-
Email An Imagineer
Blog Search
Loading...We have shown throughout “The Imagineer’s Chronicles” it is possible to define a universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions in a manner that makes predictions identical with those of Einstein’s General and Special Theories of Relativity. Additionally we have shown there would be several theoretical advantages to adopting this perspective over that of his theories.
One it that it allow one to understand why the universe must be flat
A four dimensional universe can be geometrically open, closed, or "flat" and its shape is dependent on the mass and energy within it.
In an opened universe, there is insufficient matter to halt the expansion initiated by the big bang. This will result in a saddle shape or open universe, which will continue to expand forever.
In a closed universe, the gravitational potential of its mass is large enough to overcome the expansive forces of the big bang. This will result in the universe having a spherical shape, which would be destined to collapse.
A universe will be flat if the attractive gravitational potential of matter just equals the expansive energy of the big bang. This will result in the expansion slowing and only stop after an infinite amount of time has passed.
However, recent observations by NASA’s the WMAP satellite has shown the universe is flat to within a 2% margin of error.
But why the universe appears to be flat even after 14 billion years of expansion is still a mystery because a flat universe is like the top of a hill. If you are a little away from it – a bit open or a bit closed – the expansion of the universe soon drives you far away from this value, just as a ball that is a short distance from a hilltop will roll down to the bottom. Therefore, when the Universe was one second old, it must have deviated from flatness by less than one part in ten-thousand-trillion (1016). This is a problem because it is hard to understand how the amount of mass and the energy associated with the expansion could have been adjusted to such precision.
To resolve this issue physicist Alan Guth proposed the universe underwent a very rapid period of expansion increasing it size by more than a trillion in the first few nano-seconds after its birth. This resolves the flatness problem because its size is magnified by the inflation factor so much that locally it appears flat.
The reason for this can be understood by imagining what a two-dimensional creature who was living on a surface of a balloon would observe regarding the curvature of its surface. If the size of the balloon were small compared to his field of vision he would notice that it surface was curved. However, if its size was very large compared to his field of vision it would appear to him to be flat.
Inflation solves the flatness problem because it predicts the size of the universe increased so much in the initial expansion that portion we can observe appears to flat.
However, another reason why the universe appears to be flat is because all of its expansive energy must originate with its mass/energy. This is because the universe is a closed system the sum of the potential energy of its mass/energy and its kinetic or thermal energy is constant.
As mentioned earlier the curvature of our expanding universe is related to the ratio of total potential energy of its mass/energy to the total kinetic energy of its expansion.
However, as was shown in the article "Defining potential and kinetic energy?" Nov 26, 2007 the equivalence between kinetic and potential energy of mass/energy can be defined in terms of equation E=mc^2 because it showed that, similar to Relativity mass is equivalent to energy. Therefore, energy in all its forms must also posses the potential energy associated with mass/energy. Additionally the asymmetry of the equation E=mc^2 tells us kinetic energy is oppositely directed from the potential energy of mass/energy.
This means a balance must exist between the potential energy of the universe’s mass/energy and the oppositely directed kinetic energy associated with its expansion because, as mentioned earlier all of its expansive energy must come from its mass/energy. However, if "m" is the total mass/energy of the universe the equation E=mc^2 also defines the total energy available for its expansion. If one then substitutes "c" for "v" in the equation for kinetic energy (KE=1/2mv^2) one arrives at the equation 1/2mc^2. This equation defines the ratio of the total kinetic energy available to power the universes to its mass/energy This indicates there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between the potential energy of the universe’s mass/energy and the total quantity of oppositely directed energy associated with its expansion.
Additionally because the kinetic energy of the universe’s expansion is defined by the non-linear equation m0 = sqrt(E2/c4 – p2/c2) the ratio of the gravitational potential of its mass/energy will always maintain a 1 to 1 ratio to the gravitational potential associated with its expansive energy if one assumes that its expansion has been as rapid as possible. .
However, the article "Defining potential and kinetic energy?" showed the potential energy of mass/energy could be defined in terms of a "depression" in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while kinetic energy would be defined by an "elevation" in that "surface."
This means the universe will be flat now and throughout its history because as mentioned earlier there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between the curvature associated with the potential energy of its mass/energy and oppositely directed curvature associated with the kinetic energy of its expansion, which means they will cancel each other.
Therefore, one does not have to assume the universe underwent an inflationary period to explain why it is flat now and has remained that way if one assumes the existence of four *spatial* dimensions, and that it has been expanding as rapidly as possible since the big bang.
This cannot be done in terms of four-dimensional space-time because time or a space-time dimension is observed to move only in one direction forward and therefore could not support the bidirectional movement required to define the symmetry between the potential energy of mass/energy and its kinetic energy.
However, for many this concept of a zero energy universe may sound strange, but it is rather simple to understand. A ball thrown up in the air has two forms of energy: kinetic and gravitational potential. If kinetic energy were considered as positive, the potential energy, due to the gravitational pull of the Earth, would be negative. If the positive portion of the energy beats the negative portion, the ball will escape from Earth. If the negative energy is greater, it will return. If the total energy is precisely zero the ball will barely escape – slowing to a stop when it is infinitely far away.
Many would disagree with this concept and point the observations of Type Ia supernovae (SNe-Ia) which verified the existence of an expansive force or "Dark Energy" that opposes the contractive gravitational energy and is causing the universe to accelerating. However, physicists have been unable to define a source or mechanism responsible for this energy.
However, as mentioned earlier the equation E=mc^2 defines the dynamic oppositely directed relationship between the potential energy of mass and its kinetic energy. In other words, in a closed system if the mass in a volume decreases the kinetic or thermal energy associated with that volume increase.
Therefore, due to the asymmetry between the quantity of mass and kinetic energy in a closed system we should expect asymmetry between the quantity of forces those systems contain. In other words, we would expect a force to be generated that is oppositely directed with respect to the gravitational forces associated with mass when we convert mass to energy. This force would have to added to the linear expansion associated with the force of the big bang therefore, it would be viewed as acceleration. This force has been give the name Dark Energy and is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.
