#ActionataDistance | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

scepticaladventure · 8 years ago

Text

18 Q-Theory Part 2 ... Inertia, Mass and Gravity 20Aug17

Introduction

In the last blog I started describing a fanciful creation myth. It is written largely for fun, but also because it provides a way to present some ideas. Its intention is to provoke some fresh thinking about the fundamentals of physics, which I think has become somewhat stuck in the mud. Mired in mathematics. Too much group-think and cognitive dissonance. Individual genius lost in the herd.

The first blog described the emergence of neutrinos, electrons, photons, spin and charge out of the primordial energy field called Q. This second blog will discuss origins for inertia, mass and gravity. It will suggest a rationale for Newton’s Laws of dynamics and why Mach’s Principle was nearly right.

Newton’s Laws of Motion

When matter is formed, it is born out of Q and it retains a relationship with Q. The essence of this relationship is that it does not like to be changed. It resists changes. It requires energy to change it. This gives matter its inertia.

Many of the properties of inertia are obvious. They have become axiomatic in classical dynamics, e.g. Newton’s first law of motion … Objects remain at rest or in a state of uniform rectilinear motion unless compelled by a force to change.

But we are interested in why this is so. Why is Newton’s First Law of Motion true? Newton did not decree or ordain that it was true – he just recognised that it was true and described it very neatly.

Just calling things “a law of nature” does not suffice. We are trying to explore the origins of inertia, mass and gravity. We want to know why certain observable features of Nature are always true – what makes them a law of physics?

Inertia

Matter is “sticky” within the Q. Matter refuses to accelerate unless it is provided with more energy. This gives an object its inertia when at rest.

Matter can move at a constant speed in a straight line within Q without any resistance. The Q makes way at the front of the moving matter and moves through and around the matter and fills in behind the matter when it has passed by. Linear momentum is maintained. Energy levels are maintained. Q has no ‘viscosity’ in the face of uniform rectilinear motion.

But any attempt to increase the speed of a material object immediately creates resistance from the Q. The resistance is overcome by supplying the object with more energy. An external force has to act on the object and through through a finite distance. Extra energy and extra momentum have to be transferred to the object. It is almost as if the object “mops up” Q as the force accelerates it to its new level of speed.

When the external force stops the object maintains its new increased level of speed, energy and momentum. Momentum has been transferred from whatever exerted the force. Momentum is conserved and so is energy.

An object that acquires momentum also acquires energy. Whatever contributed such energy to the object loses a corresponding amount of energy.

Any attempt to deviate a moving object away from a straight line also immediately creates a resistance. The resistance is overcome by applying a force to the object at right angles to the direction of motion. But when such a force stops, the object resumes travelling in a straight line. It is a different phenomenon to the previous example.

If the applied force is always at right angles to the direction of motion, the object maintains a constant level of energy. The object maintains the same magnitude of momentum as it had before, albeit in a continually changing direction.

So if you push an object from behind the object goes faster and becomes more energetic and the effects persist even after the force ceases. But if you push it from the side the object does not go any faster, the change in behaviour only lasts as long as the force is applied, and the new mode of movement does not persist when the force stops. Why the difference? What is going on?

Suspicion falls immediately on how the force is applied. In the first case it is parallel to the motion, but in the second case it is at right angles to the motion.

Consider the example of a rocket in space. A steering thruster starts ejecting gases at right angles to the direction of travel and persists until the rocket performs an entire circular loop. The thruster then stops. The rocket carries on as before. Some of the linear momentum of the rocket became angular momentum until the maneuver was completed and then it became linear momentum again. The rocket is left with nearly the same energy (it is just a bit less due to the loss of fuel) and momentum as before There is a circular spray of fuel gases left behind in space. This spray of fuel gases carries away the chemical energy that was used up in the fuel burn.

Next consider a frozen lake with a smooth pole poking up through the ice. An ice skater approaches in a smooth straight glide, just to one side of the pole. Just as they pass by the pole they reach out and grab it with one extended hand. All at once they are swung around into a circular path, still at the same speed. But when they let go of the pole they head off in a straight line again.

