Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Pharis E. Williams
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my family; to my father and uncle
who encouraged my thinking and individualism, to my
mother for her steady love, to my brothers and sister for
their confidence in my ability, to my children for growing
up with 'Dad's theory', and to my wife Jeri for she bore the
brunt of my mental absence.
Copyright
PREFACE
Present books, such as "The Arrow of Time" by Roger Highfield and
Peter Coveney and "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner, talk of a
new revolution is science. The first points to work by Ilya Prigogine and
others with regard to the flow of time and the dichotomy between the time
flow in the universe and physical theories wherein time may flow forward
and backward. The "Unended Quest" in " The Arrow of Time" is to find
how a foundation of science might be laid that describes dynamic systems
showing this one-way aspect in time. In "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Lerner also points out the need to find physical theories which correspond
to the directivity of nature's time. The main discussion though concerns
explanations of cosmological phenomena in terms of plasmas and
Maxwellian electromagnetic concepts.
I am in agreement with the authors of both these books with regard
to the majority of their points. I disagree with Highfield and Coveney in
that a foundation for physical theories restricted by a flow of time has been
found and reported starting in 1976. My disagreement with Lerner is very
limited, but may point out an important difference in our thinking. Let me
quote from Lerner's introduction where he states; "Today we again hear
renowned scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, claiming that a 'Theory of
Everything' is within our grasp, that they have almost arrived at a single
set of equations that will explain all the phenomena of nature --gravitation,
electricity and magnetism, radioactivity, and nuclear energy --from the
realm of the atoms to the realm of the galaxies and from the beginning of
the universe to the end of time. And once again they are wrong. For
quietly, without much fanfare, a new revolution is beginning which is likely
to overthrow many of the dominant ideas of today's science, while
incorporating what is valid into a new and wider synthesis." I believe
Lerner is correct. But only in the sense that I do not believe it possible to
know all of the phenomena of nature "from the beginning of the universe to
the end of time." What I put forth in this book is my research which shows
that one can start with a small, simple set of equations and derive the
basis for the currently accepted branches of physics by imposing restrictive
assumptions.
The search for a unifying field theory began in the early 1800's when
scientists began searching for a way of unifying the electromagnetic and
gravitation fields. When the proton-proton scattering results showed a
deviation from Coulombic scattering, once again scientists began trying to
find a way of unifying the fields, or forces, of nature. This was done
immediately upon the heels of assuming that the deviation from Coulombic
scattering must come, not from changes in Maxwellian electromagnetism,
but from an independent strong nuclear force. It has always appeared to
me that one should go back and address this assumption of independence
before seeking a means of unification.
i
One doesn't need to read too much of the scientific literature from
the 1930's to the present to see how much has been devoted to the notion
of unifying the forces, and/or fields, of nature. Within this body of work
lies the basis for Hawking's "Theory of Everything." I believe this work
misses the point of unification.
For instance, if we wish to approach a unification, what should we
unify? Should we unify the fields, or should we unify the various branches
of physics? It seems rather difficult to believe that nature is divided into
the different branches of physics, such as thermodynamics, Newtonian
mechanics, relativistic mechanics, and quantum mechanics, just because
we learned how to formulate the basis for each branch at different times in
our scientific advancement. Further, given a variational principle and a
metric we know how to derive field equations and force laws. Therefore,
shouldn't we be seeking to unify the various branches of physics and
deriving the necessary fields from that unification rather than trying to
unify the fields and not reconciling the difference between the foundations
of the different branches?
In my research I chose to seek a way of unifying the various
branches of physics. This entailed seeking a simple set of physical laws
from which one may derive the foundations of the different accepted
branches of physics as subsets of this more general set of laws. What has
emerged from this work is that there is a logical necessity for the branches
of physics that comes from the imposition of different restrictive
assumptions. The type of geometry need not be assumed as Newton and
Einstein did, but is dictated by the fundamental laws. The laws produce,
not one, but two variational principles from which we may derive the field
equations and force laws.
What resulted from the attempt to unify the branches of physics
produced not only the desired result, but, also that of unifying the fields
and forces of nature also. The fundamental laws, which could be written
on a T-shirt, produce field equations and force laws which accurately
describe phenomena intended to be included in Hawking's "Theory of
Everything." It does not, however, allow for the existence of a Big Bang or
beginning or end of time. Furthermore, since the fundamental laws are
based upon generalizations of classical thermodynamics, the equations of
motion derived from them come complete with an Arrow of Time built in. I
first reported this predicted flow of time in 1981.
If I were asked to explain why the research reported in this book has
not gained any wider distribution than it currently enjoys, I would have to
offer up our system of refereed journals as the most important reason. But
hand-in-hand with this must go the notion that "everyone knows that one
may derive classical thermodynamics from any number of different force
laws by using statistical mechanics." This notion was refuted by Peter G.
Bergmann in 1979, yet it persists today.
ii
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Chapter 1
Overview
1.1
1.2
1.3
Chapter 2
New Theoretical Fundamentals
A. General Laws
2.1 First Law
2.2 Second Law
2.3 Absolute Velocity and Einstein's postulate
2.4 The concept of Entropy
2.5 Third Law
B. General Relations
2.6 Energy and Maxwell's Relations
2.7 Equilibrium conditions
2.8 Stability conditions
C. Geometry
2.9 Geometry required by fundamental laws
D. Mechanical systems near equilibrium
2.10 Special relativistic and classical mechanics
2.11 Energy concepts
2.12 Non-isolated systems
E. Quantum mechanics
2.13 Quantum Mechanics derived
2.14 On the derivation of thermodynamics from
statistical mechanics
F. Summary
2.15 Summary of new theoretical fundamentals
1
2
6
36
36
39
45
49
51
52
55
56
58
71
77
81
82
85
87
Chapter 3
90
Five-Dimensional Systems
A. Systems near an equilibrium state
3.1 Equations of motion
3.2 Energy equation
B. Systems with non-Euclidean manifold
3.3 General variational principle
91
95
97
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Chapter 4
Five-Dimensional Quantization
A. Quantization in five dimensions
4.1 Quantization
4.2 Five-dimensional Hamiltonian
4.3 Five-dimensional Dirac equation
4.4 "Lorentz" covarience
4.5 Spin
4.6 Dirac equation with fields
4.7 Allowed fundamental spin states
B. Quantized fields
4.8 Quantum condition applied to particles
4.9 Radial field dependence
4.10 Self-energy of charged particles
4.11 Nuclear phenomena
4.12 Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle and geometry
4.13 Nuclear masses
Chapter 5
Five-Dimensional Gravitation
5.1 Charge-to-Mass ratio and magnetic moments
5.2 Perihelion advance
5.3 Redshifts
5.4 "Fifth" force
5.5 Inertial and Gravitational mass equivalence
5.6 Cosmology
Chapter 6
Electromagnetogravitic Waves
6.1 Wave equations
6.2 Wave solutions
6.3 Non-thermal transmission
6.4 Wave boundary conditions
6.5 Reflection and refraction
6.6 Complex refraction angles
99
104
106
106
108
110
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
119
121
127
132
138
144
157
157
167
171
183
192
194
198
198
198
205
208
217
224
6.7
Chapter 7
239
Hydrodynamic Systems
7.1 First fundamental quadratic form
7.2 Second fundamental quadratic form
7.3 Tensor derivatives
7.4 Relativistic hydrodynamics
7.5 Classical hydrodynamics
7.6 Shock waves
7.7 Mass conservative electrodynamics
Chapter 8
241
245
249
256
257
259
262
267
Experimental Tests
8.1 Speed-of-light
8.2 Index of refraction
8.3 Neutron interferometer
8.4 Nuclear masses
8.5 Gravitational rotor
8.6 Nuclear Lamb shift
Chapter 9
Epilogue
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
227
268
269
270
271
271
276
277
277
279
279
280
280
281
281
282
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW
1.1
It seems that throughout my working career I have been a troubleshooter. This started when I entered the Navy as an Electrician's Mate
working on the power electrical equipment on Navy ships. Troubleshooting
was the main job, whether it was finding some electrical malfunction or the
presence of saltwater in an electrical box. Later, as a Naval Officer with an
Electrical Engineering degree, I was constantly required to ferret out some sort
of trouble. This at times would involve missile systems, gun systems, radars,
sonar systems, boilers, or other systems. It seemed only natural then to employ
this same procedure to investigate what appeared to me as problems in the
foundations of physics.
Though I had often asked "Why?" when confronted with some new
assumption or adopted postulate, the first really puzzling facet of current
physics I encountered was the concept of relativistic kinetic energy from
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. The puzzling part was that it depended
upon the speed of light independent of the mechanism by which this energy
might be transferred. To better illustrate what puzzled me, consider the
transfer of energy between two charged particles on collision courses. If the
particles have near-miss trajectories, then the energy is primarily transferred
by the electrical forces between the charges. From the view of retarded
potentials, or the concept of a limiting speed of electromagnetic signal
transmission, it is rather easy to accept the energy transferred being dependent
upon this limiting velocity. But suppose the particles are uncharged and the
interaction is strictly a gravitational one. Again the concept of a limiting signal
speed would imply that the energy exchanged between the particles depend
upon this limiting velocity. But is it the same as the limiting signal velocity for
the electromagnetic case? Do gravitational waves travel at the same speed as
electromagnetic waves?
Einstein, in the Special Theory of Relativity, adopted the position that
the constancy of the speed of light forces a modification of Newton's dynamic
law. This modification implies that all forces have the same limiting velocity,
namely, the speed of light. There exists an abundance of theoretical and
experimental evidence that the speed of light becomes the limiting velocity
whenever electromagnetic forces are involved. The point that bothered me was
whether other forces, such as gravitational, should also have the same limiting
velocity. Though we have had reports of the detection of gravitational waves,
we have no experimental determination of the speed of a gravitational wave.
Therefore, I object to the viewpoint that the modification to Newton's law
should be applied to all forces without some additional justification.
Let me describe an analogy which may not hold in the strictest sense yet
may serve to illustrate my point of view. A river, flowing toward the sea,
carries energy with it. The speed with which this energy can move from one
point to another is the velocity of the river's current. The river produces a force
on a boat tied up to a pier on the river. When the boat is set adrift, this force
accelerates the boat. However, the maximum velocity to which the river can
accelerate the boat is the current velocity; this is the velocity with which the
energy of the river can propagate.
From this point of view the speed of light, being the propagation velocity
of electromagnetic energy must be the limiting velocity associated with
electromagnetic forces. Certainly nature would be much simpler if all forces
have the same limiting velocity. Yet without some experimental evidence of the
propagation of gravitational energy, I find it difficult to feel comfortable with
Einstein's modification of Newton's law justified by electromagnetic
experimental evidence and arguments of simplicity.
The fundamental philosophical viewpoint that the force depends upon
velocity and vanishes as the velocity approaches the limiting velocity raises
another question concerning Einstein's modification of classical mechanics.
Under Einstein's modification Hamilton's principle is written with a relativistic
mass which depends upon the velocity and a velocity independent force. Does
this represent a different philosophy or are both views equivalent?
More
specifically, are the "real" concepts to be taken as a mass independent of
velocity together with a velocity dependent force or should we associate the
velocity dependent relativistic mass and velocity independent forces with "real"
world? Or does it make any difference which we chose?
At this point I faced the first major decision. If I adopted Einstein's
postulates, then it appeared that I would be required to change my intuitive
beliefs concerning certain physical phenomena. I found this extremely difficult
to do. On the other hand, if I did not embrace these postulates, I would have to
replace them with something that would say essentially the same thing in all
cases where the Special Theory of Relativity has been found to be very accurate.
Not only this but if a new point of view were adopted, then virtually the entire
sphere of physics may need to be reviewed in order to ensure that the new point
of view did not conflict with currently used theories where they have
experimental verification.
1.2 Possible new theoretical approach
History records the advancements in physics which came from the efforts
of people new to the field. Therefore my lack of training in physics might be
turned into an advantage if I sought to determine a philosophical basis
unhampered by the directed philosophy that comes from a study of physics as
currently taught. This is in contradistinction with current practices and
procedures of academicism where mastery of current theories generally
precedes the development of a new one. To deliberately choose this deviation
risks accusations of arrogance and naivete. On the other hand such a choice
seemed the best way of avoiding the danger of becoming so familiar with
current ways of thinking as to make it improbable of giving due attention to
other ways.
Having decided to look for a new foundation for physics I was faced with
the question of how to begin. I recalled some Ozark hill philosophy I overheard
as a youngster. A native Ozarkian was giving directions to a stranger who was
trying to find a certain fishing hole. The directions went something like this:
"See yonder road going down that holler? Well, go down thar 'bout five mile
and you'll come to a fork in the road. Take the right hand fork. Now that's the
wrong one but you take it anyways. After you've gone a piece, you'll come to a
log across the road. Now you know you're on the wrong road. So go back and
take the left hand fork. You can't miss it."
A quick review of physics reveals that there are different branches with
different sets of fundamental laws or postulates. Though it is easy to see how
the distinction between these branches came about, it was difficult for me to
believe that nature shared the same divisions. I felt that all natural
phenomena should be explained by a single set of fundamental laws. This
belief is somewhat like a grove of redwood trees or bamboo forest. Above the
ground each tree appears as a distinct plant. Yet we know that below the
ground they may be found to grow from the same root system. Thus, I felt that
a more fundamental approach might display the unity in nature and that prior
attempts at unification in the search for a unified field theory could be likened
to attempts to tie the trees together at the tree top level rather than down at
the root level.
Is nature symmetrical in time? Does everything run backward in time
as well as forward? Obviously, not every process in nature will run backwards,
yet the equations of motion in Newtonian and relativistic mechanics are time
symmetrical. I believe in an asymmetrical nature and this belief played a role
in the eventual selection of fundamental laws.
How then did I use this philosophy to determine a set of generalized laws
on which to base an attempt to construct a new approach to physics?
Before proceeding let me offer a word of caution.
During any
theorization the philosophy of the theorist plays such an important role that an
attempt to understand the theory is aided by a knowledge of this philosophy.
Therefore the following includes not only the philosophical basis upon which
the theory is based and the mathematical development but also ideas and
beliefs which played a part in the various decisions.
Because of the
individualistic nature of philosophy the following will deviate occasionally from
a strict third person presentation, risking a loss of professional appearance, to
the clearly personal first person.
Newtonian mechanics fails to describe events involving high velocities,
relativistic mechanics fails to describe the atom, and gravitational effects have
resisted quantization. If these are viewed as logs and the Ozarkian's directions
are followed, then we must retrace our steps and seek another approach rather
than attempting to chop up the log and continue to push forward up one of
these roads.
The branch of thermodynamics, however, does not appear to have a log
somewhere along the way. Here the classical thermodynamic laws are very
general, particularly Caratheodory's statement of the second law. Thus the
thermodynamic laws appeared to be the fork in the road where a new route
might be chosen.
However, in mechanics we talk of equations of motion, field equations,
and geometry while in thermodynamics we speak of equations of state and
equilibrium. If a generalization of the classical thermodynamic laws is adopted,
how might we obtain the equations with which we are familiar in mechanics?
More particularly, how could this type of general law yield geometry and a
variational principle? The second law of thermodynamics can produce a
variational principle through principles such as increasing entropy and
minimizing free energy, but can it also produce a geometry?
This seemed to be a crucial point. If the laws could not produce a
geometry, then a geometry would have to be assumed, thus necessitating an
additional assumption. The belief that a simple fundamental set of laws should
lead to the fundamental principles of the different branches of physics made the
thought of additional assumptions abhorrent. The notion that the adopted laws
should specify the type of geometry that must be used seemed very satisfying.
Newton found that the absolute nature of Euclidean geometry brought
undesirable features. Einstein, in his General Theory, displayed the benefits
that might be gained by going to a more general geometry. He showed that
physical phenomena might be displayed as elements determined by certain
physical laws. This is essentially the question here. Can a set of laws, which
are generalizations of the classical thermodynamic laws, determine the metric
elements and hence the geometry?
By appealing to the mathematics of functions of more than one variable
we find that a quadratic form becomes involved when a maximum or minimum
is sought. Further, this quadratic form generates a natural geometry for that
function.
In thermodynamics the stability conditions provide a similar
quadratic form and therefore the quadratic form which specifies the stability
conditions should form a natural geometry for a physical system governed by
laws such as the thermodynamic laws.
Thus the foundations of the theory have been outlined, namely the belief
that all physical phenomena should be derivable from a single set of physical
laws which are generalizations of the classical thermodynamic laws. Such a
theory should be capable of describing all the dynamic events in nature.
Therefore it seems appropriate to call it the "Dynamic Theory". Obviously, for
such a theory to be tenable it must reproduce, or be consistent with, the various
fundamental postulates and/or laws currently used in the various branches of
physics. Indeed it should do even more. It should also reduce the number of
necessary assumptions and provide an unprecedented unification of physics.
because of its use in one branch of physics may now take on an entirely new
meaning.
1.3
First Law
The First Law is taken as the statement equating the energy exchanged
between the system and its surroundings to the change in the system energy
plus any work that the system does. The form for expressing this law is
j
_E = dU - f j d q ; (j = 1,...,n).
1
In Eqn. (1), dU represents the differential change in the system's energy, E
represents any and all energy exchanged between the system and its
surroundings that cannot be expressed by a work term.
There is no restriction in this law concerning the number of independent
variables. The dimensionality depends only upon the applicable, independent
work terms. However, in this presentation it is beneficial to initially place
some restrictions upon the type and number of allowed work terms. Therefore,
a system with only one work term which is the pdv expansion work of
thermodynamics will be called a "thermodynamic" system. A system with three
mechanical fdx work terms will be called a "mechanical" system.
An important aspect of this law is that, while the energy of the system is
a function that is independent of the path, both the energy exchanged with the
surroundings and the work done depend upon the path by which the system
goes from one state to another. The path dependence of these terms places
severe limitations upon the utility of this law and will become important when
viewing relativistic and Newtonian mechanics using the new theory.
Second Law
Caratheodory's statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is very
abstract and does not depend upon the type or number of variables used and,
therefore, is already in very general form. The law simply says that there exist
states to which the system may not go and then be able to return to its original
state. Though Caratheodory formed this statement in terms of neighborhoods,
it is known from thermodynamics that it contains the aspects of prohibiting
perpetual motion; to be exact, perpetual motion of the second kind. The point is
that this law seems intuitively to apply to mechanical systems as well as
thermodynamic systems.
The Second Law is stated as:
In the neighborhood (however close) of any state of a system of
any number of independent variables, there exist states that
cannot be reached by reversible E-conservative (E=0) processes.
_E
,
(q&)
where S is the mechanical entropy and the process is a reversible one. Thus,
the path independent function obtained by using the mechanical integrating
factor is the function defined as the mechanical entropy.
The Second Law may be used, as done in Section 2.4, to show that an
isolated mechanical system, which cannot exchange energy with its
surroundings, undergoing a spontaneous, or irreversible, process must
experience an increase in its mechanical entropy.
Third Law
Just as in thermodynamics, where a Third Law was needed in order to
associate the entropy of one system to the entropy of another, so also a Third
Law is needed here. The Third Law may be stated:
(dS
+
2
(dS)(
)
+
( dq )( dq ) > 0 ;
)
dq
S2
S q
q q
( , = 1,2,3).
(2)
Adopting this quadratic form as the metric of a general system whose
thermodynamic variables are held fixed, the metric may be written as
(ds )2 = hij dqi dq j ; (i, j = 0,1,2,3)
(3)
where the summation convention is used and
hij =
2
U
qi q j
where q0 is the entropy. Thus, the stability conditions provide a metric in the
four-dimensional manifold of space-entropy.
The arc length s, in the space-entropy manifold, may be parameterized
by choosing
ds = q& 0 dt = cdt,
where c is the unique velocity appearing in the integrating factor of the Second
Law. The metric may now be written as
2
i
j
c 2 (dt ) = hij dq dq ; (i, j = 0,1,2,3).
(4)
But Einstein's relativistic theories are in space-time manifolds. In order to
show that the proposed theory contains Einstein's theories, a space-time
manifold must come from the adopted laws. This is indeed the case if the
mechanical system is restricted by requiring that it be isolated (E=0). This
restriction establishes the condition necessary for the principle of increasing
mechanical entropy which becomes a variational principle
(d S )2 = ( dq0 )2 = 0.
(5)
In order to use this variational principle, Eqn. (4) may be expanded, solved for
dq0 and squared to arrive at the quadratic form
1
( dq0 )2 = [ c 2 (dt )2 + 2 h0 Adtdq - h dq dq ],
h00
(6)
where
A=
h0 q&
+_
h00
2
c 2 h q& q&
h ( q& )
+ 0
h00
h00
h00
10
( dq0 )2 =
1
g dxi dx j ; (i, j = 0,1,2,3)
f ij
(7)
where f = h00. This metric obviously reduces, in the Euclidean limit of constant
coefficients, to the metric of Minkowski's space-time manifold of Special
Relativity. Thus, the stability conditions and the principle of increasing
entropy combine to require that the equations of motion for an isolated system
be the equations of geodesics in a space-time manifold. However, this manifold,
whose arc length is the entropy, is related to another space-time manifold by a
gauge function so that a discussion of geometry involves two space-time
manifolds. Recalling Eqn.(7) we have
( dq0 )2 =
1
1
2
g ij dxi dx j = (d ) = g ij dxi dx j .
f
f
(8)
The path independence of the entropy fully specifies the geometry of both
manifolds3.
For the entropy manifold, the geometry is required to be
Riemannian with a vector curvature. The other manifold, which may be called
the "sigma" manifold, is required to have a Weyl geometry with both a vector
curvature and a distance curvature. The distance curvature refers to the
changes of the length of a vector under parallel displacements in the sigma
manifold and is found to be given by
1 log f
dl =
l = ( i dxi )l.
2 xi
(9)
The requirement of two manifolds for an isolated system and the fact
that the adopted laws fully determine the geometry of each are two of the most
significant aspects of the proposed theory. The requirement that there be two
manifolds coupled by a gauge function gives rise ultimately to Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory as well as quantization. The fact that the laws specify
the geometry removes the necessity of assuming a particular geometry and
leads to the removal of objections to Weyl's unified field theory of 19184 and to
London's quantization of Weyl's work in 19275. It is these aspects of the theory
which allow the unification of the different branches of physics.
In 1918, the German mathematician Weyl proposed a unified field
theory based upon his extension of geometry. However, this theory has not
gained acceptance, partly because his theory produced only Einstein's General
Theory of Relativity and Maxwell's Electromagnetism. Weyl's theory said
nothing in addition to these theories. Another reason Weyl's theory failed to
11
12
terms are the three mechanical work terms in addition to the thermodynamic
work. It is then pointed out to the students that the right hand side of the
equation has five independent variables and it is stated that five equations are
needed which relate these variables in order to have a solvable system. Usually
the first statement made at this point is that conservation of mass guarantees
that the mass density may be written as a function of space and time and,
therefore, only four additional equations are needed, which are stated as being
the Equation of State and the three mechanical equations of motion, such as
Newton's.
But what about the case when mass isn't conserved? Can mass density
be written as a function of space and time for this case also? If it may not then
the fundamental dimensionality of nature must be five dimensions. Where
does this lead? It has already been shown that the stability conditions lead to
metrics upon which the Entropy Principle works to provide equations of motion
when the metric coefficients are assumed known and field equations for these
coefficients when they are not known. Thus, it is necessary only to work out
what the implications of the five fundamental dimensions would be, compare
them to the existing theories in those regions of physical phenomena where the
existing theories are known to work and see if there is some predictable critical
experiment that may be conducted to test the new theory.
To begin the investigation of the implications of this five-dimensional
system first consider the system to be isolated. The principle of increasing
entropy becomes effective and the equations of motion are the equations of
geodesics in a five-dimensional manifold of space, time, and mass density.
The First Law for five dimensions may be written as
~
~ P
_E = dU - 2 d - F dq , ( = 1,2,3)
(10)
where the tilde denotes specific quantities. The entropy variational principle,
as stated in Eqn. (5), becomes
(dS )2 = ( dq0 )2 = ( dq0 )2 = 0
(11)
where now q0 is the specific entropy.
The system's specific energy is now given in terms of the five variables
specific entropy, space, and mass density. The stability condition, and hence
the metric, is then stated in terms of these same variables. The stability
condition is stated as
13
hii dq dq =
2 ~
U
i
i
dq dq > 0 ; (i = 0,1,2,3,4)
qi qi
(12)
where q4 = /a0. The metric may then be written as Eqn. (3) with the indices
running from 0 through 4. Eqn.s (7) and (8) give the five-dimensional geometry
when the indices also take on the value 4.
Equations of Motion
The equations of motion are obtained when it is assumed that the
coefficients of the metric are given and one looks at the Euler equations giving
the variations of the coordinates which satisfy the variational condition. By
using the variational principle from Eqn. (11) one finds the force densities to be
given by
i
i
F = f
(13)
with
i
i
du i
f = 0 + u l u k
dq lk
are the Christoffel symbols, and fi are the components of the five-dimensional
acceleration vector. Obviously, if the mass density is considered to be conserved
such that u4 = 0 and the system is near equilibrium so that a flat metric makes
a good approximation, then the volume integral of Eqn. (13) becomes the
force-mass-acceleration relation of Special Relativity. Therefore, Einstein's
Special Theory is obtained within this theory by employing the restrictions of
an isolated system near equilibrium, with conservation of mass.
It is interesting to note that the inertial mass density comes from the
fact that the stability conditions are given in terms of specific quantities while
the Entropy Principle is stated in terms of the entropy. This fact will take on
an even more interesting character when we consider the comparison between
inertial and gravitating mass.
Another interesting fact is that if the First Law is considered for an
isolated system, one obtains
14
~ p
_E = 0 = dU - 2 d - F~ dx ; ( = 1,2,3)
so that
~
dU = F~ dx
( = 1,2,3,4)
(14)
When the energy integral of Eqn. (14) is evaluated one finds
~
1
1
U = c2 + v 2 +
( & )2
2
2 ( ao )2
(15)
where u4 = /a0 is used and it is assumed that the system is near rest. The
energy density in Eqn. (15) includes the rest energy term because the integral
requires it; not because of a constant of integration as in the Special Theory of
Relativity. Further, because the system was considered to be isolated, pE=0,
then the appearance of the rest energy term in the expression for the system
specific energy brings with it some sublities of interpretation not found in
Einstein's Special Theory where energy and mass are equated one-for-one. For
instance, the one-to-one correspondence between energy and mass exists only
for resting mass when mass is conserved. Also notice that the Special Theory of
Relativity energy equivalence may exist only for isolated systems. Also, if we
require the usual conservation of mass then d/dt=0 and Eqn. (15) reduces to
the rest energy plus the classical kinetic energy.
Gauge Fields
When the standard variational techniques are used on the metric for the
isolated, five-dimensional system, it is found6 that the gauge function yields a
gauge field with ten components as
iE1
iE 2
iE 3 iV4
0
0
B3 B2 V1
iE1
Fij = iE 2 B3
0
B1
V2
(16)
0
V3
iE 3 B2 B1
iV
V1 V2 V3
0
4
and eight partial differential equations, Eqn. (17),
15
_ B = 0
1 B
+ x E = 0
c t
1 E
V 4 J
x B + a0
=
c t
c
_ E + a0 V 4 = 4
+ _ J + a0 J 4 = 0
t
xV + a0
B
=0
1 V
E
= a0
c t
1 V 4
4
_V +
=J4
c t
c
V 4 +
(17)
which replace Maxwell's four equations and the equation of charge continuity.
However, there are four new field components appearing in these eight
field equations. When these are assumed to be zero the system of equations
collapses back to the Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. It is no surprise
that the collapse of the eight equations produces the Maxwell system; this has
been shown by many researchers. The objective becomes one of how are these
new field components to be interpreted?
Initial investigations led into the five-dimensional quantum mechanics
and to a predicted magnetic moment for neutrally charged particles7 (discussed
later). Current theories ascribe these anomalous magnetic moments to the
strong nuclear force. This led to the erroneous interpretation that these new
field components must be related to the nuclear forces. This turned out to be
wrong when later research was conducted in which a closer look was taken at
the concept of fundamental particles.
Fundamental Particle Fields
The concept of fundamental particles might be rather loosely stated as
something like "smallest possible" or "cannot be further divided". But one
generations' fundamental particles have been divided by the next generation
until there now exists a plethora of "fundamental" particles and the search for
more continues. But how can the concept of "fundamental particle" be stated
with mathematical rigor? If a mathematical statement for this "state" can be
put forth, then the logic of mathematics may be used upon the field equations
and it should then be possible to determine what fields these "particles" or
"states" might have.
16
j dxi
=1
(18)
which is satisfied only if
j dx j = 2iN
(19)
where N is an integer and i is the square root of minus one.
When a line integral is encountered in the class room the students are
generally asked to find the value of the line integral given a certain path. Here
though, one has a line integral that already has a value. There are then two
questions that might be asked. First, if the gauge potentials are given, what
are the paths allowed? London's work answered this question5. The only paths
possible are those given by the solutions to the quantum mechanical equations
of motion. Further consequences of this result will be discussed later. The
second question that might be asked of the line integral is; what gauge
potentials are allowed by the line integral if the value of the integral is
independent of the path? This is asking what potentials may be used in the
integral which will produce a quantized value for the integral independent of
the path considered? This is the same as asking "What fields may a particle
have if these fields are to be independent of the path?"
If the value of the integral is to be independent of the path, then Eqn.
(19) must be true even when all dxj are zero but one. Thus, the quantum
condition requires that
k dxk = 2iN,
(20)
where there is no summation on k. Eqn. (20) must be true for all k, and
because one is free to choose the path, the k must reflect the quantization
represented by the integer N. Therefore,
17
~
j = N j j
(21)
where there is no sum on j and the may not be quantized. Thus, Eqn. (21)
represents the first response to the question concerning what j are allowed for
fundamental particles; the gauge potentials must be quantized.
