|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
New foundations for physics from first principles A common base for |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Rafael A. Vera Mège |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Email:
[email protected] |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The current foundations of physics are tacitly
based on two gravitational hypotheses. “After
starting all over from better defined principles, such hypotheses can be
eliminated, i.e., it is possible to do without gravitational hypotheses” The two gravitational hypotheses of actual physics The new physics without gravitational hypotheses The new universe fixed by the new principles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The
two gravitational hypotheses of actual physics Physics of
today still depends on a higher number of gravitational hypotheses than one
century ago. This is because we inherited a classical hypothesis (CH), from The CH is tacit in the current formalism used for relating quantities measured by observers at different distances with respect to a massive body (MB). According to it, the relative properties of a body at rest with respect to the observer are independent on the difference of G potential (GP) between the body and the observer. Since the CH cannot account for the energy released by a body after a change of GP, Einstein introduced the GFEH by assuming that the G field should give up such energy. Such conjugated hypotheses are not granted by the Einstein’s principle of equivalence (PE) between G fields and accelerated frames. This is because such principle also admits the opposite solution, that of forces that do not give up energy but just momentum. In the last case, the two conventional hypotheses would be wrong. Thus, the Einstein’s choice was “arbitrary”. Then, to find the right solution, it is most important to start all over, without using any conventional hypothesis. Here, this is done on the base of better-defined principles that can discriminate between these two alternatives without using any of the conventional hypotheses. Here, the first principles have been directly derived
from “strong experimental evidences” that have not been manipulated by the arbitrary
use of the PE: 1. The invariable results of the Michelson Morley
experiments (MME) after simultaneous changes of velocity and relative
positions of the bodies and the observers with respect to massive bodies 2. The invariable measurements during the tests
for the Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP), after changes of velocity and
positions of the bodies and observers with respect to massive bodies 3. The changes of the relative properties of the
bodies, after changes of velocity, with respect to bodies that do not change
of velocity (Current tests for special relativity) 4. The changes of the relative frequencies of
standard clocks, after changes of their rest positions, with respect to massive
bodies (Genuine G time dilation experiments) From them it is concluded that: I. “The relative changes of the points 3 and 4 cannot
be detected by observers traveling altogether with the bodies because all of
his local bodies, without exceptions, change by common scale factors,
respectively, i.e., because the local proportions remain unchanged”. For this
reason, this principle may be called “Principle of Invariable Proportions”
(PIP). II. “The standard bodies located at rest at
different distances form a MB are different (non equivalent) with respect to
each other, respectively”. This is a kind of “non equivalence principle” (NEP)
between bodies at rest in different G potentials. From such principle, it is directly
inferred that the CH is wrong. III. From the point 1. it is inferred that the round trips of the
photons along each arm of a MME can be replaced by a standing wave (SW)
between parallel mirrors. Since any photon of a SW in a small system is a
well-defined part of it, then, according to the PIP, the SW must obey the
same inertial and gravitational laws as any other uncharged particle of the
same system. This is a general kind of equivalence principle (GEP)
between particles and between them and stationary forms of radiation. Thus,
the common nature of particles and photons in stationary state does accounts
for the equivalences between the different kinds of particles and for the
identical proportions of the PIP. The
new physics without gravitational hypotheses According to the GEP, the inertial and
gravitational properties of an uncharged body can be derived from the ones of
a particle model (PM) made up of some well-defined number of photons in stationary
state. The first steps of this theory have been
described in the proceedings of the Einstein’s Centennial Symposium on
Fundamental Physics (Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, 1970). Such paper and
later ones can be read in the references. According to the PM, a G field turns out to be a gradient of the relative refraction index
of the space with respect to any observer at rest in the same field. In such gradient, the PM is accelerated
towards regions of higher refraction index. It is well proved that the refraction
phenomenon does not exchange energy with the photons but just momentum, i.e.,
it does not change the frequency or the color of the photons. For this
reason, the G field does not exchange energy with the photons but just
momentum. Thus, during a free fall of a PM, to the
contrary of the current beliefs, its relative mass with respect to the MB
does not increase but remains constant. The energy released during the stop, from
special relativity, comes not from the field but from the changes of
mass-energy occurring during the stop, i.e., from the lower rest mass of body
in the lower G potential compared with the one that it had before the fall.
The inertial phenomenon occurring during the stop is radically different from
the one occurring during the fall. Notice that, in general, the relative mass-energy
of a body with respect to an observer turns out to be equal to its total
potential energy with respect to such observer. The proportional energy
released by a body, after a change of GP, turns out to be just equal to the
proportional change of its rest mass, i.e., the G energy comes not from the G field but from the body. This result is in clear opposition with the CH
and the GFEH. This would prove that the Einstein’s choice, after using the
PE, was the wrong one. Unfortunately, all of them, the CH, the GFEH,
and the arbitrary force selection, after the use of the PE, are used in the
defense of the conventional hypotheses, no matter in that none of them has
been critically tested without the help of the other one. For example, the results of the GTD
experiments directly prove that the one of the relative properties of a NL
clock at rest with respect to the observer does depend on the difference of
GP between the clock and the observer. It is simple to prove that such result
is independent on the frequency of any radiation traveling between the
clocks. Thus, this crucial experiment
does prove, definitely, that CH is wrong. However, in the current literature, such
experiment is arbitrarily transformed into a more ambiguous experiment, after
using the PE between a G field and accelerated frames followed by the
arbitrary selection of the kind of force consistent with the From the above facts one should conclude in
that the kind of force selected by Einstein is not the right one. Anyway, it
is not reasonable that the final verdict, after the use of the PE, by a sort
of magic, is just opposed to that the original experiments. The new universe
fixed by the new principles After emulating every part of the universe by
photons in stationary states, according to the Huygens’s principle, the
universe would be made up of a rather dense system of “wavelets” that
interfere constructively only at the sites of the photons and particles. Then the universe can be expanding itself only
if the wavelets and the particles are expanding in identical proportion.