Therefore, the mechanism responsible for generating the force called Dark energy would be analogous to one that earlier defined the kinetic energy generated from a mass/energy. If the universe is a closed system then one must assume the sum of the potential energy of its mass and kinetic or thermal energy must is constant. This means that when stars convert mass to energy in nuclear reactions a force must be generated that is oppositely directed with respect to the gravitational forces associated with mass.
However, the "concentration" of this Dark Energy relative to gravitational energy is also defined by the equation E=mc^2c were "c" equals the speed of light. This means its "concentration" and therefore its strength is 1/c^2 weaker than gravitational forces.
The reason why dark energy is so hard to detect is that, as show above its field strength is so small.
Later Jeff
The "Shadow’s" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright 2008 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
We have shown throughout “The Imagineers Chronicles” there are many theoretical advantages to assuming the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
One of them is that it would provide a more logical explanation of the observed properties of Dark Matter than can be found based solely on the quantum mechanical assumption that mass exists only in particle form.
 |
 |
Wikipedia tells us "The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933. He applied Newton’s law of gravity to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster’s total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together."
Many physicists believe trhe vast majority of the dark matter is in a non-baryonic form such as neutrinos, and entities such as axions, supersymmetric particles or WIMPs.
However, non of these scenarios are supported by observations.
Neutrinos because of their mass would be characterized by high random speeds in the early universe. However, observations of the early universe indicate the matter that condensed to form galaxies was not hot enough to support the energy that would be associated with those high speeds.
The other particles which could provide the missing mass fall into two classes: those which have been proposed for other reasons but happen to solve the dark matter problem, and those which have been proposed specifically to provide the missing dark matter.
Examples of objects in the first class are axions and the supersymmetric particles. Their properties are defined by the theory which predicts them, but by virtue of their mass they can solve the dark matter problem only if they exist in the correct abundance.
The second class of particles contain entities such as the WIMP or "Weakly Interacting Mass Particle" whose properties are not specified. however they are assumed to have properties that would allow them to explain the missing mass associated with dark matter along with other "ad hoc" ones that would explain why they have not yet been observed experimentally.
However, the existence of them along with axions and the supersymmetric particles. is not based on observations so therefore there is no way to either confirm their existence or that they are responsible for the gravitational force associated with dark matter.
However, there is another theoretical possibility that is based on observations that has been overlooked by the scientific community .
In the article “What is Dark Matter?” Sept 10, 2007 it was shown that one could theoretically explain and predict the gravitational forces associated with Dark Matter in terms of a continuous non-quantized form of mass. This non-baryonic and non-particle form of mass would have all the observed properties dark matter in that it would not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces and since it is made up of mass it would add to the gravitational force of the particle matter in the universe.
However, unlike WIMPS its existence is supported by observations.
For example, the observation that energy in itself is not quantized because a photon can have any frequency greater than zero or less than infinity and the equation defining the relationship between mass and energy, E=m*c^2 indicates that mass is completely convertible to one or more photons with energies greater than zero or less than infinity.
This means a continuous non-quantized medium must be available to support the continuous properties associated with mass energy and the electromagnetic spectrum.
Additionally the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass is supported by the observation of Davisson and Germer, when, in 1927 they observed that electrons along with other particles are diffracted by crystals. This is because the only way to explain the observed wave properties of individual particles is to assume they must have the continuous non-quantized geometric substructure associated with a wave.
However, the most significant theoretical advantage to assuming its existence is that it would allow one understand, in terms laws of classical wave mechanics the quantum mechanical aspects of mass and energy.
In the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown that one could explain and predict the quantum properties of mass and energy in terms of a classically resonating system or "structure" form by a matter wave moving through a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
Classical wave mechanics tells us a resonance phenomena will occur with all types of vibrations or waves.
However, as mentioned earlier the observation that particles mass has the continuous non-quantized geometric substructure associated of a wave means that according to classical wave mechanics a resonant system will be established is space. This provides observational evidence supporting the derivation of the quantum mechanical or particle aspects of mass and energy, as was done in the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" in terms of discrete resonant systems formed by vibrations in a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
This shows there is viable alternative based solely on experimentally verifiable observations to the assumption that dark matter is made up of exclusively of matter in a particular form.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright 2010 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
20
By Ravil Kalmykov
Ravil8@yandex.ru
Abstract
A fact of principled compatibility of a measured rod in one inertial system of coordinates and a measuring ruler in moving by other system only in the unique point by means of the elementary space-time diagram was proved evidently and convincingly. The methodological inadmissibility of intersystem comparison of any spatial or time pieces is accented. A conclusion on a methodological incorrectness Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks and all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz transformations on this basis is drawn. The other variant of space-time transformations is offered and its compatibility with the Michelson-Morley Experiment is shown. Philosophical reflections of the author about the true cognitive status of Lorentz transformations are adduced.
1. About a technique of comparison of spatial segments
Unfortunately, all former fair critical remarks of considerable number of sane fair researchers to address of Lorentz transformations customary in special relativity have not been perceived by scientific community to the right degree. Reasons of the author of this article about a methodological incorrectness of the process of deducing of these transformations have not considered too [1]. Apparently these failures should be referred on special world outlook and methodological complexity of a situation and for the present bad persuasiveness of the critical argument. We shall try to be more convincing well.
Not a secret, that the significant role of the invention of special four-dimensional Minkowski space-time in business of giving greater pictorial presentation to Special Relativity Theory (which have specially received by distortion of usual four-dimensional space-time by means of a doubtful way of synchronization of clocks and the artificial imposed thesis about invariance of an interval) in one’s time has played. We also shall resort to the elementary geometry for giving pictorial presentation to our reasons, but without specially invented elaborate distortions.
As it is accepted in all elementary textbooks, we shall consider a standard situation with mutual movement of two systems K and K ‘ with high speed along the combined axes x and x ‘. (See Fig.1):
Fig.1
In the further we shall exclude axes y, y ‘, z, z ‘ from consideration for simplicity and we shall represent a situation in the Cartesian orthogonal system of coordinates, on a bidimentional space-time plane. (See Fig.2).
Fig.2
By analogy to Minkowski space-time we shall consider, that each point on this plane, having the spatial and time coordinate, corresponds to world event in a described situation.