This is the first known quantization of the gauge potentials for particles
which is required by some fundamental condition, such as the isentropic state
requirement. Restating; this is the first display of a logical necessity for
quantization of electric charge based upon fundamental principles and obtained
by restrictive assumptions.
By using the mathematical approach of assuming a solution in the form
of a product of functions of independent variables and setting
1
log f 2 = f t f r f f f ,
the trial solution was run through the eight field equations of Eqn. (17)8. The
result produced for the radial function is
fr =
k -
e r.
r
(22)
Here depends upon the particle and the potential displays some familiar
attributes of the Maxwellian gauge potential and some that are, at first,
surprising.
The potential corresponding to the classical electromagnetic
potential
r =
Zk -
er
r
(23)
where Z is the quantum number required by the quantum condition, depends
only upon the radial distance from the particle, not just the usual 1/r
dependence. At first glance one is prompted to state that this is the Yukawa
potential. However, the exponent in the Yukawa potential goes as r rather
than 1/r. One may also note that this potential has no singularities for any
value of the radial distance r. At distances much greater than this potential
(herein called the Neo-Coulombic potential) has the familiar 1/r form from
electrostatics and Newtonian gravitation. When the radial distance equals
lambda the potential has its maximum absolute value. Because of the
overriding effect of the exponential the potential returns to zero as r tends to
zero. The Neo-Coulombic potential is so well behaved that all of its derivatives
18
are also non-singular. This property will prove to be of extreme value when
considering such a potential in quantum mechanic systems since no
renormalization is required. Therefore, the usual problems arising with
renormalization do not appear with this potential.
The Neo-Coulombic potential gives the electric field radial component a
long range 1/r2 dependence that we know for the electric field,
Er =
Zk -
1 - e r .
r2 r
(24)
It also requires that the electric field rise to a maximum absolute value as r
decreases from infinity, go to zero as r approaches lambda, reverse sign as r
becomes smaller than lambda, go to another maximum absolute value and then
approach zero as r tends to zero. This short range behavior is drastically
different from that of the usual electrostatic field and will have enormous
consequences for the nuclear phenomena wherein the radial separations are of
the order of the lambdas of the fundamental particles.
The next thing noticed about the gauge potentials arrived at by the
above method is that the new three dimensional vector field has two
multiplicative factors, for
1
V r = W (1 + bt ) 2 1 e r
r
r
(25)
The first factor has the same radial dependence of the electric field and hence
the long range 1/r2 dependence. If this is to represent a physical field other
than the electric field then it must be the gravitational field. To further confuse
the issue, the second multiplicative factor involves a dependence upon time. At
first this may seem to run counter to all knowledge of gravitational effects;
however, later it shall be shown that this time dependence is all important in
gravitational phenomena.
Is it possible then that the ten gauge field components may be made up
of the three electric field components, three magnetic field components, three
gravitational field components, and the gravitational potential? Only by
working through the predictions of the theory in the various areas of physical
phenomena can it be determined whether the predictions can be supported by
the experimental evidence or if the predictions run counter to the evidence. If
there exists experimental evidence that is in measurable direct conflict with the
predictions of the theory then the theory must be wrong. On the other hand, if
the predictions are supported by the evidence and predictions exist which may
19
be used to test the validity of the theory then the theory deserves more than a
offhand dismissal just because it disagrees with existing theories or beliefs.
Quantization Derived
The strength of the quantum-theoretical structure is such that it has
swept aside virtually every attack upon it. However, using classical definitions
of commutivity it may be shown9 that the anti-commutivity of the position and
momentum is dependent upon the metric approximating a flat metric. If a
realm of conditions exists that does not allow a flat metric approximation then
the commutators must depend upon the geometry. One finds that
j
[ x j , p k ] = ih g kl jl + x s
sl
where the
j
sl
are the Christoffel symbols. This much does not depend upon any theory
whatsoever, but only upon the mathematics of differentiation. Since the
quantum Poisson brackets must correspond to the classical Poisson brackets,
then they also depend upon the geometry in the same fashion. In the past it
has been possible to argue that if the only physical field that affects the
geometry is the Einsteinian gravitational field, then it is possible to ignore this
geometrical effect upon the commutivity of space and momentum in nuclear
phenomena. If, however, the gravitational field is described by a gauge field
then this argument is nullified because the gauge fields do play a large role in
the realm of nuclear physics.
The German physicist London produce a quantization of Weyl's theory in
1927. In his work, London showed that if the arc length of the metric was
required to return to its original value, a quantization was produced and that
the wave function was proportional to this arc length. However, there was a
difficulty with his work; it required an imaginary distance.
The proposed theory not only removes the difficulty of the imaginary
distance but further, logically produces the quantization conditions when the
system is placed under an additional restriction. The quantum condition, as
stated before, comes from restricting one's attention to systems which are
isentropic. The requirement that the system have a constant entropy is the
simplest restriction that produces London's quantization. The imaginary
distance appearing in London's work also appears here in the entropy
manifold. However, the attractive electromagnetic force comes from a negative
gauge function which couples the "distance" in the manifold with the Weyl
geometry to the entropy manifold. In the entropy manifold the change in
20
entropy is the distance and, therefore, distance must always be real and
non-negative for an isolated system because of the principle of increasing
entropy.
The proposed theory then logically produces London's assumption and
removes the difficulty with imaginary distances. Further, it is found that the
quantization conditions are limited to a system with a distance curvature, or
gauge function. Thus, the interpretation of universal application of a nonvarying, least unit of action coming from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
rests with the existence, or lack, of a distance curvature and not with the
existence of a vector curvature. Equivalently, only forces that may be
expressed in terms of a gauge function, or distance curvature, may exhibit
quantization, while forces describable by only a vector curvature cannot be
quantized. If the above interpretation of the new field components as
gravitational field components holds up as gauge field components then
gravitational effects may be quantized as well as the electromagnetic effects.
This description of the derivation of quantum mechanics from
generalizations of the classical thermodynamics runs counter to the commonly
held belief that one may derive classical thermodynamics using statistical
methods and a variety of force laws. This contention is, however, without
rigorous support, as may be seen when one considers the development of
statistical thermodynamics. For instance, in order to talk of a statistical
temperature one must start by assuming Newtonian physics (this constitutes
three fundamental assumptions). Given Newtonian, or other physics, one can
talk of an energy distribution, canonical ensembles and statistical temperature;
however, one must make an additional fundamental assumption (the
Equipartition Law) before the statistical heat capacities may be obtained.
In order to obtain thermodynamics two more assumptions are required.
It was pointed out by Peter G. Bergmann10 that using the statistical approach
one may obtain an expression for the difference in the heat exchanged between
the system and the surroundings and the element of work done. In classical
thermodynamics this difference is the change in internal energy which is path
independent. In the statistical approach the difference is obtained without
reference to the internal energy. To claim that the statistically derived
expression is an exact differential is a logically new assertion; it constitutes the
First Law of Thermodynamics. In addition, the assumptions of statistical
thermodynamics allow the derivation of the fact that the differential of heat
exchanged must be greater than, or equal to, the multiplication of the
statistical temperature by the differential change in the statistical entropy.
This product of statistical thermodynamic properties is similar to an identical
product of thermodynamic properties. In statistical thermodynamics it is
asserted that the ratio of the statistical temperature and the classical
temperature is Boltzman's constant.
Once this assertion is made, the
statistical entropy may be related to the classical entropy. However, there is no
logical necessity that the ratio of temperatures be a constant from the
21
(26)
By defining the velocity vector as uj = dxj/dq0 and the momentum as pj = cgjkuk,
where the fact that gjkujuk = 1 has been used, one may show that pjpj = 2c2,
which is the five-dimensional "momentum-energy" relation.
Because of the benefits of a first-order differential wave equation, Dirac
sought to find a first-order operator equation that also satisfied the second
0-order Klein-Gordon equation (the operator equivalent to the
momentum-energy relation). This can also be done in five dimensions by
taking the specific Hamiltonian operator to be
h = i 1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 - .
x
x
x
x
(27)
By taking the four partial derivatives in Eqn. (27) as the components of the
four-vector specific momentum operator, one may write
h = - ( _ P + )
(28)
where natural units, h = c = 1, have been used.
If one takes the p0|> = h|> and requires that the alphas and beta are to
be chosen such that solutions of this equation are also solutions of Eqn. (28),
one finds the restrictions imposed upon the choice of the alphas and beta to be
22
( _ P )2 = P 2 ,
2 = 1,
+ = 0.
(29)
The set of 4 x 4 matrices satisfying the requirements of Eqn. (29) is given as
I 0
=
,
0 I
j 0
; j = 1,2,3, ,
j =
0
2
4 =
0
2
(30)
where I is the 2 by 2 identity matrix and the sigmas are the 2 by 2 Pauli spin
matrices.
Then the five-dimensional Dirac equation may be taken to be
i
(t) = i( _ - ) (x)
t
(31)
where we have used the four-dimensional vector operator. By defining
0 = ; j = j ;
j = 1,2,3,4,
(32)
Taking into consideration Eqn. (32) with the gauge fields of Eqn. (16),
one arrives at
1
k
k
jk
(i j - j )(i - ) - 1 - 2 i F jk = 0
(33)
23
where
jk
0
x& 1
x& 2
x& 3
x& 4
x& 1
x&
0
2 is 3
21 s
2 iu
2
1
x&
2 is
0
2 is 1
2 iu
x&
2
2 is
2 is
0
2 iu
4
1
2 iu
2 iu 2
21 u 3
(34)
and s is the usual intrinsic spin while u is a new spin appearing because of the
added dimension. By expanding, one finds that Eqn. (33) becomes
[(i j - j )(i k - k ) - 1+ 2 B s + 2V u + i E v-i V 4 x& 4 ] = 0.
(35)
Recalling the field equations of Eqn. (17), even a particle without an electric
charge (that is an electrically neutral particle) may have a magnetic moment
because, for = J = 0, one finds
E = - a0 V 4
x B -
1 E
V
= - a0
.
c t
(36)
If these new fields are to be interpreted as the gravitational fields then Eqn.
(36) may be interpreted as requiring a magnetic moment for spinning,
gravitating particles.
An interesting result occurs when one looks at the allowed fundamental
spin states. In the five-dimensional quantization of the space-time-mass
manifold, three spin vectors appear.
One of these is the familiar
three-component spin vector of relativistic quantum mechanics; the second of
the three is a new three-component spin vector; the remaining is a
four-component spin vector defined below.
Using the theorem, if satisfies 2 = a2 where a is a number, then the
eigenvalues of are +a, it is not difficult to show that the component
eigenvalues are:
s =
1
1
3
2
, u = , S j = ; = 1,2,3 j = 1,2,3,4.
2
2
4
(37)
If, in analogy with the eigenvalues for the total angular momentum, one writes
24
Sj =
3
= S j ( S j + 1)
4
1
1
1 3
, u = + _ , S j = ,- .
2
2
2 2
The question to be asked now seems to be, how many combinations of the above
eigenvalues are allowed? The answer may be shown to be octets. This
predicted result compares with the experimental findings of Gel Mann.
By deriving the quantization conditions and using London's derivation of
the quantum mechanics from this condition one obtains classical atomic physics
by assuming that the effects of the gravitational gauge field components may be
neglected. Thus, there appears to be no effect of the proposed theory upon the
atomic physics that is now known.
There is an astonishing effect of the Neo-Coulombic potential upon how
one might describe nuclear phenomena. One of the first features noted about
the potential was its return to a zero value as the radial value approaches zero.
This has the effect of producing a force given by,
1
q k
F = 12 1 1 e r .
r
r
(38)
If this force is repulsive when r is infinite for like particles, it becomes zero
when the separation is at the distance lambda and becomes a strongly
attractive force when the separation becomes less than lambda. This is just the
sort of behavior found when proton-proton scattering was first done at high
enough energies to see a deviation from Coulombic scattering. The expression
for the Neo-Coulombic scattering cross-section was found to be
q1 q 2 2 sin d
d =
,
2
2mV 0 sin 4 ( )
25
where
2
1
4E
1+ 6
sin 4 ( )1+ ( - ) tan( )
k
2 2
2
=
.
4
2
3 4E
2
1 +
sin ( ) sin ( - )
2
2 k
This scattering cross section for like-particle interaction appears to have the
right dependencies to explain the scattering data. It remains to compare
prediction with existing experimental data to determine the validity of the
predictions and the ability of the Neo-Coulombic potential to explain the Strong
Nuclear Force with that portion of its radial dependence that causes the value
of the potential to return to zero.
When unlike particles are considered care must be taken to keep the
lambdas in the forces straight. The force on any charged particle due to the
presence of another, second particle, is the product of the charge of the first
particle and the field of the second particle. Thus, the force on the first particle
goes to zero at the lambda of the second. For the force on a proton due to the
field of an electron
k e - e
F p = q p E e = - 2 1 - e r
r r
(39)
while the force on an electron due to the field of a proton is
k p p
F e = q e E p = 2 1 - e- r .
r
r
(40)
By looking at proton and electron like-particle scattering data it would appear
that the lambda of the proton must be much larger than that of the electron. If
this is the case then the force on the electron due to the near presence of the
proton goes to zero while the proton is still attracted to the electron. Any
further decrease in the separation causes the electron to experience a repulsive
force; although the proton is still attracted to the electron. This immediately
raises the eyebrows. Can it be that Newton's Third Law, concerning the equal
and opposite forces, does not hold in Nature? The answer is, certainly.
Newton's Third Law does not hold in high-speed electromagnetic interactions
when viewed by the retarded potentials; it was found to be violated during beta
decay until the hypothesis of the neutrino reinstated the summation of particle
spins. Should one then throw out the unlike-particle forces because they violate
Newton's Third Law without seeing what predictions these forces might lead
to?
26
If one proceeds with the unlike-particle forces, he finds very quickly that
it appears possible that the proton might find a very close orbit, at a separation
from the electron by a distance lambda, in which it could settle down into a
Bohr orbit around the electron. On the other hand the electron would
experience no force from the orbiting proton. Such a state might cause one to
think of the neutron. Here one runs into the question of particle spins that beta
decay brought out and which led to the hypothesis of the neutrino. Also, the
argument is offered that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle requires that the
electron could never be in an orbit so tightly bound that the orbit is less than
nuclear separations. This argument hinges upon the unit of action being
Planck's constant. But remember the dependence of the Poisson brackets upon
the geometry?
Another argument against the neutron being an electron and proton in
nuclear-sized orbits is based on an argument that the principle of angular
momentum cannot be conserved. The neo-coulombic forces, which require that
the force between the electron and proton be directed on a line between them,
also requires that the angular momentum be conserved. However, the unit of
action depends upon the gauge function and this requires that, when Bohr-type
orbits are considered, there is an effective unit of action for the electron orbit
and a different effective unit of action for the proton orbit. Thus, the effective
unit of action for the electron orbit requires that in the neutron the orbital
angular momentum would be given by he and its intrinsic spin angular
momentum would be (1/2)he. Similarly, for the proton the orbital angular
momentum would be hp and the spin (1/2) hp.
After the neutron decays, the angular momentum is the sum of the two
particles' intrinsic spin angular momenta, which is given by
because both
particles are free and therefore, each has an intrinsic spin angular momentum
of (1/2) h. Thus, the conservation of angular momentum is expressed as
1
(+_ h e + _ h p ) + he + h p = h.
2
(41)
Experimental evidence of orbital and/or spin angular momentum is contained
in the experimental magnetic moments. If one equates the intrinsic and orbital
magnetic moments of the electron and proton while they are in the orbital
configuration to the experimental value of the neutron's magnetic moment they
have
+_
hp
1 he
B + _ n 2 h
h
(42)
27
where B is the Bohr magneton and n is the nuclear magneton. Eqn.s (41) and
(42) require that he =8.0517 x 10-4h and hp = 0.66585h. Thus, within the
proposed theory the neutron appears to be a proton in orbit around an electron.
Not surprisingly then, it is possible to build a nuclear model of the
protons-around-electrons, and electrons-around-positrons, states that allow one
to predict the masses of the nuclei which have a mass number less than 10 amu
with better RMS error than the best of the semi-empirical mass formulas have
for mass numbers greater than oxygen13. This should possibly be considered all
the more significant since the semi-empirical mass formulas have ever
increasing errors for the low mass numbers and are not even used below an
amu of 16. It remains for this nuclear model to be extended to the higher mass
numbers, but it appears from the work done thus far that one can only expect
that the correspondence with experiment will improve with increasing mass
numbers.
Is it possible that the Neo-Coulombic forces can explain the phenomena
associated with the weak forces? Certainly the nuclear mass predictions argues
that a nuclear model based upon these orbits does not miss far and is a much
cleaner model than currently used. Initial looks at the neutrino experiments
using the proposed theory offer other explanations for these experimental
results but are too lengthy to include here. It should be remembered that these
experiments must be explained by the proposed theory if the unlike forces are
to fully account for phenomena that the weak nuclear forces are now thought to
explain.
The long range 1/r2 dependence of the new three-dimensional vector
gauge field component suggests that these components are the components of
the gravitational field. If this is to be the case the proposed theory must then
explain the same phenomena that the General Theory of Relativity predicts.
First, note that the gravitational field components in the gauge field tensor
must have units equivalent to the electric field components. Following up on
this, one finds that a charge-to-mass ratio is needed to convert the gravitational
field units from the familiar units of acceleration to the volts/meter units used
in the gauge field tensor. By considering the new fields and comparing them to
the currently used fields one finds that this ratio is given by the square root of
the product of the gravitational constant and the dielectric constant, or
= G = 2.4296x 10-11 coul/kg.
(43)
An interesting result follows immediately. If the fundamental charge-to-mass
ratio works as it appears to, and electrically neutral spinning bodies have
magnetic moments, then the predictions of magnetic moments for electrically
neutral bodies may be made by determining the effective charge density of the
rotating gravitating body using the charge-to-mass ratio and the spin of the
body. A simple calculation of the earth's magnetic moment, assuming uniform
28
j
[ x j , p k ] = ih g kl jl + x s .
sl
(44)
Thus, for a metric with only a gauge function the effective unit of action would
be given by
h = h exp[2 f t f r f ].
(45)
By recalling the gauge gravitational field of Eqn. (25), one may use Eqn. (45) to
find the expression for the unit of action for emission of a photon to be
W e (1 + bt e ) - e
e Re
h e = h exp
Re
(46)
where the subscript, e, denotes emission. Similarly, the unit of action for the
reception of a photon can be found to be
W r (1 + bt r ) - r
e Rr .
h r = h exp
Rr
(47)
If photon energy is conserved between emission and reception then
h e e = h r r .
(48)
29
If one sets te = 0, tr = L/c, W = (-GM/c2), and b = -H, then they find the shift in
frequency given by
By looking at the first order approximations of this prediction one finds
that the time dependence of the gravitational field produces the linear
dependence and is given by Hubble's constant while the gravitational potential
produces the same prediction that comes from Einstein's theory.
= exp 2
e
c
r
Rr
M e Re
M r e
e
Re
Rr
r
HL Rr
+ c e 1.
Looking a little closer one finds that the time dependence of the red shift
produces an experimental number, H-1 = (5.6+0.6) x 1017 sec. (1.61 x 10-18 sec-1 <
H < 2.0 x 10-18 sec-1), that corresponds to the same time dependence that has
been measured and reported for the moon's orbit15 (b=1.9 x 10-18 sec-1), well
within experimental error. It is somewhat pleasing that a prediction coming
from the same time dependence originating in the gauge function leads to a
comparison of phenomena involving cosmological distances agrees with
phenomena involving the much shorter distance involved in the moon's orbit.
Another possible plus to this prediction is that, because the prediction involves
an exponential dependence upon time and gravitational potential between the
emission and reception of the light, then the distances that are currently
ascribed to distant bodies by their red shifts may be much greater than the
actual distances. Also, the possible red shifts from dense gravitating bodies
may be much greater than is now believed possible thereby removing the
mystery from many objects.
The time dependence of the gravitational field stems from the principle
increasing entropy and is a direct result of this inflation-like effect imposed
upon the universe by the denial of perpetual motion. An additional implication
follows for the use of dating processes which depend upon radioactive processes
in that the unit of action changes with time in accordance with that same time
dependence. The results would be that all of the dates would have to be
adjusted downward.
The prediction of the advance of the perihelion of the planetary orbits is
the one prediction of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity that requires the
entire formal theory. Within the proposed theory one obtains an advance to the
planetary orbital perihelion by simply using the low velocity Newtonian
equations of motion with the Neo-Coulombic gravitational potential, which is
30
(49)
3 GMm2
.
2
L2
(50)
The perihelion advance predicted by the General Theory of Relativity is given
by16
3 G2 M 2 m2
.
GTR = 2
2 2
c L
(51)
Thus, the lambda of the sun would have to be given by
sun =
GM
c
(52)
if the proposed theory is to be identical in its prediction of planetary perihelion
advance to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Currently there is much discussion of experimental evidence of the need
for a fifth, and even a sixth, force in Nature. The evidence points to a decreased
gravitational strength when compared with Newtonian gravitation. Consider
the Neo-Coulombic gravitational force which must go to zero at some value of
distance that is representative of the body in question. The obvious conclusion
is that the gravitational force in the proposed theory must become less than the
Newtonian value as distance is decreased. Thus, a new independent force may
not be necessary at this time.
There are numerous implications of this feature of the Neo-Coulombic
force which will have large effects upon the concept of the universe presented
by the proposed theory. For example, a gravitational force which becomes
repulsive with decreasing distance denies the type of gravitational collapse now
discussed by cosmologists. Neither can it support the singularities now called
Blackholes. The possibility of the existance of distant bodies so massive that
light cannot escape their gravitational pull has not yet been investigated.
A number of possible experimental tests have been considered. A few of
these will be presented here.
The proposed theory presents a picture of the universe in which the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields are components of a single gauge field
tensor and, therefore, are fields on equal footing and also, more importantly,
inductively coupled. This implies that manipulation of one field will inductively
produce another of the fields. It is this type of inductive coupling which causes
a magnetic field to be created by the flow of current. The electric field which is
the source of the voltage in the alternator providing the power for home use was
31
32
33
near equilibrium states, the metric may be approximated by a flat metric, and
one finds the equations of motion to be those of Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity. A further restriction to slow moving things brings about the
reduction to Newtonian equations of motion.
Turning from equations of motion to the forces of Nature, the proposed
theory presents only one type of force, the gauge force, which shows up in three,
three-component vector fields plus a scalar field. These fields correspond to the
fields now known as the electric, magnetic, gravitational fields and the
gravitational potential. Because the proposed theory displays the three forces
together in a single five-dimensional field one probably should refer to all three
as components of the electromagnetogravitic (EMG) force.
The theory appears to describe the phenomena currently described by
the Strong Nuclear Force by the Neo-Coulombic electrostatic force which
reverses its sign as the separation of like particles is reduced. For the Weak
Nuclear Force the theory offers the asymmetrical unlike-particle force.
The Neo-Coulombic gravitational force not only provides the classical
gravitational predictions plus the planetary perihelion advance prediction, but
includes a prediction which appears to correspond to the recently observed
experimental results which have brought forth talk of a fifth force in nature.
Currently used cosmological and gravitational red shifts were found to
be the first-order approximations to the red shift predictions from the proposed
theory. The full exponential character of the time and gravitational potential
dependence of the red shifts may find usefulness in helping to describe the
universe by helping to clear up some of the mysteries of the cosmos.
34
References:
1
O.F. Mosotti, 'Sur les forces qui regissent la constitution interieur des corps',
Turin (1836). Mossotti's essay was translated into English and published in
Taylor's Scientific Memoirs, 1, 448 (1839).
P. E. Williams, 'The Dynamic Theory: A New View of Space, Time, and Matter',
Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-8370-MS, pp. 11-18 (1980). (see
also Section 2.2)
10
P.G. Bergmann, 'Basic Theories of Physics: Heat and Quanta', Dover (1950).
11
12
13
14
D. Halliday and R. Resnick, 'Physics', Third Edition, Wiley (1978). (see also
Section 5.1)
15
16
17
35
CHAPTER 2
General Laws
First Law.
where the forces Fi may be functions of the velocities (dqi/dt = ui) as well as
the coordinates qi and the summation convention is used. The inclusion of
velocities in forces reflects the belief that forces should depend upon the
velocities. This will become clearer when these work terms are included in
the first law.
36
The line integral c Fi dqi then represents the work done along the
path C by the generalized forces.
A system may acquire energy by other means in addition to the work
terms; such energy acquisition is denoted dE.
The system energy, which represents the energy possessed by the
system, is considered to be
U( q1 ,..., q n , u 1 ,...,u n ).
(2.1)
Positive dE is taken as energy added to the system by means other than
through the work terms and Fi is taken as the component of the
generalized force acting on the system which caused displacement dqi.
In the First Law the dimensionality is n + 1 and is determined by the
system considered. There is no limitation on the quantity or type of
variables that may be used. However, in this presentation and in practice,
it will be beneficial to place restrictions upon the type and number of
allowed work terms. A system with only one work term, which is the pdv
expansion work of classical thermodynamics, will be called a
"thermodynamic" system and the dimensionality will be two. A system
with three or less fdx work terms will be called a "mechanical" system with
the appropriate dimensionality. Obviously, if there are three mechanical
work terms, the dimensionality will be four. A system with a combination
of thermodynamic and mechanical work terms will be considered later.
In an infinitesimal transformation, the First Law is equivalent to the
statement that the differential
dU = _E + F i dq i
is exact. That is, there exists a function U whose differential is dU; or the
integral dU is independent of the path of the integration and depends only
on the limits of integration. This condition is not shared by dE or W .
The path dependence of W is another reason that the generalized forces
are assumed to be functions of velocity as well as position. In Newtonian
mechanics forces are usually assumed to be dependent on position only so
that the simplicity of path independence may be used. Though even in
Newtonian mechanics certain forces are taken as velocity dependent.
Friction forces are an example.
37
dU =
dF +
q
U
q
dq.
F
U
F
=
q F
U
q
.
F q
_E
_u
=
q
U
u
CF =
2.2
_E
_u
=
F
U
u
.
F
Second Law.
There are processes that satisfy the First Law but are not observed
in nature. The purpose of the dynamic second law is to incorporate such
experimental facts into the model of dynamics.
The statement of the Second Law is made using the axiomatic
statement provided by the Greek mathematician Caratheodory, who
presented an axiomatic development of the Second Law of thermodynamics
that may be applied to a system of any number of variables. The Second
Law may then be stated as follows:
In the neighborhood (however close) of any equilibrium state of
a system of any number of dynamic coordinates, there exist
states that cannot be reached by reversible E - conservative
(dE = 0) processes.
When the variables are thermodynamic variables, the E-conservative
processes are known as adiabatic processes.
A reversible process is one that is performed in such a way that, at
the conclusion of the process, both the system and the local surroundings
may be restored to their initial states without producing any change in the
rest of the universe.
Consider a system whose independent coordinates are a generalized
displacement denoted q, a generalized velocity u (with u = dq/dt), and a
generalized force F. It can be shown that the E-conservative curve
comprising all equilibrium states accessible from the initial state, i, may be
expressed by (u,q) = constant, where
represents some as yet
undetermined function. Curves corresponding to other initial states would
be represented by different values of the constant.
39
_E =
U
q
du +
q
- F dq
u
U
u
du +
q
40
U
q
- F dq = 0.
u
du
=
dq
U
q
U
u
-F
u
.
q
(2.2)
Figure 2. The First Law fills the (u,q) space with slopes. The
curves represent the solution curves whose tangents are the
required slopes. The Second Law requires that these curves do
not intersect.
dU =
U
q
d +
q
and q.
dq
and
_E =
U
q
d +
q
- F dq.
Since and q are independent variables this equation must be true for all
values of d and dq.
Suppose d = 0 and dq
0. The provision that d = 0 is the
provision for an E-conservative process in which dE = 0. Therefore, the
coefficient of dq must vanish. Then, in order for and q to be independent
and for dE to be zero when d is zero, the equation for dE must reduce to
_E =
d ,
q
with
U
q
Defining a function
= F.
by
U
q
du +
d +
(2.3)
and
c
= d + d
or
d
d +
c
c
then
= 0.
43
(2.4)
also
(2.5)
(The quantity cannot contain q, nor can contain q', since and / c must
be functions of the 's only.)
Referring now only to the first system as representative of any
system of any number of independent coordinates, the transferred energy
is, from Eqns. (2.5),
_E = (u) f(
)d .
2.3
2
1
f(
)d
at constant u.
2
1
f(
)d
at constant u 3 .
_ E3
( u3 )
(u).
each observer will have the same value for the absolute velocity or else one
of the frame will enjoy a privileged nature.
Just as the absolute temperature in classical thermodynamics is a
limiting quantity we may suspect that the absolute velocity will also turn
out to be a limiting quantity. Because of our experimental evidence that
the speed of light behaves as a limiting velocity when electromagnetic
forces are involved and the absolute velocity is independent of the force or
type of system and is therefore unique, it must be the speed of light. Thus,
the first two laws of the Dynamic Theory require Einstein's postulate
concerning the speed of light.
To be more specific, the absolute velocity is unique for all Galilean
frames of reference. There is one such velocity already known and that
velocity
is the speed of light, c. Therefore, the absolute velocity must be the speed
of light and the same for all Galilean observers. This is Einstein's
postulate.
The above may be put on a more rigorous basis by observing that
for the E-conservative process
_E = 0 =
U
u
du +
U
q
-F
dq .
- F =0
and thus du = 0, for all = 1,2,3. Thus the allowed transformations are
those with constant velocities. This, of course, was just what was required
by the statement of, or restriction to, a constant velocity process. Then all
Galilean observers will agree upon the identification of an E-conservative
system in absence of any work on the system.
Now let us suppose that at the time t, a system is at point p(q1, q2,
q3) in Q. If our system is E-conservative and traveling at the absolute
velocity, c, then in dt seconds it will be at the point q + dq where dq = u
cdt. Now the speed is given by
u u =
g u u = c,
where g is the metric for the space and the metric is parameterized using
the absolute velocity, c, which is the only velocity with an adequate
definition thus far.
