The Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter as the Source of New Ideas by Sergey G Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

We must remember that we are concerned in this discussion about the foundational problems of physics.

When considering the motion of a particle in relation to reference frames, if the INTERACTION BETWEEN THE ENERGY OF THE PARTICLE AND THE ENERGY OF MOTION OF THE OBJECT THAT THE LOCAL REFERENCE FRAME IS ATTACHED to is disregarded, then that itself is a foundational error.

I will explain it:

Newton's theory was hailed as the ultimate triumph of the Copernican Revolution. Why, it hit the final nail in the coffin of kinematics in physics. Newton in his Principia says that it is to distinguish between apparent motions (kinematics) from true motions (dynamics) that he wrote Principia. "But how we are to obtain the true motions from their causes, effects, and apparent differences, and the converse shall be explained more at large in the following treatise (Principia). FOR TO THIS END I COMPOSED IT.

(Note in Newton's terminology 'motion' = momentum, so the above concerns how to distinguish whether a particle has true momentum or no momentum - false apparent momentum)

An essential foundational concept in Newtonian theory is: "a body, which is moved from a place in motion, also partakes in the motion of its place" (Principia p.9).

For Newton 'place' is not an arbitrary reference frame but the local frame, attached to the location where the particle is at rest.

This means when the particle is at rest in K' (local reference frame of the particle) Even when at rest in K' it is has a real component of momentum already in it and co-moves with K' relative to K (local ref frame of K'). When it moves relative to K' it is has two real components of momentum.

If you read my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

You will find that Einstein was desperately in search of a dynamic explanation for the relativistic phenomena, since the way Newtonian mechanics has developed had come to the end of the road. He indicated that it had come to the point of writing the obituary of Newtonian Mechanics.

Unfortunately, Einstein resurrected kinematics. In this sense he has negated the progressive aspect of Newtonian dynamics, and brought about a counter revolution in intellectual thinking. Einstein has made a grave foundational error to turn the wheel of history of physics back into thinking in terms of kinematic paradigms

When you ask me the questions about velocities relative K and K' you are asking me those questions from a kinematic basis.

In my essay I have explained how Einstein was trying to find the "Right Way" in terms of generalizing the laws of thermodynamics.

I will follow this up with another article giving the solution without the use of kinematic reference frames.

Best regards,

Viraj

I do not know why the part I of my reply to you is getting hidden by the system. Pls click 'show replies' under your post to see part I.

Here is part II:

Dear Sergey,

Here is how to see the problem of motion of a particle without the use of the erroneous foundational problem of reference frames and falling into kinematics.

It is by developing an anlogy between thermodynamics and particle mechanics.

------------------

0. The zeroth law of motion is that,

a) In the motion of a particle it occurs by way the fusing on its intrinsic energy Mc2 and the applied energy of motion (pc). The fusion takes place by both quantities of energy losing fractions of energy in equal proportion - thus each quantity of energy gets scaled down by the factor  (gamma).

After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2

b) The converse of the fusion theorem is that when a quantity of energy X is to break up into two parts aX and (1-a) X, the original energy X gets scaled up by a factor ' (gamma)' so that the parts become equal to (gamma)'aX and (gamma)'(1-a) X,

1. In a system of particles moving relative to their common centre of mass, the energy of motion of the centre of mass cannot be made use of to make discrete changes in the particles relative to each other.

This is analogous to the first law of thermodynamics.

2. In applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle within a co-moving the system of particles (about their centre of mass), it is impossible to for the particle to acquire a motion of velocity v, relative to the other co-moving particles to the full extent of the net energy (Mvc) applied.

This is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics.

2a. The conversion of the applied net energy Mvc must occur with respect to the energy level of relative to which the motion of the common centre of mass occurs.

Recognizing that energy Mvc also possesses inertia Mv/c2, this energy too must move in common motion with the centre of mass (at velocity u). For this common motion it requires Mvc to break up and dedicate the fraction (Mvc).u/c. Hence the balance energy would be Mvc( 1-u/c). From zeroth law (b) this fission causes the energy of motion to scale-up by the factor gamma'= 1/(1- u2/c2)1/2 at the moment of fission.

Hence the energy that remains for motion relative to the centre of mass is Mvc(1-u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2.

Consequently the displacement of the particle relative to another particle (co-moving with the centre of mass) is: x' = vt(1- u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2 --------------(1).

