1

New Theories / Redefining Electrons

« on: 11/06/2024 03:47:39 »

The present day ontology defining the electron is sadly outdated, illogical and does not fit in with what is known. For instance, take the idea that electron emission and absorption is a one-off event. The electron cloud around the nucleus, absorbs an incoming photon. (How does one wave absorb another wave) The added energy results in the whole cloud moving to a higher energy state. (What happens in multiple electron atoms, how does this work?)  Then after some indeterminate time, the electron cloud drops back down to its original level and the difference in energy is emitted as a photon. (How does an electron cloud emit an energetic photon without recoil, surely a breach of the conservation of energy laws?). Compare the above with what actually happens as seen in the working of atomic clocks.  The electron oscillates in the Gigahertz range (9,192,631,770 Hz), but even though this is the case no microwaves of that frequency are emitted. Only optical frequency and above photons can be directly emitted by electrons. This is because the energy levels of the microwaves is so low that the photons cannot be directly emitted, instead the whole atom shifts to a metastable state.

To return to the topic at hand the working of atomic clocks indicate that ALL electrons oscillate at fantastic frequencies of hundreds of trillions of oscillation per second. A look at any modern smart phone supports this theory as smart phone process  data at the rate of several Gigahertz per second. This being so the electron with its infinitesimal size and the miniscule distances it has to travel must in fact oscillate at rates of hundreds of trillions of hertz per second AND absorb and emit photons at that rate. For the electron not to do so would be an anomaly. It is a sad shortcoming of QM that it claims that the frequency of a photon is an abstract concept that is useful in calculating the energy of a photon. Instead, this new theory claims that electrons emit photons at the rate of hundreds of trillions of photons per second. These photons forms rays or lines of connected photons with each photon in the ray possessing identical energies. To read more about this idea, read my paper on: Redefining Electrons. 
https://tinyurl.com/4pfnjv43

2

New Theories / What if wave-particle duality did not exist?

« on: 10/06/2024 03:46:03 »

Recently MOND has made something of a comeback and has been proposed as an alternative explanation to Dark Matter to explain the behaviour of the movement and speeds of Galaxies. Originally more widely referred to as Modified Newtonian Dynamics, the current usage is Milgromian Dynamics, after the original proposer of the theory. Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a theory that proposes a modification of Newton's second law, namely (F = ma) to account for the observed properties of galaxies. Its primary motivation is to explain galactic rotational curves without invoking dark matter.  However, recent findings seem to discredit the MOND theory. For instance, MOND predicts noticeable gravitational effects at small scales, but tests involving Saturn's orbit during the Cassini mission showed no such anomalies, these findings support Newtonian gravity over MOND in the solar system.

But leaving aside the discussion of MOND for the moment. It is found that corroboration for the Newtonian concept of gravity might be found in an unusual source. In 1947, at a time when science was still shrouded in the exceptional security entailed by a World War, Willis E Lamb had discovered empirical evidence for the existence of ″virtual″ photons. This discovery was corroborated by Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga who clarified Bethe's explanation of the Lamb shift: namely that it occurs when an atom emits and absorbs virtual, unobservable photons. It was found that virtual photons are not only emitted from the same atom and captured again, but can also be exchanged between different atoms. Willis E Lamb was of the firm opinion that ALL electrons experience the Lamb shift but that these interactions were masked, in multiple electron atoms, by the presence of other electrons and hence difficult if not impossible to distinguish in multiple electron atoms. The Lamb shift can either be a self-interaction by the electron emitting and re-absorbing photons either with itself or an interaction with nearby electrons.  A major consideration that has been overlooked with regard to the Lamb shift is that by means of emitting and absorbing ″virtual″ photons, the electron is self-regulating its energy and therefore the possibility of its losing energy and spiralling into the atomic nucleus does not exist. The existence of ″virtual″ particles has been proved and is extensively acknowledged in the explanation of the nucleus. Willis Lamb had discovered and proven the existence of ″virtual″ particles through reproducible, empirical experiments. Yet because of the tight security under which scientific discoveries were kept in this era, the discovery of the existence of virtual particles never made it to the public forum. Think of what this means: the fact that electrons within the atom were constantly emitting and absorbing virtual particles meant that they were in effect self-regulating their own energy and the chances of an electron falling into the nucleus did not arise. The fact that electrons self-regulate their energy negates the need for wave-particle duality.  It should be remembered the main reason for introducing wave-particle duality was based on the facts that accelerated electrons would radiate away all of their energy, in a matter of pico-seconds and fall into the nucleus. The mystery that engaged scientists in the early days of quantum mechanics was how could atoms and matter exist, if electrons radiated away their energy. The explanation they came up with for the existence of atoms, matter, the earth, the solar system and the Universe was wave particle duality.  BUT, the Lamb shift proved conclusively that atoms self-regulated their energy and therefore precluded the possibility of electrons spiralling into the nucleus in a matter of pico-seconds. Yet because of the lack of a public forum for discussion this possibility was never considered.