Now an observer in another frame Q' sees the system at the point P'
given by (q1, q2, q3) at the time t. In dt seconds the system will have moved
to a point given by q + dq and the speed will be given by
u u
u u
= c
or
g
dq dq
46
= c 2 dt 2
since the process must specify the E-conservative process at the absolute
velocity, c.
But, since the Q observer must be Galilean then
= a q + a4 t
t = a 4 q + a 44 .
If we specialize so that g =
, g' =
, (ie. Euclidean) and we
specify the relative motion between q and q' to be only in the q' direction,
then our transformation is of the form
q = a11 q + a14 t
t = a14 q + a 44 t.
(2.9)
( a11 )2 = 1 + c 2 ( a14 )2
2
4 2
2
1 2
c ( a4 ) = c + ( a4 ) .
( a14 )2 = c 2 ( a 44 )2 - c 2 = c 2 [( a 44 )2 - 1]
and
( a11 )2 = 1 + c 2 ( a14 )2 .
For u = 0,
1
dq
a
= 44 = - v.
dt
a4
or
+_ 1
a4 =
+_ .
1 - v2
c
1 + c 2 ( a14 )2
we have
4
a1 = + _
v
c
and
1
a1 = + _ .
We now have
47
1
1
q = +_q -v t
2
2
q = q
3
3
q = q
t = +_
v
c
u + t.
+ _v + _ v
2
+ _ v2 + _ 1
c
= 0.
This means we must take the + sign for a11. If (dq'/dt) = 0 we find
dq
=
dt
+ _v
2
+ _ v2 + _ 1
c
= -v
c-v
2
cv
2
c
= c
1
a1 =
1
a4 = - v
4
a1 =
4
a4 =
or
48
- v
c
1
1
q = ( q - vt)
2
2
q = q
3
3
q = q
t =
t-
v
c
1
q .
(2.10)
Equations (2.10) are the transformations of Einstein's Special
Theory of Relativity, which, in Einstein's derivation needed only his
postulate concerning the speed of light and the requirement that physics
be the same for all Galilean observers. Here, in the Dynamic Theory we
have shown that the Second Law requires Einstein's postulate and the
transformations of Special Relativity for Galilean observers.
It should be noted that since the absolute velocity (or the speed of
light) is unique the answer to whether there may be a different limiting
velocity for different fundamental forces is answered by the Second Law.
The Second Law states that there is only one limiting velocity independent
of the type of force considered. Note that the function defined above as
goes to zero as v tends to c. This is a property required of the integrating
factor (u) and raises suspicions concerning he functional form we will
ultimately determine for .
2.4
)d .
Since
is an actual function of u and q, the right-hand member is an
exact differential, which may be denoted by dS; and
dS =
49
_E
(u)
0,
where the integral extends over one cycle of the transformation. The
equality holds if the cyclic transformation is reversible. Then for an
arbitrary transformation
B
A
_E
(u)
S(B) - S(A),
_E
0,
or
dE
I
dE
S(B) - S(A).
B
A
_E
is a maximum. Thus
S(B) - S(A) = max
50
B
A
1 _E
d ,
d
where
or
B
A
1 dU
F dq
d
d
d .
B
A
1 dU
F dq
d
d
d .
G
G
=0
x
x
d
d
G
G
=0
v
v
where
G=
-F
dx
,
d
Third Law.
uA
uO
C R (u)
du
.
(u)
General Relations
2.6
_E
.
(u)
dS
dU
dq,
where
dU = (u)dS + Fdq
(2.11)
Define the mechanical enthalpy as H = U - Fq. Then
dH = (u)dS - qdF.
(2.12)
Therefore
H
S
= (u) ;
F
H
F
= - q.
S
d[ (u)]
Sdu - (u)dS
du
(2.13)
This leads to
K
u
then
= - S (u) ;
q
K
q
= (u)F.
u
(u)S
dG = - (u)Sdu + qdF,
(2.14)
so that
53
G
u
G
F
= - (u)S ;
F
= q.
u
From the differential Eqns. (2.11), (2.12), (2.13), and (2.14) the
Maxwell relations for a mechanical system may be written:
(u)
u
q
(u)
u
F
S
q
(u)
F
S
= q
q
S
F
u
= u
S
F
(u)
q
u
=
u
.
F
(2.15)
The energy capacity at the position q can be defined as
Cq
E
u
S
u
= (u)
q
.
q
E
u
S
u
= (u)
F
then
( Cq - CF ) =
(u)
(u)
q
u
F
u
,
q
and
CF
=
Cq
F
q
F
q
The three generalized laws have been formulated and a few results
of these laws have been seen. The next step is to derive the stability
conditions to obtain the quadratic forms necessary for a metric. The
derivation of the equilibrium and stability conditions is identical to the
derivation of the thermodynamic equilibrium and stability conditions with
the variables changed to represent the mechanical variables q, u, S and F
instead of the thermodynamic variables T, V, S and P.
54
2.7
Equilibrium Conditions.
_E
_E
B
A
0,
R
or
B
A
_E
B
A
_E
S(B) - S(A).
R
S >0
(2.16)
must hold. The inequality sign is reversed from the sign in Clausius'
inequality because hypothetical variations
away from equilibrium are
considered rather than real changes toward equilibrium.
In a spontaneous process,
S
The "work" consists of two parts. One part is the work done by the
negative of the force F. It may be positive or negative, but it is inevitable.
Only the rest is free energy, which is available for some useful work. This
latter part may be written as
A=
E rev - U + F q.
The maximum of A is
55
Amax =
S - U + F q,
(2.17)
which is obtained when the process is conducted reversibly.
The least work, Amin, required for a displacement from equilibrium
must be exactly equal to the maximum work in the converse process
whereby the system proceeds spontaneously from the 'displaced' state to
equilibrium (otherwise a perpetual motion machine may be constructed.
Corresponding to Eqn. (2.17) then,
Amin = U - F q -
S.
Stability Conditions.
S > 0.
1
2
2
q +2
S+F q
2
U
q S
q S+
(2.18)
The inequality (2.16) then shows that in Eqn. (2.18),
second order terms + third order terms + . . . > 0.
56
Retaining only the second order terms, the criterion of stability is that a
quadratic differential form be positive definite;
2
2
U
U
q S+
2
q S
S
2
q +2
2
S > 0.
(2.19)
If this is to hold true for arbitrary variations in q and S, the coefficients
must satisfy the following:
2
>0 ;
U
q S
> 0.
S-
d
S udu
d
1
S u+
du
2
2
q +
K
1
q u+
q u
2
and
S u=
1 U
u
2
u +
But
K
U
=
u
u
and
K
= F.
q
57
U
- F q u.
q
2
q + ...
Therefore
2
K
=
u q
F
1
= u
u
U
- F q u.
q
U
.
u
and
2
= -
d 1
du
S-
Then
2
d
du
S u= -
S+
2
( u )2 -
K
u q
u q
( q )2 -
+2
S ( u )2 > 0.
Since
K
q
= F,
u
then
2
F
q
> 0.
u
Geometry
2.9
The fact that these equations of motion will become third order
differential equations in time displays a time asymmetry that appears to
correspond to nature. However, third order equations are difficult or
impossible to solve.
To avoid the difficulty of third order equations of motion, suppose we
adopt the quadratic form of Eqn. (2.19) as the metric for our system. Thus
we are adopting a manifold with coordinates of space and mechanical
entropy. This choice is not totally arbitrary because we wish to choose a
metric that will display the metric of Einstein's Special and General
Relativity as subsets of our metric. Looking toward this objective guides us
in the choice of metric.
It now becomes desirable to extend our system beyond the
dimensionality used thus far. Such an extension brings up a question
concerning the integrating factor. With one work term the differential of
the entropy was written as
_E
dS =
= f id
Then if for each dimension the exchange of energy is denoted by dEj, then
_ Ei
dS i =
= f id
dS i =
_ Ei
f id
_E
_ Ei
f id
i
F i dq ; i = 1,..., n.
dU i -
i
F i dq =
or
_E =
59
_ Ei .
( dU i - F i dq i )
dUi so that
_ E i = 0,
dS =
_ Ei
But since
_E =
dS =
f id
then
fi
d +d
Now
d
so that dE =
idEi
or d =
i id i
i
du +
and
d
i
i
It follows that the / ui = 0 and that the ratios i/ are also independent
of the qi. Therefore the 's have the form i = fi and = F( i, i, ..., n)
and also
_S = fd
i
i
f id
The right hand side is a perfect differential and therefore so is the left.
60
_E
_ Ei
_E
dU
Fi
dq
for any i and the quadratic form may be extended to include three spatial
work terms and thus becomes
2
(dS )2 +
2
S q
(dS)( dq ) +
q
, = 1,2,3.
( dq )( dq ) > 0 ;
(2.20)
where the summation convention is used and
2
hij =
U
q
with
q0 =
S/F0, the scaled mechanical entropy for dimensional
correctness.
Thus, the stability conditions provide a metric in the
four-dimensional manifold of space-mechanical entropy. However, the
existing relativistic theories are theories in a space-time manifold.
Therefore, if these theories are to be contained within the Dynamic Theory,
then the space-time manifold must be found within the Dynamic Theory.
The arc length s in the space-mechanical entropy manifold may be
parameterized by choosing ds = u0dt = cdt, where u0 = c is the unique
velocity appearing in the integrating factor of the second postulate. There
are two reasons for choosing the unique velocity. First, it is the only welldefined velocity we have thus far. Secondly, we may look ahead to the
61
metric of the Special Theory of Relativity. The metric may now be written
as
2
i
j
2
c (dt ) = hij dq dq ; i, j = 0,1,2,3.
(2.21)
Now suppose the systems considered are restricted to only
E-conservative systems. Then the principle of increasing mechanical
entropy may be imposed in the form of the variational principle
( dq0 )2 = 0.
1
h00
2
2
c (dt ) + 2 h0 Adtdq - h dq dq ,
(2.22)
where
A=
h0
u +_
h00
with u = dq /dt.
By defining x0 = ct, x = q ;
written as
( dq0 )2 =
h
c
h0
+
( u )2
u u +
h00 h00
h00
1
g dxi dx j ; i, j = 0,1,2,3
f ij
(2.23)
where f = h00. This metric obviously reduces, in the Euclidean limit of
constant coefficients, to the metric of Minkowski's space-time manifold of
Special Relativity. It is interesting to note that in the metric of Eqn. (2.22)
the difference in the sign on the time and space elements of the metric
come from stability conditions given in terms of space and mechanical
entropy while the variational principle was taken to be the Entropy
Principle. In this fashion the Second Law guarantees the limiting aspect
found in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
In his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein assumed the space-time
manifold to be Riemannian. However, this assumption involves the a priori
assumption that the scalar product be invariant. This assumption was
later questioned by Weyl in his generalization of geometry. From the
viewpoint that the adopted postulates of the Dynamic Theory should
62
1
g dxi dx j
f ij
1
(d
f
g ij dxi dx j .
(2.24)
Now the Second Law guarantees the existence of the function mechanical
entropy and that dq0 be a perfect differential; therefore
0
dq = q0 i dxi ,
(2.25)
where q0i =
0
i| j
- q0 j|i = 0.
(2.26)
By defining the parallel displacement of a vector to be
d
is
dx
s
v
(2.27)
and using Eqns. (2.26) and (2.27) it may be seen that the connections
must be symmetrical, or
v
ik
ki
(2.28)
This result should not be taken to mean that only symmetric
connections need to be considered. Rather it means that given the ij's that
maximize (dq0)2, then the connections are symmetrical. However, since a
variational principle must be used to determine the ij 's, then both
symmetric and antisymmetrical connections will have to be considered.
In Weyl's generalization of geometry he found it necessary to
assume the symmetry of the connections. He proved a theorem showing
that the symmetry of the connections guaranteed the existence of a local
63
_( dq0 )2 =
( dq0 )2
x
Since (dq0)2 = q0iq0jdxidxj from Eqn. (2.25), using Eqn. (2.24) we find q0iq0j
= gij. Then
( dq0 )2
x
Thus
2
( dq0 )2
x
Likewise
2
( dq0 )2
x
= q0 r
i|k
0
k |i
Now
64
is
s 0
dx q r ,
r
= q0 r
ik
, also
r
ki
i|k |l
= q0 r|l
= q0 s
= q0 r
ik
ik
l
r
+ q0 r
ik
sk
ik
r
+ q0 r
ik
rl
[ q0 r
ik
l
ik
l
Similarly
q
0
i|l|k
= q0 r
sk
il
il
k
Therefore
0
0
0
0 0
q j [ q i|k|l - q i|l|k ] = q i q r
ik
l
il
k
sl
ik
ilk
ik
l
or
65
sk
il
is
s 0
i
j
0
0
dx q r q j dx dx + q i
js
s 0
i
j
i
j
0 0
dx q r dx dx + q i q j d( dx dx )
= dg ij dxi dx j + g ij d( dxi dx j ).
is
s
dx g rj +
js
s
dx g ir = dg ij
or
g rj
is
+ g ri
js
g ij
and
jis
ijs
g ij
x
(2.30)
Now interchange jis to sij to get
+
sij
jsi
g is
x
(2.31)
Then interchange jis to isj so that
isj
sij
g si
x
(2.32)
Add Eqns. (2.31) and (2.32) and subtract Eqn. (2.30).
sij
jsi
or
66
isj
sij
jis
sij
g si
1
2
g sj
g ij
(2.33)
and
r
ij
rs
= g rs
sij
g si
g
2
g sj
g ij
is
dx
is
s
dx g rk
g ij
s
dx + g ij d
then
g ij d
i
i
is
s
dx g rk
g ij
s
dx .
= 1 and
g ij
x
jis
ijs
then
Thus the change in the covariant and the contravariant vectors are given
by
i.
Then
d(
=
i
is
r
dx
is
)= d
i
s
r
dx
+ i (i
s
r
rs
dx
rs
dx
s
r
s
i
i
i
)=(
i
is
i
is
) dx s .
ij
= f g ij .
l = || | |2 = g
ij
(2.34)
where l is the length of the vector in the entropy space.
If we differentiate Eqn. (2.34), we have
2l d l = l
f
x
i
dx + 2fldl.
However, in the entropy space the length of the vector is unchanged under
parallel displacement so that
dl =
1 f
1 lnf i
i l
=
dx
dx l .
2 xi
f
2 xi
(2.35)
Comparing Eqn. (2.35) with the definition of the parallel displacement of a
vector, Eqn. (2.27), we find that
i
lnf
x
68
dl = (
i
dx )l.
(2.36)
This is the same definition Weyl made in his generalization of
geometry. However, there is a difference in the way it was obtained. Weyl
chose this definition in analogy with the connections and the definition
then led to the second more general metric. In this theory the fundamental
laws lead us to two metrics and Eqn. (2.35) for the change in the length of
a vector under displacement. Therefore, we have no choice.
Thus within the Dynamic Theory Eqn. (2.35) is a derived equation
and Eqn. (2.36) only renames the logarithmic derivative.
Using Eqn. (2.36) we may obtain, in general,
2
2
dl = 2 l (
= g ij|k
k
dx + g ij
i
dx ) = d( g ij
l
lk
k
dx + g ij
j
j
)
i
lk
k
dx .
ik
+ g il
jk
) + g lj
k
dx = 2 g ij
ik
k
dx .
+ g li
jk
= 0.
This is the same system of linear equations for the connections ijk as Eqn.
(2.30) except that the inhomogeneous term ijk has now to be replaced by gijk
- 2gij k. Therefore the same linear algebra as before leads to
i
jk
= -
i
jk
+ g li [ g lj
+ g lk
(2.37)
where (ijk) is the usual Christoffel symbol of the second kind.
Now, since the entropy space is Riemannian, then in the entropy
space we have 'i=0 and 'ijk = -(ijk) and the length l of a vector is unchanged
under parallel displacement. However, the same displacement law in the
sigma space, with metric gij, leads to the relation
69
dl = + _d g
= l
= + _d fg ij
ij
dx
x
1 lnf k
= +_
dx l .
2 xk
(2.38)
Thus (1/2)( lnf/ xk) plays the role of k in Eqn. (2.36). It follows then
that the ordinary connections -(ijk) constructed from ij are equal to the more
general connections ijk constructed according to Eqn. (2.37) from gij and k
= (1/2)( lnf/ xk): This can also be seen by direct computation from Eqn.
(2.36)
(2.39)
g ij = fg ij .
and
i
jk
jk
(2.40)
We may interpret the change of metric from ij to gij by Eqn. (2.40) as a
change of scale for the length at every point of the Riemannian manifold by
the variable gauge factor f.
This transformation is called a gauge
transformation, and k is called a gauge vector field.
The generalized geometry thus separates the problem of measurement of angles from that of measurement of length. For instance, the
angle between the two vectors i and i at a given point of the space is
measured by the ratio
i
i
|| || || ||
g ij
( g ij
)( g ij
This ratio does not change under the gauge transformation Eqn. (2.40).
The gauge transformation is therefore an angle-preserving, or conformal,
change of metric. On the other hand, the length of vectors will change
under Eqn. (2.40) according to Eqn. (2.35). Thus the metric tensor ij
determines angles, while one needs also the gauge vector k to measure
length.
Considering the sigma space, which is characterized by the tensor
field ij and gauge vector k. The same argument as before shows that we
may, without changing the intrinsic geometric properties of vector fields,
replace the geometric quantities by use of a scalar field f as follows:
70
ij
= fg ij ,
1 lnf
,
2 xk
jk
jk
(2.41)
That is, in the new metric, vectors will have the same law of affine
transplantation and the angle between different vectors at the same point
of the manifold will be preserved, but the local lengths of a vector will be
changed according to
2
2
l = fl .
Thus the general Weyl geometry of the sigma space admits also a
conformal gauge transformation.
D. Mechanical Systems Near Equilibrium
2.10 Special Relativistic and Classical Mechanics
Classical mechanics describes the motion of a system, which could
be a particle, for which the energy of the system is a constant. The
equations of motion yield trajectories resulting from the action of forces;
they may also be obtained from the Principle of Least Action. When the
action integral is treated as a variational problem with variable end points,
the method of Lagrangian multipliers yields the same equations as does
Hamilton's Principle. However, if the variational problem is transformed to
a new space in which the new variational problem has fixed end points,
then the metric for this space is displayed, and the equations of motion are
geodesics in this space.
In classical mechanics the Principle of Least Action as formulated by
Lagrange has the integral form
A=
P2
P1
mv d s .
(2.42)
In curvilinear coordinates the integral assumes the form
A=
P2
P1
mg
dx
dx =
dt
t( P 2 )
t( P1 )
mg
where , = 1, 2, 3.
Defining
T =
m
g
2
71
dx dx
,
dt dt
dx dx
dt,
dt dt
t( P2 )
t( P1 )
2Tdt.
(2.43)
where h =2m(E0-V)g . Here different particles in the same field and with
different energies E0 would appear to have different geometries, a situation
which has been previously taken to be impossible and therefore precluded
the geometrization of dynamics(see page 6 of ref. 46). However, in view of
Weyl's generalization of geometry, treating the variational problem in the
Principle of Least Action as transformed to a new space in which the variational problem has fixed end points, in effect, is a transformation into a
space with Weyl geometry where the gauge function is 2m(E0-V). Thus
changing the energies does not change the geometry since it will still be a
Weyl space.
Suppose now that the concepts of classical mechanics are compared
with the concepts from the point of view of the Dynamic Theory. The
energy of the system in classical mechanics is a constant of the motion and
therefore the change in kinetic energy is the negative of the change in
potential energy, which may be written as
dH = dT + dV = 0.
d(vol) = m0
and g =
2
2
) = c 2 (dt ) - g dx dx ,
= 1,2,3,
S
0
dS =
S
0
(dS )2 =
mq0
0
0 2
2
m0 ( dq ) =
2
1
2
j k
m0 f g jk u u d ,
dx
.
d
Because we have assumed that the mass, m0, is a constant we can write
our integral as
0
q =
S
m0
2
1
f g jk u j u k d .
g jk u j u k d ,
(2.44)
so that the integral becomes
73
0
q =
S2
S1
f dS.
T =
dS = c f , d =
2T
m0
d .
( P2 )
( P1 )
2T d ,
(2.45)
with the auxiliary selection that 2T - m0c2f = 0.
The problem of determining geodesics has now been converted into a
statement of the principle of maximum generalized entropy:
Of all curves C', passing through P1 and P2 in the
neighborhood of the trajectory C, which are traversed at a rate
such that, for each C', and for every value of , 2T = m0c2f, that
one for which the generalized entropy integral, q0, is maximum
(stationary) is the trajectory of the particle.
reads
2T d = 0,
f
,
2
74
d
d
G
u
= 0,
j = 0,1,2,
, n, with
T + V - h = 0.
(2.45)
This system has a solution for which =-1Sokol, and it follows that the
trajectory C is determined by the solution of the system
d
dt
T
u
T
x
= -
j = 0,1,2,
, n.
(2.46)
We assumed that the gjk were constants; therefore, if we make the
definition
Fj = -
V
x
lj
l
l
m0 u = g F j = F , l = 0,1,2,
, n.
(2.47)
From the metric with constant coefficients we get
d
=
dt
2
c - g
x& x& ,
, = 1,2,3,
or
d
=
dt
2
2
c -v .
(2.48)
75
l
d
dt
2 dx
m0 c
dt
d
d
d
m0 c 2 u l
d
d
dx l dt
m0 c 2
dt d
v 2 dt
d
v 2 dt
c2
c
m0 c 2
c
vl
l
F =
1-
d
dt
m0 v
1-
(2.49)
m0 v l
d
dt
.
(2.50)
d x
= m0 a l ,
2
dt
(2.51)
where, in a local reference frame x, al=(1/c2)(d2xl/dt2). In Eqn. (2.51) we
have the form of Newton's second law in classical mechanics.
We may rewrite Eqn. (2.50) in the form
1-
l
f =
d
dt
m0 v
1-
l
2
(2.52)
These equations are the equations of motion of the Special Theory of
Relativity and come from the geodesic equations of the variational problem,
76
in Eqn. (2.42), based upon the generalized entropy principle with the
restrictive assumptions that the mass density, , be a constant and that
the metric coefficients, gjk, are independent of the mass distribution. Thus,
we have shown that the special relativistic equations of motion and the
Newtonian equations of motion are required by the generalized entropy
principle, but that they represent a limited subset of the entropy principle.
2.11
Energy Concepts
(2.53)
whereas the differential change in the generalized entropy is
dS =
dU
Fdx
(2.54)
where dS is a total differential. If we suppose that the system energy, U,
may be a function of position, x, and the velocity, v=dx/dt, then we may
write
dS =
1 U
1 U
F
dv +
dx - dx.
v
x
U
-F
x
77
1 U
.
v
U
x v
(2.55)
because = (v) from the second law. Further, dU is a total differential so
Eqn. (2.55) becomes
F
v
U
-F
x
Now consider the functional form of the force from the equations of motion
in Eqn. (2.52),
F =
1-
F(x)
F(x),
(2.56)
where F(x) is strictly a function of x because it came from the gauge
function. Then
F
d
=
F (x).
v
dv
d
dv .
(2.57)
In order to satisfy Eqn. (2.57) we find = and U=U(v).
By substituting these results into the differential expression for the
entropy, Eqn. (2.54) we find
dS =
dU
dv
dv
1-
- F(x) dx,
(2.58)
78
1-
F(x) dx.
P
P0
F dx.
U =
2
2
1-
+ constant.
(2.59)
In his Special Theory of Relativity Einstein interpreted the right-hand
side of Eqn. (2.59) to be the kinetic energy; therefore, he chose the
integration constant to be -m0c2 in order that T=0 when v=0. Here, Eqn.
(2.59) is the energy of the system and, therefore, will not be zero when v=0.
Thus, the constant of integration should be taken as zero, giving the
energy by
m0 c
U =
1-
2
2
(2.60)
If we differentiate Eqn. (2.60) with respect to the velocity, we find
U
v
1
2v
m c
2
c
m v
(1
(1 B )
m0 vdv
- F(x)dx.
(1 - 2 )2
m v
S
1
m c
2
(1
d(
(1
)
)
dv
2
1
F ( x )dx
V ( x ),
and
1
2
m0 c
2
S =
+ V(x) + constant.
(1 - 2 )
(2.61)
Thus, the generalized entropy for a purely mechanical system has
two parts. One, depending entirely upon the velocity, and which we may
call kinetic entropy, is given by
1
2
m0 v
2
T =
.
(1 - 2 )
(2.62)
The second term in the mechanical entropy is a function of position only
and may be called the entropy potential, V(x).
We may look at the kinetic entropy differently if we go back to the
variable changes during the presentation of the maximum entropy
principle, because there we had
ds =
but d = cd
g jk u j u k d
2t
m0
d ,
1 - v 2 / c 2 199 therefore,
T =
j
k
1
1
du du
2
j k
2
m0 c g jk u u = m0 c g jk
2
2
d d
1
dt
2
j k
m0 c g jk x& x&
2
d
1
2
m0 v
2
T =
,
(1 - 2 )
which is the kinetic entropy of Eqn. (2.62). Thus, we find that it is the
mechanical entropy, S, that must have a constant value along any
trajectory for an isolated system, because
T +V - h = 0
x2
x1
or 0
m0 vdv
(1
3
2
m0 c 2
1
1
F j ( x )
F j dx j
m0 c 2
F j dx j ,
dU
1
0)
F j dx j
-f
- (d
2
) .
But
d(d ) =
k
dx (d )
and
d(d )
=
(d )
k
dx ,
)0 e
k dx
= 1,
(2.63)
where N is an integer. This is the quantum condition London introduced.
To illustrate how this condition arises from the Dynamic Theory's
approach, suppose a description of a hydrogen atom is desired. A
hydrogen atom is in a stable condition and, if isolated, satisfies the
conditions dE = 0 and dq0=0. These conditions along with f 0 establish
the quantization of the integral in Eqn. (2.63). To show how the Dynamic
Theory removes from London`s work the difficulty of defining length as a
real number, consider an elementary presentation of London's. Suppose
the field of a proton to be given by
1
0
0; i
0.
Equality of forces for the simple case of circular motion requires that
2
mv
e
= 2.
r
r
v=
mr
Now
k
k
dx =
cT = 2 iN,
so that
1
cT
=
r
c2
mr
= 2 iN.
e
Solving for the radius shows that the allowed radii are
r =
- N 2 e2
.
( 1 )2 m c 2
By choosing
83
2 i e2
hc
i
137
i ,
r =
N h
,
4 2 e2 m
= +_
ln f
x
1
2
it may easily be seen that if f<0, then k becomes imaginary as does the
length of arc in the (d )2 manifold since the length of arc is given by
=
(d
2
) .
However, the arc length in the (dq0)2 manifold is real since dq0 0 by the
Second Law.
It should be noted that the conditions for quantization are not
restricted to dE=0, dq0=0, and f<0 as used here. Any set of conditions
which results in the final element of arc (d ) being equal to the initial
element of arc (d )0 results in quantum conditions. It is particularly
significant to note that the quantization involves only forces, which may be
described in terms of the "distance curvature" and does not involve forces
describable by a vector curvature. Thus interpreting the gauge potentials
be electromagnetic potentials provides quantum effects for
k to
electromagnetic forces.
Here, again, is a distinction between curved and Euclidean
manifolds, though here it appears slightly different. The Dynamic Theory
requires a quantization. However, this quantization depends upon the
existence of a gauge function and appropriate restrictive conditions. Thus
a curved space may exhibit quantum effects but only if the curvature is
accompanied by a gauge function or a distance curvature.
Thus the Dynamic Theory, through London's quantization, not only
supports the contention that "God does not play with dice all the time" but,
further, may supply the answer to the question, "What is waving in the
wave function?" London showed that the wave function is directly related
to the element of the arc length in the sigma manifold. Therefore the
"waving" is the tendency of this element of arc length to increase and
84
n
i=1
( J i - Y i )d Ri ,
(2.64)
is, according to our previous discussions, the increase in u. But in a
systematically thermodynamic approach (that is, using only macroscopic
observations and concepts), we get the differential expression, Eqn. (2.64)
without reference to u. From that point of view, to claim that this
expression is an exact differential is a logically new assertion; and this
assertion constitutes the First Law of Thermodynamics."
The assumptions of statistical thermodynamics allow us to derive
the differential of the heat exchanged in the form
_Q = d ,
(2.65)
where
is the statistical temperature and d
Further, it may be shown that
85
_Q
(2.66)
By comparing Eqn. (2.66) with the classical thermodynamic statement
_Q = TdS,
(2.67)
and
dS
_Q
,
T
(2.68)
we find that the statistical expression, Eqn. (2.66), is analogous to the
classical expression, Eqn. (2.68), for the second law of thermodynamics.
Also we may equate Eqns. (2.65) and (2.67) to obtain
d
= TdS,
(2.69)
and Eqns. (2.66) and (2.68) are simultaneously satisfied provided that
/T>0. In statistical thermodynamics it is asserted that /T=kB, where kB
is Boltzman's constant. Once this assertion is made then we have
kBd =dS, hence S=kB . However, there is no logical necessity that the ratio
/T be a constant from the statistical approach, and only if it is a constant
can we have a one-to-one correspondence between the statistical entropy
and the classical thermodynamic entropy.
The misconception that classical thermodynamics may be derived
from Newtonian mechanics without the necessity of making additional
assumptions is further entrenched by authors, such as Kittel, who in his
text Thermal Physics says the following on p. 49, "We show in Chapter 8
that is proportional to the conventional absolute temperature which is
measured in degrees Kelvin"; (This implies a logical necessity) On p. 427
the author states, "By analogy with the relation dQ = d we `assume' that
the Kelvin temperature T has the property dQ = kBTd
for a reversible
process; here kB is a constant to be determined and is the entropy." (The
implied logical necessity is reduced to an assumption.)
