Unsatisfactory Foundations of Classical Mechanics & Special Relativity

[ThePhysicist]

In What Respects are the Foundations of Classical Mechanics and of the Special Theory of Relativity Unsatisfactory?

By Albert Einstein

We have already stated several times that classical mechanics starts out from the following law: Material particles sufficiently far removed from other material particles continue to move uniformly in a straight line or continue in a state of rest. We have also repeatedly emphasized that this fundamental law can only be valid for bodies of reference K which possess certain unique states of motion, and which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other. Relative to other reference-bodies K the law is not valid. Both in classical mechanics and in the special theory of relativity we therefore differentiate between reference-bodies K relative to which the recognized " laws of nature " can be said to hold, and reference-bodies K relative to which these laws do not hold.

But no person whose mode of thought is logical can rest satisfied with this condition of things. He asks : " How does it come that certain reference-bodies (or their states of motion) are given priority over other reference-bodies (or their states of motion) ? What is the reason for this Preference? " In order to show clearly what I mean by this question, I shall make use of a comparison.

I am standing in front of a gas range. Standing alongside of each other on the range are two pans so much alike that one may be mistaken for the other. Both are half full of water. I notice that steam is being emitted continuously from the one pan, but not from the other. I am surprised at this, even if I have never seen either a gas range or a pan before. But if I now notice a luminous something of bluish color under the first pan but not under the other, I cease to be astonished, even if I have never before seen a gas flame. For I can only say that this bluish something will cause the emission of the steam, or at least possibly it may do so. If, however, I notice the bluish something in neither case, and if I observe that the one continuously emits steam whilst the other does not, then I shall remain astonished and dissatisfied until I have discovered some circumstance to which I can attribute the different behavior of the two pans.

Analogously, I seek in vain for a real something in classical mechanics (or in the special theory of relativity) to which I can attribute the different behavior of bodies considered with respect to the reference systems K and K1. Newton saw this objection and attempted to invalidate it, but without success. But E. Mach recognized it most clearly of all, and because of this objection he claimed that mechanics must be placed on a new basis. It can only be got rid of by means of a physics which is conformable to the general principle of relativity, since the equations of such a theory hold for every body of reference, whatever may be its state of motion.

To read more, go to http://www.EffortlessPhysicsLessons.com/relativity/ (http://www.effortlessphysicslessons.com/relativity/) We can then further discuss the subject under this thread.

Stephan Bourget, physicist
Effortless Physics Lessons (http://www.effortlessphysicslessons.com/)

[Epsilon=One]

...E. Mach recognized it most clearly of all, and because of this objection he claimed that mechanics must be placed on a new basis.I concur.

It can only be got rid of by means of a physics which is conformable to the general principle of relativity, since the equations of such a theory hold for every body of reference, whatever may be its state of motion.Here, I disagree. And, I am sure Einstein would also disagree. Mach, as Einstein did, both clearly understood the problem. Mach sought a solution by way of inertia, while Einstein tried the Cosmological Constant. GR has no structural force as a reaction to gravity. The omission is most apparent when considering the accelerating, galactic recession and the Great Attractor enigmas as confirmed by observations of Cosmology.

Frank Wilczec, 2004 Nobel laureate, states: "...Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli...Einstein and Schrödinger, felt...progress would require radically new innovations. ...(that) would be a revolution of the order of quantum mechanics itself, and would introduce a new fundamental length." I agree with Wilczec and argue that the "new fundamental length" is the Conceptual Unit (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CU), which is heuristically described by the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC).

With such, Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI) is easily rationalized as gravity's reaction force.

[Albers]

Yup. I say the field results of GR can be reproduced by the assumption that space in the region of sources is characterized by gradients (divergences) of polarization, distinct in radial and transverse aspects. All the change of waves of light and mass can be understood gravitationally by positing a thickening of the vacuum to supply higher dielectric constant to the background. Just as we see light going slower in any optical medium, this suffices to reproduce the Einstein field solutions. It is mathematically no different to posit a 'fundamental four-dimensional' manifold, than to acknowledge the varying fabric of dielectric polarization cooked up by the presence of much mass, as the response of the vacuum. What moves in this field is light and also mass, but mass is only circulating light and we are looking at the substrate of all of this! If you go to such a place where the electric responses are higher than measured by observers outside, all of your vibrations will be slowed compared to their clocks. I am not yet clear here, but will expand on this as I figure it out. This is not a week old.

