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

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

Dear Sergey,

The question I asked you is that has there been even a single experiment which has confirmed, that when x' = gamma(x -ut) the corresponding time is

t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t?

And your answer: See the Ives-Stilwell experiment . This concerns time dilation equation (1) (below).

YOU ARE MAKING THE SAME GRAVE ERROR THAT GEORGE ELLIS DID JUST TWO DAYS BACK. YOU ARE CONFUSING BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED TIME DILATION EQUATION (1) AND LORENTZ TIME TRANSFORMATION EQUATION (2)

t' = t/(1 - v2/c2)1/2 --------------------(1)

t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t ----------(2)

Just like you referring me to Ives-Stilwell Experiment by confusing equation (1) for equation (2), George Ellis also made the same error by referring to another group of experiments. He wrote: "all those collider experiments at places like SLAC and CERN verify it millions of times over each time they do a run".

My reply was: In those "millions of times" of verifications, what was verified was

a) that displacement is given by x' = gamma(x -ut) where U IS THE VELOCITY OF ORBIT OF THE EARTH and gamma determined by u. Hence the gamma-factor (for all experiments conducted on earth) is a constant. Gamma = 1.000000005.

b) And in the experiments to verify the decay time of a muon at CERN it confirmed the 'time dilation equation' t' = t/(1 - v2/c2)1/2. In this v is the velocity of the particle in the gamma-factor. In this equation gamma is a variable. In the CERN experiment gamma v = 0.99c and gamma = 7.088, and when moving in a cosmic ray (as in Feynman example below, v = 0.9c and gamma = 2,294.

To quote from Feynman: . For example, before we have any idea at all about what makes the meson disintegrate, we can still predict that when it is moving at nine-tenths of the speed of light the apparent time that it lasts is (2.2x10-6)/ sq rt [ 1- (9/10) squared] sec; and that our prediction works ..." (Vol I Ch 15 - 7).

FOR SRT TO BE CORRECT ON ITS FUNDAMENTAL CONTENTION OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS, (see Einstein's statement below) WHEN THE MUON DECAYS AFTER MOVING THROUGH A DISPLACEMENT GIVEN BY x' = gamma(x -ut) THE CORRESPONDING TIME HAS TO BE GIVEN BY (2)

t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t. -------(2)

But this time is given by (1).

When I framed the question that way:

George Ellis HONESTLY CONCEDED. "YES I AGREE THAT THAT SPECIFIC EQUATION (2) PER SE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BUT TIME DILATION (i.e equation 1) HAS, WHICH IS ITS CORE ELEMENT".

So Sergey, here is the fundamental contention of SRT in Einstein's own words: :.. "The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz transformation') are postulated for the conversion of co-ordinates and the time."(Autobiography, p. 55).

I WILL ASK THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN FROM YOU AS WELL. CAN YOU GIVE EVEN ONE EXPERIMENT THAT HAS CONFIRMED THE EQUATION

t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t?

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear Sergey,

1. You have not answered my question about Einstein's equation for the time in a moving frame whether it has been it has been proved even by a single experiment.

2. Thanks for showing the typo. In SRT's equation t on the right hand side is inside the bracket so the correct equation is t' = gamma(t - xu/c2)

3. I would appreciate if you would answer that question in regard to this correct equation.

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear Viraj,

Eq. (1): [math]x`=\frac {x-ut}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math]

Eq. (2): [math]t`=\frac {t-xu/c^2}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math]

Eq. (1) and (2) are Lorentz transformations from base inertial reference frame K to moving inertial reference frame K`. It is a correspondence of coordinate x and time t when K` moving in K along of axis OX with the speed u. How we can understand that speed of light c is constant in all inertial systems? This question is well seen in Extended special theory of relativity . It is shown that constancy of speed of light in all inertial systems may be a consequence of constancy of speed of light in isotropic reference frame where the speed is the same in all direction and may be connected with isotropy of fluxes of gravitons. Another reason is procedure of space-time measurement in special relativity which uses two-way propagation of waves. With such procedure averaging of speed of light take place giving the value of c. But real speed in a direction may be not c. If we begin from the electrodynamics and from the Lienard-Wiechert potential then we arrive to Eq. (1) and (2) if we want connect reference frame K and K`. Then with Lorentz transformations Maxwell equations will have the same form in all inertial systems. Also constancy of speed of light is necessary for the same form of electromagnetic wave equation in all inertial systems. So Lorentz transformations are in full agreement with the constancy of equations of electrodynamics for inertial systems. Also I want say that Eq. (1) and (2) is connected with each other by symmetry. If we take t in Eq. (2) and use it in Eq. (1) we find reverse Lorentz transformation for x: [math]x=\frac {x`+ut`}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] If we take x in Eq. (1) and use it in Eq. (2) we find reverse Lorentz transformation for t: [math]t=\frac {t`+x`u/c^2}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] In practice it is possible to find only increments of coordinate dx and time dt in experiments so we have for u = constant:

[math]dt`=\frac {dt-dx \cdot u/c^2}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] Part of this equation is checked in experiments (see the Ives-Stilwell experiment): [math]dt`=\frac {dt}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math]

I do not know about proving another part: [math]dt`=-\frac {dx \cdot u }{ c^2 \sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] it seems here problem with the smallness of the effect.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Dr. Fedosin,

You raises various interesting points in your Essay, hence I am going to give you an high score, although I disagree with you on a fundamental issue.

Not only general relativity, but also ALL the metric theory of gravity lack the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field. In any case, this is NOT a fundamental drawback, indeed it is a fundamental beauty geometric characteristic of this kind of theories. In fact, the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field CANNOT exist for Einstein Equivalence Principle. As we can ALWAYS choice a reference frame, the free falling one, in which all the gravitational fields, and hence their energies, are null. In other words, the gravitational energy CANNOT be localized. I suggest you to carefully read paragraph 20.4 at page 466 of the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, where this issue is carefully examined and explained. I recall that, today, Einstein Equivalence Principle is tested at a level 10^-13.

Best wishes,

Ch.

Dear Fedosin,

I am an independent researcher and have not published any papers..My theory being purely classical (denying both the QM and the relativity theories of Einstein) and with no institutional back up, it is difficult to find any journal willing to publish my work. However, my findings have been self-published in the book form titled "The reality of the physical world" now available at amazon.com. I am also planning to hoist a web site for providing information to anybody interested.

In my theory, the nucleus is made up of electron-positron pairs (held together by alternate gravitational and electrostatic bonds) with lone positrons distributed symmetrically (similar to electron distribution outside) among them. The force available to an electron/positron is finite and the whole force is used to form electron-positron chains. So only the force available to to the lone positrons is available to the nucleus for outside interactions.The electrostatic and gravitational forces of electron are taken to be equal, and the strong constant can be got from this. In a hydrogen atom, the gravitational force between the nucleus and the electron is calculated using the same constant, and it is proposed that the spin energy of electron (actual spinning motion) is balanced by gravity and its kinetic energy is balanced by electrostatic force. As there are three independent forces (including the inertial force due to the motion of electron), the atom is spatially stable.

jose p koshy

Your paper offers a model of the structure of elementary particles within a nested cosmological concept. There were a lot of interesting ideas in there and clearly you have stimulated a significant amount of discussion and debate.

Thank you

Dear Sergei,

I have been studying the references that you gave me in my FQXi forum and I find they fascinating. I am still studying LITG, but it seems to be some kind of gravitomagnetic approximation to the field theory of Gravity (FTG).

LITG uses scalar and vector potentials, whereas FTG includes a tensor potential as well because the source of the gravitational field in FTG is the generalized stress-energy tensor \Theta^{\mu\nu} instead of a four-current as in LITG. Similar remarks about the expression for the gravitational force in each approach.

The reference on Strong gravitation does not give the Lagrangian. Is the LITG Lagrangian used in Strong gravity after substituting the gravitational constant by \Gamma?

Let me add that the "4/3 problem" is solved for electromagnetism in

Action-at-a-distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method 1996: Phys. Rev. E 53(5), 5373-5381.

Chubykalo, Andrew E.; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman. Erratum: Action-at-a-distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method [Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373 (1996)] 1997: Phys. Rev. E 55(3), 3793--3793. Chubykalo, Andrew E.; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

Reply to "Comment on 'Action-at-a-distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method'" 1998: Phys. Rev. E 57(3), 3683--3686. Chubykalo, Andrew E.; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

Using the same mathematical and physical analysis the 3/4 problem is also solved in gravitation --see also ref [11] of my essay--

Regards.

Dear Sergey Fedosin,

Much delighted of your work on, Scale Dimension described in the theory of, Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter.

