Fundamental Electro-Magneto-Mechanics (FEMME) (Primary Principles of Existence)

  • 28 Replies
  • 6701 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Introduction
In FEMME FATALE, author presents thorough, fundamental postulations, the proper, commonsense, clear and bright arrangement of fundamental knowledge about the world we live in, starting from primary principles (elementary energy, and elementary properties of spacetime).
The fundamental postulations, as well as derivations and conclusions, are completely non-abstract, immediate commonsense, logically-mathematically-physically justified interpretations of the concrete fundamental phenomena and facts. That is, the method which was used in development of Fundamental Electro-Magneto-Mechanics theory is: “Within existing confirmed and affirmed physics, identify the essential, fundamental phenomena, equations, and concepts, base their definitions exclusively on facts, and make only and exclusively the commonsense, simple, and unambiguous conclusions, immediately derived from facts, immediately relying on facts.”.
Briefly and concretely, this paper contains essential EM foundations and explanations of:
• spacetime, • the famous E=mc2 equation, • the mass, • the photon-path-banding, • elementary material-particle (what does it consist of, and how it is formed, that is, what the matter really, essentially is), • the wave-particle property of matter,  • inertia (what the inertia really is), • the Gaussian, • the nuclear processes, as well as of the „annihilation“ process, • inability of particles which have inertial mass to reach the velocity c, • the origins of time dilation and length contraction (that is, what are the fundamental physical origins of relativity theory), • the proper relativity equations (fundamentally physically based, fundamentally derived, and experimentally confirmed), • gravitation (Newton’s law of gravitation is derived and thoroughly and clearly explained), • how and why there exist the maximal possible force, and the minimal possible diameter for a body of a given mass, as well as the maximal possible energy density, that is, the maximal possible mass density, • why the stars explode, why the pulsar gamma-jets occur, why massive body in a gallaxy-center radiates,
and all that is concluded and summarized with the clear template of the primary principles of existence, the essential blueprint of existence, the fundamental essence of Universe.

Nothing that was/is not directly experimentally confirmed/confirmable was/is used. The complete theory is completely within the framework which is summarized in the following outlined paragraph:
_________________________________________________________________________
Energy, spacetime, electromagnetism, are the most essential physical phenomena, which are the essence of all of the other phenomena in universe.
The changes of all of these essential phenomena allow to be exceptionally well described/modeled with infinitesimal calculus, that beautiful result of logical, rational, simple, insightful, healthy reasoning (of both Newton and Leibniz), which is ever since the most powerful scientific tool for describing/modeling of the continuum, that is, of the world.
One of the most essential physical manifestations of change is the motion (the change of spatial position of energy, or mass, in time). The elementary motion types, are: translation (straight line motion) and rotation (circular motion).
Some of the most important results and generalizations of experimental and theoretical analysis of physical phenomena, mathematically modeled with infinitesimal calculus, are: energy conservation principle, continuity principle, Gaussian, and convolution.
_________________________________________________________________________
« Last Edit: 19/11/2012 19:56:29 by zordim »

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
The primary essentials (the primary facts)

The elementary energy is the photon – the photon is the elementary EM-energy. Photon is an elementary EM oscillation which propagates linearly through spacetime. For some given oscillation frequency, the elementary energy is
I.     [tex]\Delta E = h \cdot \nu[/tex] ,     [tex]h[/tex]  is the Planck’s constant, [tex]\nu[/tex]  is the EM-oscillation frequency                   (1)
This equation was theoretically derived by Planck, and it represents the fundamental, basic, elementary equation of universe, the axiomatic law of existence. The „that’s-the-way-it-fundamentally-is“.
Prefix [tex]\Delta[/tex] in front of [tex]E[/tex] denotes the finite, non-infinitesimal elementary energy for a given frequency [tex]\nu[/tex], the elementary packet of energy for a given frequency [tex]\nu[/tex] . “Elementary” means that it cannot be less then it is, and it is  [tex]\Delta E = h \cdot \nu[/tex] . Follows that any higher energy for that given frequency [tex]\nu[/tex]  can only and exclusively be an integer number of elementary energy packets [tex]h \cdot \nu[/tex]:     [tex]\sum \Delta E = n\cdot h \cdot \nu[/tex],    [tex]n = 1,2,3,... [/tex].

The space is the most basic, the essential medium for energy propagation, the essential energy manifestation enabler, container, sustainer.
The three immanent, inherent, inseparable, equally essential, axiomatic properties of the space (spacetime) are:
-   the length(s) (distance(s))
-   the lengthwise capacitance, a.k.a. electric permittivity [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]
-   the lengthwise inductance, a.k.a. magnetic permeability [tex]\mu_0[/tex]
The space is essentially electromagnetic phenomenon.


Velocity of EM-energy propagation is determined by properties of the medium through which EM-energy propagates. The medium for EM-energy propagation is the space, either the so called free space (that is, the space which is not affected by some material), or the space affected by some material (the space around some material, and the space inside the material, that is, the space between the atoms/molecules of some material).
Fundamental EM-properties of the free spacetime are [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex], and these properties determinate the velocity of a photon in it:

II.   [tex]c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0}}[/tex]                                    (2)
This equation was theoretically derived by Maxwell, and it is the fundamental, basic, elementary equation of universe, the „that’s-the-way-it-fundamentally-is“.
Any photon which moves through the [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]-[tex]\mu_0[/tex]-space has the velocity  [tex]c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0}}[/tex].
In other words, no matter what the energy of a photon is, the velocity will be the velocity which the [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]-[tex]\mu_0[/tex]-space allows (imposes, determinates), and that velocity is  [tex]c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0}}[/tex].
There where the space properties [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] have higher values, i.e. between the atoms of an optical prism, the velocity of photon-propagation is  [tex]v=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon \cdot \mu}}<c[/tex].
The logical, commonsense conclusion is that the photon and space interact: in order to be able to impose, to determinate the velocity of a photon’s propagation through itself, the space has to have the means to interact with the photon, with that elementary EM-energy-entity. These means are [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex], the EM-properties of space. 
Linear propagation (straight line motion) is the essential expression, the essential manifestation of photon-spacetime interaction, the essential result of photon-spacetime interaction.
That what is necessary for the process of energy-space interaction is the energy, the space and the time.
Changing of a photon’s spatial location takes time (requires time, axiomatically includes time) = The interaction of a photon with spacetime takes time = The propagation of a photon takes time.
Length, [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex], and [tex]\mu_0[/tex] are fundamental, axiomatic properties of space, and time is:     [tex]dt=\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0} \cdot ds[/tex]      (3)
and that is the true, fundamental, and only reason for using the term spacetime, that is the true reason to state that:
time is inherently contained within space. Or, time is essential, axiomatic property of space, that is, of spacetime.
So, spacetime is fundamentaly the EM phenomenon – lengths and time are its aspects which are intrinsically related to [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex], and [tex]\mu_0[/tex].
Namely, all of the axiomatic properties of spacetime: [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex], [tex]\mu_0[/tex], length, time, are all equal (equally fundamental) and interrelated aspects of spacetime.

We could actually say that the elementary energy manifests itself as electromagnetic because the spacetime is essentially electromagnetic phenomenon – while interacting with the [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]-spacetime-property, the elementary energy produces (manifests as) electric EM-component, and while interacting with the [tex]\mu_0[/tex]-spacetime-property, it produces (manifests as) magnetic EM-component. The more general description would be: when elementary energy interacts with fundamental properties of spacetime [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex] , that interaction manifests as a linearly propagating EM-oscillation, that is, as a photon.
The general mathematical model for interaction is the convolution. The most basic, elementary convolution is the simple product, the simple multiplication of elementary values which interact.
Hence, the process of elementary appearance which we call photon, is the elementary interaction (convolution) of elementary EM-energy with elementary EM properties of spacetime, the interaction which consists of elementary interconvoluted elementary EM-energy and [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex]:
III.    [tex]\mu_0 \cdot (\epsilon_0 \cdot \Delta E) = \epsilon_0 \cdot (\mu_0 \cdot \Delta E) = (\epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0) \cdot \Delta E = \epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0 \cdot \Delta E = \Delta m[/tex]              (4)
[tex]\Delta m[/tex] is the measure of EM-coupling, the (total) amount of EM-coupling of elementary EM-energy of a photon and elementary EM-properties of spacetime.
The appropriate name for this equation would be the embodying equation. [tex]\Delta m[/tex] is the essential-physical-manifestation property, the embodyment, which arises from (is the result of) interaction of elementary EM energy and elementary EM properties of spacetime. The embodying equation is the fundamental, basic, elementary equation of universe.
This is the proper, the  primary (primordial) definition and derivation for that what is generally known as the mass. In the case of a photon, it is the non-inertial mass, or, the proto-inertial mass. (This is also the proper, the fundamental derivation of Einstein’s most famous equation.)

Through [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]-[tex]\mu_0[/tex]-spacetime, a photon propagates linearly, having the velocity of        [tex]c = \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t}[/tex]                       (5)
The velocity c is the maximal velocity of energy propagation through [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]-[tex]\mu_0[/tex]-spacetime, [tex]\Delta s[/tex] is the photon’s length in the direction it propagates, and [tex]\Delta t[/tex] is the time a photon takes to pass the distance that is equal to its length.
[tex]\Delta t[/tex]  is also the period of the photon, that is, the time period in which the elementary EM energy of the photon performs one full EM oscillation. The frequency of that oscillation is one full oscillation per interval [tex]\Delta t[/tex]:  [tex]\nu = \frac{1}{\Delta t}[/tex]
The least amount of energy for some given frequency [tex]\nu[/tex]  is [tex]\Delta E = h \cdot \nu = h/\Delta t[/tex]    (6)
The least amount of energy means the energy can be equal to or greater then that least amount, and the mathematical notion for that is [tex]\Delta E \geq h \cdot \nu[/tex], so we have:    [tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t \geq h [/tex]            (7)     
And this is the most fundamental way to derive the famous Heisenberg’s “uncertainty” relation. This relation is the consequence of the properties of the photon, of the most essential physical entity. That is the essential, true origin of that relation.
For a single photon we have  [tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h [/tex]. This equation universally defines, determinates the state of each and every photon (For some given energy, photon’s EM-oscilation-period has to be such that their product is h. Or, for some given EM-oscillation-period, photon’s energy has to be such that their product is h).
This equation represents the fundamental law of energy-time interaction.
The differential of this equation gives the law of change of that state (A photon can, and does change it’s state, i.e. Compton experiment, Pound-Rebka experiment):
[tex]d(\Delta E \cdot \Delta t) = 0 \Rightarrow d\Delta E \cdot \Delta t + \Delta E \cdot d\Delta t = 0 \Rightarrow \frac{d\Delta E}{d\Delta t} = -\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta t} \Rightarrow \frac{d\Delta E}{c \cdot d\Delta t } = -\frac{\Delta E}{c \cdot \Delta t} \Rightarrow \frac{d\Delta E}{d\Delta s} = -\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta s} [/tex]    (8)
[tex]\Delta E, \Delta t, \Delta s[/tex] can only have positive values – they are intrinsically positive. Follows that one, and only one of the infinitesimal differentials (or, infinitesimal changes) in each of the afore ratios is negative, that is, [tex]sgn (d \Delta E) \not = sgn (d \Delta t)[/tex], and [tex]sgn (d \Delta E) \not = sgn (d \Delta s)[/tex]. To highlight that, we will write:

-[tex]\frac{\pm d \Delta E}{\mp d \Delta t} = \frac{\Delta E}{\Delta t}[/tex]  (9a)

-[tex]\frac{\pm d \Delta E}{\mp c \cdot d \Delta t} = \frac{\Delta E}{c \cdot \Delta t}[/tex]  (9b)

-[tex]\frac{\pm d \Delta E}{\mp d \Delta s} = \frac{\Delta E}{\Delta s}[/tex]   (9c)     

The last two equations have the dimension of force. These two equations represent the primary (primordial, elementary) derivation of force (the most fundamental place of appearance of force).
The middle equation can be written as:
-[tex]\frac{\pm d (\Delta E / c)}{\mp d \Delta t}=\frac{\Delta E / c}{\Delta t}[/tex]      (10)
This equation represents the primary (primordial) definition and derivation of that what is generally known as momentum:
[tex]d \Delta p = d(\Delta E / c)[/tex],  [tex] \Delta p = \Delta E / c[/tex]      (11)
The equation for the momentum of EM waves  [tex]p = E/c[/tex]  was derived by Maxwell. The momentum is the fundamental (experimentally proven) property of photon, of elementary EM entity.
Hence, this fundamental derivation of force and of momentum (the derivation from the change of the state of the most fundamental physical entity, so, we can say, the derivation from the change of the fundamental state) shows that the force can be presented either as the change of momentum [tex]\Delta p[/tex] over time (in time), or as the change of energy [tex]\Delta E[/tex] over length (along length). 
Follows:  [tex]\frac{d\Delta p}{d\Delta t}=-\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t} \Leftrightarrow \frac{d\Delta E}{d\Delta s}=-\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta s} \Rightarrow \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}=\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta s} \Rightarrow \Delta p \cdot \Delta s \geq h[/tex]   (12)
and also   [tex]\Delta p =\frac{\Delta E}{c}=\frac{\Delta m \cdot c^2}{c}=\Delta m \cdot c[/tex]       (13)
A photon exchanges its momentum with inertial-mass-entities while interacting with them. Before and after interaction, i.e. with an electron (i.e. in Compton’s experiment), the velocity of a photon is the same. Since we have that [tex]\Delta p =\Delta m \cdot c[/tex] , then that what is changing during the interaction has to be, and is the [tex]\Delta m[/tex]. Actually, that what does (ex)change is the photon’s energy, and therefore, the [tex]\Delta m[/tex] (the measure of coupling of that energy with spacetime) also changes.