At Newtonian velocities v/c tends to 0, hence x' tends to(gamma)'vt. Since for a particle moving relative to a lab frame on earth(gamma)' = 1.000000005, for terrestrial displacements at Newtonian velocities (v/c tends to 0), the scaling up of the displacement due to ' has gone unnoticed and in practice we have formed the convention

x = vt.-------------(2)

When very accurate measurements are made for particles moving at near light velocities v/c tends to1, the effect of the scaling up also has come to the notice. Then the equation (1) takes the appearance of

x' = (x -ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 -----------------------(3) (Lorentz transformation).

Equation (3) is valid only for very fast moving particles. When the velocity of a particle reaches the range 0.5c the results start to significantly deviate from the equation. When it reaches the value of earth's orbital velocity, the equation (3) breaks down totally.\

Unlike (3) Equation (1) provides accurate results for all velocities between low (Newtonian) velocities to near light velocities. This can be tested by analyzing the results of all the particle accelerator experiments carried out in the last 100 years.

Best regards/ Viraj

Dear Sergey,

What you refer to AF & BF are actually AD and BD in fig 1B. This confusion is because, unfortunately the diagram has come out incomplete in my submission. And the FQXi does not permit any corrections. Therefore I have attached the corrected version for your reference. Pls look at the Fig. 1B in the attachment. So I correct AF to AD and BF to BD in your passage quoted below:

You wrote: "From the fig. 1B of your essay it is seen that Mc2/gamma = AD , and pc/gamma = Mvc = BD. What we can do with AD and BD more? Why these quantities are important for you?"

AD and BD explain many things:

a) The physical reason for gamma-factors: Has SRT or any other theory accounted for gamma-factor and explained how they appear? If you read my essay, I have explained that it is by losing fractions of energy (1- 1/gamma) of each that they attract and fuse by sharing their energy to overcome their mutual deficiencies.

b) Scaling down of AB to AD explains why internal processes slow down when a particle is in motion. See the explanations of the slow down of a GPS clock when in orbit and the delay in decay time of a muon, when the particles are in motion. There's no other theory that gives a physical explanation why this happens.

You wrote: "I think it is trivial since the energy of system of particles".

See my EndNote 7. Einstein says he tried desperately to find a principle in mechanics parallel to first two laws of TD (perpetuum mobile -PM).

Is the first law of TD something trivial? In (1) wrote the law analogical the first law of TD. What it means is that earthlings cannot harness energy from the earth's orbital motion to do terrestrial work. (This is the impossibility of PM of the 'first kind')

You wrote: "Your sentence 2 looks like a tautology: when we applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle that particle can not have the speed v".

The 2nd law I have written, is the parallel of 2nd law of TD. Please have a look at the last para of page 4 of my essay. I show why not all the available energy Mvc comes to be used for the motion of the particle, just like in Carnot's cycle where not all the heat energy gets converted into work, There is a fraction of energy that gets usurped from Mvc to have an organic link with the background energy field.

You wrote: "I can not understand how to use in practice your sentence 2a".

I copy it here "2a. The conversion of the applied net energy Mvc must occur with respect to the energy level of relative to which the motion of the common centre of mass occurs".

In the Carnot cycle, the last (isothermal) phase occurs with respect to the intensive component of the energy of the background - (Int comp = temperature T2). In this process the fraction of energy S1T2 gets usurped to form an organic link with the background. (S1T2 is the product of the extensive component S1 of energy in action Ea and T2 the intensive component of the energy of the background Eb). Energy left available for conversion to work = S1T1( 1-T2/T1)

Mechanical parallel is Extensive component of the energy in action Mv/c (inertia of energy). Intensive component of the energy of the background is the velocity u of earth's motion. The fraction usurped to form the organic link with the background is (Mv/c).u. = Ext comp of Ea x Int comp of Eb. Energy left for motion relative to earth = Mvc( 1 - u/c).

(This will also show that c in 'relativistic expressions' is not velocity of light per se, but c plays the role of the intensive component of energy Ea).

You wrote: "For the closed system the total momentum and energy are conserved".

My reply: First see the list of foundational errors I am addressing on p.2 of my essay.

Closed system is a foundational error. Maxwell saw this error. See EndNote 4. I am working with an open system.

You wrote: "Then what does mean Mvc in sentence 2a? Is it for particle or for system of particles?".

Earth's motion constitutes the motion of the system of all the particles with their centre of mass. Mvc is the discrete energy that excites one of discrete particle (out of the system of particles) into motion relative to the centre of mass.

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

Hello Mr Fedosin,

I see that you have worked about organic semiconductors. It seems very interesting.