[Epsilon=One]

Yup. I say the field results of GR can be reproduced by the assumption that space in the region of sources is characterized by gradients (divergences) of polarization, distinct in radial and transverse aspects. All the change of waves of light and mass can be understood gravitationally by positing a thickening of the vacuum to supply higher dielectric constant to the background.I agree.

Note the oscillating motion gradients (2D) in the below image.

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://www.CQthus.info/PT/Images/OscillatingMotion.jpg

...this suffices to reproduce the Einstein field solutions. It is mathematically no different to posit a 'fundamental four-dimensional' manifold, than to acknowledge the varying fabric of dielectric polarization cooked up by the presence of much mass, and the response of the vacuum. What moves in this field is light and also mass, but mass is only circulating light and we are looking at the substrate of all of this!Yes. I differentiate that there are different states of "Light"; what we observe as electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which is a very poor term, is a manifestation of photons (Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com)) outside (ejected from) the Pulsoid (field). Other forms of "Light" are different states (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/4) of oscillating and resonant energy that is within the seminal quanta.

If you go to such a place where the electric responses are higher than measured by observers outside, all of your vibrations will be slowed compared to their clocks.As simply stated, I can simply agree; however, the concept, I intuit, is much more complex and requires some tweaking of terms.

[Albers]

Mathematically what I did was to equate the GR metric terms as appropriate to distance and time and set the appropriate dilation of speed-of-light, as measured in outside coordinates, equal to one over the square root of permittivity. The latter I already have dealt with in my first two papers, especially the electron model, although here I used the dielectric hole theory which shows dielectric runaway. Maybe there are trapdoors here but I certainly reproduced light paths! I already showed how, at the electron's center, radial velocity slows to ZERO. At an event horizon both radial and tangential velocities appear to cease, so I don't have to cook up anisotropies like do exist in the near charge field. Gravity is the far field of many, presumably mixed charges (neutral in the large). Inside the BH both polarizabilities go through zero and shelf at something like -3/2 at the origin. No, I have no idea what this means, do you? I encountered this before in different dielectric assumptions in my electron study, but always ran the other way! Here it is happening and is a cool opportunity. . . . . . . . You say "ejected from resoloid fields"; I am tempted to view particles (mass) as the quantized vortices of the primary radiation field just sort of like raindrops, and the photon population as the crosstalk between atoms; but my larger mathematical self says there is no need to think cause and effect beyond a point, in a field phenomemon such as a photon. Maxwell's equations are as a circle and it does not much matter where you enter. As in life your job is to complete the circle.

[Epsilon=One]

Mathematically what I did was to equate the GR metric terms as appropriate to distance and time and set the appropriate dilation of speed-of-light, as measured in outside coordinates, equal to one over the square root of permittivity. The latter I already have dealt with in my first two papers, especially the electron model, although here I used the dielectric hole theory which shows dielectric runaway. Maybe there are trapdoors here but I certainly reproduced light paths! I already showed how, at the electron's center, radial velocity slows to ZERO. At an event horizon both radial and tangential velocities appear to cease, so I don't have to cook up anisotropies like do exist in the near charge field.As I understand your words, I agree; and, believe you are fundamentally ahead of many others, by adding visualization, in the field of quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

Gravity is the far field of many, presumably mixed charges (neutral in the large).I understand "gravity" as more than this.

Inside the BH both polarizabilities go through zero and shelf at something like -3/2 at the origin. No, I have no idea what this means, do you?Yes. Or, at least I believe I do. Only I don't use the label BH, which in principle I detest because its definition by the elite is ludicrous. . . .But, what else is new.

I encountered this before in different dielectric assumptions in my electron study, but always ran the other way! Here it is happening and is a cool opportunity. . . . . . . .Yes. And, I don't see you as running like so many of the elite do.

You say "ejected from resoloid fields";No. Or, if I did I was wrong. The "fields" create Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com); however, the fields, themselves, I refer to as Pulsoids (of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV)), analogous to quantum fields.