Here xOt – system of a stationary observer. During the initial moment of time as it is usual, reference marks of two systems O and O ‘ it is considered conterminous. Point O ‘ will move in the course of time on an axis x’ in this figure, representing the direct line located under a corner φ in relation to an axis t. At that φ = arctgV, where V-speed of movement of system K ‘ in relation to system K from the point of view of observer from system K.
Let’s consider, how movement of rod AB based in system K ‘ and located along an axis x’ will look here. Obviously, the rod in the course of time will slide on an axis x’ with all own points too. We shall note, that all points of a rod in system K ‘ coexist simultaneously, are in one temporal "section" or temporal "echelon".
From thought experiment with « Einstein’s train » we know, that the infringement of a principle of simultaneity of events in spatially divided points in two systems moving with high speeds takes place. This phenomenon has received the name « a relativity of simultaneity ». The essence of a phenomenon is evidently visible on Fig.2. All simultaneous events in system K lay on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox. For example, simultaneous events in points Ax and Bx here are. Nevertheless events, simultaneous in system K ‘, lay already on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox ‘. In particular, it is points A and B. It turns out, that two events, simultaneous in system K, do not be such in system K ‘ and on the contrary. Each schoolboy knows about it today.
Now we shall try to make the act of measurement of length of this rod, using opportunities and tools of stationary system K. In system K along axis Ox we shall arrange a measuring bar by means of which we shall try to measure length of a moving rod. We shall note, that all points of this bar coexist simultaneously (in one time section) on axis Ox into the combined moment of time t=0 and on an axis parallel to it into any other moment of time.
The standard technique of contact sensing of length of a line segment means superimposition its ends with point labels on a measuring bar. Means, a rod and a measuring bar should have two joint (coincident) world events. How business with it at us in this case is?
On Fig.2 it is evidently visible, that the rod can be superposed without effort by all own points or at least by two extreme with all measuring bars located in systems, moving with the same speed in relation to K. These bars are displayed on the lines parallel to axis Ox ‘ (for example, DE). However it is impossible to tell the same about axis Ox. It is obvious, that axes Ox and Ox ‘ are not parallel, therefore cannot be completely superposed, and can be crossed only in one point. This consequence of the elementary Euclid axioms. It turns out, that the rod can meet a bar into the certain moment of time per only one own end (generally – per only one point of own body). Superimposition of other end of a rod (generally – any its other point) with a bar becomes possible only into other moment of time, through a certain time interval. However it means that the second event occurs in other time echelon. During the specified time interval the first end of a rod and all other points of its body, certainly, "will depart" on significant distance so it will not turn out as the correct act of measurement. Essentially important fact is that all points of a body of a rod, except for one superposed, appear in other time echelons. Each point of a body of a rod for a meeting with a bar should wait exclusively the especial time echelon. The transparent conclusion from here follows, that the rod and a measuring bar cannot have two or more joint (coincident) world events and consequently their lengths essentially cannot be compared. This conclusion is so important, that deserve get-up in the form of special cognitive restriction or an interdiction that we shall make later. We already described this situation in details earlier [1], now this extraordinary occurrence is evidently visible per geometric visualization.
Perhaps, something will be changed with attempt of contactless remote measurement with use of transfer of the information by means of any signal? However signals from the ends of a rod, being are let out simultaneously in system of a stationary rod, with identical speed will move ahead to a measuring bar, being during any intermediate moment of time on direct, parallel axis Ox ‘ and consequently also cannot meet her simultaneously in system Ox. These signals during all time are within the limits of the own time echelon and cannot replace one time echelon with another at will. The situation will be similar at attempt of transfer of a signal in the opposite direction, from a measuring bar to a rod. Both these variants we already considered in details earlier [1].
For a case of usual small speeds this fact, maybe, has no so big methodological value. During described « defect of a simultaneity » the rod has not time "to depart" too far so distortion of its length observable from another system will be insignificant. However when the rod and a measuring bar mutually move with high near-light speeds, the problem gets basic value. If to adhere to strictly scientific objective methodological approach, it is necessary to ascertain, that
act of exact measurement of length of a rod and, in general, lengths of any line segments " in the air ", by measuring means of moving system turn out impracticable in principle.
Moreover, the objective methodological interdiction on any intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments and other extensive parameters along a line of moving of two systems takes place. As these pieces can have only one general world event, as we saw it on Fig.2, those parameters in these two systems which are entirely defined by frameworks of this dot event, for example, its spatial coordinates are supposed to comparison only. So, it is admissible to intersystem compare in moving systems with coordinates only one point.
2. Transformation of a time scale
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
Ravil8@yandex.ru
Abstract
A fact of principled compatibility of a measured rod in one inertial system of coordinates and a measuring ruler in moving by other system only in the unique point by means of the elementary space-time diagram was proved evidently and convincingly. The methodological inadmissibility of intersystem comparison of any spatial or time pieces is accented. A conclusion on a methodological incorrectness Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks and all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz transformations on this basis is drawn. The other variant of space-time transformations is offered and its compatibility with the Michelson-Morley Experiment is shown. Philosophical reflections of the author about the true cognitive status of Lorentz transformations are adduced.
1. About a technique of comparison of spatial segments
Unfortunately, all former fair critical remarks of considerable number of sane fair researchers to address of Lorentz transformations customary in special relativity have not been perceived by scientific community to the right degree. Reasons of the author of this article about a methodological incorrectness of the process of deducing of these transformations have not considered too [1]. Apparently these failures should be referred on special world outlook and methodological complexity of a situation and for the present bad persuasiveness of the critical argument. We shall try to be more convincing well.
Not a secret, that the significant role of the invention of special four-dimensional Minkowski space-time in business of giving greater pictorial presentation to Special Relativity Theory (which have specially received by distortion of usual four-dimensional space-time by means of a doubtful way of synchronization of clocks and the artificial imposed thesis about invariance of an interval) in one’s time has played. We also shall resort to the elementary geometry for giving pictorial presentation to our reasons, but without specially invented elaborate distortions.
As it is accepted in all elementary textbooks, we shall consider a standard situation with mutual movement of two systems K and K ‘ with high speed along the combined axes x and x ‘. (See Fig.1):
Fig.1
In the further we shall exclude axes y, y ‘, z, z ‘ from consideration for simplicity and we shall represent a situation in the Cartesian orthogonal system of coordinates, on a bidimentional space-time plane. (See Fig.2).
