HOME

 

Churinga Publishing

 

V

 

 

Books and publications on the interaction of systems in real time by A. C. Sturt
Economics, politics, science, archaeology. Page uploaded 7 December 2004

 



Page 1/4

PDF PRINTABLE VERSION

On the Nature of Things - A Time and Space Odyssey

NEXT PAGE

 

by A. C. Sturt

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The historical background

2. A deterministic analysis out of the Big Bang

3. A new cosmological model – stochastic regeneration

4. Alternative explanation of redshift

5. Independence of units of physics

6. Relativity and homogeneity through time

7. Inertial field – a return to determinism

8. Measurement of elapsed time by radioactivity

9. In the absence of time dilation

10. The new decomposition - particles energy and radiation

11. Theory of light

12.Orbital interaction with rotating electromagnetic dipoles

13. The nature of things

14. The medium of space

15. The whole and the parts

 

 

 

 

1. The historical background

2. A deterministic analysis out of the Big Bang

3. A new cosmological model – stochastic regeneration

4. Alternative explanation of redshift

5. Independence of units of physics

6. Relativity and homogeneity through time

7. Inertial field – a return to determinism

8. Measurement of elapsed time by radioactivity

9. In the absence of time dilation

10. The new decomposition - particles energy and radiation

11. Theory of light

12.Orbital interaction with rotating electromagnetic dipoles

13. The nature of things

14. The medium of space

15. The whole and the parts

 

 

 

 

If a man will begin with certainties he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.

 

The Advancement of Learning I.v.8         Francis Bacon

 

 

… he that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils. For time is the greatest innovator.

 

Of Innovations, The Essays            Francis Bacon

 

 

  1. The historical background

 

In the late nineteenth century it was thought that physics was largely complete. Newton had established the principles of mechanics and gravitation beyond dispute. Astronomy had put order into the stars. Light clearly consisted of waves, and obeyed laws of refraction, diffraction etc. Heat and temperature were understood in terms of atoms and molecules. The world of electricity had been revealed. Motors had been made. Telegraph cables had been laid under the Atlantic. Steam engines had long been in use. Chemists had uncovered the underlying order of materials in the periodic table, though not everyone was yet convinced that atoms really existed. All that was needed was more accurate measurement and more observations, a sort of tidying up. It was a deterministic world, where effects could be traced to causes.

 

Then about a hundred years ago this settled view began to be shaken. Planck discovered that the effect of temperature on the emissions of light from black bodies could be explained only if light was ejected at definite energy levels, as packets, which he called quanta. These energy levels were proportional to the frequency of light emitted. Energy was apparently discontinuous.

 

No less disturbing for the classical view was that the ‘uncuttable’ atom was shown in fact to consist of other particles, which carried a charge: the electron and the proton. These did not behave like small billiard balls. Electrons seemed to circle the atomic nucleus in definite orbits which were far removed from the laws of mechanics. The link was made between these orbits and the discharge of light from atoms.

 

Light was found to behave for all the world as if it consisted of particles, because it punched electrons out of photosensitive materials. Particles of light seemed to travel as such through space, and were called photons. Measurements of the speed of light always gave the same velocity, irrespective of the motion of the source or the receptor, which was just not possible in a Newtonian world. Furthermore, it was found that mass could not be accelerated indefinitely, as Newton’s laws predicted, because they ran up against a barrier which was the speed of light. Hence the Theory of Relativity.

 

The problem with the particles which had been newly discovered was that one could never be sure where they were and where they were going. Attempts to specify all the parameters for a particle were doomed to failure; if you identified one, you lost another. In addition radioactivity was discovered, where decay seemed to occur as and when the individual atom decided. Thus things were happening which were apparently random, not linked to a cause. The world had become non-deterministic.

 

That is how things stand at present. The theories of classical mechanics, which certainly work, because they sent a man to the Moon and back, exist side by side with the new physics of indeterminate behaviour at subatomic particle level and at the speed of light. Whole branches of physics have been developed to cope with indeterminacy.