Wave-particle duality of a photon

A photon is an elementary EM oscillation which propagates linearly.
The photon’s inherent wave-property arises from these oscillations.
While propagating through spacetime whose [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] are constant, the energy, the momentum, the velocity, the length, and the oscillation period of a photon do not change, and that should be considered as the photon’s form stability, that is, these are the primary attributes of the photon’s corpuscularity – a photon is elementary particle. In other words, a photon is particle because it has all of the mechanical properties: it occupies a (tiny) piece of space, it has velocity, energy, momentum, it interacts with other entities (exchanges the momentum, i.e. with electron, or with some material surface), and also, a photon has the mass-property. The mass of a photon represents the amount of interaction, the amount of coupling of the linearly propagating photon-energy with the lengthwise inductance and the lengthwise capacitance of the spacetime occupied with that energy.
The differences from the inertial-mass-particles are:
-   the mass of a photon changes during interaction with other particles, and
-   the mass of a photon does not have the property of inertia.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2013 07:38:54 by zordim »

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
The Primary Essentials - Round 2 - The elementary inertial mass particle

A photon which goes into/out-of an optical prism along some direction which is not perpendicular to the prism surface, changes its propagation direction.
[tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] values of the spacetime within an optical prism are different from [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] values of the spacetime outside the prism. It is quite logically and physically justified to interpret that fact in the following way:
increased values of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] properties of the spacetime within the prism are consequences of superpositioned influences of the huge number of elementary particles which constitute the prism – that is how the spacetime reacts to the prism constituents.
The prism surface and its nearest vicinity form a thin transitional spacetime domain (transitional [tex]\epsilon[/tex]–[tex]\mu[/tex]–domain). „Thin“ means that its length in the direction which is perpendicular on the prism surface is several atom/molecule diameters long. „Transitional“ means that within that domain [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] change their values. In the into-the-prism direction, [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] increase. In the out-of-the-prism direction,[tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] decrease.
The change of photon’s propagation direction occurs within that thin transitional spacetime domain, that is, the change of photon’s propagation direction occurs  there where the change (increase/decrease) of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] occurs along the photon’s propagation direction.
And here is the explanation why photon’s path bends:

Along the left-to-right direction on the picture, values of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] increase. Therefore, along the left-to-right direction on the picture, the allowed EM-propagation velocity decreases.
Therefore, the only thing that the photon can do is to move along a path which bends to the right. The photon will continue to turn right for as long as its right side is imposed (by [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] distributions) to move slower than its left side.
So, if a photon enters a prism along the direction which is not perpendicular to the prism surface, it will turn until allowed velocities become equal around its propagation direction.
On the picture, the photon's shape - that is, the shape of the tiny spatial domain which contains the photon's energy - is an assumption, a sketch. Namely, what we know is just the photon's length [tex]\Delta s[/tex]. The photon's width we do not know. We can assume that it has some value which is in the range which starts with some infinitesimal value, and up to the size of the photon's length, or several photon's lengths. The photon's width is not important for the presented explanation of the photon's path banding. In other words, the presented explanation for the photon's path bending is valid, whichever the width may be.

That is also the reason why photons change their propagation direction while they pass very near the edge of some solid body, or through hole(s), or through slits (single slit, double slits, slits of refraction gratings) – very near the edges of solid bodies the values of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] change (which, in most cases, means that they increase).

And, not only near the solid bodies, composed of many particles – the same happens in the very near vicinity of single elementary particles, too.

The interference patterns, which emerge as the result of two mutually confronting/overlapping coherent EM-waves, are explainable in the following way:
the interference patterns are consequence of changes of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] , caused by energy density increase when two coherent EM-waves confront each other, and then the change of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex]  causes the change of propagation directions of photons which constitute those confronted EM-waves. On some places there would be very small number of photons, or no photons at all, and on some places there would be many photons. And such patterns would repeat all over the domain of confrontation.

Now, all this will be logically and physically essentialized:

The change of energy amount within some constrained spacetime domain, which occurs during confrontation of EM-energy-flows, is the most rapid change possible. Such rapid change causes the change of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] of the spacetime domain affected with that rapid change.
Also, the phenomenon of reactive power in electric circuits implies this conclusion. That opens the way for a more general mathematical treatment, which includes the complex numbers  domain. Namely, the increase of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] is a way of energy accumulation in the imaginary-number "format". But, that would be an option for further development of this theory, which is the basic, primary, elementary EM theory, and in which it will be demonstrated how the part of physics known as the mechanics is to be derived. And, for that, we do not need to delve into complex-numbers calculus.

The photons are elementary energy carriers. So, the most elementary situation, in which elementary energy amount changes within some elementary-size space-domain most rapidly, would occur when two photons confront each other, that is, when two photons pass one through the other, and also when they pass very near to each other.

Why would two confronting photons cause [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] to increase? We do not know. But that mystery is reduced to the elementary level circumstances - to the confrontation of two most fast and most fundamental entities in nature. It is quite in accordance with intuition, as well as with the common sense, that specific circumstances produce specific effects. And we came up with this conclusion through logical and reasonable deduction, on the basis of the known and detected physical phenomena. We cannot delve deeper into that, so we take it as an axiom, as "that's the way it is". That axiom is the result of reasonable, common sense thinking. What we can do next about it, is to check if we can derive consequences which would be reasonable, too, and which comply to reality. To see if that can explain reality well.

Hence, when two photons pass sufficiently and appropriately near to each other, and if these two photons have also the sufficiently and appropriately high energies (short lengths), and if we assume that such occurrence causes the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] to increase, forming some bumpy [tex]\epsilon[/tex]-[tex]\mu[/tex]-distribution which has maximal value in the center of the distance among the photons, then there are three logically/physically possible outcomes/manifestations:
1)   our photons just alter their path directions (which, i.e., is the cause for interference paterns of two confronting coherent EM-waves),
2)   our photons form a temporary whirl (that is, temporary particles, short-life particles)
3)   our photons form a stable whirl . The conditions for forming of stable photons-whirls are more stringent than for temporary whirls, and therefore there are just several elementary types of such whirls, i.e. electron, positron, quarks, anti-quarks.
The photons-whirl is the most elementary whirling in nature, the tiniest energy whirling possible. And it can be interpreted (as, indeed, any other whirl/vortex) as the continuous (ongoing, lasting) non-direct confrontation, as the continuously almost-directly confronting flow. The conditions induced by two photons which meet each other in the previously described way, make these photons to bend their paths. If the bending is such that the photons remain in the same position with respect to each other, then these conditions remain the same, too.

So, when our two photons have appropriate energies (masses) and meet at some appropriate distance, they will induce the appropriate reaction of spacetime, that is, the appropriate spatial distribution of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex]  in the spatial domain occupied with these photons.
The previous underlined words should highlight the fact that both [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] distirbutions obviously have to be the functions of the photons’ energies (mases) and their distance, namely, the functions of the ratio mass/distance (or energy/distance):
-   the greater the mass, the greater the influence on [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] ; 
-   the greater the distance, the smaller the influence on [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex].
So, the ratio [tex]\frac{m}{r}[/tex] (or [tex]\frac{E}{r}[/tex]) is the quite logical way to start modelling the influence of some entity. In the case of confrontation of two photons, the ratio [tex]\frac{m}{r}[/tex] would be the measure of influence of the both photons on [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] of the space which contains both of our photons. That means that the mass [tex]m[/tex] is the sum of masses of our two photons. The denominator should be the distance between our photons. We want to model the distribution of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex]. The two-photons-whirl would definitely have the circular symmetry, and that means that the distributions of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] must have circular symmetry, too. Therefore, we will consider that the total mass [tex]m[/tex] is the mass-center, and that [tex]r[/tex] is the radial distance from the center.
We will assume that the spacetime is continuum, and we will start mathematical modeling of influence of two confronting photons on spacetime with the following general mathematical model:

[tex]\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon_0}=f_\epsilon(\frac{m}{r})[/tex]          [tex]\frac{\mu}{\mu_0}=f_\mu(\frac{m}{r})[/tex]

That what we know for sure, is that if there is no confrontation, then [tex]\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon_0}=1[/tex] and [tex]\frac{\mu}{\mu_0}=1[/tex], that is, [tex]\epsilon = \epsilon_0[/tex], and [tex]\mu = \mu_0[/tex], hence, [tex]f(no-confrontation) = f(0) = 1[/tex]
The continual analytic functions can be represented with Taylor series. Since we deal here with elementary level of existence, we will start with only first two elements of the Taylor series.

[tex]\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon_0}=1+k_\epsilon \cdot \frac{m}{r}[/tex]          [tex]\frac{\mu}{\mu_0}=1+k_\mu \cdot \frac{m}{r}[/tex]

[tex]v = \frac{1}{\sqrt(\epsilon \cdot \mu)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt(\epsilon_0 \cdot (1+k_\epsilon \cdot \frac{m}{r}) \cdot \mu_0 \cdot (1+k_\mu \cdot \frac{m}{r}))} = \frac{c}{\sqrt(1+k_\epsilon \cdot \frac{m}{r}) \cdot (1+k_\mu \cdot \frac{m}{r})}[/tex]

Next, we could assume that [tex]k_\epsilon = k_\mu = k[/tex], because, for now, there is no reason to assume that they would/should be different. Hence, the distribution of allowed velocities is:

[tex]\frac{v}{c} = \frac{1}{1+k \cdot \frac{m}{r}} = \frac{1}{1+ \frac{R_0}{r}}[/tex]

(graph)

So, in the case of the two-photons-whirl, the velocity distribution is not linear function of the circling-radius. However, it does not have to be linear – it is enough to be sufficiently linear along the radial line segment within the photons, at the moment when photons come into the position of their minimal passing-by distance. However, the circling would occur even if the previous condition is not met.

The further elaboration will demonstrate the two-photons-whirl concept's supreme reality-explanation-power.

Quantitatively, the mass of the two-photons-whirl is equal to the sum of the non-inertial masses of the photons which form that whirl. That what is new, is that the mass of the two-photons-whirl whirls, spins. Another new property is that the velocity [tex]V[/tex] of the two-photons-whirl as a whole may have any value from the range [tex]V \in [0,c)[/tex].

What would be the bahavior of the two-photons-whirl if some outer force affects it (i.e. if some other entity – a photon, or another whirl, or some composite entity – colides with the two-photons-whirl)?
Well, the influence of that outer force would manifest itself as any combination of the following changes:
1)   the change of individual masses of the photons which constitute the whirl
2)   the change of the velocity distribution within the whirl, that is the change of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] distributions of the space which contains the two-photons-whirl
3)   the change of the spatial position of the two-photons-whirl as a whole, which means, the change of the velocity [tex]V[/tex] of the two-photons-whirl as a whole.

It may happen that the final result is only the change of [tex]V[/tex]. That would mean that the whirl was disturbed by the outer force, but nevertheless, survived that disturbance, in the way that its mass remained the same, and that it whirls further in the stable way. And that is possible because it has the possibility to change its spatial position, that is, its velocity [tex]V[/tex]. So, we could say that the two-photons-whirl is able to keep its mass better* than a single photon. And that is the origin of the property which is generally known as inertia.
   * we used the word better because there is the case when even the single photon's mass remains the same as it was before interaction. That case is known as elastic scattering.

Comparing to single photons, the two-photons-whirl is the new, higher mode of existence, the new way of energy packaging, whose inevitable consequence is the enhancement of the mass stability, because, at least a part of an outer force influence would change the [tex]V[/tex]. The two-photons-whirl  has the intrinsical, inherent, ontological capability to avoid or to reduce the influence of some outer force on its mass. And that capability is the origin of the phenomenon known as inertia.

Hence, inertia is inevitable consequence of energy-whirling, that is, of the non-inertial-mass whirling, that is, of the proto-mass whirling, that is, of the two-photons whirling. In other words: the most elementary inertial mass, the most fundamental inertial mass, is the mass of the two-photons-whirl.
Hence, the two-photons-whirl is the most elementary appearance of that what we call matter.

