Category Archives: Physics Book

The Physics Book.

The “Particles in Void” Framework

ReferenceA Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics

Here is an interesting commentary on the logical framework of physics 1.

Several early Greek philosophers, including Democritus, imagined the universe as consisting of a multitude of irreducible particles moving in an empty void. On the other hand, Aristotle (c. 350 BC) denied the existence of a “void” (a region of space containing no substance), believing instead that the universe is filled continuously with substance… From this point of view it’s possible for a continuous substance to possess variable density, so the compressibility of air does not imply the existence of empty spaces.

The modern physics is based on the “particles in void” framework. It does not believe that the universe is filled continuously with substance.

“Particles” represent isolated bits of matter that are separated by void. Therefore, there is no continuity among the particles. They are never directly in contact.

Particles have properties that we may perceive. But void is perceived only as a gap among particles. Void has no properties of its own that may be perceived.

There is nothing that continues across the boundary between a particle and void except for geometry. The measures of geometry exist even when there is no substance to measure. Therefore, any possibility of continuum of substance is replaced by geometry in the “particles in void” framework.

Common to particles and void is the mathematical abstraction of geometry.

.

Geometry

Astronomy considers stars and planets as point particles in the sky separated by vast distances. The obvious relationship among them is provided by Geometry. The other consideration is the motion of the moon around the earth, and planets around the sun, which requires the presence of some kind of force between them.

The success of Newton’s universal law of gravity raised the importance of geometry and mathematics, and established “particles in void” as the logical framework of physics. But with this framework arose the problem of “action at a distance”. It required the presence of some mechanism in the void.

This revived the concept of aether as the substance, which permeated the void. Newton wrote 2,

A most subtle spirit which pervades all bodies…by the force and action of which spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another, at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate at greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles.

But the possibility of aether and its actual nature was yet to be corroborated with reality.

Geometry alone could not explain how force got communicated across the void. It then led to the postulate of aether as a substance permeating the void.

.

Electricity and Magnetism

The phenomena of electricity and magnetism were being studied extensively during the 18th and 19th centuries. During this period the atomic theory was being used to explain the chemical structure of matter. The phenomena of electricity and magnetism seemed to explain how force was communicated through the void between atoms.

From his experimental investigation into electricity and magnetism, Faraday formed the view 3 that an atom is not a supposed little hard particle separate from the powers around it. An atom is constituted of the powers it has, and it extends as far as its powers extend.

… where is there the least ground (except in a gratuitous assumption) for imagining a difference in kind between the nature of that space midway between the centres of two contiguous atoms and any other spot between these centres? a difference in degree, or even in the nature of the power consistent with the law of continuity, I can admit, but the difference between a supposed little hard particle and the powers around it I cannot imagine…

Hence matter will be continuous throughout, and in considering a mass of it we have not to suppose a distinction between its atoms and any intervening space. The powers around the centres give these centres the properties of atoms of matter; and these powers again, when many centres by their conjoint forces are grouped into a mass, give to every part of that mass the properties of matter. In such a view all the contradiction resulting from the consideration of electric insulation and conduction disappears.

Thus, in matter the atoms touch each other and there is no void among them.

But is there a similar situation with the bodies in the heavens? Do these bodies touch each other with their power of gravity that is extended as aether?

.

Light and Gravity

The phenomena of light and gravity were studied extensively by Newton himself in the 17th century. This study was carried forward in 18th and 19th centuries, but no connection was ever made between light and gravity.

Faraday, however, stated the following 4:

The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to dismiss the aether, but not the vibration …

The aether is assumed as pervading all bodies as well as space: in the view now set forth, it is the forces of the atomic centres which pervade (and make) all bodies, and also penetrate all space. As regards space, the difference is, that the aether presents successive parts of centres of action, and the present supposition only lines of action; as regards matter, the difference is, that the aether lies between the particles and so carries on the vibrations, whilst as respects the supposition, it is by the lines of force between the centres of the particles that the vibration is continued.

According to Faraday, there was no separate substance, such as, aether. Matter itself extended as lines of force filling all space between the material bodies. Radiation was the vibrations in these lines of force.

Faraday looked at radiation, such as, light, to be the extension that carried the force of matter.

In short, the idea of “void” was unsustainable. First, the theoretical concept of “aether”, and then, a more realistic idea of “force carrying radiation” were simply the attempts to discover the nature of “space”, which was thought to be void of matter.

