundrum was to postulate a Universal gravitational field the effect of which was to shift the focus from the force of gravity, F, to the gravitational potential field, (Greek letter “phi”), from which the force can be derived. The field \phi fills all of space, taking some specific value at every point. In the vicinity of a single body of mass M, the gravitational potential field is given by the equation:



The introduction of a field (or Aether) can be considered to be a mere technicality when taken in the context of Newton’s equation, it is something that is presumed to be present.  Notice how closely this equation of Einstein’s resembles Newton’s original equation :



with the added advantage in that it depends inversely on the distance, rather than the distance squared, because it’s not the gravitational force directly; the force is given by the derivative (slope) of the field, which turns into .

         It is possible to see the similarity in structure to Einstein’s equation: the left hand side is the force of gravity between two objects, and on the right we find the masses m_1 and m_2 of the objects in question, as well as the constant of proportionality G. (For Newton, mass was the source of gravity; Whereas, Einstein reasoned that mass is just one form of energy, and upgraded the source of gravity to all forms of energy and momentum.) Both equations, Einstein’s and Newton’s, divide by the square of the distance r between the two objects.

   The nub of the problem is that what has been done by Einstein, is to merely name the filed (Aether) that Newton refused to hypothesise about, as a gravitational field, with a value for every point in space, and to substitute the term force with the term gravitational potential.  Can we say with any surety, using Einstein’s equations that so much mass gives rise to so much gravity? Of course, it is possible because what we have here is more or less a clone of Newton’s ideas, dressed up a bit to include energy and momentum it is true but equally true is the fact that without the underlying basis of Newton’s ideas and interchanged with new terminology.  Nothing in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity would make sense without this venture into Newton’s ideas.  I wonder what Newton himself would have had to say about it?

   

13

New Theories / Are the Lorentz Transformations legit?

« on: 26/02/2019 04:51:10 »

Wrong post.

14

New Theories / Could it be that the frequency of a photon is like the spin of a photon.

« on: 26/05/2018 02:55:19 »

Could it be that the frequency of a photon is like the spin of a photon, it is not there in the accepted sense but still matters? The spin of a photon refers to the angular momentum of a particle yet it is not a perfect analogy because unlike a normal object that changes spin according to circumstance, the spin of a particle never changes. Is the frequency of a photon used in a similar rather abstract sense? The spin of a particle is quantised only certain discrete spins are allowed.  So in a sense spin exists but nothing is spinning.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why don't neutron stars turn into a cloud of hydrogen?

« on: 22/09/2017 09:08:27 »

 Black holes have their genesis in neutron stars. Consider the following:  Nuclear reactors emit a lot of neutrons, so theoretically it is possible to fill a small container with neutrons. If placed on a desk and left alone for a few hours all the neutrons disappear! This is because neutrons have a half-life of about 10 minutes. What this means is that a neutron star should not last for more than 10 hours at a maximum (given that the average neutron star has the volume of about a city block). Thus, in theory, no free-standing neutron star should last for more than 10 hours or so. All that should be left (with a little luck) is a small cloud of hydrogen.   

Given the massive distances involved and the (theoretically) extremely short life span of the neutron star, it should  be nothing less than a miracle to spot one. Instead neutron stars appear to last for billions  of years, not composed of neutrons it is true but of protons and electrons closely packed together. The question here is that protons and electrons attract at a distance but in closer proximity they repel each other strongly. So how are electrons and protons packed together in a neutron star?  Granted if accompanied by a giant companion star that feeds it, the neutron star might last for longer in the process creating a black hole. A black hole is a super dense area into which everything enters but from which nothing ever emerges, but as has been conjectured surely this goes against all logic? With so much matter, whole stars for instance ( and perhaps galaxies)  entering into these black holes, what happens to the original gravity producing mechanism, surely it must be affected in some way? To state that this inflow of matter is perpetually resulting in a stronger and stronger gravitational force does not make sense, energy is being used to strip down matter, that matter is, in turn, creating other different types of energy. What then happens to the gravity? Out of what is this perpetually increasing gravitational force created?   In fact with the huge energies and forces involved, a black hole should be the ideal environment for the creation of new matter.  It is even possible that it turns into something like a roman candle ejecting stars and material to great distances, forming new galaxies.