The state of a two-photons-whirl is [tex]p=m \cdot V[/tex]. We should recall that we have derived the momentum in the previous section. The momentum of the photon, that is, the momentum of non-inertial mass, is [tex]\Delta p= \Delta m \cdot c[/tex]. Before that, we have derived the force, from the change of the fundamental state [tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h[/tex], and we have derived that the force can be presented either as the change of energy over length, or as the change of momentum in time. Before and after interaction with some other entity, the velocity of a photon is [tex]c[/tex], and therefore, that what changes has to be and is the [tex]\Delta m[/tex]. The two-photons-whirl may have any velocity [tex]V \in [0,c)[/tex]. If only the [tex]V[/tex] changes during interaction, we have:

[tex]\frac{dp}{dt}=\frac{d(m \cdot V)}{dt}=m \cdot \frac{dV}{dt}=m \cdot a[/tex]

So, we have fundamentaly derived and explained the Newton’s force definition, too.

Starting with the two-photons-whirl and up - in the sense of the matter composite structures - we have the intrinsic energy (energy of the photons which form the whirls, that is, which form the matter), and the kinetic energy, that is, the energy of the movement of matter. In the case of a single photon, these two energy "types" are indistinguishable, that is, the intrinsic and the kinetic energy of a single free photon is the one and the same thing.


What would be the radial energy distribution of some energy which whirls?
In the radial direction towards the center of the whirling, energy rises, that is, in any radial direction away from center, the energy decreases. At each point [tex]r[/tex], energy has a certain value [tex]E(r)[/tex]. Along the radius, the energy does change: [tex]\frac{dE}{dr}[/tex]. This is force, by definition.
At some given radius [tex]r[/tex], that force has a certain value [tex]\frac{dE(r)}{dr}[/tex]. Both force and energy do not change along the circle of that given radius [tex]r[/tex]. Hence:

[tex]\frac{dE(r)}{dr} = - a(r) \cdot m(r) = - \frac{v^2}{r} \cdot \frac{E(r)}{c^2} \Rightarrow \frac{dE(r)}{E(r)} = - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \cdot \frac{dr}{r}[/tex]
[tex]v = \omega \cdot r, dv = \omega \cdot dr \Rightarrow \frac{dr}{r} = \frac{dv}{v}[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow \frac{dE(r)}{E(r)} = - \frac{v \cdot dv}{c^2} \Rightarrow \frac{E(v)}{E_0} = e^{ - \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/tex]

Hence, we got the distribution which is the synonym of stability - the Gaussian.
In other words, the Gaussian is intrinsically related to the canonical whirling. 
This is an unprecedented explanation and derivation of the Gaussian, its physical origin, its essential ontology.
The Gaussian form is the most stable form. It is mostly known as the final form that each distribution tends to, the form which envelopes each type of the so called chaos. All of the existing derivations and interpretations of the Gaussian form are based on and derived from statisctics, probability, oodles, chaos. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem, section History)
However, it is not only the finall, the end form – it is, primarily, the archetype of the continual form, the archetype for the continual forming – it is one of the essential principles upon which the world is built, starting from elementary particles. It is the fundamental continuous form determinator, the synonym for order. It is the essential soliton-form, the basic building block for any other form – any localized physical form can be composed by the set of Gaussians.

In other words, there is no ground for any doubts about the possibility to have a stable two-photons-whirl. And it could be even more stable - the two-photons-whirl could form some type of electromagnetic self-adjusting phase-locked-loop (PLL).
The photons-whirl concept definitely requires deeper/broader analysis and investigation, but that analysis and investigation simply cannot compromise this concept. Not only that this concept – that the photons are the basic building blocks for inertial-mass-particles, namely, that the elementary inertial-mass-particle is the photons-whirl – is both logically and physically completely justified, but there does not exist any logical or physical argument against this concept. If someone would argue that the „annihilation“ of a slow electron and a slow positron results with just two [tex]\gamma[/tex]-photons, that would be easy to explain:
- It is the resonant, perfect (precise, accurate) match, whose result is: one photon of the electron and one photon of the positron merge into one  [tex]\gamma[/tex]-photon, and the rest two photons merge into the other [tex]\gamma[/tex]-photon. These new photons have higher energy (bigger mass), which affects their lengths. Also, the allowed-velocities-distribution is affected. Also, the whirl-radius is affected. All of these changes together disturb the geometry and balance of whirling enough to cause that these new photons – two of them – fly away.

So far, the new definition for the space given at the beginning of this work, which logically lead to the two-photons-whirl concept, enabled the unprecedented understanding of reality. And that is just the beginning.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2012 00:21:18 by zordim »

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
The primary essentials – round 3:   Unification of Physics

We can consider that the following three equations are the fundamental equations of a photon:
[tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h[/tex]    [tex]\Delta p \cdot \Delta s = h[/tex]    [tex]\Delta E = \Delta m \cdot c^2[/tex]                (14)

These three fundamental equations were obtained:
-   from the basic, proven EM-properties, and from fundamental EM-equations of a photon and of space (labeled with I (eq. 1), II (eq. 2), and III (eq. 4) in part 2).
-   in the most simple and the most direct way, in the fundamental way, and logically-mathematically-physically quite consistently.

Photons are the fundamental building-blocks of each and every thing in universe (except of spacetime. The essential constituents of universe are photons and spacetime. Photons cannot exist otherwise than within spacetime, essentially interrelated with spacetime).
Hence, the fundamental relations of a photon are the universal relations. (During the course of this paper, they will be addressed as the three fundamental relations).
Hence, the Newton’s principles are essentially electromagnetic and completely universal principles:
-   the elementary momentum is the momentum of a photon, which is an elementary EM-entity;
-   the elementary inertial mass is the property of elementary EM-whirl, composed of two electromagnetically coupled photons.

The first two of the three fundamental relations represent the essential origin/source/cause for any type of connectivity and interactivity in universe.
These two relations are mathemathical notion and notation of elementary interaction, that is, of elementary convolution of energy and time, and of energy(via momentum) and space. They represent the measure of coupling, the amount of coupling of energy and time, and of energy(via momentum) and space.
These two laws are the connectivity/interactivity/continuity essentials, which enable and determinate any higher level connectivity/interactivity/continuity. By differentiating these equations (as it was already presented), follows that the fundamental mathematical model of the elementary physical entity, or generally, of the elementary physical level, is
[tex] - \frac{\pm dy}{\mp dx} = \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}[/tex]
This is the essential continuity-law in the real world. (Its highest-level importance will be clarified and explained later, after deriving the maximal force [tex]F_{max}[/tex].

What follows now, are the most explicit, the most obvious general interpretations of the three universal fundamental relations:
1.     [tex](\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h, h = const.) \Rightarrow (\Delta E \uparrow \Rightarrow \Delta t \downarrow)[/tex]
Interpretation:  the greater elementary energy [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex] the smaller elementary time period.
2.     [tex](\Delta p \cdot \Delta s =\frac{\Delta E}{c} \cdot \Delta s = h) \Rightarrow (\Delta E \uparrow \Rightarrow \Delta s \downarrow)[/tex]
Interpretation:  the greater elementary energy [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex] the shorter elementary length.
3.     [tex]\Delta E = \Delta m \cdot c^2 \Rightarrow E = (\sum_i \Delta m_i) \cdot c^2 = m \cdot c^2[/tex]   
Interpretation: [tex]\Delta m[/tex] and [tex]m[/tex] represent the measure (the amount) of coupling of all of the three primordial trinity elements – the coupling of energy, space, and time – within the spacetime which contains the energy. The mass should be comprehended as embodying. There are two elementary gradation stages of embodying:
-   non-inertial (or proto-inertial) – photon, and
-   inertial – photons-whirl.
If we know the mass of any particle, of any physical body, then we can calculate the energy contained in that mass. That energy would be [tex]E = m \cdot c^2[/tex]  exclusively because the energy of a single photon is [tex]\Delta E = \Delta m \cdot c^2[/tex].

The interpretations of the three fundamental relations given in 1., 2., and 3., represent the base for the total unification of physics:
Everything that the current relativity theory is essentially about (time dilation, length(s) contraction, energy-mass relation) is explicitly and fundamentally expressed at the elementary level (known as the quantum level), with the three fundamental relations of physics, that is, with the three fundamental relations of universe.


fEMMe Special Relativity

[tex]F = m \cdot a, F = \frac{dE}{dl}, a = \frac{dv}{dt} \Rightarrow[/tex]   [tex]dE = m \cdot \frac{dv}{dt} \cdot dl = m \cdot \frac{dl}{dt} \cdot dv = m \cdot v \cdot dv[/tex] ;          [tex]dE = dm \cdot c^2[/tex]

[tex]dm \cdot c^2 = m \cdot v \cdot dv \Rightarrow[/tex]   [tex]\displaystyle \int_{m(v_{=0})}^{m(v)} \frac{dm}{m} = \frac{1}{c^2} \displaystyle \int_{v_{=0}}^{v} vdv[/tex]  [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]  [tex]\ln \frac{m(v)}{m(v_{=0})} = \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{v^2}{c^2}[/tex]  [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]  [tex]m=m_0 \cdot e^{\frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/tex]  [tex]\Leftrightarrow[/tex]  [tex]E = E_0 \cdot e^{\frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/tex]

This simple derivation is physically justified in the most essential way possible, and it is also experimentally confirmed: if positron and electron have higher kinetic energy before their „annihilation“, then the photons which are the result of the positron-electron „annihilation“ have higher energies, too. Hence, each infinitesimal increase of their kinetic energy [tex]dE = m \cdot v \cdot dv[/tex], is converted into appropriate energy increase [tex]dE = dm \cdot c^2[/tex] , released during "annihilation" - all in accordance with the energy conservation principle.

The velocity of an elementary inertial-mass-particle, that is, of a photons-whirl which moves through [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]-[tex]\mu_0[/tex]-spacetime, cannot reach the velocity [tex]c[/tex]. Because, the [tex]c[/tex] is the maximal possible intensity of the vector-sum of:
-   the circular velocity of the photon in the photon’s whirl,
-   and the velocity of the whole whirl.
In the hypothetical case that the whirl as a whole reaches the velocity [tex]c[/tex], then it would turn into two paralelly and linearly moving photons.

Hence, theoretically, the maximal possible increase of energy (mass) of the inertial-mass-particle is  [tex]E(v=c) = E_0 \cdot e^{\frac{1}{2}} \approx 1.65 \cdot E_0[/tex] , that is, about  65%  increase of energy (mass) at rest.

The (correct, accurate, true) time-dilation equation: [tex]\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta E_0} = e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \Rightarrow \frac{\Delta E}{\Delta E_0} \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t_0} = e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t_0} \Rightarrow \frac{h}{h} = e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t_0} \Longrightarrow \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t_0} = e^{- \frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \Rightarrow \frac{t}{t_0} = e^{- \frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/tex]

The (correct, accurate, true) length-contraction equation: [tex]\frac{\Delta E / c}{\Delta E_0 /c} = \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta p_0} = e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \Rightarrow \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta p_0} \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta s_0} = e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta s_0} \Rightarrow \frac{h}{h} = e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta s_0} \Longrightarrow \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta s_0} = e^{- \frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \Rightarrow \frac{s}{s_0} = e^{- \frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/tex]
« Last Edit: 12/12/2012 11:40:39 by zordim »

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Gravitational EM-mechanics

Let us consider some macroscopic spherical uncharged material object. We will consider that its inertial mass m is constant. In this case, the distribution of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] values of the spacetime which surrounds the macroscopic object is the function of the huge multitude of elementary photons-whirls.
We have derived the basic mathematical model of that how the most elementary material particle – the two-photons-whirl – affects the space which contains it. Now, we will derive the superposition of the huge number of such influences.
We have empty space. Its [tex]\epsilon [/tex]-property is [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]
Now we bring (from far away) one elementary material particle. At some observed point, which is at some given distance [tex]r[/tex] from our elementary particle, its influence on [tex]\epsilon[/tex]-space property is:

[tex]\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_0 \cdot (1+k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m_p}{r})[/tex]

If we now bring another elementary particle, to be at the same distance from the observed point, we shall have:

[tex]\epsilon_2 = \epsilon_1 \cdot (1+k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m_p}{r}) = \epsilon_0 \cdot (1+k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m_p }{r})^2[/tex]

The influence of [tex]n[/tex] particles shall be:

[tex]\epsilon_n = \epsilon_0 \cdot (1+k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m_p}{r})^n[/tex]

For a huge number of particles, we shall have:

[tex]u = k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m_p}{r}[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow (1+k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m_p}{r})^n = (1+u)^n=1+n \cdot u + \frac{n \cdot (n-1)}{2!} \cdot u^2 + \text{...} + u^n = 1 + n \cdot u + \frac{1 \cdot (1-1/n)}{2!} \cdot (n \cdot u)^2 + \text{...} + u^n[/tex]

[tex](n>>) \Rightarrow (1+u)^n \rightarrow 1 + n \cdot u + \frac{(n \cdot u)^2}{2!} + \text{...} \rightarrow e^{n \cdot u}[/tex]

[tex]n \cdot u = k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{n \cdot m_p}{r} = k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m}{r}[/tex], where [tex]m[/tex] is the mass of our macroscopic object.