Silicium or carbon. The carbon is indeed relevant considering of course the primorial soup. The CH4 , H2C2 ...in fact the Hydrogen is fascinating.The capacity of the system of uniqueness and its finite number becomes very relevant. In fact the combinations with the bosonic fields become keys with the nrespect of this number of uniqueness. If the C has the organic potential, so the crystal and their geometries become relevant. On the other side, it is intriguing considering the principle of evolution compared with the anthropical principle. That said the entropical evolution considers all the principles, so where are situated the real interpreations of this anthropical principle? it is perhaps a question of universality and its faith.

If the encoding becomes in a kind of organic evolution, it is intriguing considering the possible autonomy. The binar codes and this turn off, turn on encoding, so are intriguing.After all, the C has the same age that all particules in fact.So what is the polarization between these spherical bosonic fields and this gravitation implying mass. The relevances of volumes of spheres ,entangled and with a finite number,for both of systems, bosons and fermions, become very relevant considering the quantization of mass due to evolution and the informations from bosons. The central spheres and the correlations with the singularities are also relevant of course. The word intriguing is a weak word consideringt he artificial intelligence and the potential of polarizations m/hv. My equations help for a better understanding of the rotations of the entangled spheres.It is important to tell that the number is the same for the bosons and the fermions, even the space and its uniqueness is under this rationality. c o and si in my equations are important.Because the 3 motions are considered for the light. The fact that the gravity turns in the other sense than light is essential for the polarity of evolution. It permits to better encircle the linearity of hv and the stability of mass. The velocities and the angles of spheres more their volumes, considering the main central sphere like the most important volume with its finite serie of decreasing of volumes, become keys of understanding for the synchronizations and sortings of "evolutive informations".

The fact that for all system of uniqueness, we have a serie finite, is important. mcosV so is = to a constant for all physical 3d sphere.See that the sphere can have spheres so the link is universal. It is essential considering the entropy and its distribution on the arrow of time. See also that the duration is implied by the rotations of these spheres, so it is relevant also.It exists a force between all spheres, quantic or cosmological. It tells us so an universal relevance for the singularities connected with the singularity, physical, so the main central cosmological sphere.See that the quantic singularities are also relevant for the universal rotation around this central main sphere. If the infinite light creates a physical evolutive sphere and its spheres, so the link is these central main spheres, these central main singularities inside this physicality. We cannot forget that the infinite light above our walls, does not turn, it turns inside this universal sphere.So the main informations come from this main central sphere, physical in 3D.In my calculations, it does not turn, like the universal sphere.The gauge with light is relevant when the sense is different for hv and m.

The fact that the C and the Si continues to evolve, is intriguing.....

Regards

Dear Sergey,

Here is some honest feedback on your essay.

You begin you work with: "Over the past 20 years, both in physics and in philosophy, new results were obtained related to the rapid development of the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. At the present time this theory claims to be the dominant scientific paradigm, affecting the whole science."

I wonder whether you meant that this theory was the "dominant scientific paradigm" in the community of researchers advocating its ideas (it would then be a tautological statement), or whether you meant "most promising" instead of "dominant", but as stated in your paper it does not appear to be correct. For better or worse, the dominant scientific paradigm in fundamental physics at present appears to be string theory (I am only stating a matter of fact as I understand it, I am not a proponent of string theory).

Then you introduce an unfamiliar term (syncretic logic), giving a reference to a book you wrote in Russian. For those of us who don't know Russian the reference will not be very useful in understanding this concept which seems to play an important role in your theory. Then the next several paragraphs contain references and terms that are unfamiliar to me, and which are usually not explained, except for providing links to some long Wikiversity articles.

All of these factors have made it very difficult for me to understand your ideas. My suggestions would be as follows:

1) When introducing non-standard or unfamiliar terms, I believe it would be better to try to give a concise definition in your paper, perhaps even with an example. This could be done within the body of your paper, or a glossary at the end for easy reference.

2) You have evidently worked on this theory for a long time, and as a result, it seems very familiar to you. You may also be interacting within a community of like-minded individuals who basically agree on the major concepts, and as a result, you may think that the theory better known than it actually is. I had never heard of this theory previously, and the discussion in your paper did not help me understand how it works. It may well be the case that it has some very useful ideas in understanding nature more deeply, but I could not understand enough to be able to tell whether that is the case or not.

3) When making major radical claims, I believe it is absolutely, fundamentally, essentially, critically, vitally important to include new predictions that can be tested by experiment. The more unfamiliar the ideas you present, the more important it is to include new falsifiable predictions. If you don't do this, it becomes just too easy to dismiss your theory as just another crackpot scheme.