16

New Theories / On the speed of light as invariant:

« on: 26/04/2017 20:58:47 »

Physicists have often been amazed at the  invariance of the speed of light. This means that regardless of whether the source is moving or the destination is moving or even if both are moving, the speed of light remains constant at 3 x 10⁵ km/s approx.  What is so unusual about this? Unusual ! It goes absolutely against every practical experience known to mankind! In the normal world things obey what are known as Galilean transformations. Thus  take two fast cars 150 Kms apart and travelling towards each other. Car (a) going at 150 kmh and car(b) at 100 kmh. If they both start off at exactly the same time when will they meet ?  It might surprise you at first to learn that the time at which they will meet is governed by their combined speed or 100 kmh + 150 kmh = 250 kmh. They will therefore meet after  36 minutes during which time  car (a) would have covered 90 Km and car (b) would have covered 60 km. The same would apply if the cars were moving away from each other here, the speed of the two cars is again combined but this time they are moving away from each other, thus they are departing from each other at a relative speed of 100 km + 150 kmh = 250 kmh.  If both cars are moving in the same direction then the speed of car (a) relative to the speed of car (b) would be the difference in speed 150 kmh - 100 kmh = 50 kmh.  These cars are moving according to Galilean transformations.

Imagine then the surprise of scientists when they found that light does not obey these Galilean transformations. Take the following case. Suppose you have a light at a fixed source (A) shining towards a point (B) that is 100,000 Kms. away then we know that since the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec that it should take 0.33 secs for the light to travel from point A to Point B.  And this is how long it does take. (note: Actually according to relativity this is by no means certain) Now suppose you fit the light onto a superfast train travelling at 150,000 km/s then surely it should take the light whose combined speed is 300,000 km/s + 150,000 km/s = 450,000 km/s and it should now take the light only 0.222 s to reach point B! Wrong! Say the scientists it would still take the light 0.33 secs to cover the distance from (A) to (B)!
 


How could this be true? More important how could it be proved to be either true or false? I was thinking about this problem when it occurred to me that the speed of sound (because it is a wave)  is also invariant. Just like light the speed of sound is also independent of the speed of the source or of the destination or even if both were moving together. How could this be. I was thinking about something else when the answer came to me and it is ridiculously simple.  Look at this problem. First you have a stationary sound at (A) travelling towards a point (b) which is 600 m distant.  Consider that sound travels at 1257.12 kmh therefore it will take approximately 1.72 secs to cover the distance to (B). Now imagine that the sound (Siren or whatever) is fitted onto a car travelling at 150 kmh , then the sound should now take 600/ (150 kmh  + 1257.12) = 1.53 sec to cover the distance to B, right ? Wrong say the physicists the sound will still take 1.72 sec to travel from point A to point B.  How could this be ?

It becomes very simple to understand when we take into account that the speed of the car depends on its mass, the force with which it can press onto the tarmac, the speed with which the wheel revolves, the force of gravity etc., While the speed of sound is solely dependent on the properties of the medium it is travelling through. The two velocities have nothing to do with each other. It is like comparing apples and oranges you can't do it!  So the sound will still take 1.72 secs to travel from point (A) to point (B) while the car would take 14.35 secs to cover the distance from (A) to (B).
 That's all there is to the invariance of the speed of light or of the speed of sound.  Apples and oranges.

17

New Theories / Re: Aether Fields

« on: 23/04/2017 14:40:57 »

geordief: Particles are described as "excitations in the Field".  How many kinds of Field  are there(or can there be)  and is there only one kind of a Field to which this particle description applies?

This is a very pertinent description. It is almost a tacit admission of the existence of an aether like entity. There were at one time according to Feynman more than 400 different fields each with its associated particle. Quite crazy and Dirac had to advise physicists to stop looking for new particles and their associated fields. 

Every particle has a corresponding field that permeates all of space in the same way the Higgs has a field that is supposed to do.

The spin up electron. The spin down electron. The spin up positron. The spin down positron.

The up quarks (all three colors and both spins).The down quark (all three colors and both spins).Same for the charm, strange, top and bottom. And double that because all those quarks each have an antiparticle with the corresponding anticolor and opposite electric charge just like the electron had its antiparticle, the positron.

Then there two more leptons like the electron the muon and the tau lepton (each has two spins and an antiparticle with opposite electric charge).

That's all the fermions that have electric charge. Then there are the eight gluons and they would have three spins each but since they are massless they have two helicity states instead, and they are their own antiparticles)

The gluons are also bosons like the photon, there are only two photon fields, one for each helicity (there would be three spins but the photon is also massless)

There are yet more bosons, the W+,W+, W−,W−, and ZZ each of them have three spins. And the neutrinos are the charge-less fermions and the charge-less leptons. There is one for each of the charged leptons (one for the electron, one for the positron, one for the tao and one for its antiparticle, one for the muon and one for its antiparticle).


But hold on there is room for hope. All of the above particles ( few in number admittedly compared to the 400 that are supposed to exist)  most of which exist in the nucleus are virtual particles  which fits in beautifully with the Gestalt Aether Theory concept of a virtual photon universal aether that permeates the universe.