So, we have [tex]\epsilon = \epsilon_0 \cdot e^{k_{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{m}{r}}[/tex], and, in the same way we’d get [tex]\mu = \mu_0 \cdot e^{k_{\mu} \cdot \frac{m}{r}}[/tex].

[tex]\Rightarrow v^2 (r) = \frac{1}{\epsilon \cdot \mu} \Rightarrow v(r) = c \cdot e^{- k \cdot \frac{m}{r}}[/tex], where we have assumed that [tex]k_{\epsilon} = k_{\mu} = k[/tex], that is, we have assumed an electromagnetically balanced, equal, neutral influence of mass.

[tex]\Rightarrow dv(r) = c \cdot k \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot e^{- k \cdot \frac{m}{r^2}} \cdot dr[/tex]

[tex]dr = c \cdot dt \Rightarrow dv(r) = c^2 \cdot k \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot e^{- k \cdot \frac{m}{r}} \cdot dt = a(r) \cdot dt(r)[/tex]

[tex]a(r) = c^2 \cdot k \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot e^{- k_a \cdot \frac{m}{r}} [/tex]

[tex]dt(r) = e^{- k_t \cdot \frac{m}{r}} \cdot dt[/tex]

[tex] k_a + k_t = k[/tex]

But, the acceleration [tex]a(r)[/tex] is the derived quality, and the time is the fundamental quality, so we shall consider that [tex]k_a[/tex] is either very small, or infinitesimally small, or even equal to 0. As for the constant [tex]c^2 \cdot k[/tex], it can be nothing else but the universal gravitation constant [tex]G[/tex].
Hence, we have:

[tex]v(r) = c \cdot e^{- \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r}}[/tex]      [tex] a(r) = G \cdot \frac{m}{r^2}[/tex]      [tex]dt(r) = e^{- \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r}} \cdot dt[/tex]      [tex]ds(r) = v(r) \cdot dt(r) = e^{- 2 \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r}} \cdot dr[/tex]

These equations imply that the [tex]\epsilon (m, r)[/tex]-[tex]\mu (m, r)[/tex]-spacetime around our object of the mass m is such that:
-   it only allows the velocity of EM-energy propagation which is less then [tex]c[/tex].
-   it has one more intrinsic property: the radially variable acceleration, which is the consequence of the radially variable allowed velocity, which is the consequence of the radially variable [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex], which is the consequence of the superimposed photons-whirls influences.
Through some fixed point which is very far away from our macroscopic object, a photon would pass in [tex]\Delta t[/tex] time units. Through some fixed point which is in the vicinity of our macroscopic object, that same photon would pass in [tex]\Delta t(r) = e^{- \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r}} \cdot \Delta t[/tex] time units.

The fundamental law which a photon has to obey is [tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h[/tex]. That means that it also has to be that [tex]\Delta E(r) \cdot \Delta t(r) = h[/tex].

[tex]\Rightarrow \Delta E(r) \cdot \Delta t(r) = \Delta E \cdot \Delta t \Rightarrow \Delta E(r) = \Delta E \cdot e^{\frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r}}[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \frac{d \Delta E(r)}{dr} = \Delta E \cdot (- \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r^2}) \cdot e^{\frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r}} = - \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot \Delta E \cdot e^{\frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r}}[/tex]

[tex] \frac{d \Delta E(r)}{dr} = - \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot \Delta E(r) = - G \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot \frac{\Delta E(r)}{c^2} = - a(r) \cdot \frac{\Delta E(r)}{c^2}[/tex] (*)

Simple rearrangement of the equation (*) directly gives the Pound-Rebka experiment result:

[tex]\frac{d \Delta E(r)}{\Delta E(r)} = \frac{d E_{ph.}}{E_{ph.}} = - \frac{a(r)}{c^2} \cdot dr \Longrightarrow \frac{\Delta E_{ph.}}{E_{ph.}} = - \frac{g}{c^2} \cdot \Delta r \approx -2.456 \cdot 10^{-15}[/tex], where [tex]g = 9.81 \frac{m}{s^2}[/tex], [tex]\Delta r = 22.5 m[/tex]

So, the change of the photon’s energy is negative as the photon moves away from our macroscopic object. That means that the photon moves against the force. That force is given with the equation (*):

[tex]F(r) = \frac{d \Delta E(r)}{dr} = - a(r) \cdot \frac{\Delta E(r)}{c^2} = - a(r) \cdot m(r)[/tex]

That force affects non-inertial mass of a photon. That force affects any material object, too:

[tex]F(r) = - G \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot m_{a.o.}[/tex], where [tex]m_{a.o.}[/tex] is the mass of any object.
Hence, we have derived the Newton’s law of gravitation.

So, from logically, physically, and fundamentally based and explained exponential equations for [tex]\epsilon (r)[/tex] and for [tex]\mu (r)[/tex], in conjunction with the previously derived fundamental relations of physics, are derived the results which exactly describe the reality, and simply and exactly explain the well-known experiments which are considered as the relativity-theory-confirmation-pillars: the Pound-Rebka experiment, and  Shapiro time delay.


Now, we shall show another easy and accurate derivation of the true relativity equations, which could (should) had been done as soon as Einstein predicted the gravitational red shift of a photon.
Actually, the first scientists who were in position to derive the true relativity equations, in the year 1900, were both Max Planck and Henry Poencare. Because, for that derivation, one needs only the following:
-   Newton’s gravitation law [tex]F = G \cdot \frac{m \cdot m_p}{r^2}[/tex]
-   Planck’s equation for elementary EM-radiation energy [tex]\Delta E = h \cdot \nu[/tex],
-   Poencare’s derivation of [tex]E = m \cdot c^2[/tex] (on the basis of Maxwell’s and Poynting’s works (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608289.pdf, page 2))

Moving of the mass [tex]m_p[/tex] radially away from a gravitation source for some infinitesimal distance [tex]dr[/tex], would require an infinitesimal work, which – according to the Newton’s gravitation law – is

[tex]dA = G \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot  m_p \cdot dr[/tex].

In the case of a photon, [tex]m_p[/tex] would be the photon’s non-inertial mass. Or, we can put instead [tex]\Delta E / c^2[/tex]. From the energy conservation principle, follows that when a photon moves radially away from a source of gravitation, energy of the photon [tex]\Delta E[/tex] has to reduce for the amount [tex]dA[/tex].  Hence:

[tex]d \Delta E(r) = - dA = - G \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot \frac{\Delta E(r)}{c^2} \cdot dr \Longrightarrow \frac{d \Delta E(r)}{\Delta E(r)} = - \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \frac{m}{r^2} \cdot dr[/tex]

Follows the energy equation of a photon:
[tex]\displaystyle \int_r^{\infty} \frac{d \Delta E(r)}{\Delta E(r)} = - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2} \int_r^{\infty} \frac{dr}{r^2} \Longrightarrow \Delta E(r) = \Delta E \cdot e^{\frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex] ,
where [tex]\Delta E[/tex] is the photon’s energy very, very far away from the gravitation-source.

From [tex]\Delta E = h \cdot \nu[/tex] follows [tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h[/tex]. Namely, since the EM-oscillation frequency is [tex]\nu[/tex] then the period of that oscillation is [tex]\Delta t = \frac{1}{\nu}[/tex]
From [tex] \Delta E(r) = \Delta E \cdot e^{\frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex], and from [tex]\Delta E = h \cdot \nu[/tex] follows [tex] \Delta t(r) = \Delta t \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex].
At some fixed radius, an infinitesimal part of the time period [tex]d \Delta t(r)[/tex] will be [tex]d \Delta t(r) = d \Delta t \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex].

Now, the velocity of a photon can be derived:

[tex]dv(r) = - a(r) \cdot dt(r) = - \frac{G \cdot m}{r^2} \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} \cdot d \Delta t =  - \frac{G \cdot m}{r^2} \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} \cdot \frac{d \Delta r}{c} \Longrightarrow \frac{dv(r)}{dr} = - \frac{G \cdot m}{c \cdot r^2} \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{d}{dr} (e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}) = \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r^2}  \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} = \frac{1}{c} \cdot \frac{G \cdot m}{c \cdot r^2}  \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} = \frac{1}{c} \cdot ( - \frac{dv(r)}{dr})[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow \frac{dv(r)}{dr} = c \cdot \frac{d}{dr} (e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}) \Rightarrow dv(r) = c \cdot d(e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}) \Longrightarrow v(r) = - c \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex]

So, obviously, it cannot be like this. The only explanation is that we made wrong starting assumption. Namely, according to the equation for time period, the time period of a photon increases as the photon moves radially away. We know that acceleration is negative for a body which moves away, that is, the change of its velocity [tex]dv[/tex] is negative. But, that is the case for inertial-mass bodies. The velocity change of a photon which moves radially away is positive. The key point is to realize that [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] are the properties of space, and that matter affects the space in the way that it causes the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] to increase within the space occupied by matter. Outside matter, and further away, [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] decrease. Therefore, according to the Maxwell’s equation [tex]v(r) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon (r) \cdot \mu (r)}}[/tex], the allowed velocity, that is, the velocity of our photon, would increase.
Hence, in the previous velocity-equation derivation, the starting equation should be
[tex]dv(r) = a(r) \cdot dt(r)[/tex],
and we would then get that the velocity of the photon which moves radially away from the source of gravitations is

[tex]v(r) = c \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex]

And, the length of a photon would change as:

[tex]ds(r) = v(r) \cdot dt(r) = c \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} \cdot dt = e^{ - 2 \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} \cdot dr[/tex]
« Last Edit: 23/11/2012 22:22:47 by zordim »

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Continuity principle, that is, the mass (energy) conservation principle

The compliance of the FEMME relativity equations with these essential principles will be demonstrated using the equation for the gravitational time at some fixed radius:

[tex]t(m,r) = t \cdot e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}}[/tex]

We have a body with a mass [tex]m_1[/tex]. We observe some point which is at a distance  [tex]r_1[/tex]  from that body. The time equation at that point is

[tex]t_1 = t \cdot f(m_1, r_1)[/tex]

If another body with a mass [tex]m_2[/tex] comes (from very far away) at some distance [tex]r_2[/tex] from the observed point, the time equation at that point becomes 

[tex]t_2 = t_1 \cdot f(m_2, r_2) = t \cdot f(m_1, r_1) \cdot f(m_2, r_2)[/tex]

So, [tex]N[/tex] bodies will produce the following time behavior at the observed point:

[tex]\displaystyle \tau = t \cdot \prod_{i=1}^N f(m_i, r_i) \Rightarrow \frac{\tau}{t} = \prod_{i=1}^N f(m_i, r_i) = \prod_{i=1}^N e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m_i}{c^2 \cdot r_i}} = e^{ - \frac{G}{c^2} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{m_i}{r_i}}[/tex]

[tex]r_i[/tex] is the distance of the i-th body from the observed point

The superimposed time-behavior at some point which is equally distant from two or more objects will be the same as the time-behavior produced at the same distance from one object with the mass equal to the mass-sum of those two or more objects:

[tex]\displaystyle \prod_{i=1}^N e^{ - \frac{G \cdot m_i}{c^2 \cdot r_i}} = e^{ - \frac{G}{c^2 \cdot r} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^N m_i} = e^{ - \frac{G}{c^2 \cdot r} \cdot M[/tex]

This is the continuity principle.
This is the mass (energy) conservation principle.

Note: The actual GR equations are not compliant with these principles.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
The maximal force

Using the 3rd  fundamental universal equation of physics and its consequence  [tex]E = m \cdot c^2[/tex], we can rewrite the Newton’s law of gravitation as:

[tex]F = \frac{G \cdot m}{r^2} \cdot m_p = \frac{G}{r^2} \cdot \frac{E}{c^2} \cdot \frac{E_p}{c^2} \Rightarrow \frac{c^4}{G} \cdot F = \frac{E}{r} \cdot \frac{E_p}{r}[/tex]

The constant [tex]\frac{c^4}{G}[/tex] is huge and has the dimension of force.
The Newton’s law of gravitation is the law of interaction.
Gravitational force is the manifestation of the spatial convolution, of the spatial  EM interaction of elementary particle (a photon, a photons-whirl) with the gravitationally modified [tex]\epsilon[/tex]  and [tex]\mu[/tex] of the spacetime.