.

1Continuity and the Void” by Kevin Brown
2Newton’s Principia” (1686) Translation by Andrew Motte, American edition of 1846, p. 26
3 A speculation touching Electrical Conduction and the Nature of Matter” by Michael Faraday (1844), Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Vol. XXIV, p. 136
4 Thoughts on Ray Vibrations”, Lecture by Michael Faraday (1846),  Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol III, M. Faraday, p447-452

.

Preface (Approach to Physics)

ReferenceA Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics

It has been a while since any major contribution has been made to physical sciences in terms of fundamental theoretical research. It has not been easy to examine physical phenomena at the atomic levels. More mathematics is being demanded in modern scientific investigations in lieu of objective reality.

Newton used mathematics to “describe” the void, which could not be realistically described. Maxwell used mathematics to “describe” a postulated aether. Einstein used mathematics to “describe” space as some abstract substance. Similar use of mathematics in quantum mechanics and particle physics has only served to further lose touch with reality.

Although Newtonian mechanics, the Electromagnetic theory, the theory of Relativity, and now Quantum mechanics and Particle physics predict remarkably verifiable results in selected areas, they cannot be reconciled with each other.

The very fact that the fundamental theories of physics cannot be reconciled means that some basic assumption underlying all physics is inconsistent with reality.

The common denominator of the physical theories above is the “particles in void” approach. This approach considers the physical universe to be made up of matter and void only. Material particles are separated by void. The contact between material particles cannot be defined. The “action at a distance” problem, which arose with Newton’s theory of gravity, is still unresolved. Therefore, much confusion follows the concepts of “particle” and “void”.

This book is written on the premise that the “particles in void” framework that underlies current physics is inconsistent and it needs to be examined thoroughly to discover the missing truth,

.

Substance, Motion and Inertia

Reference: A Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics

With the discovery of quantization, the concept of substance expands. We see quantization as thickening of substance, which, ultimately congeals as matter. This is supported by the correspondence principle.  This may be visualized as happening within the atom.

Force seems to be the very characteristic of substance. The concept of substance expands beyond matter to radiation and raw force. The concepts of motion and inertia shall change with the quantization of substance.

The following and subsequent quotes are from NEWTON’S PRINCIPIA:

Definition I: The quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and bulk conjunctly.

Thus, quantity of matter is the product of its density and volume.

The quantity of radiation may be described analogously as the product of its quantization level (frequency) and intensity.

Definition II: The quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arising from the velocity and quantity of matter conjunctly.

For a material body, the quantity of motion is the product of its velocity and the quantity of matter. This is also called momentum.

For radiation, the quantity of motion is the product of its frequency and the quantity of radiation.

Definition III: The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line.

For a material body, a change in motion means a change in velocity because matter changes little. Resistance to this change in velocity is called inertia of the material body. Inertia keeps the motion (velocity) of the material body uniform in space.

For radiation, a change in motion means a change in frequency because velocity changes little. Resistance to this change in frequency may be called
quantization. The quantization of radiation is very small, but it keeps the motion (frequency) of radiation uniform in space.

Definition IV: An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change its state, either of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line.

A force must be impressed upon the body to change its motion over the resistance of inertia.  This inertia makes the change in velocity (acceleration) of the body proportional to the force applied. As mass of the body increases, so does its inertia, which makes it increasingly  difficult to accelerate the body.

Theoretically, a body of infinite mass shall have infinite inertia, and it would be impossible to accelerate. We may consider such a body to be absolutely fixed in space. The body becomes less fixed as its mass decreases. When mass decreases to zero the substance reduces to radiation, and inertia sharply reduces to quantization, making it barely fixed in space.

NOTE: We may define space here as “radiation” of zero quantization.

LAW I: Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

LAW II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

The motion is changed through force, where force can be applied only through contact. As an example, contact occurs between radiation and matter in photoelectric phenomenon. If radiation applies force to matter then the matter must apply force back to radiation. This may result in a visible increase in the frequency of radiation, increasing its quantization level. If the increased quantization is maintained then it must be accompanied by a decrease in velocity, no matter how imperceptible.