We live in a gauge Universe governed and controlled by gauge theories, Gestalt Aether Theory fits in very well with this concept.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What happens to photons in a room without windows when I switch off the light ?

« on: 20/04/2017 03:24:27 »

Assuming that the light source is a single incandescent light bulb, then it will be radiating in all directions in all wave-lengths. Examining this aspect a little more closely this means that the electrons in the atoms constituting the filament are emitting photons of all possible wave-lengths, in all possible directions. (According to Neo-Classical (GAT) physics theory)  This process results in the photons of the virtual photon aether present in the room, lining up in the direction of propagation of the photons being emitted by the filament and the photons propagate along these lines. Thus if it is red-light at 700 nm  the photons will be emitted at the rate of  430 THz and if it is green light at 560 nm the photons will be emitted at the rate of  540 THz and so on. The photons will be travelling at 3 x 10 ⁸m in the direction in which they have been emitted. Thus the space is filled with these lines of photons all travelling in different direction and all dispersing in accordance with the inverse square law.   The Light will be reflected off the walls and the furniture and the bed linen, (in other words photons at various frequencies  will be absorbed and re-emitted, adding to the light in the room). When the light is switched off  the  emission of photons immediately ceases, except perhaps for some infra red photons in the form of heat that are still being emitted by the filament. The photons since they are travelling at the speed of light are almost immediately absorbed and become quiescent. It happens very fast. This is why the room goes dark. To state that the photons are still present in the room and gradually transform into infrared photons is  false. 

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Do waves travel at the same speed in a fluid regardless of their origin?

« on: 16/04/2017 05:23:04 »

Would a wave created by a stone thrown into a pond and a wave created by a stick drawn through the water of the pond have the same velocity?

I am guessing that in both cases the  waves that were created would have the same velocity. 

My reasoning is as follows, imagine a van standing still and blowing the its horn. The sound would travel at a certain fixed velocity of about  343 m/s. Now imagine that the van is moving and the same horn is blowing,  although the sound would  change frequency depending on whether it is moving towards or away from you, a higher frequency in the former case and a lower frequency in the latter case, the velocity with which the sound travels would remain the same.  However, although the velocity with which the sound travels in all three scenarios would remain unaffected, the wave -length would also change, getting shorter in the former case and longer in the latter case


Now imagine that the Van is supercharged and can actually move at a speed faster than sound , what would happen to the sound of the horn in this case?  When the (hypothetical) van  passes through the air it creates a series of pressure waves in front of it and behind it, similar to the bow and stern waves created by a boat. These waves travel at the speed of sound and, as the speed of the object increases, the waves are forced together, or compressed, because they cannot get out of the way of each other. Eventually they merge into a single shock wave, which travels at the speed of sound. So the sound of the horn becomes part of the bang!

Thus, even under extreme conditions, the velocity of a wave is dependent on the properties of the medium through which it is travelling.

20

New Theories / Metastable states and Neo-Classical Physics (GAT)

« on: 06/04/2017 11:27:14 »

The existence of certain phenomenon associated with metastable states almost serves as a confirmation of the theories formulated by neo-Classical Physics (also known as Gestalt Aether Theory).  Take for instance the caesium atoms that are used in atomic clocks, it is surely an amazing phenomenon that the valence electrons in these atoms as they change state are oscillating at the amazing  rate of almost 10,000,000,000 Hz per second, yet ( and this is the amazing part); there is no hint of the 10 Gigahertz approx.  radio wave ( micro wave) that this oscillation should give rise to! 





In some respects this is a confirmation of what neo-classical theory states, namely that radio-waves are composite waves and are never directly emitted by individual electrons. An argument might be made that the 21 cm microwave emitted by Hydrogen violates this rule but the microwave cavity is tuned to this frequency and one prediction that can be made is that a discernible current should be detected at opposite poles of the microwave cavity, showing that the creation of microwaves takes place in a similar manner to that of other radio waves.  In general atoms occupying a metastable state never emit radiation. However in the case of the hydrogen atom the fact that no neutrons are present and given the resultant simpler structure, it is possible that an exception exists. (Subject to the fact that radio waves are composite waves.).
   

Another significant outcome  that can be derived from the phenomenon of the metastable state of the caesium atom is that one objection that has been made to the Neo-Classical physics (Gestalt Aether Theory) theory of photon structure and generation, namely that the length given for the conduction photon of 1.2 x 10 ^-7 m  is already available  in lasers. Yet the 1.2 x 10 ^-7 m wave length generate by lasers might in itself be a composite  or heterodyned wave length. Looking at the oscillation of the caesium valence electron that has no resultant  radiation, it seems that  the concept of conduction photons that are responsible for the  propagation an electric current and for the electromagnetic (field) loops outside the wire are definitely feasible.