Let us write the general expression for the convolution: [tex]\displaystyle \int_{ - \infty}^{\infty} \delta(r) \cdot u_{\text{out}}(-r + l) dr = \int_{ - \infty}^{\infty} h(r) \cdot u_{\text{in}}(-r + l) dr[/tex]

Let us write the Newton’s law of gravitation as: [tex]\frac{(c^4 / G)}{\Delta r} \cdot (F(r) \cdot \Delta r) = \frac{E}{r^2} \cdot E_p[/tex]

The huge value of the first term in this equation, which corresponds to the Dirac’s delta function [tex]\delta[/tex], strongly implies that the constant [tex]c^4 / G[/tex]  is the candidate for the maximal possible force in universe.



The minimal radius for a given inertial mass

Let us consider the exponent [tex]2 \cdot \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}[/tex] in the gravitational length-equation [tex]ds = e^{2 \cdot \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}} \cdot dr[/tex]
The part [tex]2 \cdot \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2}[/tex] of that exponent has the dimension of length. If we’d want to interpret it physically, we could consider it as „the characteristic-size-parameter of the gravitation-source whose inertial mass is m“. Calculating that value for some real physical object, we’d get very small value comparing to the actual size of the real physical object.
Having that the characteristic size is very small comparing to the real dimensions of the object of a given mass, the characteristic size should be considered as the minimal possible radius for a given mass.
Such constraint has to exist, if there exist the maximal force, because:

[tex]\Delta E = \frac{h \cdot c}{\Delta s}[/tex]    [tex]F \sim \frac{\Delta E}{\Delta s} = \frac{h \cdot c}{(\Delta s)^2} \Rightarrow \Delta s_{\text{min}} \sim \sqrt{\frac{h \cdot c}{F_{\text{max}}}}[/tex]

Also, the minimal quantum length [tex]\Delta s_{\text{min}}[/tex] cannot contain arbitrarily high energy (that is, arbitrarily big mass) – according to the 2nd fundamental relation, that energy (mass) must be less than some maximal value, and that maximal value is:

[tex]\Delta E_{\text{max}} \sim \frac{h \cdot c}{\Delta s_{\text{min}}} = h \cdot c \cdot \sqrt{\frac{F_{\text{max}}}{h \cdot c}} = \sqrt{h \cdot c \cdot F_{\text{max}}}[/tex]

Generally, the following condition is always valid:  [tex]\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta s} \leq F_{\text{max}} \Rightarrow \Delta s \geq \frac{\Delta E}{F_{\text{max}}}[/tex]


We come to the same conclusion – that there has to exist some minimal possible object size – if we consider the gravitational orbital/escape velocity: [tex]v^2 \sim G \cdot \frac{m}{r}[/tex]
Since the maximal possible circling velocty is [tex]c[/tex], the [tex]r[/tex] cannot be less than [tex]r_{\text{min}}[/tex]:

[tex]r_{\text{min}} \sim G \cdot \frac{m}{v_{\text{max}}^2} = G \cdot \frac{m}{c^2} \Rightarrow r_{\text{min}} \sim G \cdot \frac{m \cdot c^2}{c^4} \Rightarrow r_{\text{min}} \sim \frac{E}{F_{\text{max}}}[/tex]

According to all that, and according to the fundamental origin of the exponent [tex]2 \cdot \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2 \cdot r}[/tex], the term [tex]2 \cdot \frac{G \cdot m}{c^2} = 2 \cdot \frac{G \cdot m \cdot c^2}{c^4} = 2 \frac{E}{F_{\text{max}}}[/tex] is the best candidate to be the minimal possible radius for a given inertial mass. We shall denote that radius as [tex]R_{\text{min}}[/tex].
« Last Edit: 20/11/2012 23:51:25 by zordim »

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Why is Fmax unreachable?

To illustrate the inscrutability of [tex]F_{max}[/tex], we shall consider two spherical bodies, which have minimal possible radiuses for their masses [tex]m_1[/tex] and [tex]m_2[/tex], and which are next to each other, touching each other. In such case, the attraction-force among them is
[tex]\displaystyle F_{attr} = \frac{G \cdot m_1 \cdot m_2}{[R_{min} (m_1) + R_{min} (m_2)]^2} = \frac{G \cdot m_1 \cdot m_2}{4 \frac{G^2}{c^4} \cdot (m_1 + m_2)^2} = \frac{F_{max}}{4} \cdot \frac{m_1 \cdot m_2}{(m_1 + m_2)^2}[/tex]

From this case, we shall derive the sub-case in which the attractive force [tex]F_{attr}[/tex] would have maximal value:
[tex]m_1 = m[/tex], [tex]m_2 = b \cdot m_1[/tex], [tex]b > 0[/tex]
[tex]\displaystyle F_{attr} = \frac{F_{max}}{4} \cdot \frac{b \cdot m^2}{(b + 1)^2 \cdot m^2} = \frac{F_{max}}{4} \cdot \frac{b}{(b+1)^2}[/tex]
[tex]\displaystyle \frac{d}{db} (\frac{b}{(b+1)^2}) = - \frac{b-1}{(b+1)^3} = 0 \Rightarrow b = 1 \Rightarrow max(F_{attr}) = \frac{1}{16} \cdot F_{max}[/tex]

Hence, we got the solution [tex]b = 1[/tex], which means that maximal attraction force would occur among two bodies which have equal masses, and that force would be 16 times less than the maximal possible force [tex]F_{max}[/tex].
So, the [tex]max(F_{attr})[/tex] is undoubtly huge force, but considerably less than the maximal possible force [tex]F_{max}[/tex].
Since the very small touching-surface is affected by this huge force, we should expect these two bodies to start either to break each other, or to melt into each other. Namely, we can have to outcomes: destructive and constructive.
In the case of destruction, it is clear that the force would decrease very rapidly, that is, we’d have the rapid relaxation.
Let us now consider the perfectly constructive case: that our two bodies, each having the mass [tex]m[/tex], and the radius [tex]R_{min} (m)[/tex], smoothly melt into each other, and form the new spherical body of mass [tex]2m[/tex], and which has minimal possible radius for that mass [tex]R_{min} (2m)[/tex]. That new radius will be two times bigger:   [tex]R_{min} (2m) = 2G \cdot (2m) / c^2 = 2 \cdot (2G \cdot m / c^2) = 2 \cdot R_{min} (m)[/tex]. Follows that this new body would have density which is [tex]2^2 = 4[/tex] times smaller than density of each of the bodies which produced the new body:
[tex]\rho_{max} (m) = \frac{m}{k \cdot R_{min}^3 (m)}[/tex], [tex]\rho_{max} (2m) = \frac{2m}{k \cdot R_{min}^3 (2m)} = 2 \cdot \frac{m}{2^3 \cdot k \cdot R_{min}^3 (m)} = \frac{\rho_{max} (m)}{2^2}[/tex], where [tex]k = \frac{4 \cdot \pi}{3}[/tex]
So, this process is the relaxation process, too, which means that during that process the force decreases.
Generally, [tex]R_{min} (x \cdot m) = x \cdot R_{min} (m)[/tex], [tex]\rho_{max} (x \cdot m) = \frac{\rho_{max} (m)}{x^2}[/tex]. So, any bigger maximally packed mass is less dense then the smaller maximally packed mass. From this follows that there exist some minimal possible mass which has the maximal possible density, that is, there exist the density limit. The mass which has the maximal density can be estimated by equating previously derived [tex]\Delta s_{min}[/tex] with [tex]R_{min} (\Delta m)[/tex], and it has the microgram-level weight (and this is the mass which is generally known as the Planck’s mass).
The elementary constituents of these bodies are the elementary photons-whirls. The stable photons-whirl cannot be formed just like that. (We base this on the fact that we have only electrons, positrons, quarks, antiquarks, and maybe a few more types of elementary photons-whirls). Increasing the energy (mass) of the photons in the photons-whirl causes the increase of its radius. So, the individual photons become shorter, and their circling path becomes longer. It is reasonable to expect that this would disturb the stability of the photons-whirl. And we have here the photons-whirls which are in extreme states. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that they would disintegrate into photons as soon as they receive some tiny increase of energy coming from outside. The principle of that disintegration is the same as the principle of electron-positron „annihilation“, which was explained at the end of the previous section "The Primary Essentials - Round 2". The difference is that in this case nothing has to match, to fit – the slightest energy disturbance is sufficient to ignite the mightiest possible explosion – the photonic explosion, the total disintegration into photons through photonic chain-reaction. Namely, it is enough that just one photons-whirl in such body disintegrates, releasing the huge-energy photons, which would then start the disintegration chain-reaction.
Hence, an object can only be pressured up to a limit – beyond that limit, the dispersion of the most elementary inertial-mass particles, that is, of elementary photons-whirls, which constitute that object would occur. That is the reason for stars explosion, for pulsar [tex]\gamma[/tex]-jets, for radiation of massive body which is in the center of a galaxy.


In the section „The primary essentials – round 3:  Unification of Physics“ we said that the general form of the essential continuity-law of the reality is [tex] - \frac{\pm d \Delta y}{\mp d \Delta x} = \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}[/tex], and that its highest-level importance will be clarified and explained after deriving the maximal force Fmax. So, here comes that clarification and explanation.
Both the force limit and the velocity limit are two equally important fundamental principles of existence.
They provide and ensure the normal continuity, the continuity of normal existence.

The normal, pure continuity is possible only if the ratio does not, under any circumstances, produce infinity. If it could produce infinity, then we’d have the discontinuity. So, the conditions for normal (real) continuity is:

[tex]| \frac{d \Delta y}{d \Delta x}| \leq | \frac{d \Delta y}{d \Delta x}|_{max}[/tex], concretely: [tex]|\frac{d \Delta E}{d \Delta s}| \leq F_{max}[/tex], and [tex]|\frac{d \Delta s}{d \Delta t}| \leq c[/tex]

The world is made in the way that nothing in it can reach these limits – anything in this world, that starts to tend to extreme state of existence, will inevitably break down to non-extreme state.

The manifestations/consequences of the continuity principle are:
•   the smoothness of energy/space/time change-processes (that is, in each „point“ (infinitesimal segment) of the flow of these changes there can exist just one, and only one  finite-value-derivative) – any change in this world cannot be abrupt, and the consequences of that are:
   o   the unambiguity of existence,
   o   the strict causality,
•   the energy/mass conservation principle.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2012 14:17:22 by zordim »

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
The primary essentials – Round-up

„The great desideratum for any science is its reduction to the smallest number of dominating principles.“
The FEMME theory essentials can be represented in the following way:



This is  all  that makes the fundamental physics. This is the necessary core, the starting frame, the basic theoretical template, the universe essential blueprint for modeling of each and every natural phenomenon, the core of the theory of everything, the essential complete set of fundamental principles, the primary principles of existence.

A careful reader would notice that this is also the universal pattern of each and every creation process.
For example:
-   (1, 2, 3) We start with some idea (about something, somewhere, in some time).
-   (4, 5) That idea has to be constrained (with reality, consistency).
-   (6) The essential relations between idea and reality have to be set, in the way which would conform to the constraints.
-   (7, 8) The form of each idea element has to be defined, as well as how it will match/interact with other elements, while creating higher form levels.
-   (9) Then comes the realization of the basic elements,
-   (10) and the final realization of idea.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2012 11:47:39 by zordim »

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Zordim,

If you would, please summarize your thesis in 4 or 5 sentences that mortals can comprehend.
That will ensure we are all on the same page. I am looking forward to reading it.

Thank you,
Butch 
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Hello butchmurray  :),

I eagerly followed what was going on in contemporary physics since my high-school days. Eagerly looking forward to see the physics explained and unified. That did not happen, and I realized that, in the way that these goals are pursued in contemporary physics, they cannot be achieved. That is what the top scientists say themselves, too. That is because they made the elementary things more complicated than they actually are. Starting with Heisenberg, and up to the latest postulations.

Einstein took the universal constancy of speed of light as the starting axiom, and he considered the space as the pure void. He made the things simpler than they are.

Einstein and Heisenberg had a long discussion and dispute about the interpretation of Heisenberg's relations. But, neither of them, nor anybody till today, noticed that these relations are the origin of relativity.

I wrote the FEMME as an attempt to understand. To see what is that what is elementary, what is fundamental, which has to be taken "as it is", which has to be taken as an axiom, and then to build that up, strictly sticking to the facts, and to the simple and clear reasoning. Common sense reasoning. I wanted to see how far I can go like that, to see where is the dead-end of such approach. But, I did not find any dead-ends.

The key point in FEMME is the definition of spacetime. I did not invent anything - I took the facts:
that what we can detect to be the properties of the space are: the lengths, the lengthwise capacitance [tex]\epsilon[/tex], and the lengthwise inductance [tex]\mu[/tex]. (The word space is bolded and underlined to emphasize the fact that the space is fundamentally an electromagnetic phenomenon (and that this has nothing to do with aether)).

The previous definition of space, the Planck's equation for quantum EM (electromagnetic) energy, the Maxwell's equation for the EM propagation velocity, and my deduction of the cause for increase of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] (and that cause is the confrontation of EM-energy flows) are the basic axioms from which I start, and from which I derive everything that is derived in FEMME. (I have derived the Newton's equations, and relativity equations, and I set the clear base for reasonable, comprehensible derivation and explanation of everything.)