We are so familiar with Newtonian mechanics and its basic validity
that it is difficult for us to consider that it might be derivable from some
other physical concept and its associated fundamental assumptions.
Further, classical thermodynamics, even before statistical mechanics gave
86
d x
= Fi ,
2
dt
or inertial mass, m, times the acceleration, d2xi/dt2, must equal the force,
Fi. Thus the adopted laws, through restrictive assumptions, do lead to
Newton's Second Law. Newton's First Law comes from considering the
motion in the absence of any force. To arrive at Newton's Third Law one
must show that all of the forces, allowed by the adopted laws of the
Dynamic Theory, must be symmetrical. A violation of this symmetry of
forces that has recently been found will be shown in Section 4.11 for forces
within the nucleus; and, therefore, the Dynamic Theory does not require
Newton's Third Law to hold within the nucleus, but does for atomic forces
and macroscopic matter.
F. Summary
2.15 Summary of new theoretical fundamentals
When this investigation was initiated, it was concluded that
Einstein's postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light could not be
adopted since it was felt that experimental evidence in electromagnetism
alone did not justify applying it as a limiting velocity to all types of forces.
However, we find that Einstein's postulate is required by the Dynamic
Theory which approaches physical phenomena from a different way. The
new viewpoint indeed supports Einstein's every contention with regards to
Special Relativity and his uneasiness concerning quantization. Further,
the Dynamic Theory supports Einstein in such a way that it seems only
the early successes of his theories kept Einstein himself from coming to the
same realization.
This is, of course, speculation, but it was Einstein who returned to
very fundamental concepts in order to establish a basis for his relativity
87
89
Equations of Motion
= 1,2,3.
Where the v and are considered as specific quantities. That is, these
quantities are related to a unit of mass such as is customary in
thermodynamics.
The specific volume is the reciprocal of the mass density . Using the
mass density instead of the specific volume the First Law becomes
91
~
~ P
d E = dU - 2 d - F~ dq ;
= 1,2,3.
This law now requires that the system's specific energy U be a function of
five independent variables so that U = U(S,q1,q2,q3). Thus, the First Law
requires a five-dimensional manifold of specific entropy, space, and mass
density for a general system. Since the system under consideration needs
both thermodynamic and mechanical variables, we can no longer refer to
the entropy as mechanical or thermodynamic; however, the limiting case
where the mass is held fixed must produce the mechanical entropy.
The procedure established by the Dynamic Theory is to take the
stability condition quadratic form as the metric for a stable system. Thus,
the coefficients of the metric become the second partial derivatives of the
energy function. In order to simplify the metric, suppose for the present
that we restrict our system to be very near an equilibrium state so that we
may consider the second partial derivatives to be constants. This is in
essence considering a local Euclidean manifold; the symmetry of the
geometric connections guarantees that we may do this.
Since the metric coefficients are constants, a transformation may be
found such that the cross terms are zero. Then in this coordinate system
and when
q
and q 4
F0
a0
= 1,2,3.
(3.1)
(dS )2 = 0.
= 1,2,3,
or
dq
dt
= c2 - g
dq
dt
dq
dt
, = 1,2,3,4.
(3.3)
therefore, follow the procedure Minkowski and Einstein used in the Special
Theory of Relativity.
First, to avoid confusion, let us rename the coordinates as
x
1
q , x2
ct, x1
2
q , x3
3
q , and x 4
4
q .
dx
; i = 0,1,2,3,4
0
dq
d x
u
0
q
dq
i dx j dx k
.
0
0
jk dq dq
+
2
Now the specific entropy is the arc length and the variational
principle is based upon the entropy. Therefore, if we multiply the specific
entropy by the mass density, we have the entropy density. The variational
problem becomes
2
( dq0 )2 =
(3.4)
( dq0 )2 = 0.
Notice how the mass has entered our variational problem. It has entered
because our metric was in terms of the "specific entropy", or entropy per
unit mass. The variational problem is based upon the entropy, not the
specific entropy. Thus, the mass density is required in the variational
problem to correct this difference. The importance of this lies in the fact
that this is the origin of the "inertia" which appears in the following
equations of motion.
The Euler equations for this problem are
g ij u j
d
dq
g ij u i u j
g ik
-
g ij u i u j -
uu
x
g ij u i u j
=0
or
a u
g ij u j
g ij u i u j
g ij u u +
g ij u j
d
dq
g ij u i u j
g ik
-
93
i u u
x
g ij u i u j
= 0.
i
f =
- a0 u 4 g ij u j
(3.5)
dq
dt
u
and
0
q
= c2 - u u ;
= 1,2,3,4
then
i
2
2
c -v
i
u dt
t dq0
u
=
0
q
i
F =
dx
t dq0
where v 2 = u u :
= 1,2,3,4.
Then
F =
= c2
c -v
dx
c - v dt
1
t
1-
1-
dx
,
dt
F =
1-
dx
.
dt
Consider
but
1-
dx
dt
1
dt
1-
dx
+
dt
1
t
1-
dx
;
dt
94
1-
F =
1
c
dx
dt
1-
a0 u
2
c
1
2
1-
dx
.
dt
We may define
1
2
1-
By defining F
1-
F =
1
c
dx
dt
a0 v v
1-
F 23 so that
F =
dx
dt
a0 v v
1-
(3.6)
we see that this force density becomes Einstein's special relativistic force
density when v4 = 0, or for constant "rest mass." Thus, the equations of
motion, Eqn.s (3.6), reduce to Einstein's special relativistic equations of
motion when d /dt=0.
3.2
Energy Equation
Now for our system the restriction that
~
~ P
_E = 0 = dU - 2 d - F~ dx ,
= 1,2,3
requires that
p
~
dU = 2 d + F~ dx ,
or if p/
= 1,2,3,
= 1,2,3,4.
~
U - U~ 0 =
p
p0
~
F dx =
d
dt
t
t0
d
dt
p
p0
u u +
1-
1-
dx
dt
du
dt
1-
a0 u u
1-
dx
dt.
d
dt
t
t0
1-
= c2
3
2 2
(1 -
&
1-
dt
c
1-
2
2
or
~
U =
2
2
1-
+ constant.
2
4
+ constant.
1- u
c
At the condition where u4 is also zero the internal energy density is then
~
U =
2
c + constant.
~
U =
2
c +
1 2 1
( &)2 ,
v +
2
2 ( a0 )2
where here u4 = d /dt is used. This displays the classical limit system
energy density for an E-conservative system very near equilibrium.
B. Systems With Non-Euclidean Manifold
Suppose now we relax the assumption that the system is very near
an equilibrium point so that the second partial derivatives are no longer
constants but are functions. This is essentially the same transition as
Einstein made going from his Special to General theory; however, the logic
of the transition is much simpler here. The only change in the logic
appears in the relaxation of the assumption of nearness. There is, of
course, a drastic increase in mathematical difficulty since the metric components are no longer constants.
3.3
= 1,2,3,
hij =
U
q
, i, j = 0,1,2,3,4,
where ,=1,2,3,4.
Imposing the restriction that the system be E-conservative,
results in the principle of increasing entropy, so that
(3.3A)
E=0,
(dS )2 = 0.
( dq0 )2 =
(3.4)
( dq0 )2 = 0.
Solving the metric given by Eqn. (3.3A) and squaring yields the
expression
( dq0 )2 =
1
h00
{ c 2 (dt )2 + 2 h0 Adtdq - h dq dq },
, = 1,2,3,4,
(3.7)
with
A=
h0
2
2
c h & & ( h0 q& )
.
q q +
( h00 )2
h00 h00
q& + _
h00
2
) ,
(d
h00
where
( dq0 )2
g ij dxi dx j , i, j = 0,1,2,3,4,
and
(d
q ij dxi dx j , i, j = 0,1,2,3,4,
with x0=ct, x1=q1, x2=q2, x3=q3, and x4= /a0. Thus we may write
( dq0 )2 = q ij dxi dx j =
1
(d
f
2
) =
1
g ij dxi dx j .
f
(3.8)
lnf
x
1
2
(3.9)
98
i, j
j,i
(3.10)
3.4
iE 1
- iE 1
iE 2
B3 - B2
- iV 4
V1
B1
V2.
- B1
V3
-V 1 -V 2 -V 3
F ij = - iE 2 - B 3
- iE 3
iE 3 iV 4
B2
1 B
=0
c t
xV + a0
V4+
=0
(3.11)
1 V
E
+ a0
= 0.
c t
4
Ji
c
(3.12)
V4
= 4
1 E
V
4 J
=
+ a0
c t
c
1 V4
4 J4
V+
= .
c t
c
xB -
99
(3.13)
so that
t
J4
J + a0
(3.14)
= 0.
For ease in future reference to these eight field equations they may
be rewritten as
B=0
[a]
1 B
+ xE = 0
c t
xB -
V
4 J
1 E
=
+ a0
c
c t
V4
E + a0
t
J + a0
xV + a0
1
c
1
V+
c
V0+
3.5
[b]
= 4
J4
[c]
[d]
=0
(3.15)
[e]
=0
[f]
V
E
[g]
= a0
t
4 J4
V4
= [h]
t
c
Energy-Momentum Tensor
1
4
k
F j F +
1
4
jk
F st F st
100
the
-1
[( E x B ) + V 4 V ] , = 1, 2, 3 ,
4
1
[ E 2 + B 2 + V 42 + V 2 ] ,
T 00 =
8
i
[E V ] ,
T 04 =
4
1
=
[ V 4 E + ( V x B ) ] , = 1, 2, 3 ,
4
1
[ V 42 + B 2 - E 2 - V 2 ] ,
T 44 =
8
T0 =
T4
and
T
1
1
{ E E + B B -V V 4
2
[ E 2 + B 2 + V 42 - V 2 ]} ,
where
, = 1, 2, 3.
V )+
1
c
V4 4
=
2
c
t
V 1
+
dt c
J4
=
dt
V4
2
t
and
( V 4 )+
1
c
V
= - a0
t
1
c
V
+
dt
Therefore,
V4-
1
c
V4 4
= 2
2
t
c
J4
- a0
t
V )+
4
V4
=- (
J4 )
t
c
and
x( xV ) +
V+
101
1
c t
V4=
4
c
J4 ;
V .
therefore
2
But
E=4
- a0
V4
V-
4
c
a0
c
J4+
+ a0 (
) .
70, so that
2
and x B -
V4-
V4 4
= 2
2
t
c
J4
- a0
t
- a0
V4
t
1 E 4
V
72 , so that
J - a0
c t c
2
V-
1
c
4
c
4
E
V
J +2
- a0
.
c
t
J 4 + a0
Now the wave equations for the usual vector and scalar potentials
are
2
A-
1
c
=-
4
J
c
and
2
=-4
We may differentiate these with respect to the mass density and substitute
them into our wave equations and get
2
V4 -
1
c
V4=
4
c
J4
+ a02
t
V4
2
and
2
V-
1
c
4
c
J 4 + a0
E
V
- a0
t
where
V 4 V 4 + a0
and V = V - a0
102
SE
Now the electrical Poynting vector represents the outward flow of the
electromagnetic field energy through a surface. If we take the total vector,
whose components are T0 , to be the total flow of energy, then the vector
with components
c
V 4 V 81must be the outward flow of energy due to changes of the
4
mass density within the surface. Let us designate the mass energy vector as
Sm
c
(V 4V ) ,
4
c
c
[ ( E x B ) +V 4V ] = - ( ) T 0
4
i
1
1
{ E E + B B -V V 4
2
[ - 2 V 2 ]}
1
1
{E E +B B 4
2
[ E 2 + B 2 ]}
In terms of the Maxwell stress tensor, the Dynamic stress tensor may be
written as
T
= T M - {V V -
1
2
103
[ V 2 - V 42 ]} .
1
S
c
i
S
c
{T D }
i
(E V )
4
[ V 4 E + ( V x B )]
{T} =
i
(E V )
4
i
V 4 E + ( V x B )] .
4
1
[ V 42 + B 2 - E 2 - V 2 ]
8
1
[ V 42 + B 2 - E 2 - V 2 ]
8
1
[ B 2 + V 42 ] + T 4
4
1
1
3
=
[ B 2 + V 42 ] +
[ E 2 + B 2 - V 2 - ( E 2 + B 2 + V 42 - V 2 )]
4
4
2
1 1 2 1 2 1 2
=
[ B - V - V4]
4
2
2
2
1
=
[ B 2 + V 2 - E 2 - V 42 ] .
8
=
3.6
1
T jk
=
k
4
x
[ F j F k +
1
4
jk
F st F st ] .
F j
F j
+
F k .
k
x
x
j
x
x
x
1
F j
=
k F k
2
x
1 ( F k F k )
F k
=.
j F k
i
4
x
x
Substituting this back into the expression for the divergence, the last term
will be canceled because l, k, s, and t are dummy indices. Then the
divergence becomes
1
T jk
F k
=
.
F j
k
k
4
x
x
F k
.
(3.16)
Div 5 {T} .
1
F k
.
F jk
4
x
c
x
-1
4
-1
J k = J k F kj .
F kj
4
c
c
(3.17)
and
K4= V 4 -
J V
,
c
With the interpretation that the four force density components with
subscript 1 through 4 are the force density vectors which appear in the
First Law as F , then the force density vector provides the connection
between the First Law and the geometry of the sigma manifold discussed in
section 2.9. Thus, the existence of the vector field i is also demanded by
the Dynamic Theory and need not exist as a separate assumption.
3.7
K0=
Then
i
i
[ J E + J 4V 4 ] =
c
(ict) c
i
S
+
4
x
(E V )
x
or
1
1
1 S
1
[ J E + J 4V 4 ] =
+
c
c t c x 4
(E V )
x
S a0 c ( E V )
.
4
x
= - J E - J 4V 4 +
a0 c ( E V )
4
= - J E - J 4 V 4 - div S m +
a0 c ( E V )
.
4
Momentum Conservation
T
T k
T 0
T 4
=
+
+
,
k
0
4
x
x
x
x
K=
, = 1, 2, 3 .
But T 110 is the three-dimensional divergence of the Dynamic stress tensor {TD},
x
therefore,
1
K=-
S
a
+ div { T D } + 0
t
4
[ V 4 E + ( V x B )] .
1
c
S a0
t 4
[ V 4 E + ( V x B )]} dv = div { T D } dv .
v
The integral of K gives the total force (i.e., the time derivative of the
mechanical momentum p less the vector &v / 1 - 2 113. Now define the vector
g
S
c
a0
{
4
[V 0 E + (V x B )+
&v
1-
} dt .
Then define
gd
G ,
so that
d
( p + G ) = div { T D } dv .
dt
v
g=
S
c
a0
4
V E +(V xB ) +
4 &v
1-
dt
1
1
2
2
2
2
{ E E + B B -V V E + B + V 4 - V ]}
4
2
1
3 2
= [ E 2 + B2 - V 2 ] V4 .
8
8
where
t
1
1
{ E E + B B +V V - (
)
4
3
[ E 2 + B2 - V 2 ]
and
-(
1
)
24
[ E 2 + B 2 + 3V 42 - V 2 ] .
Now
tr { t }= (
1
) [ E 2 + B 2 - V 2 - ( E 2 + B 2 - V 2 )] 0
4
and
tr {
}= - (
1
) [ E 2 + B 2 + 3 V 42 - V 2 ] .
8
108
= -(
1
)
24
[ E 2 + B 2 + 3V 42 - V 2 ] .
Then
t= -(
1
) [ E 2 + B 2 + 3V 42 - V 2 ]
8
and
t 0 0
= 0
t 0
0 0
1
) [ E 2 + B 2 + 3V 42 - V 2 ] .
24
109
Chapter 4.
The preceding development provides a tremendous wealth of mathematical abstractions. However, there seems within it no readily apparent
method of interpreting the new fields. If there appears to be no physical
entity which may be associated with the new field quantities, then the
development will have gone for naught. On the other hand, with the notion
of nuclear fields in mind it seems that if the new field quantities are
included in a quantized picture, then perhaps the relation to nuclear fields
may be made.
In the following the requirement for quantization is provided by
appropriate restrictions upon a system whose description is taken from the
Dynamic Theory. However, the use of the five-dimensional Dirac equation
has not yet been shown to result from the Dynamic Theory. Schrodinger's
quantum mechanics may be obtained using London's work, but I am not
aware of a procedure to arrive logically at Dirac's equation even though I
feel that the method exists. As it now stands, the use of the generalized
Dirac equation must be accepted as an independent fundamental assumption.
4.1 Quantization.
The system under consideration now is a five-dimensional system
with arc element
( dq0 )2 = f(d
2
) .
j
dx = 2 in , j = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ,
where
nf
j
1/2
j
and x0 ct , x1 q1 , x 2 q 2 , x 3 , x 4
a0
110
( dq0 )2 = 0 .
p j = g pk = g
jk
gk u
so that
j
jk
p j p =( g j u j )( g
g k u )=
k
u g jk u
(4.1)
= ( g ik u j u k )
2
since
c2 =
gjkujuk.
Equation (4.1) is the five-dimensional
"momentum-energy" equation.
We may now follow London's procedure to obtain our wave function
for the five-dimensional system. However, a quicker way to investigate the
effect of the Dynamic Theory upon quantum mechanics would seem to be
that of adopting Dirac's equation in a five-dimensional form and following a
development analogous to standard four-dimensional relativistic quantum
mechanics. With this in mind, then we shall adopt the form
h = i ~1
+ ~2
+ ~3
+ ~4
(4.2)
111
) .
(4.3)
and
~~ + ~ ~ = 0 ,
(4.4)
, ~i =
i = 1, 2, 3, , ~ 4 =
(4.5)
where
=
0 -I
i = 1, 2, 3 , and A =
and
I=
1 0
0 1
0 1
1 0
0 -i
i
, and
0 -1
(x) = (i ~
(x) ,
~~
( = 1, 2, 3, 4) ,
j
j
+ 1)
(x) = 0 .
~
112
(4.6)
, i } = 2 g ji .
(x ) = S
(x) transforms
(x) ,
-1
S = L kj
(4.7)
By using an infinitesimal Lorentz transformation given by
j
where
j
k
(4.8)
j
k
Lk = g k + d
d ) ,
0
1
4
jk
Equations (4.7), (4.8), and (4.9) suffice to guarantee the Lorentz covariance
of the five-dimensional Dirac equation.
Following standard quantum mechanical procedure we shall adopt
the probability current density to be
k
j (x) =
(x)
(x)
jk
113
(4.9)
4.5 Spin.
In the three-dimensional space the angular momentum is given by
the vector L as the cross product of the coordinates and momenta. We
shall then define the angular four-momentum to be the four-dimensional
cross product
L
ijk
j
x p
ijk
2
p -i
1
p +i
1
p -i
4
p +i
2
p -i
Now suppose there exists a four-spin vector S such that the sum of the
angular four-momentum and the four-spin vector commutes with the
specific Hamiltonian; then if we define a new three-spin vector u given by
the components ui = i 4 1, u2=i 4 2/2, and u3=i 4 3/2, and take the usual
spin vector s, given by s1=i 2 3/2, s2=i 1 3/2, and s3=i 1 2/2, the components
of the four-spin vector may be shown to be
S 1 = s1 - u 2 - u 3 ,
S 2 = s 2 + u1 - u 3 ,
S 3 = s3 + u1 + u 2 ,
and
S 4 = s1 - s 2 + s 3 .
3
36. It
4
may also be shown that the set of observables P, h, and S where P is the four-momentum
and S is the four-spin, form a complete set of commuting observables.
114
where
+ 1]
(4.10)
=0 ,
1
= {
2
1
[
2
}+
ik
g +
jk
Separating
)(i
) - 1 + (-
-i
-i
jk
= 0.
(4.11)
1
(
2
F jk =
1
)+ (
2
)(i
)-1-
1
iF jk
2
jk
=0 .
Now since
0
- x1
jk
= - x2
0 - 2i s1
- n1
2i s 2
2i s 3
- n2
0 n3
- n3
where
j
0 - 2i s 3 n 2 ,
2i s1
- x3 - 2i s 2
- x4
4 n j = 1, 2, 3, and
115
(3.28)
E1
E2
E3 V 0
- E1
B3
B2 V 1
F jk = - E 2
B3
E 3 - B2
-V 0
0 - B1 V 2
0 V3
B1
-V 1 -V 2 -V 3
1 V
E
+ a0
= 0,
c t
V+
1 E 4 J
V
=
- a0
,
c t
c
B = 0,
x E+
4
V4
=J4 ,
t
c
x V + a0
1 B
= 0,
c t
E=4
= 0,
- a0
V4
(4.13)
)(i
) - 1 + 2 B s - i E x - i V 4 x4 - i n V ]
= 0.
and thus becomes the Dirac equation with fields E, B, V4, and V.
Suppose we consider a system without an electric charge so that p =
J = 0, then by Eqn. (4.13) we still have
E = - a0
V4
and
xB-
1 E
V
= - a0
c t
satisfies
are a.
1
1
3
, u = + _ , S 2j = , = 1, 2, 3 and j = 1, 2, 3, 4 .
2
2
4
116
If, in analogy with the eigenvalues for the total angular momentum, we
write
3
2
S j = = S j ( S j + 1) ,
4
1
1
1 3
,u = + _ , S j = ,.
2
2
2 2
and
S 4 = s1 - s 2 + s 3 .
117
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
( , , ;- ,
( , , ; ,( ,- ,- ;
(- , - , ;
,, )
, ,- )
,- ,- )
for S1 = S2 = S3 =
for S1 = S2 = S3 =
for S1 = S2 = S3 =
for S1 = S2 = S3 =
(- , , - ; - , - , - )
(- , , - ; , , )
( ,- ,- ;- - , )
(- , - , ; - , , )
for S4 = S3 - ; S1 = S2 =
for S4 = S1 - ; S2 = S3 =
for S2 = S3 = - ; S1 = S4 =
for S1 = S3 = - ; S2 = S4 = .
Then for each of the eight combinations above we find (t1, t2, t3) given by
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
t= (0,0,0)
t=(0,0,0)
t= (0,1,1)
t= (1,1,0)
b= (- , , - )
d =( , , - )
118
We may write
t1
t2
t3
t4
(s;u) = (a;b)
(s;u) = (c;d)
(s;u) = (-d;c)
(s;u) = (b;-a)
-t1
-t2
-t3
-t4
(s;u) = (a;-b)
(s;u) = (c;-d)
(s;u) = (-d;c)
(s;u) = (b;a)
j
dx = 2 iN, j = 0, 1,
, n,
(4.14)
k
dx = 2 iN (no sum on k).
(4.15)
Equation (4.15) must be true for all k, and because we are free to set the
path, then the k must reflect the quantization represented by the integer
N. Therefore,
j
=Nj
~
j
(no sum) ,
(4.16)
where the may not be quantized. Thus, Eqn. (4.16) represents the first
response of the quantum condition to the question concerning what j are
allowed for fundamental particles; the gauge potentials must be quantized.
The definition of the gauge potentials is
j
lnf
1
2
(4.17)
xj
where f was the gauge function. The field tensor was defined by
F jk =
j,k
k, j
(4.18)
120
=Nj
Eqn.s. (3.15). Even so, Eqn.s. (3.15), (4.17) and (4.18) represent three stages of
differentiation, starting with the gauge function, f. In looking for the restrictions Eqn.s.
(3.15) place upon the quantized potentials, we may employ a technique of mathematics in
the solution of differential equations. We try to find a solution in the form of the product of
functions of the separate variables. However, our trial solution must produce potentials of
the form in Eqn. (4.16). Therefore, suppose we try to find a solution of the form
1
(4.19)
lnf 2 = FG
where
F= ft fr f f f
( N j - G) F
(no sum) .
j
F
x
The definition of the gauge potential, using the trial solution of Eqn. (4.19),
now produces
j
1
2
lnf
(FG)
x
=G
+F
G
x
=G
F
x
+ ( N j - G)
=Nj
F
x
(no sum).
If we define
~
j
=Nj
~
j
(no sum).
(4.20)
121
lnf
1
1
2=
N1 f t f r f f f = N1 F1 ,
r
1
lnf
1
2 = N2 f f f
=
2
t
r
r
r
1
3=
rsin
lnf
lnf
= a0
1
2
N3
rsin
f f =
ft fr f f
N2
F2 ,
r
f =
N3
rsin
F3 ,
1
2=
a0 N 4 f t f r f f f = a0 N 4 F 4 ,
1
lnf 2
N0
N0
=
ft fr f f f =
F0 ,
0=
(ilc)
ic
ic
(4.21)
,
,
,
,
and
F4=
dF
.
d
Substituting the potentials given by Eqn. (4.21) into the definition of the
field tensor and using the required covariant differentiation, we obtain the
field components
122
( N1 - N0 )
F 01 ,
c
( N2 - N0 )
E =
F 02 ,
cr
( N3 - N0 )
E =
F 03 ,
crsin
a0 ( N 4 - N 0 ) F 04
,
V4=
c
( N 2 - N 3 ) F 23
- N 3 cot F 3
Br =
rsin
r
Er =
B =
( N3 - N1 )
N3 F3
F 13 rsin
r
( N1 - N 2 )
N2 F2
F 12 r
r
V r = ( N 1 - N 4 ) a0 F 14 ,
B =
(4.22)
,
,
,
V = ( N 2 - N 4 ) a0 F 24 ,
and
V = ( N 3 - N 4 ) a0 F 34
B=0 .
1
Br r 2
+
r
rsin
(sin B )
1
rsin
B =0
( N 3 - N 2 ) N 3 r cot ( f 3 + r f 31 ) + F 23 ( N 2 - N 1 ) N 2 + ( N 1 - N 3 ) N 3 = 0
( N 2 - N 3 ) N 3 cot r f t f r f F f + r 2 f t f r f f
If f t f f
f = ft fr f
f ( N 2 - N1 ) N 2 +( N1 - N 3 ) N 3 .
( N 2 - N 3 ) N 3 cot
rf r + r 2 f r f = f r f
( N 2 - N1 ) N 2 +( N1 - N 3 ) N 3
However, we may divide by frf cot and separate the equation into
[ rf r + r 2 f r ]
f
=
cot f
k fr
(4.23)
where
K=
( N 2 - N1 ) N 2 +( N1 - N 3 ) N 3
.
( N2 - N3 )N3
k=
(4.24)
where the constant n depends upon the set of quantum numbers, N1, N2,
and N3, for the particle.
Thus, n depends on the particle under
consideration.
The radial equation in Eqn. (4.24) may be integrated immediately
with the result
f R=
k e
r
(4.25)
124
( N2 - N3 )N3 f
f =0
( N3 - N1 ) N3 f
f =0
( N1 - N2 )N2 f
f =0
( N2 - N3 )N3 f t f =0
[3.15e]
( N3 - N1 )N3 f t f =0
( N1 - N 2 ) N 2 f t f = 0
[3.15f]
(satisfied identically).
When the potentials are substituted into the equations with source
terms, Eqn.s [3.15c-e] and [3.15h], the resulting equations are very
complex. To reduce the complexity of the equations, the assumption was
made that all source terms were zero; that is,
= 0; J = 0 ; J 4 = 0 .
This assumption reduced the complexity somewhat but still left a system of
equations that, thus far, is unsolved. However, an interesting aspect of
this assumption is the possible existence of a radial electric field without
the presence of any electric charge within, or upon, the particle. This
possibility rests upon the pressure of the term V 4 / 86 in the Eqn. [3.15d].
Much was learned about the interaction of charged particles by
considering only the radial dependence of the electric field while
temporarily neglecting the magnetic field or any potential variation of the
electric field with azimuthal angles.
This latter is the spherically
symmetric field assumption. Having not yet obtained a complete solution
to the system of equations that is the result of substituting the quantized
125
fields into the eight field equations, it proved beneficial to make the
assumption of spherically symmetric fields in which the only variation of
the fields is the radial dependence specified by the neo-coulombic radial
function.
Then, if we want to explore the radial dependence of static forces
between the fundamental particles allowed by the quantum condition, we
must consider the force law,
1
F jk J k ,
c
K j=
K= E+
(4.26)
Thus, the radial dependence of the electric field, E, and the V field are all
that need to be considered at the moment. Substituting the radial
function, Eqn. (4.25), into the field expressions, Eqn. (4.22), we find
Er =
Zk
r
1-
(4.27)
and
Vr=
Wg
r
1-
q1 Zk
r
1-
g 2 Wg
r2
1-
(4.28)
where
q1 =
d(Vol) , g 2 =
J4
d(Vol) .
c
If we consider the electric force in Eqn. (4.28) and restrict our attention to r
such that r >> n, then the electric force becomes the columbic force
126
FE=
q1 Zk
r
Further, the other force term, based upon the V field, may be seen to also
have the same long-range form,
FV =
g 2 Wg
r
(4.29)
where depends upon the applicable work terms which here will be taken
as the three spatial dimensions, so that = 1, 2, 3. The first law is given
by
d E = dU - F dx
128
(4.30)
dG = dU - dS - Sd - F dx - x dF .
dG = - Sd - x dF .
so that for
= constant
G
q
= - x [ E + ( vx B ) ] - x q
[ E + ( vx B ) ]
q
but
E + ( vx B )
= - x [ E + ( vx B ) ] .
129
=- x E
(4.33)
since v = 0.
If G is the self-energy of a charged particle, then by Eqn. (4.32)
G
= - r Er ,
q
dG = - r E r dq
q0
G0
R
= - 4 r 3 E r dr ,
0
- a0
( V4)
is
(4.34)
( r2 Er )
=4
r
r r2
d( r 2 E r ) .
(4.35)
Substituting Eqn. (4.35) into Eqn. (4.33) the self-energy is then found to be
G=-
(r E r )d( r 2 E r ) + G 0 .
(4.36)
Er =
e
4
1-
G=- e
0
e
1e
4 r
r
1-
+ G0 ,
- e2
2
2(4 )
3
4 R
1
1
- e2 R 4
2
R
+ G0 .