What is so special about straight lines? Why do we not have a universe in which the natural path of moving particles is all curly and curved? Or just a random walk? It may seem to be a trivial or silly question, but I think it is fundamental. And the answer reveals something about the nature of Q.

[If you ask physicists why objects stay at rest of in a state of uniform rectilinear motion most of them will say because objects have to obey Newton’s First Law. But Newton was merely observing Nature, not ordaining its behaviour. Only a minority of physicists will see that the question is a deep one, and they will be regarded as being a bit weird.]

Applying a force to an object creates a zone of high pressure Q on one side, thus causing it to move. Once an object is moving in Q there is no further resistance to such movement, provided the object keeps on going in a straight line.

Imagine a person standing in a tram car. The tram car stops suddenly. The person experiences strong braking forces on the soles of their feet. But their bodies are flung forward relative to the tram car, especially if they are not holding on. Why?

In Q theory there is a zone of higher pressure Q behind every atom of matter in the person. When the tram car stops the Q keeps pushing the person forward. It is not – as a contemporary of Ernst Mach is reported to have said “the fixed stars that push the person down” but rather the Q all around the moving person.

In Q theory, inertia does not come from far away “fixed stars”. There is no mysterious magic action at a distance in Q theory.

Both static and moving inertia come from a direct proximate relationship between the object and the Q in which it, and everything else, is embedded.

(This part of the Q creation myth at least it fits everyday observational evidence, which is more than can be said for the other explanations, or lack of explanations.)

Curved Motion

A moving object has no cause to move away from its straight line. To make it follow a curved path, a force needs to be applied orthogonally to the direction of travel.

Consider the motion of a small particle in a circular orbit around a massive object lying at the centre of an x-y reference plane. If we plot the momentum in the y direction against time we will see a sine curve. If we plot the momentum in the x direction we will see a cosine curve. It seems like the momentum of the particle is being passed seamlessly from the y direction to the minus x direction, and then to the minus y direction and then to x direction. No energy is gained or lost while all this is taking place.

The object is said to be accelerating constantly. But is not like a linear acceleration. No work is being done. No energy is being gained or lost.

What keeps a moving object travelling in a straight line? In Q theory the answer is simply the fact that the object has no reason to do anything else. But if a force is applied at right angles to the object, then Q will become higher in pressure at that point. The net effect is then that the object’s path bends.

Q theory keeps in mind that there are two types of acceleration – one type involves a transfer of energy to the affected object and the other type does not.

Spinning and Orbiting

The main types of persistent circular motion are spinning and orbiting. In spinning, an object revolves around its own axis and is held together by internal forces.

In orbiting, objects “circle” around each other and are held together by a force such as gravity, or something as simple as a piece of string. Nearly everything in the Universe is spinning or orbiting, or both.

Orbiting is a stable phenomenon that dominates our Universe. Some types of orbits are the basis for atoms. Other types are the basis for galaxies.

Orbiting can be thought of as gravity (or some other force) fighting with inertia and coming to a stable compromise in which neither wins. The overall energy level stays constant.

Thought experiment 1: Consider a large heavy gyroscope made of crystalline glass. It is spinning rapidly in deep space. All of a sudden the glass shatters. Tiny bits of gyroscope fly off in all directions. After a few years the angular momentum that was so obvious when the gyroscope was intact becomes lost in space. One can argue that there always remains an angular momentum vector where the gyroscope once existed, but that would seem to be a bit philosophical.

The issue arises in reverse when countless bits of dust are drawn together under the action of gravity. As the dust particles coalesce it is almost certain than there will be some net angular momentum. This could end up in the form of a spinning star, with or without a solar system. Or even as a whole galaxy. Or even as a super-cluster of galaxies.

Thought experiment 2: Consider a symmetric dumb-bell spinning in empty space. If the bar suddenly shatters into innumerable fragments the two balls will head off in opposite directions – in straight lines parallel to each other and separated by the length of the former bar. Each ball will have equal but opposite momentum. The angular momentum inherent in the spinning system will eventually become lost in space.