To describe an infinite universe with finite expressions for quantization, we propose a holarchial clustering of the matters of universe, that seems to have some correlations with the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, though there are specific differences between these two scenarios; in that your work is on the particle nature of matter whereas this work ascribes matter as eigen-rotational string continuum with the emergence of three dimensional structures.

Thus there is a possibility of integrating both scenarios to bring out with more productive outputs and in this regard, I think, SP-Phi symmetry may be useful to explore the Tetrahedral-brane, assigned in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe; whereas the three-component symmetry of it are adaptable with the parameters that are expressional by a tetrahedral-brane.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Can you give examples of predictions that are original to your theory and are falsifiable?

Hi Sergey,

The UP is interpreted to say that virtual particles can appear by borrowing the energy to exist from the vacuum, for a time inversely proportional to their energy. From the UP it is but a small step to a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) where real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance, at about the same place. The smaller their distance, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, the higher their energy is.

If in such universe particles have to create themselves, each other, then particle and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions. As in this view particles express and preserve each other's mass by continuously exchanging energy, the origin of mass is obvious, as is the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. A SCU therefore has no use for Higgs particles, string theory, nor does it need a big bang, a cosmic inflation and dark energy to explain observations. To me the theory of ''infinite hierarchical nesting of matter'' doesn't make much sense as observations which are puzzling in the present paradigm are self-evident in a SCU. For a more extensive discussion than I was able to summarize in my essay, see my website (www.quantumgravity.nl) study. I wonder, by the way, whether, having read my essay, you agree that the 'speed' of light c doesn't refer so much to a (finite) velocity of light but rather to a property of spacetime itself, which is something else entirely?

Anton

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for the references and information.

The reference to CTG that you give reads: "According to the axioms of CTG the source of the gravitational field is the mass 4-current J^i , and the field itself is characterized by the 4-potential". This confirms my previous post on that this is an approximation to the field theory of gravity mentioned in my essay. In FTG, the source of the gravitational potential is the generalized stress-energy tensor \Theta^ab. In a first approximation \Theta^ab --> T^ab, applying an additional gravitomagnetic approximation, T^ab --> T^0i = cJ^i; T^ji = 0, we recover the field equations for the 4-potential.

If Strong gravity is obtained by substituting the gravitational constant. How does the resulting Lagrangian reproduce the kinetic term of the QCD Lagrangian? What part is associated to the gauge invariant gluonic field strength tensor?

Yes, v' is the velocity of the source. The solution to the 4/3 problem of electromagnetism is given in the Phys.Rev.E paper cited above. The paper "Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Dark Matter from a Generalized Gravitational Theory" only applies the equation of motion (with the new gravitational potentials that correspond to the new electromagnetic potentials in Phys.Rev.E) to astrophysical phenomena, showing that dark matter is unneeded. Repeating the same analysis in the Phys.Rev.E we can eliminate the 4/3 problem from gravitational fields as well.

Regards

Sergey

As per your comment on my blog.

This theory can only have the status of a belief, not objective knowledge, because it involves presumptions which are outwith our experience. In other words, logically, it could be a proper explanation of physical existence, but we cannot know.

A key concept seems to be the assertion that there is no form of elementary particle, ie substance is infinitely divisible. This is contradictory to the physical reality we experience, which has substance, occurs independently of us, and alters. So, by definition, as at any given point in time, there must be a definitive physically existent state in order that existence (as we know it) occurs, and then re-occurs differently. And we are trapped in that physical experience, only beliefs can postulate alternatives.

Now, what constitutes a physically existent state (ie reality) is the real question. And it is not the elementary substances, as such. That idea reveals a confusion between the physical substance of existence and what is its existent reality (manifestation). Think on this: take any elementary particle (forget what it is, etc), and just pose the question: as at any point in time what constitutes its reality (physically existent state)? The answer cannot be: 'it', because we know there is alteration. Say 'it' 'spins' (again forget all the concepts behind this), then what is its reality? Remember, it cannot be in more than one state at a time. Or put another way around, if one asserts its existent reality is more than 'one degree of spin' (which can be defined), then the question immediately arises, where is the 'cut-off' point, half a spin, a complete spin? There is no physically justifiable answer, every possibility except one involves change, and that means what is being referred is not a reality, but more than one.

So reality is a physically existent state, and that is probably associated with the state of the properties of whatever constitutes the elementary substances. Existence is analogous to a film, that is, if it could be completely differentiated, then the point at which no form of change occurred could be identified, and that is what exists, but only as at that point in time. There is no time in reality, timing is the quantification of the rate at which change to a reality occurs.

Paul