(4.37)
To find the specific value of the self-energy, we must find the R that
minimizes G. Therefore, set
G
=0 .
R
3
5
R-
2
5
=0 .
(4.38)
- e2
(4 )2
(0.063379) + G 0 ,
or
G=
(4.39)
when
(4.40)
131
is the part of the proton rest energy independent of its charge. The charge
energy of the proton would then be
Gcp = -7.26235 keV ,
which is negligibly small compared to the non-charge energy Gop.
What is the nature of the energy Gop? It is not energy caused by the
presence of electric charge on the protons. Also the self-energy, G, was
found for a resting particle. If we associate the resting self-energy, G, with
the rest mass as
Gp = mopc2 = Gcp + Gop ,
and Gcp is the portion of the proton's rest energy that is due to its charge,
then Gop must be that portion of the rest energy that is due to the proton
mass above. In this case, the proton mass energy, Gop, is given by Eqn.
(4.40).
Suppose we consider an electron and assume that e - ~ 10-3 fermi.
Then
Ge- = 0.511 MeV = -7.26235 MeV + G0e-,
or the mass energy of the electron would then be
Goe- = 7.773 MeV ,
whereas its charge energy is
Gce- = -7.26235 MeV
4.11 Nuclear Phenomena.
The electrostatic force, appearing in Eqn. (4.27), differs significantly
from the columbic force only when r becomes small enough to be of the
order of magnitude of the n. The first experimental evidence that the
scattering of charged particles by other charged particles was not always
columbic was the Rutherford scattering data. The appearance of the
exponential multiplier in the neo-coulombic force of Eqn. (4.27) prompts us
to ask whether or not the difference between this force and the columbic
force suffices to explain nuclear phenomena without resorting to the
postulation of a new short-range force such as the nuclear force.
An obvious starting point to explore the possibility that the neocoulombic force might apply to nuclear phenomena would probably be the
132
Mk
L
(n + 1)
1 + (n=1)
(- u )n
n!
u=
Mk
L
Mk
2 L2
with
2
= 1+
2 Mk
L
which has the identical form of our equation. Thus, the same method of
perturbations may be used to obtain a solution as was used for the
relativistic case. The result of this calculation is the solution,
133
1 Mk
u = = 2 1 + e cos(
r L
(4.41)
),
where
0
3 Mk 2
2 L2
d =
q1 q 2
2 mv02
2 sin d
sin
(4.42)
where
1+ 6
3
1+
2
E
k
sin
4 E
k
1 + 2(
- )
tan
2
4
sin
sin ( - )
-k
r
1-
( u x ) ,
(4.43)
where the electron field involving the electron lambda has been accounted
for. The electron force owing to the electron charge being in the proton
field is given by
F e = qe E p
=
k
r
1-
p
r
( u x ) .
(4.44)
third law requiring that the force on the proton be equal in magnitude and
opposite indirection to the force on the electron. The question arises
whether or not a violation of Newton's third law has ever been seen as the
result of an interaction between an electron and a proton? The answer,
based on a neutron disintegration from which a proton and electron
emerge, is definitely yes; Newton's third law was seen to be violated. To
reinstate Newton's third law in neutron disintegration and all other beta
decay, Pauli postulated the existence of the neutrino.
Fermi later
developed his theory of weak interactions,11 from which appeared the
necessity to talk of a fourth force in nature.
Can it be that the neo-coulombic force, which requires distinct
for
distinct fundamental particles, accounts for the action of the weak forces
also? The possibility that it might opens the theoretical flood gates and a
virtual tidal wave of questions surges forth. Does this mean the neutrino
does not exist? What about the experimental evidence submitted in
support of the capture of a free neutrino?12 Could this mean that the
neutron might be bound states of an electron and proton? This question
should be followed by, what about conservation of angular momentum in
neutron decay (i.e., spin), conservation of linear momentum, and
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
Figure 7. Neo-coulombic forces between unlike particles at short range.
The preceding questions do not begin to scratch the surface of the
theoretical questions that need to be answered as the result of considering
the possibility that the force law of Eqn. (4.27) with only a gravitational
force plus the neo-coulombic force might explain the phenomena now
thought to require four distinct forces in their explanation. However, the
appearance of a non-singular force with the apparent range of the neocoulombic form cannot be thrown out offhand. Therefore, it seems that the
only reasonable choice is to systematically and thoroughly explore the possibilities.
If we again consider the plots of the proton and electron forces in
Fig. 7. we see that, at atomic separations and greater distances, the forces
obey Newton's third law and the difference between the neo-coulombic and
columbic forces is so small that it could not be detected in atomic or
macroscopic phenomena. But as the separation becomes smaller, the
picture begins to change. When the r approaches p, the electron is no
longer attracted to the proton as strongly as the proton is attracted to the
electron. If the separation is exactly p, then the electron is indifferent to
the proton's presence. The proton, on the other hand, is still very much
attracted to the electron. If for the moment, we ignore the interpretation of
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that would say it cannot be, then we
could easily imagine a circular proton orbit around a stationary electron,
during which the proton stays at a radius of p from the electron. The
136
(4.45)
Because the force is always directed along the line separating the two
particles, we may write the radial equation of motion for the proton as
mp
vp
rp
-k
r
1-
e
r
(4.46)
where the assumed circular motion has been taken into account and vp is
the tangential proton velocity. The electron equation of motion is given by
me
k
p
ve
= 2 1e
r
re
r
(4.47)
vp 2
rp
+ me
p
ve 2 k
= 2 1e
r
re r
137
- 1-
(4.48)
or
2
k
p
MV
= 2 1e
R
r
r
- 1-
K
r
1-
(4.49)
dr e .
F
qj
G
F G
pj
pj qj
where F and G are any two functions of the canonically conjugate variables
qj and pj. The special relations that occur when F and G are qj and pj,
respectively, are especially important in quantum mechanics; these are,
classically:
138
{qj, qk} = 0
{pj, pk} = 0
{qj, pk} = 0 ,
(4.50)
and
(4.51)
jl
p j = g pl = m x j
j
j 2
x
+
x
l
sl
x
j
p
x
l
l
p
p
j s
x
jl +
sl
lk
k
n
p
nl
(4.52)
or
k
j
x ,p =
jk
j
s
x .
sk
pj ,
for the momentum. This, in general case, becomes the covariant operator
_
i
,j
pj .
(4.53)
_
jl
g
i
,l
(4.54)
Now if we look at the quantum Poisson bracket, where the operators are
operating on a scalar , then
[ x j , pk ]
= xj
_ kl
_ kl j
g
g (x
l
i
i
x
= xj
j
j s
x
+
x
l
s
l
x
_
_ kl
- g kl
g
l
i
i
x
_ jl j
g x
l
i
x
= i g kl
jl
j s
x
sl
), l
(4.55)
This may be written in terms of the classical Poisson bracket, Eqn. (4.52),
as
k
j
x ,p
= i _ g kl x j , p l
If the space is Euclidean, then the gkl become the Kronecker delta
and the Christoffel symbols vanish and the quantum Poisson bracket of
Eqn. (4.55) becomes
j
x , pk
= i_
jk
because pk = gkl pl = klpl = pk. However, from Eqns. (4.53) and (4.54), we
see that the metric does play a role in the quantum operators. This should
also be seen in the use of the operators in the Schrodinger Hamiltonian
operator, because
j
pj p =
_ 1
i g
=
_ 1
i g
x
g pj
_
jl
g
i
g g jl
(4.56)
=1 ,
(4.57)
and
+
=0 ,
where
H =-
p+ m ,
j 2
j
jk
j k
p ) = p i p = m 2 g jk x j x k = g p p
= - 2 g 12 ,
= - 2 g 13 ,
= - 2 g 23 .
and
From Eqn. (3.77), for a Euclidian metric where gjk = jk, these restrictions
reduce to the usual restrictions. Any metric properties will affect these
restrictions and will therefore feed into the solutions.
Now, of what benefit it this discussion of geometrical effect upon
quantum mechanics in considering the neo-coulombic force? Recall that
the neo-coulombic force came from a gauge function in a Weyl space. A
gauge function has a geometrical effect that could be thought of as
effectively changing the unit of action in quantum mechanics. To see the
basis for this statement, let us recall the quantum Poisson bracket
operations on a scalar,
141
(3.77)
k
j
x ,p
= i _ g kl
j s
x
sl
jl
(3.74)
jk
= _ g kl
jl
j s
x
sl
(3.78)
=i _
jk
which has the same form now used but the effective unit of action _ 158
depends on the geometry as seen by Eqn. (3.78).
We may look at the effective unit of action in yet another way.
Recall, from the principle of maximum entropy, that the generalized
entropy is the action. Thus, quantization of the action is a quantization of
the generalized entropy. But, because the entropy space is tied to the
sigma space, we have
dq
0 2
2
) .
= f(d
The gauge function is a function of the space point; therefore, the gauge
function varies continuously from point to point in the space. Thus, if the
generalized entropy is quantized, so must be . We may write
0
q = n_ = = n_ ,
where the difference between _ 161 and _ 162 contains the geometrical difference
between q0 and . But how can we determine the relationship between _ 163
and _ 164?
From the principle of maximum entropy, the potential energy
function was defined as the negative integral of the force through a
distance just as it is in classical mechanics, because
F j=-
dV
dx
but the potential energy plays the role of the gauge function. The
equations of motion for the asymmetrical forces between unlike forces
showed that an analytic form for the potential energy may be unobtainable
owing to the transcendental nature of the forces and because the forces
depend upon the separation between the particles, not their positions.
Thus, there appears no way, at the moment to obtain an analytical
expression for _ 166, and we must resort to a numerical solution for the unlike particle
case.
142
(3.79)
After the neutron decays, the angular momentum is the sum of the
two particles' intrinsic spin angular momenta, which is given by _ 322
because both particles are free and, therefore, each has an intrinsic spin angular momentum
1
2
(3.80)
where
2
2
_e
_
+_
_p
2
2
_
n
_e
_
_p
_
= - 1.91315
(3
for the electron and proton into Eqn. (3.81) produces a more accurate solution because this
contains the anomalous magnetic moments. Then we would have
+ _ 2.002319
_e
_
+ _ 2.79275
_p
h
_e
_
_e
_
= - 1.91315
(3.82)
The only simultaneous solution of Eqns. (3.80) and (3.82), for which
_ e 331 and _ p 332 are both positive, are
_ e = 8.0517 x 10 -4 _ ,
p
_ = 0.66586 _ .
The values of the effective units of action for the proton and electron
given in Eqn. (3.83) show that angular momentum is conserved during the
decay of a neutron when the neutron is considered to be a proton in orbit
around an electron under the neo-coulombic force.
The third major argument against a neutron being a state of electron
and a proton orbits stems from the experimental evidence on the violation
of Newton's Third Law during decay. That is, the energy of the electron
emerging after decay is inconsistent with the equal and opposite columbic
forces between an electron and a proton. Here, we find that the neocoulombic forces are unequal in magnitude and opposite in direction; thus
the energy of an electron emerging as the result of crossing from such an
orbit cannot be consistent with Newton's third law. There now exists a
fourth argument against this picture of a neutron: the possible existence
of the neutrino. The above picture of the neutron produces no need to
postulate the existence of neutrinos. What then can be said about the
experimental evidence that has been put forward in support of the capture
of free neutrinos?12 A conclusive answer will need to await further
investigation.
4.13 Nuclear Masses
The difficulty produced by the asymmetry of forces that arises in the
interaction of an electron with a proton may be avoided if two protons are
considered to be in orbit about the single electron. If we think of a
snapshot of such a case we would find that the situation depicted in Fig. 9
allows us to visualize the forces.
Figure 9. Two protons in orbit about a single electron.
The force on the electron would be zero because it has a proton on
each side diametrically opposed to one another. The force on each proton
will be made up of two parts; one, the force that is due to the presence of
the electron, and the other, owing to the other proton. The symmetry
144
(3.83)
-|k |
r
1-
|k |
1 - e e(2r)
(2r )2
(3.83)
2r
v = rr + r
then we have
= 1-
2
( r2 + r2
v
= 1=
2
2
c
c
(3.84)
1
p
1e
4
2r
2r
- 1-
(3.8
1
p
1e
4
2r
2r
- 1-
r .
and
d mp r
dt
=0 .
The second of these equations says that the angular momentum is given
by
145
(3.86)
m r
(3.87)
= L p = n_ ,
where _ 342 indicates that whereas the unit of angular momentum will be a constant for a
given orbit, it may be different for different orbits.
The first of Eqn. (3.86) is
( mp r - M p r
d mp r
=
dt
d
) m p r dt
|k |
= 2
2
r
1
p
1e
4
2r
2r
- 1-
-|k |
r
1
p
1e
4
2r
- 1-
2r
(3.88)
1
p
1e
4
2r
2r
- 1-
(3.89)
The potential energy for one of the protons can be found by integrating the
force and is
V(r) = - . F(r) dr = - | k |
1
r
1
p
1e
4
2r
|k|
=
r
1 e
4
-e
2r
2r
- 1-
dr
(3.90)
Then the total energy of the three-body system, including rest energy,
would be
ET =
2|k |
r
1 e
4
2r
- e-
2 m p c2
+ me c 2 .
However, by substituting Eqn. (3.87) into Eqn. (3.84) and solving for , we
find
146
(3.91)
=
1+
n_
(3.92)
m p rc
ET
2
c
Because this system has one electron and two protons, it has a total
electric charge of +1 and would have a mass of approximately 2 amu. This
is the same characteristic exhibited by the deuterium nucleus. If this is
the structure of the H2 nucleus, then the mass given by Eqn. (3.93) should
correspond to the mass of the ground-state nuclear mass for n = 1. If the
1e-, 2p+ case existing where n = 1 is the ground-state H2 nucleus, then is
the excited state represented by two protons in the n = 2 state or can it be
represented by one proton in an n = 1 orbit and one in an n = 2 orbit? The
equations developed here consider only the case when both protons are in
the same orbit. Any consideration of the protons being in different orbits
introduces an asymmetry in the forces and a similar difficulty faced in the
neutron case. Therefore, for the moment we will consider only the simpler
cases, where symmetry reduces the complexity of the solution. Notice,
though, that even in the simpler symmetric case, no analytical solution
exists of Eqn. (3.89) for r(n) because the force contains a transcendental
function.
By allowing 351to be different for each n, then for the ground and first excited
states of the H2 there are four quantities to be determined: p , e , _ (1) 352, and
_ 353. Of course, in theory, we could determine both p 354 and e 355 from scattering
experiments: then we would only have two, _ (1) 356and _ (2) 357. But if we discover
exactly how the _ 358 depends upon the orbit, then a solution of Eqn. (3.89) would
represent a pure theoretical prediction of both the ground state mass, m(n = 1), and the
excited state mass, m(n = 2), for then we would be able to express _ = _ (r) 359.
If we think about the possibility of adding an additional proton to the
1e-, 3p+ case, we are faced with a question. Can the additional proton be
placed in the n = 2 orbit without considering the asymmetry thus
introduced into the system, or must we consider a single orbit with three
protons symmetrically spaced? The answer lies partly in the solution of
the appropriate Schrodinger or Dirac equation, because this would inform
us of the number of protons that are allowed in a given orbit. This,
however, would not answer the question concerning how the asymmetry
introduced by a single proton in the n = 2 orbit affects the problem. To
147
(3.93)
|k |
r
1-
(3.94)
lnf 2 =
-k
r
- e-
or
f = exp
-k
r
- e-
Then,
( dq0 )2 = g jk dx j d xk = f(d
2
) f g jk dx j dx k ,
or
g jk = f g jk .
148
(3.95)
Suppose g jk 374 =
jk 375;
jk
= _f g kl
= f_
jk
jl
+0
(3.96)
Now e < < p 378; therefore, when r = p, the gauge function, f, from Eqn. (3.95)
is less than unity because k < 0. Thus the _ 379 given by this function is always
less than or equal to .
On the
other hand, for like particles where only one
is
involved,
the _ gauge function would be given by
f = exp
k e
r
(3.97)
149
(3.98)
Equation (3.98) indicates that the excess core electron number behaves
identically with the neutron numbers in current nuclear theory, although
there are no neutrons as such in this nuclear model. Indeed, the neutron,
in this picture, is simply another state, namely Y = 1 and A =1.
This suggests a picture of the nucleus in which there are protons in
orbits about a nuclear core. The number of protons are given by the
current mass number, A. The radii of the proton shell orbits are
approximately the value of p; that is, about 1 fermi. The core may be
made up of electrons in orbit about positrons and is sized approximately
the same as e-, which is much, much less than p. This view of the
nucleus is similar to that of the atomic view, but here the nuclear core
plays the role of the atomic electrons. The force law for the shell proton orbits would then be given, from Eqn. (3.85), by
F=
|k |
r
1
p
1e
4
2r
2r
-Y 1-
(3.99)
1
p
1e
4
2r
2r
-Y 1-
(3.100)
and
1
=
1+
n_
m p rc
Ye
R(n)
A(n) | k | 1 e
R(n) 4
+
A(n) m 2p
[R(n)
2R(n)
(3.101)
+ E c (Y)
where A(n) is the number of protons with the quantum number, n; R(n) is
the radius of the proton orbit with the number n; Ec(Y) is the energy of the
nuclear core for which Y is the excess electron charge; and [R(n)] is the
relativistic evaluated for R(n). The mass of the nuclei with energies given
by Eqn. (3.101) would then be
150
M(A, Y) =
1
c
E(A, Y) .
(3.102)
E(2, 1 )* - E c
2
151
2.1
1.2
1.7
1.5
4.4
4.9
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.6
1.5
4.1
5.9
7.3
4.6
5.9
-3.8
5.3
6.5
E(2, 1 )* - E c
.
2
Now using the tabulated experimental data14 we find that the predicted
nuclear mass of the 3He should be
2.016000 - 5.49 x 10 -4
amu
2
= 3.020562 amu ,
2E1+Ec
(amu)
2.011441
2.009952
2.009979
2.067271
2.071474
2.100007
2E1+6E2+Ec E1
(amu)
8.048629
8.012742
8.013231
8.000773
8.018938
8.032752
E2
(amu)
1.002976
------
(amu)
1.006198
1.000465
1.000542
0.988917
0.991244
0.988969
when the excess electron number of the core changes, we may construct
Table I, where selected nuclei are used to establish the core and shell
energy levels for different Y. Predictions of the mass of other nuclei are
made using the energy Eqn. (3.101) and assuming that the number of
protons in a full shell corresponds to the number of electrons in the atomic
shells, i.e., 2, 8, 18, .... For each Y, some of the experimental masses are
used to establish an energy value; therefore, the predicted value appears
the same as the experimental. In each case, the energy value established
by this data point appears in the appropriate column. The RMS error in
the predicted values of all 21 nuclei was 4.3 MeV, with an arbitrary
selection of which nuclei were used to establish an energy level.
A better way of approaching the establishment of the energies would
be to take the average value of all possible ways to find a particular energy.
Table II lists the energy-level average values needed in the total energy
equation for the same 21 nuclei. By using the average values from this
152
table in Eqn. (3.101) we may construct another table, which compares the
predicted masses with the experimental masses and also tabulates the predicted binding energy per nucleon (i.e., BE/A). The RMS error in the
predicted masses in Table III was 2.9 MeV. A comparison between the
M/A and BE/A will readily display the predicted error in the binding
energy per nucleon, because M/A is the error in mass per nucleon;
therefore, the sum of M/A and the predicted BE/A is the experimental
binding energy per nucleon.
In the development of the energy, Eqn. (3.101), we assumed that an
extra proton could be added in an orbit and the interaction between that
new proton and the other protons could be ignored.
This assumption was made even after we saw that any odd proton
sets up asymmetrical forces. Thus, errors could have been expected. Still,
the RMS errors from this crude averaging procedure do not appear too
inaccurate when even the best of the semiempirical nuclear mass formulas
does not address nuclei below a Z of 16 because of the large errors that
arise.15
To avoid the errors resulting from ignoring proton-proton interaction,
we must reconsider the simplest case, a single electron and three protons
in orbit around this electron. Proton-proton interaction suggests that the
protons will arrange themselves in a plane spaced on the points of an
equilateral triangle, as in Fig. 10. For this case, the force on a single
proton would be
F3=
where R =
3r
- | k |Y
r
1-
2|k |
R
cos
1-
|k |
r
1
1 - e e3
3r
3r
-Y 1-
(3.103)
This force differs from the two-proton force of Eqn. (3.99) by the coefficient
of the separation, r, in the proton-proton portion of the force. The
relativistic circular orbit equations of motion would be
2
2
-|k |
n (n )
=
3
2
mp r
r
1
p
1e
3
3r
-Y 1-
153
(3.10
3r
400.
E 3 (n, Y) =
3|k |
R(n)
1 e
3
- Ye-
3r
3 m p c2
[R(n)]
(3.105)
+ Ec 4 .
Y
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Z
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
Expermental
Mass
2E1 + Ec
A (amu)
(amu)
2 2.012836 2.012836(2)
2 2.016000 Excited 2H
3 3.014848
(2)
4 4.025231
(2)
3 3.015484
(2)
4 4.001422
(2)
5 5.010676 1.992064(2)
(2)
6 6.016880 1.006204(4)
5 5.011046 2.004404(2)
6 6.013260
(2)
7 7.012129
(2)
5 5.035709
(2)
6 6.017709
(2)
7 7.013707 2.069947(2)
8 8.002459 2.056639(2)
7 7.026850 2.057980(2)
8 8.020624
(2)
9 9.009337
(2)
8 8.032752 2.079702(2)
9 9.024927 0.992175(7)
10 10.010689
(2)
Predicted
E2
Mass
(amu)
(amu)
2.012836
1.00773(2) 2.016000
1.001484(1) 3.020562
1.010179(2) 4.028288
(1) 2.998268
(2) 4.004472
(3) 5.010676
M
EP - EE
(MeV)/A
0
0
1.8
6.016880
(3) 5.011046
1.002214(4) 6.013260
(5) 7.015474
(3) 5.036203
(4) 6.024955
(5) 7.013707
0.988752(6) 8.002459
(5) 7.026850
0.993774(6) 8.020624
(7) 9.014398
(6) 8.032752
9.024245
(8) 10.017102
0
0
0
0.4
0.1
1.1
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
-0.1
0.6
-5.3
0.7
0
F4=
-Y | k |
1-
where R =
2
p
2 | k | cos
1 -
r
+
2r 402.
(3.106)
|k |
p
1e
2r
(2r )2
2r
4
F =
-|k |
r
2
p
1e
2
2r
2r
2 |k|
1=
2 r2
2r
1
p
1e
4
2r
e
2r
2r
-Y 1-
(3.107)
+ F 2 (Y) ,
(3.108)
- F 2 (Y) ,
3r
4|k |
R(n)
2 e
2
2r
2 2 |k| =
e
R(n)
+
p
2r
1 e
4
2r
+ Ye-
e-
4 m p c2
[R(n)]
+ E c (Y)
(3.109)
+ 2 E 2 (n, y) - E c (Y) .
Figure 11. Binding energy per mass number versus mass number.
156
CHAPTER 5 - GRAVITATION
5.1 Charge-to-Mass Ratio and Magnetic Moments
In Chapter 1 a brief overview of the Dynamic Theory was presented.
The fundamental principles of the Dynamic Theory were presented in
Chapter 2. From these fundamental laws the constancy of the speed of
light was derived, the required geometry was obtained, classical and
special relativistic equations of motion were derived, and the conditions
requiring quantum mechanics were displayed. The requirements of the
fundamental laws were carried further in Chapter 3 by looking at the
gauge fields of the resulting five-dimensional geometry when mass is
considered as an independent variable. When quantization conditions are
considered in five-dimensions we found experimental features of particle
physics required by these new laws. For example, we saw that octets are
required fundamental states reminiscent of Gell-Man's eight-fold way; the
allowed fields for fundamental particles were shown to be quantitized in
electric charge; and the radial field dependence to display a short-range
non-singular behavior which allowed it to predict nuclear masses from it's
deviation from the Coulombic radial dependence and nuclear decay (beta
decay) from the asymmetry of while particle forces.
Thus, in chapters 2, 3, and 4 we have shown how the Dynamic
Theory reproduces, by using the appropriate restrictive assumptions, the
fundamentals of all the current branches of physics except gravitation. In
Chapter 4 the radial field dependence was derived and the long-range
dependence required that the new field components be interpreted as the
gravitational field and the gravitational potential. In this chapter we will
explore a few aspects of this interpretation. In particular, we will look at
some of the predictions of the Dynamic Theory in comparison with
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Before we plunge into the derivation of a prediction to compare with
the General Theory of Relativity let us first consider a question which
arises from the necessity of keeping the units straight among the field
quantities E, B, V, and V4 when they are all to be considered as
components of the five-dimensional gauge field. By considering the units
of these field components it is soon found that a charge-to-mass ratio is
needed in order that the units of the gravitational field components may be
compared, or put in the same equation, with the electric and magnetic
components. Let us first see if we can determine this ratio.
In the Chapter 4 the derivation of the fields allowed for fundamental
particles was presented.
These field expressions give rise to the
specification of a charge-to-mass ratio which allows conversion of classical
gravitation field units to electromagnetic field units.
The gravitational field component in the system of field equations
with the electric and magnetic components brings up the requirement for a
157
coul
kg
ln F 2 = f r f f f f t .
ln f 2 = f f t
(5.1)
ln f 2 = (a + bt) (s + w )
158
(5.2)
(ln f 2 )
N0
er
=
b (s + w )
0=
(ict)
ic
r
1
1=
(ln f 2 )
= - N 1 (a + bt) (s + w ) 1 dr
r
2
er
2
r
(5.3)
=0
and
1
4 = a0
(ln f 2 )
= a0 w(a + bt)
er
r
( N1 - N0 )
b(s + w ) 1 c
r
er
2
r
E = E =0 ,
Br = B = B = 0 ,
(4.4)
-
V r = ( N 1 - N 4 ) a0 (a + bt) w 1 -
er
2
r
V =V = 0 ,
and
-
V4=
a0 ( N 4 - N 0 )
er
(bw)
c
r
In Eqns. (5.4) we may see the effect of the time and mass density
dependence of the fields. First, notice that the electric field, Er, vanishes as
the quantity b vanishes. From the expression for the radial component of
the gravitational field, Vr. we see that b is the time dependence of the
gravitational field. Thus, in order for an electric field to exist there must be
a time dependence of the gravitational field. Similarly, one may see that
the electric field must depend upon the mass density in order for there to
be a gravitational field. For a gravitational potential, V4, to exist not only
must the gravitational field depend upon time but also the electric field
must depend upon the mass density. This is a rather extraordinary
revelation!
159
is satisfied. Next
1 B
+
c t
x E=0
implies
x E=0
E
=
t
4
c
J - a0
V4
- a0
cr
2-
(5.5)
J + a0
requires
J4
(5.6)
=0 .
Then
x V + a0
implies
160
=0
xV =0
N4= N0 ,
V4
4
=t
c
J4 .
a0 cw
( N 1 - N 0 )(a + bt)
4 r4
2-
(5.8)
Note that the expression for J4 satisfies Equation (5.6). We also find that
the radial dependence of J4 is identical to the radial dependence of .
Thus, we may rewrite Eqn (5.8) as
J4=
- a0 c 2 (a + bt)w
b(s + w )
then
a + bt
161
a .
(5.9)
1E r = aGz(s + w )
1V r = Z a0 w(a + bt)
1Z a0 wa
r
r
J4=
r
r
(5.10)
- Z Ga(s + w )
=
2-
4 cr 4
- a0 c 2 aw
b(s + w )
where Z = N1 - N0.
We should note in Eqns. (5.10) that the gravitational field depends
upon the universal constant, ao, being non-zero. This implies a linkage
between the maximum mass conversion rate and the gravitational field in
somewhat a similar way as the electric field depends upon the speed of
light. Further, it should be noted that if the electric field does not depend
upon the mass then there could be no gravitational field.
Now the total charge is given by
q=
ds .
vol
Therefore, using Eqn. (5.5) and the spherical element of volume dv = r2sin
drd d , we have
q=
vol
- Z aG
4 c
- Z aG
4 c
(s +
) 2-
er 2
( r sin drd d ) .
r r4
r= R
(s + w ) 2 r =0
er
sin drd d
2
r
where R is the radius of physical extent of the particle. If the mass density
in the particle is a constant, 0, then the charge is given by
162
q=
r= R
-Z a G
c
(s + w )
er
dr
r r2
2-
r =0
Z aG
=(s + w
c
)1
(5.11)
eR.
- Z a0 wa
2-
er
ds
r
vol
(5.12)
Z a0 wa
1e r.
c
r
s+w
1-
1-
ZaG
c
s+w
r
r
or
Fe
1-
2
2
2
Z Ga G
2
s
2
c
r
r
1-
since s >> 0. If we compare this with the classical expression for r >> ,
then we must have
ZaGs
c
1-
Z e
4
or
2 2
a s 1-
Thus,
163
e c
4
(5.13)
ec
as
4
1
2
G 1-
,
e
- r
2
Z a0 wa
1-
e r (Z a0 wa) 1 -
(Z a0 wa )2
1-
er
r r2
-2
e r
.
2
r
By comparing this with the classical expression for the gravitational force
we find we must have
(Z a0 wa )2 1 -
e r=
GM2
or
aw =
m
Z a0
1-
(4.14)
e
FR=
e
,
4 G m2
thus
G m2 =
e
4
FR
and
( a0 wa )2 =
164
e
4
FR
aw =
e
a0
Fr
e
a0 c 4 F R
(5.15)
Now choose
a=
(5.16)
G ,
(5.17)
b=
w=
Za o ce 1 -
1
2
(5.18)
.
e
2r
s=
4 G 1-
1
2
(5.19)
e
2r
These values point out the extremely weak time dependence of the
gravitational field and the very weak mass dependence of the electric field.