I could not tell whether your theory made any new predictions. Remember, explaining patterns that we already know doesn't count, it must be a new prediction of an experiment, the outcome of which is genuinely not yet known. Explaining what we already know is just the minimum for any framework whatsoever just to begin to considered.

Ok, I have attempted to give you frank criticism, not to put you or your theory down or to insult you, but because I have observed certain features which may make it more difficult for your ideas to be disseminated or considered more widely, and want to try to help you recognize these features, and if you are so inclined, to eliminate them. I hope you found my criticism useful.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Sergey,

I enjoyed your essay. It seems that each new generation of physicists discovers finer structure than was previously believed to exist, from atoms to nuclei to nucleons to quarks and so on. There's no obvious reason to expect this process to terminate, although it also seems that each generation believes they are near the bottom! In any case, I agree that scale dependence and self-similarity are crucial concepts that have not received the level of attention they deserve. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your considered and thoughtful reaction to my reaction. It is because of your openness to my criticism (which I take as a sign of your integrity) that I have taken the liberty to give additional comments.

It is really too bad that the word limit did not permit a more comprehensive explanation of the building blocks of your ideas. I would like to mention that the 25k word limit applied only to the body of the essay. There are several essays in this contest above this limit which were allowed entry because the excess words were part of the 2 page additional information. Although I cannot speak for FQXi, of course, it is possible that having a glossary or something like that no longer than 2 pages in an appendix might have been acceptable for your essay even in its current form.

Hopefully in future contests you will be able to maximize the possibilities with the given constraints to help the reader better understand your ideas.

As for the predictions, it seems to me that when faced with space limitations, one should prioritize the importance of the predictions to be given and focus just on the ones that have the greatest importance. The criteria for prioritization are of course yours to determine, but some I would consider are:

1) How unexpected would it be if the prediction was confirmed?

2) How likely would it be that the prediction could be explained using current theories (i.e. how well does the result fit in our current paradigm)?

3) How realistic is it that the experiment can be performed?

Again, I hope you find this helpful and wish you all the best,

Armin

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your comment.

You describe that interactions of elementary particle do not give black holes (BHs). Thus you conclude that black holes do not exist. But I claim that elementary particles are already BHs without typical gravitational interactions. I also do not claim that elementary particles are the same type of BHs as large holes. (Quantum physics probably change a lot of properties.)

You also claim that enlarged gravitational constant at small distances exists. I claim that this is agains rules of general relativity, and against claims of Duff.

I did not read your articles precisely, are my arguments enough?

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

p.s. Some time ago I searched theory of strong gravitation as a reference. I do not rememember precisely, do you the only author of this idea?

Dear Sergey,

I posted the following under Goerge Ellis' essay giving reference to your essay.

Also this addresses your question to me on Sep.14. You wrote: "Also I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical meanings?" (Note: v is the velocity of one particle relative to earth and u the velocity of the earth i.e. velocity of the centre of mass, relative to the next hierachic level).

------------------------------------

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - A TOP DOWN CUASATION

Dear Fred and George,

"I am wondering if top-down / bottom-up causation is a duality? Could one exist without the other? I think that is what you are saying or the point you are trying to make".

'Top Down' concept is not something trivial and marginal as the author of the essay thinks. (For instance he thinks the top down causation of the Sun on earth manifests in marginal effects like the tides. Well then lunar tides will have to be considered as 'Bottom Up!!!'). 'Top down' concept is far, far deeper. It is one of the basic principles in Nature.

Nature's processes are a hierarchy of self-similar structures. (Sergey Fedosin brings this out in his essay). If they are a 'hierarchy' how is the hierarchic dominance and organic links established between two adjacent levels?.

Here is Newton for you: "And thus Nature will be very conformable to herself and vey simple, performing all the great Motions of heavenly Bodies, by the Attraction of Gravity, which intercedes those Bodies, and almost all the small one of their Particles by some other attractive and repelling Powers which intercede the Particles. ...... To tell us that every Species of Things is endow'd with an occult specifick Quality (of Gravity and of magnetick and electrick Attractions and of fermentations) by which it acts and produces Effects, is to TELL US NOTHING: But to derive two or three general Principles of Motion from Phaenomena, and afterwards to tell us how Properties and Actions of all corporeal Things follow from those manifest Principles, would be a VERY GREAT STEP in Philosophy...." (Query 31)

One of those GENERAL PRINCIPLES: The process below forms an organic links with the next higher level in the hierarchy. Or looked at it the other way, the two processes form an interface between the two levels by usurping a fraction of energy from the lower level.