But what if, bear with me for a second, the entire Universe was permeated at every point by almost stationary infinitesimal electric dipoles? (As to how the Universe can be completely permeated with such electric dipoles the question will be explained in depth, at a later time. For now, just accept it.) In fact, the possibility exists that Dark Matter is just such a substance. Dark Matter is a perfect analog for the erstwhile much denigrated concept of an aether, and since it occupies 85% of all the mass in the Universe, there is a high probability that what we took to be the aether was in fact Dark Matter. But what is Dark Matter? An answer can be found in the matter to photon ratio. It is found that photons are produced at the rate of hundreds of trillions of photons per second for every excited atom. What if the Big Bang was accompanied by the creation of photons in that ratio, where did they go? Obviously, they could not cross over the edge of the Universe, instead they stayed within the Universe permeating the whole of the Universe, filling every part of it. As the Universe expanded these photons lost energy until finally they had a very low energy of about 10^-40 J. These photons represented tiny, infinitesimal electric dipoles.   

What if every time an electron orbiting the nucleus emitted a virtual photon, it resulted in the alignment of the electric dipoles into a line whose ends rested on infinity for an infinitesimal amount of time. This exchange of virtual photons by the electron would be often and continuous.  The alignment of the dipoles when a virtual photon was emitted would be very brief, lasting no more than 10^-16 s. However, when this aligned line of electric dipoles landed on another object it represented the shortest distance between the two objects, having the effect of drawing them closer together. Think about it this is gravity as an emergent property of matter that Newton was so passionate about. It is very, very weak at 10^40 times less powerful than the electromagnetic force, it is unremitting, it varies with the density (number of electrons), it is relentless it is an over-arching force that acts ceaselessly. It emerges from the centre of objects.  To read more about this new theory read my paper on : ″The Electromagnetic Universe″ on Academia, a link to which is given below:  https://www.academia.edu/37258409/The_Electromagnetic_Universe_docx

3

New Theories / Olber's Paradox

« on: 06/04/2024 03:48:31 »

                    Olber′s paradox states  that the sky is not uniformly bright although it contains, to all intents and purposes,  an infinite number of stars. In other words going strictly by the facts, the night sky should be as bright as day, the paradox lies in the fact that this is not the case. But does the present day explanation that Olber′s paradox exists because the Universe is expanding and that light from distant stars has not yet reached us, make sense?

              Imagine walking on a moor on a moonless night, the power is out and only candles are available. Everything around is in darkness, even the path is very indistinct. Suddenly, as you look up you see the light from a candle. There are several weird things about this light, (1) the first is that only the candle flame is visible nothing around it is visible, the reflected light from objects close to the candle cannot be seen (2) if you take a step back the light from the candle disappears, it is no longer visible. What is happening? The first question to ask is:  Why does the light disappear? Obviously, the answer is that there is not enough intensity in the candle light to travel further, the light from the candle can travel so far and only so far before its intensity becomes too low to detect. The question is why; power is still available, the candle is still burning, obviously enough tallow and wick is present to keep the candle burning, why then does the light stop at the precise boundary that you have perceived? How is it that given the fact that the light follows the inverse square law as it travels, meaning that it spreads out directly according to the square of the distance travelled (isotropic light), that only the candle is visible, nothing around your immediate surroundings is made visible by the light from the candle. Why? Surely, if light spreads out according to the direct square of the distance travelled,  some small portion of the surroundings should be illuminated? But this is not the case, the light seems to be visible as a point of brightness and nothing more. What is happening? For anyone, standing on the circumference of the place where  you are standing, and with the candle at the centre, the candle flame is clearly visible, but nothing else? Could this have anything to do with the rectilinear nature of light? Numerous experiments have shown that the energy of the photons detected on the circumference that the light covers all have the same energy and therefore intensity. One thought that comes to mind is that light varies not only in frequency but in intensity and in this particular instance, only the most intense light makes it your location. 