Consider the opposite case, two balls approach each other, but slightly off centre. They each have a grappling hook and these hooks snare each other as the balls attempt to pass by. The two balls start spinning around each other. The angular momentum that was hidden in the starting conditions has now become obvious and apparent.

Thought experiment 3: Consider a spinning top or gyroscope. Every atom is said to be undergoing constant acceleration. But no energy is required to maintain the spin. The energy of the top remains constant. However, increasing the rate of spin of the top does require the input of extra energy and once such energy is transferred to the top it stays transferred to the top.

Q Theory Explanation of Mass

Matter refuses to move faster rate unless it is provided with more energy. The more matter in the object, the more force is required to accelerate it. The ratio between the force and the acceleration is the measure of the property that we call the object’s mass.

Mass is a property of matter. It is not the same as matter.

In spite of what is taught in classical dynamics, the mass of an object is not fixed. The object has a certain amount of rest mass that depends upon the Q embodied in it to begin with. But when an object moves in the Q it acquires more energy and this adds to the mass of the object. Not much at first but the effect compounds and becomes very significant at speeds approaching the speed of light.

As the speed of an object increases it gradually acquires more Q and thus requires a little bit of extra force to accelerate it. This process compounds until relativistic effects start to dominate. For example, at 87% of the speed of light, twice as much force is required to give the same amount of acceleration as when the object was at rest.

The implication of this is that matter cannot be accelerated to reach the speed of light. To travel at the speed of light the object has to be free of matter. In short, it has to be a neutrino or a photon.

Be careful how you apply the contra-positive logical argument to the statement “If it contains matter it cannot travel at the speed of light”. The logically equivalent statement is not “If it travels at the speed of light it cannot have mass.”

The logically equivalent statement is “If it travels at the speed of light it cannot contain matter”. Mass and matter are not the same thing. Closely related yes, identical no.

Gravity

Gravity is the greatest force in the Universe. It is a weak force but its effects are additive and unlimited. Gravity is the great organising force of the whole Universe. It is responsible for the wondrous arrangements of countless stars within galaxies and between all the galaxies of the Universe.

It seems somewhat crass therefore, for Albert Einstein to try to get rid of gravity using mathematical trickery on mankind��s concepts of space and time.

Einstein’s model/approach relies on a so-called principle equating localised gravity to linear acceleration, and it then goes on the reformulate Newton’s beautifully simple approach to gravity into a set of ten non-linear differential equations in a four dimensional curved spacetime that is impossible to visualise and very very difficult to solve.

What I think Einstein achieved was a very clever mathematical description of gravity and its effects, including the fact that it slows down time. But there are often different ways to describe the same thing. For example, a cone can be seen as a disc or a triangle depending on the observer’s point of view.

So is General Relativity the perfect, fully complete, final and best way to describe and think about gravity in all its many roles? I doubt it. For a start, I think that General Relativity is so mathematically complicated that many of its mathematical solutions do not correspond to physical reality.

(Here is a simple analogy. Consider the area of a disc. To calculate its radius divide by π and take the square root. There are two answers to this – one positive and one negative. But only one of the answers corresponds to reality. General Relativity has this issue in spades, especially in its cosmologies).

Here is a prosaic, more physical description of gravity using Q theory.

When the Q turns into particles, Q becomes highly concentrated, but outside of the particle it is depleted. The extent of the depletion diminishes according to the inverse square law.

Every piece of matter and every agglomeration of matter is surrounded by a lowered density of Q which gradually normalizes with increased distance away from the object.

The depleted Q creates an odd effect. It distorts time. It causes any timekeeping devices to slow down. Not through any particular physical effect, but because time as we perceive it is an illusion and is not subject to the rules we think it should obey.

The other properties are more familiar. The depleted Q creates a kind of spherical hole. Other material objects and even passing neutrinos and photons are then drawn to the hole and tend to fall into it unless they have enough inertia to escape being so caught.

Any matter encountering a zone of weak Q will tend to move into it. The rest of the Q in the Universe will try to push matter and energy into the low pressure zone. Gravity is as simple as that.