Thus, such expansion cannot change any local ratio, which is in strict
agreement with the PIP. Thus only an absolute kind of universe expansion can
exist in which all of the standard rods and the distances of the universe
expand in the same proportion. Then the relative proportions should
remain invariable with the time, i.e., in a first approximation, the
universe age may be infinite. On the other hand, the new kind of “linear”
black hole has not a real singularity. It has different properties compared
with the conventional ones. After absorbing radiation enough, it would
explode thus generating new primeval gas that can regenerate new star
clusters and galaxies. Since the new universe has no limits of time,
the galaxies should be evolving in closed cycles between luminous and dark
states. Thus it is simple to
demonstrate that all of the different evolution phases of the galaxy cycles
are rather uniformly distributed in the universe. This is a clear verification
in that the universe age is rather infinite. Then the new properties of the universe and of
the black holes bring out radical changes in the interpretation of many
celestial phenomena, as you can verify later on. It is simple to verify
that the new cosmological scenario is consistent with all of the astronomical
observations. For this purpose y wrote a book for you so
that you can verify that the new theory is not based on any speculation or
any of the arbitrary hypotheses used in gravitation. I would appreciate very much your personal
comments. The wave continuity of electromagnetic waves make possible that we
can communicate to each other in matter of fractions of seconds. My email
is: <[email protected]> We live in The main advantages of the present approach
are: · It is done without
the help of any arbitrary hypothesis. · It provides a fair explanation of the inertial
and gravitational phenomena occurring in the particles and on the relative
changes of the properties of the space. · It accounts for the phenomena occurring in
different branches of physics, like special relativity, quantum mechanics
and gravitation · It simplifies and unifies concepts in physics
by providing the more elemental reasons for what is happening from the most
simple up to the most complex physical phenomena. · The elimination of the G field energy hypothesis
leads to a “linear” theory without the singularity of he Einstein’s theory on
GR. · The new kind of “linear” black hole, without
singularity, after absorbing energy from the rest of the universe, can
explode and regenerate old star clusters and galaxies · The new universe would have no limits of time,
regardless of a uniforms expansion, because everything would expand, in
common proportions, and because galaxies would evolve, in rather closed
evolution cycles with hot and cool periods. The last ones would account for
the low temperature background and the dark matter of the universe. This new approach provides a fair
understanding, in a very simple and unified way, for the ultimate reasons for
physical laws for uncharged bodies, starting from a photon and ending with
the universe. For this purpose it is not
necessary to make any arbitrary hypothesis. The experiments, not the theories
or the speculations, should always the first and the last word. They provide
new principles entirely free or arbitrary hypothesis. For more details you
can also see the articles listed in the References,
the discussions
and the Frequently
asked questions (FAQ). |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
I
started research works on the crystalline structure of matter after using X-ray
diffraction, first in the University of Concepcion, Chile. and in From
my first trials I concluded in that the classical hypothesis on the absolute
invariability of the bodies after a change of relative position with respect
to other bodies is wrong. Some small but fundamental physical changes must occur
to the bodies after a change of G potential (GP). Thus, strictly, most of the
current relationships between quantities measured by observers in different
GP would be wrong because their reference standards are slightly different
with respect to each other, respectively.
They are bounded to be source of fundamental inexactitudes in the
physical foundations of the Einstein’s theory on GR! By
that time I got interested in the universe because, from my gross
estimations, the G field energy and the Schwarzschild singularity would not
exist. Thus, I explored the possibility in that matter in the universe could,
in the end, evolve in rather closed cycles, i.e., in that the black holes,
after absorbing energy, can explode and regenerate new primeval gas. Due to
the rather perfect fit with the astronomical observations, I tried to publish
this theory. Since the article was in disagreement with the conventional
hypotheses, my first article sent for publication in an international journal
was rejected. However, it was published in the yearly book “Atenea”, of the
“Universidad de Concepción”, Chile, in 1974, under the name “Una Teoría
Isoentrópica del Universo” (An Isentropic Theory of The Universe), which was
followed by another article on “Una Nueva Concepción del Universo” (A new
conception of the Universe) in the
same book, in 1976. (Vera 1974 and 1976). Then
I decided to get my own relationships based on the particle model, without
assuming the physical equivalence of bodies in different G potentials. Thus I got the first “gravitational
transformations”, consistent with all of the classical tests for G theories. I
presented the first results in “The Einstein’s Centennial Symposium on
Fundamental Physics”, in Later
on, after a series of presentations in several international meetings, I
published a book on this theory applied to the study of the universe (Vera 1997).
This one provides unified concepts, in terms of properties of light and
explicit relationships for different branches of physics, mainly for
gravitation, relativistic quantum mechanics, astrophysics and cosmology The
new cosmological scenario, fixed by the new principle and the new theory, has
some radical differences with the standard cosmology. (See some links in the references) It
is simultaneously consistent with all of the observed phenomena occurring in
the universe. Indeed, it solves the most fundamental problems in
astrophysics. Paradoxically, the new scenario is not different from the one
predicted in my first publication, in Atenea (1974), on a theory on the isentropic evolution of the universe. Later on, also, I realized that
the G transformations found from the new theory can be stated as a new
principle that can be directly derived from the condition of consistency of
the Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and the results of experiments in which
bodies and observers are in different G potential. This is a short cut to get
the same relationships obtained from the particle model. This is, also, a new
kind of “global test” for G theories. Obviously, the theory on General Relativity
fails to pass this test. I am about 80 years old, so
that I am trying transferring you the best of what I got. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