               Surely, this is a far more cogent explanation for Olber′s paradox than to think that the Universe is expanding so rapidly and so fast that the light from distant stars never reaches us? Namely, that for a given amount of power, light travels a given distance, it cannot go any further than that power allows. Increase the power and increase the distance over which light is detectable, keep the power at a fixed level and it doesn′t matter for how long that light is on, it cannot travel one iota further than the power supplied to it allows.   

4

New Theories / What is the CMBR?

« on: 30/03/2024 04:14:11 »

                     No-one, not even the most sceptical of persons, can deny the vastness of the Universe.  Our own Milky Way Galaxy, is itself 105,000 light years across approximately, give or take a few hundreds of light years.  By far the biggest single component of the Universe are the vast clouds of hydrogen that populate the Universe. The size of these clouds of hydrogen beggars the imagination, a single cloud of hydrogen might contain hundreds of thousands of Galaxies of the size of our Milky way Galaxy. 

               It is then a matter of some concern that the so called CMBR is so widely accepted as being the defining signal from the Big Bang. I have no problem in accepting that such a signal exists, what I have a problem with is its designation as relic radiation left over from the Big Bang. This does not make sense. Why? For one thing, electromagnetic radiation does not stop moving ever, it is always moving at the speed of light, it never stops. To imagine that the CMBR (relic radiation or not) would just hang about in one place is not justifiable. For another,  we would have to accept that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent. Why? Because the present day Universe is made of hydrogen and the signal of the CMBR falls exactly within the Hydrogen spectra. So what are we to believe, are we to take for granted that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent and all of the signals in the hydrogen spectra being received on earth are due to the relic CMBR?  Are we to believe that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent ? This is illogical reasoning, surely? We know, that the present day Universe is not quiescent, we know that vast movements must take place within the clouds of hydrogen gas that result in  every possible signal over those generated by the hydrogen signal and even beyond.  No, I put it to you that the CMBR is not relic radiation at all, instead it is very much a signal that is being produced by our present day Universe. 

               What substance then would point to the existence of the Big Bang and a finite Universe. I put it to you that the most significant indication of a Universe that had its birth in the Big Bang, would be Dark Matter, yes, with its very low energy of 10^-40 J it would be absolutely permeable to all matter, by the same token applying Heisenberg?s Uncertainty Principle as it applies to time and energy, it is possible to see that given their extremely low energy, the lifetimes of these particles becomes indefinitely long.  Dark Matter, if it is made up of extremely low energy electric dipoles is a much better candidate for  relic radiation from the Big Bang than is the CMBR. There would be no problem in such radiation being absolutely stationary. It would be the perfect evidence of relic radiation left over from the Big Bang.

5

New Theories / Reintroducing the aether, does a possibility exist?

« on: 28/03/2024 04:06:47 »

                 One issue that I certainly take exception to is the present trend to dismiss the concept of an aether by saying, that Michelson & Morley proved definitively that the aether does not exist and that there was no point in discussing it any further. Michelson & Morley did not prove that the aether did not exist, they merely proved that it could not be detected! It should be noted that the aether as discussed in this post has nothing to do with the concept of a luminiferous aether and more to do with the original concept of the aether as a medium for the propagation of light. In fact, even Einstein, who could be considered the leading edge in the argument against the aether, did not deny the existence of the aether, he merely stated that there was no further use for the aether concept since a viable substitute had been found in the concept of electric and magnetic fields.  But what if the whole concept of fields is wrong? Before anyone gets into a twist about this statement, kindly remember that this is a science discussion forum and as such preconceived ideas, even if considered to be proven, should never be the criteria in any argument.

            For instance consider Dark Matter, it occupies 85% - 90% of all the mass in the Universe according to the latest findings.   Proof that that this mass is present is indisputable. Astrophysicists have been fairly successful in determining the factor of increase in gravity that would be necessary for the rotation curve of Galaxies to match observations. Extensive information on the methods used by astronomers in studies such as this can be found in Strobel?s Astronomy Notes Page: https://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm.  The study estimates that 90% -95% of the mass in the Universe to be in the form of undetectable Dark Matter.  This study seems to indicate that 95% of the mass in the Universe is missing or undetectable.   There was also a study done by  Kafle, P.R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G.F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. in 2014 entitled ? On the Shoulders of Giants: Properties of the Stellar Halo and the Milky Way Mass Distribution.? Published in The Astrophysical Journal, 794(1), 17.