 

  1. A deterministic analysis out of the Big Bang

 

Over the past nineteen months I have produced the dozen or so papers in the Table which lead to the conclusion that the world is not indeterminate. In fact the phenomena analysed, which are wide and varied, may be considered as quite certainly deterministic. Causes may not be subject to the laws of mechanics, but there is a good chance that the model presented by the papers, when read as a whole, does not depend on unaccountably random occurrences. Where there is apparent deviation from the behaviour which the conventional experience seems to require, the model suggests that there are good reasons for it, such as orbital interactions among light ‘particles’.

 

None of this was intended at the beginning of the analyses. The series sprang from the observation that the Big Bang model of the Universe was a most inelegant system, in fact not a system at all. Systems are mathematical abstractions with simple but definite rules, which are very powerful. In effect they describe the relationships of the components taking part in processes.

 

So to begin with, a system which has a definite beginning but no end is something of an oddity. In the Big Bang model the Universe existed as a kernel before there was time or space. These were both generated and grew simultaneously after the explosion. There was no way of knowing this, because time and space were statistically confounded both with each other and with the material results of the explosion. Nor was it easy to see the justification for using today’s Earth units of time and distance in specifying the events in such a ‘system’ over the last 14 billion years. Surely the corollary of the model is that time and space were different then.

 

Moreover, the model suggests that the Universe is going to expand for ever, at an increasing rate according to some accounts. This would by definition prevent interaction between its parts, because they would eventually become completely isolated from each other. But a system without interaction of its component parts has no feedback; it is a system which is no system. If the Big Bang model of the Universe holds good, every part of the Universe can be understood as a system, but the Universe as a whole cannot, which does not make sense.

 

The first paper looked at the Big Bang model and picked out the flaws in the theory as a system. It did not question the observations or the physical principles which led to formulation of the theory. It simply suggested that the model itself did not hang together. It was a question of interpreting what had been observed.

 

One feature of the model was that fundamental particles were formed in the period immediately following the Big Bang, survived for only the briefest of intervals and then disappeared from view for ever, or at least until a physicist re-created them in an accelerator 14 billion years later. Without doubting their existence, it seems quite reasonable to ask, what was the point? One might also ask why the particular order into which they settled at the very beginning should be the only one which was selected among all the possibilities, the others having been discarded for ever.

 

  1. A new cosmological model – stochastic regeneration

 

The logical conclusion was that any explosion which produced fundamental particles could not have been the only one. In fact in the course of time the whole gamut of possibilities must occur. This required a lot of explosions and a lot of space. The Universe must be infinite in time and space.

 

As a result I proposed a new model which incorporated all the observations and the physics which had been applied to the Big Bang, but composed them into a different system. Explosions occurred when the conditions came about which produced the enormous temperatures and pressures required to generate fundamental particles. The only possible cause was the collision of ‘local’ cosmic structures, as they moved about, in effect translational energy, which would lead to nuclear and all the other forms of energy which contributed to such explosions. Electromagnetic energy would not be sufficient as a cause because by its very nature it dispersed, and so it was never dense enough to generate such enormous changes by itself.

 

Each explosion would hurl matter and radiation into space, where they would eventually become absorbed in other structures and start the cycle again, which provided feedback. Such processes therefore occurred stochastically in infinite time and space throughout the Universe, which would thus be regenerated part by part and endlessly.

 


 



 



 








 

basis of classical physics established

implemented in technology

 

upset by quanta

 

 

 

cuttable ‘atoms’


 

 
light particles

 



 

indeterminacy
 




physics agreed to differ

 





but no effects without causes


 

Big Bang model not a system
 

time and space confounded

 




definite beginning

endless expansion

 





 
fundamental particles disappeared

 

until advent of accelerators



 

alternative model

 

 

 

Universe infinite in time and space

 

 

 

 

 

 

stochastic regeneration by explosion and light

 

 

 

 

Copyright A. C. Sturt 27 September 2001

continued on Page 2

 

 

Churinga Publishing

^