Fig.2
By analogy to Minkowski space-time we shall consider, that each point on this plane, having the spatial and time coordinate, corresponds to world event in a described situation.
Here xOt – system of a stationary observer. During the initial moment of time as it is usual, reference marks of two systems O and O ‘ it is considered conterminous. Point O ‘ will move in the course of time on an axis x’ in this figure, representing the direct line located under a corner φ in relation to an axis t. At that φ = arctgV, where V-speed of movement of system K ‘ in relation to system K from the point of view of observer from system K.
Let’s consider, how movement of rod AB based in system K ‘ and located along an axis x’ will look here. Obviously, the rod in the course of time will slide on an axis x’ with all own points too. We shall note, that all points of a rod in system K ‘ coexist simultaneously, are in one temporal "section" or temporal "echelon".
From thought experiment with « Einstein’s train » we know, that the infringement of a principle of simultaneity of events in spatially divided points in two systems moving with high speeds takes place. This phenomenon has received the name « a relativity of simultaneity ». The essence of a phenomenon is evidently visible on Fig.2. All simultaneous events in system K lay on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox. For example, simultaneous events in points Ax and Bx here are. Nevertheless events, simultaneous in system K ‘, lay already on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox ‘. In particular, it is points A and B. It turns out, that two events, simultaneous in system K, do not be such in system K ‘ and on the contrary. Each schoolboy knows about it today.
Now we shall try to make the act of measurement of length of this rod, using opportunities and tools of stationary system K. In system K along axis Ox we shall arrange a measuring bar by means of which we shall try to measure length of a moving rod. We shall note, that all points of this bar coexist simultaneously (in one time section) on axis Ox into the combined moment of time t=0 and on an axis parallel to it into any other moment of time.
The standard technique of contact sensing of length of a line segment means superimposition its ends with point labels on a measuring bar. Means, a rod and a measuring bar should have two joint (coincident) world events. How business with it at us in this case is?
On Fig.2 it is evidently visible, that the rod can be superposed without effort by all own points or at least by two extreme with all measuring bars located in systems, moving with the same speed in relation to K. These bars are displayed on the lines parallel to axis Ox ‘ (for example, DE). However it is impossible to tell the same about axis Ox. It is obvious, that axes Ox and Ox ‘ are not parallel, therefore cannot be completely superposed, and can be crossed only in one point. This consequence of the elementary Euclid axioms. It turns out, that the rod can meet a bar into the certain moment of time per only one own end (generally – per only one point of own body). Superimposition of other end of a rod (generally – any its other point) with a bar becomes possible only into other moment of time, through a certain time interval. However it means that the second event occurs in other time echelon. During the specified time interval the first end of a rod and all other points of its body, certainly, "will depart" on significant distance so it will not turn out as the correct act of measurement. Essentially important fact is that all points of a body of a rod, except for one superposed, appear in other time echelons. Each point of a body of a rod for a meeting with a bar should wait exclusively the especial time echelon. The transparent conclusion from here follows, that the rod and a measuring bar cannot have two or more joint (coincident) world events and consequently their lengths essentially cannot be compared. This conclusion is so important, that deserve get-up in the form of special cognitive restriction or an interdiction that we shall make later. We already described this situation in details earlier [1], now this extraordinary occurrence is evidently visible per geometric visualization.
Perhaps, something will be changed with attempt of contactless remote measurement with use of transfer of the information by means of any signal? However signals from the ends of a rod, being are let out simultaneously in system of a stationary rod, with identical speed will move ahead to a measuring bar, being during any intermediate moment of time on direct, parallel axis Ox ‘ and consequently also cannot meet her simultaneously in system Ox. These signals during all time are within the limits of the own time echelon and cannot replace one time echelon with another at will. The situation will be similar at attempt of transfer of a signal in the opposite direction, from a measuring bar to a rod. Both these variants we already considered in details earlier [1].
For a case of usual small speeds this fact, maybe, has no so big methodological value. During described « defect of a simultaneity » the rod has not time "to depart" too far so distortion of its length observable from another system will be insignificant. However when the rod and a measuring bar mutually move with high near-light speeds, the problem gets basic value. If to adhere to strictly scientific objective methodological approach, it is necessary to ascertain, that
act of exact measurement of length of a rod and, in general, lengths of any line segments " in the air ", by measuring means of moving system turn out impracticable in principle.
Moreover, the objective methodological interdiction on any intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments and other extensive parameters along a line of moving of two systems takes place. As these pieces can have only one general world event, as we saw it on Fig.2, those parameters in these two systems which are entirely defined by frameworks of this dot event, for example, its spatial coordinates are supposed to comparison only. So, it is admissible to intersystem compare in moving systems with coordinates only one point.
2. Transformation of a time scale
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
Now we shall try to make the act of measurement of length of this rod, using opportunities and tools of stationary system K. In system K along axis Ox we shall arrange a measuring bar by means of which we shall try to measure length of a moving rod. We shall note, that all points of this bar coexist simultaneously (in one time section) on axis Ox into the combined moment of time t=0 and on an axis parallel to it into any other moment of time.
The standard technique of contact sensing of length of a line segment means superimposition its ends with point labels on a measuring bar. Means, a rod and a measuring bar should have two joint (coincident) world events. How business with it at us in this case is?
On Fig.2 it is evidently visible, that the rod can be superposed without effort by all own points or at least by two extreme with all measuring bars located in systems, moving with the same speed in relation to K. These bars are displayed on the lines parallel to axis Ox ‘ (for example, DE). However it is impossible to tell the same about axis Ox. It is obvious, that axes Ox and Ox ‘ are not parallel, therefore cannot be completely superposed, and can be crossed only in one point. This consequence of the elementary Euclid axioms. It turns out, that the rod can meet a bar into the certain moment of time per only one own end (generally – per only one point of own body). Superimposition of other end of a rod (generally – any its other point) with a bar becomes possible only into other moment of time, through a certain time interval. However it means that the second event occurs in other time echelon. During the specified time interval the first end of a rod and all other points of its body, certainly, "will depart" on significant distance so it will not turn out as the correct act of measurement. Essentially important fact is that all points of a body of a rod, except for one superposed, appear in other time echelons. Each point of a body of a rod for a meeting with a bar should wait exclusively the especial time echelon. The transparent conclusion from here follows, that the rod and a measuring bar cannot have two or more joint (coincident) world events and consequently their lengths essentially cannot be compared. This conclusion is so important, that deserve get-up in the form of special cognitive restriction or an interdiction that we shall make later. We already described this situation in details earlier [1], now this extraordinary occurrence is evidently visible per geometric visualization.