That would be that. That is all consequentially exposed, presented, and explained in FEMME. One just has to read the FEMME, preferably twice, and to think about it, exclusively in a common sense, reasonable way, in order to see that, finally, the TOE-core is set.

Please, check it out yourself. I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Regards,
Zordim
« Last Edit: 21/11/2012 14:33:14 by zordim »

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
I understand capacitance and inductance in the context of electronics. Please explain what is meant when these terms are properties of ‘the space’.

Thank you,
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Straight to the point!  :)

The postulation/definition of space which I introduce at the beginning of FEMME is an over-sighted option, an option which was missed to be considered, an option which stood between the unsuccessful aether hypothesis, and purely abstract hyper-geometry-based postulations which neglected [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex].
Actually, neglecting of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] was the cardinal, crucial mistake, done by both Einstein and Heisenberg. And by all theoretical physicists till today. In contemporary physics, [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] are treated as non-essential phenomena. That is the origin of all problems.
That is why I have highlighted with the red color the definition for space in the main text.
And that is why this answer to you will not be very short. It cannot. [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] properties deserve special attention.

[tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] are not properties of any material (including the hypothetical aether – as it was demonstrated with the Michelson-Morley experiment, there is no such thing as aether)  –  [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] are fundamental properties of space, equally fundamental as the length(s), and inseparable from the length(s). They do not require any “internal structure of space“ in order to be „understood“. Do we understand the length property of space? No. It is something that we take as the existence-fact, as the existence-axiom. Well, that is what the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] are, too. They are even more fundamental. For the lengths, we do not assume, nor we feel the need for the background, in the form of some „structure“. Hence, we do not need it for [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex], neither. Unless we want to speculate. And I don’t want to do that. I want to stick to the facts.
Unlike the length (distance), we cannot directly notice [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] with our senses. We can notice the lengths (distances), and we can measure lengths (distances). That is all that we can fundamentally say about the distances, that is the essential, the fundamental apprehension of the length-property of space. That, and the fact that there can exist maximally three straight line segments which are mutually orthogonal (perpendicular) and which cross each other at one and the same point, is all we fundamentally „understand“ about the distances in our 3D space.
Concerning [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex], we can „only“ measure them. In a more indirect ways than we can measure a length (distance), but we can measure them. We can detect them and we can measure them. That is the fact. And they are fundamental, essential properties of space.
Coulomb, Ampere, and all scientists till the discovery of the size and structure of atom did not have a clue that the net-volume of matter is much smaller than the volume of space occupied with that matter. They thought that matter fills up the space much more efficiently. So, they thought that [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] are the properties of matter. When they discovered that the vacuum has also these properties, then they became definitely sure that the aether hypothesis must be valid, that is, that some super-fine matter which fills up the space exists, and which is the carrier of [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex] values. But they were wrong. Michelson and Morley proved that.
The capacity of the simplest capacitor, the two-equal-parallel-metal-plates capacitor, which is in vacuum, is
[tex]C = \epsilon_0 \cdot \frac{S}{l}[/tex]
What is vacuum? It is the empty space, the matter-free space, or, simply, the free space. So, whose property is [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] ?
Well, of course, it is the property of space. What else it could/should be?
And, when we put some insulator-material between capacitor plates, the capacitance is
[tex]C = \epsilon \cdot \frac{S}{l}[/tex]
where [tex]\epsilon[/tex] is the property of space within the insulator-material. Its increased value is the consequence of the influence of the energy which is packed into particles which form the material.

Let’s look at the equation for the capacitance.
What is its right side made of? First, of the surface-area S, and of the distance l. Both S and l are pure spatial properties. We do not need to have any metal, or any other material plates, we just need to imagine the plate-surfaces, to mentally notice the surfaces, and the distance between them. That piece of space, that space volume, will have capacitance only because of  the lengtwise capacitance [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]. If there would not exist [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex], then there would be no capacitance.
In other words, do you see any material, and any charges in this equation?
We need the material plates and charges only to, so to say, discover that there exist this law for the capacitance, to derive this law for the capacitance. The capacitance of such capacitor is not the function of the amount of charge we bring on the plates. Nor it is the function of the type of material which we use for plates. It is the function of the surface size, and of the distance between the surfaces. And of the space-flavor* [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]. If there would not exist the space-flavor [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex], then there would not exist any capacitance. (Actually, there would not be possible to exist neither the charges, nor metal plates, nor anything at all).

* I borrowed the word flavor from the terminology for quarks, which have flavors (charm, strange, top,…). My usage of this word has nothing to do with quarks, of course. I just find this word very appropriate for my context.

The lengthwise capacitance is the intrinsical property of the length, the intrisical property of the space, the electric-flavor of the space, the ontological predisposition for “electricity”. Going down to infinitesimal level, we have
[tex]\epsilon_0 \cdot \frac{dS}{dl} = \epsilon_0 \cdot \frac{(dx \cdot \hat x) \times (dy \cdot \hat y)}{dz \cdot \hat z} = \epsilon_0 \cdot \frac{dx \cdot dy \cdot \hat z}{dz \cdot \hat z} = \epsilon_0 \cdot \frac{dx \cdot dy}{dz} = \frac{dC}{dz} \cdot \frac{dx \cdot dy}{dz} = dC \cdot \frac{dx \cdot dy}{dz \cdot dz} = dC[/tex]
This has nothing to do with some inner space-structure of some tiny capacitors, but only with the tiny space volumes [tex]dV = dS \cdot dl[/tex], which – in the free-space (vacuum) – have isotropic intrinsic, inherent lengthwise capacitance [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex].
[tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] does not appear as the consequence of charges and of the physical construction of the capacitor. The physical construction of the capacitor and the electric circuit is just the instrument with which we can determine the capacitance of the space-volume within the capacitor plates. And, that capacitance is only and exclusively the consequence of the [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex], which is the inherent property of space.


Let us recall the Ampere’s law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability)
Two thin, straight, stationary, parallel wires, a distance [tex]r[/tex] apart in free space, each carrying a current [tex]I[/tex], will exert a force on each other. Ampčre's force law states that the force per unit length is given by
[tex]|F_m| = \frac{\mu_0}{2 \cdot \pi} \cdot \frac{|I|^2}{|r|}[/tex]
So, whose property is [tex]\mu_0[/tex] ? Well, of course, it is the property of space. What else it could/should be?
And, when we’d melt the wires within some insulator-material, we’d have
[tex]|F_m| = \frac{\mu}{2 \cdot \pi} \cdot \frac{|I|^2}{|r|}[/tex]
where [tex]\mu[/tex] is the property of space within the insulator-material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex], together with the Maxwell’s equation for velocity of propragation of EM waves, and Planck’s equation for elementary energy, are the most essential scientific discoveries.
Elementary energy – the photon – is essentially electromagnetic phenomenon.
The space is essentially electromagnetic phenomenon.
„Electromagnetic“ is the very essence of existence. The mystical background. We cannot understand that. But, we can detect that. That is the most fundamental axiom of existence. That is „the way it fundamentally is“. That is something fundamental, and there is nothing we can do else about it, but to take it as the axiom of existence (if we want to treat it scientifically, that is, if we want to stick to the facts, if we do not want to speculate).
So, in FEMME, everything is based on the following three most essential „that’s the way it fundamentally is“ things:
1)   The deepest essence of existence is „electromagnetic“
2)   the Maxwell’s velocity equation is the next „that’s the way it fundamentally is“ thing (it contains all, and only the spatial-properties)
3)   the Planck’s elementary energy is the next „that’s the way if fundamentally is“ thing (the frequency in this equation is the frequency of EM-oscillation)
So, “electromagnetic” is the essential flavor of both space and photon. Lengths and time are the properties we use in everyday life, and with which we describe the movement, but electromagnetic properties are the background properties, which enable interaction, which enable attaching of EM-energy and [tex]\epsilon \mu[/tex]-space, which enable and determine the velocity of the movement of photon through space-time.

There is no way to go deeper into these three items without having to imagine their background, without having to make speculations. That what is good, is that we do not need to go deeper into that in order to derive the proper model of existence, the model which unifies the physics properly.
All that is something which is the most essential, so, we have reduced the mystery to the minimum. And we achieve both of the following requirements:

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."Sir Isaac Newton,
„The great desideratum for any science is its reduction to the smallest number of dominating principles.“,

and we achieve that in the way that all complexity and confusion vanishes. We do not need any of the principles which were introduced after the Planck’s essential discovery, and we can do what current physics cannot – we can unify the physics, and we can do that simply and accurately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what about the current, Einstein-Minkowski spacetime concept?
After Morley-Michelson experiment, came Einstein, and said “there is no aether”, and he was right. But, then he said that photon moves through the space with constant speed c, without any interaction with space, just like that, that is, that [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex] are not the properties of space – the space is just space, the void. So, on the fundamental side, he made things simpler than they actually are, and that produced the complications and incomprehensibilities on the other sides. Then, Minkowski introduced his spacetime concept, and he was right, but not in the way he modeled that.

Some “aside” thoughts:
After investigation of science history and sociological-psychological-political circumstances, all this was not an “unhappy”, unfortunate sequence of events. It was deliberate attempt to write the physics “from scratch” in the way which would enable the definite advantage of German science. French scientists discovered [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex],  Maxwell united all that in the beautiful electromagnetic theory, and Newton is the greatest ever physicist.
Planck, Heisenberg, Einstein, Hilbert took the lead at the moment when complete physics was seriously shocked with new discoveries at the beginning of the 20th century. And they saw the opportunity to discard all of the achievements of their opponents, by setting new principles from which they would derive all those previous scientific achievements. (Planck also prevented Poincare to publish the relativity theory before Einstein. Also, Planck, actually, “made” Einstein – by publishing the explanation of the photo-electric effect, that “slap in the face” to the scientists and science of that age. That was the cunning way to promote his discovery of quantum energy, and to punish the faint reaction of the scientific community to that discovery, and at the same time to protect himself if that explanation becomes disproved – by putting in front an anonymous. In other circumstances, Einstein's explanation of photo-electric effect would never have been allowed for publication).
All of the others hurried up to catch the pace with sociological-economy-military-political-scientific boom of Germany. And the gold-rush started. Everybody wanted to use the opportunity to become “Newton of the new physics era”. Making the chaos, and taking the physics into mysticism. Vanity, ambition to be “above the others”, greed – these are the primary urges, even today (or, especially today). Reason, love (goodness), ethics? Yes, we know about that. Utopia.
I mean, also, it is not the problem that they wanted to derive the physics "from scratch", we all want to know the essence of existence. The problem is the way how it was tried to be done - by neglecting of all of the previous significant discoveries. And that was either because nobody understood the meaning and significance of the previous discoveries, or they deliberately tried to get "under" it. One should equally criticize all of the generations of physicists till today - nobody was paying due attention to the results obtained till the Planck's discovery any more - the eager young minds, and their teachers were delighted with the mysteries and paradoxes offered by the new, "fancy" approaches to reality. People like miracles, and new approaches offered plenty of them. The top-scientists forgot the true science, by accepting the "inability of common sense and rational reasoning to deal with the deepest laws of existence", and became the mathematical mysticism grand-masters. Trying to be enlightened with some grand "over-reason-type" idea. Nobody in this world realizes that the rational reasoning and healthy common sense are the highest emanations of existence, the only tools, the only capabilities  which enable discovering of the real, essential truths about existence. Reason ennobled with love (goodness), and love guided by reason is the way to reach the truth(s), including the ultimate truth of existence. One should not think in "grandiose ways", miraculous ways. One has just to be rational (which includes modesty), reasonable, to think clearly, and to be careful.
"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been due more to patient attention, than to any other talent."Sir Isaac Newton


The bottom line is:
Whether me, or you, or anybody else, likes it or not, accepts it or not, the [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex] are the properties of the very space, and nothing but the space.
They can be detected and measured. We may think of them whatever we want, we can try to deny that they are properties of the space, but we will inevitably fail. Any other approach to deal with [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex] will be more complicated, and, essentially, false.
But, if we take them to be that what they are – the most essential properties of the space – then we can derive the consistent, unambiguous, and accurate description of the world, in the completely rational, paradox-free way. And, the essential part of the world description is that what is explicitly done in FEMME.