This mass dependence may be better seen if we write
aZG(s + w )
Er =
c
1-
r
r
165
ZeG
Er =
c
c
c
+
4 G a0
Ze
=
4
1+
G4
Ze
=
4
4 Gm
1+
a0 e
1-
1
4 Fr
1-
G m2
a0
1G
r
r
Now let us return to the search for the charge-to-mass ratio since we
have all the necessary information. The quantity we defined as the
gravitational "charge" is given by Eqn. (5.12). If we divide this by c we have
M Z a0 wa
=
1er ,
c
c
r
m
Z a0
m
c
=m
G
1-
G 1-
1e
r
e
or, rewriting
M
=m
c
G 1-
e r.
(4.20)
M/c
=
m
G ,
or
=
166
(5.21)
q eff
2M
or
= 8.6 x 10 22 amp - m 2
L
mr
(5.23)
L
M r3
or
Mr
(5.24)
v (r) ,
where
v (r) = v(r) +
L
2 Mr 2
(5.25)
v (r) =
(5.26)
v (r) =
-K
r
1-
er-
L
3
mr
(5.27)
v (r)
2K
1-
169
2
r
e r+
3 L2
mr
(5.28)
when terms involving 2/r2 are considered negligible with respect to terms
involving /r.
We may determine r0 from the condition
2
[v (r)]
GMm
L
=0=
1e r0 3
2
r
mr 0
r0
r0
(5.29)
The radius, r0 is the radius of near circular orbit and the effect of the
exponential factor and (1- /r) factor will be negligible for <<r. Thus, we
may approximate Eqn. (5.29) by
GMm
0=
L
3
mr 0
2
0
so that
2
L
2
GMm
r0
(5.30)
v (r)
2K
1-
2K
2
r
1-
3
1r
3 L2
mr
3 L2
mr
(5.31)
1
m
v (r)
r
r = r0 ,
Thus, we have
2
1
m
GMm
2
L
- 2GMm
=
- 2 G 4 M 4 m6
L
11-
6
4
G M m
6
L
3 GM m2
L
3 GM m 2
L
1+
6 GM m2
L
3 L2
m
3 G 4 M 4 m6
L
GMm
2
L
(5.32)
(5.32) and considering the second terms of the second factor as small
compared to one. Thus, we have
2
G M m
3
L
3 GM m 2
1+
(5.33)
=2
2
=2
G M m
3
L
1+
3 GM m2
L
G M m
3
L
L
2
2 3
G M m
so that
3 GMm2
2
L
3 G 2 M 2 m2
=2
c L
If
were to be such as to provide an identical prediction as the
General Theory then would have to satisfy
=
GM
c
(6.7 x 10 -8 )(1.98 x 10 33 )
cm = 1.47 x 1015 cm
(3 x 1010 )2
or
= 1.47 x 10 3 m .
5.3 Redshifts
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicted the advance of the
perihelion of planetary orbits by using the full effect of the geometrical
equations. We saw in the previous section that the Dynamic Theory
predicts a similar planet orbit perihelion advance.
Another of the
predictions of Einstein's Theory concerns the redshifts associated with
light received from distant light emitting objects or when light travels
through a changing gravitational field.
The Dynamic Theory should also predict frequency shifts that are
experimentally measurable. If it does not then it doesn't have the same
strength of predictability as Einstein's General Theory.
There are two types of redshifts resulting from the theoretical
approach of the Dynamic Theory. First, there is an expansion red shift due
to the increasing "entropy" of the universe. Secondly, there is a frequency
shift caused by a difference in the gravitational strength between the point
of emission of the light and the point of its reception. Both of these types
of frequency shifts are the result of a difference in the effective unit of
action at the emission point and the reception point.
Both of the above types of frequency shifts may be referred to as of
geometrical in origin in that they both come from the gauge function.
However, each originates from a different variable change in the gauge
function. For instance the expansion shift involves considering the
universe as an isolated system resulting in the entropy principle requiring
small frequency shifts toward the red. This comes from the gauge function
being dependant upon time. The second type of frequency shift comes
from the gauge functions dependence upon space and mass.
We may first consider these types of frequency shifts to be
independent and look at each in turn. Then we shall consider them
together. First, we will need to consider the local systems where a photon
is first emitted and then where it is received. In both systems the energy of
a photon is given by hv, where v is the frequency and h is the effective unit
of action. The effective unit of action is the product of the gauge function
and Planck's constant if a locally flat metric is considered.
At the heart of both types of frequency shifts is the gauge function
which has previously been given as
1
(5.34)
ln f 2 = f r f t f f f
and found to be
ln f 2 = f t f
172
er
r
or
( dq0 )2 = exp 2 f f
er
r
2
) .
(d
er
r
(5.35)
h0 = h f 0 ,
h0 = h exp[0]
hT = H exp[AT] ,
hT = H exp
AL
c
(5.37)
(5.38)
h0
= hT
Substituting from Eqn. (5.36) and Eqn. (5.37) into Eqn. (5.38) we find
e
exp
AL
c
(5.39)
1- e
AL
c
AL
c
or
= e-
AL
c
(5.40)
-1 .
The question arises whether or not the frequency shift given by Eqn.
(5.40) is red or blue? From Eqn. (5.40) it may be seen that the frequency
shift is negative if A > 0, thus the shift is red or blue as A is positive or
negative. Going back to Eqn. (5.35) and using the gauge function of Eqn.
(5.37) we see that
0
dq = e
AL
c
This indicates that a given element of arc length, d , yields a larger change
in entropy, dqo, at the time T = L/C than before at time t = 0. Thus, the
entropy change is increasing and our universe is expanding.
The expansion red shift given by Eqn. (5.40) may also be expressed
in terms of wavelength as
=
e
- 1= e
AL
c
-1 .
1 AL
3! c
(5.41)
AL
1 AL
+
c
2! c
+ ...
(5.42)
AL
c
(5.43)
when AL << c.
Experimentally it has been determined that
HL
,
c
Then we find the predicted frequency shift given by Eqn. (5.42) is seen in
nature when the constant, A, is taken as the Hubble constant.
From Eqn. (5.41) we see that experimentally found red shifts can be
used as astronomical markers from the expression
c
ln 1 +
H
L=
exp
(5.44)
er
r
ln f 2 = f f
(5.45)
= h f g kl
jk
+
ie
j s
x
sl
(5.46)
h = h f = h exp 2 f t f
175
er
r
kl
(5.47)
j=
(ln f 2 )
1 (lnf)
=
3
2 xj
x
(5.48)
and
F ij =
i, j
(5.49)
j,i
Using Eqn. (5.49), F14 gives the radial component of the gravitational field.
From Eqn. (5.48) we find
1
(ln f 2 )
=- f t f
1=
r
er
2
r
1-
and
F 14 = - a o f t
df
1-
er
r
(5.50)
df M
dM
1-
er
r
(5.51)
df M
dM
1-
er
r
(5.52)
GM
r
(5.53)
1 2
M + constant.
2
fM=
- 2G
1
h = H exp
er
r
or
-
- GM
h = h exp
er
r
(5.55)
where c2 has been used to obtain a unitless quantity, which must be the
case for f.
Now, using the unit of action given by Eqn. (5.55), suppose a photon
is emitted from one body with a gravitational field
GM 1 - 1
e R1 ,
2
c R1
c R2
R2
= hr
or
e
- GM 1
exp
c R1
R1
exp
- GM 2
2
c R2
R2
so that
r
exp
- GM 1
2
c R1
R1
GM 2 - 2
e R2
2
c R2
(5.56)
=
e
For R2 >>
GM 2 - 2 GM 1 - 1
e R2 - 2
e R1
2
c R2
c R1
= exp
(5.57)
G
c
-1 .
(5.58)
The approximation in Eqn. (5.58) shows that if M1/R1 > M2/R2 then this
frequency shift given by Eqn. (5.57) is negative, or towards the red end of
the spectrum.
We can make the further simplification of assuming that both
GM 1
GM
< < 1 and 2 2 < < 1 ,
2
c R1
c R2
GM 2 GM 1
- 2
.
2
c R 2 c R1
(5.59)
= exp
-1
GM 1 - 1 GM 2 - 2
e R1 - 2
e R2
2
c R1
c R2
(5.60)
GM 1 GM 2
- 2
.
2
c R1 c R 2
Suppose we look at this red shift for a photon emitted from the
surface of the sun and received at the earth's surface. The needed
numbers are:
G = 6.67x10-11nt-m2/kg2 Msun = 329,390(5.983x1024kg)
Mearth = 5.983x1024kg
Rsun = 6.953x108m
Rearth = 6.371x106
c = 3x108 m/sec
Thus, from Eqn. (5.61),
178
(5.61)
2.1 x 10 -6 ,
e
G
c
M
M
R
R+ R
GM
2
c R
R .
where
= G[(Me/Re)-(Mr/Re)], then it may be seen that the red shift given
by Eqns. (5.57) and (5.60) produce the red shifts predicted by Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity if R1>> 1, R2>> 2, GM1<<c2R1, and GM2<<
c2R2. However, if these conditions of approximation are not met then one
must resort back to Eqn.'s (5.57) and (5.60) for the predicted red shifts.
Suppose one considered a photon which may have been emitted on a
dense star such that GM1/C2R1 is too large to allow a simplification of the
exponential expression. If this photon were received on earth then, by
Eqn. (5.60), we would have
G
exp
e
exp
M e M earth
R e R earth
-1 .
GM 2
c2 r 2
(5.62)
-1 ,
exp
.
e
exp
Notice that even the large red shifts displayed by quasars are allowed
by Eqn. (5.63) without requiring them to be at the far reaches of our
universe.
179
(5.63)
ln f 2 = f r f t f = (s + w + z
k eR
r
) (a + bt)
h0 = h exp
k e r (s + w + z
r
)(a + bt)
(5.64)
for t = 0. From the above, let us take s = w = 0, then Eqn. (5.65) becomes
1
he = h exp
kz(a + bt e ) M e
Re
(5.65)
Re
when integrated over the entire gravitating mass as before and the
subscript, e, refers to the unit of action at the place and time of emission of
the photon. A similar expression is found at the place and time of
reception, or
kz(a + bt r ) M r
h r = h exp
Rr
Rr
(5.66)
Equations (5.65) and (5.66) may be used to express the frequency shift
required to conserve photon energy, since
1
he
= hr
Thus, we have
r
exp
zkM e (a + bt e ) - e zkM r (a + bt r ) - r
e Re e Rr
Re
Rr
then
180
= exp zk
e
M e (a + bt e ) - e M r (a + bt r - r
e Re e Rr
Re
Rr
M r (a + bt r ) - r M e (a + bt e )
e Rr Rr
Re
-1 .
(5.67)
M r (a + bt r ) e
Rr
Rr
M e (a) e
Re
Re
(5.68)
M r a+
zk
Rr
Meae
Re
Re
(5.69)
(5.70)
exp
HL
,
c
zkbM earth
.
R earth
181
(5.71)
_ zka
e
where Rr>>
set
(5.72)
zka = -
(5.73)
If we now substitute Eqns. (5.71) and (5.73) into Eqn. (5.68), we have
e
G
c
Mre
Rr
Rr
Mee
Re
Re
HL
c
Mr
Rr
R - r
e Rr ,
M
(5.74)
where R/M is the radius and mass of the earth as in Eqn. (5.71). While
the full expression, Eqn. (5.67) becomes
= exp
e
-G
c
Mre
Rr
Rr
Mee
Re
Re
HL
c
Mr
Rr
R - r
e R R - 1.
M
From Eqn. (5.75) it may be seen that, if the receiving location is the
earth, then the time dependence in Eqn. (5.75) is given by
HL
= Ht
c
(5.75)
"Fifth" Force
F=
2
2
R - r +1 1e x dx
2
x
x
- G rtm
R
x= R - r
2
R+ r
F=
x= R - r
d
dx
f(x) e x dx
x
F=
=
- G rm
R
R+ r
d
dx
x= -(R - r)
f(x) e x dx
x
r-R
R+r
1
1
(- )N
N
N.N!
(R
+
r
(r
R )N
)
N =1
+2
as
0, F
0 which is the classical result.
Suppose now we look at a couple of approximations which may give
some insight into the influence of the exponential term in the potential.
First, let us consider a mass outside another mass for which R-r>> , then
we would have the approximation
F
- GMm
R
1-
184
2R - r
2
2
R -r
; if R - r > > .
This result shows that the force of attraction on a test mass outside
another mass is reduced by the second term in the square brackets. This
is, of course what we should have expected from a potential which deviates
from the Newtonian potential by turning around and going back to zero.
The first deviation from Newtonian-like character would be to become
weaker.
The other approximation to consider is that for the expression for the
force an the test mass inside the shell. For this we find that inside the
shell if r-R>> , then
F =
- GMm
R
(- )
r + rR - R
r( r 2 - R 2 )
; if r - R > > .
This is a force away from the center of the shell and toward the inside of
the shell.
The Big Question is: What is the force when the test mass is
on the immediate exterior, or interior, of a shell? That is, do we have
convergence of the infinite series in the solutions for both the inside and
outside forces on the test mass.
To address this consider the absolute value of the ratio of the n+1
and the nth terms in the force for a mass outside of a shell of finite
thickness t, then from our previous results we found that
F=
- G trm
R
+2
R-r
R+r
2r e- R+r + e- R - r + 2 log
1
1
(- )N
N
N.N!
(R
+
r
(R
+
r )N
)
N =1
2 e
2R -
t
2
(- )N
t
N.N!
R - N =1
2
2
+e
t
2
2
R-
1
2R -
t
2
log
t
2
t
2
2R -
t
2
1
t
2
185
- GMm
R
t
1 2
log
e 2R + e t +
2
2R
2R
2
N
1
(- )N
2
2R N =1 N.N! (2R )N (t )N
a n+1
=
aN
N +1
(- )N +1
1
2
(N + 1)(N + 1)! (2R )N +1 t N +1
N
(- )N
1
2
N.N! (2R )N t N
(2R )
=
(N + 1 )2 tR
N +1
t
2
(2R )N -
t
2
N +1
a N +1
aN
lim
N
2
(N + 1 )2 t
t
2
x R + r = 2R -
t
R
but R = R e and t = e 154 or the limits on x would be
2
M
Re
2M
x 2 Re -
3
2
1
Re
= Re 2 2M
2M
186
3t
156 or
2
3 Re
2M
3 Re
3
= Re 2 2M
2M
x 2 Re -
Re
N
x Re 2 -
(2N - 1
2N
Then we have
F (N) =
+
+
N =1
- GM (N)m
R
1 e
2 Re
2
e
log
(2N - 1)
Re 2 N
(- )N
N - N! R eN
2-
(2N -1)
N
+ e-
Re
2N -1
2N
2N - 1
4N - (2N - 1)
(2N )N
(2N )N
N
(2N - 1 )N
4N - 2N + 1
Now, looking at
exp1 =
(2N - 1)
Re 2 N
if N = 0 _ exp1 =
Re 2 -
if N = N _ exp1 =
1
N
Re
R e 2N - 1
N
2
if N = 1 _ exp2 =
-
if N = N _ exp2 =
Re 1 -
Further, since r = R e 1 -
1
2N
(2N - 1)
162
2M
M (m) = 4
Re
M
1-
(2N - 1)
2M
187
-2
MRe
1
N
F (m) =
- Gm
2
Re
Re
M
1-
(2m - 1)
2M
1
22
log
(2m - 1)
M
Re 2 +
(2m - 1)
Re 2 M
Re
2m - 1
M
2m - 1
4M - (2m - 1)
(2m - 1 )N - 1
(- )N (2M )N
N.N! R eN
(2m - 1 )N 4M - 2m - 1 N
N =1
F1=
- GM
R
2
e
F1=
log
5
3
Re
=
Re
3
- GM 1 m
R
1-
Re
1
6
12 Re 2 -
1
3
2 Re
1
3
1
(- )N 6 N 10 - 1
+
12 - 1 N =1 N.N! R eN [11 ] N
1-
2
e
- GM 1 m
1-
3
3
2.398)3
2 5 Re 2 Re
5
4.198
Re
if M 1 = 4
Re
3
5
6
or
F out =
- GMm
2
Re
1 - 3.548
Re
Now we can do the same sort of thing for the "inside the shell" force.
This case has the lower limits on x changed so that
F in =
- G rtm
R
R+ r
2
x= r - R
d
dx
f(x) e- x
dx , where x = r - R
x
with
188
t
2
f(x) - ( R2 1 r 2
+ x e- x + 2
e x=
x
x
log
1
(- )N
+
N
x
N =1 N.N! x
Then for a shell with Re as the inner radius and a thickness of t then
r=Re=t/2 and we desire to know what the gravitational effort for R=Re.
Then we have R+r=2Re+ t/2 and r-R = t/2 then
- G
Re +
F in =
t
tm
2
- R e2 - R e +
t
2
t
2 Re +
2
2 Re +
t
2
t t e 2 Re + t - e t
2
2 2
2
e 2 + 2 Re +
t
2
+2
t
2
R - Re +
t
2 Re +
2
Re
2
e
t
2
(- )N
N.N!
1
t
2 Re +
2
t
2
F in
2 Re
- GMm
t
4
Re
log
t
4 Re
1-
2 Re
2 Re
(- )N
2 R e N =1 N.N!
-2
t
2e
+
t
1
2 Re
2
N
t
Example: Compare the change in gravitational field as one goes from the
Earth's surface down a deep well to a depth of d. The Newtonian
gravitational strength at the earth's surface is
FN=
-G M e m
2
Re
For the neo-Newtonian force we must see the same force, thus, we must
set
F NN =
-G Mem
R
2
e
- GMm
2
Re
189
1 - 3.55
Re
or
Me
M=
1 - 3.55
Re
- GM e m
Re - d
- GM e m
2
2
R e - 2d R e - d
or
- GM e m
2d
2
Re 1 Re
F N (-d)
FN
Re
1 - 1+
GMem
GM e m
+
=
2
2d
Re
2
Re 1 Re
GM e m
2
Re
1-
2d
Re
2d
Re
GM e m
2
Re
or
FN
2d
Re
GM e m
.
2
Re
On the other hand, the gravitation force in the well with the neo-Newtonian
potential would be given by
F NN (-d) =
- GM e m
R
2
e
1+
M
M e 4 Re
2
t
M
M
log
1 - e- t 4 Re
2 M e Re
2Me
(-2 )N
2 M e R e N =1 N.N!
M
190
1
4 Re
1
t
- GM e m
R
2
e
GM e m
2
Re - 4
but
M
Me
1
1 - 3.55
1+
M
M e 4 Re - d
(-2 )N
2 R e - d N =1 N.N!
2
1
d
log
1 - e- d 2
2 Re
4 Re
1
4 Re
1
d
2d
GM e m
2
Re
Re
- 1.492 x 10 - 4
1+
M
Me
(-2 )N
N =1 N.N!
- 954 1 - e- d + 1.512 x 10 - 3
1
7 N
2.56x 10
1
(1676 )N
Now
(-2 )N
N =1 N.N!
1
7 N
2.56x 10
1
(1676 )N
+2
5.966 x 10 - 4 1.193 x 10 - 3
1
+4 2
(-3.56 x 10 -7 - 3.56 x 10 -7 2
2.2
=
-8 3
(-2.124 x 10 -10 + 9.44 x 10 -11
3 7 3
+ 16 4
(-1.267 x 10 -13 2.11 x 10 -14
4 2 3 4
Thus, we have
F NN
F NN
2d
Re
GM e m
2
Re
2d
1-
3.548
1676
3.548
GM e m
12
d
Re
Re
- GM e m
F N (-d) =
2d
2
Re 1 Re
191
- GMm
2d
2
Re 1 Re
- GM e m
2d
2
Re 1 Re
F NN (-d) =
1 - 3.548
Re
1 - 3.548
- GM e m
2d
2
Re 1 Re
Re
1 - 7.096
Re
Re
Gm1 m2
r
3
r
2
d
d r
(mv ) = m 2 .
dt
dt
F1 = - F 2
so that
Gm1a m 2p = Gm2a m1p
where the subscripts a and p refer to the mass's role as either an active or
passive gravitational mass. This leads us to the equation
m1p
m1a
=
m 2a
m 2p
which means that since the ratios must be equal the ma and mp may be
made equal.
The equality of inertial and gravitational mass is not predictable by
Newton's laws. Rather, it is taken as an assumption. This assumption
has been subjected to increasingly accurate experimentation by Eotvos in
the 1880's, by Dicke in 1964, and by Braginski in 1971. The present limit
of comparision between gravitational and inertial mass in about one part in
1012.
Now let's consider these same three mass concepts in the context of
the Dynamic Theory. First, there is the inertial mass density. It makes its
appearance in Section 3.1 when we impose the principle of increasing
entropy as a variational principle. The metric element is given in terms of
the specific entropy while the entropy principle is in terms of the entropy
density. The effect of this is to introduce the mass density as a product of
the acceleration into the equations of the force densities (see Eqn. (3.5)).
The same inertial mass concept leads to the Einstein energy and mass
relation in Section 3.2.
The other two mass concepts enter first through the field equations
given by Eqn.s (3.15) and from them the force densities in Eqn.s (3.17). In
Section 5.1 we went through the field equations to determine the chargeto-mass conversion needed to keep the units consistant. Here we found
that the passive gravitational mass given by Eqn. (5.12) was
M
mp
(5.76)
while the gravitational field associated with a gravitational mass is given by
Eqn. (5.10), when the evaluated parameters are used, as
193
V r = ma
11 + Gt
r
r
(5.77)
where the mass in the gravitational field equation is to be considered the
acitve mass and therefore we've used the subscript a to denote this. The
gravitational force due to the passive mass M being in the gravitational
field Vr is then
1F 12 = - Gm1p m 2a (1 + Gt)
2a
r
r
2a
r 12 .
(5.78)
1-
1a
r 12 .
(5.79)
m1p m2a
1-
m 2p m1a 1 -
1a
r
2a
1a
(5.80)
2a
Further, only for identical gravitational masses will Newton's Third Law be
satisfied within the Dynamic Theory.
5.6
Cosmology
The hot big bang model of the Universe is the model which is in
vogue now. Virtually all the journals print numerous articles relating to
some aspect of the hot big bang model. The model is based upon the
194
2
4 x
d x
=2
3
dt
(t) Gm g
x
=-
4
G (t) m g x.
3
(5.81)
But consider what happens if one wishes to compare this with the nonsingular potential of the Dynamic Theory. Then Eqn. (5.81) becomes
2
4 x
d x
mg 2 = 3
dt
(t)G m g
x
1-
e x=-
4
G (t)x 1 ex .
3
x
Now let us replace x with the comoving coordinate x=R(t)r where R(t) is the
scale factor of the universe and r is the comoving distance coordinate as is
done in the standard model. When we also normalize the density to its
value at the present epoch, o , by (t)= oR-3(t) we obtain
2
4 G
d R
=2
3
dt
1-
e Rr
.
Rr R 2
We can begin to see the trend to be expected from the universe from
Eqn. (5.83) by noting that should we look back in time to the point when
R=r/ then we would have a point in time, say T1 when the acceleration of
the universe would have been zero. At times before T1 there would have
been an acceleration outward while for times after T1,such as the current
epoch, the rate of the expansion of the universe is slowing down. This is a
very different story than is told from by the standard model. But how is it
different? It is the same as the standard model in that from Eqn. (5.83)
one sees that the universe was forced into expansion at early times and is
now slowing down its rate of expansion. One big difference between the
story to be told by Eqn. (5.83) and the standard model is that Eqn. (5.83)
gives the reason for the initial expansion and it denies that the universe
195
(5.83)
8 G
3
(t) R 2 e- Rr +
(t) R 2
- kc 2 .
2 c2
(5.84)
time we find
In Eqn. (5.84) we have included the term for the radiation for
completeness. Now let us evaluate the constant of integration, k, by
setting the values of R, dR/dt, , and at their present day values of 1, Ho,
o, and o. Then Eqn. (5.84) becomes
2
Ho=
e r+
4 G o
- kc 2 .
3 c2
(5.85)
3 H o2
and
8 G
Re
Rr
+1-
Ho
2 c2
-1 .
(5.86)
We may now take a look at some of the implied dynamics from Eqn. (5.86).
First look at the dynamics as R tends to infinity and there is no
radiation. For this case we would have
2
2
R = H o (1 -
),
Re- Rr -
2 R e r+
2
R +
2 c2
1 - R2 .
196
(5.87)
R=
-
Rr
er-
.
c
o
There is also a trivial solution at R=0 in Eqn. (5.87) but for this case the
acceleration is also zero and therefore no dynamics are allowed.
While at first glance it may appear that we have as good a developed
solution as is arrived at in the standard model, consider the following
points. Our galaxy was considered to be on the outside limit of a sphere of
dust. For the current epoch the density of the dust is very small locally to
the galaxy and Gauss's law for considering the total mass of the sphere of
dust to be placed at the center should hold very well. But what about
when we are looking back in time when the density was a lot greater. At
some density we are no longer able to approximate result used in Eqn.
(5.82) but must use the solution developed in the discussion of the Fifth
Force. Then our conclusions arrived at above are only good in a general
sense and are not quantitatively accurate.
A second point concerns the fact that we have developed the gauge
function in prior sections. If this is the scale of the universe as the gauge
function is supposed to be, then why are we again trying to solve for it
here? If the scale of the universe is given by the gauge function then the
dynamics may be over specified if we put the radiation into the equation for
the acceleration such as Eqn. (5.83). On the other hand, what is the
source for the radiation? If there is no hot big bang for the radiation to
come from where might it originate? The Dynamic Theory displays an
inductive coupling between the electromagnetic and the gravitational fields.
could the radiation be due to the expansion of the gravitating mass of the
universe? If so then a knowledge of the gauge function might turn the
equation of motion for our galaxy into a prediction of the radiation required
at the present time. This prediction might then be compared to the
measured radiation. However, there is the necessity to have a for the
universe. It may be obtained from the gauge function also as GM/c2. But
how is M determined?
Perhaps this is sufficient to point out that the overall picture of
cosmology to be given by the Dynamic Theory is not yet complete but in
any event will likely be very different from the hot big bang model of the
universe. Will it allow for high temperatures needed for accounting for the
abundances of the elements? Since it allow for the universe to be much
smaller in the past it would have the associated high temperatures. Yet it
should not have the infinite temperatures associated with a singular
universe.
197
(5.88)
Wave Equations
V-
E-
B-
V
- 2
t
c
4
c
t
E
t
V
2
+ a02
B
- 2
t
c
a0 4
c
2
+ a02
+ a02
( E)
E
2
B
2
=0 ,
=0 ,
E
4
, (6.1)
(6.2)
(6.3)
and
2
V4-
V4
- 2
t
c
V4
+ a02
2
t
V4
2
=0 .
(6.4)
Wave Solutions
198
E = E 0 exp - i t - k e x - k 4e
B = BO exp - i t - k b x - k 4b
V = V O exp - i t - k v x - k 4v
and
, (6.5)
V 4 = V 40 exp - i t - k 4 x - k 44
,
,
,
,
(6.6)
and substituting the trial solutions, Eqn. (6.5) into the wave equations,
Eqn.s (6.1)- (6.4), we obtain the indicial relations:
2
k v0 c =
+ i4
- Av2 + i4
Ae
2
e
2
b
+ i4
k e c = (kc ) - A
k b c = (kc ) - A
i
k 4e
E
V
(6.7)
and
2
k4 c =
- A42 ,
where
2 + i4
= 1, 2, 3, and (kc)2 =
.
Substituting the trial solutions into the continuity equation of Eqns.
(3.14), we find
-i
k 44
(6.8)
ke c
E y , (6.9)
and
V y=
- Ae
Ey=
Ab
ke
Ey .
kv
Thus, the imposed assumptions reduce the solution to only three non-zero
components, Ey, Bz, and Vy.
If we consider the different expressions, from Eqn. (6.9), for Bz, and
take the partial derivative with respect to the mass density we find
199
ke c
Bz
Ey
requires that
1
ke
ke
(6.10)
Ab - Ae .
a0 c
Ae
Ae
(6.12)
Av - Ae .
a0 c
(6.13)
2
2
2
k b c = (kc ) - Ab ,
2
2
2
k v c = (kc ) - Av +
ke
ke
1
Ae
Ae
Ae
Ab
ke ,
Ae
kv =
1
a0 c
=
=
(6.14)
Ab - Ae
a0 c
i
Av - Ae
a0 c
(6.15)
+ i4
T -T0
Then
T
1
r
=-
r0
1
(vol.)
,
(vol.)
T
but
200
mass
,
vol.
Therefore,
=
Thus,
=
r0
. (6.15)
=
ln
where
(6.16)
0
kv = ke -
ia0 c
Ae
ke
(6.17)
ia0 c
Ae
Ae
(6.18)
This may be used to eliminate Av from the third of Eqn.s (6.7) leaving three
equations in three unknowns.
By differentiating the first of Eqn. (6.7) with respect to the mass
density, it becomes
2 k e c2
ke
= i4
- 2 Ae
Ae
(6.19)
Substituting Eqns. (6.17) and (6.18) into the third Eqn. (6.7) and using
Eqn. (6.19) results, after some manipulation, in
2
(kc )
1
Ae
Ae
- 2 i2
Ae
Ae
+ i2
Ae
(kc )2
= 0.
i2
=
Ae + _
or
201
Ae - (kc )
(6.20)
Ae
i2
(kc )2
Ae + _
Ae - (kc )
Therefore we have
dAe
Ae + _
Ae - (kc )
d(kc)
.
(kc)
(6.21)
But from the definition of (kc)2 we find that
d(kc )2 = i4
Thus,
d(kc )2 2(kc)d(kc) d(kc)
i2
d
=
=
=
.
ki
(kc )2
2(ki )2
2(kc )2
Ae - (kc )
d(kc)
.