        Ignoring for the moment the attempt that will almost certainly made by critics in this forum that the only property that Dark matter exhibits is its property to induce gravity OR that the study quoted ignored Dark Energy, I am merely quoting up to date theories supported by citations.  Consider the fact that IF as is stated Dark Matter occupies 85% - 95% of all matter in the Universe, there is a definite possibility (the odds are very much in favour of such a possibility) that our small part of the Universe consisting of the solar system, must fall within the 85% - 95% of the Universe occupied by Dark Matter.  This in turn raises the distinct possibility that what we thought of as being the aether was in fact Dark Matter!

                  When one studies the properties of Dark Matter it is found that they bear a striking resemblance to the properties that the aether was once thought to possess.  Dark Matter is for instance, completely permeable to all forms of matter. Matter can pass through Dark Matter without experiencing the slightest interaction and vice-versa. This was a property that was attributed to the aether and was one of the reasons that the aether could not be detected. Even with all the fantastic advances that have been made in technology, it is still not possible to detect Dark Matter. A truly amazing property of Dark Matter ( and one that the aether also demonstrated) is its ability to allow the free passage of all types of electromagnetic radiation, without offering the slightest interference or  opposition. For a substance that theoretically is calculated to occupy anything from 85% to 95% of the Universe, it is something truly amazing that it allows the passage of all types of electromagnetic radiation, without offering any opposition.

              One reason that Dark Matter might allow for the free passage of all types of electromagnetic radiation is if itself was made up of electromagnetic radiation. Consider if Dark Matter was made up of very low energy electric dipoles of about 10^-40 J energy. Such a substance would be absolutely permeable to all matter, since atoms are notoriously choosy or picky about the energy of the photons they interact with. No known atom could ever conceivably under any circumstances whatsoever, interact with photons of an energy of 10^-40 J. Further and possibly just as important, Dark Matter made up of such low energy electric dipoles would allow the free passage of all types of electromagnetic radiation. including x-rays and gamma rays.

                 This raises the incredible possibility that just like molecules convey the energy of waves in water, the low energy photons constituting Dark Matter, might convey light, or photons.


   

6

New Theories / What does the Three Polarizer Experiment prove?

« on: 26/03/2024 04:35:37 »

              If the results of The Double Slit Experiment sound weird, there is yet another experiment that demonstrates quantum mechanics effects, that trumps everything else. As far as proofs of quantum mechanics goes, the 3 polariser experiment may be considered to be the ace in the hole.

              It should be remembered here, that polarization is not an intrinsic property of light per se. Polarisation is the property of a substance that polarises light that passes through it. This is similar to saying that a laminar flow, is not an intrinsic property of water, a laminar flow of water is the result of certain conditions being imposed on the water as it passes through a space. Historically, the polarisation of light was first observed in naturally occurring crystals such as calcite or quartz. These crystals both demonstrate the property of birefringence, or changing of  the direction of the incoming light. Later, the same effect was duplicated by stretching plastic like materials causing the molecules to form into long lines or chains. When iodine was added to the molecules, they effectively absorbed light falling on the chains of molecules blocking it, while allowing orthogonally oriented light to pass through. If the polariser is effective, it blocks 50% of the light.

         The experiment is as follows, three polarisers are used, hence the name of the experiment.



When a light is shone through a vertical filter  (let's call it Filter 1) and then through another vertical filter (Filter 2 also called the analyser in QM), all of the light that passes through the first filter will also pass through the second filter. This is because both filters are aligned with the same orientation, so they allow light with the same polarization to pass through.



             However, if the polarisers are good and a horizontally oriented filter is put in place after the vertical polariser, it is found that light passing through both filters is completely blocked. No light passes through to the other side of the horizontally oriented filter.



This big mystery arises from the fact that if a third diagonally oriented polariser is placed between the first two polarisers, light is again allowed to pass through. Although the intensity of the light is reduced in keeping with malus law where the intensity is equal to the square of the cosine of the angle made between the transmission polariser and the analyser polariser is multiplied by the initial intensity.