If you must use analogies think of a gravity as matter trying to vacuum up other matter. Matter creates low pressure zone in Q. The rest of the Universe then tries to push other matter into the low pressure zone.

There is no action at a distance. Matter moves under the influence of the Q around it. In Q Theory there is no action at a distance. The effects of gravity, inertia and electric charge all work through the omnipresent Q.

Nor are there any gravitons.

And gravitational waves are simply large scale disturbances in the Q. These disturbances travel through the Q at the speed of light. Unlike neutrinos and photons, which travel in particular directions, gravitational waves tend to spread out as they travel.

You might have noticed a resemblance between gravity and charge. Both obey an inverse square law relationship. But also note two fundamental differences between charge and gravity. Charge is stronger, but gravity is always attractive.

Because gravity is always attractive its effect is cumulative – the more matter there is in one place, the stronger its gravity. This makes gravity the most powerful, longest reaching influence in the Universe. It is the Great Organiser of the whole Universe.

Resisting it is inertia – the Great Resister. Without inertia everything in the Universe would have collapsed into amorphous Q long before we humans had a chance to evolve and become able to observe and question the whole marvelous panoply of creation.

Mass (continued)

Fundamental particles have three fundamental properties: charge, spin and mass. Each electron and positron has the same amount of mass. The amount of mass in an electron or positron is the smallest amount of mass possible.

Q theory argues that mass is not a fundamental intrinsic property of matter. It is a manifestation of the way that matter interacts with Q and with other matter.

Mass is a relational phenomenon, not an intrinsic fundamental property. Of course, seeing that the Universe is all about Q, there is no way that matter can escape having mass, so this is a fine point.

The two interactions that give matter its mass are inertia and gravity. If not for inertia and gravity there would not be any mass. Matter yes, but not mass.

Think about it. How can you tell if a piece of matter has mass? In essence you either weigh it in a gravitational field, or you find out how hard is it to accelerate. If neither method is convenient you can at least watch how it interacts with other bits of matter during movement.

Every scrap of matter has both gravitational mass and inertial mass. As far as well can tell from exquisitely sensitive experiments, gravitational mass and inertial mass are exactly the same.

Matter, Mass and Energy

Matter can be turned into pure energy and vice versa. That is because matter is pure energy. It is made out of Q.

In Q theory. photons and neutrinos have gravitational mass. They contain energy, and energy is Q, and concentrations of Q experience similar effects to matter, which after all consists of special concentrations of lots of Q.

In parts of the Universe that become crowded with material objects, there are a lots of physical interactions and many different forms of energy. Kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy etcetera.

It is almost certain that any given material object at any given time will have some kinetic energy. Everything in the Universe is moving.

Quantum Mechanics

At a very small scale, dynamics and electrodynamics are no longer smooth and continuous. Basically because the spin of stable entities has to be a plus or minus ½ or 1 and charge has to be plus or minus 1. Larger particles come in discrete specialised bundles and so do stable electron orbits. So interactions become uncertain and ‘jerky’.

On top of that there are a lot of observational difficulties because the entities are so small that simply detecting them usually involves their destruction.

The result is the weird and wonderful world of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromo-dynamics and so on.

All of which has a bearing on the nature of Q at its most fundamental level. And vice versa.

Summary

Q is responsible for the existence of static, linear and rotational inertia in matter.

Inertia and gravity give rise to the property of matter we call its mass.

The properties of Q are also the reason why Newton’s Laws of Motion are as they are, and why mass increases as the speed of an object through the Q increases.

Gravity also works through the Q and can be thought of as matter/energy being pushed into zones of distorted or depleted Q. You can model the effects by imposing an imaginary spacetime grid and then distorting it all, but that is not necessarily the only valid approach to understanding it.

Gravity and Inertia are the Ying and Yang of the whole Universe – the Great Organizer and the Great Resister. All working with concentrations of Q in a sea of Q.

#Q-theory #origin of mass #origin of inertia #linear and rotational acceleration #Newton's First Law of Motion #action at a distance #Qtheory #OriginofMass #LawofMotion #ActionataDistance #RotationalAcceleration #SirIsaacNewton #OriginofInertia

0 notes