Perhaps, something will be changed with attempt of contactless remote measurement with use of transfer of the information by means of any signal? However signals from the ends of a rod, being are let out simultaneously in system of a stationary rod, with identical speed will move ahead to a measuring bar, being during any intermediate moment of time on direct, parallel axis Ox ‘ and consequently also cannot meet her simultaneously in system Ox. These signals during all time are within the limits of the own time echelon and cannot replace one time echelon with another at will. The situation will be similar at attempt of transfer of a signal in the opposite direction, from a measuring bar to a rod. Both these variants we already considered in details earlier [1].
For a case of usual small speeds this fact, maybe, has no so big methodological value. During described « defect of a simultaneity » the rod has not time "to depart" too far so distortion of its length observable from another system will be insignificant. However when the rod and a measuring bar mutually move with high near-light speeds, the problem gets basic value. If to adhere to strictly scientific objective methodological approach, it is necessary to ascertain, that
act of exact measurement of length of a rod and, in general, lengths of any line segments " in the air ", by measuring means of moving system turn out impracticable in principle.
Moreover, the objective methodological interdiction on any intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments and other extensive parameters along a line of moving of two systems takes place. As these pieces can have only one general world event, as we saw it on Fig.2, those parameters in these two systems which are entirely defined by frameworks of this dot event, for example, its spatial coordinates are supposed to comparison only. So, it is admissible to intersystem compare in moving systems with coordinates only one point.
2. Transformation of a time scale
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
23.06.2010
23.06.2010
To this date, the effort to unify the forces and laws of nature or find a "Theory of Everything" has primarily focused on explaining the observed properties of gravity in terms of the concepts contained in quantum mechanical particle theories.
However, it is unfortunate that some have not made an effort to find it by explaining the observed properties of particles in terms of concepts of gravitational forces because if they had we may have found it by now.
We observe that particles have mass, which is associated with gravitational force. However, for the past century the brightest minds of the scientific community have been unable to define how this force can be propagated by a particle using the current quantum mechanical paradigms. Additionally, even with the recent advancements in observational technologies, no one has observed the graviton or particle that many feel is responsible for the propagation of gravitational forces.
However, the fact that we have not been able to define a unifying mechanism either mathematically or conceptually for the observed quantum mechanical and gravitational properties of nature in terms of the current paradigms may not be related to their content but to how we are attempting to integrate them.
For example, the fundamental assumption of Quantum mechanics is that mass and energy is contained in discrete irreducible units or packets of energy called particles.
However, the graviton or particle many physics associated with gravitational force has not, as mentioned earlier been observed. Some feel that this is due to the fact our instruments are not yet advance enough to detect it but it could also be because gravitational force is not propagated by a particle but by a continuous property of mass/energy.
This conclusion is supported by the observation of Davisson and Germer, when, in 1927 they observed that electrons along with other particles are diffracted by crystals. However, the only way to explain the observation that individual particles can generate a diffraction pattern is to assume that they have a continuous geometric substructure associated of a wave.
This provides the basis for assuming the quantum aspects of mass/energy are a result of a continuous, instead of a quantum mechanical function of a dimension.
However, because the diffraction pattern observed by Davisson and Germer has the spatial properties of a transverse wave its appearance can only be explain in terms a spatial not a time property of a dimension. This is because a time or space-time dimension is only observed to move in one direction forward and therefore could not support the bi-directional movement required to define the spatial properties of a transverse wave.
We have shown throughout “The Imagineer’s Chronicles” that observations of our environment suggest that space is composed of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time.
In the article "Defining gravity" Dec. 15, 2007 it was shown that one can theoretically derive the observed properties of a gravity and the fact that it is equivalent to an accelerated reference frame in terms of a continuous geometric property of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time.
While in the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of mass/energy in terms of the resonant properties associated with a transverse wave moving on a continuous "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, this suggests we may be able to define a quantum theory of gravity if, instead of attempting to define its properties in terms of a quantum function we try to define the quantum properties of a particle in terms of the continuous properties of gravity and their wave properties or function.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright 2008 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
Can we justify defining the reality of an environment based on our inability to define its reality.
The uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics tells us that we cannot know or observe the precise amount of energy contained in microscopic physical system over very short intervals of time.
Some physicists feel that because they cannot observe it in a microscopic system, it must fluctuate around a given point even though that volume is made up of a vacuum. They call the energy generated by this uncertainty quantum fluctuations or vacuum energy.
However, this means they are defining the reality of a vacuum in terms of their inability to define or observe the "reality" of the energy contain in that vacuum.
We have shown that it is more consistent with observations to define energy including that contained in a vacuum in terms the continuous properties of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time.
The observations many physicists associate with quantum fluctuations is one of those observations.
In the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?‘“ Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown that one can explain and predict the quantum properties of mass and energy in terms a resonant system caused by a matter wave moving on a continuous "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, this means one can define the "reality" of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum based on extrapolating observations of our three dimensional environment to four spatial dimensions instead of relying, as many physicists seem to on their inability to observe them.
Wikipedia describes the Casimir or the Casimir-Polder force as a physical force arising from a quantized field, which is responsible for zero point or vacuum energy. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect purely due to second quantization. However, the treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations has led to some controversy.
Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder first proposed the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs. The classic form of the experiment, described above, successfully demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory.
Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a sub micrometer scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa), the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors.
In 1924, Louis de Broglie theorized all particles have a wave component. His theories were later confirmed in 1927 by Davisson and Germer when they observed that electrons are diffracted by crystals.
Observations of waves in a classical environment indicate the number of simple harmonic oscillators that can be established in a given environment is dependent on the distance or "gap" between the "end points" of their environments.