                   The quantum mechanics explanation for this phenomenon is superposition, and it is deemed to be the final proof of quantum mechanics. Therefore, according to this explanation, light has a definite polarisation (a) horizontal or (b) vertical, when it undergoes diagonal polarisation it is in a superposed state, having elements of both vertical and horizontal orientation, and hence can pass through either the vertical or the horizontal with its intensity reduced according to malus law.

                   However, there is a simpler explanation if one looks at the polariser as a diffraction grating. The size of the molecules forming linked chains make this alternative a distinct possibility, as they would diffract the light without dispersing it. One result of this is that the vertical component is blocked or absorbed by the chains of molecules, while the remaining vertical component of the light is diffracted in a horizontal direction. Therefore, only the horizontal component of light is present after it passes through the vertical filter (i.e., chains of molecules oriented in a vertical direction) . If a horizontal filter (i.e., chains oriented horizontally or orthogonal to the first filter) is now placed in the light coming from the vertical filter all of the light will be blocked and no light shall pass the horizontal filter.

                  What happens when a diagonally oriented filter( i.e., chains of molecules oriented diagonally) is placed between Filter 1  and filter 3? Some of the light coming through Filter 1 is blocked by the diagonal chains of molecules but the remaining light undergoes diffraction at a diagonal angle and the light reduced according to malus law, makes it not only through the diagonally oriented filter but through the horizontal filter, although undergoing a further reduction in intensity in the process.

   So, it is not due to super position at all. Finally it all depends on the direction of the light as mentioned at the beginning of the post.

7

New Theories / Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 18/03/2024 04:40:12 »

               There seems to be a consensus, in the scientific community that regardless of the complexities involved in Standard Theory, that the mathematics used is so brilliant that, the theory cannot possibly, ever be wrong. This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.

      If one examines the properties of light it is apparent that light when it interacts with matter, follows the laws of reflection, when the term reflection is used it is not referring solely to light reflecting off a mirror but stating that light follows the property of reflection in general, as for instance if one is sitting in the garden and admiring the flowers, the incoming sunlight is reflected off the flowers in  keeping with the classical laws of reflection : angle of incidence = angle of reflection. The same goes for refraction.
 
           Following this line of thought, quantum mechanics does not see electrons as little ball bearings orbiting around the nucleus but as an electron cloud that has no definite location or velocity, in stead it is described as a spread out or smeared out wave function: So, Schr?dinger's equation provides the mathematical framework for understanding the electron cloud as a probabilistic distribution of electrons in an atom. It describes the behavior of electrons around an atomic nucleus as probabilistic wave-functions.

             The convention following from the use of Schrodinger?s wave-function to describe the electron cloud means that no scope for the reflection or refraction process is possible. When the electron cloud absorbs a photon, the subsequent emission of a photon doesn't necessarily obey the law of reflection (angle of incidence = angle of reflection.) The same applies to refraction because the process of absorption and emission involves transitions between quantum energy levels within the atom, which can occur in any direction. The emission of a photon from an excited state is generally isotropic or governed by other factors like the quantum mechanical properties of the atom and its environment. 

           In the context of our modern world with the immense strides that have been made in technology, is this aetiology good enough? Look at the smart phone in your hand. It is processing data at the rate of several gigabits per second. Which means that it is taking input data, processing that data and outputting the answer. Consider that the electron which is miniscule in size by comparison and the infinitesimal sub-atomic distances it has to traverse, should surely be able to oscillate at the rate of several hundreds of trillions of times per second. That this is indeed the case can be seen in the working of atomic clocks that depend on the oscillation of the fine structure valence electrons in the Caesium 130 atom. However, it should be noted that the oscillation of the fine structure electron in the Caesium atom does not result in the emission of photons of that frequency and rate, there is not enough energy in these photons to allow for emission, therefore the energy is transferred to the atom which enters a super metastable state.  Therefore, one of the age-old axioms of quantum mechanics that a single photon cannot possess a frequency but that the term frequency is only applied to the photon as a mathematical artifice to calculate its energy, is challenged and the contention is made that single photon frequency is real. It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.

To be continued with your permission???..

8

New Theories / How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 17/03/2024 03:58:55 »

According to the Zeiss group web-site? "We perceive up to 80 per cent of all impressions by means of our sight."  Yet, if one tries to find the exact process by which light propagates from Point A To B, there is very little information. Can anyone at the Naked scientists forum help out with this?

9

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.

10

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. 

         

11

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.

12

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.

   

13

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. 

14

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. 

15

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

16

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?

   

17

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?

   

18

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.

19

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.

20

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?