(kc)
(6.22)
By using the method of substitution, recognizing that it may be put
into a homogeneous form, and realizing the solution may be complex, we
arrive at the solution of Eqn. (6.22) as
Ae =
1
(kc )2 c 22 - 1
2 c2
(6.23)
where c2 is a constant of integration such that
c2
=0 ,
202
Ae + _
c2 =
2
2
AE + (kc )
.
(kc )2
(6.24)
Because c2 does not depend upon
Aeo = Ae ( = 0) then
c2 =
it is unaffected by setting
2
Aeo + _
= 0, so if
Aeo +
(6.25)
By substituting Eqn. (6.25) back into Eqn. (6.23) we find the sign before
the radical must be taken to be positive. Then the expression for Ae
becomes
Ae = Aeo + i4
h .
(6.26)
where
h
Aeo
2
1
2
2 Aeo + Aeo
+
h ,
(6.27)
where
h
Aeo
2
1
2 Aeo + Aeo +
with
203
+i
4 ~
1+ ~
2
~
Aeo
1-
+1
4 ~
1+ ~
~=
1
2
~=
-1
h )2
(4
+
2
1
2
(6.28)
1 - 2 hAeo .
Now we have
Av =
av
+i
av
where
= Aeo (1 + f) ,
h (1 - f) ,
av = 4
av
[ a0 c 4
f=
(6.29)
h
.
h )2
Aeo + (4
with
1+
c
1=
2
av
1+
2
-
1-
2
av
2
+1
,
1
2
Aeo f
2 a av
4
1
2
av
-f
h
.
(6.30)
204
Now we have
Ab =
ab
+i
ab
with
= Aeo D - 4
ab = Aeo F + 4
hF ,
hD ,
ab
D=
F=
e
2
e
v
2
e
v
e
v
2
e
Then
kb =
+i
(6.31)
where
1+
4
1+
2
=
11-
2
4
2
av
av
2
av
2
av
1
2
+1
,
1
2
-1
-f
It is the intent of this section to briefly show the effect of the solution
given above and discuss how this solution may be useful in modeling
electromagnetic interactions with biological systems. Therefore, consider
the question of component attenuation, or how the different components of
the electromagnetogravitic wave may be attenuated? A simpler question
would be, "For what frequencies will the components not be attenuated at
all?"
205
From Eqn. (6.28) we find that the electric component will pass
unattenuated if =0. This is satisfied by two conditions. The first
condition is that
= 0 which is the classical condition of a perfect
dielectric. The other condition is that
h=
1
2 Aeo
(6.32)
Substituting the definition for h into Eqn. (6.32) we find, after some
manipulation, that this is satisfied if
2
Aeo
Aeo
Aeo
- 3= 0 .
(6.33)
which has only one real solution
2
c
= 1.7971 A2ae .
that
1.7971
Aeo .
Ae
Ey ,
(6.34)
206
2
4
av
av
e
v
=f .
(6.35)
Substituting for the defined quantities in Eqn. (6.35), assuming 2<< ,
and disregarding negative frequencies, we find two possible frequencies for
which v = 0, or
- 16
1
c1
1
2
a0 c
2
(6.36)
and
1
2
4 ao c
c2
1-
2+
1-
=2
ab
ab
= 0, or when
(6.37)
The condition specified by Eqn. (6.37) represents a seventh order
polynomial in , therefore, the roots of this polynomial have not been
sought. It may be noted though that there are up to seven possible
frequencies for which the magnetic component is unattenuated.
Thus, for frequencies satisfying the conditions of Eqns. (6.35) and
(6.37), the gravitational or the magnetic component respectively will
experience no attenuation. Because these conditions result in polynomials
in , then there must be frequency regions where either v < 0 or b < 0, or
both v and b are negative. In these regions the gravitational and/or the
magnetic component will experience an amplitude growth.
On the other hand, from Eqn. (6.32), we found that there were no
frequencies for which e < 0 for > 0. This then leads to the possibility
207
Boundary Conditions
208
where p is the electric dipole moment and l is a vector from -q to +q. The
net dipole moment per unit volume is the polarization, P, of the medium.
From this we get
P dvol = q
vol
where q is the net polarization charge within the volume. If the density of
the polarization charge is 'l then we have
q =-
dvol
vol
where the minus sign arises since by definition, the direction of the
polarization vector is from negative to positive, whereas the electric field is
directed from positive to negative. Thus, we arrive at
P= -
that is valid in a dielectric medium and account for both free charges and
polarization, and ' respectively we must write
E=4( +
) ,
(6.38)
or using Equation (3.53)
( E + 4 P )= 4
Maxwell named
displacement, or
the
quantity
in
parenthesis
the
dielectric
D= E +4 P .
(6.40)
209
)E .
Therefore,
D= E .
(6.41)
Consider now that in the Dynamic Theory we derived the equation
( E )= 4
- ao
( V4)
(6.42)
Thus it may be seen by comparing Equation (6.41) with Equation (6.42),
that the second term on the right hand side plays a role of gravitational
polarization charge density, or
ao
( V4)
Pg .
(6.43)
Then we would have
( E + 4 P g )= 4
or
(1 + 4
)E + 4 P g = 4
or
E + 4 P + 4 Pg = 4
(6.44)
210
dv
dv .
v
The left hand side may be integrated by noting that since the normal
component of D is involved there is no contribution from the sides. Thus,
since the volume V can be made sufficiently small, we have
D 2 n 2 + D1 n 1 = ( D 2 n 2 - D1 n 1 )S = 4
t .
If
lim
(
t 0
(6.45)
relates the charge in the normal component of D across a boundary to the
surface density of free charge on that boundary. If s = 0 then the normal
component D is continuous across the boundary. Equation (6.41) may
also be written as
(
E 2 + 4 P g2 -
E 1 - 4 P g1 ) - n = 4
211
s .
This points out the need to consider the physical meaning of the
gravitational polarization but we won't go into that at this time.
The next condition that must be fulfilled at the boundary comes
from
xE = O
for static fields so that B/ t = 0. (This may safely be assumed since even
for non-magnetostatic field the contribution by the B/ t term vanishes in
using Stokes theorem).
Now construct a rectangular path which has sides 1 width t, and
for which the sides parallel a segment of the bounding surface. Then by
Stokes' theorem
E .d l = ( .E ). n o da = 0 .
s
Thus,
E .d l = ( E 1 . n 1 ) 1 + ( E 2 . n 2 ) 1 + contribution from ends.
Now,
n 1 = - n 2 , 63 therefore
( E 2 - E 1 ). n 2 1 + (ends) = 0 .
Since the contribution from the ends is proportional to t, the second term
vanishes in the limit as t
0. Thus we have
( E 2 - E 1 ) - n 2 = 0 ,
n0 .( E 2 E 1 ) x n = 0 .
Now
n 2 = n 0 x n
so that
( E 2 - E 1 ).( n 1 x n ) = 0
or
n0 .( E 2 E 1 )xn = 0 .
212
(6.46)
Eqn. (6.42) implies that the tangential component of E must be
continuous.
For the magnetic induction field, since here
B=0
IS
.
c
dm
.
dv
xM .
4
(J+J )
c
4
J .
c
213
M .
where
)H= H
/ t = 0,
4
(V / )
J - a0
.
c
(6.47)
If we define a gravitational magnetization by
4
Mg
- a0 V
-4
Mg
4
J
c
or
H =B-4 (M +Mg ) .
(6.48)
It may be seen from Eqn. (6.44) that the gravitational magnetization
adds to the Amperian magnetization and could lead to misinterpretations.
Now, in an analogous fashion to the dielectric displacement vector,
the boundary condition becomes
( H 2 - H 1 ) x n =
4
c
214
K = lim ( J t)
t 0
J
1
c
( V4)
4
=J4
t
c
where
1
c
=-
4
c
J4
dv = - 4
v
J4
dv .
c
S t V4
=-4
c
t
J4
S t .
c
(6.49)
For free gravitational mass density to exist on the boundary, the product J4
t must remain finite as t
0. Therefore, in the limit
lim J 4 t
= ms .
t 0
c
215
H = H +4
G=G+4
then can
V
= G=G+4
For this we construct the closed rectangular path across the boundary.
Then we would have
V .d l = (
x v ). n0 d a = ao
( B. n0 )da
s
. n 0 1 t
But since
n 1 = - n 2 102 and the contribution from the ends is proportional to t we have, as t
( V 2 - V 2 ).( n 0 x n 1 ) = 0
or
n 0 . ( V 2 - V 1 ) x n = 0 .
216
0.
0
0
0
E 0 eik 4eo - E 1 eik 4 E1 = E 2 eik 4e2
o
0
0
H 0 eik 4bo + H 1 E ik 4b1 = H 20 eik 4b2
o
and
0
0
0
V 0 eik 4vo o - V 1 eik 4v1 1 = V 2 eik 4v2
or by using
1= o
we have
0
E 0 - E 1 = E 2 e k 4e2 2 k 4e1 1
0
0
0 i
H 0 - H 1 = H 2 e k 4b2 2 k 4b1 1
(6.50)
and
0
V 0 -V 1 =V 2 e
i k 4v2
2-
k 4v1
But
H=
B 4 Mg
,
and
217
By =
ke c
Ex .
H0=
k e1 c
0
E0 .
E0 - E1 = E 2 e
(6.51)
and
o
E o + E1 =
ke 2 o i
E2 e
ke1
- k 4e1
Where
k 4e2
E2 =
2 k e1 e-i e 0
E0 .
k e + k e2
(6.52)
On the other, by subtracting Eqn. (6.51) and rearranging, we have
0
E1 =
k e2 - k e1
k e1 + k e2
0
E0 .
- a0 ck 4 e
Defining
218
Ex .
Ae = a0 ck 4e ,
then
V x=
- Ae
Ex .
E1 - E0 =
- Ae
Ae
0
E2 .
(6.53)
Using Eqn. (6.52) this becomes
0
E1 = 1 -
2 k e1
Ae2
0
E0
Ae1 ( k e1 + k e2 )
(6.54)
Comparing Eqn. (6.54) with Eqn. (6.53) we find
- k e1 = k e1 -
Ae2
Ae1
2 k e1
(6.55)
Equation (6.55) implies that the dependence of the electric field upon
mass density is not influenced by the type of material there. This is a
result that is a direct consequence of the assumption previously made and
is further evidence that we must return to that assumption soon. For now
we shall forge ahead.
We shall now consider the case where the incident wave impinges
upon the boundary interface at an oblique angle o. The wave is polarized
so that the electric component is parallel with the interface.
For the incident wave we have
219
- i(wt - k eo r - k 4eo
- i(wt - k b0 r - k 4bo
E0 = E0 e
H0= H0 e
c
1)
1)
k eo x E 0
1
o
E1 = E1 e
- i(wt - k e1 r - k 4e1
H=
1)
k e1 x E 1
and V =
- Ae1
E1
(6.56)
The refracted waves are given by
0
E 2 = E1 e
H2=
- i(wt - k e2 .r - k 4e2
k e2 x E 2
and V 2 =
- Ae
(6.57)
The tangential components of , H, and V, can be continuous across
the boundary only if the phases of the field vectors are all equal at the
interface.
k eo r + k 4eo
k bo
r + k 4bo
k vo r + k 4vo
= k e1 r + k 4e1
1 = k b1 r + k 4b1
1
= k v1 r + k 4v1
= k e2 r + k 4e2
1 = k b2 r + k 4b2
= k v2 r + k 4v2
(6.58)
For each component the propagation vectors keo, ke1, and ke2 are
coplanar, so if r is chosen to lie in the interface and in the plane of the
propagation vectors, then we have,
220
k eo sin
eo
+ k 4eo
= k e1 sin
e1
+ k 4e1
= k e2 sin
e2
+ k 4e2
= sin
e1
eo
k eo
k 4e1 - k 4eo .
b1
= sin
bo
sin
= sin
V1
k bo
k 4b1 - k 4bo
and
1
k vo
k 4 v1 - k 4 v 2 .
e1
- k e2 sin
e2
= k 4 e2 2 - k 4 e1
(6.59)
and
k eo sin
eo
- k e2 sin
e2
= k 4 e2 2 - k 4eo
(6.60)
However, for keo = ke1, subtracting Eqn. (6.60) from Eqn. (6.59) yields
1
( k 4eo - k 4e1 ) = 0
(6.61)
In a similar fashion we have
k 4bo = k 4b1
and
k 4vo = k 4v1
221
e2
k e1
sin
k e2
- ( k 4e2
e1
- k 4e1
k e2
(6.62)
Similarly, for the other components we have
sin
b2
k b1
sin
k b2
- ( k 4b2
b1
- k 4b1
k b2
(6.63)
and
sin
v2
k v1
sin
k v2
- ( k 4v2
v1
- k 4v1
k V2
(6.64)
Because of Eqn. (6.57), we must have
eo
e1
b1
b1
vo
v1
(6.65)
and
( V o + V 1 ) x n = V 2 xn .
( k e2 x E 2 )xn ,
(6.66)
and
( Aeo E o + Ae1 E 1 )xn = Ae2 ( E 2 xn ).
222
or
( Aeo - Ae2 ) E o + ( Ae1 - Ae2 ) E 1 x n = 0.
(6.67)
Since both o and
Eqn. (6.66) requires that
1
2
eo
E o - k e1 cos
e1
E1 =
k e2 E 2 .
eo
e1,
( E oo - E 1o ) cos
eo
k eo
cos
k e1
e2
i( k 4e2
2 - k 4e1 1 )
(6.68)
Since the electric vectors are all parallel to the boundary surface, we
must have
O
O i( k 4e2
EO + E1 = E 2 e
2 - k 4e1 1 )
(6.69)
223
We may combine Eqn. (6.68) and (6.69) by subtraction to eliminate E2o and
obtain
cos
E1 =
cos
eo
eo
k e2 cos
e2
k e2
cos
2 k e1
0
E0 .
e2
(6.70)
Eliminating EO we have
0
E2 =
2 cos
cos
eo
eo
i( k 4e1 1 - k 4e2
k e2
cos
2 k e1
e2
(6.71)
Equations (6.62) and (6.63) may be used to determine the refracted
angles for each component while Eqns. (6.69) and (6.70) determine the
magnitude of the reflected and refracted electric field components. The
magnitudes of the reflected and refracted magnetic and gravitational
components may be found using Eqns. (6.56) and (6.57).
6.6
2=
k e1
sin
k e2
e1
( k 4e2
- k 4e1
k e2
(6.62)
sin
b2
k b1
sin
k b2
b1
( k 4b2
- k 4b1
k b2
(6.63)
and
sin
v2
k v1
sin
k v2
v1
( k 4v2
- k 4v1
k v2
(6.64)
224
With the realization that one or more of the k's in Eqns. (6.62),
(6.63), or (6.64) may be complex then one must consider the right-handside to be complex. Thus, we have the situation that sin 2 for each
component, would be complex and, therefore, we must consider 2 to be
complex. Thus consider the case where
sin
= x + iy
(6.72)
with
2
+i
= sin
cosh
+ i cosa
sin h
(6.73)
Equating Eqns. (6.72) and (6.73), we find
sin
cosh
+ i cos
sin h
= x + iy .
(6.74)
From Eqn. (6.74) we find that
sin
x
cosh
sinh
and
y = cos
(6.75)
Now 2 is a real angle and the expression for sin 2 in Eqn. (6.75)
reduces to the usual expression for the sine of the refraction angle. Thus,
we shall take 2 to be the angle of refraction and it is given by Eqn. (6.75).
We must now learn how to find 2 and 2 given x and y. We may
start by rewriting Eqn. (6.75) as
sin
x
cos h
(6.76)
and
225
cos
y
sin h
.
2
becomes
2
x
1=
cosh
y
+
sin h
or
2
2x
1=
e +e
2y
e -e
(6.77)
when cosh 2 and sinh 2 are written in terms of exponentials.
Now suppose we define
w = cosh (2
2 )=
+ e-2
2
(6.78)
where w
4 x2
2
( e2 + e- 2 + 2)
4 y2
2
( e2 + e- 2 - 2)
or
1=
2 y2
2 x2
+
w+1
w-1
(6.79)
Equation (6.79) is a quadratic equation in w which has the solutions
226
w = ( x 2 + y 2 ) + _ ( x 2 + y 2 - 1 )2 + 4 y 2 .
(6.80)
The expression under the radical is non-negative (as may be shown by a
lengthy procedure) so w is real, which must be the case from Eqn. (6.78).
Consider three cases:
Case A: x2 + y2 > 1
Let x2 + y2 = 1 + where
0, then Eqn. (6.80) becomes
w= 1 - + _
+ 4 y2 .
+ 4 y2 .
arc coshw
2
(6.81)
then by Eqn. (6.72) we may find
from
= arc sin
x
cosh
.
2
(6.82)
227
Thus Eqn.s (6.80), (6.81) and (6.82) give us 2 and 2 for any x and
y. The 2 and 2 must be checked against Eqn.s (6.75) and (6.76) to
resolve any ambiguities.
6.7
Once the form of the trial solution is chosen then one can look at the
eigenvalues of the differential operations since the trial form is the
exponential form. Consider the partial derivative with respect to x
x
= i[
{ exp[-i(wt - kx - k 4 )]}
(kx - k 4 )] exp[-i(wt - kx - k 4 )] ,
if we assume that
w
=0
x
proven. For the sake of simplicity let's make the same assumption here
and hold in abeyance any attempt to prove a linear relationship.
Therefore, lets assume
k
=0
x
k4
)
x
i(k +
if we assume
=0 .
(6.83)
The assumption that the frequency should not depend upon the
mass density seems justifiable since we want to determine how a wave of a
certain frequency will propagate. Therefore, we want to control the
frequency. We should not, however, allow this desire to lock us into this
assumption.
Given the assumption Eqn. (6.83) we have
(kx + k 4 ) =
x k
k4
+ k4 .
By analogy with the classical result that the phase of the wave depends
only linearly upon x it seems a fair assumption that we may simplify some
by assuming that
k4
=0
i(x
+ k4 ) .
if we assume that
k
=0
t
and
k4
=0 .
t
From the point of view that both k and k4 are determined by material
properties then these assumptions appear appropriate for static materials.
Thus the eigenvalue of the time differential operator is
t
-i
We have now chosen a general form for the solution we will seek.
But there are several potential components to the wave. For example,
there are the electric transverse, magnetic transverse, gravitational
transverse, electric longitudinal, and the gravitational longitudinal
components.
In addition there is the scalar wave component, the
gravitational potential.
In the classical case it may be shown that the propagation constant
may be the same for both the electric and magnetic components. That is
not so with these more complex five-dimensional waves. Thus, we should
allow for the possibility that each component may have a different
propagator. With this in mind we will try to find wave solutions with the
following trial forms.
230
E = E O exp[-i(wt - k e x - k 4e )]
B = B0 exp[-i(wt - k b x - k 4b )]
V = V O exp[-i(wt - k v x - k 4v )]
V 4 = V 4O exp[-i(wt - k 4 x - k 44 )] .
By using these four forms which constitute our trial solution we may
find that two, or all, of the k's must be the same but we aren't forcing them
to equality prematurely.
Now lets put our trial solutions into the field equations. Lets start
with the field equation
1
c
B
+ xE = 0 .
t
(3.15b)
The x and y components of this equation require that
Bx = B y = 0 .
Bz =
ke
Ey .
x
ke +
(6.84)
The second field equation is
xV + aO
=0 .
(3.15f)
The x and y components require that
V z=0 .
k 4b + x
kb
ke +
k +
k 4e
x
Ey .
k 4V
x
(6.85)
Now look at the field equation
231
( E )= 4
- aO
( V4)
(3.15d)
We see that we face more assumptions. The first one concerns whether or
not varies with space. The classical assumption seems appropriate here
also. That is, if the medium is isotropic then
x
=0 .
( ke+
-1
aO - 1
i
k 4e )Ex
x
. (6.86)
+ k 4 + k 44 ]
From Eqn. (6.82) we see that the gravitational potential, V4, depends only
upon the longitudinal electric field component.
The fourth field equation is
1
c
V
E
+ V 4 = a0
.
t
(3.15g)
The x component of this vector equation requires
( k4+
-c
{
V x=
w
a O | k 44 x
k 44 )( +
k 4e )
ke
x
x
k4
k4 i
|
+ aO ( k 4e + x
ke
} Ex .
(6.88)
232
- a0 c
k
( k 4e + x e ) Ey .
w
(6.88)
If we compare Eqn. (6.88) with Eqn. (6.85) we must have
kv+
k 4v
x
ke
k 4e + x
k 4e
x
= ke+
k 4b +
kb
(6.89)
The z component of Eqn. (3.15g) is an identity, thus we can
turn to the fifth field equation, which is
V+
V4 -4
=
t
c
J4 .
(3.15h)
The usual conductivity assumptions seem appropriate here and are taken
as
J = E , and J 4 =
V4
(6.90)
Therefore, Eqn. (3.15h) becomes the indicial relation
2
c kv+
k 44 + x
k 4v
x
k4
k4+
i
e
k 44
x
=(
k 4e
k
+ a02 k 4e + x e
x
x
ke+
2
+ i4
4) k e +
k 4e
.
x
(6.91)
when Eqns. (6.86) and (6.88) are used.
The sixth field equation is
xB -
E
4
=
t
c
J - aO
(3.15c)
233
+ i4
= c 2 k 4v + x
k 44
x
k4 +
kv
k 44 + x
ke
+ a O2 k 4e + x
ke+
k 4e
x
k4 - i
(6.92)
The z component of Eqn. (3.15c) is an identity but the y component
gives us another indicial relation in
2
w + i4
k 4e
)( k b +
x
w =( ke+
+ a O2 c 2 ( k 4 + x
)( k 4e + x
k 4b
)
x
ke
(6.93)
The seventh field equation
.B = 0 .
(3.15a)
is an identity since Bx = 0. However, the last remaining field equation
0=
J + aO
J4
(3.15e)
is not satisfied identically. Rather, it requires
234
(
Ex
= - aO
x
V4)
(6.94)
if we assume
x
=0 .
) k 44 + x
k4
=i
(6.95)
k4
i
l-
ln
(6.96)
235
and
k 4v
=0 .
x
k c
Bz
= i ke e E y .
x
= i( k 4b - k 4e ) .
236
ke
=0 .
(6.97)
This sets up something of a dilemma since ke should depend upon
both and . These in turn depend upon . Therefore, Eqn. (6.97) is a
result that does not seem to correspond to experiment. Thus, our choice of
simplifying assumptions appears too restrictive. But which assumption is
the one that must be relaxed? An investigation into the necessity of the
assumptions made seems required prior to making advancement toward
the solutions of the electromagnetogravitic wave equations.
237
References
W.R. Adey, Tissue Interactions with Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields,
Physiological Reviews, Vol. 61, No. 2, April 1981.
D. ter Haar and H. Wergelande, Elements of Thermodynamics, 1966.
H. Weyl, Space, Time, and Matter, Dover, 1922.
R. Adler, M. Bazin, and M. Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity,
1965.
Th. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., 1921, p. 966.
O. Veblen, Projektive Relativitatstheorie, Berlin, springer, 1933.
W. Pauli, Ann D. Physik, 19, 305 (1933); 18, 337 (1933).
A. Einstein and Mayer, Berl. Ber., 1931, p. 541; Berl. Ber. 1932, p. 130.
A. Einstein and P. Bergmann, Ann. of. Math., 39, 683 (1938).
Einstein, V. Bargmann, and P.G. Bergmann, Theodore von Karmaan
Anniversary Volume, Pasadena, 1941, p. 212.
238
0
1
2
3
x ,x ,x ,x
so that
d =
dx
239
d =0=
d
dx
dx
then
d
=0=
+ 1 v1 + 2 v 2 + 3 v 3
dt
t
x
x
dx
or
t
+ grad
v=0 ,
(7.1)
Further, since x4 = /a0 and x4 = x4(x0, x1, x2, x3), then Eqn. (7.1) becomes
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
x = u ,x = u ,x = u ,x = u
and
4
0
1
2
3
x = f ( u ,u ,u ,u ) .
240
Since u0, u1, u2, and u3 are independent variables, the locus defined
by Eqn. (7.1) is four-dimensional, and these equations give the coordinates
xi of a point on the hypersurface when u0, u1, u2, and u3 are assigned
particular values. This point of view leads one to consider the surface as a
four-dimensional manifold S embedded in a five-dimensional enveloping
space. We can also study surfaces without reference to the surrounding
space, and consider parameters u0, u1, u2, and u3 as coordinates of points
in the surface.
If we assign to u0 in Eqn. (7.1) some fixed value u0 = u0, we obtain a
three-dimensional manifold
i
i
0
1
2
3
x = x ( u , u , u , u ), (i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
and
3
-0
-1
-2
-3
u3 = u ( u , u , u , u ) ,
(7.2)
where the u (u-0, u-1, u-2, u-3) are of class C1 and are such that the
Jacobian
J=
( u O , u1 , u 2 , u 3 )
( u -0 , u -1 , u - 2 , u - 3 )
does not vanish in some region of the variables u, then one can insert the
values from Eqn. (7.2) in Eqn. (7.1) and obtain a different set of parametric
equations
i
i
-0
-1
-2
-3
x = f ( u ,u ,u ,u )
(7.3)
defining the hypersurface S. Equation (7.2) can be looked upon as
representing a transformation of coordinates in the hypersurface.
241
(7.4)
where the xi are coordinates covering the five-dimensional space in which
the hypersurface S is embedded, and a curve C on S defined by
u =u ( ) ,
(7.5)
where the u 's are the Gaussian coordinates covering S. Viewed from the
surrounding space, the curve defined by Eqn. (7.4) is a curve in a
five-dimensional manifold, which we shall assume, for the present, is
242
(7.6)
From Eqn. (7.4) we have
i
x
du
u
i
dx =
(7.7)
where, as is clear from (7.5),
du =
du
d
d
0 2
x x
du du
u u
= A du du ,
= g ij
where
x
u
g ij
x
u
(7.8)
The expression for (dq0)2, namely
dq
0 2
= A du du
_A u b d
q 2 - q1 =
where
u =
du
25 and q0 is the specific entropy.
d
0
0
q 2 - q1 =
_A u u d
(7.10)
Consider a transformation of surface coordinates
0
u = u ( u ,u ,u ,u )
(7.11)
with a non-vanishing Jacobian
u
J=
du =
du
0 2
=A
du du
If we set
A =A
>0
0 2
= A du du
244
g ij
x
u
x
(i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) ( , = 0, 1, 2, 3) .
u
We note that the foregoing formulas depend on both the Latin and
Greek indices, and we recall that the Latin indices run from 0 to 4 and
refer to the surrounding space, whereas the Greek indices assume values
0, 1, 2, and 3 and are associated with the embedded hypersurface.
Furthermore, the dxi and gij's are tensors with respect to the
transformations induced on the space variables xi, whereas such
quantities du and A are tensors with respect to the transformation of
Gaussian surface coordinates u . Equation (7.8) is a curious one since it
contains partial derivatives
i
x
35 depending on both Latin and Greek indices. Since both A
u
x
36 can be regarded either as a contravariant space vector or as a covariant surface
u
245
x
du
u
(7.12)
(7.13)
is a covariant surface vector. On the other hand, if we change the space
coordinates, the du , being a surface vector, is invariant relative to this
change, so the Eqn. (7.13) must be a contravariant space vector. Hence we
can write Eqn. (7.13) as
x
x
u
(7.14)
where the indices properly describe the tensor character of this set of
quantities.
Let A and B be a pair of surface vectors drawn from one point P of S.
FIG HERE
Then using Eqn. (7.14) they can be represented in the form
i
i
i
i
A = x A and B = x B
(7.15)
The five-dimensional vector product, defined by
k
N =
kij
Ai B j ,
(7.16)
246
is the vector normal to the tangent plane determined by the vectors A and
B, and the unit vector n perpendicular to the tangent plane, so oriented
that A, B, and n form a right-handed system, is
kij
n=
Ai B j
A B
(7.17)
We call the vector n the unit normal vector to the hypersurface S at P.
Clearly, n is a function of coordinates (u0, u1, u2, u3), and as the point P(u0,
u1, u2, u3) is displaced to a new position P(u0 + du0, u1 + du1, u2 + du2, u3 +
du3), the vector n undergoes a change
dn=
n
u
du
(7.18)
whereas the position vector r is changed by the amount
dr=
du
du du
(7.19)
If we define
b =
1
2
(6.20)
the left-hand member of Eqn. (7.20), being the scalar product of two
vectors in a Riemannian space by being in the entropy manifold, is an
invariant; moreover, from symmetry with respect to
and , it is clear
that the coefficients du du in the right-hand member of Eqn. (7.20) define
a covariant tensor of rank two. The quadratic form
247
B b du du
(7.21)
called the second fundamental quadratic form of the hypersurface, will be
shown to play an essential part in the study of hypersurfaces when they
are viewed from the surrounding space, just as the first fundamental
quadratic form
A d r d r 49 or
A = A du du
A B
AB sin
ijk
(7.22)
and
A B sin =
A A
(7.23)
Substituting in Eqn. (7.22) from Eqn. (7.15) and Eqn. (7.23), we get
-
ni
ijk
x x
A B =0
and, since this relation is valid for all surface vectors, we conclude that
=
ni
ijk
x x
(7.24)
Multiplying Eqn. (7.24) by
result
ni =
1
2
ijk
x x
(7.25)
248
56 of Ai, namely,
i
i
k
dA i
j dx
+g
,
A
jk
dt
d
(7.26)
In formula eqn. (7.26) the Christoffel symbols
g
i
58 refer to the space coordinates xi and are formed from the metric
jk
dA
+a
d
du
d
(7.27)
In this expression the Christoffel symbols
61 are formed from the metric coefficients a
A =0
62 and
A =0
63. In the first equation the vectors Ai form a parallel field with respect to
The
corresponding formulas for the intrinsic derivatives of the covariant vectors Ai and A are
Ai
j
k
d Ai
dx
- g
Ak
ij
d
d
(7.28)
and
A
dA
-a
d
du
d
(7.29)
Consider next a tensor field
i
T 67, which is a contravariant vector with respect to a transformation of space coordinate
xi and a covariant vector relative to a transformation of surface coordinates
u . An example of a field of this type is the tensor
I
x =
x
68 introduced earlier. If
n
i
T 69 is defined over a surface curve C, and the parameter along C is , then
( ) = T i Ai B
The derivative of
expression
( )
i
i
d
dT
dB
i dA
i
=
Ai B + T
B + T Ai
d
d
d
d
is given by the
(7.30)
which is obviously an invariant relative to both the space and surface
coordinates. But, since the fields Ai( ) and B ( ) are parallel,
j
k
d Ai
dx
dB
= g
and
=a
Ak
ij
d
d
d
du
d
i
k
i
d
dT
j dx
=
+ g
-a
T
jk
d
d
d
du
d
Ai B
(7.31)
Since this is invariant for an arbitrary choice of parallel fields Ai and B ,
the quotient law guarantees that the expression in the brackets of Eqn.