But same concept can be applied to two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, because even without any external electromagnetic field the electromagnetic components of the atoms in each plate are vibrating because if they are not at absolute zero they have thermal energy. These random vibrations of their electromagnetic components will result in a random electromagnetic field to be generated between the plates.
However, classical wave mechanics tells us these random electromagnetic vibrations would be reinforced at certain points in space. The number of simple harmonic oscillators or quantum fields in the space between two plates formed by this reinforcing would decreases as the gap between them decreases. In other words, the smaller the gap between the plates the fewer number of quantum fields or particles that gap could support.
This means as was shown in the article ”Why is mass and energy quantized?“ there will be a greater number simple harmonic oscillators or quantum fields impacting the plates from outside of the gap than between it. This will cause a force that will push the plates together because the energy density associated with harmonic oscillations outside of the gap would be greater than inside of it.
We know the reality of the wave properties of particles because Davisson and Germer physically measured and observed them.
However, we cannot observe the "reality" of the quantum fluctuations associated with vacuum energy because as mentioned earlier their existence is based on the fact we cannot observe them.
This suggests the Casimir effect may not be due to our inability to know the precise "reality" of the amount of energy contained in microscopic physical system but to the physical observable reality of the wave properties of a particle.
However, it also means the "reality" of quantum mechanics could be defined in terms of the reality of classical wave mechanics and the continuous properties of four *spatial* dimensions instead of non "reality" of the uncertainty principal.
It is not be possible to define the wave prosperities of a particle in terms of four-dimensional space-time because it cannot support the bi-directional movement required to explain the transverse wave motion Davisson and Germer observed in electrons.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009
(In a PDF format)
In Thomas Kuhn book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" he defines a new paradigm as one that replaces a previous world view with a new one which changes our fundamental understanding of reality.
History has shown that most if not all new paradigms are opposed by the establishment when first presented.
The Church at the time of Galileo tried to prevent his ideas from being seen because they contradicted what they believed in.
Although many won’t admit it, today’s scientific establishment is not too different. Today one must have an idea published in a peer review journal before it can be "seen" by the scientific community.
Unfortunately, the existing scientific community determines which ideas are seen by them because they determine which ones get published.
In some cases they justifiably refuse to publish ideas because they are not back up by scientific facts however, in some cases they may prevent them from being published because they contradict what they believe in.
Science dictates that a theoretical model of our environment must explain and predict all observations. If it cannot it must be modified or discarded.
For example in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy the existence of epicycles were used to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.
It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus and advancements in observational technology, which allowed for direct observations of planetary motion did scientists realize epicycles did not exist.
This is true even though many Greek, Indian, and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.
However, why did it take almost two thousand years for science to realize that their ideas were correct?
The reason may have been because the scientific community assumed the existence of epicycles based only on their predicative powers. Therefore, they were able to justify suppressing the correct Greek and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years because, using them, they were still able to make accurate predictions a planet’s position. This was true even though there was a more logical and accurate predicative methodology based as mentioned earlier on observations of the Greek, Indian and Muslim cultures.
If one looks very closely one can see similarities between then and now.
The validity of Quantum theory is based primarily on their ability to make accurate quantitative predictions of our environment.
However, observations of Dark Matter appears to contradict the assumption made by quantum theories that all matter must be contained in particles.
This is because even with our advance observational technology, we have been unable to observe its baryonic or particle component.
History has shown the fact that a theoretical model can make accurate quantitative predictions does not justify not looking for a new paradigm when there are observations that contract its foundations,
Later Jeff
The crises of our time, it becomes increasingly clear, are the necessary
impetus for the revolution now under way. And once we understand
nature’s transformative powers, we see that it is our powerful ally, not a
force to feared our subdued.
Thomas Kuhn
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009
(In a PDF format)
In the natural sciences, arrow of time is a term coined in 1927 by British astronomer Arthur Eddington. He used it to distinguish a direction of time on a four-dimensional relativistic map of the world, which, according to Eddington, can be determined by a study of organizations of atoms, molecules, and bodies.
Physical processes at the microscopic level are believed to be either entirely or mostly time symmetric, meaning the theoretical statements that describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed However, the opposite is true in the macroscopic world in that there is an obvious direction (or flow) of time. In others words process in our macroscopic environment are observed to be asymmetric with respect to the direction of time.
Entropy appears to be the only quantity in the macroscopic world that "picks" a particular direction. Therefore, it is used by science to define the arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy or disorder of an isolated system will increase when no extra energy is consumed. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of marker that determines the direction of time.
However, one cannot apply the concept of entropy to the microscopic world of atoms because the entropy or disorder of system composed of a signal atom does not increase as it moves through time. In other words, the entropy of an atom moving to the left, while going forward in time is identical to the entropy of an atom moving to the right, while going backwards in time. Therefore, the one cannot use it to define a direction of time in most microscopic systems because it does not change as it changes direction in time.
This points out one of the problems with using entropy to "pick a particular" direction for time because using it does not give a universally consistent direction for it. For example, on a microscopic or atomic level the entropy or energy of an isolated atom does not spontaneously increase over time therefore it cannot be used to define its direction. However, it can be used to define its direction in a macroscopic isolated system because in those systems entropy does spontaneously increase over time.
Another problem in assuming the second law of thermodynamics is responsible for determining the direction of time is that is statistical, so it does not hold with strict universality: any system can fluctuate to a state of lower entropy. This means the direction of the arrow of time in those system where it does will be reversed.
However, one could resolve this conundrum if one defines the arrow of time, as we have done in the article "Defining what time is?” Sept. 20, 2007 in terms of the sequential ordering of the causality of events instead of the entropy of a system. This would give a consistent direction in all macroscopic multi component systems as well as single component microscopic ones such as an atom. This is because the ordering of the causality of all events would always move in the same direction forward.
For example, due to the statistical nature of the second law of thermodynamics it is possible for the entropy of gas molecules to fluctuate or a move to a more orderly instead of a more disorganized arrangement. Therefore, in a system consisting of gas molecules the arrow of time can be reversed if one uses entropy to define it
However, the causality of the fluctuation that reduced the entropy of the gas will always be different and later in time than all previous ones.
