Vinaire's Blog

Reference: Essays on Substance

Proton, Electron and Photon

A particle implies a point-like center and a fixed identity that is moving. But the quantum “particles” inside the atom are not like material particles. They are like drops that could be dissolving and forming within a fluid-like field.

According to the Theory of Substance there are no material-like particles inside the atom. There are only fluid-like fields of different consistencies. These fields are continuous with each other despite sharply varying consistencies.

In a hydrogen atom, the only proton of very high consistency is the very small nucleus at the center, but the only electron of 1836 times lesser consistency fills the rest of the atom. This electron is like a huge field of very diluted mass. It is not like a point-like condensed particle orbiting the nucleus. This makes the electron tens of thousands of times larger than the proton.

There seems to be a relationship between consistency and size of substance: The lower is the consistency, the greater is the size.

Even when the atoms are packed tightly within matter, they have very large spaces among them. These spaces are filled with photons of negligible consistency. From the relationship between consistency and size, we may estimate the size of a photon to be tens of thousands of times larger than the electron.

We may not have the exact sizes of Proton, Electron and Photon, but we can say with certainty that the size of the electron is humongous compared to the size of the proton; and the size of the photon is humongous compared to the size of the electron.

The mathematical interpretation of quantum mechanics may disagree with the above conclusion but the mathematics of quantum mechanics assumes quantum entities to be point-like particles that have probabilistic locations.

.

Reference: Essays on Substance

Mathematics and Physics

The postulates of Mathematics do arise from real experience, but they are then extended into abstract concepts that become distant from reality. For example, numbers, and their relationships arise from our experience with counting and accounting of distances and directions, but they are then extended to ideas, such as, zero and infinity that are abstract concepts only, and can be interpreted in many ways.

Mathematics has developed along the lines of establishing consistency among its postulates. The abstract postulates have become part of its woof and warp. When mathematics is applied to physics, its abstractions have to tested against real observations. Establishing consistency between the mathematical abstractions and real observations benefits both mathematics and physics.

A scientific hypothesis starts from real observations that are not quite consistent with established theories. The scientist generates a hypothesis to resolve that inconsistency. He may create a mathematical model to flush out as many inconsistencies as possible from his hypothesis.

The hypothesis may make new postulates. These postulates need to be properly justified. When we talk about subjectivity, we are talking about unjustified, arbitrary postulates.

So the scientist develops experiments to test the postulates of his hypothesis. These experiments can be conducted using physical equipment in a lab. The resulting measurements are then compared against the predictions from the hypothesis. A consistency between the two helps the hypothesis to be accepted as a theory.

When mathematical interpretations of the hypotheses and theories start to become complex, unreal, or simply pointless then it is time to develop thought experiments to further test the hypotheses and theories for inconsistencies. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are very mathematically oriented. They have espoused ideas about space and time that conflict with reality. Such ideas need to be carefully examined with well designed thought experiments that use live logic.

The thought experiments shall examine the postulates of the hypothesis for consistency with established principles. It will also examine the logical continuity among the ideas and observations leading to those postulates. Finally it will examine the harmony, which these new postulates bring to the broad scene of scientific principles.

The resolution of inconsistencies arising between a hypothesis and the reality of scientific principles may also bring into view basic concepts that are missing both in mathematics as well as in physics. This is what Faraday was insisting in his essay quoted below:

Faraday 1857: On the Conservation of Force

.

Reference: Essays on Substance

Motion-Inertia Relationship

According to Motion and Gravity, motion increases as inertia decreases. This is visible on a cosmic scale. The reason Newton did not point to this relationship is because for changes in speeds of objects, the corresponding change in inertia is so small that it cannot be measured.

This observation adds to the Newton’s laws of motion. We may say,

When a particle of matter is accelerated, its mass decreases. The decrease in mass is proportional to the increase in its speed.

A little math for it is provided in the graphics below.

The configuration of a system of bodies in free space is determined strictly by the equilibrium among their consistency and motion, where consistency and motion are tightly related in an inverse relationship. This equilibrium is confused with the gravitational force of attraction. There is no one-way gravitational force of attraction. 

A constant velocity in free space means that the acceleration of the body is exactly balanced by its inertia. Thus, it becomes possible to control motion by controlling the inertia of a body, or vice versa. This is likely to be one of the areas of future technology.

.