I am tempted to view particles (mass) as the quantized vortices of the primary radiation field just sort of like raindrops,...O.K.

...and the photon population as the crosstalk between atoms...O.K.; but, they are also more. Nice analogy though.

...but my larger mathematical self says there is no need to think cause and effect beyond a point, in a field phenomemon such as a photon.I think of photon in a "field" rather than being the "field." Probably just a difference of semantics???

Maxwell's equations are as a circle and it does not much matter where you enter.Remember that a circle is a special ellipse. If Maxwell equations are to explain Nature, they must refer to an Emergent Ellipse (http://www.EmergentEllipse.com), which is very near a circle containing an obtuse ellipse.

[Albers]

Yes, photons in a field, that's my point. There has to be this response available from the not-vacuum. One can picture my photon as the 'result' of this charge envelope, which I described, boogying along. Or one can say, the field of the vacuum is available to be excited and conduct this disturbance. . . . . On black holes, I start with Einstein and Schwarzschild, and totally reproduce this, so light cannot in principle cross the singular horizon in finite time to the outside observer. . . . Sorry I messed up your vocabulary.

[Epsilon=One]

...this charge envelope, which I described, boogying along. Or one can say, the field of the vacuum is available to be excited and conduct this disturbance. . . . .I believe that the "charge envelope" is a Pulsoid that has wavefronts that are "boogying along" at about the SOL, while internally there are hyper-relativistic motions (oscillations that comprise the fundamental force) that harmonize and resonate.

On black holes, I start with Einstein and Schwarzschild, and totally reproduce this, so light cannot in principle cross the singular horizon in finite time to the outside observer. . . .I see BHs, as currently defined, as no more than an over extension of GR. To the best of my knowledge a BH has never been observed that didn't have a more prosaic rationalization.

Are you possibly construing the infinitesimal or the infinite as a BH?

Sorry I messed up your vocabulary.That's what I usually do to everyone else. I am amazed at how some people can argue on this forum and never define the terms they use regardless of how much I implore. It's sort of like baseball without a bat.

[Albers]

I have given you the prosaic explanation.

[Epsilon=One]

I have given you the prosaic explanation.Well, O.K. By prosaic, I meant "straight forward" in such a way that there are other Natural explanations rather than the simplistic symbolism of GR that was never intended to be so used. Hawking, the last I've heard, has disavoved all such mathematical interpretations.

When you say: "On black holes, I start with Einstein and Schwarzschild, and totally reproduce this, so light cannot in principle cross the singular horizon in finite time to the outside observer."; I don't understand how you can arrive at much that is meaningful by beginning with "Einstein and Schwarzschild" contrivances. Neither man understood the nature of Light as it is understood by quantum chromodynamics (QCD) today.

There is no "horizon" that exists that Light cannot cross. Light's only limitation is the locus of Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Reality) . . . where there is motionlessness and the inability to acquire anything. You cannot add to Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity).

[Albers]

We can write the speed of light as the inverse of the square root of "epsilon-mu", or permittivity times permeability. Given an optically thicker and thicker medium I show you a good show. Your next stop, the Twilight Zone, where there is motionlessness and the inability to acquire anything. Do not try to adjust your television set...we have the controls.

[Albers]

Tell me about light in QCD. You have things in mind and I know nothing here. I'm busy trying to create NQFD: non-quantum field dynamics.

[Epsilon=One]

Tell me about light in QCD.I'd have to type at least five long pages in which I didn't understand any of the words that I was using. See: QCD Photons (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=qcd+photons)

I'm busy trying to create NQFD: non-quantum field dynamics.Isn't this an oxymoron?

[Albers]

Depends which moron needs oxygen. It is nice to have theories of quanta, but I seek the theory of whence they come, as do you.

[Epsilon=One]

...I seek the theory of whence they come, as do you.Touché. ....

[Albers]

The first physical result I can offer from looking at the permittivity behavior inside the horizon of my electrodynamic black hole (see Gravitation and Vacuum Polarization at http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physcis/na) is that transverse permittivity is negative going inward from the asymptote at r=2m. Assuming magnetic permeability is not also flipped in sign, this means absorption, as the argument of the exponent of propagation is now real. Thus there is none but damped transverse propagation inside.