Therefore, defining the arrow of time in terms of the sequential ordering of the causality of an event would provide an unambiguous definition of time that is more consistent with the macroscopic observation that time always move forward.
This definition also provides a consistent direction for the arrow of time in microscopic systems such as those containing a single atom because the causality of an atom moving to the left would always be proceed by the causality of that the same atom moving to the right; even though the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case.
This shows that one can define the arrow of time more consistently and universally in terms sequential ordering of the causality of an event than can be done by defining it in terms of entropy or the second law of thermodynamics.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2010
(In a PDF format)
We have shown throughout “The Imagineer’s Chronicles” there are numerous theoretical advantages to defining the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time.
One of them is that it would allow for the theoretical definition of the "boundaries" of a quantum particle in terms of the laws of classical physics.
In the article “Embedded Dimensions” Oct. 22, 2007 it was shown that each point in three-dimensional space is embedded in a fourth *spatial* dimension and energy only propagates along a "surface" of three-dimensional space.
Classical wave mechanics tells us the oscillations generated by a wave on the surface of water is responsible for the transmission of energy.
Therefore, as was done in the article "The Photon: a matter wave?" Oct 1, 2007 one could explain how energy is propagated through three-dimensional space by extrapolating the laws classical of wave mechanics to oscillations in its ‘surface” generated by a matter wave moving on it with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
The reason we cannot "see" the fourth *spatial* dimension is because, as was mentioned earlier all forms of energy move along a "surface" of three-dimensional space. Therefore, electromagnetic energy or light could not penetrate and illuminate the fourth dimensional component of space.
This is analogous to how a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water can only "illuminate" or interact with objects that comes in contact with its surface. Therefore, a fish could not "see" the three-dimensional components of objects above its surface if a wave on its surface were the only way energy or information could be transmitted through its environment.
Similarly, three-dimensional being would be unable to "see" the fourth dimensional component of objects if energy is only transmitted on a "surface" of three-dimensional space.
In Einstein’s General and Special theories of Relativity he showed that one could derive the relativistic properties of motion, gravity, space and time in terms of an interaction of a three-dimensional volume with a fourth time dimension. But he was unable to derive a mechanism that can explain the quantum mechanical properties of mass and energy.
However, we have shown throughout “The Imagineer’s Chronicles” that one cannot only derive them but also the quantum mechanical properties of mass and energy by extrapolating the classical laws of three-dimensional space to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
In the article “The “Relativity” of four *spatial* dimensions” Dec. 1, 2007 it was shown that one can derive the relativistic properties of motion, gravity, space and time in terms of a curvature in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
(This curvature is analogous to the space-time curvature Relativity assumes is responsible for gravity.)
While in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can also derive the quantum mechanical properties of mass and energy in terms of classically resonating system if one assumes a three-dimensional volume oscillates with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
In 1924 Louis de Broglie was the first to realize all particles have an oscillating or wavelike component. In his paper, “Theory of the double solution“ he attempted to define a causal interpretation of their wave properties in the classical terms of space and time. He later abandoned it in the face of the almost universal adherence of physicists to the theories presented by Born, Bohr, and Heisenberg regarding the uncertainties and probabilistic interpretation of quantum particles.
However, if he had assume that space was composed of four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time he may have realized the quantum properties of mass and energy could be defined by extrapolating the classical laws of three-dimensional space to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
In classical physics, a point on a two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.
Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it. However, as was shown in the article “Embedded Dimensions” it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Classical wave mechanics tells us a resonance phenomena will occur with all types of vibrations or waves that occur in confined volumes.
Therefore the confinement of a volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would define the geometric boundaries of the resonant system responsible for the quantum characteristics of energy in the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?"
This suggests Louis de "Broglie may have been able to define the quantum boundaries of a particle by extrapolate the laws of classical physics to their wave properties instead of attempting to define their wave properties in terms of their quantum characteristics.
He then may have been able to define their probabilistic properties in terms of their wave characteristics because it would given him the ability to determine the probability of where they could be found in a specific region within the volume of their wave function, as was done in the article ”A Quantum Enigma: the wave particle duality of existence” Apr. 10, 2010
This defines quantum properties of mass and energy in terms of the laws Classical Physics because it shows how extrapolating them to four *spatial* dimension would allow one to theoretically define the "boundaries" of a quantum particle and therefore the reason why all energy appears to be quantized.
However, it is not possible to define a classical resonant system in terms of the geometry of space-time because time is only observed to move in one direction forward and therefore could not support the bi-direction movements and boundaries conditions required for it to occur.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2010
(In a PDF format)
is probably one of the most important images ever taken.
Recent advances in technology, such as the Hubble Space Telescope have enable scientists to observe macroscopic environments with the same precision as the microscopic. This opens a door to for a new direction in the search for understanding of the laws that govern the evolution of our universe.
Presently scientists need two theories to define our universe.
The first or Einstein’s define the macroscopic properties of the universe, mass, space, time and gravitational forces in terms of the continuous properties of a space-time metric.
While quantum theories define microscopic property of particles, mass and energy in terms of probability functions.
However, for the past 50 years the brightest minds in the scientific community have tried to unify these environments by extending the domain of one to the other without success.
The problem is their domains do not appear to overlap. In other words, quantum theories can only be applied only to the microscopic properties of particles while Einstein’s theories can only be applied to the macroscopic gravitational world of galaxies.
The reason this diseconomy exists may be because Quantum theories were developed by mathematically analyzing the microscopic environment of particles without considering the macroscopic gravitational world of galaxies. While Einstein’s gravitational and relativistic theories were developed without taking into consideration the observations regarding the world of particles.
However, history has shown most if not all paradigm shifts in understanding are enabled by developing an observational understanding of an environment and not by mathematically analyzing it.
For example, in the15 hundreds many in the scientific establishment assumed the earth was the center of the solar system. Using a theoretical model based on those assumptions, they were able to mathematically make accurate predictions of the position of the observable planets.
However, as observational technologies advanced and more planets were discovered, the mathematical equations required to predict their positions became more and more complex.