A substance, as radiation and matter, is fixed in space to the degree it is substantial. As radiation the substance is not very substantial and it is barely fixed. The substantiality of radiation increases slowly with quantization. The substantiality, however, increases very sharply when radiation transitions into matter. This transition occurs within the atom at the interface between the electronic and nuclear regions. Even as matter it continues to quantize into denser matter.

The characteristic of substantiality or fixedness of substance determines its inertia. This inertia is very low throughout the region of radiation, and it is comparatively very high throughout the domain of matter.

The speed seems to change sharply with the level of inertia. The speed is very high throughout the region of radiation (known as the speed of light), and it is comparatively very low throughout the domain of matter.

Because of inertia, the change in motion is proportional to the force impressed. For matter, the proportionality factor is the mass, and the change in motion appears as change in speed. The mass represents inertia.

For radiation, the proportionality factor appears to be the speed of light, and the change in motion appears as change in frequency. The frequency represents the quantization.

To summarize, motion appears as velocity for matter, but as frequency for radiation. Inertia is represented by mass in case of matter, and by quantization in case of radiation. With these considerations taken into account Newton’s laws may be applied to radiation.

.

Substance, Space, Time and the Void

A scientist holding “particles in void” perspective believes that particles of matter exist in a void. He thinks that space is the void because space is empty of matter. But he is aware that space is something that exists, and the actual void must transcend the concept of space. Lacking explanation he treats space mathematically.

A person holding the broader “continuum of substance” perspective sees substance getting quantized in the electromagnetic spectrum. The ultimate quantization of this substance appears as matter at the upper end of the spectrum. The lower end extends toward void. He sees substance thinning out toward the void as follows.

  1. Matter
  2. Quantum particles
  3. Gamma radiation
  4. X-ray radiation
  5. Ultraviolet radiation
  6. Visible radiation
  7. Infrared radiation
  8. Terahertz radiation
  9. Microwave radiation
  10. Radio waves
  11. Space
  12. Void

From matter to quantum particles there is a rapid thinning out of substance. After that the substance appears as really thin radiation. As we look down the electromagnetic spectrum we see the thinning out of radiation. In the other direction we see quantization of substance.

The substance is not just matter. It extends beyond matter as electromagnetic radiation.

The extents of material objects and electromagnetic quanta are described by the dimensions of space. As substance thins out its extents (space) become increasingly diffused.

Space describes the extents of substance.

The duration of material objects and electromagnetic quanta are described by the dimensions of time. As substance thins out its duration (time) become increasingly ephemeral.

Time describes the duration of substance.

Ultimately, as the substance disappears into the void, so do space and time. The void has neither extent nor duration because these properties belong to substance only. The void is, therefore, difficult to visualize. Science has yet to grapple fully with the concept of void.

Space and time do not exist in the void. The void has neither extent nor duration.

The “empty space” is empty of material substance, but it is not empty of electromagnetic substance. It actually represents the extents of electromagnetic substance.

The material objects are described in terms of their mass. The electromagnetic substance is described in terms of its quanta, or frequency. Matter at the upper end is made up of very high frequency. Space at the lower end denotes very low frequency. As frequency approaches zero we approach the void.

A reinterpretation of scientific observations without the filter of the “particles in void” perspective quickly shows that substance is more than just matter.

The “continuum of substance” perspective presents a more real and logical view of substance, space, time, and void.

.

Reference: A Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics

.

A Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics

Reference: Research in Physics

.

BOOK: A Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics

Preface: (Approach to Physics)

Chapter 1: Objective & Subjective Reality

Chapter 2: The “Particles in Void” Framework 

Chapter 3: Principia 1687: Newton’s Preface

Chapter 4: Principia 1687: Definitions

Chapter 5: Principia 1687: Laws of Motion

Chapter 6: The Uniform Velocity in Space

Chapter 7: A Geometry for Outer Space

Chapter 8: A Critique of Einstein’s Light Quanta

Chapter 9: Substance, Motion and Inertia

Chapter 10: Quantum & Quantization

Chapter 11: Quantization and Atom

Chapter 12: “Lines of Force” & Maxwell

Chapter 13: A Critique of Einstein’s Relativity

 

.

On these materials, I would love to have the following feedback from you.

Email: vinaire@yahoo.com

1. Can you follow what I am saying?

2. Are there some portions that are boring?

3. Are there places where the language is a bit unrealistic?

4. Which passages you had to read twice?

5. Which sections do you remember best?

6. Which parts could be eliminated when necessary?

Thank you.