The second law of thermodynamics comes into effect by way of this process of interfacing of the two levels of energy.

Let us look at Carnot's ideal engine, where not all the heat energy (Q = S1T1) generated gets converted into work. It is found that a fraction Q = S1T2 gets 'lost', and what is available for conversion to work is S1(T1 -T2) where T2 is the temperature of the background field. This is why the perpetuum mobile of the second kind is impossible.

Einstein understood that there is a analogical connection between the perpetuum mobile and the Lorentz transformation. (See my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 )

"The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations, ..... This is a restricting principle for natural laws, comparable to the restricting principle of the non-existence of the perpetuum mobile which underlie thermodynamics" (1, p.57).

Well if there is "an analogical connection", there has to be a GENERAL PRINCIPLE underlying both processes. Hence Einstein wrote: . "By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead to assured results. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics. The general principle was there given in the theorem: laws of nature are such that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum mobile" (1, p.53).

So what is this GENERAL PRINCIPLE: In general terms, the fraction of energy Q usurped to form the organic link with the background is given by the product of the extensive component Ea of the energy in action and the intensive component Ib of the energy of the background. Thus the fraction of energy forming the organic link with the background

Q = Ea x Ib.

When this general principle is applied to the motion of a particle relative to the background velocity field of the earth's orbital motion, a similar fraction of energy will be required to form the interface. Lorentz opens his 1904 paper (which is on the 'Lorentz transformation') recognises such a process. But the problem was how to account for the gamma-factor. See my paper to find out how the gamma-factors comes into being in equations -.http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear Sergey,

I read your essay, but sorry to say, I could not follow much.Is it a new theory or a new approach entirely developed by you? Are you suggesting that there can be an infinite number of layers if we consider mass of the body as the only criterion? I have developed a new theory 'The finiteness theory'. However in the essay "Incredible foundations", I have not mentioned the details, but only referred to the approach that I used.

One thing that I got interested is the way you calculated the strong gravity.Are you saying that the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the level of particles? My opinion is that. However, I calculated the strong force constant in a similar war using the force between two electrons when they just touch. This worked out to be 2.78x10^32. The gravitational constant of hydrogen atom that I got is close to the strong gravitational constant you obtained.

Sergey,

You wrote: "analogy (is inapplicable) for deducing of quantity Mvc( 1-u/c) since speed v is measured in the Earth reference frame and speed of the Earth u - in the Sun reference frame, i.e by different observers".

The reference frame interpretation is incorrect. It is in fact a gross misinterpretation of the experimental data (see below) which Lorentz used in discerning the Lorentz transformation. The reference frame interpretation is a fantasy and introduces a fantastic illusion into science to create a makeshift working hypothesis to overcome the problem Lorentz faced as stated below.

I refer you to Lorentz 1904 paper, in which he iterated the data of Kaufman's experiments on fast moving electrons (on Earth!!), and by trial and error he discerned the EMPIRICAL EQUATION which we now know as the "Lorentz transformation". If you read the opening lines of Lorentz' paper, you will find that the "observer on earth" that is data obtained for the motion of a particle (which was expected to move at velocity v) with respect to the lab frame contains a term involving Earth's motion of velocity u.

Lorentz wrote in the burning problem he faced in the opening paragraph: "The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ..... IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH'S ANNUAL MOTION ...." (p. 11)

Then in art 2. The experiments (Rayleigh and Brace, Trounton and Noble) of which I have spoken are not the only reason for which a new examination of the PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE MOTION OF THE EARTH is desirable.(p.12)

The problem was just like the background temperature field (of temp T2) in the hierarchy influence the heat (S1T1) generated within it, by usurping a fraction of it, the background "velocity field" of velocity u, was found to influence the energy Mvc by usurping the fraction.

But Lorentz problem was: It "admits a simple solution, so long as only ....the first power of of the ratio between the velocity of translation (of Earth) u and the velocity of light" is taken into account.

So he means that if the term is Mv( 1-u/c) the solution to the problem is simple. But it is Mv(1-u/c)/(1 - u2/c2) the solution becomes difficult.

"Cases in which quantities of the second order, i.e. of the order u2/c2 may be perceptible, present more difficulties".

This difficulty was overcome in SRT by merely postulating that time t changes to t' = t(1- xu/c2)/(1-u2/c2)1/2. If this contention has any validity, then this equation should have been verified by experiment. Can you tell me at least one experiment which has verified the above equation? If this is not verified, then the two reference frame hypothesis falls.

Best regards,

Viraj