And, essentially, what is done there is just the proper arrangement of what is already known, and that has then enabled easy, simple, accurate, and comprehensible unification of physics. We can again rely on common sense and rational reasoning, which were expelled from physics in the 20th century. The last profound and scientific explanation was the explanation of the photoelectric effect. After that, everything is the pure mathematical mysticism.
« Last Edit: 26/11/2012 22:55:13 by zordim »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Initial thoughts:-

I've read through this three times now and haven't found anything that my limited knowledge has been able to take issue with, though I'm still a long way from understanding it all. It's written clearly and looks as if further readings of it should open it up further, so I will keep rereading it to try to fit all the pieces together better in my mind and to work out what's missing. I certainly like this mechanistic approach - someone's got to hit the right solution some day, and it's just possible that this is it. Am I missing something obvious? Has anyone with a better (or inferior) understanding of physics spotted a fault that can help break this open?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Hi Zordim,

Could you clarify something for me. You've probably realised that my knowledge of physics is rather limited, my main interest being relativity (because Einstein's theories seem to suffer from massive logical defects which I felt compelled to explore). Anyway, in order to try to understand a theory like yours, I really need to start with the things I already know something about so that I can fit your model in along with the others which are already there. For that reason, my starting point requires me to ask this question: does your theory require a 4D Spacetime to work, or is it also compatible with Lorentz's 3D alternative with Newtonian time?

It also appears that your theory can account for gravity (though I haven't yet understood how - I still need to read through it a few more times before I'll be able to make sense of it all). Can your theory account for things like the Mercury anomoly? Obviously it will be able to if you're using Spacetime the same way Einstein does, so this question may already be redundant after your first answer.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Hi David,
In my theory, spacetime is neither the 4D Spacetime as it was postulated by Minkowski, nor it is related to Lorentz's 3D alternative with Newtonian time.
The spacetime in my theory is essentially [tex]\epsilon[/tex]-[tex]\mu[/tex]-spacetime, with four essential properties, necessary and sufficient and physically confirmed: [tex]\epsilon[/tex],  [tex]\mu[/tex], the length [tex]s  = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}[/tex], the time [tex]t[/tex] , which are all related as [tex]\displaystyle (\frac{ds}{dt})_{max} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_{min} \cdot \mu_{min}}}[/tex].

Energy and spacetime interact. That is expressed with equation [tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h[/tex], which is simply derived from [tex]\Delta E = h \cdot \nu[/tex], and with the equation [tex]\Delta E \cdot \epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0 = \Delta m[/tex]
(The mass, in general, is the amount of energy-spacetime elementary convolution, which is mathematically represented as [tex]\Delta E \cdot \epsilon_0 \cdot \mu_0 = \Delta m[/tex]. It is the amount of coupling of energy, epsilon and mu.)
There is also presented the logical essentialization of the cause for the photon path banding, from the known, observed phenomena. That essentialization is:  [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] properties of spacetime increase during EM-energy confrontation. (It is elaborated in the text, so I won't repeat it here).
And that enables the material world: the essential matter is the two-photons-whirl. It is explained why that entity's mass has to be inertial, that is, it is explained how the property of inertia arises.   

General relativity equations and the gravitation law were derived as the superposition of influences of the huge number of elementary material entities (two-photons-whirls).

That would be that, shortly.

In the following document, you can find some more explanations, comments, comparisons with the current relativity theory, and with other fundamental theories.
http://www.springerplus.com/imedia/1741190653821874_article.pdf
It is almost the same text as it is in presented in this thread, but it also contains comparisons, so, since you have read what is written in this thread, you can focus your attention only on the A.C&E (additional comments and explanations) parts, which are given in the end part of the article.
And, I will do my best to answer every particular question you may come up with. So, just "shoot" :)

My theory can explain each and every physical phenomenon.
Including the velocity distribution along the radius of gallaxies (wich current elite-scientists are trying to resolve by inventing the dark matter), and accelerated space expansion (which current elite-scientists are trying to resolve by inventing the dark energy).
The explanation is simple, and it is the same for both of these phenomena - [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex] are the values which we measure here, in our part of gallaxy. These are the bottom-values which are the consequences of influence of all matter in this part of gallaxy. In the huge intergallactic voids, [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] properties of space, and especially of the space on the outscirts of universe, have lower values than [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex]. That means that not only the photons, but also the inertial-mass bodies, move faster in such space, than in the space which has higher values of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex].

Current science base everything on "fields". But, they make the cheese-pie without the cheese - without [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] properties of the space. They are the essence of all fields.

There is also no need for the speculation known as the Big-Bang. The background microwave radiation is the proof that some huge explosion did occur a long time ago. When did that happen is the pure speculation. And assuming that it was the beginning of existence is the totally pure speculation. the only thing that we can be sure about, is that some huge explosion did occur. I.e. the explosion of some hyper-nova.

All in all, we have the total mess today in science. It is not science, it is the mathematical mysticism. It is the practical example of the chaos theory. By only two butterfly-wing-wavings, by two simple but cardinal mistakes, by two ommisions
- to consider [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] as the fundamental properties of space,
- to consider the two-photons-whirl,
the science stopped to be the science, and became the pure mathematical mysticism.

Taking the uncertainty and spontaneity as the essential properties of existence, cannot produce anything else than ambiguity, and vice versa. Of all smart Einstein's sayings, the current mathematical-mysticism grand masters adopted the least scientific one: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
And they are writing mathematical versions of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Never ending story".
Wasting time, money, and most tallented young minds. One hundred years already.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2012 20:08:08 by zordim »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Hi Zoran,

This has definitely got my interest now - I only wish I was better able to follow the maths of it, but I'm sure I can get there with a little help. It would be better of course if someone with more knowledge of maths and physics took this up as it would lead to much faster progress, but until such a person joins in I will be happy to do what I can to explore it and see how it hangs together.

In my theory, spacetime is neither the 4D Spacetime as it was postulated by Minkowski, nor it is related to Lorentz's 3D alternative with Newtonian time.

But you do appear to have a 3D kind of space, so what I'm interested in initially is seeing how you attempt to handle things like length contraction and time dilation. Also, are you able to describe the structure of your kind of spacetime in ordinary language to give me a picture of how it works? I'm not clear on what basis you're rejecting the idea of aether which could equally easily be interpreted as being a fabric of space or simply as a vacuum. It seems to me that these are just different descriptions of the same idea, all that actually matters being that space has properties which organise it such that you can rely on it to maintain separations and angles between things within it that aren't moving relative to each other. If your kind of space is different in some way, I'd like to hear how it is different, and expressed in ordinary language if that's possible to do.

Quote
The spacetime in my theory is essentially [tex]\epsilon[/tex]-[tex]\mu[/tex]-spacetime, with four essential properties, necessary and sufficient and physically confirmed: [tex]\epsilon[/tex],  [tex]\mu[/tex], the length [tex]s  = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}[/tex], the time [tex]t[/tex] , which are all related as [tex]\displaystyle (\frac{ds}{dt})_{max} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_{min} \cdot \mu_{min}}}[/tex].

Unfortunately I get lost at the point where the max and min parts come into it - a useless maths teacher blocked my progress at the point where calculus came in and failed to teach anything for a whole year. Most of the people in my class depended on paying tutors to get around this problem, but I couldn't afford one, so I went from top of the class scoring 100% in a maths exam one year to being amongst the group of failures a year later. She spent her time writing squiggles on the board and talking about proving things without explaining what any of it meant, so it was like being asked to learn a language and be expected to produce grammatically perfect sentences in it without ever being allowed to know what any of the words mean. That simply isn't something I'm able to do - I have to understand things in order to learn them.

So, what I'd need to see in order to understand this are some examples of how it's actually applied, ideally by illustrating how it handles a bit of length contraction or time dilation. How, for example, would you stick numbers into it and generate answers out of it to work out how fast something has to travel for its length to contract to half its rest length?

David.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Hi David,
First, I want to say that I do not try to avoid comparisons with other approaches, but I find these comparisons unnecessary. My theory is such that one does not need to know any other approach.
The reason why I wrote FEMME was to understand. I have tried to look at things in the ways that current, and previous official/unofficial approaches offered, but none of them offered understanding. Only mind-boggle. Either through mathematical abstractions/complications, or through some new, and also abstract concepts/principles.

I tried to identify the smallest possible number of already known equations, which would be necessary, sufficient, and fundamental, and which would enable straightforward derivations, and which all would stick to the facts.

What does “fundamental” means to me? It is something which describes the elementary level of existence, and which I cannot understand in any deeper way. I do not even understand that something, but I accept that something as it is, as it is detected to be. I.e. I take that like letters of an alphabet, with which I can write sensfull sentences. And I “understand” these sentences in the way that “I know what I have to know/do first in order to unambiguously derive the consequences, which are also unambiguous, and which fit the reality".
Reasonable approach, according to my opinion, also assumes that one has to realize how deep one should try to go. If an attempt to go deeper into somethng requires speculations, or if it causes mind-boggle, thought-cirling, paradoxes, then it is the sign which says to me “stop here and take it as it is”.
So, long time ago I stopped trying to mentally grasp “the structure of space”. For me, space is completely described with length, [tex]\epsilon[/tex], [tex]\mu[/tex], and with Maxwell’s equation [tex]\displaystyle \frac{ds}{dt} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon \cdot \mu}}[/tex]. And in that equation, there is also the time [tex]dt[/tex]. And in Planck’s equation, there is elementary energy and time. Elementary energy is electromagnetic, and space has properties [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] which are electromagnetic. Energy and space interact (photon’s propagation is elementary way of that interaction). They cause each other to change (epsilon and mu have higher values within matter, in the vicinity of matter, which i.e. causes photons to bend their path. I have also, logically, from the facts, came to the conclusion that confrontation of EM energy flows cause [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] to increase). All of these changes are continual. And that’s it. Why all that is so, I do not know. But if I set things to be like that, then the obvious result which I got is the unification of physics, and enabling humans to use rational and simple reasoning to explain each and every physical phenomenon. Every other theory is remote from that.

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.”
“A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.”
I found this Newton’s sayings after I wrote my theory, and that, actually, is how I tried to look at things, too.
Concerning your question: yes, one can assume the existence of aether. But why would one do that, when it is unnecessary? It requires then further expanding, in the way that it is something more than space, that it can move through space, etc. And most people look at space’s void as “nothing”. And that “nothing” then contains “something”. And the paradoxes begin. I.e., how can “nothing” contain “something”? To me, nothing is really nothing. There, in nothing, cannot exist anything, including space. Space is the special something. Void-like something, which has hidden properties: [tex]\epsilon[/tex], [tex]\mu[/tex], which enable that void-like something to be as it is.
How? I don’t have a clue. And when I try to think about that “how”, I only become confused, I can only imagine, but I cannot make any final conclusion.   

So, I have no problem to accept as the fact that [tex]\epsilon[/tex], [tex]\mu[/tex] are properties of space. It is the fact, detected fact, measured fact. I see them as the fundamental essence of that what current science calls “fields”.

Concerning your question about min, max:
minimal values of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] properties of space determine the maximal possible propagation velocity of elementary energy.

In the section "fEMMe Special Relativity" are derived equations for length contraction and time dilation.
Also, in the section "Gravitational EM mechanics" are derived gravitational length contraction and time dilation.
Also, the explanation and derivation of Pound-Rebka experiment is presented, and also the link to my document in which I calculated the Shapiro time delay, based on the gravitational length contraction of photon which travells from Earth to Mars and back, passing very near the Sun.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2012 20:44:44 by zordim »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Hi Zoran,

The reason I asked how your theory compares with others is that I've only seen two viable approaches to handling length contraction, one of them involving 4D Spacetime and the other using 3D space with Newtonian time. It sounds as if your theory may be compatible with the second of those options, or maybe you've found a viable third option. I simply want to understand how your theory handles moving clocks, for example, and whether you see them as actually slowed down by movement through space such that they are merely showing an apparent time which is slower than real time or if your theory says that the time they display is the only real time (as with Einstein's theory). Details of this kind are important.

My theory is such that one does not need to know any other approach.

You might think that, but I certainly don't. Most people start out knowing about at least one other approach, and they automatically want to know how yours fits in with and conflicts with it because it helps them to install a mental model of your theory into their heads much more easily.

Quote
The reason why I wrote FEMME was to understand. I have tried to look at things in the ways that current, and previous official/unofficial approaches offered, but none of them offered understanding. Only mind-boggle. Either through mathematical abstractions/complications, or through some new, and also abstract concepts/principles.

If you want to understand something, it isn't enough to stop at equations - there will be things you can say about how the universe hangs together in ordinary language in the way that established theories do. Where your theory differs from theirs, that should lead to some things you can say in ordinary language which will illustrate key differences between your approach and theirs, and those key differences will get noticed by people and be talked about.

Quote
Energy and space interact (photon’s propagation is elementary way of that interaction). They cause each other to change (epsilon and mu have higher values within matter, in the vicinity of matter, which i.e. causes photons to bend their path.

This is actually the kind of thing I was hoping to find in your theory, because I've been looking for a long time for some means other than the curving of space to account for gravity, and one thing gravity does is bend the path of photons. It also causes perihelion advance, slows clocks and distorts geometry to the point that the surface of the Earth has 24 hectares less than you'd otherwise expect for its diameter (quite in addition to the reduction caused by the diameter from pole to pole being shorter the one across the equator). So, here's a question which I can ask without actually having to understand the maths: is the maths you're using for this the same as the maths used by people in GR or are you using something different that comes out with the same results or with results that are different but still within the range confirmed by experiments?