(7.31) is a tensor of the same character as
i
T 75. We call this tensor the intrinsic tensor derivative of
i
T 76 with respect to the parameter , and write
k
i
i
dTi
T
j dx
=
+ g
=a
T
jk
t
d
d
du
d
If the field
i
T 78 is defined over the entire hypersurface S, we can argue that, since
T
i
i
T
j k
+g
T x -a
jk
u
du
d
i
i
T
j k
+ g
T x -a
jk
u
(7.32)
and call
i
T , 83 the tensor derivative of
i
T 84 with respect to u .
The extension of this definition to more complicated tensors is
obvious from the structure of Eqn. (7.32). Thus the tensor derivative of
i
T 85 with respect to u is given by
T
i
i
T
k
i
+g
T x -a
jk
u
-a
(7.33)
If the surface coordinates at any point P or S are geodesic, and the
space coordinates are orthogonal Cartesian, we see that at that point the
tensor derivatives reduce to the ordinary derivatives. This leads us to
251
+ g {
i
} x j x k - a{
jk
} xi ,
= xi ,
(7.34)
Since the tensor derivative of a
the relation
g ij xi , x j + g ij xi x j , = 0 .
(7.35)
Interchanging , ,
j
i
j
x + g ij x x , = 0
(7.36)
and
g ij xi , x j + g ij xi x J , = 0 .
(7.37)
If we add Eqn. (7.36) and Eqn. (7.37), subtract Eqn. (7.35), and take into
account the symmetry relation Eqn. (7.34), we obtain
g ij xi , x j = 0 .
= b ni .
but since
ni =
1
2
ijk
j k
x x 100, then
b =
1
2
ijk
x x
(7.38)
We now have, in Eqn.s (7.8) and (7.38), the formulas necessary to
determine the first and second fundamental quadratic forms for our
system constrained to a four-dimensional hypersurface. Our objective is to
show that by appropriately constraining our system we arrive at the
Navier-Stokes equations. Let us determine the first fundamental quadratic
form.
First recall that our system was restricted so that x4 = x4(xo, x1, x2,
x3) or the mass density is a function of space and time; then we have the
relations
0
0
x =u ,
1
1
x =u ,
2
2
x =u ,
3
3
x =u ,
and
4
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
x = f ( x , x , x , x )= f ( u , u , u , u ) .
x
u
253
x
= g ij xi x j ,
u
then
2
A00 = g 00 = 2 g 04 f 0 + g 44 ( f 0 )
where
f
f0
(7.39)
where
h = 2 g
f + g 44 f f
, = 0, 1, 2, 3 ,
(7.40)
where the h are functions of the partial derivatives of the mass density
with respect to space and time in addition to space and time from the
g i4 109 where i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.
Though we may use Eqn. (7.38) to determine the metric coefficients
for the second fundamental quadratic form, it is not necessary for the
current presentation.
The hypersurface which is embedded in the five-dimensional space
is a four-dimensional curvilinear space-time manifold. Thus the relativistic
hydrodynamic equations are applicable here so long as the metric
coefficients are determined as coefficients of the hypersurface quadratic
form.
The complete energy-momentum tensor for a fluid in a flat
Riemannian space-time manifold is given by
T
= u u +
P
c
(u u - g
(7.41)
where
du
111, s is the arc length. Then based upon this energy momentum tensor the flow
u
ds
of a fluid under the effect of its own internal pressure force is given by setting the
divergence of Eqn. (7.41) equal to zero, or
254
, =0 .
(7.42)
If we reduce Eqn. (7.41) to the non-relativistic limit, the use of Eqn. (7.42)
gives us
g
, , = 1, 2, 3 ,
where
= u u +
P
c
u U - g
-h
(7.43)
where it must be remembered that the
u u 115 are also dependent upon this same sum. In the non-relativistic limit the effects of
this sum of metric tensors appear as a sum in the stress tensor
= - P g
- Ph
, = 1, 2, 3 .
(7.44)
Recall that the
g 117 refer to the three-dimensional space viewed from the five-dimensional manifold.
The h , however, contain the information about the surface embedded in
the five-dimensional space. If we then associate the tensor
- Ph
(7.45)
with the viscous stresses, we are saying that the viscous stresses depend
upon the geometric character of the hypersurface.
In the limit of small displacements we write the strain velocity tensor
as
e =
1
v
2
+v
Then the first order coefficients of viscosity are related to the strain velocity
tensor and viscous stresses according to
255
t =
,n
+ v n,
(7.46)
If we then use Eqn. (7.45) in Eqn. (7.46), we find that the relationship between the geometric character of the hypersurface and the viscous
coefficients is given by
- Ph =
,n
+ v n,
(7.47)
Equation (7.47) then expresses the functional dependence of the
viscous coefficients upon the strain velocities, pressure, mass density, and
their derivatives.
7.4. Relativistic Hydrodynamics.
By viewing classical hydrodynamics to be given by the embedding of
a four-dimensional hypersurface within a five-dimensional manifold, the
association Eqn. (7.47) between the geometric properties of the
hypersurface and the viscous coefficients could be tentatively made. We
may now go back and develop this relationship more completely.
The hypersurface, which becomes embedded in the five-dimensional
manifold by the restriction that x4 = x4(x0, x1, x2, x3) is a four-dimensional
relativistic manifold. Thus, for the surface we may use the relativistic
energy-momentum tensor, which is
T
= u u+
P
c
u u -g
(7.48)
where
u
dx
123 and v = 0, 1, 2, 3. The divergence of Eqn. (7.48) yields the flow
0
dx
equations for a fluid under the effects of its own internal pressure.
However, from the viewpoint of the Dynamic Theory, the surface
metric coefficients may be written in terms of the metric coefficients of the
first four space coordinates as given by Eqn.s (7.40) and (7.41), or
A = g
256
, = 0, 1, 2, 3 .
Thus, the square of the arc length for the entropy manifold may be written
as
dq
0 2
= A dx dx = g dx dx + h dx dx
or, if
dx
126, then
0
dq
1 = A u u = g u u + h u U
= u u +
P
c
u u -A
or
T
= u u +
P
c
u u - g
-h
(7.49)
Since the surface coordinates, x , are the same as the first four coordinates
of the surrounding space, the velocities u are the same whether
considered as surface or space vectors. The difference between the surface
view and a four-dimensional space view appears in the metric coefficients.
Thus, while the square of the arc element on the surface is unity, the
square of the arc element in the surrounding space is not, or
1= A u u
but
g u u = 1 - h u u
= u u +
P
c
u u - g
P
c
0
T , =
1
c t
P
c
00
P u
u
+ 2
- H0
c c c
=0 ,
1 ( Ph00 ) 1
1
+ 2 (P v ) - 2
2
t
c
c
c
( v) -
( Ph-0 ) = 0 ,
( v )=
1
c
(P v ) +
( Ph00
+
t
1
c
( v )= -
( Ph0 )
h 137,
1
P
1
P v - v , + 2 ( Ph ),
c
c
c
, =
1
c t
u
Pv P
+ 3 - 2h
c
c
c
P v v
v v
+ 2
+
2
2
c
c
c
Ph
=0 ,
2
c
v =-
x
-
-v
1
c
( v) +
( Pv )
+
t
(P v v )
1 ( Ph 0 )
( Ph )
+
c
t
x
.
( v )=
1 1 ( Ph00 )
+
2
t
c c
( Ph-0 )
( v) 0 ,
, =0 ,
v =-
1 ( Ph ) )
( Ph )
+
c
t
x
or
a =-
1 ( Ph 0 )
( Ph )
+
c
t
x
x
1 ( Ph 0 )
=+
+ ( Ph ),
c
t
x
P
= 1, 2, 3 .
where
= - P g + Ph = - P( g
-h ) .
(7.50)
The term
1 ( Ph 0 )
148 has been neglected in Eqn. (7.50).
c
t
1
a
2
O
259
du
dx
when g11 = 1 and h11 is evaluated using Eqn. (7.41). However, for a steady
shock we also have the jump conditions
u = k1 ,
u
k1 + = k 2 ,
and
2
k1 E -
= k3 .
eff
du
dx
where
eff
P k 12 du
2 4
a0 u dx
(7.51)
may be called the effective viscous coefficient. Since within the shock front
the velocity gradient du/dx is negative, we see that the effective viscous
coefficient acts so as to thicken the shock front when compared to the
classical viscous coefficient .
Using the second jump condition, an expression for the velocity
gradient is
du a02 u 4
4 Pk 12
[P - k 2 + k 1 u] , (7.52)
1
1
+
=
2 4 2
dx 2 Pk 12
a0 u
(7.53)
The effect of the correction term on the velocity gradient is seen in
Eqn. (7.53), because the multiplicative factor outside the brackets is the
classical expression for the negative velocity gradient. The effect of the
260
correction term lessens the negative velocity gradient and extends the
shock front.
The effect of the correction term in Eqn. (7.51) is estimated by
considering the strong shock dependence of pressure upon shock
velocities. For instance, the shock pressure, from the jump conditions, is
P=
U up .
(7.54)
If the shock velocity is related linearly to the particle velocity as the
assumed solid equation of state, U = co + sup, then Eqn. (7.54) becomes
P=
U
(U - c o ) .
s
Thus, for strong shocks, P varies approximately as the square of the shock
velocity.
Consider Eqn. (7.52) or (7.53). From either of these equations, the
velocity gradient varies as the square of the shock velcoity. Using these
two conclusions in Eqn. (7.51) for the total viscosity eff and remembering
that the integration contant k1 is given by - oU, the effective viscosity
varies approximately as the square of the shock velocity or, essently , as
the pressure.
The conclusion is that if the effective viscosity varies with the
pressure, an increase by the same factor of 103 must be accompanied by a
viscosity increase by the same factor of 103. This explains the apparent
discrepancy between the low and high pressure aluminum viscous effects.
For instance, the Asay-Bertholf limits are:
P = 25 GPa
P = 36 GPa
> 40 poise
< 2,500 poise .
Another experiment places an upper limit of 103 poise for a shock pressure
of 40 GPa. If 102 poise is considered representative of the viscosity when P
10 GPa, then from Eqn. (7.51), a pressure of 103-104 GPa must be
accompanied by a viscous effect of 104-105 poise.
This total viscosity estimate is supported by numerical integration
across the shock front using the Tillotson equation of state for aluminum.
The classically predicted rise times for shocks of 40 GPa with = 575 p
and 5x103 GPa for
= 5x104p are duplicated by using the effective
viscosity experssion in Eqn. (7.51) with = 1.0 p and a0 365 g/cm4.
Thus, the Dynamic Theory correlates these data points that appear
contradictory by classical theory. Further, these data points provide an
estimate of the new universal constant appearing in the Dynamic Theory.
261
0 2
= g ij dxi dx j =
h00
g ij dxi dx j =
1
h00
0 2
= a du du
where
a = g ij
x
u
xi
= g ij xi x j .
u
2
) = a du du
262
where
i
j
a = g ij x x .
Thus, we have
a =
1
h00
263
We can now use this space field tensor to determine the appearance
of the fields when viewed from the surface. The surface field tensor will be
given by
i
j
F = F ij x x .
= u u +
1
c
1
F + a F
4
(7.55)
which is the relativistic energy-momentum tensor for matter under the
influence of electromagnetic fields. But since
a = g + h 169, then Eqn. (7.55) becomes
T
= u u +
1
c
F +
1
g + h
4
or
= T rel + T geo
(7.56)
where
T rel
u u +
1
c
F +
1
g
4
1
h
4 c2
, = T rel , + T geo , .
The additional force terms from the surface geometry are given by
1
4 c2
, =F
But if we define
- 16
(7.57)
as the electromagnetic energy density, where
=
1
2
2
E +B
8
T geo =
4
c
1
E E +B B 4
where , = 1, 2, 3.
To get the equivalent stress tensor for the Dynamic radiation
pressure we must add the space portion of Eqn. (7.57) so that the total
stress tensor becomes
=
T
=
1
E E +B B 4
1
E E +B B 4
265
-4h
+h
1
2
2
E + B - 3 - h11 + h 22 + h33
4
= - - - h11 + h 22 + h33
.
[1 + h11 + h 22 + h33 ] .
(7.58)
The first term in Eqn. (7.58) is the classical radiation pressure in
electrodynamics. The remaining three terms give the difference between
the pressure predicted by the Dynamic Theory and the classical prediction.
To determine what this difference is let us restrict our system to again be
very near equilibrium so that the g 4 = 0 for
= 0, 1, 2, 3 and g44 =
constant. Thus we have a flat space. For this space the
2
g 44
h =
a0
1
2
a0
(7.59)
By substituting Eqn. (7.59) into Eqn. (7.58) the pressure becomes
P=
1-
1
2
a0
P D = Pc 1 -
1
2
a0
mass density and the constant a0. Once the constant a0 is determined,
then the deviation in predicted pressures can be specified.
This prediction should appear in attempts to use electrodynamic
forces to control ionized plasmas and perhaps there are large enough
density gradients for these predictions to show up in cosmological events.
References:
*A.
267
268
experiment might not be sensitive enough to detect the predicted velocity change
particularly, and would change because of the change in mass density.
Another possibility, which was suggested by Bobby G. Craig, is to measure the
travel time of a strong beam of gamma rays through a divergent flow of gas created by
explosives. This may create the largest divergent flow possible, but whether or not other
experimental difficulties could be surmounted to make reliable measurements is
unknown.
8.2 Index of Refraction
The change in the parameters and was mentioned in the speed-of-light experiment
discussion. From the plane wave solutions, we found that
i
(C1 C 3 )
0
a0 c
and
0
2
0
C 2 C3
Classically, the index of refraction for dielectrics is given by ()1/2. However, given the
wave solution, we must consider the boundary conditions as the wave passes through a
boundary between two media, determine the energy transmission and reflection
coefficients, and then find the index of refraction from a modification of Snell's law. That
is, the index of refraction should indicate the angle of the refracted wave with respect to
the incident wave.
A cursory look at a five-dimensional wave incidence upon a boundary produces
the relation
sin 0 k 2 ( 0 k 40
2 k 42 )
.
(8.6)
sin 2 k 0
k 0 sin 2
But from Chapter 6 we find
k
C3
C2
(C1
C2 )
1
2
if y=0. Also,
k4
Then we have
sin 0
sin 2
where
C3
.
a0 c
C4
2
0
[(a 0 c(C 40
C 42 ) (C 30 0
0 a 0 sin 2
C3
(C1 C 3 ) .
C2
Then, if the frequency is high enough,
1
269
C 32
)]
, (8.7)
C 42 ) (C 30 0 C 32 2 )]
sin 2
0
0 a0
We would be tempted to define as the index of refraction. On the other hand, the classical
notion of the index of refraction involves the ratio of the sin of the incident and refracted
waves. In Eqn. (8.7), the appearance of sin 2 in the right-hand side makes matters more
difficult. However, C45 is a phase angel we may set at zero, and we may choose the
reference medium, 0, to be free space for which 0 = 0; then Eqn. (8.7) can be written as
1
[C 32 2 a 0 cC 42 ]
2
a0 sin 2
sin 0
.
sin 2
0
Then we may define
(C 3
a 0 cC 4 )
,
(8.8)
a 0 sin
so that Eqn. (8.7) becomes
sin 0
2
,
sin 2
0
so long as the reference medium is free space. If we call the index of refraction, we find
that
2
[a 0 c(C 40
C3
C2
(C1
C3 )
(C 3
a 0 cC 4 )
,
a 0 sin
e r
r
r
requires that the V field is to be interpreted as the gravitational field, then the force law,
J4
K
E
V,
c
Vr
270
would require that J4/c be interpreted as the gravitational mass density. This would
require
J4
mg
dV
c
v
to be the gravitational mass of a particle contained within the volume V. The gravitational
force on a particle in a gravitational, or V, field would be given by
F m gV .
This implies that the transverse V field accompanying the and B component in the
electromagnetic wave would apply a force on a neutron through an interaction with its
gravitational mass. Therefore, a beam of neutrons passing through a polarized layer
beam should be slightly deflected owing to the gravitational field component. This effect
would be most easily detected if, through the use of some appropriate mirror, a standing
optical wave could be created using a polarized laser beam. Then a neutron beam passing
through an appropriate part of the gravitational component of this standing wave would
have all the neutrons deflected in the same direction.
The sensitivity of the neutron interferometer may be such that, if one neutron
beam passes through a standing optical wave created by a laser of appropriate frequency,
very minuscule deflections could be detected. The appropriate laser frequency should be
chosen to maximize the predicted deflection. This, of course, requires that the wave
solution be completed so that the relative strength of the transverse gravitational
component is known; that is, because
C3
Vy
Ey ,
we must know C3 before we can choose the best laser frequency and power.
If a deflection is detected and has the predicted dependence upon laser frequency
and power, then the electromagnetic wave must be accompanied by a gravitational
component.
8.4 Nuclear Mass
We infer from the neo-coulombic electrostatic force that the nucleus may be made up of
complex orbits of electrons and protons, plus possibly positrons, as discussed in Chapter
4. The transcendental nature of the forces involved requires the use of a computer in
solving the equations of motion. Computer solutions may be obtained and the masses
predicted; then these predicted masses may be compared with the existing experimental
masses. A good comparison between the predicted and experimental masses, accounting
for possible errors introduced by any assumptions made to obtain a solution, would
increase the theory believability.
8.5 Gravitational Rotor
The continuity equation in the Dynamic Theory is
J
0
J a0 4
t
271
J.
(8.9)
Equation (8.9) states that if one can create a non-zero divergence in the current density
then one creates a particular variation between the gravitational mass density and the
inertial mass density. This is in violation of both the classical conservation of charge and
Einstein's assumed equivalence principle.
Suppose we consider what happens when we pass a current into the apex of a
cone, as shown in Figure (16).
FIGURE 1: Current into the apex of a cone
Any position on the exterior of the cone is given by
y d fx
where the height of the cone is
d
,
h
f
therefore f = d/h.
If a steady current, I, is flowing into the apex of the cone, then at any x the current
density is given by
1
J
cos x y .
area
But the area is given by
Area
(2 y )t ,
while the
h
cos
d 2 h2
thus our current density vector becomes
J
I
2 yt
x oy .
(8.10)
d
h
Now we may form the divergence of this current density, noting that the above assumes
that the current density is a constant throughout the thickness t.
2
272
Jx
x
Jy
y
Jx
x
I cos
x 2 t[ d ( d / h ) x
hI cos
2 td
(8.11)
1
x (h
x)
Ih cos
1
2 dt
(h x) 2
Substituting the result, Eqn. (8.11), into equation (8.9), we have
J
Ih cos
a0 4
(8.12)
2 dt (h x) 2
This is a differential equation whose solution is
Ih cos
J4
J0
(8.13)
2 a 0 dt (h x) 2
Thus, the gravitational charge density is given by
J 40
J4
Ih cos
, (8.14)
2
c
c
2 a 0 cdt (h x)
Suppose we now consider two cones joined at their bases as shown in Figure (17).
FIGURE
The element of torque about the point A experienced due to the presence of the earth's
gravitational field V is found from the relation, torque = force x distance. Therefore,
2 J 40
Ih cos
d
2
( ty )Vxdx
( tyVx) (8.15)
2
c
2 a 0 cdt (h x)
The effect of the constant of integration term with J40 is to predict a constant torque
without current flow. Since this should have been noticed we shall take J40 = 0. Thus
Ih d (1 x / h)V
d
xdx cos
a 0 cd (h x) 2
(8.16)
I vx
d
dx cos
a 0 c(h x)
We obtain the total torque by integrating from x given by
dx
D d
h
or
x0 h( D / d 1)
to
x 0.
Thus, we have
273
torque
d
x h ( D / d 1)
I v xdx
.
a 0 c (h x)
h ln(h)
h
(d
d
x) | xx
0
h( D d )
cos
h
( D d ) h ln[h h( D / d 1)] cos
d
D) h ln[ D / d ] cos
or
I vh
[(1 D / d ) ln( D / d )] cos
(8.17)
a0 c
Suppose we pick some parameters; such as I = 10 amps, h = d = 0.1 m, D = 0.01 m.
With these parameters
1 0.01
(0.01)
(0.1) 2
ln
m
h cos
.1
0.1
[(1 D / d ) ln( D / d )]
c
3 10 8 (m / sec) (0.1) 2 (0.1) 2
torque
3.3059 10
10
sec 1 .
Thus, we have
v
torque
sec
) amps.
a0
We now need to choose a material to obtain the mass density, determine the gravitational
field V, and obtain a value for a0. Let's do them in the reverse order. Shock wave physics
investigations produced an extremely rough estimate of a0 which was
a 0 ~ 4 10 7 kg / m 4 .
The earths gravitational field strength, at sea level, is given by
volt coul 1
v
9.8
m kg
9.8
(3.3059 10
volt coul
m kg
274
torque
(4 10 kg / m )
(3.3059 10
coul )
nt
0.73757 ft. lb
nt
so that
torque 6.638 10 2 ft. lb.
This is not a very large torque, however, different cone parameters could be chosen to
optimize the torque.
There is another aspect which I don't yet know how to approach. In electric
motors there is a phenomena known as armature reaction which tends to limit armature
current far more than the armature resistance does. I suspect there is a
Figure 2. Upright cone, powered from within.
somewhat analogous reaction here that may further reduce the torque but it would take
time to investigate this possibility.
One final point on the creation of a gravitational field. A long held desire of
mankind is to be able to exert some control over the grip the earth's gravitational field has
over him. A slight variation of the above torque device might allow the generation of this
control.
Suppose we look at a single cone set upright as shown in Figure (18). From the
equations generated before for the torque we see that the lift force generated by this
simple device would be given by integrating the element of force
I V cos
dF
dx
a 0 c(h x)
or
I v cos
Force
{ln(h x) | 0x h ( D / d 1)
a0 c
I v cos
{ln[1 D / d 1]}
a0 c
I v cos
ln ( d / D )
a0 c
Thus, since V = 4.0336 x 1011 volt/m, the force becomes
I ln(d / D)h
Force
(4.0336 1011 volt / m)
2
2
a0 c d
h
Obviously, other physical shapes may achieve similar results; perhaps with an even
greater levitation force than the simple cone.
275
276
Chapter 9 Epilogue
There are brief summaries at the end of Chapters 1 and 2, which give some measure of
summation of the Dynamic Theory. Here I wish to provide a little further discussion in
three areas. First, what is really new in the Dynamic Theory? Secondly, how might it help
us teach science and physics? The third topic is where might the theory lead? This does
not mean that there are not other new things presented in the preceding chapters. For
instance, it is not new to state that the Unit of Action appearing in the derivation of
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle depends upon the geometry. Anyone who has gone
through the derivation considering covariant differentiation has ended up with this
conclusion. Indeed, this is necessary in order to get the correct predictions of atomic
states. However, when one considered Einstein's vector curvature and the atom or
nucleus it was easy to argue that the vector curvature was so small that on the order of the
nucleus or the atom the curvature could not influence the unit of action to any meaningful
extent. This statement is perfectly true and easily supportable so long as your description
of the phenomenon does not involve a gauge function. What is new in the Dynamic
Theory is the appearance of a full gauge function. Now we can no longer assume that
geometry can be assumed away on the scale of the nucleus. Indeed we have shown that
all of the observation laws and experimental data are satisfied if the neutron is a proton in
nuclear orbit around and electron.
What is really new?
9.1 Only three basic assumptions.
The Dynamic Theory is based upon only three fundamental assumptions as stated in
Chapter 2. When I tried to count the needed fundamental assumptions in all of our
current branches of physics I came up with something more than twenty. I am aware that
one can generate considerable discussion about whether or not specific one of the twenty
plus assumptions were really fundamental or not. However, the criteria I used was
whether or not I knew of a method by which it could be derived from another
assumption. If the assumption could not be derived, then it must be fundamental.
Though I've been told many times that you can't do it, I see very little logic
restraining one from deriving Quantum Mechanics from a continuum theory. For
example, if one jiggles a guitar string that is tied down on only one end, there is a
continuum of solutions possible. On the other hand, if both the ends of the string are tied
down, and this represents an additional restriction, then only certain, and quantified
solutions are possible. Why not the same thing in the more broader sense of physics?
Table IV shows the necessary restrictive assumptions that must be made in order to start
with the
277
Group A assumptions
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Electromagneto-Gravitic Fields
Maxwellian EM Fields
Group C assumptions
i.
ii.
Group C assumptions, plus
iii.
/r)
/r]
i.
i.
ii.
vi.
i.
ii.
1= 2
1
Redshifts
278
279
expression for the square of the differential of the entropy. The square masks the fact
from the Second Law we obtained dS0. Further, in Chapter 2 we discussed the fact that
we could have obtained our equations of motion as third order equations in time, but
chose not to in order to have second order equations.
All of this means that the Arrow of Time is part of the Dynamic Theory from the
point of adoption of the Second Law.
9.4 Mass as a coordinate
Hermann Weyl titled his 1918 book "Space-Time-Matter" which somewhat implies that
matter is considered on the same footing as space and time. This, of course, is not
supported by the contents of the book. In the book he treats space and time as coordinates
while he leaves matter in its usual place in mechanics as either being the inertial or
gravitating mass. Further, the fact that the Dynamic Theory goes into five-dimensions
presents no new factor on that basis alone. Many other researchers have looked into five
dimensions in order to try to obtain the necessary degrees of freedom with which to build
into their theory the various fields thought to be needed to describe
the universe. What is different about the Dynamic Theory is that it treats mass on an
equal footing as space and time. This means that it is treated as a coordinate the same as
space and time. No other researcher, looking into five-dimensional systems, allowed any
physical significance to the fifth dimension. That is to say that they wished to have the
added freedom of the five dimensions but did not wish to allow the fifth dimension to
play a physical role as space and time were allowed to do.
9.5 Non-singular gauge potential
There are two aspects of the non-singular potential which makes it's appearance
something that is really different. The first is the fact that the maximum absolute value of
the potential is different for different particles. This is the extraordinary feature, which
leads to a description of phenomena usually reserved for the "Weak Force." The second
new aspect of the non-singular potential is that when applied to the planetary orbits the
potential produces the correct variation of perihelion advance as a function of orbit size
by itself. Numerous gravitational potentials were guessed and tried in attempts to obtain
an alternative to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. One of the most severe tests for
these candidate potentials is the variation of the predicted advance as a function of the
orbit size. None of them could pass this test. The prediction of the perihelion advance
within the Dynamic Theory depends upon the orbital parameters in the same fashion as
the General Theory of Relativity.
A further utility of having a non-singular potential is that there is no need to
renormalize any functions including the gauge potential or any of its derivatives. In
Quantum Mechanics renormalization has always created problems and/or discussions.
With nothing to renormalize the problems and the need for discussions go away.
280
281
are still at work trying to find a theory that will ultimately unify the forces of nature. Such
is the belief in the unity of nature.
On the other hand the unification of the branches of physics has not enjoyed the
same level of attention. Indeed, relatively speaking, there is very little discussion in the
literature of this concept. This concept was the motivation for the development of the
Dynamic Theory. The unification of the forces comes as an additional feature.
To based a study of science and physics upon the three fundamental laws and then
lead to the various branches of physics by restricting our attention by specific
assumptions would seem to be a very logical way to learn about our universe.
9.8 Where to from here?
This might be one of my favorite topics. I seldom get the chance to do much work in this
area anymore and certainly have few with which to discuss the topic. One of the things
that I disliked about the course of instruction that I received was that the prevailing
attitude from virtually all of my professors was that "We now knew where advancement
could be made." If this were true then where was there any room for new work? Why
should I study a subject for which there was nothing new to be learned? This was a
terrible turn-off.
However, I didn't believe them then and don't believe them now.
From the Dynamic Theory's point of view there is a great deal of things to be
learned! For example, almost everything in the preceding chapters refers to systems
which are isolated and for which the Entropy Principle was employed. What do the nonisolated equations of motion look like? Wouldn't they describe a particle's transition from
one stable state to another?
We know that when one has a non-isolated thermodynamic system and are
pumping heat energy in or out of the system we must then minimize the free energy to
determine what happens. The same logic would apply here. If we wish to seek solutions
for non-isolated systems we need to minimize he free energy to obtain the non-isolated
equations of motion. This should give us the ability to better describe what happens in
these systems.
Notice, though, what this implies. We need to be vary careful when we are
considering mechanical systems to classify them as isolated or non-isolated. This is
something we never had to worry about before. It is also a way of seeing that there may
be a lot more to be learned if we do things differently.
The new things to be learned are not limited to non-isolated systems. Consider the
simpler question, can something go faster than the speed of light? From the relativistic
point of view one must answer that something going slower than the speed of light now
must forever remain slower than the speed of light. Similarly, things faster must remain
faster. But is the same conclusion true in the Dynamic Theory? The answer is no. From
the five-dimensional point of view the limiting aspect comes from
dq 0
v 2 g 44 2
1 2
,
dt
c
a 02 c 2
when time rate of change in entropy goes to zero. Should d/dt0 and g44<0 then v may be
allowed to be greater than c. What does this mean?
282
283