Even after the telescope enabled Galileo to observe some objects in the solar system were orbiting Jupiter not the earth, many did not accept it. They ignored the direct visual evident that the earth was not the center of the solar system and continued to derive more complex mathematical equations, which could accurately predict the position of all objects including those orbiting Jupiter based on the assumption that it was.
What finally caused the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric perspective was not the fact that they could not make accurate mathematical predictions of the position the objects in the solar system using it, because they could but the direct visual evidence of its inaccuracy provided by the telescope.
This reason, as mentioned earlier most if not all paradigm shifts in understanding are enabled by developing an observational understanding of an environment and not by mathematically analyzing it is because the abstract nature of equations allows them to define a non-existent environment or reality.
For example, scientists before 15th century were able to use the abstract properties of equations based on a geocentric model to predict the positions of the planets. However, what forced them to change was not the fact that they could not accurately predict their positions using it because as mentioned earlier they still could but the direct observations showed them, in reality the sun not the earth was the center of the solar system.
The reason the Hubble Deep Field image may be one of "The Most Important ones Ever Taken" because it significantly expands our observational environment and provides a way of checking the abstract equations that science uses to define our universe against its reality.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009
(In a PDF format)
or the discrepancy between the worldview implied by the accuracy of modern quantum mechanics and our Common sense (Sept. 1, 2008) understanding of reality is due to the incompleteness of its theoretical structure.
The strangeness of the quantum mechanical worldview is exemplified by the fact that it defines reality only in terms of probabilities.
However, its absurdity arises from the fact, as Heisenberg one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics put it "atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real but are forms of world probability or possibilities rather than things or facts".
Quantum mechanics defines the probability of finding a particle in given region in terms of Schrödinger’s wave function or equation. However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation it only defines the probability of particle being there. Therefore, it assumes it only comes into existence after one observes it.
The reason is that before it is observed it existed only as a wave function with an extended spatial environment. Therefore, it did not have the properties of a particle. However, after one observes it a particle appears in a compact region space while the wave function that was in that region collapses or disappears. Therefore, quantum mechanics assumes that the act of observing a wave function is the causality of a particles existence.
However, one can define a perfectly logical reason why the act of observing the wave function results in its collapse and the formation of particle by extrapolating the laws Newtonian mechanics to four *spatial* dimensions.
The earlier article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can derive the existence of a particle in terms of a classically resonating system or "structure" formed by matter wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension. Additionally it was showed all energy exists in resonant systems and therefore must be quantized.
This would solve the Enigma as to what is waving in the wave function by defining the medium supporting it in terms of space itself. This is because, as was shown in that article the vibrations of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is responsible for the both wave and resonant structure that defines a particle’s energy and wave function..
However, according to the laws of classical wave mechanics the "concentration" of a wave’s energy is maximum at its peaks and troughs. Therefore, one could only observe or "drain" the energy continued in a wave function at points corresponding to those peaks and valleys because those would be the only points where its energy would be “concentrated” enough to be redirected as a resonant system to the observing instrument. However, as was shown in the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" a particle is defined by the energy of its resonant structure. Therefore, when one looks at a particular spot within the confines of a wave function one would either find a particle or nothing at all because the volumes between its peaks and troughs would not contain enough energy to allow its resonant structure to be redirect towards an observer.
This is analogous to how the potential energy of water in a sink is release by allowing it to go down the drain. If all we could observe is the water coming out of the drain we would have to assume that it was concentrated in the region of space defined by the diameter of the drain. However, in reality the water occupies a much larger region.
Additionally, the fact that a particle is made up of the energy of its wave function means they both cannot exist at the same time. Therefore, if one chooses to observe it as a particle such as an electron one would not be able to observe its wave properties because the energy associated with it would be redirected towards the observer from a specific point in space. However if one chooses to observe its wave properties, such as the diffuse orbit of an electron around a nucleus one could not observe it as a particle because its energy is contained in the diffuse environment of the electrons orbit.
This means contrary to the Copenhagen interoperation the act of observing a wave function does not create a particle but only transforms or redirects its energy to specific point within the extended spatial environment associated its wave function.
This is analogous to how one can change the form of water from a solid to a liquid or vice versa by either cooling or heating it. However, the act of cooling or heating water does not create anything that was not there before it just changes the form of the water from a liquid to a solid.
Similarly, when we observe a wave function we are not causing its collapse while creating a particle but only redirecting its wave energy from a compact source within the confines of that wave function. The reason it appears as a particle is because it’s energy is observed to be originating from a specific point within the confines of the wave function that is observed.
This also explains why, in classical terms a particle appears to be simultaneously in many places at one time within the confines of its wave function because it shows its position relative to that volume would be dependent on where one observed its wave function. In other words, a wave function contains only one not multiple copies of a particle whose position within the wave function is defined by where one chooses to observe it.
It also defines the randomness of quantum mechanics in classical terms because it shows the probability of finding a particle in a specific point in space would depend on where an observer made contact with its wave function. Since an observer is unable to view a wave function before his or her instruments interacted with it he or she could only determine the probably of where a particle will appear in its extended spatial environment.
Additionally, it defines a physical reason why consciousness appears to play a role in the outcome of an observation. If one chooses to view an electron orbiting an atom from afar, so to speak he or she would only "see" the interference pattern generated by wave function. However, if one chose to measure where it was he or she only would “see” it as a compact or point source called a particle centered within the volume occupied by the peaks and troughs of its wave function.
Finally, it defines why how we chose to observe a quantum system effects what we observe. For example, if chose to look at a specific region of space occupied by a wave function we will not be able to see the interference that it causes because, as mentioned earlier the act of observing it causes its energy to be redirected to a particle format. Therefore, we will only be able to observe quantum or particle properties associated with its energy. However, if we chose not to look in a specific region of space and just observe the wave function we will always observe the interference associated with its wave properties.
This shows that one can derive a common sense explanation of the wave particle duality of existence if one assumes, as we have done in the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" that the quantum mechanical properties of nature are the caused by a resonant system formed by a matter wave moving on a "surface of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. Additionally, it completes the theoretical structure of quantum mechanics by providing an answer to the quantum enigma of why the conscience actions or awareness of an observer appear to affect physically reality as is demanded by the Copenhagen interpretation.
Later Jeff
The Shadows of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2010
(In a PDF format)