Quote
Concerning your question: yes, one can assume the existence of aether. But why would one do that, when it is unnecessary? It requires then further expanding, in the way that it is something more than space, that it can move through space, etc.

It isn't clear to me what the "ether" in Lorentz Ether Theory is supposed to be - I can imagine it as being nothing more than a fabric of space rather than anything that moves through space, and as a fabric of space it only needs to be sufficient for it to enforce the properties of space upon the contents of space, potentially in the exact way that you imagine it to do so, so my question was really about whether your theory was potentially something that could be added to LET to resolve all the problems which GR solves by curving SR's 4D Spacetime, or stated differently, if LET could be regarded as being contained within your theory.

Quote
And most people look at space’s void as “nothing”. And that “nothing” then contains “something”. And the paradoxes begin. I.e., how can “nothing” contain “something”? To me, nothing is really nothing. There, in nothing, cannot exist anything, including space. Space is the special something. Void-like something, which has hidden properties: [tex]\epsilon[/tex], [tex]\mu[/tex], which enable that void-like something to be as it is.
How? I don’t have a clue. And when I try to think about that “how”, I only become confused, I can only imagine, but I cannot make any final conclusion.
   

I regard space as being the most real substance, while all the things people ordinarily regard as things of substance are merely ripples in the real stuff that is space, so I see no difficulty in space having properties. You can call this stuff that is space the vacuum, aether, a fabric or nothing, but it appears to do essentially the same job in all theories regardless, so I don't see that the words used on this point are sufficient to justify saying that theory Y is different from theory Z on the basis that they have different philosophical baggage attached to them in relation to what they consider space to be. I see two radically different approaches, one with 4D Spacetime and the other with 3D space and Newtonian time, and my original question was aimed at finding out whether your theory fitted with either (or potentially both) of those or if you had found a third way.

One other thing I want to ask about this time is the microwave background radiation from the big bang. You say there was no big bang, but that there must have been some other kind of large explosion way back then. What bothers me about that is that we're getting these microwaves coming at us from all directions, which strongly suggests that the explosion took place in all of them and at all distances. I find it hard to imagine how a large explosion in a pre-existing space would look the same as that, because I'd have thought that the microwaves from it would be coming from a single direction and that they would all pass by us in an instant rather than being continuous (with diminishing wavelength over time). How important is ruling out the big bang to your theory?

David.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
My approach is not Lorenzian-type approach, because Lorenz treats time as something that is completely independent. And not only because of that, but that is the key point.

Minkowski’s idea (that time is intrinsical to space) is, essentially, correct, but everything else is wrong.

In GR, one starts from the highly abstract, postulated tensor equation, which is then solved with a rather advanced calculus. The results which were obtained only approximately describe the reality. My derivation is concrete, there is nothing abstract in my derivations. And I get equations which exactly describe the reality. My equations do not yield any discontinuity, and are perfectly (explicitly) in accordance with continuity principle and energy conservation principle. I explicitly derive the Newton’s law of gravitation. That is not possible in GR. Because, they stick to “universal, absolute constancy of speed of light”. That is wrong. The curving of space does not occur. The fundamental explanation for photon’s path banding which I gave is universal – it is the same in all cases when photon’s path banding occurs.

In my theory, we have
[tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h[/tex]
[tex]\displaystyle \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon \cdot \mu}}[/tex]
where [tex]\displaystyle \Delta s = \sqrt{\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2}[/tex]

So, all fundamental things: elementary energy, time, length, epsilon, mu, are connected, interrelated, with exact and simple equations. There is not a single postulate. And everything is derived from that, through physical justification of each step of derivation.


Each and every experiment shows that energy conservation principle is valid. My theory is inherently in accordance with continuity principle and with energy conservation principle. Hence, it is not in accordance with the big bang theory. Nor with black-holes theory. My theory is in accordance with reality. Because it is completely and fundamentally based on reality facts.
That what scientists believe to be the black-holes, are massive dense bodies. Black holes cannot exist because they violate the fundamental laws of existence. They are product of imagination, mathematically modeled imagination, which emerged from the GR equations, which do not describe reality precisely, they are an approximation of reality.
Solutions derived in GR are not exact solutions, but approximate solutions. In these solutions, Schwarzschild's radius is the discontinuity point. It is not. It is the minimal possible radius of a body of a given mass, and such body is not black hole.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2012 21:43:09 by zordim »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
My approach is not Lorenzian-type approach, because Lorenz treats time as something that is completely independent. And not only because of that, but that is the key point.

Minkowski’s idea (that time is intrinsical to space) is, essentially, correct, but everything else is wrong.

This will be well worth exploring in more detail then.

Quote
In my theory, we have
[tex]\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h[/tex]
[tex]\displaystyle \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon \cdot \mu}}[/tex]
where [tex]\displaystyle \Delta s = \sqrt{\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2}[/tex]

If this really does the job, there's a very good chance that you've found what everyone else ought to be looking for. Unfortunately the people at the top who would understand your theory won't be reading this, and most people who are reading this won't know what to do with your equation or how it compares to what the GR folk do with theirs. I think you need to set out some examples of how it's actually applied and to compare it with illustrations of what the GR folk do in the same situations - that way it'll be clear to everyone reading this thread that your system is superior, and that will allow you to build up a following as more and more people recognise that you're onto something (and moreover to something huge).

Quote
That what scientists believe to be the black-holes, are massive dense bodies. Black holes cannot exist because they violate the fundamental laws of existence. They are product of imagination, mathematically modeled imagination, which emerged from the GR equations, which do not describe reality precisely, they are an approximation of reality.

So you still have black holes in a sense, but they aren't technically the same. Does this lead you to predict any measurable differences that could be observed? (Not that that would be likely to help in a hurry as we don't exactly get a good view of any.)

Quote
Solutions derived in GR are not exact solutions, but approximate solutions. In these solutions, Schwarzschild's radius is the discontinuity point. It is not. It is the minimal possible radius of a body of a given mass, and such body is not black hole.

So you eliminate the singularity and the problems which that would cause, and I'm guessing that you wouldn't be able to detect the difference between your equivalent of a black hole and a black hole. Would I be right in thinking then that you could have an equivalent of a big bang, but without there ever being a singularity? This would be an important technical difference, but would again make no difference to what we're observing.

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Your mention of "two-photon whirl" in another thread, got my attention because something which fits that description is an important part of my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes. It's going to take some time for me to figure out what you mean by it, but I'll give you an abbreviated version of how I postulate it.

In my model, the aether is a scaled-down version of our own cosmic foam; it is roughly 60 orders of magnitude smaller in scale. The expansion of our space enlarges the cosmic voids (bubbles), stretching the walls of galaxies which surround them. Ultimately, one by one, walls of galaxies rupture, causing adjacent cosmic voids to join into one larger void. The same happens in the sub-universe, whose cosmic foam is our aether foam.

When a bubble wall pops, pressure waves radiate thru the foam. (Just listen to the foam on a glass of beer for proof of that.) The pressure waves generated by popping aether-foam bubbles are the dark energy of our universe, and they propagate many (perhaps billions of) times faster than light, which is aethereal shear waves.

When a shear wave encounters a pressure wave, there is an exchange of momentum between them. This exchange produces a disturbance in the otherwise uniform flux of dark energy. The flux is disturbed in a particular pattern relative to the phase and polarity of the shear wave. Pairs of shear waves (photons) "see" each other as brighter or darker than the rest of the dark energy field around them. Therefore, they feel forces of attraction or repulsion toward one another, depending on their orientation relative to each others phase and polarity. These are the most fundamental forces of nature, and they are not spherically symmetrical, like the more familiar forces. Due to this broken symmetry, some of the conservation laws may require modification at the scale of fundamental particles.

I believe that is the underlying mechanism responsible for all the forces of nature, including the one which causes pairs of photons to whirl or orbit one another, converting their radiant energy into the rest mass of a fundamental particle.

When a pair of photons orbit one another, they continue to disturb the dark energy flux, as before, but in a spiraling pattern. At close range, a pair of those spiraling flux disturbances may mesh like gears, joining two fundamental particles into a larger particle. At greater distances, the spiraling flux disturbances take on more of a spherical symmetry, resulting in the familiar inverse square forces.

Due to the tri-color nature of the strong force, I suspect that it may involve three-photon whirls.


I find your posts somewhat intimidating, but I shall make an attempt to read them.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
So you eliminate the singularity and the problems which that would cause, and I'm guessing that you wouldn't be able to detect the difference between your equivalent of a black hole and a black hole. Would I be right in thinking then that you could have an equivalent of a big bang, but without there ever being a singularity? This would be an important technical difference, but would again make no difference to what we're observing.

Actually, that difference is what is detected: the current "black hole candidates" radiate, and according to my theory that is exactly what they have to do. According to the current black hole theory, they should not radiate. There were modifications done of the current black hole theory which would allow that, but that still does not fit with reality (that is, with detected X-ray radiation - it is both intensive and constant more than black hole theory would allow).
Concerning big bang, your conclusion that there were no singularity is right. Collection of huge amount of matter is possible, of course, but that collection, i.e. into one huge body, would cause explosion far before maximal possible mass density could be reached. About that I talk in "Why is Fmax unreachable" section, as well as in the the same section of the document http://www.springerplus.com/imedia/1741190653821874_article.pdf
and in A.C&E 6, page 19 of that same document.


*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Have you considered doing a computer simulation to illustrate the effects of your formulae on how the universe works? If they work better than the GR ones, it should make for a very powerful demonstration.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
That is good idea.
And that is definitely something I'll have to do. So far I tried to communicate the scientists, and now I plan to communicate young (high school level) bright minds.
I realize that the text which I posted here is very, so to say, intensive, concise, and despite it is essentially very simple, it has to be diluted and illustrated.
Almost each sentence assumes at least one paragraph of contextual elaboration.
Or, it has to be read at least three times, with writing aside equations and notes, analysing, and consulting i.e. Wikipedia. In a word, it requires study-type-approach.
But, right now, and a month or two ahead, I simply do not have time to do that. So, probably I'll start in february (on the birth month of FEMME).

 

*

Offline Bracewell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 16
    • View Profile
Zordim, a huge amount of work has gone into this but I have a challenge. What it is, is to do it again without reference to the concept of Force or the concept of Inertia. The reason I ask is that I am reasonably sure mathematics has given both these concepts a respectability they don't deserve, such as mathematics did with the concept  of aether. It's all in the spirit of imaginagation over mathematics.

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Zordim, a huge amount of work has gone into this but I have a challenge. What it is, is to do it again without reference to the concept of Force or the concept of Inertia. The reason I ask is that I am reasonably sure mathematics has given both these concepts a respectability they don't deserve, such as mathematics did with the concept  of aether. It's all in the spirit of imaginagation over mathematics.

Why whould you even think of comparing the imagination (aether) with reality (force, change of energy along length). Mathematics does not have precedence over universe. It is vice-versa: universe (which exists forever and ever) --> intelligent forms (as the causal consequences of the primary principles of existence), --> some of these intelligent forms manage to invent the way to describe the nature, and that way we call mathematics.
And mathematics is the consequence of that how intelligence understands the universe. If it understands it properly, then the math is ok. If it does not understand it, then math can still be ok, but it just does not have to do anything with reality. We can model imagination, too. (We have already so many different games, simulators, which resemble the reality, or which even do not resemble it at all - which have their own mathematical laws which govern these cyber-worlds).
"A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding." (Isaac Newton)
« Last Edit: 06/04/2014 12:19:39 by zordim »

*

Offline Bracewell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 16
    • View Profile
Zordim, can it be claimed, with any degree of certainty, that any object is at rest?

*

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 46
    • View Profile
Zordim, can it be claimed, with any degree of certainty, that any object is at rest?

The elementary energy is the photon.
The energy of a photon is at the same time its total energy, its electromagnetic energy, and its kinetic energy. There do not exist non-moving photons. Photons move with velocity which is determined with epsilon and mu properties of space.

Photon's mass is non-inertial. It is the measure of coupling (interaction, convolution) of photon's energy, and epsilon and mu properties of the space.

Elementary particle which has inertial mass is the two-photons-whirl.
In absolute sense, we cannot say that the two-photons-whirl is at rest. It is the whirl.
But, theoretically, the two-photons-whirl as a whole could, at least at the moment immediately after formation, be at absolute rest, meaning, that the kinetic energy of the whirl as a whole is 0.

Two-photons-whirls cannot be formed by just any photons. A rather strict conditions must be fulfilled for that. One of these conditions is the minimal energy which photons have to have. If they have a bit higher energy than that minimal necessary energy, and if they manage to form the whirl, that whirl as a whole would have kinetic energy >0.

-------------------------------------------------------
By the way, there are a few more places where I have presented the FEMME:
http://www.science20.com/forums/theories_everything
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?140393-Fundamental-Electro-Magneto-Mechanics-of-Existence-(FEMME)
« Last Edit: 06/04/2014 12:27:46 by zordim »